There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

stevevw · Wednesday at 10:49 AM

Stopped_lurking said:
No, he didn't do any tests did he? He just speculated. You were the one who brought him up, as if he supported your position.

Why would twist my word like that? I just don't understand why you would bring him up as supporting your argument.

We're done here.

I am going off the same article and it clearly says that Pierre Protzen had done tests. Just after his reference is linked it says "Even though their experiments have been able to shed some light on the techniques".

That clearly implies they had done tests to support their findings. In fact the author was referencing them as support that despite experiements being done by Protzen and Stella Nair questions still remained. He was using Protzen as a credible source. You referred to him as a credible source when you referred to him. Otherwise why refer to him.

stevevw · Wednesday at 10:53 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Laughing faces, not smiley faces. Means that I find your commentary laughable and hilarious, light on facts and evidence.

You want to post commentary on a forum for physical and material science, then don't be a child and start winging petulantly because no-one takes your claims about 'advanced knowledge' and other such BS seriously without actual evidence.

Your entire line of logic is exactly as I said; you make claims and expect people to take them as fact just because you say so. That's not science in anyway shape or form. It's wishful thinking from you only.

This is a logical fallacy. Show me where I said I expect people to take what I presented as fact. I have merely argue that it should be looked at and give a fair chance regardless of whether its correct or not. That it should be looked at with the same level of openness as someone would to anything. Not assume its BS before its even looked at.

I bet you don't even know what I have actually said do you. Tell me what my claim is exactly. Tell me exactl;y what I have said that is not a reasonable thing to say or propose. That has been proven as BS. I bet you can't.

So you have been sitting there stewing and laughing at your own strawmen you have created in your head over what you believe I am saying and not what I am actually saying lol. Whats actually funny is that you have persisted in being concerned with this thread now for over 1,500 posts. If it was all BS then why continue to be fixated on it.

Are you just trolling now lol.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Wednesday at 10:59 AM

stevevw said:
This is a logical fallacy. Show me where I said I expect people to take what I presented as fact. I have merely argue that it should be accepted full stop regardless of whether its correct or not. That it should be looked at with the same level of openness as someone would to anything. Not assume its BS before its even looked at.

So you have been sitting there stewing and laughing at your own strawmen you have created in your head over what you believe I am saying and not what I am actually saying lol.

You need to stop claiming commentary that you don't like as logical fallacies or strawmen. It doesn't make your look smarter than you think you are. And we don't need to invent anything when your own words are all the evidence we need to support our words about you. In fact, your own words of "I have merely argue that it should be accepted full stop regardless of whether its correct or not." is exactly what I'm talking about.

We can easily say something is BS when we look at it because it IS BS. Which exactly what we see from our contributions to your own thread.

BCP1928 · Wednesday at 11:00 AM

stevevw said:
This is a logical fallacy. Show me where I said I expect people to take what I presented as fact. I have merely argue that it should be accepted full stop regardless of whether its correct or not. That it should be looked at with the same level of openness as someone would to anything. Not assume its BS before its even looked at.

So you have been sitting there stewing and laughing at your own strawmen you have created in your head over what you believe I am saying and not what I am actually saying lol.

What you are saying is that if the ancients possessed technical skills we don't know about those skills must have been acquired by other than the usual way technical skills are acquired.

Hans Blaster · Wednesday at 11:25 AM

When @sjastro wrote:

I bet many of the respondents to your posts have been exposed this nonsense beforehand such as being familiar with Erik Von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods.

He was talking about me and himself and @Stopped_lurking and @BCP1928 and @Warden_of_the_Storm and anyone else who has fallen off from this never ending thread. This assessment seems reasonable.

stevevw said:
Another fallacy and thats why I don't like debating you. You tend to throw in these personal jibes that is completely unnecessary.

It wasn't a jib against you , it was a description of us (the not you).

stevevw said:
This is proving my point exactly that skeptics immediately and automatically equate everything said as conspiracy and psuedoscience.

The long duration of this thread ahs clearly demonstrated that the sources you use are all drenched in pseudoscience. As for conspiracies, you can stop making conspiracy claims any time you want.

sjastro · Wednesday at 12:32 PM

stevevw said:
You do this a lott. You pick out one aspect and ignore the rest. Between those links they clear state that this is a science wide problem and not just within the medical sector. So you are making a strawman and misrepresentation of what the articles are actually saying.

If the problem is especially bad in archaeology it should have been relatively easy to provide a link which show this.

stevevw said:
Another fallacy and thats why I don't like debating you. You tend to throw in these personal jibes that is completely unnecessary. This is proving my point exactly that skeptics immediately and automatically equate everything said as conspiracy and psuedoscience.

What has this got to do with equating your nonsense with Erik Von Daniken's book?
If you haven't read the book then stop making stupid personal based opinions trying to pass them off as facts.
Alternatively if you have read the book explain why it's conclusion of aliens being the cause is less valid than the use of transcendental knowledge which also produced zero evidence.

stevevw said:
Do you mean like you just literally did lol. You cheery picked the one article on bias in peer review that mentions the medical sector to make out that this was only about the medical sector.

Anyone with a half a brain would not use two examples of peer review issues in medicine as an example of a problem in archaeology.

stevevw said:
Just just equated everything I said as quack and offered no evidence. But even so just dismissing it all as conspiracy is itself a disqualifier. Thus your arguements are from personal incredulity and ignorance because you have obviously ignore most of what is said and you know it.

Your doing it again. Assuming that what I have said is conspiracy or quack. What have I said that is not within the scope of todays sciences.

What hope do you have in being able to put forward a coherent argument when you do not understand the meaning of words like conspiracy?
This is the very argument from ignorance you constantly engage in and project on others.

stevevw said:
Don't confuse the spectualtion in trying to workout how the ancients gained their knowledge through their experiences and beliefs with science.

Lets establish a basis as to where you draw the line. It seems you do not believe in anything but empiricle science as to what is knowledge of the world and reality. Is that right.

So therefore any spectualtion about transcedent knowledge such as through cultural beliefs or direct conscious experiences is unreal and but rather make believe. Is that right.

Where have I lies. Or is this lie concocted based on the many strawmen you have created and attributed to me.

What a load of rubbish, you have turned this thread into a lie fest by deliberately ignoring every piece of counter evidence given and then claiming no such evidence exists. It's called lying by omission.
As result your lies a more than a distraction they completely undermine your efforts in putting forward a coherent argument in defending what is basically pseudoscience.

stevevw said:
Another logical fallacy. This time an either/or ie criticising Hawass or peer review means attacking science and archeology altogether. It does not follow.

It is well known that Hawss holding a lot of power and authority has used his position to control the information coming out. It is well know that there is bias and gatekeeping.

It seems reasonable in a debate about the insistence of using specific gatekeeping rules that the credibility of such is brought up. Its rather hypocritical considering I have spent most of this thread having to defend the sources I have linked. Another example and red flag of bias.

This is another example of lying, since you were unable to provide a single example of unethical peer review in archaeology, you decide to discredit the entire field on the behaviour of a single individual.
Whether the individual is actually guilty of your accusations is another story.

This thread is not about you having to defend your sources but your disgraceful level of dishonesty in having to make a point.

Stopped_lurking · Wednesday at 10:38 PM

One more post exchange.

stevevw said:
I am going off the same article and it clearly says that Pierre Protzen had done tests. Just after his reference is linked it says "Even though their experiments have been able to shed some light on the techniques".

This is not from Protzens own writing. From the source I believe you are using:

"Even though their experiments have been able to shed some light on the techniques that, even with very rudimentary tools, could have been used to craft perfectly planar surfaces, accurate right angles and millimeter wide joints, many aspects of ancient Andean stone cutting and architecture remain unexplained."

They are clearly not talking about any shining surfaces here.

If this is the text you meant to quote, stop being deceptive. You failed to quote a pertinent part.

If you meant some other text please link it.

stevevw said:
That clearly implies they had done tests to support their findings. In fact the author was referencing them as support that despite experiements being done by Protzen and Stella Nair questions still remained. He was using Protzen as a credible source. You referred to him as a credible source when you referred to him. Otherwise why refer to him.

Because you referred to him. I asked questions about his view and implicitly why you referenced him.

stevevw · 2025-12-18T20:14:56-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
One more post exchange.

This is not from Protzens own writing. From the source I believe you are using:

"Even though their experiments have been able to shed some light on the techniques that, even with very rudimentary tools, could have been used to craft perfectly planar surfaces, accurate right angles and millimeter wide joints, many aspects of ancient Andean stone cutting and architecture remain unexplained."

They are clearly not talking about any shining surfaces here.

If this is the text you meant to quote, stop being deceptive. You failed to quote a pertinent part.

If you meant some other text please link it.

I think you are missing the point. You used Protzens opinion that the stones may have been polished. You are using my link, the same link you say is not good enough and that I need peer reviewed evidence for.

If my link is good enough for you to use to point out something wrong. Therefore I should be able to use my links to do the same and this should be accepted with the some logic as how you just used my own link to refute me.

Yet if I did the same as I have been doing I am demanded to provide further evidence such as peer review.

Stopped_lurking said:
Because you referred to him. I asked questions about his view and implicitly why you referenced him.

All I was looking at was Protzen was one of the experts referred to in my article who was credible as far as experts looking at ancient works. It doesn't matter what his particular findings were. Its that you use one of my own references as evidence. While at the same time dismissing my references as unreliable and lacking credibility.

stevevw · 2025-12-18T21:16:51-0600

BCP1928 said:
Neither do you.

I am not sure what you mean "neither do you". Neither do I show how the ancients gained their knowledge. My point was not how exactly the ancients gained their knowledge.

But that because we don't know and because it may have been gained in a different and alternative way to the way in which material science demands it (is the very dogmatic epistemics being pushed over ancients and alternative knowledge) that material sciences demand. Which dismisses the possibility of advanced and alternative knowledge before its investigated.

This is a metaphysical belief and not science. If it was the truth that we do not know how the ancients gained their knowledge. Then people should be saying "we don't know", "it could be there is advanced alternative knowledge because we don't know"

Therefore material scientists would have to admit that the possibility of alternative advanced knowledge is real. They may have gained their knowledge by means of some other paradigm worldview that material sciences cannot know themselves.

So its more about the epistemic and metaphysical neutrality and non bias towards any specific way of knowing that is the point and issue. If as material and atheistic naturalists using material processes of sciences to dismiss all other ways of knowling as unreal. Then thats dogma and imposing an epistemic rule of how we should know reality over all others.

So really as I am open to all ways of knowing this is really the only reasonable position to take. You can demand all the peer review science you want but this is never going to verify that there is not alternative and advanced knowledge and that throughout our history this knowledge was present.

stevevw · 2025-12-18T21:26:27-0600

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
You need to stop claiming commentary that you don't like as logical fallacies or strawmen. It doesn't make your look smarter than you think you are.

But you have not given reasoning why the logical fallacies I pointed out did not stand. Your making the assumption yourself that you believe I am wrong in the first place. As far as I remember we have not had any debate over anything lol. You just make claims and then say nothing.

In fact the tactic of just laughing at everything I say is a prime example of how your not engaging and just making fallcies with absolutely no enegagement let along debating. Your actuially proving my point in the way you revert to symbols let alone words.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
And we don't need to invent anything when your own words are all the evidence we need to support our words about you. In fact, your own words of "I have merely argue that it should be accepted full stop regardless of whether its correct or not." is exactly what I'm talking about.

Then show me where I said that. I bet you can't because your making stuff up now. Go on show me I dare you lol. Thats how confident I am that you cannot show me this as I never advocate for such an epistemic dogma.

Whereas thats exactly what your doing now. Your creating a false narrative to beat me over the head with lol.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
We can easily say something is BS when we look at it because it IS BS. Which exactly what we see from our contributions to your own thread.

Then show me its BS. You never have. Not once and thats the reality.

stevevw · 2025-12-18T21:36:22-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
One more post exchange.

This is not from Protzens own writing. From the source I believe you are using:

"Even though their experiments have been able to shed some light on the techniques that, even with very rudimentary tools, could have been used to craft perfectly planar surfaces, accurate right angles and millimeter wide joints, many aspects of ancient Andean stone cutting and architecture remain unexplained."

They are clearly not talking about any shining surfaces here.

If this is the text you meant to quote, stop being deceptive. You failed to quote a pertinent part.

If you meant some other text please link it.

You are missing the point. I don't care about what is said and by whom. My point was that you suddenly found credibility in my own links by referencing Protzen. Yet when I reference anyone peer review is demanded. Its a double standard.

If you want to use someone within my references to defeat my point just by referring to them and not going through all the hoops of peer review or whatever it is demanded.

Then by the same logic when I cite others you should accept them without all the hoop jumping. But thats not what is happening. See how the rules are bent for one and not the others. Otherwise it does not matter what Protzen said or what it was about. If we apply the same hoop jumping then any point you are trying to make about Protzen perhaps saying the works may have been poliched is discredited under the same logic.

Stopped_lurking said:
Because you referred to him. I asked questions about his view and implicitly why you referenced him.

It does not matter. You are referring to him. If he did say the works were polished. Then you would use that as evidence that perhaps it was not vitrified. Is that correct.

Then you are using my reference and using evidence in the exact same way as I have been doing. So its double standards to then demand peer review as you never applied that to yourself. You were quite happy to use the possibility of Protzens contradiction to refute that the stones were vitrified.

Stopped_lurking · 2025-12-18T21:56:50-0600

stevevw said:
I think you are missing the point. You used Protzens opinion that the stones may have been polished. You are using my link, the same link you say is not good enough and that I need peer reviewed evidence for.

If my link is good enough for you to use to point out something wrong. Therefore I should be able to use my links to do the same and this should be accepted with the some logic as how you just used my own link to refute me.

Yet if I did the same as I have been doing I am demanded to provide further evidence such as peer review.

All I was looking at was Protzen was one of the experts referred to in my article who was credible as far as experts looking at ancient works. It doesn't matter what his particular findings were. Its that you use one of my own references as evidence. While at the same time dismissing my references as unreliable and lacking credibility.

stevevw said:
You are missing the point. I don't care about what is said and by whom. My point was that you suddenly found credibility in my own links by referencing Protzen. Yet when I reference anyone peer review is demanded. Its a double standard.

If you want to use someone within my references to defeat my point just by referring to them and not going through all the hoops of peer review or whatever it is demanded.

Then by the same logic when I cite others you should accept them without all the hoop jumping. But thats not what is happening. See how the rules are bent for one and not the others. Otherwise it does not matter what Protzen said or what it was about. If we apply the same hoop jumping then any point you are trying to make about Protzen perhaps saying the works may have been poliched is discredited under the same logic.

It does not matter. You are referring to him. If he did say the works were polished. Then you would use that as evidence that perhaps it was not vitrified. Is that correct.

Then you are using my reference and using evidence in the exact same way as I have been doing. So its double standards to then demand peer review as you never applied that to yourself. You were quite happy to use the possibility of Protzens contradiction to refute that the stones were vitrified.

What? I don't think Protzens writings about the supposed vitrified surfaces are the definitive answer. He performed very little tests, if any to evidence that. In post 1576, I stated that I believe he is speculating regarding the supposedly vitrified surfaces.

I was wondering why you reference him, when it seemingly goes against the position you try to argue.

stevevw · 2025-12-19T00:33:23-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
What? I don't think Protzens writings about the supposed vitrified surfaces are the definitive answer.

But you used it as a counter to the claim that the works were vitrified. Your using him to dispute this by throwing in his opinion or possible opinion as weighty enough to dispute what I am saying overall.

Otherwise why bring it up. If Protzen has no credibility for countering my claim then why use him. Why even mention him if you don't know his work.

Stopped_lurking said:
He performed very little tests, if any to evidence that. In post 1576, I stated that I believe he is speculating regarding the supposedly vitrified surfaces.

I was wondering why you reference him, when it seemingly goes against the position you try to argue.

Thats because as I said I did not care what the references were about. I picked Protzen because he was the first in the list to show that the article was referencing the science. I don;t care what science but that it was referencing the science and was not just a blog or non scientific article.

Thats what the whole issue has been about. That the articles I am linking are not good enough and need to be peer reviewed or meet some criteria that the skeptics are imposing.

So when you referred to Protzen questioning the idea of vitrified stones you were using the same kind of epistemics as myself. You did not care if he was peer reviewed or credible science. You used him as a possible contradiction to my claim that the evidence supports that they were vitrified.

Stopped_lurking · 2025-12-19T00:37:38-0600

stevevw said:
But you used it as a counter to the claim that the works were vitrified. Your using him to dispute this by throwing in his opinion or possible opinion as weighty enough to dispute what I am saying overall.

Otherwise why bring it up. If Protzen has no credibility for countering my claim then why use him. Why even mention him if you don't know his work.

Thats because as I said I did not care what the references were about. I picked Protzen because he was the first in the list to show that the article was referencing the science. I don;t care what science but that it was referencing the science and was not just a blog or non scientific article.

Thats what the whole issue has been about. That the articles I am linking are not good enough and need to be peer reviewed or meet some criteria that the skeptics are imposing.

So when you referred to Protzen questioning the idea of vitrified stones you were using the same kind of epistemics as myself. You did not care if he was peer reviewed or credible science. You used him as a possible contradiction to my claim that the evidence supports that they were vitrified.

But that particular one is a blog post is it not? From an ancient ruins blog.

I found it when I searched your earlier quote. I didn't use your link when I asked about if Protzen thought it could be made from polishing, but I went from memory. That's why I formulated it as a question.

Asking how they excluded polishing is not saying that it was done by polishing.

stevevw · 2025-12-19T00:46:31-0600

Hans Blaster said:
When @sjastro wrote:

He was talking about me and himself and @Stopped_lurking and @BCP1928 and @Warden_of_the_Storm and anyone else who has fallen off from this never ending thread. This assessment seems reasonable.

And I disagreed that it was reasonable by the simple fact that it is these social threads that are a pooer representation of what is actually going on.

I disagree of the framing that this is an either/or determining. That its either any old conspiracy or whatever idea you think is the conspiracy that you pick out of all that has been said as the true representation of anyone who proposes alternative and advanced knowledge.

I disagree with the premise in the first place. Its creating a strawman to then make out that this is all the same as the far fetched claims of aliens which is a specific group who support unfounded ideas about knowledge being handed down by aliens.

This is conflating every claim and idea about advanced knowledge on a level that clearly is designed to undermine the reasonable claims as well. In fact its a go to stereotype that is used often for just about everything that is said.

Hans Blaster said:
It wasn't a jib against you , it was a description of us (the not you).

Yes and thats what I was speaking about. Not individuals but the narratives created or the strawmen created being the misrepresentation used that individuals then use to dismiss alternative and advanced knowledge.

Its a social phenomena and not an indiviual one. A social narrative or belief that individuals buy into or not. But nonetheless its a belief and not fact.

Hans Blaster said:
The long duration of this thread ahs clearly demonstrated that the sources you use are all drenched in pseudoscience.

Another fallacy. Spending a long time on something must mean its whacko. It does not follow.

Hans Blaster said:
As for conspiracies, you can stop making conspiracy claims any time you want.

If you mean ones made by others that all such talk about alternative and advanced knowledge is a conspiracy itself. Then no that won't stop until those making such false claims stop lol.

By the way lets shoot down the semantics as well. Whether its called a conspiracy, strawman, false representation or psuedoscience its all designed to undermine claims of alternative and advanced knowledge.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-12-19T03:41:26-0600

Test.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-12-19T03:42:33-0600

I can't post my full reply. How bizarre.

Stopped_lurking · 2025-12-19T03:56:09-0600

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I can't post my full reply. How bizarre.

I also have problem posting, and editing posts.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-12-19T03:56:43-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
I also have problem posting, and editing posts.

Might be a sign this thread might have a mod looking through it.

Might, I say.

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

inquisitive

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Area Meathead

Newbie

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

inquisitive

inquisitive

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads