What are the Evidence that Humans are Responsible for Megafauna Extinction

[alphagruis]

Paleo Donk, Wiiliam

I still have to look at all these alternative theories or views in much more detail and in particular at your links.

I don't know yet anything about the Miles Mathis papers.

As to Mc Canney however I find that he is very severely debunked here http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/mccanney/index.html

 

[William]

As to Mc Canney however I find that he is very severely debunked here http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/mccanney/index.html

 

That's a game where the unlearned in that field choose who they like best on the basis of evidence which I don't understand. I like McCanney's reasoning. Phil Plait gives no reasons, just NASA stories.

...and besides, McCanney has a longer name. 

[goodsamaritan]

As to Mc Canney however I find that he is very severely debunked here http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/mccanney/index.html

This is a non-informative link and does not show any debunking.
All the writer says is he thinks Planet X is full of BS.

Mc Canney is not about planet X.

Mc Canney has a lot of subjects in his arsenal.  He pushes for the electrical nature of the solar system and gives far more accurate weather prediction than current techniques by adding his electrical and electrical solar theories in them.

And he is somewhat on the same page as the thunderbolts.info guys on the electric universe and electric comets and electric sun theory.

He also pushes the Kolbrin Bible and means for survival.

Bad astronomy = Quack watch for western medicine
Same category

It's easy for this Phil Platt of bad astronomy to character assasinate 1 man but he is not man enough to try debunking the whole team at www.thunderbolts.info ... their numbers are growing and their voices growing louder.

The big daddy establishment astronomy must try to address / debunk / critisize is www.thunderbolts.info

I will be listening.

[alphagruis]

That's a game where the unlearned in that field choose who they like best on the basis of evidence which I don't understand. I like McCanney's reasoning. Phil Plait gives no reasons, just NASA stories.

...and besides, McCanney has a longer name.  

How then, if you're unlearned and can't understand the evidence presented (a situation that is unfortunately quite normal for almost all humans since it takes years of struggle to understand and learn all the subtleties of the evidence at hand, an effort only trained scientists can usually undertake) can you make a decision and "believe" in one rather than in the other theory or view ?

Phil Plait gives very very very good reasons to dismiss the so-called "electric sun" model, you can believe me.

It seems to me that your "choice" is based on the fact that you (and GS) basically like or believe in "conspiracy" theories. This is quite understandable because of the junk science behind mainstream medicine (you, GS and I have suffered from) and common belief (but quite wrong, just google with keywords "emergence" or "self-organization") that if there is something remarkable that happens in nature or society (for instance crap recommandations in nutrition) it must be organized by someone to fool the citizens.
 
So this crap in medicine does not mean there is a "conspiracy" mainstream scientists are involved in even in life science. They are just wrong or confused on very important topics.

Moreover here we are not talking about life science at all but physics and astronomy. I can assure you that there is absolutely no evidence of such a "conspiracy" in these sciences. And much work is underway on alternative theories, for instance on quantum gravity as opposed to string theory, emergence as opposed to usual reductionism etc.    

I'm sorry to definitely disagree with you on these matters.

[alphagruis]

This is a non-informative link and does not show any debunking.
All the writer says is he thinks Planet X is full of BS.

Mc Canney is not about planet X.

Mc Canney has a lot of subjects in his arsenal.  He pushes for the electrical nature of the solar system and gives far more accurate weather prediction than current techniques by adding his electrical and electrical solar theories in them.

And he is somewhat on the same page as the thunderbolts.info guys on the electric universe and electric comets and electric sun theory.

He also pushes the Kolbrin Bible and means for survival.

Bad astronomy = Quack watch for western medicine
Same category

It's easy for this Phil Platt of bad astronomy to character assasinate 1 man but he is not man enough to try debunking the whole team at www.thunderbolts.info ... their numbers are growing and their voices growing louder.

The big daddy establishment astronomy must try to address / debunk / critisize is www.thunderbolts.info

I will be listening.

No GS, already just these criticisms are very sound and relevant, as far as I can judge.

I'm sorry to disagree with you on these matters.

[alphagruis]

Paleo Donk,

I first read about a paragraph by Miles Mathis (the one where he claims that the derivative of ln(x) is not 1/x) and I can't agree with him at all. Pure bullshit.

I then read about his angular momentum considerations. The bullshit warning lights are flashing again very very rapidly.

Sorry I'll not read more of it.

[goodsamaritan]

No GS, already just these criticisms are very sound and relevant, as far as I can judge.

I'm sorry to disagree with you on these matters.

Let's make the argument simple:

1) James McCanny is irrelevant.
He is not part of thunderbolts.info

---------------

2) The real BIG DADDY you need to discredit is http://WWW.THUNDERBOLTS.INFO

They have GLOBAL HISTORICAL RECORDS in their hands that fits perfectly with the ELECTRICAL MODELS of plasma discharge leading to the electrical universe theories.

Unless you demolish www.thunderbolts.info , the catastrophists and the electric universe guys have the upper hand.

Greek mythology et al are representative of catastrophic events witnessed in human memory.  This is the crux of the debate.

[alphagruis]

GS, the link I provided does criticize and debunk Mc Canney and or rather via the electric sun or universe model.

Since your link precisely also promotes this same model I cannot take it as more serious and relevant than Mc Canney.

Note that you are free to believe what you want and I do not feel any need to further demolish thunderbolts. What for? The future will show if they indeed have a theory that's better than the prevailing ones. From what I've read up now I don't think so and so I don't want to spend more time with this. And I may be wrong or miss something important of course but this is not my gut feeling.  

[William]

GS, the link I provided does criticize and debunk Mc Canney and or rather via the electric sun or universe model.

MCanney's work was derived from the data streams of space probes available in ~1979. I take this to be an exercise in basic science.
His critics' comments appear to be based on belief in conventional physics. I take this to be an exercise in religion.

It might not be possible to make a fair criticism, because NASA has destroyed the records that McCanney studied, and more recent evidence/raw data from space probes has been kept secret by NASA.

[alphagruis]

MCanney's work was derived from the data streams of space probes available in ~1979. I take this to be an exercise in basic science.
His critics' comments appear to be based on belief in conventional physics. I take this to be an exercise in religion.

It might not be possible to make a fair criticism, because NASA has destroyed the records that McCanney studied, and more recent evidence/raw data from space probes has been kept secret by NASA.

The critics are based not simply on belief but actually on numerous experiments and calculations in physics.

Let's take an exemple. Mc Canney claims fusion occurs only to a small extent at the sun's surface which is according to him hotter than the sun's core. Exactly the reverse must be true for very basic reasons of gravity and density and temperature requirements in the plasma that are fairly well known from numerous experiments and theoretical calculations. And there is in 2010 no discrepancy between expected and observed neutrino flux in this conventional sun or star structure model.

But this is very technical stuff that will unfortunately not convince all those people not familiar with the relevant experiments and calculations.