TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > Off Topic > Archaeology
User Name
Password

View Poll Results: Is the content in this thread worth saving?
Yes 28 68.29%
No 13 31.71%
Voters: 41. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-19-2010, 09:42 AM   #51
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by kongisking
Personally, I think the idea of all our religions basically being the delusions of a bunch of people who were visited by aliens makes a lot of sense. That Daniken fella may have been wrong on some things, but his basic premise is totally possible. It helps that I've always been interested in the ancient astronaut theory, which may be half the reason I loved KOTCS so damn much (Indiana Jones investigating ancient astronauts? EPIC WIN ).

As a theory it's much more preferable to the generally accepted one. Ever since I had that EVD comic I liked the idea. Believing in it is another matter.

I liked the idea of it being behind KOTCS, and I liked the discovery that Lucas even mentioned it in 1978. I even like taking the idea into forbidden ret-con territory to encompass all the Indy movies. Yet, there is no real evidence that Lucas or Spielberg ever intended that - it's just that it took them 30 years to get round to putting the theme into an Indiana Jones movie.

Believing that aliens or advanced humans visited the earth long ago, and helped primitive man advance his civilization, is a huge leap of faith, considering that no advanced technology has been unearthed or catalogued by archaeologists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
Montana, perhaps you have simply been led along in the dark like so many others.

Who’s to say that you’re not also being lead down a dark path, like so many others?

Conspiracy theories are wonderful for fiction, but in reality I can't see any government being that organized. Most governments appear to limp from one crisis to the next, and the so-called whistle-blowers are often people who say they were in top-secret posts, whom their government would deny existence of anyway.

How do you view the works of Friedrich Mattern, aka Ernst Zundel? (who made his name is the myth of German ufos).

These theorists get discredited by other historians because the facts are just not there to be found. Or the evidence and the 'facts' have been fitted to prove the result. That's just bad history - but it probably sells faster than standard or traditional history, and it makes for controversy, lecture tours and fandom.

All historians should be treated with suspicion, since among them are those who have agendas beyond the act of simply discovering the past.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 10:09 AM   #52
Matt deMille
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabeed
Oh, I'd be willing to do so if the entire concept wasn't so inane. Like Stoo, I'd love to see the list of what constitutes an ancient monument, because I am certain that not every "sacred site" is noted. I also have no idea what you think is "ancient" or not, chronologically speaking. Not to mention that the entire concept of an alien race placing monuments proportionally via a flat map is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Why would aliens ever use a flat map when they are making a global grid and THEY KNOW that the Earth is a globe? You would think intelligent aliens would make the coordinates proportional to a truly global model, given that they are already sharing their advanced technology in order to build these wonders.

So, you're dismissing it before evening looking at it? No surprise there.
Matt deMille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 10:35 AM   #53
Matt deMille
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
As a theory it's much more preferable to the generally accepted one. Ever since I had that EVD comic I liked the idea. Believing in it is another matter.

Believing that aliens or advanced humans visited the earth long ago, and helped primitive man advance his civilization, is a huge leap of faith, considering that no advanced technology has been unearthed or catalogued by archaeologists.

Conspiracy theories are wonderful for fiction, but in reality I can't see any government being that organized. Most governments appear to limp from one crisis to the next, and the so-called whistle-blowers are often people who say they were in top-secret posts, whom their government would deny existence of anyway.

These theorists get discredited by other historians because the facts are just not there to be found. Or the evidence and the 'facts' have been fitted to prove the result. That's just bad history - but it probably sells faster than standard or traditional history, and it makes for controversy, lecture tours and fandom.

All historians should be treated with suspicion, since among them are those who have agendas beyond the act of simply discovering the past.

Again, people aren't looking at facts. Advanced technologies have indeed been found. The Baghdad Battery, the 2000yo computer from a Greek shipwreck, the fact there is NO evidence of torches or fire at all inside the pyramids (so, what was their source of light? Electrical, perhaps? Crystal?)
the pyramids themselves as well as many other ancient monuments are evidence of technology because we could not build them ourselves today (not just the stones, a mystery in itself, but the global alignment of the site as well). The problem with "authorities", not just historians but most scientists as well, is that they look at things from one very narrow view, that of their specific discipline. Nothing makes sense outside the establishment if viewed through such a narrow frame. You have to step back and look at things from a larger, more comprehensive perspective. For example, the pyramids being built by technology. Sure, there's no silicon chips or other artifacts we would call "technology", but that these were built in a way we still do not understand means there was a society capable of doing things we cannot, and therefore a rational man can rightly assume there was more to that society, technology included.

And governments keeping things secret? Yes, they can. 50,000 people worked on the bomb during World War II and that was kept secret for 25 years. Or how about good ol' Area 51? How big is it? How many people work there? Despite decades of investigation nobody can say. The government IS good at keeping secrets. And when they aren't, when secrets leak, what happens? Denial. The government and the sheep of society simply say "it isn't there". Things hide in plain sight. Area 51 is a perfect example. First people said it wasn't there. Ufologists spent years taking photographs of the facility from nearby mountaintops, but an apathetic, sheep-like public continued to say "The government says it isn't there, so that's good enough for me" (I'm surprised they didn't go so far as to say the facility in the photos was a model). The Majestic 12 documents, another good example. There's a smoking gun! Proof positive of the alien cover-up. Meticulously authenticated, no gray area, an in-your-face reality of the alien issue. And what happens? People say they're fakes. But I betcha if those same exact documents provided a terrestrial answer for the UFO mystery everyone would be quick to say "See? Case closed!"

What's the old saying? "For people who don't (want to) believe, no explanation will do".

Montana, I like you, but please, please start looking at a bigger picture. Continuing to say "Facts aren't there" just doesn't hold water. The facts I keep hearing are just the fox watching the henhouse door. Not only are there facts you can research for yourself (don't take anyone else's opinion -- not even mine), but there is mind-set and propaganda to be considered here as well. The establishment, in all forms, likes to protect itself. Historians peddle outmoded ideas. Politicians hide funds. Military hides technology. Any quotes or "proof" from the mainstream is just buying into bull****, far worse than even the UFO book peddler with the tinfoil hat.

And as far as selling lecture tours and fandom and such, that's ridiculous. Sure, there are hucksters and con-men, lots of them, that's human nature (but so there are also con-men and hucksters among historians and scientists, who are often quoted in UFO debunking, because they sell the argument people want to hear so they don't have to face the UFO reality or any threat to their world-view). But most people who go through the UFO gauntlet actually lose a lot more than they gain. Witnesses lose their jobs, friends and family, sometimes even their health and sanity. If this was about publicity or grabbing a cheap buck, there's a million better ways to do it. People who pursue UFOs despite the ridicule, financial loss and other detriments do so because they've either seen something they cannot dismiss or have done the research and come to an unavoidable -- and usually unwelcome -- reality.

I think the public at large really has the wrong idea when they think people want to believe in UFOs. Those who really dig into the matter know that it's a very disturbing reality. Myself, I'd have rather gone right on believing in Christ, and the acceptance of the evidence was very difficult indeed. It's not a pretty story. It takes guts to face it. Perhaps that's why I get so riled up when people attack the issue from a position of ignorance and arrogance. Check your facts first. Do the research. See what's there. When it's dismissed on a whim, when facts are offered and then those are refused to be looked at, I can only see self-serving, smug arrogance from people still sitting in a comfy little fantasy bubble.
Matt deMille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 10:35 AM   #54
RaideroftheArk
IndyFan
 
RaideroftheArk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
. I strongly suggest you look at the works of Timothy Good, Stanton Friedman and Graham Hancock. Their books are kinda thick but that's because they're filled with research.

In your opinion, are these the best authors on this subject? For instance, if you were teaching a credited college course, would these be the books you use?

Would you go further and provide us with a definitive book list and perhaps a collection of scholarly sources so that we, like you, could see this topic from exactly your point of view?

I, like ResidentAlien, feel that a lot of this curbs the idea that humans had the ability to "carve our their own path" in history. However, I'm intrigued. I rely heavily on scholarly sources. The more reading material you can provide for me, the better.
RaideroftheArk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 10:36 AM   #55
Gabeed
IndyFan
 
Gabeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
So, you're dismissing it before evening looking at it? No surprise there.
I'm dismissing it because you haven't told me what monuments I should be looking at (other than merely 2), or what chronology you're following. You, on the other hand, are dismissing my post because you have no real answers to it.
Gabeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 10:42 AM   #56
Matt deMille
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaideroftheArk
In your opinion, are these the best authors on this subject? For instance, if you were teaching a credited college course, would these be the books you use?

Would you go further and provide us with a definitive book list and perhaps a collection of scholarly sources so that we, like you, could see this topic from exactly your point of view?

I, like ResidentAlien, feel that a lot of this curbs the idea that humans had the ability to "carve our their own path" in history. However, I'm intrigued. I rely heavily on scholarly sources. The more reading material you can provide for me, the better.

Thank you, Raideroftheark. I'm glad you're willing to take a look at some of the better research.

These three authors are among the best, yes. I stand by their work. Graham Hancock I would go to first. Of all his books, start with "Fingerprints of the Gods" (a 1995 release). His work centers mostly on ancient monuments and has little to do with UFOs until his books of the last few years (another scientist who had no interest in UFOs or ancient aliens -- he in fact resisted the notion -- but decades of research led him down that path as well).

As for Stanton Friedman, check out "Top Secret Majic" (1996). He also can be caught on the lecture circuit (not because he needs it -- He's one of those "kook UFO dudes" -- a nuclear physicist, classmate of Carl Segan, and one who worked on government projects for decades).

And for Timothy Good, "Above Top Secret" (1987) is a good starter. He's a British researcher and his book is kinda thick and a lot of it may sound "boring" today because a lot of its UFO notions have since found their way into pop-culture, but the research is solid.
Matt deMille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 10:47 AM   #57
Matt deMille
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabeed
I'm dismissing it because you haven't told me what monuments I should be looking at (other than merely 2), or what chronology you're following. You, on the other hand, are dismissing my post because you have no real answers to it.

Stonehenge, Easter Island, Ankor-Wat, Tiwanaco, Giza, Yonaguni's sunken temple, the Great Lakes (there are pyramids sunken there), and others. This same phenomena also occurs when you concentrate on an area. Take Britain, for example. If you connect the standing stones and sacred sties they too form a grid. It's as if sacred sites were plotted out by some sort of master plan. Some have argued that this is simply done by building sites where lay-lines cross, but it seems too ridged, too sharp of angles for it to be the product of nature. It appears artificial.
Matt deMille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 10:51 AM   #58
Matt deMille
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabeed
Oh, I'd be willing to do so if the entire concept wasn't so inane. Like Stoo, I'd love to see the list of what constitutes an ancient monument, because I am certain that not every "sacred site" is noted. I also have no idea what you think is "ancient" or not, chronologically speaking. Not to mention that the entire concept of an alien race placing monuments proportionally via a flat map is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Why would aliens ever use a flat map when they are making a global grid and THEY KNOW that the Earth is a globe? You would think intelligent aliens would make the coordinates proportional to a truly global model, given that they are already sharing their advanced technology in order to build these wonders.

I'm talking about using a 2D map instead of a globe so you can see the grid as a whole, bean-head!

I like how you bring chronology into it. A pretty bad attempt to rerail the topic. What the hell does chronology have to do with anything? Sacred sites have histories. It's about the site, not the structure. For example, Ankor-Wat isn't technically ancient. Not even a thousand years. But the site it's located on matches in that worldwide grid. This means the location was important. We've seen in our own modern culture how important things and places are rebuilt, replaced, but the location is maintained. It's logical that there was something about that location long before the current temple was built. Perhaps there was an earlier temple there we can no longer see.

Your "arguments" are really trying to shut down questions rather than ask them. The opposite of what true science and scholarly study should do.

And as soon as someone starts to pretend to know how aliens would think, I know I'm talking to a total moron. We who study UFOs are often accused of having answers we shouldn't, but those same critics (like you) seem to be able to think for the alien mind? Isn't that just a wee bit more presumptuous than a ufologist advancing any theory?

Last edited by Matt deMille : 07-19-2010 at 10:57 AM.
Matt deMille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 11:01 AM   #59
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
Again, people aren't looking at facts. Advanced technologies have indeed been found. The Baghdad Battery, the 2000yo computer from a Greek shipwreck, the fact there is NO evidence of torches or fire at all inside the pyramids (so, what was their source of light? Electrical, perhaps? Crystal?)

The Greek computer was an intricate combination of cogs, as I recall. It isn't the sort of computer that would enable the visitors to reach us from elsewhere - finding one of those in an undisturbred archaeological site would be groundbreaking news. The people of the past, as I see them, were no less intelligent than the people of today. The benefit that we have today is the resource of thousands of years of history and scientific development. The human brain is no bigger today than it was thousands of years ago.

If we assign all of mankind's early achievements to external sources it doesn't give early man much credit.

EVD also made note of the lack of burning inside the tunnels under Brazil. I, too, was astonished. Then later I read that there was a perfectly natural solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
the pyramids themselves as well as many other ancient monuments are evidence of technology because we could not build them ourselves today (not just the stones, a mystery in itself, but the global alignment of the site as well).

We know how the pyramids were built. The stones were hauled up sand ramps by a huge army of workers; cranes were employed. Man wasn't stupid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
The problem with "authorities", not just historians but most scientists as well, is that they look at things from one very narrow view, that of their specific discipline. Nothing makes sense outside the establishment if viewed through such a narrow frame. You have to step back and look at things from a larger, more comprehensive perspective. For example, the pyramids being built by technology. Sure, there's no silicon chips or other artifacts we would call "technology", but that these were built in a way we still do not understand means there was a society capable of doing things we cannot, and therefore a rational man can rightly assume there was more to that society, technology included.

So you would replace one establishment with another establishment: the group that believes in ancient technology. What authority does one have over the other?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
And governments keeping things secret? Yes, they can. 50,000 people worked on the bomb during World War II and that was kept secret for 25 years. Or how about good ol' Area 51? How big is it? How many people work there? Despite decades of investigation nobody can say. The government IS good at keeping secrets. And when they aren't, when secrets leak, what happens? Denial. The government and the sheep of society simply say "it isn't there". Things hide in plain sight. Area 51 is a perfect example. First people said it wasn't there. Ufologists spent years taking photographs of the facility from nearby mountaintops, but an apathetic, sheep-like public continued to say "The government says it isn't there, so that's good enough for me" (I'm surprised they didn't go so far as to say the facility in the photos was a model). The Majestic 12 documents, another good example. There's a smoking gun! Proof positive of the alien cover-up. Meticulously authenticated, no gray area, an in-your-face reality of the alien issue. And what happens? People say they're fakes. But I betcha if those same exact documents provided a terrestrial answer for the UFO mystery everyone would be quick to say "See? Case closed!"

What's the old saying? "For people who don't (want to) believe, no explanation will do".

Why believe one set of 'truths' over another? Distrust it until there's real evidence. In 1947 the US government supposedly recovered the wreckage of an alien spacecraft at Roswell. Sixty years later they're still using space shuttles with booster rockets. Pretty primitive considering that they've been researching all this wonderful alien technology and holding aliens prisoner underground.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
Montana, I like you, but please, please start looking at a bigger picture. Continuing to say "Facts aren't there" just doesn't hold water. The facts I keep hearing are just the fox watching the henhouse door. Not only are there facts you can research for yourself (don't take anyone else's opinion -- not even mine), but there is mind-set and propaganda to be considered here as well. The establishment, in all forms, likes to protect itself. Historians peddle outmoded ideas. Politicians hide funds. Military hides technology. Any quotes or "proof" from the mainstream is just buying into bull****, far worse than even the UFO book peddler with the tinfoil hat.

And as far as selling lecture tours and fandom and such, that's ridiculous. Sure, there are hucksters and con-men, lots of them, that's human nature (but so there are also con-men and hucksters among historians and scientists, who are often quoted in UFO debunking, because they sell the argument people want to hear so they don't have to face the UFO reality or any threat to their world-view). But most people who go through the UFO gauntlet actually lose a lot more than they gain. Witnesses lose their jobs, friends and family, sometimes even their health and sanity. If this was about publicity or grabbing a cheap buck, there's a million better ways to do it. People who pursue UFOs despite the ridicule, financial loss and other detriments do so because they've either seen something they cannot dismiss or have done the research and come to an unavoidable -- and usually unwelcome -- reality.

I think the public at large really has the wrong idea when they think people want to believe in UFOs. Those who really dig into the matter know that it's a very disturbing reality. Myself, I'd have rather gone right on believing in Christ, and the acceptance of the evidence was very difficult indeed. It's not a pretty story. It takes guts to face it. Perhaps that's why I get so riled up when people attack the issue from a position of ignorance and arrogance. Check your facts first. Do the research. See what's there. When it's dismissed on a whim, when facts are offered and then those are refused to be looked at, I can only see self-serving, smug arrogance from people still sitting in a comfy little fantasy bubble.

The bigger picture is this: don't fall for scams, don't become a victim, don't believe everything you see or hear. Don't put faith into things because they're controversial or because they sound better than the traditional view.

Believe me, I'd love for it to all be true. Yet, it doesn't ring true.

Last edited by Montana Smith : 07-19-2010 at 11:23 AM.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 11:48 AM   #60
Matt deMille
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 490
Montana . . .

1) The fact that there *is* technology of the past -- be it manmade or or not -- turns history on its ear. That's all I'm trying to say. The history sources often quoted are unreliable. Like pyramid ramps.

2) The pyramids were not built with ramps. That is so foolish. I've already had to explain this one, but I'll say it again: The ramps would have exceeded the size of the pyramids in stone, and in sand they would have been so damn wide as well as to bury the worksites. This is dogma of the worst kind. It was the quick, easy explanation given by early Egyptologists centuries ago and became entrenched in academic foolishness. Practically speaking, the ramps are the most ineffective, implausible way of building a pyramid. Furthermore, they don't explain how the blocks were fit so perfectly together, how the pyramids were perfectly aligned, why there is no writing or treasure or bodies found inside them, etc. A theory must fit ALL the facts, not just one or some of them. As with all other theories of pyramid construction, there is no more evidence of ramps than anything else. It's the assumed party-line, nothing more. There's no hieroglyphics, no papers, no records of any kind proving the ramps theory.

3) Roswell. Yes, we have indeed been reverse-engineering, and we have indeed been seeing results of it. People expect too much. If you could go back in time and give Edison a $2 pocket calculator, he probably wouldn't have been able to replicate it even if he spent the rest of his life studying it. And that's just a human difference of a few hundred years. We're talking about alien technology with perhaps billions of years of difference. In the very short time (cosmically speaking) we've had to research it, hindered even further by secrecy, rotating workers and budget bull****, we've actually learned a lot. Fiber-optics, stealth technology, lasers, microchips -- These are all things that every insider swears came about in some form or fashion due to studying the wreckage of Roswell and other UFO crashes. This is not to say we duplicated them. Only that they were influenced by what we've got locked up. An inspiration here, a technological revelation there, etc. Prior to World War II, our technology was based on vacuum tubes. Then overnight it completely changes direction. The advance of technology and human culture generally doesn't do that. It takes something dramatic to turn us in a new direction. Why, coincidentally, did our technology completely change form in virtually the same year as the Roswell crash?
Matt deMille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 12:03 PM   #61
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
http://www.archaeology.org/0705/etc/pyramid.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptia...ion_techniques

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
Prior to World War II, our technology was based on vacuum tubes. Then overnight it completely changes direction.

Wars tend to have that effect on society.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 12:11 PM   #62
Gabeed
IndyFan
 
Gabeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 225
THOSE AREN'T RELIABLE SOURCES. THE ONLY RELIABLE SOURCES ARE THE ONES GIVEN BY CRAZY PEOPLE SUCH AS MYSELF. THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE, BRO, YOU'RE JUST TOO BLIND TO SEE IT.



I abandoned any pretense for serious argument when he proposed that there are pyramids in the Great Lakes (which isn't even an exact coordinate anyway), though I probably should have before when he refused to acknowledge Stoo's projection question.
Gabeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 12:22 PM   #63
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabeed
THOSE AREN'T RELIABLE SOURCES. THE ONLY RELIABLE SOURCES ARE THE ONES GIVEN BY CRAZY PEOPLE SUCH AS MYSELF. THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE, BRO, YOU'RE JUST TOO BLIND TO SEE IT.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabeed
I abandoned any pretense for serious argument when he proposed that there are pyramids in the Great Lakes (which isn't even an exact coordinate anyway), though I probably should have before when he refused to acknowledge Stoo's projection question.

I find it self-defeating to overturn one set of established traditional views in favour of other less established non-traditional views. The established method offers practical examples, but the non-established only offers aliens and anti-gravitational devices. Did aliens build all the Roman and Greek monuments and the medieval cathedrals, too?

Conspiracy theorists also give governments far too much credit. Aliens are obviously not very good economists, looking at the state of the industrialized world today.

Chaos theory is much more likely!
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 12:29 PM   #64
Gabeed
IndyFan
 
Gabeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 225
No kidding. You would think if the government was so Machiavellian and all-powerful, it would be able to seal up a damn oil well leak within days, let alone two months.
Gabeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 12:41 PM   #65
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabeed
No kidding. You would think if the government was so Machiavellian and all-powerful, it would be able to seal up a damn oil well leak within days, let alone two months.

Precisely.

And the new cap has sprung a leak.

Where are our friendly, helpful aliens when we need them most? We're facing environmental catastrophe, but all the aliens were interested in was building some poxy pyramids to honour the dead and help them travel into the afterlife? What no cryogenic freezing or alien medicine?
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 01:51 PM   #66
RaideroftheArk
IndyFan
 
RaideroftheArk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
Thank you, Raideroftheark. I'm glad you're willing to take a look at some of the better research.

These three authors are among the best, yes. I stand by their work. Graham Hancock I would go to first.

Thank you, I appreciate the time you took to list some of these books that you hold in such high regard.

I tried to do a little research on the first author (Graham Hancock) you pointed out.

First, I just did a general Google search of the guy which of course lead me straight to Wikipedia. I wasn't about to even look at this as I saw that there was an Official Graham Hancock website. Figuring this source would give me at least a little biography, I was a little bit surprised at what I found.

According to this website, Graham Hancock did not major in archaeology, or history, or anything to do with the ancient world for that matter. He did in fact graduate in 1973 with First Honors in Sociology and then pursued a career in quality journalism...and since then has written books that have become best sellers.

The lack of background on his official site put me off a little. I usually never read that much into sources into I know a bit more about the author. Would you be able to point me in the direction of where I could find more about his background?
RaideroftheArk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 02:10 PM   #67
Matt deMille
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaideroftheArk
Thank you, I appreciate the time you took to list some of these books that you hold in such high regard.

I tried to do a little research on the first author (Graham Hancock) you pointed out.

First, I just did a general Google search of the guy which of course lead me straight to Wikipedia. I wasn't about to even look at this as I saw that there was an Official Graham Hancock website. Figuring this source would give me at least a little biography, I was a little bit surprised at what I found.

According to this website, Graham Hancock did not major in archaeology, or history, or anything to do with the ancient world for that matter. He did in fact graduate in 1973 with First Honors in Sociology and then pursued a career in quality journalism...and since then has written books that have become best sellers.

The lack of background on his official site put me off a little. I usually never read that much into sources into I know a bit more about the author. Would you be able to point me in the direction of where I could find more about his background?

Normally, I would not recommend one's whose credentials are merely journalism. But, as always, I ask you to read the book and view the quality of information. A degree does not necessarily confer intelligence. Look at how many educated idiots we have in high places (Montana and Gabeed seem to like to point how how incompetent government is, yet these are all highly educated individuals in charge). Graham was only a journalist, but then he stumbled onto mysteries which led him down the path of research. The research is sound. The books are thick and exhaustively detailed. The info is there, free for you to cross-reference it yourself.

As for Stanton Friedman, he is a different breed. If you prefer a traditional educated man, you needn't look further. As I said, he's a nuclear physicist.

It's sad, though, sometimes when people *do* have the academic credentials, they're dismissed anyway. Take Bob Lazar, the famous ex-engineer from Area 51. He worked at a variety if labs, including Los Alamos, and just because his story (UFOs being reverse-engineered at Groom Lake) didn't sit well with skeptics, they said he "wasn't a scientist".

I believe if you give "Fingerprints of the Gods" a chance you will be pleasantly surprised at, despite a lack of academic credentials, how professional and well researched Mr. Hancock's work is.
Matt deMille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 02:14 PM   #68
Matt deMille
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
Precisely.

And the new cap has sprung a leak.

Where are our friendly, helpful aliens when we need them most? We're facing environmental catastrophe, but all the aliens were interested in was building some poxy pyramids to honour the dead and help them travel into the afterlife? What no cryogenic freezing or alien medicine?

The one who makes foolish jokes has obviously lost the argument. Still trying to think for the alien mind, are you? I say this: Maybe aliens don't want anything to do with us because we're a bunch of idiots as a race. Consider this: Would YOU jump into the den of a mad lion at the zoo?

And whoever said the aliens are here to help us? When we go into the wild to study animals, do we have their best interests at heart? No, we tag 'em and bag 'em. Only human arrogance assumes that aliens would be here for our best interests. It's the same arrogance that assumes humans are at the top of the food chain in the first place (ergo that aliens don't exist, despite no evidence that humans are alone in the universe).

Sorry, Montana. I was giving you a chance, but you seem to have retreated into the typical arrogance and senseless joking that categorizes all simple-minded skeptics. I'd hoped better from your previous posts.
Matt deMille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 02:21 PM   #69
Stoo
IndyFan
 
Stoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 8,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabeed
You, on the other hand, are dismissing my post because you have no real answers to it.
Hey, at least you were dismissed. My questions were completely ignored!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabeed
I abandoned any pretense for serious argument when he proposed that there are pyramids in the Great Lakes (which isn't even an exact coordinate anyway), though I probably should have before when he refused to acknowledge Stoo's projection question.
Maybe I'm on his ignore list? Never heard of pyramids in The Great Lakes before...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
Stonehenge, Easter Island, Ankor-Wat, Tiwanaco, Giza, Yonaguni's sunken temple, the Great Lakes (there are pyramids sunken there), and others.
O.K. That is a total of 7 points but not enough to make a grid. What are the "others"? (Also, the Great Lakes cover an area of almost 100,000 sqaure miles so you'll need to be more precise.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
I'm talking about using a 2D map instead of a globe so you can see the grid as a whole, bean-head!
Again, I ask: Which cartographic projection are you using?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
I like how you bring chronology into it. A pretty bad attempt to rerail the topic. What the hell does chronology have to do with anything? Sacred sites have histories. It's about the site, not the structure.
To be fair, you did intially say "all the ancient monuments". Gabeed's comments about what criteria to follow were warranted. "All" is an absolute, plus in your opnion, at which date is something no longer 'ancient'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
Your "arguments" are really trying to shut down questions rather than ask them. The opposite of what true science and scholarly study should do.
Well, what about my questions? I'm the one person willing to investigate the grid theory and you're not even answering me. (sniff)
Stoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 02:51 PM   #70
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
The one who makes foolish jokes has obviously lost the argument.

There is no argument. You already possess the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
Only human arrogance assumes that aliens would be here for our best interests.

So what were they doing helping to build pyramids and imparting knowledge to man?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
It's the same arrogance that assumes humans are at the top of the food chain in the first place (ergo that aliens don't exist, despite no evidence that humans are alone in the universe).

It's highly improbable that we're alone in the universe. It's highly improbable that vastly superior technology was here on earth in such recent times as a few thousand years ago, and didn't leave any trace of their actual technology that hasn't already been vaccuumed up by paranoid governments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
Sorry, Montana. I was giving you a chance, but you seem to have retreated into the typical arrogance and senseless joking that categorizes all simple-minded skeptics. I'd hoped better from your previous posts.

So I'm a simple-minded skeptic, yet you're the one that's bought the 'truth' hook, line and sinker without a word of caution? It was you who stated categorically:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
Trust me, ancient aliens is a valid theory, and during the 21st century it will prove to be THE most important aspect of our reality.

...

despite my knowledge of the alien reality as well as seeing the Bible and all religious faith as utter trash.

Where is the caution that goes hand in hand with the study of history? Are you willing to believe the views of these proponents so completely? Are not the alternative views also well researched and just as likely to be right? Or have you first hand knolwedge of the aliens that makes you so sure?

What parts of the various theories do you include in your belief? Do you include the idea that the Germans built 'foo fighters', and sent men to the Moon during the second world war, and to Mars with Japanese help at the end of the war? Do you accept he works of Friedrich Mattern aka Ernst Zundel?

The onus of proof does lie with you, since you are the one revising generally accepted history. Yet that proof is only interpretation of geology and artifacts, and interpretation is the work of all historians. The case of Graham Hancock would seem to match the point I made earlier: he isn't an historian or an archaeologist, but a journalist with best-sellers to his name. Controversial history is popular history.

And here's me, a fan of the ideas. But I urge caution, since the conspiracy might be among the believers in alien technology, rather than among the governments who expound the traditional view.

And give Stoo his answer, as he's feeling ignored.

Last edited by Montana Smith : 07-19-2010 at 03:00 PM.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 03:05 PM   #71
Gabeed
IndyFan
 
Gabeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
Sorry, Montana. I was giving you a chance, but you seem to have retreated into the typical arrogance and senseless joking that categorizes all simple-minded skeptics. I'd hoped better from your previous posts.


YEAH MONTANA, WHY WON'T YOU OPEN YOUR MIND TO THE GREAT TEMPLE-PYRAMID OF POSEIDON, BUILT UNDERNEATH LAKE MICHIGAN BY A RACE OF EXTRATERRESTRIALLY-INSPIRED ZEBRA MUSSELS TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO? THE EVIDENCE IS THERE! AND THE GREAT-TEMPLE PYRAMID LINES UP PERFECTLY WITH L'ANSE AUX MEADOWS AND ANCIENT CARTHAGE (It actually does, I used Google Earth) COINCIDENCE!?!?!?

Seriously, though. Being a native Wisconsinite and having studied pre-Columbian North American archaeology to some extent, I can't wait to hear about the Great Lakes pyramids.

I'd also like to add that indeed not all people who can provide new perspectives need be experts in the specific field. Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel was an interesting new boost to the concept of environmental determinism with the intention of disproving racist branches of the view . . .despite him having primarily been an ecologist studying birds in Papua New Guinea rather than an archaeologist. But there's a huge gap between Jared Diamond and Mr. "mother culture" Hancock in terms of scholarship.

Last edited by Gabeed : 07-19-2010 at 03:16 PM.
Gabeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 09:55 PM   #72
Matt deMille
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
There is no argument. You already possess the truth.

Where is the caution that goes hand in hand with the study of history? Are you willing to believe the views of these proponents so completely? Are not the alternative views also well researched and just as likely to be right? Or have you first hand knolwedge of the aliens that makes you so sure?

And give Stoo his answer, as he's feeling ignored.

That's a baited question. If I said I have first-hand knowledge, there'd be no end to the insults and jokes made at my expense. I'd immediately be categorized as some attention-seeking, abductee-claiming wannabe. On the other hand, by denying having first-hand information, I open myself to somehow give validity to your words by default. So here's what I say:

Maybe I have first-hand knowledge, maybe I don't. Maybe I've met aliens, maybe I haven't. Maybe I've visited these places I speak of, maybe I haven't.

I'll let everyone in this forum weigh that one however they will. The negative, knee-jerk reactions I've heard a million times before so they don't mean anything to me. What does matter are those who are still interested.

That brings me to Stoo . . .
Matt deMille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 10:08 PM   #73
Matt deMille
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 490
Sorry, Stoo. I have been absent in answering your question. I've been rather distracted by defending myself against kindergarten insults and accusations from others. I was asked to continue an old thread on this subject matter, so I thought there'd be more open-minded interest, and my first few posts were attacked with ridiculous comments to say the least. It got me distracted. I apologize for the long wait.

First, a quick comment on the "Great Lakes pyramids". When I say that, I mean pyramidal structures. Not Giza-sized monstrosities. There are pyramidal shapes of varying heights, detected by sonar scans. They are estimated to be between 5 and 25 meters high. They're too symmetrical to be natural, but I can't give anyone more of an answer than that. All I can say is what I've said before: Take the trail-head and explore it on your own.

As for the worldwide map, I used the term "ancient" sites to separate them from what sites we consider important in modern times. By ancient, shall we say, anything medieval or earlier.

Now, there are hundreds of sites. I couldn't possibly list them all. Just start looking at a worldwide map of more prominent ones and start drawing lines between them. You'll see common degrees appear (19.5 is very common), and many are on the same latitude. When I say "grid", its not a square-grid, but rather, should I say, their alignment has symmetry, a pattern if you will. City streets aren't a perfect square-grid either but we refer to them as such. In fact, city blocks are often rectangular, but we nonetheless refer to them as a grid.

Now, I'm sure some people will say that by my insisting you choose the sites, I'm setting you up for a "see what you want to see", like seeing things in clouds. That's a cross I'm prepared to bear. If I list the sites, all I do is invite myself and this thread to be subjected to another barrage of baseless accusations and insults based upon the sites chosen. Furthermore, there's more of a "wow" factor when you make the discovery yourself. It sticks in the mind better. Me, I always preferred learning not by memorizing stuff, byt by calculating it, figuring it out. Memorizing is dangerous. You just inherit the mistakes made by those before you. Probably why I take such offense at the simple-minded insults flung at me by some of the "adults" on this forum. They think they're smart because they regurgitate what others have said, rather than deconstructing, analyzing and calculating things for themselves. I encourage you to try digging up the sites on your own and literally filling in the blanks. You might be amazed at how they line up!
Matt deMille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 10:11 PM   #74
Matt deMille
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 490
As for anyone else who wants to continue to beat a dead horse, I've continually tried to make objective and informed arguments and I keep getting a lot of immature responses. So, to those who want to continue that sort of senseless diatribe, I'm not going to dignify any more of your comments with responses. I'd rather not waste my time. I'd rather spend my energy talking to those who are interested and open-minded. So if you're not, if you don't like this sort of subject matter, here's some good advice for you: Don't say anything. Visit another forum or another thread. If you don't have something pleasant or at least impartial or objective to offer, if all you want to do is act like a child on a playground and take cheap shots, spare us and don't leave your comment at all.
Matt deMille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 11:39 PM   #75
Gabeed
IndyFan
 
Gabeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
Not Giza-sized monstrosities. There are pyramidal shapes of varying heights, detected by sonar scans. They are estimated to be between 5 and 25 meters high. They're too symmetrical to be natural, but I can't give anyone more of an answer than that.

I'm sure any decent geologist could. It's the same deal with the "sheared-off mountaintop," in that just because they look weird, to the layman the immediate conclusion is that the item in question must be artificial. Not to mention that claiming that they MUST BE PYRAMIDS is a gigantic leap to make if only sonar scans are done and you have no idea what the "pyramids" are even composed of, whether they've been carved, etc. Not to mention that the bottom of the Great Lakes have largely been either covered by water or ice for the ten thousand years. I mean, did any thought go into this besides "OOOH. IT LOOK LIKE PYRAMID, THUS MUST BE PYRAMID?" How can you expect we "mainstream" to possibly hold your theories in any regard when you provide so little information, let alone evidence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
Now, I'm sure some people will say that by my insisting you choose the sites, I'm setting you up for a "see what you want to see", like seeing things in clouds. That's a cross I'm prepared to bear. If I list the sites, all I do is invite myself and this thread to be subjected to another barrage of baseless accusations and insults based upon the sites chosen.

This makes no sense. You have provided no reason for why the choosing of the sites isn't "seeing what you want to see," and yet you call any accusations or criticisms "baseless."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
Probably why I take such offense at the simple-minded insults flung at me by some of the "adults" on this forum. They think they're smart because they regurgitate what others have said, rather than deconstructing, analyzing and calculating things for themselves.

Actually, I think I'm smart because I have some respect for the careful conglomeration of scholarship in archaeological, geological, and anthropological thought for the last one hundred and fifty years, rather than purposely making a foe out of it in order to appear enlightened and exercise every "mystery" into being part of of a theory against the mainstream. And I don't see how my "regurgitating" is any different from your "regurgitating" of Hancock, von Daniken, and the other authors/frauds you're influenced by . . . nor do I see any valuable deconstructing, analyzing, and calculating on your part (especially with the Great Lakes pyramids . . .I mean, Jesus . . .).

Last edited by Gabeed : 07-20-2010 at 12:00 AM.
Gabeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:47 PM.