Renewable Revolution

UB said to Ashvin,

Your evidence presented  by Fitzpatrick is all ad hoc and ad hom and totally unprofessional, several people have noted this including the comment by "John" he downvoted but did not repond to. He sets up a website called "Bad Archaeology" Capitals are appropriate as a proper noun for HIS site. He then goes on to repeatedly refer to OTHER peoples work as "Bad Archaeology" not even "bad archaeology" which would be bad enough. But it seems it is his best shot at smug superiority and assorted appeals to irrelevant technicalities such as Hancock not knowing what species of spider is shown carved on rock instead of addressing how the hell the giant spider picture got there.

Exactly. And then Ashvin tries to turn it all around and claim we are the ones who lack objectivity. Also, what you mentioned about how Ashvin switches between the macro and micro to dance is par for the rhetorical course in fallacious debating techniques. Then he claims I am "accusatory" and going al "ad hom" on him. Nope. I just want him to stop dancing. He won't do it.

The fact I believe the ET presence is real does not have jack sh it to do with the EVIDENCE presented by Graham Hanc ock, who DOES NOT hold the "ETs taught humans how to draw maps" theory ( or any other 'ETs are here' theory, for that matter - but Ashvin likes to group the "con artists" for effect.

As Eddie said (and I had mentioned it previously too)

Graham Hanc ock is not a UFO guy, really. I haven't read his books, but none of the videos I've seen tries to make a case for ancient astronauts or anything of that sort.

But it is QUITE important for Ashvin's argument to cast me as an "ET true believer sans evidence" even though I took pains to show him the logical steps in the premise; ALL of which he has STUDIOUSLY avoided discussing with his micro to macro and back dance. 
As I said a couple of pages ago:

I do my homework. I consult medical science and mainstream archeology BEFORE I present the possible speciation evidenced by these other skulls. Whether they are or aren't ET is NOT the issue in regard to the skulls themselves. The ISSUE is whether they are a different hominid species.

IF they are a different hominid species, then, and only then, can we ask further questions about the FACTS, as established by our credentialed historians and archeologists, that:

1) Widely diverse "primitive" cultures (separated by oceans before transatlantic travel) practiced cranial deformation for tribal leaders. NO other practice like neck expanding, ear lobe enlarging, teeth sharpening, and so on, was practiced in widely diverse cultures. So please spare me the "primitives do weird things to distinguish their leaders" business. Yes, they do. BUT not on a worldwide basis UNLESS it was cranial deformation.

2) Wherever they were, they were leaders in the community as evidenced by funeral garb.

We CANNOT logically proceed to the next question until, or if, it is confirmed that the 20% greater brain pan sized (and higher bone density as well) cone heads (NOT DEformed and NOT genetically Malformed - they are symmetrical and show no signs of trepanation or cranial plate forcing distortions) is the product of hominid speciation.

THIS IS THE NEXT QUESTION THAT IS MOOT until all the above is confirmed:
Is there any evidence that they were ETs such as, but not limited to, written records, ancient schematics, knowledge of astronomy, a recovered flying saucer or part of one in a dig or high tech artifacts such as machines?

Then Ashvin claims this is ALL ABOUT ETs. :evil4: Sure, Brien Foerster includes it in the possibilities (that Ashvin views as  a premise that is number umpteen on the priority list of possibilities  ). But Brien Foerster has said, QUITE CLEARLY, that  the evidence has NOT proven in any way whatsoever that the skulls were ET. How many times does Ashvin have to be told this to understand it?  They have found DNA in the New York SUBWAY TUNNELS that matches no known organism. SO WHAT? That doesn't mean they are ET bugs on the subway tunnel walls! I continue to claim that Ashvin keeps parading the ET thing here as a rhetorical tool used to undermine the credibility of the researchers dealing with ancient civilizations and their level of advancement. Then he accuses me of attacking the messenger.

Ashvin has not answered the questions posed with evidence. Yet he claims that is sufficient to counter them. 

I beg to differ. And I will continue to differ. Notice I posted two screen shots with questions and he completely ignored them (about Plato and about the Rephaim). This is called glossing over. Then he gets pissed when I point at his glossing over.     
:

PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING TWO QUESTIONS, ASHVIN:


Ashvin, did PLATO make this STRANGE SH IT up? 


How about the Hebrews? Did they make up this STRANGE SH IT too?     




Ashvin, please address the following two claims by Eddie:

Eddie said,

I'm only willing to make two claims.
1.  Graham's take, that it is likely that there were one or more somewhat advanced civilizations that probably got wiped out in Younger Dryas flooding, seems to make some sense.

2. UFO and alien type stories exhibit uncanny parallels with ancient glyphs and cave paintings, and would seem to be associated with shamans and the inner world described by those who have ingested plant entheogens, like Ayahuasca.

Eddie,
The two points you make are quite adequate to the task of cornering Ashvin logically. He has not countered either one.
Ashvin said,

I didn't bring Antarctica into the discussion, UB did after reading a sentence in the BA post. I couldn't have anticipated that he would bring that up. That being said, YES, I do think that is a very weak part of their arguments. Please do go into that and the South American boundaries too, if you want.

You mockingly asked if a portion of a map looked like Antarctica. DON'T DENY IT.

As to maps, when I went to photo interpreter school many years ago, I studied cartography including Lambert conformal conic, Mercator and so on. I understand how distortions build on maps. As I pilot, I had to know ho to read maps rather well.

In pre-accurate time piece times, they could draw coastlines okay but locating them was a bit of a challenge, to put it mildly. The guy that made the Piri Reis map ADMITTED it was a copy with several iterations from the original! He was no ET. Handcock says a past high civilization of HOMO SAPS obtained the cartographic info and it was passed down, PERIOD.

It being that you have some QUESTIONS to answer on this post, I will make a separate post on the Piri Reis map with an explanation of the projection issue. If you want to haul in another hit piece "debunking" Piri Reis as a fraud, there's plenty of them on the internet.

I suggest you do a little more checking on what you post here than some "Bad Archeology" hit piece heaven. UB is far more patient and learned than I am and will continue to deconstruct disingenuous claims presented.

I await your answers to the above questions.