November 8th, 2012, 06:45 AM
|
|
Dr Feelgood
|
|
Join Date: January 4, 2009
Location: USA - KY - Louisville
Posts: 6,543
|
|
|
Re: Disney buys Lucasfilms; plans new movies
Quote:
Originally Posted by ibechief
Quote:
Originally Posted by jschild
|
Seriously though, through the magic of the internet (what with it all being connected) you can pretty much navigate from one site to the next with a few clicks. So I'm sure with enough clicks you can navigate to credible sources via my McDonalds link as well.
The point is that just like in College, Wikipedia is not an accepted cite source for any person to use that wants to back up their position and get anything in return but "wow really, Wikipedia?"
That website is the go to place for people who have no clue what they are talking about and want to find instant material on the subject, regardless of it's truth or fabrication.
It might also be worth noting that because any small brained mammal can link a website as a note and call it cited. Even if the website has nothing to do with the material in question.
So, you basically are telling people when you cite Wikipedia "here is my position, though you will have to do the research to prove that my position is not true on your own. My source is basically just for showmanship".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yodaking
I just followed your first link to the British museum info and read the whole page. They freely admit that they do not know when the skull was made, where is was made (other then not in Mexico), who made it, or why it might have been made other then some speculation concerning antiquities fraud. Ergo, it is a mysterious item with unexplained origins. And that is just the one skull they have at their museum. Their are then other skulls in other collections around the world. Thanks for confirming what I said!
Find any links about the magic village stones of India? I don't know much about them.
|
I also followed his links. Specifically the link by Springerlink and found that of the two studied they only found 1 to be falsified. The other was tested and the depth of the higher hydrogen concentration proved that it could not have been carved after the pre-Columbian period.
It is obvious that the editors of that Wikipedia page had an agenda; since their sources are basically crap.
|
It's funny that you only read the abstract and NOT the actual article or you might have noticed something about the reference head.
Check out the picture in the 2nd page.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/...6/fulltext.pdf
Which one looks like the crystal skulls and which one looks like something an older civilization might have made?
Now through May 28th, the Louisville region is in desperate need of platelets - call the Red Cross if you are interested in donating!
|
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode