Rather than rely on wild interpretation, I rely on evidence. It has nothing to do with dogma.
You have convinced yourself that nuclear weapons existed 10 000 years ago and are now searching for anything, no matter how remote, to back up your claims. You're even willing to read only certain passages in mythological books and ignore all the stuff that doesn't speak to your ideas.
Sorry, but that's much more like fundamentalism than my position of relying on evidence. Show me the craters. Show me the radioactive battlefields. Show me the infrastructure early agriculturalists used to build their centrifuges and nuclear power plants. Or their mine shafts and refining centers for the uranium.
Please...the entire premise is laughable.
Uh...no. Were you joking the entire time? I've just been going off what you're writing. And it's pretty fantastic, in the literal sense of the word.<quoted text> Now you are capable of reading my mind?
No, it's not my area of research. Those areas have been researched by archaeologists - and, guess what, no nuclear wars happened when people were just learning how to grow wheat crops.If you relied on evidence, then you would be conducting studies into those findings that are unearthed rather than trying to bury them in misinformation and ridicule.
hahahha!Most of what you refer to is and has been available for years.
You experts ignore it at all costs.
Yes. We experts cover up the evidence that you non-experts "know" exists because you've read stories on the Internet tell you it exists! Therefore it must! Because we all know that everything written on the Internet and in books is 150% true. Plus 100% and more!
Why, just last week I had to re-bury the Enterprize NCC 1701-D because, gosh, we just couldn't let that get out, could we? Then we'd have to disclose our secret dealings with the aliens and tell the general public about how we learned to build skyscrapers. No, nope. We can't have that.