Ophiolite

For the record I find your hypothesis highly unlikely, but I do applaud your readiness to make a public prediction.

I am not in the business of protecting intelligent people. It's the dumbshits I'm trying to look after.

I am pleased things have worked out for you. However, I return to the point raised early in this thread by another member. Sudden sensitivity to smells can be a symptom of a serious neurological condition. Not all readers of this thread will have your ability to distinguish between medical advice and anecdote. There is a risk that some will decide their problem, based on your experience, is simply mild anemia and avoid seeking the medical help they urgently require. I regret coming across as a curmudgeonly, pedantic nay-sayer, but that's only because I am.

Anecdotal opinions in science and medicine are inherently flawed. In medicine, in particular, they are downright dangerous. Consider the following: 1. You do not know if the individuals are speaking the truth. 2. You do not know if the individuals have properly understood there experience. 3. You do not know if the individuals have accurately reported there experience. Given that they will not have been medically trained there is little reason to expect that they have properly understood, or accurately reported their experience. It is by applying that kind of anecdotal experience that we have seen develop the nonsense surrounding vaccinations. To address your final question. This sub-forum is to discuss scientific development in the fields of anatomy, physiology and neuroscience, and to ask and answer general questions about these subject areas.

The only feedback you should seek, the only feedback you should receive, the only feedback you should pay attention to, is the feedback that says "If you have a medical issue, seek medical help. Do not look for advice on the internet." I am pleased to see you have done this. It is the only sensible approach. It is the only intelligent approach.

Interesting, but in what way relevant? I strongly suspect there are many claims with "the Ancient Tibetan religion" for which there is no evidence, or contrary evidence.

I have no idea what cladking is waffling about. He seems to think there is "sand in the horizontal passage". Moreover, he seems to think this sand came from somewhere other than the immediate vicinity. Questions to cladking: 1. What are you referring to when you speak of the "horizontal passage"? You are aware, are you not, the while there are similarities of internal geometry in the pyramids, each is unique. 2. Please provide a proper citation for the presence of sand in this passage. 3. Please provide a proper citation in support of your claim that it comes from a distance. Back to studiot: cladking is correct that the the greater part of the pyramids at Giza are made of limestone. Elsewhere one or two made of sandstone, and many of mudbrick. Limestone is also commonplace. I don't have the statistics to hand on how many of each type of building material there are. The controlling factor appears to have been which stones of suitable quality were closest to hand. There was also a matter of cost and expediency. I think the later Middle Kingdom pyramids were mainly mudbrick with limestone facings. Of course, many of the mudbrick examples are no more than sad little mounds now. Since cladking seems to have focused on the pyramids on the Giza plateau, I do not know why he mentions basalt. (I can't find where it is mentioned in this thread.) I am not aware of any basalt in the Great Pyramid. Certainly I have never seen any when I have been inside, though that's hardly to be relied upon. Basalt was used to a limited extent, I think, in a handful of other pyramids and almost certainly in the ancillary temples at the Giza site. The interior of the Grand Gallery is lined with granite.

You have posted almost no evidence. You have posted assertions, claims, opinions, (mis)interpretations, accusations, objections and the like. But precious little evidence. I shall not be wasting any more time on your unsupported delusions.

And what is your evidence for this claim? Keep in mind the following: Evidence is not a belief. Evidence is not a desire. Evidence is not an opinion. Evidence is not a suspicion. Evidence is not writings of undemonstrated provenance. Evidence is not a passionately declared statement. Evidence is not an idea. Evidence is not a majority opinion. Evidence is not a minority opinion. Evidence is measurable, repeatable observation consistent with a hypothesis So what is the evidence for your assertions?

I did. You ignored it, other than responding with further unscientific statements and unsupported statements. I only apply neg. rep. for consistent failure to provide support for assertions, or for self delusion, or for cherry picking, or for failing to directly address objections, or for being rude. You have not been rude.

Couldn't manage the beer, but I hope the +rep compensates.

Oops. I intended to give cladking a neg. rep, but inadvertently applied it to Mootanman's post that contained the target post of cladking. Would someone please reverse that with a positive rep on post #23 please. Sorry about that Moontanman.

An interpretation of reaction to archaeological theory that is simultaneously snide and irrelevant. More snide irrelevancy. It seems to be your speciality. Experiments are routinely done in historical contexts. Either you are lying, or ignorant. In either case it wholly devalues your opinions in these matters. As noted, of course experiment is possible. And why should every archaeologist conduct testing, if the relevant testing has already been conducted by others? I would not be surprised. I would be amazed. Please provide appropriate citations to support your claim. Include citations that refute the points made by Strange about the evidence for ramp use. Alternatively, and preferably, admit you are wrong. Provide the citations to justify this claim. More snide ignorance. I am at a loss as to why your nonsense is tolerated. Huh?

Who said this would make humans, chimps and gorillas equal? No one. What does equal even mean? If you mean identical, that would be wrong, since they are not identical either in appearance, behaviour, or genome. They are, however, very similar - in appearance, behaviour and genome. The difference is explained by Darwin's concept of Natural Selection and the development of that concept in a century and a half of sound observation.

I just asked a small group if they could do this. All agreed they could and were surprised it was even questioned. It is perhaps worth noting that they consisted of two Brazillians, one Chinese, one Saudi, one Kuwaiti, one Englishman and a Scot, so the ability appears to be cross cultural - not a surprise.