November 2, 2010: Calleman's Mayan calendar paradigm and the 7th day of the 8th wave

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
This thread has to be the most stupid thing I've ever written, and I demand an apology from.... er, um... from myself.

meanwhile...

Although this thread deserves the Runner Up Award for the second most stupid thing I've ever written:

Palin and V's Diana: Separated at Birth?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8f6c24510592.jpg[/atsimg]

I think the discussion is pointless, because you seem to know more about what I said than myself. Where exactly did I said that you shouldn't question anything Calleman says? "Debunk" is very different from "question" or "challenge". It seems that Calleman's work is a great challenge that your mind cannot accept.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by ElevenFlint

 

He makes connections that are obviously false such as suggesting a Mayan knowledge of galaxies. They were unaware of galaxies. They appear to have known about changes int he positions of constellations, but were not aware of the cause, which is precession of the equinoxes.

And how exactly do you know what they were aware of?

reply to post by ElevenFlint

It seems that Calleman's work is a great challenge that your mind cannot accept.

Avoid the ad hominem attacks or I'll report you.

Calleman's work is not a challenge. It seems pruposely written at an elementary school level so that many people have accessed to the ridiculous claims.

And how exactly do you know what they were aware of?

Whereas Calleman restricts his misrepresentations to a few pieces of Mayan writing, other archaeologists look at the greater picture.

Do the Mayans ever write about galaxies? No.
Do the Mayans ever report why the positions of constellations are changing? No.
Were the Mayans ever aware that star positions were changing over time? Probably.
Did the Mayans know anything about the different distances to stars? No.

So how do real archaeologists know what the Mayans wrote about. They read lots, and lots of texts and develop an understanding of the culture and its knowledge.

What I find interesting is that after chastising people for questioning Calleman you summarize with this comment to "question everything". It sounds to me like bible thumping where everything can be challenged except for certain holy words such as Calleman's.

I want to repost this statement I made, because I believe it more since than before.

The post had an obvious conflict: 1) do not challenge Calleman, 2) challenge everything.

Calleman's work is academic quality, because it cannot be challenged. It is either lacking in rigor or religious in nature. I find that many 2012 and Calleman and Sitchin and Velikovsky followers act more like adherents to a religious order than students of a testable claim. If Any of these people have quality material then it should stand challenges. None of these authors have written quality material. It all fails to withstand challenges.