2012 and the Crystal Skulls

Obviously this title would seem strange to any who have not conducted research on the subject. Even those who have researched minimally have concluded that this is simply a prediction due to the fact that the Mayans' calendar stopped on December 21, 2012. I have been researching the topic in small pieces ever since seeing a documentary a few months ago in regards to the "crystal skulls."

Let me make it clear that most of the crystal skulls that have been "discovered" have been proven to be man-made objects, as the skull is pronounced with tool marks from humans. However, a select few of these skulls lack any sign of human activity, and some are dated back as far as 36,000 years ago.

The skulls that have been dated and have not been found to have been made by humans are said to hold magical or healing powers. That part is a matter of opinion, as nothing of the sort has been proven. However, in the documentary entitled "Mystery of the Crystal Skulls," a woman claims that people who are ill or inflicted by various physical issues go to her skull (one of the few without human marks) and are healed. The only two things that I find endlessly interesting are the following:
1. If a laser is shone in a specific placement and orientation towards any of the true skulls, they cause the beam to become incredibly powerful through the skull's eyes. I do not know if it is only the eyes, but that is what I remember.
2. This interests me more than the first: The anatomy of the true crystal skulls is identical to the anatomy of a human skull.

If these points interest you, research the "Mitchell-Hedges" skull, which is the most famous and best portrays the fore-mentioned characteristics. (This skull actually resides in Canada)

To see an interesting article concerning the origin, etc. of the crystal skulls, click here. The most interesting part that I found is the following (from the article in the link):

The Mitchell-Hedges family loaned the skull to Hewlett-Packard Laboratories for extensive study in 1970. Art restorer Frank Dorland oversaw the testing at the Santa Clara, California, computer equipment manufacturer, a leading facility for crystal research. The HP examinations yielded some startling results.

Researchers found that the skull had been carved against the natural axis of the crystal. Modern crystal sculptors always take into account the axis, or orientation of the crystal's molecular symmetry, because if they carve "against the grain," the piece is bound to shatter -- even with the use of lasers and other high-tech cutting methods.

To compound the strangeness, HP could find no microscopic scratches on the crystal which would indicate it had been carved with metal instruments. Dorland's best hypothesis for the skull's construction is that it was roughly hewn out with diamonds, and then the detail work was meticulously done with a gentle solution of silicon sand and water. The exhausting job -- assuming it could possibly be done in this way -- would have required man-hours adding up to 300 years to complete.

Under these circumstances, experts believe that successfully crafting a shape as complex as the Mitchell-Hedges skull is impossible; as one HP researcher is said to have remarked, "The damned thing simply shouldn't be."

The connection between the skulls and the prediction of the world ending in 2012 SEEMS to be that the skulls were given to the Mayans by the gods or by some higher power, and that they helped to stabalize or control in some way the earth's rotational pattern. The legend, it appears, states that the crystal skulls must all be found and brought together on December 21, 2012 (the day that the Mayan's predicted as the world's end) in order to stop the world from unstoppable destruction. This is the only explanation that I remember finding, but I know that it is much more elaborate than I have presented it. I think it is a topic worth researching on your own.

The only other thing I figure is worth addressing at the moment is that crystal skulls are said to be able to hold vast amounts of knowledge, both from the past and from the future. Although I have not researched much on this part of the legend, I do know that Quartz crystal (from which the skulls are made) is, in fact, actually able to hold information, and is actually what is used (on miniscule scales) in computer chips. That is all I know about that part.

I also think that the documentary is worth looking for, whether on the internet or on DVD - very interesting.

Painful Extrapolation of Religion

This is a post inspired by many thought processes, but that has been a long time coming. I realize that I have not posted opinion rants for a long while, but feel that it is necessary now that my thoughts have come to order. It should be noted, however, that the origin of this thought process was spurred from an episode of "The Colbert Report." Yes, a satirical, comedy-based news program has led me to certain revelations.

I will start by posting the link to the video here (the portion I want you to watch beings at 1:01 and ends at 1:38). I warn you, before opening and watching the video, that it is part of a post from an overly preachy channel called "The Liberal Viewer." Let it be known prior to watching the video that I do not, in any way, shape or form, support "The Liberal viewer," and in fact condemn it as spam and accuse it of turning all issues towards the extreme. Please only consider the brief clip of "The Colbert Report," and completely disregard the nonsense provocation of "The Liberal Viewer." It was simply the only place I was able to find the clip of Colbert.

I will not regurgitate what Colbert plainly stated in this clip, as it is obvious that I agree with him. I will, however, elaborate my own opinion, and lending to my theory that organized religion is as corrupt as it was in early Europe.

Sure the Pope no longer relies on selfishness and lies, and no longer conducts sins as his predecessors once did, but the modern church is corrupt nonetheless. I have my beliefs. I do not parade around announcing my beliefs to those who do not ask to hear them, but they do exist. I do not, however, believe it IS in fact necessary to parade and advertise my own system of beliefs and morality in order to prove that it does exist. This is one of my reasons for rejecting organized religion. I feel that many people feel that they are more religious or a bigger part of their religious communities simply because they attend church on a weekly basis. What they do not promote is the fact that many of these "dedicated" religious people, or even the "extremists," do not truly follow their religion. Allow me to elude to the original video. A modern-day extremist would condemn homosexuality, abortions and other such activities. Where in the respective Bible does it do so? Who are we to extrapolate from the Bible and to then pass judgement as "the will of God?" It is mindless and it stems from the basic human condition that humans are 1) never satisfied, and 2) always striving to be right, no matter the cost.

The "organized" church forces theories and mindsets down its "community's" throat. Many of these mindsets are not actually mentioned in any respective Bible. Most are constructed by modern-day religious leaders. Does this seem reasonable?

I also believe that it is truly impossible to follow a church or religion's teachings without wavering. We earn values and morals through life experience. We do not gain all of our life teachings from one man preaching to the sky. Because of this, no two men will have the same morals. Men can intend to do good and intend to have a positive impact on the world. However, without sharing common specific goals, common moralities or common fundamental beliefs, the church would have you believe that two men who share the common struggle for what is right are too different to be the same. Why can't men waver, so long as they do fight for what they consider to be right? Who's to say that one man is wrong for considering something right while another man considers it wrong? They were raised and grew to believe in different points of view. They do not share a single mindset. Isn't that part of the wonders of the Christian God? That all men are created equal, but also consistently unique?

Believe what you will, but I will continue to do so in private, and by my own terms.

Kudos to mankind, we have failed.

I am Jack's

Anonymity is a beautiful thing. The universalization of a simple feeling or urge, of a thought process or realization - all explained through "Jack."

I am Jack's raging bile duct.
I am Jack's cold sweat.
I Am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
I Am Jack's smirking revenge.
I Am Jack's broken heart.
I am Jack's disturbed nightmares.
I am Jack's overwhelming rage.
I Am Jack's inflamed sense of rejection.
I am Jack's deflated happiness.
I am Jack's lost youth.
I am Jack's insane mind.
I am Jack's wasted life.

Feel free to add any that I have missed.

Meaning Through Anonymity

Let's begin with brief background to the relevance of the anonymity. Chuck Palahniuk, author of Fight Club, makes it very clear that he narrator is meant to be anonymous. The character, usually referred to as "Jack" (or Joe, in the novel), due to his constant references to "Jack's (blank)" from Reader's Digest articles referring to organs and bodily functions, stating "I am Jack's ..."

"Jack" (as I will refer to him in order to simplify this post) is anonymous for, in my opinion, two reasons:

1. His anonymity relates to the idea that the individual does not matter. The individual does not single-handedly create or destroy. The individual is irrelevant. It is the collective authority or potential of a group that leads to true creation or destruction. "Project Mayhem" - a group created for the destruction of corporatism - relies on the existance of a collection of individuals, anonymous AS individuals. Their personal traits or personal attributes mean nothing to the greater cause. They are separate from what is necessary. As my cohort, Mr. Szott, put it: The anonymity has nothing to do with the individual, but everything to do with what the entity stands for."
"Tyler Durden" is attributed a name not because of his individual accomplishments, but because Tyler Durden is a concept. He is not human, he is a basis and inspiration of corporate destruction.

The individual is insignificant to the cause, the collection of individuals is necessary to the cause.

2. His anonymity makes the story and concept of anti-corporate movements universal. A name or identity is irrelevant, it is the movement that is crucial. One can not in any way be like "Jack," but may hold the anti-corporatist ideals that he exemplifies through his extreme and dramatic notions of destruction.

The world cannot be viewed through rose-colored glasses. We are all to blame for corporatist influences and corporatist control upon all aspects of life. By universalizing a concept such as anti-corporatism, we allow our eyes to be opened past ignorance.

Thanks to Chris for his insight on the matter. View his blog:
Daily Ramblings from the Master of Confliction

Also, I apologize for the jumping around in this post, my mind is exhausted.

Kudos to Mankind: We Have Failed... Kudos to Mankind: We Are Insignificant

While I tend to focus in on human philosophies, human detrements and cynicism, and the history that supports it all, a friend of mine tends to focus his mind outwards to a broader spectrum, taking into consideration that the points that I dwell on, while interesting, may be completely insignificant in the big picture.

From his blog (The Daily Ramblings from the Master of Confliction), I find these links that I thought to be very interesting and that have managed to interest me to the point that I may begin to search outwards instead of inwards for the answer to the big picture (note that this is not an easy accomplishment).

This may put the insignificance of our existance into perspective
(If the browser minimizes the photo, zoom in)

This may put the comparable insignificance of our impact on the universe into perspective
(As Chris has had me do, consider specifically the notion that "From the burst's perspective, Earth's formation lay 8.5 billion years in the future.")

If this interests you, take the time to look through his blog and consider that my spectrum of thought is incredibly narrow compared to a necessary wider view.

Coincidal Destruction

I recently attended The Citadel's production of Julius Caeser.
I have to say it was absolutely brutal! They completely bastardized the play! Allow me to rant:

The dialogue was kept in tact for the most part, which was nice to see. Having said that, many names were mispronounced. I am aware of both the latin pronunciations of those names, and of the English interpretations of those names; what those actors were spewing were neither.

Later on in the play, after the unnecessarily short assassination of Julius Caeser, and the war began between the two resulting leaders, guns were brought into the scene. Let me rephrase that: semi-automatic weapons were used, as well as allusion to large explosives. On top of that, the uniforms worn were a cross between Star Wars uniforms and Soviet Russian. Not to mention Anthony’s, which was basically an American WWII uniform. I was disgusted by their lack of respect for not only Shakespeare’s interepretation of Julius Caeser’s assassination, and its effects, but also for the true events that occured. But think about it, in Shakespeare’s play, all dialogue alluding to murder, or suicide, pertained to stabbing or blades. The play kept true to this dialogue. Therefore, it made no sense, and had no relevance to introduce guns and (what I can only assume to be) supposed futuristic uniforms.

Furthermore, the Citadel’s version of the play did not once mention the most important part of the story: Julius Caeser’s assassination was the effective end of the Roman Republic, and of the Roman Empire. His assassination lead to an entire nation’s downfall.

There are many more concerns to be addressed, but none that I choose to address at this moment.

Rome may not have been built in a day, but its destruction took less than 24 hours.
The 3 hours endured watching the Citadel’s interpretation of Julius Caeser was, by every means, a destruction of theater, and a bastardization and dramatic display of disrespect towards both history and Shakespeare’s inspiring interpretation of said history.

Societal opposition

I was recently having conversation regarding societal constraints and the effects of opposing these constraints, and found it fairly interesting. So I figured I was give some insight into my own personal philosophies regarding the issue.
Also see my rant on manners and politeness for more on this philosophical view.

As long as one is giving into social conventions, and agreeing with a pre-designed set of rules that were put in place without any consideration to the individual, and without noticing an individual's existence, but instead viewing the world as an organization rather than a community of many, one cannot truly win.

It is only once one opposes the masses that victory becomes a possibility. When one conforms to societal constrains, defeat is not necessarily at hand, but victory is completely out of reach as no competition exists. Victory cannot take place without opposition. My views don't strive for agreeance, or feel the need to be praised or proven right, but I have a higher chance of victory than general society as I choose not to conform. I choose not to conform in a different manner than most "individualistic" people these days do. Those who choose not to conform through outer appearance, such as clothing, are in reality conforming to one-another. I choose to separate myself through philosophies and mindsets. Although I may have millions at my opposition, I emerge victorious because I make the conscious choice to have opposition.


Although many may portray agreeance to these previous statements, they are really just portraying another form of conformity through the need of acceptance. It is only once one cements within themselves personal philosophies on issues and areas such as this that they can truly call themselves indivualistic.

Ezekiel 25:17

'The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides with the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and good will shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon those with great vengeance and with furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know that my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.'

Cynicism in a World of Decay

I choose to remain cynical.

I am cynical by choice.

Cynicism and pessimism are two very different breeds of depressing. Cynicism, in all reality, is not true depressing, while pessimism is. Pessimism puts a negative spin on everything; cynicism sees the world for what it is. Unfortunately, in the world that we live in, things are not so great. Because of this, people seem to believe that cynicism is no more than depressing. I say cynicism is rejecting what was never there. I admit to having a cynical point of view, but at least there is on chance that I be accused of being ignorant. Ignorance is as much of a choice as cynicism; I choose the lesser of two evils.

I was once taught by a man who claimed that only children could get away with, or afford to be cynical. They have no other burdens in life, and are therefore not weighed down by the decay of society. I respect the man to no end, and regard him as a true genius in a world full of superficial genius. I also understand where he is coming from. I choose however to reject it and replace it with my own mindset. I fully understand the burden and eventual effects of cynicism. I also understand that consequences that exist while wearing rose colored glasses. I choose to be cynical. This is not a pessimistic choice. My life may not be as joyful as anothers, my thoughts may be heavier with burden than a child, but I am not ignorant, and cynicism aids me in that rejection.

This was a short post, but I think it was necessary following accusations of pessimism.

Kudos to mankind,
we have failed,
the only difference between you and I is that I accept our failures.

Evolution - The UNDENIABLE Truth

So this will be a fairly short post, and it relies on information and thoughts provoked yet again from G.K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man.

G.K. Chesterton discusses the inadequacy of evidence denying evolution (which I included in my previous post), and manages to deliver a conclusion that evolution actually intensifies the existence of God than if no evolution were to have existed. Paraphrasing his words:

If man simply came to earth one day with humble beginnings through Adam and Eve and ate the apple to create sins, life would be much LESS simple and extraordinary than if we accept evolution as our past.
If man were to have evolved over thousands of years then our story is much more exciting and supernatural. If man were in fact just another animal who managed to evolve from the constraints that animals have upon them, gaining our free will, our advanced (and constantly advancing) society, and developing into civilized, highly communicative beings, then that is not only highly believable, but it is a credit to the human race, and to God. See, evolution is more natural than an inclination that we were simply dropped onto an earth, already made without us. The natural, in that sense, actually becomes more supernatural than what is perceived as being supernatural. (That last concept was a direct paraphrase of Chesterton's main idea presented).

He then continued to explain that evolution does not destroy man's past. "Cavemen" were never actually found to live in caves. Caves were found with paintings on the wall and it was deduced that cavemen used these caves as homes. But isn't it is much more reliable and sensible to say cavemen used caves, and they painted animals and such on the walls. That is what we know of their caves. This makes cavemen HUMAN. Art is a human construct fed by human intuition and, in some people, instinctiveness. So they were artists and used their natural environment to spread this art. Yet were are constricted by these theories that cavemen were brutal beings who beat their women and had no communicative dialect other than grunting. They're also followed by their discovery of fire and of the wheel. I can guarantee you that neither of these discoveries were accidents or coincidental. One final argument in favor of our past as that there is no way for us to determine a "primal being's" (such as a caveman's) brain map. There is no way to definitively determine that they were in fact barbaric and were not as advanced as us. They did not speak English, that does not mean they didn't communicate. Through anthropology, we know that their skeletal structure was very different from ours, and was actually more comparable to a primate. We also know that their outer appearances were more comparable to a primate. What we don't know is a definite answer to their intellectual capacity or civilized society.
It is logical to assume that they weren't as evolved as we are now, it is not logical to assume we have a past of mindless apes who made fire and beat women before killing sabretooth tigers with clubs.

Chesterton was ahead of his time and managed to accept evolution while keeping within the constraints of religion. C.S. Lewis (possibly the most notorious religious writer) agreed with Chesterton's writings and supported them.
There is too much evidence supporting evolution to deny it. But accepting evolution can be done within the constraints of religious belief. It is much more impressive to have us evolve from what we know as "cavemen" than to have us simply appear on earth one day.

It seems the more we evolve and the more we are learned, the more we consider ourselves wrongfully superior. Our behaviors and lifestyles are right for our time, but were not necessary in the past (and most still aren't truly necessary).

The minds of men are not inclusive.

G.K. Chesterton on Evolution

G.K. Chesterton was a writer of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He was mainly a writer, but he was also a great philosopher. I've been reading his book "The Everlasting Man," and it has lead me to many deep thoughts: conflicts within the mind of one. I have not finished the book, but read a passage that I wish to post here on the theory of evolution:

"Most modern histories of mankind begin with the word evolution, and with a rather wordy exposition of evolution, for much the same reason that operated in this case. There is something slow and soothing and gradual about the word and even about the idea. As a matter of fact, it is not, touching these primary things, a very practical word or a very profitable idea. Nobody can imagine how nothing can turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more logical to start by saying, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth" even if you only mean, "In the beginning some unthinkable power began some unthinkable process." For God is by its nature a name of mystery, and nobody ever supposed that man could imagine how a world was created any more than he created one. But evolution really is mistaken for explanation. It has the fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand it and everything else, just as many of them live under a sort of illusion that they have read The Origin of Species."

Chesterton was a genius. More passages from the book will probably be posted here as I find ones that particularly grab my attention as this one did.

Roswell & Nazi-UFO Connection

Roswell was no doubt a coverup, but this video (along with a few others that I cannot locate) made me change my mind on the actual coverup. Most who believe that it WAS a cover believe that it was in fact covering the remains of a UFO. These videos suggest that it was not so much to coverup UFOs, but to imply them while covering up secret US military air crafts and technological advancements: concepts stollen from Nazi research during WWII.

I could not figure out how to post the video directly on my blog, but you can watch it by clicking here. The video is around 45 minutes long, but is definitely worth watching. Very interesting.

You can also see the video by going to the blog entitled The Daily Ramblings from the Master of Confliction (click on the link). This is where I originally saw this particular video. There is much more information there as well, and other videos and links to articles if you wish to further pursue this topic.

Devil's Advocate

This is a quick post regarding the carbon tax vs. the cap and trade in Canada. It will be mostly facts, but there will be some of my own opinion because well... I just can't resist throwing my opinion in there. Feel free to comment with facts OR opinion. I'm going to evenly consider both sides, playing Devil's Advocate... hence the name.

I would choose the cap & trade over the carbon tax in an ideal system.
Unfortunately it would never work in an ideal way (this will be argued further down). Because of this, I have to expect the carbon tax will be better as a long-term solution.

In favor of the carbon tax:

1. A cap & trade was implemented in Canada in the early 1990's (it was called the "Clean Air Act", if you feel like looking into it). It failed in 2006 BECAUSE of Harper. Now they're trying to re-implement the exact same thing under a different title. This poses two problems to me:
The first is that, if it failed once directly because of Harper, why would we leave him in charge of the exact same project once again?
The second is more of a personal objection. It seems to me that Harper seems to think that Canadian citizens don't follow politics, or are just blatantly moronic. I think he needs to address his failures, and explain how he plans to avoid the same mistakes. Otherwise he seems to believe that we don't know, or don't remember about the first attempt.

2. A cap & trade allows the government to, after the companies buy emission permits, auction off more permits. The result is that bigger companies get more permits, and the government gets more money. The problem with this is that the government doesn't put the money to its intended use. You can see this by looking into the cap & trade currently implemented in Europe.

3. Although it would not force companies to limit emissions, it would greatly encourage them to do so. When large companies emitting high amounts pollution no longer see it as financially viable to pay an incredibly high carbon tax, they would begin to find ways to reduce their emissions.

The cap & trade would work in an ideal system:

1. It worked in the 1970's to reduce the overwhelming excess of smog in the air. Then it was for some reason removed once the environment was acceptably cleared up.

2. Unlike the carbon tax, it would directly limit the amount of emissions released. The carbon tax would only do so indirectly (as previously mentioned). It would not, however, fix the problems we have already caused. It would simply prepare for the future (which is obviously necessary).

3. It has reduced and controlled emission release in Europe.

For these reasons (and a few more that I'm keeping in my inventory), I would pick cap & trade in an ideal system. However, seeing that it has already failed under the current government, and that it would not be implemented under an ideal system (in fact, our current system is quite an unstable one), I have to be in favor of the carbon tax... until I am proven that the cap & trade would work this time around.

Kudos to mankind, we have failed.... this time on far too many levels.

Years of the Beast?

The number 666 is characterized as the Number of the Beast.

I found this interesting as the YEAR 666 had no significantly bad effect on the earth (as far as history is concerned).
Yet the number is related to years now:1

The year 1666 contained the Bubonic Plague that killed 10,000 people. There was also the "Great Fire" which destroyed the better part of London. The horrible events of the year were blamed on the year's date containing the "Number of the Beast."

Y2K- the new millenium was supposed to kill us all. The year 2000 was supposed to be the end of the world. One of the reasons this was expected? 2000 divided by 3 is 666.666666666666.... Endless "Number of the Beast."

Looks like Satanic fear is no more than irrational fear.
Yes Evil exists, no a number does not define the essense of Evil.
Just found it interesting.

The World Will End at Half Past Six

I got interested on predictions for the end of the world when I heard "Tinderbox" by Elton John.
The first verse of the song goes:
Nostradamus said I predict
That the world will end at half past six
What he didn't say was exactly when
Was he listening to the radio?
Was he listening to the government?

First of all, Nostradamus' predictions have no been proven to even have been intended as predictions. Many believe that he was simply writing about events in his own time, and that he uses future tense and avasive language to avoid prosecution. Whether or not he did in fact make predictions, his writings (hindsight 20/20 of course) predicted major world events such as the French Revolution, the events of September 11, 2001 (the attack on the Twin Towers), as well as the war in Iraq. This is, of course, debatable.
However, Nostradamus did predict that the world would end at half past six: 6:30... no indication of morning or night.
"What he didn't say was exactly when" is not completely true.
He did not give a specific day, or even a specific year. He did, however, indicate that it would be somewhere in the area of the year 3700. (I've seen many interpretations of this, the most prominent saying that it will be the year 3797, but that's too precise for my liking. I'd say it was more of a general prediction.)

Considering the course that the world is taking at the moment, that date seems completely plausible. In 2008 years, we have successfully begun a downspiral in our world. This is a large planet with over 6 billion people; assuming that the rest of the destruction would occur over the next 1692 years would make complete sense. In all consideration, that is not a very long time.

Then again, history has proven that these predictions are obviously not reliable sources. I'd think that would be a give-in, but let's throw out some examples for clarification and for enjoyment.

Most of them are obviously completely incomprehensible (messages from aliens and other dimensions and such) but I did find the following particularly interesting:

1. "The Lord's Witnesses," a religious group from England argued that the Bible actually contained inscriptions that predicted various events throughout the history of the earth. They mathematically "concluded" that from Adam's birth in 4027BC, the world would end in 2008. They also predicted that it would be as a result of some great war.
Many people who believed this theory argued that George W. Bush would be the cause of this. The War in Iraq could turn into a great war, which could destroy the world through nuclear weapons.
While I do think that George W. Bush was the worst thing to ever happen to the United States (hence our current economic crisis and the war in Iraq), I do not believe that he is the Spawn of Satan. Nice try though.

The Mayans predicted that the world will end during a winter solstice in 2012. They worked it out through a series of decades that they had set up through their calendar. They had days, months, years, and two other forms of time measurement (something like caduns and backduns, don't quote me on that), and they predicted through a cycle of these time measurements that we will no longer exist in 2012. Lookin forward to the next 4 years!

This one is my absolute favorite. Pope Leo IX predicted the world would end around the year 1914, saying:
"I will not see the end of the world, nor will you my brethren, for its time is long in the future, 500 years hence."
Man of God was wrong. I'd say pretention and arrogance are the cause.

Origins surrounding the number 666 (the Number of the Beast) predicted that the world would end in 1998. That has obviously passed. Now the man who predicted it, Eli Eshoh, is saying that it will actually be in 2028. He continued to say that nearly 700,000 people were "taken to heaven" in 1998, and the rest of us were not yet worthy. He says that the trials that we are experiencing since that year (natural disasters and such) are tests to prove whether or not we are truly worth it by 2028. It's a good thing nobody's dying between 1998 and 2028!
The interesting fact about this is that science predicted the same date.
I've covered unreasonable prophecies, and religious prophecies, it only makes sense to then cover science.

Science predicted that a giant meteorite would collide with earth in the year 2028. The impact would cause tidal waves so large that the world would flood. Another theory presented stated that the collision would simply destroy such large landmass that the rotation of the earth would be changed, causing enough natural disasters to destroy us bit by bit.
Of course, since the 2028 prediction was made, it was proven that the same meteorite is actually going to hit twice as far away from us as the moon, and will never have the potential to hit Earth.

Sorry, that was just a rant that I found interesting. In my opinion, Nostradamus' prediction was the most probable.