Re: Talk.)rigins banned subject: 20k

From: Terry Rigby (trigby_at_multiweb.nl)
Date: 09/06/04 

Date: 6 Sep 2004 01:26:42 -0700

Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message news:<NtmZc.372$hbk.67@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> Mark wrote:
>
> >> I already depends on what you consider evidence. Some see evidence
> >> for something which is not, while others refuse and discount things
> >> for which they don't even bother to look at the evidence.
> >>
> > That may be true. Why don't you try to present the evidence that
> > satisfies you, and see how others interpret it?
> >
>
>
> Why should I? I get all my facts from scientists, and if the 'peer
> reviewed' process is ignoring them, its only to the shame of biased
> pseudoscience passed off as real science. If someone challenges me on a
> point I raise which comes from real scientific papers, I am not going to
> waste my time trying to prove anything to the people who are obviously
> ignorant of the real state of affairs. These people just wish to smear,
> insult and play incessant games which go around in circles, and as an
> eminent scientist told me, 'where the games of earth keep going around
> in circles'.
>
> Case in point, Dr. Shoch offers evidence that the Sphinx of Egypt is far
> older than what Egyptologists will have everyone believe. His evidence
> is based on hard core data which deals with water erosion. Egyptologists
> laughed (but ofcourse fail to inform anyone that they aren't used to
> geological cross talk in their science). Another case in point, amateur
> archaeoastronomer, Robert Bauval and Graham Han*** come along and shake
> the world of Egyptology (more accurately Pyramidology) to a new
> revision. They prove with the help of sophisticated laser/robotic
> technology that the 'star shafts' in the Great Pyramid point to real
> stellar alignments and are NOT 'air shafts' used for air conditioning by
> slaves while building the Pyramid. Egyptologists again laughed. So the
> point again remains, depends on what YOU consider as 'evidence'.
>
> Another case in point, under cities are discovered off the coast of
> Japan, which have Pyramidal landforms, steps, carvings, walls all of
> which prove to be perfectly in line with man made construction - all
> being horizontal and parallel and perfectly vertical in alignments. Some
> without even looking at the evidence suggest 'natural due to water
> erosion', while others look at the evidence, and still say 'water
> erosion'. Then another city is found deep off the coast of Cuba, which
> again appears on sophisticated sonar maps showing, steps, roads,
> Pyramids, and Sphinxes all of course (save for the Sphinx) prove to be
> again horizontal, parallel, and perfectly vertical. Again the naysayers
> suggest without even seeing the evidence, 'water erosion' while others
> after seeing the evidence presented, 'water erosion'. So again no
> matter how much evidence exists, to the contrary some will still find a
> means to dismiss it. And these I truly don't care to waste my time with.

Came late to this thread, but please read
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/atlantisrebornagain_transcript.shtml
It is the transcript of the BBC2 Horizon programme on Han***'s ideas,
showing the glaring errors and his ignorance of things known to the
experts.

Terry Rigby