5 ms·
Interesting how main stream science obsesses over Neanderthals but ignore Boskopoids. I suppose it does not fit in with the narrative being projected on humanit
by koosnel 8y ago
Interesting how main stream science obsesses over Neanderthals but ignore Boskopoids. I suppose it does not fit in with the narrative being projected on humanity. Also worth mentioning Adam's calendar which was discovered in 2003 in South Africa and predates Stonehenge by 10s of thousands of years.
- goodcanadian 8y agoA quick Google suggests Boskop man was a modern human and Adam's calendar are 16th century livestock enclosures . . . so I'm really not sure what you are trying to say.
- koosnel 8y agoWell I did more than a "quick Google" so I can understand that you are not sure.
- messe 8y agoPlease cite your sources then.
- noselasd 8y agoI hope this means you did not end up on all the crackpot sites that runs counter to any sane scientific approach and runs their arguments based on refuting existing research based on incompleteness and plain disbelief ? Do you have some credible information, or are they secret ?
- saiya-jin 8y ago> Adam's calendar which was discovered in 2003 in South Africa and predates Stonehenge by 10s of thousands of years. Wikipedia wildly disagrees with you [1], it's few hundred years old [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaauboschkraal_stone_ruins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaauboschkraal_stone_ruins
- koosnel 8y agoIn academia we do not even consider the opinion of people who cite wikipedia as a basis for their argument.
- DiabloD3 8y agoToo lazy to click through to get the cite?
- koosnel 8y agoNo I have just found so many discrepancies on wiki through the years that I do not consider it a valid cite and many academics agree. Are you perhaps to lazy for more in depth research than picking the first hit on Google and forming your opinion based on that one source of information?
- seszett 8y agoYou are the one making extraordinary claims and complaining how "mainstream science" ignores them. The burden of showing credible evidence clearly falls to you, and you have yet to show anything at all. I think you should already consider yourself lucky that some people have even deigned engage with you despite your tone and your general conspiracy theorist attitude.
- koosnel 8y agoI do not consider myself lucky to be engaged by people who do "quick Google" searches or cite Wikipedia as sources to base their arguments on.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- saiya-jin 8y agoHmm, if you are so high and above most of us, why not contribute to the mankind and actually improve that wiki page with some cold hard facts in academic fashion? If you actually know them of course