Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

May I suggest a project for the board?


Hanslune

Recommended Posts

 
6 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

Ne comprend pas mais j'adore risqué

Yeah well bees n disease to you too

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/19/2017 at 10:44 PM, kmt_sesh said:

Ne comprend pas mais j'adore risqué

Je comprends et j'adore ça aussi :tu:

MDagger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/19/2017 at 7:44 PM, kmt_sesh said:

Ne comprend pas mais j'adore risqué

Sounds like you have a personal problem then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Sounds like you have a personal problem then.

I'm on antibiotics for that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

I'm on antibiotics for that.

They're so much better than the clapping two bricks together cure your used to eh?:wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jarocal said:

They're so much better than the "clapping" two bricks together cure your used to eh?:wacko:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

I'm on antibiotics for that.

Not THAT personal of a problem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Not THAT personal of a problem

Perhaps I share a bit too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2017 at 0:03 AM, kmt_sesh said:

Perhaps I share a bit too much.

Perhaps you're a little close to your exhibits? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

Perhaps you're a little close to your exhibits? 

ewwwwee maybe far TOO close indeed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
 
On 6/20/2017 at 8:54 AM, Hanslune said:

Thanks for the suggestions .045 is now up with the corrections installed

 

The Hanslune-Harte Ultimate Dumb chart or TH2UD index for evaluating ideas about the Ancient Egyptian civilization. Version .045
 

 


A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to Egyptology:

 


0. Start at 0
1. 5 point for every statement that is widely agreed to be false without showing evidence that it is indeed not false. In example; saying nicotine in mummies must have come from the Americas and not from local plants which also produce the chemical nicotine. Same consideration for mentioning the cocaine mummies without understanding the context2. 5 points for incorrect methodology either refusing to provide suitably detailed explanations of your ideas, for any use of the term, ‘do your own research or look it up yourself’ or words to that affect.
3. 5 points for not understanding that Hawass is not the head of world-wide Egyptology. This will increase to 50 points once he is unfortunately deceased.
4. 5 points for not understanding that NOT only modern Egyptians can be Egyptologists, there are Egyptologists from many countries in the world.
5. 5 points for every statement that is clearly made up and for which no evidence exists. In example, “The ancient Egyptian couldn’t have built the pyramids as they lacked the skills to do so.”
6. 5 points for repeating that slaves built the pyramids.
7. 5 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent or uses the ‘Schoch Induction’ which states there is wide-spread support for an idea when in reality it is the opinion of one person by a miss-use of the plural. In example, "Geologists say the sphinx is 5,000 years old" instead of "A geologist says the sphinx is 50,000 years old."
8. 5 points where the term logic or reasoning are used to support something not logical or reasonable. In example, a claim is made that the ancient Egyptian’s ‘adopted’ the pyramids after they were built and abandoned by another civilization.
9. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction without evidence to demonstrate that it is wrong.
10. 5 points for every use of annoying language, “is it possible that….”


11. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. Such as saying the C-14 dates done in 1995 are faked or use bad science.
12. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards.)
13. 5 points for each mention of "Petrie" or "Smith" when it has no bearing on the point, 1 point for any of the lesser giants of Egyptology such as Lehner, Mehler, Carter, Romer, Hilliard, O’Connor, Herbert, Weeks, Parcak, Wintock, Assman, Lauer, Dreyer or Wilbour, etc.
14. 5 points for bringing up “legacy” claims shown long ago to be wrong, ideas such as: The pyramids are situated at the center of the world, they were granaries, they were carved from existing hills (not excluding the real hills included in them) they could be seen in Jerusalem or that they show supernatural/superhuman precision or accuracy in its construction or alignment.
15. 5 points for demonstrating the power of pure imagination and not understanding this.
16. 5 points for complaining that you’ve sent mail or emails to scientists who have not responded to your claims.
17. 5 points for a claim involving some date important to Christianity or other religion, 10 additional points if the Apocalypse is mentioned.
18. 5 points for declaring that a documentary is to come in the future explaining everything but for now “just accept what I said.”
19. 5 points for using as a source any of the standard fringe authors; Sitchin, Von Daniken, Osmanagic, Velikovsky, Cayce, Berlitz, Dunn, Donnelly, Icke, Blavatsky, Plongeon, Churchward, Posnansky, Fell, Taylor, Joseph, Wilson, Cremo, Childress, Collins, Coppens, Wyatt, Russell and Rutherford, etc.,
20. 5 points for using as a source those who are still alive and might well come up with something in future but are presently bad sources, Bauval, Hancock. Additional 5 points if you use an original claim that has been changed or redacted by the author. Example Sitchin’s claim of a forgery in the G1 or that the pyramid was a seed vault.
21. 5 points for saying Egyptology is not a science.

 


22. 10 points for using un-evidenced speculation or your opinion and mistaking them for facts.
23. 10 points for not understanding consilience.
24. 10 points for each claim that Egyptology is fundamentally misguided or wrong (without good evidence.) your opinion on the matter doesn’t cut it.
25. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
26. 10 points for deriding the study of any aspect of Egyptology as unimportant and you dismiss part or the whole of its culture, religion, language, history or geographical locations.
27. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own, 40 if you claim others are trying to steal if from you, 50 if you claim to have survived one or more assassination attempts.) There are an additional 5 points for claiming you have done “years of research” and having nothing to really show for it.
28. 10 points for claiming scientists have helped and worked with you but not saying who they are or outlining their contributions or credentials.
29. 10 points for mailing/email your theory to someone you don’t know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
30. 10 points for advising the world that your idea is released to the world and you don’t want money for it (as if anyone would pay you.)
31. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory while also stating that YOU are the one going to appraise the entries yourself.
32. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it or explaining why and with what authority you changed it if it is an existing term.
33. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I’m not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations that will support my idea’, this includes numerology and engineering drawings and other calculations.
34. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it. These points are added based on the idea that everything is a theory in science and this is understood by everyone (except you) with a scientific background.
35. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory is well supported by the evidence, it doesn’t explain "why" to your personal satisfaction, it isn’t “efficient”, fails some metaphysical reason you’ve made up, doesn’t create “information” or fails to provide a “mechanism” in support of “x” religion or concept you like or is deemed illogical or unreasonable by you the theorist.
36. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a coming "paradigm shift", gain an additional 10 points if you say that our present understanding of science or Egyptology will soon be “overturned” or will “collapse really soon” or a double score for saying ‘x’ discovery will rewrite history.
37. 10 points for stating you have degrees to supports your contention that you are well educated on the subject but refusing to provide supporting information as to the existence of these degrees or that they didn’t come from a diploma mill.
38. 10 points for trying to impose a modern cultural model on the Ancient Egyptians (we wouldn’t do that so they wouldn’t, or we would do this so they would.)
39. 10 points for using “word salad”, “gibberish”, “metaphysics” or “new age jibber jabber” to support an idea.
40. 10 points for not understanding that not all Egyptian Egyptologist are Muslims or stating that their religion discredits them from speaking about the ancient Egyptians.
41. 10 points for implying that a “lost civilization” is the source for Egyptian civilization (without evidence for such a lost civilization) and you ignore the plentiful evidence of the pre-dynastic cultures and mentioned a date with 5 figures over 4,000 BCE or more.
42. 10 points if the claimant gives themselves the epithet of “Indiana Jones” or “smarter than Hawass’ older brother.”

43. 15 points for implying that the pyramids have magical influences (without good evidence to support this.) and can affect the physical world around them.
44. 15 points for making engineering claims without providing drawing, mathematics or experts to support your contention that what you say is plausible, probable and possible not just possible.
45. 15 points for declining to gain support of scientists outside of Egyptology for technical issues for no definable reason.
46. 15 points for bringing up Troy or the Great (Biblical deluge killing everyone but Noah’s family) Flood.

47. 20 points if your theory supports any failed 19th century nationalistic or racial idea, that the Egyptian civilian or pyramid came from the Jews, Aryans, Illuminati, Freemasons, albino Norwegians, cannibalistic Basque or other groups.
48. 20 points for emailing Egyptologist or posting on website where no Egyptologist posts complaining about them not recognizing the theorist’s obvious great knowledge.
49. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel Prize when it has been explained to you that (accursed) Nobel left no money for Archaeology or Egyptological prizes.
50. 20 points for every use of a science fiction works, well-known forgeries or myths as if they were facts or relevant.
51. 20 points for constantly “forgetting” your idea is just an idea and not proven or accepted by consensus and make believing it is.
52. 20 points for defending yourself and your present idea by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past ideas, actions and record of credibility.
53. 20 points for naming something after yourself, a cartoon or comic book persona.
54. 20 points for talking about how great your idea is, but never actually explaining it or supporting it with evidence.
55. 20 points for each use of the phrase "debunked" or “proven” used the wrong way and especially if you use the phrase, “undeniable evidence.”
56. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy", “shill”, or “paid troll” for anyone who disagrees with you. Additionally if you state that Egyptology (or a Gub’mint) employs people to counter your ideas on line and or in the media. This also applies if you claim that Egyptology is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame. X2 if you compare yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case or trying to suppress your idea.
57. 20 points for complaining that Egyptology is not paying attention to your idea when you have never published it. Furthermore this is doubled if you refuse to answer questions about your idea and demand that others buy your book – which you have published - to learn the answers. This also applies to refusals to go to conferences to promote your idea either by presenting or showing a presentation/data table.
58. 20 points for posting links to evidence or papers that don’t actually support your contention. 10 points for each additional link or paper after the first that you do this with.
59. 20 points for suggesting that a general property is a unique feature and therefore evidence for your idea (such as noting that water, sand or limestone rock is present in Egypt.)
60. 20 points for making a claim in a press release or on YouTube and providing no evidence to support it.
61. 20 points for using the term “decode” these points’ increases exponentially each time it is used.

62. 25 points for using personal incredulity as evidence or the use of buzz phrases like "Egyptology or science can’t explain that!" or "How could primitive man have done this?" Or a mis-applied appeal to "common sense", “rational” thinking, or ‘pure logic.”
63. 25 points for making a claim in a You-tube video with no written support this is especially egregious if you use really loud and bad music. This is doubled if your YouTube consists of you standing in front of a white board and using crayons or being dressed as an ancient Egyptian God.
64. 25 points for treating the idea that the ancient Egyptians used “advanced technology” (new age) to include levitation, telekinesis, magic, pyramid power, or advance technology equal to or more advanced than our own present day level of expertise (without providing supporting evidence.)
65. 25 points for using strawmen that no (sane) Egyptologist has ever said or implied.
66. 25 points for using arguments from Egyptologists that were later dropped (a great deal of these from the 19th century) as still valid and in use by present day scientists.
67. 25 points for complaining that Egyptology is based on assumption and demanding these be dropped so the writer’s weaker assumptions are accepted. Gain an additional 25 points if you ever say or imply that YOUR assumptions are better than other people’s assumptions because your mother said you were special as a child.
68. 25 points for insisting that only evidence from a very narrow dating range near the creation of an object or construction in question can be deem as being associated with said place. Nothing before or after may be used as evidence.

69. 30 points for suggesting that a famous Egyptologist secretly disbelieved in your theory but who never mentioned it.
70. 30 points for suggesting that Egyptology is groping its way towards the idea you now advocate but refuses to acknowledge your great wisdom by pronouncing it now.
71. 30 points for claiming that your ideas were developed with help from an extraterrestrial civilization (without REALLY good evidence).
72. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your idea.
73. 30 points for pretending that if you post something on an obscure website or even a non-obscure website that that means all of Egyptology then knows about it.
74. 30 points for fantasizing that if Egyptologists (or other scientists and professionals) don’t publish refutations of your work their silence means they accept it. This also applies if a specialist or professional says that an idea is wrong, and specifically includes the phrase "other such theories", when he or she says this it simply MUST mean that a generalized mention of those "other such theories" validates your delusion claim of the day because ‘they’ only deny things that are really true.

75. 35 points for taking real scientists work, especially images, and applying conclusions to their work that they never made. This is doubled if you contacted them and they told you were wrong and you continue to misuse their data.
76. 35 points for insisting that your idea operates in a special world and that while you have no degrees (or the right ones) only those with the correct degrees may criticize it. Therefore if you are garbage collector, electrical engineer, ballerina or serial killer only a PhD in Egyptology may correctly point out the errors in your idea.
77. 35 points for stating that knowing the language of ancient Egypt is not necessary when translating what the hieroglyphs mean.
78. 35 points for believing that the pyramids are the true focus of Egyptology and nothing else in their culture actually matters.
79. 35 points for stating that some aspect of Egyptology (which strongly suggests your idea is wrong) has been shown to be wrong but declining to show the evidence for such error being proven.
80. 35 points for bringing up the television show “Ancient Aliens” and considering it a valid source. Additionally minus 10 points for each citing of dubious online sites as sources that themselves don’t source their claims. This applies to claims or ‘evidence’ that is recycled from pseudo writers higher up on the fringe belief chain.
81. 35 points for suggesting that the ancient Egyptian technology to build the pyramids appeared out of nowhere (without evidence that this occurred.)

82. 40 points for mentioning Atlantis, 75 for Mu and 100 for Lemuria.
83. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, Communists or Libertarians.
84. 40 points for refusal to accept the scientific method as a valid system of research.
85. 40 points for suggesting or claiming that Egyptologists are generally evil for not listening to you or worse yet pointing out your many errors. Note this doesn’t mean they are conducting a conspiracy against you but they are simply inept, biased and generally stupid and you state so without providing evidence to support it.
86. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day Egyptology will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your ideas will be forced to recant.)
87. 40 points for suggesting that events tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago somehow directly affect the Egyptians (without excellent evidence.)

88. 45 points for stating that the hieroglyphics associated with an image of Egyptian art need not be read to ascertain what the image is about.
89. 45 points for changing the meaning of ancient Egyptians words while not understanding the language or for changing the meaning of ancient Egyptian words while understanding the language but doing so with no support from others who can read the language.
90. 45 points creating “evidence” by using photo-shop or other methods that doesn’t exist and not mentioning this to those looking at the material.

91. 50 points for claiming supernatural, paranormal or advanced human collaborators or supporters.
92. 50 points for not understanding what “in context” means.
93. 50 points for making un-evidenced statements that either distorts, heavily exaggerates or dismisses the timeline or other aspects of a given cultural group so as to confuse their known contribution to the ancient Egyptians.
94. 50 points for placing all your “evidence” only on YouTube or suggesting that your idea is best considered when under the influence of alcohol or ‘medications’.
95. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory solely based on your perception of reality and giving no concrete testable predictions or findable evidence. Additionally if you claim you made predictions but decline to show that you have made such predictions or with a 100 point deduction linking to said prediction which clearly shows you got the prediction wrong.

96. 75 points for suggesting or imagining that your dismissal of evidence causes such evidence you don’t like to disappear from the physical world.
97. 75 points if you hold the belief that this index was created to stop the acceptance of your idea.
98. 75 points that the evidence to support your theory will be found in the future – but for the present your ideas should be accepted anyway.
99. 75 points if your theory consists of trash talk against science and Egyptology while concentrating on what you perceived as their grievous errors and bias. In your mind they are so evil and inept that your own weak and un-evidenced idea must be accepted based solely on the presumed weaknesses of the orthodox position. Harte’s corollary that a weakness (imagined or otherwise) with theory ‘A’ doesn’t mean support for idea ‘B’.

100. 100 points for suggesting you ARE an ancient Egyptian, either an immortal, channeling one, a reincarnation or just bloody bonkers.

Negative points for use of good procedure and techniques:

-1 points for each use of a peer reviewed or otherwise acceptable source.
-1 point for each Egyptologist who in writing has agreed with your idea.
-1 point for each cite of your published work.
-5 points for producing a detailed PDF, blog or website that outlines the evidence for your idea.
-5 points for gaining the support of professionals outside the field of Egyptology whose expertise is germane to your idea.
-5 points for publishing your idea as a book or popular article.
-5 points for full bibliography.
-5 points for providing images, diagrams and charts all with full and complete captions and no animations of spinning UFO’s.
-5 points for detailing your expertise by experience, research or BA level degrees in appropriate fields (such as Archaeology, Egyptology, civil engineering, etc)
An additional -5 points for a Master level appropriate degree for an additional 5 points for PhD (total -15 points for a PhD).
-10 points for having presented your idea at a conference.
-10 points explain step by step how you arrived at this idea and place a list of its weaknesses in relationship to its strengths, pros and cons.
-10 points for publishing your idea in a peer reviewed publication.
-10 points for have a full appendix with all details and detailed answers to common and uncommon objections to your ideas, an indexed FAQ.
-10 if you use the crank index on your own work and make corrections to remove cranky influences.

0 or less You are well-established in orthodoxy unless you have a few gaping holes of woo within an otherwise solid frame work of science
1-25 Borderlands, you need to tighten up your understanding of scientific methodology.
26-50 Some concern over your devotion to science and you may be viewing brochures about a trip to Crankland
51-75 Pre-crank syndrome and you are in the province of Crank
76-100 Taking a stroll near the dark woods of Crank.
101-125 A ticket to visit the Village of Crank.
126-150 A resident visa for the Kingdom of Crank has been issued.
151-200 Inhabitant of Crankville.
201-300 Signs of extreme crankiness may run for mayor of Crankford.
301-500 Crank.
501-1000  Super Crank.

1000+  God-King of Crankistan.

 


Inspired by John Baez 1998 Crack Pot index: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

 

Just to bring back THUD:

The Harte Ultimate Dumb chart or THUD index for AE cranks .045)

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Just to bring back THUD:

The Harte Ultimate Dumb chart or THUD index for AE cranks .045)

 

This should be required reading before someone is allowed to post.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2017 at 8:52 AM, Hanslune said:

Well we could just change the name from The Hanslune-Harte Ultimate Dumb chart or TH2UD to The Hanslune-Kenemet Ultimate Dumb chart or TKUD or perhaps T-Kud or KHUD - does KHUD mean anything in AE?

Nah. Don't care for it.

Harte

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.