I take it you no longer wish to continue the 'Big Bangs' debate?
Roy.
The Big Bangs
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
Re: The Big Bangs
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
-
uniface
Re: The Big Bangs
Beyond the immediate (and fairly obvious), there's no additional data to tie into it.
Re: The Big Bangs
That was as Ithought. Which in some ways is the killer.
Nuclear explosions leave considerable evidence as an aftermath, common sense suggests that if any of that evidence was apparent it would the greatest archaeological event ever!
Either the investigators or posters are uninterested in attaching their names to such a monumental discovery or that it is another non-event.
Roy.
Nuclear explosions leave considerable evidence as an aftermath, common sense suggests that if any of that evidence was apparent it would the greatest archaeological event ever!
Either the investigators or posters are uninterested in attaching their names to such a monumental discovery or that it is another non-event.
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
-
uniface
Re: The Big Bangs
There are a lot of things that evidence exists for that they don't WANT TO know about or have to confront and deal with. Because that would mean they'd been wrong.
Perish the thought.
Perish the thought.
Re: The Big Bangs
I quite agree. But that of course also applies to your constantly looking for cover ups, conspiracies etc.
But as I pointed out, all it would need is one serious observer and he or she would be world famous, but it hasn't happened.
For you to believe that the site was caused by a nuclear explosion you have to start by suspending logic.
An example, the time scale of thousands of years, the level of contaminants at Hiroshima and Nagasaki is now below background levels, 60 years after the attack.
Take the vitrified stone, why assume a nuclear explosion? They exist in other places, or are we now talking a world war?
The crater, do nuclear explosions cause a crater? Only if detonated below or on the ground, therefore if the buildings, however ruinous are within the crater, then logic suggests that the crater must pre-date the buildings.
All of this is common knowledge. All of this, you and other conspiracy lovers, need to explain away before being taken seriously.
Not half as much fun as little green men or other fairy stories I'm sorry to say.
Roy.
But as I pointed out, all it would need is one serious observer and he or she would be world famous, but it hasn't happened.
For you to believe that the site was caused by a nuclear explosion you have to start by suspending logic.
An example, the time scale of thousands of years, the level of contaminants at Hiroshima and Nagasaki is now below background levels, 60 years after the attack.
Take the vitrified stone, why assume a nuclear explosion? They exist in other places, or are we now talking a world war?
The crater, do nuclear explosions cause a crater? Only if detonated below or on the ground, therefore if the buildings, however ruinous are within the crater, then logic suggests that the crater must pre-date the buildings.
All of this is common knowledge. All of this, you and other conspiracy lovers, need to explain away before being taken seriously.
Not half as much fun as little green men or other fairy stories I'm sorry to say.
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
-
uniface
Re: The Big Bangs
There are a lot of things that evidence exists for that they don't WANT TO know about or have to confront and deal with. Because that would mean they'd been wrong.
Which, in context (above), is an entirely rational response.that of course also applies to your constantly looking for cover ups, conspiracies etc.
There have been too many examples posted already of people fitting your description who announced discoveries that rocked the boat and were ostracised (or worse) for your allegation to be taken as other than an example of attention deficit disorder.as I pointed out, all it would need is one serious observer and he or she would be world famous
Re: The Big Bangs
Name one in the specific case we are debating, as far as I know no one has actually published a scientific report to rubbish.
Roy.
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
-
uniface
Re: The Big Bangs
Virginia Steen-McIntyre, for one.
Discussion of whose discoveries in Mexico was discussed at length a few months ago.
http://archaeologica.boardbot.com/viewt ... t=Virginia
Discussion of whose discoveries in Mexico was discussed at length a few months ago.
http://archaeologica.boardbot.com/viewt ... t=Virginia
Re: The Big Bangs
I said in the specific case we were debating.
Roy.
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
-
uniface
Re: The Big Bangs
The Calico site in California is another.
You can easily infer the pattern from examples of it in practice.
The material in Forbidden Archaeology for a third.
You can easily infer the pattern from examples of it in practice.
The material in Forbidden Archaeology for a third.
Re: The Big Bangs
Without wishing to appear rude in anyway, is English a second language for you?
I could probably make a much longer list on your subject than yourself, but about the specific case we are debating?
Roy.
I could probably make a much longer list on your subject than yourself, but about the specific case we are debating?
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
-
uniface
Re: The Big Bangs
One . . . last . . . time :
In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is lynched. Not "world famous."
Digit wrote:as I pointed out, all it would need is one serious observer and he or she would be world famous
If you cannot (or will not) draw a reasonable inference from a repeating pattern, you are either not playing with a full deck, or are dealing off the bottom of it.uniface wrote:There have been too many examples posted already of people fitting your description who announced discoveries that rocked the boat and were ostracised (or worse) for your allegation to be taken as other than an example of attention deficit disorder.
-- Virginia Steen McIntyre
-- The Calico site in California
In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is lynched. Not "world famous."
Re: The Big Bangs
Ok, just for you I'll draw an inference from a repeating pattern and apply logic. What about the pattern of those who were correct and not rubbished or those who were incorrect and not rubbished?
Both viewpoints are as equally valid/invalid as your inference and thus prove nothing.
But one....more...time, has anybody produced a scientific report on the subject, if not there is nothing to rubbish?
Simple isn't it?
Roy.
Both viewpoints are as equally valid/invalid as your inference and thus prove nothing.
But one....more...time, has anybody produced a scientific report on the subject, if not there is nothing to rubbish?
Simple isn't it?
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt