Ancient aliens

Montana Smith said:
I think he also appeared in Babylon 5: ;)

tl_scifi_babylon5.jpg


At least he's branching out.


...and staying away from this board.
 

Gabeed

New member
Montana Smith said:

"I somehow believe that excitedly getting my points across while having an awful tan and crazy-gelled hair will not give the appearance that I am insane and/or belong on the set of Men in Black 3 as "Man in David Cross' Basement #3," but rather endear me to a skeptical audience, and lend some respect to ancient alien theories and theorists amongst the wider mainstream scientific community. I'm a genius."



. . . . .

:D
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Gabeed said:
"I somehow believe that excitedly getting my points across while having an awful tan and crazy-gelled hair will not give the appearance that I am insane and/or belong on the set of Men in Black 3 as "Man in David Cross' Basement #3," but rather endear me to a skeptical audience, and lend some respect to ancient alien theories and theorists amongst the wider mainstream scientific community. I'm a genius."



. . . . .

:D

The alternative:

albert-einstein.jpg


albert-einstein-1.jpg


:p
 

Matt deMille

New member
Gabeed said:
I have no idea what you're trying to say in the context of my last post. Are you saying that you ignored Lambonius because he was unreasonable? Because looking back . . . that was clearly not the case.

Lambonius' talk wasn't unreasonable. I did not mention him specifically. I'm trying to address many things.

But, specifically about Lambonius: I didn't reject his words in particular. But the usual silliness, sarcasm and flaming that surrounded it turned me off. There was simply no way I could respond to Lambonius and debate or just talk with him without you, RA, Stoo, etc. twisting my words around or just attacking me directly. By not responding to that post or any other post, I simply deny you guys the juvenile pleasure of your petty antics.

I *try* to stay on topic, in this or any other thread. Since there's no point in arguing with those who apparently just like to argue, I eventually just ignore such immature behavior and do the respectable thing: I walk away. And I'm sure someone from what I call "the gang" won't wait an hour before twisting these words too, probably into something how I like to dodge issues or can't handle the truth or some other BS. But I've stated my case, it's here in the thread, and you can deal with it or not, as you please.

Montana Smith said:
I find it encouraging that we're here, even disagreeing, but we're still here. We're spending the time thinking, challenging, arguing.

Not only that but we're often thousands of miles apart, and from quite different cultures and with different upbringings. Through the wonders of the internet we can communicate as fast as we can type. Through the barrier of the written word devoid of facial expression, we're trying to make ourselves understood. We might have little chance of winning our respective arguments, but at least we're still comunicating.

Each of these threads is a journey. Some are stranger than others. You don't always know where they're going to go, or what odd little piece of information might arise. So even if I don't agree, I want to try to understand. It's also good for the little grey cells!

:hat:

Very well said, Montana. You seem to be the voice of reason. Sure, I've clashed with you, but I've also agreed with you. And visa-versa. Indeed, it's nice to think that we can and do communicate, regardless of the results.

Every thread is a journey . . . cool. That's a pretty good way of looking at it. Helps take away some of the frustration. So, thanks!
 
Matt deMille said:
I *try* to stay on topic, in this or any other thread


How hard do you try? Not as hard as you might since you repeatedly interject your alien stuff in countless other threads.



And that first paragraph there-- once again, setting yourself up as a victim. Tsk tsk.


Twisting words? I think I've pointed out what... twice already today where you twisted mine. Of course since your ideas are based around deceit and twisted information, it's not surprising that you have to resort to that tactic to "debate" me.
 

Gabeed

New member
Matt deMille said:
By not responding to that post or any other post, I simply deny you guys the juvenile pleasure of your petty antics.

Actually, you just further my belief that you're unable to accept any mainstream information that goes against ancient aliens or the pyramids being tombs. I mean, how can you say that there is no hard evidence for pyramids after learning about layered Egyptian coffins? Wouldn't you at the very least admit that you were uninformed in previously stating that the sarcophagus in the Great Pyramid was too deep and large to be an Egyptian sarcophagus?

I just found this blog that riffs a bit of the Ancient Alien series on the History Channel. I read it while watching a bit of the series, and it's really quite hilarious as he points out the silly things they say and leap to on the show (including the little "airplane toys" we briefly looked at earlier in this thread): http://www.dumbassguide.info/blog.php?bid=38
 
Last edited:

Matt deMille

New member
Gabeed said:
Actually, you just further my belief that you're unable to accept any mainstream information that goes against ancient aliens or the pyramids being tombs. I mean, how can you say that there is no hard evidence for pyramids after learning about layered Egyptian coffins? Wouldn't you at the very least admit that you were uninformed in previously stating that the sarcophagus in the Great Pyramid was too deep and large to be an Egyptian sarcophagus?

Believe what you will. But for a moment, put yourself in my shoes: Clearly anything I say gets attacked. For example, when I started the Pirates thread, a totally new thread with absolutely nothing to do with aliens, the first thing that happens is RA comes in with more of his crap. Even Lance, with whom I've had my differences, had to comment on that, asking if Matt can have a conversation without dealing with dicks. In this thread, AA, where all the trouble started, any point I argue is doomed to be flooded with posts of ridicule and insults. Now ask yourself: Would you bother responding if that were the case?

As for the sarcophagus, actually, I *did* admit that it (box-in-a-box) was a good explanation for the "oversized sarcophagus" back when that data was presented, and I did welcome that as an explanation. I would like to add that I was not wholly unaware of such practices. I simply did not apply them to that particular box before. Seems like a really big oversight, to be sure, and it is a bit embarrassing, but I'm human and, like any researcher, can be preoccupied with looking in a different direction.

Unfortunately, no concessions are forthcoming from the opposing side. It *does* look like a traditional Egyptian oversized box. But, was a body ever known there? What happened to the interior sarcophagi? Tomb raiders wouldn't have lugged out these massive things. I'm not asking proof, just a plausible suggestion, a good theory to consider. In the absence of evidence such as the interior boxes, the body, the treasure, etc. this being a tomb is just one of many possibilities. It is, after all, a large stone box. It could have had many different functions.
 
Matt deMille said:
Believe what you will. But for a moment, put yourself in my shoes: Clearly anything I say gets attacked. For example, when I started the Pirates thread, a totally new thread with absolutely nothing to do with aliens, the first thing that happens is RA comes in with more of his crap.

http://raven.theraider.net/showpost.php?p=482278&postcount=3


First thing you did in Mickiana's thread, totally unrelated to your own crackpot thread, is come in spouting your crap.

Also. You made yourself the victim AGAIN.


picard-facepalm.jpg
 

Gabeed

New member
Matt deMille said:
I would like to add that I was not wholly unaware of such practices. I simply did not apply them to that particular box before. Seems like a really big oversight, to be sure, and it is a bit embarrassing, but I'm human and, like any researcher, can be preoccupied with looking in a different direction.

It's a tremendously big oversight. One of the first things people know about Egyptian sarcophagi is that typically with royalty there are multiple coffins within the sarcophagus. Just Google Image searching "Egyptian sarcophagus" would've hinted at why the sarcophagus is so big. But forget it, let's move on . . .

Matt deMille said:
Unfortunately, no concessions are forthcoming from the opposing side. It *does* look like a traditional Egyptian oversized box.

I have shown you multiple other sarcophagi that look incredibly similar to the one found in the Great Pyramid. Since you seem to claim that the Egyptians had traditional gigantic stone "boxes" for other purposes than sarcophagi, would you mind presenting some examples of giant stone Egyptian rectangular boxes from the same period that were used for different functions?

Matt deMille said:
But, was a body ever known there? What happened to the interior sarcophagi? Tomb raiders wouldn't have lugged out these massive things. I'm not asking proof, just a plausible suggestion, a good theory to consider. In the absence of evidence such as the interior boxes, the body, the treasure, etc. this being a tomb is just one of many possibilities.

The interior coffins were often richly decorated, and the bodies of the pharoahs themselves were often adorned with valuables. King Tut's coffins are yet again a fine example (one of the coffins being made out of solid gold) . . . and he comes from a relatively less powerful era in ancient Egyptian history. It's not a leap of faith to assume they were stolen, since they represented much of the values desired by the robbers.
 

Gabeed

New member
Nice. I think I'm on his 4th blog post on Ancient Aliens--it's really quite funny how easily he can dismantle the theories tossed around on this show. You have no idea how disappointed I am in the History Channel for allowing this junk on the air.
 
The letter--

Me said:
Dear Dumbass,

I hardly think your user name suits you-- I find you reasoned and well-spoken. I've greatly enjoyed reading your articles debunking Ancient Alien Bunk this evening and I wanted to invite you to join a long-standing debate on the matter on a forum I frequent, raven.theraider.net. This is a prominent Indiana Jones community. Giorgio Tsoukalos himself used to frequent the board around the release of the 4th (unfortunate) installment of our beloved series. There was a time when the board seemed particularly over-run with those crackpots, an unfortunate side-effect of that crummy love letter to Von Daniken, better known as Indiana Jones 4.

Anyway, I find your arguments so superbly crafted and so logically and succinctly presented that I feel you'd be a valuable addition to the debate.


Cheers!
 

Gabeed

New member
I really like the video he puts up of the retired dude in Michigan who moves gigantic blocks using simple tools:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju_6_7YJPWE&f

Imagine several, even more clever engineers under the command of the Pharoahs. While there is of course no proof that the ancients either at Stonehenge or in Egypt used these methods, the point is that such feats are possible.

Oh, and the WKUK video is apt as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ8KleL4fS4
 
Gabeed said:
I really like the video he puts up of the retired dude in Michigan who moves gigantic blocks using simple tools:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju_6_7YJPWE&f

Imagine several, even more clever engineers under the command of the Pharoahs. While there is of course no proof that the ancients either at Stonehenge or in Egypt used these methods, the point is that such feats are possible.

Oh, and the WKUK video is apt as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ8KleL4fS4


Gah, I was just coming to post that Whitest Kids You Know clip!
 

Gabeed

New member
. . .Damn. I've read his last blog. And I don't have the stomach to get through the rest of that lying, manipulative show without his hilarious commentary.
 

Gabeed

New member
Still waiting on the examples of "traditional oversized boxes" that Egyptians made that looked exactly like sarcophagi but apparently had different purposes . . . ;)
 

Matt deMille

New member
Missing the point. If the Egyptians did not build the Great Pyramid, then the box inside needs no "interior boxes". It simply had a use we have not yet discovered.
 

Gabeed

New member
So even though this box looks exactly like a sarcophagus, is in a context where many other sarcophagi have been found (a pyramid), and no "traditional Egyptian oversized boxes" exist that look exactly like a sarcophagus and yet are used for other purposes, you conclude that it probably isn't a sarcophagus. If that's your belief, fine, but it isn't a rational or unbiased conclusion.
 
Top