Finn said:
Just a reminder - absolutely nothing prevents me from locking up this thread either. Back on topic, fellas.
Finn: Please allow me the courtesy to briefly defend myself. Out of respect for this thread, I will attempt to be brief in my defense. But with all due respect, I cannot just sit here silently over some of these unsubstantiated allegations. Further down below, I have a thread-relevant observation. Thank you for being cool, Finn.
StwongBwidge said:
Kongisking - did you read a different post? What an earth are you going on about? […] It’s not a question of cowardice, just relevance. Your rant was totally out of place and aimed at a bizarre and unjustified target.
StwongBwidge: Thank you for backing me up on this one. It is much appreciated.
kongisking said:
[Do] you believe in the idea that a single, all-intelligent and loving being created the known Universe, and that mankind [originated from just] two people on this Earth? […] You believe in a singular deity who claims to be the ultimate in intelligence, love, reason, wisdom, power, dominance, all these things? […] You believe in someone who can hear all our prays, and yet ignores nearly every single one?
kongisking: Uhm, no.
Quite on the contrary, actually. But like others who have followed this thread, I’m a bit mystified how you could have drawn such an utterly false conclusion.
None of my posts refer to God, nor do I address the question of God. In fact, a rational discussion about the CLASSIC Ancient Astronaut Theory does
not require any “belief” at all. The God question is irrelevant because whether or not extraterrestrials have visited Earth in the remote past, does not negate,
nor does it propose (!), the existence of God. However, your feeling compelled to invoke God in this thread is because your family has gotten into your head, and I am deeply sorry that this has happened to you. Plus, just so we’re clear, the idea of a
personal God, in my opinion, is absurd. But that’s an entirely different discussion. Please PM me if you want to exchange ideas.
ResidentAlien said:
[The Ancient Astronaut Theory] doesn't even hold up to the scientific method or any amount of scrutiny. […] As in the case of the video […] [r]ather than subscribing to the concepts of Occam's Razor, the simplest solution that raises the least questions in its wake, [is the correct one.] […] I for one dreamed of being an archaeologist as a kid. I did so because of my love for Indiana Jones. […] I subscribed to Archeology Magazine, read books, watched documentaries and kept my romantic ideals for the silver screen. Gave up the dream of archeology a long while back too.
ResidentAlien: I went ahead and read a few dozen of your posts and I’ve noticed that I’m not the only one whom you’ve bitterly attempted to put down. I will not follow suit by trying to insult you and/or making unsubstantiated claims as you have about me. Life is too short to continually put others down just because you yourself are not where you envisioned yourself to be when you were a little kid.
As for Occam’s Razor
(OR): Concerning the Classic Ancient Astronaut Theory,
OR is
always the last resort for skeptics. It’s pretty much the only thing they’ve got left at this point.
OR not only sounds fancy but they also think that it makes them sound intelligent –
while everyone else is stupid and moronic.
But what bothers me the most is that when
OR is invoked in discussions such as this one, in 99.9% of the cases,
OR is
falsely used AND applied. ResidentAlien is a
perfect example of improperly invoking
OR. The definition of
OR is: “
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitem - entities must not be multiplied beyond what is necessary.”
Correctly translated into laymen’s terms, this means that
OR states that the simplest
sufficient (!!!) - that is, complete or coherent - model is the one that is presumed correct.
The most ignored word in this entire
OR debate is
‘SUFFICIENT.’ No one addresses the fact that many, many answers given by mainstream science are
not sufficient. Anyone who claims that
every single answer that has been given to us by mainstream science has been (or is) correct, I’m sorry, is living under a rock.
Also, the Franciscan friar William Ockham (approx. 1288-1347) provided the basics for
OR almost one thousand years ago (I say “provided the basics for” because Ockham did
not invent the eventual principle bearing his name). Do you
honestly propose that an idea that was conceived almost one thousand years ago, at a time when
their frame of reference was staggeringly different than ours of today, OR can be applied to
everything that is of interest to us today? If you really think that (which you apparently do), then I cannot help you. In fact, no one can.
Case in point: contrary to popular belief,
OR is
not an axiom of physics.
OR can be wrong too, you know. Imagine applying
OR when mainstream science and doctrine
”irrefutably” DICTATED that the Earth was flat. Today, we laugh at this notion, but today’s mainstream suffers the
exact same Earth-is-flat-syndrome in regards to the Ancient Astronaut Theory
– and many other theories. It always tickles me how deliciously arrogant some people (and especially “scientists”) can be when a perfectly valid and interesting theory happens to come along that challenges “established” doctrine. It’s human nature to resist new ideas and theories challenging “accepted fact” – such as when the world was flat and/or nothing could man-made could ever fly, etc. It always has been, and it always will be like this.
Another irrefutable fact is that
OR spectacularly fails in Quantum Physics. Does that mean that the mind-bending phenomena occurring in Quantum Physics do not exist? According to the reasoning you’re presenting, AlienResident, they do not. However, I think we’d all have to agree that:
You. Are. Wrong.
The
principle of parsimony – another term for
OR - in truth, is
only an assumption. It does
not constitute a logically coherent, ultimate
proof of the notion that simpler models are actually more likely to be true. It simply is not always the case.
This is why it is so dangerous to become an ideologue, especially when committing yourself completely to one particular theory, such as, in this case,
OR. With such blinders on, it is no wonder that the great majority of mankind is not prepared for (or recognizes) contradictory,
but correct, information when it comes along. As a people, it is high time for us to be more open-minded and more
accepting (!) in regards of other valid possibilities. Being closed-off to new (and in many ways revolutionary) ideas is an extremely arrogant (and thus fatalistic) attitude that ultimately might be our society’s downfall.
Back on topic: What do I dislike about Indy 4? Still absolutely nothing. As others have observed before, I too am stunned at the negative sentiment on this AND on the popular
“New KotCS picture” thread. However, I think what no one has mentioned or taken into consideration is the fact that when the first three movies were made and came out, the Internet did not yet exist (in the mainstream)! So, what did we do back then?
At best (!) we learned that the
finished movie would hit theaters by a certain date. Some (like me) subscribed to movie magazines and maybe,
maybe one would read that a movie was about to be made, was in production or post-production.
But that was pretty much it!
Today, we have the friggin’ Internet. …and, in my humble opinion, while the Internet has revolutionized who we are as a society, it sort of has also ruined the whole movie-going experience. Now every yahoo thinks of himself that they are better directors, better moviemakers, better scriptwriters, etc. -
than the moviemakers in Hollywood with an actual moviemaking job. 20 years ago, were we able to rant as negatively as we do today? Belittling directors and screenwriters?
No. On the contrary. We were all giddy when the first news came out about which movies were “Coming Soon to a Theater Near You.”
But I can GUARANTEE you this:
had the Internet existed back in 1984 and 1989, the rants would probably have been even
more negative than they are today! “Shankara Stones??? What the heck is that? You’ve got to be kiddin’ me! This movie will suck!” “Indy’s looking for the Holy Grail? How frickin’ lame! Oh I guess they were looking for something similar to the Ark.”
Blah blah blah…
Let me ask: Whom would you have wanted to direct Indy 4? Yourself? Have you ever directed a major motion picture before? No? Oh, okay. Just checking. Whose screenplay should they have used? Yours? What do you mean you don’t have a script? Oh, you’ve never written a screenplay? Oh, okay.
I for one, with many others, am eternally thankful and thrilled beyond belief that the “Holy Trifecta” (Lucas, Spielberg and Ford) decided to give it a go one more time. I can’t wait!
Giorgio Tsoukalos
but the negative sentiment today is so rampant that I think it's gone a bit overboard, that's all. All I'm saying is that if the Internet would have existed in the 70s and 80s the exact same thing would have happened, even more so, because of such a "dubious" plotline such as, for example, the Sankara Stones. Btw, ToD is my favorite... 
