The Antikythera Mechanism is a hoax!

[JTEM]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

The Antikythera Mechanism is a hoax! And I don't
necessarily mean that it's NOT a very ancient
artifact, though it very well might not be. The
ancient world had it's fair share of hoaxsters, so
even if it's really ancient (which it might not
be), it's still a hoax... according to Occam's
Razor.

This isn't far fetched at all...

There is a rather famous "Mechanical" hoax:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turk

The Mechanical Turk was supposed to be a machine,
an "Automaton," the 18th century's version of Walt
Disney Wold's robots, only it was all a hoax.

Now the thing about the Mechanical Turk is that
it supposed had doors which could be opened,
revealing all the complicated mechanical works,
but it was all just for show. A man hid inside
and operated it. Nobody was playing chess against
a machine, they were playing against a man...

Now for Antikythera Mechanism...

we have no choice but to "Scientifically" conclude
that the Antikythera Mechanism is in fact a hoax.

Why?

EVIDENCE!

See, the Antikythera Mechanism doesn't work. It can't
work. There is no way to put together the gears in
a fashion which would cause it to perform any useful
function.

Kind of typical of fake "Science" oriented people, huh?
The Antikythera Mechanism doesn't work, it can't work,
engineers are unanimous in concluding that it's simply
impossible to make it work given the physical evidence
(the actual gears) and yet there's dozens of working
"Reproductions" and countless claims regarding it endless
uses and startling accuracy...

But why not call it a hoax?

Remember "Occam's Razor"?

Hoaxes are real. They happen. They're always a
possibility. Secondly, we have a mechanism which
simply doesn't do anything, not with the given
parts. So, why not adopt the simplest solution, the
one that requires the least number of assumptions?
Which is to say; the Antikythera Mechanism is a
hoax. It's an ancient hoax.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/98565267068

[Hoax..*]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

"The Antikythera Mechanism is a hoax! And I don't necessarily mean that
it's NOT a very ancient artifact, though it very well might not be. The
ancient world had it's fair share of hoaxsters, so even if it's really
ancient (which it might not be), it's still a hoax... according to Occam's
Razor.

This isn't far fetched at all...

There is a rather famous "Mechanical" hoax:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turk

The Mechanical Turk was supposed to be a machine, an "Automaton," the 18th
century's version of Walt Disney Wold's robots, only it was all a hoax.

Now the thing about the Mechanical Turk is that it supposed had doors which
could be opened, revealing all the complicated mechanical works, but it was
all just for show. A man hid inside and operated it. Nobody was playing
chess against a machine, they were playing against a man...

Now for Antikythera Mechanism...

we have no choice but to "Scientifically" conclude that the Antikythera
Mechanism is in fact a hoax.

Why?

EVIDENCE!"

Smile, no. If one were to attempt such a silly display of tangled thinking
in logic 101, it would produce a sure failing mark.

[JTEM]

Hoax..* wrote:

> Smile, no. If one were to attempt such a silly display of tangled thinking
> in logic 101, it would produce a sure failing mark.

Assuming that things are exactly what they appear
to be is not "tangled thinking."

Again, the mechanism doesn't do anything. All the
fake "Reproductions" ADD ADDITIONAL MACHINERY! or...

Or check this out. It's a "Reproduction" of the
device only (now get this) they DROP three of the
gears!

http://www.networkworld.com/article/2270895/data-center/reproduction-of-2-100-year-old-calculator-deepens-mystery.html

It's hype. It's 100% unabashed hype.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/98565267068

[Eric Stevens]

Logic 101 strikes a problem here also when you assert that

"engineers are unanimous in concluding that it's simply impossible
to make it work given the physical evidence (the actual gears) and

yet there's dozens of working "Reproductions" ..."

It's these same engineers who are responsible for the working
reproductions.

>But why not call it a hoax?
>
>Remember "Occam's Razor"?
>
>Hoaxes are real. They happen. They're always a
>possibility. Secondly, we have a mechanism which
>simply doesn't do anything, not with the given
>parts. So, why not adopt the simplest solution, the
>one that requires the least number of assumptions?
>Which is to say; the Antikythera Mechanism is a
>hoax. It's an ancient hoax.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[JTEM]

Eric Stevens wrote:

> Logic 101 strikes a problem here

No it doesn't.

> "engineers are unanimous in concluding that it's simply impossible
> to make it work given the physical evidence (the actual gears) and
> yet there's dozens of working "Reproductions" ..."

> It's these same engineers who are responsible for the working
> reproductions.

There's no contradiction. Several REMOVE gearing. That's
right, they DISCARD gearing in order to assemble a machine
that does what people think this one might have done. Others
go the other way and ADD additional gearing.

...but it's unanimous: Given what we actually have,
all the parts recovered, they can't make this machine
work. They can make *A* machine work, but not this one.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/99111212523

[SolomonW]

On 03 Oct 2014 23:46:15 GMT, Hoax..* wrote:

> Kind of typical of fake "Science" oriented people, huh?
> The Antikythera Mechanism doesn't work, it can't work,
> engineers are unanimous in concluding that it's simply
> impossible to make it work given the physical evidence
> (the actual gears) and yet there's dozens of working
> "Reproductions" and countless claims regarding it endless
> uses and startling accuracy...

If these engineers are unanimous in concluding that it's simply

impossible to make it work given the physical evidence

(the actual gears) who are building these working
"Reproductions" and making these countless claims regarding it endless
uses and startling accuracy?





---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[SolomonW]

For this to be true, these guys who built these models are liars as they
know "its simply impossible to make it work given the physical evidence."

[JTEM]

SolomonW wrote:

> For this to be true

I will speak frankly:

Google it. Find out how many parts there are. Find
out how many parts any of the working "Reproductions"
do. This is reality here, and I refuse to debate
reality.

This is a history group, goddammit, and I refuse to
continuously have to deal with people who think there's
a place for knee-jerk.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/92716599453

[Jerk..*]

"This is a history group, goddammit, and I refuse to
continuously have to deal with people who think there's
a place for knee-jerk."

Smile, exactly.

[tylers...@gmail.com]

> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/98565267068 just a bit of info I'm not hating on you but I wanted you to know that People have remade WORKING models of this and it is possible to make! it is operated by hand though. so I do agree it may not be electric but who knows! Look. The Greeks were very smart. very smart. and they made many mechanisms. how could they possibly NOT build a working dial. it might be electric. it might not. but if you think about it... all computers know what they know because of a human mind. WAIT DO NOT STOP READING!!!! An Analog computer tells us info about the time. so if it tells us info about the time like a clock or calendar it is a Analog Computer. MIND BLOWN!!!

[JTEM]

tylers...@gmail.com wrote:

> just a bit of info I'm not hating on you but
> I wanted you to know that People have remade
> WORKING models of this

No they haven't. And I just explained how this not true.
So I'm not hating you you either, but your reading
comprehension sucks donkey penises.

There is no "Working model" that employs all the gears
found. Period.

ALL the so-called "Models" require either the addition
of gears that do not exist, or the deletion of gears
that have been found.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/131289316793

[Paul Ingerson]

Even if the machine itself doesn't work, that still doesn't mean
it's a hoax. It could just be a badly designed machine that was
intended to work but didn't.

[JTEM]

Paul Ingerson wrote:

> Even if the machine itself doesn't work, that still doesn't mean
> it's a hoax.

There's no reason to exclude a hoax -- either a modern
one or an ancient one.

That's the point.

You keep being told that the Antikythera Mechanism is a
"Computer" when it's actually most similar to BUT LESS
SOPHISTICATED THAN a medieval astronomical clock.

Take the earliest astronomical clock, delete the clock,
delete the power mechanism and you've got a rival for
the Antikythera Mechanism...

> It could just be a badly designed machine that was
> intended to work but didn't.

It could be a lot of things. What it isn't is the
machine popularly described in the media.

Now, one possibility that does exist but is NEVER
discussed in fraud. There is a possibility that it
was a hoax, but nobody talks about it. So I brought
it up here.

How would YOU rule our fraud, ancient or otherwise?





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/131343624584

[SolomonW]

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:05:05 -0700 (PDT), Paul Ingerson wrote:

> Even if the machine itself doesn't work, that still doesn't mean

> it's a hoax. It could just be a badly designed machine that was

> intended to work but didn't.

http://www.antikythera-mechanism.gr/faq/general-questions/is-it-a-fake

[davidgoo...@googlemail.com]

Ok, so lets look at what you are basically saying here. The Antikythera Mechanism can not possibly be real or have ever worked because the original fragment does not have enough gear wheels to make it run. There are bits missing, there are no pointers, and no obvious function to the casual observer.
Am I missing something here? Or are you ignoring the little fact that it's been under the sea for 2000 years, and in that time it has become more than a little corroded, and unsurprisingly, some bits have been lost along the way. It's age has been proven beyond doubt by the way, so it really is 2000 years old.

But, I guess it could still be a hoax, a hoax whereby some giggling Greek wannabe scholar with a mischievous streak thought to himself one morning when he had nothing better to do, 'I know, I'll create a machine using a future technology that nobody has invented yet, and it will do absolutely nothing - and I'll cover it in complex astronomical inscriptions and instructions on how my pretend machine could predict eclipses. I'll fill my machine with gear wheels cut with such beautiful accuracy and mathematical precision that it will take me almost a year of spare time to build it, and for good measure I shall include a clever epicyclic gear system that I'll pretend will work out the irregular motion of the moon. On the outside of the box I shall fit a series of doohickeys - I think that I shall call them dials - that have never been seen on any machine ever before (wow, I'm actually inventing stuff as I go!) - yes, that's what I'll do - what a hoot!'.

So, our cheeky scholar has now produced his machine that does nothing and he is righteously proud of it - the world has never seen a fake machine as accurate as this, and then the poor sod got it stolen and lost in a shipwreck - I bet he was gutted. It was discovered by the people who studied it 2000 years later that the trickery was so clever that he even managed to accidentally have the correct number of teeth on his gear wheels so that if the machine had ever run it would have actually done some pretty amazing stuff... Shame that he only built it as a hoax...

You talk of facts, but the most important fact is that around 90% of the main part of the machine has been found, and once you know what it's actually supposed to do, it only takes the addition of a very few mathematically obvious gear wheels to complete the bits that are missing to make the mechanism function perfectly. It would be a coincidence of astronomical proportions that the remaining gearing would be missing 3 or 4 key gears (for which there are visible pivot points on the existing frames) to stop it working.

If you genuinely believe this to be a hoax of any kind then you obviously haven't done much research. Read some articles, see what's on the net, and look at the maths of the gear trains - if this is a hoax then it's the stupidest and most elaborate hoax in the history of mankind.

:-)

[JTEM]

> Ok, so lets look at what you are basically saying here.

Lets.

> The Antikythera Mechanism can not possibly be real or
> have ever worked because the original fragment does
> not have enough gear wheels to make it run.

What I pointed out is that the probability of it being
a hoax was always greater than zero.

And this is a fact.

Then I go on to explain how there is no known way to
make it function.

So if the probability of it being a fake is greater
than zero, AND if we know of no way to make it
function, why assume that it not only isn't a fake
but that it sported mind-blowing accuracy?

Shouldn't we default to "Fake" instead of "Computer"?

> Am I missing something here?

A great deal.

The default here is that we're looking at an OOPART,
and Out-Of-Place-Artifact, nothing less than a
"Computer," a sophisticated machine that was oh so
intensely accurate.

Why?

We all know that hoaxes are real, and were even
common in ancient Greece. We also know that we
can't make this thing work. But NOBODY entertains
the obvious -- that it could be a hoax -- while
many attribute characteristic which simply are not
present.

Characteristic that is present: Don't work.

Characteristic that is NOT present: Any function
what so ever.

So if assuming it's an early computer DESPITE
the latter in a world with a significantly
greater than zero probability of fraud is reasonable,
than assuming that it's a hoax (given the former)
is common sense.

> But, I guess it could still be a hoax

Really? Despite it not working?

Despite no known way to make it work?

Despite the fact that it was always a possibility?

Gee, that's big of you...




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/144760592142

[Razor*-*]

How did they get a little person in The Antikythera Mechanism? All the
human driven machine turk example irrelevant.

How is it being as described not the better use of Occam's razor?

The most recent imaging of the innards finds labels about astronomy events.
More support for the better Occam's fit not less, no?

I haven't looked recently, but I recall mentions of such a device in
writings of the supposed era it was said to have been made.
More Occam's support or less?

What is the motivation for anyone to support it as hoax absent evidence to
the contrary?

[JTEM]

Razor*-* wrote:

> How did they get a little person in The Antikythera Mechanism?

I argue that maybe it would make more sense
to default on the facts we have, instead of
speculation, and you offer speculation.

HINT: A hoax doesn't require a little person, or
anything.

> How is it being as described not the better use of Occam's razor?

The descriptions are all based on evidence we don't
have, rather than the evidence we do have.

I made that much clear. How on earth did you miss it,
and why should I converse with anyone that dumb?





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/144760592142

[Razor*-*]

>> How did they get a little person in The Antikythera Mechanism?
>
>I argue that maybe it would make more sense
>to default on the facts we have, instead of
>speculation, and you offer speculation.

Ah, so good old turk explains your "default"?>

>HINT: A hoax doesn't require a little person, or
>anything.

O come now, one can take only so much disappointment in one day, there is
no turk?

>> How is it being as described not the better use of Occam's razor?
>
>The descriptions are all based on evidence we don't
>have, rather than the evidence we do have.
>
>I made that much clear. How on earth did you miss it,

Do tell, how can so much be missed?

>and why should I converse with anyone that dumb?
>

Because you with much hand waving and foot stomping have presented nothing
that matters past the next 5 seconds.
>
Poor turk, I miss him even now.
>
>
>
>-- --
>
>http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/144760592142

[JTEM]

Razor*-* wrote:

> Ah, so good old

You're dick fencing, stubby, and you're not
succeeding.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/144820272307

[Martin Edwards]

Could you reformat that in standard English?

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

[hebi_n...@live.com]

i see some serious trolling deduction logic here! and i want to ask you...why such hate against ancient greek tech? and where are you from?

[mikepl...@gmail.com]

Has anyone considered that the original machine was
a) an unfinished device?
OR
b) part of a larger device?

[JTEM]

No.

Google it.

Most describe it as a "Computer," and of
those half or more attribute great
"Accuracy" to the device. But, none consider
the possibility that it didn't work.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/146656020738

[noe...@gmail.com]

You,Sir,are a Turd Squirrel....

[for...@gmail.com]

> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/98565267068

[for...@gmail.com]

View NOVA's "Ancient Computer and you will see that it is real, valid, and plausible

[Eric Stevens]

The fact that you can't think of any way to do it is certainly not
evidence that it can't be done.

>>
>> Kind of typical of fake "Science" oriented people, huh?
>> The Antikythera Mechanism doesn't work, it can't work,
>> engineers are unanimous in concluding that it's simply
>> impossible to make it work given the physical evidence
>> (the actual gears) and yet there's dozens of working
>> "Reproductions" and countless claims regarding it endless
>> uses and startling accuracy...
>>
>> But why not call it a hoax?
>>
>> Remember "Occam's Razor"?
>>
>> Hoaxes are real. They happen. They're always a
>> possibility. Secondly, we have a mechanism which
>> simply doesn't do anything, not with the given
>> parts. So, why not adopt the simplest solution, the
>> one that requires the least number of assumptions?
>> Which is to say; the Antikythera Mechanism is a
>> hoax. It's an ancient hoax.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- --
>>
>> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/98565267068

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[horosco...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 3, 2014 at 3:36:02 PM UTC-7, Oh so rich & successful JTEM wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
>
> The Antikythera Mechanism is a hoax! And I don't
> necessarily mean that it's NOT a very ancient
> artifact, though it very well might not be. The
> ancient world had it's fair share of hoaxsters, so
> even if it's really ancient (which it might not
> be), it's still a hoax... according to Occam's
> Razor.

> Of course, there are people who believe that humans have never voyaged to the moon either.They believe it was some huge conspiracy by the U.S. government!
What if, 2000 years from now, humans find the remains of a slide rule. And someone theorized that it was instrumental in calculating many of the formulas of physics required to power and land an aircraft on the lunar surface...and return that person alive! Who would believe it!!
A side rule is a pretty simple instrument. But in the right hands...

> This isn't far fetched at all...
>
> There is a rather famous "Mechanical" hoax:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turk
>
> The Mechanical Turk was supposed to be a machine,
> an "Automaton," the 18th century's version of Walt
> Disney Wold's robots, only it was all a hoax.
>
> Now the thing about the Mechanical Turk is that
> it supposed had doors which could be opened,
> revealing all the complicated mechanical works,
> but it was all just for show. A man hid inside
> and operated it. Nobody was playing chess against
> a machine, they were playing against a man...
>
> Now for Antikythera Mechanism...
>
> we have no choice but to "Scientifically" conclude
> that the Antikythera Mechanism is in fact a hoax.
>
> Why?
>
> EVIDENCE!
>
> See, the Antikythera Mechanism doesn't work. It can't
> work. There is no way to put together the gears in
> a fashion which would cause it to perform any useful
> function.
>

[dyl.g...@gmail.com]

The only backbone for calling this a hoax is "people can't figure out how it was powered" but non the less it's still a device that replicates the movements of the sun and the moon! Now if you can put some faith in the intelligence of the Greek and accept that they were very advanced and aware of how to use energy and electromagnetics. For the simple facts and evidence that there were more technologically advanced civilizations than today's age. So many miss-informed history buffs would like to deny any ainchent civilization from ever harnessing the knowlage of electricity. But people today are so conformed, they refuse to see the fundimental value, and instead take pride in scrutinizing mysteries with a bias intent limiting our awareness when understanding the function and purpose of such devices. When someone is unable to accept the inherent facts of somethings pourpose, they destroy any creative avail in a pompous act of denying the existence of anything improbable.
Its classically decisive people who are the most incoherent thinkers. By adapting intellect recited in common practices you eradicate the impossible with a compelling yet unappreciated perspective that only shuts you off to unprecedented realitys.

[reader]

What evidence would you offer for ancient "advanced civilization" having
knowledge of such things as electromagnetism?

What other areas of modern science do you claim also existed?

Where/when were these cultures to be found?

What exactly is a "civilization"?

[Ned Latham]

The lazy lying christian apologist that
sometimes calls itself "reader" wrote:

----snip----

> What exactly is a "civilization"?

The word comes from the Latin civitas, meaning city.
A civilisation is a polity based on city living (as
opposed to living on the move).

[reader]

>> What exactly is a "civilization"?
>
>The word comes from the Latin civitas, meaning city.
>A civilisation is a polity based on city living (as
>opposed to living on the move).

That has been the case for most cultures in the past 10 k years with the
coming of agriculture and includes tribal level cultures.

Such things as big buildings and written language are sometimes thrown into
the mix.

The problem is when some qualatative dimension factor is thrown into the
discussion.

What is simply a mattr of large scale culture complexity takes on
ethnocentric distortion.

This is sometimes described as though it is a disease "spreading" from
place to place.

[SolomonW]

On 06 Sep 2017 13:55:10 GMT, reader wrote:

> What evidence would you offer for ancient "advanced civilization" having
> knowledge of such things as electromagnetism?

http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~infocom/Ideas/static.html

[reader]

>> What evidence would you offer for ancient "advanced civilization" having
>> knowledge of such things as electromagnetism?
>
>http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~infocom/Ideas/static.html

That interesting article was about static electricity, quite a different
thing thenelectromagnetism.

The most ancient example of electromagnetism is the lodestone, a naturally
magnet of an iron alloy.

Using tthem the chinese invented the compas by rubbing a lodestone with an
iron needle. .

his observation of electromagnetism is not an undrstanding at any level of
that term any more then observing falling objects is an understanding of
the gravitational. elemental force.

[SolomonW]

On 21 Sep 2017 21:24:28 GMT, reader wrote:

>>> What evidence would you offer for ancient "advanced civilization" having
>>> knowledge of such things as electromagnetism?
>>
>>http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~infocom/Ideas/static.html
>
> That interesting article was about static electricity, quite a different
> thing thenelectromagnetism.

Yes, you are right

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Eric Stevens wrote:

> The fact that you can't think of any way to do it is

Does making it about me help you? Does it quiet the
demons inside your head? Does it rescue you from
having to think? Does it keep you safely walled off
from reality?

Nobody has made it work. Nobody. All the "Reproductions"
either leave out gearing of add gears that don't exist.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/166044383738

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

for...@gmail.com wrote:

> View NOVA's "Ancient Computer

You've substituted TV for reality. Wow. You're
fucked up!

Now try addressing something that I actually said,
instead of bowing to your glowing god in the living
room.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/166044383738

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

dyl.g...@gmail.com wrote:

> The only backbone for calling this a hoax is "people can't figure out how it was powered" but non the less it's still a device that replicates the

No, moron, it doesn't work. All the fake reproductions
either leave out gears found or add additional gears
for which there is no evidence for.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/166044383738

[prisone...@gmail.com]

I like this line of thought.

The following also occurred to me.

Regarding leaving gears out when rebuilding the item;

If you had spent so much time building a machine and were transporting it via sea during the archaic age, would you not take spare parts?

The idea that somebody smart enough to achieve such mathematical and mechanical feats at that time would fail to consider the potential for repairs and maintenance strikes me as a little, well, out of character. It is not unreasonable to consider that some of the parts recovered were intended for maintenance.

Alternatively, perhaps some of the additional gears were designed to alter the function of the device for another, perhaps similar purpose. A small reassembling of gears would change the initial measurements. We've certainly used gears in this manner for a very long time.

Lateral yes, but logical none-the-less. Certainly more logical than the rejection of the notion that the vessel would have carried additional parts, I'd say.

Regarding additional gears used in the reconstruction;

Ancient sets are rarely recovered in a complete state, especially when lost at sea. I'd be more sceptical if there were no parts missing. To me, this only serves to reinforce the argument in favour of its legitimacy.

Best wishes.

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

prisone...@gmail.com wrote:

> Regarding leaving gears out when rebuilding the item;
>
> If you had spent so much time building a machine and were transporting it via sea during the archaic age, would you not take spare parts?

My post was really about strictly adhering to the evidence
as well as principles such as Occam's Razor. We can
speculate all day, as you are doing here, but in the end
we are violating Occam's Razor. There is a simpler
explanation, one that fully accounts for the evidence that
we have instead of the evidence which we don't have, and
that is to say it's a hoax.

All other explanations rely on evidence we don't have.


Back when this group was more active there was a lot of
arguing about evidence, about what is and is not evidence.
You'd need knowledge of those exchanges to fully comprehend
my motives here but suffice it to say that the Antikythera
Mechanism illustrates "Perceptual" issues in that people
confuse popular interpretations for the physical evidence
itself.

> The idea that somebody smart enough to achieve such mathematical and mechanical feats at that time would fail to consider the potential for repairs and maintenance strikes me as a little, well, out of character.

You're employing logic here, not evidence. Worse, it's not
even logic! It merely /Seems/ logical to you. To someone
else it likely seems illogical, noting that you do not drive
around with a spare fuel injector. That, you'd only acquire
one if the need arose. And as the Antikythera Mechanism would
have been hand crafted & hideously expensive, spare parts
would have been a great deal more cost prohibitive than would
your spare fuel injector.

Logic isn't evidence, even before considering the fact that
it rarely turns out to be logic at all.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179900170758

[neilst...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, October 4, 2014 at 12:36:02 AM UTC+2, Oh so rich & successful JTEM wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
>
> The Antikythera Mechanism is a hoax! And I don't
> necessarily mean that it's NOT a very ancient
> artifact, though it very well might not be. The
> ancient world had it's fair share of hoaxsters, so
> even if it's really ancient (which it might not
> be), it's still a hoax... according to Occam's
> Razor.
>

The peer reviewed article https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05357 disagrees with the hoax theory.

[Ned Latham]

neilstallard wrote:
> JTEM wrote:

----snip----

> > Remember "Occam's Razor"?
> >
> > Hoaxes are real. They happen. They're always a
> > possibility. Secondly, we have a mechanism which
> > simply doesn't do anything, not with the given
> > parts. So, why not adopt the simplest solution, the
> > one that requires the least number of assumptions?
> > Which is to say; the Antikythera Mechanism is a
> > hoax. It's an ancient hoax.

Rubbish. The simplest explanation is that corrosion has destroyed its
design integrity; ie, we don't have the whole thing.

> The peer reviewed article https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05357
> disagrees with the hoax theory.

So does good sense.

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

neilst...@gmail.com wrote:

> The peer reviewed article

What do you think that means?

Go on. Spell it out: What exactly is "Peer review" and how does it work?

Give us examples.

Then explain this "Peet reviewed" quote:

: for timing agricultural activity and fixing religious festivals.

What are these words carved on the device? Hmm?

And they say those words as opinion, they state them as fact!

Wow. "Peer Reviewed" must be French for "Lacks critical
thinking skills."

> https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05357 disagrees with the hoax theory.

So?

We all knew what the popular view was, long before I said anything, so
what would have been the point in my posting it?

"What is wet!"

So you're not telling us anything. Nothing.

Well, you are demonstrating just how far removed from science or
history the beliefs surrounding the Antikythera Mechanism are.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/615019510884433920

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Ned Latham wrote:

> The simplest explanation is that corrosion has destroyed its
> design integrity; ie, we don't have the whole thing.

Why?

How is that any simpler than "It's exactly what it looks like, a
hoax?"

Do you see any evidence for missing pieces?


"Garbage In/Garbage Out"







-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/614993578577592320

[Ned Latham]

JTEM wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:

> > The simplest explanation is that corrosion has destroyed its
> > design integrity; ie, we don't have the whole thing.
>
> Why?

What part of "corrosion" do you fail to understand?

----snip----

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Ned Latham wrote:

> What part of "corrosion" do you fail to understand?

The part where you're pretending that it's a French word
for "Went somewhere else."







-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/615234878354636800

[Ned Latham]

JTEM wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > JTEM wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:

> > > > The simplest explanation is that corrosion has destroyed its
> > > > design integrity; ie, we don't have the whole thing.
> > >
> > > Why?
> >

> > What part of "corrosion" do you fail to understand?
>
> The part where you're pretending that it's a French word
> for "Went somewhere else."

Perhaps you think you're smarter than the average moron.
Perhaps you're right about that, though I doubt it.

Your delusions aren't knowledge.

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Ned Latham wrote:

> Perhaps you think you're smarter than the average moron.

Perhaps you think you're not the average moron.

> Perhaps you're right about that, though I doubt it.

Perhaps you're sane, though I doubt it.

> Your delusions aren't knowledge.

And what you mistaken for knowledge is a delusion.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/615234878354636800

[Ned Latham]

JTEM wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps you think you're smarter than the average moron.
>
> Perhaps you think you're not the average moron.

Nope. I am clearly far more intelligent than you.

> > Perhaps you're right about that, though I doubt it.
>
> Perhaps you're sane, though I doubt it.

That's a lie.

> > Your delusions aren't knowledge.
>
> And what you mistaken for knowledge is a delusion.

What you pretend is a delusion doesn't even exist.

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Ned Latham wrote:

> Nope. I am clearly far more intelligent than you.

And yet you don't even know what my position is. You have
no idea what you're arguing against. You don't even know
why you're doing it. I challenge you: The thread is before
you! State exactly what you believe my position is, and
draw on quotes from the thread to back up this claims.

You can't.

So much for "Intelligent."




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/615234878354636800

[Ned Latham]

JTEM wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > Nope. I am clearly far more intelligent than you.
>
> And yet you don't even know what my position is. You have
> no idea what you're arguing against. You don't even know
> why you're doing it. I challenge you: The thread is before
> you! State exactly what you believe my position is, and
> draw on quotes from the thread to back up this claims.
>
> You can't.

Wrong again, dimwit. How do think it is that I'm able to restore
posts after you've trashed them with your evasive snipping?

> So much for "Intelligent."

Nothing to do with intelligence, you moron. I keep an archive.

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Ned Latham wrote:

> JTEM wrote:

> > And yet you don't even know what my position is. You have
> > no idea what you're arguing against. You don't even know
> > why you're doing it. I challenge you: The thread is before
> > you! State exactly what you believe my position is, and
> > draw on quotes from the thread to back up this claims.
> >
> > You can't.

> Wrong again, dimwit.

You didn't do it. And it's because you couldn't. Even with the
entire thread available to you, you can't ascertain what my
position is. You can't figure out what you're arguing against.

You couldn't do it. You failed.







-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/615234878354636800

[Ned Latham]

JTEM wrote:

----snip----

> You didn't do it.

I know that, you moron.

----desperate babble snipped----

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Ned Latham wrote:

> JTEM wrote:
> > You couldn't do it. You failed.

> I know that, you moron.

You failed! You couldn't do it! You won't even try, you're so
convinced of your own ineptitude!

I'm laughing at you!





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/615234300779118592

[Ned Latham]

JTEM uttered a forgery (which I deleted for the newsgroup's sake):

> Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > I know that, you moron.
>
> You failed!

Wrong again, moron.

----snip----

> I'm laughing at you!

You're getting hysterical, you cretin. Maybe you should stay away from
that red cordial.

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Ned Latham wrote:

> Wrong again, moron.

Now you're in full-blown psycho mode. You could not tell me
what my position is, not even with the whole thread to draw
on. You were challenged to do so, you were ridiculed for your
inability to do so, for your lack of intellectual capability.

You couldn't do it.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/615234878354636800

[hell...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 14, 2020 at 2:22:11 AM UTC+5:30, Oh so rich & successful JTEM wrote:

I Think The Device has not been Radiocarbon dated..
It Could SIMPLY be a DEVICE from 1700 or 1800...
Whenever Anything is Found by Some Nationalist (Athens,GREECE).. They Will OVERRATE It and OVERHYPE It Since It Gives them NATIONALIST APPEAL..Since Their Curent TIMES isnt GOOD for their NATION...
Here is How it Goes in HUMAN CIVILIZATION ..The ATHEN Guy gets LARGE FUNDING to LIVE Off that --->>> DOCUMENTARY and MEDIA PRODUCERS Use this to MAKE MONEY -- >>> BRAINWASHED HUMANS who watch MEDIA,TV,DOCs --- >>>> These HUMANS Go and Spread They WORD and MAKE SOMETHING has HUGE LIE == TRUTH...((For Example:Adolf Hitler Hated by the World))

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

hell...@gmail.com wrote:

> I Think The Device has not been Radiocarbon dated..
> It Could SIMPLY be a DEVICE from 1700 or 1800...
> Whenever Anything is Found by Some Nationalist (Athens,GREECE).. They Will OVERRATE It and OVERHYPE It Since It Gives them NATIONALIST APPEAL..Since Their Curent TIMES isnt GOOD for their NATION...
> Here is How it Goes in HUMAN CIVILIZATION ..The ATHEN Guy gets LARGE FUNDING to LIVE Off that --->>> DOCUMENTARY and MEDIA PRODUCERS Use this to MAKE MONEY -- >>> BRAINWASHED HUMANS who watch MEDIA,TV,DOCs --- >>>> These HUMANS Go and Spread They WORD and MAKE SOMETHING has HUGE LIE == TRUTH...((For Example:Adolf Hitler Hated by the World))

Hitler?

I'm disappointed that you didn't mention aliens.







-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/626177569829552128

[ameliewh...@gmail.com]

> Remember "Occam's Razor"?
>
> Hoaxes are real. They happen. They're always a
> possibility. Secondly, we have a mechanism which
> simply doesn't do anything, not with the given
> parts. So, why not adopt the simplest solution, the
> one that requires the least number of assumptions?
> Which is to say; the Antikythera Mechanism is a
> hoax. It's an ancient hoax.
>
>
>
>

> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/98565267068

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/alt.society.liberalism/kiJCPhdSXQg
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/alt.society.liberalism/qjcAKAqfBtI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/alt.society.liberalism/uw0qE_5DBRY
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/alt.society.liberalism/SqD42SGNowQ
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/alt.society.liberalism/ELCW5L44Q_o
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.women/bimvoT4ujok
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.women/Vi1etPY0Dwc
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.women/fapcB0YWtYk

[ameliewh...@gmail.com]

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/comp.mail.sendmail/CNwgya0ACLE
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/comp.mail.sendmail/I3a8gJZGVP0
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.culture.portuguese/2DbnKov3tig
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.culture.portuguese/SCa5aICuCDM
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/news.software.readers/qMxX5fdhN9E
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/news.software.readers/_qDDk3sOmdQ
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/news.software.readers/dwxzZxIDKHY
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/news.software.readers/NpeZ_PUYxZs
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/alt.religion.christian.biblestudy/4tBB0zslLRY
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/alt.religion.christian.biblestudy/jDJHUgTpmgU
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/alt.religion.christian.biblestudy/_iWP5sskN9M