Glenn Beck and Hebrews in North America

[Piney]

36 minutes ago, The Caspian Hare said:

There ya go again, Piney...

When I see something like this in the States. Then I'll show some respect.

http://scienceinpoland.pap.pl/en

[papageorge1]

8 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Yes... and his TED talk went over so well, and was so well grounded in science that it was pulled from the Internet

https://tedxshelburnefalls.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/jim-vieiras-talk-removed-from-internet/

It sounds like the same old same old 'old guard versus mavericks' conflict. The 'old guard' says these are wackos not grounded in science. The mavericks say the old guard will unfairly and vehemently attack and ignore any scientific evidence that challenges their existing paradigms.   You are an 'old guard' type and I have sympathies for the efforts of the mavericks. And on and on that goes,,,,

But anyway my point is just that I do not personally claim to know the truth on this particular issue but it is not just something to call crazy Glen Beck stuff if it has gotten this much attention.

 

[Piney]

25 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

It sounds like the same old same old 'old guard versus mavericks' conflict. The 'old guard' says these are wackos not grounded in science. The mavericks say the old guard will unfairly and vehemently attack and ignore any scientific evidence that challenges their existing paradigms.   You are an 'old guard' type and I have sympathies for the efforts of the mavericks. And on and on that goes,,,,

 Vieiras' "facts" were completely wrong and he lied about many things. I just went through the 'fact check list".  

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, Piney said:

 Vieiras' "facts" were completely wrong and he lied about many things. I just went through the 'fact check list".  

I for one would like to see Vieira's response to those issues in the fact check list. In general someone saying you are wrong should not be the end of things. The accused deserve the right to respond don't you think?

I've noticed multiple times now your use of the word 'lied' seems inappropriate to me (unless you claim he consciously knows what he is presenting is false which would be a more serious accusation than just being wrong or overzealous). 

[Piney]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

I In general someone saying you are wrong should not be the end of things. The accused deserve the right to respond don't you think?

Facts Papa, that's what I know facts. He didn't respond because he knew his facts were wrong. You can't carbon date stone, the Adena used waddle and daub not sod bricks and no giant skeletons have ever been found. Ever. 

I've been on hundreds of sites, examined thousands of artifacts and skeletons. read hundreds of reports. The only "theories" I ever toyed with was the Younger Dryas Impact. I was out to prove it and become famous. I helped disprove it. Then I toyed with the Solutrean Theory, but genetics completely disproved it. 

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, Piney said:

 He didn't respond because he knew his facts were wrong. 

How do you know he didn't or wouldn't respond? And how do you know he acknowledges his facts are wrong? That's the problem I have with your reasoning. Inquiring minds would want to hear his responses (both sides).

[Piney]

8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

How do you know he didn't or wouldn't respond? And how do you know he acknowledges his facts are wrong? That's the problem I have with your reasoning. Inquiring minds would want to hear his responses (both sides).

I would like to read his responses too. But from the looks of his record he's never been on a Adena-Middlesex dig. Most digs depend on volunteers and college students. You would think he would go to one if he was so interested.

Another thing I did help prove was the Adena "Skinwalker-Nightwalker" Society was the origins for the Nanticoke-Lenape one and that the Kentucky "Wolfman" skeleton was real. I helped find 2 more skeletons with the modified jaws.

[papageorge1]

5 minutes ago, Piney said:

I would like to read his responses too. But from the looks of his record he's never been on a Adena-Middlesex dig. Most digs depend on volunteers and college students. You would think he would go to one if he was so interested.

Another thing I did help prove was the Adena "Skinwalker-Nightwalker" Society was the origins for the Nanticoke-Lenape one and that the Kentucky "Wolfman" skeleton was real. I helped find 2 more skeletons with the modified jaws.

You have a way of changing the subject to certain details after I point out your general overstatements.

So you don’t know if he defended himself. So you don’t have any evidence that he consciously lied. Those were my points.

[Piney]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

So you don’t know if he defended himself. So you don’t have any evidence that he consciously lied. Those were my points.

He stated a lot of things that weren't facts. Whether he did it on purpose or was repeating others. I don't know. I just know they weren't true. 

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

16 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

Um, "Spirit Science"? Really? Delete this and watch from Swedish TV.

Trying to force me to watch Swedish TV, you're mean.  

I'm gonna report you to the moderators........... oh wait.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

It sounds like the same old same old 'old guard versus mavericks' conflict. The 'old guard' says these are wackos not grounded in science. The mavericks say the old guard will unfairly and vehemently attack and ignore any scientific evidence that challenges their existing paradigms.   You are an 'old guard' type and I have sympathies for the efforts of the mavericks. And on and on that goes,,,,

Personally I prefer to side with those who can present evidence to back up their assertions, regardsless what group they belong to. If a maverick can present adequate evidence I will gladly support them, as I care if things are true, not who presents them. You on the other appear to be more concerned with what you want to be true, rather than what is demonstrably true.

[Piney]

10 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Trying to force me to watch Swedish TV, you're mean.  

 

Howabout we force you to watch U.S news shows for a year.....and Good Morning America and Fox and Friends EVERY morning without coffee, aspirin or even alcohol .......

[danydandan]

19 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Trying to force me to watch Swedish TV, you're mean.  

I'm gonna report you to the moderators........... oh wait.

I'll report him too, I was Sweden for a weekend, the atrociousness of it's TV has haunted me ever since.

Oh wait, now I know what you said oh wait.

 

[papageorge1]

53 minutes ago, Piney said:

He stated a lot of things that weren't facts. Whether he did it on purpose or was repeating others. I don't know. I just know they weren't true. 

Now that’s a better way of putting  it whether or not your views are ultimately the only valid views out there. My problem started when you called him a ‘liar’ and that he doesn’t defend himself. 

[papageorge1]

19 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Personally I prefer to side with those who can present evidence to back up their assertions, regardsless what group they belong to. If a maverick can present adequate evidence I will gladly support them, as I care if things are true, not who presents them. You on the other appear to be more concerned with what you want to be true, rather than what is demonstrably true.

You do realize the term ‘adequate evodence’ can only be subjectively judged and it gets complicated quickly.

Also there are ‘suggestive/anamolous evidence’ that can’t be dismissed just because they are outside the mainstream paradigm. 

A serious yet funny anamolous quote I like is: ‘If we ignore the evidence that doesn’t fit, all the evidence fits nicely’.

[danydandan]

27 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Now that’s a better way of putting  it whether or not your views are ultimately the only valid views out there. My problem started when you called him a ‘liar’ and that he doesn’t defend himself. 

Are you off the opinion that it's ok for someone to give there opinion as fact, or specifically true, from a perch of authority and when asked to backup these opinions apparently shies away?

Academically that's basically admitting lies.

Edited October 14, 2018 by danydandan

[Kenemet]

15 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

What is your theory on how ancient Hebrew was claimed to be found in the Newark earthworks?

That it's a hoax.

Christians venerate the 10 Commandments.  To the Jews, the 10 Commandments are the chapter titles of the book of laws... there are 613 Commandments.  They have no special regard for the 10 Commandments.

Any time you see "ancient Jewish" and "10 Commandments" you know it's a fraud.  

The menorah... absolutely.  Genuine symbol of the Jewish people dating from the time of the Maccabees (but not before).

 

As a culture there are a number of other representations that show up wherever the ancient Hebrews lived -- Seal of Solomon (or other powers), lions, etc... that's all authentic.  But no genuine ancient artifact from the Jewish people has the 10 Commandments on it.  That just wasn't a "thing" for them.

 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2018 by Kenemet

[Swede]

20 hours ago, Piney said:

This is a hoot.  

I knew this guy was stupid, but this is a rare and very special sort of stupid only found in the U.S. 

It even have a scientific name. It's called Amerasininitis.  

@Swede  I have this urge to start snorting coke.....I don't know why...

 

Oh my, where did you dredge up that highly oxidized little nugget?

As a result of a number of detailed studies, the Bat Creek Stone and the Newark Decalogue Stone (along with the Los Lunas Decalogue stone) have long been classified as hoaxes/frauds. Of potential interest to readers:

Bat Creek Stone:

http://ramtops.co.uk/bat1.html

http://ramtops.co.uk/bat2.html

http://www.telliquah.com/Batcreek.htm

Newark Decalogue Stone:

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/civilizations_lost_and_found_fabricating_history_-_part_two_false_messages

Edit Addition.

Edited October 14, 2018 by Swede

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

1 hour ago, Piney said:

Howabout we force you to watch U.S news shows for a year.....and Good Morning America and Fox and Friends EVERY morning without coffee, aspirin or even alcohol .......

Why are you so mean to me ? I've been a good boy. If you continue I'm telling my mum !

[Minimalists]

1 hour ago, Piney said:

Howabout we force you to watch U.S news shows for a year.....and Good Morning America and Fox and Friends EVERY morning without coffee, aspirin or even alcohol .......

You trying to torture the guy Piney?

[Swede]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

You do realize the term ‘adequate evodence’ can only be subjectively judged and it gets complicated quickly.

Also there are ‘suggestive/anamolous evidence’ that can’t be dismissed just because they are outside the mainstream paradigm. 

A serious yet funny anamolous quote I like is: ‘If we ignore the evidence that doesn’t fit, all the evidence fits nicely’.

1) This is one of your vacuous generalizations that is not at all necessarily correct. An example would be the comments by Vieira regarding Cahokia. This site area has been the subject of intense and ongoing investigation for many decades. The results of these investigations have resulted in hundreds of thousands if not millions of quantifiable data points that directly contradict Vieira's statement. Hardly subjective.

2) Specific examples?

.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

You do realize the term ‘adequate evodence’ can only be subjectively judged and it gets complicated quickly.

Not really, good solid evidence is a result of a process whereby anyone willing to do so with an open mind and no prior bias can repeat the process and reach the same conclusions. 

That, for example, is where the Ancient Astronaut people fall down, they show evidence that other people can attribute with the same level of possibility and as the result of the same train of thought to aliens where others say man. 

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

Are you off the opinion that it's ok for someone to give there opinion as fact, or specifically true, from a perch of authority and when asked to backup these opinions apparently shies away?

That is too vague a statement. Everybody says those things about the other side and the truth is more complicated in about every case and requires us to do homework. And usually it involves too a discussion of what 'exactly' was said in what context, etc.. Of course nobody should state their opinions as facts without the qualifiers and perhaps clarification that they are stating a theory (and not yet  fact).

As for the 'shies away' part if we are talking about Jim Vieira, there is no sign that he won't address any question. 

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

That it's a hoax.

Christians venerate the 10 Commandments.  To the Jews, the 10 Commandments are the chapter titles of the book of laws... there are 613 Commandments.  They have no special regard for the 10 Commandments.

Any time you see "ancient Jewish" and "10 Commandments" you know it's a fraud.  

The menorah... absolutely.  Genuine symbol of the Jewish people dating from the time of the Maccabees (but not before).

 

As a culture there are a number of other representations that show up wherever the ancient Hebrews lived -- Seal of Solomon (or other powers), lions, etc... that's all authentic.  But no genuine ancient artifact from the Jewish people has the 10 Commandments on it.  That just wasn't a "thing" for them.

 

 

 

I would still want to know if it was indeed found in such and such a place instead of just taking the attitude that it has to be a fraud.  I understand it could be a fraud but I want more certainty than 'it just can't be because it doesn't belong in our current paradigm of America's past'. In fact I do not even know what Jim Vieira's position is on this particular artefact 

[papageorge1]

34 minutes ago, Swede said:

1) This is one of your vacuous generalizations that is not at all necessarily correct. An example would be the comments by Vieira regarding Cahokia. This site area has been the subject of intense and ongoing investigation for many decades. The results of these investigations have resulted in hundreds of thousands if not millions of quantifiable data points that directly contradict Vieira's statement. Hardly subjective.

2) Specific examples?

.

You should ask Vieira those questions, not me. I tend to think he can defend himself pretty well.