11 May 16
Originally posted by NoEarthlyReasonLet us know when it is actually confirmed. So far all he found was slightly different coloured patches of forest - not far from human settlement and quite likely cleared by humans in the 70s.
Very nifty detective work!
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Teen-uses-Google-Maps-to-discover-ancient-mayan-7450416.php
Also of interest is the claim that he used constellations, but there is no drawings showing how he did this, what constellations he used, what other cities he matched etc. Until I see more, I remain highly sceptical.
11 May 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadNews at 11....
Let us know when it is actually confirmed. So far all he found was slightly different coloured patches of forest - not far from human settlement and quite likely cleared by humans in the 70s.
Also of interest is the claim that he used constellations, but there is no drawings showing how he did this, what constellations he used, what other cities he matched etc. Until I see more, I remain highly sceptical.
12 May 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt's also reasonable to be highly sceptical of reporters for red-top British newspapers. This is one of the rags that was involved in phone hacking.
It seems my scepticism was reasonable:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/lost-mayan-city-discovered-jungle-7952131
It could be a weed farm 🙂
12 May 16
1 edit
Originally posted by NoEarthlyReasonDo you prefer CNN?
It's also reasonable to be highly sceptical of reporters for red-top British newspapers. This is one of the rags that was involved in phone hacking.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/11/americas/mayan-city-debunk/
I work with satellite imagery as part of my job. The imagery available to me was inconclusive. I was sceptical because the imagery presented with the original story was also inconclusive and it looked like too much had been read into the images. Journalists love a good headline more than they love the truth - and this applies to almost all news outlets most of which just rehash stories between them without double-checking. Then when the story is debunked by someone, they can all pass on the debunking too because the headline still works! They still get to put 'maya city' and 'discovery' in the title.
12 May 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, that's a far better story. It will be interesting to me to see what is found there, if the trip still goes ahead.
Do you prefer CNN?
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/11/americas/mayan-city-debunk/
I work with satellite imagery as part of my job. The imagery available to me was inconclusive. I was sceptical because the imagery presented with the original story was also inconclusive and it looked like too much had been read into the images. Journalists love a good he ...[text shortened]... ecause the headline still works! They still get to put 'maya city' and 'discovery' in the title.