[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’m pretty sure that gianthumanskeletons blog is a Mormon outfit.[/quote]
It’s all true. I read it in a hat.[/quote]You get my point. Of course that fact is not ipso facto proof of anything, but consideration of source is always a good idea.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[quote]Karado wrote:
And if you have evidence to the contrary we’re all ears just the same ;)[/quote]
http://tedxshelburnefalls.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/jim-vieiras-talk-removed-from-internet/[/quote]
For what it is worth, I have watched hundreds of Ted Talks and frankly find this particular one no less “credible” than most. He referenced historical writings, monolithic structures, and suggested a cultural bias as a contributing factor that may partially explain the absence of much of this information in our historical records. [/quote]
I agree, although I think you’re being overly charitable in your description, as though all “historical writings” are of equal veracity. Also, referencing a monolithic structure is not the same as proving that a ancient American race of giants existed. As an aside, I’m not sure what one has to do with the other, I thought he was unclear about that. If he way suggesting that the giants built the stone cellers, at the very least I would’ve expected the roofs to be higher…
In many ways it’s no different than many Ted talks, which are more akin to entertainment than science. However, in one way, it’s very different. Ted pulled the video for finding that, " … your talk is based on a debunked popular hoax from the early 1900s and promotes a well-known and widely discredited fringe theory, while misrepresenting the existence of legitimate research on this issue."
Personally, I found the video less than compelling what with it’s conspiracies, mention of Freemason’s, and mini-rant against corporations. That the TED organization finds it less than truthful doesn’t surprise me.
Interesting…My initial observations on Dr. Pangloss’s link.
On point #1: Eh, weak…I don’t think the audience was made up of Archeologists, I’m
certain AS Archeologists they’ve WOULD have been familiar with the Mounds, but most people
have never heard of them, I sure have not, and I’ve driven through Ohio/New England routes many a time
over the years in my former line of work and profession all over the Continental U.S.
#2 Weak, are we now debating on what the DEFINITION of a “structure” is?
#3 Fairly strong, but carbon dating is irrelavent to whether Giants existed or not,
and my cursory knowlege of Carbon dating is that it’s a pretty unreliable and
inaccurate method of dating anything in the first place.
#4 Fairly weak, I am no Mayan Culture expert, yet re-reading it carefully, it’s
apparent neither is it’s writer, but to be fair I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt,
still fairly weak until a true Mayan expert surfaces.
#5 Mixed, it’s ALREADY been established there ARE hoaxes, ‘the Piltdown man’ was mentioned
already as one of the few established ones, “hoaxes” cross every known subject and not a
single one is immune. However who is this so-called “expert” they refer to for the other
opinions? At least there are names and credentials in the last two vids above, not counting
the ‘Coast to Coast’ audio just to be fair, and because of the ‘Tin Foil Hat’ stigma
attached to the show.
#6 Unknown and unsubtantiated yet, hearsay as far as I’m concerned…again WHO are these
“experts”? Last half of this point has merit regarding transitional dietary changes in regards
to height, but it still doesn’t unprove anything in regards to Giants.
#7 Weak in regards to disprove giants, Strong in the argument that presenters shouldn’t
speculate WHY Bones crumble over time. Last half of this is speculative and biased towards
the argument of discrediting the claim…maybe, maybe not…too many variables are in play,
but I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt, keep in mind the TED TALKS presentation is NOT
the ‘strongest’ overall argument for giants in the first place…there is more…alot more.
#8 I call “Bullshit” on that one, as I have heard detailed stories from the other side I can
provide links to if requested, of COURSE The Smithsonian is going to defend itself, they’re the
friggin’ SMITHSONIAN, whose name itself conjures an almost instant percieved respect we’ve
been progammed to automatically accept with impunity…again, I refer to the last
videos above for a cursory unofficial rebuttal to this one.
Just my 2 cents for now, and will leave with a quote from the ‘comments’ section
of the last link that just makes sense to me.
"It seems to me that it would be more intellectually honest to invite speakers with opposing viewpoints to present the arguments against Mr. Vieira?s contentions. Simple removal of the material is more an approach of censorship than of scientific debate. Given this approach, I would expect that TED would act to deny almost any idea access to its venue unless it was ?proven,? also known as accepted by the orthodox scientific community.
History shows us time and time again that what is correct today may well be proven incorrect tomorrow. A balanced forum is far better than censorship.
Is Mr. Vieria incorrect in his assertions? Quite probably. So what? Bring on the debate, not the censors."