Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Where have we been?
Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30252
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:57 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:Only if you didn't have a clue about either anthropology or archeology and you didn't understand the meaning of the word unique similarities which you agreed with in the first paragraph. Change your mind did you? I'd stick to philosophy if I was you.
salomed wrote: See how you become a sour man again:(
What, by remembering what you wrote a paragraph earlier? Well you obviously didn't..... tsk tsk tsk......

Matthew Ellard wrote:The Mayans didn't go to Bali
salomed wrote:Begging the question. Yawn.
What your ridiculous post is about? Hmmmm...

Matthew Ellard wrote:.....WTF are you talking about? Give me your plausible method for Mayan culture going to Bali......or haven't you done this? Remember that you said "contact" in your opening post.
salomed wrote: Boats.
Mayans used paddled canoes. Archaeologists have debated whether the Maya used sails on their canoes. While some murals appear to show sails, not all authories agree. Are you suggesting the Mayans paddled back in time to 4th century Indonesia in canoes? Try harder next time or smoke less pot before posting......

Matthew Ellard wrote:.....Do you mean my degree in anthropological prehistory?
salomed wrote: I'd stick to being an accountant.
I can do both. Multi tasking is not one of your skills, is it?

Matthew Ellard wrote:.....So you were at university for ten years and don't believe in academic methodology....
salomed wrote: If that methodology is based on foundations that cannot be challenged, of course I don't. Nor should any free thinker.
Matthew Ellard wrote:What did you do there all day for ten years?
salomed wrote: Studied and taught philosophy and philosophy of science and argued with lawyers who were not used to people whop could out reason them. I have met a zillion little men like you.
Now you are simply lying. Law is founded on stare decisis. Sir Edward Coke made this differentiation in the Elizabethan era. The fact you did not know about this suggests you have not studied any philosophy at all. This is basic stuff. Look it up. You are simply lying about arguing with lawyers and haven't got a clue!

salomed wrote: Want to skype/call me for a real debate?
I prefer to to this in in equity or tax court as I get $375 an hour in court and magistrates have a clue what they are talking about. You don't.

salomed wrote: And yet you keep on attacking me (Every post I start). Ignore me or skype me Matt, dare you.
Err no.....you post a stupid argument on the skeptic forum and I attack that stupid post here. Haven't you worked that out yet?

Are you ashamed about having your dumber arguments destroyed in public when you try to write out your thoughts? That's not very philosophical of you? Tsk tsk tsk...

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by salomed » Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:33 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:Now you are simply lying.


No, I am not. Again, in a real conversation, rather than you hiding away behind text and tossing off insults (which you do appallingly often, and not just to me), I would show you how I will out think you. The challenge is there.

The fact you did not know about this suggests you have not studied any philosophy at all.


But I have no interest in sophestry. I am interested in the laws or reason and reality, not the laws fabricated by men.

You clearly haven't studied philosophy so how can you assume some else hasn't. That's illogical. But if you want evidence, your honour, skype me and I will show you my thesis, certs, references in two only twoo, boo hoo) journals etc.

salomed wrote: Want to skype/call me for a real debate?
[color=#000080]I prefer to to this in in equity or tax court as I get $375 an hour in court and magistrates have a clue what they are talking about. You don't. [/quote]

Oh but Matthew, even with an above average typing speed you have obviously wasted hundreds of dollars of your super-time trying to belittle me. Give me ten mins on skype, why would you not? Unless you have something to hide and/or you are not as confident as your arrogance in ASCII would suggest.

Cluck cluck;)
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by salomed » Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:35 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:Now you are simply lying.


No, I am not. Again, in a real conversation, rather than you hiding away behind text and tossing off insults (which you do appallingly often, and not just to me), I would show you how I will out think you. The challenge is there.

The fact you did not know about this suggests you have not studied any philosophy at all.


But I have no interest in sophestry. I am interested in the laws or reason and reality, not the laws fabricated by men.

You clearly haven't studied philosophy so how can you assume some else hasn't. That's illogical. But if you want evidence, your honour, skype me and I will show you my thesis, certs, references in two (only two, boo hoo) journals etc.

salomed wrote: Want to skype/call me for a real debate?


I prefer to to this in in equity or tax court as I get $375 an hour in court and magistrates have a clue what they are talking about. You don't.


Oh but Matthew, even with an above average typing speed you have obviously wasted hundreds of dollars of your super-time trying to argue. Give me ten mins on skype and show your mettle, why would you not?

Unless you have something to hide and/or you are not as confident as your arrogance in ASCII would suggest.

Cluck cluck;)
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
tecpaocelotl
Poster
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:02 am
Custom Title: That One Guy
Location: Cali

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by tecpaocelotl » Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:19 pm

Gord wrote:
tecpaocelotl wrote:
Gord wrote:So the rattle is in his upraised hand? It's hard to make out any details, but I still think I see something behind held on his lap.


Yes, it's a rattle. The monkey represents music (including dancing).

I would recommend you to Google image "Copan Monkey" to get different angle of the same statue. It's just clothes.

Done: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... lpture.jpg

I can accept it's just clothing. The view makes it hard to make out any really neat details, so I thought there might be more there. But apparently there isn't, or someone would have taken better pictures of the lap section, I think.

Is that a second rattle in his lap hand? The squarish formation made me think "something" was there, and the black paint added to the illusion of an animal sacrifice for me.


Rattle with writing of wind on it:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... D02-Ik.png

I would have to show you depiction of clothing.

I don't know what it suppose to be, but I think it might be an incense burner burning copal.

Los Gabachos con su obsesión con el sacrificio. :lol:
"Don't Demonstrate, Infiltrate! From within you can help those without." -Jorge Le Rand

"Tehan tohtocazqueh to tamatcayotl can cachi chicahuac." -David Vazquez
We continue our culture with more strength.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34359
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by Gord » Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:52 pm

tecpaocelotl wrote:Los Gabachos con su obsesión con el sacrificio. :lol:

Canadian, actually. :P
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
tecpaocelotl
Poster
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:02 am
Custom Title: That One Guy
Location: Cali

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by tecpaocelotl » Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:02 pm

Gord wrote:
tecpaocelotl wrote:Los Gabachos con su obsesión con el sacrificio. :lol:

Canadian, actually. :P


Gabachos is a very general term. :P
"Don't Demonstrate, Infiltrate! From within you can help those without." -Jorge Le Rand

"Tehan tohtocazqueh to tamatcayotl can cachi chicahuac." -David Vazquez
We continue our culture with more strength.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34359
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by Gord » Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:13 pm

tecpaocelotl wrote:
Gord wrote:
tecpaocelotl wrote:Los Gabachos con su obsesión con el sacrificio. :lol:

Canadian, actually. :P

Gabachos is a very general term. :P

So is "Canadian". :lol:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
tecpaocelotl
Poster
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:02 am
Custom Title: That One Guy
Location: Cali

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by tecpaocelotl » Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:13 pm

Gord wrote:
tecpaocelotl wrote:
Gord wrote:
tecpaocelotl wrote:Los Gabachos con su obsesión con el sacrificio. :lol:

Canadian, actually. :P

Gabachos is a very general term. :P

So is "Canadian". :lol:


You got me there.
"Don't Demonstrate, Infiltrate! From within you can help those without." -Jorge Le Rand

"Tehan tohtocazqueh to tamatcayotl can cachi chicahuac." -David Vazquez
We continue our culture with more strength.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30252
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:25 pm

anglo-saxon-angled saxaphone.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30252
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:31 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Now you are simply lying.
salomed wrote: No, I am not.
Yes you are. You said "(You) Studied and taught philosophy and philosophy of science and argued with lawyers who were not used to people whop could out reason them. I have met a zillion little men like you"

But every first year undergraduate in either law or philosophy knows that law is founded on Stare decesis, which can be summarised as the introduction of ratio decidendi and obiter dicta using authority from a hierarchical court system. It is not based on logic at all. Americans even call it "Judge made law" rather than "the common law" as we do in Commonwealth countries. I specifically mentioned Edward Coke with the vague hope this would trigger some memory from a first year lecture you must have slept through. What did Edward Coke inform his majesty King Charles, was the reason philosophers cannot argue law? Can you remember? This is really basic stuff and how I immediately knew you were lying.



salomed wrote: Again, in a real conversation, rather than you hiding away behind text
You suggest, I hide behind my written words, available to all on a public forum while proposing I have a private skype with you so as not to hide my words from others? That is just the most stupid logic I have ever heard. I put forward that your ten hard years at university was repeating first year.

In addition, as much as I love being invited by holocaust deniers to post on CODOH, or by mad people like Highflyertoo ( who was banned from this forum for ringing me and my family) I prefer to keep my words public, and for my Skeptic postings, under the moderation of Pyrrho, who tells me when I cross a line or do something stupid.



salomed wrote: I would show you how I will out think you. The challenge is there.
But you already have lied and shown a shallow understanding of basic principles between law and philosophy. Secondly, who would adjudicate a skype conversation...you didn't even think that far.....not a good sign.....


salomed wrote: I am interested in the laws or reason and reality, not the laws fabricated by men.
I assume you mean "laws of reason and reality" which is not an expression used in either history, anthropology or archeology. What historian, anthropologist or archaeologist says "the reality of the event was....." At best, they would say "based on fact X, fact Y, precedent Z we can can conclude that it was most probable..." This is really basic stuff. Watch the archeology TV "Time Team" as the archaeologists correct themselves all the time from falling into your pseudo-methodology.


salomed wrote: You clearly haven't studied philosophy so how can you assume some else hasn't.
Because law has its own disciplines including the knowledge that philosophy is not an approach of any legal merit. Yet you suggested it was and you could, by magic, outwit lawyers, who come from a totally different discipline. Either you argue with some completely stupid undergraduate lawyers, or didn't argue with any lawyers at all, otherwise you would have been aware of this. QED?

salomed wrote: Oh but Matthew, even with an above average typing speed you have obviously wasted hundreds of dollars of your super-time trying to belittle me.
I have posted a Gary Larson cartoon above, with the aim of showing how ridiculous your opening post argument is. It is your opening post that I am attacking. I have no interest in you as an individual.

I do have a slight interest why you started this post (where you disallow extrinsic evidence to your supplied imagery) and your Starchild post (where you disallow extrinsic evidence to the blog you linked) as I am suspicious you are trying to set the stage for a future wooist claim....but let's wait for that to happen.....if it does...

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30252
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:35 am

spot-the-difference-kids.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by salomed » Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:07 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:But every first year undergraduate in either law or philosophy knows that law is founded on Stare decesis, which can be summarised as the introduction of ratio decidendi and obiter dicta using authority from a hierarchical court system.


I must have gone to a rubbish university. We started off with the presocratics (who thought much the same about lawyers as intellectuals do today...).

I hadn't heard about your [img]Stare%20defaecis[/img] until yesterday and still have no interest in it.

But you already have lied and shown a shallow understanding of basic principles between law and philosophy.


Yawn... no I haven't. I just have no significant interest in laws made by men.

Secondly, who would adjudicate a skype conversation...you didn't even think that far.....not a good sign.....


We wouldn't need one so long as we were polite. I only ask for 15 mins, you cant give me that but can upload silly cartoons for yet more personal attempts at belittling, which just make you look bitter.

Cluck cluck

Either you argue with some completely stupid undergraduate lawyers


Naturally.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30252
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:54 am

salomed wrote:I must have gone to a rubbish university. We started off with the presocratics (who thought much the same about lawyers as intellectuals do today...).

I hadn't heard about your Stare decisis until yesterday and still have no interest in it.
I never thought for a moment that you had heard of the expression. It's Latin.

Sooooo.....you now state the presocratic philosophers thought about lawyers? How amazing! Are you confusing classical "advocates" (men of good character and property) with 13th century lawyers (trained specialists)? Thank Zeus, Socrates was a bit clearer on his thoughts on lawyers and advocates......


Trial of the Six Admirals (406 B.C.)
Socrates, who like every other member of the prytaneis had taken an oath not to present illegal motions to the Assembly, refused to allow the illegal proposal to be presented to the Assembly.

Socrates must have hated advocates....by being an advocate.

I assume you replaced your college's Classical readings modules for Sheep husbandry or something more practical for the farm.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by salomed » Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:13 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Are you confusing classical "advocates" (men of good character and property) with 13th century lawyers (trained specialists)?


Very possibly. It was a a long time ago for me.

Gosh what was one of the things I vaguely remember? A guy gets trained as a lawyer/sophist and is told he doesn't have to pay his tuition fees until he has won his first case and his first case in nonpayment of fees. Brilliant! Sneaky!

But I was always more interested in the deeper stuff.

By the way, it seems in the last few hours you have gone from a mocking disinterestest in philosophy to being an expert in Greek philosophy! This shows your skills... and the power of wikipedia yada yada

Maybe that's why you are to scared to skype; because I will hear your little fingers clicking?

Click click,

Cluck cluck;)
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30252
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:59 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Are you confusing classical "advocates" (men of good character and property) with 13th century lawyers (trained specialists)?
salomed wrote: Very possibly. It was a a long time ago for me.
Books will help you learn.


salomed wrote: By the way, it seems in the last few hours you have gone from a mocking disinterestest (disinterest) in philosophy to being an expert in Greek philosophy! This shows your skills... and the power of wikipedia yada yada
What is amazing is that it took me three minutes on Wikipedia and you ten years at college and you still didn't know about classical advocacy.


salomed wrote: Maybe that's why you are to scared to skype; because I will hear your little fingers clicking?
Firstly, I don't use Skype as I use the telephone. Secondly, my words on the forum are already public which a Skype conversation would not be....but you forgot that point, that I already made. Thirdly, if you review your posts, you forgot to actually state what you wanted me to talk to you about on Skype. Finally, after death threats from holocaust deniers, forum loonys and other riff raff, as I use my own name, I think it cute that you think that I'm scared of a 9/11 Truther who thinks he studied philosophy for ten years. Chasing National Front skinheads with Stanley knives and "2x4" bit of lumber through London in the late 70's was a little bit scary, compared to your words, which are not.

salomed wrote: Cluck cluck;)
Impressive as your chicken imitations are, and indeed I imagine they were a crucial element of you philosophy modules at agricultural college, you do not need to repeat them. That you are bird brained is already apparent in your posts.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by salomed » Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:20 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Firstly, I don't use Skype as I use the telephone.


I can message you my phone number if you would like. Then you don't need to worry about your privacy?

Thirdly, if you review your posts, you forgot to actually state what you wanted me to talk to you about on Skype.


I am easy on that. Maybe the OP topic? Maybe the starchils skull? Maybe some analytic philosopy? How about right and wrong as opposed to legal and illegal. You can choose Matthew.

But, again, you wont. I don't think you are or should be scared of me.

I do think you are being irrational when you brag about how valuable your time is as a reason not to speak but then waste so much of it sending insults my way in text.

That is what "irrational" means, at least, to a philosopher.

Anyways little chicken, we are going round in circles, much like most of your reasoning when you try to attack me. Moreover, you are succeeding in brining me down to your belittling level which is kinda fun, but not something I want to encourage.

Ultimately, all you can do is call me a liar (when I am not, and can prove it) and call me an idiot and make little man attacks, rather than any refutations.

Cluck click
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30252
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:57 am

salomed wrote:I can message you my phone number if you would like. Then you don't need to worry about your privacy?
You seem to have the attention span on a gnat. I use my real name already on this and other forums. Privacy is not an issue. A private phone call is not public and I have no interest in private phone call with 9/11 truthers who haven't said what they want to talk about.

Matthew Ellard wrote:Thirdly, if you review your posts, you forgot to actually state what you wanted me to talk to you about on Skype.
salomed wrote: I am easy on that. Maybe the OP topic? Maybe the starchils skull? Maybe some analytic philosopy? How about right and wrong as opposed to legal and illegal. You can choose Matthew.
I choose to discuss matters here, in public, on the Skeptic Society forum, which I joined for that express purpose. If you are ashamed to have your written words seen in public then bad luck.

salomed wrote:But, again, you wont. I don't think you are or should be scared of me.
I don't have private phone calls with 9/11 truthers.

salomed wrote: I do think you are being irrational when you brag about how valuable your time is as a reason not to speak but then waste so much of it sending insults my way in text.
You think I'm irrational because I want to keep your words, that of a 9/11 truther, in the public domain. Try again.


salomed wrote:Ultimately, all you can do is call me a liar (when I am not, and can prove it) and call me an idiot and make little man attacks, rather than any refutations.
The Gary Larson cartoon that I have already posted is popular and funny as the majority understand the crap argument of looking for "contact or coincidence" when obviously none exists. You simply don't get it.

Using your best philosophy skills, try explain in words why the Gary Larson cartoon is funny and then let us apply your same words to your opening post concerning photos of Mayan and Balinese artwork. Can you do that simple experiment?

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by salomed » Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:29 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:I choose to discuss matters here, in public


I know Matthew, hows about we have a full on video chat and link to it in the forum? I can set it all up, you would just need to click a link?

That way it would be public and in real time?

If you are ashamed to have your written words seen in public...


Hardly.

I don't have private phone calls with 9/11 truthers.


I have no idea why you keep bringing this up. I am not a 911 Truther, at least I don't think I am. What is one?

You simply don't get it.


Correct. I don't get your sophistry. I can get Quine and Wittgenstein, but all get from you is little man insults rather than reason and accusations that I am things that even if I was, you are not entitled to make.

As I said in a post a few weeks ago, when you get cornered, you get nasty.

Consider this:

I think you have an inferiority complex that you over compensate for. I guess this is understandable, the accountants, lawyers and tax men are hardly the most respected of the professions and you are all three rolled into one.

I think the fact that you become sour so quickly suggests that you are not really that happy, another classic sign of a bitter heart.

I think the fact that you wont confront me in real time and hide behind your little copy-pastes makes me think you are a fraud, especially when you are irrational in your explanation of your refusal to man up and face-to-face, as it were.

And now you drag me inexorably into saying sour things myself, so on that little man with big bucks, you win.

Well done.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30252
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:34 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:I choose to discuss matters here, in public
salomed wrote:I know Matthew, hows about we have a full on video chat and link to it in the forum? I can set it all up, you would just need to click a link? That way it would be public and in real time?
Hows about we just use the existing forum rather than waste time setting up cameras and video links.

I know what your fantasy is. Your fantasy is that you think you would come across as more intelligent in "real time" than your failure to do so, posting on a forum, using your own words. You think that my formal oratory and rhetoric training, court advocacy and cross examination experience is hindered as I need to do so, in front of magistrates, judges and panels, under formal court rules.

Lovely as this fantasy is, it is complete crap. If you can't string a decent argument together, in words, at your own slow pace, then you will be lost when it comes to verbal argument against an experienced counsel. Your fantasy is typical of 9/11 truthers and is called the Dunning–Kruger Effect. Look it up.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2 ... ger_effect

salomed wrote:As I said in a post a few weeks ago, when you get cornered, you get nasty.
As you have never "cornered me" your logic has failed you yet again.


salomed wrote: Consider this: I think you have an inferiority complex that you over compensate for. I guess this is understandable, the accountants, lawyers and tax men are hardly the most respected of the professions and you are all three rolled into one.
I see...and you think I have an inferiority complex because I'm slamming your words here or do you have any other reason? Is inferiority complex a phrase much on your mind lately?

salomed wrote: I think the fact that you become sour so quickly suggests that you are not really that happy, another classic sign of a bitter heart.
Err no. All my other posts are really happy (observe the tooooooo cute sub forum) and I'm good friends with most of the members of this forum. Your posts simply contain atrocious logic and as a skeptic, I attack woo. Didn't you realise this was the Skeptic Society Forum ? What do you think we do here? Are you that stupid?

salomed wrote: I think the fact that you wont confront me in real time and hide behind your little copy-pastes makes me think you are a fraud, especially when you are irrational in your explanation of your refusal to man up and face-to-face, as it were.
No mate. You're just dumb and trying to get more attention than you deserve. Thankfully, this forum has eliminated the holocaust deniers for the moment. When they start trickling back I will divert my time back to fighting them and ignore your silly posts. They are a danger. You are yet another small time American 9/11 Truther, attention seeker, a dime a dozen....


How are you going comparing and contrasting the Gary Larson cartoon to your opening post? tsk tsk tsk.... It must hurt you when I point out what rubbish you posted in such an easy manner. I guess that's why you are trying to talk about video links and not review your own stupid opening post. The ball is in your court....using words.....if that embarrasses you on this forum, try elsewhere.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by salomed » Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:49 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:Hows about[/i] we just use the existing forum rather than waste time setting up cameras and video links.


But you have wasted so much time talking to dumb old me. Again, you are being irrational.

By the way sorry for almost inslting you last post, I will strive not to from now on.

You think that my formal oratory and rhetoric training, court advocacy and cross examination experience is hindered as I need to do so, in front of magistrates, judges and panels, under formal court rules.


Please, I am sure in the court you are a super-star, especially about Mrs Miggins failing to submit her tax forms, and other such profound moral issues. I have absolutly no doubt about this.

And total respect to you when putting down holocaust deniers, which i have seen you do and would consider you much better at that task than me or most. No question there.

But in issues of philosophy, which is what skepticsm is, you are clearly and demonstrably out of your zone of preference. You are a... a philosophy denier.

If you can't string a decent argument together, in words, at your own slow pace, then you will be lost when it comes to verbal argument against an experienced counsel.


And yet, you wont even give me 15 miniutes. Surely you see the issue I am having with your reasoning

Your fantasy is typical of 9/11 truthers and is called the Dunning–Kruger Effect.


Ya ya. I am familiar. (By the way, you still haven't said why you think I'm a "truther")

I see...and you think I have an inferiority complex


I do.

because I'm slamming your words here


Where have you slammed my words, assuming that means refuted what I have said? Kindly paste, we all know you are an expert at that;)

All I have seen is ad hominem jibes and circularity from you in this and other threads. Moreover, you havent countered any of my counter claims to your errors, such as circularity. Again, if you have, kindly show me.

Is inferiority complex a phrase much on your mind lately?


Yes it is, since trying to understand why such a smart and sucessful man as yourself would resort to such playground insults.

All my other posts are really happy


Maybe, but when it comes to dealing with my posts (note, you jump in to attack with insults in reply to me, never me in reply to you) you come over as kinda sad.

Your posts simply contain atrocious logic


Now I have you. Show this atrocious logic. Forget me, just focus on my posts and my logical atrocities.

Waits....

As a skeptic


What kind of skeptic refuses to question academia or orthodoxy? What kind of skeptic is anti-philosophy?

You are not a skeptic Matthew. You may be many things, but you are not a skeptic.

... review your own stupid opening post. The ball is in your court....


OK, I shall do this right now. here is my opening post:

I don't put much credence in the text, but the images are pretty amazingly similar.


so... right away, first line I make it very clear that I dont put much credence in the text. That seems pretty unstupid to me?

I say the images are amazingly similar - I still think they are. That doesnt mean I think there is contact.

Of course it could be coincidental parallel progress but I think that the striking similarity, especialy in the aesthetic - rather than merely the structural (pyramyds/arches etc..) - warrants some kind of understanding.


Here I have suggested thee parallel progress as an explanation of the images. Again, this seems a sensible explanation, and one that doesn't need anything unorthodox, quite the contrary.

So so far I don't think I have said anything stupid, at all. Do you really think i have, if so, what and why?

Then I go on to ask the methodological question:

It raises another interesting question, even assuming you think its just coincidence and that is:

What would your threshold of similarity be before you say "Wowzers, the Balinese and the Maya must have had either contact or an antecedent cultural root."



This seems a good question to ask about such similarities. In fact, it seems essential: without a metric to gauge similarity we cannot get any foothold on a definitive answer, on when the evidence crosses the threshold. Again, what is stupid about this? Please explain.

Finally I say this:

Isn't the world interesting!


Was that a stupid thing to say? really?

So here we have it. You have said my opening post was stupid and challenged me to review it. I have done this and now the ball is in your court.

Matthew, why exactly, was my opening post stupid?

Shalom.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5513
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by Monster » Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:31 pm

salomed, a visual + verbal debate solves nothing. Those kinds of debates are just to determine who looks and sounds better. Debates are worthless for determining truth. If you have sound arguments, then they should stand up to scrutiny in this forum format.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by salomed » Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:40 pm

Monster wrote:salomed, a visual + verbal debate solves nothing. Those kinds of debates are just to determine who looks and sounds better. Debates are worthless for determining truth. If you have sound arguments, then they should stand up to scrutiny in this forum format.


Sure, though in this thread I haven't been making any arguments, just trying to establish a methodology for such cases. the reason I want to speak to Ellard is because he is abusive and insulting, petty and distracting, and I know that in the real world, ie, out of the internet and the tax court, he would be less able to be so. He might even be quite charming in a face to face.

Anyways, I am waiting to see his responce to my review of my OP (which he asked me to make) and, as you say, that can be done in text as well as voice etc.

Cheers.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
moth1ne
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1721
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:41 pm
Custom Title: theyscanhearsmythots
Location: Washington

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by moth1ne » Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:58 pm

salomed wrote:Sure, though in this thread I haven't been making any arguments, just trying to establish a methodology for such cases.

You method should be the scientific method. If you properly applied the scientific method, you would conclude that there is an insufficient amount of evidence to suggest or claim that the Maya and the Balinese had any contact. You can't just hold up one invalid piece of evidence (pictures of two door ways) and ignore the rest of the evidence gathered by years of anthropological and archaeological study and say you are using the scientific method.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World

User avatar
tecpaocelotl
Poster
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:02 am
Custom Title: That One Guy
Location: Cali

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by tecpaocelotl » Tue Aug 14, 2012 8:28 pm

To debunk the whole door thing, it's completely opposite on both cultures. Balinese is to ward off evil and Mayan it's associated with death so you're going to the underworld.
"Don't Demonstrate, Infiltrate! From within you can help those without." -Jorge Le Rand

"Tehan tohtocazqueh to tamatcayotl can cachi chicahuac." -David Vazquez
We continue our culture with more strength.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30252
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:24 pm

salomed wrote: Please, I am sure in the court you are a super-star, especially about Mrs Miggins failing to submit her tax forms, and other such profound moral issues.
Fascinating as your lack of understanding of tax law is, I do international thin capitalisation cases on intellectual property (money laundering based on tax) as an external consultant. Late individual tax returns are handled internally by the tax office.

salomed wrote: But in issues of philosophy, which is what skepticsm is, you are clearly and demonstrably out of your zone of preference. You are a... a philosophy denier.
This doesn't even make sense. You don't use opportunity cost mathematics Does that make you an opportunity cost mathematics denier? Try to think harder next time. Your personal definition of what a skeptic is doesn't really interest me

Matthew Ellard wrote: Your fantasy is typical of 9/11 truthers and is called the Dunning–Kruger Effect.
salomed wrote: Ya ya. I am familiar. (By the way, you still haven't said why you think I'm a "truther")

Your memory is shocking... remember when you wrote this....
There are many significant inconsistencies in the official story, including evidence holes, contradictions and signifigant unanswered questions. Moreobver, many officials question the official story, not just "Truthers" Eg
viewtopic.php?f=72&t=18450&p=290947&hilit=9%2F11+salomed#p290888
(Dunning-Kruger effect in action)


salomed wrote:Now I have you. Show this atrocious logic. Forget me, just focus on my posts and my logical atrocities.
I have three times compared your opening post to the Gary Larson cartoon....both are comical as they display idiocy in comparing unrelated things. I have informed you that the photos you posted fail to detail the Hindu markings, and that you are a naive victim of a woo website that displays edited photos and yet you do exactly the same here, as Erik Von Daniken did in Chariot of the Gods...which you obviously have never seen.

salomed wrote: You are not a skeptic Matthew. You may be many things, but you are not a skeptic.
So you provided edited photos from a woo web site and argue on those photos. We have pointed this out to you several times and you still don't get it. You are not the brightest are you?

salomed wrote:So so far I don't think I have said anything stupid, at all. Do you really think i have, if so, what and why?
Read above.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by salomed » Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:20 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Read above. [/color]


Matthew, OK OK, I am a "stupid", "American", "Dumb", small time dime a dozen undereducated "Truther"... but can you actually show me why my OP was stupid as you claimed, as you asked me to review, which I did in my last post?

You can't meet that challenge. Just the OP, forget the stupid writer of the words, focus on the words. Can you do that?

Again, what is stupid about these words here:

salomed wrote:I don't put much credence in the text, but the images are pretty amazingly similar.

Of course it could be coincidental parallel progress but I think that the striking similarity, especialy in the aesthetic - rather than merely the structural (pyramyds/arches etc..) - warrants some kind of understanding.

http://alternatenewsmedia2012.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/suppressed-by-scholars-twin-ancient-cultures-on-opposite-sides-of-the-pacific/

It raises another interesting question, even assuming you think its just coincidence and that is:

What would your threshold of similarity be before you say "Wowzers, the Balinese and the Maya must have had either contact or an antecedent cultural root."

Isn't the world interesting!


So? What is stupid in the above text?

Show me the money, honey.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by salomed » Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:32 am

moth1ne wrote:You method should be the scientific method.


What is unscientific about asking to define the parameters of an experiment?

If you properly applied the scientific method, you would conclude that there is an insufficient amount of evidence to suggest or claim that the Maya and the Balinese had any contact.


Well no, that's circular reasoning. The hypothesis is "They had contact" and so now we need to confirm or dis-confirm that hypothesis. If you think there is something wrong with that approach, what would that be?

You can't just hold up one invalid piece of evidence (pictures of two door ways) and ignore the rest of the evidence gathered by years of anthropological and archaeological study and say you are using the scientific method.


Excuse me? Nowhere have I said anything about any conclusion, I was merely asking for opinion about the similarities and then the threshold of similarity we could agree on to establish there was/wasn't contact.

And as for "years of anthropological and archaeological study," gosh, you think that should come before the evidence under discussion. I guess you would reason that Goblike Tepe must not be over 10,000 years old?

If you assume the conclusion you are begging the question, this is the most common fallacy (Though on this forum its rejecting the confusion due to personal reasons about the concluder!)

Do you not see that?

The "scientific method" doesn't mean "don't question the orthodoxy" as you and so many here seem to think. That is simply bad method.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30252
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:06 pm

salomed wrote: Matthew, OK OK, I am a "stupid", "American", "Dumb", small time dime a dozen undereducated "Truther" but can you actually show me why my OP was stupid as you claimed, as you asked me to review, which I did in my last post?
OK I think I understand what is going on. The members of this forum are quite experienced and explain things in a way that we all understand and assume others can keep up with, on the conversation. I have explained the error in your opening post three times, but I'll try again, slowly and in steps.

In the 1968 book "Chariot of the Gods" a convicted con artist called Erik Von Daniken displayed two photos together and asked "Contact or Coincidence" . The first photo was a Mayan stone relief of a "king" going to heaven. He compared this to a photo of an astronaut reclining in a space ship. He noted similarities such as the reclining position, the flames at the bottom. controls panels, etc. The photo Von Daniken supplied was specifically cropped and taken at an angle so these coincidences seemed apparent to anyone. It was a con to sell books that he wrote in gaol.

Anyone who bothered to observe the Mayan relief themselves, and in full, would notice that Von Daniken rotated the picture and cropped out of the photo elements that made obvious the motifs were trees, not control panels, the flames were a funeral pyre, etc. Erik Von Daniken became the laughing stock of the planet and debunking books such as "Crash Go the Chariots" became best sellers.

Indeed Gary Larson's cartoon, that I posted earlier, takes its humour from this exact event as only the incredibly stupid would believe in it.

In 2012 you posted on this skeptic forum, which has the banner "promoting critical thinking", pictures from a "woo" website of yet more Mayan artwork that had cropped and edited photos of Balinese artwork that also edited out anything that wasn't consistent with the author's con. ( ie Barongs, Ragnas and other Hindu motifs). You then asked us, based on this tainted evidence, if this was evidence of "contact or coincidence?" and forbade us to offer you extrinsic evidence from real history books and actual photos.

So upon reading your post, a member of this forum would think, "poor boy he isn't firing on full thrusters" and also because you are a 9/11 Truther, assumptions about your "critical thinking skills" placed you on the left side of the bell curve. Despite many attempts to explain this to you...you still didn't understand what you have done. In fact you said "I would show you how I will out think you. The challenge is there." and "Matthew, you are not a skeptic" .

This is why I linked you to Wikipedia's Dunning Kruger web page, in the hope you would pickup that something was wrong. Frankly, I thought you would have "gotten it" with the Gary Larson cartoon, but you won't even talk about it, as you know it mocks your opening post, but you don't really understand how. Sadly, there may be an issue concerning your "processing power" hindering you from understanding that your opening post is complete rubbish no matter how many times anyone explained it to you and thus you will never "get it".


salomed wrote: Show me the money, honey.


Space ship.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by salomed » Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:10 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
salomed wrote: Matthew, OK OK, I am a "stupid", "American", "Dumb", small time dime a dozen undereducated "Truther" but can you actually show me why my OP was stupid as you claimed, as you asked me to review, which I did in my last post?
OK I think I understand what is going on. The members of this forum are quite experienced and explain things in a way that we all understand and assume others can keep up with, on the conversation. I have explained the error in your opening post three times, but I'll try again, slowly and in steps.

In the 1968 book "Chariot of the Gods" a convicted con artist called Erik Von Daniken displayed two photos together and asked "Contact or Coincidence" . The first photo was a Mayan stone relief of a "king" going to heaven. He compared this to a photo of an astronaut reclining in a space ship. He noted similarities such as the reclining position, the flames at the bottom. controls panels, etc. The photo Von Daniken supplied was specifically cropped and taken at an angle so these coincidences seemed apparent to anyone. It was a con to sell books that he wrote in gaol.

Anyone who bothered to observe the Mayan relief themselves, and in full, would notice that Von Daniken rotated the picture and cropped out of the photo elements that made obvious the motifs were trees, not control panels, the flames were a funeral pyre, etc. Erik Von Daniken became the laughing stock of the planet and debunking books such as "Crash Go the Chariots" became best sellers.

Indeed Gary Larson's cartoon, that I posted earlier, takes its humour from this exact event as only the incredibly stupid would believe in it.

In 2012 you posted on this skeptic forum, which has the banner "promoting critical thinking", pictures from a "woo" website of yet more Mayan artwork that had cropped and edited photos of Balinese artwork that also edited out anything that wasn't consistent with the author's con. ( ie Barongs, Ragnas and other Hindu motifs). You then asked us, based on this tainted evidence, if this was evidence of "contact or coincidence?" and forbade us to offer you extrinsic evidence from real history books and actual photos.

So upon reading your post, a member of this forum would think, "poor boy he isn't firing on full thrusters" and also because you are a 9/11 Truther, assumptions about your "critical thinking skills" placed you on the left side of the bell curve. Despite many attempts to explain this to you...you still didn't understand what you have done. In fact you said "I would show you how I will out think you. The challenge is there." and "Matthew, you are not a skeptic" .

This is why I linked you to Wikipedia's Dunning Kruger web page, in the hope you would pickup that something was wrong. Frankly, I thought you would have "gotten it" with the Gary Larson cartoon, but you won't even talk about it, as you know it mocks your opening post, but you don't really understand how. Sadly, there may be an issue concerning your "processing power" hindering you from understanding that your opening post is complete rubbish no matter how many times anyone explained it to you and thus you will never "get it".


salomed wrote: Show me the money, honey.


Space ship.jpg



You cannot explain why my OP text was stupid. You have not.

Joke.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
tecpaocelotl
Poster
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:02 am
Custom Title: That One Guy
Location: Cali

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by tecpaocelotl » Wed Aug 15, 2012 3:01 pm

And speaking of Pacal and mouthed doors ways, here's the original tomb cover:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/ ... akal-2.jpg

I highlighted the mouthed doorway here:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/ ... al-2-1.jpg
"Don't Demonstrate, Infiltrate! From within you can help those without." -Jorge Le Rand

"Tehan tohtocazqueh to tamatcayotl can cachi chicahuac." -David Vazquez
We continue our culture with more strength.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by salomed » Sun Aug 19, 2012 3:17 pm

Matthew, I not you still havent answered why my OP was "stupid". This is the third time asking you to justify your dogmatic slander.


To refresh you:

salomed wrote:Again, what is stupid about these words here:

salomed wrote:I don't put much credence in the text, but the images are pretty amazingly similar.

Of course it could be coincidental parallel progress but I think that the striking similarity, especialy in the aesthetic - rather than merely the structural (pyramyds/arches etc..) - warrants some kind of understanding.

http://alternatenewsmedia2012.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/suppressed-by-scholars-twin-ancient-cultures-on-opposite-sides-of-the-pacific/

It raises another interesting question, even assuming you think its just coincidence and that is:

What would your threshold of similarity be before you say "Wowzers, the Balinese and the Maya must have had either contact or an antecedent cultural root."

Isn't the world interesting!


So? What is stupid in the above text?
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30252
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:30 pm

You won't get this but I'm having a laugh.........

salomed wrote: I don't put much credence in the text, but the images are pretty amazingly similar.

anglo-saxon-angled saxaphone.png

salomed wrote: Of course it could be coincidental parallel progress but I think that the striking similarity, especialy in the aesthetic - rather than merely the structural - warrants some kind of understanding.

anglo-saxon-angled saxaphone.png

salomed wrote: It raises another interesting question, even assuming you think its just coincidence and that is: What would your threshold of similarity be before you say "Wowzers, the Saxophone and the Anglo Saxon must have had either contact or an antecedent cultural root."


Clowns don't know exactly why people laugh when they fall over, but they keep doing it anyway.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by salomed » Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:20 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:You won't get this but I'm having a laugh.........

salomed wrote: I don't put much credence in the text, but the images are pretty amazingly similar.

anglo-saxon-angled saxaphone.png

salomed wrote: Of course it could be coincidental parallel progress but I think that the striking similarity, especialy in the aesthetic - rather than merely the structural - warrants some kind of understanding.

anglo-saxon-angled saxaphone.png

salomed wrote: It raises another interesting question, even assuming you think its just coincidence and that is: What would your threshold of similarity be before you say "Wowzers, the Saxophone and the Anglo Saxon must have had either contact or an antecedent cultural root."


Clowns don't know exactly why people laugh when they fall over, but they keep doing it anyway.


Again, I note, you have not explained why you called my OP "stupid".

We have been here before, you get cornered, you get aggressive and sour and distracting.

But this time you are specifically cornered tow two specific claims you made which we both know you cant justify because the OP was reasonable and well stated, including stating a suggested method.

Shame upon you.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30252
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:31 pm

salomed wrote:Again, I note, you have not explained why you called my OP "stupid".
I have explained it many times. You just don't understand as you are thick. To make it easy for you, I will go through your idiotic activities point by point.

Were the photos you asked us to review tainted evidence Yes or No? .
You linked us to a "woo website" that had a carefully edited range of photos that did not include imagery that was obviously not similar to Mayan stone work. Even the "woo site" made hilarious errors such as including a photo of an 19th "European" century brick wall, with stone face reliefs and compared it to a Mayan stone lintel gate way from the 6th to 9th century. This was not objective evidence. This is a "con-artist" tricking idiots, with the mind of a child, and included hilarious claims like "this mystery is not only being ignored by American scholars, it’s being suppressed." and one of the grossest academic omissions. and my favourite "By controlling major academic institutions and the mass media, a vastly wealthy elite group of powerful corporate families is successfully hiding historical and spiritual truths of our ancient past"

So then, like the 9/11 Truther that you are, you then present this tainted evidence to us an start saying "Contact or coincidence" and then demand that we don't look up extrinsic evidence that shows the photos you presented were simply tainted evidence. You also didn't read the article yourself which was written by a man who seeks hidden Masonic codes in medieval churches (but seems unaware that Masons operate from medieval guild houses which are still all over europe.)


Do you agree that you knowingly introduced bogus and tainted evidence to support your contention on this forum. Yes or No?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30252
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:17 am

salomed wrote:Again, I note, you have not explained why you called my OP "stupid".
The next step is to show that you have not applied any "critical thinking" to your opening post. You will see religious people giving "evidence for a god" on this forum and we can simply say "Which god?" because the religious people haven't narrowed down their evidence to support their particular god. This is called "fuzzy thinking". You have done exactly the same.

Are any of the so called "similarities" unique to only Mayan & Balinese culture?
Well the obvious answer is "no" but you didn't think that far. In fact you went out of your way to stop us looking at extrinsic evidence. If the similarities are not unique to Mayan and Balinese culture then, could not there be closer set of coincidental simularities with another culture? Isn't this the first step in critical thinking? Why didn't you do this? (Indeed Bali and India share more artwork simularities as they both have hindu artwork, but you ignored that for some reason)

mayan bali.JPG


Secondly, you are pretending that you are trying to discover some "rule" for applying to all similarities. That would be a waste of time. Every different scenario being reviewed should be reviewed using evidence unique or existing to the environment that the subject matter rests in. For example, try put forward your proposed "rule" that can be applied to both "Mayan & Bali" and the applied to "shark & dolphin" below...

shark dolphin.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by salomed » Tue Aug 21, 2012 5:47 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:I have explained it many times.


Demonstrably false.

You just don't understand as you are thick.


Abuse. Ad hominem. Demonstrable error.

Were the photos you asked us to review tainted evidence Yes or No? .


Perhaps they were, of course. But it was not a fact given before investigation as that would be circular reasoning.

Perhaps some where and some where not. There were many images on the site.

You linked us to a "woo website" that had a carefully edited range of photos that did not include imagery that was obviously not similar to Mayan stone work.


Again, this is circular reasoning, which you are embarrassingly guilty of. To spell it out:

It is a fallacious reasoning to contain or in any sense influence a conclusion using premises that are themselves influenced(entailed etc) by that conclusion, as you have done above.


Even the "woo site" made hilarious errors such as including a photo of an 19th "European" century brick wall, with stone face reliefs and compared it to a Mayan stone lintel gate way from the 6th to 9th century. This was not objective evidence.


I agree, nor did I say it was. I started the OP as a rather loose question, nowhere did I make any claims to the status of the images as "evidence".

So, yet again, you misrepresent my position; another thing you do often.

This is a "con-artist" tricking idiots, with the mind of a child, and included hilarious claims like "this mystery is not only being ignored by American scholars, it’s being suppressed." and one of the grossest academic omissions. and my favourite "By controlling major academic institutions and the mass media, a vastly wealthy elite group of powerful corporate families is successfully hiding historical and spiritual truths of our ancient past"


Right, I agree, I even said as much in my OP; "I dont put much creedence in the text."

So then, like the 9/11 Truther that you are, you then present this tainted evidence to us an start saying "Contact or coincidence" and then demand that we don't look up extrinsic evidence that shows the photos you presented were simply tainted evidence.


You misrepresent me again. I made no such "demands". You are being fraudulent. again.


You also didn't read the article yourself which was written by a man who seeks hidden Masonic codes in medieval churches (but seems unaware that Masons operate from medieval [i]guild houses which are still all over europe.)


I suspect in your arrogance you didnt actually read my OP. You misrepresent me again, zzzz... I made it very clear that I put no "creedence" in the text.

The text was opinion/commentary to what I though and think are interesting similarities between the two cultures; most of the text seems nonsense to me.


Do you agree that you knowingly introduced bogus and tainted evidence to support your contention on this forum. Yes or No?


No your honour.

I also agree that you cannot show me anywhere I did this.

You really are clutching at staws (and strawmen) here.

I see your next post awaits.... I haven't read it yet.. I can imagine it will be replete with nasty little snides and embarresing little circular dialectical wet patches.... into the frey!
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by salomed » Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:09 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:The next step is to show that you have not applied any "critical thinking" to your opening post.


My OP asked a group of people, many of whome I respect as thinkers, many of whome answered thoughtfully, to give their judgement on what does appear to be similarities. In what sense was that critical or uncritial in the thinking sense?

I found (on a website) an unexplained phenomena, at least to me.
I asked a comunity of people who, by definition, have a skeptical interest in unexplained phenomena.

You were the one who got all nasty and petty, not me, not any of the others who joined in.


You will see religious people giving "evidence for a god" on this forum and we can simply say "Which god?" because the religious people haven't narrowed down their evidence to support their particular god. This is called "fuzzy thinking". You have done exactly the same.


That is just bogus. Utterly bogus. Its also an associative falacy yada yada yawn...

Are any of the so called "similarities" unique to only Mayan & Balinese culture?
Well the obvious answer is "no" but you didn't think that far.


Very circular reasoning. The "obvious answer" is exactly what I was obviously seeking opinion on by asking with my OP.

In fact you went out of your way to stop us looking at extrinsic evidence.


Again you misrepresent me. Where did I do this?


If the similarities are not unique to Mayan and Balinese culture then, could not there be closer set of coincidental simularities with another culture? Isn't this the first step in critical thinking?


Matthew, I even stated that in the title of the OP.

Indeed Bali and India share more artwork simularities as they both have hindu artwork, but you ignored that for some reason,


Non sequitur. They might be idential, this doesnt change the other potential pairing.

Secondly, you are pretending that you are trying to discover some "rule" for applying to all similarities.
That would be a waste of time. Every different scenario being reviewed should be reviewed using evidence unique or existing to the environment that the subject matter rests in.


I think having any kind of metric for any kind of comparrison is a good tool to have. I am mystified as to why anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of methodology would be so certain this is a waste of time. Odd.


For example, try put forward your proposed "rule" that can be applied to both "Mayan & Bali" and the applied to "shark & dolphin" below...


Ummm.... how about we ask eveyone in the world to vote on "How similar do you think A and B are?" and then puit it all into a spreadsheet, for all images, ever.

Or maybe start a self-adaptive computer program to compare A and B images and give a value as a %.

Or maybe get a bunch of school kids to list similarities between A and B images.

I think in either case we would fine that the images in the site I linked to had closer similarities than images of say, Bali art and the art of H R geiger.

Anyways, I think we will need to agree to disagree here. I dont think my OP was at all stupid, you havent given the slightest reason to think it was.


You are clearly clever and yet you make mistakes a ten year old with a rudeimentary understaning of reason would not make (circularity, assosication, strawmen, ad hominem...).

You come over as a nasty man who likes to argue nastily. I think you have spent too long arguing with neonazis so when it comes to debating with normal people your attitude is, frankly, vile.

I am sure you are not ashamed, but I believe you should be.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30252
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:29 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Were the photos you asked us to review tainted evidence Yes or No? .
Salomed wrote: Perhaps they were.......
Oh so you didn't actually check the woo site before posting it here? Oh... so you didn't read the sentence from the website "By controlling major academic institutions and the mass media, a vastly wealthy elite group of powerful corporate families is successfully hiding historical and spiritual truths of our ancient past"
You really are an idiot!

Salomed wrote:But it was not a fact given before investigation as that would be circular reasoning.
You mean "I'm so stupid I didn't even read the woo website's "woo" text to see if it was "woo" before linking the same woo website here"

Salomed wrote:Perhaps some where and some where not. There were many images on the site.
I see....so you didn't look at all the images yourself but asked us to look at them and comment. Gosh that's not exactly "critical thinking" is it?

Salomed wrote: Right, I agree, I even said as much in my OP; "I dont put much creedence in the text."
......but you thought the photos supplied by the same guy who wrote the text, in the same article, that refers to the photos, were unbiased? Are you really that stupid?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30252
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:43 am

salomed wrote: You are clearly clever and yet you make mistakes a ten year old with a rudeimentary understaning of reason would not make (circularity, assosication, strawmen, ad hominem...).


The first word is rudimentary. The next word is understanding. The third word is association.

Please take baby steps, and learn to read and write before attempting to dig yourself out of the hole you have made such an effort to bury yourself in. You are simply another "wooist" 9/11 Truther idiot posting rubbish. You don't have to go to such a great lengths to remind us, although it is entertaining watching you squirm.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 14060
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Coincidence or contact? What do you think?

Post by Major Malfunction » Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:22 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Secondly, you are pretending that you are trying to discover some "rule" for applying to all similarities. That would be a waste of time. Every different scenario being reviewed should be reviewed using evidence unique or existing to the environment that the subject matter rests in. For example, try put forward your proposed "rule" that can be applied to both "Mayan & Bali" and the applied to "shark & dolphin" below...

You forgot the icthyosaur.

Image

In biology it's called convergent evolution. There are lots of examples. The idea is organisms that occupy a similar environmental/ecological niche will be shaped by those forces/challenges, and thus, often assume similarly efficient morphologies/strategies.

The shark/icthyosaur/dolphin comparison is the pin-up girl example for this theory. They occupy the same environment (water), the same niche (large predators), and face the same challenges (catching fast prey). It's {!#%@} obvious.

There's a theory that's been banging around for a while that human cultures are often shaped by their environments. This guy disagrees, and this guy disagrees with the guy that disagrees.

Psychology. Nature versus nurture. I, personally, think it's probably a bit of both.

However, architecture is the same all the world 'round. It occupies the same environment (not a pile of rubble), the same niche (some sort of function &/or appeal), and the same challenges (gravity versus material strength, and availability of material).

Any moron can make a pile of {!#%@} and figure that a pile of {!#%@} equals a pile of {!#%@}. Thus, pyramids.

Three sticks, two pointing up, and one on top, holds {!#%@} up. Not a quantum leap to stone pillar & lintel doorways.

Arches. Now arches are interesting. They indicate that the builders have an (at least innate, and quite probably mathematical) understanding of material strength and the incumbent forces they're dealing with.

Monumentality, symmetry, and grotesquery are ubiquitous human psychological traits.

NOT aliens.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.