Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Roger Gelder · Guest

Hi Digger,
Do you have a reference for that statistical analysis,
please?
Sounds to be of interest, since I have recently been 'barrow spotting' in
Google Earth for the Thames Valley, Ock River zone, although it was
recently demonstrated that it could miss up to 50% in one pair of fields!
(5 obvious, but another 6 found otherwise - & I have yet to find out how).

As to Iron Age sites shading into Roman, I have listened to Gary Lock
at the Frilford/Marcham site and year-on-year seen the shift in opinion
as more and more emerged each digging season, so no argument about
'debatable lands' there. The first year or two were funny as diggers
referred
to the 'suits' - senior members from other archaeological departments - came
and went as did their opinions.
Cheers,
roj

"Digger" <p.dunn1@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nmNFk.21$qg2.17@newsfe30.ams2...
[quote]
"Roger Gelder" <roger.gelder@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:HXIFk.4807$55.2742@newsfe14.ams2...
.... the Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age prominent burial sites do
appear to be positioned in locations of prominence in the landscape,

Sorry but that ain>t necessarily so. This used to be the accepted
interpretation but statistical analysis of burial sites has shown that the
majority of burial sites are NOT in prominent locations. We seem to have
fallen foul of the fact that most of those sites that survive in the
landscape today happen to be in prominent locations (i.e. those that have
not fallen victim to the plough).

Once the tribal holdings took over in the Iron Age
then the Markers just got bigger - the "Hill Forts" were never wholly
defensive but more expressions of power displays by chiefs of a tribe,
just like the burial mounds.

Some were, some weren>t. Depends who you read. There>s still a lot to
learn about hillforts. For example, the recent discovery (through
geophsyics) of a dirty great roundhouse in the middle of the Roman section
of Hod Hill suggests we need to rethink the way such places were used
prior to and shortly after the roman "conquest".[/quote]

Kendall K Down · Guest

In message <48e94ad6$0$6162$2318a52a@unlimited.newshosting.com>
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

[quote]Israel declares there was no Holocaust Extermination: 27 million Jews
survived the holocaust
[/quote]
Poor old Matt the Pratt, trying to demonstrate his friend Goebels'
assertion that if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe
it.

What he has forgotten is that this is the Internet age and anyone who
wants to can look up the archives and see how often Matt the Pratt>s
silly claim has been refuted.

Ken Down

--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia>s premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================

Kendall K Down · Guest

In message <48e94a34$0$6162$2318a52a@unlimited.newshosting.com>
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

[quote]In citing Israel>s own position as to the number of survivors there
clearly could have been no such thing.
[/quote]
The is Matt the Pratt, renowned interpreter of international treaties,
liar extraordinaire, dim wit par excellence.

Ken Down

--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia>s premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================

Matt Giwer · Guest

imipak wrote:
....
[quote]Examples justify precisely nothing, they merely document that many
humans are either too ignorant to believe in the rights of all humans
or too stupid to concede that human rights matter. That there are
examples all over the world, including in countries that have done
ground-breaking work in understanding the need for human rights, is
something to pity, not applaud and certainly not emulate.

In terms of the Middle East, most of the peoples there - and I refuse
to single out any, they are almost all guilty - have complained about
their rights being ignored or trampled on, whilst trampling on the
rights of others. Oh, there>s usually a reason, an excuse, a
justification, something that the locals can use to cheer on their
team, whilst ignoring the fact that they>re perpetuating their bit of
the vicious cycle. If the Middle East actually enforced the ancient
eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth policy, everyone there would be
blind and toothless. It would make the pitiful sight of the Black
Knight in Monty Python>s Holy Grail almost enviable.
[/quote]
You look through 20th century western eyes at the concept of human rights.
While these may appear to us to be the ideal they are not one size fits
everyone. Granted IF we could change all them foreigners into good Americans
then one size would fit all. But in fact in most of the world clan and family
rights supersede individual rights. Not only that almost all the individuals
agree with that premise.

Imposing our ideas would not change the individuals. And as to 20th c. it is
difficult to find something in the middle east which was not paralleled in
western Europe as little as a century ago. That includes the dress codes and
all the restrictions on women as well as rule by dictators, aka kings, and
proud of it.

The purpose of recognizing rights is to prevent violence. A fundamental cause
of violence is the possession of land upon which to make a living. It does not
matter if it is clan, family or individual ownership, the need is the same.
Humans have an established history of using violence to take what they want
from other humans if the opportunity permits.

[quote]Now, getting back on topic. (On USENET?) Are people abusing
archaeological finds or contaminating results for political gain? It
wouldn>t surprise me. The whole region is so pent up, nobody sneezes
unless it>s for political gain. I wonder if there>s something in the
sunlight that corrodes common sense? It might be easier and cheaper to
give every Israeli and Palestinian a year>s vacation somewhere sane,
get every archaeologist on the planet down there, and simply remove
everything older than three weeks from last thursday. It would be a
hell of a lot easier than trying to muddle through the pollution both
sides have added to the very distorted historical record, and I can>t
see how it could possibly cost more than the monies being poured into
both camps to continue this lunacy. Of course, removing the history
isn>t any guarantee you>ll remove the insanity, but history is visible
and rants aren>t.
[/quote]
Factually there are only the Europeans with the Zionists considered
Europeans. The Muslim middle east hasn>t been bitten by the arkie bug yet.
There is no conflict in this area. In bibleland the non-Jews are not permitted
research digs by the occupying Jews. The only good news in this is there are
very few with an interest in doing so.

This is perhaps another example of the "century behind the West" rule. It was
adventurers who sold the west on digging. It was only after their disasters
became obvious that archaeology was born. The Muslim world gets dull, dry
arkies as their first exposure, not imagination inspiring adventurers.

[quote](History being visible is why it>s vital for any political entity that
advocates racism or nationalism of any kind to eliminate any and all
history contrary to their viewpoint. We have, after all, always been
at war with eurasia. And that is also why it is an abomination to
excuse or justify any organization or belief system that would obscure
or obliterate history contrary to their opinions.)
[/quote]
In Israel we have two strange phenomena. The first is the attempt to
obliterate evidence of 1400 years of known, well established history. One has
to view them as fanatics to be so engaged. Destroying the evidence cannot
change the known facts.

The second is an attempt to turn just about any find into a bible story. We
expect this from the self-styled arkies. In Israel we find it at the core of
academia. Even Finkelstein and Silverstein in The Bible Unearthed give a broad
brush to things not their specialty (saving them academically) while indulging
in the bait and switch of identifying a hilltop warlord, who is wholly
invented and without any evidence, as King Solomon. This pretension to
integrity is readily accepted by those who want to believe. Many of them
infest these newsgroups.

Zionism only succeeded in bibleland because of crazed believers in the long
discredited Old Testament and there were many times more redneck Christians
than redneck Jews involved in making it happen. The real mover in this doomed
to failure battle for Palestine has been the Christians.

--
The lesson from this financial mess is the people on Wall Street are no more
qualified than you and I to run the country>s finances.
-- The Iron Webmaser, 4058
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ Antisemitism a9

Matt Giwer · Guest

Digger wrote:
[quote]"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:48e84adf$0$4873
What is the evidence large numbers of people gathered there?

Read the Durrington Walls report. It seems VERY likely that people gathered
there in their thousands!
[/quote]
Very likely does not make for a fact.

--
Hodie pridie Nonas Novembres MMVIII est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org a1

Martin Edwards · Guest

Matt Giwer wrote:
[quote]Martin Edwards wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
Kendall K Down wrote:
In message <48e3e623$0$8477$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
As long as that restaurant has one member of the Israeli military,
on or off
duty, active or reserve, it is a lawful military target and the
rest are
collateral damage.
Again, no. The possibility of killing or injuring civilians must be
weighed against the value of the target. It *might* be legitimate
to kill a restaurant-full of civilians to get Osama bin Laden -
note the "might" - but it certainly is not worth it just to get one
(possibly unwilling) conscript.
Do not complain to me. I never wrote a treaty in my life.
And on present showing you have not the least idea of how to
interpret them either.
I agree you are ignorant of international law. Your ignorance has
no bearing
upon what I may be nor does it give you license to post
mischievous lies.
That you are a nasty little nazi is not a lie but the plain truth.
If you want to contest the matter, come over here. One of your
fellow-travelling holocaust deniers was arrested yesterday as soon
as his plane touched down at Heathrow.
On a European warrant. Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany,
understandably, but not in England and Wales or most of Europe. The
whole isssue is clouded by imprecise use of language. Strictly
speaking, there was no holocaust because European Jewry was not
wiped out. Indeed, the number of survivors was the precise reason
the white settlers in Palestine were able create Israel. I have
tried to convince our friend time and time again that there was a
concerted attempt to do so, stemming from pseudoscience. I am not
sure he is a Nazi: holocaust denial may be a separate pathology. If
you look up hardcore neo-Nazi groups, such as Combat 18, most of
them wish to resume the operation.
You may present anything you want. Algebra is the same for
everyone. Israel gave the number of survivors for a particular year.
That tells us how many survivors there were in 1945.
No amount of argumentation can change either the arithmetic or
the average human lifespan.
But please feel free to point out the "pseudoscience" in my use
of the human lifespan in the elementary demographic calculation. Like
Mr. Spock, I am all ears.

You have misread me yet again. Nazi racism was based on
pseudoscience. Frankly, I don>t think you are too bright.

In regard to the last sentence, what you say is Nazi racism was the
norm in Europe at the time. The Nazis were not different in that regard.
I have given you several examples of it in England. You should not have
a problem finding the English view of the Irish race in those days, and
even today, on your own.

I did not say that, and it was not so. Certainly some kind of racism[/quote]
was widely disseminated, but the theories of the notorious Helena
Petrovna Blavatsky were a minority interest. There were very few
English people who actually wanted to exterminate the Irish. Today
there are so many English people wholly or partially of Irish descent
that any holder of such views has to keep very quiet.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From â€œRollerballâ€

Martin Edwards · Guest

imipak wrote:
[quote]On Oct 5, 4:13 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
Kendall K Down wrote:
In message <48e3e623$0$8477$9a6e1...@unlimited.newshosting.com
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
As long as that restaurant has one member of the Israeli military,
on or off
duty, active or reserve, it is a lawful military target and the
rest are
collateral damage.
Again, no. The possibility of killing or injuring civilians must be
weighed against the value of the target. It *might* be legitimate to
kill a restaurant-full of civilians to get Osama bin Laden - note
the "might" - but it certainly is not worth it just to get one
(possibly unwilling) conscript.
Do not complain to me. I never wrote a treaty in my life.
And on present showing you have not the least idea of how to
interpret them either.
I agree you are ignorant of international law. Your ignorance has
no bearing
upon what I may be nor does it give you license to post mischievous
lies.
That you are a nasty little nazi is not a lie but the plain truth.
If you want to contest the matter, come over here. One of your
fellow-travelling holocaust deniers was arrested yesterday as soon
as his plane touched down at Heathrow.
On a European warrant. Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany,
understandably, but not in England and Wales or most of Europe. The
whole isssue is clouded by imprecise use of language. Strictly
speaking, there was no holocaust because European Jewry was not wiped
out. Indeed, the number of survivors was the precise reason the
white settlers in Palestine were able create Israel. I have tried to
convince our friend time and time again that there was a concerted
attempt to do so, stemming from pseudoscience. I am not sure he is a
Nazi: holocaust denial may be a separate pathology. If you look up
hardcore neo-Nazi groups, such as Combat 18, most of them wish to
resume the operation.
You may present anything you want. Algebra is the same for
everyone. Israel gave the number of survivors for a particular year.
That tells us how many survivors there were in 1945.
No amount of argumentation can change either the arithmetic or the
average human lifespan.
But please feel free to point out the "pseudoscience" in my use of
the human lifespan in the elementary demographic calculation. Like Mr.
Spock, I am all ears.
You have misread me yet again. Nazi racism was based on pseudoscience.
Frankly, I don>t think you are too bright.
In regard to the last sentence, what you say is Nazi racism was the norm in
Europe at the time. The Nazis were not different in that regard. I have given
you several examples of it in England. You should not have a problem finding
the English view of the Irish race in those days, and even today, on your own.

As for meaning, I clearly have shown you

"I have tried to convince our friend time and time again that there was a
concerted attempt to do so, stemming from pseudoscience."

this concerted effort has no basis in fact. In citing Israel>s own position
as to the number of survivors there clearly could have been no such thing.

--
There is no archaeological evidence of any Jews or
Judeans prior to the late 2nd c. BC.
The Iron Webmaster, 4050
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtmla2

Examples justify precisely nothing, they merely document that many
humans are either too ignorant to believe in the rights of all humans
or too stupid to concede that human rights matter. That there are
examples all over the world, including in countries that have done
ground-breaking work in understanding the need for human rights, is
something to pity, not applaud and certainly not emulate.

In terms of the Middle East, most of the peoples there - and I refuse
to single out any, they are almost all guilty - have complained about
their rights being ignored or trampled on, whilst trampling on the
rights of others. Oh, there>s usually a reason, an excuse, a
justification, something that the locals can use to cheer on their
team, whilst ignoring the fact that they>re perpetuating their bit of
the vicious cycle. If the Middle East actually enforced the ancient
eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth policy, everyone there would be
blind and toothless. It would make the pitiful sight of the Black
Knight in Monty Python>s Holy Grail almost enviable.

Now, getting back on topic. (On USENET?) Are people abusing
archaeological finds or contaminating results for political gain? It
wouldn>t surprise me. The whole region is so pent up, nobody sneezes
unless it>s for political gain. I wonder if there>s something in the
sunlight that corrodes common sense? It might be easier and cheaper to
give every Israeli and Palestinian a year>s vacation somewhere sane,
get every archaeologist on the planet down there, and simply remove
everything older than three weeks from last thursday. It would be a
hell of a lot easier than trying to muddle through the pollution both
sides have added to the very distorted historical record, and I can>t
see how it could possibly cost more than the monies being poured into
both camps to continue this lunacy. Of course, removing the history
isn>t any guarantee you>ll remove the insanity, but history is visible
and rants aren>t.

(History being visible is why it>s vital for any political entity that
advocates racism or nationalism of any kind to eliminate any and all
history contrary to their viewpoint. We have, after all, always been
at war with eurasia. And that is also why it is an abomination to
excuse or justify any organization or belief system that would obscure
or obliterate history contrary to their opinions.)
[/quote]
It might be easier and cheaper to evacuate the Israelis to Brooklyn.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

GDenke · Guest

On Oct 6, 11:52 am, "Digger" <p.du...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]
I carried out the geophysics at Durrington over two seasons and I have been
on my hands and knees digging through the vast amounts of midden material
found around the site. It>s about as close to fact as anything can be when
it comes to archaeology.
[/quote]
Durrington the first wave of Mesolithic coal exploration 10,000 years
ago Salisbury Plain ancients hunted for outcrop coal digging straight
trenches, like under Stonehenge Greater Cursus' periglacial
cryoturbated chalk tundra. 8000 BC coal explorers created Durrington
coal cache with Pembrokeshire Coalfield (Amroth quarry, Pembrokeshire
County) anthracite (blue coal) inside Stonehenge Greater Cursus'
western-half, and Durrington coal cache with South Wales Coalfield
(Crosskeys quarry, Bridgend County) bituminous (black coal) inside its
eastern-half. Durrington the arctic Mesolithic ancients survived with
Cursus' coal caches.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/archaeology/excavations_techniques/oldest_house_01.shtml

The Royal Society of Medicine has already proven Geoff Wainwright,
Timothy Darvill and Timewatch: Stonehenge team>s healing theory true
inside 9,000-year-old Stonehenge Hospital healing centre with ancient
Stillborn Baby Skull Teeth (primary Baby Teeth and permanent Baby
Teeth intact) centralised at the Stonehenge Baby Delivery Room birth
canal described in the JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE,
Volume 96, February 2003, "Stonehenge: a view from medicine" by
eminent Dr Anthony M Perks, PhD, DSc, and Darlene Marie Bailey, BA, JR
Soc Med 2003; 96: 94–98, the publication over 5 years old.

http://www.rsm.ac.uk/media/downloads/stonehenge.pdf

Stonehenge Hospital healing centre Stillborn Baby Teeth Skull (having
the primary and permanent Baby Teeth) excavated by Dr Garry W Denke
(1622-1699) historian, antiquarian, dentist (1656 Diary) at Stonehenge
precise centre (June, 1655) has a radiometric date of 9,000 years ago
(7000 BC) matching the Geoff Wainwright, Timothy Darvill and
Timewatch: Stonehenge team>s confirmation date of Dr Garry W Denke>s
original Stonehenge Baby Delivery Room coal-fired Ice Age heating
furnace: housed in Caddo by Hell>s Gate, Brazos River South Wall,
'Great Kingdom of the Tejas', Palo Pinto County; near Breckenridge.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/dec/01/arts.heritage

Interesting enough Timewatch, Geoff Wainwright and Timothy Darvill>s
theory of the Stonehenge Hospital mortuary has been verified,
categorically proving it being a morgue (Stonehenge not a cemetery),
because currently there are no known human remains at Stonehenge
Hospital mortuary. Julian Richards and Michael Pitts removed the last
of Stonehenge Hospital remains on 1st September 2008 at the morgue.
All known human remains that ever were stored there have been removed,
therefore any theory claiming that Stonehenge Hospital mortuary was a
cemetery is categorically false. Stonehenge Not A Cemetery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cemetery

G-d

Roger Gelder · Guest

Hi,
I gave the citation:-
http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/archaeology/research/stonehenge/stonehenge07-02.html
This is from the 2007, Excavation 2 Report.

[quote]Very likely does not make for a fact.
[/quote]
Quoting from the excavation directorate
(Prof Mike Parker Pearson, Dr Josh Pollard, Dr Colin Richards, Prof Julian
Thomas, Prof Chris Tilley & Dr Kate Welham, on behalf of the Stonehenge
Riverside Project.) :-
The Late Neolithic settlement at Durrington Walls can now be envisaged
as a large circular village of many hundreds of houses, set around an open
area or arena which was occupied by the Southern Circle, itself surrounded
by an arc of special buildings which included a timber circle (the Northern
Circle, excavated in 1967) and two houses which were set within timber
palisades and ditched enclosures which appear to have been kept clean
(excavated in 2006). This settlement, with a circumference of almost a mile,
would have been the largest village known in northwest Europe. If the
density of houses from the 2004-2007 excavations (one house per 120sq m) is
representative of their packing around the settlement then we might expect
over 300 houses to survive beneath the henge banks.
These conclusions from
(i) excavation
(ii) geophysical surveys &
(iii) extrapolation based on (i) & (ii)
seems reasonable to me
Then, from the Introduction to the 2008 Report:-
The discovery of houses within and outside Durrington Walls suggests
that a large area of the valley in which the henge lies was probably covered
in dwellings. The considerable quantities of pig and cattle bones, pottery,
flint arrowheads and lithic debris indicate that occupation and consumption
were intense. The many articulated and unfragmented animal bones are likely
to be debris of the wasteful consumption resulting from feasting. The small
quantities of stone tools other than arrowheads, the absence of grinding
querns and the lack of carbonised grain indicate that this was a `consumer´
site. The midsummer and midwinter solstice alignments of the Durrington and
Stonehenge architecture suggest seasonal occupation. It is likely that these
dwellings were lived in by the builders of the Southern Circle and
Stonehenge.

roj

"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:48e9b712$0$6203$2318a52a@unlimited.newshosting.com...
[quote]Digger wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:48e84adf$0$4873
Read the Durrington Walls report. It seems VERY likely that people
gathered there in their thousands!

Very likely does not make for a fact.

--
Hodie pridie Nonas Novembres MMVIII est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
[/quote]

Digger · Guest

"Roger Gelder" <roger.gelder@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:qEcGk.31626$55.24511@newsfe14.ams2...
[quote]Hi Digger,
Do you have a reference for that statistical analysis,
please?
[/quote]
Sorry Roger,

I>m afriad I don>t have the reference to hand but I recall that somewhere in
the region of 70% of all known barrows (this includes those that only
survive as crop marks or geophysical traces) are in locations which we would
not consider prominent. I>ll have a rummage through my books and see if I
can track down the reference for you but don>t hold your breath!

Digger · Guest

"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:48e9b712$0$6203$2318a52a@unlimited.newshosting.com...
[quote]Digger wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:48e84adf$0$4873
What is the evidence large numbers of people gathered there?

Read the Durrington Walls report. It seems VERY likely that people
gathered there in their thousands!

Very likely does not make for a fact.
[/quote]
Matt,

I carried out the geophysics at Durrington over two seasons and I have been
on my hands and knees digging through the vast amounts of midden material
found around the site. It>s about as close to fact as anything can be when
it comes to archaeology.

Martin Edwards · Guest

Matt Giwer wrote:
[quote]Martin Edwards wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
Kendall K Down wrote:
In message <48e3e623$0$8477$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
As long as that restaurant has one member of the Israeli
military, on or off
duty, active or reserve, it is a lawful military target and the
rest are
collateral damage.
Again, no. The possibility of killing or injuring civilians must
be weighed against the value of the target. It *might* be
legitimate to kill a restaurant-full of civilians to get Osama
bin Laden - note the "might" - but it certainly is not worth it
just to get one (possibly unwilling) conscript.
Do not complain to me. I never wrote a treaty in my life.
And on present showing you have not the least idea of how to
interpret them either.
I agree you are ignorant of international law. Your ignorance
has no bearing
upon what I may be nor does it give you license to post
mischievous lies.
That you are a nasty little nazi is not a lie but the plain
truth. If you want to contest the matter, come over here. One of
your fellow-travelling holocaust deniers was arrested yesterday
as soon as his plane touched down at Heathrow.
On a European warrant. Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany,
understandably, but not in England and Wales or most of Europe.
The whole isssue is clouded by imprecise use of language.
Strictly speaking, there was no holocaust because European Jewry
was not wiped out. Indeed, the number of survivors was the
precise reason the white settlers in Palestine were able create
Israel. I have tried to convince our friend time and time again
that there was a concerted attempt to do so, stemming from
pseudoscience. I am not sure he is a Nazi: holocaust denial may
be a separate pathology. If you look up hardcore neo-Nazi groups,
such as Combat 18, most of them wish to resume the operation.
You may present anything you want. Algebra is the same for
everyone. Israel gave the number of survivors for a particular
year. That tells us how many survivors there were in 1945.
No amount of argumentation can change either the arithmetic or
the average human lifespan.
But please feel free to point out the "pseudoscience" in my use
of the human lifespan in the elementary demographic calculation.
Like Mr. Spock, I am all ears.

You have misread me yet again. Nazi racism was based on
pseudoscience. Frankly, I don>t think you are too bright.

In regard to the last sentence, what you say is Nazi racism was
the norm in Europe at the time. The Nazis were not different in that
regard. I have given you several examples of it in England. You
should not have a problem finding the English view of the Irish race
in those days, and even today, on your own.

I did not say that, and it was not so. Certainly some kind of racism
was widely disseminated, but the theories of the notorious Helena
Petrovna Blavatsky were a minority interest. There were very few
English people who actually wanted to exterminate the Irish. Today
there are so many English people wholly or partially of Irish descent
that any holder of such views has to keep very quiet.

In the matter of racial superiority I suggest the English openly
discussing their natural fitness to rule the world.

As the OFFICIAL number of holocaust survivors given by Israel shows
there was no desire or attempt to exterminate Jews during WWII, there is
no cause for an invented claim about the Irish.

Frankly, if you believe that, you>ll beleive anything.[/quote]

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From â€œRollerballâ€

Matt Giwer · Guest

Digger wrote:
[quote]"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:48e9b712$0$6203$2318a52a@unlimited.newshosting.com...
Digger wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:48e84adf$0$4873
What is the evidence large numbers of people gathered there?
Read the Durrington Walls report. It seems VERY likely that people
gathered there in their thousands!
Very likely does not make for a fact.

Matt,

I carried out the geophysics at Durrington over two seasons and I have been
on my hands and knees digging through the vast amounts of midden material
found around the site. It>s about as close to fact as anything can be when
it comes to archaeology.
[/quote]
On one hand I read of a large, permanent settlement around/near it. On the
other I read of regular gatherings of large numbers of people traveling there
from far and wide. Where I expect evidence of the latter all I read is
evidence of the former.

Which is it and for which is there in fact evidence?

--
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend when
his strategy is divide and conquer.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4067
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9

Matt Giwer · Guest

Kendall K Down wrote:
[quote]In message <48e94ad6$0$6162$2318a52a@unlimited.newshosting.com
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

Israel declares there was no Holocaust Extermination: 27 million Jews
survived the holocaust

Poor old Matt the Pratt, trying to demonstrate his friend Goebels'
assertion that if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe
it.

What he has forgotten is that this is the Internet age and anyone who
wants to can look up the archives and see how often Matt the Pratt>s
silly claim has been refuted.
[/quote]
Clearly you are too stupid to comprehend elementary high school algebra.

Israel declares there was no Holocaust Extermination: 27 million Jews
survived the holocaust

.....

There were slightly fewer than 9 million Jews in Europe at the start of the
war.

In 2004 Israel issued a more refined number still alive in that year,
1,092,000, for the purpose of actually filing lawsuits. So 59 years after
the event 16/75s were still alive. That leaves us with 5,118,750 alive in
1945 if none were killed for inability to work and the birthrate were the
same as it was in peacetime. If we go with those under 13 being killed we
have 27,300,000 holocaust survivors alive in 1945. This is nearly twice as
many Jews as were in all the world in 1938 and three times those in all of
Europe in that same year.

=====

The entire article at http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml

Please feel free to demonstrate you are ignorant of elementary algebra by
disagreeing. But if you do disagree source your input numbers and provide
your calculations.

--
The secret of enlightenment cannot be told.
It can only be discovered.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4057
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9

Matt Giwer · Guest

Martin Edwards wrote:
[quote]Matt Giwer wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
Kendall K Down wrote:
In message <48e3e623$0$8477$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
As long as that restaurant has one member of the Israeli
military, on or off
duty, active or reserve, it is a lawful military target and the
rest are
collateral damage.
Again, no. The possibility of killing or injuring civilians must
be weighed against the value of the target. It *might* be
legitimate to kill a restaurant-full of civilians to get Osama bin
Laden - note the "might" - but it certainly is not worth it just
to get one (possibly unwilling) conscript.
Do not complain to me. I never wrote a treaty in my life.
And on present showing you have not the least idea of how to
interpret them either.
I agree you are ignorant of international law. Your ignorance has
no bearing
upon what I may be nor does it give you license to post
mischievous lies.
That you are a nasty little nazi is not a lie but the plain truth.
If you want to contest the matter, come over here. One of your
fellow-travelling holocaust deniers was arrested yesterday as soon
as his plane touched down at Heathrow.
On a European warrant. Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany,
understandably, but not in England and Wales or most of Europe. The
whole isssue is clouded by imprecise use of language. Strictly
speaking, there was no holocaust because European Jewry was not
wiped out. Indeed, the number of survivors was the precise reason
the white settlers in Palestine were able create Israel. I have
tried to convince our friend time and time again that there was a
concerted attempt to do so, stemming from pseudoscience. I am not
sure he is a Nazi: holocaust denial may be a separate pathology.
If you look up hardcore neo-Nazi groups, such as Combat 18, most of
them wish to resume the operation.
You may present anything you want. Algebra is the same for
everyone. Israel gave the number of survivors for a particular year.
That tells us how many survivors there were in 1945.
No amount of argumentation can change either the arithmetic or
the average human lifespan.
But please feel free to point out the "pseudoscience" in my use
of the human lifespan in the elementary demographic calculation.
Like Mr. Spock, I am all ears.

You have misread me yet again. Nazi racism was based on
pseudoscience. Frankly, I don>t think you are too bright.

In regard to the last sentence, what you say is Nazi racism was
the norm in Europe at the time. The Nazis were not different in that
regard. I have given you several examples of it in England. You should
not have a problem finding the English view of the Irish race in those
days, and even today, on your own.

I did not say that, and it was not so. Certainly some kind of racism
was widely disseminated, but the theories of the notorious Helena
Petrovna Blavatsky were a minority interest. There were very few
English people who actually wanted to exterminate the Irish. Today
there are so many English people wholly or partially of Irish descent
that any holder of such views has to keep very quiet.
[/quote]
In the matter of racial superiority I suggest the English openly discussing
their natural fitness to rule the world.

As the OFFICIAL number of holocaust survivors given by Israel shows there was
no desire or attempt to exterminate Jews during WWII, there is no cause for an
invented claim about the Irish.

--
There is no archaeological evidence of any Jews or
Judeans prior to the late 2nd c. BC.
The Iron Webmaster, 4050
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Archaeology Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 62, 63, 64 ... 71, 72, 73 Next
Page 63 of 73