Ice Age Proto Writing system discovered

Im giving you a demonstration of your own world of Academia and how it treats ‘out there ‘ ideas.
Nice try trying to pretend it’s me that doesn’t understand my own point ..

He's a geologist - a geologist is NOT an archaeologist - do you not understand that? You seem confused?

At least we get that clear, you as an archaeologist can’t efficiently comment on the geological aspects of say the YDIH for instance , because by your own admission , you know FA about it .
You can’t categorically say, for instance your fav phrase “ Atlantis didn’t exist “ as you aren’t a geologist.
At least that’s cleared that up for everyone then.

Go and help Harte with his Clown make up .. a reply to: Hanslune

originally posted by: bluesfreak
Im giving you a demonstration of your own world of Academia and how it treats ‘out there ‘ ideas.
Nice try trying to pretend it’s me that doesn’t understand my own point ..

]

You clearly don't understand academica. I presume you've never been to an archaeological conference? Guess what happens? People argue and even yell at one another, one time there was fist fight over pottery classification. Great stuff.

At least we get that clear, you as an archaeologist can’t efficiently comment on the geological aspects of say the YDIH for instance , because by your own admission , you know FA about it .

No I talk about anything I want to especially things I know about and you clearly do not. All you are doing is shouting abuse and avoiding the conclusion - the conclusion is that you're a fool trying to yell at people who know more than you and that annoys you, so you a childishly trying to shut us up - and doing a poor job of it ....lol

You're a self proclaim clueless individual so I guess you cannot comment on anything then? Chuckle

Atlantis didn’t exist due to there being no evidence for its existence. That is pretty simple.

So, what else don't you understand and would like me to correct you on?

You are a joke . I too can talk about anything I wish to too, and you don’t get to decide or posit what you think I know about .
So far I don’t think you’ve corrected me on anything at all. It’s all about ego with you and clown boy, isn’t it?
I dont wish to shut you up at all, how pointless, I leave that stuff to you and your pseudo academic mate .
Theres plenty of things in this world I know more about than you , but I don’t really care .
I will always challenge people like you on here, your rudeness to others over the years I have witnessed for a long long time , people post and then you and your jerk buddy’s immediate response is always to gob straight into their face like a llama.
If it’s all about “ I know more than you” to you, you are here for the wrong reason . But I think we all know that anyway judging by your rudeness .
I’ll be as rude to you as you and clown-boy are to others , so swallow your medicine you big baby .

a reply to: Hanslune

No I talk about anything I want to especially things I know about and you clearly do not. All you are doing is shouting abuse and avoiding the conclusion

You mean the conclusion I arrived at when I first posted in this thread? That Harte decided to bring Hancock into the very first post to create a distracting narrative around a very interesting discovery that had nothing to do with Hancock. But was found by someone ‘not from your school’.
We all know your pathetic games that you and pseudo-Academic-boy perpetrate here.
Divert, attack, insult, claim ownership.

This from a set of people who have NO EVIDENCE whatsoever about the GP building timeframe , but who cling so desperately to disputed and made up figures and completely made up ramp theories, and who will tear into you and lecture you for doing the same with other subjects . Nasty, self absorbed hypocrites.
More comedy gold.
a reply to: Hanslune

a reply to: bluesfreak

Hear, hear. Well said. If i had the ability to give you an award for that post i would.

originally posted by: Hanslune


Atlantis didn’t exist due to there being no evidence for its existence. That is pretty simple.

If we're talking about that time period, only a very small amount of stuff has been found from any culture of that time. And usually only when a researcher was looking for it specifically.

We know there must have been hunter gatherers living throughout most of the world, but we've only got proof of a few of them living in a few specific areas.

If evidence is required for a hypothesis to be on the table, should we not assume most of the planet was uninhabited? No HG. Nothing. Empty?

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Hanslune


Atlantis didn’t exist due to there being no evidence for its existence. That is pretty simple.

If we're talking about that time period, only a very small amount of stuff has been found from any culture of that time. And usually only when a researcher was looking for it specifically.

Apparently, you don't have the background to make that statement, since it is blatantly false.

Harter

Apparently, you don't have the background to make that statement, since it is blatantly false.

What does anyone’s background have to do with any kind of statement?
You’re a math teacher, so you don’t have the background either .
What a preposterous thing to say.

All the Tas Tepeler sites in Turkey are from this time period, and recent arrowheads and weaponry in the USA found to late Pleistocene 15,000 years bp have pushed things back further than thought .
“ Things just keep getting older and older” as Graham Hancock says .
Oh and it’s true, too.
What’s your point here?

a reply to: Harte

originally posted by: bluesfreak

Apparently, you don't have the background to make that statement, since it is blatantly false.

What does anyone’s background have to do with any kind of statement?
You’re a math teacher, so you don’t have the background either .
What a preposterous thing to say.

All the Tas Tepeler sites in Turkey are from this time period, and recent arrowheads and weaponry in the USA found to late Pleistocene 15,000 years bp have pushed things back further than thought .
“ Things just keep getting older and older” as Graham Hancock says .
Oh and it’s true, too.
What’s your point here?

a reply to: Harte

This statement:
"only a very small amount of stuff has been found from any culture of that time."
Skads of stuff have been found from cultures of that time and earlier.

Harte

A question for Harte and Hans:

Is this amateur student and decipherer of these markings
‘Fringe’ ?

originally posted by: bluesfreak
A question for Harte and Hans:

Is this amateur student and decipherer of these markings
‘Fringe’ ?

He analyzed data, his analysis is something that hadn't been done on cave paintings - Archaeology either didn't get around to it or no one made a proposal (for a grant) to do it until this guy did.
That's not fringe. He isn't denying, omitting or ignoring any facts.

Harte

He analyzed data, his analysis is something that hadn't been done on cave paintings - Archaeology either didn't get around to it or no one made a proposal (for a grant) to do it until this guy did. That's not fringe. He isn't denying, omitting or ignoring any facts.

You’ve got to be given a little credit for how sneakily you allow yourself to move the goalposts, i’ll give you that .
“ archaeology didn’t get round to it “ translates as “ no one had thought of it “ .

‘Fringe’ means from the edges , the outside of something; that ‘outside ‘ in our case, is “academia’ .
This clever chap ( whose work you cleverly decided to demean instantly by associating him with G Hancock , when Hancock has nothing to do with this story ) was most certainly from ‘outside ‘ academia , even though they ‘let him in’ once they realised his concept had huge implications they hadn’t figured out themselves .

Mishandling and misuse of data is a personal decision but I guess in your black and white world it’s easier to tar one entire group of people with the same brush . For ease.
As long as you can prove to us that ‘mainstream ‘ academia never does such a thing, and never has , your argument is sound.

Just glad that you are part of the best ‘Archao-Comedy ‘ duo on the internet .
Keep up the good work, the laughs you provide me with ,your brave hypocritical style , often brighten my day.
a reply to: Harte

originally posted by: bluesfreak

He analyzed data, his analysis is something that hadn't been done on cave paintings - Archaeology either didn't get around to it or no one made a proposal (for a grant) to do it until this guy did. That's not fringe. He isn't denying, omitting or ignoring any facts.

You’ve got to be given a little credit for how sneakily you allow yourself to move the goalposts, i’ll give you that .
“ archaeology didn’t get round to it “ translates as “ no one had thought of it “ .

However you want to phrase it.
The analysis he used isn't a common method in Archaeology - they are hardly data analysts.
Anyway, I answered your question. Did you have another one?

Harte

Ah, however I want to phrase it . I see .
Yes it’s plainly obvious to all.




a reply to: Harte

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: Byrd

In fresh water systems. Were humans definitely trapping fish 20,000 years ago?

I recall an article about fishing weirs in Australia and thought that the oldest was older than that. However, in North America, weirs date to at least the end of the last Ice Age

I was using deer as an example, Europe had migratory species which are featured in these cave paintings.

I don't think those are migratory. Bison in America were, but I'm not sure that the forest bison (which are a different species) in Europe were. They're petty cold adapted and move into and out of forests - but not as a massive group. Deer (elk) aren't migratory, though. Birds do migrate.

Mass migrations of land animals seem to require a large area of steppes or plains like we have in America and Africa.

If you're nomadic you're not going to make fish traps for salmon in a lake in mid summer are you. My point was it doesn't matter where you are in western Europe you do your hunter gathering if you have have calender knowledge and know a bit geography.

There's absolutely no point in being nomadic if all that's achieved is randomly successful hunts, small fish and shellfish.

Modern studies of people such as the San people (aka Bushmen) show just that, however. Their diet is more dependent on root and plant foods and hunts aren't always successful. Fishing weirs, however, are usually coastal and don't depend on seasons as much. River weirs are often designed to take advantage of lower river flow (drier seasons.)

And the weirs don't really show what seasons they were used in.

The people did use fire and other methods to "enhance" areas to bring animals in so that they'd be there when the people wandered back through. I'll have to find the articles later.

Just a note: Rock art (one of my interests) is one of those areas in archaeology where non-academics often make significant finds or contributions. The sites are often hard to access (or are on private land) so it's often a relatively wealthy amateur who manages to fund their own travel and research. Few universities have programs to study rock art.

There are several rock art foundations around the world, and interested archaeologists often team up with them. The Texas Rock Art Foundation is one of those; the only school for rock art that I know of is in a teeny place in the southern Texas desert... and I do mean TEENY! I've been there; it's basically a house in a town of a population under 1,000. Shumla was founded and is run by an archaeologist (PhD) with a real passion for these artifacts. I don't always agree with her conclusions, but she's got one of the best research libraries on rock art anywhere.

It's a pity that there's not more books on it.

Ah... I could go on and on. Love the stuff. I really do.

I answered your question. Did you have another one?

As hard as it is for your inflated corpulent ego to comprehend, I don’t come to you for answers.
For that I look to academia first ,( but it’s plainly obvious they don’t have the answers either )
not someone who pretends to be an academic .
a reply to: Harte

originally posted by: bluesfreak

I answered your question. Did you have another one?

As hard as it is for your inflated corpulent ego to comprehend, I don’t come to you for answers.
For that I look to academia first ,( but it’s plainly obvious they don’t have the answers either )
not someone who pretends to be an academic .
a reply to: Harte

I don't pretend to be an academic, I simply have looked into why academics say what they say.
Unlike you. You remind me of the saying that when all you have is a hammer (lathe) everything looks like a nail (machined.)
Regarding your question, you now deny that you asked me, directly, this question?
That's not surprising to me.

Harte

I am fascinated with the whole Ancient Civilization subject and enjoy reading the many threads presented here on ATS.
The last thing I could be described as is an 'expert' which is why I rarely post in those threads, I just enjoy reading about the various new discoveries and theories etc.

But that's what many of them are; theories.
And to become anything more than a 'theory' anyone posting new ideas/evidence etc must surely expect to have those theories met with the utmost scrutiny and examination.

And that is exactly what the likes of Hanslane, Harte and Byrd offer.
Over the years I have read probably hundreds of threads where they have put new ideas under the microscope and discussed and debated the relative merits of the arguments being presented with its supporters.

That is exactly as it should be - it is at the very core of ATS and what it should be about.

It has been the source of countless hours of reading and enjoyment for me and hopefully will continue to be so.

You do pretend to be an academic , and you so hate being called out over it .
I too have deeply looked into why academics say what they say, and find them lacking in many many areas that they make things up on, estimate, surmise, and also have little clue about fabrication.
It’s time you were held to the same provable standard you expect others to. High time.

I notice you didn’t deny any of my ‘ignorance’ in my Lathe thread , ( I dont have any ignorance to deny about lathes as it’s my job,) I witness the ignorance you and Hans display regarding the matter.

I imagine you read it with your hands over your ears like a five year old, pretending to not see the evidence in plain sight .

I did ask you a question regarding the ‘facts ‘ you purport are ‘truths’ in your ‘boo boo’ post , but I know you don’t have any to supply , and neither does Egyptology , unfortunately .

a reply to: Harte