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 -

Ancient carvings confirm deadly comet strike


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

What you need to salvage this argument is an counter theory by an academic otherwise you got crow pie on your lip.

you got it all through your beard . 

Now as you usually do, time to back down and say you never said any of this at all in the first place and were just asking questions -  go on . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Captain Risky said:

What you need to salvage this argument is an counter theory by an academic otherwise you got crow pie on your lip.

I don't need a counter theory, actually. That isn't how science works. 

 For one, this isn't a theory. This is a hypothesis. It's just been published, and doesn't seem to have any real review yet, putting aside the matter of  where it was published. 

I've already given two to you, both are academic hypothesis, and both are still being investigated. 

 But making a claim doens't mean you have to accept it if you have no other answer, simply isn't how science works. 

 The claim has to be solid, and we've already gone over the many issues with this one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Unless you have anything new to offer I'm afraid i won't let you monopolise my time with baseless musings.  

here comes the escape clause :) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

Unless you have anything new to offer I'm afraid i won't let you monopolise my time with baseless musings.  

I'm still hoping you are capable of finding the original publication. It's really right there, there isn't even a paywall or any barrier to being able to read the paper in full yourself, wihout having to get it third or fourth hand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

I'm still hoping you are capable of finding the original publication. It's really right there, there isn't even a paywall or any barrier to being able to read the paper in full yourself, wihout having to get it third or fourth hand. 

I looks awfully painful... reading you is making me cringe... to put you outta your miseries.

 

Martin Sweatman and Dimitrios Tsikritsis, engineers from the University of Edinburgh, had travelled to Gobekli Tepe to shed light on a set of animal figures.

Described as the world’s first temple, experts have been unable to agree on its origins. Using a computer program Dr Sweatman was able to match carvings to zodiac symbols in the night sky.

When aligned with an etching of the sun on a pillar, the site’s location allowed him to pinpoint the event depicted to the summer solstice of 10,950BC.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/comet-s-devastation-carved-in-history-pzzjjgcjn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see he used a formula to pin point a known event. A formula that can easily be reviewed and critiqued by his peers. None have come forward. Its gospel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Captain Risky said:

I looks awfully painful... reading you is making me cringe... to put you outta your miseries.

 

Martin Sweatman and Dimitrios Tsikritsis, engineers from the University of Edinburgh, had travelled to Gobekli Tepe to shed light on a set of animal figures.

Described as the world’s first temple, experts have been unable to agree on its origins. Using a computer program Dr Sweatman was able to match carvings to zodiac symbols in the night sky.

When aligned with an etching of the sun on a pillar, the site’s location allowed him to pinpoint the event depicted to the summer solstice of 10,950BC.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/comet-s-devastation-carved-in-history-pzzjjgcjn

That is still not the original publication Risky. So I guess that's a no, then. Yes, you've got another link reposting the same story. Good job. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Captain Risky said:

You see he used a formula to pin point a known event. A formula that can easily be reviewed and critiqued by his peers. None have come forward. Its gospel.

By his peers in.. chemistry? Great. So they've definitely got something that works, if all of their conclusions that are outside of their field hold true. 

 So what of people inside the field they are intruding on? 

 I note that you have pulled a paywalled site. 

 Again, the actual publication is not itself behind a paywall. 

 You can read the entire thing. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ShadowSot said:

That is still not the original publication Risky. So I guess that's a no, then. Yes, you've got another link reposting the same story. Good job. 

That's no argument either you got there buddy.

The university of Edinburgh saw fit to dispatch two of its academics to make the necessary calculations and computations and guess what? Gobekli Tepe is/was an ancient observatory for the night time sky. 

Why cant you accept that? Instead of trying to tie me down with your disingenuous lies about links and what not...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

That is still not the original publication Risky. So I guess that's a no, then. Yes, you've got another link reposting the same story. Good job. 

You are bluffing about everything. Post what you have or walk away before i embarrass you further. 

Edited by Captain Risky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

By his peers in.. chemistry? Great. So they've definitely got something that works, if all of their conclusions that are outside of their field hold true. 

 So what of people inside the field they are intruding on? 

 I note that you have pulled a paywalled site. 

 Again, the actual publication is not itself behind a paywall. 

 You can read the entire thing. 

 

Tell me why you find it so hard to believe that GT was a observatory for the night time sky?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...or are you just arguing to be obstinate for kudos from your mates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we have boils down to a speculative work by people who are outside of their field in two areas. I've already told you two other theories, and it would do you no harm to read and discover more, that fit the facts and are offered by people who actually do know something of the fields they are commenting on. 

Just now, Captain Risky said:

That's no argument either you got there buddy.

The university of Edinburgh saw fit to dispatch two of its academics to make the necessary calculations and computations and guess what? Gobekli Tepe is/was an ancient observatory for the night time sky. 

Why cant you accept that? Instead of trying to tie me down with your disingenuous lies about links and what not...

I want you to go back to your original link. I want you to go to the source link on the page. I want you to read it, and quote where they were dispatched by the University, man. I have the paper in front of me. 

 I see they didn't publish it through the University, I don't see where in any part of the paper the University was involved. You need it's credibility, but these guys went on their own. 

 I did mispeak earlier when I said they hadn't viewed the site, but reading through here they don'tindicate they did any consultation with any archaeologists who work the site, or astronomers who's insite would have been valuable. 

 More, they imposed more modern astrological symbolism on the site, when we know that is frought with issues, and used their own interpretion of the symbols present to support their claims. 

 Now, you tell me to put it up, but you gave me the link. 
The same link in the OP, of course. It's right there. It's really, really easy to view it. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Tell me why you find it so hard to believe that GT was a observatory for the night time sky?

Ah, nice strawman, again. I already took care of that earlier. It may well be, it's the paper itself that is the problem. And the many conclusions they've made, which have been addressed more handily by Hanslune and Oniomancer and others. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ShadowSot said:

What we have boils down to a speculative work by people who are outside of their field in two areas. I've already told you two other theories, and it would do you no harm to read and discover more, that fit the facts and are offered by people who actually do know something of the fields they are commenting on. 

You have told me nothing. Otherwise post what you have again and allow me the chance to refute what you have. Who are these people that you have hitched your wagon to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ShadowSot said:

Ah, nice strawman, again. I already took care of that earlier. It may well be, it's the paper itself that is the problem. And the many conclusions they've made, which have been addressed more handily by Hanslune and Oniomancer and others. 

You know they were cleaver enough to move away once i posted links and made my conclusions... YOU on the other hand...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cry for help? 'Hansalune and Onimancer come help me' the Aussie has me on the ropes and there is only so much crap i can spew before even bte throws in the towel. 

Edited by Captain Risky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Captain Risky said:

You have told me nothing. Otherwise post what you have again and allow me the chance to refute what you have. Who are these people that you have hitched your wagon to?

If you missed it the first time, I'm not sure I'm encouraged to do it again, especially if you can't do the basics and check out the other sites that have been mentioned or pull a single readily accessed paper. 

 Personally, I'm in favor of it being a multi purpose site, we know that tennds to be the case, especially early n before we really see single purpose buildings come around. 

 The use of it as a site for sky burial, a practice that is old in the region, and even shares some iconography. 

 Use of it as a meeting site, for rituals or ceremonies or holy days. This was something like what stonehenge was used for, as well as being a time piece. 

 The basis comes from Klaus Schmidt and others who actually found and excavated the site, and have spent more than a single trip trying to understand it, in context with the rest of what we know and are finding. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Cry for help? 'Hansalune and Onimancer come help me' the Aussie has me on the ropes and there is only so much crap i can spew before even bte throws in the towel. 

Keep telling yourself that, mate. So far you still can't pull a single open access publication. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ShadowSot said:

If you missed it the first time, I'm not sure I'm encouraged to do it again, especially if you can't do the basics and check out the other sites that have been mentioned or pull a single readily accessed paper. 

 Personally, I'm in favor of it being a multi purpose site, we know that tennds to be the case, especially early n before we really see single purpose buildings come around. 

 The use of it as a site for sky burial, a practice that is old in the region, and even shares some iconography. 

 Use of it as a meeting site, for rituals or ceremonies or holy days. This was something like what stonehenge was used for, as well as being a time piece. 

 The basis comes from Klaus Schmidt and others who actually found and excavated the site, and have spent more than a single trip trying to understand it, in context with the rest of what we know and are finding. 

 

Thats all gone. The sky burial might only be good for your argument at the moment. Its been proven with astronomy and math that its an observation platform for the night sky.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

Keep telling yourself that, mate. So far you still can't pull a single open access publication. 

Neither can you. I have at least posted a link. Reputable. Describing two highly qualified academics being dispatched by one of the worlds leading universities. You have nothing but bruises. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Captain Risky said:

Thats all gone. The sky burial might only be good for your argument at the moment. Its been proven with astronomy and math that its an observation platform for the night sky.  

It hasn't been proven, what they've done is cherry picked the iconography they wanted to use and ignored the many other pieces of iconography they didn't. They used more modern astrology to pull symbols out that they then worked until they got the results they wanted. 

 Which is pretty clear from the paper. 

 What they have claimed doesn't include all the parts that don't fit their hypothesis, and there's the rub. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Captain Risky said:

Neither can you. I have at least posted a link. Reputable. Describing two highly qualified academics being dispatched by one of the worlds leading universities. You have nothing but bruises. 

Again, the link is in the first link your provided. Pull the publication yourself. They weren't sent out by the University, they went themselves, did the work themselves, and are tied to the university by their credentials. The University itself did not give them resources, nor did it publish their paper. 

 They are from the University, not supported by the University. 
Understand the difference in words there? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ShadowSot said:

It hasn't been proven, what they've done is cherry picked the iconography they wanted to use and ignored the many other pieces of iconography they didn't. They used more modern astrology to pull symbols out that they then worked until they got the results they wanted. 

 Which is pretty clear from the paper. 

 What they have claimed doesn't include all the parts that don't fit their hypothesis, and there's the rub. 

Fine back up that statement. Where is your proof that they have cheery picked the iconography and ignored the rest? Show me a quote and link it too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ShadowSot said:

Again, the link is in the first link your provided. Pull the publication yourself. They weren't sent out by the University, they went themselves, did the work themselves, and are tied to the university by their credentials. The University itself did not give them resources, nor did it publish their paper. 

 They are from the University, not supported by the University. 
Understand the difference in words there? 

You deserve this, you know. I will not allow you to gracefully leave until you post your rambling links. No one is going to extract you from this mess either. 

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.