Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).
Martin Stower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Origyptian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > If you knew anything about scientific
> > investigation you'd realize it's not only
> > reasonable, but a fundamental requirement,
> > to present the details of the methodology.
>
> . . . which you’re “concerned” about
> already, before you’ve seen anything—before
> you know you have any reason for concern. Jumping
> the gun, aren’t you, Doc⸮
>
> Do you really imagine that those of us with
> experience of your rhetoric are the least bit
> taken in by this⸮
>
> M.
That's silly. I simply said "I sure hope the EAEA publishes the details of its methodology, interpretation, and application of the required 13C correction to the age data" and you turn it into some kind of dark allegation. Of course I'm concerned, because the 2 previously published RCD studies that were approved and overseen by the SCA were loaded with methodological flaws. So yes, I have good reason to be concerned about this one too. And the time it's taking to get less than 100 samples analyzed and coded only generates more cause for concern.
Meanwhile, I didn't insult them, or jump to any conculsions about their results, nor did I engage in any character assassination or professional slur the way you did to Scott before his book was published.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12-Mar-17 23:43 by Origyptian.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Origyptian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > If you knew anything about scientific
> > investigation you'd realize it's not only
> > reasonable, but a fundamental requirement,
> > to present the details of the methodology.
>
> . . . which you’re “concerned” about
> already, before you’ve seen anything—before
> you know you have any reason for concern. Jumping
> the gun, aren’t you, Doc⸮
>
> Do you really imagine that those of us with
> experience of your rhetoric are the least bit
> taken in by this⸮
>
> M.
That's silly. I simply said "I sure hope the EAEA publishes the details of its methodology, interpretation, and application of the required 13C correction to the age data" and you turn it into some kind of dark allegation. Of course I'm concerned, because the 2 previously published RCD studies that were approved and overseen by the SCA were loaded with methodological flaws. So yes, I have good reason to be concerned about this one too. And the time it's taking to get less than 100 samples analyzed and coded only generates more cause for concern.
Meanwhile, I didn't insult them, or jump to any conculsions about their results, nor did I engage in any character assassination or professional slur the way you did to Scott before his book was published.
______________________________________________________________
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12-Mar-17 23:43 by Origyptian.
