Discussion:
If Anthropologists and Archeologists Wanted the World to Take them Seriously
(too old to reply)
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-13 22:48:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If Anthropologists and Archeologists Wanted the World to Take them Seriously

http://prehistoricfantasy.blogspot.com/2015/04/if-anthropologists-and-archeologists.html

If anthropologists and archeologists wanted the world to take them more seriously, so that 9 out of 10 college grads didn't put their faith in the History Channel or the Discovery Channel instead, they would do a few things. And they woould stop digging in Oldavai Gorge, stop redating fossils that were redated within the last two decades, stop working on anything in strata younger than say 3000 B.C., and stop debating about human ancestors previous to 4 million B.C. , until the following questions have been adequately answered for the public.

1. What is the origin of the pyramids on the different continents? We heard your answer about all the different cultures coming up with them independently, but we didn't buy it. In fact, it made us wonder why we are paying our taxes and tuition to support your research.

Luckily, amateur scientists have done part of your job for you and adequately explained to us how the pyramids could have been made without the help of high tech machinery. This is a job that you had previously failed to accomplish, but having it done means you've got the rest of your work cut out for you...so chop-chop!

2. What is the origin of tooth avulsion? We heard your answer about all the different cultures coming up with it independently, but we didn't buy it. We would buy it if you had an underlying reason to go along with the assumption, but lock-jaw aint it.

The first fossils with the same teeth knocked out at adolescence are in Australia 50 thousand years ago, the Maghreb in North Africa 20 thousand years ago, and the Jomon in Japan 20 thousand years ago. We need a source area of dispersal and a DNA lineage, or an anatomical explanation. If a hybrid tooth pattern of sinodonts vs sundadonts vs neanderthal vs erectines or any other combinations therein might create a need for such a practice, we need to know that too.

3. What is the homeland of the original practitioners of artifial cranial deformation? Were they a ghost population, and if not please provide us with their haplogroups. We heard your answer about all the different cultures coming up with the practice independently, but we didn't buy it. It makes us think that people who read books too much and spend all day in labs must lose their common sense completely somewhere along the way. If the crania deformers were a ghost population, please provide a few solid theories as to which extinct human haplogroup or archaic hominid lineage they are partially derived from.

The smart ones among us are pretty sure that they weren't alien hybrids, but even that is a better explanation than the little you scientist types have given us. We also need explanations of the absense of certain sutures on some of these skulls, and an explanation or refutation of the claim that there are extra arteries in the back of the Paracas skulls. We've all seen the holes on Youtube with our own eyes, and if they are indicitave of additional trepanations and not extra arteries at all, then we need a real scientists to say so publicly (and not in a nerdy boring article behind a pay-wall). If any archaics had extra holes or if the process of hybridization between any two known hominids might produce these extra arteries, that would be useful to know as well.

The first instances of it are redated to North Australia 20 thousand years ago and the Beijing area at roughly the same date. The next examples are from Korea and Ur around 8000 years ago, and the 45,000 year old Neanderthal at Shanidar has been debinked, so that should be a good start.

4. Are you guys admitting that the Ark of the Covenant was a capacitor, or where is the debunk page? 20 pages deep on a Google search and the only one I've seen looks like it might be showing that any box with gold around it is a capacitor, but I really can't tell since it's written so nerdy and is further complicated with Fundamentalist philosophy.

We try to argue from a scientific viewpoint with our friends and all they have to do is say "Ark of the Covenant" and quote a couple lines from Ancient Aliens and we're lost. We're not all electricians, so we need it given to us simple-like; a simple explanation of each opposing point of view will suffice.

5. What mtDNA and Y Haplogroups, not populations, have the most of each of the following things:

*Microcephaline D

*ASPM-D

*Mungo Man's Chromosomal Introgression

*YAP

*Neanderthal (Divided into at least two clusters since it is known that Asians have a different segment of the genome than Europeans do).

*Denisovan (Divided into at least 3 clusters since it has three genomic divurgence points within it and there's some suggestion that some modern people have one or two parts but not all three parts of the greater genome).

Until archeologists, anthropologists, and archeogeneticists complete at least those five challenges, people will continue to turn to programs like The Search for Lost Giants and Ancient Aliens and will continue wondering why they had to take Civilization I and II in college in the first place...and eventually you might even lose funding for your government paid programs.

Then you won't be able to dig for proof that Neanderthal was stupid after all, or that dogs didn't really get domesticated until 5000 B.C. after all, or that Moses didn't exist, or that Hittites were really the Sittites as opposed to the Shittites...because there won't be any money left to dig with!

And remember not to put it only behind a pay wall: less than 1% of us can see it there, but we've all got the History Channel.
JTEM
2015-04-16 07:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J.LyonLayden
1. What is the origin of the pyramids on the different continents?
Answered LONG ago...

If you wanted to build tall in the distant past,
you had exactly two choices: Pyramid or cone.

Build a pyramid out of legos. Do it on a table top.
Now, see how much you have to lift & shake that table
to get that pyramid (or cone) to fall on it's side.

Do the same with a tower. Big difference, right? It's
real easy to knock that baby over...

A square would be pretty stable in our lego experiment,
but never in real life. There'd be far too many
stresses. The blocks on the bottom would be supporting,
what, hundreds of times their own weight!

That's the beauty of a cone or pyramid: The higher
you build, the lighter the load each level gets. PLUS
there's the inherent stability in the shape.
Post by J.LyonLayden
2. What is the origin of tooth avulsion?
This is a horrible question.

You're literally claiming that we need to assign motives,
and we do not. We likely can't.
Post by J.LyonLayden
3. What is the homeland of the original practitioners of
artifial cranial deformation?
Why does there have to be one?

There could be eight or 12 or 17 homelands. There could
be 117 homelands.

It's not magic. It's not something that only happened
if you knew what you were doing or chanted the right
spells. We grow a certain way. Period. Stop us from
growing that certain way and we'll grow a different
way...
Post by J.LyonLayden
4. Are you guys admitting that the Ark of the Covenant
was a capacitor, or where is the debunk page?
It didn't exist.

It may be based on some story involving an Egyptian
Bark, but even if it was the story has been so
fictionalized at this point that it's sheer nonsense
to claim that it's "Real."

That would be like claiming that Superman is "Real"
because Metropolis is based on the real city of
New York, they had real newspapers... etc.

You're trolling something fierce...




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/116376915972
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-17 15:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by J.LyonLayden
1. What is the origin of the pyramids on the different continents?
Answered LONG ago...
If you wanted to build tall in the distant past,
you had exactly two choices: Pyramid or cone.
Build a pyramid out of legos. Do it on a table top.
Now, see how much you have to lift & shake that table
to get that pyramid (or cone) to fall on it's side.
Do the same with a tower. Big difference, right? It's
real easy to knock that baby over...
A square would be pretty stable in our lego experiment,
but never in real life. There'd be far too many
stresses. The blocks on the bottom would be supporting,
what, hundreds of times their own weight!
That's the beauty of a cone or pyramid: The higher
you build, the lighter the load each level gets. PLUS
there's the inherent stability in the shape.
Yes we've heard this before. But it's not just that, and I'm not talking about the well known Mayan and Egyptian pyramids. When people see a "ziggurat"-like pyramid from Asia that they can't tell from a "ziggurat"-like pyramid from Central America common sense kicks in and overrides scientific theory.
A wheel is the easiest way to roll a cart, but if carts and wheels were to show up independently in places far removed from one another I hope that scientists wouldnt lack the common sense to realize a connection.

If Gunang Pedang really is a pyramid we might have an answer.
Oppenheimer has already shown that much in the various pyramid cultures is owed to a civilization that arose on the same "sunken" continent where Gunang Pedang stands.
Post by JTEM
Post by J.LyonLayden
2. What is the origin of tooth avulsion?
This is a horrible question.
You're literally claiming that we need to assign motives,
and we do not. We likely can't.
Same teeth knocked as ritual 50k ago in Australia among the Mungo people, 20k ago in Japan among Jomon, and 20k ago in Tunisia among Ibero-Maurusians.
I don't see how any researcher can claim any knowledge of population dispersals leading up to any of those three cultures without taking that into account.
At least give us a couple theories.
There's no way that someone said "hey let's knock our incisors and only our incisors out at the age of 16" independently in three different places as far as they can possibly be from one another with no connection.
If MtDNA was originally spread to North Africa and Australia via Mungo man and not our ancestor, we have our answer.
If hybridization with neanderthals creates a need for tooth knocking at adolescence, we have an answer.
Both of these are more plausible than the "lock jaw" and worse theories that scientists give us.
Post by JTEM
Post by J.LyonLayden
3. What is the homeland of the original practitioners of
artifial cranial deformation?
Why does there have to be one?
Because I have common sense in addition to the scientific theory.
You might as well tell me that tooth grills were independently invented by urban youth in Japan and America independently. Although that would be a little more believable.
Post by JTEM
There could be eight or 12 or 17 homelands. There could
be 117 homelands.
Nope there can't, according to common sense. This is the problem with how anthropologists and archeologists work- they forget they have any as soon as they learn the scientific method.
Post by JTEM
It's not magic. It's not something that only happened
if you knew what you were doing or chanted the right
spells. We grow a certain way. Period. Stop us from
growing that certain way and we'll grow a different
way...
Magic spells huh?
So coming up with a new tradition and then spreading it to other cultures and other lands as your population increases, or you lands flood, is a magic spell now?

One thing that has helped us with cranial deformation mystery is that the 45k neanderthal head binding claims has been disproven. Before that, the distribution of the practice had really confused me.

Now we know that the first instances are in China and Australia at 20k. The next are at Ur and in Korea at 7000B.C. and according to Oppenheimer those two cultures are associated with the exact same artifacts- specialized fishing gear and sculptures of head bound people. The same fishing gear shows up in PNG at that same time too, along with the same figurines carved in wood.

All head-binding after 700 B.C. in Eurasia spreads from Korea and Ur, diminishing in practice as it gets farther from the source. It has also spread in Australia and PNG.

I'm still researching South America, but so far it is looking like this: The places where it was practiced in S. America are the same places that show high Denisova admixture, high Y Haplogroup C, and at least one of them shows similarities in pottery with Vanuatu (a head binding monolithic culture) and Jomon.

I'm sorry, but head binding came from SE Asia and spread with agriculture and I'm disappointed that I had to figure that out for myself just to write a prehistoric fiction book. Meanwhile grant money is dwindling for diggers because they refuse to attempt answers to the most important common sense questions....therefore people look to Ancient Aliens instead.
Post by JTEM
Post by J.LyonLayden
4. Are you guys admitting that the Ark of the Covenant
was a capacitor, or where is the debunk page?
It didn't exist.
It may be based on some story involving an Egyptian
Bark, but even if it was the story has been so
fictionalized at this point that it's sheer nonsense
to claim that it's "Real."
That would be like claiming that Superman is "Real"
because Metropolis is based on the real city of
New York, they had real newspapers... etc.
You're trolling something fierce...
Then why is there not a debunk page? Scientist make fun of the layman for not understanding, and then provide them with no understanding.

Nikola friggin Tesla said it was a capacitor, and not everyone knows that Nikola Tesla was a sensationalist who was very good at capturing the minds of his 19th century audience.
It would be really easy for a non-creationist electrical engineer to read the passages about the Ark in the Bible, read one or two of the 5 billion claims that it's a capacitor, and then tell us it's not in a googleable blog page.
Until then we'll have 70% of the US thinking that it probabaly was a capacitor.
As I said, there is one debunk page but it's written by a creationist. I had my electrician frind read it and he thinks that what the guy is saying that it would be impracticle as a capacitor and would require some other things. he's an ELECTRICIAN and having trouble helping me write a debunk page, you could say.
Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/116376915972
JTEM
2015-04-17 16:33:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J.LyonLayden
When people see a "ziggurat"-like pyramid from
Asia that they can't tell from a "ziggurat"-like
pyramid from Central America common sense kicks
in and overrides scientific theory.
Brains look for patterns. Period. That's all you're
doing. You're spotting something that matches your
definition of a pattern.

They say that pigeons are even worse than humans.
That, if you reward them for a behavior they'll
repeat the behavior -- pattern recognition! But
if you reward them randomly they'll repeat whatever
behavior they were just doing thinking that it'll
get them another reward -- apparently they see
EVERYTHING as a pattern...

There just plain is NOT a lot of wiggle room for
architecture. Build the wrong shape and any
movement -- earth quake, settlement, etc -- will
topple it. Some shapes are just plain stable and
others are not.

Next, add real life forces like wind, the weather
and architectural stresses. A cube is inherently
stable in shape, for example, but the larger you
make it the more you expose it to environmental
forces, even as you pile on greater & greater
stresses from the weight (material limits).

If you wanted to build big there was pyramids and
cones, or some variation there of. That's it.
Post by J.LyonLayden
A wheel is the easiest way to roll a cart, but if
carts and wheels were to show up independently in
places far removed from one another I hope that
scientists wouldnt lack the common sense to
realize a connection.
You love binary models, don't you?

Calculus was invented more than once, independently.
But a wheel couldn't be?

I think you lack perspective.

Sometimes we think things look like they have
to mean something, unless & until we put them
alongside something else.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/116348721418
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-17 17:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If people in America decided to start driving nails in their children's heads, just enough so that it wouldn't hurt them but the bone would form around them...and people started doing it in Africa the same century started doing the same thing....and in the same century Mongolians started doing it too...
would I be a pidgeon for thinking that this pattern implied a connection?

Even exclusding the smaller temples I mentioned that look almost exactly alike even down to the number of stairs on each face, ;et's look at the explanation of a pyramid is a simple, strong structure for megalithic building.

Why again did man all of a sudden have an interest in building useless religious structures 180,000 years of being fine with practical just sleeping quarters and actual shelter?

You could say agriculture, end of ice age, and huge population structure except that agriculture began 27,000 years ago in the Soloman Islands and Europeans and Chinese and Middle Easterners didn't make any pyramids and they had those things. I the idea of a pyramid just springs into any homo sapien's head as a right of birth as soon as they think of building something huge, why doesn't every culture with huge things have pyramids?

I suppose you could be right, but let me find that comparison of the two temples. They look almost like carbon copies and they are more complicated than just a basic pyramid.
JTEM
2015-04-18 03:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J.LyonLayden
If people in America decided to start driving
nails in their children's heads, just enough
so that it wouldn't hurt them but the bone
would form around them...and people started
doing it in Africa the same century started
doing the same thing....and in the same
century Mongolians started doing it too...
would I be a pidgeon for thinking that this
pattern implied a connection?
I have never seen any such pattern, much less
any "Connection."

How how you establishing this "Pattern"?
Post by J.LyonLayden
Why again did man all of a sudden have an interest
in building useless religious structures 180,000
years of being fine with practical just sleeping
quarters and actual shelter?
Because these "Men" had absolute power over everyone
else, they believed themselves to be gods and they
got it into their heads that such structures would
secure their place in the afterlife.

Actually, the ancients weren't any different from
us. Even today people view building projects as
memorials -- a form of immortality. Since Roman
times it has largely been done through more
pragmatic building projects, though the purpose
remains the same. Caesar boasted that he found
Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of
marble. Today, everything as small as church
pews to hospital wings is built to preserve the
name of the rich and powerful -- grant them
immortality.
Post by J.LyonLayden
except that agriculture began 27,000 years
Hardly accepted. In fact, I know of NOBODY on
the planet that accepts such a premise...

You seem to like alternative histories.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/116352670988
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-18 17:12:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by J.LyonLayden
If people in America decided to start driving
nails in their children's heads, just enough
so that it wouldn't hurt them but the bone
would form around them...and people started
doing it in Africa the same century started
doing the same thing....and in the same
century Mongolians started doing it too...
would I be a pidgeon for thinking that this
pattern implied a connection?
I have never seen any such pattern, much less
any "Connection."
How how you establishing this "Pattern"?
I'm trying to make you understand how strange it is that people deformed their kids skulls at the same historical time, bordering the same "sunken" continent, with the same litjhics, and the same religious artifacts.

Squeezing a babies head together to make it look like a homo erectus/mungo hybrid in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY in the same century when there are myriad ways and shapes to artificially deform heads DICTATES a connection.

It would be easier to believe convergent social evolution if the practice were driving nails into skulls, rather than cranial deformation. Cranial is a much wierder thing for people to come up with independently.

Cradleboarding is an incredibly impracticle means of keeping a baby in place.

And this debate we are having right here is the perfect example of why people with common sense don't trust scientists any more.
Post by JTEM
Post by J.LyonLayden
Why again did man all of a sudden have an interest
in building useless religious structures 180,000
years of being fine with practical just sleeping
quarters and actual shelter?
Because these "Men" had absolute power over everyone
else, they believed themselves to be gods and they
got it into their heads that such structures would
secure their place in the afterlife.
And why would they all think this reserved a spot for them in the afterlife?
What's the thought process that takes one from "Hey I have power" to "I think I might be able to live forever" to "Let's build a big useless conic thing to make it happen."
No one told them that was the answer, they just guessed and all guessed the same?
Couldn't they have all just as easily come up with the idea that a really long thing would make them immortal? Or a really deep thing? Or a mile wide painting of themselves? Or a chiseling of a huge rock formation into their likeness?
Why don't we see these things as widespread across the world? Why is there not a culture on Indonesia, Africa, and South America with some other display of monumental power just as easy to build, in cultures that have other similarities such as sun gods with similar names, crocodile worship, bird and snake/dragon symbolism, swaddling, cradleboarding, cranial deformation, harvest sacrifice and Frazer's "maize man," etc., etc., etc.
Post by JTEM
Actually, the ancients weren't any different from
us. Even today people view building projects as
memorials -- a form of immortality. Since Roman
times it has largely been done through more
pragmatic building projects, though the purpose
remains the same. Caesar boasted that he found
Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of
marble. Today, everything as small as church
pews to hospital wings is built to preserve the
name of the rich and powerful -- grant them
immortality.
Post by J.LyonLayden
except that agriculture began 27,000 years
Hardly accepted. In fact, I know of NOBODY on
the planet that accepts such a premise...
Do I have to show this forum the articles again? Why does no one keep up with the times?
In the Solomon Islands they found cultivated taro residue on lithics and they've found similar evidence elsewhere in Indonesia up to 15,000 years ago and most people who study this sort of thing know it, it is in no way fringe science.
Post by JTEM
You seem to like alternative histories.
I like histories that allow me to write my stories without them being obsolete 10 years from now.
If I had been a writer 40 years ago and tried to write a book about prehistoric native Americans, the only way I could have known that Native Americans came here before 4000 B.C. would have been to use my common sense and look at non-mainstream theories.

Jane Aule's books are laughable to read now.
So are all those books about the first Americans that I enjoyed as a child. Everything in them is wrong.

Robert E. Howard did a better job than any prehistoric author has done in describing the prehistoric world, and he thought he was writing fantasy,
Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/116352670988
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-18 17:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I guess if you don't allow yourself to see patterns, then you believe that one day about 7000 years ago a guy woke up in Ur and invented cranial deformation, invented net sinkers, convinced his tribe that statues of people with elongated skulls were really the only ones worth making, and had an innovation in hoe making.
Meanwhile on the other side of Sundaland (which incidentally had just finished flooding) somewhere in southern China another guy invented all those same things on the same day.
And on the OTHER side of Sundalnd in PNG, another guy invented all those same things independently, too.
Even it weren't on the same day, and over a thousand year period instead, it still sounds like something out of Timothy Leary and the Universal Mind.
What's so impossible about Sundalanders moving to the mainland as their continent floods again?
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-18 17:56:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"These sites feature shell mounds and the same type of related fishing culture as found much further east. Oppenheimer mentions the "concordance of the same classes of Neolithic artefacts found under the silt layer of southern coastal China to those Woolley found under his silt layer in Mesopotamian Ur." (Oppenheimer 1998)

Among these items included an array of fishing gear, shell beads and polished stone hoes and adzes of rectangular cross-section (Vierkantbeile). There was also evidence of tattoing and scarification, and the painting of bodies with red haematite at burial. To these I would add the appearance of the potter's wheel both among the Ubaid and the Lungshan culture, and the Ubaid practice of cranial deformation. "
-Quests of the Shaman and Bird Clan
JTEM
2015-04-19 06:27:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J.LyonLayden
Meanwhile on the other side of Sundaland (which
incidentally had just finished flooding) somewhere
in southern China another guy invented all those
same things on the same day.
You haven't established that anything was invented
even once, in once place, let alone in two... let
alone at the same time.

You're on like Step-18 when you haven't completed
Step-1 yet...

Those Kooky Conspiracy nuts? It's not only their
conclusions that are kooky. Often times the things
they claim are the facts (which their conclusions
are based on) are just as kooky... just as removed
from reality.







-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/116488665188
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-19 20:19:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by J.LyonLayden
Meanwhile on the other side of Sundaland (which
incidentally had just finished flooding) somewhere
in southern China another guy invented all those
same things on the same day.
You haven't established that anything was invented
even once, in once place, let alone in two... let
alone at the same time.
Oppenheimer is not a fringe scientists, he has exhaustive references for all of these things in his book.
I am not going to write his whole book for you in this forum, and I am not going to buy it for you.
But I assure you, they did show in those places as I have described and if you want to insist on calling someone a liar I'm sure that DR. Oppenheimer has contact info on his website.
Post by JTEM
You're on like Step-18 when you haven't completed
Step-1 yet...
Those Kooky Conspiracy nuts? It's not only their
conclusions that are kooky. Often times the things
they claim are the facts (which their conclusions
are based on) are just as kooky... just as removed
from reality.
Exactly. Exactly.
It's just as kookie to believe in some kind of universal mind that compells people to deform their babies in a very specific way exactly 8000 years ago.

Here's the truth, JTEM: Cranial deformation and many other innovations of the agricultural revolution came straight from Sundaland at5 the end of the glacial period. Not only do we have the lithic and cultural evidence, we have the genetic evidence:
Microcephalin D almost certainly arose there and is now dominant in 90% of the world. That's a huge sweep when considering that it happened 30k ago and we assimilated nothing else from this mysterious hominid's gene pool.
I know that sound wierd to you but look up microcephalin D. It was not introduced by Neanderthal, Denisovan, or HSS....it was probably from erectus soloensis or the hobbit.
Because scientists aren't even smart enough to come up with a theory about those facts, ANCIENT ALIENS can convince 70% of Americans that is was an alien,,,,and so I have no one to even talk to at the bar anymore. EVERYONE friggin believes in aliens, even most college grads. Don't the scientists care?

Likewise, Y Haplogroup K spread to dominate about 90% of the planet at the same exact time, also from Sundaland.
There's evidence comming in that the defensive allele for Kuru spread from that same area at the same time too, which might mean that our agricultural progenitors were cannibals and headhunters....which would explain alot about the Maya.

The Nusantao got to Madagascar, that's a fact. Am amateur sailed a kayak from Japan to Alaska a couple years ago. No problem. So what's so hard to get about the Nusantao sailing to America? We know that someone got there upwards of 20k ago....they had to come from some where.
What is so pseudoscientific about saying that the Maya and the proto-Balinese came from a single source? Are scientists still trying to claim we didn't have boats or something, like the they were trying to make us believe that man got to Australia by driftwood?

Every time they fail to use common sense they end up wrong, and that's why my book will still be readable without a grain of salt 15 years from now and that's why Jane Aule's won't.

Everyone still thinks that the seas were boundarioes in the ICE AGe when it's looking more and more like they were highways.
Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/116488665188
JTEM
2015-04-20 05:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J.LyonLayden
Oppenheimer is not a fringe scientists, he has
exhaustive references for all of these things
in his book.
Okay. So where are they OUTSIDE of his book?

A "Reference" is exactly that: A "Reference" to a
source. So what are his sources? Where are they?

See what's missing here?

You're not claiming that someone named "Oppenheimer"
has evidence, you're claiming that he's right because
he's seen other people with evidence. Logically, you
should just show us that same evidence.

Right?

If the evidence leads to his conclusion, show us
the evidence...
Post by J.LyonLayden
I am not going to write his whole book for you in this forum
I don't want any of it.

Not one word.

I want the evidence you claim exists.
Post by J.LyonLayden
Post by JTEM
Those Kooky Conspiracy nuts? It's not only their
conclusions that are kooky. Often times the things
they claim are the facts (which their conclusions
are based on) are just as kooky... just as removed
from reality.
Exactly. Exactly.
It's just as kookie to believe in some kind of universal
mind that compells people to deform their babies in a
very specific way exactly 8000 years ago.
You're back on Step-18 here, when you haven't
even established that anyone was doing this...
Post by J.LyonLayden
Here's the truth, JTEM: Cranial deformation
and many other innovations of the agricultural
revolution came straight from Sundaland at5 the
end of the glacial period.
You have no idea. Nobody does. "Science" has
never bothered to look.

I'm been arguing for years that our ancestors
lived on the coast, they spread via the coast,
they evolved in whatever environment there was
on the coast, and nobody has ever looked for
them.

So you could be right. Or there could be something
vastly more wild than you ever imagined. Or not.
Nobody knows. Because nobody has ever looked.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/116826146398
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-20 15:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by J.LyonLayden
Oppenheimer is not a fringe scientists, he has
exhaustive references for all of these things
in his book.
Okay. So where are they OUTSIDE of his book?
A "Reference" is exactly that: A "Reference" to a
source. So what are his sources? Where are they?
You want me to spend my day copying the outside references from the book onto an internet forum just to win a debate with you?
Why don't you buy the book? It's $10 and if you're interested in these things (I assume you are since you're spemnding your time debating it) then you need the book anyway.
Post by JTEM
See what's missing here?
There's nothing missing except the energy to write a book for you.
Post by JTEM
You're not claiming that someone named "Oppenheimer"
has evidence, you're claiming that he's right because
he's seen other people with evidence. Logically, you
should just show us that same evidence.
There are pages upon pages upon pages of evidence, that is why he had to write a book.
And he's not some guy named Oppenheimer he is one of the foremost authorities on this subject and is continually being quoted in college textbooks.
To list all his references just foir this thing alone wopuld take several hours of my time.
Post by JTEM
Right?
If the evidence leads to his conclusion, show us
the evidence...
You want me to go dig in Ur and Korea now?
Post by JTEM
Post by J.LyonLayden
I am not going to write his whole book for you in this forum
I don't want any of it.
Not one word.
I want the evidence you claim exists.
So you want me to retype 8 pages of references from the book?
Post by JTEM
Post by J.LyonLayden
Post by JTEM
Those Kooky Conspiracy nuts? It's not only their
conclusions that are kooky. Often times the things
they claim are the facts (which their conclusions
are based on) are just as kooky... just as removed
from reality.
Exactly. Exactly.
It's just as kookie to believe in some kind of universal
mind that compells people to deform their babies in a
very specific way exactly 8000 years ago.
You're back on Step-18 here, when you haven't
even established that anyone was doing this...
So now you're saying people didn't deform their children's heads in the Ubaid period?
Then we can't have a debate JTEM.
If I tell you that Sumeria was a nation in Mesotasmia you're going to tell me to prove it. I tell you to look at wikipedia you'll ask me to rewrite wikipedia.
How can we establish anything to debate upon if you require a bibliography just to prove known facts.
Post by JTEM
Post by J.LyonLayden
Here's the truth, JTEM: Cranial deformation
and many other innovations of the agricultural
revolution came straight from Sundaland at5 the
end of the glacial period.
You have no idea. Nobody does. "Science" has
never bothered to look.
I just explained it to you. In perfect detail. Because they don't bother, and don't bother using common sense, I had to figure it out myself.
Post by JTEM
I'm been arguing for years that our ancestors
lived on the coast, they spread via the coast,
they evolved in whatever environment there was
on the coast, and nobody has ever looked for
them.
Everyone knows that. People still argue against that? Then what is the Coastal Migration theory?
Post by JTEM
So you could be right. Or there could be something
vastly more wild than you ever imagined. Or not.
Nobody knows. Because nobody has ever looked.
I have. And since my solution makes more sense and is vastly more important to most laymen than the stupid little things these guys are studying with our money, maybe they should use my model until they can come up with something better.

Otherwise archeology and anthropology will continue to lose funding because they aren't asking the right questions or answering the right questions as far as the average person is concerned.

These people are concentrating on vindicating Africa by making up stories about stone tools, redating soloensis to one up the opposing camp, arguing about whether a rice kernal is domesticated and one-upping the the other site by a couple measly hundred years, debating about tiny little relationships in pottery styles....
while the biggest, most glaring questions are totally ignored.
Again, people aren't all stupid.
Scientist should not give up on 90% of the human race.
It is the scientists fault, for concentrating on the wrong things.
We want answers.
We want to know what type of a culture likely met the Red Deer Cave People, and what they looked like, what their traditions were. If I relied only on what is written in Wikipedia about the Pengtoushan culture, I would not even know what the dog burials likely represented. I had to figure it out myself by searching for a similar culture in a primitive tribe that still exists today...and guess what? It's right down the trade route from the old Pengtousahn lands... a perfect place to retreat to when Haplogroup O invaded after the end of the last Ice Age.
Jomon women tattoo their face. There are two other cultures that do the same thing in China. But the descriptions of one culture never mention a link with the other. It's obvious that this practice was therefore widespread in China and is found in remnant semi-matriarchal cultures that existed before the invasion of y haplogroup O.
Why don't scientists see this obvious connection? Because mno one who studies China studies Japan or because it's just so easy to slap "convergent social evolution" on everything?

When scientists are too stupid to put the dog burials of the Pengtoushan together with the Dog burials of Burma where the Pengtoushan people escaped then arhceology seems useless.
I think the problem might be that these days, people only study one period or one culture or one continent.
Like the macroevolution.net thing I showed you- if he's right about pangolin and cetacean evo, how can it be that no one else saw the obvious? Maybe because people don't study the overall theory of evo anymore...they just study one genus of mammal for their degree or one family of lizard, so no one sees the forest for the trees.
Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/116826146398
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-20 16:14:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
For instance, homo erectus soloensis has been redated 5 times now. It went from 150k to 50k back to 150k to 27k and the latest one says 209k.
But because of the way in which it was found, we will never know the truth. One camp says it was found in situ but another claims otherwise so we will never be sure.
There's a similar thing going on with the Kow Swamp finds.
Why?
Because no matter what age those skeletons are, they mess up some scientist's preconceived notions.
Instead of doing something useful, this team went a redated a fossil that can't really be redated because it may or may not have been in situ....and he most likely did it because he didn't believe that soloensis was only 27k old and wanted to prove it.
But he's wrong anyway: we have the hobbit, we have Microcephalin D, we have Red Deer Cave.
What are they going to do next, spend our money redating every other fossil in the entire fossil record....or why did this guy single out these particular fossils of questionable excavation circumstances, if not to bolster his silly personal debate?
Other hominids were around until at least 10k. We had sex with them.
Much of the megafauna you thought was extinct by 20k probably survived in isolated niches for that long too. Plus there were a whole lotta other species that didn't even leave any fossils for hundreds of thousands of years.
Accept it, get over it, and get on with your job, scientists!
JTEM
2015-04-20 17:44:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J.LyonLayden
For instance, homo erectus soloensis has been redated
5 times now. It went from 150k to 50k back to 150k to
27k and the latest one says 209k.
There appears with something anomalous with the site
which doesn't lend it fully to precise dating.

Different tests, different results.

Effectively they moved it's dating from the end of the
Pleistocene to the middle. Your 150K years seems to
be approximating the consensus... which has changed,
as you state.

This feeds into my point: Why?

Why argue? Why make so much of this find?

We know where they were living, we know it's underwater,
let's go find them. Another 10 or 80 finds, unearthing
their habitation sites... mapping their arrival and
development... all of that will answer the questions.
So why even quibble here?
Post by J.LyonLayden
Accept it, get over it, and get on with your job, scientists!
There's already a solution.

Loading Image...

We go to the coasts & valleys where they lives and dig
them up. Then we can study their culture, their homes,
their physical remains.

No sense debating anyone...




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/116831441150
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-20 20:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2013/sealevelinfl.jpg
We go to the coasts & valleys where they lives and dig
them up. Then we can study their culture, their homes,
their physical remains.
No sense debating anyone...
Exactly so why are they looking at 3 million year old rocks in Africa and redating bones in previous finds when there are still all those valleys and coastlines where the hominid population was higher?

Do you have any guesses?
Cuz i just don't get it.
Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/116831441150
JTEM
2015-04-21 08:23:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J.LyonLayden
Exactly so why are they looking at 3 million year
old rocks in Africa and redating bones in previous
finds when there are still all those valleys and
coastlines where the hominid population was higher?
Do you have any guesses?
Cuz i just don't get it.
I explained it all here:

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/24612532889
JTEM
2015-04-20 17:24:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J.LyonLayden
You want me to spend my day copying the outside
references from the book onto an internet forum
just to win a debate with you?
Follow your own rules!!!

#1. There's nothing to "Win" or "Lose."

#2. Cites. Plural. An extract, at least, has to
be available for some of them online.

#3. There's opinions and then there's facts. We
both reject opinions, and neither of us have seen
you establish any facts.
Post by J.LyonLayden
There's nothing missing except the energy to write a book for you.
If the only place we can find this "Evidence" is in
your book, there is no evidence.
Post by J.LyonLayden
Post by JTEM
You're not claiming that someone named "Oppenheimer"
has evidence, you're claiming that he's right because
he's seen other people with evidence. Logically, you
should just show us that same evidence.
There are pages upon pages upon pages of evidence
Of course not.

And the ironic thing here is that you'll never find
anyone more sympathetic than me. I've always rejected
the mainstream for ignoring the screaming obvious
fact that where our ancestors lived, where they
evolved -- the story of us -- lies under water and
nobody is looking.
Post by J.LyonLayden
Post by JTEM
If the evidence leads to his conclusion, show us
the evidence...
You want me to go dig in Ur and Korea now?
You're confused. If you're insisting that you would
have to do that in order to show "Evidence," that
would be admitting that nobody has seen any evidence.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/116831441150
JTEM
2015-04-19 06:20:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J.LyonLayden
I'm trying to make you understand how strange it
is that people deformed their kids skulls at the
same historical time, bordering the same "sunken"
continent, with the same litjhics, and the same
religious artifacts.
As far as I know, you're making it all up.

I have never seen anything to suggest that these things
suddenly occurred everywhere all at the same time. And
I certainly don't believe that the same religious artifacts
surface everywhere... though I will grant that there is
much overlap in seemingly distant cultures. But, not in any
pattern that matches what you're speaking of.

Celtic culture, for example, very much matches middle
eastern, Nabataean culture. Both seemed to suffer an
aversion to recording their religious beliefs/traditions,
committing everything to an oral tradition, and both
appear to have a preference for geometric shapes/designs
of depictions of living people/animals. But nobody seriously
argues that the two cultures are related.
Post by J.LyonLayden
Post by JTEM
Because these "Men" had absolute power over everyone
else, they believed themselves to be gods and they
got it into their heads that such structures would
secure their place in the afterlife.
And why would they all think this reserved a spot for
them in the afterlife?
Really dumb question. "Deserve" has nothing to do with
it. That's a modern concept. You're projecting yourself,
your values/perspective on to the past. In their world,
the meek deserved nothing. The slave deserved to be a
slave. After all, they chose it. They could easily kill
themselves if they wanted to, and instead they willingly
submit to servitude...
Post by J.LyonLayden
What's the thought process that takes one from
"Hey I have power" to "I think I might be able
to live forever" to "Let's build a big useless
conic thing to make it happen."
That's a terrible question.

This "Thought process" because at least a thousand
years before the first pyramid was built...
Post by J.LyonLayden
Couldn't they have all just as easily come up
with the idea that a really long thing would make
them immortal? Or a really deep thing? Or a mile
wide painting of themselves? Or a chiseling of a
huge rock formation into their likeness?
You might as well just throw a ball in a room, and
where ever it comes to a rest insist that aliens
have to be involved here, because it could have just
as easily came to a rest on some other spot. In fact,
given the millions of precise locations it could have
come to rest, the odds of it stopping where ever it
eventually stopped are miniscule!

...but no matter how many times you throw that
ball, no matter where it eventually comes to a rest,
it is always true. It was always a one in a million
to one against it finally stopping where it stopped...
Post by J.LyonLayden
Why don't we see these things as widespread across
the world? Why is there not a culture on Indonesia,
Africa, and South America with some other display
of monumental power just as easy to build
This is awfully bizarre, considering that you are
arguing the opposite -- that we do see similar
structures in other periods of history, in other
cultures.
Post by J.LyonLayden
In the Solomon Islands they found cultivated taro
residue on lithics and they've found similar evidence
elsewhere in Indonesia up to 15,000 years ago and
most people who study this sort of thing know it, it
is in no way fringe science.
I'm not aware of such evidence, and just Googling it
right now the only cite that clearly references this
sort of thing falls far short of calling it anything
other than evidence for the exploitation of wild
plants.

HINT: NOT domestication i.e. agriculture.
Post by J.LyonLayden
If I had been a writer 40 years ago and tried to write
a book about prehistoric native Americans, the only
way I could have known that Native Americans came here
before 4000 B.C. would have been to use my common sense
and look at non-mainstream theories.
Clovis culture was discovered long before that, and
I'm not aware of a time when "Pre Clovis" wasn't
advanced my many.

Paleoanthropology isn't crap because it ignores the
"Alternative History" kooks. It's crap because it
ignores it's own evidence. Paleoanthropology amassed
far more evidence than necessary to prove Neanderthal
"Interbreeding" decades ago, and simply ignored it.
It knew all about Clovis as it wrote books excluding
them, it knew all about pre Clovis when it decided
to champion "Clovis First."





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/116488665188
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-19 19:57:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
As far as I know, you're making it all up.
I provided a link to the Shaman and Bird Clan blog where he talks about it, and it is also in Oppenheimer's Eden in the East with multiple references.
Post by JTEM
Really dumb question. "Deserve" has nothing to do with
it. That's a modern concept. You're projecting yourself,
your values/perspective on to the past. In their world,
the meek deserved nothing. The slave deserved to be a
slave. After all, they chose it. They could easily kill
themselves if they wanted to, and instead they willingly
submit to servitude...
What does that have to do with suddenlt deciding that really big things make you immortal? Other cultures think quicksilver makes you immortal, or a fountain.
People's thought process doesn't go like "Hey look at this plan for a really big thing I came up. I've decided it will make me immortal, alhough nobody told me that I just made it up. Now get to work!"
Post by JTEM
Post by J.LyonLayden
What's the thought process that takes one from
"Hey I have power" to "I think I might be able
to live forever" to "Let's build a big useless
conic thing to make it happen."
That's a terrible question.
This "Thought process" because at least a thousand
years before the first pyramid was built...
So you're saying that if they had people had built a big round ball over a thousand years inm three different cultures it would be obvious that they built it to be immortal too?

Either you are side-stepping or you don't understand my question.

There is no reason for a pyramid to give you the idea it can make you a god unless that idea is already in your culture. You could just as easily select a square or a rectangle or a star shaped monument or a big round sphere.

But ok fine let's pretend that it makes perfect sense like you are claiming.

Back to Bali vs Maya and the words beneath each picture I provided which you must not have red.

The two cultures have these things in common, among many more:
1. Serpentine dragons going down the side of the stairs on the great temples.
2. Statues with people with a "third eye"
3. The entrance god has a torth in his left hand and his left foot and left arm are painted left, whereas the right arm is tucked under the heart.
4. The same exact arch architecture
5. Pyramid temples are often the same height, same number of steps, same number of stairways on same number of sides.
6. In both cultures, there are three doors at the top of the pyramid. Not one, not two, always three.
That's just a few of the similarities in the architecture, when you look at similarities between their soft artifacts it's absolutely uncanny.
Post by JTEM
Post by J.LyonLayden
Couldn't they have all just as easily come up
with the idea that a really long thing would make
them immortal? Or a really deep thing? Or a mile
wide painting of themselves? Or a chiseling of a
huge rock formation into their likeness?
You might as well just throw a ball in a room, and
where ever it comes to a rest insist that aliens
have to be involved here, because it could have just
as easily came to a rest on some other spot. In fact,
given the millions of precise locations it could have
come to rest, the odds of it stopping where ever it
eventually stopped are miniscule!
Why are we talking about aliens now? What do aliens have to do with anything?
Post by JTEM
...but no matter how many times you throw that
ball, no matter where it eventually comes to a rest,
it is always true. It was always a one in a million
to one against it finally stopping where it stopped...
Post by J.LyonLayden
Why don't we see these things as widespread across
the world? Why is there not a culture on Indonesia,
Africa, and South America with some other display
of monumental power just as easy to build
This is awfully bizarre, considering that you are
arguing the opposite -- that we do see similar
structures in other periods of history, in other
cultures.
You know what I mean. Where is the Gobleki Tepi of China and the Stone Henge of Australia since all this is convergent evolution?
Since you believe that cultiral diffusion is absolutely impossible before 10k ago and never can happen between sites more than 500 miles from one another, where is the Catal Hoyuk of North America?
Why is it that only one of the simple to make early architectural forms got spontaneously generated as if by psychic powers?
And what is so0 terrible about cultural diffusion from Gunung Padang?
You know, I'm not claiming that aliens lived there or anything, They were just people who knew how to sail.
Post by JTEM
Post by J.LyonLayden
In the Solomon Islands they found cultivated taro
residue on lithics and they've found similar evidence
elsewhere in Indonesia up to 15,000 years ago and
most people who study this sort of thing know it, it
is in no way fringe science.
I'm not aware of such evidence, and just Googling it
right now the only cite that clearly references this
sort of thing falls far short of calling it anything
other than evidence for the exploitation of wild
plants.
I'm sorry 28,000 years ago that's probably why your search failed. here you go"
http://books.google.com/books?id=yn8DXfGDzO4C&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=kilu+cave&source=web&ots=WcSrydt_LZ&sig=ysp0a8xb2Hy7MSpayCrmHbLiBNc#v=onepage&q=kilu%20cave&f=false

If you consider college textbooks pseudoscience I can also find links to the same thing via PLOS1 articles, magazine articles, or whatever you want.

Like it or not, agriculture was going on in SE Asia before the last glacial maximum.



And Oppenheimner's book is about 10 bucks he's got lots more examples of pre 15k agriculture in SE Asia, too.
Not to mention that all the gentic studies of bannannas, yams, and many others point to a SE Asian origin.
Post by JTEM
HINT: NOT domestication i.e. agriculture.
Post by J.LyonLayden
If I had been a writer 40 years ago and tried to write
a book about prehistoric native Americans, the only
way I could have known that Native Americans came here
before 4000 B.C. would have been to use my common sense
and look at non-mainstream theories.
Clovis culture was discovered long before that, and
I'm not aware of a time when "Pre Clovis" wasn't
advanced my many.
Paleoanthropology isn't crap because it ignores the
"Alternative History" kooks. It's crap because it
ignores it's own evidence. Paleoanthropology amassed
far more evidence than necessary to prove Neanderthal
"Interbreeding" decades ago, and simply ignored it.
It knew all about Clovis as it wrote books excluding
them, it knew all about pre Clovis when it decided
to champion "Clovis First."
It's crap because it ignores common sense. Nobody but a scientist is stupid enough to try to sell the idea that cranial deformation is a result of convergent evolution. Just because you have the scientific method, doesn't give you the right to ignore the writing on the wall.
Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/116488665188
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-17 17:51:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The invention of Calculus is preceded by and depends upon the invention of other mathematical systems and is the solution to specific mathematical problems.
Although you might find a basis for the ideas of pyramids via the knowledge of say conical midden mounds...what universal problem does going from a midden mound to a pyramid solve for all agricultural people?
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-17 18:03:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If brains didn't look for patterns, we'd still be using rocks to cut our meet.
But if you use that argument to negate anything someone sees, then no one can make any theories at all.
Brains look for patterns. The theory of evolution depends on patterns. Mathematics cannot exists without patterns.

I can look all day for patterns in the architecture of Egypt, China, and Europe that match those of the Maya.
However, no matter how long I look and no matter how much I want to find them, I will never find as many patterns that match in those cultures as I will in that of the Balinese:

http://www.ishtarsgate.com/forum/showthread.php?3314-The-similarities-between-Balinese-and-Mayan-temple-architecture
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-17 17:28:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J.LyonLayden
Post by JTEM
Post by J.LyonLayden
1. What is the origin of the pyramids on the different continents?
Answered LONG ago...
If you wanted to build tall in the distant past,
you had exactly two choices: Pyramid or cone.
Build a pyramid out of legos. Do it on a table top.
Now, see how much you have to lift & shake that table
to get that pyramid (or cone) to fall on it's side.
Do the same with a tower. Big difference, right? It's
real easy to knock that baby over...
A square would be pretty stable in our lego experiment,
but never in real life. There'd be far too many
stresses. The blocks on the bottom would be supporting,
what, hundreds of times their own weight!
That's the beauty of a cone or pyramid: The higher
you build, the lighter the load each level gets. PLUS
there's the inherent stability in the shape.
Yes we've heard this before. But it's not just that, and I'm not talking
about the well known Mayan and Egyptian pyramids. When people see a
"ziggurat"-like pyramid from Asia that they can't tell from a "ziggurat"-like
pyramid from Central America common sense kicks in and overrides scientific
theory. A wheel is the easiest way to roll a cart, but if carts and wheels
were to show up independently in places far removed from one another I hope
that scientists wouldnt lack the common sense to realize a connection.
If Gunang Pedang really is a pyramid we might have an answer.
Oppenheimer has already shown that much in the various pyramid cultures is
owed to a civilization that arose on the same "sunken" continent where Gunang
Pedang stands.
Ocham's Razor: That solution creates more problems than it solves.
Post by J.LyonLayden
Post by JTEM
Post by J.LyonLayden
2. What is the origin of tooth avulsion?
This is a horrible question.
You're literally claiming that we need to assign motives,
and we do not. We likely can't.
Same teeth knocked as ritual 50k ago in Australia among the Mungo people, 20k
ago in Japan among Jomon, and 20k ago in Tunisia among Ibero-Maurusians. I
don't see how any researcher can claim any knowledge of population dispersals
leading up to any of those three cultures without taking that into account.
At least give us a couple theories. There's no way that someone said "hey
let's knock our incisors and only our incisors out at the age of 16"
independently in three different places as far as they can possibly be from
one another with no connection. If MtDNA was originally spread to North
Africa and Australia via Mungo man and not our ancestor, we have our answer.
If hybridization with neanderthals creates a need for tooth knocking at
adolescence, we have an answer. Both of these are more plausible than the
"lock jaw" and worse theories that scientists give us.
Post by JTEM
Post by J.LyonLayden
3. What is the homeland of the original practitioners of
artifial cranial deformation?
Why does there have to be one?
Because I have common sense in addition to the scientific theory.
You might as well tell me that tooth grills were independently invented by
urban youth in Japan and America independently. Although that would be a
little more believable.
Post by JTEM
There could be eight or 12 or 17 homelands. There could
be 117 homelands.
Nope there can't, according to common sense. This is the problem with how
anthropologists and archeologists work- they forget they have any as soon as
they learn the scientific method.
Post by JTEM
It's not magic. It's not something that only happened
if you knew what you were doing or chanted the right
spells. We grow a certain way. Period. Stop us from
growing that certain way and we'll grow a different
way...
Magic spells huh?
So coming up with a new tradition and then spreading it to other cultures and
other lands as your population increases, or you lands flood, is a magic
spell now?
One thing that has helped us with cranial deformation mystery is that the 45k
neanderthal head binding claims has been disproven. Before that, the
distribution of the practice had really confused me.
Now we know that the first instances are in China and Australia at 20k. The
next are at Ur and in Korea at 7000B.C. and according to Oppenheimer those
two cultures are associated with the exact same artifacts- specialized
fishing gear and sculptures of head bound people. The same fishing gear shows
up in PNG at that same time too, along with the same figurines carved in
wood.
All head-binding after 700 B.C. in Eurasia spreads from Korea and Ur,
diminishing in practice as it gets farther from the source. It has also
spread in Australia and PNG.
I'm still researching South America, but so far it is looking like this: The
places where it was practiced in S. America are the same places that show
high Denisova admixture, high Y Haplogroup C, and at least one of them shows
similarities in pottery with Vanuatu (a head binding monolithic culture) and
Jomon.
I'm sorry, but head binding came from SE Asia and spread with agriculture and
I'm disappointed that I had to figure that out for myself just to write a
prehistoric fiction book. Meanwhile grant money is dwindling for diggers
because they refuse to attempt answers to the most important common sense
questions....therefore people look to Ancient Aliens instead.
Post by JTEM
Post by J.LyonLayden
4. Are you guys admitting that the Ark of the Covenant
was a capacitor, or where is the debunk page?
It didn't exist.
It may be based on some story involving an Egyptian
Bark, but even if it was the story has been so
fictionalized at this point that it's sheer nonsense
to claim that it's "Real."
That would be like claiming that Superman is "Real"
because Metropolis is based on the real city of
New York, they had real newspapers... etc.
You're trolling something fierce...
Then why is there not a debunk page? Scientist make fun of the layman for not
understanding, and then provide them with no understanding.
Nikola friggin Tesla said it was a capacitor, and not everyone knows that
Nikola Tesla was a sensationalist who was very good at capturing the minds of
his 19th century audience. It would be really easy for a non-creationist
electrical engineer to read the passages about the Ark in the Bible, read one
or two of the 5 billion claims that it's a capacitor, and then tell us it's
not in a googleable blog page. Until then we'll have 70% of the US thinking
that it probabaly was a capacitor. As I said, there is one debunk page but
it's written by a creationist. I had my electrician frind read it and he
thinks that what the guy is saying that it would be impracticle as a
capacitor and would require some other things. he's an ELECTRICIAN and having
trouble helping me write a debunk page, you could say.
Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/116376915972
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-17 16:19:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
A better example than the wheel is the arch. Simplest way of holding up super heavy structures, and yet scientists can pinpoint it's place of origin to Mesopatamia where it spread to Rome.
After that there are other huge structures being built by cultures that have had no contact with Romans, but whenever you see them start using arches it is always after they have come in contact with the Romans or a Mesopotamian influenced culture that knew about arches.
Just the desire to build such a huge and pragmatically useless ceremonial structure as a pyramid in the first place is enough of a common link to suspect relation.
But I can almost buy "convergent social evolution", if not for the similar belief structures, similar pottery, and the smaller "ziggurat" pyramids with one set of steps on each side and similar carvings seperated by an ocean.
I think it may be the hallmark of Nusantao, at least on the Pacific coast. Maybe Egypt could have been "convergent," except that Oppenheimer has proven that the Egyptians were heavily influenced by the Nusantao.
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-17 16:24:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sorry, I don't know how to edit so I have to repost this for clarity:

Same teeth knocked as ritual 50k ago in Australia among the Mungo people, 20k ago in Japan among Jomon, and 20k ago in Tunisia among Ibero-Maurusians.
I don't see how any researcher can claim any knowledge of population dispersals leading up to any of those three cultures without taking that into account.
At least give us a couple theories.
There's no way that someone said "hey let's knock our incisors and only our incisors out at the age of 16" independently in three different places as far as they can possibly be from one another with no connection.
If MtDNA haplogroup M was originally spread to North Africa and Australia via Mungo man and not our ancestor, we have our answer.
If hybridization with neanderthals creates a need for tooth knocking at adolescence, we have an answer.
Both of these are more plausible than the "lock jaw" and worse theories that scientists give us.
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-17 17:24:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J.LyonLayden
If Anthropologists and Archeologists Wanted the World to Take them Seriously
http://prehistoricfantasy.blogspot.com/2015/04/if-anthropologists-and-archeologists.html
If anthropologists and archeologists wanted the world to take them more
seriously, so that 9 out of 10 college grads didn't put their faith in the
History Channel or the Discovery Channel instead, they would do a few things.
And they woould stop digging in Oldavai Gorge, stop redating fossils that
were redated within the last two decades, stop working on anything in strata
younger than say 3000 B.C., and stop debating about human ancestors previous
to 4 million B.C. , until the following questions have been adequately
answered for the public.
1. What is the origin of the pyramids on the different continents? We heard
your answer about all the different cultures coming up with them
independently, but we didn't buy it. In fact, it made us wonder why we are
paying our taxes and tuition to support your research.
Physics is the same everywhere.

The same solution to the problem of building a tall, massive structure
applies to any place.
Post by J.LyonLayden
Luckily, amateur scientists have done part of your job for you and
adequately explained to us how the pyramids could have been made without the
help of high tech machinery. This is a job that you had previously failed to
accomplish, but having it done means you've got the rest of your work cut out
for you...so chop-chop!
2. What is the origin of tooth avulsion? We heard your answer about all the
different cultures coming up with it independently, but we didn't buy it. We
would buy it if you had an underlying reason to go along with the assumption,
but lock-jaw aint it.
The first fossils with the same teeth knocked out at adolescence are in
Australia 50 thousand years ago, the Maghreb in North Africa 20 thousand
years ago, and the Jomon in Japan 20 thousand years ago. We need a source
area of dispersal and a DNA lineage, or an anatomical explanation. If a
hybrid tooth pattern of sinodonts vs sundadonts vs neanderthal vs erectines
or any other combinations therein might create a need for such a practice, we
need to know that too.
3. What is the homeland of the original practitioners of artifial cranial
deformation? Were they a ghost population, and if not please provide us with
their haplogroups. We heard your answer about all the different cultures
coming up with the practice independently, but we didn't buy it. It makes us
think that people who read books too much and spend all day in labs must lose
their common sense completely somewhere along the way. If the crania
deformers were a ghost population, please provide a few solid theories as to
which extinct human haplogroup or archaic hominid lineage they are partially
derived from.
The smart ones among us are pretty sure that they weren't alien hybrids, but
even that is a better explanation than the little you scientist types have
given us. We also need explanations of the absense of certain sutures on some
of these skulls, and an explanation or refutation of the claim that there are
extra arteries in the back of the Paracas skulls. We've all seen the holes on
Youtube with our own eyes, and if they are indicitave of additional
trepanations and not extra arteries at all, then we need a real scientists to
say so publicly (and not in a nerdy boring article behind a pay-wall). If any
archaics had extra holes or if the process of hybridization between any two
known hominids might produce these extra arteries, that would be useful to
know as well.
The first instances of it are redated to North Australia 20 thousand years
ago and the Beijing area at roughly the same date. The next examples are from
Korea and Ur around 8000 years ago, and the 45,000 year old Neanderthal at
Shanidar has been debinked, so that should be a good start.
4. Are you guys admitting that the Ark of the Covenant was a capacitor, or
where is the debunk page? 20 pages deep on a Google search and the only one
I've seen looks like it might be showing that any box with gold around it is
a capacitor, but I really can't tell since it's written so nerdy and is
further complicated with Fundamentalist philosophy.
We try to argue from a scientific viewpoint with our friends and all they
have to do is say "Ark of the Covenant" and quote a couple lines from Ancient
Aliens and we're lost. We're not all electricians, so we need it given to us
simple-like; a simple explanation of each opposing point of view will
suffice.
5. What mtDNA and Y Haplogroups, not populations, have the most of each of
*Microcephaline D
*ASPM-D
*Mungo Man's Chromosomal Introgression
*YAP
*Neanderthal (Divided into at least two clusters since it is known that
Asians have a different segment of the genome than Europeans do).
*Denisovan (Divided into at least 3 clusters since it has three genomic
divurgence points within it and there's some suggestion that some modern
people have one or two parts but not all three parts of the greater genome).
Until archeologists, anthropologists, and archeogeneticists complete at
least those five challenges, people will continue to turn to programs like
The Search for Lost Giants and Ancient Aliens and will continue wondering why
they had to take Civilization I and II in college in the first place...and
eventually you might even lose funding for your government paid programs.
Then you won't be able to dig for proof that Neanderthal was stupid after
all, or that dogs didn't really get domesticated until 5000 B.C. after all,
or that Moses didn't exist, or that Hittites were really the Sittites as
opposed to the Shittites...because there won't be any money left to dig with!
And remember not to put it only behind a pay wall: less than 1% of us can
see it there, but we've all got the History Channel.
JTEM
2015-04-20 05:39:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Physics is the same everywhere.
The same solution to the problem of building a tall,
massive structure applies to any place.
Very true.

There is a very good point in that we have an almost
all blank picture of human evolution, and all manner
of weirdness might be true. Or it might not be. We
just don't know.

Nobody has ever made any attempt to excavate the
now submerged environments where we know our
ancestors lived.

We know it. There is no guess work involved.

They left Africa. If you want to claim Asia as
the origins, fine, so then they left Asia. The
point is that they left, and EVERYBODY agrees
that they traveled via the coast. THEY WERE
LIVING ON THE COAST. And that coast does not
exist any longer. It's gone. It's under water.
So the one and only place we all agree that
our ancestors lived in under water. We don't
look there. We look somewhere else.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/116826146398
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-20 16:15:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Physics is the same everywhere.
The same solution to the problem of building a tall,
massive structure applies to any place.
Very true.
There is a very good point in that we have an almost
all blank picture of human evolution, and all manner
of weirdness might be true. Or it might not be. We
just don't know.
Nobody has ever made any attempt to excavate the
now submerged environments where we know our
ancestors lived.
We know it. There is no guess work involved.
They left Africa. If you want to claim Asia as
the origins, fine, so then they left Asia. The
point is that they left, and EVERYBODY agrees
that they traveled via the coast. THEY WERE
LIVING ON THE COAST. And that coast does not
exist any longer. It's gone. It's under water.
So the one and only place we all agree that
our ancestors lived in under water. We don't
look there. We look somewhere else.
Excellent, excellent point. What is their rational for this?
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-20 16:32:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Just seems to me if they really wanted the truth, they would dive until they had more homo erectus and Kow Swamp-like fossils instead of redating something you can't ever get a real date on anyway.
We know there are more down there, so what's the problem?
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-20 16:55:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The first to describe the artifacts at Ur I mentioned were Sir leonard Wooley and his associates, and Oppenheimer lists a long line since then where it's mentioned.
I don't think the fact that they found these artifacts under the silt layer at both of these sites (Ur and Korea) is a matter of debate.
"Convergent social evolution. Move along here. Nothing to see."
Yusuf Gürsey
2015-04-21 18:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Physics is the same everywhere.
The same solution to the problem of building a tall,
massive structure applies to any place.
Very true.
There is a very good point in that we have an almost
all blank picture of human evolution, and all manner
Not relevant to my post.
Post by JTEM
of weirdness might be true. Or it might not be. We
just don't know.
Nobody has ever made any attempt to excavate the
now submerged environments where we know our
ancestors lived.
We know it. There is no guess work involved.
They left Africa. If you want to claim Asia as
the origins, fine, so then they left Asia. The
point is that they left, and EVERYBODY agrees
that they traveled via the coast. THEY WERE
LIVING ON THE COAST. And that coast does not
exist any longer. It's gone. It's under water.
So the one and only place we all agree that
our ancestors lived in under water. We don't
look there. We look somewhere else.
Try underwater fossil hunting and then comment.

Try getting funding for such a venture.
Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/116826146398
JTEM
2015-04-21 19:55:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf Gürsey
Post by JTEM
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Physics is the same everywhere.
The same solution to the problem of building a tall,
massive structure applies to any place.
Very true.
There is a very good point in that we have an almost
all blank picture of human evolution, and all manner
Not relevant to my post.
This is a thread. I was pointing out that, though one
line of "Reasoning" was false -- as you made clear --
this does not mean that every line of reasoning is
false.
Post by Yusuf Gürsey
Post by JTEM
Nobody has ever made any attempt to excavate the
now submerged environments where we know our
ancestors lived.
We know it. There is no guess work involved.
They left Africa. If you want to claim Asia as
the origins, fine, so then they left Asia. The
point is that they left, and EVERYBODY agrees
that they traveled via the coast. THEY WERE
LIVING ON THE COAST. And that coast does not
exist any longer. It's gone. It's under water.
So the one and only place we all agree that
our ancestors lived in under water. We don't
look there. We look somewhere else.
Try underwater fossil hunting and then comment.
You're making my point: "Real evidence is too hard!
Let's dig over here, where our ancestors didn't
come from, instead."

That's not science. It's a selection bias that
invalidates findings/conclusions.
Post by Yusuf Gürsey
Try getting funding for such a venture.
Exactly: "Real science is too expensive! Let's
do something cheaper then pretend we did real
science. Okay?"

Here's the deal; I know WHY they refuse to conduct
real science, but this doesn't change the fact that
they're not doing real science!

The budget of the International Space Station is
150 billion dollars. Let's spend that much to
discover our origins.

It's NOT too much to ask, now is it? As a matter
of fact, the price tag is quite reasonable. We're
already spending it in the pursuit of discover...

Higgs boson cost most than $13 billion to "Discover,"
assuming it really has been discovered.

What I'm saying is that real science is obtainable.
If genuine scientists joined the field of
paleoanthropology and told the world that no real
science is taking place -- instead of reporting
garbage and pretending to have facts -- people would
see the need. The money would be justified.

...just like the space research money is
justified, just like the quantum physics money
is justified.

WE DO spend enough money, just not on our own
origins.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/116831441150
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-22 05:03:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Yusuf Gürsey
Post by JTEM
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Physics is the same everywhere.
The same solution to the problem of building a tall,
massive structure applies to any place.
Very true.
There is a very good point in that we have an almost
all blank picture of human evolution, and all manner
Not relevant to my post.
This is a thread. I was pointing out that, though one
line of "Reasoning" was false -- as you made clear --
this does not mean that every line of reasoning is
false.
Post by Yusuf Gürsey
Post by JTEM
Nobody has ever made any attempt to excavate the
now submerged environments where we know our
ancestors lived.
We know it. There is no guess work involved.
They left Africa. If you want to claim Asia as
the origins, fine, so then they left Asia. The
point is that they left, and EVERYBODY agrees
that they traveled via the coast. THEY WERE
LIVING ON THE COAST. And that coast does not
exist any longer. It's gone. It's under water.
So the one and only place we all agree that
our ancestors lived in under water. We don't
look there. We look somewhere else.
Try underwater fossil hunting and then comment.
You're making my point: "Real evidence is too hard!
Let's dig over here, where our ancestors didn't
come from, instead."
That's not the reasoning behind not doing underwater fossil hunting.
Post by JTEM
That's not science. It's a selection bias that
invalidates findings/conclusions.
Post by Yusuf Gürsey
Try getting funding for such a venture.
Exactly: "Real science is too expensive! Let's
do something cheaper then pretend we did real
science. Okay?"
That's not the reasoning behind not doing underwater fossil hunting.
Post by JTEM
Here's the deal; I know WHY they refuse to conduct
real science, but this doesn't change the fact that
they're not doing real science!
The budget of the International Space Station is
150 billion dollars. Let's spend that much to
discover our origins.
It's NOT too much to ask, now is it? As a matter
of fact, the price tag is quite reasonable. We're
already spending it in the pursuit of discover...
Higgs boson cost most than $13 billion to "Discover,"
assuming it really has been discovered.
What I'm saying is that real science is obtainable.
If genuine scientists joined the field of
paleoanthropology and told the world that no real
science is taking place -- instead of reporting
garbage and pretending to have facts -- people would
see the need. The money would be justified.
...just like the space research money is
justified, just like the quantum physics money
is justified.
WE DO spend enough money, just not on our own
origins.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/116831441150
JTEM
2015-04-22 05:17:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
That's not the reasoning behind not doing underwater fossil hunting.
Of course it is. money. That's it. That's all she
wrote.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/116987254443
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-22 13:48:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Exactly: "Real science is too expensive! Let's
do something cheaper then pretend we did real
science. Okay?"
Here's the deal; I know WHY they refuse to conduct
real science, but this doesn't change the fact that
they're not doing real science!
The budget of the International Space Station is
150 billion dollars. Let's spend that much to
discover our origins.
It's NOT too much to ask, now is it? As a matter
of fact, the price tag is quite reasonable. We're
already spending it in the pursuit of discover...
Higgs boson cost most than $13 billion to "Discover,"
assuming it really has been discovered.
It has. The collider is good for not just the Higgs boson.

One knew the approximate energies required for its discovery and
hopefully more.

The above examples have a reasonable yield. Underwater fossil hunting
does not. The ocean floor is a very unfavorable place for outcrops of
fossils and the whole enterpise is worse than finding a needle in a
haystack.
Post by JTEM
What I'm saying is that real science is obtainable.
If genuine scientists joined the field of
paleoanthropology and told the world that no real
science is taking place -- instead of reporting
garbage and pretending to have facts -- people would
see the need. The money would be justified.
So you say.
Post by JTEM
...just like the space research money is
justified, just like the quantum physics money
is justified.
WE DO spend enough money, just not on our own
origins.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/116831441150
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-22 14:17:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by JTEM
Exactly: "Real science is too expensive! Let's
do something cheaper then pretend we did real
science. Okay?"
Here's the deal; I know WHY they refuse to conduct
real science, but this doesn't change the fact that
they're not doing real science!
The budget of the International Space Station is
150 billion dollars. Let's spend that much to
discover our origins.
It's NOT too much to ask, now is it? As a matter
of fact, the price tag is quite reasonable. We're
already spending it in the pursuit of discover...
Higgs boson cost most than $13 billion to "Discover,"
assuming it really has been discovered.
It has. The collider is good for not just the Higgs boson.
One knew the approximate energies required for its discovery and hopefully
more.
The above examples have a reasonable yield. Underwater fossil hunting does
not. The ocean floor is a very unfavorable place for outcrops of fossils and
or the seabed. Whatever.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the whole enterpise is worse than finding a needle in a haystack.
Post by JTEM
What I'm saying is that real science is obtainable.
If genuine scientists joined the field of paleoanthropology and told the
world that no real
science is taking place -- instead of reporting
garbage and pretending to have facts -- people would
see the need. The money would be justified.
So you say.
Post by JTEM
...just like the space research money is
justified, just like the quantum physics money
is justified.
WE DO spend enough money, just not on our own
origins.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/116831441150
JTEM
2015-04-22 17:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
The above examples have a reasonable yield. Underwater fossil hunting
does not. The ocean floor is a very unfavorable place for outcrops of
fossils and the whole enterpise is worse than finding a needle in a
haystack.
Here on our planet, the ocean floor is actually the
single greatest environment for fossils. The vast
majority of all fossils are from the sea.

Real Life (tm) is exactly the opposite of what you
think it is.

Best environment known to man for fossils: The ocean!




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117063262963
Yusuf Gürsey
2015-04-22 20:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
The above examples have a reasonable yield. Underwater fossil hunting
does not. The ocean floor is a very unfavorable place for outcrops of
fossils and the whole enterpise is worse than finding a needle in a
haystack.
Here on our planet, the ocean floor is actually the
single greatest environment for fossils. The vast
majority of all fossils are from the sea.
Real Life (tm) is exactly the opposite of what you
think it is.
Best environment known to man for fossils: The ocean!
Then go and start an expedition.
Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117063262963
JTEM
2015-04-23 04:52:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf Gürsey
Then go and start an expedition.
Wait. You really think THAT is a reasonable
response after we both acknowledged the huge
cost?

You've lost it!

Why don't you cite a peer-reviewed article explaining
why searching for our actual ancestors is a bad idea?




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117130442047
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-23 05:28:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Yusuf Gürsey
Then go and start an expedition.
Wait. You really think THAT is a reasonable
response after we both acknowledged the huge
cost?
I was mocking. It would be futile, not just a huge cost. Finding
interesting fossils is luck, even in the best of conditions.
Post by JTEM
You've lost it!
Why don't you cite a peer-reviewed article explaining
why searching for our actual ancestors is a bad idea?
I don't think the scientific community shares all of your assumptions.
Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117130442047
JTEM
2015-04-23 06:07:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
I was mocking. It would be futile
Wrong.

Fossils are there. Tools are there. Habitation
sites are there.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
not just a huge cost.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Finding interesting fossils is luck, even in the
best of conditions.
It's not luck, it's work. It's a hell of a lot of
work. But, a lot less work than placing a large
space station in orbit, and a lot cheaper.

...I imagine the cost would be closer to CERN.

Evolution, our origins, where we came from; these
things are important questions. In many ways they're
more important than any Higgs Boson. We do put in
the effort for scientific pursuits of this magnitude,
we do spend the money. All we lack here is anyone
saying that it needs to be done. All we need is for
the jackasses to quit pretending that they're doing
real science.

That's it.

Real science will take place, regardless of cost and
effort (See: Outer Space). It will. We just need
the fake science to stop. That's the barrier: The fake
science. It's convincing the people who control the
cash that we don't need to spend it.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117130442047
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-23 06:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
I was mocking. It would be futile
Wrong.
Fossils are there. Tools are there. Habitation
sites are there.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
not just a huge cost.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Finding interesting fossils is luck, even in the
best of conditions.
It's not luck, it's work. It's a hell of a lot of
work. But, a lot less work than placing a large
space station in orbit, and a lot cheaper.
The return of space stations is more certain.
Post by JTEM
...I imagine the cost would be closer to CERN.
The return of CERN is more certsin.
Post by JTEM
Evolution, our origins, where we came from; these
things are important questions. In many ways they're
more important than any Higgs Boson. We do put in
The universe we know wouldn't exist without the Higgs Boson.
Post by JTEM
the effort for scientific pursuits of this magnitude,
we do spend the money. All we lack here is anyone
saying that it needs to be done. All we need is for
the jackasses to quit pretending that they're doing
real science.
That's it.
Real science will take place, regardless of cost and
effort (See: Outer Space). It will. We just need
the fake science to stop. That's the barrier: The fake
science. It's convincing the people who control the
cash that we don't need to spend it.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117130442047
JTEM
2015-04-23 06:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
The return of space stations is more certain.
No it isn't.

You honestly have no clue.

You're spewing nonsense, right down to your dumb
claim that the sea doesn't preserve fossils.

The International Space Station hardly represents
the total cost of space exploration. It's a mere
fraction of the money & effort invested. Yet, the
time, money & resources, if invested in a search
for our actual ancestors, would answer questions
that nobody is even trying to answer today.

We all want to know where we came from, the story
of our evolution, so let's find out. We can and
will spend the money, if they jackasses would
simply get out of the way.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117130442047
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-23 14:11:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
The return of space stations is more certain.
No it isn't.
You honestly have no clue.
So you say.
Post by JTEM
You're spewing nonsense, right down to your dumb
claim that the sea doesn't preserve fossils.
I didn't say that. There are plenty of marine fossils found when
tectonic forces causes the sea floor to rise.

It's not conducive to providing outcrops (except perhaps in exceptional
cases) that show us were to dig. Human fossils are rare enough in land.

Try finding a paleontologist willing to spend to hours underwater in
the deep sea in the dark.
Post by JTEM
The International Space Station hardly represents
the total cost of space exploration. It's a mere
fraction of the money & effort invested. Yet, the
But the space program has a variety of applications with certain yield.
Post by JTEM
time, money & resources, if invested in a search
for our actual ancestors, would answer questions
that nobody is even trying to answer today.
Evidently most paleoanthropologists are more confident about the
answers than you are.
Post by JTEM
We all want to know where we came from, the story
of our evolution, so let's find out. We can and
will spend the money, if they jackasses would
simply get out of the way.
And follow an anonymous internet poster (I've ommitied a less
flattering description)?
Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117130442047
Asha Santon
2015-04-23 14:51:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
As this discussion is being conducted on Usenet, it is hardly private
but even so I apologise for this intervention in what seems like a
private argument.
Try finding a paleontologist willing to spend to [sic] hours underwater in the
deep sea in the dark.
The possibility that someone is unwilling to perform a task is not
relevant to whether it could or should be done.
Digging on land is easier and less costly so that is the preferred
option. In my country, most fossils of significant interest are found on
the coast either just above or just below the waterline.
This lends some credence to the view offered by JTEM although frankly, I
could not care less if he is right or wrong. I care only that your
response is illogical and nonsensical.
But the space program [sic] has a variety of applications with certain yield.
Generally speaking, there is no financial yield whatsoever from most
space programmes, nor is there intended to be. It is not done for profit
but out of a thirst for knowledge. The information is intended to
provide insight into the universe or parts thereof and is unlikely to
ever have any practical application. Again, that is not the motive.

Contrary to popular belief Teflon was discovered in 1938 and registered
in 1945, so non-stick frying pans were not a benefit of the space race
to the moon.
The trips to the moon were powered by a Minuteman intercontinental
ballistic missile with a third stage added and renamed Saturn 5. It may
be said that space exploration benefited from the arms race courtesy of
Herr von Braun whose main claim to fame is that he destroyed parts of
London with his earlier rockets.

There have been no significant developments as a result of space
exploration, aside of improvements to skills and equipment in that field
itself. If you disagree, provide a list of advances which are not space
related, with references to something other than wikipedia.
And follow an anonymous internet poster ... ?
Such as yourself?
--
AS
http://minnies.opcop.org.uk/
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-23 16:15:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Asha Santon
As this discussion is being conducted on Usenet, it is hardly private
but even so I apologise for this intervention in what seems like a
private argument.
Your input is welcome.
Post by Asha Santon
Try finding a paleontologist willing to spend to [sic] hours underwater in
the deep sea in the dark.
The possibility that someone is unwilling to perform a task is not
relevant to whether it could or should be done.
Digging on land is easier and less costly so that is the preferred
option. In my country, most fossils of significant interest are found on
the coast either just above or just below the waterline.
Those are not unreasonable places to search. JTEM is proposing "the
submerged coastline" so I assume it is the continental shelf, deep sea.

Here we are talking about a geologically recent layer, filled with
marine debris and living organisms and uncharted. In all that
inaccesible area one has to first locate outcrops.

In space exploartion, we know where to look (planetary bodies for
example) and for planetary bodies just about anything is useful
information. We have systematic methods to get there.

In building the LHC at CERN, there were reasonbale expectations to find
something interesting at those eneregies.

If there are known outcrops on the continental shelf, then one can
start building a case to dig there.
Post by Asha Santon
This lends some credence to the view offered by JTEM although frankly, I
could not care less if he is right or wrong. I care only that your
response is illogical and nonsensical.
I'm not dogmatic and I am open to feedback. The fact is that no deep
sea paleanthology is being done (apart from core samples through
drilling) and I mentioned some reasons why.

JTEM's responses are as usual just sloganeering.
Post by Asha Santon
But the space program [sic] has a variety of applications with certain yield.
Generally speaking, there is no financial yield whatsoever from most
space programmes, nor is there intended to be. It is not done for profit
How about the sattelites that are making this communication possible?
Or the advances in miniaturization (in part motivated by the space
program) in the electronics of this communication?

Radiation shielding, radiation resistant electronics, is neccessary for
deep space exploartion and has obvious military applications.
Post by Asha Santon
but out of a thirst for knowledge. The information is intended to
provide insight into the universe or parts thereof and is unlikely to
ever have any practical application. Again, that is not the motive.
Contrary to popular belief Teflon was discovered in 1938 and registered
in 1945, so non-stick frying pans were not a benefit of the space race
to the moon.
The trips to the moon were powered by a Minuteman intercontinental
ballistic missile with a third stage added and renamed Saturn 5. It may
be said that space exploration benefited from the arms race courtesy of
Herr von Braun whose main claim to fame is that he destroyed parts of
London with his earlier rockets.
There are a variety of military applications of the space progarm,
starting from spy sattelites to Reagan's "Star Wars" program and the
dual use technology you just mentioned.
Post by Asha Santon
There have been no significant developments as a result of space
exploration, aside of improvements to skills and equipment in that field
That's one.
Post by Asha Santon
itself. If you disagree, provide a list of advances which are not space
You mean "which are space related"
Post by Asha Santon
related, with references to something other than wikipedia.
And follow an anonymous internet poster ... ?
Such as yourself?
I am not posting anonymously and I am, from my end, conducting a
rational discussion, open to feedback.
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-23 16:32:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Asha Santon
As this discussion is being conducted on Usenet, it is hardly private
but even so I apologise for this intervention in what seems like a
private argument.
Your input is welcome.
Post by Asha Santon
Try finding a paleontologist willing to spend to [sic] hours underwater in
the deep sea in the dark.
The possibility that someone is unwilling to perform a task is not
relevant to whether it could or should be done.
Digging on land is easier and less costly so that is the preferred
option. In my country, most fossils of significant interest are found on
the coast either just above or just below the waterline.
Those are not unreasonable places to search. JTEM is proposing "the submerged
coastline" so I assume it is the continental shelf, deep sea.
Tidal forces along the coast expose older rock, meaning outcrops.

Valleys cut by rivers are another.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Here we are talking about a geologically recent layer, filled with marine
debris and living organisms and uncharted. In all that inaccesible area one
has to first locate outcrops.
Asha Santon
2015-04-23 17:19:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Asha Santon
Generally speaking, there is no financial yield whatsoever from most
space programmes, nor is there intended to be. It is not done for profit
How about the sattelites that are making this communication possible?
Or the advances in miniaturization (in part motivated by the space
program) in the electronics of this communication?
Radiation shielding, radiation resistant electronics, is neccessary for
deep space exploartion and has obvious military applications.
All space related then.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
There are a variety of military applications of the space progarm,
starting from spy sattelites to Reagan's "Star Wars" program and the
dual use technology you just mentioned.
Post by Asha Santon
There have been no significant developments as a result of space
exploration, aside of improvements to skills and equipment in that field
That's one.
That was my point. Space exploration only benefits other space technologies.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Asha Santon
itself. If you disagree, provide a list of advances which are not space
You mean "which are space related"
No, I mean NOT space related.

That was my point. Space exploration only benefits other space technologies.
--
AS
http://minnies.opcop.org.uk
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-23 18:25:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Asha Santon
Post by Asha Santon
Generally speaking, there is no financial yield whatsoever from most
space programmes, nor is there intended to be. It is not done for profit
How about the sattelites that are making this communication possible? Or
the advances in miniaturization (in part motivated by the space program) in
the electronics of this communication?
Radiation shielding, radiation resistant electronics, is neccessary for
deep space exploartion and has obvious military applications.
All space related then.
There are a variety of military applications of the space progarm, starting
from spy sattelites to Reagan's "Star Wars" program and the dual use
technology you just mentioned.
Post by Asha Santon
There have been no significant developments as a result of space
exploration, aside of improvements to skills and equipment in that field
That's one.
That was my point. Space exploration only benefits other space technologies.
Post by Asha Santon
itself. If you disagree, provide a list of advances which are not space
You mean "which are space related"
No, I mean NOT space related.
That was my point. Space exploration only benefits other space technologies.
Whether space related or not, they are beneficial, or alledgedly so -
military technology isn't beneficial but destructive, but some people
think it is.

Electronics miniaturization, radiation shielding, and some zero gravity
crystal growth and perhaps some other things are not space related.

And there is always reasonable expectation that there will be return of
scientific interest. We know where to look.

Randomly digging the sea floor for fossils is simply not the same. See
my discussion of outcrops.
JTEM
2015-04-23 19:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Those are not unreasonable places to search. JTEM is proposing "the
submerged coastline" so I assume it is the continental shelf, deep sea.
JTEM is proposing that we look where EVERYONE agrees
our ancestors lived!

It's not about finding "Early man."

There were many populations, many "Races" or "Species."
It's about finding ANCESTRAL populations. It's about
finding the populations whom we descend from, evolved
from. And although we know for a fact that they had to
be forced off the low lying coasts & vallies for roughly
10% of their existence, we don't know where they went to
from there. All we do know for a fact is that they were
there. So if we want to know what our ancestors looked
like, if we want to know how they evolved, the tools
they used and all that, we have to look where we know
they lived...

It's called "Science." You're either doing it or
you're not.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Here we are talking about a geologically recent layer, filled with
marine debris and living organisms and uncharted. In all that
inaccesible area one has to first locate outcrops.
This is nonsense.

In the grand scheme of things, 2 million years is recent,
but it's like 20 times the minimum accepted time for a
bone to become fossilized.

And it's nowhere near the "Luck" that you're pretending.

Topographical scans can find all the features we'd be
looking for, starting with fresh water sources -- rivers,
tributaries and even (likely locations for) lakes. Any
ancestors couldn't be loving too far from them...

If you haven't already sunk some test pits/trenches,
or used dredging to pinpoint a good spot to dig, now
would be the time to start.

The biggest problem is that there would be a number of
pertinent layers. If we want Neanderthals, for example,
we dig way up off the coast of the Netherlands. That
would likely be a good place to look for Heidelberg
man. But they're kind of recent, no? We're probably
going to want to start off the coast of Africa, and
the horn of Africa, for any ancestors beyond our own
species...
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
In space exploartion, we know where to look
Same here. Even the "Out of Africa/Eve" folks insist
on a coastal dispersal. Some claim to have mapped it!
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
In building the LHC at CERN, there were reasonbale expectations to find
something interesting at those eneregies.
A large scale effort to dig where EVERYONE agrees our
ancestors lived is NOT likely to yield useful results,
but petty digging efforts where our ancestors did NOT
live is fruitful...

You are a nutter. You are a complete nutter. You always
have been, you always will be...






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117130442047
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-23 19:09:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In <c3672d63-2092-4347-99d1-***@googlegroups.com>, JTEM wrote
on 4/23/2015:

Find the outcrops first.
Post by JTEM
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Those are not unreasonable places to search. JTEM is proposing "the
submerged coastline" so I assume it is the continental shelf, deep sea.
JTEM is proposing that we look where EVERYONE agrees
our ancestors lived!
It's not about finding "Early man."
There were many populations, many "Races" or "Species."
It's about finding ANCESTRAL populations. It's about
finding the populations whom we descend from, evolved
from. And although we know for a fact that they had to
be forced off the low lying coasts & vallies for roughly
10% of their existence, we don't know where they went to
from there. All we do know for a fact is that they were
there. So if we want to know what our ancestors looked
like, if we want to know how they evolved, the tools
they used and all that, we have to look where we know
they lived...
It's called "Science." You're either doing it or
you're not.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Here we are talking about a geologically recent layer, filled with
marine debris and living organisms and uncharted. In all that
inaccesible area one has to first locate outcrops.
This is nonsense.
In the grand scheme of things, 2 million years is recent,
but it's like 20 times the minimum accepted time for a
bone to become fossilized.
And it's nowhere near the "Luck" that you're pretending.
Topographical scans can find all the features we'd be
looking for, starting with fresh water sources -- rivers,
tributaries and even (likely locations for) lakes. Any
ancestors couldn't be loving too far from them...
If you haven't already sunk some test pits/trenches,
or used dredging to pinpoint a good spot to dig, now
would be the time to start.
The biggest problem is that there would be a number of
pertinent layers. If we want Neanderthals, for example,
we dig way up off the coast of the Netherlands. That
would likely be a good place to look for Heidelberg
man. But they're kind of recent, no? We're probably
going to want to start off the coast of Africa, and
the horn of Africa, for any ancestors beyond our own
species...
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
In space exploartion, we know where to look
Same here. Even the "Out of Africa/Eve" folks insist
on a coastal dispersal. Some claim to have mapped it!
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
In building the LHC at CERN, there were reasonbale expectations to find
something interesting at those eneregies.
A large scale effort to dig where EVERYONE agrees our
ancestors lived is NOT likely to yield useful results,
but petty digging efforts where our ancestors did NOT
live is fruitful...
You are a nutter. You are a complete nutter. You always
have been, you always will be...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117130442047
JTEM
2015-04-23 19:23:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Find the outcrops first.
You're thinking dinosaurs.

"Find Higgs Boson FIRST, then we'll spend the
13 billion."

There is no excuse for not doing science.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117130442047
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-23 19:32:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Find the outcrops first.
You're thinking dinosaurs.
??
Post by JTEM
"Find Higgs Boson FIRST, then we'll spend the
13 billion."
No, one had an estimate of the energy required, then the experiment was
set up.
Post by JTEM
There is no excuse for not doing science.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117130442047
JTEM
2015-04-23 19:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
No, one had an estimate of the energy required, then the experiment was
set up.
We have all of paleoanthropology -- everyone from
the Aquatic Ape adherents to the strictest "Out
of Africa" priests -- insisting that this is where
our ancestors lived. They may also have lived in
many other places, possibly on dry land, but we
have no way of knowing where. All we do know is that
they lived & moved across the globe on coastlines,
plains & vallies which are today underwater.

WE KNOW THEY LIVED THERE!

It's not science to dig somewhere else. Period. It's
a lot of things, but it's not science. If we want a
scientific investigation of human origins, we have
to dig where the coast used to be. We have to dig
where the plains & vallies used to be, WHERE THEY
LIVED.

I'm arguing FOR science. I want science.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117130442047
JTEM
2015-04-23 18:49:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by JTEM
You honestly have no clue.
So you say.
Oh, there's no question here. You think digging up
bones where you WON'T find our ancestors, and then
carrying on as if you did find our ancestors, is
real "Science."

...and you think that fossils are never preserved
in the sea.

AND you think that we don't do difficult or expensive
things for science.

You're WRONG on all counts.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by JTEM
You're spewing nonsense, right down to your dumb
claim that the sea doesn't preserve fossils.
I didn't say that.
You said that the ocean floor was very "unfavorable,"
when in fact it produces far more fossils than dry
land.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
There are plenty of marine fossils found when
tectonic forces causes the sea floor to rise.
So we don't have to wait for it to rise. We can
dam off an area or (preferred) build some sort
of dome for working under water.

The dome idea is a bit cartoonish, but it has
been employed on small scales, going back more
than 100 years! The famous Brooklyn Bridge was
built in this manner...

Why I say that would be preferred is because, at
least in theory, it could be moveable. There are
a lot of sites to dig...
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
It's not conducive to providing outcrops
"Outcrops" are important for telling paleontologists
where to start digging. We know where.

And I've crushed all your concerns under my heal long
ago: Dredging!

The underwater equivalent to the test hole or trench:

Dredging!

Dredge a strip across a good spot, look for some tasty
archaeology, and then drop down for some major digging
where you find it...
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Human fossils are rare enough in land.
Because. We. Weren't. Living. There.

That's NOT where our ancestors were, which is the point!
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Try finding a paleontologist willing to spend to hours underwater in
the deep sea in the dark.
Try finding one interested in actual, valid science, you mean.

And, dude, there are people willing to take a ONE WAY
trip to Mars. There's no shortage of people willing to
work underwater.

But that wouldn't even be necessary, not with the investment
of a CERN or Space Station. At that level you don't need
"Underwater." You dam off an area. Or you drop a dome on top
of it...

But even if this were not the case, you're still wrong.

There is no alternative to valid science. There just isn't.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117130442047
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-23 19:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In <d524010a-4e1f-4873-9886-***@googlegroups.com>, JTEM wrote
on 4/23/2015:

Nice sci-fi. But I'm getting bored.
Post by JTEM
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by JTEM
You honestly have no clue.
So you say.
Oh, there's no question here. You think digging up
bones where you WON'T find our ancestors, and then
carrying on as if you did find our ancestors, is
real "Science."
...and you think that fossils are never preserved
in the sea.
AND you think that we don't do difficult or expensive
things for science.
You're WRONG on all counts.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by JTEM
You're spewing nonsense, right down to your dumb
claim that the sea doesn't preserve fossils.
I didn't say that.
You said that the ocean floor was very "unfavorable,"
when in fact it produces far more fossils than dry
land.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
There are plenty of marine fossils found when
tectonic forces causes the sea floor to rise.
So we don't have to wait for it to rise. We can
I should have added "and outcrops are formed".
Post by JTEM
dam off an area or (preferred) build some sort
of dome for working under water.
The whole continental shelf?
Post by JTEM
The dome idea is a bit cartoonish, but it has
been employed on small scales, going back more
than 100 years! The famous Brooklyn Bridge was
built in this manner...
Why I say that would be preferred is because, at
least in theory, it could be moveable. There are
a lot of sites to dig...
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
It's not conducive to providing outcrops
"Outcrops" are important for telling paleontologists
where to start digging. We know where.
Locate them underwater on the continental shelf
Post by JTEM
And I've crushed all your concerns under my heal long
ago: Dredging!
Dredging!
Dredge a strip across a good spot, look for some tasty
And where are the "good spots"?
Post by JTEM
archaeology, and then drop down for some major digging
where you find it...
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Human fossils are rare enough in land.
Because. We. Weren't. Living. There.
That's NOT where our ancestors were, which is the point!
So you say.
Post by JTEM
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Try finding a paleontologist willing to spend to hours underwater in
the deep sea in the dark.
Try finding one interested in actual, valid science, you mean.
And, dude, there are people willing to take a ONE WAY
trip to Mars. There's no shortage of people willing to
work underwater.
But that wouldn't even be necessary, not with the investment
of a CERN or Space Station. At that level you don't need
"Underwater." You dam off an area. Or you drop a dome on top
of it...
But even if this were not the case, you're still wrong.
There is no alternative to valid science. There just isn't.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117130442047
JTEM
2015-04-23 19:25:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Nice sci-fi. But I'm getting bored.
You are legitimately insane.

Looking for our ancestors -- our real ancestors,
the ones whose DNA we carry -- is "Sci-fi," but
building space stations is not...






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117130442047
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-23 19:34:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In <7a88db7d-deb7-40a1-bf4a-***@googlegroups.com>, JTEM wrote
on 4/23/2015:

Whatever. I made my points, you didn't give a satsifactory answer.
Post by JTEM
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Nice sci-fi. But I'm getting bored.
You are legitimately insane.
Looking for our ancestors -- our real ancestors,
the ones whose DNA we carry -- is "Sci-fi," but
building space stations is not...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117130442047
JTEM
2015-04-23 19:53:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Whatever. I made my points
Ironically, no!

THAT'S the point!

Even if it were impossible to perform the digs,
it wouldn't & couldn't change anything: There
is no legitimate science going on!

That's it. That's the screaming obvious fact that
NOBODY has kept secret from you. There is no
alternative. If you want legitimate science, if
you want validly obtained results, THIS IS IT. We
have to do it.

...even if you're certain that the odds of
success are tiny, there is no other option. There
is no legitimately scientific means of accomplishing
the task.

AND THEN we consider the fact that you're wrong. You
are just plain wrong. There's plenty to learn IN
ADDITION TO human origins. There's plenty to learn
about the earth itself, climate change, in addition
to plant & animal life... historical finds... you
name it. It's even likely that some of these spots
are TOO rich. That, it would take years or longer
to reach down to layers pertinent to human evolution
because higher, younger layers are so important to
history/earth science/etc.

So you're wrong, everything you think is a point is
just plain wrong, AND there is no alternative. We
either do it or we have no science here.








-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117130442047
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-23 23:28:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Whatever. I made my points
Ironically, no!
I don't care to discuss this anymore.
Post by JTEM
THAT'S the point!
Even if it were impossible to perform the digs,
it wouldn't & couldn't change anything: There
is no legitimate science going on!
That's it. That's the screaming obvious fact that
NOBODY has kept secret from you. There is no
alternative. If you want legitimate science, if
you want validly obtained results, THIS IS IT. We
have to do it.
...even if you're certain that the odds of
success are tiny, there is no other option. There
is no legitimately scientific means of accomplishing
the task.
AND THEN we consider the fact that you're wrong. You
are just plain wrong. There's plenty to learn IN
ADDITION TO human origins. There's plenty to learn
about the earth itself, climate change, in addition
to plant & animal life... historical finds... you
name it. It's even likely that some of these spots
are TOO rich. That, it would take years or longer
to reach down to layers pertinent to human evolution
because higher, younger layers are so important to
history/earth science/etc.
So you're wrong, everything you think is a point is
just plain wrong, AND there is no alternative. We
either do it or we have no science here.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117130442047
JTEM
2015-04-24 04:53:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
I don't care to discuss this anymore.
You never did!

You never do!

In every last thread EVER, you have always
played yourself as the High Priest. You've
never "Discussed," you've only ever "Preached."

Same thing here.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-28 13:54:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Yusuf- the good spots are the sunda shelf and its near atolls, quite obviously. The east coast of China to a lesser degree.
These are absolutely the most important places to look and if any anthropologist or archeologist is looking elsewhere they are just tinkering around, biding time and doing minor work, while the big questions are down there waiting to be answered.
JTEM
2015-04-28 17:40:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J.LyonLayden
Yusuf- the good spots are the sunda shelf
and its near atolls, quite obviously. The
east coast of China to a lesser degree.
These are absolutely the most important
places to look and if any anthropologist or
archeologist is looking elsewhere they are
just tinkering around, biding time and doing
minor work, while the big questions are down
there waiting to be answered.
The sea actually DOES preserve things quite
well, as most fossils come from the sea.

The techniques for underwater excavations are
old. There's nothing new or earth shattering
required: Scuba diving, damming or some sort
of dome.

All are expensive, all are dangerous but less
so than is space exploration, and we pay for
that no problems...

The Brooklyn Bridge was actually build employing
a "Dome" type technique. Men worked inside the
bases of the towers, underwater, excavating the
ground at their feet. Effectively it was a
giant upside-down cup in the river for them...

A similar technique could be used for exploring
human origins, and it would likely have very
lucrative commercial applications for use in
undersea salvage operations, construction and
mining.

Scuba diving is easy enough but slow, and quite
dangerous at depths. It's also highly dependent
upon the weather.

Damming is the middle ground. Generally we're
speaking of seas no more than 400 feet deep,
and usually a lot shallower than that. You
simply wall off a chunk of the ocean floor, pump
out the water and then you have dry land to work
on. Done.

Test bores/trenches would almost certainly be
necessary. They are a HORRIBLE way to perform
archaeology as it can (and often does) damage
remains/artifacts, as well as erases all context.
But it's probably necessary in order to pinpoint
WHERE to spend the billions excavating...

Basically you send a ship out to go scoop up
part of the ocean floor, sift it and search
for archaeology. In theory you could end up
with WWII debris, bits of a Roman ship and
Homo habilis all in the same scoop, everything
just jumbled together. Plus you just destroyed
that Roman ship and that cite where the Homo
habilis lived/died...

The scuba divers would be a good alternative,
though that would slow things WAY down even
as you spiked the cost. It would be a lot
quicker and cheaper dredging...

But it can be done. Given enough money, even
the scuba divers would not add any time, as
you could simply hire & train more of them...

It's all a matter of priorities. Not technology,
not cost but priorities.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117591635913
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-29 01:40:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J.LyonLayden
Yusuf- the good spots are the sunda shelf and its near atolls, quite
I am not familiar with the details. But again, it is not a question of
the sea not preserving fossils but of not exposing them. On land there
are various forces at work that expose older layers of rock such as
tectonic forces and erosion. Of these erosion is notably lacking
underwater, except perhaps under exceptional circumstances. Much more
detailed mapping is required to find these rare occurances to make any
deep sea fossil hunting expedition anything but Quixotic. Since there
is no deep sea fossil in the first place, I find it more worthwhile to
analyze why it doesn't take place rather than hurl invectives that it
doesn't.
Post by J.LyonLayden
obviously. The east coast of China to a lesser degree. These are absolutely
the most important places to look and if any anthropologist or archeologist
is looking elsewhere they are just tinkering around, biding time and doing
minor work, while the big questions are down there waiting to be answered.
JTEM
2015-04-29 02:37:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
I am not familiar with the details. But again, it is not a question of
the sea not preserving fossils but of not exposing them.
Wrong.

It doesn't matter how long it takes or how expensive
or how hard, there is no alternative. You either dig
for our ancestors or you don't, and so far nobody is
digging for them.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117591635913
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-29 03:45:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
I am not familiar with the details. But again, it is not a question of
the sea not preserving fossils but of not exposing them.
Wrong.
It doesn't matter how long it takes or how expensive
or how hard, there is no alternative. You either dig
Yeah, sure. Why not just dig up the whole planet.
Post by JTEM
for our ancestors or you don't, and so far nobody is
digging for them.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117591635913
JTEM
2015-04-29 04:06:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Once again he confuses dinosaur paleontology with
standard archaeology.

Actually it's quite common for archaeologists to
begin WITHOUT any "outcrop." As I already pointed
out, they dig test pits and test trenches. That's
how they pinpoint where to dig...
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Yeah, sure. Why not just dig up the whole planet.
Okay.

Because no matter what, we are currently not looking
for our ancestors. And if we want to know about our
origins, if we want to study our evolution, if we
want to trace our development we have to look where
we know our ancestors lived. Period.

There is no alternative.

It doesn't matter if it's hard, or cost a lot or
would take a long time. There is no alternative.
If we want to learn anything, if we want legitimate
science then we have to do it.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117662229558
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-29 09:18:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Once again he confuses dinosaur paleontology with
standard archaeology.
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding as to the time depth. I assumed
you the discussion was about fossil hominids.
Post by JTEM
Actually it's quite common for archaeologists to
begin WITHOUT any "outcrop." As I already pointed
out, they dig test pits and test trenches. That's
how they pinpoint where to dig...
That still begs the question of where to dig the test pits in the
uncharted territory of the submerged coast.
Post by JTEM
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Yeah, sure. Why not just dig up the whole planet.
Okay.
Because no matter what, we are currently not looking
for our ancestors. And if we want to know about our
origins, if we want to study our evolution, if we
want to trace our development we have to look where
we know our ancestors lived. Period.
There is no alternative.
It doesn't matter if it's hard, or cost a lot or
would take a long time. There is no alternative.
If we want to learn anything, if we want legitimate
science then we have to do it.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117662229558
JTEM
2015-04-29 15:43:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding as to
the time depth. I assumed you the discussion
was about fossil hominids.
It certainly INCLUDES fossil hominids, but
conventional "Out of Africa" nonsense has
modern man leaving Africa about a dozen times,
starting around 200 thousand years ago up until
around 30 thousand years ago.

This isn't heart surgery. We can do things in
any order we want. And considering that about
100 thousand years is the usual minimum time
necessary to fossilize remains, there's plenty
of non fossilized remains out there that we
need to find if we want to understand the
final chapters in our evolution.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by JTEM
Actually it's quite common for archaeologists to
begin WITHOUT any "outcrop." As I already pointed
out, they dig test pits and test trenches. That's
how they pinpoint where to dig...
That still begs the question of where to dig the test pits in the
uncharted territory of the submerged coast.
That's the point of the test pits: Figure out where
to dig!

I suggested dredging. Not on large scales, of
course. They'd be looking for things like human
bone, of course, but also charcoal, tools,
animal remains... any sign of our ancestors OR
an environment which we believe would attract
them.

We can also narrow things down with a decent
topographical survey to identify things like
fresh water sources. Stream beds CAN and
HAVE been identified in the past.

Again, nobody is arguing that it wouldn't be
difficult, dangerous or expensive. I've been
comparing such an effort to building the
International Space Station, for Christ's sake!
The problem here is that it has to be done.
There is no alternative. What is being done
instead is not real science. It's not legitimate
science. No real field of science would accept
the "Findings," not based on such a horrible
selection bias.








-- --

http://referafriend.comcast.com/ShareTheAwesome/1RDNAP
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-29 16:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Yusuf what the hell are you arguing about?
No we don't want to dig up the whole planet, we want scientists to do their job and dig along the former coasts instead of digging in places that were inland boon dock backwaters at the time, probably trailing way behind the technology of the coast.
What exactly is your argument against that?
Why in the world are we digging on top of the former mountain range that was Java instead of digging in the 100 meter depth former coasts of Java where all the hominids were?
They are lucky they've found homo erectus at all on Java, since it was a mountain range where nobody went unless they were driven away from the coasts by another population or had to do some hunting.
But all they have to do is dig along the coast of java and they will find homo erectus all the way up to 15k ago or so and we can end several of these stupid arguments we keep having.
What's wrong with some kind of dredging JTEM?
Did't they find a tool recently in the Indian Ocean or somewhere by dredging?
JTEM
2015-04-29 17:48:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J.LyonLayden
They are lucky they've found homo erectus at all on Java, since it was a mountain range where nobody went unless they were driven away from the coasts by another population or had to do some hunting.
It's the same story for the Hobbit in Indonesia. The
reason why he "Suddenly Appears" has to be that he
only newly entered the areas where we find him, driven
out of previous (now submerged) areas by other groups,
over population, over fishing... SOMETHING!

Maybe even something as simple as back to back
Tsunamis caused whole populations to throw up
their arms and march uphill...

These aren't new or controversial ideas. Some of the
CONCLUSIONS drawn on them are quite controversial,
but the underlying assumptions -- the populations
lived on now submerged lands -- is pretty solid.

We honestly could (and likely are) missing 1.6
million years of "Hobbit" evolution, because the
places they lived don't exist anymore.

...same with Java man, same with Neanderthal,
etc.
Post by J.LyonLayden
What's wrong with some kind of dredging JTEM?
It's destructive. It eliminates all context.

Effectively you destroy a site.
Post by J.LyonLayden
Did't they find a tool recently in the Indian Ocean
or somewhere by dredging?
The find tools and even human remains all the
time, though I couldn't tell you about the
Indian Ocean specifically.

But the dredging that does happen is NOT for
archaeology. And most of what gets pulled up
from these former dry lands is more in line
with the "Outcroppings" in that fishing trollers
are finding them. They're lying on the surface,
in other words.






-- --

http://referafriend.comcast.com/ShareTheAwesome/1RDNAP
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-29 18:17:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Oh you've already suggested dredging for testing.
That wouldn't be all that expensive would it?

Another question to ask: why is the general population so uninterested in our true origins?
Maybe because the majority believe in a literal genesis or alien intervention since paleoanthropology has done such a horrible job answering certain questions?

recently there was an article Doug Weller posted about an excavation in Hondurus, where the scientists were boohooing that they didn't get any credit for some pre-Mayan ruins.
Their main complaint was that the acheos who DID get credit used words like "Lost Civilization," "Monkey God," and other sensationalism which are "no-Nos" in their fields and that the ruins were no different than other ruins that the LOSER team of archeos had been excavating for 10 years.
Well newsflash you sniveling nerds!
If you horde a find all to yourself and don't tell anyone then it doesn't make a sound. And if you have no imagination with which to report your finds, and instead report with absolutely no speculation whatever, then it still doesn't make a sound.
The public needs to know about your finds yesterday. I did not know there were pre-mayan polis' with paved ball courts until I read that article. I don't have PLOS1; the public relies on public like Nature and Huffington Post and Archeology Today, not nerd journals.
Amazingly, those cry-baby archeos are also whining about funding.
Well, duh. Who do you think funds your liberal self-righteous arses?
The people who you aren't giving any of this great information to, that's who.
Why SHOULD they keep funding projects they never hear about?
Those cry-baby pre-maya archeos could redeem themselves and get some funding though.
Because neither article mentioned how many artificially elongated skulls they've found so far or their relationship to the elongated skulls of the Maya. Did the men or the women and which social class bound their heads? I know they've found some because numerous digs from the 1800s and 1900s mention them in pre-maya layers. Now of course those reports are subject to criticism because they are old and people were racists back then.
To me and most likely the rest of the public at large, the elongated skulls, evidence of human sacrifice and/or cannibalism, burial practices are far more important than any long nerdy articles about pottery they might be writing for some obscure scientific journal right now.
JTEM
2015-04-29 20:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J.LyonLayden
Oh you've already suggested dredging for testing.
That wouldn't be all that expensive would it?
Dredging would be really cheap. It's actually cheaper
than excavating on dry land!

There have been major projects -- like canals -- where
they let the area flood specifically because it was
easier dredging...
Post by J.LyonLayden
Another question to ask: why is the general population so
uninterested in our true origins?
Personally? I think they are vastly more interested
in human origins than Higgs Boson.

I honestly do.

The problem is that everyone thinks we know, that real
science is happening. That's why there's no desire to
do more. It's like if you're donating money, are you
going to give it to a poor person or a rich person?

The public think that the scientific search for
human origins is already quite rich...

I honestly believe that the public sold on the work,
they just don't see a need to fund major projects
BECAUSE everyone thinks real science is already
taking place.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/116831441150
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-30 00:13:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Well....speaking of the hobbit...I don't understand how anyone could watch any of the hobbit documentaries or read any of the hobbit mainstream articles, see the debate, and NOT ask..."Well why don't they look underwater on the submerged islands AROUND Flores to answer whether they evolved there or not? People have been telling me that folktales of non-human hominids are based on absolutely nothing all my life...and now Hobbits and Red Deer people have been found in near historic times."
Do people just not generally know that Indonesia was a continent back then...is it not interesting to them to see the extent to which neolithic man came in contact with oni and brownies? Do they not even want to know what hominid Microcephalin D came from, or is that aspect of archaic introggression just too complex of a concept for the public to bite into?
Maybe they've been lied to so much with "no-archaic introgression," no hominids but man after 40K, triceratops, brontasaurus, speechless neanderthals, and other erroneous beliefs delivered as fact that they don't believe anything that science says any more?
JTEM
2015-04-30 05:06:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J.LyonLayden
Do people just not generally know that Indonesia
was a continent back then...is it not interesting
to them to see the extent to which neolithic man
came in contact with oni and brownies?
I just complained, over in alt.atheism, that I can't
find topographical maps of Africa during the glacial
maximum. The collective responded with customary
cluelessness -- it clearly has no idea that Africa
did not always look the way it does now!

People don't know.

It's not a disinterest. If people lacked an interest
they wouldn't be so horrendously misinformed. The
reason why every ingested all this nonsense is
because they were trying to get information...




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/116831441150
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-30 01:54:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In <4701b8c8-b94d-48b7-ad02-***@googlegroups.com>, JTEM wrote
on 4/29/2015:

On second thoughts, why am I arguing? JTEM is going to respond no
matter what, just to have the last word.
Post by JTEM
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding as to
the time depth. I assumed you the discussion
was about fossil hominids.
It certainly INCLUDES fossil hominids, but
conventional "Out of Africa" nonsense has
modern man leaving Africa about a dozen times,
starting around 200 thousand years ago up until
around 30 thousand years ago.
Whatever.
Post by JTEM
This isn't heart surgery. We can do things in
any order we want. And considering that about
100 thousand years is the usual minimum time
necessary to fossilize remains, there's plenty
of non fossilized remains out there that we
need to find if we want to understand the
final chapters in our evolution.
Similar problems apply.
Post by JTEM
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by JTEM
Actually it's quite common for archaeologists to
begin WITHOUT any "outcrop." As I already pointed
out, they dig test pits and test trenches. That's
how they pinpoint where to dig...
That still begs the question of where to dig the test pits in the
uncharted territory of the submerged coast.
That's the point of the test pits: Figure out where
to dig!
That's to narrow down the search once you have guessed at a general
area. Deep underwater, clues are scarce and the the continental shelf
is uncharted territory in general.
Post by JTEM
I suggested dredging. Not on large scales, of
course. They'd be looking for things like human
bone, of course, but also charcoal, tools,
animal remains... any sign of our ancestors OR
an environment which we believe would attract
them.
We can also narrow things down with a decent
topographical survey to identify things like
fresh water sources. Stream beds CAN and
HAVE been identified in the past.
Again, nobody is arguing that it wouldn't be
difficult, dangerous or expensive. I've been
comparing such an effort to building the
International Space Station, for Christ's sake!
The locations, orbits in space are strictly determined.

Finding just even a plausible site for deep underwater paleontology or
pre-historic archeology is just daunting. Unless it involves a sunken
habitation, a shipwreck etc. that sonar can pick up or is visible.
Post by JTEM
The problem here is that it has to be done.
There is no alternative. What is being done
instead is not real science. It's not legitimate
science. No real field of science would accept
the "Findings," not based on such a horrible
selection bias.
-- --
http://referafriend.comcast.com/ShareTheAwesome/1RDNAP
JTEM
2015-04-30 06:37:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Start here:

https://anandcv.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/google-maps-archaeology-ancient-rivers-and-underwater-river-channels/

It's not even a serious scientific investigation,
and yet the guy concludes that a lot of the sea
floor must've been dry land during the last ice
age...
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Similar problems apply.
There is no problem here.

We know where to look. We have the technology. We
regularly spend as much or more on scientific
endeavors. There is no problem.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by JTEM
That's the point of the test pits: Figure out where
to dig!
That's to narrow down the search once you have guessed at a general
area.
So? We're talking about standard practice here.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Deep underwater, clues are scarce and the the
continental shelf is uncharted territory in general.
Dude, if we spend 100 million dollars mapping the
sea floor -- pretending that hasn't already been
done -- that would still leave us 130 times as much
money for the actual excavating... assuming we spent
as much on this as on the Higgs Boson.

These dumb arguments of yours are all the worse,
because you simply never ask yourself what the
alternative is...

There is none. If we want answers we have to do
it. Period.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by JTEM
We can also narrow things down with a decent
topographical survey to identify things like
fresh water sources. Stream beds CAN and
HAVE been identified in the past.
Again, nobody is arguing that it wouldn't be
difficult, dangerous or expensive. I've been
comparing such an effort to building the
International Space Station, for Christ's sake!
The locations, orbits in space are strictly determined.
And that means absolutely nothing. It's not like it's
free to determine the locations/orbits. What's being
proposed here is that we also spend such money locating
likely spots for finding our ancestors on now submerged
land masses...
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Finding just even a plausible site for deep underwater paleontology or
pre-historic archeology is just daunting.
No it isn't.

You're simply making things up as you go along.

Scans of the sea floor tells us the topography.
They build for us a 3D model of the sea floor.
This tells us precisely where the dry land used
to be, where the coast used to be. It can also
tell us where the fresh water sources used to
be.

There. Now we've got a great starting point.

Next we do test digs: Dredging or scuba
divers. Perhaps submersibles if necessary.

Oh. A submersible is as low as $650,000.
Of course that's not including any equipment
for digging test bores or collecting samples.
Multiple the cost by 10 and we're talking
$6.5 million. The real cost is in the support
vessel. That could easily run into the tens
of thousands of dollars per day. Lets call it
$100,000 dollars a day for six months -- 180
days. We're looking at $18 million.

Minimum budget: $13 billion (roughly the
price tag of Higgs Boson). And already we've
operated 10 custom-built submersibles for
six months from a mother ship, all doing
test bores/collecting samples -- and we haven't
spent even one-tenth of the first billion yet.

Now instead of the Higgs Boson, let's give it
the $150 billion budget of the International
Space station. Now we can run 10 mother ships
each supporting 10 submersibles for six months
straight and we're still like $170 million away
from croaking our first billion...

Only $149 billion left to go!

Skip the submersibles and just go with 10 ships
dredging. Now we just saved about $650 million
from our budget... we're about $820 million away
from depleting our first billion (out of $150
billion).

There's no problem here. None. You are way off
base.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117669138573
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-30 13:24:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
https://anandcv.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/google-maps-archaeology-ancient-rivers-and-underwater-river-channels/
It's not even a serious scientific investigation,
and yet the guy concludes that a lot of the sea
floor must've been dry land during the last ice
age...
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Similar problems apply.
There is no problem here.
We know where to look. We have the technology. We
regularly spend as much or more on scientific
endeavors. There is no problem.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by JTEM
That's the point of the test pits: Figure out where
to dig!
That's to narrow down the search once you have guessed at a general
area.
So? We're talking about standard practice here.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Deep underwater, clues are scarce and the the
continental shelf is uncharted territory in general.
Dude, if we spend 100 million dollars mapping the
sea floor -- pretending that hasn't already been
done -- that would still leave us 130 times as much
money for the actual excavating... assuming we spent
as much on this as on the Higgs Boson.
These dumb arguments of yours are all the worse,
because you simply never ask yourself what the
alternative is...
There is none. If we want answers we have to do
it. Period.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by JTEM
We can also narrow things down with a decent
topographical survey to identify things like
fresh water sources. Stream beds CAN and
HAVE been identified in the past.
Again, nobody is arguing that it wouldn't be
difficult, dangerous or expensive. I've been
comparing such an effort to building the
International Space Station, for Christ's sake!
The locations, orbits in space are strictly determined.
And that means absolutely nothing. It's not like it's
free to determine the locations/orbits. What's being
proposed here is that we also spend such money locating
likely spots for finding our ancestors on now submerged
land masses...
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Finding just even a plausible site for deep underwater paleontology or
pre-historic archeology is just daunting.
No it isn't.
You're simply making things up as you go along.
No.
Post by JTEM
Scans of the sea floor tells us the topography.
Looking for bone remains involves very detailed on site, local
knowledge.
Post by JTEM
They build for us a 3D model of the sea floor.
This tells us precisely where the dry land used
to be, where the coast used to be. It can also
tell us where the fresh water sources used to
be.
There. Now we've got a great starting point.
Next we do test digs: Dredging or scuba
divers. Perhaps submersibles if necessary.
Oh. A submersible is as low as $650,000.
Of course that's not including any equipment
for digging test bores or collecting samples.
Multiple the cost by 10 and we're talking
$6.5 million. The real cost is in the support
vessel. That could easily run into the tens
of thousands of dollars per day. Lets call it
$100,000 dollars a day for six months -- 180
days. We're looking at $18 million.
Minimum budget: $13 billion (roughly the
price tag of Higgs Boson). And already we've
The likely return of the Higgs Boson search was very high.

Also it seems that most of scientific community don't see undersea
ancestor so crucial and are more satisfied with what they have.
Post by JTEM
operated 10 custom-built submersibles for
six months from a mother ship, all doing
test bores/collecting samples -- and we haven't
spent even one-tenth of the first billion yet.
Now instead of the Higgs Boson, let's give it
the $150 billion budget of the International
Space station. Now we can run 10 mother ships
each supporting 10 submersibles for six months
straight and we're still like $170 million away
from croaking our first billion...
Only $149 billion left to go!
Skip the submersibles and just go with 10 ships
dredging. Now we just saved about $650 million
from our budget... we're about $820 million away
from depleting our first billion (out of $150
billion).
There's no problem here. None. You are way off
base.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117669138573
Asha Santon
2015-04-30 13:41:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by JTEM
Minimum budget: $13 billion (roughly the
price tag of Higgs Boson). And already we've
The likely return of the Higgs Boson search was very high.
I fear I must interrupt again.
You seem to have some weird definition of the word 'return'.

The return on expenditure in the search for and finding of the Higgs
Boson is and will always be precisely zero - the word means how much
money you get back in comparison with how much was spent.

The experiment was constructed and funded to discover (among many other
things) if the Boson exists and it appears that it does. This
information adds to the sum of knowledge but otherwise has no value
whatsoever.

The likely return on all such endeavours was, and is, zero.
--
AS
http://minnies.opcop.org.uk/
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-30 13:55:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Asha Santon
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by JTEM
Minimum budget: $13 billion (roughly the
price tag of Higgs Boson). And already we've
The likely return of the Higgs Boson search was very high.
I fear I must interrupt again.
You seem to have some weird definition of the word 'return'.
The return on expenditure in the search for and finding of the Higgs
Boson is and will always be precisely zero - the word means how much
money you get back in comparison with how much was spent.
The experiment was constructed and funded to discover (among many other
things) if the Boson exists and it appears that it does. This
information adds to the sum of knowledge but otherwise has no value
whatsoever.
I meant return in terms of knowledge. Also we found out the details of
its proeprties which has consequences in terms of different theories.

There might be huge amounts of money spent on some area under the sea
for early human remains and one ends up find nothing whatsoever as they
are rare under ideal conditions on land. Also JTEM seems to have
idiosyncretic ideas on the subject that the scientific community does
not share.
Post by Asha Santon
The likely return on all such endeavours was, and is, zero.
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-30 13:57:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Asha Santon
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by JTEM
Minimum budget: $13 billion (roughly the
price tag of Higgs Boson). And already we've
The likely return of the Higgs Boson search was very high.
I fear I must interrupt again.
You seem to have some weird definition of the word 'return'.
The return on expenditure in the search for and finding of the Higgs
Boson is and will always be precisely zero - the word means how much
money you get back in comparison with how much was spent.
The experiment was constructed and funded to discover (among many other
things) if the Boson exists and it appears that it does. This
information adds to the sum of knowledge but otherwise has no value
whatsoever.
I meant return in terms of knowledge. Also we found out the details of
its proeprties which has consequences in terms of different theories.

There might be huge amounts of money spent on some area under the sea
for early human remains and one ends up find nothing whatsoever as they
are rare under ideal conditions on land. Also JTEM seems to have
idiosyncretic ideas on the subject that the scientific community does
not share.
Post by Asha Santon
The likely return on all such endeavours was, and is, zero.
Asha Santon
2015-04-30 14:34:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
I meant return in terms of knowledge. Also we found out the details of
its proeprties which has consequences in terms of different theories.
They found a particle which they presume to be that particle and which
means that the Standard Model might make sense after all. They know
nothing of the particle's properties and especially do not know if it
does indeed provide mass to the other particles (or how it would do so).
The Standard Model is now a more viable theory but it is sill only that
and may ultimately be shown to be nonsense. Either way, it matters not.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
There might be huge amounts of money spent on some area under the sea
for early human remains and one ends up find nothing whatsoever as they
are rare under ideal conditions on land.
And if they had not found the above particle, the same would have
applied in that case. You have to search to find. The option to know it
is there in advance does not exist.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Also JTEM seems to have
idiosyncretic ideas on the subject that the scientific community does
not share.
He has, I grant you that. The problem is that it is people who have such
idiosyncratic ideas which no one else shares who tend to win Nobel
prizes ... like Professor Nash who produced a paper suggesting almost
the exact opposite of what every other mathematician believed and which
paper is now the basis of most western economies.

I do not suggest that JTEM merits a Nobel prize or that he is Galileo
reincarnated but just because you disagree with him does not mean he is
wrong. I disagree with both of you but am not foolish enough to believe
that anyone cares.
--
AS
http://minnies.opcop.org.uk/
Horace LaBadie
2015-04-30 15:12:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Asha Santon
He has, I grant you that. The problem is that it is people who have such
idiosyncratic ideas which no one else shares who tend to win Nobel
prizes ... like Professor Nash who produced a paper suggesting almost
the exact opposite of what every other mathematician believed and which
paper is now the basis of most western economies.
I do not suggest that JTEM merits a Nobel prize or that he is Galileo
reincarnated but just because you disagree with him does not mean he is
wrong. I disagree with both of you but am not foolish enough to believe
that anyone cares.
Nash and Galileo actually did something to demonstrate the correctness
of their hypotheses. Perhaps JTEM should just go looking for the
evidence to support his claims, instead of ranting on USENET. Maybe he
might find MH370 while he is at it. No doubt he knows exactly where to
look.
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-30 16:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Horace- I don't know if JTEM is a billionaire but if I could go do anthropologists and archeologists jobs for them and dig underwater in Sundaland I would, and I bet JTEM would to.
Do you guys not care if we ever find a hobbit ancestor older than 20k?
Do you guys not care at all about where Microcephalin D came from?
Are you happy that most americans are being led to believe that it's an alien gene by irresponsible TV shows, since mainstream science refuses to speculate and explain?
JTEM may have different ideas than the mainstream, but anyone who thinks there are no hominid extremely important tools and bones on the submerged Sunda shelf is an utter idiot.
The submerged Sunda shelf is THE most important area for our understanding of hominid evolution, unless you are an afrocentric apologist with an agenda.
Horace LaBadie
2015-04-30 16:53:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J.LyonLayden
Horace- I don't know if JTEM is a billionaire but if I could go do
anthropologists and archeologists jobs for them and dig underwater in
Sundaland I would, and I bet JTEM would to.
Do you guys not care if we ever find a hobbit ancestor older than 20k?
Do you guys not care at all about where Microcephalin D came from?
Are you happy that most americans are being led to believe that it's an alien
gene by irresponsible TV shows, since mainstream science refuses to speculate
and explain?
JTEM may have different ideas than the mainstream, but anyone who thinks
there are no hominid extremely important tools and bones on the submerged
Sunda shelf is an utter idiot.
The submerged Sunda shelf is THE most important area for our understanding of
hominid evolution, unless you are an afrocentric apologist with an agenda.
Go get crowd-funded and look, then.

Telling anthropologists and archaeologists how to spend their limited
time and resources is not a productive way to get what you want.
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-30 17:07:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Horace LaBadie
Telling anthropologists and archaeologists how to spend their limited
time and resources is not a productive way to get what you want.
If Oppenheimer's book didn't inspire archeologists to look where they are supposed to be looking, then I fear that nothing will.

Best I can do is provide a better explanation for the origins of cranial deformation and microcephalin D and put it with Oppenheimers mountain of evidence.

Maybe when all us amateurs have convinced the public of a more sensible explanation of these things and won the public's favor back from the ancient alien crackpots, the scientists will finally dig in order to attempt to prove us wrong.
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-30 16:21:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by Asha Santon
He has, I grant you that. The problem is that it is people who have such
idiosyncratic ideas which no one else shares who tend to win Nobel
prizes ... like Professor Nash who produced a paper suggesting almost
the exact opposite of what every other mathematician believed and which
paper is now the basis of most western economies.
I do not suggest that JTEM merits a Nobel prize or that he is Galileo
reincarnated but just because you disagree with him does not mean he is
wrong. I disagree with both of you but am not foolish enough to believe
that anyone cares.
Nash and Galileo actually did something to demonstrate the correctness
of their hypotheses. Perhaps JTEM should just go looking for the
evidence to support his claims, instead of ranting on USENET. Maybe he
might find MH370 while he is at it. No doubt he knows exactly where to
look.
Very well said.
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-30 16:49:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Horace LaBadie
Nash and Galileo actually did something to demonstrate the correctness
of their hypotheses. Perhaps JTEM should just go looking for the
evidence to support his claims, instead of ranting on USENET. Maybe he
might find MH370 while he is at it. No doubt he knows exactly where to
look.
As far as I can tell, that is what JTEM has been doing the whole time he's been on usenet.
But Oppenheimer has already published a 485 page book detailing why everything we need to know is on the Sunda shelf. He is a reknowned scientists, quoted over and over in college textbooks and serious TV documentaries, and no one has even attempted to refute the 485 pages of evidence that he has compiled. the book has received praise from mainstream scientists and the public alike.

We have all the evidence we need. We have deep sea dredging and the Dutch make awesome dyches.
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-30 20:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J.LyonLayden
Post by Horace LaBadie
Nash and Galileo actually did something to demonstrate the correctness
of their hypotheses. Perhaps JTEM should just go looking for the
evidence to support his claims, instead of ranting on USENET. Maybe he
might find MH370 while he is at it. No doubt he knows exactly where to
look.
As far as I can tell, that is what JTEM has been doing the whole time he's
been on usenet. But Oppenheimer has already published a 485 page book
I researched that and it doesn't look as crucial as some here make it
to be. But if a specific promising location on the Sunda Shelf turns up
(usually by accident), you coudl then proceed to make a case for an
underwater expedition there.
Post by J.LyonLayden
detailing why everything we need to know is on the Sunda shelf. He is a
reknowned scientists, quoted over and over in college textbooks and serious
TV documentaries, and no one has even attempted to refute the 485 pages of
evidence that he has compiled. the book has received praise from mainstream
scientists and the public alike.
We have all the evidence we need. We have deep sea dredging and the Dutch
make awesome dyches.
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-30 20:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
I researched that and it doesn't look as crucial as some here make it
to be. But if a specific promising location on the Sunda Shelf turns up
(usually by accident), you coudl then proceed to make a case for an
underwater expedition there.
What's wrong with any submerged river bed along the now submerged cost of Java or flores for a start? There's probabaly one that we could see from google earth near the Solo River basin even.
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-05-01 00:30:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J.LyonLayden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
I researched that and it doesn't look as crucial as some here make it
to be. But if a specific promising location on the Sunda Shelf turns up
(usually by accident), you coudl then proceed to make a case for an
underwater expedition there.
What's wrong with any submerged river bed along the now submerged cost of
Java or flores for a start? There's probabaly one that we could see from
google earth near the Solo River basin even.
Because you cannot dig up the whole riverbed (even with test pits).
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-30 16:58:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
As far as publishing in scientific journals, I have two suggestions for that:

1. People who cannot write articles without boring people to death should not get published. Most scientists suck at journalism, apparently. Have them turn in the results of their experiments to writers.
2. Most people who pay for PLUS1 don't seem to care what the public thinks, and have given up on trying to educate the public at large.
3. Not only scientists, but the public at large decides what discoveries/theories are discounted and/or preserved for the next generation of scientists.
i.e. - Many of Stan Gooch's ideas were correct despite tremendous opposition, but he gets no credit because those ideas were already rejected before someone "discovered" them again. Multiregionalism was correct but will multiregionalist thinkers get credit? Why no, because we don't call it multiregionalism anymore. Plate techtonmics, rejected and rediscovered. there are many instances of this throughout history.
It is there job to educate the public, not just publish in articles that less than .0001% of the population reads and/or has access to.
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-30 16:20:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Asha Santon
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
I meant return in terms of knowledge. Also we found out the details of
its proeprties which has consequences in terms of different theories.
They found a particle which they presume to be that particle and which
means that the Standard Model might make sense after all. They know
nothing of the particle's properties and especially do not know if it
Teh details are just under study.
Post by Asha Santon
does indeed provide mass to the other particles (or how it would do so).
No, there is a theory behind it.
Post by Asha Santon
The Standard Model is now a more viable theory but it is sill only that
and may ultimately be shown to be nonsense. Either way, it matters not.
Physcists will disagree with that.
Post by Asha Santon
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
There might be huge amounts of money spent on some area under the sea
for early human remains and one ends up find nothing whatsoever as they
are rare under ideal conditions on land.
And if they had not found the above particle, the same would have
applied in that case. You have to search to find. The option to know it
is there in advance does not exist.
?
Post by Asha Santon
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Also JTEM seems to have
idiosyncretic ideas on the subject that the scientific community does
not share.
He has, I grant you that. The problem is that it is people who have such
idiosyncratic ideas which no one else shares who tend to win Nobel
prizes ... like Professor Nash who produced a paper suggesting almost
They publish in journals with evidence, not post anonymously in USENET
with non-arguments like "Sheesh!" "Dude!"
Post by Asha Santon
the exact opposite of what every other mathematician believed and which
paper is now the basis of most western economies.
I do not suggest that JTEM merits a Nobel prize or that he is Galileo
reincarnated but just because you disagree with him does not mean he is
I didn't say that. I said that since deep sea paleaontology is not
being done at present, it is more productive to discuss why it is not
being done rather than just rant and rave.
Post by Asha Santon
wrong. I disagree with both of you but am not foolish enough to believe
that anyone cares.
I don't have any particular emotionally charged views on this subject
either, I am just making some observations.
J.LyonLayden
2015-04-30 16:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Also it seems that most of scientific community don't see undersea
ancestor so crucial and are more satisfied with what they have.
This is exactly correct Yusuf and that is why THEY SHOULD ALL LOSE THEIR JOBS and stop getting my tax money.
Did you read anything I said? Microcephalin D introgressed from a non-denisovan, non-neanderthal hominid 30k agao and we DO NOT KNOW WHICH ONE IT WAS.
1.8 million years of hobbit evo is missing.
There are submerged islands off the coast of Flores.
Hobbits had more ergonomic brains than neanderthals, bigger frontal lobes than neanderthals.
Somehow the Tibetans may have actually been right- namely, that all non-Tibetan (non-YAP) modern humans are the result of a southern monkey (hobbit) and a northern rock ogre getting it on.
Our brain was inferior to both of those brains, but just provided a great conduit for a giant brain and an ergonomic brain to get together.
Microcephali probably only happens in populations where the neanderthal component or the hobbit/soloensis component has only recently been introduced: most populations have already gone through the process of weeding out all the neanderthal/soloensis genes that don't work, and incompatable genes no longer exist in those populations.
If they are satisfied with that kind of question being unanswered, if they are satisfied with not even knowing the origins of the microcephalin gene that caused the agricultural revolution and the neolithic communication explosion, then they are utterly worthless and shouldn't get another red cent. There's only one place to find that info- the former prime real estate of Sundaland, which is now submerged.
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-22 22:27:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
The above examples have a reasonable yield. Underwater fossil hunting
does not. The ocean floor is a very unfavorable place for outcrops of
fossils and the whole enterpise is worse than finding a needle in a
haystack.
Here on our planet, the ocean floor is actually the
single greatest environment for fossils. The vast
majority of all fossils are from the sea.
Real Life (tm) is exactly the opposite of what you
think it is.
Best environment known to man for fossils: The ocean!
Not for retrieving them.
Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117063262963
JTEM
2015-04-23 04:55:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Not for retrieving them.
"The light over here is better!"

If you drop your house key, you have to look
for it where you lost it. It makes no sense
looking for it somewhere else "Because the
light is better."

It makes no sense digging anywhere BUT the
sea floor. Yes it's hyper expensive and
dangerous. But we spend even more money in
pursuit of other scientific goals. So it's
not unreasonable.

Know what is unreasonable? Jackasses insisting
that digging in the WRONG place, examining people
who are NOT our ancestors is a good idea...




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117130442047
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-23 05:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Not for retrieving them.
"The light over here is better!"
If you drop your house key, you have to look
for it where you lost it. It makes no sense
looking for it somewhere else "Because the
light is better."
There is no lost house key. We can do without some fossils.
Post by JTEM
It makes no sense digging anywhere BUT the
sea floor. Yes it's hyper expensive and
?
Post by JTEM
dangerous. But we spend even more money in
pursuit of other scientific goals. So it's
not unreasonable.
If it were feasable, someone would have thought about it.
Post by JTEM
Know what is unreasonable? Jackasses insisting
that digging in the WRONG place, examining people
who are NOT our ancestors is a good idea...
We make do.

I don't think the whole of the scientific community shares your
assumptions.
Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117130442047
JTEM
2015-04-23 06:12:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
There is no lost house key. We can do without some fossils.
I always knew you were a faker, but even you must
be seeing through yourself at this point...

"Science" is supposedly studying human origins, and
it's not looking at our ancestors.

Paleoanthropology is NOT digging where they know for a fact
our ancestors lived. They dig elsewhere.

"The light over here is better."

A psychologist who performed "Research" this way would
be laughed out of their profession... just as any real
scientist would.

It's unacceptable. It fails to meet the minimum
acceptable standards for "Science."

Plain & simple, paleoanthropology is not a real
science.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117130442047
Yusuf B Gursey
2015-04-23 06:39:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
There is no lost house key. We can do without some fossils.
I always knew you were a faker, but even you must
be seeing through yourself at this point...
"Science" is supposedly studying human origins, and
it's not looking at our ancestors.
So you say.
Post by JTEM
Paleoanthropology is NOT digging where they know for a fact
our ancestors lived. They dig elsewhere.
So you say.
Post by JTEM
"The light over here is better."
A psychologist who performed "Research" this way would
be laughed out of their profession... just as any real
scientist would.
It's unacceptable. It fails to meet the minimum
acceptable standards for "Science."
Plain & simple, paleoanthropology is not a real
science.
So you say.
Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117130442047
Elijahovah
2015-04-20 23:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Even with Viagra i dont think an erectus homo could reproduce if you gave him 500k
Loading...