Global warming is real


#2811

Same ■■■■ different day, You can’t show the dating to be wrong and the alignments show to be correct.

The best you can come up with is nothing but a mindless rant.

There isn’t an actual fact that exists to support anything you are claiming.

Teller didn’t make the discovery nor was it his theory initially, it was found long before he was even born.

Yes, we should just believe that God randomly threw those stones down and they just happened to line up.

Now that’s some theory.


#2812

Why is it when people disagree with you, what they say is “a mindless rant” but what you say isn’t? I think a lot of what you post is a mindless rant. You can’t show this to be untrue.


#2813

What exactly am I claiming? It seems you are the one claiming that the site is 75,000 years old.

To make that claim you refer to me to a crackpot, in your own words, and expect me to somehow disprove a crackpot.

Yes; the site what discovered before Tellinger. So what? He is the one who decided the site was 75,000 years old. Or was it 200,000 years old. He can’t make up his mind.

What evidence supports the dating of the site? Only the word of a crackpot. What am I supposed to do to refute the word of a crackpot? Please tell me.


#2814

If you had any evidence to dispute the dating or the alignments you would have presented it.

Can you show that the rock/mineral decay dating is faulty science?

Do so.


#2815

Can you show where and how any rock/mineral dating was done on the site to give the date of 75,000?

I doubt it.


#2816

That’s the method cited as you well know since you brought it up.

Now, show it’s faulty if you can.


#2817

Not at all. The 75,000 year estimate comes from an alignment with Orion’s Belt. He (the nutter Tellinger) decided that three rocks indicated the rise of Orion’s Belt. They don’t actually align with Orion’s Belt but not to worry. Just turn back time into the constellations drift enough for that to be true. Does that sound like solid scientific dating to you?

I quoted this earlier. You ignored it. You’ll probably ignore this again.

Give me one good reason to believe anything that this nutter Tellinger say. You’re literally asking us to take him at his word. The alien mind control guy. We are supposed to believe him.


#2818

Read your own link.

While the following images certainly suggest a human provenance for the stones, there is no evidence to support Tellinger’s claims that they are ‘75,000 years or older’.

http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/africaadamscalendar.htm


#2819

So they made a statement. Can you show his dating to be wrong or the method used to be faulty?

Quit deflecting and give us a straight answer for once.


#2820

I just said how it’s wrong (twice actually). It assumes a something is true (three stones align with Orion’s Belt) then finds the date to make the assertion true.

Does that sound like a scientifically sound method for dating something to you?


#2821

You’ve show no such thing. All you have done is quote a vacuous statement.

Now again, can you show it to be wrong, yes or no.


#2822

It’s not like you’ve proven it to be right, other than to say “it’s right.”


#2823

Interesting criticism since it’s far more than what you’ve done.

Please post the method of dating the site that resulted in 75,000 years. Because that vacuous statement came from your own source and seemed to indicate the method they actually used. Can you show what method they used to get 75,000 years? Probably not.


#2824

The continued deflections are laughable.

The dates are estimated based on the rock decay and rock paintings/carvings nearby which of course, we’ve already been over.

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Adams_Calendar/Adams_Calendar.htm

Now, can you or can you not show that to be faulty or false?

C’mon, you’ve been beating this dead mule for more than two months, dragging it from thread to thread where I wasn’t even participating so man up and make your case once and for all.


#2825

Imagine if this was the standard of proof of the US system of justice.


#2826

Can you show it to be true or do we just have to accept the word of a guy who believes the moon is a hologram?

My case is simple. You did a simple google search. Grabbed the first link you saw. Didn’t realize that it relied on the ravings of a nut ball. And now you might be too embarrassed to admit it.

(By the way, your website “realhistoryww.com” is absolutely crazy and you should try browsing the rest of it before you consider using it as a source)


#2827

Nobody is on trial, dating ancient objects is difficult at best.

Nobody is going to die or go to prison if a date is off by even thousands of years.


#2828

Just quit already.

You can’t show it to be false, you can’t show the method to be faulty and we both know it.

Just give it up.

If you are going to claim it’s untrue it’s up to you to show the flaw in the method or that the conclusion is faulty.


#2829

Before I can find out if the method was faulty, first can you show me the method used? I’m dying to know.

Of course not. You know absolutely nothing about how it was dated. You just take the nutter Michael Tellinger at his word.


#2830

The word of some guy and/or rando website is not proof of anything other than that some person said some thing.