hoi.polloi wrote:I am not convinced this isn't a derailing or distraction yet, so let's not go jumping all over the place yet.
Derailing nor distraction is my motive. At all.
You prefer to make your case with me in private, but I don't trust you enough to really give you that so let's just go from here. You would have my e-mail if you did the slightest amount of searching on septemberclues.org or even asked Simon for it.
Indeed, I just wrote Simon an email to ask to come in contact with you directly. I prefer a phone conversation as talking is much easier and less prone to misinterpretations than writing.
So you are an individualist but you use mainstream acceptability as a litmus test for plausibility? That's seems illogical.
That's fine, then. What area of geology qualifies you to answer for the missing fossil record besides a belief in it?
No, I am not using "mainstream acceptability" for anything, I have expressed that I am open to even change my views on Earth matters but I ask for scientific arguments to be convinced.
The fossil record is not missing, but incomplete and biased. Certain formations (of certain ages) have many more fossils than others. That has to do with paleoclimate, the ways of fossilisation and the rock types which are more or less prone to erosion. That's why so many dinosaur fossils are found in the North American badlands and recently a lot in China/Mongolia.
My background is broad, but mainly structural geology and basin analysis.
Is that the way nonhocapito described their disagreement? I don't think so. Please just speak for yourself.
Ok, fair point, I speak for myself here and now then: the difference between the media hoaxes and the geological questions about Dinosaurs or Heliocentrity are numerous.
Just to name a few:
- NASA - everything that is presented to us happening in space is controlled by a group (a set of individuals) of people which is unverifiable by us. We cannot go into space, so we can only accept or discard what NASA and other space agencies and subcontractors etc. are telling us. There's no way we can check it out for ourselves. That is different with what's happening on Earth itself.
- Media hoaxes - 9/11, Boston, Sandy Hoax, Hebdo, faked plane crashes like Germanwings, etc. Of course so much more, but these topics I dove into more, so that's why I named them. The fakery in these is obvious. They are also concrete stories, let me call them "written plays", with a beginning and an end. They involve a set of actors, of people and of media fakery. That is different from scientific concepts as heliocentricity or dinosaurs.
- Another big hoax is Antropogenic Global Warming. It's also the only hoax I can proudly say I was never fooled by. All the other events that were presented to us as "official" in the past I lived similar ways: first accepting the official story and then because of the analysis by others I started doubting them and because of reading here seeing the complete hoax (including vicsims, actors, image manipulation, etc.). The difference between AGW and the heliocentricity and dinosaurs is again the way it is presented, the verifiability by us as general audience and on top of that the attacks made by the perpetrators. Not based on arguments or quiet discussion, but the immediate namecalling of "deniers" and all. That makes it stinky from the first moment.
The reason I never believed this hoax is because it does not fit with the geology and uses false premises. If there's a dedicated thread on it I will respond in more detail as the subject interests and bothers (especially the way children are drilled to believe this crap) me at the same time.
I don't expect you to be convinced by nothing. I expect you to stop being so convinced by the population-at-large's tenuous adherence to educational mis-training.
If you say I am "mis-trained" in my studies and almost 15 years of professional work experience, are you really surprised that I demand a little bit more than a comment "stop being so convinced"?
Nor does it make the first fake any more real than the last.
That is of course true; if A is faked it does not mean that B is true. But it also doesn't mean that B is fake.
A preposition like "it can be faked, it is told by 'mainstream' sources so it should be faked" is also not what I can accept as convincing evidence.
That certain fossils are faked is undeniably true. That people fake things to make money out of them as well.
But that doesn't mean it's
all fake(d) and that's where I cannot accept it without more arguments.
For example: paintings. There are fake paintings. Copies made by individuals of great artwork done by real artists. And sold for millions. Those particular paintings can be analysed and thus labeled as fake. But that doesn't change the reality of the originals. If John Doe makes a fake Picasso, that doesn't mean real Picassos are suddenly fake too.
Same for fossils.
It's wonderful to find things in the Earth but to claim their age matches the mainstream story requires much more research, proofs and validation.
Ages are derived using different methods. Absolute age dating is using isotopes, but most age dating of formations is done using stratigraphical relations. Especially for fossils. There's a whole world behind that. Now, to discard the work of so many thousands of people with a statement "it's fake" is pretty blunt. You'd have to debunk the whole science behind it, all the methods and all the scientific publications about it. My whole academic education needs to be debunked in every detail and a reasonable explanation given for the observations.
Sure. And right now, you could place yourself about here (X) :
FREETHINKING---------------------------------------------------------X--MAINSTREAM THOUGHT
That's your choice of putting me there. I wouldn't say so. Also the question arises what do you mean by "freethinking". You could say that all our thoughts are coming from somewhere, where experience, education and observations are the most likely producers.
I have read a lot of your comments here. I am a moderator. And you began your entries in the Satellite thread by saying you haven't enough reason to doubt the mainstream opinion that satellites are real.
No, what I was saying is that I was struggling. Which I think is a very normal and good way of thinking. Struggling with two things:
- if rocketry in space is impossible (which I think it is and contributed in the topic started by Boetius), then satellites must be impossible as well
- if satellites are impossible, then there must be an alternative explanation for the gigantic amounts of satellite data. "Satellite" data used by millions of people everyday. If that alternative explanation is "bouncing off signals of the ionosphere" that is fine with me, as long as this explanation is water tight for the observations. That to me seems just like the scientific method, nothing more, nothing less.
You don't understand how I could interpret those comments as a support of the official doctrine?
I don't know. You interpret my views as "support of an official doctrine". That's not at all my standpoint. Like I said, I am not "advocating" an "official" doctrine of any kind.
An opinion which is in line with what certain "mainstream" views tell, is not necessarily a support of anything, I'd say. It's just an opinion.
I don't believe you don't understand, and I think you need to recognize what a waste of time your presence has represented on this forum, as you — with one hand — raise up the official story on every topic you have posted in, while — with the other — smother with a "polite" and "kind" pillow any question to the veracity of the pseudo-scientific establishment.
Why this attack again? "A waste of time"? I contributed in detail on various topics: the impossibility of rockets (on temperature effects), on the "ISIS" destruction of "statues" in Mosul, on the Germanwings plane "crash", a short interpretation of 1 photo in the Tunis Bardo museum "attacks" and some more topics. What about those contributions do you (still) consider "a waste of time"??
But you may not be right for this forum. And I believe you need to address that if you want to continue to participate here without these little 'asides' constantly happening.
Again, I had a pleasant talk to simon and I let him speak for himself what he thinks of me, my contributions or "if I may be right for this forum".
Selene
When irrefutable evidence proves something was faked, it's not necessary to know “why”, by whom, or even exactly how.
A least weasel attacking a bird is a likely enough event, despite the rarity of capturing it on film — so this photo is not necessarily fake. 
) that it may take a while.