I agree, Finn. I do wish the evidence would go through the proper scientific channels. And it does take time. But I do believe that we are overlooking basic human shortcomings here. Science may be peer-reviewed, but those peers are not always objective. For example, mention "Atlantis" to them. You'll more likely get a snicker and a giggle, when what you should be able to get is "Well, what's your theory?" Even if a scientist has heard a similar claim a thousand times before, he should still be open to possibilities on it. After all, Newton himself said he failed countless times trying to invent the light bulb ("I found ten thousand ways that didn't work . . .") Sometimes things take thousands of different approaches, but the mainstream which I criticize seems to just not have that kind of patience.
And I believe that patience is limited due to politics and money. Scientists, after all, don't just sit around the lab all day with no pressure. They have deadlines. They have peers to appease, backers to please, and more. Everything in this world revolves around money. However idealistic a scientist may be, someone has to pay for the lab, his paycheck, etc. That backing always has strings attached. What I'm arguing is not the scientists themselves, but the establishment around them that demands progress, and simply will not afford the time or the faith to give the "extraordinary investigation" that extraordinary claims require.
I actually feel sorry for the scientists. *They* usually mean well. But, the same as in any human endeavor, it's the people with the money that determine the agenda, and that is not always in the best interests of science.
For example: Take the Giza site and Hawass. Good ol' Hawass has denied countless investigations at the site because he knew they were supporters of the ancient alien theory. Well, if there's no chance of the AA-theory being proven, what's the harm? Why not let them dig? Because their very presence would raise questions. Tourists would ask "What's with those guys over there?" And Hawass would either have to lie or state their theory. Either one is uncomfortable at least. They don't even want to consider an alternative . . . because Egypt is their baby. It's the backbone of the country's tourist-trade. It's their national pride. Even if Hawass means well as an archeologist, he's probably got strict orders from the Egyptian government not to allow things that would encourage interest that would potentially distract from their "culture". See, it's a big, tangled web. It's the same thing you'd run into if you found evidence claiming anything that overturned any culture. It's why the Vatican keeps artifacts locked away, because they contest the church's teachings. And religion is just as strong as national or cultural pride, and things would indeed be suppressed or ignored if it threatened one's pride.
Sharkey said:
You are officially blinded to science.
No where in your incoherent ramblings is there anything even remotely resembling an understanding of science. Everyone who has read them is now more stupid because of them. May God have mercy on your soul...or whatever hybrid pirate alien you recruit for.
And this continued childish behavior is supposed to set you above the person who is being mature, rational and reasonable? Claiming to be scientific doesn't give you any loftier a position or give any weight to your argument. If you're so smart and so scientific, demonstrate it. Show us. And that means by raising good questions rather than cheap insults. You remind me of a person who claims to be Godly and thus by proxy "good" simply because he goes to church. Just because you claim scientific rationale doesn't count. Practice it. Prove it.
Stoo said:
You also mentioned in the "Ancient Aliens" thread that your first 2 encounters were outside. What were you doing outside alone as a 1-year-old baby? If you were accompanied by someone older, why didn't the other person/s witness the same thing?
Stoo, as always, I get criticized for not checking facts or making things up, but you're once again doing the same thing. I did not say I was outside nor did I say I was 1yo. You have pulled these out of thin air. I said I saw the entities outside. That doesn't mean I was outside, too. Have you ever heard of a window? I looked through it.
Stoo said:
The word, 'supposed', was not meant as an insult. It would be nice to know the truth but there is more to suggest that you were never inside a Giza pryamid than there is to suggest that you were.
When nearly every quote you've made of mine for the last few weeks has my name changed to "duh Mille" or some similar stupid (and unscientific) remark, when you say "supposed" in something as mundane as a tourist trip to Egypt (which countless people do every year), it clearly implies insult. You're like the boy who cried wolf. Even if you didn't intend an insult there, your past makes it look all the same. If no insult was intended, you should have made a point to clarify that.
Stoo said:
From Matt deMille:
"Bottom line, the only thing that really helped was being a bit like Rocky or Indy: Suck it up, get tougher than life, and go on with my head held high. It took a few years but I did it. And I never faltered."
From Matt deMille:
"Like I said before, seeing aliens will girt your mind against pretty much anything this world can throw at you."
I try to be positive in a troubling world. But I'm also human. And the same as I say about scientists who aren't always logical, so is it true with us all. Emotions have no logical pattern. My reasons for having distaste for discussing Egypt are not necessarily Earth-shattering, but they are personal, and I will deal with them at my own speed. I hope this will be the end of that question. After all, what more explanation is necessary? If I was claiming having gone to the moon, that'd be different. But I'm only saying I visited a place that millions of others have. Is that so hard to believe?