the dominance of religion in the ancient world

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:50 pm

the media can fuck off and die. parastitic culture, they are.

does this include all journalists that have a track record for distorting the truth ?

john · Post by **john** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:54 pm

marduk wrote:
the media can fuck off and die. parastitic culture, they are.
does this include all journalists that have a track record for distorting the truth ?

yup. which in my book would leave maybe one, maybe two truth speakers in the known world.

john

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:30 pm

marduk wrote:
that there was an automatic attribution to 'gods' even though they didn't even know what the images are.
one man said that so its a "he" not a "they"
and he wasn't an archaeologist
Hancock as an anarchist has no advantage over me
he doesnt ask questions he makes stuff up
and you appear to have misread him
he doesnt claim that archaeolgists have a secret hiding club
he claims that egyptologists have a secret hiding club specifically Zahi Hawass and the egyptian antiquities commission
different thing entirely

It is far from the only example in which any object is given some sort of ritual basis. It was merely the current example.

Like I said, you seem very sensitive about the "Club" stuff? What is it like? The Freemasons?

I'm no fan of Zahi's. I give him credit for bringing attention to his field and for promoting tourism in Egypt but some aspects of his personality are troublesome.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:32 pm

do you know how boring christian websites are? as minimalist and others have said, they do not investigate, explore or ask too many questions and stick to the party line while preaching to the choir.

Arch.

You are one strange duck, you know that?

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:38 pm

Frank Harrist wrote:I have to say that I think it is very irresponsible of anyone to just throw out a theory about a site or an artifact without conclusive evidence to back it up. No archaeologist I know personally would do that, but something about having a reporter in your face may cause the mouth to run without engaging the brain. Then later that night the guy's probably wishing to hell he'd kept his mouth shut. But we're all human and should think for ourselves and not just accept what the media tells us. We all have that responsibilty. The media are idiots and we must keep that in mind all the time.

So, even granting you point that someone may panic and say something stupid upon sighting a reporter, you maintain that it is the reporter's fault for then reporting what was said?

There are formatted outlines for doing a press release, some of them are even on line. I rather doubt that the Peking News had a reporter standing there looking over this guy's shoulder. It would hardly be an effective use of personnel and could get an editor fired.

Archaeologists (and everyone else, as you correctly noted) have a need to have their deeds publicized. Don't blame the media for facilitating that desire.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:17 am

You are one strange duck, you know that?

why? because i am frustrated with the evangelical world and its inability to research without throwing in a gospel message and throwing out the investigation?

you wonder why i read so many old publications...well there is one reason there, less preaching to the choir and more scholarship.

it is the most frustrating thing, to start a book that is building a great case for their point and then you flip a page and a jump to a conclusion plus a reference to the great commission comes flying out at you and you are left wondering what happened to their point and research.

evangelicals rarely dig below the surface which makes them so ineffective and leave people like you dealing with Jean Marie types.

problem is even with my experience, qualifications and degrees they wouldn't listen any more than you guys do, because i go outside their comfort zone and find the details they refuse to consider.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 6:26 am

Minimalist wrote:
Frank Harrist wrote:I have to say that I think it is very irresponsible of anyone to just throw out a theory about a site or an artifact without conclusive evidence to back it up. No archaeologist I know personally would do that, but something about having a reporter in your face may cause the mouth to run without engaging the brain. Then later that night the guy's probably wishing to hell he'd kept his mouth shut. But we're all human and should think for ourselves and not just accept what the media tells us. We all have that responsibilty. The media are idiots and we must keep that in mind all the time.

So, even granting you point that someone may panic and say something stupid upon sighting a reporter, you maintain that it is the reporter's fault for then reporting what was said?

There are formatted outlines for doing a press release, some of them are even on line. I rather doubt that the Peking News had a reporter standing there looking over this guy's shoulder. It would hardly be an effective use of personnel and could get an editor fired.

Archaeologists (and everyone else, as you correctly noted) have a need to have their deeds publicized. Don't blame the media for facilitating that desire.

That's not the point I'm trying to make. The media has created an environment in which the story won't be told unless it's exciting or groundbreaking. I don't blame the reporter for reporting what he hears, but he's usually influencing the story teller into saying things that will hype the story. The archaeologist is pressured into speculation, sometimes very wild speculation in order to get the story out. Under-publicized things are usually under-funded as well. If no one's interested, no one's donating. And you of all people, Bob, know how the media twists the truth and uses quotes out of context. They're all like tabloids now. Bush uses it extensively as a proaganda tool. So no I don't trust the media.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:04 am

the media can fuck off and die. parastitic culture, they are.

does this include all journalists that have a track record for distorting the truth ?

yup. which in my book would leave maybe one, maybe two truth speakers in the known world.
john

Like I said, you seem very sensitive about the "Club" stuff? What is it like? The Freemasons?

No Min
its like it doesn't exist
the reason that you think the truth is being hidden from you by this mystical club is because the orthodox truth has been arrived at through decades of research and evidence. Every archaeologist on earth got into the profession in the first place because they want to personally uncover the truth and not one of them would ever hide it. if they had any evidence they would be screaming it from the rooftops
its very hard to find any evidence that will contradict that when the evidence doesnt exist. look at the latest evidence from Bosnia. its a pile of shit
Hancock who being ajournalist should have fuckled off and died like john said is a self confessed ANARCHIST. and you think hes great for standing up to the club and telling everyone how it is
You have an inability to face the truth that is staggering
it does you no favours and ensures that you will never be taken seriously
it is also insulting to anyone who has ever done any solid research in any area of history whatsoever
like
why should we all bother
you are saying that our results are lies anyway and that only hancock who has been caught distorting the truth again and again is correct
You want me to prove hes an anarchist
thats easy
you want me to prove he lied
thats easier
could you do the same for any reputable archaeologist

and i agree about Zahi
he does a great job but hes such an arrogant little bastard that everyone hates him
egyptologists in general have a bad name amongst other archaeologists because of their insistance that Egypt was the jewel of the ancient world
it wasn't
it was a second rate culture with a death obsession

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:29 am

Hancock who being ajournalist should have fuckled off and died like john said is a self confessed ANARCHIST. and you think hes great for standing up to the club and telling everyone how it is

Marduk, your personal feelings about Hancock are your own business. But you have misinterpreted the letter that he wrote to you.

I understand what he was talking about when he invoked the word anarchist. I think you should give it another look and if you're sure he was making a deep dark confession then we can discuss it.

Personally I could care less either way.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:35 am

he dislikes Hierarchies and power structures
Orthodox archaeology is a Hierarchy
thats not the only communication i have had with him either
and if you had followed the articles that are posted at the GHMB forum you will notice that the only ones allowed to be posted are those that agree with his age of leo date for Giza
any that don't are not given the time of day
this means that a succession of bad authorship is spoon fed to the public via his site
anyone who disagrees with anything these authors say are heavily moderated against
i was finally banned fro posting proof that the Bosnian pyramid was a hill
something which up til that point Graham was in full support of
so
you couldn't care less
lucklily not everyone is as shallow in their desire to see the truth as you are eh

personally i would like for everyone to know that when people write books full of fabricated details and out of date theories they know they are reading rubbish
but if you want to go on believing with min that the truth is still out there thats up to you
good luck with that eh

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:47 am

You can repost that letter if you like and invite other opinions, but it's quite obvious to me that he was talking about the moderation authority exercised on websites.

He regrets that there has to be some. He is being quite polite to you regarding your suspension.

If Hancock is selective in what he allows on his website then he is acting just like most mainstream web sites. Most of them tell you up front what is NOT allowed to be posted. You're pretty familiar with some of them.

If you think your interpretation is correct and mine wrong then you should repost the letter and get other feedback.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:59 am

You can repost that letter if you like and invite other opinions, but it's quite obvious to me that he was talking about the moderation authority exercised on websites.

he states "By instinct I'm an anarchist, i dont like hierarchies and power structures"
wether he was talking about anything he is still stating that by instinct hes an anarchist he doesnt like hierarchies and power structures

i don't like fish but i dont go around stating by instinct im an anarchist i don't like fish or seafood

he says anarchist because thats what he is
he doesn't like hierarchies and power structures because if people listened to the hierarchies and power structures then he wouldn't sell one copy
as such his career is based on opposing anyone who is regarded as orthodox no matter what field they are in
he creates an "Us and Them" scenario and then sells his books to all those dissatified with "them"
the fact that his books require the works of charles hapgood to be true should ring all your alarm bells at once
the fact that his theory requires flash frozen mammoths to be a reality should close the lid on the coffin
the fact that he believes all ancient cultures are the result of hyper diffusionism should surely be enough for anyone to make up their minds
fact of the matter is that most of his readership don't know what hyper diffusionism means
thats not the fault of the hierarchies and power structures
its the fault of the readers themselves who only want to hear one side of the story because their imaginations so so so want aliens and atlanteans to be a reality
this takes credit away from the human race who accomplished it on their own
you don't need aliens from Alpha Centauri to land to tell you that the distant point of light in the sky can be used to mark the seasons of the year
you can work that out for yourself when you don't have a television showing sci fi round the clock to make you think otherwise

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:07 am

Marduk, I gave you my opinion on that letter. I don't have anything more to say about it other than I've invited you to repost it here rather than your edited version. I could post it but it isn't worth it if you don't want others to view it.

And watch it on your smart ass comments toward me.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:30 am

fact of the matter is that most of his readership don't know what hyper diffusionism means

I don't.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:36 am

I've invited you to repost it here rather than your edited version

nothing is edited on that letter
its been posted in the public domain already
so if you want to post it thats fine

And watch it on your smart ass comments toward me.

ditto

fact of the matter is that most of his readership don't know what hyper diffusionism means
I don't.

youre kidding right ?