Anyone with true respect and value of history would not write what you did. Despite my belief that the world was not made in 6 days and Adam and Eve I am still a Christian. They were just the reason civilization had as "the big bang theory' had not been dreamed of, religious history is to be respected. Are you to denounce the pyramids due to the Egyptian worship of Ra or Stonehenge? There are MILLIONS of people who 'seriously' as you put it realise 'Easter" has history. Learn from it or remain as ignorant as you sound.
Happy Easter to You! To all Christians - Please dont' be afraid - The rabbits won't hurt you - and the goddess of spring has no power over us - Easter will always be our Lord's passover - so enjoy the day and ressured that Jesus is Lord!
It was my understanding that they died out realitively recently. My understanding may be entirely wrong. Are you saying that all DNA from that group has already become destroyed to the point that we can get information about them? Please excuse typos. Hands ache today.
Your missed the point of the article, Marshall. Large-scale groups of organized battles (war) are different than minor armed disagreements between tribes/clans. War requires an socioeconomic aspect of a deluded slave/worker class forced/manipulated into fighting/dying for the benefit/enrichment of some zealot/king/emperor/dictator. Previous to organized warfare, there were battles where most of the participants had a relatively equal interest in the outcome, which encouraged their participation.
The Chinese invention of gunpowder started off as a cosmetic application to 'beautify the facial skin'. I have often wondered whom was applying this mixture to the skin and just 'how' was it discovered to blow up'. Talk about a sudden surprise?
OK Gord, put like that it sounds eminently sensible.
But if you’ll forgive my saying, you overlook one thing. If folk read something that interests them, but leave no comment, then what they have read will reach and/or be shared with fewer new readers (leaving aside cliquish social media).
Why not? Because of the way the internet works: search engines respond mainly to comments in my view, not to mere number of visits and clicks from come-and-go readers.
A paucity of comments means that the article then languishes on Page 7 of Google returns where few if any will spot it. The knowledge-seeking public is then dependent on the MSM to be kept informed, but journalists and broadcasters with few exceptions respond to slick press releases that are put in front of them by those with an axe to grind, often biased or distorted: they use internet search engines infrequently or as a last resort, but when they do will rarely go beyond the first page or two of returns.
So the moral is: leave a comment if something one has read online piques one’s interest. That way the new and interesting ideas gets a quicker look-in, a wider currency, than would be the case if relying purely on there being an inquisitive well-informed journo out there.
Perhaps it is an interesting article, an idea that some people at a certain level can relate to. Not every one feels the need to post a comment one way or the other after reading any article. Could be there's more to 'hair' then just being 'hair'.
Cassie and Kathy, what you are doing according to the Word of God is "Casting your pearl before swine". They will never understand because they are in darkness. Remember John chapter one.And in Him (Christ, the Word made flesh) was light. And the light shineth in the darkness (the world) and the darkness comprehendeth it not.
Does anyone know what's keeping interest (from afar) in this posting alive? It's invariably listed under "Most Popular" and this morning one sees it's in the "Most Read Today" as well! Yet it's over a week since it last attracted a comment, and that was pretty dismissive of the idea that hair could serve as a "sixth sense".
Peculiar, most peculiar, the persistent interest that fails to materialize as new comments that is...
...yet that same History Department depends a great deal on Manetho's account of the history of Egypt, which is odd when you think about it, since the only way they know anything about Manetho's account is through the writings of Josephus.
This kind of pretzel logic is a specialty of academia, which is why I would view "being chased out of the History Department" as a badge of honor.
This is an excellent quick overview of Charles Fort.
I want to respond to a few of the criticisms of Fort that were included in the article; not so much to defend Fort but to highlight the underhanded BS that so often characterizes the invective of mainstream apologists.
Just to be clear, my responses are in no way aimed at DHWTY, the author of the article; I'm not "shooting the messenger" here, haha.
So, on to the quotes, and my responses:
"...one source describes Fort as an “anti-dogmatist who collected weird and bizarre stories.”"
Is "anti-dogmatist" meant to be a negative label, or something...? Not sure what this critic is trying to say.
"...it has been pointed out that Fort did not question the veracity of the accounts he collected."
Yes, well, since he pulled most of them from highly respected journal publications, he probably thought he didn't have to. Obviously he was unaware of the other side's unabashed willingness to shift goal-posts and hold double standards.
"...Fort was not really interested in making any sense out of the accounts he collected either."
Whoever said that has not actually read Fort's books. They are full of attempts to make sense out of the reports.
Not that it matters.... unless this claim is trying to imply, without coming right out and saying it, that since Fort didn't come up with "answers", that means the "questions" are illegitimate...??
"It has also been argued that Fort’s primary goal of collecting these accounts of anomalies was to embarrass and ridicule scientists with stories that could not be explained or answered by science."
Well, no. His primary goal was to provide the "unpopular" facts, events, and phenomena with an outlet, a moment in the limelight, a way around the wall of silence placed around them by uncurious "scientists" who were more concerned with career than science. Fort did not think these things could not be explained by science. He thougt there were scientists who just didn't really want them explained.
"Whilst some emphasize his hostility towards science..."
...others emphasize that being hostile towards certain dogmatic "scientists" does not equate to a hostility towards science. These words are not interchangeable.
Here you can navigate quickly through all comments made in any article sorted by date/time.
I am trying to connect Indian origin stories to this subject, I am excited to see all this new info.
I am doing research in this area. Please email so I can see what you have. Would love to talk to you. [email protected]
I am an anthropology student doing research in this. Can you share data with me.please email [email protected]
Anyone with true respect and value of history would not write what you did. Despite my belief that the world was not made in 6 days and Adam and Eve I am still a Christian. They were just the reason civilization had as "the big bang theory' had not been dreamed of, religious history is to be respected. Are you to denounce the pyramids due to the Egyptian worship of Ra or Stonehenge? There are MILLIONS of people who 'seriously' as you put it realise 'Easter" has history. Learn from it or remain as ignorant as you sound.
Happy Easter to You! To all Christians - Please dont' be afraid - The rabbits won't hurt you - and the goddess of spring has no power over us - Easter will always be our Lord's passover - so enjoy the day and ressured that Jesus is Lord!
Sweet find. Like the bird manuscript pointer.
It was my understanding that they died out realitively recently. My understanding may be entirely wrong. Are you saying that all DNA from that group has already become destroyed to the point that we can get information about them? Please excuse typos. Hands ache today.
Your missed the point of the article, Marshall. Large-scale groups of organized battles (war) are different than minor armed disagreements between tribes/clans. War requires an socioeconomic aspect of a deluded slave/worker class forced/manipulated into fighting/dying for the benefit/enrichment of some zealot/king/emperor/dictator. Previous to organized warfare, there were battles where most of the participants had a relatively equal interest in the outcome, which encouraged their participation.
You're right -- Please give this a shot. It is free and works great. It will even block adds on Youtube. ..https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock-plus/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkd...
The Chinese invention of gunpowder started off as a cosmetic application to 'beautify the facial skin'. I have often wondered whom was applying this mixture to the skin and just 'how' was it discovered to blow up'. Talk about a sudden surprise?
Thank you
I can barely stuff an envelope - but I appreciate the beauty of origami, that peacock the gentleman is holding is beautiful!
The poor fellow looks like they just sort of turfed him into a hole and covered him up as he laid sprawled out.
OK Gord, put like that it sounds eminently sensible.
But if you’ll forgive my saying, you overlook one thing. If folk read something that interests them, but leave no comment, then what they have read will reach and/or be shared with fewer new readers (leaving aside cliquish social media).
Why not? Because of the way the internet works: search engines respond mainly to comments in my view, not to mere number of visits and clicks from come-and-go readers.
A paucity of comments means that the article then languishes on Page 7 of Google returns where few if any will spot it. The knowledge-seeking public is then dependent on the MSM to be kept informed, but journalists and broadcasters with few exceptions respond to slick press releases that are put in front of them by those with an axe to grind, often biased or distorted: they use internet search engines infrequently or as a last resort, but when they do will rarely go beyond the first page or two of returns.
So the moral is: leave a comment if something one has read online piques one’s interest. That way the new and interesting ideas gets a quicker look-in, a wider currency, than would be the case if relying purely on there being an inquisitive well-informed journo out there.
Perhaps it is an interesting article, an idea that some people at a certain level can relate to. Not every one feels the need to post a comment one way or the other after reading any article. Could be there's more to 'hair' then just being 'hair'.
There is yet a field of Giants to be discovered.
Cassie and Kathy, what you are doing according to the Word of God is "Casting your pearl before swine". They will never understand because they are in darkness. Remember John chapter one.And in Him (Christ, the Word made flesh) was light. And the light shineth in the darkness (the world) and the darkness comprehendeth it not.
Does anyone know what's keeping interest (from afar) in this posting alive? It's invariably listed under "Most Popular" and this morning one sees it's in the "Most Read Today" as well! Yet it's over a week since it last attracted a comment, and that was pretty dismissive of the idea that hair could serve as a "sixth sense".
Peculiar, most peculiar, the persistent interest that fails to materialize as new comments that is...
...yet that same History Department depends a great deal on Manetho's account of the history of Egypt, which is odd when you think about it, since the only way they know anything about Manetho's account is through the writings of Josephus.
This kind of pretzel logic is a specialty of academia, which is why I would view "being chased out of the History Department" as a badge of honor.
This is an excellent quick overview of Charles Fort.
I want to respond to a few of the criticisms of Fort that were included in the article; not so much to defend Fort but to highlight the underhanded BS that so often characterizes the invective of mainstream apologists.
Just to be clear, my responses are in no way aimed at DHWTY, the author of the article; I'm not "shooting the messenger" here, haha.
So, on to the quotes, and my responses:
"...one source describes Fort as an “anti-dogmatist who collected weird and bizarre stories.”"
Is "anti-dogmatist" meant to be a negative label, or something...? Not sure what this critic is trying to say.
"...it has been pointed out that Fort did not question the veracity of the accounts he collected."
Yes, well, since he pulled most of them from highly respected journal publications, he probably thought he didn't have to. Obviously he was unaware of the other side's unabashed willingness to shift goal-posts and hold double standards.
"...Fort was not really interested in making any sense out of the accounts he collected either."
Whoever said that has not actually read Fort's books. They are full of attempts to make sense out of the reports.
Not that it matters.... unless this claim is trying to imply, without coming right out and saying it, that since Fort didn't come up with "answers", that means the "questions" are illegitimate...??
"It has also been argued that Fort’s primary goal of collecting these accounts of anomalies was to embarrass and ridicule scientists with stories that could not be explained or answered by science."
Well, no. His primary goal was to provide the "unpopular" facts, events, and phenomena with an outlet, a moment in the limelight, a way around the wall of silence placed around them by uncurious "scientists" who were more concerned with career than science. Fort did not think these things could not be explained by science. He thougt there were scientists who just didn't really want them explained.
"Whilst some emphasize his hostility towards science..."
...others emphasize that being hostile towards certain dogmatic "scientists" does not equate to a hostility towards science. These words are not interchangeable.
Pages