Forum:Randall Carlson

< Index | RW Article discussion

Randall Carlson and his Sacred geometry woo are all over the internet but there doesn't seem to be a single dissenting voice.

http://sacredgeometryinternational.com/randall-carlson

According to Sacred Geometry International "Randall is uniquely qualified to interpret the hidden meaning of the great masterpieces of mystical architecture, as well as esoteric and occult ritual and symbolism." ^{— Unsigned, by: Missingtransmission / talk / contribs} 18:22, 21 May 2014‎ (UTC)

{{sowriteit}} - David Gerard (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Carlson is interesting and fun to listen to. I also am looking for voices of criticism, for balance. - michael@michaeltoolan.com ^{— Unsigned, by: 189.220.243.42 / talk} 18:52, 19 February 2016‎ (UTC)

I'm detecting a subtext here of "no one has taken the time to sit down and write a detailed rebuttal, so what he says must at least be plausible". Well, no. People can be just wrong. "Balance" does not mean "given any two propositions, the truth must lie somewhere in the middle". Based on my cursory look, it looks like Carlson is a believer in astrology (see for instance [1]), which is of course rank bullshit. Magic isn't real, sorry. He appeared on Joe Rogan's radio show, which is a pretty big red flag. It's hard to pin down concrete claims he's making, as he seems to like the Deepak Chopra prose style of long, profound-sounding statements that say basically nothing. --Ymir (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

take it easy brah ... it's just a prank 169.0.174.151 (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

that Avocado bloke needs an article too. Flannan Isle (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Being on Joe Rogan says nothing really.2600:1702:2A00:B3F0:7DDF:6F26:A6F2:84A9 (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Randall Carlson and Graham Hancock had a debate with Sceptic Magazine editor Michael Shermer & his associate during the infamous Joe Rogan podcast. Both Carlson & Hancock debated with scientific evidence, history of myths/religion that civilized humans goes beyond our scientific understanding and that a global catastrophe from an asteroid or comet devastated civilizations. 2 years later the Younger Dryas Impact became accepted in the science community. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:805:600:7e0:b549:874c:aefb:bc1d / talk}

It's 2020 now and Randall Carson and Hancock now look likely to be proven to be correct about an impact before the Younger Dryas that was likely the trigger, thanks to a huge scientific collaboration from many different fields in the "Comet Research Group". There is still uncertainty but it has been peer reviewed and published in national geographic and looks likely to gain acceptance. The next thing is where it happened which is still unclear but we did find the Hiawatha crater in Greenland the most recent large crater ever found on earth 31-kilometer-wide but its unclear it could be anyway from 12,000-1 million years old so that is still very unclear. Randell does not believe in Astronomy he thinks the zodiac are important but Astrology has got completely the wrong end of the stick and misinterpret the ancient science of astronomy with magic. But Kosmology as he calls it is the idea that the ancient people had a zodiac calendar that represented the 26,000 year axial procession and they used it to track objects and impacts to try and work out when the next disaster might happen. This seems to match up with a lot of cultures who represent it as a great year being 26,000 year old. Randell has dome a lot of research into the cycle of disasters earth has suffered in the last 200,000 years, since modern humans and he thinks this cycle is linked to procession. I'm very dubious of these facts but I think he wants people to think about it, be inspired to research and form their own opinions. I think he is one of the most fascinating people to listen to and there's now hundreds of hours of him on Youtube. Kosmographia, Cosmic Tusk, Geo-cosmic Wrecks Some of these he provides evidence for all of his findings, going through paper after paper of scientific mostly peer reviewed literature. Not saying all the papers agree with him but he explains exactly how he reaches his conclusions. I love it, I am a born to be a sceptic though but I am starting to think once the scale of the younger dryas impact is understood we will have a lot of new modelling of prehistory, Geographic revisions and exciting marine archaeology to get om with. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:805:600:7e0:b549:874c:aefb:bc1d / talk}

No. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually yes there was an impact on the Younger Dryas period.2600:1702:2A00:B3F0:7DDF:6F26:A6F2:84A9 (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"Randell does not believe in Astronomy" Did you mean astrology? Also, you make an argument defending a "scientific" theory but you don't use proper grammar. It makes your words ring hollow. 199.116.118.224 (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)