Ancient aliens

[Rocket Surgeon]

But when it starts with "The ancient alien theory lost a wheel", well, wouldn't you agree that is pretty tacky, trying to start flames, or at least out of place?

Not when it's expressed within the article itself sweetheart!

http://raven.theraider.net/showpost.php?p=481214&postcount=452

It's interesting you're "quoting" text that you're clearly mixing up. My post began with:

"The Chariot of the Gods lost a wheel... "

Makes one wonder what else you might be mistakenly mixing up...

 

[Matt deMille]

Well, I see that was a waste of time. Sarcasm reveals only fear or dismissal, neither of which are befitting anyone professing objectivity or scientific thought.

And, we know that the continued use of "Chariot(s) of the Gods" is a direct reference to Von Daniken whom, if you read posts as you suggest I should, you would notice I said I do not support his technical work. His concepts, yes, but his work, no. The continued use of his book titles is yet another feeble attempt to diminish the greater amount of research that has been done by many other people. Uses of punchlines is what media jackels do to sell sensation. It is, like sarcasm, unbecoming of anyone trying to make a rational, reasonable argument.

And upon re-reading the article, I couldn't help but notice how it boldly proclaims that this one discovery "puts a lie to all ancient alien theories". Really? So, by that thinking, if I find one counterfeit $20-dollar Canadian bill, that must prove that all United States currency is counterfeit.

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

...neither of which are befitting anyone professing objectivity or scientific thought.

Neither of which you can be accused of possessing.

 

[Montana Smith]

Because aliens had in a hand in some ancient things doesn't mean they did in all of them.

This is that absolute surety that they did have a hand in some ancient things. I thought that had been consigned to possibility.

There are alternate theories which have been put to the test, which makes them alternate 'practicalities', which in themselves should maintain doubt about ancient aliens.

As with many cases, there is a lot of picking and choosing of which ones fit the bill, and which don't. I would be prepared to leave some things to either possibility, because we just don't know for sure. But I do know that man has had a broad and complex imagination, as passed down through history in the epic oral tales of Homer, or those from the advanced Babylonian civilization (The Epic of Gilgamesh), who possessed scientific knowledge that later cultures 'mislaid', and had to relearn.

 

[Gabeed]

I gotta be honest, Montana, I don't see how oral histories have anything to do with scientific knowledge in the context of your post. Also, Gilgamesh likely was an actual Sumerian king, and the standard copy of the Epic that was found by archaeologists was in an Assyrian library. I'd say the Epic is a result of the Mesopotamian civilization as a whole, not just the Babylonians.

 

[Montana Smith]

I gotta be honest, Montana, I don't see how oral histories have anything to do with scientific knowledge in the context of your post. Also, Gilgamesh likely was an actual Sumerian king, and the standard copy of the Epic that was found by archaeologists was in an Assyrian library. I'd say the Epic is a result of the Mesopotamian civilization as a whole, not just the Babylonians.

Oral Epics. The tales created by Homer, and passed down orally through the generations. Evidence of the scope of the imagination of man - imagination which leads to invention, scientific discovery, and so on. Evidence that man was capable of accomplishing great things, without the superior technological help of aliens.

 

[Gabeed]

I guess . . .but many sub-Saharan African tribes had rich oral traditions, and did diddly-squat technology-wise when compared to the Romans or Mesopotamians. Imagination alone wasn't enough. You also needed a structured, sedentary society with an elite that didn't have to work in the fields or forage for food, and could instead devote their time on scientific progress, or music, or engineering, and whatnot. Homer's epics come from the "Dark Ages" of the BC era, from 1200 to 800 BC, a time of little technological innovation, and some experts even think writing had been forgotten by the Greeks during this time.

 

[Montana Smith]

I guess . . .but many sub-Saharan African tribes had rich oral traditions, and did diddly-squat technology-wise when compared to the Romans or Mesopotamians. Imagination alone wasn't enough. You also needed a structured, sedentary society with an elite that didn't have to work in the fields or forage for food, and could instead devote their time on scientific progress, or music, or engineering, and whatnot. Homer's epics come from the "Dark Ages" of the BC era, from 1200 to 800 BC, a time of little technological innovation, and some experts even think writing had been forgotten by the Greeks during this time.

Yes, I agree. Imagination can be the spark for discovery, and for problem solving. It's evidence in early works of art/composition shows that us modern humans share a great deal with our distant ancestors. That our brains are little different, that we can find humour in similar things: that is, they were no less intelligent, but we now have the benefit of many more years of scientific study upon which to build.

My point is that we shouldn't argue that earlier man was incapable of accomplishing some of the architectural wonders of the ancient world. We should give him the benefit of the doubt, that early man was capable of constructing pyramids, because they were likely as capable of problem solving as modern humans.

It is also an ironic fate, that sedentary civilizations are prone to stagnation. That the Greeks, with all their scientific/geological knowledge and technological invention, only reached the bronze-smelting stage of development, whilst the invaders from the east attacked them with superior iron weaponry.

Or the civilizations of the American continent that didn't develop metal working, yet were capable of constructing complex calandars and incredible architecture and works of art.

 

[Matt deMille]

This is that absolute surety that they did have a hand in some ancient things. I thought that had been consigned to possibility.

There are alternate theories which have been put to the test, which makes them alternate 'practicalities', which in themselves should maintain doubt about ancient aliens.

As with many cases, there is a lot of picking and choosing of which ones fit the bill, and which don't. I would be prepared to leave some things to either possibility, because we just don't know for sure. But I do know that man has had a broad and complex imagination, as passed down through history in the epic oral tales of Homer, or those from the advanced Babylonian civilization (The Epic of Gilgamesh), who possessed scientific knowledge that later cultures 'mislaid', and had to relearn.

Fair enough. I can concede that. I guess anything is possible, after all.

In regards to the follow-up posts to this, however, I'm inclined to disagree on one point, that basically invention requires stable civilization. Not necessarily. History moves in mysterious ways and innovations can defy our understanding of basis. I know I'm leaving myself wide open to criticism here, because I'm basically countering an earlier point, that of the Giza monuments having no identifiable build-up of history or progressive technology to account for their construction. That's a cross I'm willing to bear in order to accept that all things are possible. Human innovation, as well as alien intervention.

And yet, for all our similarities as human beings, we seem to develop in radically different ways. The Chinese with gunpowder for thousands of years, for example, while being unheard of in the West. Or why indeed the Greeks seemed to plateau. I recognize that we humans are strange critters, that's for sure, and understanding ourselves is navigating a chaotic labyrinth of distorted history and chance. I would like to state however, this being the "ancient alien" thread, that I do not subscribe to aliens having a hand in every fantastical turn of history. I do believe they had a hand in *some* strange twists of fate, but certainly not at all. The problem is, to those (and I'm speaking in very broad generalities here) who close off the possibility of aliens at all, they cannot separate the wheat from the chaff, so-to-speak. One must be open to all possibilities and *then* examine evidence, otherwise evidence becomes selective.

Bottom line, you make a good point, Montana. Human history is very capable of taking strange turns and dramatic leaps and plunges without an alien presence. I couldn't agree more. I'm simply concerned with those strange events of which alien intervention is most probable, given the evidence we have. All the evidence.

 

[Gabeed]

In regards to the follow-up posts to this, however, I'm inclined to disagree on one point, that basically invention requires stable civilization. Not necessarily. History moves in mysterious ways and innovations can defy our understanding of basis.

"Not necessarily," how? I realize that not all inventions have been created under a a developed civilization--mostly ones that were optimal before sedentary, agricultural lifestyles (bow and arrow, throwing spears, fishing hooks, agriculture itself, etc). But inventions really got going once you got the prerequisites, or rather, common features of these advanced civilizations, that I mentioned above: agriculture, large populations, stratified society, elites. There's probably some more prerequisites I haven't thought of off the top of my head. Note that I didn't say anything a civilization being stable--the Greek city-states in the Classical era were constantly at odds with each other, and Mesopotamia and Egypt surely had their periods of civil strife and foreign invasion.

 

[Montana Smith]

"Not necessarily," how? I realize that not all inventions have been created under a a developed civilization--mostly ones that were optimal before sedentary, agricultural lifestyles (bow and arrow, throwing spears, fishing hooks, agriculture itself, etc). But inventions really got going once you got the prerequisites, or rather, common features of these advanced civilizations, that I mentioned above: agriculture, large populations, stratified society, elites. There's probably some more prerequisites I haven't thought of off the top of my head. Note that I didn't say anything a civilization being stable--the Greek city-states in the Classical era were constantly at odds with each other, and Mesopotamia and Egypt surely had their periods of civil strife and foreign invasion.

There's also a case to make that war is the mother of many inventions: when a civilization is pushed, they become remarkably inventive. When life is too easy or static, a civilization can decay.

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

There's also a case to make that war is the mother of many inventions: when a civilization is pushed, they become remarkably inventive. When life is too easy or static, a civilization can decay.

War is most definitely the catalyst for invention! Nice to see we've evolved somewhat, that the "Cold War" inspired the "Space Race" which has given us a great leap technologically.

 

[Montana Smith]

War is most definitely the catalyst for invention! Nice to see we've evolved somewhat, that the "Cold War" inspired the "Space Race" which has given us a great leap technologically.

We've evolved to the stage of making war in online message boards! Some arguments require a good deal of inventiveness, but the only thing we risk is hurt pride, or high blood pressure if we're taking it too seriously!

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

We've evolved to the stage of making war in online message boards! Some arguments require a good deal of inventiveness, but the only thing we risk is hurt pride, or high blood pressure if we're taking it too seriously!

Aggressive debate! Hey, we all bring our baggage to the show. I'm not the kind to simply take someone's word on something, as such I require people to provide reasons and reasoning for their opinions. To engage in a protracted discussion just to have someone finally recant and tell me: "that's not what I meant" or to claim it's not what they wrote, (amazingly forgetting that the 30 minute edit deadline expired 15 posts and a week ago) is simply finding four flat tires.

 

[Montana Smith]

Aggressive debate! Hey, we all bring our baggage to the show. I'm not the kind to simply take someone's word on something, as such I require people to provide reasons and reasoning for their opinions. To engage in a protracted discussion just to have someone finally recant and tell me: "that's not what I meant" or to claim it's not what they wrote, (amazingly forgetting that the 30 minute edit deadline expired 15 posts and a week ago) is simply finding four flat tires.

I'm all for aggressive debating.

Message boards are the place for 'mass debating', or should that be debating en masse? They're also the place where some can offload their baggage (shoot their load, if you will).

We all hope to say that we came, we saw, and we conquered. Or if not, we at least learnt something new.

Sometimes we just have to admit that an argument can't be won, but we go through the motions all the same.

 

[Gabeed]

There's also a case to make that war is the mother of many inventions: when a civilization is pushed, they become remarkably inventive. When life is too easy or static, a civilization can decay.

I think in war technology, particularly within the last century, this is true. But in the ancient world, I wouldn't think your argument so strong. Take the Roman Empire, for example. While their military advancements did improve (gladius, the corvus, helmet adaptation after facing Thracian falxmen, etc), and while there were undoubtedly impressive engineering feats performed during the reign of the emperors (aqueducts, etc), they didn't actually have a huge amount of technological innovation. My favorite example of this is Hero of Alexandria, who allegedly invented the steam engine, but only designed its use for opening temple doors in a theatrical fashion. It never occurred to the ancient thinkers to harness this power for industrial needs, since with a vast manpower of slaves at hand, there was no need to improve the efficiency of labor.

 

[ResidentAlien]

http://www.iheartchaos.com/post/1081281850/scientists-use-magnets-to-force-bacteria-to-build-a

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

Sometimes we just have to admit that an argument can't be won, but we go through the motions all the same.

...with so many opinions and personalities the clash can begin in so many places. Avoiding questions, willfully misconstruing a point, talking out of both sides of your mouth, reading tone into posts, creating an argument where there is none, to perservere against all these things and more to arrive at some truth whether about the topic or the poster.

It's apparent that the membership will discern these things at their own speed.

 

[kongisking]

I do think that the general excuse for the ancient alien theory (that humans were not advanced or smart enough to build the things they did) is kind of an insult to the ingenuity of mankind. How many times have we done things that, centuries ago, was declared impossible? It works the same way in reverse.

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

Fair enough. I can concede that. I guess anything is possible, after all.

No, anything is NOT possible after all.

The Ten Questions
1.How reliable is the source of the claim?
2.Does the source make similar claims?
3.Have the claims been verified by somebody else?
4.Does this fit with the way the world works?
5.Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
6.Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
7.Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
8.Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
9.Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
10.Are personal beliefs driving the claim?

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eUB4j0n2UDU&border=1&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eUB4j0n2UDU&border=1&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>