Use the right words, especially if you know them. Looseness in speech is not a virtue.
I am talking about words being used to describe the people and evidence shown. Words like amateur as a description of the persons ability or work.
Misrepresentations and unsupported words that are used to dismiss the content being presented or the credibility of those presenting.
Explanations are not evidence. Explanations *explain* evidence. The "orthodox narrative" is entirely based on evidence. The "alternative ideas" have the same evidence to work with. The question arises if one, the other, neither, or both work with the evidence.
This is an unreal explanation itself lol and theres no evidence for it. In fact evidence of the exact opposite. Two good examples mentioned in this thread. One being the scoop marks on the unfinished obelisk.
The orthodoxy claims small dolerite pounders take years to smash out the block. Research shows the signatures don't match pounders but a combination of methods. Evidence supports other methods.
The other being the evidence for stone casting on the pyramids. The orthodoxy is they were cut, pounded and chiseled. That the blocks showing hair tight joins were just extra hard work to get such tight joins.
Research shows some have been cast. So the orthodox narrative held firm that all blocks were pounded or chiseled no matter what. Coming up with just so stories that everything including the high precision which was better explained by stone casting was rejected. It was not a case of the evidence but maintain the orthodoxy. This is happening all over the place.
Quite possibly. It would all come down to if the evidence supports an ET theory or does not. This is the problem with playing with the bright flames of pseudoscience -- it can burn you.
Yes but its stemming from the same flame. Its just some add to much fuel to it. But in some ways you have to spectualte outside the box to move forward when the present explanations are inadequate or don't match whats on the ground.
Sometimes the evidence is there but the orthodoxy explains it away ie the scoop marks. It may not point to advanced knowledge but it may well do so.
The point is the contradictory evidence is dismissed and forced into the orthodoxy ie everything within the pounding, chisling, copper hand saw, manpower methods. Slow, gradual labour heavy methods that keep the ancients primitive to match the primitive/simple to complex paradigm.
It's not OK. It is a poor position to take as it is not supported by evidence. Just because it isn't a conspiracy doesn't mean it isn't a dumb idea.
THis whole assumption of what is the evidence and what is conspiracy or a dumb idea seems subjective itself. Depending on what metaphysical belief you have.
So who says its a poor position to claim that there is alternative and advanced knowledge in the past or al all.
That's exactly what the "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracy theory is Steve.
How many so called conspiracy ideas came from such a disaster. Probably all sorts and not just the main ones like the Intelligence weakened the building or trained the pilots ect under some psychops.
These are the extreme conspiracies. But these stem from legitimate questioning and actual corruption at some level. It never comes from a situation where there was no reason for some to question and be suspicious of some sort of coverup or foul play.
Now that may be an individual case or the result of bad management that is being covered up. But something always provokes the questioning or the narrative of a coverup or foul play. It is that some take this to the extreme to make it a story itself.
The point being that based on this same human inclination its easy to see how a real event like massive floods in our distant past were turned into central myths in most religions. The same with ideas about cities or peoples who were destroyed for their hubris and sin.
Ideas like the Flood myths and great cities deing destroyed are based on real events that have been elaborated on. So investigating whether there was a great city or culture that may have been destroyed seems a reasonable line of investigation and not conspiracy making.
Conspiracy theories are built by frantic putting of unrelated factoids together because "it just makes sense." JFK was murdered by dissolusioned communist (and former defector to the USSR) with an Italian infantry rifle from the window of the schoolbook warehouse that he worked at.
Yes and that was based on the reality that the government was dealing with the mafia one way or another at the time. Its a reasonable thing to consider. The rest I don't know. But theres always some truth that has been distorted in some way.
But also sometimes the so called conspiracy is proven correct. So just coming up with a sequence of events as with Kennedy's assassination is not itself a conspiracy. Because in another case just as unlikely events have been proven correct.
Wow. You even bring up extra conspiracy theories without prompting like "the Deep State".
Thus proving my point above lol. Thankyou.
And his co-conspirator was convicted of conspiracy. But we aren't talking about criminal conspiracies we are listing nut-job conspiracy theories so that you can understand what one is and how ancient Egyptian potter manufacture is not one.
Ok lets use the very thing that is claimed to be the conspiracy. The ancient vases and other works and signatures in the stones as one line of evidence for lost knowledge and tech.
Where is the line between an investigation into this possibility and it becoming a conspiracy theory.
None of those have anything to do with the conspiracy theories about the Roswell "incident". (And many of them have already been discredited. My favorite is the "UFO" tracked by a fighter jet over the ocean that turns out to be a bird.)
So what about the rest. The actual testimony under oath of the posssession of UAP or UFO material and non-biological organism. Or the other images and video that the officials have actually said was not birds but some sort of advanced tech.
There has definitely been a spike in sightings and many unexplained. Over military bases, and the same has been reported in Russia and China. There has definitely been a spike in overall sightings throughout the world. This may be a psychological illusion but I don't think we can be so quick to dismiss whatever.
Does not our own science predict such possibilities lol. That there may be interdimensional aspects to reality. A multiverse, wormholes, life throughout the universe and beyond. Why is everyone now denying even our own scientific predictions.
Not all coronaviruses are SARS-CoV-2 and that virus was first isolated from the Wuhan hospitals, not in a lab source.
Your missing the point. It doesn't matter. Its that there is a basis for creating that conspiracy which was real. Not that it was really creating the virus. But that similar virus was being experimented there and that the US had ties to the lab. Even if it was innocent.
The point is even though the conspiracy becomes unreal and even adds falsehoods to it. It always begins fron something real. Will have the components of something real or factual that it then distorts for whatever reasons. Otherwise it doesn't work. The conspirators have to have some grains of truth to give the conspiracy some legs to build on lol.
Otherwise if nothing happened at all. The US was not associated at all with the Wuhan and the Wuhan lab was not working with viruses ect. Then theres nothing to conspire about. There always has to be a real event with some unknowns that can be exploited or twisted.
Conspiracy and pseudoscience are not the same thing. We have repeated called out the pseudoscience you have posted here.
Actual there has not been any point out pseudoscience. Or at least any credible pointing out. I just showed how biased words and language being used against those linked. There has actually been no evidence that these people are amateurs or quacks. Its only your personal opinion.
Plus when I have shown peer review or testings its dismissed as woo. Or the preliminary work is dismissed as not being worthy of further investigation. The double standards and bias is obvious. Why should anything be determined on a social media thread lol.
We (the "not you" posters) have not claimed anything is "a conspiracy". That is only you complaining that we are calling things conspiracies that were not in fact or implication. That failure on your part is why I wrote the post you just replied to. Is it starting to sink in?
Do you really want me to show the language used which clearly shows that this was the assumption for the beginning. I don't care what you want to call how people and ideas linked are framed be it a conspiracy, pseudoscience or grifters Hans. Its all the same in dismissing what is said. Its all still bias and double standards.
See last paragraph. It is because you have incorrectly introduced the term "conspiracy" in you accusations when we call out the pseudoscience in your posts.
So are you saying that no one has actually used the word conspiracy as a descriptor for the same stuff that is being framed as pseudoscience. Or that either term is still a descriptor to dismiss and devalue whats linked.
Why is it so important to get fixated on semantics. The point was these words and language are demeaning, devaluing and dismissing good people with legitimate ideas and questions about advanced knowledge.
Now I am really confused lol. So believing the ancients maybe messed around with nature, physics, chemistry, astronomy and had real effects is ok a position to hold. Or maybe if a culture gained this knowledge they passed it on and we should believe the ancients when they say that their ancestors had advanced knowledge.
