Archaeologica.org

but about the experts who not infrequently get things wrong

in this case it isnt so much about experts as it is about Radio carbon dates
in this case the ruins have been dated on no less than 130 seperate occaisons with samples taken from almost every area of the site
not one came back as older than 1300bce
here is the complete list








all this solid scientific evidence was completely ignored by Hancock who went with the ideas of Arthur Posnansky who is neither an archaeologists nor an expert on south american culture
hes an astronomer
he claimed it dated to 15,000bce
his ideas were championed by the Nazis who used it as evidence that their ideas of Super Aryans being survivors of Atlantis were correct
Hancock also fails to mention this as well
this means of course that Posnansky was working in the 1920s,30s and 40s which is sometime before radiocarbon dating was even known about
since it now clearly proves he was an idealist whos ideas were not based on reality you might start to wonder why Hancock used them at all
the answer of course is obvious
Hancock himself is an idealist whos ideas are not based on reality.

the same could be said of anyone who gives his ideas credence
like you appeared to be doing when you started slamming experts who are merely publishing the data that has been collected from genuine scientific empirical data
hope you can see that Roy
this isn't about Hobbits or GW like you say
its about Hancocks bank balance
and about the gullibility of the people who have added to it
it has nothing to do with science

I'm not sure why you started on me Steve, I agree with what you say about Hancock in general. My point, which I've made before, and you conceded if you check back on the subject of Stone Henge, is that being and expert in any field is not a guarantee of being correct, and it was in that spirit that I mentioned GW et al.
You tend to hold strong views that allow for no dissention, I prefer to listen to all sides without the need to be rude to people who might hold views different to my own.
I haven't read the RC dates you have listed because it is not a subject that holds much interest for me and as such I hold no writ for who is correct or otherwise. I simply make a plea for a broad church as I don't claim to know so much about anything that I can't learn more or be at times plain wrong!

I'm not sure why you started on me Steve

Roy
the discussion was about Hancocks theories
you started up by saying dont trust the professionals
this implies that you should trust Hancock

You tend to hold strong views that allow for no dissention

yes these are based on my opinion
I have been researching these areas in depth for quite some time
did you notice for instance that when Beagle thought he had a coup by contacting Dr Winters over the Pokotia monolith I had not only beaten him to it by more than two years but also had a relationship with the Dr himself for some time
so my opinion is based on the evidence that I have accumulated and is untainted by any agenda. I have made some big discoveries of my own, I just havent shared them with everyone yet though there are people you could ask if this is a truthful statement from me
this is why I find it laughable when Min goes on and on about the club as if its some shield that he can hide from the facts behind
he'll find eventually that it makes a good blindfold but it isn't an advantage for looking for the truth
imagining that its been covered up impels you not to look for it
its the same thing as saying that experts in this field are all wrong
when in fact
they are as close to the truth as is humanly possible
this quote sums it up

john of salisbury wrote:"We are like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants. We see more, and things that are more distant, than they did, not because our sight is superior or because we are taller than they, but because they raise us up, and by their great stature add to ours."

see it wasn't newton who originated the "shoulders of giants" quote
you'd have to do a little research to see the truth of that
kapeesh

marduk wrote:

john of salisbury wrote:"We are like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants. We see more, and things that are more distant, than they did, not because our sight is superior or because we are taller than they, but because they raise us up, and by their great stature add to ours."

see it wasn't newton who originated the "shoulders of giants" quote

Newton's summation was a whole lot easier to remember!
Sheesh.

marduk wrote:so my opinion is based on the evidence that I have accumulated and is untainted by any agenda.

Marduk, I really don't think anyone on this board at present, has an agenda. Perhaps it could be argued that Bauval or Hancock or others do or have had an agenda since their ideas were linked to profiteering of some sort. Really, when we say someone has an agenda, isn't that really the bottom line?

Arguing a point or taking a stand on any issue is not necessarily indicative of agenda. Wouldn't you agree? Many have complained about religous fanatics who have appeared on these threads. I would even say, they did not have an agenda, per se. For what were they to gain? They were strongly driven by their conviction and made their defenses. Mainly, I think it was an argumentative or confrontation tone that annoys people more than anything.

Steve, I think one or other of us has a problem computer. I did not say 'don't trust the experts'. This is what I said.

And when experts improve their record I'll start believing everything they tell me simply because they say so.

That does that imply support for Hancock.
Neither did I quote Newton.
You have a distinct tendency to misinterpret what people say then start telling them they are wrong based on your own opinion.
You say you have staudied the subject, I never suggested that you hadn't. What I did say earlier was that unless you had carried out your own field research all you are doing is adding your support to the perspective that you believe to be correct, even if other people, as qualified as those you support hold different views.
I also don't believe the Earth to be flat, but I did have the courtesy to listen to a flat Earther expounding his views. It's called 'good manners.'

And when experts improve their record I'll start believing everything they tell me simply because they say so.

being deliberately obtuse doesn't excuse your earlier error
the posts before you submitted your opinion was very obviously discussing the experts who have dated Tiwanaku
your statement clearly therefore dumps on those experts
are you claiming that Radiocarbon dating in this case is not reliable
after I have posted 130 RC dates that agree with the orthodox view
stuff that Beagle and Min weren't even aware of when they feigned support for Hancocks view based on a Nazi agenda because it supported his erroneous viewpoint
at some point Roy
you should ask yourself
just what facts you will accept in this specific case
then maybe you'll move forward and stop posting excuses for your earlier statement

If you care to look at my profile old son you will find that my E mail address has changed. During the change over there was a delay in the receipt of the new modem, for that reason I have not read the earlier posts that you are getting so steamed up about, in fact I picked up on the following from your post.

Quote:
Just because the Club says that the Egyptians could not do it that way does not make it true

It was that I was referring to not what ever you might be imagining. As for supporting orthodoxy as you comment upon, which orthodoxy should I support? As I said earlier I know nothing about this particular subject, I hold no views on it, and as I said earlier wasn't even referring to it.
I only picked up on this post in the hope of learning something from it and I reiterate that I supoort no view neither Hancock's nor anybody elses till I know more. Perhaps then I will be in a position to make some comment on the subject.
If that means that I'm being obtuse then I must plead guilty.

so you're now admitting that you posted without reading the previous posts
bit of an error don't you think
what makes you think you can post in a thread without even knowing whats being discussed
and while you're at it claim that people who do know all the facts and who make statements based on them are in error
you know the expression "hoist by your own petard" eh
and then youre asking why i replied to your post
bit obvious now isnt it
old son

Marduk, you seem to be only person on this site who manages to misunderstand me. If you check back, again, you will find out that I never at any point offered any comments on the subject matter, only on that single post that you had repeated from earlier, which I agreed with.
Monk then posted on the basis of what I had said and obviously understood where you have failed to do so. And if you check back, yet again, I explained my point of agreement with Monk and if you had read that you would not be quite so confused with what I was saying.
Are you taking over from Frank now as well? If not please explain why you think I am not permitted to enter this discussion at what ever point I wish. If I have broken some rule inform accordingly please.
I would further point out that some time ago you challenged me on something I posted and I was forced to point out that it was copied from an earlier post by yourself, so I may not have read what you posted in this instant, but in the case I'm referring to you apparently hadn't read your own post.
Pots and kettles sunshine.

Min - I read that study last night, and then bookmarked it. So I want to give it another good study before I post again. I should get to it this evening.

Great paper, I just need to wade through the graphs.

Odd, I read it last night and had no trouble sleeping!

Have been a happy visitor/observer for the last year +-. and have enjoyed the dialogues and the variable rigor of discourse. I can't help but notice that "Marduk" appears to have resources of definitive "one ups-manship" that is truly impressive....less (preferably) his signature angst.

In that light I am responding to a recent post: page 48 "Fingerprints of the Gods", in which Marduk alluded to......

"I have been researching these areas in depth for quite some time
did you notice for instance that when Beagle thought he had a coup by contacting Dr Winters over the Pokotia monolith I had not only beaten him to it by more than two years but also had a relationship with the Dr himself for some time
so my opinion is based on the evidence that I have accumulated and is untainted by any agenda. I have made some big discoveries of my own, I just havent shared them with everyone yet though there are people you could ask if this is a truthful statement from me"

....after spending a year of observing dialogs on this site from the ridiculous to....

....I think its time to ask Marduk as to the nature and veracity of his "my opinion is based on the evidence that I have accumulated and is untainted by any agenda. I have made some big discoveries of my own, I just haven't shared them with everyone yet"...

....and so...big discoveries!

....do tell!

Whew - that was close.

I almost read that. It's that quote thing again.

Anyhow, welcome to the forum woodrabbit.

Beagle, thanks for welcoming me into the pool. But feel like I'm missing a subtext...

ie...."Whew - that was close". Shocked(icon)

"I almost read that. It's that quote thing again". Laughing(icon)

...Help me out here.

Bemused