reply to post by fixer1967
The problem is that the stones cut from the area around the sphinx don't show erosion that would have occurred over 800,000 years - you need to
remember that the Sphinx enclosure was cut out. And those blocks location are known. They don't show, and limestone is relatively soft, the type of
erosion from being exposed to the elements for that lenght of time.
SC: Not at all. That's not what I said and it is certainly not my objection. It is one thing disagreeing but it is a whole different matter when
deriding the work of professionals as "silly" and especially so when you have not FIRST presented your objections to the authors of this paper to
extend them the courtesy and opportunity of presenting a rebuttal to any points raised. Solenhofen did not do this and THAT is what I find
objectionable. That Solenhofen himself is not in fact a geologist merely compounds his obvious disrespect for the geologists of this paper.
Hans: its not a paper Scott it’s a conference pre-print – you do understand that don’t you and how that differs from a peer reviewed paper? Also
when you put out any type of document it is open to discussion, there is no need to discuss it first with the authors. Did you do that before you
disagreed with Egyptologists? Did you contact them first or did you post your rejections of their theories on the net first? – we both know the
answer to that don’t we Scott?
SC: Nope. Read my response above.
Hans: Avoidance Scott, let’s try again, in the above comment you set out a method of dealing with documents put out with ideas in them, you insist
AS follows that. Are you now going to, yourself, act in that way? Yes or no?
SC: I certainly don't mean how you have interpreted my objection to Solenhofen. Read my response above.
Hans: So can we in the future see you act in this manner towards scientific materials – ie you will only comment on this board on a subject after
you have communicated with the authors, two you will not show disrespect to by commenting on subjects in which you have no degree or specialization?
So will you do that Scott? Yes or no?
SC: And I see you are using the old ortho dismissive attitude as though that will somehow explain these anomarts or make them go away.
Hans: They’ve been explained hundreds of times Scott- denial of that isn’t constructive? Or are you saying they haven’t?
Sorry, Hans, but casually dismissing a body of evidence that contradicts the prevailing model of our history and origins simply won't cut it.
Hans: Casually dismissing the explanation and debunking of this evidence simply won’t cut it either Scott – challenge, pick any three of Cremo’s
stuff that you feel haven’t been falsified. We’ll go thru them once again.
All it does is demonstarte your complete inability to accept that the model of our past might actually be flawed.
Hans: An error on your part Scott I do believe we are missing information. Science moves forward. Clinging to bad evidence and denying its been dealt
with is simply denial. You are in denial Scott. The information you think is evidence is just debunk junk, one of the important traits of science is
to recognize garbage and move on. You seem unable to do that.
I suppose having invested so much belief in this paradigm it is far easier for you to make the bogey-man in the closet go away by somehow pretending
it doesn't actually exist. It does exist, Hans, and it won't go away. With this "anomalous" evidence there is every possibility that the
prevailing model you so believe in could in fact be wrong.
Hans: No its easy to laugh at people who go into psycho babble when they don’t have evidence Scott, you’ve gone into psycho-babble…bing bing,
The only reason your paradigm has prevailed is because it disregards evidence that does not fit the model. That is simply avoiding the truth; that is
burying your head in the sand and it is bad science to boot.
Hans: A near perfect description of your pyramid theory and its collapse, but we digress
SC: Not as far as I'm aware. I think the findings of these geologists have first to be verified or rebutted. I think that would be the most
appropriate course of action before any conclusions are drawn, don't you?
Hans: Nope, it should be openly discussed by anyone who wants to, who’d have thunk it, you trying to play the authority/expert card, most amusing
SC: I think "tirade" is a bit harsh, Hans. And I certainly do not have such against science per se - certain scientific practices I can accept but I
certainly don't think I am alone in objecting to the massaging of evidence that some scientists evidently engage in.
Hans: Yes not like the wonderful world of fringe were they demonstrate on a daily basis the proper way to show evidence? LOL. Scott your hatred of
science because ‘they’ don’t accept your theory isn’t their fault, its nothing personal, its just your evidence, its not you it’s the
evidence. Try to understand that.
SC: And clearly, Hans, you mistake me for someone who actually gives a damn about what people think of my theories.
Hans: Actually you do, a whole lot, your ego is, unfortunately that ego of yours is weaker than a bridge made of egg whites, but again we’re getting
off subject now aren’t we?
I don't. What I do think is important is that my theories should be brought to the table.
Hans: Risk? Yes a risk of not being taken serious, don’t tell me you’re going to try the classic fringe claim that ‘they’ are trying to
And let me tell you, there is a great risk in doing this but again, it is a risk I think needs to be taken.
Hans: Gosh my hero, so tell us of this risk?
You see, Hans, it is much easier to tear down than to build up. It is safer to cower in the trenches of stagnant orthodoxy than to battle across the
minefields in search of one's own truth.
Hans: Clue thunderous and and loud martial music with some biblical lighting for Scotts glorious pronouncement of his martyrdom…….ta da
And, in presenting what I discover, I do not do so in search of medals, or honours or money or baubels - I do so only in the hope that I will find a
better truth of our history and origins at the end of my journey than the one that spouts forth from the fetid mound of perceived wisdom that you so
readily accept as gospel.
Hans: You do it to justify and get back at all the people who have not taken you seriously. Scott really get off the high horse. You are really
getting way, way to far into this aren’t you?
SC: Yes, "in time". But only after people like me have been lambasted for years for having the temerity to question the orthodox view. But fret not
- I've a strong chin.
Hans: Scientists are human and have human failing, but the evidence always wins out. You may have a strong chin but you might want to find some
evidence to support your ideas – that will work a whole lot better.
SC: Read David Down's quote agian, Hans. The C14 dates are published ONLY when they agree with the archaeologist.
Hans: Completely wrong Scott. So by your comment the two C-14 projects for samples taken from the pyramids should only show data that supports the
orthodox view? Is this correct? Please explain why C-14 dates outside of the orthodox time line are then presented in both of these studies? Please
In other words, dates that DO NOT agree are never published.
Hans: Scott are you even aware of how totally wrong that is? It’s laughable? Are you even aware of the C-14 dates that came out of the two C-14
dating projects? Obviously your aren’t.
So, I cannot tell you what anomalous C14 dates have been disregarded but disregarded they are.
Hans: So you don’t know anything about it but you know they’ve been disregarded….phew, so I guess we’re now going to go over the pyramids C-14
dates huh. Odd that you’ve never come across them? Or are you just playing dumb?
The point also being - if C14 dates are dismissed as unreliable for one artefact, why should we then happily consider the C14 dating for other
artefacts as any more reliable?
Hans: Suggest you read about C-14 and all its in and outs.It isn’t a black and white subject – and if you think it is, think again.
SC: "LOL"? - the first sign that you have lost the argument.
Hans: in this case you’re right, you’ve lost the argument, LOL
SC: Equally you might want to read the story of Virginia Steen-McIntyre concerning the "First Americans". If you really want to see how the academic
mafia operate, read her story.
Hans: I’m quite aware of it, strange how everything got published and people are working there now, I guess the conspiracy doesn’t work too well
does it? Who was her boss at the dig? How’d he make out?
SC: I have no idea what 'silly' paper you refer to.
Hans: Sure you do, but you are looking for a reason not to verify what you said
If you are meaning the geological paper that the non-geologist Solenhofen branded as 'silly' then you do yourself a great disservice, Hans by
cloaking yourself in the same verbal disrespect as Solenhofen.
Hans: Because it IS a silly paper Scott if you could get over your “I hate science” attitude you’d know that too. There is silliness in this
world and you need to know when to reject stuff.
Dig deeper - the references ARE there.
Hans: I say they aren’t, after the lambasting I’ve given you don’t you want to show me up? Let’s see those references Scott. I’ve got my
apology for doubting your sincerity already written – given me a reason to post it.
[edit on 16/3/09 by Hanslune]