Same ole same ole, you don’t like the facts so you continue dismissing them and demeaning the source.
You were given exactly what you asked for, I’m done with you.
You bet I’m going to attack your source because your source believes:
The moon landings were fake
Rockets don’t work in the vacuum of space because there is nothing to “push against”
Ancients used sound waves to lift massive rocks
Some other guy replicated this technology in 1988 with a device the size of a pocket watch
The stone circles in South Africa acted as “magnetrons”
The stone circles generated massive amounts of energy to control the weather
A psychic told him human sacrifices were performed at Adam’s calendar
Ancient humans were anywhere from 30 to 150 feet tall
And I’ve only skimmed the first hour of his 3 hour lecture he sells tickets to.
So yeah, I’m going to attack the source. I’m sure hopeful you come back to tell me why I should believe this guy’s “facts”.
2 Likes
Of course you are because you have absolutely nothing else to offer.
You got exactly what you asked for and gave me exactly what I predicted in return.
Go bother someone else.
Wait, are you defending your use of this guy as a source? Are you suggesting I should accept his assertion of the age of “Adam’s Calendar” as a fact?
When you were studying science, did you ever learn to evaluate the quality of a source before using it?
I’m going to keep watching the “sources” lectures and update you with the facts and see if you can refute them.
Now he’s telling us the moon is a hologram and something is hiding behind it.
Space cannot be a vacuum because that’s not compatible with “physics”.
So outer space is probably water.
Now he’s saying we get diseases when our body’s frequenc doesn’t resonate with the Earth’s (Gaia) frequency.
Michael Tellinger: Sound energizes water and heals us. Sound causes electromagnetism.
This guy loves sound.
Michael Tellinger: The ark of the covenant was advanced technology, probably a communication device for Moses to receive radio signals from somewhere.
Also, the pineal gland is super important for hearing prime resonance frequencies.
But it’s not facts, it’s the theories apparently of one guy of which this one guy has several that are on the level of Ancient Aliens. Is that not troublesome when it comes to trusting his claims as scientific fact? Additionally, ‘liking’ the facts has nothing to do with anything, because facts exist independent of our subjective views. I for one don’t like the facts of climate change, but my dislike does not make them irrelevant or disappear.
The irony oh the irony
It’s on the internet so it’s a fact.
They are facts. Tellinger may be a nutt but none of you can dispute the age of the sight, the alignments with the the cardinal directions or with the astronomical alignments.
It is what it is, an ancient site, it’s not like we’re talking about Ancient Alien tech or any other scifi here.
Such sites have been found all over the globe now dating back as far as 75,000 years which is far beyond anything we thought just a few decades ago.
Modern satellite, radar, lidar, and computer analysis have led to a great many such discoveries just over the last two or three decades.
Show it to be false.
It hasn’t been shown to be true.
It’s just the assertion of one complete crackpot that is completely unsubstantiated.
I mean, this guy believes humans were genetically engineered by aliens to mine gold in South Africa. Am I going to have to show that to be false too?
Same ■■■■ different day, You can’t show the dating to be wrong and the alignments show to be correct.
The best you can come up with is nothing but a mindless rant.
There isn’t an actual fact that exists to support anything you are claiming.
Teller didn’t make the discovery nor was it his theory initially, it was found long before he was even born.
Yes, we should just believe that God randomly threw those stones down and they just happened to line up.
Now that’s some theory.
Why is it when people disagree with you, what they say is “a mindless rant” but what you say isn’t? I think a lot of what you post is a mindless rant. You can’t show this to be untrue.
What exactly am I claiming? It seems you are the one claiming that the site is 75,000 years old.
To make that claim you refer to me to a crackpot, in your own words, and expect me to somehow disprove a crackpot.
Yes; the site what discovered before Tellinger. So what? He is the one who decided the site was 75,000 years old. Or was it 200,000 years old. He can’t make up his mind.
What evidence supports the dating of the site? Only the word of a crackpot. What am I supposed to do to refute the word of a crackpot? Please tell me.
If you had any evidence to dispute the dating or the alignments you would have presented it.
Can you show that the rock/mineral decay dating is faulty science?
Do so.
Can you show where and how any rock/mineral dating was done on the site to give the date of 75,000?
I doubt it.
