The Real Builders of the Pyramids

[AlexanderLight]

Dear Shade,
I think you might have missed the point of this forum, because people don't make fun of each other's theories here, while quoting the main stream officials. Ridicule is the first sign of someone who is payed for a dirty job, usually followed by official quotes. Here is an example of ridicule:

"He is wearing a wristwatch eh? I've got an argument as to why he isn't an ancient assinaut...
What would he be doing wearing a wristwatch? If he was technologically advanced he'd have a mobile phone.

Therefore clearly.
He's not an alien.

: D
eh? eh? Is that a good argument or what?"

The image of the Anunnaki "god" wearing a so called "wristwatch" was just an example of how advanced their technology could have been (especially after corroborating everything with the texts that describe the Anunnaki using out-of-this-world technology). That wrist device could have been: a watch, GPS, phone, holographic projector, some kind of weapon, activator for a space craft, all of them combined or something else entirely.

To be honest with you, after filling this thread with the opinions of other people (including both the official stories and random articles that you have copy-pasted in here) you could have at least answer these harmless questions. At first I thought that you are a religious person who tries to disprove everything that is not written in or contradicts the bible, but now I think that you may be one of those people who are being payed just to TROLL interesting threads. All forums have them, but you may be the first discovered one on Avalon.

[Shade]

Hilarious! If I am paid, mate, they sure aint' paying me enough to put up with crap like that!
Welcome to my ignore list. Have a nice stay.

[AlexanderLight]

You haven't been interested to read my article or any of the information shared by me as evidence contradicting your claims. Your sole interest was to discredit Sitchin and the possibility that the pyramids could have built by anyone else other than the Egyptians, 5,000 years ago. Again, that is the official version and we are all familiar with it.

You have also been disrespectful by mocking my work and calling my intervention as "crap". That was evidence, not "crap" and you did not had to put up with it -- you could have just refrain from spamming the thread with something that was not your opinion, especially if you were not willing to back it up or continue the conversation.

At this point, your intervention can be summarized as: "Here is the history book and the opinions of those supporting it. Now read them, accept them, and close this thread because it's all crap".

[panopticon]

Posted by AlexanderLight (here)
The problem with some of you guys is that you don't want to RESEARCH anything yourselves, which leads to a lot of confusion. Instead, you copy-paste texts from other people and you want me to analyze everything and prove you otherwise. I'm not trying to convince anyone, of anything, but it is very unfortunate that you call yourselves awaken, while you fall for the DECEPTION of the ruling elite.

G'day AL,

I've got no problem with you putting forward your position and only stopped by this thread 'cause it looked interesting and seemed to have original research.

I don't often copy paste information into a thread but sometimes I use quotes from others to back up what I'm saying. That is just good practice as far as I'm concerned. I usually supply references for what I say but have no problem when others state opinions without evidence (I don't place the same requirements on others that I place on myself).

In relation to your Ark story that you've linked to in your post.

It makes use of the work of Ron Wyatt as its basis and his work I am very familiar with. I have no problem in you believing this fantasy but when you state his work as fact, you are misrepresenting the source as a valid one. Ron Wyatt is not a valid source for anything. He has been shown to have been deluded and had people who worked closely with him state this. Some of these people are 7th Day Adventists, as he was, and worked on site with him (take this account by SDA Bernard Brandstater who assisted Wyatt in Jerusalem at the Garden Tomb site).

The formation referred to as the 'Durupinar site' (after the Turkish Army Captain who photographed the site and was part of a 1960 excursion) is located in Turkey and is a natural formation. To be clear I shall repeat that. The formation is a natural formation. It is one of a number of similar formations that are in the area and is caused by the geology/climatic conditions in the region. For more information on this geology please refer to the study here.

The reason that this formation was picked as the Noah's Ark was because it was of the proportions as written about in the Torah. All the claims made by Wyatt were either fabricated, misrepresentations or exaggerations. There are a large number of people who believe these as being true and I have no problem with them believing whatever they want to. I personally don't give a rats arse what people believe. I just don't like the way this particular myth is represented as being proof of something that probably didn't happened (at least there is no evidence of it happening at the time depicted) and from this to justify a number of religions (the Abrahamic faiths) that I personally believe have helped confine humanities growth for two millennia.

I have very little knowledge of Sitchin's work and as such have not tried to discredit anything to do with it. I don't go out of my way to make claims about things I don't know about or haven't researched at some depth (I simply don't have time to learn Sumerian so as to be able to talk with authority on the subject one way or the other). That having been said, when someone makes a claim the burden of proof lies with them to prove their claim, not for someone else to disprove it. The more extraordinary the claim, the more compelling the evidence required to support it.

I also would ask you for the process used and data from that process that led to the claim that the site in South Africa is 200,000 years old. I have no problem with this claim, I am just after the process, and data from this process, that led you to believe this to be true.
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[Shade]

Michael's original site about Adam's Calendar I cannot find, and it looks to have been taken down, but this site looks similar to what was there about the dating of the site:
http://www.viewzone2.com/adamscalendar22.html

This site http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/africaadamscalendar.htm says this:

Dating The Site:

These widely varying estimates all come from the same source: Michael Tellinger.

'The first rough calculation was from at least 25,000 years ago. But new and more precise measurements kept increasing the age'...

The next calculation was presented by a 'master archaeoastronomer' (Bill Hollenbach?(8)) who unsurprisingly, wishes to remain anonymous for 'fear of ridicule by the academic fraternity'. The calculation was apparently based on the rise of Orion and suggested an age of at least 75,000 years. (2)

A further calculation in June 2009, suggested an age of at least 160,000 years, based on the rise of Orion 'flat on the horizon' but also on the 'erosion of dolerite stones' found at the site. Some pieces of the marker stones had been broken off and sat on the ground, exposed to natural erosion. When the pieces were put back together about 3 cm of stone had already been worn away. These calculation helped assess the age of the site by calculating the erosion rate of the dolerite. (2)

'Our research has shown that the ancient ruins of South Africa and Zimbabwe go back to around 260,000 years the very first appearance of humans on Earth'. (3)

At present (2011), the site has not undergone any official dating procedures.
---------------------
And the link I posted earlier http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/ar...sa_4_adams.htm, Andrew Collins says this:


Three and a Half Degree Misalignment

As evidence for his early dating of Adam's calendar, Michael cites the fact that its north-south alignment is kinked by three and half degrees. This he believes is the result of a crustal displacement, a slippage of the earth's crust over the mantle caused by some catastrophic event sometime after its construction. Similar ideas were voiced in connection with sites worldwide by Colin Wilson and Rand Flem-ath in their book The Atlantis Blueprint (2000), based on the original concept of crustal displacement proposed by American college professor and author Charles H. Hapgood.

I think the problem here is that there is no hard evidence that, firstly, a crustal displacement has taken place in the last 200,000 years, and, secondly, that Adam's Calendar even bears an alignment three and a half degrees west of north (the recumbent stones on the southern side are just too jumbled and confusing to determine a true alignment.

Rodney Hale's plan of Adam's Calendar with alignments for the suggested date of 11,500 BC. This date is based on the claim that recumbent stones mark Orion's belt when rising horizontally, providing a date of 75,000 for the site's construction. In our current precessional cycle - which is all we can measure such a claim by - this last occurred in 11,500 BC. However, as you can see, such an alignment doesn't work. It hits no stones lying on the edge of the circle. Moreover, as you can see, a 3 degree 30 minute misalignment from north is not necessary to express the structure's curvilinear geometry. It all depends on your position in relation to the placement of the stones. The Horus or Bird Stone as Michael Tellinger calls it is just below east, pointing away from the centre of the circle.

I can categorically say that I have seen nothing that might convince me that Adam's Calendar was constructed beyond the currently held time-frame of megalithic construction, which began with Gobekli Tepe and the other Pre-Pottery Neolithic structures of SE Turkey and North Syria c. 10,000-9000 BC. Moreover, there is no argument that might be used to argue that any proposed alignment towards the belt stars of Orion only makes sense if the site was constructed 75,000 years ago. No calculations can be used to prove such an idea, not precession (a 26,000 year cycle), obliquity of the ecliptic (a 41,000 year cycle), or even much longer Milankovitch cycles, which only affect climate and not the earth's astronomical position against the local horizon.

It is a subject I tackled back in 2010 after meeting Michael Tellinger for the first time. I worked with technical engineer Rodney Hale in an attempt to check out Adam's Calendar stated alignments, and found no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the monument went back 75,000 years (available to anyone on request).

[panopticon]

G'day Shade,

Thanks for the information.

You seem to know a bit about this so how does the South African site/s compare to the many Australian Aboriginal ones (for example Wurdi Youang)? The way in which the various structures interact at the African site seem to resemble the patterns used by Aboriginals in the design and art of some sacred sites. The way in which patterns were/are used by Aboriginal Australians as a means of communication and story telling is something I've had an interest in for quite a while and couldn't help notice the similarities straight away.



Sorry AlexanderLight, I don't want to take this thread in another direction so I'll just quickly post some references for those who might be interested in Aboriginal rock formation and astronomy:
"Bridging the Gap" through Australian Cultural Astronomy
Wurdi Youang: an Australian Aboriginal stone arrangement with possible solar indications
Aboriginal stone structures in southwestern Victoria

And finally there's Mungo Man and the 35,000 year old stone axe...
First Humans in Australia Dated to 50,000 Years Ago
35,000-year-old stone axe found in Australia

Now...

Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[Shade]

Panopticon - it makes sense that there would be a strong connection and likeness to the Aboriginal sites because culturally the Australian Aboriginals are the most like what we were culturally when we left Africa than any other people in the World - Except those still in Africa of course. They basically moved to Australia pretty quickly and there wasn't much exchange between them and the rest of the world til' the late 18th century. So cultural and symbolic heritage would no doubt have been carried through.
--------
AlexanderLight -

Posted by AlexanderLight (here)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=IgvqZixAzm4

I find Lloyd Pye to be incredibly ignorant of scientific actuality. He either doesn't understand what science is showing us or he deliberately misrepresents it - I'm not sure which. For example the conjecture that Homo sapiens just magically appeared at 200,000 years ago and before that their brains were no more complex than a chimp. He somehow completely fails to show that Homo sapiens evolved from Homo heidelbergensis, which evolved from Homo erectus, which evolved from Homo ergaster (these last two are sometimes called the same species), which evolved from Homo habilis, which evolved from Australopithecus (genus) then Ardipithecus (genus) then something like Sahelanthropus. The brain cubic centimetre size gradually increases in this period of some 7 god damn million years. And not just that but you can see in brain casts the complexity of the inner brain geography becoming more complex over that same time as well. And it IS NOT SUDDEN as Pye likes to claim. Have a look below at the slow increase in brain capacity over time. And this increase is mirrored in skull anatomy, in things like the slow increase in the heightening of the dome of the skull... it's all there in the fossils. There is a list here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution_fossils

These species detailed below gave rise to new ones like the branching of a tree. They continue to live as the progenitor species even while the new one has branched off.

[this is just a sampling of the members on this tree there are heaps more please look here for details http://www.becominghuman.org/node/hu...e-through-time The exact progression is still speculated about as to who the exact ancestors were in the main trunk leading to Homo sapiens and which branches-species were just dead ends] Also it is to note that Homo neanderthalensis is not a direct ancestor of ours. We both have a common ancestor in Homo heidelbergensis, just as we didn't evolve from chimps - we share a common ancestor with chimps.

To note when considering below: Species are arbitrary classifications we give to things that look roughly the same. Throughout a species lifetime it can change quite a bit before scientists decide there is enough difference to call them a separate species.
cc = cubic centimeters.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis brain capacity 360cc lived app 7 million years ago.
http://www.becominghuman.org/node/sahelanthropus-tchadensis-essay

Australopithecus afarensis brain capacity 380-550cc lived 3.9 -3.0 million years ago.
http://www.becominghuman.org/node/au...farensis-essay

Homo habilis: brain capacity 510 -560cc lived 2.3 - 1.4 million years ago.

Homo ergaster: brain capacity 700 - 850cc lived 1.9 - 1.4 million years ago.

Homo erectus: brain capacity 850 - 1100 cc lived 1.8 - 0.2 million years ago.

Homo heidelbergensis (Homo rhodesiensis) (most will call the latter the former species, as the latter is not all out accepted to be different enough from the former to warrant it) brain capacity 1100 - 1400 cc lived 600,000 - 120,000 years ago.

Homo sapiens: brain capacity 1000 - 1980 cc lived 200,000 to present.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo

If you want to believe in ET intervention you can't say it is because of the lame reasons Pye gives like 'Science can't explain blah blah blah', and there are 'missing links' and humans just appeared like magic with a big brain from nowhere - NO... they didn't. There ARE NO missing links.. and Pye does either not understand science or deliberately misrepresents it to suit his agenda. Intervention in truth has NO evidence for it - only speculation from people like Pye who have no idea what they are talking about. And yes, I am well versed enough in science, personally, to know what I am talking about here and that Pye totally doesn't.


And how can chromosomes fuse naturally? get split up naturally? Become eliminated totally naturally? (because obviously if they cannot.. Ancient Aliens did it)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...romosome_count
have a look at this chart.
A fern has 1440 chromosomes.
A pigeon has 80
A horse has 64
It goes on. In other words if chromosomes can't change number naturally in evolution, like they did in the hominin line, and ETs did it because Pye claims that is the most parsimonious explanation, then ET intervention has manually created every single species there has ever been, manually.. in a lab... by genetic alteration... because presumably that is the simplest explanation.
I am going to venture that the most parsimonious explanation by way of Occam's razor is that Pye is full of crap.

In another video of his I watched* he says that science tries to portray Australopithecus as fully bipedal because science can't understand or explain the sudden transition from them to Homo genus, so therefore we push their shoulders up and pretend their arms are shorter (no joke this is what he says, as if we have no measuring equipment or something and we measure purely by oh if we move the shoulder up it's only as long as 'mid thigh' yeah because we haven't got thousands of expert papers cross examined extensively being produced on the subject, that we could just get away with pretending that the arm is not as long as it IS)????? This guy seriously has no idea what's going on in the scientific world. No.. we. don't portray them as such. Science knows them as brachiating and partially bipedal, and we can see this by their skeleton - long arms and curved fingers for example. They were only partially bipedal. Only when we got to the Homo habilis/ Homo ergaster point and we had mastered fire could we then choose to sleep on the ground UNDER the trees as opposed to sleeping IN them to keep away from being eaten by big cats at night time. Once we had fire, we got out of the trees which we were using for protection and our physiology mirrored this - the arms shrank, legs elongated, fingers and toes straightened - and all this was at the 2 mill mark mind you.

You can also see in the mastery of fire other changes in physiology like the reduction in the rib cage because the length of our intestines could shrink now that cooking had increased the surface area of our food, and therefore we could decrease the surface area of our gut. Better hunting too, helped with this, because of higher caloric and nutritional value. This in turn supported a bigger brain, which in turn made us better at hunting which supported our brain etc. Then SLOWLY over the next 1.8 million years our brain volume increased, bit by bit and the fossil record shows this. When you next see a Pye presentation ask yourself why he never mentions Homo heidelbergensis.

And as for error that we carry in our genes as Lloyd talks about in this video, but gives no examples of, yeah we have things in us which 'aren't so cool' mostly because of the expense or side effect of things other things that are very beneficial - like a bigger brain. Mental illness is a side effect of having a bigger brain. Double edged swords they are. So why do we have so many harmful things in our genome? 1. because the beneficial things they come unavoidably attached to are more beneficial than the harmful ones are deleterious and 2. We now put signs up at cliff edges warning the idiots to watch out for the edge. Why? because stupidity now has a helping hand. And muchly we can observe this on the internets in videos like Lloyd's.

Bottle necks? Completely plausible. Genetic clean sweeps? Yep, logical even. There was one about 1.2 million years ago which was for a dark skin gene. The skin of apes and chimps (and in extension the hominins (hominin means a hominid - which is a member of the great ape family - that walks upright) which had previously had hair) and such is actually white underneath the fur, not black as is assumed. After we lost our body hair those without melanin protection from UV died pretty quickly from skin cancer in the hot African sun. This particular gene selected very quickly because those who didn't have it died and could not reproduce.

Another example - the genes which protected against Kuru - this one protects against a disease humans get from eating human brains. It's a form of human mad cow disease that firstly spontaneously arises in a person (one in a million get this), then if you eat the brains of that person you get it.. then if that infected person dies those who eat the brains also get it. There is a particular allele which gives protection from the disease in a heterozygous state meaning that you have to have ONE copy of the gene out of two (you have one form of this particular allele and one of another).. you can survive to ~30 and have kids. If you have 2 or 0 copies of that version of the allele then you die at ~10. 75% of the population have this allele (heterozygous carriers have made it that people are still born with no copies, meaning that 100% population saturation is not achieved). The Japanese lost theirs by genetic drift after splitting off the main population, and because it is so necessary to survival they evolved their own different one, because you know - humans just like eating brains so much. Also, as we moved into higher latitudes, those who had TOO much melanin in their skin died of rickets - vitamin D deficiency... it's a huge population downer. A clean sweep of melanin free skin was mandatory for survival in those populations.

Not just population bottlenecks but disease, migration and other huge stresses like environmental disasters can force genetic clean sweeps and intense evolution or selection as it is known. And why did we lose our hair? Thermoregulation because we were chasing down BACON and sexual selection because ectoparasites are gross (and unhealthy and clothes are better and can be removed along with parasites) and hairless girls look better in bikinis. Hairless girls look better without bikinis too.

What I want is alternative theory that is based in good science. In good logic and argument and not complete bollocks. I am after theory that doesn't pander to fantasy or delusion. For the most part, that's an uphill battle because not only do people not know how to tell if something's right or not - because not everyone's an expert of certain areas of specialty, but you have people like Lloyd going around with just enough knowledge to look impressive and not nearly enough to actually know what they are talking about.

Lloyd Pye is also a huge Sitchin fan and promotes him in his work. And once again I will say that consistently I see that those who support Sitchin's theories overall have poor logic, poor science, irrational beliefs and illogical progressions, poor arguments and are tangibly delusional. That's how I see it and that theory has been supported consistently in my experience. Not in the least by that the OP thinks I'm a paid operative here to discredit this 'important thread' because apparently, it's a matter of global security. As if ASIO can afford me LOL.

* This movie was 'everything you know is wrong' I think and I will go and watch it again at a later date and totally pick it apart and debunk it in detail.

[AlexanderLight]

Thank you guys, now we are finally having a constructive conversation -- which was my initial goal.

@panopticon, You should read the article and see what evidence it brings to support the discovery. To me, it doesn't really matter who discovered this site, but it only makes sense that it would be a religious group, rather than a scientific team of explorers. While the first ones try to prove the bible is right, the others try to disprove the stories as pure fantasy.

But the evidence is solid, not fantasy. I will present some of it:
"In 1977 Ron Wyatt visited the site. Obtaining official permission, Ron and others conducted more thorough research over a period of several years. They used metal detection surveys, subsurface radar scans, and chemical analysis -- real science -- and their findings were startling. The evidence was undeniable."

"The human eye needs to see reflected light to recognize an object. To visualize what remains below the earth, scientists use microwaves which can penetrate the ground and bounce back when they hit something solid. This technique is commonly used to locate oil and other minerals. Called Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), the apparatus us made from an antenna that transmits, then listens to receive the "echo" and prints the result on a piece of paper. The delay and strength of this echo tell the geologists how solid and at what depth the objects are under the earth."

""This data does not represent natural geology. These are man made structures. These reflections are appearing too periodic... too periodic to be random in that type of natural pace."
- Ron Wyatt of SIR Imaging team.

"The radar cans revealed this structure [above] under the mud. The symmetry and logical placement of these objects shows that this is unmistakably a man made structure."

And here are some of the archaeological artifacts extracted from the ground of the site:
"Perhaps the most significant find from the Ark itself is a piece of petrified wood. When this was first found it appeared to be a large beam. But upon closer examination it is actually three pieces of plank that have been laminated together with some kind of organic glue! This is the same technology used in modern plywood. Lamination makes the total strength of the wood much greater than the combined strength of the pieces. This suggests knowledge of construction far beyond anything we knew existed in the ancient world."

"Examination reveals the glue oozed from the layers. The outside of the wood appears to have been coated with bitumen. Even more surprising were laboratory analyses which not only revealed that the petrified wood contained carbon (proving it was once wood) but there were iron nails [above right] embedded in the wood!"

At this point, the artifacts are strongly related to Sitchin's translation of the less known Sumerian tablets that he named "The lost book of Enki". More information in my opening post of this thread.

More astounding discoveries:
"The most surprising find was discovered with sensitive metal detectors. The team located several strong "hits" that, when dug up, revealed large disc shaped rivets. From simple observation of the metal it was possible to see where the rivet had been hammered after being inserted through a hole [below]."

"An analysis of the metal used to make the rivets revealed that they were a combination of iron (8.38%), aluminum (8.35%) and titanium (1.59%). Remember these trace metals have survived petrification and so do not indicate the exact content in the original material. (see Report from Galbraith Labs)."

"We know the aluminum was incorporated in the metallic mixture because it does not exist in metallic form in nature. This implies an extremely advanced knowledge of metallurgy and engineering. Characteristics of an iron-aluminum alloy have been investigated in The Russian Chemical Bulletin (2005) and reveal that this alloy forms a thin film of aluminum oxide which protects the material from rust and corrosion. The addition of titanium would provide added strength. This seems to have worked. The rivets have survived from antiquity!"

Personally, I don't know if this is THE Ark, but there is strong evidence that it might. It has the exact measures as described in the Bible and it is located where the Sumerian tablets place it in the time of the Deluge. As the video shared by Shade suggested, both the Sumerian and the biblical stories are inspired by pre-Sumerian stories or texts. But this is impossible, according to our main stream historians, because the Sumerians (6,000 years ago) were the first civilized men. Who could have had such advanced technology (e.g. advanced metallurgy, coating wood with bitumen for impermeability) tens of thousands of years ago?

@Shade, I totally agree with your last post. It is very challenging to accurately date an ancient site, like Adam's Calendar, but we are - not only entitled - but compelled by history to try. It is not uncommon for archaeologists and historians to disagree on the age of a site, but it is an immense injustice to promote someone's opinion, while totally ignoring evidence brought forward by others.

It is frustrating for many archaeologists and historians for an official institution to have the right to ignore all their evidence and ridicule their work, while promoting the theories of their own historians as irrefutable facts (some times without evidence!). This is how the terms forbidden archaeology and forbidden history originated. This opens widely the door for corruption!

Regarding Adam's Calendar, there is nothing wrong with readjusting your previous calculations regarding its age. Especially because they are based on speculations. In my opinion, to speculate that the three monoliths are aligned to Orion's Belt it is highly plausible, because we must remember the "obsession" of all ancient major civilizations with Orion's Belt and the Pleiades. Their spoken and written history tells the stories of extraterrestrial "gods" who arrived on Earth from these constellations and created mankind.


I agree that is not easily provable that "a crustal displacement has taken place in the last 200,000 years", but the Pangea Theory states that Earth's surface is in constant motion, so this crustal displacement is in fact possible.

The suggested age of 160,000 years old is based not only on its alignment to Orion's Belt, but also but also on the erosion of dolerite stones found at the site.

"Some pieces of the marker stones had been broken off and sat on the ground, exposed to natural erosion. When the pieces were put back together about 3 cm of stone had already been worn away. These calculation helped assess the age of the site by calculating the erosion rate of the dolerite."

More importantly, Adam's Calendar is located on the African continent, where the Oldest Metropolis on Earth was discovered.

"It measures, in conservative estimates, about 1,500 square miles. It's part of an even larger community that is about 10,000 square miles and appears to have been constructed from 160,000 to 200,000 BCE!" Again, the date may be controversial for the MS archaeology and history, but nobody can contest that the metropolis was built around thousands of ancient gold mines. Even the official version suggests that gold mining could be at least 7,000 years old. This means that a pre-Sumerian civilization knew what gold is, where to find it, how to build mines and how to extract it and, finally, how to refine it? It's beyond absurd! How could humans be gold miners before the bronze age?

But even if this would have been possible, the question is WHY? Why would they put so much effort (mining is exhausting and hazardous) to extract and refine this metal? Gold is too soft to be used for tools. It doesn't have any logic!

@panopticon, I am very pleased to read about your interest in the first Australian civilization, because they have the same Creation story as most major civilizations on Earth, they also speak of serpent gods who came to Earth and created mankind.

"Near the city of Cooktown (16 miles South), Australia, resides the Black Mountain. A huge formation of stacked up black granite boulders. Who stuck them together and for what purpose? The Kuku Nyungkal people are the descendants of the first local tribes of Australia. Their stories are amazing, speaking of lizard-like creatures who used to live there. They are the Creators of their ancestors and refer to them as 'Demons'.

The most plausible explanation regarding why did the reptilian ETs stacked the gigantic rocks together, is that they were trying to cover something up, to erase their tracks. But what were they trying to cover? In 1872 an expedition found massive quantities of gold in a nearby river. Within 20 years, 55 tons of gold have been removed."

For more information and, IMO, some very interesting connections, you can read my complete article.

[panopticon]

G'day Shade,

I am not as well versed in genetics as you.

I have done a bit of research into the chromosome 2 fusion (I mentioned a while ago here) and was fascinated that this also occurred in Neanderthal's (as documented here and here).

I don't see the need for the fusion to have been deliberate and do understand the way in which this can occur naturally. That having been said, it is also possible that this is the result of manipulation. I actually don't care either way on this as I have no deep seated need for either hypothesis (in the scientific sense) to be correct. There are plenty of examples in nature of genetic abnormalities occurring that result in modifications of a species. Again, it's all hypothesis as there is no way of being certain either way.
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[AlexanderLight]

Lloyd Pye is not the only one who considers our evolution from a very primitive species to Homo Sapiens Sapiens to be sudden. Actually, the main stream scientific community is of the same opinion, hence they have put together the so called Population Bottleneck theory. I am not a scientist and I do not have a PhD in genetics, but IMO this is the most erroneous theory I have ever read and deeply offends my intelligence. This is not even an assumption, it is a desperate attempt to explain something that cannot be explained without outside DNA manipulation. And, in my opinion, doesn't have a single piece of evidence supporting in.

According to the WWF Global, there are at least 10,000 species that go extinct every single year, and we haven't witnessed once a phenomenon close to the Population Bottleneck theory. It is simply a fabricated theory, without any kind of evidence to support it, other than the Northern Elephant Seal. These creatures were thought to be extinct and it is only logical that because they were thought to be extinct, the hunters stopped searching for them. Giving the fact that their only natural enemies are the orcas and the largest species of sharks, we can presume that the few remaining members managed to survive until the Mexican government finally protected them in 1922, and the US strengthened their protection in 1972. After 90 years of protection by law, they now recovered to 100,000. Not even close to a conclusive example of a bottleneck evolution!

Back to Mr. Lloyd Pye, you may be interested to know that the skull known as the "Starchild" was DNA tested and proved non-human:

"Realizing the ultimate answer could come only from genetic testing, in 2003 the Starchild Project commissioned a DNA analysis of the Starchild Skull’s bone by Trace Genetics of Davis, California. (Trace Genetics was acquired by DNA Print Genomics in 2005.) Its owners and principal geneticists were Dr. Ripan Malhi and Dr. Jason Eshleman, specialists in the recovery of ancient DNA, meaning DNA from samples more than 50 years old. Dr. Malhi and Dr. Eshleman had previously worked on the high profile 5,000 to 9,000 + year old Kennewick Man skeleton found in Washington State in 1996."


"In any comparison of DNA samples between the human CRS and an “unknown” species (which technically categorizes the Starchild), even a few variations between them in a short stretch of highly conserved nucleotides strongly indicates that the entire mtDNA genome of that species would contain many more than the 120 ± carried by the human haplotypes.

Such a difference, which is not hypothetical but actually exists within the Starchild Skull, is by itself sufficient reason to suspect a new species has been identified! Clearly such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, but the preliminary results achieved so far with the Starchild DNA are immensely encouraging, to the point of near certainty."

Read the complete article here.

[panopticon]

Posted by AlexanderLight (here)
Thank you guys, now we are finally having a constructive conversation -- which was my initial goal.

@panopticon, You should read the article and see what evidence it brings to support the discovery. To me, it doesn't really matter who discovered this site, but it only makes sense that it would be a religious group, rather than a scientific team of explorers. While the first ones try to prove the bible is right, the others try to disprove the stories as pure fantasy.

I did read the article and it is entirely based on Wyatt's work.

Wyatt claimed he found many things and the "Ark" is only one of them.

Some of the other discoveries he claimed to have made:

• The Ark Of the Covenant.
• The original stone 10 commandments (with gold binders).
• The burial site of Mr & Mrs Noah (with name plate & treasure).
• The 12 altars built by Moses.
• The real Mt. Sinai (Jabal Al Lawz).
• Chariot parts from Pharoah's army in the Red Sea (oh and the crossing point).
• The true site of the crucifixion and the DNA of Jesus.

Yes there are more.
No, he never provided evidence, but always asked for donations and gave many talks to the faithful.

The evidence you have presented is his evidence.
His evidence has little, if any, scientific backing.

The people who he quoted as agreeing with his perspective have almost unanimously said he was lying.
The scientific evidence from a number of sources regards the site shows that it is one of a number of similar shaped formations in that area caused by the natural geology/climatic conditions.

Posted by AlexanderLight (here)
But the evidence is solid, not fantasy. I will present some of it:
"In 1977 Ron Wyatt visited the site. Obtaining official permission, Ron and others conducted more thorough research over a period of several years. They used metal detection surveys, subsurface radar scans, and chemical analysis -- real science -- and their findings were startling. The evidence was undeniable."

Alright, let's look at them then.

Yes he visited the site in 1977 and on quite a few occasions following this.
His was not the first group who went there.

In 1960 Dr. Brandenberger went to the site and his groups findings were inconclusive.



In relation to the scientific investigations...
The metal detection/subsurface radar scans and chemical analysis were all misrepresented as proof.

They were nothing of the kind.

Dr John Baumgardner originally said that there may have been something there but later stated that this was not the case and that it was a natural formation.

Posted by AlexanderLight (here)
"The human eye needs to see reflected light to recognize an object. To visualize what remains below the earth, scientists use microwaves which can penetrate the ground and bounce back when they hit something solid. This technique is commonly used to locate oil and other minerals. Called Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), the apparatus us made from an antenna that transmits, then listens to receive the "echo" and prints the result on a piece of paper. The delay and strength of this echo tell the geologists how solid and at what depth the objects are under the earth."

""This data does not represent natural geology. These are man made structures. These reflections are appearing too periodic... too periodic to be random in that type of natural pace."
- Ron Wyatt of SIR Imaging team.

"The radar cans revealed this structure [above] under the mud. The symmetry and logical placement of these objects shows that this is unmistakably a man made structure."

This was not the case.
The results did not indicate that.

They indicated a reflection from in all likelihood solid rock (ie bed rock). To the untrained eye they look like a structure but that is not what they actually represent. Not to mention that a full scan was never done by Wyatt and the one shown is of a small section done hurriedly. Later scans never showed any evidence of this whatsoever. When a core was drilled in the mud around the "Ark" at a later date it had plastic in it. This showed that the surrounding mud moved quite quickly in winter freeze/summer thaw cycles and that is what had assisted in creating the formation.

Posted by AlexanderLight (here)
And here are some of the archaeological artifacts extracted from the ground of the site:
"Perhaps the most significant find from the Ark itself is a piece of petrified wood. When this was first found it appeared to be a large beam. But upon closer examination it is actually three pieces of plank that have been laminated together with some kind of organic glue! This is the same technology used in modern plywood. Lamination makes the total strength of the wood much greater than the combined strength of the pieces. This suggests knowledge of construction far beyond anything we knew existed in the ancient world."

"Examination reveals the glue oozed from the layers. The outside of the wood appears to have been coated with bitumen. Even more surprising were laboratory analyses which not only revealed that the petrified wood contained carbon (proving it was once wood) but there were iron nails [above right] embedded in the wood!"

This is also a misrepresentation.
At no time was petrified wood ever discovered on the site.

This was mentioned by a number of people who worked the site both with Wyatt and without him.
He claimed that there were "trainloads and boatloads of petrified wood" there.
There wasn't. If there had been then Dr. Brandenberger's 1960 expedition would have found it.

This was all part of his (self) delusion.

A link I provided in my previous response regards Bernard Brandstater's statement to Wyatt's mental state is quite revealing.

I have researched this in quite a bit of detail and there has been no evidence that petrified wood was ever discovered on site. There was a small fragment of semi-petrified wood found there but that is all. In regards to the lamination, this was never tested and when it was requested that tests be done on the sample that Wyatt had he refused. As for the testing done by Galbraith Laboratories, they tested for Iron, Calcium and Carbon. There was no opinion asked as to whether it was petrified nor have I found any evidence that Carbon dating was done.

Posted by AlexanderLight (here)
At this point, the artifacts are strongly related to Sitchin's translation of the less known Sumerian tablets that he named "The lost book of Enki". More information in my opening post of this thread.

More astounding discoveries:
"The most surprising find was discovered with sensitive metal detectors. The team located several strong "hits" that, when dug up, revealed large disc shaped rivets. From simple observation of the metal it was possible to see where the rivet had been hammered after being inserted through a hole [below]."

"An analysis of the metal used to make the rivets revealed that they were a combination of iron (8.38%), aluminum (8.35%) and titanium (1.59%). Remember these trace metals have survived petrification and so do not indicate the exact content in the original material. (see Report from Galbraith Labs)."

"We know the aluminum was incorporated in the metallic mixture because it does not exist in metallic form in nature. This implies an extremely advanced knowledge of metallurgy and engineering. Characteristics of an iron-aluminum alloy have been investigated in The Russian Chemical Bulletin (2005) and reveal that this alloy forms a thin film of aluminum oxide which protects the material from rust and corrosion. The addition of titanium would provide added strength. This seems to have worked. The rivets have survived from antiquity!"

I was very interested in this and went and read the 2005 paper on aluminium oxides. Yes, interesting paper but nothing to do with the site in question. The assay result from Galbraith regards the sample were found to be normal soil samples for that type of geology (ie basalt). Normal levels of titanium, aluminium, iron etc. As for the "rivets" these are natural formations in this region and nothing special other than Wyatt found them and claimed they were. It's like finding a rock with gold in it and saying it is evidence that Solomon's mine was nearby.

Posted by AlexanderLight (here)
Personally, I don't know if this is THE Ark, but there is strong evidence that it might. It has the exact measures as described in the Bible and it is located where the Sumerian tablets place it in the time of the Deluge. As the video shared by Shade suggested, both the Sumerian and the biblical stories are inspired by pre-Sumerian stories or texts. But this is impossible, according to our main stream historians, because the Sumerians (6,000 years ago) were the first civilized men. Who could have had such advanced technology (e.g. advanced metallurgy, coating wood with bitumen for impermeability) tens of thousands of years ago?

I hope that the brief run down I've given to illustrate that this is not the case might help you change your position on this.

Wyatt's history of fantastic unverified claims is enough to make anyone really check the facts. That's why your repeated claims that Wyatt's "Ark" is the real deal sticks in my throat.

In my opinion he was at best delusional and at worst a conman.
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[AlexanderLight]

@panopticon, Thank you for your reply, but I am not convinced. I'm not saying I am right, I am only saying that these arguments are not convincing.

In 1960 Dr. Brandenberger went to the site and his groups findings were inconclusive.

The article explains:

"A group of Americans accompanied Capt. Durupinar to the site for a day and a half. They were expecting to find artifacts on the surface or something that would be unquestionably related to a ship of some kind. They did some digging in the area but found nothing conclusive and announced to the anxiously waiting world that it appeared to be a natural formation. (...) Remember that this object, if it is the Ark, is extremely old. The wood has been petrified. Organic matter has been replaced by minerals from the earth. Only the shapes and traces of the original wood remain. Perhaps this is why the expedition in 1960 was disappointed. They anticipated finding and retrieving chucks of wood, long since eroded."

The 1960s expedition lacked any kind of modern equipment, so they only studied the site from ground level. Anyone can understand why the expedition was a fiasco. From ground level there is nothing special to be seen.

Capt. Durupinar was familiar with the biblical accounts of the Ark and its association with Mount Ararat in Turkey, but he was reluctant to jump to any conclusions. The region was very remote, yet it was inhabited with small villages. No previous reports of an object this odd had been made before. So he forwarded the photographic negative to a famous aerial photography expert named Dr. Brandenburger, at Ohio State University.

Brandenburger was responsible for discovering the Cuban missile bases during the Kennedy era from reconnaissance photos, and after carefully studying the photo, he concluded: "I have no doubt at all, that this object is a ship. In my entire career, I have never seen an object like this on a stereo photo."

I don't know if Brandenburger ever retracted the above statement, but if he did, isn't it strange to you?

This is also a misrepresentation.
At no time was petrified wood ever discovered on the site.

There is a picture that shows petrified wood and nails stuck in it.

I was very interested in this and went and read the 2005 paper on aluminium oxides. Yes, interesting paper but nothing to do with the site in question. The assay result from Galbraith regards the sample were found to be normal soil samples for that type of geology (ie basalt). Normal levels of titanium, aluminium, iron etc. As for the "rivets" these are natural formations in this region and nothing special other than Wyatt found them and claimed they were.

That doesn't even look like an ordinary rock, so I cannot accept it as such.

You do realize that the official scientific community will never accept for this to be the so called "Noah's Ark", or any kind of ark from a time frame that does not correspond to their theory of evolution.

[panopticon]

Posted by AlexanderLight (here)
@panopticon, Thank you for your reply, but I am not convinced. I'm not saying I am right, I am only saying that these arguments are not convincing.

In 1960 Dr. Brandenberger went to the site and his groups findings were inconclusive.

The article explains:

"A group of Americans accompanied Capt. Durupinar to the site for a day and a half. They were expecting to find artifacts on the surface or something that would be unquestionably related to a ship of some kind. They did some digging in the area but found nothing conclusive and announced to the anxiously waiting world that it appeared to be a natural formation. (...) Remember that this object, if it is the Ark, is extremely old. The wood has been petrified. Organic matter has been replaced by minerals from the earth. Only the shapes and traces of the original wood remain. Perhaps this is why the expedition in 1960 was disappointed. They anticipated finding and retrieving chucks of wood, long since eroded."

The 1960s expedition lacked any kind of modern equipment, so they only studied the site from ground level. Anyone can understand why the expedition was a fiasco. From ground level there is nothing special to be seen.

Capt. Durupinar was familiar with the biblical accounts of the Ark and its association with Mount Ararat in Turkey, but he was reluctant to jump to any conclusions. The region was very remote, yet it was inhabited with small villages. No previous reports of an object this odd had been made before. So he forwarded the photographic negative to a famous aerial photography expert named Dr. Brandenburger, at Ohio State University.

Brandenburger was responsible for discovering the Cuban missile bases during the Kennedy era from reconnaissance photos, and after carefully studying the photo, he concluded: "I have no doubt at all, that this object is a ship. In my entire career, I have never seen an object like this on a stereo photo."

I don't know if Brandenburger ever retracted the above statement, but if he did, isn't it strange to you?

I'm just a bit confused here.
The statement made by Wyatt that there was 'trainloads and boatloads of petrified wood' lying around on the ground at the site is in direct opposition to the above statement. If there were 'trainloads and boatloads of petrified wood' then Brandenburger would have found it. Fairly obvious really.

As for the photo of the site and whether Brandenburger said otherwise later on, I haven't come across anything that said he did. There again most people when they make a public statement like that and then realise it was in error kind of want it to all just be forgotten, so I doubt he would have said anything anyhow.

Posted by AlexanderLight (here)

This is also a misrepresentation.
At no time was petrified wood ever discovered on the site.

There is a picture that shows petrified wood and nails stuck in it.

I was very interested in this and went and read the 2005 paper on aluminium oxides. Yes, interesting paper but nothing to do with the site in question. The assay result from Galbraith regards the sample were found to be normal soil samples for that type of geology (ie basalt). Normal levels of titanium, aluminium, iron etc. As for the "rivets" these are natural formations in this region and nothing special other than Wyatt found them and claimed they were.

That doesn't even look like an ordinary rock, so I cannot accept it as such.

So this is subjective to your interpretation then and no evidence is required.
It has also been alleged, by some of those who worked on-site with him, that Wyatt planted evidence before tourists came to the "Ark" site so as to have "impartial" witnesses (helped when he was after donations, selling videos and looking for places to give talks). There is a well known case where he found a piece of petrified wood while in the presence of the Governor of Agri. Must have been a miracle cause no-one ever found any petrified wood at that site (BTW I think this was the bit of wood tested @ Galbraith)...
To the best of my knowledge the "nails" you refer to were never tested in a lab.

Posted by AlexanderLight (here)
You do realize that the official scientific community will never accept for this to be the so called "Noah's Ark", or any kind of ark from a time frame that does not correspond to their theory of evolution.

Just to be clear many of my resources are from "creationist" scientists.
They do not believe in the Theory of Evolution.

This does not negate their scientific integrity just made them investigate the claims made by Wyatt and found them to be false. (For an excellent overview of the many investigations into this case please see this article).

Why do I use creationist scientists if I am a non-theist?
Because most of the research has been done by them and (until I came across this thread) the only time anyone ever claimed that Wyatt was legitimate was when they were fundamentalists (I have assisted a few people who were part of extreme fundamentalist christian organisations reintegrate into society). While I don't support Creationist beliefs it is virtually impossible to find a mainstream scientist who would take Wyatt's claims seriously. Really, why would they? With his track record there is no reason anyone should.

You seem to need to stubbornly defend your position in regards to Wyatt's "Ark" and I don't really understand why. Have you invested so much in it that you need it to be true? If that is the case then I shall not push the matter any more as I don't wish to cause you or anyone associated with you any problems.
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[Shade]

We have shown here by our posts that Wyatt is bullsh*t, Sitchin is bullsh*t, Pye is bullsh*t and the 200,000 year old city 'dated' by Micheal Tellinger is bullsh*t. So what else is there to say? Some people will believe what fantasies they want to believe in, no matter what the evidence to the contrary. Did the Egyptians build the pyramids? They sure did, because they were very talented people. Dreams and reality eh? Where is that line?

Good sense is really what should be used here - and everywhere - to help discern fact from fantasy. And sometimes I just think - maybe you either have it or you don't? People who believe what is plainly bullsh*t... I mean is it a lifelong commitment? Have you even known anyone in that vein to change? Temporary [acute] vs lifelong [chronic] insanity. I'll take the acute anyday. [<---suffered that one myself and I even though it was bad, I am strangely happy that it was that kind].

If it is a form of chronic insanity what is the cure? I mean.. is there even one? tbh I don't think there is. Maybe education could be considered a kind of cure. Yeah ok there are cures. And it also means the majority of the Earth is chronically insane. Sounds about right.

If you have a theory that goes against the grain you have to have a good explanation as to WHY it is so. It cannot BE SHALLOW and based on stuff that is blown away with the wind. The theories proposed on this thread by AlexanderLight? Are backed up by people who are not right. Past the first juncture, they fail. To have deep roots to a theory it has to be stable and deep and backed up by research that actually IS good. By good logic and argument. By sensible premises and conclusions. If it is a purely theoretical claim then the arguments have to be really really good.
Alternative theories have a hard enough time as it is, I think. Frought with dreams by it's very nature. And so let the sleepers sleep.

[gooty64]

Add me too, thanks a bunch!

Posted by Shade (here)
Hilarious! If I am paid, mate, they sure aint' paying me enough to put up with crap like that!
Welcome to my ignore list. Have a nice stay.

[panopticon]

Posted by Shade (here)
We have shown here by our posts that Wyatt is bullsh*t, Sitchin is bullsh*t, Pye is bullsh*t and the 200,000 year old city 'dated' by Micheal Tellinger is bullsh*t. So what else is there to say? Some people will believe what fantasies they want to believe in, no matter what the evidence to the contrary. Did the Egyptians build the pyramids? They sure did, because they were very talented people. Dreams and reality eh? Where is that line?

Good sense is really what should be used here - and everywhere - to help discern fact from fantasy. And sometimes I just think - maybe you either have it or you don't? People who believe what is plainly bullsh*t... I mean is it a lifelong commitment? Have you even known anyone in that vein to change? Temporary [acute] vs lifelong [chronic] insanity. I'll take the acute anyday. [<---suffered that one myself and I even though it was bad, I am strangely happy that it was that kind].

If it is a form of chronic insanity what is the cure? I mean.. is there even one? tbh I don't think there is. Maybe education could be considered a kind of cure. Yeah ok there are cures. And it also means the majority of the Earth is chronically insane. Sounds about right.

If you have a theory that goes against the grain you have to have a good explanation as to WHY it is so. It cannot BE SHALLOW and based on stuff that is blown away with the wind. The theories proposed on this thread by AlexanderLight? Are backed up by people who are not right. Past the first juncture, they fail. To have deep roots to a theory it has to be stable and deep and backed up by research that actually IS good. By good logic and argument. By sensible premises and conclusions. If it is a purely theoretical claim then the arguments have to be really really good.
Alternative theories have a hard enough time as it is, I think. Frought with dreams by it's very nature. And so let the sleepers sleep.

G'day Shade,

I don't agree with you on many of your points made in the above post.

While it is all good and fine to have an opinion and present it in a robust manner I am at a loss as to why you would carry on with a rant like that. As a person who seems to know a bit about scientific hypothesis and theory you should understand the need for a measured tone when dealing with sensitive topics. Your "righteous anger" reminds me of the fundamentalists fervour in attacking a non-believer.

I do not care one way or the other if anyone agrees with my position on any given topic. I only talk about things I have some knowledge in and listen to what others have to say. I used to enjoy my conversations with RedeZra regards the Bible, prior to his being unsubscribed, as I learnt quite a bit about early 2nd through 9th Century Christian history. I always endeavour to remain civil in my discussion at Avalon and believe I have largely done so. I feel that it is important for alternate discourses to be heard and only through this can change to society happen as the sub-dominant, or alternate, discourses gain traction within the dominant discourses and alter the accepted norms. It's not brain surgery, just how things happen. As AlexanderLight has pointed out, there are vested interests (for example media outlets, corporations, lobby groups, think tanks) who would control what is permitted to be presented and through this endeavour to control the way discussions are held within society. I could go on about this particular topic for days (literally) as it has been a major area of interest for me...

Anyways...

By necessity I have a broad range of interests and they interconnect in some interesting ways. Take for example earlier in this thread my observations regards the similarity in pattern design between South African site and the various Australian Indigenous cultures. This comes from my research into patterns in Permaculture practices and also my research into layered levels of teaching in Aboriginal cultures (the way a story holds a variety of meanings for the different recipients) in particular the stories of the Pitjantjatjara peoples.

I talk about things because I have an interest in them. I don't go out of my way to attack people who hold different views to my own. Yes, I hold strong views in relation to Wyatt's claims. This comes from trying to help ex-fundamentalists who wish to remove the programming that has been ingrained in them. Wyatt's work is often a key element in their mythology. I don't go out of my way to look for an argument on this, it is just when I saw it the other day I had just finished a conversation with someone who was still coming to terms with certain things... If that hadn't happened I probably would have just looked at it, shook my head, laughed and moved on. As it is I've presented quite a bit of information and will leave it alone now as I hope AlexanderLight will have a look at what I've presented and come to a personal decision as to what is more likely to be truth.

It matters not one iota to me if he believes that the formation is the Ark or not I just didn't think he had all the facts. Now I've presented some of them I feel no need to badger him about it.

It is fine to talk about education as a solution to problems, but it is important to remember that the education system is designed to produce docile workers. That was and is its purpose. Yes it is designed to supply knowledge within certain areas that assist in finding likely vocations but at its core it is a modification of the 19th Century workhouse.

This thread puts forward some interesting hypothesis' and while I may not have agreed with elements of it I have enjoyed the conversation.

Thanks AlexanderLight.
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[Shade]

Panopticon.... so? So what? I should understand a 'measured tone' when dealing with 'sensitive topics' because I am a scientist? I deal with things as in individual, not as a jonre. Your way of dealing with your experiences and topics and people you have interacted with are YOURS... but your post here says that my way is wrong and your way is right - that is in effect what you have just said, and yet that is exactly what you have 'told me off for'. Mate - if you had no problem with it (other people's views and opinions) why did you write such a huge reply making it clear why your way is right and mine is wrong?????... And that's exactly what you were saying I was doing incorrectly???? I am a cynic, Panopticon. A cynic and a comic. And I deal with things how I deal with them, including the bullsh*t I argue against. I have nowhere said that people should not be allowed FREE SPEECH. I have made a strong debate because there's nothing wrong with that - that is a mechanic of great change. I have not said that people should not be allowed to spin as much bullsh*t as they like, what I have expressed is my opinion on that bullsh*t.
On Liberty - the liberty of freedom to express opinion is a very important thing. My issue is with ignorance.

[Shade]

Posted by gooty64 (here)
Add me too, thanks a bunch!

Posted by Shade (here)
Hilarious! If I am paid, mate, they sure aint' paying me enough to put up with crap like that!
Welcome to my ignore list. Have a nice stay.

Pardon? Add you too, to my ignore list?

Seriously..
You accused me on another thread of being a paid operative and so now you come in here and say the same thing - that you'd like me to add you to my ignore list (even though you will still see MY posts) because I am an operative?
Firstly don't you realise that if you don't like me you are supposed to add me to YOUR ignore list and secondly - does it not occur to you that you may be incorrect and that the overwhelming likelihood is that you infact ARE (incorrect and I'm just a regular person). If the overwhelming likelihood is that you are incorrect then what the hell are you doing accusing some random person of being paid to disinform?
LOL and people wonder why I'm a cynic!!!!!!
Pushing sh*t uphill is putting it mildly.

[RMorgan]

I´m really impressed about the level of childishness of some people here on Avalon, really.

In fact, what an easy way out of a discussion! Whenever someone has solid arguments against your proposed ideas and you have no counter-arguments of the same level, you go on and say he/she is a shill or payed agent?

Come on...Seriously. We´re not children here, are we?

You´re acting just like a neighbor I used to have when I was a kid. He was the only one who had a really nice professional soccer ball...So, whenever his team was losing the game, he just picked up the ball and went a way...Like this would make him the winner or something like that.

With all due respect, I didn´t expect this kind of behavior from people who consider themselves open-minded. Open-minded, in my opinion, means being open to listen and consider ideas independently if they go against your already established beliefs.

[panopticon]

Posted by Shade (here)
Panopticon.... so? So what? I should understand a 'measured tone' when dealing with 'sensitive topics' because I am a scientist? I deal with things as in individual, not as a jonre. Your way of dealing with your experiences and topics and people you have interacted with are YOURS... but your post here says that my way is wrong and your way is right - that is in effect what you have just said, and yet that is exactly what you have 'told me off for'. Mate - if you had no problem with it (other people's views and opinions) why did you write such a huge reply making it clear why your way is right and mine is wrong?????... And that's exactly what you were saying I was doing incorrectly???? I am a cynic, Panopticon. A cynic and a comic. And I deal with things how I deal with them, including the bullsh*t I argue against. I have nowhere said that people should not be allowed FREE SPEECH. I have made a strong debate because there's nothing wrong with that - that is a mechanic of great change. I have not said that people should not be allowed to spin as much bullsh*t as they like, what I have expressed is my opinion on that bullsh*t.
On Liberty - the liberty of freedom to express opinion is a very important thing. My issue is with ignorance.

G'day Shade,

Thanks for the response.

I was not intending to tell you to do anything and as a result I apologise unreservedly as you have interpreted my thoughtful response to your rant as that.

I always respect the right of anyone to say what ever they like. Your rant however was an obvious attempt at intimidation. I freely support your right to say whatever you want but that is a two way street. I also support everyone in saying what they like. I personally don't agree with some of AlexanderLight's hypothesis, but I unreservedly support his right to say them in a respectful manner.

In relation to "liberty" that is subjective and open to interpretation in and of itself. Deconstruct the concept and see for yourself.
The same goes for "freedom". They are blanket feel good terms used as control/power mechanisms.

In relation to me having "told you off", I would remind you that the forum guidelines state:

2. RESPECT

Disagreeing with various points or topics is natural, however we do require that our members be treated with respect.

In what way is "screaming" 'bullsh*t' repeatedly respectful? The entire tone of that post I did not find respectful at all.

I really didn't think I needed to point this out. You are a new member and have only just agreed to the guidelines as part of your membership application/acceptance process.

I again apologise if I have caused you any discomfort and wish you well at Avalon.
Kind Regards,
Panopticon