I am way ahead. The whole thing about the definition of the word 'conspiracy' is itself a disatraction ffrom the point being made.
Yeah. So quit bringing it up. The conspiracy talk is entirely on YOU.
That is the idea of any of what has been presented as being a conspiracy theory.
Is complaint you make because you don't read well. No one else is talking about conspiracies but YOU.
This is just one way among a number of ways to discredit whats presented.
I don't care how you define conspiracy. I am talking about its unjustified use.
That would be YOUR use of conspracy as you are the only one talking about them. I'd like to stop but you keep making false accusations that I am calling things conspiracies.
Along with other words and meanings like pseudoscience and grifters which are used arbitrarily to dismiss the good work and people involved.. You have done this from the get go.
Now *those* I have used because they apply. This isn't our first thread, nor the first time I have come across some of the pseudoscience (like the pyramid = electric generator nonsense.)
I understand what you are saying. I just disagree that this is the case. Explanations can become the evidence ie the signatures of scoop marks in the granite is the observational evidence.
No. No, you don't. If you understood that explanations are not evidence you wouldn't be claiming they are.
The orthodox explanation is small dolerite pounders. The explanation is claimed to be supported by the evidence and the evidence supports the explanations.
That's how evidence works.
It becomes the orthodoxy regardless of the evidence.
This is not science but a belief. The overiding belief that everything was created by traditional gradualism and reductive thinking that forces all methods into a simple to complex schema. Thus the explanation becomes part of the evidence which begs the question.
Good grief. you have no clue how scientific investigations work. You are just spinning your own self-reinforcing yarn.
No it hasn't. If you call a couple of exchanges thorough enough to establish the truth then this is poor epistemically. Certainly at the very least we have good preliminary science that warrants further investigation and certainly has not established the orthodoxy.
But its a good example of how alternative perspectives are dismissed as 'already been dealt with and nthing to see here'. So lets move on. I disagree.
I don't know what you think you are talking about.
I don't care about working out the difference. Only to say whatever is the negative use of these words to misrepresent good people and their work has already been shown in this thread.
So however you want to describe these words they are being misused in this thread. Is that clear enough for you and straight to the point. I don' care about the meanings. Only that they are wrong used.
I have no use for people who blithely refuse to use words correctly and then arrogantly say that they refuse to do so.
Yes this is one aspect of evidence. Then you have the cultural aspects such as belief, cultural practices, the influence on the physical world such as architecture, temples and the spiritual aspects of the kinds of structures and artifacts made, ie the pyramid shape, the way objects are lain out in space ect which may have an influence.
Material science will relegate all this dimension to a by product of the material and objective measures like you mention to make belief and superstition. No purpose involved. This all evidence is just an accident or coincidence.
This is based on the premise that fundementally reality is Mind and conscious experiences of the world which give a deeper knowledge. This includes phenomenal belief which includes the spiritual and transcedental worship and practices that had an influence on the physical world these ancients created.
Belief IS NOT EVIDENCE.
But is not this circular easoning. I am saying that the orthodoxy which is usually (the people who claim to know how to test) are doubling down on orthodoxy despite the evidence. There seems to be an assumption that these people are correct according to their explanations.
What has been happening in recent times is that more indpendents are out in the fields taking a closer look at the evidence and they are finding contradiction in the orthodox explanations.
So if this is about the evidence being the evidence which is the observations and data collected. Then what is wrong that people are pointing out the orthodoxy is wrong with better explanations that seem to fit the evidence.
It was my attempt to show that conspiracies are never made from nothing. If the Atlantis idea is a conspiracy theory that is used as an example. All I can say is that it had a real event basis.
There would be no conspiracy for 9/11 if it did not happen lol. Thats all. The conspiracy has a real basis. This was the original point but it got lost in all this semantics about the meanings of words.
I don't care about your conspiracies. SHut up about them.
Lol your asking me to believe you. Its not whether you have the ability or credibility to do so.
I know how to read a scientific paper, you clearly don't.
Its that people make this claim against others without actually showing that its the case by the specific content being discussed. I just gave the examples of how Chris Smith and now Marian Marcis were made into amateurs without any evidence. Showing bias.
I have no idea who those people are. I don't know why I should care.
Why on earth would I take the word of anything said on such a thread. There is obvious bias. You may be right but you have not specifically shown the pseudoscience.
We have.
Is the Vase scan projects pseudoscience.
Possibly. It may also just be sloppy or poorly motivated.
Is modelling the pyramids or testing for ancient cement pseudoscience. What exactly is pseudoscience about what is presented. Or is this a hunch or feeling you get for certain words and narratives that speak a language you don't like and assume is all bunk.
@sjastro has told you multiple times about alternative and more plausible explanations for the "concrete casing block". Pyramid power is absolute junk. The Egyptians didn't even know about EM waves.
But what happens when others with just as much or even more expertise say the opposite. Then it becomes a game of who is the biggest expert lol.
I mean even Petrie from the very beginning when these works were discovered until today. Experts are still explaining the evidence as advanced knowledge.
When did he die now?
If like you say the evidence is the evidence. Then why is one explanation more truthful or factual then another. In fact if we are truthful then we would have to admit that some of these signatures blantantly look like machining. Even if they prove not.
Tube drills and copper saws *ARE MACHINES* applied to rock.
We first have to admit the observations. Yet even the orthodoxy fails this first basic step in dismissing the obvious signatures. That there is a debate and resistence over this only shows that despite the evidence this comes down to belief.
Whatever worldview belief one has will determine what they allow as the explanation even if that means ignoring or dismissing the evidence.
Not interested in anything supported on "belief".
Commonsense lol, two eyes, ears and a mind that can understand stuff.
Common sense is laughable. It lures people into thinking they understand things that they do not actually understand. The whole apparatus of science is a carefully built set of methods to avoid falling into the trap of common sense and getting the wrong answer.
You don't need to be a rocket scientists to see a machine cut in stone before your eyes.
What you need is an expert on *ancient* stone working techniques.
As for the specialist stuff yeah, sure I leave that to the experts. I trust theyknow what they are talking about. I can or the average person can sort of understand the rational or basis. In the case of conspiracy you don't have to be a scientist and in fact a behavioural expert would be better as its more about human cognition then the science.
You don't leave it to actual experts. You follow the lead of plodding non-experts. That's the whole problem with everything you've presented in this thread.
By this logic you should also allow experts in other fields to have their say. Therefore depending on your field you cannot know all things relating to this thread. Commensense can tell a conspiracy otherwise it doesnpt explain how non experts can sport a conspiracy and not fall for it lol.
You are not paying attention again. What I said is that I have extensive professional experience in evaluating research methodology. I am familiar with good and bad methodology and I can detect it in paper I read. What experience do you have that is of any relevance to our discussions?
Here we go again with the semantics. It doesn't matter. Whatever negative meaning you want to use thats going to undermine the person and ideas.
Well you should. Who is more an expert on tooling or macining signatures. Someone who may have worked as a machinist and precision toolest for 50 years. Or an archeologist for 20 years. Or an academic without machining or tooling experience.
The idea of using academia to dismiss expertise is a false analogy.
But once again all the attention is on the semantics an dnot the point. That good people who are experts in what they were talking about were dismissed as amateurs without any evidence and no explanation. No reference to their work, nothing.
And again your utterly trash reading skill betray you. I literally said that I am not concerned about their amateur status. What I am concerned about is their expertise.
Thats why I think all this fixation on peer review is silly. Its an extention of the ad hominems over the credibility of individuals being called amateurs and psuedoscientists and all that.
Ok I don't care now. I think even if they were peer reviewed they would have been dismissed one way or another. There is obvious bias.
You brought up "peer review" claiming that the links you were providing were "peer review" and that those of us on this thread were just posting to social media. I'm trying to tell you know that the evaluations, cold and analytical, that you have seen some of us post about published sources you link are very much in the style and spirit of actual peer review. We don't have the knowledge to point out many technical errors, but we can spot bad methodology, etc. I have evaluated many published sources in that manner on this site including one where I actually was a legitimate expert (not telling which one).
The uploads to You Tube actually contain live tests recorded. Thats why I think they are better than peer review. They allow the average person to be the scientist. They upload results, scans, files ect for others to test for themselves.
They are videos of people taking measurements. Measurements are part of science but are not science by themselves. They are certainly no substitute for peer review of a written paper.
I think thats a level above social media comments.
There is the degrading comment about us just making social media comments. Knew it would come up eventually.
I can understand how its a good way to conduct a project.
It really isn't.
You can gain collaborations and funding and its independent. This is what I am talking about how more independents have been able to go out into the field and do research to give new perspectives on the orthodoxy.
Since archeology is not my field, I don't know how it is organized and who would constitute an "independent". (Talking about "orthodoxy" is wrong headed. That's not how this works.)
Yes and because some may sell stuff as part of doing a podcast or research is not wrong. There is no funding for the research and they are not lucky like some who can get grants.
One of them is also selling "custom tours" of Egypt. (It might be UnchartedX.)
Try getting a grant for research on lost advanced tech lol.
What works will they cite in their proposals if they tried? Fingerprints of the Gods?
Lol that you moralise it is interesting. I think elaborating and imagining far fetched possibilities is a natural human tendency. We have to accept that. In some ways its a vessel which carries a truth or a grain of truth thats been taken to an extreme.
Sometimes its good like in making a great science fiction novel. Other times its out of place and unreal. But there are also a lot of blurred lines in between as well and thats part of what needs to be sorts. Thats metaphysical beliefs and not science.
What part of "I don't care about such things" do you not understand.
No thanks. I have heard of that one lol. When and if I am in the mood I will have a look. Thats the point. I think its important that we can indulge this kind of imaginative thinking as it actually is at the forefront of scientific thinking.
No, it isn't. I know about the forefront of scientific knowledge. I have lived their for a quarter century and made my contributions.
If it was not for the fact that we can indulge such far fetched ideas loosely based on some truths we would never discover anything new that was beyond what we could have believed at the time.
That some look at this like its a contagion and avoid it like the plague seems more about belief than being open minded to all sorts of possibilities. Based on the idea that people can entertain such things without being sucked in. The assumption that because they suggest or entertain such ideas they must have already been sucked in.
It is a plague. A pox on the thinking of socieity. It obscures and deflects from the actual cool things that did happen and it falsely fills holes where "I don't know" should be written.
Yes thats why I objected to your framing of Hancock. I disagree that he is a bad person.
I don't know how we find Hancock to be anything but a bad person after he's spent 30 years conning suckers with his ancient civilization cons to make money for himself. He is the lowest of the low in the pseudoscience arena.
THise who know him actually say the exact opposite. Yeah he may have some far fetched ideas. BUt a lot if actually supported or is not proposing anything and just posing questions and alternative possibilities.
I don't see a lot of people out there in the fields, diving on ruins, going to the sites and making direct observations. To label all his work and him as a person as bad or any single words is itself bad.
Actual archeologists do those things every day. Hancock is just making travelogue documentaries. He does no actual research.
