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 -

Atlantis in the Altiplano


Vrcocha

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

Called it.

--Jaylemurph

P f f f t !

Not previous to my call at post  # 62 ....    buddy     

 

Related image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
13 hours ago, back to earth said:

Image result for we won gif

 I consider it a complete and abject failure. The poster left having not (or admitting to ) learning anything about, well, anything that was discussed. I realize it was  due to his own refusal to accept facts. But his decision to leave is not a reason to claim victory in my book even though it was the only logical conclusion due to his obstinence.

 It is actually the reason I refrain from commenting much anymore, I have not seen many change their mind about what they think is truth, and I get tired (really, really tired) of the fringe blaming the evils of the world on mainstream scientist and their wrong interpretation of facts. And people who insist they know what they are talking about while at the same time, and often in the same sentence, claim that the 'experts' are wrong. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Socks Junior said:

Hey!

I was attempting to provide an example of how short, relatively speaking, that entire period is in geologic time. Garzione et al. (2014) is an interesting paper. It, like many paleoaltimetry papers, seem to be at odds with previous studies of uplift. Paleoaltimetry - you get a temperature and a del18 and you infer uplift. Always seems to be rapid. I find myself a little skeptical of the results, generally speaking. They do make no mistake of reporting that they get large errors - but how confident should we be that data analysis producing errors of these magnitude (0.7 +/- 0.6 km??) is telling us something legitimate. 

Hi Socks,

My apologies if I misunderstood your earlier comment. My error.

As far as the latitude in elevation estimates, it would be my impression that the authors are being justifiably conservative. They do go into appreciable detail regarding the variables involved and also note the limited amount of available data that could potentially indicate a “smoother” elevation curve.

Nonetheless, taking the various data-sets into consideration, they do make a good argument. It will be interesting to follow further studies relating to the causative aspects.

.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

Which is why I love these threads. Shame they keep getting rarer. 

When I first joined this forum there were around a hundred members on here at any given time, now its less than half of that, ever wonder why, if so look at how this person was treated.  No one gave him any credit for his effort or discussed how what he was saying might be possible, no open mindedness at all, you just ganged up on him including a moderator.  So expect them to keep getting rarer.  No one in their right mind would want to have to go up against all of you. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ashotep said:

When I first joined this forum there were around a hundred members on here at any given time, now its less than half of that, ever wonder why, if so look at how this person was treated.  No one gave him any credit for his effort or discussed how what he was saying might be possible, no open mindedness at all, you just ganged up on him including a moderator.  So expect them to keep getting rarer.  No one in their right mind would want to have to go up against all of you. 

He was given credit for his effort here the problem was it had no basis in reality. If you want to see full blown patronizing you can view it that Crystal links, Icke's and somewhat on Graham Hancock or Above Top Secret, but to what end?

...it wasn't possible so should we have lied to him that it might have been? I see no point in that? Fringe that is capable of standing up to science IS becoming rarer. Forums like this have systemically gone thorough tens of thousand of once common claims and dealt with them, a few remain possible most not. The reaction to that has been  for many to retreat to places where their beliefs are not questioned.

So be it.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ashotep said:

When I first joined this forum there were around a hundred members on here at any given time, now its less than half of that, ever wonder why, if so look at how this person was treated.  No one gave him any credit for his effort or discussed how what he was saying might be possible, no open mindedness at all, you just ganged up on him including a moderator.  So expect them to keep getting rarer.  No one in their right mind would want to have to go up against all of you. 

I agree the number of "believers" (alternative posters, fringe posters, etc.) has decreased through the years. This includes the almost ten years I've been here. But, no, the reason for this is not due to those of us with a skeptical nature—that is an excuse, but not a reason. As I've seen it, the reason for a poster's departure is due to his inability to withstand scrutiny and maintain an argument. In other words, such posters simply tend to give up. That is the case in this thread, too. The poster in this case is a perfectly intelligent and articulate individual, but the case he presented did not survive scrutiny and failed in nearly all approaches. It was not realistic, and he did not succeed in addressing other posters' points of concern. It's that simple.

Not to single you out but I get a little tired of the charge that we should remain "open minded." Being open minded is fine, and nearly all historians and scientists are open minded and are readily willing to investigate new evidence and new ideas—so long as they're realistic and adhere to evidence. But here at UM, charges that we should be "open minded" is almost the same as asking us to suspend what we know about science and history and why we know these facts. It's not realistic to expect us to do so. Rather, we will address someone's ideas with our knowledge base. That is to be expected. And if someone's hypothesis does not survive scrutiny and does not adhere to evidence as explained and presented by others, the truly open minded thing to do is accept that there must be a problem. The open minded thing to do is to stop, sit back, re-evaluate the situation, and to understand why the idea is not being accepted. It does not help to remain truculent and to ignore or dismiss counterpoints.

At no point did I myself treat the poster unkindly or unfairly. I addressed his points with my own knowledge base, wherever I was able to do so. I make no apologies for that. It's how I've always posted, and how I shall continue to post. Moderators are people too—even evil overlord mummy moderators.:D

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hanslune said:

He was given credit for his effort here the problem was it had no basis in reality. If you want to see full blown patronizing you can view it that Crystal links, Icke's and somewhat on Graham Hancock or Above Top Secret, but to what end?

...it wasn't possible so should we have lied to him that it might have been? I see no point in that? Fringe that is capable of standing up to science IS becoming rarer. Forums like this have systemically gone thorough tens of thousand of once common claims and dealt with them, a few remain possible most not. The reaction to that has been  for many to retreat to places where their beliefs are not questioned.

So be it.

 

 

You are acting like this is WW3. This is a forum. A forum is meant for discussions, especially with amateur people. Please stop acting like you are the saviour of science. Saviours in science are those that are thinking out of the box.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheBIHLover, refrain from singling out posters and proclaiming how they should be dealt with. You are not a Moderator. If you feel there is a problem, use the Report feature. You know better. I removed the post in question.

And you've also been warned in the past about popping into a thread just to complain. You've had no participation in this thread of which I'm aware, so it serves nothing to pop in and merely complain. You are welcome to join this discussion, but please do so in a contributive manner. Otherwise, why bother?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kmt_sesh said:

TheBIHLover, refrain from singling out posters and proclaiming how they should be dealt with. You are not a Moderator. If you feel there is a problem, use the Report feature. You know better. I removed the post in question.

And you've also been warned in the past about popping into a thread just to complain. You've had no participation in this thread of which I'm aware, so it serves nothing to pop in and merely complain. You are welcome to join this discussion, but please do so in a contributive manner. Otherwise, why bother?

That is your opinion. It does not mean I didn't follow this thread offline. And please; give me the rules that are saying that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being close minded would be to just dismiss claims casually out of hand with no examination. At no point in this thread have we done this. 

 What we have done, is take points and show why they just aren't so. 

I tried to get him to look up information himself, at least to make an argument against it. But he not only refused to do so, he claimed to know at the same time that such techniques were impossible. 

 He shared the link to Gobekli Tepe as though expecting us to have not heard of it, and didn't bother to read the entire page and got angry when this was pointed out. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TheBIHLover said:

That is your opinion. It does not mean I didn't follow this thread offline. And please; give me the rules that are saying that. 

There isn't a single rule about this behavior, but it falls under several. To wit:

  • 2e. Garbage posting: Do not deliberately post nonsense either for personal amusement or to wind up other members, keep your posts sensible.
  • 3d. Trolling: We have zero tolerance for trolling on the forums. We define 'trolling' as the act of posting intentionally false, controversial or offensive comments designed to start arguments or to provoke, bait or annoy other members.
  • 3j. Thread derailment: Do not derail or 'hijack' threads with posts that are either off-topic or designed to draw attention away from what is being discussed.

Take your pick. Popping into a discussion just to complain about it does not contribute to the discussion in any reasonable way; it is akin to nonsense. It's similar to trolling and to derailment. We have such rules for a reason. But another very important one is compliance with Moderators:

  • 6a. Compliance: You agree to co-operate with the requests of our site staff should you be asked to stop doing something that they deem to be disruptive, inappropriate or in violation of the terms of service.

When we issue a warning, we do not want or expect comment on it. 

Whether you've read some of the posts offline is irrelevant. That doesn't mean you're involved in the discussion. If you want to participate, do so, but do so in a manner that is relevant and contributes to the discussion. At this point I would strongly advise that you tread carefully.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And at this point the thread is degenerating rapidly. None of the recent posts seem relevant to the discussion, and with the OP now gone from the discussion, I see no reason to keep this open. I will consider reopening the discussion but cannot promise that this will happen. It saddens me to do so but I feel it's necessary.

Thread closed.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.