ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Graham Hancock , joe rogan , michael shermer , zahi hawass

Reply
Old 19th June 2017, 12:55 AM   #281
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,874
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
... We have evidence of advanced monument builders, agriculture, and sciency poop. Then they covered it up, and built similar less impressive stuff on top of it.
What artefacts do we have exhibiting "sciency poop"? What does that expression mean, anyway? Are you referring to advanced technology? What relics of advanced technology do we have in thr archaeological record of these cultures?

You will be aware that impressive monuments, of admirable "style", are within the capabilities even of societies which have no access to advanced technology. In the case of Peru, neither writing nor effective metallurgy were in use, but magnificent architecture was nonetheless achieved, prior to the European conquest. What is required for these constructions is organisation of a Labour force, and associated logistics. These were present in the earliest civilisations.

You will recall also that regression of style and reduction in scale of monument building, as exhibited by the later Egyptian pyramids, is perfectly normal, even if there is no general regression of technology.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 01:00 AM   #282
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,874
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Stupid question: Does Craig B = Craig4?
if it is stupid, why ask it? But to clear it up, I am not Craig4.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 01:50 AM   #283
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,874
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Technology, "gets better"...it improves...evolves 'towards' a desired state of perfection, normally.

Pitfalls, setbacks, degradation in difficulty to create advancement, are caused by 'disruptions'...they could be internal or external.
Then you can prove your point at once by showing me the remains of any "better technology" object from the archaeological record of the cultures of interest to you.

I can define "gets better" as a descriptor of technological progress, but what is the "desired state of perfection" towards which technology normally "evolves" according to you? I don't know what this means, and I can't think of an example of any place where it has been reached. Here you use muddled language..
Quote:
In the case of GT, the site's remains feature a perfectly preserved point of 'highly advanced building techniques'...
Here you are referring to building techniques, but in what sense they are advanced you don't tell us. You bring in the word "perfectly" but you're referring to preservation, not level of technology.

I have adduced the phenomenon of regression of building technique from ancient Egypt. Later pyramids are less impressive by far than the early peak. Later artwork on Greek coins is less admirable stylistically than on some earlier pieces, and Roman coinage reached a stylle climax around the time of Nero in the first century CE and then regressed very significantly. The Arch of Constantine is poorer in quality than are similar monuments erected by his predecessors. One can give similar examples almost without limit.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2017, 08:45 PM   #284
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,025
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
At GT, the first oldest ruins, are "bigger," more detailed, and thus required a larger workforce to complete.

Computers used to be big impressive structures that filled whole rooms and even whole buildings. Now they're so small they fit into our hands. Our technology is clearly regressing fast!
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2017, 02:19 AM   #285
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,874
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
How can we discuss this, if you won't look at the evidence provided.

Unambiguously measured?

Okay, let's look at how we date pyramids...the "bent" pyramid is generally accepted to be one of the first, because the technology was not yet perfected...its initial design was too steep, causing the bottom to crumble... Those that came after did not suffer this defect. This we might assume, was "progression" because the buildings became more sound, more structurally impressive.

At GT, the first oldest ruins, are "bigger," more detailed, and thus required a larger workforce to complete.
One sees a very early progression of teshnology, which reaches a plateau with the traditional pyramid type. At this point the largest pyramids are constructed, and thereafter the size and impressiveness of the architectural genre declines. Many are subsequently built, all smaller and less impressive that that of Cheops. Or do you deny that these smaller pyramids are later? If so, please be explicit, and we can discuss that claim.

A "larger workforce" doesn't imply a more advanced technology. Let us observe that the army of Napoleon was larger than the US army in 1940. Does that prove Napoleon had more advanced military technology at his disposal than did Franklin Roosevelt? No. Napoleon has flintlock muskets and horses, while Roosevelt has machine guns and tanks; artefacts available only to advanced technological societies.

That's why I ask you to refer me to any advanced artefact, and I will concede your point immediately. Where are they? All you tell me is, they had lots of workers and they could erect big stones. And that proves nothing except the presence of a structure of central command and logistics, which everyone knows they had, in spite of their relatively primitive technology.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2017, 10:04 PM   #286
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,675
Well, "the presence of a structure of central command and logistics" is already pretty astounding at 12000 years ago, which is why GT is such an interesting site.

The suggestion that perhaps agriculture arose earlier than we thought and thus these monuments were the creation of a stone age agricultural civilisation seems to be at least interesting enough to pursue. I think that's where the line of reasoning of "large workforce = advanced technology" should lead: here advanced technology basically = agriculture.

The problem is that that's how a reasonable person would read that sort of claim, and it's already a bit revolutionary. I think we have genetic evidence as well as agricultural evidence that puts some bounds on the beginnings of agriculture, though I'm not sure if GT falls within that range. But Hancock sometimes seems to be saying no more than this (that there was an agricultural civilisation predating GT) and sometimes seems to be saying something [i]much[/] less likely. The problem is that there's a conflation of different meanings of "advanced" technology in the way he speaks.

I'd also like to point out that while I can see an argument that these sorts of monuments required a large workforce and logistics that in turn require agriculture, I don't think we can be so sure. The region in which they were built was relatively rich in foodstuffs even from the perspective of hunter gatherers, and as evidenced in Japan and the Pacific Northwest of North America hunter gatherer societies can become very complex when living in habitat with abundant food sources.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 06:30 PM   #287
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,784
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
What artefacts do we have exhibiting "sciency poop"? What does that expression mean, anyway? Are you referring to advanced technology? What relics of advanced technology do we have in thr archaeological record of these cultures?

You will be aware that impressive monuments, of admirable "style", are within the capabilities even of societies which have no access to advanced technology. In the case of Peru, neither writing nor effective metallurgy were in use, but magnificent architecture was nonetheless achieved, prior to the European conquest. What is required for these constructions is organisation of a Labour force, and associated logistics. These were present in the earliest civilisations.

You will recall also that regression of style and reduction in scale of monument building, as exhibited by the later Egyptian pyramids, is perfectly normal, even if there is no general regression of technology.
Upon "sciency poop":

Now and again, I use terms I've heard from others, that made me smile, "face hole," "head organ"...in regards to "sciency poop" it means...the numbers, astronomical alignments, knowledge of earth's place in the universe and our solar system, agriculture, the knowledge of fractions, zero, hydraulics, stone cutting descending squares into diorite, lifting 100 ton stone blocks...that sort of thing.

I think attributing ruins like those at Puma Punku to copper and bronze chiseled force with no written language is a thought from someone who has never worked stone with hand tools. I've carved into granite with a carbide tipped chisel, and then used diamond tipped drumel tools...I can tell you for absolute fact that those ruins, especially the "H" ones were not crafted by bronze or copper chisels...
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 06:38 PM   #288
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,784
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Then you can prove your point at once by showing me the remains of any "better technology" object from the archaeological record of the cultures of interest to you.
Good grief, I wouldn't know where to start... I could point to hundreds of examples. Try searching on youtube for "top 5 unexplainable ancient artifacts"...

Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
I can define "gets better" as a descriptor of technological progress, but what is the "desired state of perfection" towards which technology normally "evolves" according to you? I don't know what this means, and I can't think of an example of any place where it has been reached. Here you use muddled language.. Here you are referring to building techniques, but in what sense they are advanced you don't tell us. You bring in the word "perfectly" but you're referring to preservation, not level of technology.
Improvements are half-steps towards a state of perceived perfection...you never quite get there.

The ruins of GT get more impressive, the deeper/older you go. It would be like finding a Shelby Cobra under and old Model T factory parts dump. The oldest ruins at GT, that date to the younger dryas, are more evolved that the newest ones.

Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
I have adduced the phenomenon of regression of building technique from ancient Egypt. Later pyramids are less impressive by far than the early peak. Later artwork on Greek coins is less admirable stylistically than on some earlier pieces, and Roman coinage reached a stylle climax around the time of Nero in the first century CE and then regressed very significantly. The Arch of Constantine is poorer in quality than are similar monuments erected by his predecessors. One can give similar examples almost without limit.
That's because many of the pyramids are poorly/incorrectly dated.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 06:54 PM   #289
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,784
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Computers used to be big impressive structures that filled whole rooms and even whole buildings. Now they're so small they fit into our hands. Our technology is clearly regressing fast!
Truly impressive logic.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2017, 04:45 AM   #290
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,784
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Well, "the presence of a structure of central command and logistics" is already pretty astounding at 12000 years ago, which is why GT is such an interesting site.

The suggestion that perhaps agriculture arose earlier than we thought and thus these monuments were the creation of a stone age agricultural civilisation seems to be at least interesting enough to pursue. I think that's where the line of reasoning of "large workforce = advanced technology" should lead: here advanced technology basically = agriculture.

The problem is that that's how a reasonable person would read that sort of claim, and it's already a bit revolutionary. I think we have genetic evidence as well as agricultural evidence that puts some bounds on the beginnings of agriculture, though I'm not sure if GT falls within that range. But Hancock sometimes seems to be saying no more than this (that there was an agricultural civilisation predating GT) and sometimes seems to be saying something [i]much[/] less likely. The problem is that there's a conflation of different meanings of "advanced" technology in the way he speaks.

I'd also like to point out that while I can see an argument that these sorts of monuments required a large workforce and logistics that in turn require agriculture, I don't think we can be so sure. The region in which they were built was relatively rich in foodstuffs even from the perspective of hunter gatherers, and as evidenced in Japan and the Pacific Northwest of North America hunter gatherer societies can become very complex when living in habitat with abundant food sources.
Good response, thank you for your time and consideration.

I think, 'workforce' was one element in the earliest building's characteristics that are astounding. Necessity being the mother of invention, if hunting and gathering WAS effective enough to supply a huge workforce, then there would be no need to develop agriculture.

Shermer said, in the video, "I think your findings only say that hunter gatherers were clearly more capable than we gave them credit."

No... That is just one aspect of an 'advanced culture' lost. Not only were the ruins huge, requiring a massive workforce, but the building techniques themselves were detailed, difficult to erect, and contained more complexity than the newer more recent ones...

This decline is marked by the younger dryas.

Last edited by King of the Americas; 9th July 2017 at 04:49 AM.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2017, 01:08 AM   #291
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,091
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
I think attributing ruins like those at Puma Punku to copper and bronze chiseled force with no written language is a thought from someone who has never worked stone with hand tools. I've carved into granite with a carbide tipped chisel, and then used diamond tipped drumel tools...I can tell you for absolute fact that those ruins, especially the "H" ones were not crafted by bronze or copper chisels...
What about Egyptian artifacts: sculptures, stelae, and obelisks. Many of them were made in granite, and for lots of these artifacts, we know that they were made with stone or bronze tools. Do you think that is improbable too?
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2017, 01:12 AM   #292
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,091
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
That's because many of the pyramids are poorly/incorrectly dated.
Really? Which ones? You are aware that most pyramids are dated by the Egyptians themselves through inscriptions left behind?
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2017, 05:06 PM   #293
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,784
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
What about Egyptian artifacts: sculptures, stelae, and obelisks. Many of them were made in granite, and for lots of these artifacts, we know that they were made with stone or bronze tools. Do you think that is improbable too?
Yes, I do.

I don't believe we 'know' how many ancient monoliths were crafted, especially those at Puma Punku.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2017, 05:08 PM   #294
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,784
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Really? Which ones? You are aware that most pyramids are dated by the Egyptians themselves through inscriptions left behind?
Inscriptions...? Like the graffiti left on the Great Pyramid by Kufu?

Dr. Hawass is an obstacle to understanding Egypt's true history.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2017, 11:16 PM   #295
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,091
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Inscriptions...? Like the graffiti left on the Great Pyramid by Kufu?

Dr. Hawass is an obstacle to understanding Egypt's true history.
I think you'll find that egyptologists in general are obstacles to your perception of history.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 04:05 AM   #296
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,874
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Really? Which ones? You are aware that most pyramids are dated by the Egyptians themselves through inscriptions left behind?
That is interesting, and a source would be appreciated. What dating system did they use? I can't imagine that the GP has a notice inscribed on it telling us: this pyramid was built 2,600 years before the birth of Christ.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 06:05 PM   #297
gigmaster
Student
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Chatsworth, Ga. USA
Posts: 49
Smile

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Get your popcorn ready for this three-hour extravaganza where Michael Shermer "debates" some "alternative history" people about whether there was some ancient lost civilization that was disrupted by a massive comet, which made the remaining humans revert to hunter-gethererism again after having had great but now lost wisdom.

Hancock is someone I have never heard of before but appears to buy into a lot of obviously silly things. He gets very angry, very quickly and spouts all kinds of ridiculous nonsense about Atlantis and other things. He is sensitive about the way the mainstream of academia have treated his crackpot theories, and he is a master of equivocating on his positions, at one time claiming to only be passing on someone else's theories and refusing to defend them, and at other times clearly pushing the ideas and getting stroppy when they are dismissed.

He also wipes the floor with Shermer, as does Joe Rogan who both rightly (in my opinion) point out Shermer's well-poisoning tactics and his reliance on general principles of argument in lieu of specific knowledge about the subject at hand.

But Hancock really is a crackpot.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Really? I wouldn't have thought it was even worth a three-hour debate. That's as long as it took Gilligan and the Skipper to get shipwrecked, and about as scientifically valid.....
gigmaster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 06:37 PM   #298
gigmaster
Student
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Chatsworth, Ga. USA
Posts: 49
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Get your popcorn ready for this three-hour extravaganza where Michael Shermer "debates" some "alternative history" people about whether there was some ancient lost civilization that was disrupted by a massive comet, which made the remaining humans revert to hunter-gethererism again after having had great but now lost wisdom.

Hancock is someone I have never heard of before but appears to buy into a lot of obviously silly things. He gets very angry, very quickly and spouts all kinds of ridiculous nonsense about Atlantis and other things. He is sensitive about the way the mainstream of academia have treated his crackpot theories, and he is a master of equivocating on his positions, at one time claiming to only be passing on someone else's theories and refusing to defend them, and at other times clearly pushing the ideas and getting stroppy when they are dismissed.

He also wipes the floor with Shermer, as does Joe Rogan who both rightly (in my opinion) point out Shermer's well-poisoning tactics and his reliance on general principles of argument in lieu of specific knowledge about the subject at hand.

But Hancock really is a crackpot.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Really? I wouldn't have thought it was even worth a three-hour debate. That's as long as it took Gilligan and the Skipper to get shipwrecked, and about as scientifically valid.....

I didn't think Shermer got 'wiped'. It looked more to me that the others showed their lack of knowledge of basic science, which seems to be typical in these sort of situations.

But, to give the Devil his due, even though it is not common knowledge, because public schools do not teach this, Primitive Cultures were not exactly as 'primitive' as most would have you believe. Very basic geometry principles, basic math, the passage of time, mechanical leverage, and other basic mechanical ideas were caught on to very early in the development of civilization, even if they did not have actual names for them, or a formal structure. They even had a basic understanding of medicine, and public health. Primitive people had the exact same level of reasoning (maybe even more so...) and common-sense that we do today. They just applied it differently, within the bounds of the available technology of the time. They didn't have Macs or PCs back then, but the abacus is so old, we don't even know when it was invented, but we know for a fact it was in common use almost world-wide as far back as 5000 years, even before a written numerical system was invented. And it would be thousands of years before Rolex would begin to produce over-priced watches, but sun-dials, and sand-dials were in common use as far back as 3000 years, and probably even older. Water clocks were around even longer, as much as 6000+ years ago. So, the ancients had a good basic knowledge of the concept of time, quantity, math, geometry, leverage, potential and kinetic energy, etc...., all the basic building blocks of most forms of technology, and engineering. The only difference between us and them was simply they way they chose to employ the concepts. They lived within their world, and we live within ours.
gigmaster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2017, 07:24 AM   #299
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,091
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
That is interesting, and a source would be appreciated. What dating system did they use? I can't imagine that the GP has a notice inscribed on it telling us: this pyramid was built 2,600 years before the birth of Christ.
Of course not. I used the term "dating" in the context of this thread. The Egyptians were very liberal with inscriptions telling us for which king the pyramids and their adjoining temples were built. If not, we would have used place names instead of the royal names for the pyramids.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 05:03 AM   #300
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,784
Dr. Hawass is an obstacle to many who oppose his theories as to the dates of creation at Giza.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 05:04 AM   #301
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,784
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
That is interesting, and a source would be appreciated. What dating system did they use? I can't imagine that the GP has a notice inscribed on it telling us: this pyramid was built 2,600 years before the birth of Christ.
Maybe.

What techniques are you ready to employ or ditch to date the Sphinx?
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 05:05 AM   #302
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,784
Originally Posted by gigmaster View Post
Really? I wouldn't have thought it was even worth a three-hour debate. That's as long as it took Gilligan and the Skipper to get shipwrecked, and about as scientifically valid.....
You are missing out by refusing to watch the video.

There is tons and tons of great researched material therein.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:18 AM   #303
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,091
In the October 2017 issue of Scientific American, Graham Hancock, writes a letter to the editor complaining about a recent column of Michael Shermer. Shermer gets the opportunity to reply, and I think it tells his position on Hancock very well:
Quote:
[...] In my opinion, Hancock's idea is based entirely on negative evidence - what he thinks is wrong with the accepted archaeological timeline - and he offers no positive evidence of his purported lost civilization: no metal, no writing, no tools and not even pottery.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:53 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.