Ancient aliens

M

Montana Smith

Active member
A historian who fails to quote sources should be treated with the utmost suspicion.

So much conspiracy theory is backed up by un-named sources or un-checkable anecdotes.

Was this site already linked here?

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case491.htm

It lists sources for the claim, and they only go back as far as Frank Edwards in 1959. The writer of the page states, "Unfortunately, there is no reference."


UFO researcher Bruno Mancusi, in a posting on the UFO Updates mailing list from April 18, 2003, gives the following references to this event. These references were discovered by him and Macedonian historian Aleksander Donski. Mancusi writes:

I had an e-mails exchange in 2001 with a Macedonian historian,
Aleksandar Donski, about this tale. We found the following
references:

1. Frank Edwards, 'Stranger than Science', Pan, London 1963, p.
198 (1st US edition: 1959):

Alexander the Great was not the first to see them nor was he the
first to find them troublesome. He tells of two strange craft
that dived repeatedly at his army until the war elephants, the
men, and the horses all panicked and refused to cross the river
where the incident occurred. What did the things look like? His
historian describes them as great shining silvery shields,
spitting fire around the rims... things that came from the skies
and returned to the skies."

Unfortunately, there is no reference.

2. Alberto Fenoglio, "Cronistoria su oggetti volanti del passato
- Appunti per una clipeostoria", 'Clypeus' #9, 1st Semester
1966, p. 7 (See English translation by Drake below) :

"L'assedio di Tiro

Durante l'assedio di Tiro nell'anno 332 a. C. sono stati notati
degli strani oggetti volanti. Giovanni Gustavo Droysen nella sua
opera "Storia di Alessandro il Grande" volutamente non lo cita,
ritenendolo parto di fantasia dei soldati macedoni.

La fortezza non cedeva, le sue mura verso terra erano alte una
quindicina di metri e costruite cos=EC solidamente che nessuna
macchina d'assedio era in grado di danneggiarle. I tirii
disponevano dei pi=F9 grandi tecnici e costruttori di macchine da
guerra del tempo e intercettavano per aria le frecce incendiarie
ed i proiettili scagliati dalle catapulte sulla citt=E0.

Un giorno, all'improvviso, comparvero sul campo macedone i
misteriosi oggetti; questi scudi volanti, come erano stati
battezzati, procedevano in formazione a triangolo con in testa
uno molto grosso; gli altri erano pi=F9 piccoli di circa la met=E0.
In tutto erano cinque. Narra l'ignoto cronista che girarono
lentamente su Tiro, mentre migliaia di guerrieri delle due
fazioni stavano a guardarli stupiti. Ad un tratto, dal pi=F9
grosso degli "scudi", part=EC come un lampo che colp=EC un tratto
delle mura e queste si sbriciolarono, altri lampi seguirono e
mura e torri, come se fossero solo state costruite di fango, si
dissolsero, lasciando via libera agli assedianti che si
rovesciarono come una valanga dalle brecce. Gli "scudi volanti"
volteggiarono sulla citt=E0, finch=E8 non venne completamente
espugnata, poi velocissimamente sparirono in alto, confondendosi
in breve con l'azzurro del cielo."

(See English translation by Drake below.) No reference, too.

3. Gordon Creighton, "A new FSR catalogue - The effects of UFOs
on Animals, Birds and smaller creatures - Part 1", Flying Saucer
Review, vol. 16, No. 1, Jan-Feb 1970, pp. 26-28:

THE CATALOGUE-(i) B.C. TO 1946 A.D.

1. Middle East (_Reign of Alexander the Great_, 356-323 B.C.) A
historian of the reign of Alexander the Great allegedly tells of
two strange craft that dived repeatedly at his army, until the
war elephants, the men, and all the horses panicked and refused
to cross the river where the incident occurred... The historian
describes the objects as "great shining silvery shields,
spitting fire around the rims... things that came from the skies
and returned to the skies." Frank Edwards: 'Stranger Than
Science' (See notes.) (Pan Books, London), p. 198.

The notes are on p. 28:

NOTES

Case 1: This story has been related by Frank Edwards as well as
by other writers, but so far I have seen no indication as to
_which_ classical author is responsible for it. It certainly
_sounds_ good... _se non =E8 vero =E8 ben trovato_. I hope that if
there is a Greek or Latin text somebody can tell me where to
find it. Meanwhile, let us keep the story as a fine
introduction... "

As usual, Creighton wrote a very good commentary.

4. W. Raymond Drake, 'Gods and Spacemen in Greece and Rome',
Sphere, London 1976, pp. 115-116:

"Frank Edwards, the noted American UFO reporter, quoting some
source unfortunately not disclosed, states 'Intelligent beings
from outer Space may already be looking us over.' He exasperates
us by claiming

'Alexander the Great was not the first to see them nor was he
the first to find them troublesome. He tells of two strange
craft that dived repeatedly at his army until the war elephants,
the men, and the horses all panicked and refused to cross the
river where the incident occurred. What did the things look
like? His historian describes them as great shining silvery
shields, spitting fire around the rims... things that came from
the skies and returned to the skies.'119

This remarkable incident was apparently paralleled by an equally
fantastic visitation during the Siege of Tyre by Alexander in
332 BC. Quoting Giovanni Gustavo Droysens Storia di Alessandro
il Grande, the erudite Italian Alberto Fenoglio, writes in
CLYPEUS Anno 111, No 2, a startling revelation which we now
translate

'The fortress would not yeld, its walls were fifty feet high and
constructed so solidly that no siege-engine was able to damage
it. The Tyrians disposed of the greatest technicians and
builders of war-machines of the time and they intercepted in the
air the incendiary arrows and projectiles hurled by the
catapults on the city.

One day suddenly there appeared over the Macedonian camp these
"flying shields", as they had been called, which flew in
triangular formation led by an exceedingly large one, the others
were smaller by almost a half. In all there were five. The
unknown chronicler narrates that they circled slowly over Tyre
while thousands of warriors on both sides stood and watched them
in astonishment. Suddenly from the largest "shield" came a
lightning-flash that struck the walls, these crumbled, other
flashes followed and walls and towers dissolved, as if they had
been built of mud, leaving the way open for the besiegers who
poured like an avalanche through the breeches. The "flying
shields" hovered over the city until it was completely stormed
then they very swiftly disappeared aloft, soon melting into the
blue sky.'120"

Strangely, Drake interpreted Edwards (ref. 119) and Fenoglio
(120) versions as two different cases! And he didn't understand
that Fenoglio DOESN'T quote Droysen.

5. There are also some websites like
http://www.ufon.org.uk/ufo_history.html
(this link seems to doesn't work anymore):

"329 BC:
Alexander the Great, via his historians: told of 2 strange
objects in the sky that dived repeatedly at his army as they
were attempting a river crossing. (Jaxartes River). The action
so panicked his elephants, horses, and men they had to abandon
the river crossing until the following day. They were described
as great silver shields, spitting fire around the rims.
Contributed by Thon"

There are two new informations here: year 329 BC (not 332) and
the name of the river. According to Donski, this name (Jaxartes)
is correct, but "our" battle might happened near the river
Indus. And always no reference given...

So this story remains very dubious.

(Bruno Mancusi)
Click to expand...
 
Gabeed

Gabeed

New member
Y'all just keep posting the links that I posted in page 56. ;)

Matt deMille said:
Perhaps Edwards did not have a source and did make things up, but it's equally possible he DID have a source that we simply do not know about yet.
Click to expand...

Ha, TOTALLY. :rolleyes: Just like there's an equal chance that I was or was not conceived by a scarlet unicorn. Your illogical notion that "since these two things are possible, they must be equally possible" has been an unfortunate factor throughout this entire thread.

Interesting how the guy who was willing to write off the Great Pyramid's sarcophagus as "not as sarcophagus" clearly without consulting all sources on the matter (having been informed on the obvious commonality layered coffins in royal tombs) must now spend perhaps months on this subject, which essentially entails just finding Edwards' article, and looking for sources in said article (which he would have if this story was not discovered by him, for example, if a writer in the early 40's mentioned this story).
 
M

Montana Smith

Active member
Gabeed said:
Y'all just keep posting the links that I posted in page 56. ;)
Click to expand...

That case491 page was a good one.

Gabeed said:
Ha, TOTALLY. :rolleyes: Just like there's an equal chance that I was or was not conceived by a scarlet unicorn.
Click to expand...

I thought it was a black and white unicorn. :confused: (Hence your fascination with zebra mussels).

Gabeed said:
Your illogical notion that "since these two things are possible, they must be equally possible" has been an unfortunate factor throughout this entire thread.

Interesting how the guy who was willing to write off the Great Pyramid's sarcophagus as "not as sarcophagus" clearly without consulting all sources on the matter (having been informed on the obvious commonality layered coffins in royal tombs) must now spend perhaps months on this subject, which essentially entails just finding Edwards' article, and looking for sources in said article (which he would have if this story was not discovered by him, for example, if a writer in the early 40's mentioned this story).
Click to expand...

Yes, if we, who favour the mainstream, are expected to be open minded, then that should apply to the alien theorists as well.

It seems as though deMille wants to find the evidence to support his theory, which is the arse-backwards approach favoured by conspiracy theorists (who begin with their conclusion and bend all the evidence they find to support it).

If Edwards was bringing new evidence into the arena, it would be most likely that he'd be itching to reveal the source. As it was, he revealed no such source: just "Alexander's historian".

I could just as easily publish a book claiming that, "Hitler's historian confirmed that the Fuehrer escaped the bunker and fled to the Antarctic on a U-Boat..."
 
M

Matt deMille

New member
Parrot said:
Actually, the statement "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is wrong. It's something that many people misunderstand, so I'd like to set the record straight.

If, under the circumstances of your theory, you would expect certain pieces of evidence to show up and they don't, that is indeed evidence of absence.

For example, if I told you that some thieves had just ransacked my house less than an hour ago, you would expect to see my house in disarray with objects strewn all about. If you come over and everything looks normal and nothing is missing, what would you conclude?

There is an absence of evidence that any thieves broke into my house. If the story happened as I said it did, you would expect to find such evidence. Would you not conclude in this situation that the lack of any evidence of a break in was evidence that a break in never occurred?

It's certainly possible that I'm extremely quick at cleaning up, and that I had extras of what was stolen hidden away somewhere convenient in order to replace everything. You can't prove that's not what happened... but it seems unlikely, doesn't it?

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

The statement might be more correctly made that absence of evidence is not proof of absence. You can't prove a negative.

So it's certainly possible that Edwards did have some secret source that nobody else knew about and which is not known to anybody else in the world. That's certainly within the realm of possibility.

But nobody has yet been able to identify that source. Don't you think the absence of evidence in this case demonstrates that it's quite likely that no such evidence exists?
Click to expand...

That is indeed a better way to say it. "Absence of evidence is not proof of absence". I like that much better. Agreed.

On the break-in analogy though, I have to say (and I know it's nit-picking but also important) that maybe the thieves would already know what they're after and where it is, and thus have no need to trash the place. Assuming the place would be trashed is akin to skeptics assuming UFOs would land on the White House lawn in order to communicate -- it's what the skeptics think like so they assume aliens would think the same way, but they wouldn't. I understand the break-in comparison, and it's fair, I suppose, but I do remind folks at every opportunity that when dealing with aliens, humans often make the mistake of presuming way too much about their agenda or their behavior. It makes investigating ancient aliens doubly difficult. For example, it's commonly asked "why would they help build pyramids and then leave?" That sort of question is often asked with the sarcastic tone of "we wouldn't do that, leave things behind, so it makes no sense" and they like to think that makes a solid argument. But dealing with aliens, again, they're not human, so we cannot even begin to imagine what goes on in their head.

Gabeed said:
Interesting how the guy who was willing to write off the Great Pyramid's sarcophagus as "not as sarcophagus" clearly without consulting all sources on the matter (having been informed on the obvious commonality layered coffins in royal tombs) must now spend perhaps months on this subject, which essentially entails just finding Edwards' article, and looking for sources in said article (which he would have if this story was not discovered by him, for example, if a writer in the early 40's mentioned this story).
Click to expand...

Not at all. That's an assumption. I would be looking for sources that had nothing at all to do with Edwards, to see if there are other sources or that information. Negative and unwise indeed -- and bias -- is the skeptic who just assumes the "UFO buff" would hinge things on someone in doubt. In other words, you WANT me to hinge things on someone YOU doubt because your mind is already made up. Again, without giving proper time to look for evidence. Sigh.
 
Last edited:
Gabeed

Gabeed

New member
Matt deMille said:
Negative and unwise indeed -- and bias -- is the skeptic who just assumes the "UFO buff" would hinge things on someone in doubt.
Click to expand...

And yet, that's exactly what you did do, unless you learned this story from a pre-1959 source.
 
M

Matt deMille

New member
I never said I didn't (learn this case from a pre-1959 source). But the difference here is that I was willing to take the time to properly research it, and even consider being wrong, rather than take the easy way out or demand an instant answer. Whereas facts and accounts can be disputed to the end of time, it seems the "rational" and the "mainstream" seem to take the less reasonable position as a default. Perhaps that's just human nature, that ufologists, being the underdogs, work harder for what they believe in. Maybe one day when UFOs are accepted as commonplace (and we're close to that now--check polls), and alien tech is integrated into our science officially, and we take it for granted, then maybe the alien researchers will become just as unreasonable. But, right now, the truth is the open-minded research comes from those asking the questions rather than defending the institution. Such is the cycle of history, I guess.
 
Gabeed

Gabeed

New member
Matt deMille said:
I never said I didn't (learn this case from a pre-1959 source). But the difference here is that I was willing to take the time to properly research it, and even consider being wrong, rather than take the easy way out or demand an instant answer. Whereas facts and accounts can be disputed to the end of time, it seems the "rational" and the "mainstream" seem to take the less reasonable position as a default. Perhaps that's just human nature, that ufologists, being the underdogs, work harder for what they believe in.
Click to expand...

Oh please. If that's true, how many days, weeks, or months did you spend researching the Alexander story before concluding it was true before a couple of guys on the internet Googled the topic for a couple minutes and raised some legitimate doubts that you weren't even aware of?
 
M

Matt deMille

New member
So, you're saying that all the "research" that was indeed done by the con-side of the debate was indeed only a few minutes of Google searching? And you think that refutes something? That quick and easy, eh? How convenient for you. And even if it did, we all know you wouldn't allow such an easy answer on the pro-side. After all, I could easily find pro-Tyre UFO pages with a few minutes of Google, if I wanted to. But I was trying to be responsible and reasonable. I guess that's where I made my mistake. To those who are determined to say something isn't, what's the old saying? "No explanation will do". I guess I won't even bother. At least not for this website. Maybe for my own studies at my own speed, but not here. Not now.

And before the flippant remarks start, let me say that yes, I was convinced of something without having researched it personally. WE ALL ARE. I mean, have you, Gabeed, personally done every bit of research from the beginning to verify, say, the pyramids being tombs? No, you haven't. You've trusted the words of others who have summarized the work in books, etc. Rather hypocritical for you to take your position of pyramids-as-tombs simply by reading the work done by others, but then accuse me of some sort of wrongdoing by, indeed, believing something by reading the works of others.

But that's the circle-jerk around here, and why I don't bother answering the questions from guys like you anymore.
 
Finn

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Matt deMille said:
And before the flippant remarks start, let me say that yes, I was convinced of something without having researched it personally. WE ALL ARE. I mean, have you, Gabeed, personally done every bit of research from the beginning to verify, say, the pyramids being tombs? No, you haven't. You've trusted the words of others who have summarized the work in books, etc. Rather hypocritical for you to take your position of pyramids-as-tombs simply by reading the work done by others, but then accuse me of some sort of wrongdoing by, indeed, believing something by reading the works of others.
Click to expand...
You know, Matt, while I'm fully willing to give everything you say the benefit of doubt, sometimes you might wish to think twice with these analogues you put out. As Parrot already stated, you present your unorthodox views in a lot more coherent manner than 99% of other "believers" out there, but I can't believe you just accused a man for "not doing enough research" over stuff they teach to kids in schools.

I'm fairly certain and contempt that they put enough scrutiny in what goes into public education curriculum in every civilized country out there so that the standard fellow on the street doesn't have to double check those sources.


So when your version makes it to the fifth grade history class, feel free to have that last laugh. But before it happens, I wholeheartedly recommend you recalibrate your pot & kettle locator.
 
M

Montana Smith

Active member
Matt deMille said:
Perhaps that's just human nature, that ufologists, being the underdogs, work harder for what they believe in.
Click to expand...

And there's the smoking gun.

If they already "believe" in something then anything they find will be interpreted as evidence for their cause.

The correct approach is for the discovery of indisputable evidence to lead ultimately to belief.

But then, as Gabeed already pointed out, I've said this in so many words on numerous occasions. It's the reason why this thread will never get anywhere.

I think that "Alexander's historian" was Arrianus of Nicomedia.

So, the next logical step would be to locate all the works created by Arriansu (aka Arrian), for if Edwards was telling the truth, the references ought to exist.
 
M

Matt deMille

New member
No arguments there. As I've said, maybe the references do not exist, and I was willing to concede that. But it's the sort of thing that takes time to make certain. What I got was people expecting a virtually instant answer, which is simply not reasonable in any capacity. If it's a "smoking gun" that UFO "believers" already believe prior to research, then it's also a smoking gun that when I'm given less than 24 hours to rewrite history I'm being put into a no-win situation by those who don't want any version of the story other than what they themselves already believe. Why couldn't they have afforded me the time? If they're so certain I wouldn't find anything, why not give me all the rope to hang myself with? They could say after a month or so "See, you've had all this time, and found nothing". Why the hurry? Sounds to me more like they're afraid I actually might turn up something that they don't want to accept.

Moot point now, since I'm not going to bother. My usual detractors would never accept anything anyway.

. . . . .

Finn, point taken. I'll try to hold off on my analogies. But please consider what I'm trying to say: No books, no history, no research is flawless. Books and truths are being rewritten all the time. Many people besides myself have said so in this very thread. I'm actually trying to do others a favor by keeping them objective, to keep their minds open rather than simply accept the current state of belief about things. That's just not scientific.

Not to be argumentative, but I was taught a lot of things in public schools that has since been ousted as utterly ridiculous. Don't forget that schools also have a political/patriotic agenda too (in fact, I have several friends who are teachers who often groan about the utter nonsense they are ordered to teach). I was taught, for instance, that Columbus discovered America -- not the West Indies, mind you, but New England proper, complete with his patriotic landing. That's straight out of Washington Irving's 19th century fiction, not historical accounts. But it promotes the accepted world-view and so it was force-fed to impressionable young minds.

See, things like that get started, then accepted, and then institutionalized, and remain that way until someone points out their folly. But the longer they are entrenched (in my opinion, Egypt), the harder they are to challenge because you have not only personal beliefs built around them, but political and economic structures too, making change "dangerous" because it unbalances a house of cards. Public education and other common sources for what people believe are riddled with such falsehoods, but no-one dares challenge them because they're more concerned with maintaining the status-quo than with truth. Truth doesn't garner any personal gain. It's easier to just go with the flow. But we're talking truth here, and truth should always be able to be questioned -- if it is indeed true, there's nothing to fear, but the more established the "truth", the more important it is to question it, just in case.

So, if someone says I need to doublecheck my sources, he should at least be willing to do the same. If it's something so certain, then he shouldn't be unwilling, but rather, more willing, because he wouldn't have to go far. Problem is, my attackers here simply are not willing to take even the slightest steps to show, if nothing else, a willingness to try or be fair. I have to point that out because it is very telling of someone's mind-set, which is very important to any debate. After all, skeptics like to leap to the assumption that all UFO believers (such as myself) believe every ridiculous thing in the tabloids because they "want to believe". But, that wasn't me. My mind-set is different. It was important to establish that (even though it took many pages and made people wary -- if they'd just taken me at my word that I don't believe all UFO nonsense things could have progressed much quicker). It is important to establish everyone's mind-set when discussing anything, especially controversial subjects -- Do they have an agenda? Do they have a bias? Etc.

In simpler terms, if someone's mind-set is an unfair one, then there's no debate, just argument.
 
Last edited:
M

Montana Smith

Active member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrian

Arrian lived ca. 86 - 160 BC. (Long after Alexander the Great).

He wrote the Anabasis Alexandri or "The Campaigns of Alexander". He also wrote the Indica, an account of the voyage by Alexander's fleet from India to the Persian Gulf under Nearchus.

Errors in Arrian: Criticism

A. B. Bosworth, a leading expert on Greek history,[9][10] pointed out several errors in Arrian's work which puts a serious question mark on his reliability. In his monograph titled 'Errors in Arrian' published in a peer-reviewed research journal 'The Classical Quarterly',[11] Bosworth explores the credibility of Arrian's works on the basis of the following:

Credibility of Ptolemy: Arrian's main source

Arrian's reliability is solely based on the reliability of Ptolemy whose own reliability is under serious attack. Bosworth writes that "not only has it been virtually disproved that Ptolemy constructed his history from archival material, but it appears that he inserted his own propaganda to exaggerate his personal achievements under Alexander and to discredit those of his rivals". Bosworth alleges that "Arrian was prone to the errors of misunderstanding and faulty source conflation that one would expect in a secondary historian of antiquity".

Misreading and misinterpretation of primary sources

Pointing out several mistakes and general arbitrariness in Arrian's treatment of his primary sources, Bosworth points out that "Arrian is prone to misread and misinterpret his primary sources, and the smooth flow of his narrative can obscure treacherous quicksands of error".

Histriographical aims

Bosworth further points out that "Arrian makes it quite plain that his work is designed as a literary showpiece. Alexander's achievements, he says, have never been adequately commemorated in prose or verse. The field is therefore open for him to do for the Macedonian king what Pindar had done for the Deinomenid tyrants and Xenophon for the march of the Ten Thousand". Bosworth implies that "Arrian has in mind Thucydides' famous strictures of histories of the pentekontaetia (Thuc. 1. 97. 2), on which the passage is patently modelled".

Thus it is quite evident that Arrian's real aim is to create a literary eulogy of Alexander on the lines of classical Greek poet-bard Pindar whose work qualifies more as work of creative literature than history.

Other surviving classical histories of Alexander

The Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus wrote Historiae Alexandri Magni. a biography of Alexander the Great in Latin in ten books of which the last eight survive.

The Greek historian Diodorus Siculus wrote Library of world history in forty books; of these book seventeen covers the conquests of Alexander.
The Greek historian/biographer Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote the On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander the Great and a Alexander.
The Roman historian Justin wrote an epitome of the Historiae Philippicae written by Gnaeus Pompeius Trogus, in 44 books. Of these books 12 and 13 cover Alexander.
Click to expand...

Note this:

Further reading

Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, translated by Aubrey de Sélincourt, Penguin Classics, 1958 and numerous subsequent editions.
Click to expand...

1958 was the date of the Penguin Classic translation - was this Edwards' source material?

Here are pages from Arrian's work, including the siege of Tyre:

http://websfor.org/alexander/arrian/intro.asp
 
Finn

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Matt deMille said:
Finn, point taken. I'll try to hold off on my analogies. But please consider what I'm trying to say: No books, no history, no research is flawless. Books and truths are being rewritten all the time. Many people besides myself have said so in this very thread. I'm actually trying to do others a favor by keeping them objective, to keep their minds open rather than simply accept the current state of belief about things. That's just not scientific.
Click to expand...
Actually that is scientific. All of these commonly accepted rewritten truths have gone through serious scholarly scrutiny before being accepted as the new facts. They're all based on something more than a few vivid theories. as I tried to convey earlier, even the "old facts" are not stagnated and deep-rooted (like some religious beliefs) but actually under constant scrutiny by people still working on the field. They're constantly out there, making observations that sometimes support the old views and sometimes question them.

I don't see people here who say "a tomb is a tomb is a tomb". I simply see people who believe in the current mainstream views of common science. And there is nothing wrong in being a staunch believer in something like that. It's also about as objective as things can realistically get. Sure, there are concepts of even more pure and virtuous objetivity, but that is a subject more suitable for a philosophy class.

Matt deMille said:
Not to be argumentative, but I was taught a lot of things in public schools that has since been ousted as utterly ridiculous. Don't forget that schools also have a political/patriotic agenda too (in fact, I have several friends who are teachers who often groan about the utter nonsense they are ordered to teach). I was taught, for instance, that Columbus discovered America -- not the West Indies, mind you, but New England proper, complete with his patriotic landing. That's straight out of Washington Irving's 19th century fiction, not historical accounts. But it promotes the accepted world-view and so it was force-fed to impressionable young minds.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I hear ya. Sorry for being a bit too broad there. Schools certainly aren't mighty infallible, especially when it comes to politics, religion, local history and other subjects that have a tendency to either promote or lay a few blows onto a nation's ego. Columbus never set his foot on America's mainland, but I don't however see how "pyramids being tombs" acts as a great testament to a western man's ingenuinity to make it something worth twisting history.

Matt deMille said:
So, if someone says I need to doublecheck my sources, he should at least be willing to do the same. If it's something so certain, then he shouldn't be unwilling, but rather, more willing, because he wouldn't have to go far. Problem is, my attackers here simply are not willing to take even the slightest steps to show, if nothing else, a willingness to try or be fair.
Click to expand...
Now you're arguing semantics. I'm fairly certain that you know too that the general understanding is that the (Egyptian) pyramids are tombs and that there are a ton of reliable sources to back that claim up. You may not agree with them, but you know it nevertheless.

Besides, among the participants of this thread we've had a whole myriad of people, and the odds are not all of them are sheep. If it really was a necessity to cite a source concerning this tidbit of common knowledge over the course of this discussion, the odds are that somebody would have already done it. Perhaps this argument could have held a bit of solid ground under it on the early stages of this thread, but not when we're nearly 900 posts and running.
 
Stoo

Stoo

Well-known member
Matt deMille said:
In simpler terms, if someone's mind-set is an unfair one, then there's no debate, just argument.
Click to expand...
Speaking of "mind-set", what happened to the Matt deMille who was "uncomfortable" living with the alien reality and was looking for PROOF to rid himself of the proverbial monkey on his back?
 
M

Matt deMille

New member
That hasn't changed, Stoo. I'd still like proof. But proof is more than a Google search. Proof requires due-diligence, time, corroboration and confirmation. I was willing to give that time. Others weren't.

My accepting of the quick-answer from the con-side wouldn't be any more reasonable than you accepting the pro-UFO take from a few internet links. You clearly won't accept that. Why should I settle for anything less?
 
Gabeed

Gabeed

New member
Matt deMille said:
No arguments there. As I've said, maybe the references do not exist, and I was willing to concede that. But it's the sort of thing that takes time to make certain. What I got was people expecting a virtually instant answer, which is simply not reasonable in any capacity. If it's a "smoking gun" that UFO "believers" already believe prior to research, then it's also a smoking gun that when I'm given less than 24 hours to rewrite history I'm being put into a no-win situation by those who don't want any version of the story other than what they themselves already believe. Why couldn't they have afforded me the time? If they're so certain I wouldn't find anything, why not give me all the rope to hang myself with? They could say after a month or so "See, you've had all this time, and found nothing". Why the hurry? Sounds to me more like they're afraid I actually might turn up something that they don't want to accept.

Moot point now, since I'm not going to bother
Click to expand...

Hilarious. Just hilarious. "I'm going to keep saying that the detractors are hurrying me along so I can cop out of the discussion." :gun:

Incidentally, Matt, could you lend a fortnight or two to see if there are other sources regarding ancient invasive mollusks building pyramids in the Great Lakes? Since apparently every theory is equally possible to you, and we need to keep an open mind, surely the above proposed period of time at the very leastis required to find the truth behind this.

I might add that a couple of the links I initially posted were UFO sites. I will repeat--even they, to their credit, saw the Alexander story as dubious.
 
Stoo

Stoo

Well-known member
Matt deMille said:
My accepting of the quick-answer from the con-side wouldn't be any more reasonable than you accepting the pro-UFO take from a few internet links. You clearly won't accept that.
Click to expand...
You're completely wrong. Here's a re-post from WAY BACK on page 21, post 307.
Stoo said:
The FUNNIEST thing is that deMille has lumped me in with those who are blinded by dogma & conventional thinking and who don't do any research. What he doesn't realize is that I *am* interested in NASA footage of UFOs and the possibilty of life on other planets which is exactly why I'm in this thread. I worked in the aviation industry for several years and at least 2 pilots; 1 commercial, 1 military (both with a lot of flight time under their belts) have told me about things they've seen which they can't explain.

Another problem of deMille's is labeling the 'morons' as 'skeptics' yet all the while treating them as NON-BELIEVERS. Skepticism = UNCERTAINTY. I am a skeptic in the true sense of the word, not the Matt deMille-sense (which equals a non-believer).
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top