October 25, 2014, 02:13:22 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: New Membership Currently Closed.
 
   Boards Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: E.P. Grondine and Me  (Read 6432 times)
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Posts: 236


« on: March 06, 2010, 12:49:51 AM »

I'm involved in a Q&A session over at The Daily Grail related to cometary impacts:

http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/epgrondine/2010/3/Did-comet-impact-kill-mammoths#comment-44341
Logged
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Posts: 236


« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2010, 11:53:15 PM »

Here are the lessons learned from that strange encounter (of some kind):

1) The field formerly known as Catastrophism has been taken over by Academics (and ones that still have a "Velikovsky Complex").  Therefore, the true impact of ancient catastrophes on human history will not be professionally researched, because known dates for catastrophes have to be harmonized with the canonized academic chronology.

2) "Experts use very sophisticated technologies", so there is little uncertainty in year dates determined by dendrology and ice-core analysis.  In other words, don't count on Academics making a reassessment of the time gap between the 4400 BC event and the 1159 BC event (to see if it might conform to a ~3150 year cycle).  This proposal "is not worthy of the reversal of a Custer Decision".  Thus saith Chief Rub-Me-Wrong-Way.

3) No matter an amateur's service to Academia, Academics will forever consider the amateur to be nothing more than a peddler of Indian snake theorem.

4) When pissed on, I can still get pissed off.  Not sure if that's a good thing or bad thing!
« Last Edit: March 13, 2010, 03:14:46 AM by Chuck-Star » Logged
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Posts: 236


« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2010, 03:04:52 AM »

I spent an hour Thursday night viewing some "training material" on dispute resolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cybacTO2hrc&feature=related
« Last Edit: March 13, 2010, 03:08:28 AM by Chuck-Star » Logged
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Posts: 236


« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2010, 01:53:59 PM »

The "Mascot Games", Round #2:

http://www.dailygrail.com/stream/2010/3/Velikovskys-Comet-Venus
Logged
Mork
Newbie
*
Posts: 31


WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2010, 04:25:26 PM »

To respond ...

1) When academia finds enough questions asked of them for which they haven't a clue, they quickly form a "consensus guess" [to be implied as fact] so they may quote each other expressly for the purpose of dismissing any views contrary to their own being as "amateurish." [for politicians, replace "amateurish" with utopic, uncompassionate, reckless, etc.] Or, more generally, the "Not invented here" syndrome in which anything not thought by the "enlightened group" is not worthy of even hearing.

2.
Quote
"Experts use very sophisticated technologies"
falls into the category I call as one of the tools for idiots [from a paper I'm writing]. Talk down to those who bother you as if they are foolish children being as condescending as possible. The quote implies that you don't have the capacity to understand what those technologies are and couldn't. Most will back down except the those who have enough determination to present their point. Truth be told, the author may or may not even have even a fundamental understanding apart from what he read in "Carbon Dating Comics." He could be using the "condescending" tool in hopes of staving off the exposure of ignorance. This tool is usually coupled with the "sarcasm tool." Refer to any idea in a sarcastic nature to give the appearance of useless value.

3. Not all think that way but, a significant portion, if not majority do. Consider that the light bulb was invented not by an academian but, an "inventor" with a budget. Many fundamentally basic items were invented by amateurs. I've found it interesting how many of the academic elitists forget the amateur contribution of what they know and use today. Don't bother me with facts, it clouds my vision of reality.

4. How true but, remember, you have the advantage here with the ability of "one upmanship." Here, you can crap all over him Cheesy
Logged
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Posts: 236


« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2010, 11:54:46 PM »

Mork,

One of the things that amuses (and sometimes angers) me is Academia's inability to study Academia!  Definitely looking forward to your "dissertation" along those lines!

Thanks for egging me on in the "Mascot Wars", but I'm going to let this one go.  The forum over at the Daily Grail isn't organized to support any sustained discussion (or whatever it is called these days).
Logged
Truth Seeker
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 56


« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2010, 05:56:44 PM »

It seems that wisdom teachings can never prove anything to a person that won't try to understand them. I would say that the second century orthodox father Irenaeus was a very intelligent man, skilled in retoric and debate. However I also see that what he helped to promote, skillfully dismissed all and any previous understanding in certain areas of thought and wisdom. His prospective helped to set back mankinds progress for the next 1000 years or so. Does that make me religious or anti religious? I guess that depends on ones agenda.
Logged
Truth Seeker
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 56


« Reply #7 on: March 15, 2010, 06:55:47 PM »

I should add for those who may not know, that Ireaenus also sometimes known as the heritic hunter, made a point to dismiss all the then known ancient teachings. His writings were used, well into the next centuries as a textbook by later orthodox clergy and polititians  to justify destroying books, knowledge and the people who possesed them.
Logged
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Posts: 236


« Reply #8 on: March 15, 2010, 09:44:55 PM »

Academia is divided into many disciplines and further divided into camps within those disciplines.  But one thing they all have in common is chronology.  This precludes any one discipline (much less persons outside Academia) from messing with that chronology.  So, highly educated and intelligent people behave as total morons when it comes to this particular subject.  Trying to adjust ancient chronology, other than a few years here and there, is an Academic taboo.  

TS, your other analogy about music is also very relevant.  Modify an accepted genre slightly and people may go "Lady Gaga" over it.   Adjust it radically and everybody thinks it sounds aweful.

I had this sinking feeling when it looked like the timeline was getting compressed to the point where Pepi associates with Sargon.  I knew this was a truly hopeless situation.  But then I saw all that amazing geological data on the date 1159 BC and how catastrophic is was.  Maybe there was a chance of settling the debate, or at least obtaining a smidgeon of credibility!  But no, Academia is not interested in considering anything THAT radical regardless of the evidence for it.  It's completely out-of-bounds.

What to do?
« Last Edit: March 17, 2010, 12:32:40 AM by Chuck-Star » Logged
Yuya Joe College
Newbie
*
Posts: 33


« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2010, 11:46:37 PM »

Charles,

I read the "dialogue" between yourself and E.P. over by The Grail and found that you both seemed to be talking at and above each other. My educated guess would be that you have far more knowledge of the historical personas of Biblical figures, and he has a deeper understanding of the regularity of comet cycles and debris impacts. If my perception is true, it is good that he expects potential trouble in 2022 rather than 2012, as meteoroids and asteroids up to a certain size can be deflected with existing technology...

It is also possible that he was referring to impact chronology and you were referring to Dynastic chronology, so even in that area there may be room for melding of the research.

Peace 2 All,

Yuya Joe College

Logged
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Posts: 236


« Reply #10 on: March 16, 2010, 12:41:58 AM »

Wouldn't 2022 be within the "window" of a 2012 scenario event?  Grondine's dismissal of 2012 research seems arbitrary.  We're all looking in a glass darkly now, but the WISE satellite may re-write the book on catastrophes this year.  The Daily Grail featured this article today:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7429335/Search-on-for-Death-Star-that-throws-out-deadly-comets.html

Logged
Truth Seeker
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 56


« Reply #11 on: March 16, 2010, 11:45:44 PM »

Charles, I'm sure you are no stranger to controversy and/or being dismissed by those who have an ax to grind. It would also seem to me that you've put this partictular subject to rest in your own mind, but there are a couple of points that I need to get off my chest. It has to do with what Joes post was concerning, what I will refer here to as "reconciling different disciplines". After all if science, history, spiritual awarness, and philosophy strive for harmonic perfection, wouldn't we all have a solid basis for mutual agreement for mankind to move forward and deal with adversity in a cooperative manner!

So, when E.P. suggests that you are coming from a religionist point of view, it is like he is saying that to me. Notwithstanding his dismissial of Thesosophy as a contrived farce (or something to that effect), I found offensive.

 It's funny to me, that my older brother (who holds degrees in mathmatics/astromony/history/political science) thought of me as a right wing religious fanitiac. Now he has been a self proclamied athiest and commiunist as long as I can remember. Recently we found a medium of reconciling different disciplines by discussing Pyhagorean astromony/mathmatics. Now he wasn't very embracing of the fact that Pathoragoras saw those subjects as akin to God! I even realized he isn't really an athesit, but has a beef with religion in general, which opened up another avenue of good discussion. On the other hand, I've recently have had discussions with both Catholic and Fundamentaltalist adhearents, who thought me ungodly, and liberal. The latter was self imposed because I walked out of their service. The pastor made a comment that Thomas Paines' writings (Age of Reason) should "be burned in the depths of Hell" After the service the ministers questioned me as to what my problem was, my question was " Have you ever read it"? They were honest to admit that they haven't read it, but they will stand by the quote he (the speaker) used. Looking them in the eye, I suggested it was foolish to comment on things they don't know about first hand. They recanted, and we shook hands. One of them saw me in a store a couple of weeks back and made a point of saying "hello", and even remembered my name. Now he didn't ask when I'd be back to their church, and I didn't volunteer to return!

I didn't mean to go on like this, its just that in my experence being true to ones self isn't always very easy. But there are rewards, and one may never know the impact that we may have on any given person or thought. Even if we are missunderstood!
Logged
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Posts: 236


« Reply #12 on: March 17, 2010, 12:30:38 AM »

You've been flirting with futility too!

But, you had the good sense to get out of a no-win situation.  I just feel stupid for taking the bait.  Oh well.

Here's some links related to the Venus orbiter whose mission has been extended through December 2012!

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Venus_Express/SEMCN973R8F_0.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009DPS....41.6001S
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17534-mysterious-bright-spot-found-on-venus.html
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/vexag/express_calendar.shtml

This web site has some nifty graphics.  I somehow missed it in the previous Venus Cycle round-up:

http://www.lunarplanner.com/HCpages/Venus.html

« Last Edit: March 17, 2010, 12:33:59 AM by Chuck-Star » Logged
Ronald L. Hughes
Newbie
*
Posts: 47


« Reply #13 on: March 17, 2010, 08:35:48 PM »

Thank you Charles, and others, for making the very true point, that it is "the chronology" of the past that is now considered as mostly "sacrosanct!"  You are correct to mention that these chronology experts will argue for days a movement of merely a few years, in a chronology concerning events that took place in the current scheme over 3,500 years ago!  A good example is the "ANE" (Ancient Near East) site, which is one I regularlly read!

On other "history forums", any posts that make radical movements of the chronology of ancient times, to either be immediately removed and a warning issued to the poster, or these discussions may be listed or posted in a special area reserved for such heresay such as "Alternative History", etc.!  Which was originally, I guess, merely for posters to make "What if?" posts; that is, "What if Caesar had not been murdered?", etc.

What is stranger still, is the fact that in the basics our modern chronology has been little altered since the times of Joseph Justus Scaliger!  If you are not familar with him, you can learn a little here;  http://www.timelineindex.com/content/view/1459

But, the ultimate world chronology was devised by the Rev. John Blair, and published entitled "The Chronology and History of the World", and later revised!  But, essentially most all dates were set in stone, about this time, I.e. 1774 CE!  It is upon this epic publication that almost all of the dates currently in use today are based!

But, one could look to this book; 
http://books.google.com/books?id=WCIZAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Chronology+and+History+of+the+World&source=bl&ots=l0Fnl26GGc&sig=x9gd63ygntbCRZz37FwAuCkbXNQ&hl=en&ei=v0ShS6jnC8uVtgf1h9zyBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CB0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Which was a revision to the original chronology of Blair, and in it we find find numerous mistakes that had been considered as fact, even though modern scholarshhip and recent finds had managed to correct them!  But, what we really do not know is wether the originals were mistaken or the new information was based upon material that was incorrect?

History is replete with the finding of fraudulant materials, fakes, forgeries, etc,.!  Many have been exposed as such, and others have been proven as factual!  The problem is, that for truth we still do not know the false from the real!

But, by and large, by 1880-1900 most everything we today considered as "safe" dates, were known!  Now the "experts" argue over years, months and even days!  But, it seems our oldest chronologers were so sure of their facts that they actually said certain events occured in year such and such, and in the month of such and such, and on the day, and at the hour!, etc.


Regards,

Ron
Logged

"Most of history is bunk"  Henry Ford
Chuck-Star
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Posts: 236


« Reply #14 on: March 18, 2010, 01:24:27 AM »

Thanks Ron, excellent points.  There are elements that are common to all attempts to revise chronology.  I did a quick google search just to see if I could find anything new on radio-carbon or tree-ring (dendrology) dating of ancient wood samples.  Didn't find much.  There is still the excellent page on the Velikovsky Archive site:

http://www.varchive.org/ce/tc14.htm

As far as I know, Academia has not explained the anomaly of so many radio-carbon dates being hundreds of years too low/young.  Similarly, for the boats of Khufu, they have no explanation as to why the radio-carbon dates are 1000 years too high/old.  It is of course because these boats were not built by the 4th Dynasty pharoah (and neither were the Giza Pyramids), but belong to a much earlier "dynastic period".

The testing/analysis of large items like cedar beams in buildings is apparently not very effective for dating purposes.  Cedars of Lebanon could be a 1,000 years old or more when cut.  And these were prime items for recycling.  Pharaohs that wished to build on a majestic scale but didn't have the time or budget shamelessly pirated the structures of their predecessors.  (We just mentioned King Tut stealing building blocks from one of Akhenaten's monuments!)

Even if the dendrology dating technique is bullet-proof (and I have my doubts), it is still a matter of guesswork as to where to place an isolated specimen of wood in the tree-ring time line.  Obviously, the more rings that the specimen has the more confidence in dating, but the larger pieces are, again, subject to other forms of uncertainty.

We need an E.P. Grondine type of personality to pester academia and congress until a probe is launched!!
« Last Edit: March 18, 2010, 01:29:35 AM by Chuck-Star » Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC

Clear Mind Theme, by burNMind with modifications by: WebDude
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.274 seconds with 16 queries.