And Finn, I maintain what I say. As a person who has indeed come from a formal education in history and archaeology, and has done archaeological work in the field, I found Matt's boldfaced derision towards any facts from the scientific community right out of the gate with his first post dismissive, ignorant and insulting.
I possess formal scientific education as well (a fact which I think I've conveyed quite blatantly over the course of this discussion), yet I have no trouble swallowing a few bits of my professional pride for meager amounts of grace. He may not be a scientist like the two of us, but I still think we shouldn't look down on him, even if we did have a moral obligation to educate him from an elevated position.
Interesting ghost story, Montana. Let me touch on that first, as it will help clarify what follows. And what follows is for everyone, hence its generic nature.
Ghosts. The very word conjures up all sorts of notions that have ridged enforcers in both Eastern and Western views. Most commonly, it's a "disembodied spirit". That is kind of what happens with UFOs, and more specifically, ancient aliens -- Many assume the earlier, knee-jerk "explanation" to hold true to all who use the same word. For example, a "ghost" could be residual energy, a memory imprinted on time-space that is just replaying, or some other phenomena entirely. What's important is to recognize that it's there, that people report it, and then go forward.
Ancient aliens has this problem big time. When you say "alien", people tend to still assume little green men. A '50s concept at best. But "alien" can mean extra-terrestrial, or inter-dimensional, or time-traveler, or unknown civilization on Earth, or anything else. So, when I speak of "ancient aliens", I don't necessarily mean a big mothership hovered over the Giza site and dictated the placement of stones. It's easy to see it that way, but, as I always say, "consider possibilities". For example, "aliens helping build the pyramid" could just as well be some single entity, a refugee from a lost civilization or someone who stepped between dimensions, giving the ancient Egyptians new ideas on how to build bigger monuments. In fact, many South American cultures have just such legends.
Legends, like ghosts and aliens, are the trail-head. It's a shame that mainstream scientists don't embrace these trail-heads and explore them. Typically, they turn away from the trail-head because they see something in the distance they assume the trail leads to. But, the jungle of the unknown is tangled and complex, and trails wind and fork, and may lead to different discoveries entirely. So, I like to point out the trail-heads, and then encourage better trained individuals to go explore them. Now, having walked the trail already myself, I can say what I "know" to be out there, but until people walk it themselves, they'll never have anything but my testimony.
Looking back through the thread here, I have, countless times, said I encourage people to look at things and decide for themselves. That I'm not the be-all-end-all of it, or any type of authority. Certainly I've stood by what I know because I've experienced it first-hand, as anyone should, but I'm also always urging people to experience it themselves. Indeed, explore the trail a bit, but with an open-mind.
And when I speak of how the mainstream doesn't have a solid story, it's because of little gaps. Pieces of the puzzle that seem to be missing. Maybe they will be found one day, but until they are, we should consider all possibilities. Just as we should consider all possibilities with ghosts -- spirits, "recordings", some psychic phenomena, or anything else. We just don't know. Don't write off or ridicule a possibility because you don't like it or you don't like the messenger. As I said in the very beginning, check it out for yourself.
On matters of scientific credentials: If my saying the establishment was this or that offended someone, the proper thing to do would have been to say, right off the bat, "deMille, you may or may not realize it, but such statements seem unprofessional and out of place, and here's why . . ." Instead, I just got insults directly, making others' arguments, at the very least, no more valid than my "insulting" ones. If am *am* the bad guy, others should have taken the high road, but instead, they seemed to take a lower road. That, certainly, is not going to convince me I was out of line.
I do respect scientific credentials. I have many friends who are scientists.
Last edited by Matt deMille : 09-16-2010 at 02:22 PM.
Ancient aliens has this problem big time. When you say "alien", people tend to still assume little green men. A '50s concept at best. But "alien" can mean extra-terrestrial, or inter-dimensional, or time-traveler, or unknown civilization on Earth, or anything else. So, when I speak of "ancient aliens", I don't necessarily mean a big mothership hovered over the Giza site and dictated the placement of stones. It's easy to see it that way, but, as I always say, "consider possibilities". For example, "aliens helping build the pyramid" could just as well be some single entity, a refugee from a lost civilization or someone who stepped between dimensions, giving the ancient Egyptians new ideas on how to build bigger monuments
And that's the problem Matt-- it's all just baseless conjecture. "It could be this and that," but there is nothing to suggest that it is any of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Spooky" deMille
In fact, many South American cultures have just such legends.
Name one. Without perverting it. Because it's already been explained to you that that figure in a pilot's chair was a dead warrior above the gaping maw of an Earth monster. Name one actual legend that isn't merely the conjecture of a bunch of con artists like von Daniken.
This is what I'm talking about: How am I supposed to even consider being fair when I get attacked like this? "Spooky deMille"? How about just using my name without the insult or suggestion of being wrong? Or the suggestion I would pervert anything? Or calling others con-artists? And you expect people to treat you kindly? Or present rational arguments? Or be rational with you at all?
But, I will. One argument, you ask. Okay.
Viracocha. Traditionally, this is "simply" a god, the creator of the universe, etc. However, there are many Latin American legends of a figure with this same name (or slight variation of that name) who wanders Earth as a mortal, distributing sacred knowledge, teaching people sciences, etc. Some theorize he was a survivor of (or descendant from) Atlantis or similarly lost culture. Some theorize he was not human at all.
Now, maybe he "is* just a legend, no different perhaps than Odin in Norse mythology who takes human form. But one must ask: What is the genesis of stories like this? Why would South American people, thousands of years ago, devise a story of a superior being from elsewhere distributing advanced knowledge? Taken on its own, sure, it's just a story. But similar stories appear worldwide. Why this common perception? Why the same story told by independent cultures? Is it possible it really happened?
After all, if we're expected to take the ancients at their word -- such as their laying claim to the building of great monuments -- why do we not take them at their word for other things, too? And many a tale told by the same ancients who have great monuments tells of intervention from outside their culture.
This is what I'm talking about: How am I supposed to even consider being fair when I get attacked like this? "Spooky deMille"? How about just using my name without the insult or suggestion of being wrong? Or the suggestion I would pervert anything? Or calling others con-artists? And you expect people to treat you kindly? Or present rational arguments? Or be rational with you at all?
But, I will. One argument, you ask. Okay.
Viracocha. Traditionally, this is "simply" a god, the creator of the universe, etc. However, there are many Latin American legends of a figure with this same name (or slight variation of that name) who wanders Earth as a mortal, distributing sacred knowledge, teaching people sciences, etc. Some theorize he was a survivor of (or descendant from) Atlantis or similarly lost culture. Some theorize he was not human at all.
Now, maybe he "is* just a legend, no different perhaps than Odin in Norse mythology who takes human form. But one must ask: What is the genesis of stories like this? Why would South American people, thousands of years ago, devise a story of a superior being from elsewhere distributing advanced knowledge? Taken on its own, sure, it's just a story. But similar stories appear worldwide. Why this common perception? Why the same story told by independent cultures? Is it possible it really happened?
After all, if we're expected to take the ancients at their word -- such as their laying claim to the building of great monuments -- why do we not take them at their word for other things, too? And many a tale told by the same ancients who have great monuments tells of intervention from outside their culture.
And yet you did it anyway...
First of all, stop with making yourself out to be a victim. Why would I suggest that you would pervert anything? Because you've done it repeatedly, including in that last post...
I find it interesting (and I know you've been called out on it already), that you don't think the Bible is right and yet you repeatedly turn to it to back up your claims.
Same thing goes for these other religious books.
Creation mythology is in no way comparable to a discussion on architecture. It is not the same to say a culture built a monument in support of their beliefs as it is to say that their beliefs hold any truth. It's totally unrelated and tangential.
Then you start throwing in conjecture again. "Some theorize he was a survivor of (or descendant from) Atlantis" has nothing at all to do with the creation myth. Once again, that is a modern prejudice on an ancient story.
It's like you're arguing from both sides of your mouth.
I possess formal scientific education as well (a fact which I think I've conveyed quite blatantly over the course of this discussion), yet I have no trouble swallowing a few bits of my professional pride for meager amounts of grace. He may not be a scientist like the two of us, but I still think we shouldn't look down on him, even if we did have a moral obligation to educate him from an elevated position.
We (meaning everyone, not just people with degrees, I didn't bring up my education until directly asked about it about 40 pages in for good reason) should look down on him in this context of this thread alone as long as he condemns such education, and scientific thought in general, as dogmatic or biased--because at that point, it's a sad, fruitless endeavor. Lambonius gave a hell of a try about 20 pages ago, and although Matt initially responded (and there was a ray of hope for a good discussion), ultimately Lambonius' last post was ignored, and just a couple pages later Matt was back to talking about how there was no hard evidence for the Great Pyramid being a tomb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
I do respect scientific credentials. I have many friends who are scientists.
RS: The Egyptians lay claim to having built the pyramids.
RA: YOU are making me the victim. As I've said before. You want me to stop being a victim? Stop treating me like one. The more I have to waste my time writing responses like this just reinforces that. Try to use my name proper without the attached insults. Quit saying I pervert things. Quit asking for personal details then when I give them claim I'm making it about me. Quit calling me crazy, etc. Your very first post to me: "See a psychiatrist". Insulting and uncalled-for. And never was there an apology. In fact, there have never been apologies for any of your behavior. If I'm the victim, well, a victim is a consequence, a result. Consider the initiators that create the consequence.
And, mythology IS important to architecture. Archeology, history, etc -- They are trying to discern truth from ALL evidence. The testimony of the culture they are studying yields clues. It helps gives context. The myths of a people are just as important as their artifacts.
Gabeed: When I stop responding to someone's posts, it means they are being unreasonable. They either demonstrate hypocritical behavior, are insulting or immature. Or I just stop responding because a person is just as unbending on their position as they claim myself to be, and it's useless. Of course, people will come along later and assume I conceded their point by not responding, when the truth is that I'm just tired of wasting my breath and/or I respect the Moderators' rules and try to avoid flame wars.
Now, for all those who I ignore, consider what you've said prior. Look in the mirror.
Gabeed: When I stop responding to someone's posts, it means they are being unreasonable. They either demonstrate hypocritical behavior, are insulting or immature. Or I just stop responding because a person is just as unbending on their position as they claim myself to be, and it's useless. Of course, people will come along later and assume I conceded their point by not responding, when the truth is that I'm just tired of wasting my breath and/or I respect the Moderators' rules and try to avoid flame wars.
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.
RA: YOU are making me the victim. As I've said before. You want me to stop being a victim? Stop treating me like one. The more I have to waste my time writing responses like this just reinforces that. Try to use my name proper without the attached insults. Quit saying I pervert things. Quit asking for personal details then when I give them claim I'm making it about me. Quit calling me crazy, etc. Your very first post to me: "See a psychiatrist". Insulting and uncalled-for. And never was there an apology. In fact, there have never been apologies for any of your behavior. If I'm the victim, well, a victim is a consequence, a result. Consider the initiators that create the consequence.
And, mythology IS important to architecture. Archeology, history, etc -- They are trying to discern truth from ALL evidence. The testimony of the culture they are studying yields clues. It helps gives context. The myths of a people are just as important as their artifacts.
Let's break this down, Matt.
I've never asked for any "personal details" because I don't give a toss what you claimed to experience. You're the one who came into this thread volunteering all this fantastical stuff about alien abductions and secret trips to Egypt. I could care less about any of that stuff. I don't believe it and it doesn't offer anything relevant to the argument. It's all called Anecdotal Evidence, and if you'll notice, I have REPEATEDLY asked you to stop using that nonsense in your replies to me. It doesn't prove anything and it is a fallacious way to argue.
Your very first post in this topic read: "That said, I hope we can keep to facts (not what the mainstream accepts, as that's a rigged game, but rather, "facts" being what others can check out for themselves and so form their own opinion)."
And that's insulting. A "rigged game." You're calling me a cheater?
It's a double standard with you, Matt. Let's insult the scientific community but act butt-hurt when anyone insults you in return.
So who initiated here, Matt? Looks like you did... You're the one who created a topic claiming personal experience and then immediately slamming the "mainstream," ie scientists.
You bring it on yourself and then you act hurt. So stop making yourself a victim and stop bringing it on yourself.
And that last paragraph. Clearly you didn't pay attention to a word I wrote.
What I said is claiming a culture created something because of their beliefs is different than claiming their beliefs have a basis in truth.
Of course mythology is important in the creation of monuments-- those monuments are created to honor those beliefs. I've said that all along, so don't pervert (again) my statement.
We (meaning everyone, not just people with degrees, I didn't bring up my education until directly asked about it about 40 pages in for good reason) should look down on him in this context of this thread alone as long as he condemns such education, and scientific thought in general, as dogmatic or biased--because at that point, it's a sad, fruitless endeavor.
But the purpose of the thread was to be similar to a seminar ("sticking to facts" in Matt's first post, and whatnot) . . . I gotta be honest, I don't know what point you're trying to make, besides perhaps that arguing on the Internet is rather futile in general, which I already am well aware of.
But the purpose of the thread was to be similar to a seminar ("sticking to facts" in Matt's first post, and whatnot) . . . I gotta be honest, I don't know what point you're trying to make, besides perhaps that arguing on the Internet is rather futile in general, which I already am well aware of.
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!
I recently stumbled on the History Channel's Ancient Aliens series on Youtube, which quickly led to revulsion at how low the History Channel will stoop to get ratings (and also at Georgios Tsoukalos' slicked back crazy long hair. Wow.). But more importantly, I soon came upon this thread on their forums:
So he's still around? I've been hoping he'd been abducted by aliens never to be heard from again...
He also has a terrible tan. He looks completely and utterly insane.
By contrast, George Noory looks and sounds professional. I've said before that I've listened to Coast to Coast a lot. I guess back when I was a teenager listening to Art Bell, George Noory, Whitley Strieber, etc on CTC AM, I kinda hoped/thought that they were just humoring the crazy various conspiracy theorists, and didn't really necessarily believe most of them. I feel a little betrayed now, having seen him on this silly Ancient Aliens show. I know, it was completely irrational for me to think that the Coast to Coast hosts would be normal people, but there we are.
You aren't the only one baffled by his hair. I Googled just his name (in quotation marks) in the hopes of finding a recent picture. And first page, there's a match titled "Georgios Tsoukalos Hair."
"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."
"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."
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
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!
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!
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.
