[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Denial and method (It was Re: chicken in America: from Asia? (cont.))

Domingo Martinez-Castilla wrote:
> In article <59jva0$ksm@news1.io.org>, yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:

> >Well, lots of people thought lots of things impossible until they were
> >proven to be true...

> I think that more common, and sometimes sadder (especially when outside
> religion), is the opposite, i.e. people in denial that believe --and spend an
> inordinate amount of energy trying to prove-- that something is true no matter
> what.  

No matter what? My case (of my findings) is different. I have been
begging for factual criticism of my findings on prehistoric Science-Art
for the longest time. Yet there never was any. Incredible, what with all 
the freaks of debunking everywhere? If I should be wrong - it would be
But even sadder is that the "experts" are utterly unable to point out
just where my errors are. Hence I am a truly lost case, as there is no
helping me.
So, I try helping myself, see my work through the dark glasses of
skepticism. Although not stupid, I fail to see what I have done wrong.
My position is built on mathematics, namely, the exquisite geometrical
 patterns extracted from certain ancient drawings. There can be no better
 theoretical proof. There is no disputing mathematics, meaning that the 
sheer intellectual level inherent in these prehistoric designs is unas-
sailable. For instance,check the clever pattern of the so called Frapent.
What about it? What about the so called TriLibrium? In how many ways is
it intelligent, and therefore deliberate? Could a mathematician today
improve on the Ancients' ingenuity? Hardly. 
So is it the other way around? Is there no helping the others? Is there
no way I can emit a laserlike ray of light into the darkness of their
prejudiced beliefs?


> This is the problem here.  Pre-Columbian Transoceanic contacts *may* have
> occurred, but the plausibility, and especially the relevance, of such contacts
> is not being persuasive at all, and --more importantly-- no proof exists that
> it ever occurred and/or left any tracks.  Most of the hypotheses advanced by
> people supporting such contacts are rather easily debunked (some of them even
> here, in Usenet!) and sound a lot like wishful thinking. 

This is the Internet. You are free to orate. But the fact is that the
"Seal of Atlantis" exists. It is your proof of Pre-Columbian
Transoceanic contacts. Check it out at:

Did someone say "easily debunked"? I wish it were a valid threat.


> Here at Usenet we are sort of trapped in the middle.  On the one side, many of
> us are here to learn what is going on in a field of interest to us, and to
> contribute to the discussion if we find a piece of information we may believe
> of interest to others. But there are those among us that are basically
> preaching ("I got it!, this the the truth!"), while others are spamming just
> to get some attention. We will just have to live with that, getting a kick out
> of reading some unusual posts, or from posting a witty response ourselves.
> Best regards, and may 1997 bring...  > Domingo.

Seasoned regards, and may 1997 preserve your wits
while you face the Nasca Monkey.
Jiri Mruzek

Follow-Ups: References: