back to earth Posted April 22, 2017 #101 Share Posted April 22, 2017 6 minutes ago, Captain Risky said: Wouldn't a chemical engineer determine the age of rocks and manmade structures? getting desperate and scraping the barrel now ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unusual Tournament Posted April 22, 2017 #102 Share Posted April 22, 2017 Just now, ShadowSot said: Can you point out where the University of Edinburough has endorsed the writings? Because that appears no where in the site you linked, or the paper that was published. Yes, good job, you have accepted a hypothsesis. We've looked at the support for it, though, which is what really matters. And that support, well it's less than the support of it being a ritual meeting ground or for it being a site of ritual sky burial, like we do see from the Zoroastrians with similar iconography as this site. the fact remains that evidence for this claim comes from people who have no quaalificiations, no knowledge of the site's context. And you yourself who beat this drum have demonstrated you have not the foggiest about the general context the site fits into, let alone the other sistes in the area that pre and post date it. Which is damn interesting, and I recommend you read it. Shadow i have presented a link. I recommend to click on it and read before commenting on something you haven't fully understood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted April 22, 2017 #103 Share Posted April 22, 2017 1 minute ago, Captain Risky said: Wouldn't a chemical engineer determine the age of rocks and manmade structures? He might if he had a sample, which he didn't. And even then he's establishing the age of the rock itself, not when it was shaped by human hands. Though seeing as his expertise isn't in the dating field anyway, still doesn't help. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted April 22, 2017 #104 Share Posted April 22, 2017 (edited) 1 minute ago, Captain Risky said: Shadow i have presented a link. I recommend to click on it and read before commenting on something you haven't fully understood. Quote from where it states it's endorsed. I have the published paper itself. You do understand the difference between listing qualifications and being endorsed by something, right? Edit: Psst, being published on the site isn't equal to endorsement. Edited April 22, 2017 by ShadowSot 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back to earth Posted April 22, 2017 #105 Share Posted April 22, 2017 6 minutes ago, Captain Risky said: Shadow i have presented a link. I recommend to click on it and read before commenting on something you haven't fully understood. coming from you .... thats funny 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unusual Tournament Posted April 22, 2017 #106 Share Posted April 22, 2017 Just now, ShadowSot said: Quote from where it states it's endorsed. I have the published paper itself. Stop being silly mate. Google Gebekli Tepe and hancock and the news outlets are running with it. Its everywhere. YOUR job is to debunk and refute with something other than 'but' he is not this or that. Can you do so? I thought not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted April 22, 2017 #107 Share Posted April 22, 2017 1 minute ago, back to earth said: coming from you .... thats funny Quiet, I'm still waiting for him to notice where it actually was published at so we can go over their review process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unusual Tournament Posted April 22, 2017 #108 Share Posted April 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, ShadowSot said: Quiet, I'm still waiting for him to notice where it actually was published at so we can go over their review process. Oh please do tell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted April 22, 2017 #109 Share Posted April 22, 2017 Just now, Captain Risky said: Stop being silly mate. Google Gebekli Tepe and hancock and the news outlets are running with it. Its everywhere. YOUR job is to debunk and refute with something other than 'but' he is not this or that. Can you do so? I thought not! I really don't care what the news sites are reporting. The news is rather infamous for their willingness of letting a good headline override the facts of a story, or using a poor quality study to make a sensational story. Remember that story about *******s being good for women's health a few years back? These people have no relevant skills. Their claims are not solid, but based on their own interpretations of the symbolism, with no references to consulting with people who actually study these symbols, and then ascribe astronomical symbols to them, again something not within their capabilities. Do you have astronomers or anyone with relavant skills supporting this? No. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted April 22, 2017 #110 Share Posted April 22, 2017 Just now, Captain Risky said: Oh please do tell... As you keep telling me, read your link. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back to earth Posted April 22, 2017 #111 Share Posted April 22, 2017 He doesnt work that way ... he will just keep making ignorant self embarrassing statements .... you'll see. But I will be quite now.... it time for dinner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unusual Tournament Posted April 22, 2017 #112 Share Posted April 22, 2017 Just now, ShadowSot said: As you keep telling me, read your link. LOL... you have nothing. You can't argue the complex nature of Gobelki Tepe and now you are nit picking while the rest of the world has left you behind. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/comet-s-devastation-carved-in-history-pzzjjgcjn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted April 22, 2017 #113 Share Posted April 22, 2017 Just now, Captain Risky said: LOL... you have nothing. You can't argue the complex nature of Gobelki Tepe and now you are nit picking while the rest of the world has left you behind. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/comet-s-devastation-carved-in-history-pzzjjgcjn I know this is hard for you, but do try to go back and find where the story was originally published, not another mass media site. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted April 22, 2017 #114 Share Posted April 22, 2017 Hint: There are some journals who go for mass appeal, rather than hard science. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unusual Tournament Posted April 22, 2017 #115 Share Posted April 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, ShadowSot said: I really don't care what the news sites are reporting. The news is rather infamous for their willingness of letting a good headline override the facts of a story, or using a poor quality study to make a sensational story. Remember that story about *******s being good for women's health a few years back? These people have no relevant skills. Their claims are not solid, but based on their own interpretations of the symbolism, with no references to consulting with people who actually study these symbols, and then ascribe astronomical symbols to them, again something not within their capabilities. Do you have astronomers or anyone with relavant skills supporting this? No. Of course you don't care. I needed you to tell me the obvious. You think debunking is a one way street. Well no. You need evidence and hard core academic stuff to see me. I have a full house you got a pair... thats all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unusual Tournament Posted April 22, 2017 #116 Share Posted April 22, 2017 1 minute ago, ShadowSot said: I know this is hard for you, but do try to go back and find where the story was originally published, not another mass media site. LAUGHABLE. Show me where? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted April 22, 2017 #117 Share Posted April 22, 2017 Just now, Captain Risky said: Of course you don't care. I needed you to tell me the obvious. You think debunking is a one way street. Well no. You need evidence and hard core academic stuff to see me. I have a full house you got a pair... thats all. Yes, I want a solid piece of information to work with, not the second, third, or fourth hand repeating of a story through the often poorly paid and rushed news journalist who also have no experience with archaeology. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted April 22, 2017 #118 Share Posted April 22, 2017 1 minute ago, Captain Risky said: LAUGHABLE. Show me where? It is directly linked in the first link your provided. Honest question, is this really that hard for you? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back to earth Posted April 22, 2017 #119 Share Posted April 22, 2017 hilarious ....... love it - but really have go ... I will return later for more laughs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unusual Tournament Posted April 22, 2017 #120 Share Posted April 22, 2017 1 minute ago, ShadowSot said: Hint: There are some journals who go for mass appeal, rather than hard science. You have utterly capitulated in common sense. An alternate theory on GT was brought forward by Hancock and it was investigated by academics and found to be sound. Thats all the science i need. Im waiting for you post someone that refutes the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unusual Tournament Posted April 22, 2017 #121 Share Posted April 22, 2017 You have nothing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted April 22, 2017 #122 Share Posted April 22, 2017 Just now, Captain Risky said: You have utterly capitulated in common sense. An alternate theory on GT was brought forward by Hancock and it was investigated by academics and found to be sound. Thats all the science i need. Im waiting for you post someone that refutes the article. Interesting, would you accept the findings of a botanist on the working capabilities of the LHC? He would be, after all, an academic. I'm still waiting to see if you are capable of reading your own link and finding where this pape was originally published. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unusual Tournament Posted April 22, 2017 #123 Share Posted April 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, ShadowSot said: Yes, I want a solid piece of information to work with, not the second, third, or fourth hand repeating of a story through the often poorly paid and rushed news journalist who also have no experience with archaeology. What you need to salvage this argument is an counter theory by an academic otherwise you got crow pie on your lip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back to earth Posted April 22, 2017 #124 Share Posted April 22, 2017 There is nothing in that article that proves or says more than Risky does , no demonstration of the oiea no pics, comparisons nothing ! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unusual Tournament Posted April 22, 2017 #125 Share Posted April 22, 2017 1 minute ago, ShadowSot said: Interesting, would you accept the findings of a botanist on the working capabilities of the LHC? He would be, after all, an academic. I'm still waiting to see if you are capable of reading your own link and finding where this pape was originally published. Unless you have anything new to offer I'm afraid i won't let you monopolise my time with baseless musings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts