# Ancient Aliens



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 4, 2010)

Has anybody seen this show on the History channel? I'm putting this here because I hope we can open up discussion about the topics presented on the show, rather than about the show itself.

Personally, I think its the best source of information regarding the subject matter that I can recall ever seeing on TV


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 4, 2010)

Haven't seen it, sounds interesting.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 4, 2010)

I think the most interesting idea raised by the show is that a pseudoscientific idea will continue to prosper, regardless of how often it is debunked.

From the Wikipedia page on Erich von Däniken's book "Chariots of the Gods.



> Most scientists and historians have rejected his ideas, claiming that the book's conclusions were based on faulty, pseudoscientific evidence, some of which was later demonstrated to be fraudulent and/or fabricated, and under illogical premises. For example, Ronald Story wrote a book rebutting Däniken's ideas in 1976 titled The Space Gods Revealed. A similar internationally bestselling book, entitled Crash Go The Chariots by Clifford Wilson, Ph.D., appeared in 1972.
> 
> A 2004 article in Skeptic magazine[1] states that von Däniken plagiarized many of the book's concepts from The Morning of the Magicians, that this book in turn was heavily influenced by the Cthulhu Mythos, and that the core of the ancient astronaut theory originates in H. P. Lovecraft's short stories "The Call of Cthulhu" and "At the Mountains of Madness".
> 
> ...



It's much like how believers continue to find meaningful correlations in the arrangement of the stones at Stonehenge, all the while being unaware that the stones were just piled as they were by English workmen in the 1900's with block and tackle, so that they looked interesting. (Yes, there's plenty of proof of this, for those curious enough to look for and know the facts instead of just being gullible.)

For those who actually are curious about good research instead of sensationalist lies, here's one more link about von Däniken.

ancient astronauts - von Daniken - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

Some people believe their belief and faith has worth, and don't spend it on trifles. Others hold their belief valueless, so it doesn't matter on what it gets squandered.

Which type are you?


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 4, 2010)

Here's one question: what reason might the ancients have had for making formations, not unlike modern crop circles, that can only be seen from an aerial view? I can understand the argument that modern crop circles are hoaxes meant to be sensationalized after someone flies over them and sees them... But why would the ancients have done it?


----------



## JC7 (Nov 4, 2010)

So true.. it makes no sense.. Anyway you think the Ancient Aliens would let a TV station do a real informative feature on them in 2010 ? I didn't see it so I'm no judge but that sounds ridiculous.


----------



## splinter8451 (Nov 4, 2010)

It's a pretty interesting series. I think I've seen the whole series, unless they started doing new episodes recently. 

Some of the topics are pretty weak but others are really interesting and make you wonder. They definitely make me wonder at least


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 4, 2010)

You're as gullible as the victims of your condescension. You didn't care to consider that people have recorded visiting Stone Henge long before the 1900's?

Stonehenge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

. . .



Explorer said:


> It's much like how believers continue to find meaningful correlations in the arrangement of the stones at Stonehenge, all the while being unaware that the stones were just piled as they were by English workmen in the 1900's with block and tackle, so that they looked interesting. (Yes, there's plenty of proof of this, for those curious enough to look for and know the facts instead of just being gullible.)
> 
> For those who actually are curious about good research instead of sensationalist lies, here's one more link about von Däniken.
> 
> ...


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 4, 2010)

A picture taken in 1877 

Oh, and to answer your question, Im the type of person that doesn't allow others to think for me, as well as the type that is willing to use my imagination and keep my mind open, rather than taking a condescending, elitist approach to things. We hardly know everything, and the most shocking of paradigm shifting discoveries are yet to be found.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Nov 4, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Here's one question: what reason might the ancients have had for making formations, not unlike modern crop circles, that can only be seen from an aerial view? I can understand the argument that modern crop circles are hoaxes meant to be sensationalized after someone flies over them and sees them... But why would the ancients have done it?



So that people climbing mountains would go "ZOMG ALIENZZZZZ!!!1!"


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 4, 2010)

Haha, that could be possible, but some of them are ON mountains


----------



## JC7 (Nov 4, 2010)

SchecterWhore said:


> So that people climbing mountains would go "ZOMG ALIENZZZZZ!!!1!"


 
Haha right on man ZOMG ALIENS !


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 4, 2010)

Stonehenge was rebuilt a bit in the early 1990s, but it was actually built obviously a long time before that. Its no hoax, just not in the same position it was originally.


----------



## Randy (Nov 4, 2010)

I want one of those gold pins that look like a spaceship so that when I go to work people will think I'm a psychopath.


----------



## signalgrey (Nov 4, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Here's one question: what reason might the ancients have had for making formations, not unlike modern crop circles, that can only be seen from an aerial view? I can understand the argument that modern crop circles are hoaxes meant to be sensationalized after someone flies over them and sees them... But why would the ancients have done it?



one theory is simply because they believed their gods resided in the sky and to make symbols for them/to them they had to make it big enough etc...

So its not that they were making symbols FOR aliens but they were making symbols for their gods to see, which just so happened to look (to us) like they were contacting aliens.

it would be like us making churches in the shape of crucifixes for god to see. This leaves room for "well god could be the aliens". of course...possible but in my opinion not plausible. But everyone is entitled to their own theories.


just one of the theories ive heard.

i think alot of it is coincidence personally. Mentions of a "sky chariot" in Hindu lore etc.. We dont really know what the true significance of these beliefs or symbology. And since we dont it leaves alot of room for us modern folk to have fun speculating and theorizing on our own. My facts lead my to another conclusion, but thats not to say that figuring out how aliens might have interacted with humans isnt fun.


----------



## Gamba (Nov 4, 2010)

I have read Chariots of the Gods a long time ago and found it very interesting. I got to say that I'm also very inclined to the "ancient aliens" theory and most of the things that have to do with it. I have all the episodes of ancient aliens and what I found more interesting is the way they show how "human history" has been written in a wrong way. I mean, there are way to many things that are sold as truth when most of the people that are actually specialists on such subjects don't really know for sure how they get done. We often hear from our school teachers a whole bunch of crap about how things, like the pyramids, got done and a couple of years later, ban, there is a new "truth" out about how it got built. My point is; if you don't know it, don't go out saying that that was the way people use to get stuff done, just say that is a theory or research indicates, etc, rather than say that it was history written in stone. History itself is nothing but literature, understood and written for and through a mind that is not of our own, an interpretation of the facts by one's mind, just like any other fiction book.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Nov 4, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Haha, that could be possible, but some of them are ON mountains



That's so when space aliens abduct somebody and drop them back down to earth, from thirty-thousand feet, they see the designs on top of the mountains and go, "ZOMG ALIENZZZZZ!!!1!"


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Nov 5, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Here's one question: what reason might the ancients have had for making formations, not unlike modern crop circles, that can only be seen from an aerial view? I can understand the argument that modern crop circles are hoaxes meant to be sensationalized after someone flies over them and sees them... But why would the ancients have done it?



my theory for that is ancient hot air balloons. the lines could be used for navigation and that would explain how they could design them to be seen from above


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Nov 5, 2010)

signalgrey said:


> oThis leaves room for "well god could be the aliens". of course...possible but in my opinion not plausible.



God is a XEL'NAGA!!


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Nov 5, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> A picture taken in 1877
> 
> Oh, and to answer your question, Im the type of person that doesn't allow others to think for me, as well as the type that is willing to use my imagination and keep my mind open, rather than taking a condescending, elitist approach to things. We hardly know everything, and the most shocking of paradigm shifting discoveries are yet to be found.



This. While I almost always take a scientific and logical approach to everything, nothing conceivable in the human mind is impossible within reason.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Nov 5, 2010)

i watched it last night...it was about gods screwing people and creating new creatures i was buzzed up when i was watching it and i was like WTF? very interesting show tho




p.s. History Channel = best channel on tv


----------



## synrgy (Nov 5, 2010)

cwhitey2 said:


> p.s. History Channel = best channel on tv



I gotta disagree with you there. It used to be okay, but these days in the 'post-Monster-Quest' era, I can't take anything that comes from that channel seriously. Even that show 'the Universe' has a lot more theory than it does fact. Somewhere along the line, History went from being historical to being sensationalist, and I don't care for the sensationalist stuff.

Just my opinion, of course. 

This isn't very much different from some other discussions we've had here. My best guess is still that yes, alien life most likely existed, exists, or will exist somewhere out there, but I also believe it's pretty highly unlikely that our paths have ever or will ever cross with theirs. I'll never say never, but I'm not holding my breath. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Nov 5, 2010)

synrgy said:


> I gotta disagree with you there. It used to be okay, but these days in the 'post-Monster-Quest' era, I can't take anything that comes from that channel seriously. Even that show 'the Universe' has a lot more theory than it does fact. Somewhere along the line, History went from being historical to being sensationalist, and I don't care for the sensationalist stuff.
> 
> Just my opinion, of course.
> 
> This isn't very much different from some other discussions we've had here. My best guess is still that yes, alien life most likely existed, exists, or will exist somewhere out there, but I also believe it's pretty highly unlikely that our paths have ever or will ever cross with theirs. I'll never say never, but I'm not holding my breath. Just my 2 cents.




i will agree to a point with you. i don't care for monster quest because they are . the show the universe is completely based on theory. they cant prove 3/4 of the stuff they say, but i like it cause it gets my brain thinking 

i just like to learn about random stuff, and being that most tv shows nowadays aim for the stupid people in society ie jersey shore.


----------



## ElRay (Nov 5, 2010)

signalgrey said:


> But everyone is entitled to their own theories.



theory |&#712;&#952;&#275;&#601;r&#275;; &#712;&#952;i(&#601r&#275;|
noun ( pl. -ries)
a supposition or a system of ideas, *supported by a body of evidence*, intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained

hypothesis |h&#299;&#712;pä&#952;&#601;sis|
noun ( pl. -ses |-&#716;s&#275;z|)
a supposition or proposed explanation *made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation*

conjecture |k&#601;n&#712;jek ch &#601;r|
noun
an opinion or conclusion *formed on the basis of incomplete information*

speculate |&#712;speky&#601;&#716;l&#257;t|
verb [ intrans. ]
1 form a theory or conjecture about a subject *without firm evidence*​

Sorry, this whole topic doesn't hit theory status by a long shot. I wouldn't even call it a hypothesis. It's a speculative conjecture, at best.

Ray


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 5, 2010)

Actually, since there's a lot of evidence such as artifacts, writings, etc, and I mean a LOT, all of this discussion is indeed theoretical. Irrefutable fact right there.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Nov 6, 2010)

cwhitey2 said:


> History Channel = best channel on tv


This video you are about to see proves this statement:


----------



## FretWizard88 (Nov 7, 2010)

Did anybody see the episode about the cows that were surgically mutilated? I think they thought it was going to be some part of a genetic harvest or something.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 7, 2010)

I saw that, but I honestly don't have an opinion on the whole cow mutilation thing. Just doesn't add up for me.


----------



## eaeolian (Dec 6, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Actually, since there's a lot of evidence such as artifacts, writings, etc, and I mean a LOT, all of this discussion is indeed theoretical. Irrefutable fact right there.



There's a lot of "evidence" that's the subject of a lot of thin conjecture, especially if you're referencing "Chariots of the Gods", which I pretty much sorted out as bullshit when I was nine. Sorry, but El Ray has you nailed here, not that it matters to your argument - this is pure speculation without a shred of actual evidence that survives any sort of scrutiny. This is like "ghost believer" reasoning - "I see something on the film that looks vaguely human, so it's a dead person's spirit!"

Of course, the question I always wonder about in these discussions - if there were ancient aliens that took some sort of interest in humans, where the hell are they? Why leave? Budget cuts? Too much political pressure at home?

Seems much more likely that there's a very human explanation for all of this, but, hey, that's just my reality, right?


----------



## Kavnar (Dec 31, 2010)

I used to believe this stuff for a long time and was fascinated by books about aliens from the past, but I've come the realisation that just because there's not a scientific explanation out there yet doesn't give people the right to come to uninformed conclusions. Obviously we don't know everything and it's always going to be a possibility, but you can't just believe the most mysterious answer someone hands to you.


----------



## Demiurge (Jan 1, 2011)

Quick disclaimer: I love this kind of stuff, but for the most part I have to (if sadly) accept that it's just entertainment.

I think that you can judge the comprehensiveness of any area of study by how many crackpot theories manage to sneak in and gain some credibility. In other words, the degree in which something is deemed "unexplained" by academic authorities is in inverse proportion the amount of time needed to wait before someone suggests that aliens are responsible.

The "dawn of civilization" is one of those topics that gets people's engines revving because there is a legitimate air of mystery to it. What I see is that many times, there will be reference to when, say, Egyptian civilization started, but some of the artifacts or architecture from the supposed "start" seem to show either some sort of engineering or cultural sophistication and depth that seems like it would require hundreds or thousands of years additional to reach that point. How did we get so good at certain things so fast? Anthropologists seem to bristle at the idea of back-dating civilizations to "allow" them time to develop, so the alien theorists have plenty of room to play. 

What happens now? If we're not going to backdate, then there must have been a sort of technological or cultural watershed- but how? Well, this right here is where the speculation comes in, usually that humans had contact with a technologically-superior "other" that taught us a bunch of fancy stuff. To show for it, we have engineering marvels from people that we thought were still banging sticks rocks together a few generations ago and all these myths about gods that live in the sky. Oh, yes, the gods are really the aliens that gave us the technology- solved! It's a fascinating hypothesis, but it is kind of specious.

I think that recent history presents a good counter-example to alien-contact speculation. Look at the past 200 years- very much a technological and cultural watershed in a blink of time's eye. Only decades after the sci-fi-esque breakthrough of "washing my filthy hands before touching a patient is a good idea," surgeons were successfully transplanting organs. Decades after a calculator could fit in one's pocket, nanotechnology seems to be reachable frontier. Industrialization, transportation, communication, electricity, nuclear power, medicine- it's wild to think of how the world changed so much in so little time and perhaps it was the case in remote antiquity. Then again, someone may argue that this recent stuff is all the work of aliens, too.


----------



## Randy (Jan 1, 2011)

That dude with the hair is a fucking crackpot.


----------



## JamesM (Jan 1, 2011)




----------



## ittoa666 (Jan 3, 2011)

This show is food for thought, and it doesn't taste that bad.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 3, 2011)

Randy said:


> That dude with the hair is a fucking crackpot.



Actually, that dude is really smart. Check into his other work if you'd like... But yes, he's goofy as fuck.


----------



## Bobo (Jan 6, 2011)

I thought the stuff that goofy as fuck dude said about (I'm going to get owned by this spelling) Tiawanahku...or something...was very interesting. Another deal where the blocks were several tons...how did they move them? But that's nothing unusual I guess in our questions about ancient civilizations. 

What is neat is how the blocks were cut and the precision. They figure they had to cut that material (believe they said it was the 2nd hardest material to diamond) with diamond tipped tools. And the cuts were unbelievably precise. I'm not sure Marvin played a role in any of it, but at least it's food for thought that doesn't taste that bad.


----------



## ThePinealGland (Jan 6, 2011)

If you want to see some ancient aliens, get ahold of some DMT.


----------



## ittoa666 (Jan 7, 2011)

The dude with the weird hair says "ancient assnut" instead of "ancient astronaut". Listen for it next time you watch the show.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 7, 2011)

ThePinealGland said:


> If you want to see some ancient aliens, get ahold of some DMT.



While you may the only person to understand this response, you're just about spot on with that comment. That said, I stay away from DMT


----------



## ThePinealGland (Jan 7, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> While you may the only person to understand this response, you're just about spot on with that comment. That said, I stay away from DMT



lol I've never tried it, but I think I would some day if I had the opportunity.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 7, 2011)

Bobo said:


> I thought the stuff that goofy as fuck dude said about (I'm going to get owned by this spelling) Tiawanahku...or something...was very interesting. Another deal where the blocks were several tons...how did they move them? But that's nothing unusual I guess in our questions about ancient civilizations.
> 
> What is neat is how the blocks were cut and the precision. They figure they had to cut that material (believe they said it was the 2nd hardest material to diamond) with diamond tipped tools. And the cuts were unbelievably precise. I'm not sure Marvin played a role in any of it, but at least it's food for thought that doesn't taste that bad.



There was an amazing episode of the show "Nova" called "This Old Pyramid." It was a pretty straightforward, nuts-and-bolts demonstration of how local craftsman, without modern tools, could build a pyramid. Oddly enough, though, there weren't any extraterrestrials, just humans with primitive tools. 

Maybe those craftsmen should have been listening to the alien enthusiasts, so they would have realized it would be impossible to do with ancient techniques. *laugh*

There are other humorous cases where someone ignores evidence in order to speculate irresponsibly in other directions. One which used to arise quite a bit was the assertion that bumblebees are not aerodynamic enough to fly, but that God helps them out. *laugh* That got shot down when people started studying the facts, but some hardcore believers still roll that out on occasion, similar to the pyramid/astronaut stuff.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 7, 2011)

^ in case anyone gathered from that post that the construction method of the Great Pyramid has been established, it actually has not.


----------



## Cure for optimism (Jan 7, 2011)

Once these ancient aliens feel we are worthy enough they will come


----------



## ittoa666 (Jan 8, 2011)

Watching the show right now. Very cool to wonder "what if".


----------



## Explorer (Jan 8, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> ^ in case anyone gathered from that post that the construction method of the Great Pyramid has been established, it actually has not.



I'll happily concede that the method wasn't established with 100% accuracy. What *was* established, though, was that the pyramids could have been built with ancient tools and techniques by human beings.

So, the question becomes... can you concede that there is much more evidence for human construction of the pyramids, including an actual demonstration of the process, than there is for the "ancient astronaut" theory which you choose to champion? Or, if you think there has been any solid evidence for "ancient astronauts," I'd be interested in hearing it.

And, if you can't offer that solid evidence, and yet still concede the point... that's pretty telling.

----

I mentioned this in another thread, but it bears repeating: Most people who have worked in aerospace are extraterrestrial life enthusiasts, and go nuts whenever a reliable piece of evidence shows up. That's why the Mars meteor caused so much excitement, and why all the space missions have instruments and labs to detect such a possibility. 

However, those same people aren't going nuts over the "Ancient Astronauts" program for a simple reason: It's relying on fiction, and discarding facts in order to sell advertising to the credulous and ill-informed. 

----

If you want to support something for which there is much less proof, that's your choice, of course. It just calls into question the basis upon which you discard demonstrable facts in exchange for poorly supported sensationalism. 

As for me, my belief has worth, so I don't just spend it on something because it sounds cool.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 9, 2011)

First of all, I don't subscribe to an idea just because "it sounds cool", so get off of your high horse. Second of all, you're accusing me and others of something that you are very guilty of: that being believing something just because you saw it documented on TV or in writing. 

The only way I can retain any amount of respect for your comments on this board is by assuming that you do a quick google search before entering a debate, which isn't saying much because it leaves you as vulnerable as the most popular information surfacing in google. Somebody as condescending as you should know better than to rely on the information that suffices for the majority of casual readers. Regardless of whether or not that's your method, a slightly more than brief google search always reveals the holes in your arguments. That's enough of my personal attack.

Before I even comment on "This Old Pyramid", do you really think that the devoted researchers of modern science and archaeology would not see to it that everybody would know how the Great Pyramid was built if even vague construction methods were established? The fact that it is still known as one of the world's greatest mysteries means that no such thing has happened.

"This Old Pyramid" was a documentary that used fewer than 200 one or two ton blocks to build an 18 foot high pyramid. Only three or four of those blocks were moved using ancient methods, for the purpose of on camera demonstration, and the rest were moved into place using modern machinery. After scrutinization, the documentary was updated to point this important information out, thereby making it irrelevant even to a half-asleep viewer. Had you actually watched the "amazing" video, rather than simply reading about it briefly, you'd have caught the mentioning of these modern machines even in the original version of the documentary. I guess "amazing" means something different to somebody as prestigious and educated as yourself than it does to the truly scientifically inclined people of the world.

That's all fine, though, because even if they hadn't built the majority of that pyramid with machines, I would love to hear how you think 200 two ton stones placed into an 18 foot tall pyramid shape with less than perfect cuts teaches you anything about how around 600,000 two to forty ton blocks were placed into the shape of a 480 foot tall pyramid with surgical precision. Ridiculous.

Judging by your usual methods though, a response won't surface.


----------



## AcademiaNervosa (Jan 9, 2011)

synrgy said:


> I gotta disagree with you there. It used to be okay, but these days in the 'post-Monster-Quest' era, I can't take anything that comes from that channel seriously. Even that show 'the Universe' has a lot more theory than it does fact. Somewhere along the line, History went from being historical to being sensationalist, and I don't care for the sensationalist stuff.
> 
> Just my opinion, of course.
> 
> This isn't very much different from some other discussions we've had here. My best guess is still that yes, alien life most likely existed, exists, or will exist somewhere out there, but I also believe it's pretty highly unlikely that our paths have ever or will ever cross with theirs. I'll never say never, but I'm not holding my breath. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## AcademiaNervosa (Jan 9, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Before I even comment on "This Old Pyramid", do you really think that the devoted researchers of modern science and archaeology would not see to it that everybody would know how the Great Pyramid was built if even vague construction methods were established? The fact that it is still known as one of the world's greatest mysteries means that no such thing has happened.


That's a complete non-sequitur. You're confusing the _unexplained _with the _unexplainable_. To paraphrase you: "Because we don't currently know how something was done, it couldn't have been done." If you don't think that statement is ridiculous, I'll concede the futility of arguing with you.



> That's all fine, though, because even if they hadn't built the majority of that pyramid with machines, I would love to hear how you think 200 two ton stones placed into an 18 foot tall pyramid shape with less than perfect cuts teaches you anything about how around 600,000 two to forty ton blocks were placed into the shape of a 480 foot tall pyramid with surgical precision. Ridiculous.


The difference in scale doesn't matter, because the Egyptian workers would have outnumbered the television crew by several orders of magnitude (unless there were tens of thousands of workers on the show--maybe, I've never seen it). Do you have a source for this "surgical precision" claim?


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 9, 2011)

AcademiaNervosa said:


> That's a complete non-sequitur. You're confusing the _unexplained _with the _unexplainable_. To paraphrase you: "Because we don't currently know how something was done, it couldn't have been done." If you don't think that statement is ridiculous, I'll concede the futility of arguing with you.



Your paraphrase is wildly inaccurate. Im not saying that at all. You seem to misunderstand the context of my statement - the post I was responding to was implying that the mystery of the Great Pyramid has been solved, and I was pointing out that it is not. The method of construction is unexplained - of course it is explainable. It's there, so it was obviously constructed, even if the method is well beyond current understanding. I was saying that the devotees of science and archeology have not embraced a conclusion on how the Pyramid was constructed and that's all. You misread my statement.



AcademiaNervosa said:


> The difference in scale doesn't matter, because the Egyptian workers would have outnumbered the television crew by several orders of magnitude (unless there were tens of thousands of workers on the show--maybe, I've never seen it). Do you have a source for this "surgical precision" claim?



The scale absolutely does matter. I can move a one ton block with myself and a few other guys. I can not move a forty ton block with myself and 40 times the labor force - you may suggest that we use a long rope and line up along it and pull, but there simply is not a feasible way to get "enough hands in" to move the block into place when you're on top of a 450 foot structure with less and less space to maneuver as you ascend. It would be one thing if I could, but to be able to move that block so perfectly into position such that a dollar bill will not even fit between most of the blocks is an entirely different story. 

I'm a skeptic first and foremost, and I am not a moron - I've read into the subject extensively, and what I am saying is that no reasonable construction method has yet been suggested that will explain how the Great Pyramid got there.


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 9, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I'm a skeptic first and foremost, and I am not a moron - I've read into the subject extensively, and what I am saying is that no reasonable construction method has yet been suggested that will explain how the Great Pyramid got there.



He's right. There are ideas of how it was constructed. The problem is, while we can speculate on how the whole thing was built, when we zoom in from the big picture, multiple issues arise in the details. 

It's like a normal person talking about a skyscraper. I know they have scaffolding and such, and huge steel beams, so in a very general sense, I know how they're built, however so many little details are left unknown that I couldn't really do it. 

With all that said, there is the issue of time perspective to deal with. An ancient Egyptian would marvel at what we can build, and would more than likely have a supernatural explanation for it. Explain it to him, and the mystery is gone. He understands how it's done. I think much the same thing applies for the ancient engineering problems of the world.

Perhaps after the nuclear annihilation of most humans, in 5000+ years when we get back on our feet, the future Industrial-age civilizations will wonder how such primitive people were able to lay down cement rubble in a straight line for hundreds of miles? 

^That last example is stretching reality quite a bit, but I hope it serves to illustrate my point somewhat. For us, laying down highways is nothing special. If we lose that technology, that knowledge, and it's later found by another advanced society, it would be quite the enigma, right? They'd marvel that we could make something like that. 

What I find more fun is imagining if no knowledge was ever lost. Where would we be? IIRC the Egyptians were making simple batteries?


----------



## AcademiaNervosa (Jan 9, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Your paraphrase is wildly inaccurate. Im not saying that at all. You seem to misunderstand the context of my statement - the post I was responding to was implying that the mystery of the Great Pyramid has been solved, and I was pointing out that it is not.


Let's find out if I did. The beginning of the post that you were responding to says:


Explorer said:


> I'll happily concede that the method wasn't established with 100% accuracy. What *was* established, though, was that the pyramids could have been built with ancient tools and techniques by human beings.



He's saying that we don't know exactly how they were made, but we do know that it is possible to move rocks without cranes, and that the people who we know lived around the pyramids building those structures using tools that they would have had access to is a _lot _more likely than aliens doing it. 


> The method of construction is unexplained - of course it is explainable. It's there, so it was obviously constructed, even if the method is well beyond current understanding. I was saying that the devotees of science and archeology have not embraced a conclusion on how the Pyramid was constructed and that's all.


I meant "unexplainable" to mean "something that can never be explained."



> You misread my statement.


No, I didn't.


> The scale absolutely does matter. I can move a one ton block with myself and a few other guys. I can not move a forty ton block with myself and 40 times the labor force - you may suggest that we use a long rope and line up along it and pull, but there simply is not a feasible way to get "enough hands in" to move the block into place when you're on top of a 450 foot structure with less and less space to maneuver as you ascend. It would be one thing if I could, but to be able to move that block so perfectly into position such that a dollar bill will not even fit between most of the blocks is an entirely different story.


Seriously, who's misreading who? I didn't say that the workers needed to build something scales up and down proportionate to the size of the whatever they're building, I said they "would have outnumbered the television crew by several orders of magnitude." 

This is from a _Science Daily _article I found:
_"Teams of oxen or manpower were used to drag the stones on a prepared slipway that was lubricated with oil. Said Redford, a scene from a 19th century B.C. tomb in Middle Egypt depicts "an alabaster statue 20 feet high pulled by 173 men on four ropes with a man lubricating the slipway as the pulling went on."
Once the stones were at the construction site, ramps were built to get them into place on the pyramid, said Redford. These ramps were made of mud brick and coated with chips of plaster to harden the surface. "If they consistently raised the ramp course by course as the teams dragged their blocks up, they could have gotten them into place fairly easily," he noted. At least one such ramp still exists, he said."_

There were pyramids before the Great one. Looking at them you get a good insight into the inception and mastery of an art by one of the most fascinating cultures to ever exist. If the Pyramid of Khufu appeared with no precedent, you might have a point. But it didn't, and I'm sure you know this.

Again, do you have a source for these "surgical precision" claims you keep bringing up? 


> I'm a skeptic first and foremost, and I am not a moron - I've read into the subject extensively, and what I am saying is that no reasonable construction method has yet been suggested that will explain how the Great Pyramid got there.


How are space aliens a "reasonable construction method" that "explain(s) how the Great Pyramid go there"?



The Reverend said:


> What I find more fun is imagining if no knowledge was ever lost. Where would we be? IIRC the Egyptians were making simple batteries?


And the Romans had steam engines. It's a depressing thought.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 9, 2011)

AcademiaNervosa said:


> He's saying that we don't know exactly how they were made, but we do know that it is possible to move rocks without cranes, and that the people who we know lived around the pyramids building those structures using tools that they would have had access to is a _lot _more likely than aliens doing it.



And I was saying that no method of construction has actually been established, and I am absolutely correct, so if you think I'm saying anything else, you're misreading my messages. I have not said that I think aliens built the pyramids.



AcademiaNervosa said:


> I meant "unexplainable" to mean "something that can never be explained."



And I was agreeing with you, so you misread my message again. You had implied that I was claiming the pyramid's existence to be unexplainable and I said that you had misunderstood me, and that of course it was explainable.



AcademiaNervosa said:


> No, I didn't.



You sure did.



AcademiaNervosa said:


> Seriously, who's misreading who? I didn't say that the workers needed to build something scales up and down proportionate to the size of the whatever they're building, I said they "would have outnumbered the television crew by several orders of magnitude."
> 
> This is from a _Science Daily _article I found:
> _"Teams of oxen or manpower were used to drag the stones on a prepared slipway that was lubricated with oil. Said Redford, a scene from a 19th century B.C. tomb in Middle Egypt depicts "an alabaster statue 20 feet high pulled by 173 men on four ropes with a man lmubricating the slipway as the pulling went on."
> ...



The Great Pyramid is different than the others in many ways, and you can read a lot about that. Also, there is no proof that the Pyramid was built for Khufu. You can speculate all you want, but there is no proof that the Pyramid i a tomb. In fact, there's just about no evidence for that at all.



AcademiaNervosa said:


> Again, do you have a source for these "surgical precision" claims you keep bringing up?



Dude, this is common knowledge when considering the subject - just do some research. Its not a little known piece of information.



AcademiaNervosa said:


> How are space aliens a "reasonable construction method" that "explain(s) how the Great Pyramid go there"?



Ok... I didn't actually say that I thought "space aliens" built the pyramid. You can leave that one where it sits. You're literally making assumption after assumption here.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 9, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> First of all, I don't subscribe to an idea just because "it sounds cool", so get off of your high horse. Second of all, you're accusing me and others of something that you are very guilty of: that being believing something just because you saw it documented on TV or in writing.
> 
> The only way I can retain any amount of respect...
> 
> ...



First off, I can't help but find it humorous that you might think I'd be worried about your respect for me. You're defending the idea of ancient astronauts with not a shred of documented proof. (Look at my acceptance of the Mars bacterial fossil rock as genuine to see how low the burden of proof is... an actual piece of proof! *laugh* Falsified paperback bestsellers never make it onto the proof list, nor do television series which rely upon them.)

I'll give a response as to how surgical precision was achieved when surgical precision is proven. I suspect it is just a claim without evidence. Again, look at the Martian rock, and ask if anything you might point to could have the same weight. There are books by respected archeologists which would talk about such details.

Here's a funny little detail: I used to routinely visit a large ancient pyramid near where I grew up. (Look at my location, just below my avatar, in case you didn't know.) There wasn't "surgical" precision there, just typical stonework. 

There's been a few of us who have asked about that claimed precision. Since you obviously know it to be true, that idea must have come from somewhere. Hopefully there's a good source, not just something which has been constantly repeated in the hope it will become accepted as the truth....


----------



## lobee (Jan 9, 2011)

Pretty good read:

NOVA Online/Pyramids/Who Built the Pyramids?

Here's what they say about the precision of the stones:

"Well, it's different between the core stones which were set with great slop factor, and the casing stones which were custom cut and set, one to another, with so much accuracy that you can't get a knife blade in between the joints, so there's a difference there."


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 9, 2011)

Explorer said:


> First off, I can't help but find it humorous that you might think I'd be worried about your respect for me. You're defending the idea of ancient astronauts with not a shred of documented proof. (Look at my acceptance of the Mars bacterial fossil rock as genuine to see how low the burden of proof is... an actual piece of proof! *laugh* Falsified paperback bestsellers never make it onto the proof list, nor do television series which rely upon them.)
> 
> I'll give a response as to how surgical precision was achieved when surgical precision is proven. I suspect it is just a claim without evidence. Again, look at the Martian rock, and ask if anything you might point to could have the same weight. There are books by respected archeologists which would talk about such details.
> 
> ...



I don't actually rely on the ancient astronaut theory as fact, so you can give up on that. It's a theory - the reason its a theory is because the ancients left us WRITTEN accounts of how the "gods" came here and gave them knowledge. You can call it the result of primitive superstition, or you can believe it - either way, it doesn't make a single difference here.

The fact of the matter is that your end of the argument (the bit about "this old pyramid") was pretty much completely worthless, and it doesn't surprise me that you didn't address any part of my rebuttal other than the one part that isn't in any way essential to my argument (the bit about the "surgical precision"). My argument doesn't fall apart if the pyramid was not actually built with insane precision, so we can not worry about that too much. However, I've been mostly referring to the fact that the pyramid, along with the entire Giza plan, was built in perfect alignment with other bodies in the sky. It has also been observed that the dimensions of the pyramid, and its location, have amazing mathematical significance in ways that seem beyond genius. This is stuff you can read into, it's out there.


----------



## AcademiaNervosa (Jan 9, 2011)

> And I was agreeing with you, so you misread my message again. You had implied that I was claiming the pyramid's existence to be unexplainable and I said that you had misunderstood me, and that of course it was explainable.


I don't think this is clearly written:


> Before I even comment on "This Old Pyramid", do you really think that the devoted researchers of modern science and archaeology would not see to it that everybody would know how the Great Pyramid was built if even vague construction methods were established? The fact that it is still known as one of the world's greatest mysteries means that no such thing has happened.


What do you mean by "no such thing has happened"? I thought you were talking about the actual construction by the vague methods described by the archaeologists, but you're welcome to take more time to explain my error rather than just saying I'm wrong.



> Dude, this is common knowledge when considering the subject - just do some research. Its not a little known piece of information.


I have looked (at reliable sources) and found nothing that even remotely resembles what you've described.



Adam Of Angels said:


> Ok... I didn't actually say that I thought "space aliens" built the pyramid. You can leave that one where it sits. You're literally making assumption after assumption here.


You said:


Adam Of Angels said:


> Here's one question: what reason might the ancients have had for making formations, not unlike modern crop circles, that can only be seen from an aerial view? I can understand the argument that modern crop circles are hoaxes meant to be sensationalized after someone flies over them and sees them... But why would the ancients have done it?


That's a leading question. Do you or do you not believe that aliens building the pyramids is more likely than people?


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 9, 2011)

AcademiaNervosa said:


> What do you mean by "no such thing has happened"? I thought you were talking about the actual construction by the vague methods described by the archaeologists, but you're welcome to take more time to explain my error rather than just saying I'm wrong.



I did explain, though - By "no such thing has happened", I meant that the world of archaeology has not embraced any one theory concerning the Pyramid's construction. I did indeed state this correctly the first time, though I do apologize for the confusion.



AcademiaNervosa said:


> I have looked (at reliable sources) and found nothing that even remotely resembles what you've described.



Refer to my previous post. There's a lot out there and I was hoping I wouldn't have to post some of it here but its a good read so I guess it wont be terrible if I do.




AcademiaNervosa said:


> That's a leading question. Do you or do you not believe that aliens building the pyramids is more likely than people?



It's a good question! That particular question also has absolutely nothing to do with the pyramids. However, its a question that I'd like to have answered. Unlike you, I don't hate the idea that we've been visited by ET's in the past, but I won't believe it blindly. It's an interesting theory that explains a lot, granted that its used and understood correctly, but I don't exactly accept it as fact.

That said, I don't actually think it's more likely that humans or ET's built the Great Pyramid. The reason for that is that I think whoever built it had access to some method or technology that we don't currently possess, and that it's not important WHO built it. It could have been that humans had technology or some sort of understanding of physics that we've yet to grasp, and they used that knowledge to build the pyramid. 

I also feel that the ET's that may have visited us, or ones that still do visit, are humans. I've not been visited, personally, so it's just speculation, and irrelevant to this discussion. You wanted to know, though.


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 9, 2011)

I still stick to my "forgotten methods" idea. As far as the source of that knowledge, who knows? It may have been the result of some very creative engineers, or it may have been the result of more-intelligent beings giving us some pointers. 

I have to disagree with Adam on the part about written documentation being proof of advanced civilizations contacting us. Taking the parts about celestial beings seriously or as possible proof means that other parts of various mythos around the world must necessarily be taken at more than face value. 

Lastly, in an effort to end this debate, since I don't believe it was the intent of this thread: There is one basic law at the heart of scientific inquiry, and that is to be objective. While this doesn't mean one should entertain every possible speculation, it does mean that an idea, if based on even the tiniest modicum of evidence or some other legitimizing factor, should be thoroughly investigated before being announced false.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 9, 2011)

I didn't say that their writings were proof, I said that their writings are one of the main reasons for Ancient Alien Theories. That is also why agree with your last comment, there. Like I said before - I'm a skeptic, but I think it's lame to call any theory involving Extraterrestrial intelligence ridiculous. Its just lame. Society and hollywood have given most of us a small-minded concept of what intelligence with origins outside of Earth might be and so we're usually inclined to disregard any suggestion involving same.


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 10, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I didn't say that their writings were proof, I said that their writings are one of the main reasons for Ancient Alien Theories. That is also why agree with your last comment, there. Like I said before - I'm a skeptic, but I think it's lame to call any theory involving Extraterrestrial intelligence ridiculous. Its just lame. Society and hollywood have given most of us a small-minded concept of what intelligence with origins outside of Earth might be and so we're usually inclined to disregard any suggestion involving same.



I stand corrected, sir. Something I think even scientists overlook is that alien life, almost by definition, would most likely be something inconceivable to us, with motives that we can't really fathom. 

Also, our existence is the best proof for ET life. If it happened on Earth, under circumstances that can be reproduced/exist elsewhere, it must necessarily have happened somewhere else. Think of our planet as the control in an experiment.


----------



## ittoa666 (Jan 10, 2011)

Gotta love how threads devolve.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 10, 2011)

It didn't devolve, really. Just one or two guys thinking they're hotshots stepping in for a moment - no harm.


----------



## soliloquy (Jan 30, 2011)

i'm not sure if this is the same as discovery channel in canada plays a lot of different stuff that usually contradicts american discovery channels (i dont wanna open a debate here, so i'll just leave it at that!)

but on discovery canada a few days ago, they played a documentary named 'gods and aliens'. the main premiss behind the show was that the ancients were visited by aliens who wield powers of science. the links between gods such as Zeus and Poseidon are VERY similar to the characteristics of Odin and Thor, along with the gods of Indus valley, the summerians, the americas, the chinese and japanese people etc... so perhaps they all were talking about the same stuff...

along with the heaven-kissing-hill (mt. olumpus) was supposed to be the house of the gods, but on a few different reports, it is said that the top of mount olumpus saw explosions, then the gods castle flew towards the sky (like a modern space ship) ...

not only that, but human evolution seems to have been rushed in a VERY short amount of time. we were cave dwellers for thousands of years, but suddenly over night almost, our brains expanded three times, and within a short time, we went from making weapons to making art and the pyramids and stone henge and other stuff. the documentary was claiming that it could have been the work of the aliens as they genetically modified us...

they also went into the birth of jesus christ (being born to a virgin) being nothing really special considering now a days we have gotten rid of the need for sex to create a baby. we can just as easily take the sperm from man A, and an egg from woman B, and put that in woman C. we have replaced sex, so perhaps the ancients had that technology too....



is this the same concept?


----------



## Explorer (Jan 31, 2011)

If you're interested in the nuts and bolts of how humans began to build civilizations, here's a neat webpage:

The Neolithic Revolution and the Birth of Civilization

The main feature which allowed enough free time and resources for stratification and intellectual pursuits is unquestionably agriculture. The slow progression of humans to their modern form (in spite of anyone's insistence that it was almost overnight, the fossil record kind of undermines that hyperbole) is a matter of record. 

Cheers!


----------



## -42- (Feb 13, 2011)

This is the cue for Penn to jump up and yell at the top of his lungs "BULLSHIT!"


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Feb 14, 2011)

Wow. The whole pyramids thing? First of all, there is a clear evolution of earthen mastabas to stone mastabas to stacked mastabas (step pyramids) to smooth pyramids, so it's not like the Giza site and all the other pyramids came out of nowhere. And the mathematics involved in the construction of the Egyptian pyramids were not perfect at the outset; a number of pyramids exist that were off by a few degrees, and thus collapsed. There is even a pyramid that seems to have been re-thought during the course of its construction, because of its geometric imbalance.

Bent Pyramid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Meidum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is thought that the stone for the pyramids, quarried on the east bank of the Nile, was loaded onto sleds and water or some other lubricant was placed before the sled to scoot it along to the Nile, where it was barged over to Saqqara. The big mystery is what the ramps looked like to get the stones up the pyramid, but even then, we have ruins of ramps. (There are also some fantastically preserved ramps leftover from the construction of equally impressive Hindu temples in the southern part of India.)

How were the Pyramids built?

Also, if the process of moving blocks up the pyramids was something that was so improbable with ancient technology, why is it that Egyptians regularly recycled stone from the pyramids for other building projects, and the Romans also readily dismantled pyramids for stone? I suppose spacemen helped Rome out, as well.

Hawara - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for this precision thing and not being able to fit a dollar bill between two stones, take two 200-ton blocks of roughly square limestone, stack one on top of the other, and try to fit something between them.

The large labor force is explained by the agricultural patterns of dynastic Egypt: the Nile would flood, people would plant, people would harvest, then the thing flooded again. When the river banks are flooded, you can't do much work, so a steady salaried job at a state construction site keeps you busy until you can go back to farming.

Also, it seems kind of lame that all architecture in ancient Egypt is either degradable wood or gigantic stone blocks that have to be tailor-made for each application. The pharaoh Ahkenaten must have had this same thought, because he designed the city at the Tel-el-Amarna site out of modular bricks. Albeit, that didn't catch on, simply because of politics, but that just goes to show that the state style of art and architecture in Egypt heavily influenced the culture, and the culture made it possible to construct such large corporate projects as the pyramids and various necropolis temples through sheer human force.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Feb 20, 2011)

^ Thanks for your time, but it is almost never said that the construction methods of the pyramids are a mystery - only that the Great pyramid is a mysterious construct. It is indeed a mysterious construct.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (Feb 20, 2011)

+1 to SchecterWhore. Space Cadets seem to expect that the pyramids were in the same condition today structurally as they were thousands of years ago. Settling of the stones over time happen, squeezing them tighter together. As well as erosion of the stones from water, wind, heat, etc. All the bits of sand and eroded stone settling between them adhering to the stones. Also, Unknown does NOT equate to unknowable. Ooo, a mystery... we'll never figure THAT out! lol. 

Proponents of these ridiculous ideas can continue to baldly assert their misunderstandings of science and preach them to the gullible masses, who will continue to eat it up. Business as usual, here in human society. It's funny as you have to completely throw logic out the window, or at least compartmentalize (special pleading, anyone?) the fuck out of the ideas in order to believe this stuff. 

Countdown to backpedaling... roughly 6-12 months. They will change their stories when the date all this stuff is supposed to go down as it nears. Or they will just say we missed it. Yeah, a huge planet, swoooshing by our own and ALL of the accredited astronomers will miss it. 

These ideas deserve absolutely no respect or credibility until they can demonstrate that anything which they say is true. Oh, but Dave Icke & Friends are the anointed Prophets, that's right. The Aliens only come into contact with them. How convenient.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Feb 20, 2011)

Read the post immediately before yours. We know how the majority of the pyramids were built. We could replicate them. These things can not be said about the Great Pyramid. Of course the construction methods are knowable, but they are as yet unknown, which is remarkable in this day and age.

I don't subscribe to all of, many not even most of the ideas and theories presented on the Ancient Alien program, but not all of it is absurd. It's just as easy to disregard this stuff as bullshit as it is to blindly follow it - that's why this is a discussion.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (Feb 21, 2011)

Hahaha. I re-read this whole thread. Discussing topics like this is difficult. It's like trying to corner a greased pig. Why pin down some real info when its easier to ramble something nearly unintelligible, so one can move the goalpost later when questioned, right? Not to bully or pick anyone who think this stuff is in any way credible, but to get a straight-forward answer out of believers is extremely difficult.

What bits do you subscribe to, Adam? What compels you to believe some of this conjecture (no, it's not even close to a theory. Skipping peer-review and going straight to the publishing house is not part of the scientific method) and not other bits? Because that is all that it is; conjecture. What qualifies as reliable evidence to you?

(switcheroo!) What is about these ideas that you LIKE so much that compels you to defend them? See that I did there? I can present a non-argument as well! It's not at all that us non-believers hate this stuff. It's that there is NO FUCKING EVIDENCE to support the basic premises. You can't build a reliable house on a foundation of Jell-o. I think it would be awesome, personally, if there are aliens out there interested in us. But, they likely aren't out there (here and now, don't forget the dimension of time...). 

Saying that this information was sent to the ancients by 'gods' is not evidence at all. How would you go about proving this is accurate? What is more likely: that they made all this stuff up in attempt to explain what they didn't know (just like all the other ancients did...), or did aliens from another planet in our own solar system (possiblly two, wtf, lol) seed us and give us all of their knowledge in various texts spread across various languages. Is there another option that isn't just a variation of one of these two? I surely wouldn't say it was learned in a conventional sense, seeing as they had no firm methodology for discerning what's real and what isn't. They only had our (imperfect) 5 senses to go by. So, I wouldn't call that a false dichotomy.

Hmm, beings much more powerful and knowledgable than us (such as a god, or god-like being) would likely come up with a much better way to share information than chipping away at stone tablets, or shining bright lights in our faces. Tablets, books, anthropomorphic stories ...That is an awful lot like how people share information!

Occam's Razor, dude. 

On a side note, it's fucking hilarious how these 'theorists' interweave bits of judaism, christianity, eastern beliefs, and all the new age nonsense into these ideas. And yes, I do mock and ridicule these ideas sometimes. But, it is well deserved, IMO. When you ignore refutations, ignore actual evidence, all the while continuing to propagate your ideas dishonestly you have forfeited the privilege of respect and credulity. How much money is being made spreading these false claims all over pop culture? How many benefits do they reap taking advantage of others lack of understanding? The propagators are charlatans, or delusional. It's not much different than mainstream religion, which in a hundred years, it probably will be! Just repeat it enough and all of a sudden it becomes 'truth'. 

Then watch as all of those who believe argue over ancient texts which are nebulous, shapeless, and have to be interpreted to have any sort of 'meaning' extracted. Each group of course, having a different interpretation, splintering them into 500 different sects just like the other major belief systems. Sure, much of what I wrote in this paragraph is speculative. But, at least it is based on reliable historical records, much of it recent, much of it happening as this is being typed.

Another side note:

About the time thing, and alien visitors. You have to examine the large-scale while contemplating this. The universe is about 13.7 billion years old. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The Milky-Way galaxy is 100,000 light-years across. We are still a very young species. Using the earth and the Milky-Way as controls, let's assume that it would likely have taken another solar system a similar amount of time for intelligent life to evolve (or be seeded...oh, i keeed, I keeed...). The distance between galaxies is huge. Not to mention that the galaxies are all being "pulled apart" from each other because of the expansion of the universe, which is also accelerating faster and faster as their distance from the point of expansion increases. As far as we know, it is not possible to reach or break light-speed. It would take more energy than is contained within the universe to make a speck of dust reach the speed of light. There do no *seem* to be any planets in our celestial back-yard that are capable of harboring life, let alone evolve intelligent life. That suggests that aliens making it here would have had to transcend time and space. So in the case of time-scale, it is highly unlikely that anything has ever visited us in the past. That does not rule out the future, though. As time goes by it only becomes more and more likely that we will encounter life. It is less likely that we were visited as you go further back in time. But, hell, 6000 years isn't really that much time compared to the universe, so, maybe the point isn't that important. Oh yeah, then there are the proponents whom, when confronted with the fact that all life on the planet shares bits of DNA and claim that it's only a coincidence that we share DNA, that say that all life on earth evolved from these alien seeds. So, I guess we can go back about 1.5 billion years before us, when life started to emerge on our rock... Making their visitations even less likely. So, where would these aliens have come from? were they seeded as well? Were they sneezed out of god's nose into this petri dish we call the universe? Am I high right now? :/


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Feb 21, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> ^ Thanks for your time, but it is almost never said that the construction methods of the pyramids are a mystery - only that the Great pyramid is a mysterious construct. It is indeed a mysterious construct.



What about them is so mysterious, though? The shape and design has a clear history and evolution, and the purposes behind their construction are found in the knowledge we have of ancient Egyptian society. Yeah, they're big and it's impressive, but these are funerary structures built for rulers who were thought to be descended from gods in a religion that puts enormous emphasis on the afterlife. They were a scientific society, a fact embodied in their mathematics, architecture, attention to nature (there are some brilliantly accurate depictions of various animal and plant species in some murals), astronomy, and medical knowledge (extending to embalming, which, at its height, resulted in fantastic preservations). They were also a mystical society that believed that the world rose out of the ocean from a big rock (which was later carved into the form of the Great Sphinx, supposedly in the likeness of the pharaoh Khafre, or his father, Khufu - talk about ego; I think its previous form may have been pyramidal, as the pyramid is a symbol of Ra), that a giant dung beetle rolled the sun over the world each day, and watched the pharaoh poo. Get a highly, highly, highly organized and centralized society, fill it with an abundant population as well as the means for its sustenance for a few thousand years, head it with powerful politician-priests, then mix up some cooky religion with all of that, and you can bet they'll make some weird shit.

That seems to be a pattern in religious societies that command enough power - they build absurdly elaborate structures that have no pragmatic purpose. "Hey, what's that big building over there?" "It's a cathedral." "Cool. What sort of work do they do there?" "No work. It's God's house." "God? Who's that?" "A big dude who created everything." "Oh, wow. I'd like to meet him sometime." "Sorry, he's invisible and only acts in vague gestures that anyone could misconstrue as natural phenomena." "Well, I see some people walking in there. Is God having an open house?" "Oh, no, they're free to use the cathedral." "Oh, cool. So they use it for entertainment." "Nope. We wouldn't want them to disrespect God like that." "Do they eat there?" "Yes, but not enough to live on." "Well, do they study there?" "Nope. They go to sit down and listen to some guy talk about God and his son." "Are the seats at least comfy?" "What are you, Lutheran?"

All I'm saying is that I've never heard Zahi Hawass resort to supernatural explanations. Not that I necessarily agree with Zahi Hawass 100% of the time, but Egyptology is his biz.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Feb 21, 2011)

Cyanide_Anima said:


> Hahaha. I re-read this whole thread. Discussing topics like this is difficult. It's like trying to corner a greased pig. Why pin down some real info when its easier to ramble something nearly unintelligible, so one can move the goalpost later when questioned, right? Not to bully or pick anyone who think this stuff is in any way credible, but to get a straight-forward answer out of believers is extremely difficult.



Pick a question and ask it - you'll not find that issue here.



Cyanide_Anima said:


> What bits do you subscribe to, Adam? What compels you to believe some of this conjecture (no, it's not even close to a theory. Skipping peer-review and going straight to the publishing house is not part of the scientific method) and not other bits? Because that is all that it is; conjecture. What qualifies as reliable evidence to you?
> 
> (switcheroo!) What is about these ideas that you LIKE so much that compels you to defend them? See that I did there? I can present a non-argument as well! It's not at all that us non-believers hate this stuff. It's that there is NO FUCKING EVIDENCE to support the basic premises. You can't build a reliable house on a foundation of Jell-o. I think it would be awesome, personally, if there are aliens out there interested in us. But, they likely aren't out there (here and now, don't forget the dimension of time...).



I'll say it yet again: I am a skeptic and accept none of this as absolute fact. However, contrary to what you just said, a theory is postulated when a variety of facts and pieces of evidence can be strung together and a conclusion is drawn. When there are various drawings, written descriptions and peculiar arrangments of monoliths across the planet that imply some greater understanding of reality than we assumed was possible for the Ancients to have posessed, theories can be formulated. There is no conclusive evidence one way or another concerning this stuff, so I'm not sure why you're lead to believe that people are denying the facts here.

One of the most remarkable facts is that many of these monoliths or sacred sites are aligned geometrically across the planet - how did these ancient cultures synchronize such a feat across time and such great distance? It's not impossible, and it was obviously done, but according to what knowledge, and for what reason? I'm not implying that aliens from another planet provided the knowledge or means to do these things, but the theories are presented to explain how these things came into being, since it has NOT actually been explained.



Cyanide_Anima said:


> Saying that this information was sent to the ancients by 'gods' is not evidence at all. How would you go about proving this is accurate? What is more likely: that they made all this stuff up in attempt to explain what they didn't know (just like all the other ancients did...), or did aliens from another planet in our own solar system (possiblly two, wtf, lol) seed us and give us all of their knowledge in various texts spread across various languages. Is there another option that isn't just a variation of one of these two? I surely wouldn't say it was learned in a conventional sense, seeing as they had no firm methodology for discerning what's real and what isn't. They only had our (imperfect) 5 senses to go by. So, I wouldn't call that a false dichotomy.



The thing is, you're being hypocritical in that you have no proof that "all the other ancients" just made stuff up to explain what they didn't know. This is just arrogance at it's finest. You could be right, and I'm not ruling that out, but these were humans that were every bit as capable of thought as we are. You can assume all that you want, but those assumptions are not evidence nor fact - this is the same nonsense you're accusing me of in the very same breath. 

With that said, we know that several, if not most of these cultures found significance in everything that happened in their experience. They watched the skies, the animals, theirselves, etc very closely and interpreted the events to find meaning. These were not people who were out of touch with reality - in many ways, they carried on a far more intimate relationship with reality than any of us do today. Why would it then be assumed that they just made stuff up because it sounded good? It's far far more likely that their teachings and writings have been not only mistranslated, but misunderstood. What may seem ridiculous and cracked out to us may simply be a metaphor that we misinterpret. The possibilities are many, and this why theories are formulated - not because people refuse to accept any so called "evidence".



Cyanide_Anima said:


> Hmm, beings much more powerful and knowledgable than us (such as a god, or god-like being) would likely come up with a much better way to share information than chipping away at stone tablets, or shining bright lights in our faces. Tablets, books, anthropomorphic stories ...That is an awful lot like how people share information!



And you assume that what you're postulating did not possibly take place? I don't even know where this comment is coming from, since neither stone tablets nor bright lights are theoretically these beings' means of communication.




Cyanide_Anima said:


> On a side note, it's fucking hilarious how these 'theorists' interweave bits of judaism, christianity, eastern beliefs, and all the new age nonsense into these ideas. And yes, I do mock and ridicule these ideas sometimes. But, it is well deserved, IMO. When you ignore refutations, ignore actual evidence, all the while continuing to propagate your ideas dishonestly you have forfeited the privilege of respect and credulity. How much money is being made spreading these false claims all over pop culture? How many benefits do they reap taking advantage of others lack of understanding? The propagators are charlatans, or delusional. It's not much different than mainstream religion, which in a hundred years, it probably will be! Just repeat it enough and all of a sudden it becomes 'truth'.



Again, not all of those theories even make sense to begin with, but you've not been clear as to what evidence it is you're speaking of. If these people are denying evidence and solid refutation of their theories, then what are these answers you speak of?



Cyanide_Anima said:


> Then watch as all of those who believe argue over ancient texts which are nebulous, shapeless, and have to be interpreted to have any sort of 'meaning' extracted. Each group of course, having a different interpretation, splintering them into 500 different sects just like the other major belief systems. Sure, much of what I wrote in this paragraph is speculative. But, at least it is based on reliable historical records, much of it recent, much of it happening as this is being typed.



This is actually what I was saying earlier. There's no saying that what was written way back then was not an actual account of real events, or metaphorical descriptions of real events, or mistranslation after mistranslation after mistranslation etc. 



Cyanide_Anima said:


> Another side note:
> 
> About the time thing, and alien visitors. You have to examine the large-scale while contemplating this. The universe is about 13.7 billion years old. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The Milky-Way galaxy is 100,000 light-years across. We are still a very young species. Using the earth and the Milky-Way as controls, let's assume that it would likely have taken another solar system a similar amount of time for intelligent life to evolve (or be seeded...oh, i keeed, I keeed...). The distance between galaxies is huge. Not to mention that the galaxies are all being "pulled apart" from each other because of the expansion of the universe, which is also accelerating faster and faster as their distance from the point of expansion increases. As far as we know, it is not possible to reach or break light-speed. It would take more energy than is contained within the universe to make a speck of dust reach the speed of light. There do no *seem* to be any planets in our celestial back-yard that are capable of harboring life, let alone evolve intelligent life. That suggests that aliens making it here would have had to transcend time and space. So in the case of time-scale, it is highly unlikely that anything has ever visited us in the past. That does not rule out the future, though. As time goes by it only becomes more and more likely that we will encounter life. It is less likely that we were visited as you go further back in time. But, hell, 6000 years isn't really that much time compared to the universe, so, maybe the point isn't that important. Oh yeah, then there are the proponents whom, when confronted with the fact that all life on the planet shares bits of DNA and claim that it's only a coincidence that we share DNA, that say that all life on earth evolved from these alien seeds. So, I guess we can go back about 1.5 billion years before us, when life started to emerge on our rock... Making their visitations even less likely. So, where would these aliens have come from? were they seeded as well? Were they sneezed out of god's nose into this petri dish we call the universe? Am I high right now? :/



There are, in theory, other ways to travel vast distances. Everybody knows traveling at the speed of light is impossible. Even time travel is possible, in theory. Read up, you seem to be behind.

It is also impossible to age the Universe with current models, even though that's irrelevant to this discussion. He'll, the big bang theory is not even proven as fact, let alone any time-frame to explain the expansion of the universe in any sort of detail.

There are planets that could possibly harbor life in our backyard - this is news, and again, you're behind.

If we're just now fiddling with the idea of inter-stellar travel, and even anti-gravity, imagine that there are civilizations out there that have long since mastered these abilities - perhaps even billions of years ago. They would know and be much more than we could comprehend. They could have an understanding of life that we haven't even begun to fathom and could just as well have very good reasons for visiting or reaching out to other civilizations. This is logical speculation, but its also why I opened these subjects up for discussion. It is my understanding that we (humans) are nature observing itself. We know that nature has successfully evolved to a point where it can be self-aware. Imagine a much more evolved extension of nature - imagine an extension of nature who's awareness is of such vastness that it strives to ensure the evolution of lesser forms of life from all over the galaxies.

If you see humanity as a fluke; a random mutation, then you're not likely to open up to such a concept. If you study the brain, you'll see that we react to ideas, beliefs and concepts that differ from our own in the same way that we would react to something that threatens us. The brain detects no distinction, because what we believe dictates how we exist. So again, you may not consider that there is more to existence/consciousness than chaos and random mutation, but take note of the vast complexity of any given system in nature - notice the myriad of patterns - and take note of how it all works. It works perfectly, because there are patterns upon patterns at all levels. I don't subscribe to religious belief or the notion of a divine plan, per se, but there is definitely a vast complexity before us and it's no wonder that the ancients sought significance in everything.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Feb 21, 2011)

SchecterWhore: once again, and read it this time: the pyramids are explainable and we know how most of them were built. However, it is The Great Pyramid at Giza that we have not explained. It can not be explained in the same ways as the rest of them can. 

Also of importance is that some pyramids were used as tombs, but the popular use was not seemingly as tombs. There are pyramids world wide, and most of them were not used as tombs. There is also no evidence that the Great Pyramid ever served as a tomb. I mean to stress this point.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Feb 21, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> SchecterWhore: once again, and read it this time: the pyramids are explainable and we know how most of them were built. However, it is The Great Pyramid at Giza that we have not explained. It can not be explained in the same ways as the rest of them can.
> 
> Also of importance is that some pyramids were used as tombs, but the popular use was not seemingly as tombs. There are pyramids world wide, and most of them were not used as tombs. There is also no evidence that the Great Pyramid ever served as a tomb. I mean to stress this point.



What the fuck are you talking about? 
Tell me, how is the Great Pyramid different from the rest of Egypt's funerary pyramids, other than size? It was built in the necropolis, had a dedicated complex around it with funerary mastabas, and a couple of other dudes thought it would be cool to have their funerary pyramids built next to it. It's a tomb, dude.

I'm also aware that not all pyramids of the world were not used as tombs. I personally think it would support the "aliens made 'em" hypothesis more if there was some homogeneity in the function of pyramids, but whatever. The fact that there is similarity in form between pyramids of different cultures (insomuch as that they are pyramidal) does not surprise me - it's a pretty basic geometric form, and it's an easy way to build tall stuff without special materials. Ever wonder why there are no skyscrapers built completely of brick and mortar? It's the same reason you don't see tall, rectangular structures in ancient civilizations: they'd fall over.

And, yes, we're not sure of what the construction method was for the Cheops/Khufu pyramid, but we're hardly dealing with perfect information with any of this stuff, because the thing is so old and a lot of records are lost or incomplete. However, like I said, when you mix fervent religion into a strict monarchy with a god as a leader, people accomplish some pretty outstanding tasks.


----------



## Celiak (Feb 21, 2011)

My problem is that there is no physical evidence of the aliens. I know if they are that advanced they could probably get rid of it. However, why would they come and have such a profound effect on our history only to get rid of all physical evidence of them being here?

Personally what it would take for me to accept a lot of this would be a skeleton or some remains from an alien visitor.



For whatever reason this was built, that is really cool.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (Feb 21, 2011)

Ok. One at a time.

-"However, contrary to what you just said, a theory is postulated when a variety of facts and pieces of evidence can be strung together and a conclusion is drawn."

That is called a hypothesis. It can only earn the badge of theory when it is tested over and over by many different scientists not only testing their hypothesis, but the methodology as well. How does that prove that peer review isn't needed? When we become emotionally invested in our work, its integrity becomes compromised. Look at many great minds who've fallen because their ego disliked their 'theories' being put under the microscope. Tesla is a good example.

-"When there are various drawings, written descriptions and peculiar arrangments of monoliths across the planet that imply some greater understanding of reality than we assumed was possible for the Ancients to have posessed, theories can be formulated. There is no conclusive evidence one way or another concerning this stuff, so I'm not sure why you're lead to believe that people are denying the facts here."

Again, that would be called speculation, or maybe a hypothesis. Just assuming they didn't understand something doesn't equate to some outside source. There is no evidence of the things they drew which we interpret as aliens, or spacecraft ever existed. It is more likely the objects were characterized or exaggerated in appearance. As they often did. Humans with Raven heads, for example, or the sun with nice wavy lines everywhere, chariots riding across the sky, etc. Way back in the day all we knew was us, so we attached an identity to almost everything. There is also a lot of pareidolia going on. We see things in terms of what we know and our brains interpret it accordingly. Kermit on mars or the face on mars, for example. 

The accuracy of the Egyptians was great, yes, but it is exaggerated to its extent. 

BBC News | SCI/TECH | Pyramids lined up with the stars

So they built all that to be accurate, only to lose it's accuracy so soon. Quite possibly before it was even finished. Just noting how accurate something was built, or that corridors and passageways are aligned with stars, doesn't imply an outside influence at all. There really doesn't appear that anything foreign is going on here, neither is it some sort of 'sign'. The whole giza flat isn't aligned to one specific time either, the alignments of the objects are spanned across thousands of years.

-"The thing is, you're being hypocritical in that you have no proof that "all the other ancients" just made stuff up to explain what they didn't know. This is just arrogance at it's finest. You could be right, and I'm not ruling that out, but these were humans that were every bit as capable of thought as we are. You can assume all that you want, but those assumptions are not evidence nor fact - this is the same nonsense you're accusing me of in the very same breath. "

You've misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that the concept of ancient astronauts was made up, no the knowledge of the ancients. Though, the ancients did make up quite elaborate stories to go along with their astronomical observations. Capable of every bit of thought as we are today? LULZ. No, this simply isn't true. They didn't understand a fraction of what we know today. They had some science, yes, but the ancients were ruled in most part by their own superstition. Arrogance at it's finest? C'mon, man. Ad-hom's do not qualify as an argument. And honestly, you just walk past most arguments presented to you and present something which only marginally relates (if that) to what you're supposed to be rebutting against. That last bit doesn't even make sense. I don't think you understood what I was saying.

-"With that said, we know that several, if not most of these cultures found significance in everything that happened in their experience. They watched the skies, the animals, theirselves, etc very closely and interpreted the events to find meaning. These were not people who were out of touch with reality - in many ways, they carried on a far more intimate relationship with reality than any of us do today. Why would it then be assumed that they just made stuff up because it sounded good? It's far far more likely that their teachings and writings have been not only mistranslated, but misunderstood. What may seem ridiculous and cracked out to us may simply be a metaphor that we misinterpret. The possibilities are many, and this why theories are formulated - not because people refuse to accept any so called "evidence"."

Interpret is the key word here. We are pattern seeking animals, if we want to find meaning in something, we will find it. There are people who find meaning in video games. Video. Games. I'm pretty sure that we understand most of the Egyptian, Hebrew, Sanskrit, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and other ancient languages pretty well. We have things, like the rosetta stone! We have reliable methods for translating many ancient languages. To say that we have lost the true meaning of what is in the ancient writings could be true yes, because we were not there. Much of the culture is lost, so some of their colloquialisms and certain subtleties are lost because they weren't documented, or were simply not preservable. So, we fill in the gaps with our prospective, which is 'useless'. Nice scare quotes! You still don't describe your 'interpretation' of evidence. :/

-"And you assume that what you're postulating did not possibly take place? I don't even know where this comment is coming from, since neither stone tablets nor bright lights are theoretically these beings' means of communication. Again, not all of those theories even make sense to begin with, but you've not been clear as to what evidence it is you're speaking of. If these people are denying evidence and solid refutation of their theories, then what are these answers you speak of?"

Reductio Ad Absurdum. When talking about aliens giving us tablets and communicating with lights, I was being deliberately absurd to prove a point. These are absolutely absurd claims, and require an extraordinary amount of evidence to support, again, of which there isn't any. "We don't know this..." or "I feel..." or "We don't know why they..." doesn't mean one can plug in whatever explanation they feel comfortable with. You have said that most of these 'theories' do not make sense, yet you continue to backpedal and defend it. When I talk about evidence, in the case of those who promote the idea of ancient astronauts have no evidence. It is not up to me to prove them wrong, it is up to them to provide evidence to support it. It sure is fun poking holes though! And the super defensive reactions are almost evidence that they do not wish for their ideas to be looked at further, they want them to be just accepted. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Hitchens is the man, lol.

-"There are, in theory, other ways to travel vast distances. Everybody knows traveling at the speed of light is impossible. Even time travel is possible, in theory. Read up, you seem to be behind."

Yes, we have ion drives currently in use. But they are very slow to start. Good thing they can slowly accelerate most of the way toward their destination. These are the fruits of science, and so-called 'only theories'. If the fundamentals of physics as we know were wrong, most of the things we take for granted today would not work. No GPS. No atomic clock. No visits to mars. No video games. No Djent. We'd be in the stone age, worshipping the sun and... wait a sec... hehe. 

-"It is also impossible to age the Universe with current models, even though that's irrelevant to this discussion. He'll, the big bang theory is not even proven as fact, let alone any time-frame to explain the expansion of the universe in any sort of detail."

Really, impossible? Says Who? Where do you get this information. We have good methods for figuring this stuff out. The methods get more refined and more accurate (thanks to that thing called Peer Review I was talking about...) and that number of 13.7b gets more decimal places ever year.

-"There are planets that could possibly harbor life in our backyard - this is news, and again, you're behind."

If I'm not mistaken the objects which we have recently found which appear to possibly harbor life is speculation. There isn't solid data on this yet. The press loves to jump to interesting conclusions on things like this, unfortunately.

-"If we're just now fiddling with the idea of inter-stellar travel, and even anti-gravity, imagine that there are civilizations out there that have long since mastered these abilities - perhaps even billions of years ago. They would know and be much more than we could comprehend. They could have an understanding of life that we haven't even begun to fathom and could just as well have very good reasons for visiting or reaching out to other civilizations. This is logical speculation, but its also why I opened these subjects up for discussion. It is my understanding that we (humans) are nature observing itself. We know that nature has successfully evolved to a point where it can be self-aware."

Logical speculation? What an oxy-moron. Yes, we are nature observing itself, as Carl Sagan put it. Physical components of the universe arranged in such a way to create complex chemical bonds from the bottom up (not top down...). Nature being self aware? As in nature or the universe having a conscience of its own? Quite a 'theory'.

-"Imagine a much more evolved extension of nature - imagine an extension of nature who's awareness is of such vastness that it strives to ensure the evolution of lesser forms of life from all over the galaxies."

That is the most interesting statement you've posted in this thread. Almost Sagan-esque. But imagining things does not make them true. That is a projective statement, but interesting none-the-less. Why would one form of life want to ensure the existence of other forms of life if it didn't directly benefit them? Look at life here on earth, it's every beast for himself. The more advanced societies eat the lesser ones. Hawking would suggest that aliens would be more likely to want our resources and take them because of their scarcity in the universe. You could call that projective I suppose, but at least it has a foundation of which we can draw data from

-"If you see humanity as a fluke; a random mutation, then you're not likely to open up to such a concept. If you study the brain, you'll see that we react to ideas, beliefs and concepts that differ from our own in the same way that we would react to something that threatens us. The brain detects no distinction, because what we believe dictates how we exist. So again, you may not consider that there is more to existence/consciousness than chaos and random mutation, but take note of the vast complexity of any given system in nature - notice the myriad of patterns - and take note of how it all works. It works perfectly, because there are patterns upon patterns at all levels. I don't subscribe to religious belief or the notion of a divine plan, per se, but there is definitely a vast complexity before us and it's no wonder that the ancients sought significance in everything."

Yes we do react to things we do not believe! We tend to protect ideas which we already possess, and reject outside information. And those who already live in the clouds, or have superstitious, supernatural, or extraordinary beliefs are more prone to believing other things of that nature as well. The whole "open-minded" argument is a complete non-sequitur and a form of ad-hominem, though you might not be aware of that. Being gullible is a virtue in our society. "If open of your mind too much, your brain will fall out" - Tim Minchin. Scientists have standards for evidence, if one cannot meet these standards one cannot call what they are doing science. It really is that simple!

There is nothing that suggests we are anything more than a coincidence. Other life in the universe would likely be the same. Saying that everything works perfectly is not true. The universe is pretty chaotic. The universe is actively trying to kill us. Cosmic radiation, solar flares, astroids, meteors, volcanos, earthquakes, floods, interplanetary collisions (...), heat death, gamma rays, microwaves, micro-meteoroids, pulsars, black wholes, quasars, wandering black holes, comets, dying stars, supernova, solar mass ejection, I could go on. The universe is not a happy place well-suited for life. There are very small pockets spread over the universe that even have a chance at single-celled life.

Again, look for a pattern in just about anything, and we'll find it. Numerology is a prime example of that. I could point out many fallacies in other places here, but you and others might accuse me of fallacy hunting. I can't believe I responded to some of these arguments, many are quite poor, or repetitious fallacies made over and over.

It is irresponsible of the History Channel to credulously air these programs without appropriate scrutiny. They are slowly becoming the "Fox News" of history.


----------



## Kavnar (Feb 21, 2011)

There's no way this thread's still active.


----------



## gunshow86de (Feb 21, 2011)

^

The ancient aliens are keeping it alive.


----------



## Spondus (Feb 21, 2011)

Cyanide_Anima said:


> Large block of agreeable text



While you are in the right, I'd give up if I were you. Adam once ceaselessly 
tried to tell me that there was no oxygen in the DNA of anaerobic microbes.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Feb 21, 2011)

Spondus said:


> While you are in the right, I'd give up if I were you. Adam once ceaselessly
> tried to tell me that there was no oxygen in the DNA of anaerobic microbes.



Completely inaccurate statement, that's not at all what i had argued n that debate.

As for the large wall of text, I just haven't responded yet - dude missed almost all of my points


----------



## Spondus (Feb 21, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Completely inaccurate statement, that's not at all what i had argued n that debate.
> 
> As for the large wall of text, I just haven't responded yet - dude missed almost all of my points





Spondus said:


> Read and understood. The earliset forms of life known on Earth existed in similar conditions at hydrothermal vents, they though like these organisms still contain oxygen.






Adam Of Angels said:


> You're clearly not reading it. The article clearly states, multiple times, that these organisms exist without oxygen. Plain and simple.



While that's an interesting interpretation of the discussion, I have better things to do than argue with you again.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Feb 21, 2011)

Spondus said:


> While that's an interesting interpretation of the discussion, I have better things to do than argue with you again.




The article explained that the organisms lived where oxygen is not present, and that is exactly what I was presenting. That's an old discussion, so there's no reason to go back to it.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Feb 21, 2011)

Cyanide_Anima said:


> That is called a hypothesis. It can only earn the badge of theory when it is tested over and over by many different scientists not only testing their hypothesis, but the methodology as well. How does that prove that peer review isn't needed? When we become emotionally invested in our work, its integrity becomes compromised. Look at many great minds who've fallen because their ego disliked their 'theories' being put under the microscope. Tesla is a good example.



Theory = a speculative or conjectural view or idea..



Cyanide_Anima said:


> Again, that would be called speculation, or maybe a hypothesis. Just assuming they didn't understand something doesn't equate to some outside source.



Ok, you're literally accusing me of avoiding your arguments, when in fact you're either misinterpreting or just plain not reading my comments. I never said that they didn't understand something and therefore required some outside source - I'm saying that we can not explain how the ancients understood what they did. This is what drives me to theorize, and I've stated that I have not drawn a conclusion as to what it is that actually happened. You are the one taking a more or less concrete position here, not me...



Cyanide_Anima said:


> There is no evidence of the things they drew which we interpret as aliens, or spacecraft ever existed.



In all seriousness - if there really were alien space craft present, why would there be evidence of them now? Just because there is not physical evidence of a space craft, doesn't mean they couldn't have been here. It doesn't mean that they were there either, but I can't even think of a reason why there would be evidence left behind..

To take it even further into the fringe, who's to say that if there was physical evidence, it wasn't confiscated and kept under wraps? This is purely speculation, of course, but there's nothing wrong with speculation. I have family members in Kecksburg Pennsylvania (my hometown backyard) who saw military trucks driving off with an acorn shaped object under a tarp on a flat bed not long after the famous crash, and before that, my uncle was told by weapon-bearing soldiers that he should run home when he was trying to investigate the crash site. Call those people crazy, but they never took an interest in such matters beforehand. Who knows what actually crashed there, but there is nothing wrong with making logical assumptions.



Cyanide_Anima said:


> It is more likely the objects were characterized or exaggerated in appearance. As they often did. Humans with Raven heads, for example, or the sun with nice wavy lines everywhere, chariots riding across the sky, etc. Way back in the day all we knew was us, so we attached an identity to almost everything. There is also a lot of pareidolia going on. We see things in terms of what we know and our brains interpret it accordingly. Kermit on mars or the face on mars, for example.



...and you're saying that this same concept does not apply when considering that these drawings and such were possibly descriptions of UFO's or alien visitors?.

Again, I don't have the proof, but ruling it out completely is just as ignorant as accepting it as truth without proof.




Cyanide_Anima said:


> You've misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that the concept of ancient astronauts was made up, no the knowledge of the ancients.



Understood



Cyanide_Anima said:


> Capable of every bit of thought as we are today? LULZ. No, this simply isn't true. They didn't understand a fraction of what we know today.



You're once again interpreting my comment the way you want to interpret it. The ancients were as cognitively developed as we are. Fully modern humans. They did not possess the knowledge that we do, but they were capable of the same level of understanding. "Capable" is different than "equipped with"..



Cyanide_Anima said:


> Arrogance at it's finest? C'mon, man. Ad-hom's do not qualify as an argument. And honestly, you just walk past most arguments presented to you and present something which only marginally relates (if that) to what you're supposed to be rebutting against. That last bit doesn't even make sense. I don't think you understood what I was saying.




I've done no such thing - this is completely inaccurate. Just because you're not understanding my points doesn't mean I'm ignoring your rebuttal or spouting nonsense. I said that you were being arrogant because you firmly implied (twice now) that Ancient humans were cognitively inferior to present day humans.



Cyanide_Anima said:


> Interpret is the key word here. We are pattern seeking animals, if we want to find meaning in something, we will find it. There are people who find meaning in video games. Video. Games. I'm pretty sure that we understand most of the Egyptian, Hebrew, Sanskrit, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and other ancient languages pretty well. We have things, like the rosetta stone! We have reliable methods for translating many ancient languages. To say that we have lost the true meaning of what is in the ancient writings could be true yes, because we were not there. Much of the culture is lost, so some of their colloquialisms and certain subtleties are lost because they weren't documented, or were simply not preservable. So, we fill in the gaps with our prospective, which is 'useless'. Nice scare quotes! You still don't describe your 'interpretation' of evidence.:/



There is no disagreement here, though it sure seem likes you feel that there is.

About the scare tactics bit: exactly what the fuck are you even talking about? 



Cyanide_Anima said:


> Reductio Ad Absurdum. When talking about aliens giving us tablets and communicating with lights, I was being deliberately absurd to prove a point. These are absolutely absurd claims, and require an extraordinary amount of evidence to support, again, of which there isn't any. "We don't know this..." or "I feel..." or "We don't know why they..." doesn't mean one can plug in whatever explanation they feel comfortable with.



No, it does not, but it does mean that somebody can do a lot of research, gather together what we do know as fact, contemplate the as-yet-unexplained bits, and formulate a theory. If we never resorted to this method, nothing would ever get accomplished. Its not like I ignore the scientific method or something..



Cyanide_Anima said:


> You have said that most of these 'theories' do not make sense, yet you continue to backpedal and defend it.



Specifically, which theories are you talking about here? Im defending the possibility of there having been ancient alien visitors, but in no way accepting it. At the same time, I'm saying that most of the theories take the concept too far when there's simply no reason to do so..

For example, one guy on that Ancient Aliens program suggested what he thought happened to Atlantis. Plato's writings mentioned that Atlantis was destroyed in one night with a lot of fire and smoke. This genius took that story and drew the conclusion that Atlantis was a giant space ship and that it took off into the sky. Assuming Atlantis was real, and that Plato was right, wouldn't it make much more sense to figure that a massive volcanic explosion destroyed Atlantis? This is just an example, as I honestly have no desire to narrate every single theory presented on that show..



Cyanide_Anima said:


> When I talk about evidence, in the case of those who promote the idea of ancient astronauts have no evidence. It is not up to me to prove them wrong, it is up to them to provide evidence to support it.



Their evidence is the various writings that literally tell of beings that came from the stars, ancient religious belief that relied on such events being true, and drawings depicting same, along with the plethora of mysterious artifacts that we've unearthed. How the evidence is interpreted is all a matter of theory: concluding that the ancients were superstitious crackpots is one theory. Concluding that a corrupt power structure used these belief systems to manipulate the ancient people is another theory. Concluding that alien beings really did visit the ancients is another theory. None of these theories are impossible, and saying that the simplest explanation is THE explanation is plain irresponsible. No harm is done in speculating. ..



Cyanide_Anima said:


> It sure is fun poking holes though! And the super defensive reactions are almost evidence that they do not wish for their ideas to be looked at further, they want them to be just accepted. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Hitchens is the man, lol.



As long as you're having fun. You are for some reason assuming that each and every ancient alien theorist takes a super defensive stance when their ideas are questioned and that they don't want further investigation to be conducted. Get real, man. Several of these people are life long researchers that have adopted beliefs of their own - you don't dedicate your life to research if you don't want to find something that changes your understanding of your particular field's subject matter.



Cyanide_Anima said:


> Yes, we have ion drives currently in use. But they are very slow to start. Good thing they can slowly accelerate most of the way toward their destination. These are the fruits of science, and so-called 'only theories'. If the fundamentals of physics as we know were wrong, most of the things we take for granted today would not work. No GPS. No atomic clock. No visits to mars. No video games. No Djent. We'd be in the stone age, worshipping the sun and... wait a sec... hehe.



No disagreement here. Although, the sun is first and foremost chiefly responsible for life here on Earth and if something should be honored and highly revered as sacred (the definition of "worship"), I would think the sun would be a good candidate..



Cyanide_Anima said:


> Really, impossible? Says Who? Where do you get this information. We have good methods for figuring this stuff out. The methods get more refined and more accurate (thanks to that thing called Peer Review I was talking about...) and that number of 13.7b gets more decimal places ever year.



It is beyond our understanding how the Universe came into existence - the big bang theory is fine, except that it doesn't explain what existed before such an event. This is common sense, and it's a common knowledge issue amongst those that are interested. Without knowing the point of origin, we can not know the true age of the Universe. That is, "Universe" meaning the whole of existence. I suspect that it has always been existent, even though our minds are completely incapable of fathoming how thats possible.



Cyanide_Anima said:


> If I'm not mistaken the objects which we have recently found which appear to possibly harbor life is speculation. There isn't solid data on this yet. The press loves to jump to interesting conclusions on things like this, unfortunately.



Yes, these planets appear to possibly be able to harbor life. The thing is, we keep finding more and more of them, which increases the likelihood significantly. My prediction is that it will one day be common knowledge that life is simply what the Universe "does".



Cyanide_Anima said:


> Logical speculation? What an oxy-moron.



Don't be silly - it's not an oxy-moron. If you did not use logic to speculate, you would just be babbling gibberish.



Cyanide_Anima said:


> Yes, we are nature observing itself, as Carl Sagan put it. Physical components of the universe arranged in such a way to create complex chemical bonds from the bottom up (not top down...).



I believe that it can not be one without the other, rather than one or the other. Meaning, it is both from the bottom up and from the top down. This is a whole other debate, though - one that can get quite deep, so long as ignorance isn't involved.



Cyanide_Anima said:


> Nature being self aware? As in nature or the universe having a conscience of its own? Quite a 'theory'.



We are self-aware, and it can not be refuted that we are part of the universe/nature.



Cyanide_Anima said:


> That is the most interesting statement you've posted in this thread. Almost Sagan-esque. But imagining things does not make them true. That is a projective statement, but interesting none-the-less.



Thank you. If we don't first imagine/contemplate something, it can not be fathomed.



Cyanide_Anima said:


> Why would one form of life want to ensure the existence of other forms of life if it didn't directly benefit them?



This is why I asked you to imagine a much more evolved form of self-awareness. I thought that maybe you would then see my rationalization for this particular idea. At our current level of evolution, we realize that we must tend to our environment or else life as we know it may be threatened. I see this as nature ensuring it's future development to eventually gain further awareness. At the very least, it is nature ensuring that it will be sustained, and our theories of evolution have it that evolution will continue so long as we are sustained..

Logically, or at least to me, I figure that a much more evolved intelligent being would have a much more evolved understanding of what it means to "tend to their environment to ensure future development", along with a much more advanced ability to do so. It would be difficult to postulate exactly what this entails, since I'm only human, but again, it's just a theory. I see no reason as to why this would not be the case, but I don't have tangible evidence sitting in front of me to lead me to believe that it is undeniably true. With that said, there is simply no need or reason to tell me that I can not make this speculation, and there is no harm in taking part in discussion of same.



Cyanide_Anima said:


> Look at life here on earth, it's every beast for himself. The more advanced societies eat the lesser ones.



This may describe you, but it certainly does not describe everybody, and it does not describe me. This most accurately describes the animal kingdom.



Cyanide_Anima said:


> Hawking would suggest that aliens would be more likely to want our resources and take them because of their scarcity in the universe. You could call that projective I suppose, but at least it has a foundation of which we can draw data from


.

I simply disagree with Hawking in this regard. There is no reason to assume that a much more evolved race would be like our animal kingdom..



Cyanide_Anima said:


> Yes we do react to things we do not believe! We tend to protect ideas which we already possess, and reject outside information. And those who already live in the clouds, or have superstitious, supernatural, or extraordinary beliefs are more prone to believing other things of that nature as well. The whole "open-minded" argument is a complete non-sequitur and a form of ad-hominem, though you might not be aware of that. Being gullible is a virtue in our society. "If open of your mind too much, your brain will fall out" - Tim Minchin. Scientists have standards for evidence, if one cannot meet these standards one cannot call what they are doing science. It really is that simple!



We agree here as well.



Cyanide_Anima said:


> There is nothing that suggests we are anything more than a coincidence. Other life in the universe would likely be the same.



Dude.. Everything suggests that we are not a mere coincidence. If you interpret the perfect circumstances that lead to our existence as coincidental, then you're ignoring the perfect circumstances that lead to our existence! I know that there really is no point in having this discussion, but what would it take for you to believe that our existence is not a coincidence?.



Cyanide_Anima said:


> Saying that everything works perfectly is not true. The universe is pretty chaotic. The universe is actively trying to kill us. Cosmic radiation, solar flares, astroids, meteors, volcanos, earthquakes, floods, interplanetary collisions (...), heat death, gamma rays, microwaves, micro-meteoroids, pulsars, black wholes, quasars, wandering black holes, comets, dying stars, supernova, solar mass ejection, I could go on. The universe is not a happy place well-suited for life. There are very small pockets spread over the universe that even have a chance at single-celled life.



..and yet here we are.



Cyanide_Anima said:


> Again, look for a pattern in just about anything, and we'll find it. Numerology is a prime example of that. I could point out many fallacies in other places here, but you and others might accuse me of fallacy hunting. I can't believe I responded to some of these arguments, many are quite poor, or repetitious fallacies made over and over.



I've not insulted you, but I now realize that I can't expect the same in return.


----------



## eaeolian (Feb 21, 2011)

OK, Adam, this horse is dead.


----------

