Ancient aliens

Montana Smith

Active member
Parrot said:
Well, I've joined up. I think your administrators don't want me using the name "Dumbass", so I'm using the alias that I often use on other forums, "Parrot".

Thanks for the invitation. I love looking at this ancient aliens stuff, and I try not to wall myself off from conversations with people who disagree with my point of view on it. Responding to canned quotes is fun, but I often get more out of an actual discussion.

So, to our local alien theorist Matt: have you read my analysis of the ancient aliens show so far?

I use a little bit of ridicule in my blog posts, but I make an effort never to say anything that could be considered hurtful. I think the strongest word I've used so far is "chucklehead" - which I personally think is a great word.

I want to get at the root of the claims being made, and I won't quote anybody out of context just to make a cheap point. I don't intend to start yelling at or mocking you in this conversation.

You actually seem like a pretty reasonable guy, even if I do think you're wrong. If you haven't had a look at my articles yet, why don't you go there now. You can tell me if you think I'm being unfair or if I've got any of my facts wrong:

http://www.dumbassguide.info/index.php?kw=ancient%20alien%20theory

Just scroll to the bottom to read them in sequential order.

Have I changed your mind about anything? Do you think that I've failed to address any point to your satisfaction? Am I just a know-nothing dumbass who shouldn't quit his day job?

You don't need to answer that last one....

In any case, let's talk about ancient aliens!

Welcome to the forum, Parrot.

Your articles are a great read, and I applaud your reluctance to start "yelling or mocking"!

Looking forward to reading your views.

:hat:
 

Gabeed

New member
Parrot said:
Well, I've joined up. I think your administrators don't want me using the name "Dumbass", so I'm using the alias that I often use on other forums, "Parrot".

Thanks for the invitation. I love looking at this ancient aliens stuff, and I try not to wall myself off from conversations with people who disagree with my point of view on it. Responding to canned quotes is fun, but I often get more out of an actual discussion.

So, to our local alien theorist Matt: have you read my analysis of the ancient aliens show so far?

I use a little bit of ridicule in my blog posts, but I make an effort never to say anything that could be considered hurtful. I think the strongest word I've used so far is "chucklehead" - which I personally think is a great word.

I want to get at the root of the claims being made, and I won't quote anybody out of context just to make a cheap point. I don't intend to start yelling at or mocking you in this conversation.

You actually seem like a pretty reasonable guy, even if I do think you're wrong. If you haven't had a look at my articles yet, why don't you go there now. You can tell me if you think I'm being unfair or if I've got any of my facts wrong:

http://www.dumbassguide.info/index.php?kw=ancient%20alien%20theory

Just scroll to the bottom to read them in sequential order.

Have I changed your mind about anything? Do you think that I've failed to address any point to your satisfaction? Am I just a know-nothing dumbass who shouldn't quit his day job?

You don't need to answer that last one....

In any case, let's talk about ancient aliens!

Nice to see that you came. I really enjoyed reading your blog as I trudged partway through that first Ancient Alien episode on the History Channel. In fact (and maybe I mentioned this above), I can't really get through those episodes (without snarky critiques) without grimacing and desperately wanting to do something else. :gun:

It's actually quite worrying. Rather than have any kind of balanced debate between ancient alien theorists and mainstream historians/archaeologists, they have one sided rant of crazy theories by various ancient alien supporters, with the occasional comment by the narrator saying something like "Mainstream archaeologists believe that this is unsubstantiated," with "mainstream" said with such contempt that you could practically replace it with "Sauron" or "Scientologists." I hear that they put a mainstream skeptic guy on in the final episode (which I haven't seen, of course), but that's not enough.

There are plenty of interesting historical events and people that could be turned into something both educational, and beneficial for the ratings. The Franco-Mongol "alliance" comes to mind. A series on the Byzantine Empire and the threats and attacks that it faced during its reign would be great. Or perhaps an episode on the War of the Triple Alliance, fought in the 1870's with Paraguay being the aggressor and essentially the Hitler of South America while fighting the slave armies of the Brazilian Empire. Hell, you could make a whole movie on the Siege of Antioch during the First Crusade. These are all little-known events and time periods that could easily be presented in a fascinating manner, and that's just off the top of my head!

And yet we get bombarded with shows that have nothing to do with history (the reality shows, like Ice Road Truckers), and "fringe" history shows in order to draw in the apparently impressionable, idiotic American TV audience. It's a shame that a channel with so much promise can somehow get far, far worse than "24/7 WW2 stock footage." I had to watch an episode of Nova online just to cleanse my palate after watching a bit of "Ancient Aliens," and even that episode was a bit sensationalized (though admittedly pretty good).

Ok, that's tonight's segment of my impassioned History Channel rant. I'm off to bed. ;)
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Gabeed said:
It's actually quite worrying. Rather than have any kind of balanced debate between ancient alien theorists and mainstream historians/archaeologists, they have one sided rant of crazy theories by various ancient alien supporters, with the occasional comment by the narrator saying something like "Mainstream archaeologists believe that this is unsubstantiated," with "mainstream" said with such contempt that you could practically replace it with "Sauron" or "Scientologists." I hear that they put a mainstream skeptic guy on in the final episode (which I haven't seen, of course), but that's not enough.

There are plenty of interesting historical events and people that could be turned into something both educational, and beneficial for the ratings. The Franco-Mongol "alliance" comes to mind. A series on the Byzantine Empire and the threats and attacks that it faced during its reign would be great. Or perhaps an episode on the War of the Triple Alliance, fought in the 1870's with Paraguay being the aggressor and essentially the Hitler of South America while fighting the slave armies of the Brazilian Empire. Hell, you could make a whole movie on the Siege of Antioch during the First Crusade. These are all little-known events and time periods that could easily be presented in a fascinating manner, and that's just off the top of my head!

And yet we get bombarded with shows that have nothing to do with history (the reality shows, like Ice Road Truckers), and "fringe" history shows in order to draw in the apparently impressionable, idiotic American TV audience. It's a shame that a channel with so much promise can somehow get far, far worse than "24/7 WW2 stock footage." I had to watch an episode of Nova online just to cleanse my palate after watching a bit of "Ancient Aliens," and even that episode was a bit sensationalized (though admittedly pretty good).

Good points, Gabeed. We really have come full circle now. It was statements on this very point in another thread that sparked Matt deMille to reveal his feelings and then begin the thread that was merged into this one.

I've been getting so much sensation of deja vu here, that I went back and started reading it from the beginning. I was pleasantly surprised to remind myself that I've been pretty calm throughout. I don't know if we really got anywhere, but the journey has been eventful, and with Parrot's contribution it will surely remain lively, though hopefully good-natured.
 

Parrot

New member
You guys might enjoy these:

summary_image.jpg


historyprograms_OB.jpg


I got those from this very interesting article on cracked.com about the way the direction they've taken with programming on the History channel:

http://www.cracked.com/funny-5720-the-history-channel/
 

Parrot

New member
Gabeed said:
Nice to see that you came. I really enjoyed reading your blog as I trudged partway through that first Ancient Alien episode on the History Channel. In fact (and maybe I mentioned this above), I can't really get through those episodes (without snarky critiques) without grimacing and desperately wanting to do something else. :gun:

I personally haven't gotten all the way through the first episode yet myself. Every time I view a new segment I find myself compelled to take notes and mull over everything that was said. I start thinking about the best way to word my response while lying in bed at night. So I can't watch the whole thing in one stretch.

Gabeed said:
It's actually quite worrying. Rather than have any kind of balanced debate between ancient alien theorists and mainstream historians/archaeologists, they have one sided rant of crazy theories by various ancient alien supporters, with the occasional comment by the narrator saying something like "Mainstream archaeologists believe that this is unsubstantiated," with "mainstream" said with such contempt that you could practically replace it with "Sauron" or "Scientologists." I hear that they put a mainstream skeptic guy on in the final episode (which I haven't seen, of course), but that's not enough.

They love putting a "token skeptic" in these kinds of shows to make it look like they're being fair. They usually cut out most of what the guy has to say and leave in some tiny, nonthreatening comments that are unlikely to win people over.

But the ancient alien theorists themselves can be actually kind of interesting. I love watching David Childress and Giorgio Tsoukalos. They're the two who seem, to me, to be the most out of touch with reality. It's like they're in some kind of competition to see who can say something that will out-crazy the other.

I might look into keeping a tally and determining the winner at the end of the episode :)
 
Last edited:

Matt deMille

New member
Well, I can see objectivity is a waste of time in this thread, so I'm not going to bother continuing it other than what I write below.

For what it's worth, I don't watch "Ancient Aliens". Haven't seen one episode. But from what Parrot is describing, it sounds no different than the Fox show "Opening the Lost Tombs" from a few years back starring Hawass, just with the bias switched. In other words, the criticisms I'm hearing about it only show that skeptics can be just as one-sided or unreasonable as the ufologists they like to call out. Taste of their own medicine doesn't taste good.

I'd wondered when "Parrot" would come, but I suspected this is what would happen: His opinion is pretty clear from the get-go, so I don't see the value in it. Isn't science supposed to be open to inquiry? After just getting this thread back on track yesterday, with several posters finally asking good questions that we can debate, we have an overwhelming bias making fun and turning things into a circus again, such as funky graphs for laughs rather than serious discussion of the better evidence.

I regret that you, Parrot, have wandered into this pit. But I'm wandering out. When objectivity returns, someone let me know.
 

Gabeed

New member
Matt deMille said:
Well, I can see objectivity is a waste of time in this thread, so I'm not going to bother continuing it other than what I write below.

And what exactly has not been objective or rational in what Finn and I spent some time typing above regarding the Great Pyramid? Just because I think the History Channel and its Ancient Alien series is crap doesn't mean that discussion hasn't gone away or is worthless.

Matt deMille said:
His opinion is pretty clear from the get-go, so I don't see the value in it.

And your opinion wasn't?
 

teampunk

Member
this thread needs to be taken out of the archaeology section and put in the stuff normal people don't care about section.
 

Parrot

New member
Matt deMille said:
Well, I can see objectivity is a waste of time in this thread, so I'm not going to bother continuing it other than what I write below.

For what it's worth, I don't watch "Ancient Aliens". Haven't seen one episode. But from what Parrot is describing, it sounds no different than the Fox show "Opening the Lost Tombs" from a few years back starring Hawass, just with the bias switched. In other words, the criticisms I'm hearing about it only show that skeptics can be just as one-sided or unreasonable as the ufologists they like to call out. Taste of their own medicine doesn't taste good.

I'd wondered when "Parrot" would come, but I suspected this is what would happen: His opinion is pretty clear from the get-go, so I don't see the value in it. Isn't science supposed to be open to inquiry? After just getting this thread back on track yesterday, with several posters finally asking good questions that we can debate, we have an overwhelming bias making fun and turning things into a circus again, such as funky graphs for laughs rather than serious discussion of the better evidence.

I regret that you, Parrot, have wandered into this pit. But I'm wandering out. When objectivity returns, someone let me know.

I had really hoped to actually talk to you about this subject. I didn't sign up here in order to simply hear an echo chamber of my own opinions. Preaching to the choir is great, but I really want to be challenged.

I promise not to heap on a bunch of scorn just because I don't agree with you about ancient aliens. I think you'll find that I'm a pretty reasonable guy to discuss this kind of issue with.

If I'm understanding your post correctly, you're also critical of the Ancient Aliens TV show, right? I don't want to build any straw man arguments against you, so I'm not going to ask that you answer for all the silly things that they said on the show.

I've been researching other websites making claims to ancient aliens, and one thing I've noticed is that they often disagree with each other. So I'm not going to hold you to any straw man arguments that you don't believe just because other ancient alien believers might promote them.

While I haven't yet found an argument for ancient aliens that stands up to scrutiny, it's entirely possible that I haven't been looking in the right places. I promise that if you give me evidence that can only be reasonably explained by aliens coming down in ancient times, I will change my mind.

So don't walk away - bring in your best evidence and convince me!
 

Matt deMille

New member
That you, Parrot. I had spent the last hour or so typing up a continuation of this thread for Gabeed and Finn, and I'm glad I can now say it's for you as well. I thank you for being reasonable and professional.

Most of what follows is a response to Gabeed's and Finn's questions, numbered according to my questions. I'll get to your questions when I have more time (pretty busy yesterday and today -- being on shows yourself, as I've been told, I'm sure you can appreciate the murderous schedule).

For Gabeed:

1) Indeed, records are few or non-existent for many things. But it is a common argument against paranormal phenomena that ?absence of evidence is evidence of absence?. In being fair, in being scientific, shouldn?t all things be weighed in the same scales? Without mention of these very usual features of the great pyramid, we can only assume the Egyptians knew about them because they claimed the entire monument as their own. One isolated question about what they can?t claim to know can be written off with ?maybe we?ll find that piece of the puzzle someday?, but when more and more questions like this keep coming up, eventually one has to say ?What they knew and recorded outweighs what they didn?t record and what we see now ? How long can this go before we have to question the Egyptian claim altogether??

After all, science demands proof as a bottom line. It isn?t philosophy. So, without some Egyptian artifact cross-referencing or outright confirming they knew of this very unique feature in their greatest monument, we have only the assumption that they built it. Of course, it?s a fair assumption, but without hard confirmation it is, still, only a theory, a possibility. It is just as possible that no mention will ever be found because they never recorded it at all, as they didn?t know about it, being technologically unable to explore the 8? shaft (assuming they found the pyramid, a relic of a lost, earlier civilization). As Finn said in regards to my third point, this is like seeing ?cookies?. It?s connecting a people with a discovery despite a lack of evidence. I?d like to see some allusion to this very unusual but clearly essential component of this culture?s greatest religious monument and greatest technological achievement ? Even some legend scrawled on a wall that references the ?Brass eyes of the stone guardian? or something. Anything that indicates they knew this existed, since they supposedly built it.

2) The erosion. Indeed, Egypt does get little water these days, the same as it did(n?t) during the time of ancient Egypt. However, in 10000 bc, the area was different. There was sufficient rainfall to account for the erosion on the Sphinx. This, in conjunction with the celestial alignment (my Point #3) makes a very good case for the monuments existing that far back (and possibly built even earlier).

5) Indeed, I could accept lack of torch-traces with the just ?cover it as we go? approach that makes sense for a tomb. However, it has been argued that the reason for the missing body and tomb treasure and multiple sarcophagi are due to grave robbers in antiquity. Surely anyone entering before the British in the 19th century would have used fire for light, thus leaving traces of torches or at least the burned oil from lanterns. Some leaves traces along stone walls. The lack of it in the pyramid suggests it was never opened until the 19th century. So, either some tomb raiders in the distant past had electricity or at least non-flame-based light, or there wasn?t a treasure in there to begin with.

For Finn:

3) The celestial alignments aren?t just a few isolated pieces. There?s a complex pattern to them. In 10500bc, there is a multitude of factors that align with the Giza site. The three pyramids being Orion?s belt is constant, but in 10500bc ? the end of the last ice age when refugees from drowned coastal societies would have begun establishing a new civilization ? has the 8? ?air shafts? aligned with constellations, the Sphinx gazing directly at its own constellation (Leo), (which also tends to suggest that the Sphinx was originally fully lion, rather than the chiseled down head we see today), and the time for the erosion matches. In addition, the ?funeral boats? are, when studied by shipwrights, clearly ocean-going vessels, not the coastal or river-going boats one would expect from the Egyptians. This further suggests a refugee society who built this site, refugees due to the flooding of the world at that time.

Of course, this doesn?t point to aliens, but it doesn?t have to. When I started this thread (however it was merged later with another), I spoke of aliens as well as Atlanteans and other lost civilizations. ?Alien? does not necessarily mean little green man, after all. Alien just needs to mean ?not us?.

4) The alignment to true north isn?t a doubt of the Egyptians? knowledge of cardinal points, but their precision in making it so perfect. It?s just another question about the degree of their technology.

This also has a connection to Point #3. In 10500bc, it has been said (though I admit to not studying this one in particular) that, accounting for the precession of the Earth, the Great Pyramid would have been positioned at a perfect centerpoint on the globe, indeed along what would have been the equator at the time. I?ve always been curious about that and am eager for information on that one above all others.

For Parrot:

I indeed try to avoid most "history" or "UFO" shows with the same effort with which I avoid debunking or skeptical shows (no offense). TV is what it is: Selling sensationalism. I prefer to read. And I'll be the first to say that every discipline of ufology, from alien abduction to alien archeology, has its share of "bad representatives". I feel, just as with mainstream researchers, human ego, bias and paranoia plays a large part in their research. Of course, there's no telling when agreements naturally end and when a show's producers begin, stepping in to "create tension" by offering counterpoints that may not have happened. Editing can change context so much, as I'm sure you know. Personally, I find the better places to listen to ufologists talk are at college lectures or debates, where you get the whole context. I'd be interesting to have some of those televised.

As for my "best evidence" to offer, I'm already short of time so I'll let the responses to Gabeed and Finn suffice for now. I'm sure there's enough there to begin with, and we can see where things go from there.

Looking forward to talkin' to you.
 

Parrot

New member
Matt deMille said:
For Parrot:

I indeed try to avoid most "history" or "UFO" shows with the same effort with which I avoid debunking or skeptical shows (no offense). TV is what it is: Selling sensationalism. I prefer to read. And I'll be the first to say that every discipline of ufology, from alien abduction to alien archeology, has its share of "bad representatives". I feel, just as with mainstream researchers, human ego, bias and paranoia plays a large part in their research. Of course, there's no telling when agreements naturally end and when a show's producers begin, stepping in to "create tension" by offering counterpoints that may not have happened. Editing can change context so much, as I'm sure you know. Personally, I find the better places to listen to ufologists talk are at college lectures or debates, where you get the whole context. I'd be interesting to have some of those televised.

As for my "best evidence" to offer, I'm already short of time so I'll let the responses to Gabeed and Finn suffice for now. I'm sure there's enough there to begin with, and we can see where things go from there.

Looking forward to talkin' to you.

You've definitely put forth a lot of claims here. I have my own thoughts on a few of them, but what I'd like here is to tackle only one claim at a time. Let's see if we can agree on some basic facts and maybe we can come to some sort of understanding.

If you agree that I'm right about a particular claim, it doesn't mean that you're wrong about ancient aliens, but I hope it means that you won't be using that claim anymore to support the theory.

If I agree that you have a point about a particular claim, I'll unashamedly list that as a point in favour of the ancient aliens hypothesis. I'll even make a blog post about it if there are enough of them.

I want to leave it up to you to tell me where you want to start. One claim at a time, and we'll take our time chewing it all over.
 

Matt deMille

New member
Thank you, Parrot.

A guess a good point to discuss at first would be a broader question; This thread seems to have gravitated toward Giza like a black hole, but if ancient aliens are real, it would more likely be a worldwide phenomena, or at least, there'd likely be evidence elsewhere. So, in the interests of optimism and open-mindedness, I'd actually like to leave the opening issue to you: Just pick one ancient alien element that has in your experiences either been a stumper or just plain silly. I won't use a stumper as "proof they're real" nor will I deny anything that's silly.

It can be from Egypt, or from anywhere. The ancient alien evidence -- to me -- is all over, from Peru to Britain to Southeast Asia. Werever you would like to begin is okay with me.
 

Parrot

New member
Matt deMille said:
Thank you, Parrot.

A guess a good point to discuss at first would be a broader question; This thread seems to have gravitated toward Giza like a black hole, but if ancient aliens are real, it would more likely be a worldwide phenomena, or at least, there'd likely be evidence elsewhere. So, in the interests of optimism and open-mindedness, I'd actually like to leave the opening issue to you: Just pick one ancient alien element that has in your experiences either been a stumper or just plain silly. I won't use a stumper as "proof they're real" nor will I deny anything that's silly.

It can be from Egypt, or from anywhere. The ancient alien evidence -- to me -- is all over, from Peru to Britain to Southeast Asia. Werever you would like to begin is okay with me.

Well, there's nothing that I've been really stumped by yet. If you can bring up some fact that will stump me, I would really appreciate the mental exercise.

And like I said, I don't want to put words in your mouth by arguing against a claim that you don't even believe in. I could talk about the Vaimanica Shaastra and the claim that ancient people flew around in vimanas, but I've seen several websites that believe in ancient aliens who nevertheless think that this whole vimana thing is pretty silly.

Although even if you don't believe in that particular claim, you've got to love the Shakuna Vimana, right?

ShakunaVimana.jpg


If you don't believe in vimanas, perhaps you believe that the Nazca lines are ancient runways for alien aircraft? Or if you don't believe that, perhaps you believe in crystal skulls which are supposedly ancient alien artifacts?

So let me know what aspects of ancient alien theory you believe and that you'd be interested in discussing further.
 

Sharkey

Guest
...and here they are in front of a capacity crowd at the Raven, two gladiators who have just shaken hands are now circling each other looking for a opening.

Ladies and gentlemen I don't have to tell you, we've been following the ins and outs of this topic and I for one am looking forward to the fireworks.

In the red corner hailing from parts unknown: The Twister!

...and in the blue corner, the challenger, with only 6 posts under his belt.

One marvels at the stipulations The Twister's camp demanded from the challenger...it seems all the other opponents were disqualified for unsportsmanlike rhetoric...we can only guess how many rounds the challenger can endure before patience is abandoned!?
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Matt deMille said:
...being on shows yourself, as I've been told, I'm sure you can appreciate the murderous schedule
Told by whom? Parrot appears to be just a computer-scientist blogger and not a TV celebrity. (Please, correct me if this is wrong.)
Parrot said:
If you agree that I'm right about a particular claim, it doesn't mean that you're wrong about ancient aliens, but I hope it means that you won't be using that claim anymore to support the theory.
See post #658 (2 posts before your self-introduction).
Parrot said:
And like I said, I don't want to put words in your mouth by arguing against a claim that you don't even believe in.
BEWARE: You are entering a conversation with someone who tenaciously supports a theory which he does not want to believe. By his own admittance, deMille has stated this repeatedly.
Parrot said:
One claim at a time...
Personally, that's the direction I presumed this thread would take (starting with deMille's top 10 list of 'facts'), by crossing the theories off the list one-by-one and looking at the mysteries that remain. For more than over 6 weeks, this thread has been bogged down in the quagmire of pyramid discussion and re-explaining things that have already been explained.(n)
 
Last edited:

Gabeed

New member
Matt deMille said:
For Gabeed:

1) Indeed, records are few or non-existent for many things. But it is a common argument against paranormal phenomena that “absence of evidence is evidence of absence”. In being fair, in being scientific, shouldn’t all things be weighed in the same scales? Without mention of these very usual features of the great pyramid, we can only assume the Egyptians knew about them because they claimed the entire monument as their own. One isolated question about what they can’t claim to know can be written off with “maybe we’ll find that piece of the puzzle someday”, but when more and more questions like this keep coming up, eventually one has to say “What they knew and recorded outweighs what they didn’t record and what we see now – How long can this go before we have to question the Egyptian claim altogether?”

But again, there is a larger context to draw upon for the mainstream--namely, that the vast majority of ancient monuments have definitive evidence that they were created by native, human hands alone. It's a slippery slope to ancient alien theorists saying that ALL ancient monuments were built by extraterrestrials, since if the Egyptians couldn't build the Pyramids, how could the Phrygians/Persians build the Mausoleum, or the Greeks the Parthenon? Of course, this becomes an issue swiftly, because for most of these monuments we know exactly who built them. Ancient alien proposers are essentially preying on the lack of evidence in certain, widespread cases to lend themselves credence.

Take the Parthenon, for example. We know that the Athenians built the impressive monument using the finances they essentially extorted from other Greek cities as a part of their "Delian League" scheme. And yet, there are marvelous things about this monument, such as the curvature of the columns to create an optical illusion, the perfect ratios of the structure, and the perfect stone-cutting, to the extant that cracks between marble blocks can sometimes be as small as 1/20th of a millimeter. If this monument were in 10th century BC Egypt, or if the Greeks had not pumped out an alphabet yet and had no writings on the Parthenon, you know that the ancient alien theorists, unfairly, would jump on it in an instant, insisting ancient man could not possibly build such a thing.

So while direct evidence for the Egyptians building pyramids is limited, it does exist, and there is the entire indirect context of ancient Egyptian archaeology to back it up. Ancient Alien theorists have to jump from scattered locale to locate globally because they have no such detailed and intricate context, and thus have a much weaker claim when saying "if there is no evidence for this, it must have been aliens."

Anyway, this question is getting rather broad, so let's look at the others . . .

Matt deMille said:
2) The erosion. Indeed, Egypt does get little water these days, the same as it did(n’t) during the time of ancient Egypt. However, in 10000 bc, the area was different. There was sufficient rainfall to account for the erosion on the Sphinx. This, in conjunction with the celestial alignment (my Point #3) makes a very good case for the monuments existing that far back (and possibly built even earlier).

But you can't say that only around 10,000 BC did Egypt have rain. You're describing a huge period of time that 10,000 BC happens to fall within. I'd like to hear how you take issue with the more mainstream-followed Aeolian processes, exfoliation, and other processes that have been put forward, given that they provide not only an explanation for the erosion of the Sphinx, but a more likely placement of the creation of the monument within the context of the overall evidence we have of the ancient Egyptians.

Matt deMille said:
5) Indeed, I could accept lack of torch-traces with the just “cover it as we go” approach that makes sense for a tomb. However, it has been argued that the reason for the missing body and tomb treasure and multiple sarcophagi are due to grave robbers in antiquity. Surely anyone entering before the British in the 19th century would have used fire for light, thus leaving traces of torches or at least the burned oil from lanterns. Some leaves traces along stone walls. The lack of it in the pyramid suggests it was never opened until the 19th century. So, either some tomb raiders in the distant past had electricity or at least non-flame-based light, or there wasn’t a treasure in there to begin with.

Read again what I said before. We know that an Arab Abbasid Caliph broke into the tomb in the 9th century AD. That is a period of time about a thousand years after the last pharaoh, and about 1500 years after the last Egyptian one. It's the early Middle Ages. And since we have plenty of information on the rise of the Islamic Caliphates and their cultural and technological advances, we know that they didn't have ancient flashlights, or something. So either someone hasn't been looking hard enough for evidence of torches or burnt oil, or to draw conclusions about the Egyptians having mirrors or whatnot after Muslims have since entered via destructive, unknowledgeable means (creating that Robber's Tunnel) is irrelevant, because it would mean that medieval Arabs would have had to use the same methods, despite using the rather ugly method of digging a hole right through the Pyramid.
 
Last edited:

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Matt, it is slowly starting to dawn to me where other people's frustrations towards you are coming, considering you're constantly omitting points in your rebuttals.

Matt deMille said:
1) Indeed, records are few or non-existent for many things. But it is a common argument against paranormal phenomena that “absence of evidence is evidence of absence”. In being fair, in being scientific, shouldn’t all things be weighed in the same scales?

If you've read my response concerning this a bit more carefully, I simply didn't write it off as "stuff lost in time". I actually tried explain that the lack of records is due to there have been very little or none to begin with, and also pointed out that this makes perfect sense when you look at the social structure and habits of this particular civilization (and related ones). It wasn't a hand wave you just can contest with that.


Matt deMille said:
2) The erosion. Indeed, Egypt does get little water these days, the same as it did(n’t) during the time of ancient Egypt. However, in 10000 bc, the area was different. There was sufficient rainfall to account for the erosion on the Sphinx. This, in conjunction with the celestial alignment (my Point #3) makes a very good case for the monuments existing that far back (and possibly built even earlier).

Uh, both me and Gabeed pointed out that water is not needed to cause erosion. Yet you completely seem to omit this point and simply repeat you original argument, instead of a valid rebuttal of our rebuttal. Can't you see that?

Matt deMille said:
3) The celestial alignments aren’t just a few isolated pieces. There’s a complex pattern to them. In 10500bc, there is a multitude of factors that align with the Giza site. The three pyramids being Orion’s belt is constant, but in 10500bc – the end of the last ice age when refugees from drowned coastal societies would have begun establishing a new civilization – has the 8” ‘air shafts’ aligned with constellations, the Sphinx gazing directly at its own constellation (Leo), (which also tends to suggest that the Sphinx was originally fully lion, rather than the chiseled down head we see today), and the time for the erosion matches. In addition, the ‘funeral boats’ are, when studied by shipwrights, clearly ocean-going vessels, not the coastal or river-going boats one would expect from the Egyptians. This further suggests a refugee society who built this site, refugees due to the flooding of the world at that time.

Since I can't contest this with anything else than my original opinion that the dating does look cherry-picked to me, I took a gander at the sources related to this. What I found concerning this "Orion Correlation Theory" as it's apparently called was a pseoudoscientific quagmire with presented arguments, rebuttals to them and their rebuttals. Since it's not been completely debunked I'm willing to give it a status of unknown degree of plausibility, but I must point out that it's still stuff you shouldn't call "evidence". Especially if you're just going to repeat what defenders of the theory have to say. It does come out sounding a bit cooky or at the very least, shortsighted.

I'm not telling you to stop believing in it, but at least do a favor to us who appear to have the 'correct science procedure' pole shoved up our backdoors and call it a "theory", not "evidence".


Matt deMille said:
4) The alignment to true north isn’t a doubt of the Egyptians’ knowledge of cardinal points, but their precision in making it so perfect. It’s just another question about the degree of their technology.

No question, actually. Once again, we go back to the question "could they have done it with what we think they had?" and if the answer is "yes", then Mr. Occam wins. Once again. Besides, the guys who technically worshipped the sky would likely have been extra anal about something like this. Though I think I can already see what's coming up next now that I mentioned "sky worship"...


Oh, and that stuff about torchmarks? I just recalled something from school, namely chemistry class. Fire leaving marks onto something is due to chemical reaction that burns oxygen and creates carbon. Carbon, in turn, is the core organic element. And as we know, organic stuff has a tendency to dissolve. So most traces left behind by presence of live fire simply vanishes when given enough time. A few millennia is more than enough.
 
Last edited:

Matt deMille

New member
For Parrot:

I actually don't believe one way or the other about the "vimanas". I haven't read the ancient texts associated with them. From what I understand, it is a word used to describe a variety of "airships", some described as having features we would associate with modern day UFOs, such as circular windows and domes. I do believe there's some validity to it, as the ancients had to get the idea for these things somewhere, the question is where. The easy-out that many use is "they made it up", but to be placed in a sacred text, it needs to be in harmony with their culture and beliefs, and these things seem strangely out of place. Perhaps it's an alien vessel, or maybe a terrestrial vessel from a lost civilization, a time-travel, who knows? I'm not aware if that ancient account mentions the occupations of the vimanas and whether they claimed to be from elsewhere. That would certainly affect my opinion.

However, there are many ship-like things described throughout antiquity, and one must wonder where all these "ancient sci-fi ideas" were coming from. The cultural and psychological gymnastics required to come up with a reason why every individual, isolated culture comes up with similar stories stretches credibility. To me, it seems more likely that ancient man simply reported craft in the skies to the best of their ability. After all, non-human travelers could just as easily have had their technology thousands of years ago.

But the vote is out on that one. I just don't have enough data there.

For Finn:

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm avoiding or omitting things. That is not my intention. But I'm one person trying to answer the posts of half a dozen others. There's simply just too much at times to address it all. This is made tougher due to the fact that I'm dealing with very controversial material, so I try to be thorough in my answers, making them longer and thus sometimes I forget things. If I overlook something, please just repeat it and I'll get it.

For the erosion, I'm not saying water is the only way. Certainly it's not. But erosion from water fits a time period that several other elements of the mystery also coincide with. If the mystery was erosion alone, it wouldn't be a mystery. But when a possible explanation for the erosion also happens to be in the same time frame as the celestial alignments, the theories strengthen each other. That's all I'm saying.

Lastly, no disrespect intended, but I have indeed been trying to choose my words more carefully lately, referring to things much more often as theories rather than facts, and hypothesis' rather than histories. I'm sure I slip up. I'm human. But in the interests of maintaining a rational discussion I have indeed been trying to do this.

For Gabeed:

It is unfortunate that many ancient alien kooks like to think EVERYTHING unexplained has to do with aliens. I don't like those sorts of people any more than you do. I'd say easily that 99% of the works on Earth were made by man. Great works. Incredible works! I'm just questioning those which seem to defy everything we know. And even then I don't immediately say "aliens". My preferred theory is that it's a lost chapter of human history, a civilization we've forgotten about, or never knew about to begin with. But, not knowing, I don't rule out an alien intervention either.

In purely logical terms, if we went to another planet, we'd set up a colony, or a base, or something. After we left, we'd leave much of it there. If in time primitives came along and found it, they'd subscribe their own legends to it or, if they were more human in thought, perhaps claim they built it. It's a fairly simple hypothesis that can be applied to many legendary places around our world. It is unfortunate,, however that the alien theory is all too easily applied.

Let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment and go against the usual ufological line: Of all the UFOs being reported in this day and age, none seem to be landing and teaching mankind things. SO, it doesn't fit their MO to have done it in the past, either. Of course, this is an overly simplified look at things. Perhaps some aliens *are* helping select people build things (maybe government), or perhaps they don't communicate directly, but through much more subtle means (visions, psychic links, inspirations, etc.) to achieve physical ends manifest through ourselves. Anyway, that's just one possibility.
 

Parrot

New member
Matt deMille said:
For Parrot:

I actually don't believe one way or the other about the "vimanas". I haven't read the ancient texts associated with them. From what I understand, it is a word used to describe a variety of "airships", some described as having features we would associate with modern day UFOs, such as circular windows and domes. I do believe there's some validity to it, as the ancients had to get the idea for these things somewhere, the question is where. The easy-out that many use is "they made it up", but to be placed in a sacred text, it needs to be in harmony with their culture and beliefs, and these things seem strangely out of place. Perhaps it's an alien vessel, or maybe a terrestrial vessel from a lost civilization, a time-travel, who knows? I'm not aware if that ancient account mentions the occupations of the vimanas and whether they claimed to be from elsewhere. That would certainly affect my opinion.

However, there are many ship-like things described throughout antiquity, and one must wonder where all these "ancient sci-fi ideas" were coming from. The cultural and psychological gymnastics required to come up with a reason why every individual, isolated culture comes up with similar stories stretches credibility. To me, it seems more likely that ancient man simply reported craft in the skies to the best of their ability. After all, non-human travelers could just as easily have had their technology thousands of years ago.

But the vote is out on that one. I just don't have enough data there.

Well, I certainly don't want to challenge you on any claims that you're not certain about.

So what claims are you comfortable talking about? I'm completely in agreement with you about moving to some topic other than Egyptology. The pyramid stuff is way over-used.

So name the topic. How about the Nazca Lines? Crystal Skulls? Monte Alban? The Book of Ezekiel? King Solomon's Flying Carpet?

What aspects of ancient alien theory outside of Egyptology do you believe in?
 
Top