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.

 

Men nearly caused human extinction 7,000 years ago, new theory states

page: 6
24
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Harte

Hey, thank you..I have to sit a bit longer with what you just explained, appreciate your explaination, this type of info drives my mind, only recently, after 50 yrs, have I realized how emotionally driven a lot of my own suppositions are based.

Yeah, I wanted it to be true too - back then.

Harte


And that right there is the real kick in the nuts isnt it? We take the time to obtain a formal education but do so with an open mind and a willingness to apply the skill set listed within our CV towards subject matter that interests us and yet are openly derided with whataboutisms and appeal to intellect fallacies. I could care less how many degrees Schoch has in his back pocket if his data doesn’t withstand scrutiny. And the bottom line is that there are well understood processes in synthe the Giza Plateau that fully account for all of the erosion of the Sphinx.

I won’t ecen get into his BS regarding Gobekli Tepe or how many fringe claims have been torn apart by him like Yonaguni. I too would have loved for these claims to be true. None of the science holds up though and all of the dating fits in within the margin of error for the monuments in question and their currently accepted dates. Propping yo schoxh 25 years after the fact doesn’t make Schoch correct. It just makes him the token scientist for a bunch of people without the credentials or skill set to actually understand what it is they’re attempting to dispute.


You don't care how many credentials he has? That he enters papers for peer review, that there is quite a bit of politics sorrounding egyptology, that he has rebuttals to his papers rebuttals, he is a tenured award winning professor, erc..

That is cool. Are you currently employed as a professor in your field?

Can you actually point towards why his last paper is incorrect? What data is there to refute his claims with absolute certainty I would love to see it in all honesty. No problem with that.

I provided a paper he recently published, as well as a paper the university of Arizona published.

Nobody refuted them they just pumped their arms in the air and said we have degrees and believe there is no evidence because we have degrees in the field.


Again the GPMP started in 83 and lost its funding and has never been published and the data has never been released for review. Yet it's now fact? That isn't science at all. That is literally confirmation boas.




posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Harte

Schoch does not claim the daring of easter island is wrong. He claims the history was passed down.

I gave you the quote. He certainly does say that.
You can't make Schoch say something just because you WANT it that way.

Harte



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Harte

Hey, thank you..I have to sit a bit longer with what you just explained, appreciate your explaination, this type of info drives my mind, only recently, after 50 yrs, have I realized how emotionally driven a lot of my own suppositions are based.

Yeah, I wanted it to be true too - back then.

Harte


And that right there is the real kick in the nuts isnt it? We take the time to obtain a formal education but do so with an open mind and a willingness to apply the skill set listed within our CV towards subject matter that interests us and yet are openly derided with whataboutisms and appeal to intellect fallacies. I could care less how many degrees Schoch has in his back pocket if his data doesn’t withstand scrutiny. And the bottom line is that there are well understood processes in synthe the Giza Plateau that fully account for all of the erosion of the Sphinx.

I won’t ecen get into his BS regarding Gobekli Tepe or how many fringe claims have been torn apart by him like Yonaguni. I too would have loved for these claims to be true. None of the science holds up though and all of the dating fits in within the margin of error for the monuments in question and their currently accepted dates. Propping yo schoxh 25 years after the fact doesn’t make Schoch correct. It just makes him the token scientist for a bunch of people without the credentials or skill set to actually understand what it is they’re attempting to dispute.


You don't care how many credentials he has? That he enters papers for peer review, that there is quite a bit of politics sorrounding egyptology, that he has rebuttals to his papers rebuttals, he is a tenured award winning professor, erc..

That is cool. Are you currently employed as a professor in your field?

Can you actually point towards why his last paper is incorrect? What data is there to refute his claims with absolute certainty I would love to see it in all honesty. No problem with that.

I provided a paper he recently published, as well as a paper the university of Arizona published.

I didn't read the Arizona paper, but I read the Schoch paper.
Which of the gentlemen that wrote it can read Hieroglyphs? Manu Seyfzadeh is a Dermatologist, Bauval is a tour guide/fringe author, and Schoch, who teaches environmental science by the way, doesn't read Hieroglyphs.
Yet the paper is about a new interpretation of a set of Hieroglyphs.

Also, this paper was published by a for-fee open access publisher.
You could "publish" whatever you want with them, as long as you pay them the fee.
IOW, the fact that some unsupported claims were published by "Scientific Research - an academic publisher" lends not one whit of credibility to those claims or the authors, and speaks against any credibility the authors might have had.

Harte



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Harte

Schoch does not claim the daring of easter island is wrong. He claims the history was passed down.

I gave you the quote. He certainly does say that.
You can't make Schoch say something just because you WANT it that way.

Harte


Right. Except he explains this in his work. Literally says it. But that was a good msm move on your part.



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Harte

Hey, thank you..I have to sit a bit longer with what you just explained, appreciate your explaination, this type of info drives my mind, only recently, after 50 yrs, have I realized how emotionally driven a lot of my own suppositions are based.

Yeah, I wanted it to be true too - back then.

Harte


And that right there is the real kick in the nuts isnt it? We take the time to obtain a formal education but do so with an open mind and a willingness to apply the skill set listed within our CV towards subject matter that interests us and yet are openly derided with whataboutisms and appeal to intellect fallacies. I could care less how many degrees Schoch has in his back pocket if his data doesn’t withstand scrutiny. And the bottom line is that there are well understood processes in synthe the Giza Plateau that fully account for all of the erosion of the Sphinx.

I won’t ecen get into his BS regarding Gobekli Tepe or how many fringe claims have been torn apart by him like Yonaguni. I too would have loved for these claims to be true. None of the science holds up though and all of the dating fits in within the margin of error for the monuments in question and their currently accepted dates. Propping yo schoxh 25 years after the fact doesn’t make Schoch correct. It just makes him the token scientist for a bunch of people without the credentials or skill set to actually understand what it is they’re attempting to dispute.


You don't care how many credentials he has? That he enters papers for peer review, that there is quite a bit of politics sorrounding egyptology, that he has rebuttals to his papers rebuttals, he is a tenured award winning professor, erc..

That is cool. Are you currently employed as a professor in your field?

Can you actually point towards why his last paper is incorrect? What data is there to refute his claims with absolute certainty I would love to see it in all honesty. No problem with that.

I provided a paper he recently published, as well as a paper the university of Arizona published.

I didn't read the Arizona paper, but I read the Schoch paper.
Which of the gentlemen that wrote it can read Hieroglyphs? Manu Seyfzadeh is a Dermatologist, Bauval is a tour guide/fringe author, and Schoch, who teaches environmental science by the way, doesn't read Hieroglyphs.
Yet the paper is about a new interpretation of a set of Hieroglyphs.

Also, this paper was published by a for-fee open access publisher.
You could "publish" whatever you want with them, as long as you pay them the fee.
IOW, the fact that some unsupported claims were published by "Scientific Research - an academic publisher" lends not one whit of credibility to those claims or the authors, and speaks against any credibility the authors might have had.

Harte



The paper is out there to be criticized with the data..
Unlike Leher's project.

Could you provide difinitive evidence for the dating of the sphinx?

Can you shoe who built it?

Who was it the head of?

Which gelogists are dating the sphinx to which Pharoah?



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Harte

Hey, thank you..I have to sit a bit longer with what you just explained, appreciate your explaination, this type of info drives my mind, only recently, after 50 yrs, have I realized how emotionally driven a lot of my own suppositions are based.

Yeah, I wanted it to be true too - back then.

Harte


And that right there is the real kick in the nuts isnt it? We take the time to obtain a formal education but do so with an open mind and a willingness to apply the skill set listed within our CV towards subject matter that interests us and yet are openly derided with whataboutisms and appeal to intellect fallacies. I could care less how many degrees Schoch has in his back pocket if his data doesn’t withstand scrutiny. And the bottom line is that there are well understood processes in synthe the Giza Plateau that fully account for all of the erosion of the Sphinx.

I won’t ecen get into his BS regarding Gobekli Tepe or how many fringe claims have been torn apart by him like Yonaguni. I too would have loved for these claims to be true. None of the science holds up though and all of the dating fits in within the margin of error for the monuments in question and their currently accepted dates. Propping yo schoxh 25 years after the fact doesn’t make Schoch correct. It just makes him the token scientist for a bunch of people without the credentials or skill set to actually understand what it is they’re attempting to dispute.


You don't care how many credentials he has? That he enters papers for peer review, that there is quite a bit of politics sorrounding egyptology, that he has rebuttals to his papers rebuttals, he is a tenured award winning professor, erc..


It was pretty clear in what I wrote. No, I don’t care how many degrees he has if the information he presents and the conclusions he reaches don’t stand up to scrutiny.


That is cool. Are you currently employed as a professor in your field?


It isnt remotely germane to the conversation & ties in with my earlier tgiugggrsnon the appeal to authority/appeal to intellect fallacy. If he’s wrong, which he is about the nature of erosion at the Sphinx, then he’s wrong. Regardless of how many degrees he has.



Can you actually point towards why his last paper is incorrect? What data is there to refute his claims with absolute certainty I would love to see it in all honesty. No problem with that.


You want a full rebuttal to a paper in the confines of an ATS post? I’ll have to attend to that later but to
Be honest, my replies to his geological surveys are about as logical as Schoch replyijgnto sokething I published on the Levantine Paradox of HSS and HN cohabitation. Neither topic fall under the purview of our expertise so Inwoukd only be giving a fairly generalized response that would be far less Accurate than if another geologist offered a rebuttal. I’m certainly not comfortable stepping into the territory of groups like AIG and ICR it other proponents of YEC as it would make me a hell of a hypocrite. You’re not attempting to promote hypocrisy in some game of “gotcha” are you?


I provided a paper he recently published, as well as a paper the university of Arizona published.

Nobody refuted them they just pumped their arms in the air and said we have degrees and believe there is no evidence because we have degrees in the field.


No, what I did was make a joke in a reply to Harte about how anything that is poo pooed regarding fringe claims will automatically level charges about some preposterous international cabal of scientists in cahoots trying to suppress the truth and ignores entirely facts like many of us approach all of these claims with an incredibly open mind because as fascinating or far fetched as some claims may be, at the end of the day all we care about is the truth and many of us have managed to hold on to that childlike curiosity that led us i study science in tge first place. Implying otherwise, as is the case far more often than not, is a foolish exercise in strawman building.



Again the GPMP started in 83 and lost its funding and has never been published and the data has never been released for review. Yet it's now fact? That isn't science at all. That is literally confirmation boas.


I’d love to see you quote where I made that claim.

Posting a paper doesn’t mean the papers outcome is accurate. Ask any graduate degree candidate who couldn’t successfully defend their thesis or dissertation.



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Harte

Schoch does not claim the daring of easter island is wrong. He claims the history was passed down.

I gave you the quote. He certainly does say that.
You can't make Schoch say something just because you WANT it that way.

Harte


Right. Except he explains this in his work. Literally says it. But that was a good msm move on your part.

He explains why he thinks may be an unreliable date.
I.e., thinks it's wrong.

Harte



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join