If we do discuss the Atlantean nonsense and orgins of your ancient advanced tech sources, will you honestly deal with them, or will you deflect?
I am not sure what you meran by deflect. Deflect into what lol. Into something like the Atlantis myth. Why would I do that and make it even worse for myself lol. You grossly underestimate those who can understand the difference.
But yes I am able to discuss the Atlantis legend if you want and its context to the difference between the science and the legend.
Please stop quoting fallacies. You don't seem to know what they are.
This was based on the fact that the idea of Atlantis as a conspiracy is being used to dismiss everything any person who may be associated with such conspiracies as wrong in everything they say. A sort of coverall to automatically dismiss the person without actually investigating what they said.
It is a fact that you have dismissed everyone and what they actually have said without knowing what they have said on this by the fact you called them all grifters without any evidence.
Plato made up "Atlantis" as a morality tale.
The bible made up the Flood myth as a moral tale. But it still had a real event as the basis. This is how it works. Moral tales come from real events percieved as from the gods or mother nature. Thats what gives them legs. Otherwise its just some unbelievable tale with no real substance.
Throughout time we see the same theme over and over of a great city or culture or Empire failing or destroyed because of their hubris and pride.
It makes perfect sense that there was such a legend or a number or glocal and local stories floating around that was used in other ways with a similar moral lesson. Which PLato an dothers drew upon. It makes sense that just like the Flood myths are based on real flood events in all cultures. That from those flood myths could come a great city or culture that was destroyed. A moral lesson within a lesson.
Connolly made up most of the modern version whole cloth from his fantastical understanding of prehistoric Ameria. Neither is based on any historical event.
Yeah the same theme is elaborated on over and over. But this stems from a real event sometime in the past. Give enough time and the worldwide tsuami we had a decade ago will become something sent by the gods. The story is probably being laid down within the cultures that directly experienced it. In fact if you listen to their accounts many say it was the gods being angry.
This is a natural inclination of humans.
You keep mentioning conspiracy theories. No one is talking about conspiracy theories. There is no "conspiracy" I am claiming is being made about the past. Just a lot of liars, fools, and grifters.
Yes they are. You started with the idea its all conspiracy suggesting there was alternative or advanced lost knowledge. Full stop.
You labelled it all as conspiracies like Atlantis and aliens and those who are investigating such possibilities are grifters and liars and fools. Without any evidence direct from those you accuse actually promoting such things.
Therefore I have been from the start of this thread having to defend these good people from your stereotypical labels and false accusations.
I don't find the myths interesting, nor do I think they have any real probative value in understanding the past. The understanding of ancient myths and beliefs are only interesting to the extent that peoples of the time motivated them in the past.
So you are more or less dismissing a good chunk of science in how we can understand the ancients and their culture and knowledge. Your more or less saying we should only understand them from a 21st century worldview and not how they believed and thought.
How can you even come to understand them by know knowing their worldview. Or not understand human cognition and behaviour in this context as a behavioural science. They are not machines and this is I think the missing aspect that material sciences dismiss. The agencies and self determinant aspects that come from culture such as belief and spirituality.
Not in the way your making out. Its extreme and narrow minded. As much as any conspiracy.
And you don't see the problem in basing information on the work of a liar?
I am able to take what I think makes sense or is supported and leave that which I think is not. You don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water. Often much of what is said is reasonable and something we should question and consider. Its not that controversial.
But because this entire topic can so easily slip into spectulation the two get conflated. Thus throwing out the legitimate. Unfortunately some people give this whole topic a bad name.
This isn't about UFOs or DNA.
You literally just agree that the whole UAP and advance tech related to this thread.
He says that, but he is one of the flakiest of them all. Only Dunn has him beaten on that front. When I was trying to view some of the "Michael Button" content, "UnchartedX" kept appearing in the side feed with woo nonsense about a variety of subjects, not just Egyptology.
And you did not check it out to actually see what it was about. This only shows you tar people by association. You also don't believe peoples own words. So why should anyone then believe yours. Is this not just personal feelings and beliefs.
That seems to be his grift or his delusion. I'm not going to take the time to figure out if he is a liar or just a true believer.
Your just proving my point.
Frankly it should. If anyone claims to love ancient history and adores the work of Graham "The Fraud" Hancock, then they are just not credible on ancient history. Again, I don't care if they are just brainwashed members of the Hancock cult, or fellow grifters.
Fair enough
It is not an ad hom to note that someone making claims about area X is involved with people doing very unsavory things in area X. It is no different than dismissing a "financial advisor" who professes admiration for propagators of Ponzi schemes.
It is when your not providing evidence. Anyone can make accusations. Its easy. You just say the words enough.
You just told me you don't care if they are Hancock acolytes or not. Why should I bother at this point? Are you going to listen?
Its more the principle that you so easily dismiss people based on heresay and not actually getting to know them or what they actually said. You were dismissing for the beginning of everyone and everything. You had already made your mind up before you walked in the front door lol.
No one is discussing conspiracies.
Hum thats what you have called everything posted lol. You have constantly tied it back to Hancock and Dunn as representing everything said.
