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

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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

I believe it is very likely that an old civilization used to exist. This just compiles on evidence of graham hancocks theory

originally posted by: JOHNNEIL
I believe it is very likely that an old civilization used to exist. This just compiles on evidence of graham hancocks theory

Not only did they exist they existed on a linear timeline...and we now have a repeatable model which shows us this timeline...it is called the Vlar Continental Displacement Model...it is not Peer-approved....not formally....lol...and there is a disclaimer...there is NO CONNECTION TO ANYONE ON ATS OR ELSEWHERE IN CONTEXT OF THE WORD VLAR...a public domain definition of Vlar is what is projected in context not references to anyone named Vlar.


Yes not only were there many Civilisations we can now put them into a generic order....we can track and model every single time the Earth was impacted by a Vlar Continental Displacement event.....in order...and we can also predict accurately the impacts of the next event.

This is ATS, right?


So another possibility would be aliens. Maybe humanity actually is a genetically engineered species? (Perhaps by animal husbandry taking some apes and breeding them to make a smarter species?)


So there's only one Y chromosome because that was the point where the aliens felt they had "got it right".

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
This is ATS, right?


So another possibility would be aliens. Maybe humanity actually is a genetically engineered species? (Perhaps by animal husbandry taking some apes and breeding them to make a smarter species?)

So there's only one Y chromosome because that was the point where the aliens felt they had "got it right".

Then they must have been very busy trying their method out on literally thousands of species.

The XY sex-determination system is the sex-determination system found in humans, most other mammals, some insects (Drosophila), some snakes, and some plants (Ginkgo).

Wiki

Harte

a reply to: 727Sky

Matriarchal societies were the dominant structure for a long time. Longer than we have been experimenting with high civilization and kingship.

The "great mother" of society will be restored again and "kingship" (paternal leadership of society) will disolve. It is not good or bad. Its a cycle with both ends being the beginnings of great things.

There is something to be said of the devotion to a woman as a queen. For some its still a strong instinctual calling. Maybe its their function in the species to always be in search of a "geat mother" to empower.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
This is ATS, right?


So another possibility would be aliens. Maybe humanity actually is a genetically engineered species? (Perhaps by animal husbandry taking some apes and breeding them to make a smarter species?)

So there's only one Y chromosome because that was the point where the aliens felt they had "got it right".

Then they must have been very busy trying their method out on literally thousands of species.

The XY sex-determination system is the sex-determination system found in humans, most other mammals, some insects (Drosophila), some snakes, and some plants (Ginkgo).

Wiki

Harte

They found that intelligent radishes just sat stuck in the ground and bitched all day.

Was this strictly a human phenomenon or did it effect the males of all species?

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: luthier

it wasnt a cme, cmes dont kill, it was theoretically a comet.
and it was closer to 10600 bc geologically, ending around 9700

known as the Lesser Dryas Theory, took out the mega fauna, particularly in N.America

It could have been a very large x-ray burst from Sagittarius A* which can last over weeks to 1000's of years. Causing humans to seek refuge in caves from radiation burns. Its likely the men would have had to leave that refuge in search of food and water exposing themselves to greater dangers. Or the fact that exposure to X-rays can reduce sperm production,

a reply to: glend

It could have been a very large x-ray burst from Sagittarius A* which can last over weeks to years.

Yeah. Very, very, very large. Or not.
Inverse square law. That sort of thing.

a reply to: Phage

"flux in harder energy band 20 keV to 100 keV".

a reply to: glend

Yeah. So what sort of burst from 26,000 light years away would have high enough flux in that band to penetrate the atmosphere.

Show your work, please.

a reply to: Phage

Sorry click on that Sagittarius A* link from original post.

a reply to: glend

Lower-mass planets such as Earth receive a level of radiation that might have played a role in the evolution of their primitive atmospheres,

Your source:

It is now inactive, but there is evidence indicating that about six million years ago it underwent a powerful outburst where the luminosity could have approached the Eddington limit

And what may the results have been?

Lower-mass planets such as Earth receive a level of radiation that might have played a role in the evolution of their primitive atmospheres

So any sort of extinction sort of scenario? Not so much.