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 29th May 2017, 11:29 PM   #161
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,774
Yes, you should, especially since 'has ran' is a great example of what we've been tolerating.
__________________
Normal in a weird way.
GT/CS 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 May 2017, 11:36 PM   #162
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,994
What research? This whole thread has been about the dynamic between Shermer and Hancock, and about how Shermer's attitude towards Hancock somehow makes the latter's arguments more reasonable, or how it's​ evidence that all skeptics are wrong because Shermer's is somehow their spokesperson...

I haven't seen any discussion about the evidence.
People have tried, but a certain person then suddenly claimed that the arguments aren't his to make and that everyone should just watch a 4 hour podcast to try and debunk 'something'.

If you tell us what research you'd like to discuss, we might move beyond this silly 'Shermer's deference to Hancock proves all skeptics wrong' bit.
Porpoise of Life 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 May 2017, 12:26 AM   #163
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,671
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Should I claim that skeptics have 'ran' from this topic because they refused to address the research provided?
Perhaps you could sum up the claim as you understand it, as well as the evidence that you think supports it?

Alternately since you think Shermer did such a bad job in the podcast, perhaps you could quote some of things that he said that you think aren't true? We could analyse his contribution based on any errors you think he made.

I'd be happy with either approach.
__________________
"... 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 30th May 2017, 04:51 AM   #164
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Perhaps you could sum up the claim as you understand it, as well as the evidence that you think supports it?

Alternately since you think Shermer did such a bad job in the podcast, perhaps you could quote some of things that he said that you think aren't true? We could analyse his contribution based on any errors you think he made.

I'd be happy with either approach.
The interview is 3 hours long.

My summery would be a dis-service.

*Sorry, I don't do other people's work for them...
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 30th May 2017, 04:53 AM   #165
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
Yes, you should, especially since 'has ran' is a great example of what we've been tolerating.
Grammer Nazi'ed... :/

Admittedly, I don't proofread these posts as well as I should.

Thank you for pointing out my mistake..
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 31st May 2017, 04:16 AM   #166
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,994
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
The interview is 3 hours long.

My summery would be a dis-service.

*Sorry, I don't do other people's work for them...
You don't have to provide evidence for the claims in the interview, just for your own claims that the evidence in the interview was satisfactory.

You played the same game in your other thread. You weren't going to tell us why you were correct, we had to watch a documentary.
I watched it, asked which specific parts of it supported your conclusion, because as far as I could tell nothing did.

Your response was that they were not your claims, and by the way there were like, totally supported by evidence, go watch the movie again, maybe you'll catch the secret next time.

If anyone listens to this 3.5 hour long podcast and tries to discuss facts with you, you'll just retreat and say that they're not your claims. So I'm not going to bother.
Porpoise of Life 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 31st May 2017, 04:20 AM   #167
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,223
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
The interview is 3 hours long.

My summery would be a dis-service.

*Sorry, I don't do other people's work for them...
Seasonal grammar - what's next?
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager 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 31st May 2017, 11:46 AM   #168
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
Seasonal grammar - what's next?
A cold shoulder...
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 1st June 2017, 01:56 AM   #169
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,671
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
The interview is 3 hours long.

My summery would be a dis-service.

*Sorry, I don't do other people's work for them...
Okay, you're not interested in having a conversation.

You have a particular interpretation of the 3.5 hour podcast that is very different from my interpretation of the 1.5 hours that I watched, but you're not capable of explaining what specific things were said in the podcast that support your view.

Maybe you're right, but I'm not going to find out by talking to you and I didn't find Hancock to be very convincing during the 1.5 hours that I watched him explain his viewpoint either, so I don't see much use in continuing to waste time with him.

My view:

GT sounds like a very interesting site. I find it conceivable that agriculture did develop slightly easier than we thought and thus preceded the site. Thus it would have been built by some sort of agricultural civilisation. That's possible to me. On the other hand it may have been built by hunter gatherers of the sort you saw in the pacific northwest of north america who were very organised and formed large societies (for hunter-gatherers) due to the density of food sources in the area. There is, in fact, suggestion that the reason that agriculture was able to develop where it did was because hunter-gatherers were able to form those sorts of dense societies and it's only after settling down to some extent that they developed agriculture.

Even if agriculture arose earlier than we thought, it couldn't have been much earlier. One piece of evidence is the simple fact that agriculture led to the evolution of the grains being cultivated and we can we that process happen through time. There are plenty of other reasons to think it couldn't have been much earlier.

There's no good evidence that there was an advanced civilisation that preceded GT. And the degree to which that suggestion is counter-factual is greater the more advanced that civilisation is posited to be. I heard on another of Joe Rogan's podcasts Randall Carlson suggest that there was a nuclear war that wiped out that previous advanced civilisation. That, I'm sorry, is counter to the evidence that we have. Any civilisation that could build nuclear weapons would have been world-spanning, and left a truly massive archeological record.
__________________
"... 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 1st June 2017, 08:23 AM   #170
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Okay, you're not interested in having a conversation.

You have a particular interpretation of the 3.5 hour podcast that is very different from my interpretation of the 1.5 hours that I watched, ...
You listened to LESS than half of the evidence presented...and you want me to do what exactly? Fill in your blanks? Present 'better' than the researchers did, their arguments?

The bearded guy spent almost an hour going over 'proof' of multi-asteroid impacts, and how this event mirrored the GT decline.

Now you talking about ANOTHER Rogan interview, here, WHY?

You've disregarded evidence, while adhering to previously held beliefs...

What's the word I'm looking for...?
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 1st June 2017, 09:12 AM   #171
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,257
If one needs proof that debates are a poor way to determine truth, I need only point to the Phil Plaitt/Joe Rogan debate on the Moon Landing Hoax on Penn Jillette's podcast a few yeras ago.

Phil had debated Moon Hoaxers before and done quite well. Joe Rogan, however, was a better debater and conversation controller than an actual expert on any astronomy subject.

So out of the gate Joe does an absolute Gish Gallop of 'issues' with the Moon Landing. Almost two dozen things are listed in rapid-fire succession. Phil didn't call him on the Gish gallop, and Penn let him get away with it. Phil starts to touch on a point and Rogan interrupts him. Phil never gets a point debunked and Rogan 'wins' the 'debate' about the Moon Hoax handily.

Fast forward a couple of years and Rogan tells us he thinks the Moon Hoax claims are BS.

So, yeah, what happens in a debate means very little scientifically. What happens in a debate as interpeted by a fanboy means even less. When come back, bring evidence.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker 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 June 2017, 09:50 AM   #172
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,671
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
You listened to LESS than half of the evidence presented...and you want me to do what exactly? Fill in your blanks? Present 'better' than the researchers did, their arguments?
You are free to do whatever you like. As are the rest of us.

I'm not going to be watching any more of that podcast for the reasons I explained upthread.

If you'd like to discuss it you'll have to do some work. If not, that's cool too.

Quote:
The bearded guy spent almost an hour going over 'proof' of multi-asteroid impacts, and how this event mirrored the GT decline.
I don't think the amount of time he spent on it is particularly meaningful.

Quote:
Now you talking about ANOTHER Rogan interview, here, WHY?
Because it includes claims that Carlson made, and I'm pretty sure his viewpoint hasn't changed.

Quote:
You've disregarded evidence, while adhering to previously held beliefs...
What specific evidence do you think I've disregarded?
__________________
"... 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 1st June 2017, 04:07 PM   #173
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
...


What specific evidence do you think I've disregarded?
2/3's of the video.
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 1st June 2017, 04:57 PM   #174
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,257
Funny definition of "specific"...
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker 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 June 2017, 07:28 PM   #175
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
Funny definition of "specific"...
Sometimes ignorance can be oceanic...
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 1st June 2017, 08:38 PM   #176
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,671
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
2/3's of the video.
1.5 x 3 = 4.5

Your logic is as good as your math here.
__________________
"... 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 2nd June 2017, 03:31 AM   #177
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
The video is 3 hours and 35 minutes.

But I'll concede, 2/3's was an over estimation.

You ignored 57.14% of the evidence presented.

Last edited by King of the Americas; 2nd June 2017 at 03:50 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 2nd June 2017, 08:54 AM   #178
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,671
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
The video is 3 hours and 35 minutes.

But I'll concede, 2/3's was an over estimation.

You ignored 57.14% of the evidence presented.
It's even worse than that, Hancock has written books and I'm sure has done many lectures, and I haven't even read any of his books! I think by your standards I've ignored more than 99% of the evidence he's presented!

Of course for people who speak english...
__________________
"... 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 2nd June 2017, 01:44 PM   #179
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
It's even worse than that, Hancock has written books and I'm sure has done many lectures, and I haven't even read any of his books! I think by your standards I've ignored more than 99% of the evidence he's presented!

Of course for people who speak english...
This thread is about the video...
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 2nd June 2017, 01:45 PM   #180
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
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
Maybe the title confused you?
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 3rd June 2017, 05:38 AM   #181
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,671
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
This thread is about the video...
It certainly is, and I didn't ignore any part of the 1.5 hours of that video that I watched.

If you want to limit the discussion to those who've seen the entire video I suspect you won't have much of a discussion at all.

As I said, if you think there was anything actually worth discussing it I am happy to actually have a discussion. I'm not willing to waste 2 more hours of my life in the likely vain hope of finding it, but if you present anything meaningful from the video I won't ignore it.

As I said, if you actually speak english this should be very easy to understand. If you are operating under some strange definition of ignoring things which includes things that you haven't actually seen, well, I know some good english teachers.
__________________
"... 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 3rd June 2017, 06:10 AM   #182
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,994
Don't bother listening to the podcast. In the menorah Atlantis thread he wouldn't discuss the evidence before we watched an hour and a half documentary. When several posters watched it and asked him questions about it, he still refused to discuss it, instead pointing us back to the documentary because we were supposedly ignoring the real answers.
Porpoise of Life 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 3rd June 2017, 06:27 AM   #183
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
Don't bother listening to the podcast. In the menorah Atlantis thread he wouldn't discuss the evidence before we watched an hour and a half documentary. When several posters watched it and asked him questions about it, he still refused to discuss it, instead pointing us back to the documentary because we were supposedly ignoring the real answers.
Which mirrors what Hancock was doing during the actual interview. Hancock would insist that Shermer "didn't know the material" and thereby couldn't make a specific case (as opposed to the general), but when Shermer did manage to push back with stuff in the actual book, Hancock dodged by saying, "I'm just reporting what other scientists have done." Meaning, of course, Hancock didn't think he had to defend anything at all.
marplots 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 4th June 2017, 03:40 AM   #184
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
It certainly is, and I didn't ignore any part of the 1.5 hours of that video that I watched.

...
But that means you MISSED over half of the evidence for the claims being made!

AND the first half was just Graham bitching about how the Skeptic magazine has mis-characterized him. To which Shermer apologizes and offers to print a retraction.

Is this why you quit watching?
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 4th June 2017, 03:43 AM   #185
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
Don't bother listening to the podcast. In the menorah Atlantis thread he wouldn't discuss the evidence before we watched an hour and a half documentary. When several posters watched it and asked him questions about it, he still refused to discuss it, instead pointing us back to the documentary because we were supposedly ignoring the real answers.
Telling people to ignore evidence is bad form, Porpoise of Life, terribly BAD FORM.
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 4th June 2017, 03:45 AM   #186
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Which mirrors what Hancock was doing during the actual interview. Hancock would insist that Shermer "didn't know the material" and thereby couldn't make a specific case (as opposed to the general), but when Shermer did manage to push back with stuff in the actual book, Hancock dodged by saying, "I'm just reporting what other scientists have done." Meaning, of course, Hancock didn't think he had to defend anything at all.
What claim are you talking about? Which quote did Hancock 'fail' to defend?

Could you offer anything specific, or are you just gonna offer general attacks?
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 4th June 2017, 04:12 AM   #187
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
What claim are you talking about? Which quote did Hancock 'fail' to defend?

Could you offer anything specific, or are you just gonna offer general attacks?
I'm giving my impression of the interaction. You mentioned one instance just a few posts above - where Hancock talks about miscitations, as if he didn't quote the authors he quoted.

You want a timestamp? Will that actually fix anything? I sincerely doubt it. If you can't remember what Hancock was up to, how is a timestamp going to help? I suggest you listen to the podcast again with a more critical ear.
marplots 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 4th June 2017, 04:15 AM   #188
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,994
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
What claim are you talking about? Which quote did Hancock 'fail' to defend?

Could you offer anything specific, or are you just gonna offer general attacks?
Wait, after five pages of refusing to present an argument and insisting people listen to a 3.5 hour interview that will totally reveal everything, you suddenly need specific quotes when the tables are turned?

Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I suggest you listen to the podcast again with a more critical ear.
Porpoise of Life 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 4th June 2017, 04:17 AM   #189
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,671
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
But that means you MISSED over half of the evidence for the claims being made!

AND the first half was just Graham bitching about how the Skeptic magazine has mis-characterized him. To which Shermer apologizes and offers to print a retraction.

Is this why you quit watching?
In the part I watched Shermer said that Skeptic would be printing an article about him. They then showed that apparently the author of the article had pre-published it on some other website, of which Shermer was unaware. Hancock then attacked Shermer for publishing the article because of certain complaints he had about it. Shermer A) Hadn't published it yet, and may not even have read it. B) Wasn't given a chance to actually read it to see if Hancock's complaints were valid. Instead he took a few out of context quotes that may or may not have been accurate portrayals of what was said in the article and whose validity wasn't even discussed.

Shermer never offered to print a retraction. Why would he print a retraction for something that he hadn't printed?

And no that wasn't why I stopped watching.
__________________
"... 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 4th June 2017, 05:11 AM   #190
TX50
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,704
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
The Interview mentioned a flood that passed over Cairo covering it in 120 feet of water.

I think the 3500 BC date is still too late.
But it rains, and rains hard, on the Giza plateau even today. August and September are the wettest months. Why is water erosion on an ancient monument a "mystery"?
TX50 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 4th June 2017, 05:14 AM   #191
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
47:55 - Hancock is refuting the claim in the skeptic article that "no academic would debate me." But his only example is where an academic (Zahi Hawass) actually walked out of a debate after delivering a diatribe against Hancock. Somehow, this transforms into an academic who debated him. Just the opposite of what actually happened.

49:00 - Hancock uses the dodge of agreeing with one part of Jesus Gamara's (SP?) theory about megaliths but denies the more radical part (alternate physics on gravity) while doing so. Gamara explains the "anomalous" theory of the Incas while Hancock just puts another spin on it, keeping what he likes and dismissing the rest.

50:12 - "I do not make that claim..." It's from the book of Enoch. If he isn't making the claim, why is it in the book at all? I know why, because Hancock is going to do with this book what he did with his previous work - when it doesn't pan out, claim that his views "evolved" and he wasn't really saying what he said in this book. Always a moving target.

By the way, have you read some of Hancock's previous work?
marplots 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 5th June 2017, 05:17 PM   #192
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
In the part I watched Shermer said that Skeptic would be printing an article about him. They then showed that apparently the author of the article had pre-published it on some other website, of which Shermer was unaware. Hancock then attacked Shermer for publishing the article because of certain complaints he had about it. Shermer A) Hadn't published it yet, and may not even have read it. B) Wasn't given a chance to actually read it to see if Hancock's complaints were valid. Instead he took a few out of context quotes that may or may not have been accurate portrayals of what was said in the article and whose validity wasn't even discussed.

Shermer never offered to print a retraction. Why would he print a retraction for something that he hadn't printed?

And no that wasn't why I stopped watching.
Exactly, that has NOTHING to do with the evidence of the claims Hancock and his cohort produced. The fist 1.5 hours isn't the meat of that presentation.

You ignored what we are here to discuss.

Last edited by King of the Americas; 5th June 2017 at 05:19 PM.
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 5th June 2017, 05:45 PM   #193
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,671
Given the way you've misconstrued everything that happened in the part of the video that I did watch I find highly it doubtful that your construal of the latter part of the video is accurate. But if you want to discuss it feel free to actually start discussing it.

You might start by replying to Marplots.
__________________
"... 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 5th June 2017, 05:49 PM   #194
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Given the way you've misconstrued everything that happened in the part of the video that I did watch I find highly it doubtful that your construal of the latter part of the video is accurate. But if you want to discuss it feel free to actually start discussing it.

You might start by replying to Marplots.
No.

Do your own work.
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 5th June 2017, 06:00 PM   #195
Shepherd
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 181
This might be a useful summary of the subjects touched upon throughout the podcast:

http://jrefan.com/the-joe-rogan-expe...chael-shermer/
Shepherd 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 6th June 2017, 12:40 AM   #196
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,671
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
No.

Do your own work.
?

Marplots made very specific criticisms of the actual things said in the podcast. Again, if you aren't actually interested in discussing the podcast that's fine, but "do your own work" is a complete non-sequitur here.

It's also interesting to me that when I explained how you lied about what was actually said in the podcast your response was "exactly".
__________________
"... 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 6th June 2017, 04:19 AM   #197
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
47:55 - Hancock is refuting the claim in the skeptic article that "no academic would debate me." But his only example is where an academic (Zahi Hawass) actually walked out of a debate after delivering a diatribe against Hancock. Somehow, this transforms into an academic who debated him. Just the opposite of what actually happened.
And this is where, 'you' should have provided video of the actual interaction between Hawass and Hancock...

Originally Posted by marplots View Post
49:00 - Hancock uses the dodge of agreeing with one part of Jesus Gamara's (SP?) theory about megaliths but denies the more radical part (alternate physics on gravity) while doing so. Gamara explains the "anomalous" theory of the Incas while Hancock just puts another spin on it, keeping what he likes and dismissing the rest.
Yes, I do the same thing.

Originally Posted by marplots View Post
50:12 - "I do not make that claim..." It's from the book of Enoch. If he isn't making the claim, why is it in the book at all? I know why, because Hancock is going to do with this book what he did with his previous work - when it doesn't pan out, claim that his views "evolved" and he wasn't really saying what he said in this book. Always a moving target.
Yes, and herein lies my issue with Hancock, but HERE'S WHY HE DOES IT:

Actual "God(s)" ...VERY VERY 'freak people out'- taboo subject. If someone were to say, "I have absolute proof of (*Insert X-files episode title here*) the general public would freak-the-hockey-puck-out.

Thor is cool on the silver screen or blue ray, but in real life such a being/reality would be unacceptable...a national threat...cause for mass panic...you know, all the worst parts of the bible...satan risen...that sort of thing.

Originally Posted by marplots View Post
By the way, have you read some of Hancock's previous work?
So, I recall several instances, including herein where Hancock says, "I'm just a reporter!"

You wrote it, what does it mean???

*"It means whatever the hell you want it to mean mother-kisser!" lol

Yes, I've read, Fingerprints of the Gods, Chariots of the Gods, and I am intimately familiar with the claims of those who say we have, were, or are being visited by "aliens"...and I dismiss those claims 'now' too. I think they were leaps, without proper evidentiary support. Modern re-interpretations, better understandings, new evidence, all of these should allow us to change our minds, reach new conclusions, and not adhere to old dogma.

*I'm still looking for the debate between Hancock and Zawass.
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 6th June 2017, 04:25 AM   #198
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Originally Posted by TX50 View Post
But it rains, and rains hard, on the Giza plateau even today. August and September are the wettest months. Why is water erosion on an ancient monument a "mystery"?
Because it has always been there, in every picture, unchanged, or 'repaired.'

The erosion is not modern, in any sense of the word.

There is in fact evidence that the entire Giza site was covered with 120 feet of water...who built it, when, and why is, would expectedly be gone thereafter.

What evidence would 'you' personally employ to date the Sphinx?

Last edited by King of the Americas; 6th June 2017 at 04:27 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 6th June 2017, 05:58 AM   #199
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Hancock appears correct to me...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ziu2ygE_Wc
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 6th June 2017, 07:15 AM   #200
King of the Americas
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,782
Hawass is not a scientist, he's a dogmatist.

That was in fact a "refusal to debate"...
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
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 05:40 PM.
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.