Global warming is real

That’s the method cited as you well know since you brought it up.

Now, show it’s faulty if you can.

Not at all. The 75,000 year estimate comes from an alignment with Orion’s Belt. He (the nutter Tellinger) decided that three rocks indicated the rise of Orion’s Belt. They don’t actually align with Orion’s Belt but not to worry. Just turn back time into the constellations drift enough for that to be true. Does that sound like solid scientific dating to you?

I quoted this earlier. You ignored it. You’ll probably ignore this again.

Give me one good reason to believe anything that this nutter Tellinger say. You’re literally asking us to take him at his word. The alien mind control guy. We are supposed to believe him.

Read your own link.

While the following images certainly suggest a human provenance for the stones, there is no evidence to support Tellinger’s claims that they are ‘75,000 years or older’.

So they made a statement. Can you show his dating to be wrong or the method used to be faulty?

Quit deflecting and give us a straight answer for once.

I just said how it’s wrong (twice actually). It assumes a something is true (three stones align with Orion’s Belt) then finds the date to make the assertion true.

Does that sound like a scientifically sound method for dating something to you?

You’ve show no such thing. All you have done is quote a vacuous statement.

Now again, can you show it to be wrong, yes or no.

It’s not like you’ve proven it to be right, other than to say “it’s right.”

1 Like

Interesting criticism since it’s far more than what you’ve done.

Please post the method of dating the site that resulted in 75,000 years. Because that vacuous statement came from your own source and seemed to indicate the method they actually used. Can you show what method they used to get 75,000 years? Probably not.

The continued deflections are laughable.

The dates are estimated based on the rock decay and rock paintings/carvings nearby which of course, we’ve already been over.

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Adams_Calendar/Adams_Calendar.htm

Now, can you or can you not show that to be faulty or false?

C’mon, you’ve been beating this dead mule for more than two months, dragging it from thread to thread where I wasn’t even participating so man up and make your case once and for all.

Imagine if this was the standard of proof of the US system of justice.

Can you show it to be true or do we just have to accept the word of a guy who believes the moon is a hologram?

My case is simple. You did a simple google search. Grabbed the first link you saw. Didn’t realize that it relied on the ravings of a nut ball. And now you might be too embarrassed to admit it.

(By the way, your website “realhistoryww.com” is absolutely crazy and you should try browsing the rest of it before you consider using it as a source)

Nobody is on trial, dating ancient objects is difficult at best.

Nobody is going to die or go to prison if a date is off by even thousands of years.

Just quit already.

You can’t show it to be false, you can’t show the method to be faulty and we both know it.

Just give it up.

If you are going to claim it’s untrue it’s up to you to show the flaw in the method or that the conclusion is faulty.

Before I can find out if the method was faulty, first can you show me the method used? I’m dying to know.

Of course not. You know absolutely nothing about how it was dated. You just take the nutter Michael Tellinger at his word.

The word of some guy and/or rando website is not proof of anything other than that some person said some thing.

Yep. But somehow it’s up to everyone else to disprove it.

You’re claiming it’s bs so show it to be, it’s simple.

Simple. The guy claiming it is a nutter. He believes nutter things. He makes a completely unsubstantiated claim and provides no evidence for it. There’s nothing to disprove because you can’t say anything about the methodology.

It is, on its face, completely ludicrous to take this seriously.

Answer me yes or no. A guy who believes the moon is a hologram says he dated a stone but doesn’t say how. Should I believe him?

The unsubstantiated claims are your own.

Show the dating to be inaccurate or the method to be invalid.

Another thousand posts of yours deflecting from the fact you cannot isn’t going to help your case any.

Rock decay is measurable, the decay of organic dies is measurable and it’s a perfectly valid way of dating objects found in the same vicinity.

You haven’t and you can’t show any differently and we both know it so save us all the bandwidth and wasted time and just admit it.

Except you haven’t proven anything other than to quote someone that you agree with.

1 Like