Viking-Saxon gold 'Stolen'

[Notafront4adragon]

9 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

I'll see if I can find them again, but others will be far more adept at researching these things

Typical of this thread. Say something outlandish then can't be arsed to back it up. 

I think you may indeed have read too much science FICTION.

[AndrewSL76]

Just had a look at the sentencing guidelines again...I was curious to know whether anyone on this thread, if prosecuted for stealing the thread away from the original theme, could face a custodial sentence.

The only offence that I could find in statute that would potentially be of use was 'Theft'. If it were possible to obtain the CPS go ahead to prosecute, a custodial may be possible if this was not the offenders' first offence......

Given the vast amount of evidence on point, that most threads on here go from 'what do you think of my shiny gold - isn't it lovely' to 'Corbyn hates everyone and is evil' or 'The earth is flat and Marilyn Monroe shot JFK' leads me to conclude that this may not be too much of a reach to get to...............

In short - most of you (you know who you are) are going to jail.

[insert 'smiley face' emoji here ten thousand times]

[Notafront4adragon]

9 hours ago, sixgun said:

Yes as described in the Matrix. Multiple versions of Zion which get obliterated and a small group of humans start again.

There many historical sites which simply seem to be ignored - our true history would appear to be very different to what the authorities would wish us to know. There is a Bulgarian woman runs a youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/everhungriescatgang - she looks at a lot of historical sites which do not appear to be covered by the establishment - not talking about underwater ruins which again seem to be ignored - or the seemingly impossible constructions in Egypt where high tech equipment would have had to have been employed and yet the 'experts' don't talk about this. 

She actually runs trips to various places - i have thought if i were a bit more flush i would take a trip or so. 

The idea of genetic manipulation have been voiced by a number - Zecharia Sitchin has covered this - his work is taken from Sumerian tablets - some he seems to have made up but humans are given as a product of the Anunnaki. Mauro Biglio has written as number of books - this is the English version that covers his translation of the old Hebrew Bible - he is an expert translator who worked for the Vatican until he started blabbing about his findings -  https://archive.org/details/MauroBiglinoBook/

The idea of humans being poorly adapted to Earth are covered by Dr Ellis Silver - he has written a hefty book on this subject - Humans are not from Earth not read it myself - as you might imagine it gets labelled as crazy but you would expect the establishment to do just that. i have looked at the idea of the missing link which presumes we have some how evolved from apes - it would not be a missing link it would be missing 100's of links. You are virtually hypothesising an ape gave birth to a baby otherwise and that is just BS. The so called missing links which have been presented like 'Lucy' are garbage. There are still alleged sightings of other hominids (Big Foot etc) - i am not sure they have necessarily gone extinct but the authorities disappear evidence - the whole point of the Smithsonian museum it would seem. The theory might be we are genetically engineered from one of them.

 

"Dr" Ellis self published this tripe, even says it's not meant to be a scientific piece of work but a collection of ideas to start a debate. In orther words it's a work of fiction meant to entertain not be taken seriously. 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.scicommbobulate.com/blog/2014/2/18/week-6-book-review-humans-are-not-from-earth-by-ellis-silver%3fformat=amp

Just because you don't understand something the answer isn't aliens did it.

[ilovesilverireallydo]

For those interested in such subjects - a long while ago I read SIVA! https://amzn.to/2OEUmnD

This is an interesting book - fiction, but presents many ideas that are being considered on this thread. 

[sovereignsteve]

1 hour ago, Notafront4adragon said:

Typical of this thread. Say something outlandish then can't be arsed to back it up. 

I think you may indeed have read too much science FICTION.

Ok guilty as charged. You clearly don't want to even consider such things.

I did research this stuff about thirty years ago and it was clear such ideas were not allowed. They were being covered up, ridiculed or simply ignored by the authorities and mainstream academia. It would be easier to research these days with the internet but you can't believe everything you read😂

These things cannot be proven, evidence is covered up but if you have an open mind  you can find many things that can't be explained. Official explanations are simply inadequate or missing.

I am not trying to convince anyone, most people would refuse to even consider such ideas. I have realised its a waste of time trying to get anywhere with this subject and yes at my age I've given up trying.

I will try and find those studies I mentioned though.

 

[sixgun]

2 hours ago, Notafront4adragon said:

You really have a vivid imagination. I really would love to know what it's like to have such an outlook on life. Are you, on average happy with the world or angry?

How is Lucy garbage please specify why it doesn't fit as one intermediary stage? It would be good if you could use proper terminology but however you can would be great.

Lucy has been rejected as an intermediate stage - 'she' isn't a missing link - the idea she is an intermediate stage, the missing link is 'garbage'.  There is no evidence of a missing link, the fragments that have been offered are apes - as i pointed out earlier the proposal of a (one) missing link is saying an ape gives birth to a baby. The missing link is essential to the theory of human evolution - notice it is still called a theory - not that that is a problem but it would imply it is a hypothesis, an idea put forward. The idea that what has been found could have been missing links relies on vivid imaginations. The idea there is a missing link relies on imagination until and unless there is evidence which doesn't exist.
i am not sure pointing out the absence of substantive evidence is a problem implying anger or unhappiness.

The establishment would have you believe that man's history is a pretty settled thing - we are an ape that came down from the trees, stood up and was man. There is no actual evidence to support this - perhaps you thought there was. There is actually a crisis in science called the replication crisis where at least half of science is difficult or impossible to replicate - if it cannot be repeated it is very likely wrong. Subjects like psychology when analysed actually have zero statistical significance. i garnered this from Peter Ridd  was a professor of Physics at James Cook University - he was expert in some of the issues to do with the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef is one of the pillars of the Climate Change cult. He pointed out the claims it was dying due to 'Climate Change' were not based on fact - he was sacked - he has received something like $1 million AUD in compensation after a prolonged fight. He spoke out and told the truth - he said he was shocked when he looked closely and realised there was this replication crisis, he thought it was just in Physics - this is one of the herd of elephants in the room. Large amount of science is as good as garbage. It should make people unhappy and angry we are in a post fact world and we are being deceived.

[sixgun]

2 hours ago, Notafront4adragon said:

"Dr" Ellis self published this tripe, even says it's not meant to be a scientific piece of work but a collection of ideas to start a debate. In orther words it's a work of fiction meant to entertain not be taken seriously. 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.scicommbobulate.com/blog/2014/2/18/week-6-book-review-humans-are-not-from-earth-by-ellis-silver%3fformat=amp

Just because you don't understand something the answer isn't aliens did it.

i will cover the 'aliens' later - i am busy right now - this seems crazy stuff - but ask yourself why would it be crazy?  Man creates his own environment - he isn't at some pinnacle of adaption to the environment - but the theories of evolution predict species evolve to suit their environment. 

i will return to the Sumerians - there are over a million clay tablets from them - a lot of records - there are some interesting astronomical evidence.

[Notafront4adragon]

25 minutes ago, sixgun said:

Lucy has been rejected as an intermediate stage - 'she' isn't a missing link - the idea she is an intermediate stage, the missing link is 'garbage'.  There is no evidence of a missing link, the fragments that have been offered are apes - as i pointed out earlier the proposal of a (one) missing link is saying an ape gives birth to a baby. The missing link is essential to the theory of human evolution - notice it is still called a theory - not that that is a problem but it would imply it is a hypothesis, an idea put forward. The idea that what has been found could have been missing links relies on vivid imaginations. The idea there is a missing link relies on imagination until and unless there is evidence which doesn't exist.
i am not sure pointing out the absence of substantive evidence is a problem implying anger or unhappiness.

The establishment would have you believe that man's history is a pretty settled thing - we are an ape that came down from the trees, stood up and was man. There is no actual evidence to support this - perhaps you thought there was. There is actually a crisis in science called the replication crisis where at least half of science is difficult or impossible to replicate - if it cannot be repeated it is very likely wrong. Subjects like psychology when analysed actually have zero statistical significance. i garnered this from Peter Ridd  was a professor of Physics at James Cook University - he was expert in some of the issues to do with the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef is one of the pillars of the Climate Change cult. He pointed out the claims it was dying due to 'Climate Change' were not based on fact - he was sacked - he has received something like $1 million AUD in compensation after a prolonged fight. He spoke out and told the truth - he said he was shocked when he looked closely and realised there was this, he thought it was just Physics - this is one of the herd of elephants in the room. Large amount of science is as good as garbage. It should make people unhappy and angry we are in a post fact world and we are being deceived.

Dr Ridd is an interesting case. He was awarded the money because the judge ruled he was damaged goods and would suffer loss of earnings the appeal by JCU is still going on though so he may have to pay some back. 

His research is heavily funded by the sugarcane industry as well as several other agriochemicals business. Why would they would want to deny climate change?!

He misrepresented the science and has always been criticised by the consensus. That he does it at the behest of his capitalist overlords isn't surprising to me. 

[sixgun]

Just now, Notafront4adragon said:

Dr Ridd is an interesting case. He was awarded the money because the judge ruled he was damaged goods and would suffer loss of earnings the appeal by JCU is still going on though so he may have to pay some back. 

His research is heavily funded by the sugarcane industry as well as several other agriochemicals business. Why would they would want to deny climate change?!

He misrepresented the science and has always been criticised by the consensus. That he does it at the behest of his capitalist overlords isn't surprising to me. 

Let's say for a minute he is badly biased - a fraud and liar - does this alter the reality of the replication crisis in science?
i mentioned him as an introduction to the notion that a lot of science is faulty - indeed a lot of what is put out today is fraud.

Do you concur with the man made global warming - climate change hypothesis? 

[Melon]

Catching up and I don't even feel like I've made the weirdest posts on this thread anymore 😅

What do we all think about Aliens? Obviously they must be real, otherwise why would the government deny they exist? But what I can't figure out is why do the Aliens want the Viking treasure? 🥺

Someone pass the joint. 

[sovereignsteve]

On 01/12/2019 at 22:29, Notafront4adragon said:

Which studies show this and are they looking at current evolutionary theories or are we talking Darwin Again?

Try these:

https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/

https://www.amazon.com/Deniable-Darwin-David-Berlinski-ebook/dp/B0799R1TV2/ref=sr_1_1

https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Explosive-Origin-Intelligent-ebook/dp/B0089LOM5G/ref=sr_1_2

 

[sovereignsteve]

https://www.hoover.org/research/mathematical-challenges-darwins-theory-evolution-david-berlinski-stephen-meyer-and-david

[Notafront4adragon]

7 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

Try these:

https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/

https://www.amazon.com/Deniable-Darwin-David-Berlinski-ebook/dp/B0799R1TV2/ref=sr_1_1

https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Explosive-Origin-Intelligent-ebook/dp/B0089LOM5G/ref=sr_1_2

 

Berlinski is a creationist and suggests intelligent design which has some big holes. 

Meyers isn't saying any thing evolutionary biologists don't know. Darwin didn't propose how new species come about, I'd say they are still trying to understand it. However the balance of evidence points to something else besides a creationist argument. Again it's easier to say aliens or God then attempt to understand complex concepts.

[Notafront4adragon]

9 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

https://www.hoover.org/research/mathematical-challenges-darwins-theory-evolution-david-berlinski-stephen-meyer-and-david

We know specieslization is not always gradual. These guys are funded by evangelists and creationists. I can't take their evidence seriously as they'll deny anything not in their precious book.

But credit to you at least posting something to back up your argument. Read the selfish gene a great introduction to what drives evolution. It's not always survival of the fittest, Darwin was fundamentally wrong about that, ask any biologist and they'll tell you.

[sovereignsteve]

2 minutes ago, Notafront4adragon said:

We know specialisation is not always gradual. The guys are funded by evangelists and creationists. I can't take their evidence seriously.

But credit to you at least posting something to back up your argument. Read the selfish gene a great introduction to what drives evolution. It's not always survival of the fittest, Darwin was fundamentally wrong about that, ask any biologist and they'll tell you.

I remember reading the selfish gene many years ago. I don't remember it offering anything to explain the mathematical aspects of non-destructive mutations and how new species are "evolved". However, I'm not a mathematician, geneticist or molecular biologist.

[Notafront4adragon]

16 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

I remember reading the selfish gene many years ago. I don't remember it offering anything to explain the mathematical aspects of non-destructive mutations and how new species are "evolved". However, I'm not a mathematician, geneticist or molecular biologist.

Again this is a creationist argument that ignores other evidence in order to prove an intelligent design. 

You're free to believe such theories. 

[sovereignsteve]

1 hour ago, Notafront4adragon said:

Again this is a creationist argument that ignores other evidence in order to prove an intelligent design. 

You're free to believe such theories. 

ok point me to some evidence that refutes this

[Notafront4adragon]

21 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

ok point me to some evidence that refutes this

He maths isn't even valid so I'm not his argument stands.

Creationists ignore evidence and instead seek to use doubt as some sort of proof that their ideas must be right. 

Here's a review on different methods of mutations they cite numerous papers suggesting mechanisms for how mutations may influence evolution

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871823/

[sovereignsteve]

 

3 hours ago, Notafront4adragon said:

He maths isn't even valid so I'm not his argument stands.

Creationists ignore evidence and instead seek to use doubt as some sort of proof that their ideas must be right. 

Here's a review on different methods of mutations they cite numerous papers suggesting mechanisms for how mutations may influence evolution

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871823/

Yes a review on the state of the art re: the nature of mutations, essentially looking at the trees in detail but ignoring the wood. Irrelevant to the discussion in hand.

Where is the evidence that these so called "creationists" are ignoring?

The conclusion:

"We have provided an overview of the nature of mutations and theories that describe their fate once they have entered a population. Much work remains to be done, however, in order to integrate existing theories more fully and to better understand their implications. We have shown that such work is important for questions of practical interest, such as how fast species can adapt to new environments, how genetic factors can contribute to their extinction and what consequences follow from man-made technology driven increases in mutation rates that may unintentionally increase genetic diseases in humans as well as threaten the survival of endangered species. Mutations, however, also provide the raw material for the improvement of plants and animals for food production, and we need to know how best to use them. The population genetics of mutations is undoubtedly central to many theoretical and applied questions in biology."

It essentially says that mutations are complicated and rare. There is no attempt to look at the broad picture of evolution, the over-riding assumption, mentioned a few times, is that evolution is a done deal. There is one casual reference to mathematics with a simple throwaway comment of " Mathematical models used in the analysis of the effects of mutations on quantitative traits are usually simplistic, in part so they are tractable and in part due to lack of detailed information"

It seems that you're the one ignoring evidence. Simply to say " These guys are funded by evangelists and creationists. I can't take their evidence seriously as they'll deny anything not in their precious book." isn't a very scientific outlook.

[Notafront4adragon]

I'm not ignoring evidence, it's bad science and therefore can't be a valid argument to disprove evolution. They haven't proven much except to show they misunderstood some maths. Their research is heavily criticised and no one but creationists will publish their work. To me that doesn't sound like it can be substantiated. It's a religious ideology attempting to masquerade as science. 

You're free to choose to believe in a religion if you want to. Just don't attempt to make it sound like science. They are different. 

Here's a list you won't most likely won't agree with, there's further reading at the bottom of the article with hundreds of other articles giving rebuttals to numerous creationist arguments. There's plenty of references to things they like to ignore or misrepresent.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

[sixgun]

The Sumarians existed in the so called cradle of civilisation in present day Iraq about 4500 BC - i could say these numbers are guesswork imaginings but it was quite a long time ago.
They were responsible for the earlier constructions at Baalbek where we see the most massive stones, some over 1000 tonnes. Allegedly civilsation has just begun and the people around at that time were moving 800 - 1000 tonne+ stones around in their building exercises. 
With modern equipment this would be a huge task - with ropes, slopes and a bit of grease it would be a touch harder. One could rightly ask why deliberately cut such stones, manually drag them across the land - (no roads) and then set them 30 feet above ground level? Isn't life hard enough as it is without making problems for yourself like this. They are the largest stones even cut. Some people suggest the platform at Baalbek on which the Romans put their much later constructions was a launch pad, which is where the aliens come in.
The gods of the Sumerians were the Annuaki who the Sumerians say taught them what they knew and gave them their tools - like say the plough. The Annuaki were off Earth beings. 

We see the work of Mauro Biglino who is a world expert in Old Hebrew and other ancient languages - he was employed by the Vatican until as he says he started talking about his findings. Biglino translates the text more literally. He says the Old Hebrew version of the Bible talks about gods from off planet (what we would call the heavens or Heaven - this would explain why God art in Heaven). That the Annuaki created man by a process of interspecies genetic engineering. The Annunaki literature echos this and that a series of mutant discarded product was created until they got the required worker in their image from using Annunaki and ape DNA. i have independently thought that people are not really very well adapted to their environments - that they are a worker out of a 'test tube' could explain that.

These Annunaki were the gods and angels - there are gods in the correct Biblical translation. They would fly around on fiery chariots and other contraptions which would be incomprehensible to the people of the time. In an earlier post i put a link to a pdf of that Biglio book.

Now this could all be some superstitious rubbish, however here are over a million surviving clay tablets so the records haven't be distorted by time and faulty memory. It is a case of translating them and then interpreting what they say.

There are some interesting videos of lectures/talks on the subject. Tablets are shown of material which is very difficult to dismiss - which is why i haven't dismissed it as mumbo jumbo. 
There is this tablet where Enki is giving man what looks like a plough. In the background is a diagram of the solar system. 

This blog goes over this tablet and how it should be interpreted as the Solar system.
https://sumerian-va243-tablet.blogspot.com/2018/08/sumerian-va243-tablet-was-sitchin-on-to.html

There is another artifact which shows a route plan into the Solar system from outside - with the Earth the 7th planet in.
From the numerical records it would appear the Sumerians knew the period of the precession of the heavens - this is 26 000 years. 
There are some quite lengthy youtube videos on this - one for example is Ancient Sumerian Tablets Decoded (2h well spent) - it is worth the effort watching - it is at least thought provoking.

So if one were to accept the depiction is the Solar system how did the Sumerians know of it. We have a globe Earth - we have the Sun at the centre and we have the planets. Until relatively recently the Earth was flat and at the centre of the universe with most of the planets unknown. 

So we have civilization just springing up and we appear to have knowledge which only recently become known. How could this be?
We assume we are at a pinnacle but i do not believe we are. i do not believe we know even a fraction of history - i expect we are being lied to and deceived. For example Plato described Atlantis and is destruction. It is a nice story but the mainstream would dismiss it as a story. Plato dated the demise of Atlantis and funnily enough it coincides with the estimates of a catastrophic comet collision...which would have destroyed Atlantis. 

http://barry.warmkessel.com/ATLANTIS.html

The mainstream is so entrenched it rejects all of this and (deliberately) sweeps it away - it is crazy stupid ideas only crazy stupid people would entertain. i guess i must be one of those crazy stupid people.

[Murph]

How about some credible evidence that the Sumerians even knew about more than the Sun, Mercury, Venus, our Moon, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn?

Afaik and can recall when reading a little about cuneiform, akkadian etc, these were the only objects in our solar system they knew of and referred to.

[sixgun]

43 minutes ago, Murph said:

How about some credible evidence that the Sumerians even knew about more than the Sun, Mercury, Venus, our Moon, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn?

Afaik and can recall when reading a little about cuneiform, akkadian etc, these were the only objects in our solar system they knew of and referred to.

i posted the title of one of the videos where tablets are shown and the web page discussing the specific tablet i posted an image of. If you find it incredible - that's fine. Let's say the other spheres are there for decoration or may be a typo - even so i see a Sun-centered, heliospheric model of the Solar system. i thought that didn't come until the 1500's with Nicolaus Copernicus. These people allegedly have recently come out of the Stone Age. If they knew all the planets that upsets the status quo so you won't hear about that and if you do it isn't credible evidence.

[Notafront4adragon]

6 hours ago, sixgun said:

i posted the title of one of the videos where tablets are shown and the web page discussing the specific tablet i posted an image of. If you find it incredible - that's fine. Let's say the other spheres are there for decoration or may be a typo - even so i see a Sun-centered, heliospheric model of the Solar system. i thought that didn't come until the 1500's with Nicolaus Copernicus. These people allegedly have recently come out of the Stone Age. If they knew all the planets that upsets the status quo so you won't hear about that and if you do it isn't credible evidence.

No the idea of a sun centred solar system was known about in the 2nd century, I can't remember the greek's name. Copernicus rediscovered their work. Also the flat earth idea is a recent one. You can go back futher than to Pythagoras who proposed a sphere. Aristotle even showed it was round and gave an incredibly accurate estimate to its circumference.

Also you have had a stone mason @DarkChameleonexplain to you on this thread what they did is more than possible. If you don't want to believe them that's up to you. Personally I'm going with the stone mason.

I'm sure you'll say Greek history was made up or some such nonsense. 

Essentially you are believing one person who claims to have translated ancient tablets differently to all of his peers? Those tablets are incomplete and the translations depend on best guess work. However the idea that aliens put us here is just as valid as all the other religious nonsense I suppose.  Personally I believe you are confusing origin myths with reality. 

What most interested me in what you said is the idea that we are not well adapted to our environment. And that you feel out of place What do you mean by this? How could this be when we've colonised the entire planet, are able to change our environment to suit us, and have a myriad of tools at our disposal. Even if you took away modern technology, modern humans are incredibly well adapted and remain at the top of their food chain. 

Why would we be out of a test tube? Further if that were true is that idea even logical. Why design a creature to be poorly adapted to the enviroment you were putting it in? Your species is capable of interplanetary travel and all the other advanced technology required and you waste time with some apes building pyramids and ploughing? 

As to this nonsense, you really want to believe this? Plato doesn't talk about Atlantis as a real place either. He doesn't suggest it was real ever. He used it as an allegory about how nations can fall. Even somewhere as fantastic as Atlantis can fall. 

http://barry.warmkessel.com/ATLANTIS.html

I mean really half the links are bad and those that do work don't say much or misquote actual scientists. Pure garbage. But you knew I'd say that! Below is a photo that categorically proves Atlantis according to Barry. I mean it's completely obvious isn't it? 

Do you talk like this to regular folk? At work are you trying to tell people the truth? The second image is my best guess of you at work. Maybe you also know who Pepe Silva is. 

[sixgun]

Eratosthenes some 2000 years ago put sticks in the ground at different sites and measured the angles of the shadows - he thereby calculated the circumference of the Earth - it is one of the pieces of evidence used against Flat Earth theory (which i don't follow just in case you thought i might). i am talking about a time a long time before any of that.
DarkChameleon proposed it was straight forward to quarry, move and place the 800+ tonne stones. You don't have to lift the stone you could dig a hole and 'simply' lower them in. Well the hole theory would mean them digging the ground all around away afterwards - the building is not in a hole. So much more likely you would need to create a long ramp, drag them up and then simply lower them in.  It was done therefore somehow or other it was done. That somehow remains open as there are no eyewitnesses to tell the tale.
The question i proposed was why? Why cut and put world beating sized stones there in the first place? According to the authorities there are no machines, indeed at that time one would have to question everything - how many beasts of burden and active manpower was there to dedicate to putting world record stones in a construction with no obvious reason for it. i figure there would need to be a really good reason.
The Sumerian clay tablet record is vast - it is incomplete b/c all the tablets haven't been translated and any translation is open to some interpretation (you call it guess work). i am listening to a theory - looking at the presentation - noting the knowledge these people should not have had.

'I'm sure you'll say Greek history was made up or some such nonsense. ' - i spoke of Plato - he is said to be Greek - so i appear to be suggesting that bit isn't rubbish - the destruction of Atlantis can be cross referenced to a comet strike. 

We have stories about Atlantis - yes Plato uses Atlantis as a moral allegory - but that does not mean it is based on a complete fiction - he puts a date on its destruction - a date that could work. Is this likely to be a chance coincidence? i would suggest it isn't. Is it just a fiction or is it based on something that really happened? There are accounts of a great flood - it is a Bible fairy story to some but then it turns out these great flood fairy stories are found around the world.

The accounts suggest the Anunnaki created a worker - something that had enough intelligence and could do work. The human genome is in the majority 'junk' DNA - it has no supposed purpose - some 'experts' have claimed some of this is 'alien' DNA - mad ideas to some but why so much junk DNA - why hasn't it just been lost over the millennia?
Man really is a sore thumb in the animal kingdom. What environment do you propose man is perfectly adapted to - the one he makes or the natural one?

i note at the close of your effort you start attacking the person - but i knew you would do that. That is quiet funny to me.  We know recent history which we can check is full of lies - we know that. We have figures such as Churchill and Napoleon telling us that history is written by the victors and a set of lies agreed upon. We know so called science is a grand deception - the climate change fraud - computer models that factor out the Sun and then surprise surprise they are all wrong. That claim carbon dioxide is driving the climate when it constitutes 0.04% of the atmosphere and the man made part is 4% of that that. That cow farts are contributing to a climate emergency. i asked you if you believe this man made carbon dioxide Climate Change business - i notice you never answered.

i have no idea who Pepe Silva is - i know about Pepe the frog - he is one of my friends.