It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You do know that study was disproven dont you? Further analysis of Younger Dyras boundary sediments at 9 sites, released in June 2016, found no evidence of an extraterrestrial impact at the YDB. In December 2016, an analysis of nanodiamond evidence failed to uncover lonsdaleite or a spike in nanodiamond concentration at the YDB. In other words the basis for the paper was wrong. The other problems no mass extinction occurs in the fossil record.
The research is focused on one particular geological marker horizon that was deposited at the start of the Younger Dryas. Already known to be present at over fifty sites across North America, it is an unusual layer of dark grey to black carbonaceous silty clay (containing up to 8% carbon): it is referred to as the “black mat”. In some cases, such as at Murray Springs in Arizona, it directly overlays Clovis remains including hearths, tools and butchered mammoth bones.
originally posted by: Blue Shift
originally posted by: Wolfenz
he Tries the Scientific Approach, Usually at first hand
Well, not quite. He does that confirmation bias thing where he has a hypothesis, and then he intentionally seeks out evidence to confirm that hypothesis. Actual scientific method takes a hypothesis and then comes up with one or more objective tests to see if the relationship between the variables holds up or not. It might not. So it's not the same thing.
he intentionally seeks out evidence to confirm that hypothesis
Actual scientific method takes a hypothesis and then comes up with one or more objective tests to see if the relationship between the variables holds up or not
originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Wolfenz
No they dont archeologists dont try to prove a hypothesis correct they try to disprove it. Hankock knows nothing about scientific principles because hes a psychologist. He has no training in any discipline he claims to have knowledge in. In fact hes pretty much just a science fiction author. He tries to string together irrelevant facts to create a false narrative to support his hypothesis. Over and over hes benn proved wrong.
I personally loved reading his stuff but when i did i realized quickly he made stuff up. He was just an earlier version of the davinci code. Write fiction put in enough facts to make it seem real.
originally posted by: Harte
originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Wolfenz
No they dont archeologists dont try to prove a hypothesis correct they try to disprove it. Hankock knows nothing about scientific principles because hes a psychologist. He has no training in any discipline he claims to have knowledge in. In fact hes pretty much just a science fiction author. He tries to string together irrelevant facts to create a false narrative to support his hypothesis. Over and over hes benn proved wrong.
I personally loved reading his stuff but when i did i realized quickly he made stuff up. He was just an earlier version of the davinci code. Write fiction put in enough facts to make it seem real.
Hancock was a journalist, IIRC.
Harte
originally posted by: havok
Worth the time to watch.
This pretty much solidifies the notion that civilization as we know it completely changed around 13k years ago. The comet that struck the N. American continent probably completely destroyed numerous advanced civilizations around the world. I would even hazard a guess that Atlantis was one of them. The people from that time may not have had the technology we do today, but may have harnessed energy in some form that was forgotten over the years. An energy that could move those megaliths into place, and shape their walls as we see them.
Seeing the loss of those ancient maps and what information was destroyed is incredible.
We have NO idea what these people knew.
Completely fascinating subject.
originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Wolfenz
No they dont archeologists dont try to prove a hypothesis correct they try to disprove it. Hankock knows nothing about scientific principles because hes a psychologist. He has no training in any discipline he claims to have knowledge in. In fact hes pretty much just a science fiction author. He tries to string together irrelevant facts to create a false narrative to support his hypothesis. Over and over hes benn proved wrong.
I personally loved reading his stuff but when i did i realized quickly he made stuff up. He was just an earlier version of the davinci code. Write fiction put in enough facts to make it seem real.
originally posted by: Wolfenz
[
I can Say one Person that had her Name Smeared and Slandered even Her Boss in Her Team at the Site of Hueyatlaco
Shamed her , and that person is Virginia Steen-McIntyre. as Her Boss wasn't Satisfied with the Dating Results !