Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Hanslune

May I suggest a project for the board?

284 posts in this topic

Just now, Hanslune said:

Would any of the new crop fit in or are they more 'reasonable'? Hancock, Bauval or are they just recycling stuff?

I covered the new crop with my number 3 on the list: Anyone from "Ancient Aliens" :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hanslune said:

Would any of the new crop fit in or are they more 'reasonable'? Hancock, Bauval or are they just recycling stuff?

Might as well include everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Edited by Noteverythingisaconspiracy
I have to learn the difference between qoute and edit.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Leave Mario of the list. He is our own special little crackpot. :P

While he did exhibit a certain naive nuttiness is he well known enough? I'd say they would need to have published a book of their nuttiness to make the list plus have an original idea, if not we'd have too many to comprehend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Carnoferox said:

Might as well include everyone.

Yes perhaps so but give more points to the more 'established' like -10 for using Icke, Daniken or Sitchin but only -1 for a Mario, Cladking or Creighton?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although "Ancient Aliens" technically covers it, Giorgio Tsoukalos deserves special mention, if only for his hair.

Are we counting creationists like Duane Gish and Ken Ham, too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Carnoferox said:

Although "Ancient Aliens" technically covers it, Giorgio Tsoukalos deserves special mention, if only for his hair.

Are we counting creationists like Duane Gish and Ken Ham, too?

My first thought was to go for an index for just Ancient Egypt so I don't think those two have touched on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

While he did exhibit a certain naive nuttiness is he well known enough? I'd say they would need to have published a book of their nuttiness to make the list plus have an original idea, if not we'd have too many to comprehend.

He has appeared across various websites (he even has his own) and has been mentioned in a few Atlantis books, apparently (according to a Google search).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

He has appeared across various websites (he even has his own) and has been mentioned in a few Atlantis books, apparently (according to a Google search).

I'd never sleep again if I was even tangentially responsible for some innocent person becoming familiar with Mario's puerile drivel.

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Would any of the new crop fit in or are they more 'reasonable'? Hancock, Bauval or are they just recycling stuff?

More reasonable, yes, somewhat. But they're still divorced from historical realities and have not legitimately contributed to academic understanding. They can be on the list, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Yes perhaps so but give more points to the more 'established' like -10 for using Icke, Daniken or Sitchin but only -1 for a Mario, Cladking or Creighton?

I wouldn't even put Mario or cladking on the list. I like the idea of including only those fringe stalwarts who are published. Mario at least has a blog but that's far from the same thing, considering anyone can do it for free and type anything he wants, regardless of how addled it is (like so many websites are these days). Cladking can't even be bothered to start a blog. So I'd keep both of them off the list. And who's going to cite or support them, anyway?

Creighton is another matter. I've spent years debating him and don't support or believe his theories, but at least he's spent a significant amount of time researching. And he is published. Give him credit for effort, so...yes, he gets a -1. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

I'd never sleep again if I was even tangentially responsible for some innocent person becoming familiar with Mario's puerile drivel.

--Jaylemurph

Come now, jay, we all know the truth. You've wallpapered your entire abode with printouts of all of his pretty pictures. :whistle:

He does find lots of pretty pictures...even if every one of them happens to disprove his own theme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-100 if the pyramids are massive electricity conductors (even though they are solid limestone).

Edited by Carnoferox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

-100 if the pyramids are massive electricity conductors (even though they are solid limestone).

Oh, that reminds me...Chris Dunn. He's the "Giza Power Plant" guy. Is Dunn on the list?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Samuel Rowbotham should be included.  He is the 19th century founder of the modern day belief in a flat Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, stereologist said:

Since this about archaeological fraud I think an important name that has not come up is that of Ron Wyatt. Below are two links. The first discusses the hoaxes being perpetrated and then is a link to a hoax site selling hoaxes.

http://tentmaker.org/WAR/

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/red_sea_crossing.htm

Definitely add him to the list. I wasn't familiar with Wyatt till you posted this, but he's of the worst sort: praying on the devout albeit gullible to turn a profit.

Wyatt has passed on but it reminds me of Sitchin. He's also dead but still has his legions of misguided followers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ummmmmmmmm  ........ language warning  .... (and  PiC Steven Hawking 'criticisms'   )   

Edited by back to earth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2016 at 8:19 AM, kmt_sesh said:

This is...well...highly entertaining.

Why have none of the "believers" posted?

 

 

There you go  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

Definitely add him to the list. I wasn't familiar with Wyatt till you posted this, but he's of the worst sort: praying on the devout albeit gullible to turn a profit.

Wyatt has passed on but it reminds me of Sitchin. He's also dead but still has his legions of misguided followers.

Wyatt would do his shows where he would just point to something out of the blue and make some outlandish claim such as claiming a crack in the ground led to a burial chamber, or a hill was an event from the bible, or coral was chariot wheels, and all sorts of other horse pucky.

There are also the people that have used porters to place objects on Mt Ararat o that they could "discover" remnants of Noah's Ark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First draft. There are some duplication and I'm sure the numbers will be debated might be good to get it to around 100 or less items. Phrasing could be improved and maybe some big sciency words to confused people:

The Harte ____ document or index for AE cranks

The Harte Ultimate Dumb' chart or THUD

I've done some work on a scale (which is below) but feel we need to set the inputs first.

  1. Start at 0
  2. 5 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false without showing evidence that it is indeed false.
  3. 5 points for every statement that is clearly made up.
  4. 5 points for repeating that slaves built the pyramids.
  5. 5 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
  6. 5 points where the term logic or reasoning is used to support something not logical or reasonable.
  7. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
  8. 5 points for every use of annoying language, “is it possible that…”.
  9. 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.
  10. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
  11. 5 points for each mention of "Petrie", "Smith" or "Hawass" when it has no bearing on the point, 1 point for any of the lesser giants of Egyptology.
  12. 5 points for bringing up long shown to wrong ideas such as: The pyramids are situated at the center of the world, they were granaries, they could be seen in Jerusalem or that they show supernatural precision or accuracy in its construction or alignment.
  13. 5 points for demonstrating the power of Pareidolia and not understanding this.
  14. 5 points for claiming you have done ‘years of research’.
  15. 5 points for the claiming involving some date important to Christianity or other religion.
  16. 5 points for mentioning that a documentary is to come in the future explaining everything but for now just accept what I said.
  17. 5 points for using as a source; Sitchin, Von Daniken, Osmanagic, Velikovsky, Cayce, Berlitz, Dunn, Donnelly, Icke, Blavatsky, Plongeon, Churchward, Posnansky, Fell, Joseph, Wilson, Cremo, Childress, Coppens, Wyatt
  18. 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.
  19. 10 points for using speculation or your opinion and mistaking them for facts.
  20. 10 points for saying Egyptology is not a science.
  21. 10 points for not understanding consilience.
  22. 10 points for mentioning Mu or Atlantis and 50 for Lemuria.
  23. 10 points for each claim that Egypotology is fundamentally misguided or wrong (without good evidence).
  24. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
  25. 10 points for deriding the study of any aspect of Egyptology as unimportant and not limited to its culture, religion, geographical location.
  26. 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.)
  27. 10 points for claiming scientists have helped and worked with you but not saying who they are or pointing out their contributions or credentials.
  28. 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.
  29. 10 points for advising all that your idea  is released to the world and you don’t want money for it (as if anyone would pay you).
  30. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory while you are the one going to appraise the entries yourself.
  31. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
  32. 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 support my idea.
  33. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
  34. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory is well supported by the evidence, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism" or is deemed illogical or unreasonable by the theorist.
  35. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
  36. 10 points for refusal to go to conference to promote your idea either by presenting or showing a presentation/data table.
  37. 10 points for stating you have degrees which supports your contention that you are well educated on the subject but refusing to provide supporting information.
  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 ‘borrowing’ an earlier idea and representing as your own or as new material.
  40. 10 points for not understanding that Hawass is not the head of world-wide Egyptology.
  41. 10 points for not understanding that NOT only modern Egyptians can be Egyptologists.
  42. 10 points for not understanding that not all Egyptian Egyptologist are Muslims and that their religion discredits them from speaking about the ancient Egyptians.
  43. 10 points for implying that Atlantis or a ‘lost civilization’ is the source for Egyptian civilization (without evidence).
  44. 10 points if the claimant gives themselves the epithet of ‘Indiana Jones’.  
  45. 15 points for implying that the pyramids have magical influences (without good evidence).
  46. 15 points for making engineering claims without providing drawing, mathematics or experts to support your contention that what you say is possible.
  47. 15 points for saying that your theory or idea is more efficient for doing ‘x’ without. showing it actually is and for believing the ancient Egyptians only did things efficiently.
  48. 15 points for declining to gain support of scientists outside of Egyptology for technical issues for no definable reason.
  49. 15 points for bringing up Troy.
  50. 20 points if your theory supports any failed 19th century nationalistic or racial idea
  51. 20 points for emailing Egyptologist complaining about them not recognizing the theorist’s obvious great knowledge.
  52. 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 prize.
  53. 20 points for every use of science fiction works, forgeries or myths as if they were fact.
  54. 20 points for constantly forgetting your idea is a theory or idea and not proven or accepted by consensus.
  55. 20 points for pretending that consensus support for your idea is not important.
  56. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
  57. 20 points for naming something after yourself.
  58. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
  59. 20 points for each use of the phrase "debunked" used the wrong way.
  60. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
  61. 20 points for complaining that Egyptology is not paying attention to your idea when you have never published it.
  62. 20 points for suggesting the Egyptology hates you for your idea and that anyone who disagrees is a paid shill of said Egyptology or Government.
  63. 20 points for posting links to evidence or papers that don’t actually support your contention.
  64. 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).
  65. 20 points for bringing up a Biblical myth and treating it as real (without providing evidence that it is).
  66. 20 points for making a claim in a press release.
  67. 20 points for using the term ‘decode’ this increases exponentially each time it is used.
  68. 25 points for using personal incredulity as evidence.
  69. 25 points for making a claim in a You tube video with no written support.
  70. 25 points for treating the idea that the ancient Egyptians used advanced technology (new age) (without providing great supporting evidence).
  71. 25 points for using strawmen that no Egyptologist has ever said or implied.
  72. 25 points for using arguments from Egyptologists that were later dropped as still being valid.
  73. 25 points for complaining that Egyptology is based on assumption and demanding these be dropped so the writer’s weaker assumptions are accepted.
  74. 25 points for insisting that only evidence from a very narrow dating range near the object or construction in question can be deem associated with said place.
  75. 30 points for suggesting that a famous Egyptologist secretly disbelieved in your theory but who have never mentioned it.
  76. 30 points for suggesting that Egyptology is groping its way towards the ideas you now advocate but they refuse to acknowledge your great wisdom.
  77. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without REALLY good evidence).
  78. 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 theory.
  79. 30 points for pretending that if you post something on an obscure website, or non-obscure website that that means all of Egyptology then know about it.
  80. 30 points for pretending that if Egyptologists (or other scientists or professionals) don’t publish refutations of your work their silence means they accept it.
  81. 35 points for taking real scientists work, especially images and applying conclusion to their work that they never made.
  82. 35 points for insisting that your theory operates in a special world and that while you have not degrees (or the right ones) only those with the correct degrees may criticize it.
  83. 35 points for stating that knowing the language of ancient Egypt is not necessary when translating what the hieroglyphs mean.
  84. 35 points for believing that the pyramids are the true focus of Egyptologoy and nothing else in their culture actually matters
  85. 35 points for stating that some aspect of Egyptology has been shown to be wrong but declining to show the evidence for such a position
  86. 35 points for bringing up the Television show ‘Ancient Aliens’ and considering it a source.
  87. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis.
  88. 40 points for refusal to accept the scientific method as a valid system of research.
  89. 40 points for claiming that the Egyptology is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame.
  90. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
  91. 40 points for suggesting or claiming that Egyptologists are plotting against you
  92. 40 points for suggesting or claiming that Egyptologists are generally evil for not listening to you or worse yet pointing out your many errors.
  93. 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 theories will be forced to recant.)
  94. 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).
  95. 45 points for stating that the hieroglyphic associated with an image of Egyptian art need not be read to ascertain what the image is about.
  96. 45 points for changing the meaning of ancient Egyptians words while not understanding the language.
  97. 45 points creating ‘evidence’ by using photo-shop or other methods that doesn’t exist.
  98. 50 pints for suggesting you are an ancient Egyptian.
  99. 50 points for claiming supernatural or paranormal support or collaborators.

100. 50 points for claiming extra-terrestrial support or collaborators.  

101. 50 points 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.

102. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

103. 50 points for suggesting or pretending that your dismissal of evidence causes such evidence to disappear from the physical world.

104. 75 points that the evidence to support your theory will be found in the future – but for the present your ideas or theory should be accepted anyway.

Inspired by John Baez 1998 Crack Pot index by baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu

 

Possible scale for the above:

 

01-25         You need to tighten up your understanding of scientific methodology.

26-50         Some concern over your devotion to science.

51-75         Pre-crank syndrome .

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.

201-350     Signs of extreme crankiness may run for mayor of Crankford.

350-500     Crank.

501+          Super Crank.

 

Edited by Hanslune
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add:

-

-Use of buzz phrases like "Science can't explain that!" and "How could primitive man have done this?"  or appealing to "common sense.".

-Citing dubious online sites as sources that themselves don't source their claims, usually recycled from cranks higher on the food chain.

And if you weren't trying to cut down, I'd add:

-Making statements that either don't grasp or heavily exaggerate the timeline of other aspects of a given cultural group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Oniomancer said:

Add:

-

-Use of buzz phrases like "Science can't explain that!" and "How could primitive man have done this?"  or appealing to "common sense.".

-Citing dubious online sites as sources that themselves don't source their claims, usually recycled from cranks higher on the food chain.

And if you weren't trying to cut down, I'd add:

-Making statements that either don't grasp or heavily exaggerate the timeline of other aspects of a given cultural group.

Noted and added - we might have to go to 125. THUD 005 is now in creation mode

 

I would also suggest that we give an example of each type of error that points are added for.

 

Should there be negative points (which would lessen the points for being a crank) for peer reviewed publication, working in the field, appropriate degrees? Demonstration of expertise while 'officially' an amateur?

Edited by Hanslune

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooh, someone who is an expert or practicing in a modern field stating that only modern technology could have produce an object. While having no knowledge of primitive technology. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Oniomancer said:

Add:

-

-Use of buzz phrases like "Science can't explain that!" and "How could primitive man have done this?"  or appealing to "common sense.".

-Citing dubious online sites as sources that themselves don't source their claims, usually recycled from cranks higher on the food chain.

And if you weren't trying to cut down, I'd add:

-Making statements that either don't grasp or heavily exaggerate the timeline of other aspects of a given cultural group.

Example of dubious website: s8int.com, youtube.

Example of misinterpreted/exaggerated timeline, etc.: Claiming the AE went straight out of the caves to building pyramids virtually overnight with no intermediate development.

(That should read "timeline or other aspects" BTW)

Edited by Oniomancer
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.