Tony Trupp

How did the Ancient Egyptians carve and move their megalithic obelisks? Here’s a thread with some clues showing how they might have done it…

@greendragonhq Also the money released to them under the obama deal was only their own, which we had frozen in order to encourage them to negotiate.

Amount spent to reach identical deal with Iran: Obama: $1.7 billion Trump: $25 billion + $100 billion in war cost + 13 American lives. 👏WE👏ARE👏NOT👏THE👏SAME👏

@neoavatara Obama’s deal wasn’t really bad in hindsight. They were abiding by the deal, as confirmed by UN inspectors. The money released to the Iranians was their own that we had frozen as leverage to force them to negotiate. And they accomplished that without an unnecessary war.

All of this is so, so much worse than the Obama JCPOA nuke deal. Why? Obama made a horrible, terrible secret deal, but didn't spend months ruining our economy and using up our military stores. Trump did.

@DecodingFoxNews Is congress really going to approve that? Are you sure it’s not being mostly funded by other gulf countries?

I want to point out again that in the case of Obama the money was Iran’s that had been held in an interest bearing account for decades. GHW Bush also gave them back some of their money before Obama did. Trump’s $300 billion will be paid by U.S. taxpayers.

@DontcaIlmewave @realDonaldTrump No longer true, because Iran did win the war.

@realDonaldTrump Unfortunately true. The world is laughing at us now

Iran never won a war, but never lost a negotiation!

@SpencerHakimian Should be much lower still.

NEW: Trump’s approval rating hits 28%. The lowest for any president in U.S. history.

@drleeclare @JosephAPWilson1 I just block anyone that behaves like that on here. It’s juvenile. Dan got blocked a long time ago.

Sorry to spoil everyone else’s day/evening but verbal abuse and slander need to be called out.

@Cristi_Neagu @Graham__Hancock x.com/tonytrupp/stat…

@Cristi_Neagu @Graham__Hancock I’m sick of this. Maybe we disagree about the interpretation of that exchange, but that’s not the same thing as lying when there have been tons of other people who also see that as hancock admitting he has zero evidence. Blocking.

Jonathan Black, author of The Secret History of the Universe, has written a thought-provoking new article for my website exploring 5 phrases that reveal intellectual dishonesty in action, phrases that should raise alarm bells in a debate. Black draws on Hume and the philosophy of science to show why these stock sceptical responses are often either ignorant of how science actually works or deliberately misleading. grahamhancock.com/blackj5/

@Cristi_Neagu @Graham__Hancock And asking the youtube AI, across the entire video, it also confirms that hancock doesn’t have any direct, dated archeological evidence.

@Cristi_Neagu @Graham__Hancock Here’s someone else also recognizing that hancock admitted there that he has nothing.

@Cristi_Neagu @Graham__Hancock You really think there would be this massive global spanning civilization that never traveled inland beyond where the coasts are now covered with water? And they never traded goods inland? That argument is so weak it’s laughable.

It isn't. It's really telling that you didn't even look it up. They were talking about evidence for a seafaring civilisation, in particular about shipwrecks from >10kya. Graham said there is no evidence found **in what archaeologists have studied so far** which is shallow waters that would have been dry land during the ice age. The fact that you at no point considered that I might be right and you might be wrong and that it would be a good idea to double check, just in case, proves that you are intellectually bankrupt, that you are arguing in bad faith, and that I am right: issue a hypothesis in archaeology and the gate keepers won't even give you the benefit of the doubt. Dude, get real.

@Cristi_Neagu @Graham__Hancock youtu.be/RwTkDkSbO-4?is…

@Cristi_Neagu @Graham__Hancock It’s exactly what he said. After 30 years of pushing fiction about Atlantis he still can provide zero real evidence that it existed. All he does is point to natural geologic features and monuments from younger cultures while pretending like they’re from his lost civilization.

@Cristi_Neagu @Graham__Hancock Nope. For example, he even publicly conceded that there was no evidence to support his claims of an advanced lost civilization. And many of sites that he suggests were from his lost ice age civilization do have solid dating proving that they are from more recent cultures.

1. Plenty of data to support everything he's saying. 2. No one has been able to bring up any contradicting evidence so far. The fact that you make it about how much evidence there is in support of a hypothesis proves me completely correct. You do not think of hypotheses like anyone from any other field. QED.

@Cristi_Neagu @Graham__Hancock The problem with what hancock tends to present as hypotheses is that 1) it isn’t well supporter by data, and 2) it’s also often directly contradicted by the evidence. That’s why he gets ridiculed so much. It’s pseudoscientific.

A good hypothesis should be an extension from the data, not a tentative guess at what the data represents. Look at the theory of relatively. Completely out there, and took decades for evidence to come through. There is no equivalent in archaeology. There's a difference between contesting a hypothesis and calling the author a white supremacists while trying to get him deplatformed and banned from every site.

@Cristi_Neagu @Graham__Hancock A good hypothesis should fit the data! And hypotheses by their very nature often tend to be contested. That’s a heathy sign of disagreement/debate between researchers, to cross examine those ideas. That’s what we should want to see.

@TonyTrupp @Graham__Hancock For starters, those are not like hypotheses in other fields. They're explanations that fit the data. They're not extensions from the data out into the unknown. Secondly, even those are heavily contested.

@Cristi_Neagu @Graham__Hancock That’s a bonkers statement to make. There are tons of examples of proposed hypotheses within archeology. A few examples: pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70… repository.si.edu/items/eb9159b1… researchgate.net/publication/30… d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/1771643/Field_… journals.plos.org/plosone/articl… tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…

@Graham__Hancock Archeology is unique in that it's the only field of science I'm aware of that rejects hypothesis. Even medicine will make assumptions and then go and test them. Archaeology is the only field where making a hypothesis will attract vitriol.

@Kingofturtles1 @JoeRoganRecaps He can’t understand that he was low risk for a severe case of covid, and just healed naturally on his own, just as most healthy people do. He almost certainly would have gotten better regardless of him taking it.

@JoeRoganRecaps How does it know it cured his COVID? According to him COVID was just a cold and ppl didn't actually die from it. I didn't take ivermectin and my COVID went away...

New: Joe Rogan debates NFL legend Terry Bradshaw on whether or not Ivermectin should be taken by humans: ROGAN: “Ivermectin won the Nobel Prize for use in human beings. It’s an anti-parasitic with antiviral properties.” BRADSHAW: “I used to give Ivermectin to my cattle. It’s a cattle dewormer.” ROGAN: “It cured me when I had Covid so CNN started attacking me because they wanted everyone vaccinated. They put a green filter over my face to make me look sick.” BRADSHAW: “I had a brain surgeon recommend Ivermectin to me. I could never rationalize that kind of thinking.” ROGAN: “It is a dewormer, but it was actually invented for humans. We’re mammals so we have similar medicines. It stops viral replications.” BRADSHAW: “Is it actually proven though? I wasn’t going to take that no matter what. I’m married to my doctor and she says we’re not taking that.” ROGAN: “The reason they told people not to take Ivermectin was because they wanted everyone vaccinated so they could make a lot of money. It wasn’t because the vaccine was effective.”

@juliandorey @randallwcarlson Randall Carlson gets almost everything wrong about the younger dryas. He just ignores whatever evidence contradicts his storyline.

Randall Carlson GOES NUCLEAR on The Younger Dryas Catastrophe @randallwcarlson