Dr. Semir Osmanagich Regarding Pyramids Found All Over the World

Originally posted by bowtomonkey
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

 

David Wilcock's the "Point Source Investigations

There's some pretty crazy stuff in there. I figure all you need is a lack of bias and you can be conscious of anything anywhere ... and understand. Plus for all the possible answers we wish we might have all we needed was the correct question.

I wouldn't say crazy, just unorthodox. However, in The Source Field Investigations almost everything presented is backed up with studies and research - though most of these studies and research have been buried and/or ignored by mainstream science.

The question is WHY.

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
I wouldn't say crazy, just unorthodox. However, in The Source Field Investigations almost everything presented is backed up with studies and research - though most of these studies and research have been buried and/or ignored by mainstream science.

Yeah one example is Russian physicist Professor Simon Scnoll that was published around 1985. I think it has something to do with graphs of waves not looking like a bell curve.

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Looks like you have done your homework. I've really only been awake to all these alternatives to our current mainstream science for less than a year, so I have much catching up to do.

I've been at it for about six years. One advantage I have, though, is that I'm retired so my time is my own; I don't have to go to work each day.

In my opinion, Wikipedia can not be trusted for any subject that is controversial.

For subjects that are not controversial, it is a goldmine of information. But if the subject is controversial, I don't even check it, personally. It's a waste of time.

So, for this thread, forget it!

Originally posted by Mary Rose
In my opinion, Wikipedia can not be trusted for any subject that is controversial.

For subjects that are not controversial, it is a goldmine of information. But if the subject is controversial, I don't even check it, personally. It's a waste of time.

A waste of time.

Like carving a pyramid out of a mountain in Bosnia?

Harte

Originally posted by Mary Rose
In my opinion, Wikipedia can not be trusted for any subject that is controversial.

For subjects that are not controversial, it is a goldmine of information. But if the subject is controversial, I don't even check it, personally. It's a waste of time.

So, for this thread, forget it!

I agree. Anything that that infringes upon hidden knowledge/secrets will not be uncovered in Wikipedia, if people do not recognize this they are either the uninitiated or part of the oligarchy (or it's bootlicking minions).

A great alternate source to Wiki for controversial topics is this:

The ANTI Wikipedia

Peace and good luck in your quests for the truth.

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


Have you verified Wilcock's sources or have you simply taken his word that they say what he claims? I mean Michael Cremo provided a ton of sources in Forbidden Archaeology but when you actually follow them up they don't support Cremo in any way.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Can you give one example of that?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

The account of the pressure that has been brought to bear to keep this project from going forward is disgraceful. No true scientist behaves in this manner. No true journalist, either.

The mavericks will drag the mainstream along, kicking and screaming.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

 

Have you verified Wilcock's sources or have you simply taken his word that they say what he claims? I mean Michael Cremo provided a ton of sources in Forbidden Archaeology but when you actually follow them up they don't support Cremo in any way.

I have looked at about half the studies he brings up in The Source Field Investigations and they all exist and are as he says.

I think it's safe to say that Dr. Semir Osmanagich is overcoming obstacles quite well:

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE
Can you link some examples?

ETA: The very first one I looked at, DNA teleportation, is apparently quackery. "Self" peer reviewed, never been replicated, and is nonsense junk science.

originally posted by: Harte

Originally posted by Mary Rose
In my opinion, Wikipedia can not be trusted for any subject that is controversial.

For subjects that are not controversial, it is a goldmine of information. But if the subject is controversial, I don't even check it, personally. It's a waste of time.

A waste of time.

Like carving a pyramid out of a mountain in Bosnia?

Harte

Ignoring your vacuous, unproven rhetoric, why is that a waste of time?

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: Harte

Originally posted by Mary Rose
In my opinion, Wikipedia can not be trusted for any subject that is controversial.

For subjects that are not controversial, it is a goldmine of information. But if the subject is controversial, I don't even check it, personally. It's a waste of time.

A waste of time.

Like carving a pyramid out of a mountain in Bosnia?

Harte

Ignoring your vacuous, unproven rhetoric, why is that a waste of time?

It's a mountain until proven otherwise. Since there is no proof otherwise, it's a mountain.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE
Can you link some examples?

ETA: The very first one I looked at, DNA teleportation, is apparently quackery. "Self" peer reviewed, never been replicated, and is nonsense junk science.

No one else has had the balls to TRY to replicate it in case they prove the principle behind the quack science of homeopathy, thereby damaging their scientific careers beyond repair. So everyone mindlessly calls Montagnier's claims junk science merely because he failed to give enough details about his experiments and because everyone suspects - without any evidence to support it - that his detection of DNA was due to contamination.

Calling a claim quackery without proof merely because it is hard to believe is totally unscientific. Prove it or shut up.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: Harte

Originally posted by Mary Rose
In my opinion, Wikipedia can not be trusted for any subject that is controversial.

For subjects that are not controversial, it is a goldmine of information. But if the subject is controversial, I don't even check it, personally. It's a waste of time.

A waste of time.

Like carving a pyramid out of a mountain in Bosnia?

Harte

Ignoring your vacuous, unproven rhetoric, why is that a waste of time?

It's a mountain until proven otherwise. Since there is no proof otherwise, it's a mountain.

You failed to answer my question. I was not questioning whether the interpetation that the so-called "pyramid" is really a mountain is right. I was asking why the ancient attempt to turn a mountain into a pyramid was a waste of time. You have still not answered my question. And may I add: there are lots of researchers who dispute your dogmatic claim (dogmatic because it was made without proof) that there is no proof the Bosnia artifact is just a mountain.

originally posted by: micpsi

Calling a claim quackery without proof merely because it is hard to believe is totally unscientific. Prove it or shut up.

When you self publish your work under the guise of "peer review" it's quackery.

When you say HIV is cured naturally by anyone with a good immune system you are pushing quackery.

If you take a poor African patient who has been infected with HIV and you build up their immune system it should also be possible for them to get rid of HIV naturally.

Never once has that ever happened. Quackery.

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: Harte

Originally posted by Mary Rose
In my opinion, Wikipedia can not be trusted for any subject that is controversial.

For subjects that are not controversial, it is a goldmine of information. But if the subject is controversial, I don't even check it, personally. It's a waste of time.

A waste of time.

Like carving a pyramid out of a mountain in Bosnia?

Harte

Ignoring your vacuous, unproven rhetoric, why is that a waste of time?

Obviously, Semir didn't think it was.

Harte

originally posted by: micpsi

You failed to answer my question. I was not questioning whether the interpetation that the so-called "pyramid" is really a mountain is right. I was asking why the ancient attempt to turn a mountain into a pyramid was a waste of time.

There was no "ancient attempt" to carve a pyramid out of that mountain. All the pyramid-shaping has been done by Semir and his earth moving crews.

Harte

This thread is a wonderful example of arm chair experts.

I bet none of the people posting in this thread actually went to college or university for Archaeology.

OR even left their country. Yet, we sure see quite a few who are adamant on their views, and who proudly strike down any that doesn't fit in "their" world views.

This site needs a biblical flood event. I don't even know why I come here anymore.