Ancient aliens
- Thread starter time-raider
- Start date
Gabeed
New member
Matt deMille said:
Again, I find it unfair to compare a multinational, multiethnic scientific body to a religious organization. I'm not a big fan of museums because they're touristy and full of screaming, inattentive children you want to smack with a newspaper, but you can't deny that the main purpose is not to necessarily to read the little placards everywhere, but to see legitimate artifacts first-hand. The most "droll" part of what you said above is that you seem to have so little knowledge of the "dogma" you hate so much. Much of the information museums provide about artifacts can be oversimplified, but it is places like that where you would gain information about, oh, say, the layered coffins of the Egyptian pharoahs. You repeatedly bring up persecuted scientists of the past . . . take Schliemann for example. That guy practically memorized the Iliad and the Odyssey while knowing a dozen languages. Yes, he was an unorthodox man method-wise, but he was a devoted scholar. You simply cannot rely only on pro-ancient alien viewpoints. That's how you end up saying nonsense like that Tire sentence.
Perhilion said:
That's quite the generalization. Maybe in very ancient prehistory (for example how and when the Native Americans reached North America as the Ice Age was ending) . . .yes, evidence is rare enough that the smallest thing can change theories. But otherwise, I think you greatly underestimate the context that archaeologists can put together along with geologists, chemists, biologists, to get an idea of what ancient cultures (as in, Bronze Age and onward) were like.
Last edited:
ResidentAlien
Guest
Perhilion said:
No doubt-- history, like any other science, is constantly evolving as our understanding is expanded.
But there is empirical evidence based on established understanding and study that points to ramps and that the pyramids are tombs.
There is no such evidence other than fanatical ravings that aliens had any involvement. That is the essential difference and what deMille still can't grasp. Everything he asserts as "evidence" of alien involvement can more reasonably and easily be explained by conventional understanding without the logical leaps necessary to get to aliens. deMille just likes to violate poor Occam.
Montana Smith
Active member
Matt deMille said:
A museum displays artifacts fom the past. You don't have to accept the museum's interpretation of it to appreciate the artifact itself.
Matt deMille said:
I agree that history is never a done deal. There's always the chance for re-interpretation. Museums will describe artifacts in the manner for which the evidence is heaviest. They have to give a novice visitor a starting point, from there it's up to the visitor to ask questions and do their own research.
Descriptions of some items will be contested by other historians in the same field.
A museum is a location for the display of evidence. All the various theories pertaining to each item will be found elsewhere.
Matt deMille said:
I don't like dogmatic religion either, but I can enter a church and appreciate the artistry of its construction. At the back of my mind is always the knowledge that the building doesn't represent my beliefs or my values. Yet, a museum doesn't necessarily have to be resistant to change. New evidence can lead to redating or re-interpretation. (I'm aware, however, that in the US there are 'creationist museums' which dismiss or twist evidence to present a purely Biblical history of the world).
Gabeed said:
I agree with every part of this statement!
ResidentAlien said:
Yes. The point I made twenty-odd pages back in this thread, was that vehemently denying mainstream theories in favour of alien theories, is just as dogmatic as the mainstream dogma that Matt is arguing against.
Last edited:
Matt deMille
New member
Perhilion said:
Well said, Perhilion!
The "we know" part is what gets me too. If museums only had artifacts on display, I could appreciate that, but there's an undercurrent of arrogance among the scientific establishment that permeates every museum I've visited. And they don't like to admit when they're wrong. Museums, thus, become more like showrooms for their dogma.
For example, take the Native Americans. Many, many (Native American) peoples have legends that say, in no uncertain terms, that their gods came from other worlds and descended from the sky in vehicles. But "scientists" wouldn't ever put anything remotely like that on a plaque or tag of any American artifact in any museum, because it doesn't fit with what they like (talk about disrespecting the ancients -- We know your history better than you do).
To me, going into a museum feels like I'm supporting something very, very wrong. I know that sounds a little extreme, but the biggest fight in this field is not against the sands of time or the physical logistics of digging up artifacts -- the biggest fight is against arrogance, against those who say "they are right".
I don't need museums. I can speak from personal experience. And what I've seen and experienced with my own senses contradicts what museums put in the showroom. So, what am I to believe? My own senses? Or an institution catering to political, financial and dogmatic concerns?
Gabeed
New member
Matt deMille said:
You need SOMETHING to broaden and deepen your historical and archaeological grounding besides only material that supports ancient aliens. I still get a giggle out of "Tire."
Also, doesn't it seem like people that throw the word "dogma" around a lot seem to be rather entrenched themselves?
Matt deMille
New member
Montana Smith said:
A museum is, thus, an option. An entertainment. A place to consider things if that's what you prefer. That is simply not my preference. I think of things elsewhere, in other ways.
It is nice to appreciate things. I'm glad you brought that up. I, too, can go to a church, museum, whatever and appreciate elements of it. I just don't choose to. That's just me.
On appreciation, it would be nice if people appreciated ideas as much as artistry. Why can't some posters enter a thread called "ancient aliens" and, like the artistry of a church, just look and leave if it's not their thing? I mean, I doubt that you, Montana, would upon entering a church start taking a drill to the eyes of the angel statues because it's not "accurate" or "scientific". You say you can appreciate it. Why can't some posters here appreciate ideas and possibilities? Just thought I'd ask that.
ResidentAlien
Guest
For one who claims themselves an authority on the subject, you sure do show a proud disregard for the material remains of a culture you profess was influenced by aliens.
You prefer to "think of things elsewhere"? What does that even mean? Evidence is found in those very material things you are foolishly chiding, not in flights of fancy.
You prefer to "think of things elsewhere"? What does that even mean? Evidence is found in those very material things you are foolishly chiding, not in flights of fancy.
Gabeed
New member
Well, once ancient alien fanatics build some beautiful architecture, maybe there will be something to appreciate. Ideas, like art, can be judged. Matt, why won't you appreciate my zebra mussels? Why must you take a drill to their little bipedal bodies?Matt deMille said:
Also, you've said some quite hostile things regarding Christianity in this thread. Where's the respect for other ideas? How 'bout you appreciate the idea that you are continuing to be a hypocrite?
ResidentAlien said:
Perhaps he's talking about faith.
Matt deMille
New member
Perhilion said:
Wanted to revisit this. Truer words have never been spoken, so I thought I'd offer another view of museums and "history" in general.
Museums are a good example of scientists and historians saying "we know" and how wrong they are (or can be). What's on display in museums are only pieces of a larger puzzle. Many artifacts are not on display. Many are still in the back, either being cleaned, studied, or censored (and why would they need further study, or any additional field research at all, if they are so certain of everything?) And most artifacts are still yet to be discovered in the field, and that's assuming there's even enough pieces of the puzzle to have survived to give us a real clear picture.
What finally makes it to museum display is like 5 pieces of a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle. Hardly enough to make any reasoned decision with. It's a show. It's food for thought, nothing more. I mean, if you have 5 pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that all show leaves, you can't assume the finished puzzle will depict a forest. But scientists and historians like to make those kinds of assumptions. I mean, what if the pieces with leaves are in the bigger picture just potted plants out front of a temple dedicated to Buddha that's been desecrated by some overzealous religious marauders? What if some anti-Buddhist fanatic is taking a **** on one of the potted plants? It's not a forest. It's a war. Changes the picture, the context and the truth entirely.
That's what grates me about history and science. Their jumping to conclusions. That's why I call them dogmatic and look down at them -- Their dismissal of possibilities outside of their 5 precious pieces of the 500 piece puzzle. I know it's a weird analogy, but I hope it clarifies things for some folks.
In closing, what turns me off to museums in particular is their blatantly saying "this IS how this was done" (like the Great Pyramid-ramp theory). Every time I've been to an Egyptian exhibit I see this. And it's not subtle. They sell books saying, in no uncertain terms, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. Now, I've been accused in this thread before of trying to corrupt impressionable young minds. Well, when school field trips go to museums and they see what is at best only theory being touted as absolute proof, well, how much more corrupting can that be? It starts kids on a bad path, trained to look past possibilities that might become very important in their future.
For example: Since this thread is about ancient aliens (or supposed to be, despite the attempts of hijackers), consider this: We are nearing a paradigm shift (in consciousness). The current young generation may very well have to deal with some incredible revelations about who were are in the cosmic scheme of things. If school, science and museums are supposed to be preparing kids to "make a better future", teaching them theory as fact is just as harmful as religion being taught in public schools. The Great Pyramid could very well play a vital role in understanding things once the s***-hits-the-fan, figuratively speaking. And our institutions are mindlessly regurgitating assumptions as fact. It's sad. And it's dangerous.
Last edited:
ResidentAlien
Guest
Matt deMille said:
Ok.
That's as far as I got in that comment. Couldn't read any further because it's blatant bull****. Totally an incorrect statement. No reputable museum would say that and that's why museums are constantly being updated and their collection cycled. Museums are keepers of a science and, as has already been explained to you, science allows the evolution of ideas as new material is presented.
Montana Smith
Active member
Matt deMille said:
Matt, you know that I am of the opinion that history is constantly open to re-interpretation, pending discovery of new evidence, but I don't buy into the idea that museums are part of a grand conspiracy, concealing evidence. Occasionally a documentary takes us behind the scenes at a museum, and we see that there is a mass of items stored there. Far too much to actually display in any coherent fashion, so they remain in storage, and may get rotated into the display.
I don't see museums as secret government warehouses, as in Indy's Area 51. That would presume that every museum worker held some form of government security clearance. It sounds like paranoia. Vigilance is a great watchword, but the line between vigilance and paranoia can get fuzzy.
Gabeed
New member
Montana Smith said:
Pretty much this. Plus, if you go to the right museum, just about everything is on display. I have pictures from Damascus and Aleppo of rows of Roman columns and artifacts recently found by constructions workers and the like that are left out on the lawn in front of the museum, creating an artifact garden of sorts.
Montana Smith
Active member
Gabeed said:
I've seen a documentary showing similar museums in Iraq.
The idea of a big cover-up involving museums assumes a lot of compliance and a lot of control. It assumes that governments are effective machines, rather than bloated bureaucracies. The reality is more that governments can't organize a 'drinking party' in a brewery, and we, their citizens, have to suffer the consequences of their poor management.
Matt deMille
New member
Montana Smith said:
I'm not saying museums are engaged in some big conspiracy. Not at all. Only that by following the accepted view, museums tend to dismiss more ideas and possibilities than they should. Also, in accordance with their political and financial concerns, they do indeed label things as "this is what is" when it's not so certain. After all, how many museums around the world have THE holy grail? Five, last time I counted. Um, how many grails are there?
There *are* conspiracies, but not really with museums. Museums are just showrooms.
Matt deMille
New member
Lambonius said:Where is your source for this?
A mixture of personal visits, documentaries and books. I never really took any of them seriously, so I don't remember exactly what they were, but there sure have been a variety of them. One is elaborate ceramics, another is blue-glass or blue-crystal or something, another is actual gold, etc. All of them seem fanciful and carry a plaque/description to the effect of: "Found in such-and-such and purported to be the Holy Grail of Christian faith".
At first, I couldn't believe the audacity. I'm not a Christian, but to even hint that such a rare find is there -- when other museums are reporting the same thing -- was dubious at best, and didn't do much to raise my opinion of them.
I think the museums are the big ones: The British Museum, the Smithsonian, etc. I can look them up if you want, but the point is not the Grail itself, but just how big a leap of faith a museum will take sometimes.
Keeping on topic -- ancient aliens -- whenever any alien-based claim is made, everyone comes out of the woodwork to attack it. Well, why is nobody attacking non-alien claims with no better of proof? That's my point. Te establishment is biased against aliens, which constantly derails any objective study.
I have never ever heard of any museum or archeologist claiming to have located the true Christian Grail. The commonly-held view by the vast majority of scholars is that it doesn't exist, since its origins can only be traced back to 12th century works of fiction. If museums are displaying such pieces, the key words in their descriptions are probably things like "purported to be"--no legitimate museum would make the claim that it was the actual chalice of Jesus Christ--but rather that certain groups have claimed that in the past. Likely what you've seen at these museums are Medieval relics, which were objects of pilgrimage and veneration for many people during that time period, but are now widely accepted as fakes used to bring people to the Church. They still belong in museums and are of interest because they are historical objects which reveal much about the mindset of people in that particular era, though, but few scholars would claim them to be the genuine legendary objects. It's the same with the people who claim to have bits of wood from the True Cross or the bones of the apostles--it's just a claim--no legitimate scholarly source would seriously argue that it was genuine.
On the other hand, there is an entire field of art criticism that deals specifically with museums and the way in which they construct narratives through the calculated display of their collections. Any time you have to choose which objects to display together and in what manner, you are affecting the historical narrative and information that can be read from them. That said, it's quite a bit of a stretch to go from recognizing the fact that museums do display objects with the intent of creating a narrative to saying that museums are deliberately trying to deceive people through said narrative.
On the other hand, there is an entire field of art criticism that deals specifically with museums and the way in which they construct narratives through the calculated display of their collections. Any time you have to choose which objects to display together and in what manner, you are affecting the historical narrative and information that can be read from them. That said, it's quite a bit of a stretch to go from recognizing the fact that museums do display objects with the intent of creating a narrative to saying that museums are deliberately trying to deceive people through said narrative.
Last edited:
Gabeed
New member
"Purported" implies that in the past, it was thought to be the Holy Grail. Don't you think if anyone really thought it was the Holy Grail today, it would've been taken from a museum and put in a church, or cathedral? Don't you think millions of Americans would be going on pilgrimages to see a Holy Grail? Are you aware of the dissemination of relics during the Middle Ages? Are you really that gullible that you thought the museums were actually advertising that they had the Holy Grail?
Edit: Ninja'd by Lambonius.
Edit: Ninja'd by Lambonius.