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 07-18-2010, 01:57 PM   #26
ResidentAlien
Guest
 
ResidentAlien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
Thoughts?


See a psychiatrist?


And read through the old thread? It's been debated to death and you guys all came out looking like quacks.
ResidentAlien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2010, 02:12 PM   #27
Matt deMille
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 490
No, those who sound like quacks are those like you who seem to be entrenched in their dogma. Let me site a few examples from history:

The Komodo dragon, the elephant, and the panda were all said to be myths and that anybody who claimed they were real needed to be locked up in a mental institution.

Mathematics "proved" that the locomotive would kill its passengers as the human body would suffocate if it traveled over 35mph.

Going to the moon was pure science-fiction.

Need I go on?

I will.

There is overwhelming evidence of the alien presence all over the world. Society generally takes a very narrow view of it, because it's more comfortable to say "see a psychiatrist" than to dare to look at things that challenge the orthodox views of a culture that is progressively degenerating. Progress is made by thinking outside the box. You don't "build a better mousetrap". You think in entirely new directions that others scoff and laugh at. So, go ahead and laugh. I'm sure people laughed at Newton, too.
Matt deMille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2010, 02:18 PM   #28
Matt deMille
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 490
And a challenge to ResidentAlien: You say we all came out sounding like quacks. In whose estimation? Yours? Based on what? What are YOUR facts? Here's my challenge: Disprove with a reasonable argument of your own any one of the following three:

1) How is the Great Sphinx eroded by rainfall if it was built in 2500BC as mainstream science claims, mainstream science which also holds that rainfall has not occurred on the Giza plateau for over 8000 years?

2) How did Turkish admiral Peri Rais map the Antarctic coastline in 1513 (and how did the sourcemaps he used chart it even earlier get made) if humans came into being well after the ice covered the continent as mainstream dogma holds?

3) Why do UFOs appear in ancient artwork from cave paintings to medieval church frescoes if they're just an invention of 20th century science-fiction?

Okay. I'm waiting for a reasoned argument. If I just get "see a psychiatrist" or some similarly dismissive (and issue-dodging) attempt at an insult, then I think we'll know your opinion means diddly-squat and we can wait for rational, level-headed people to comment on this forum.

Last edited by Matt deMille : 07-18-2010 at 02:42 PM.
Matt deMille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2010, 03:07 PM   #29
ResidentAlien
Guest
 
ResidentAlien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,303
I've already done all this. As I said, rather than do the typical n00b thing and create a new thread to bring attention to the fact that you're a n00b, go back and read the old thread.

I will not waste my time on this again.
ResidentAlien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2010, 03:10 PM   #30
Matt deMille
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 490
To quote (abridged) Legendary Times from an earlier thread (I believe his encapsulation of viewpoints sets a good tone for this new thread):

". . . The smoking gun is everywhere - just because some people do not have an open mind to recognize a valid idea does not necessarily mean that it is wrong.

For as many people as there are out there today screaming bloody murder against the Ancient Astronaut Theory, there are as many agreeing with the concept. That includes university professors, medical doctors, airline pilots, etc.

The fact that some people on here propose (in all seriousness!) that ALL these people are crazy is the height of human arrogance. Such an over-generalization is so close-minded, so stale, so ignorant, that it evokes nothing but deep sadness within me.

I'm always amazed that whenever the Ancient Astronaut Theory is mentioned the only book that people talk about is EvD's Chariots of the Gods. A book that's 40 years old.

How ignorant do you have to be to base and judge one entire field of study on one book!? To judge it on a book that's 40 years old!? It would be the same as if someone wrote a dissertation on Beethoven's 5th after only hearing the first 8 notes, and then not listening to the rest of the piece!

Anyone with even half a brain will agree that such an argumentation is ludicrous. What about the other, thousands (!) of books that have been written on the topic since by numerous experts, including (!) university professors and doctors? What about the other 36 books EvD has written since Chariots in 1968? Oh, yeah, let's not mention those!

Calling me (and others) "certifiable" etc. and other colorful terms only exposes the people who write such things as imbeciles and arrogant buffoons. Instead of embracing the ideas of others, they are so stuck in their own world view that they start shaking in their boots when something (or someone) comes along that contradicts their frail, core belief system.

This is completely normal and an expected defense mechanism because the idea that extraterrestrials have been an integral part of our human history, is indeed a hard pill to swallow. I'm aware of that. Such an idea frightens them to death and rattles them to the core. To cope, some of them resort to ridiculing an insulting others. And that's ok. I don't blame them. They're not at fault. To some, it's the only way they can clutch onto their world view - and their utter desperation shines through by their questionable actions and insulting ways.

PS: Watch, inevitably, someone will launch an insult at me for having written what I've posted above - which would only reinforce my point. Watch."

Quote:
Originally Posted by ResidentAlien
I've already done all this. As I said, rather than do the typical n00b thing and create a new thread to bring attention to the fact that you're a n00b, go back and read the old thread.

I will not waste my time on this again.

I did (read the old forum).

By the way, when you were a noob (we all were at some point), were your opinions invalid? I'm sure you were rather upset when people challenged or contradicted your views then, just as you are now. But back then, as now, you "knew" you were right? Right? But somehow being on a forum longer makes you right?

That's your argument? Sheesh. I'm glad you're "not doing this again". I hope this forum goes into more interesting directions than that.

Last edited by Attila the Professor : 07-18-2010 at 04:56 PM. Reason: Double post...
Matt deMille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2010, 03:15 PM   #31
ResidentAlien
Guest
 
ResidentAlien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,303
"Height of human arrogance."

As opposed to the height of human self-effacement in assuming we're incapable and incompetent and therefore unable to have carved our own path through history.

When you go digging for something with the dogmatic persistence one such as Legendary Times had you're going to eventually find things that can be warped to fit that dogma. But seeing what you want to see isn't the same as it really existing.

Poor Occam...


That's all I have to say. I'll leave you to your delusion.
ResidentAlien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2010, 03:21 PM   #32
Indy's brother
IndyFan
 
Indy's brother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In the Map Room playing with a laser pointer
Posts: 3,029
"Conventional Wisdom" and all the stubborn self-righteous narrow-minded baggage that's attached to it is one of the banes of my existence. While ancient alien theorists would do well not to accept every crackpot theory that comes their way, almost all of it is more believable than the biblical explanation of earth's origin and history. Puma Punku alone is fascinating and gives one pause. And forget the geoglyphs in Peru, how about that mountain that had it's peak completely removed there? There are more questions than answers in this realm of study. The stance of finding ways to explain it all away and forcing these mysterious bits of evidence into the accepted (alien-free) construct is maddening to me.
Indy's brother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2010, 03:29 PM   #33
Matt deMille
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 490
Thank you, Indy's Brother. I thought about bringing up Tiwanaku. That whole mountaintop fascinates me. You've got 400-ton blocks with some sort of metal linking system. 400-ton blocks . . . moved into position by men hauling ropes? At an altitude where the air is so thin you can't grow enough crops to feed even a small town much less a huge labor force?

As Graham Hancock says, "Whether we like it or not, we're looking at the evidence of a technology, and one that we don't understand".

And right you are on not accepting every crackpot theory. I certainly don't. Ufology, like any other field, has its share of kooks and lunatics, for certain. But then, does every religion and scientific field.

One last thing: Can you tell me about the mountain that had its peak completely removed? I've not heard about that one.
Matt deMille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2010, 03:58 PM   #34
Indy's brother
IndyFan
 
Indy's brother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In the Map Room playing with a laser pointer
Posts: 3,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
One last thing: Can you tell me about the mountain that had its peak completely removed? I've not heard about that one.



Located on the Nazca Plateau, here's a link that's got a little info on it. The silly theory is that it was cleared away as a landing strip for UFOs. That's assuming of course that ufos are built like our airplanes are, which shows that even proponents of the ancient alien theory are themselves mired in the constructs of our own limited experience. I doubt that an airstrip would be needed, and even it it were, why go to such extreme lengths for one? I believe that without question there is an unknown history to the human race. I also think that it's possible, even probable, that there have been instances of alien influence on mankind and on our landscape.
Indy's brother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2010, 04:02 PM   #35
Matt deMille
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 490
Ahhh, that one. Very interesting.

Yes, while I do insist that aliens have been here before, I think the "landing strips" idea at Nazca is flawed. Alien ships would almost certainly use VTOL and anti-gravity. Still, one has to wonder -- If not an airstrip, what then?

Or maybe there have been many ancient (human) civilizations in the past who did build up their technology to the point of needing airstrips?

On a similar note (I was going to post this anyway), here's the Graham Hancock research about the Giza site, in accordance with rewriting conventional history, in a nutshell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WZ6Qw3xg7E

I want to remind everyone that the Cayce-mentioned chamber was indeed opened, but its contents never disclosed by the Egyptian government, and when pressed about the details, they basically played dumb cop and said "Nothing to see here . . ." Which begs the question: If there's nothing to hide, nothing important, why not let us take a look? I can only surmise that it would challenge the established orthodox view, and so it's suppressed.

Last edited by Attila the Professor : 07-18-2010 at 04:57 PM. Reason: Please, learn how to edit your posts...
Matt deMille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2010, 04:39 PM   #36
Gabeed
IndyFan
 
Gabeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 225
You know, the pro-ancient astronaut people seem so surprised when we "don't see the smoking gun" right before our eyes, yet the archaeological field has been bombarded by fakes and falsities for hundreds of years. Our skepticism has been tempered by centuries of fantastic claims and crude forgeries. Any "evidence" that does come up is vague at best, or can be easily dismissed by scientists who have spent their entire careers focusing on their region/field of study. How irksome it must be for geologists who have been spending their entire careers studying the Pacific coast of South America to have some fool stop by briefly and immediately conclude that a "flattened mountaintop" is an ancient landing strip when anyone who isn't a layman can come up with a geomorphological rationale for such a thing in a couple seconds.
Gabeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2010, 05:03 PM   #37
Attila the Professor
Moderator
 
Attila the Professor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 6,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabeed
You know, the pro-ancient astronaut people seem so surprised when we "don't see the smoking gun" right before our eyes, yet the archaeological field has been bombarded by fakes and falsities for hundreds of years. Our skepticism has been tempered by centuries of fantastic claims and crude forgeries. Any "evidence" that does come up is vague at best, or can be easily dismissed by scientists who have spent their entire careers focusing on their region/field of study. How irksome it must be for geologists who have been spending their entire careers studying the Pacific coast of South America to have some fool stop by briefly and immediately conclude that a "flattened mountaintop" is an ancient landing strip when anyone who isn't a layman can come up with a geomorphological rationale for such a thing in a couple seconds.

Yes. Very good point. Of course, that's coupled with the recognition that, I suppose, any evidence of extraterrestrials would be hard to read, but that doesn't automatically discount simpler explanations. Not by a long shot.
Attila the Professor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2010, 06:01 PM   #38
Meerkat
IndyFan
 
Meerkat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 323
Ancient aliens are certainly plausible, but I guess I'm not fully ready to believe in them yet. (Strange, this is coming from the girl who thinks Indy and Irina make a good match. xP) But there are some pieces of evidence that really creep me out…
Meerkat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2010, 07:21 PM   #39
time-raider
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Lost Somewhere in the 5th Dimension
Posts: 85
I don't know what to believe exactly, but i do know that unless someone presents some definitively hardcore proof that the argument could go on for millions of years. Now Im not talking about pictures on some wall or in some painting, that kind of evidence is relative. Im talking more like a rosetta stone saying here we are...or at least something along those lines. I mean think about it. The rosetta stone changed history not because it helped decode hieroglyphics, that would have happened eventually, but because it was physical evidence stared us in the face saying here I am, now do something. All the evidence that we have now for the AAT or AH is insubstantial. It wouldn't even hold up in a court of law. So...where is the "HERE I AM" evidence?
time-raider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2010, 11:26 PM   #40
Matt deMille
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by time-raider
I don't know what to believe exactly, but i do know that unless someone presents some definitively hardcore proof that the argument could go on for millions of years. Now Im not talking about pictures on some wall or in some painting, that kind of evidence is relative. Im talking more like a rosetta stone saying here we are...or at least something along those lines. I mean think about it. The rosetta stone changed history not because it helped decode hieroglyphics, that would have happened eventually, but because it was physical evidence stared us in the face saying here I am, now do something. All the evidence that we have now for the AAT or AH is insubstantial. It wouldn't even hold up in a court of law. So...where is the "HERE I AM" evidence?

Time-Raider, you make a good point. I understand your hesitation. But actually, there's a ton of "Here I am" evidence. And, oddly, a comparison ufologists often use (and I believe justly so) is that the evidence would convict anyone of any crime. As food for thought, here's just a few of the better facts for UFOs:

1) Consistency among reports throughout all religions and cultures. UFO commonalities -- such as flying vehicles -- are described in the Bible, ancient Hindu texts, Greek war accounts, Egyptian mythology, native American legends, Mayan legends, and on and on and on. That there is a consistency between reports amongst widespread cultures over thousands of years, despite changing religious views and technological understanding, can only indicate that these are reports of an objective reality, rather than the product of any cultural interpretation or invention.

2) Crop circles. Not the hoaxed ones. I'm talking those that are hundreds of yards of complex patterns which mutate the plants (they have indeed been studied at a cellular level), create electric disturbances inside the patterns, have no footprints in them, the stalks are bent rather than broken (continuing to grow sideways), and animals won't go inside them. Those details have been found altogether not here or there one at a time, but ALL details in single formations . . . hundreds of times. And complex patterns like this
http://www.facebook.com/MattDeMille#!/photo.php?pid=2349144&id=717759425
are not by a few drunk hoaxters in the middle of the night!

3) Ancient art. UFOs appear in ancient art throughout the world. I'm not talking vague circles, I'm talking clearly metallic vehicles with jet-thrusts escaping them and occupants clearly riding in them.

4) How did ancient man know things about the stars we are only (re)discovering today? Such as native Americans knowing about the Pleiades hundreds of years ago? Or Pluto? Celestial bodies invisible to the naked eye? The pyramid structures outside Mexico City recreate a map of our solar system, including planets that were not (re)discovered until the 20th century, centuries after those pyramids were built.

5) Radar tracking. Belgium was the first, but other nations have also released radar and infra-red tracking of UFOs whose maneuvers simply defy (by a large margin) anything conventional aircraft can do, such as dropping thousands of feet in a second, making acute angled turns, etc.

6) Cattle mutilations. These animals decompose at an accelerated rate, there's never any blood or shred (teeth) marks around the wounds, the wounds are made with surgical lasers, animals (including predators) won't go near the carcasses, their bones are broken as if dropped from a great height, and in thousands of cases over decades nobody has ever been caught or even seen in the act.

7) The endless testimony of government officials -- high ranking officials -- saying this is real. Why is it when high ranking (or even low ranking) officials say it's bunk, then testimony is valid, but as soon as anyone says it's real, testimony is somehow invalid? And I mean TOP . . . MEN. UFO witnesses include Presidents Regan, Carter and Ford, British Lord of the Fleet Norton, along with countless US military officers including the ranks of Colonel and Sgt. Major. If their testimony is not worthy, why the hell are they in charge of our nukes?

8) And speaking of nuclear weapons, UFOs have a long history of disabling nuclear weapons facilities by altering codes when doing fly-by's. The data for this is available by FOIA documents. The UFOs are in the reports as well as the confirmation of code change. How the hell can that happen if done by a terrestrial force? Short answer? It can't.

9) Why DO all ancient monuments form a perfect worldwide grid in perfect proportional measurement to one another?

10) There are countless pieces of UFO debris (metal and other artifacts) held in private hands who are only too eager to let scientists study them, but scientists just snicker, giggle and laugh it away without putting any of it under the microscope.

That's just a few. I could go on. Point is, the evidence is there if anyone cares to look. We're not dealing with a lack of evidence. We're dealing with a lack of open-mindedness. We're dealing with the unwillingness of people to look objectively at the evidence that is there. To quote Dr. Steven Greer: "In no other area of scientific endeavor do you need proof before you actively investigate something. This is a hypocritical standard that scientists have held up. If there is only a 10% chance that all the evidence we have indicates that we are being visited by an intelligent life-form, this is one of the most significant things in human history and we (ufologists) do not have to trot out a dead alien corpse before people in the scientific community should seriously begin to look at it".
Matt deMille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2010, 11:50 PM   #41
Gabeed
IndyFan
 
Gabeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
9) Why DO all ancient monuments form a perfect worldwide grid in perfect proportional measurement to one another?

I don't know how you feel like you can elicit any response but laughter with gems like this. Your other numbers are just a series of unsubstantiated statements regarding which I'm sure you have tons of "evidence" ready to post, and I have no wish to get into a giant debate about how you're incredibly misguided, but I'd love to hear more about the grid. Please, attempt to convince me how ALL ANCIENT MONUMENTS are on a worldwide grid and are proportional to each other.
Gabeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 12:54 AM   #42
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
There is no hard evidence.

von Daeniken got this crazy ball rolling, and he himself later admitted that he's created evidence to bolsdter his 'theory'.

On the water erosion of the Sphinx, wikipedia puts the other theories in a nutshell:

Quote:
Water erosion debate

A. Schwaller de Lubicz, a French polymath and amateur Egyptologist, first noticed evidence of water erosion on the walls of the Sphinx Enclosure in the 1950s. Author John Anthony West investigated further and in 1989 sought the opinion of a geologist, Robert M. Schoch, associate professor of natural science at the College of General Studies, Boston University.[17]

From his investigation of the Enclosure's geology, Schoch concluded that the main type of weathering evident on the Sphinx Enclosure walls could only have been caused by prolonged and extensive rain.[18] According to Schoch, the area has experienced a mean annual rainfall of approximately one inch (2.5 cm) since the Old Kingdom (c. 2686–2134 BC), and since Egypt's last period of significant rainfall ended between the late fourth and early third millennia BC,[19] he dates the Sphinx's construction to the sixth or fifth millennia BC.[20][21][22]

Contrary to Schoch's paleometeorological conclusions, recent studies by German climatologists Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kröpelin, of the University of Cologne, and geologist Judith Bunbury, of St Edmund's College, Cambridge, suggest that the change from a wet to a much drier climate may have occurred later than is currently thought, and that Dynasty IV (the traditional era of the construction of the Sphinx) may still have been a period of significant rainfall; a conclusion also accepted by Mark Lehner.[23] However, Schoch points out that fragile mudbrick structures nearby, indisputably dated to Dynasties I and II, have survived relatively undamaged, indicating that no heavy rainfall has occurred in the region since the Early Dynastic Period.[24]

Colin Reader, a British geologist, agrees that the evidence of weathering indicates prolonged water erosion. Reader found, inter alia, that the flow of rainwater causing the weathering had been stemmed by the construction of 'Khufu's quarries',[25] which lie directly "upstream" of the Sphinx Enclosure, and therefore concludes that the Sphinx must predate the reign of Khufu (2589–2566 BC), and certainly Khafra, by several hundred years. Reader however disagrees with Schoch's palaeometeorological estimates, and instead concludes that the Sphinx dates to the Early Dynastic Period (c. 3150–2686 BC).[10]

David Coxill, a geologist working independently of both Schoch and Reader, concludes from the evidence of weathering in the Enclosure:

"The Sphinx is at least 5,000 years old and pre-dates dynastic times [before 3100 BC]."[3]

Most Egyptologists, dating the building of the Sphinx to Khafra's reign (2520–2492 BC), do not accept the water erosion theory. Alternative explanations for the evidence of weathering, from Aeolian processes and acid rain to exfoliation, haloclasty, thermal expansion, and even the poor quality limestone of the Sphinx, have been put forward by Egyptologists and geologists, including Mark Lehner,[17] James A. Harrell of the University of Toledo,[26] Lal Gauri, John J. Sinai and Jayanta K. Bandyopadhyay,[27] Alex Bordeau,[28] and Lambert Dolphin, a former senior research physicist at SRI International.[29]

The chief proponents of the water erosion theory have rejected these alternative explanations. Reader, for example, points to the tombs dug into the Enclosure walls during Dynasty XXVI (c. 600 BC), and notes that the entrances of the tombs have weathered so lightly that original chisel marks are still clearly visible. He points out that if the weathering on the Enclosure walls (up to a metre deep in places) had been created by any of the proposed alternative causes of erosion, the tomb entrances would have been weathered much more severely.[30] Similarly, Schoch points out that the alternative explanations do not account for the absence of similar weathering patterns on other rock surfaces in the Giza pyramid complex.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza

What this really means is, that evidence is rarely 'hard evidence', and it's always been open to debate between those working various fields. There is no definitive answer, there is no definitive proof of ancient aliens, ancient astronauts or ancient super-technology.

Most things have a simple and rational explanation.

There was a time when argument raged that the pyramids could not have been built by men without high technology. Now we know that the Egyptians hauled the cut stone up ramps.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 01:54 AM   #43
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
EDIT:

The above is not to say that I don't like reading the theories - but I read them as fiction, rather than as serious history. My interest began as a kid when I picked up a comic book version of Chariots of the Gods. I have about five of Daeniken's books, including some of his more recent ones, as well as books by other authors.

The 'evidence' they present can be pretty coercive, if you don't fully understand the cultures from which the images are taken. It would be neat if it was proved beyond doubt, but I'm highly skeptical of most things. There are too many hoaxers and perpetuators of junk on all sides, from those of religious faith as well as those of 'new-age' tendencies. That's not to mention the junk that perpetuates from writers who are themselves referred to as 'serious historians'.

Believing in aliens is similar to believing in gods.

Believers in gods in ancient times were explaining the world around them without the greater scientific insight that we now poessess.

Believers in ancient technology are explaining the world of the past without the greater scientific insight we will one day possess.

Because we don't yet have finite answers to everything it doesn't imply that we will never have those answers.

That said, I was impressed as a kid by the story from the Mahabarata in which a god in a flying machine dropped a single projectile on the triple-city, thereby destroying it. When he landed, his 'vimana' was glowing like a block of antimony. Survivors of the projectile later lost their teeth and hair.

I never checked out the original text, to see whether all that reference to an atomic bomb was in it, or whether there really was a reference to the earth seen from high above as having the impression of 'porridge'.

As a kid I was impressed, just as I was impressed by the South American carving of the man in the flying machine with the smoke emitting from jets.

As an adult I'm much more skeptical. I'm skeptical about 'traditional' history as well as 'revisionist' history. After all, both are the result of investigation and theory, and we're never sure of the personal agenda of the 'historian'.

Since the days of written record we are able to analyse the texts of the past to infer fact. In the days of pre-writing, we have to analyse images, which may be far more symboilic than written records. It's in the interpretation of symbols where meanings may be mis-applied.

To look at the quote Matt deMille provided from Dr. Steven Greer:

Quote:
"In no other area of scientific endeavor do you need proof before you actively investigate something. This is a hypocritical standard that scientists have held up. If there is only a 10% chance that all the evidence we have indicates that we are being visited by an intelligent life-form, this is one of the most significant things in human history and we (ufologists) do not have to trot out a dead alien corpse before people in the scientific community should seriously begin to look at it".

Greer's statement is back to front. He's right that no scientist should begin with "proof" before they begin to "actively investigate something." The act of investigation is that which seeks to find "proof". The problems occur when "proof" is asserted, then the investigation begins to find the evidence for it: which is how 'ufologists' seem to function.

The only course of action in history and science is to keep an open-mind to the possibilities, based on rational thought, that is, 'rational' in the current sense of logic, since the scientific approach should be 'empirical'.

Rational as in 'reason'.

Empirical as in 'observation, experience or experiment'.

Last edited by Montana Smith : 07-19-2010 at 02:13 AM.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 02:11 AM   #44
Matt deMille
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 490
Oh, jeez. The last few posts have really given me a lot to rebuttle. Sorry in advance for the sarcasm but I can't help it when I'm attacked with arrogance.

Quoting Wikipedia? That's what you trust for evidence? And because mainstream Egyptologists say this or that somehow that's definitive? Did you read nothing about what I said concerning entrenched academia maintaining its dogma and jobs? OF COURSE the tow-the-party-line guys are going to be quoted and referenced. That's the point! New thought and theory is censored. Do you really think that if Egyptologists with differing opinions stated them publicly they'd be put in the canon? No, they'd be fired.

And why do people continue to say Von Daniken started this ball rolling? He didn't. Von Daniken wrote his first stuff in the 60s. There were books and arguments made about ancient astronauts long before Von Daniken.

Another flaw in the traditional thinking: So what if other structures nearby were not weathered? That's the point. The Sphinx and Great Pyramids were not built by the Egyptians. Other monuments nearby (of far lesser quality) were. They emulated what the unknown ancients built. Hence the different dates.

As for the "Now we know the Egyptians hauled the cut out stone ramps", this one is most laughable. Mathematically, there would have been more stone used in the ramps than in the pyramid itself. Where did the excess stone go? Besides, the ramps, even at a steep degree, would have stretched a mile back into the desert. Where's the evidence of the labor for a mile-long track? The pits? The tools? The camps? It isn't there. Ramps weren't how the pyramids were built. That's just an assumption of the British centuries ago that went unquestioned for so long it became accepted for no reason other than it was already in the books.

Ya know, critics of UFOs like to say "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence". The same as in effect been said already several times in this thread. Well, if that's the case, if absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, there's absolutely ZERO evidence that the pyramids were built as tombs or by the Egyptians at all. Nowhere in Egypt are there written records of any kind about the construction of the pyramids (if there were, why do we still speculate on how they were built?) The Egyptians wrote down everything, floor to ceiling, literally. Yet never are the Great Pyramids mentioned. Furthermore, there is NO writing anywhere inside the Great Pyramid. None. Unless you count that misspelled graffiti a wealthy British explorer "conveniently found" when his funding was about to be pulled. One name, that's it, and spelled wrong too. Yet the entirety of the interior of these "tombs" is totally absent of hieroglyphics and treasure, things found in every other real tomb throughout Egypt. The only artifact about the Pharoahs ever found was a dinky statuette a hundred miles away. And don't say grave robbers. When the British dynamited their way into the pyramids, they were clearly opening passages never opened by man. These were slabs that fell into place which no man could lift (why else did they need to dynamite the things?) Yet past these never-opened doors they found absolutely zero treasure, and not even any body in these "tombs". Ergo, they were not tombs, and not built by the Egyptians.

Gabeed: Your own post has drastic internal contradictions. You say to show you the evidence, but then say I'm misguided before you even see it. Kangaroo court, anyone? Well, instead of showing you the evidence, try this: Do it yourself! Get a flat map of the globe, and mark the big sacred sites (Stonehenge, Easter Island, etc.) You'll notice an eerie symmetry. That is, if you're not so "misguided" that you actually line things up fairly and honestly to their coordinates.

Go ahead. Quote some more dogma. It makes me laugh. I'm sorry to be so rude but I thought I'd offer some challenges with this thread. I thought some folks would like the challenge. I asked for rational, informed opinions with open-minds, and instead all I'm getting is Wikipedia quotes that regurgitate the most worn-out and easily disproved dogma of all.

I've said this before an I'll say it again: Truth goes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

Panda bears, Komodo dragons, elephants, the locomotive, submarines, cell phones, the New World, flying machines, electricity, the theory of evolution, going to the moon . . . all things the entrenched, authoritative establishment said was IMPOSSIBLE. In fact, in 1896, the US Patent Office closed down. The reason? There was nothing left to invent. Everything that can be invented has already been invented.

See the kind of arrogance you defend when you just quote the establishment or defend the established views? And people call me misguided? Well, I'm sure no matter what I say you'll just laugh and find some self-delusional way to convince yourself you're right. Have your laugh, then, but it doesn't change a damn thing. The world out there is not what you think it to be or what you want it to be for the sake of your comfort bubble. And it never was.

Lake monsters, sasquatch, anti-gravity engines, sublight ships, new worlds, crystal technology and ancient aliens are simply being ridiculed and violently opposed. Eventually they'll be accepted as self-evident too. It's just a matter of time.

Now, lest one think me too much of a turd, I WELCOME debate. I welcome well thought-out, rational, open-minded arguments. But that's just not what I'm getting here. All I'm getting is status-quotes, and lame ones at that. If people are going to insult me or say I'm wrong outright without checking their evidence, can they at least put a little thought into their arguments? Is that too much to ask?
Matt deMille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 02:25 AM   #45
Matt deMille
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
EDIT:

Greer's statement is back to front. He's right that no scientist should begin with "proof" before they begin to "actively investigate something." The act of investigation is that which seeks to find "proof". The problems occur when "proof" is asserted, then the investigation begins to find the evidence for it: which is how 'ufologists' seem to function.

The only course of action in history and science is to keep an open-mind to the possibilities, based on rational thought, that is, 'rational' in the current sense of logic, since the scientific approach should be 'empirical'.

Rational as in 'reason'.

Empirical as in 'observation, experience or experiment'.

Montana, perhaps you have simply been led along in the dark like so many others. Not all ufologists assert evidence. Like any underdog, they have to really do their homework. The real good ones do. 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.

And I must address something you said, that aliens are similar to gods, in that it's a matter of belief and the unknown. Not really. Aliens and UFOs, if real, are a physical reality and as such can be brought into the lab. There's no faith required. If it exists, then there's a way to prove it. The problem is that when evidence surfaces people simply refuse to look at it. Science has become a religion in and of itself, protecting its establishment. Or like the two major American political parties, rigged to prevent a reform party from ever building up. Aliens and artifacts of UFOs have been found in the public domain and are simply overlooked long enough for them to end up in a warehouse with ten thousand other boxes where Indy can crawl around on them.

You seem a really level headed guy but for the life of me I do not understand why you seem to accept the mainstream version of things. I think your posts are much better without the cumbersome quotes of sanitized views. I really liked your simple, to-the-point "Because we don't yet have finite answers to everything it doesn't imply that we will never have those answers" I agree. The part that maddens me in threads like this is when people say they do indeed have all the answers, that, for example, ancient aliens are not real. How do they know? Saying they aren't is hypocritical coming from those who demand evidence. What's their evidence that aliens aren't real?
Matt deMille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 02:34 AM   #46
Stoo
IndyFan
 
Stoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 8,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
Do it yourself! Get a flat map of the globe, and mark the big sacred sites (Stonehenge, Easter Island, etc.) You'll notice an eerie symmetry. That is, if you're not so "misguided" that you actually line things up fairly and honestly to their coordinates.
Re: "flat map". Which cartographic projection are you using?

You mention only 2 sites. There's nothing "eerie" about the symmetry of a straight line. Do you have a list of all these "ancient monuments which form a perfect worldwide grid in perfect proportional measurement to one another"?
Stoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 02:54 AM   #47
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
You seem a really level headed guy but for the life of me I do not understand why you seem to accept the mainstream version of things.

I said I was skeptical of all views - religious, new-age and so-called historians.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
I think your posts are much better without the cumbersome quotes of sanitized views.

I was simply highlighting alternate theories to show that there is no one definitive answer, alien or otherwise. Historians are often in conflict with one another over quite mundane points, not just the grand ones. Evidence is open to interpretation, otherwise they wouldn't be debating with one another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
I really liked your simple, to-the-point "Because we don't yet have finite answers to everything it doesn't imply that we will never have those answers" I agree.

That's why I'm skeptical when people say they already know the 'truth'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
The part that maddens me in threads like this is when people say they do indeed have all the answers, that, for example, ancient aliens are not real. How do they know? Saying they aren't is hypocritical coming from those who demand evidence. What's their evidence that aliens aren't real?

In the other thread I wrote that it would be entertaining if you started this one. It has already proved the case, and that it would be was unavoidable.

In that thread you wrote the following:

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.

You said to trust you, that during this century "it will prove to be THE most important aspect of our reality" and that you possess "knowledge of the alien reality".

Not only do you claim to have personal proof, but you believe that this proof will be made real to everyone else sometime over the next ninety years. The 'fact' that you have these answers was evidence that this thread would prove to be entertaining.

History is never finished. It is never a done deal. Even a personal diary is not indisputable evidence of the past. History will always be re-interpreted, as history is the process of the clash of ideologies, past and present.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 07:18 AM   #48
Gabeed
IndyFan
 
Gabeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
Gabeed: Your own post has drastic internal contradictions. You say to show you the evidence, but then say I'm misguided before you even see it. Kangaroo court, anyone? Well, instead of showing you the evidence, try this: Do it yourself! Get a flat map of the globe, and mark the big sacred sites (Stonehenge, Easter Island, etc.) You'll notice an eerie symmetry. That is, if you're not so "misguided" that you actually line things up fairly and honestly to their coordinates.


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.
Gabeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 07:25 AM   #49
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
Re: "flat map". Which cartographic projection are you using?

You mention only 2 sites. There's nothing "eerie" about the symmetry of a straight line. Do you have a list of all these "ancient monuments which form a perfect worldwide grid in perfect proportional measurement to one another"?





Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 09:16 AM   #50
kongisking
IndyFan
 
kongisking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Skull Island
Posts: 3,022
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 ).
kongisking 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 09:25 PM.