It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No death before sin, sin after Adam

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: whereislogic
And all the scientists and anthropologists are lying. Right because they are all part of a conspiracy. Spreading propoganda.


Stop twisting what I said please. 1. not all the scientists and anthropologists, 2. paint your picture of a conspiracy theorist or nut somewhere else please. 3. don't talk about "propaganda" when you're using it to paint a picture on someone and their chosen sources of information by using the following techniques (on yourself and other readers, this is related to your way of thinking as a victim of propaganda, the arguments and ways of thinking of other people are repeated, your pride is doing overtime with the whole 'oh, so it's just all a big conspiracy' thingy. Which btw, is a very familiar pattern for those in denial of the realities/facts, see the full movie and the fight between the white and black man at the end of my comment, La La Land is very addictive, also see dr. Beckett's reaction when trying to come of the drug that is Lucius Lavin, ok no more details):

by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities,...by bending rules of logic.
...
Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.
...
They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.
...
You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say. [and those who don't agree are just paranoid conspiracy nuts who see demons and deceivers everywhere and think every scientist is lying while accepting propaganda, but we're not gonna spell it out like that, we'll just sneakily plant that thought in the minds of the audience, turning things upside down]

Source: The Manipulation of Information, brackets mine


Neanderthal Hoax Exposed

A sensational archaeological hoax has been exposed in Germany. It's been revealed that Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten, a professor at a University in Frankfurt, has been systematically lying about the ages of skulls he found, claiming that they were far older than they actually were. In one instance he said that a skull was 21,300-years-old, although it was only 1300-years-old. As the Guardian reports:

"Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago," said Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax. "Prof Protsch's work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish."

Apparently Prof. Protsch began his career as a forger when he returned from studying in America decades ago and discovered that he was unable to work a carbon-dating machine. So he just started making up the ages of things.

Source: Neanderthal Hoax Exposed
Just an isolated case right? Doesn't negate your house of cards called a mountain of evidence from other anthropologists? Or are you gonna pretend like the Guardian (mainstream media) that this should only affect your thinking regarding "modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago" rather than the reliability of all claims regarding human remains much older than the oldest signs of civilization (the Sumerians) less than 6000 years ago?

Some people today are like sponges; they soak up whatever they come across. It is all too easy to absorb whatever is around us.
But it is far better for each individual personally to choose what he will feed his mind. It is said that we are what we eat, and this can apply to food for both the body and the mind.

Wake up and start cherry-picking some other ways of thinking for a change, put on some new glasses and look at the whole thing from a new perspective (encouragement for everyone):

It's time to stop denying what's going on in what you perceive as "the scientific community" or just "science" and somehow look the other way and turn things upside down by claiming the information in the video below is propagandistic (as you do with my words and chosen sources):

Krazysh0t's comment on the other thread when I shared the documentary above was just so typical, a lot of you guys simply don't even want to consider what's going on in terms of deliberate fraud and deception and control of the ways the people think. It's outright dismissal with no logical reason behind it other than bias, pride, and emotional addiction to philosophers that have taught you your ways of thinking through "the system of things" and are slandering the producers of that documentary with every propaganda trick in the book. Who is being gullible and naive? Who is falling for propaganda? The ones only making accusations but not explaining how it works when they are using the very propaganda techniques I just explained and more, or the ones explaining those techniques and trying to warn the general public (not from their high horse of 'scientific authoritah'). The whole 'you're stupid if you don't believe us experts'-routine is getting old (and in all variations in that documentary, including 'ID isn't science'). Basically every accusation made by the philosophical naturalists and 'pantheists in the closet' in that video is describing things that they are doing, they're turning things upside down (Eccl.5:20) and a lot of pot calling the kettle black behaviour. Just swap "creationism" for "pantheism in the closet" in some of those quotes.

And you and PeterVlar and others are doing the same thing to me, turning things upside down, pot calling the kettle black. Facts turned into fiction and myth, fiction and myth turned into facts and so-called "science". Accusing me of quote-mining, then doing it yourself (or I would call it cherry-picking mythologies and philosophies promoted by those who refer to themselves as "scientists" and their philosophies as "science"). Biggest lie from Dawkins in the video below: "Well, I'm not a philosopher":

And notice the usage of playing on the fear of seeming stupid and pride by giving the people the idea that if they accept what they're trying to sell regarding the word "nothing" (a philosophy/idea), then you're thinking like a "sophisticated physicist" and if you don't accept it you're thinking like a "naive person". Of course he's cunning enough not to spell it out like that but still plant that notion in the heads of the listener. And I'm supposed to trust those anthropologists that won't speak out against this behaviour?
edit on 23-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition




posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Your the one who keeps saying that actual scientific peer reviewed papers are propoganda. Then your sources are always done Jehovah witness propoganda website.

I can't believe you don't see the irony of this. Its laughable. Really. If any scientist doesn't believe in God it's part of an agenda. Don't you see that it's really the Jehovahs witnesses that have the real agenda. Pushing their religion with false logic and pseudoscience. I'll keep calling you out on your hypocrisy as many times as you continue to call real science propogabda while using cult propoganda as your sources.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic



"Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago," said Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax. "Prof Protsch's work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish."


Key phrase here is:


Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax.


Science is self correcting. One fraudulent academic does not dissolve the entirety of a field of study.




Just an isolated case right?


Yes, in fact it is just an isolated case.


Doesn't negate your house of cards called a mountain of evidence from other anthropologists?


Right... Because only anthropologists are involved in any of this. MES is a multidisciplinary area of study where genetics, biology and chemistry intertwine and the data from all of these various groups corroborates one another. Likewise, when someone decides to act like a scum bag and use their position for self agrandization and financial gain, they will be found it for the frauds they are. This is one exams, Piltdown Man is another.

If you want to get right down to it, if were going to disenfranchise and entire group for just one fraud, then the entirety of YEC needs to be thrown out too because ICR and AIG both skew their data on purpose all the time.


Or are you gonna pretend like the Guardian (mainstream media) that this should only affect your thinking regarding "modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago" rather than the reliability of all claims regarding human remains much older than the oldest signs of civilization (the Sumerians) not much more than 6000 years ago?


Except that there are very clear signs of of civilization and culture going back millennia before the Sumerians organized themselves in the Fertile Crescent. Jericho has roughly 20 different layers to it going back 11 KA. Gobekli Tepe, predates the earliest layers at Jericho by at least a millennia. Catal Hoyuk is 9500 years old. And I've personally worked on HN remains that are in the 60-120 KA range.

As damning as your source material looks to you, it just isn't the case. This all happened 15 years ago and there were suspicions regarding Prof. Protsch going back to the early 90's. Now that the Neanderthal Genome and our own Genome have been coded, there is copious data that actually proves that what Protsch was claiming... That HSS and HN to in fact successfully breed fertile offspring and lived in close proximity and in some instances, cohabitation the same sites.

From the original source article that the Guardian was quoting from-

The situation left many anthropologists scratching their heads. Binshof-Speyer Woman? Who was that? Despite media reports to the contrary, the fossils were actually of little significance on the paleoanthropological playing field. Hahnhöfersand made a bit of a splash in the 1980s when some scholars identified in it both Neandertal and modern human characteristics, but it was always considered controversial. "The three redated specimens were not as pivotal as some reports imply," agrees Martin Street, who sees a bigger issue at hand: "Clearly, it would be ideal if the age of a whole range of other alleged Pleistocene hominid fossils could be confirmed by absolute methods [such as carbon-14 dating], but it remains to be seen whether this lesson will be learned by the anthropological community."

archive.archaeology.org...



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: whereislogic
while using cult propoganda as your sources.


Predictable of you to use the word "cult", which is a very effective propaganda-technique on the minds of everyone who might read it, using a negative label and slander like that. It makes dismissal without any logical thought about what I'm pointing towards very easy (when will the stream stop to discredit me? I guess never as long as I'm not tickling people's ears). Also called prejudice, and it's conditioned by "the system of things" especially regarding the so-called cult you are referring to since they're the only ones accurately teaching people about how these propaganda techniques work, including the "cult" label, which is a synonym for "sect":

Name-Calling

Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts. Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller’s strategy has worked.

For example, in recent years a powerful antisect sentiment has swept many countries in Europe and elsewhere. This trend has stirred emotions, created the image of an enemy, and reinforced existing prejudices against religious minorities. Often, “sect” becomes a catchword. “‘Sect’ is another word for ‘heretic,’” wrote German Professor Martin Kriele in 1993, “and a heretic today in Germany, as in former times, is [condemned to extermination]—if not by fire . . . , then by character assassination, isolation and economic destruction.”

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis notes that “bad names have played a tremendously powerful role in the history of the world and in our own individual development. They have ruined reputations, . . . sent [people] to prison cells, and made men mad enough to enter battle and slaughter their fellowmen.”

Source: the usual article you pretend has no merit whatsoever in determining which one of us is falling for propaganda and using it in support of their views.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: whereislogic
I can't believe you don't see the irony of this.


That's because you're still wearing the wrong glasses. The world and human behaviour becomes a lot more understandable when you put your Pantheistic neoplatonic glasses down. You can't see anything clearly right now. The irony is all on you and you trying to put me into a box that has been prepared for you as someone who disses scientific articles or science without proper justification and without discrimination. I can tell the difference between facts and fiction in science magazines or educational programs. You don't even want to try cause you seem to already know where it leads if you do try to properly evaluate the science/knowledge that comes in your direction (and even absorb it with a preference for myth and propaganda that you either refuse to consider might be myth and propaganda, or you're just putting on an act and playing willfully ignorant of what's happening and who is really using the propaganda and who is explaining propaganda, including answering your charge in the very same article; so for those who want to know, read the section entitled "IS THE WORK OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES PROPAGANDISTIC?").

The Manipulation of Information. Awake!—2000

Who's doing the brainwashing again? And who are telling people about it including details and specifics rather than just blind false accusations? Who are teaching an ancient Hindu/Greek Pantheistic religious philosophical belief system that was taught by the same religious philosophers that introduced the techniques displayed in the video below under the subject "Brainwashing" and "Mind Control"?



“For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any critical analysis of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.”

― James A. Shapiro

Oh but now one of the most prominent evolutionary Professors' words don't count as much anymore right? Not important that he says that, let's ignore it some more as was done a gazillion times on the other thread. Oh, it's not a philosphical belief system, it's a fact, suureee. And I'm the one who doesn't want to listen to scientists, suuree. Demonstrate 2 Timothy 4:3,4 some more will ye.

edit on 23-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Yeah go ahead and quote the Jehovah's Witness website again and pretend it's not propogabda.

I apologize for using the word cult. Sect would have been the appropriate term.

However it is frustrating that you call scientific peer reviewed journals myths and lies while using a website with a VERY CLEAR AGENDA OF REKIGIOUS INDOCTRINATION and pretend like there is no agenda or propoganda being used.

Again sorry for the cult word. But really that is not a credible source for science.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Laughable. You use your own religions website on to disprove that it's propoganda. If the Jehovah's Witness is not propoganda they wouldn't have to have that section defending its use of propoganda. When people go door to door handing out religious papers it's called propoganda. Deal with it. Your the blind one.


(post by LifeisGrand removed for a manners violation)

posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Lets try a different source.

www.watchtowerlies.com...

This source says the JW s use propaganda. Of course most people know this. I don't have other religious groups putting their failed prophetic newsletters in my mailbox on a monthly basis so I don't have to call Them out on using propaganda.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecanada11

Why try a different source than that of the source itself?

I cry Charlatan!


(post by LifeisGrand removed for a manners violation)

posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: LifeisGrand


Why try a different source than that of the source itself?
Right.
"I did nothing wrong", said the thief.
I'll look for a different source, thank you.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

My post to the source was removed.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LifeisGrand


Why try a different source than that of the source itself?
Right.
"I did nothing wrong", said the thief.
I'll look for a different source, thank you.


I will requote it here:

JW.ORG

And for videos:

Videos

This was about the same post I gave, that was quickly removed.

Why?

Why can't he use the source, and my message was removed? With this very same message asking him to show proof form these sources?



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: LifeisGrand

How can anybody answer a question you haven't asked? You've got 4 posts in this thread. One is removed and three of them involve calling another poster a liar. There aren't any questions to answer. Pose a query if you expect a response.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: LifeisGrand
And yet, your repost of the links survives.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LifeisGrand
And yet, your repost of the links survives.


Good.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join