12,000 Years Old Unexplained Structure

Olden Polynice · Post by **Olden Polynice** » 20 Nov 2011, 16:50

[youtube]Xo0ZkgqM1TE[/youtube]

vega · Post by **vega** » 20 Nov 2011, 17:23

why the scientist will not explain it

rhino · Post by **rhino** » 20 Nov 2011, 18:43

probably because of the peanut butter bacon burgers

Ninny · Post by **Ninny** » 20 Nov 2011, 19:07

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 20 Nov 2011, 22:20

ZOMG WE DID NOT FIND TOOLZ HOW COULD THEY HAVE CARVED IT?!?!?!?!

The History Channel has really gone downhill in recent years.

Ninny · Post by **Ninny** » 20 Nov 2011, 23:38

In the underwater pyramid clip they suggest aliens built it

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 21 Nov 2011, 01:42

[quote name="Ninny"]In the underwater pyramid clip they suggest aliens built it

[/quote]

Bloody hell... And I bet that fake tan gay looking dude who is always on that Ancient Aliens bullshit of a show spoke too. Did he? I bet he did, the cunt.

Hugo. · Post by **Hugo.** » 21 Nov 2011, 04:42

I've become very suspicious over the years of the politics of the history/discovery channels. All this showing the human face of the logging industry and mass market fishing, normalising some of the globes most exploitative industries. Then they syndicate things like 'green planet' like theyre buying back good karma or something. My guess is that there are more corporate cocks up discovery's arse than the disney and monsanto boardrooms combined.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 21 Nov 2011, 05:43

Aye, me too.

Also, this asshole needs to be burned alive.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 21 Nov 2011, 05:46

Seriously... this cunt is just trolling the History Channel, right? It's a big prank. It has to be. Look at the fucker.

Olden Polynice · Post by **Olden Polynice** » 21 Nov 2011, 05:55

There's got to be something more to it.It's like they threw him in the mix just to get a reaction from the viewer.

SCUNT · Post by **SCUNT** » 21 Nov 2011, 06:15

History has progressively been going down the drain for the last few years now. "Reality" shows have ruined television. Thanks MTV.

Haunty · Post by **Haunty** » 21 Nov 2011, 07:17

It looks exactly like a fighter jet! It has to be an ancient aircraft schematic!!

Hugo. · Post by **Hugo.** » 21 Nov 2011, 07:22

That military wing of the history channel over your side of the pond is fucking

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 21 Nov 2011, 07:38

Giorgio A Tsoukalos... I guess he produced and directed the initial Ancient Aliens thing and is a consulting producer on the series.

I sard Disc/Hist in this period, except for Mythbusters, of course.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 21 Nov 2011, 07:39

SCUNT · Post by **SCUNT** » 24 Nov 2011, 01:19

[quote name="Hugo"]That military wing of the history channel over your side of the pond is fucking

[/quote]

how so

Methuselah Honeysuckle · Post by **Methuselah Honeysuckle** » 24 Nov 2011, 02:09

[quote name=";,,;"]

Seriously... this cunt is just trolling the History Channel, right? It's a big prank. It has to be. Look at the fucker.[/quote]

fuck this dude

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » 24 Nov 2011, 03:22

half a glance at that photo is enough to suggest and confirm he is a cunt

Haunty · Post by **Haunty** » 25 Nov 2011, 00:45

I had a nutrition teacher (pretty cool hard-on bearer, smart, getting his master's degree) tell me I just *had* to watch this show, because it's unbelievably fascinating. I was a bit skeptical, you see, because obviously the show can't be that good if it's about ancient aliens with a straight face. He proceeded to mock me the rest of class until I agreed to watch it. So I watched it, and literally, I have never actually pulled hair out before while watching a tv show.

Like oh my fucking god they're all LIARS!!!

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 25 Nov 2011, 00:51

It is some of the most irritating rubbish I've ever watched. The few times I've seen it, I spent the whole thing screaming "ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED?!" at the tv.

Hugo. · Post by **Hugo.** » 25 Nov 2011, 02:39

[quote name="smelly"]
[quote name="Hugo"]That military wing of the history channel over your side of the pond is fucking

[/quote]

how so[/quote]

Didnt see this til now. I'll keep it brief and off the obvious 'it staunchly promotes and romanticises gun culture' point.

That channel is BLATANTLY and extension of the recruitment process. Also, Ive seen it invoke myths of divine intervention during your civil war among other obvious lies. Its pure and utter propaganda and little else.

Haunty · Post by **Haunty** » 25 Nov 2011, 03:24

[quote name=";,,;"]It is some of the most irritating rubbish I've ever watched. The few times I've seen it, I spent the whole thing screaming "ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED?!" at the tv.[/quote]

The fact that my nutrition teacher bought that shit made me want to drop the class. I called him on it, and all he said was "You were entertained, right?"

baron von blondle · Post by **baron von blondle** » 25 Nov 2011, 04:01

They should just call it "THE ILL INFORMED SPECULATION CHANNEL" that'd save a lot of time

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 25 Nov 2011, 04:05

Well, he's a nutritionist.

Haunty · Post by **Haunty** » 26 Nov 2011, 04:15

He's an intelligent hard-on bearer, and nutrition is about as scientific a class as one gets in culinary school. It was kind of a letdown.

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » 26 Nov 2011, 04:18

I wonder has there ever been a decent trial done in the field of nutrition. Yet everyone is a fucking expert.

Haunty · Post by **Haunty** » 26 Nov 2011, 04:47

There is a shitload of correlational studies on the field of nutrition.

Mesarthim · Post by **Mesarthim** » 26 Nov 2011, 07:49

I recently went to 4 hour lecture by a nutritionist on the topic of natural and organic foods and their benefits. while she had a lot of good and interesting data (such as farming and labor practices) to present a lot of the so called nutritional benefits came off as bullshit and speculation....

Devy · Post by **Devy** » 27 Nov 2011, 02:34

[quote name="smelly"]History has progressively been going down the drain for the last few years now.[/quote]

Yeah, recent history is rubbish. Take yesterday for example, what happened then? Fuck all. FUCK YOU, YESTERDAY!

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 27 Nov 2011, 10:11

[quote name="HbW"]There is a shitload of correlational studies on the field of nutrition.

[/quote]

My opinion of any results of the correlational studies can be summarized in one quote: "The plural of anecdote is not data." - Ben Goldacre

[quote name="HbW"]He's an intelligent hard-on bearer, and nutrition is about as scientific a class as one gets in culinary school. It was kind of a letdown.[/quote]

Meat Engine · Post by **Meat Engine** » 27 Nov 2011, 12:50

[quote name="lǝp + uɯH + lɹʇƆ"]I recently went to 4 hour lecture by a nutritionist on the topic of natural and organic foods and their benefits. while she had a lot of good and interesting data (such as farming and labor practices) to present a lot of the so called nutritional benefits came off as bullshit and speculation....[/quote]

From the little bit that has been distilled through scientific journalism for me, the data are not kind to organic vs. GM when it comes to nutrition.

The BS on the History Channel angers me. One of my professors spent about 20 minutes during class one day explaining his hypothesis for how the pyramids could have been constructed with a relatively small labor force (around 5000 people). He used math, and offered other hypotheses for the practical purposes of features in and around the pyramids. He then said that National Geographic would not talk to him, because their former staff Egyptologist was in charge of antiquities for the Egyptian government at the time when he would have liked to publish. They did not want to upset him, and risk losing what little access they had to the sites. He then said that he would probably never publish, because there is too much money and politics wrapped up in perpetuating the bullshit theories like aliens and generations of Jewish slaves.

It's a shame, too. The smaller claims he makes could easily be verified with the kind of tests the antiquities minister had no interest in allowing. It would be as simple as allowing ground radar onto the sites.

Haunty · Post by **Haunty** » 27 Nov 2011, 17:06

[quote name=";,,;"]
[quote name="HbW"]There is a shitload of correlational studies on the field of nutrition.

[/quote]

My opinion of any results of the correlational studies can be summarized in one quote: "The plural of anecdote is not data." - Ben Goldacre

[quote name="HbW"]He's an intelligent hard-on bearer, and nutrition is about as scientific a class as one gets in culinary school. It was kind of a letdown.[/quote][/quote]

@ last part: no shit, doc

jawn galliano · Post by **jawn galliano** » 28 Nov 2011, 09:21

[quote name=";,,;"]
[quote name="HbW"]There is a shitload of correlational studies on the field of nutrition.

[/quote]

My opinion of any results of the correlational studies can be summarized in one quote: "The plural of anecdote is not data." - Ben Goldacre

[quote name="HbW"]He's an intelligent hard-on bearer, and nutrition is about as scientific a class as one gets in culinary school. It was kind of a letdown.[/quote][/quote]

your quip about anecdotal data is amusing and all, but it doesn't have anything to do with correlational studies. so i'm not sure what the connection there is

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 28 Nov 2011, 17:42

[quote name="Derek Waters"]
[quote name=";,,;"]
[quote name="HbW"]There is a shitload of correlational studies on the field of nutrition.

[/quote]

My opinion of any results of the correlational studies can be summarized in one quote: "The plural of anecdote is not data." - Ben Goldacre

[quote name="HbW"]He's an intelligent hard-on bearer, and nutrition is about as scientific a class as one gets in culinary school. It was kind of a letdown.[/quote][/quote]

your quip about anecdotal data is amusing and all, but it doesn't have anything to do with correlational studies. so i'm not sure what the connection there is[/quote]

Come on, it wasn't that vague. Any results from those studies could not amoun t to any more than simple anecdotes. I am mocking the quality of correlational studies in nutrition. You couldn't see that?

jawn galliano · Post by **jawn galliano** » 28 Nov 2011, 19:54

it doesn't really make sense. saying you shouldn't extrapolate from anecdotal observations doesn't really have anything to do with the quality of correlational studies, because r is not an anecdotal observation. which aren't inherently bad or useless, either, but rather they place limits on the conclusions you can draw. the canned phrase you were probably looking for is 'correlation does not necessarily imply causation' (which always bugs me 'cuz it's a really lazy and uncritical way of sounding critical, but whatever) which would've fit probably ten times better than your first choice

Hugo. · Post by **Hugo.** » 28 Nov 2011, 20:55

When it comes to nutrition I generally take correlational studies with a pinch of salt.

jawn galliano · Post by **jawn galliano** » 28 Nov 2011, 21:03

Hiyooo!

Hugo. · Post by **Hugo.** » 28 Nov 2011, 21:36

baron von blondle · Post by **baron von blondle** » 29 Nov 2011, 00:24

[quote name="Hugo"]When it comes to nutrition I generally take correlational studies with a pinch of salt.[/quote]

this is an very clever type joking words yes