Harvard & Montana Academics On The Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis

[Hazzard]

14 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I think we are at a time where speculative thought should be welcomed.

I have come to believe there are beings in our earth plane not usually at the purely physical level of our senses. But they and their equipment may occasionally pop into view. My view comes from the claims of many sources.

 

Ok.. Ill bite... lets see those sources of yours.

[Piney]

59 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

My view comes from the claims of many sources.

😄

[Piney]

50 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

I'll ask you again ... next day.

The Jordan River shows copper pollution dating 7,000 years ago. 

[Antigonos]

1 minute ago, Piney said:

😄

And I’m sure those sources are up to his usual standards. I also think his use of the word “many” is his usual euphemism for “really one or two”.

[Piney]

1 minute ago, Antigonos said:

And I’m sure those sources are up to his usual standards. I also think his use of the word “many” is his usual euphemism for “really one or two”.

And probably "channeled". 😆

[Antigonos]

3 minutes ago, Piney said:

The Jordan River shows copper pollution dating 7,000 years ago. 

No evidence of nuclear industry? Dang it.

[Piney]

1 minute ago, Antigonos said:

No evidence of nuclear industry? Dang it.

Natufians invented the nuke plant before they became *Hebrews and it was stolen by "Pharaoh". Whoever the hell he is. 

 

*According to certain Australian sources 🤪

[Abramelin]

8 minutes ago, Piney said:

The Jordan River shows copper pollution dating 7,000 years ago. 

Well, that's not anything close to the Iron Age, like you suggested, right?

But now I'd like to see some sources.

Yeah, yeah, I know you're on that ****ing tablet.

I'll do your work. Again. For the X-th time.

It may take a while.

I'll have to sober up first.

Like I do 365 days a year. Heh.

 

[Piney]

1 minute ago, Abramelin said:

Well, that's not anything close to the Iron Age, like you suggested, right?

But now I'd like to see some sources.

Yeah, yeah, I know you're on that ****ing tablet.

I'll do your work. Again. For the X-th time.

It may take a while.

I wasn't talking about the Iron Age, that was the next sentence but I imagine your seeing run on double sentences right now having seen my sister drink Dutch beer. 

My bad...It's in the country of Jordan itself in Wadi Feynan. 

Live Science 'Age-Old Problem: River in Jordan Polluted by Copper 7,000 Years Ago' Dec. 12-2016

Sci News 'Worlds Very First Polluted River?' . Dec. 6-2016

J.P. Grattan is the author of the original paper but that's in 'Science of the Total Environment' and I don't know if it's online. 

1 minute ago, Abramelin said:

I'll have to sober up first.

Like I do 365 days a year. Heh.

You really need to check that. Especially at our age.

[MrAnderson]

3 hours ago, Hazzard said:

 

Ok.. Ill bite... lets see those sources of yours.

Come on! Belief and personal opinion are not subject to proof or even evidence.

[MrAnderson]

1 hour ago, Piney said:

I wasn't talking about the Iron Age, that was the next sentence but I imagine your seeing run on double sentences right now having seen my sister drink Dutch beer. 

My bad...It's in the country of Jordan itself in Wadi Feynan. 

Live Science 'Age-Old Problem: River in Jordan Polluted by Copper 7,000 Years Ago' Dec. 12-2016

Sci News 'Worlds Very First Polluted River?' . Dec. 6-2016

J.P. Grattan is the author of the original paper but that's in 'Science of the Total Environment' and I don't know if it's online. 

You really need to check that. Especially at our age.

You have been diverting from the topic of the thread. I remember one day you said there could be no parallel civilizations. It's just a speculation and the authors have said it to clarify their philosophical position. But it's great timing because here are three academics who entertain the view there could be a parallel civilization.

[Resume]

3 hours ago, Hazzard said:

 

Ok.. Ill bite... lets see those sources of yours.

Other credules and fabulists no doubt.

[MrAnderson]

4 hours ago, Piney said:

We have ice cores containing atmosphere bubbles going back 2.7 million years. These ice cores show when copper smelting started (On top of the Jordan being the world's first polluted river). They show pollution from the Iron Age. 

On top of the lack of pollution caused by industry in the geological record and tool production evidence in the archaeology record prior to the rise of Hominids. 

Nothing previous. Which means nothing developed technology before us so there is really nothing to "entertain" 

I think you still didn't get the point of the paper and the conversations that follow these views. The example is not very relevant as they were discussing parallel and not previous civilizations. But that's not so much the point.

At a scientific level when you make a hypothesis it's better to have some evidence although you may not have much but that will not help you and it's more likely the hypothesis will collapse. But you definitely need evidence to support your hypothesis. If you make these claims at a philosophical level then you don't need much like I said earlier.

[Dejarma]

9 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

Come on! Belief and personal opinion are not subject to proof or even evidence.

That depends on whether or not you're putting forward your beliefs and personal opinions as being fact in a debate/ discussion..

And when someone doesn't agree with your belief and personal opinion one is classed as closed minded & not knowing enough about the subject to be able to contribute... IMO

[Piney]

4 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

You have been diverting from the topic of the thread. I remember one day you said there could be no parallel civilizations. It's just a speculation and the authors have said it to clarify their philosophical position. But it's great timing because here are three academics who entertain the view there could be a parallel civilization.

"Entertaining" is certainly the word for it and discussing the earliest signs of metallurgy in the geological record isn't far off topic. 

I explained how it was impossible and you have yet to address the overwhelming evidence against a previous technological advanced civilization that I had posted.

Other than that, are your just looking to quote me for the sake of quoting? 

 

[MrAnderson]

4 hours ago, astrobeing said:

As long as you don't care if the hypothesis is correct. And the authors of this paper apparently don't care.

The hypothesis made at a philosophical level. The authors are not physicists or biologists. One of them is an anthropologist and the other two from a psychology background. Philosophy contains a lot of assumptions and speculations.

[Grim Reaper 6]

1 minute ago, Dejarma said:

That depends on whether or not you're putting forward your beliefs and personal opinions as being fact in a debate/ discussion..

And when someone doesn't agree with your belief and personal opinion one is classed as closed minded & not knowing enough about the subject to be able to contribute... IMO

Great post, you hit the nail on it’s head.

[Piney]

4 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

I think you still didn't get the point of the paper and the conversations that follow these views. The example is not very relevant as they were discussing parallel and not previous civilizations.

There would still be a archaeological, climate and geological record regardless.

Your just evading

4 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

But that's not so much the point.

At a scientific level when you make a hypothesis it's better to have some evidence although you may not have much but that will not help you and it's more likely the hypothesis will collapse. But you definitely need evidence to support your hypothesis. If you make these claims at a philosophical level then you don't need much like I said earlier.

I cited evidence. Where's yours? 

[MrAnderson]

1 minute ago, Piney said:

"Entertaining" is certainly the word for it and discussing the earliest signs of metallurgy in the geological record isn't far off topic. 

I explained how it was impossible and you have yet to address the overwhelming evidence against a previous technological advanced civilization that I had posted.

Other than that, are your just looking to quote me for the sake of quoting? 

 

I don't need to address anything because I didn't make a claim there is definitely a parallel civilization among us. Neither did the authors of the paper. They have stated their hypothesis is most likely wrong.

[Piney]

1 minute ago, MrAnderson said:

I don't need to address anything because I didn't make a claim there is definitely a parallel civilization among us. Neither did the authors of the paper. They have stated their hypothesis is most likely wrong.

Then why are you hinting around it's possible? 

[Grim Reaper 6]

Just now, MrAnderson said:

The hypothesis made at a philosophical level. The authors are not physicists or biologists. One of them is an anthropologist and the other two from a psychology background. Philosophy contains a lot of assumptions and speculations.

Based upon your comments above you knew they were unqualified to even speak about the subject, so I am really confused. I can’t understand why you chose to start the thread with all the information you had. Discussions here are based upon reality, not assumptions that are known to be false. Some free advice, the next time you start a thread consider this before you hit send, that way you will not have endure all this criticism my friend. 

[MrAnderson]

14 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

That depends on whether or not you're putting forward your beliefs and personal opinions as being fact in a debate/ discussion..

And when someone doesn't agree with your belief and personal opinion one is classed as closed minded & not knowing enough about the subject to be able to contribute... IMO

I was actually answering the post made by someone else. That wasn't my post if you follow the conversation. When someone has a belief or expresses a personal opinion they are not subjected to provide evidence or proof. I didn't say anything on stating opinion as fact or accusing others. It happens quite a lot here if you know what I mean.

Edited July 12 by MrAnderson

[MrAnderson]

Just now, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Based upon your comments above you knew they were unqualified to even speak about the subject, so I am really confused. I can’t understand why you chose to start the thread with all the information you had. Discussions here are based upon reality, not assumptions that are known to be false. Some free advice, the next time you start a thread consider this before you hit send, that way you will not have endure all this criticism my friend. 

So you say the forum is only for scientific facts and not personal views and opinions/beliefs. I can hardly see it. Much of what is posted is personal opinion.

Does it not worth the effort and time to post the paper especially when it comes from there academics who express their opinion on UFOs and have said that their hypothesis is most likely wrong but needs to be examined.

[Dejarma]

3 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

Neither did the authors of the paper. They have stated their hypothesis is most likely wrong.

therefore what's the point of the paper do you think, just out of interest. I say these so called bloody academics should put their brains to better use.

personally i'd say it's a stupid to waist time effort & no doubt money on something so bloody stupid!!

if this is an example of a modern academic brain then god help us all

[Piney]

2 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

Does it not worth the effort and time to post the paper especially when it comes from there academics who express their opinion on UFOs and have said that their hypothesis is most likely wrong but needs to be examined.

It doesn't need to be examined given current understanding. 

It's garbage....