Göbekli Tepe

[Skepdick]

Show me where it is and I'll say you're right.

It's in orbit. With the teapot.

[Eodnhoj7]

No, my iPad is messed up won't let me log in to YouTube...give me a wiki link or something.

So basic computing skills beyond you? Try assuming it works.

Sipping coffee...

[Arising_uk]

Sipping coffee...

Be careful there as given you get the collywobbles and heebie-jeebies from a pyramid caffeine could cause an apoplexy.

[Eodnhoj7]

Sipping coffee...

Be careful there as given you get the collywobbles and heebie-jeebies from a pyramid caffeine could cause an apoplexy.

You are right, and while we are at it we should sit under trees and watch apples fall to study gravity....like the good old days.

You keep pushing science, like everyone understands what you are talking about...but what is it?

[Arising_uk]

You are right, ...

I know.

and while we are at it we should sit under trees and watch apples fall to study gravity....like the good old days. ...

Says the dowser.

You keep pushing science, like everyone understands what you are talking about...but what is it?

It's the best method we invented so far to explain, model if you prefer, how phenomena work and to reach intersubjective agreement about such stuff with the added bonus that it produces useful stuff.

[Arising_uk]

Usually not, but some people are dense enough where it can help, obviously. ...

Er!? Obviously not.

What humans were thinking 11000-12000 years ago does have a side that is kinda philosophical. Especially that later philosophies may be influenced by it, obviously. Even if our past is waffle to you. ...

I did not say our past is waffle, I said the kind of unsubstantiated waffle you waffle about is waffle.

Again, the collapse at the end of the Bronze Age is so mainstream knowledge that even the Wiki page on it will adequately answer your question. ...

For someone who claims a love of the past you appear remarkably ignorant about it. The idea of Stone, Bronze, Iron and now Copper Ages were to classify the artefacts that Archaeology were finding not civilizations as they appear and disappear at different rates. As such these 'Ages' overlap each in a big way and there was no 'end of the Bronze Age' as such, Bronze was being used for at least two thousands years into the 'Iron Age' and the 'Stone Age' and 'Copper Age' overlapped for thousands of years, we could even say 'Stone Age' technologies were being used in Colonial times as those Flintlocks had to have their flints napped somehow.

Why not go for even bigger?

Who knows? But reasonable assumptions would be that Egypt was not the powerhouse it once was, that they couldn't gather the resources or control the man-power they once had.

1. There is PC, non-PC, and actually non-PC. We are going into actually non-PC territory here, but you're a Brit (and obviously the type who will defend the official story), and this is a British forum. One of the several great Jewish-American-British history falsifications was how they tried to erase most of the pre-Colombus evidence from the Americas, and such brainwashing articles are part of that too. ...

A conspiracy nut as well, who'd have thunk. Amazing how we seem to know so much about the pre-Columbian civilisations then?

What's not so amazing is how gullible some Americans appear to be but I'll give you that the Brits have their fair share of loons too.

2. Where is the copper? Your governments can erase some of the clues, but can't magically make the missing copper appear in the Americas. So all you are left with some bullshit in your article how the numbers aren't entirely accurate. Just to hide the fact that we are still talking about hundreds of thousands of tons of missing copper. Show me where it is and I'll say you're right.

So basically show me something that doesn't exist and I'll agree, what a loon. Pay attention at the back there! It's not that the numbers are not entirely accurate it is that they are based upon total bullshit assumptions, try reading what she said again and get your head around what she is saying.

...
A Mathematical Mystery Tour, or the Prehistoric Numbers Game

Now we turn to the second major theme in the copper culture myth, that of the dogma of the missing copper. Where did all the copper go? This theme is formulated on a calculus of mythic arithmetic, a prehistoric numbers game! The mythic calculations involve the numbers and depths of copper extraction pits, the numbers and weights of stone hammers, the percentage volume of copper per mining pit, the numbers of miners, and the years of mining duration. Ultimately, the mix of these numbers yields the alleged total amount of extracted prehistoric copper, that being in the range of 1 to 1.5 billion pounds. It's difficult to attribute this branch of mathematics to any one individual, but if there's credit to be given, it should be given first to Drier and Du Temple (Drier and Du Temple 1961) and then to a Chicago-area writer named Henrietta Mertz, who lays out her numerology proposals in a book entitled Atlantis: Dwelling Place of the Gods (Mertz 1967). In contrast, I propose that none of these numbers, save those related to the weight of the hammers, are actually knowable in an empirical sense. We'll start then on our firmest ground, the weights of the hammers.

MYTH: A primary aspect of the mathematical mystery tour is the use of numbers, most unreferenced as to source, to present what is supposed to pass as scientific substance to claims of prehistoric mining feats. The following account of the myth also includes the doctrine of the grooved versus the ungrooved hammers. "Rudimentary mining activities existed with the use of crude 20-pound stone hammers. Oddly enough, the hammers found on the mainland were grooved, to be held in place by perhaps a thong of sorts, while those discovered in the Isle Royale pits, were nongrooved...perhaps handheld" (Sodders 1990:17-18). "....the hammers averaged from 6 to 8 pounds and measured approximately 8 inches in length. On one occasion, a maul was recorded to have weighed a hefty 39 1/2 pounds and subsequently was fitted with two grooves instead of the normal one" (1990:27). "On one occasion at the Island's Minong Mine location, over 1000 tons of stone hammers were found, representing a staggering tool count of some 200,000 to 300,000 items" (1990:27).

FACT: Until recently only Tyler Bastian and Burton Straw had ever, to my knowledge, counted, weighed and measured large collections of hammerstones from the mainland and the island and documented hammerstone characteristics (Bastian 1963; Straw 1962). Looking at a collection of 193 hammers from Isle Royale, Bastian reported that ca. 5% were grooved, such as the one illustrated in Figure 3[omitted], collected from an archaeological deposit at the Siskowit Mine on Isle Royale. In a related study, two-thirds of hammers measured from the mainland were found to be grooved (Straw 1962). According to Bastian, it is very difficult to "distinguish slightly modified, or heavily weathered, hammerstones, from ordinary cobbles and boulders..." (Bastian 1963:288). Bastian states that it is possible that reports of very heavy hammerstones are a result of mis-identifying ordinary beach cobbles as hammers; he also states that there may be two size classes of hammerstones on Isle Royale (1963:289-290). Weights in Bastian's study ranged from 1 1/2 to 26 pounds. Additional work on hammerstones was carried out this year at Michigan Tech (Sieders 1995) on a collection of hammerstones (n = 82) taken from the Mass City, Michigan area. In this collection, the weights of the hammers ranged from 11 ounces to 17 pounds, and greater than 80% of the collection weighed less than 4 pounds. Sieders also suggests that there may be two kinds of hammerstones, to accomplish two different mining functions. What's important to learn is this: not only are the actual weights much reduced from the estimated ones, but also the measurements taken from these hammerstone studies are replicable and verifiable, as opposed to estimated and repeated as gospel. In addition, the unsubstantiated grooved/ungrooved dogma falls, and it's about time.

MYTH: Other elements that are found in many copper culture myths are mantra-like repetitions of numbers that combine the head count of miners, a time duration of mining, and mining pit counts into an algorithm of total exploited copper. "Furthermore it is believed that as many as 10,000 miners, labored some 1000-plus years, in an estimated 10,000 Copper Range pits" (Sodders 1990:30). Essentially the same mathematical alchemy is reported by Drier and Du Temple, who add that the total amount of removed copper approaches 1 to 1.5 billion pounds:
"If one assumes that an average pit is 20 feet in diameter and 30 feet deep, then it appears that something like 1000 to 1200 tons of ore were removed per pit. If the ore averaged five percent, or 100 pounds per ton then approximately 100,000 pounds of copper were removed per pit. If 5000 pits existed, as earlier estimates indicated (and all pits are copper bearing), then 100,000 pounds per pit in 5000 pits means that 500,000,000 pounds of copper were mined in prehistoric times - all of it without anything more than fire, stone hammers, and manpower. If the ore sampled 15 percent, and if more than 5000 pits existed, then over 1.5 billion pounds of copper were mined (Drier and Du Temple 1961:17).
Henriette Mertz tells it more plainly and lays culpability at the toes of the archaeological profession: "This incredible amount of copper has not been accounted for by American archaeologists ..... the sum total according to archaeological findings here in the States amounts to a mere handful of copper beads and trinkets.....float copper. Five hundred thousand tons of pure copper does not disintegrate into thin air. It cannot be sneezed away......it must be somewhere, and to date, it has not been located in the United States," and "99.9% is still to be accounted for" (Mertz 1976:18). Mertz concludes, of course, that the copper was disappeared by Old World Bronze Age metal mongers.

FACT: The figures are made up out of thin air and can be sneezed away. That's because no one has a means to measure any of these variables accurately or with any precision. All of these figures are built on ill-constructed estimates. Let's examine the variable "percentage of copper in the trap rock" as an example. Clearly, the actual percentage of copper in rock varies from none (plain old rock) to one hundred percent (Ontonagon Boulder). Additionally, while the course of copper in trap rock is somewhat predictable, the amount of copper isn't necessarily constant or even regular. Many failed mining concerns of the nineteenth century found out this fact of geology the hard way! The counts of copper pits, the sizes of pits, and the weight of removed trap are 1) either arbitrarily-chosen numbers, or 2) variable in reality; despite this they are used as constants in the algorithm. Drier and Du Temple used a constant for copper percentage (error) and then multiply it by an estimated number of pits (error inherent) of a constant size (error), counting some and extrapolating to unknown areas (another error). Because we know that pits are not randomly but systematically located, excavated and followed, it makes no sense to extend their probable locations to unknown areas unless one is willing to accomodate enormous errors. In these algorithms, error compounds error compounds error. The resultant sums are a statement of faith, not fact; the numerologists may as well be counting angels dancing on heads of pins. ...

There is no missing copper you loon!

[Eodnhoj7]

You are right, ...

I know.

and while we are at it we should sit under trees and watch apples fall to study gravity....like the good old days. ...

Says the dowser.

You keep pushing science, like everyone understands what you are talking about...but what is it?

It's the best method we invented so far to explain how phenomena work and to reach intersubjective agreement about such stuff.

So basically what you are claiming is we just invent truth, as the scientific method is invented...

So it's all made up like a fairy tale....

ROFL!!!!! what a loon.

Accusing everyone of being an idiot and here you are saying all truth, through science and science is the grounds of truth, is made up....

[Arising_uk]

So basically what you are claiming is we just invent truth, as the scientific method is invented...

So it's all made up like a fairy tale....

ROFL!!!!! what a loon.

Accusing everyone of being an idiot and here you are saying all truth, through science and science is the grounds of truth, is made up....

Hold on? Aren't you the one claiming it's all assumptions, are you now claiming that you know the 'truth' of things?

Put it this way, fairy tales are what you tell yourself about the efficiency of your dowsing rods and the scientific method is how we know that your dowsing rods are made of fairy stuff.

[Eodnhoj7]

So basically what you are claiming is we just invent truth, as the scientific method is invented...

So it's all made up like a fairy tale....

ROFL!!!!! what a loon.

Accusing everyone of being an idiot and here you are saying all truth, through science and science is the grounds of truth, is made up....

Hold on? Aren't you the one claiming it's all assumptions, are you now claiming that you know the 'truth' of things?

Put it this way, fairy tales are what you tell yourself about the efficiency of your dowsing rods and the scientific method is how we know that your dowsing rods are made of fairy stuff.

I am stating that by your own standards for what constitutes a loon you are a loon....

What a loon

Arising: it's all made up bullshit! Only science is true and I study science! Made up explanations are for loons!

Person: But didn't you also say science is invented and made up?

Arising Uk: Yes.

Person: ....


And I can teach you to read as well, I said the dousing rods represent a context of definition that is incomplete....

So for the loon...

"A" makes an "ahhhh" sound.


ROFL!!!!

What a loon...

[Age]

You didn't copy and you didn't understand (and you're not understanding this sentence either).

This "First Age" of humanity, roughly 10000 BC - 8000 BC

What do you mean by "First Age" of humanity, roughly 10000 BC - 8000 BC?

How are you defining 'humanity' here?

What went on in the minds of the first humans, 12000 years ago?

Do you really believe that the first humans were ONLY 12,000 years ago?

You didn't understand at all what I wrote.

I understand enough to know that you are sometimes completely WRONG in what you write, as I have just pointed out and shown.

You showing that you are completely and utterly incapable of clarifying and elaborating on what you write means that I understand enough to know that you do not always understand and know what you are actually talking about. For example, you write; "the first humans,12,000 years ago", which is completely WRONG compared to most literature, besides the bible.

[Arising_uk]

I am stating that by your own standards for what constitutes a loon you are a loon....

What a loon

Arising: it's all made up bullshit! Only science is true and I study science! Made up explanations are for loons!

Person: But didn't you also say science is invented and made up?

Arising Uk: Yes.

Not what I said tho' was it, what I said was 'science' is, so far, the best method we've invented for explaining how phenomena work and for arriving at intersubjective agreement about such stuff and the proof is in the pudding it has baked so far. I think this because I've studied Philosophy and agree with Kant's reasoning about the Noumena and Reason, as such we can't know 'it' in any sense(unless of course the coders have left us a pipe to the 'outside' ) but we can make models of Phenomena, are they 'true'? Yes with respect to how useful they are and how well they can predict the phenomena in question. But how can we get such agreement? Well we have two/three main tools, Mathematics for the theoretical modelling(and maybe Logic) and a clutch of experimental techniques to do the sifting of the theoretical models, this is the bit you and the other loons ignore as it interferes with your preferred metaphysic.

Person: ....

And I can teach you to read as well, I said the dousing rods represent a context of definition that is incomplete....

Apparently I can't teach you to read as you still keep playing with hosepipes rather than dowsing rods.

It doesn't matter how much you refine your 'context of definition'(whatever the hell that is supposed to be?) as you will not subject your theory to any of the experimental methods, i.e. test if your dowsing rods actually detect what it is you claim exists to be detected, i.e. a deflection in an EM field produced by some pyramid or other. As such you are in la la land and well away with the fairies.

But I note that you haven't answered my question, are you claiming you know what is true or not now? As you appear to have written reams about how it's all assumption, which by-the-by left you well open to Age's statement that "you are wrong" as you appear to have no ground for rebuttal?

[Eodnhoj7]

I am stating that by your own standards for what constitutes a loon you are a loon....

What a loon

Arising: it's all made up bullshit! Only science is true and I study science! Made up explanations are for loons!

Person: But didn't you also say science is invented and made up?

Arising Uk: Yes.

Not what I said tho' was it, what I said was 'science' is, so far, the best method we've invented for explaining how phenomena work and for arriving at intersubjective agreement about such stuff and the proof is in the pudding it has baked so far. I think this because I've studied Philosophy and agree with Kant's reasoning about the Noumena and Reason, as such we can't know 'it' in any sense(unless of course the coders have left us a pipe to the 'outside' ) but we can make models of Phenomena, are they 'true'? Yes with respect to how useful they are and how well they can predict the phenomena in question. But how can we get such agreement? Well we have two/three main tools, Mathematics for the theoretical modelling(and maybe Logic) and a clutch of experimental techniques to do the sifting of the theoretical models, this is the bit you and the other loons ignore as it interferes with your preferred metaphysic.

Person: ....

And I can teach you to read as well, I said the dousing rods represent a context of definition that is incomplete....

Apparently I can't teach you to read as you still keep playing with hosepipes rather than dowsing rods.

It doesn't matter how much you refine your 'context of definition'(whatever the hell that is supposed to be?) as you will not subject your theory to any of the experimental methods, i.e. test if your dowsing rods actually detect what it is you claim exists to be detected, i.e. a deflection in an EM field produced by some pyramid or other. As such you are in la la land and well away with the fairies.

But I note that you haven't answered my question, are you claiming you know what is true or not now? As you appear to have written reams about how it's all assumption, which by-the-by left you well open to Age's statement that "you are wrong" as you appear to have no ground for rebuttal?

(Sipping coffee)... ravings of a self proclaimed lunatic.

[Atla]

Er!? Obviously not.

Obviously yes. Never encountered people before?

I did not say our past is waffle, I said the kind of unsubstantiated waffle you waffle about is waffle.

Even if so, it's clear that you're one of the last persons here to tell substantiated from unsubstantiated.

For someone who claims a love of the past you appear remarkably ignorant about it. The idea of Stone, Bronze, Iron and now Copper Ages were to classify the artefacts that Archaeology were finding not civilizations as they appear and disappear at different rates. As such these 'Ages' overlap each in a big way and there was no 'end of the Bronze Age' as such, Bronze was being used for at least two thousands years into the 'Iron Age' and the 'Stone Age' and 'Copper Age' overlapped for thousands of years, we could even say 'Stone Age' technologies were being used in Colonial times as those Flintlocks had to have their flints napped somehow.

Of course they overlap but the past is still artificially divided into sections.
Even children understand this.
And you still don't get it that there was a major civilizational collapse between 1200 and 1150 BC, followed by a centuries long dark age. This is common knowledge.

A conspiracy nut as well, who'd have thunk. Amazing how we seem to know so much about the pre-Columbian civilisations then?

What's not so amazing is how gullible some Americans appear to be but I'll give you that the Brits have their fair share of loons too.

As I said, a fine pawn.

So basically show me something that doesn't exist and I'll agree, what a loon. Pay attention at the back there! It's not that the numbers are not entirely accurate it is that they are based upon total bullshit assumptions, try reading what she said again and get your head around what she is saying.

That's the bullshit I was referring to. Thousands or ten thousands of pits were used for thousands of years, and your article is implying that they produced basically no copper.

Refuting something indeed crazy like "1 to 1.5 billion pounds", and then claiming that everything was refuted, does work on many people.

[Atla]

What do you mean by "First Age" of humanity, roughly 10000 BC - 8000 BC?

How are you defining 'humanity' here?



Do you really believe that the first humans were ONLY 12,000 years ago?

You didn't understand at all what I wrote.

I understand enough to know that you are sometimes completely WRONG in what you write, as I have just pointed out and shown.

You showing that you are completely and utterly incapable of clarifying and elaborating on what you write means that I understand enough to know that you do not always understand and know what you are actually talking about. For example, you write; "the first humans,12,000 years ago", which is completely WRONG compared to most literature, besides the bible.

No, you don't understand enough to tell when I'm wrong, at all. You can't even decode a word like "human" based on context.

[Atla]

I sip coffee when he speaks...do you want a cup? (Sipping coffee)

If they keep this up, we'll end up with coffee poisoning..