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 -
Piney

Glenn Beck and Hebrews in North America

142 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

papageorge1
38 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

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. 

There is nothing wrong with Ancient Alien theorists suggesting theories as long as they are not contradicted by any undoubtable facts. The ancient past is surely poorly documented.

Share this post


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

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

 

It popped up on my YouTube suggestions and I thought "Holy ****! This was debunked decades ago!" :lol:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Newark Decalogue Stone:

I always felt sorry for Brad Lepper. Look at the amount of crap he has to put up with. Fake Indians, Newage shaman, Pagan alt history wackos. The  sheer number of those nutjobs in Ohio is unreal...:blink:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
25 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

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

Too coy by half. Vieira has no visible qualifications in the relevant fields of study, nor was his fallacious information presented in an accepted, formal, scientific format. The critique and removal of Vieira's "presentation" occurred some six years ago. Were he a credible researcher who was actually knowledgeable regarding the topics at hand, he would have responded to the critique in a legitimate format some time ago. In short, he has at least enough awareness to realize that he cannot adequately defend his various positions.

However, since you would appear to wish to support his flawed positions, perhaps you should attempt to contact him yourself. Do get back to us.

.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
34 minutes ago, Piney said:

I always felt sorry for Brad Lepper. Look at the amount of crap he has to put up with. Fake Indians, Newage shaman, Pagan alt history wackos. The  sheer number of those nutjobs in Ohio is unreal...:blink:

Quite so. While both are very busy researchers/instructors, Lepper and Feder, along with Williams, have done an admirable job of attempting to bring accurate information into more public arenas. One can only hope that individuals truly interested in such topics will avail themselves of the legitimate (and supportable!) studies.

Edit: Phrasing.

Edited by Swede
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
38 minutes ago, Swede said:

 In short, he has at least enough awareness to realize that he cannot adequately defend his various positions.

 

He is still quite active and unrepentant from what I've see. He is not here to defend himself from your specific allegations, so...….I'll keep am open mind myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jenn8779
5 hours ago, Piney said:

Kentucky "Wolfman" skeleton was real. I helped find 2 more skeletons with the modified jaws.

Question on this one because I believe I read somewhere about this....was this where the skeleton had been altered to add pieces from a wolf's skull?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
12 minutes ago, Jenn8779 said:

Question on this one because I believe I read somewhere about this....was this where the skeleton had been altered to add pieces from a wolf's skull?

Yup, there has been 2 found in New Jersey and one in Delaware. The face of the person was altered to accept a wolf snout and lower jaw. I imagine it wolud be hard to eat with your alveolar ridge smashed out though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

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 

Good grief. Have you even bothered to read the previously supplied reference material (Swede #43)?

.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
37 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

He is still quite active and unrepentant from what I've see. He is not here to defend himself from your specific allegations, so...….I'll keep am open mind myself.

Intellectual cowardice. Contact him. Present him with the previously supplied specific critiques. Request that he address each point in detail, supported by credible research documentation. Inform him that his response will be submitted to an open public forum. Will await.

.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jenn8779
16 minutes ago, Piney said:

Yup, there has been 2 found in New Jersey and one in Delaware. The face of the person was altered to accept a wolf snout and lower jaw. I imagine it wolud be hard to eat with your alveolar ridge smashed out though. 

 

16 minutes ago, Piney said:

Yup, there has been 2 found in New Jersey and one in Delaware. The face of the person was altered to accept a wolf snout and lower jaw. I imagine it wolud be hard to eat with your alveolar ridge smashed out though. 

So this was actually done while they were alive and not part of funerary rituals? If so eating would only be one of the issues.... infections and pain would be others. Did you get to see the remains? What did they figure for cause of death?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
22 minutes ago, Jenn8779 said:

 

So this was actually done while they were alive and not part of funerary rituals? If so eating would only be one of the issues.... infections and pain would be others. Did you get to see the remains? What did they figure for cause of death?

The one in Trenton was a '"reburial" he was dug up somewhere in the Ohio Valley then reburied on the Trenton bluffs. The other was buried on the Maurice River bluffs after death. They both showed signs of healing and the wounds were with them for a decade at least from the bone growth. 

We have some really good herbs and fungal antibiotics for infections. I will not reveal them because they are dangerous when abused. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

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 

Clearly, if you're operating under the premie that ancient Hebrews were bopping around ancient America, you're demonstrably wrong, of course. It's a matter of common sense, and there is no logical reason to try to support something that is false.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Clearly, if you're operating under the premie that ancient Hebrews were bopping around ancient America, you're demonstrably wrong, of course. It's a matter of common sense, and there is no logical reason to try to support something that is false.

Ah, but to argue for the sake of arguing....

...and a "paradigm shift?" provided by someone who never studied the field in question, or been in the field to study it.  :yes:

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Ah, but to argue for the sake of arguing....

...and a "paradigm shift?" provided by someone who never studied the field in question, or been in the field to study it.  :yes:

It seems on these boards one doesn't need knowledge, studies, or practical experience—wishy-washy gullibility is sufficient.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

It seems on these boards one doesn't need knowledge, studies, or practical experience—wishy-washy gullibility is sufficient.

:yes:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 hour ago, Swede said:

Good grief. Have you even bothered to read the previously supplied reference material (Swede #43)?

.

Good grief, when I see CSICOP, Skeptics Dictionary or Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia, I often don't bother to read it, no. I don't have much respect for the sources. Although I will state that I am familiar with and have read more skeptical literature than about any skeptic here has read  proponents' literature on our Unexplained Mysteries subject.

Actually ancient Hebrews in the Americas is not an important topic with me and my involvement was to say that if Jim Vieira has looked into this artefact then this thing is bigger than Glen Beck and I would want to hear what Jim has to say. Now, on here, LOL, things predictably snowball into me being characterized as the number 1 proponent of ancient Hebrews in America:rofl: And that is because real proponents of some of these things don't even bother with the immaturity of this forum's decorum.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 hour ago, kmt_sesh said:

Clearly, if you're operating under the premie that ancient Hebrews were bopping around ancient America, you're demonstrably wrong, of course. It's a matter of common sense, and there is no logical reason to try to support something that is false.

I guess I don't know why voyages of anyone on earth to somewhere else on earth in prehistoric times should be considered impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
15 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I guess I don't know why voyages of anyone on earth to somewhere else on earth in prehistoric times should be considered impossible.

The Hebrews were not even a seafaring people. Why would a group of them not only venture out onto the sea, but to the other side of the world and to lands no one in the Old World even know existed? That's what I mean by common sense. The Hevrews were never explorers,

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
On 10/13/2018 at 7:49 PM, Piney said:

I found this by accident. I can't watch FOX. I start bleeding from the eyes and ears....

You're safe, Glenn Beck was kicked off Fox like 10 years ago.  

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
10 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,,,,

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.

 

That's not how academia works. I know it's a popular representation in the media, but it in no way mirrors real life. There's nothing real academics want more than to be proven wrong; it means there's more work to do, insuring they will be continue to have employment and to learn more about their subject. Which is why they became academics in the first place. So really, this farce of "old guard" versus "newbies" is almost the exact of what happens in real life, and runs counter to common sense.

But it was charming to have my profession critiqued by someone with little to no actual knowledge of what they're talking about. If you yourself have a career, papa, I'll be glad to deliver to the group my own ignorant critique of it so we can all have a turn.

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

I guess I don't know why voyages of anyone on earth to somewhere else on earth in prehistoric times should be considered impossible.

We are talking about the same Hebrews who took 40 years to go from Egypt to Israel. :rolleyes: 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 hour ago, kmt_sesh said:

The Hebrews were not even a seafaring people. Why would a group of them not only venture out onto the sea, but to the other side of the world and to lands no one in the Old World even know existed? That's what I mean by common sense. The Hevrews were never explorers,

Nothing there even approaches what I call impossible.

Two minutes of internet searching found this: The Saga of Ancient Hebrew Explorers  not the first I have heard of such speculation and I am sure the archeological conservatives will call these people crackpots.

I am not vouching for this but it is just to show ideas and possibilities may have been out there.

Stepping back, my overall position is that ancient history has so poorly been preserved that I consider this possible (along with so many other things).

Edited by papageorge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
57 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

That's not how academia works. I know it's a popular representation in the media, but it in no way mirrors real life. There's nothing real academics want more than to be proven wrong; it means there's more work to do, insuring they will be continue to have employment and to learn more about their subject. Which is why they became academics in the first place. So really, this farce of "old guard" versus "newbies" is almost the exact of what happens in real life, and runs counter to common sense.

I am sure anyone with maverick ideas in archeology would scoff at that. Academics are humans with emotions and want to be consider rulers of their intellectual roost. How dare some maverick say we tenured academics don't know some extremely important things and this maverick thinks he's going to tell us??!! We determine who is credible to speak too. That is more how I see it.

Edited by papageorge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I am sure anyone with maverick ideas in archeology would scoff at that. Academics are humans with emotions and want to be consider rulers of their intellectual roost. How dare some maverick say we tenured academics don't know some extremely important things and this maverick thinks he's going to tell us??!! We determine who is credible to speak too. That is more how I see it.

Just. Show. Us. Proof.

You don't know academia, so I don't know why you keep opining about what you think it is. I challenge you to actually provide evidence upholding your claim, because as of now, all you have is flapping lips and a mind devoid of actual fact.

(We all know that, at this point, if you had even a scintilla of proof, you'd have ponied up long ago. Try to keep a scrap of dignity and just leave this thread.)

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 5

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.