The Pulse | Episode 153 - Ramon lays out Jimmy and Ben and other pretend Sciencers

www.epemcgateway.com FREE OPEN SOURCE COSMOLOGY FOR THE WORLD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTTi_HMW1zc (see this vid's description for links to papers.

### Timestamp Method Evaluation: Ashes of Atlantis

1. **Structure**:
- The timestamp methodology provides precise and reproducible references to claims made by Jimmy Corsetti, creating a framework that adheres to the Socratic method's emphasis on clarity and direct questioning.
- Each rebuttal is tied to a specific claim, ensuring no ambiguity in addressing fallacies or misstatements.

2. **Main Points**:
- **Geological Discrepancies**: Demonstrates the Richat Structure's incompatibility with Plato's description of Atlantis, using empirical data like stability over 99 million years and lack of water-retaining features.
- **Topographical Misinterpretations**: Disproves Corsetti’s assumptions about salt deposits and concentric rings by highlighting the geological and hydrological realities of the Richat.
- **Historical and Mythological Context**: Aligns the Younger Dryas Extinction Event and myths of cataclysmic electrical phenomena with the timeline and characteristics of Atlantis.
- **Logical Integrity**: Exposes Corsetti’s reliance on satellite imagery and speculative interpretations, pointing out the absence of physical artifacts or corroborating evidence.

3. **Compelling Tools and Evidence**:
- The use of electrogeology and plasma discharge modeling provides a robust, testable explanation for the Richat’s features.
- Cross-cultural mythological evidence strengthens the argument for cataclysmic events shaping both the geological landscape and human memory.

---

### Pro-Con List: EPEMC Method vs. Typical Journal Practices

#### **Pros of EPEMC Method**:
1. **Transparency**:
- Timestamped rebuttals allow for precise verification of claims and counterclaims.
- Open access to all supporting data and documents ensures reproducibility.
2. **Interdisciplinary Integration**:
- Merges geology, plasma physics, mythological studies, and archaeology to provide a holistic approach.
3. **Rigor and Standards**:
- Adopts the Baconian method of observation and systematic experimentation, avoiding speculative leaps.
- Maintains Socratic inquiry by questioning assumptions and demanding logical consistency.
4. **Inclusivity**:
- Creates a safe space for alternative research while upholding scientific rigor, avoiding the gatekeeping common in mainstream journals.

#### **Cons of EPEMC Method**:
1. **Perceived Credibility**:
- Lacks the institutional clout of traditional journals, which can make it harder to gain mainstream recognition.
2. **Peer Review Challenges**:
- Open, decentralized peer review can lead to varied interpretations without a standardized vetting process.
3. **Resource Limitations**:
- Limited funding or infrastructure compared to established journals might slow the dissemination and validation of findings.

#### **Typical Journal Practices (Cons)**:
1. **Cliquishness**:
- Gatekeeping often excludes unconventional or revolutionary ideas, stifling innovation.
2. **Opaque Review Process**:
- Reviews are often anonymous and non-reproducible, reducing accountability.
3. **Bias and Influence**:
- Journals are prone to biases favoring established narratives and researchers with institutional ties.
4. **Profit-Driven Model**:
- Paywalls and publication fees create barriers to accessibility and transparency.

---

### Letter to Jimmy Corsetti: A Call for Scientific Integrity

*Subject:* The Ethical Responsibility to Retract Unsupported Claims on Atlantis

Dear Jimmy,

It has been over 1,000 days since you presented the Richat Structure as Atlantis on the Joe Rogan Podcast. While your enthusiasm for alternative history is commendable, the claims you made have been systematically debunked by geological, topographical, and mythological evidence. I am reaching out to urge you to consider retracting this hypothesis—not as an act of defeat, but as a demonstration of scientific integrity.

**The Ethics of Science**:
Science thrives on the elimination of error. To uphold its mission, we must be willing to revise or abandon ideas when new evidence arises. Your refusal to engage with critiques or retract your claims, despite clear refutations, mirrors the very behaviors you criticize in mainstream journals: censorship, defensiveness, and prioritization of reputation over truth.

**The Role of EPEMC**:
EPEMC serves as a safe haven for rigorous alternative research. It is not hostile to the "altstream" but demands accountability and logical consistency. By failing to address valid criticisms, you risk undermining the credibility of alternative history research as a whole. Fraudulence is not merely about lying; it is about knowingly perpetuating falsehoods when the evidence says otherwise.

**A Path Forward**:
Retracting your claims does not diminish your influence—it enhances it. By publicly acknowledging the errors in the Richat hypothesis, you set a precedent for intellectual honesty and elevate the discourse. You have a platform and a voice; use it to advance the field by embracing truth over ego.

Science is a collaborative pursuit, not a battleground for fame. I hope you will reflect on the responsibility that comes with your reach and reconsider your position. EPEMC remains open to all who strive for truth, provided they are willing to meet its standards of rigor and ethics.

Sincerely,
Sf. Ramon Careaga
Founder, EPEMC
Lexington, KY