Ancient aliens
- Thread starter time-raider
- Start date
Gabeed
New member
I'm confused as to why you think going on a forum to discuss multiple topics, including Indiana Jones, is significantly more indicative of having a life. One could easily make the assumption that while a person joining a forum to discuss one topic is there for the purpose of debate, is rather single-minded, and isn't particularly affiliated with the community . . . a person joining a forum to discuss many topics with like-minded people has no friends in real life and requires an online community to not be so lonely. 
Montana Smith
Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Agreed.
Rocket Surgeon said:
I neglected to mention that, though I had intended to.
teampunk said:
Thanks for that teampunk.
Actually, I don't have a life, that's very perceptive of you.... but that's not the reason that I joined the forum. I was asked to join and I thought that I owe it to myself to actually challenge believers in ancient aliens through more than just soundbites like I do on my blog.
This seemed like an interesting opportunity to do so, so I took it.
Matt deMille
New member
Oh, I'm not leaving The Raven. I'm just done discussing ancient aliens in an open forum where it's too easily derailed.
Parrot, feel free to email me through my normal email. It's on my website and easy to find.
As for not having a life (though I'm not sure if that was directed at Parrot or at me, or both), one's time on a thread can be taken either way, as Gabeed said so well. Some of my past detractors, with their endless posts, made me wonder whether *they* had a life. But I guess that's in the past, thankfully.
For what I mean about a rigged game: This thread tends to, oddly, operate from a "mainstream science is absolute" point of view. Now, my questioning of that may sound unreasonable, but consider this: The very description of this forum, "Archeology", also includes *myths*. Besides, science, like any tool, is subject to the behavior of the human using it. What I have felt endlessly is that science here is some sort of impregnable rock, akin to discussing alternate religion with a devout individual. Example: "So, Mr. Christian, shall we consider the possibility that Zeus may have done this?" to which Mr. Christian replies "Show me evidence of Zeus but it won't matter because the Bible says no such thing". I know that's a somewhat silly example, as science is supposed to be anything but a religion, but oftentimes it's utilized with the same prejudice and blindness. After all, most (if not all) of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time were initially dismissed by the mainstream understanding of their time, and even thought to be utterly ridiculous. So, when I speak of closed-minds of religious-like behavior from a scientific standpoint, it seems rigged to me. There is bias that shows it. For example, one can argue beliefs, faiths, theories, whatever, but when things within this very thread are proven, and they're still not admitted to, one must question the objectivity of those he's "discussing" things with. Deepening the example, in this thread I said people silently supported me through email, which some individuals said was total BS. Yet later individuals did come out and say they had supported me. There's no myth or science needed there: My detractors were wrong, and I never got an apology or a concession of "Okay, we were wrong". If they can't even admit to being mistaken about something so clear (and so trivial), will it ever be anything but a rigged game when dealing with dogma or entrenched views? Hardly.
Now, certainly most people here (especially lately) are fair and impartial, but there is an undo amount of favor given to the mainstream views. In another thread at The Raven, recently, I saw something about how Hawass' latest tomb delve may solve the mystery of how the Egyptians moved the pyramid blocks. Um, consider this: That is nothing short of an admission that they *don't* know how, exactly, the pyramids were built, so how can they say absolutely they know what they were built for? There's a degree of faith taken with "science" here, and it spills over into this thread which was intended to be a discussion of possibilities only. The hard-stance of unassailable science has always seemed a bit out of place to me. That's why I consider it "rigged", a rigged discussion of possibilities, that is.
With respect to Montana (who in my opinion is a damn good voice of reason), actually, I *would* at one point have considered "including myself in that description", however, I have admitted to mistakes, given ground, etc. And despite my cynicism here, I think this thread is actually maintaining a much better stability. It is simply that discussions of faith do not interest me as much as possibilities of aliens, so rather than be the pro-active ingredient here, I'm going to be content to sit back and watch, to read more than write. Believe me, I'm enjoying it, and finding many insights, well, insightful. So, please continue.
Since the thread has indeed turned to faith, that is why I've no wish to derail it into my own agenda, and thus offer PM as a way to discuss aliens further, should someone choose to.
Parrot, feel free to email me through my normal email. It's on my website and easy to find.
As for not having a life (though I'm not sure if that was directed at Parrot or at me, or both), one's time on a thread can be taken either way, as Gabeed said so well. Some of my past detractors, with their endless posts, made me wonder whether *they* had a life. But I guess that's in the past, thankfully.
For what I mean about a rigged game: This thread tends to, oddly, operate from a "mainstream science is absolute" point of view. Now, my questioning of that may sound unreasonable, but consider this: The very description of this forum, "Archeology", also includes *myths*. Besides, science, like any tool, is subject to the behavior of the human using it. What I have felt endlessly is that science here is some sort of impregnable rock, akin to discussing alternate religion with a devout individual. Example: "So, Mr. Christian, shall we consider the possibility that Zeus may have done this?" to which Mr. Christian replies "Show me evidence of Zeus but it won't matter because the Bible says no such thing". I know that's a somewhat silly example, as science is supposed to be anything but a religion, but oftentimes it's utilized with the same prejudice and blindness. After all, most (if not all) of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time were initially dismissed by the mainstream understanding of their time, and even thought to be utterly ridiculous. So, when I speak of closed-minds of religious-like behavior from a scientific standpoint, it seems rigged to me. There is bias that shows it. For example, one can argue beliefs, faiths, theories, whatever, but when things within this very thread are proven, and they're still not admitted to, one must question the objectivity of those he's "discussing" things with. Deepening the example, in this thread I said people silently supported me through email, which some individuals said was total BS. Yet later individuals did come out and say they had supported me. There's no myth or science needed there: My detractors were wrong, and I never got an apology or a concession of "Okay, we were wrong". If they can't even admit to being mistaken about something so clear (and so trivial), will it ever be anything but a rigged game when dealing with dogma or entrenched views? Hardly.
Now, certainly most people here (especially lately) are fair and impartial, but there is an undo amount of favor given to the mainstream views. In another thread at The Raven, recently, I saw something about how Hawass' latest tomb delve may solve the mystery of how the Egyptians moved the pyramid blocks. Um, consider this: That is nothing short of an admission that they *don't* know how, exactly, the pyramids were built, so how can they say absolutely they know what they were built for? There's a degree of faith taken with "science" here, and it spills over into this thread which was intended to be a discussion of possibilities only. The hard-stance of unassailable science has always seemed a bit out of place to me. That's why I consider it "rigged", a rigged discussion of possibilities, that is.
With respect to Montana (who in my opinion is a damn good voice of reason), actually, I *would* at one point have considered "including myself in that description", however, I have admitted to mistakes, given ground, etc. And despite my cynicism here, I think this thread is actually maintaining a much better stability. It is simply that discussions of faith do not interest me as much as possibilities of aliens, so rather than be the pro-active ingredient here, I'm going to be content to sit back and watch, to read more than write. Believe me, I'm enjoying it, and finding many insights, well, insightful. So, please continue.
Since the thread has indeed turned to faith, that is why I've no wish to derail it into my own agenda, and thus offer PM as a way to discuss aliens further, should someone choose to.
Montana Smith
Active member
Matt deMille said:
The faith discussion was a scenic detour in the tangled journey of this thread. It's relevance is that faith is subjective (in whatever field it's applied to), whereas the correct study of history is objective.
Therefore, if we disagree with you, it should be not from a gut reaction based on the things we might hold true, but from facts that have been strongly established. Where the facts are in doubt we may still disagree, because the weight of evidence still supports the mainstream. If you can bring forward evidence from the past that weighs more favourably on the ancient alien theory, then that is when the mainstream should be seriously challenged.
However, to my knowledge, there isn't anything that really supports ancient aliens over any of the alternative 'mainstream' theories.
Is there a smoking gun that can shatter generally held perceptions of the past?
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
How many people have to post, besides personal confirmations, examples of how science IS NOT absolute?Matt deMille said:
I don't see how that is odd at all. I see it as structured and objective.
Matt deMille
New member
Montana Smith said:
Wisely said, Montana.
Unfortunately, the subject of ancient aliens deals with elements of different forms of reality than our science can even begin to comprehend. Just as electricity was beyond the mechanics of Renaissance thinking and scientific process itself was beyond the thinking of people in the Dark Ages, so too are the inter-dimensional and ultra-technological means and, most likely, spiritual means of aliens simply so far outside the ability of our science to understand that trying to prove them by our crude, terrestrial science is futile.
This, I'm sure, will be confused with taking things as "faith". It's not about faith. It is indeed about an objective reality. Unfortunately, our science is based almost exclusively on the material world, and we're dealing with immaterial things at times. Our science says if it can't be reproduced in the lab or have a recognizable material conclusion then it's not real. Therein lies the problem. This is why I used the fishnet analogy a little while ago: Our means of studying higher levels of reality are simply insufficient. Using our modern scientific principles, demanding proof of inter-dimensional visitors is like trying to expect a DVD player to film a movie rather than just play a disc copy of it.
To this end, we need to look not at the quick-fix answer of religion/faith nor limit ourselves to the material-laden scientific thought of our society. There are other paths to pursue, such as intuition, psychic abilities, and circumstantial evidence. Like investigating a crime, not all proof is something the lab boys can lay on the table in front of the judge. Sometimes it's eyewitness testimony. Sometimes it's a cop's gut feeling. What we must do is look at all forms of evidence and the bigger picture.
I'm glad there was a detour through faith, actually. It does help clarify what faith is, and thus, if one seriously looks at UFOs, help them to see this is not a faith-based issue. Proof is there if one broadens his view of what proof can be. Sure, one crazed person can easily invent a UFO story involving a glowing blue figure with orange eyes that "sings". And his belief can be entirely faith-based, needing no proof for himself. However, if you get the same story from a dozen other people from different parts of the world (before the internet or any widespread communication), though science cannot even begin to explain how they all shared this vision, one cannot simply dismiss the commonalities of the stories as chance or faith, either. It starts to paint a picture of a broader reality than we previously accepted (note, the above example of aliens is *not* a true story, just a "for-example" fiction).
Matt deMille said:
I fail to see what this has to do with physical, tangible remnants of the distant past like the pyramids or other stone monuments.
Matt deMille said:
So blue is red if I say it is? Up is down? Sure, if I change the definition of a word, I can make up whatever I want.
The problem with all this "expand your mind" mumbo jumbo is that it requires us to completely ignore all of the many MANY observable, tangible, real FACTS that would suggest otherwise.
Archaeologist
New member
"Unfortunately, our science is based almost exclusively on the material world, and we're dealing with immaterial things at times. Our science says if it can't be reproduced in the lab or have a recognizable material conclusion then it's not real."
Just wanted to say that science uses a lot of inferences. The Earth going around the Sun is an inference. Science is more like your courtroom analogy, taking the evidence and making inferences. But you are right that science does need some material to make inferences from, which is why it does not deal with ancient aliens.
Just wanted to say that science uses a lot of inferences. The Earth going around the Sun is an inference. Science is more like your courtroom analogy, taking the evidence and making inferences. But you are right that science does need some material to make inferences from, which is why it does not deal with ancient aliens.
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
terrestrial science is futile
WOW
What a sad, sad commentary, but so telling.
Where is the EVIDENCE that even apoximates the physical presence of electricity.
Don't worry, I know you're being poetic...and as such as you wrote:
It is when it comes to faith...
WOW
Matt deMille said:
What a sad, sad commentary, but so telling.
A wonderfully measured statement, (mechanics of Renaissance thinking), but the EVIDENCE was there. Evidence that would lead Benjamin Franklin only a few hundred years later to consider capturing.Matt deMille said:
Where is the EVIDENCE that even apoximates the physical presence of electricity.
Don't worry, I know you're being poetic...and as such as you wrote:
Matt deMille said:
It is when it comes to faith...
Montana Smith
Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Getting a strange sense of deja vu. We could be stuck in a time loop. It could be Groundhog Day, or it could have something to do with Prairie Dogs.
Matt got mad at me and refuses to talk to me now. Apparently the point of contention was that I said there was no evidence.
I don't know why that came as such a shock to him, he should have known that was my position from the get go
The guy seems a little shell shocked, as though he expects me to jump down his throat about this or something any minute. I tried telling him that I intend to be perfectly civil and reasonable... but I guess he's just had enough of the Ancient Aliens stuff.
And apparently he believes that there's no evidence for the big bang. Go figure! I guess expansion and the cosmic background radiation are just government lies.
I don't know why that came as such a shock to him, he should have known that was my position from the get go
The guy seems a little shell shocked, as though he expects me to jump down his throat about this or something any minute. I tried telling him that I intend to be perfectly civil and reasonable... but I guess he's just had enough of the Ancient Aliens stuff.
And apparently he believes that there's no evidence for the big bang. Go figure! I guess expansion and the cosmic background radiation are just government lies.
Stoo
Well-known member
This comes as no surprise since it's a typical reaction from Matt deMille. You were warned!Parrot said:
Reasoning with this guy is pointless because he's a bona-fide 'chucklehead' (as you like to call them). The hissy-fit reaction is 100% deMille!Not only that, his claims of alien encounters are self-contradictory (and defy BASIC mathematics) yet he insists they are true.
D'uh Mille strikes again!Lambonius said:
Below are some quotes where he attempts to change the definition of a word:Quotes from Matt deMille:
"'Simple' is a matter of interpretation and open to preference."
...
"Simple is relative."
...
"What 'simple' means to one person can mean something else to another."
Your comical opinion about 'humans' using science has been noted. (As if there was 'someone else' out there using it...What other species are using science? Apes? Dogs? Dolphins? Aliens?)Matt deMille said:
Stoo said:This comes as no surprise since it's a typical reaction from Matt deMille. You were warned!
Well, the goal wasn't really to change his mind. I was kind of hoping for an interesting discussion that would help perhaps showcase aspects of the Ancient Aliens theory that I hadn't heard of yet.
I guess in this case that was just too ambitious.
I don't see what's particularly ridiculous about these quotes. 'Simple' attached to an issue is something that varies greatly, sometimes even within a single person. For example, one day, moderating a message board might be real simple. Another, hard as hell.Stoo said:
If one guy ignoring another creates a lesser-scale s***storm than an open, heated debate would, the upkeep approves. At least technically.Parrot said:
That being said, I'm starting to wonder if this thread has run its course, with things being like they are. While it's not obviously a healthy baby, it's still a big one with many people's toils poured into it to bring it to the lengths it has this day. I simply don't feel like it's my place to decide if it's time to bring it down. Cue the poll recently added.
Last edited: