No idea what you said, and I no longer care. You’re right that aliens probably did not cause the gap in our nonexistant records, but you’re so annoying that I’ve put you on ignore for several months. Keep arguing if you want. As I said, you win - a spot on my ignore list.
Someone needs to smoke some weed
1 Like
When a mosquito’s buzzing around me and I try to swat it and miss a few times, I don’t tend to feel sorry for it once I finally smash it. Likewise, I feel no guilt about upping your time on the ignore list to a year. I tried to make it clear that that it was just an off-the-cuff example and I was done discussing it days ago, and you made it clear that you wanted to keep this going and win. Keep responding, and you’ll keep winning… though at a certain point, I’ll just have you on ignore forever and the mods will start cleaning up the thread. If that sounds good to you, have at it.
Established dogma and History books are malleable putty for those with that power.Some here refer to the “fossil record” like it’s a complete assemblage of history and not the tiny crumbs of evidence it actually is.
I agree, however, it’s tangible evidence worth study, and the fossil record is one of the most acceptably malleable pieces of out history.
As important is it is to search and quest for new evidence, we have to study the evidence that exists, otherwise what’s the point?
I think is ridiculous to avoid nuance, whether it be the teniored professor or keyboard advocate of the fringe.
The fun part is speculation, the immense and fantastic possibility of what was, but to lose sight of what we have discovered and what has been intensively researched entirely doesn’t do anyone any favors.
Edit: new discovery, like gobekali tepi and the like, is also incredibly fun and certainly worthy of study, as are old discoveries like the pyramids. I don’t want to rain on anybody parade, I just don’t like assertion of things being true that are extremely speculative.
5 Likes
Agree,often over looked and hurriedly lumped in to one or the other boxes already fashioned seems to be the fate of new discovery. Too much is already invested in the old Dogma.When we feel like we fully know what happened in the past,all future discussions are sullied by that.
2 Likes
At some point disagreement became a wall of aggression, instead of the door to better understanding.
2 Likes
It’s stultifying to muddy the waters with wild hypothesis and engineered doctrine. Fortunately the Scientific method can see right through.
2 Likes
I agree with the part about engineered doctrine, however, I don’t think its quite that malicious in intent, even if the end result staggers progress.
The intentions of those trying to find answers that led to current doctrine are the same as ours. It’s here that ego, hubris, and the machine of capitalism and education conjoined fucks it all up.
Doctrine has merit. Debating the idea that the universe revolves around the earth does as much or more to stagger progress than declaring the pyramids a tomb and moving on. (Just examples)
There has to be an established structure to build upon. Where I take umbrage is the idea that that structure isn’t subject to scrutiny.
2 Likes
Well said, I also don’t think there is malicious intent concerning the dissemination of important and most recent informations. I do think that release of new and recent discovery/information lately must trickle down through a corporate (or other) hierarchy that makes it difficult for individuals to contribute.
2 Likes
Absolutely, and the character assassination of people like Graham Hancock by the establishment and corporate media is disgusting.
It’s blatant they don’t want us to draw our own conclusions.
5 Likes
They don’t want to educate you they want to indoctrinate you. Whatever their bias they are all equally guilty.
4 Likes
I sometimes feel the speed of communication and the many platforms that form the new collective conscience may help to expose new ways to gain information for individuals.
2 Likes
Maybe. Maybe the speed of it and the infinite sources of information make it more opaque.
People want to be sold. Tell them what they want to hear. It’s not just a top down problem but a bottom up problem.
2 Likes
There is less basic ignorance due to the internet and Wikipedia etc.People can quickly access basic information. As always,a select few light the path we travel.
2 Likes
The internet is very good at providing information like “how long to roast a turkey at 425.” Less so as an exercise in critical thinking.
If I want to roast a turkey I’ll google it.
If I want to seize the means of production, books are better.
2 Likes
Cloaca,is today’s vocabulary word.lol
2 Likes
Hey I’ve got one of those somewhere!
2 Likes
(Checks calander)
2 Likes
it’s pretty well hidden I think.
2 Likes