If you had a time machine and could take him back to witness this stuff personally, he would argue that your time machine does not work properly.
For one thing the matter composing the universe is in the condition and positions that it's in NOW so in order for your time travel fantasy to be as you imagine it, your "time machine" would have to be able to make all matter in the universe go back to the conditions and positions that it was in during the period you want to "return" to. That's the starting line on time travel. Can you get to the starting line with it? For another thing, IF a person were to operate their computer in the proper way they could do pretty much just as well by going back and reading the thread, unless it's been removed or editted or something. If a person were to do that they might notice that even then I was encouraging you to get to the starting line, and you couldn't get there.... And....
psyche101, on 20 November 2012 - 02:42 AM, said:
By far, the most vivid example of deliberate ignorance that I have ever seen in my life. No proof will be accepted, no explanation simple enough.
If I remember correctly you and other people gave me SEVERAL "explanations" about a couple of things but there's no way I could believe all of them. Also, and this part is significant from my pov even though not from yours, none of them seemed realistic enough to accept because they left too many questions for one thing. For another the photos made/make the claims seem false, from my pov. But! I did challenge everyone to try to figure out which one explanation they felt I, and if I it should be everyone else TOO!, should try to accept. And that aspect is a sort of starting line too, now that we mention it. Toe up.
I would not consider science religion and AA Theory to be on the same playing field to be quite honest. As WOH said early in the piece, why do you lot throw God out and replace with Alien? What justifies that, and how does it help the problem? Do people feel intellectual choosing an Alien over God because space is sciencey stuff?
No to begin with it's because if God exists he would have to be an alien imo. If you think you can explain how he could be native to Earth then lets hear it, but when you can't we're left with him necessarily having to be an alien. It goes on from there of course, but that's the starting line. Come to think of it, this isn't the first time I've encouraged you to try to get to the starting line, is it? I don't think so. Well, can you make it this time? If God exists, he would have to be an alien unless you can explain how he could be native to Earth. Try to get that far and THEN move on. Best of luck with this!
If you don't believe the sun will rise
Stand alone and greet the coming night
In the last remaining light -Audioslave
Posted 21 November 2012 - 12:34 AM
nopeda, on 21 November 2012 - 12:31 AM, said:
No to begin with it's because if God exists he would have to be an alien imo.
There is quite a difference between an omnipotent creator at the center of a religion and a high tech alien civilization that evolved on another planet. Aliens could be mistaken for Gods but not the reverse I'm afraid.
"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark
"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman
You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave
Wearer of Hats, on 20 November 2012 - 02:00 AM, said:
Given that more then a dozen documentaries have examined how to move rocks of that size and weight and demonstrated how to do so using contemporaneous materials and techniques then I have to ask "why do you think ancient man was stupid?".
You're telling me that it's common knowledge how ancient humans made all the structures they made, but this is the first I've been told that. Up until now I didn't think anybody knew, but according to you everybody knows. So, how did they cut hundred ton rocks, move them and stack them? Have you not seen the documentaries but just take it for granted that they explain everything? Why is there any question about how they did it? Or is there no question because everybody who cares knows how they did it?
nopeda, on 19 November 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:
Nowhere on the entire planet? Or is it one particular area in which nothing out of the ordinary will happen and how do you know it won't?
I'll tell you what...
How about you make a concrete, definite, prediction about something that will happen on 21/12/2012 and I will predict that you will almost certainly be proven wrong...
That's interesting. First you claim that nothing unusual will happen, then you refuse to say exactly WHERE nothing unusual will happen. Then you ask me to make a prediction without clarifying the prediction that you made. The only thing I feel fairly confident about is that the Earth's orbit around the sun will remain pretty much unchanged, but that's just a "feeling" I've got because I feel they have that like they want it if they exist. Whether or not they'll change the rotation, or bring in more moons, or....how to speculate on that? Your challenge still remains. Here it is again:
Nowhere on the entire planet? Or is it one particular area in which nothing out of the ordinary will happen and how do you know it won't?
Please don't think that we don't all know that person who made that "one estimate" was Giorgio Tsoukalos, a.k.a. Mr. Ancient Aliens. He isn't a scientist, or a specialist of any kind; he was a bodybuilder before he decided to monopolize on the ancient astronaut theory. He has been proved wrong on a number of his claims (in particular, his gross misestimations of the weights of ancient stone blocks has been duly noted). What makes you think that his completely unsubstantiated estimate with pertinence to the construction of the pyramid holds any more water than his other false claims?
What was his estimate about weight and what is the truth? What is the truth about how long they had for each block of stone?
Light's emitted from objects at 186K miles per second in vacuum. Pretending the atmospheres of stars have no influence on the original velocity, which is probably wrong imo, we can say that some stars are moving towards us. If the star was stationary relative to us then its light should reach this area at 186..., but few if any stars are stationary relative to us so their velocity should be added to the velocity with which the light is emitted from them. It should also be subtracted when the stars are moving away from us. So something appears to adjust the velocity of light to eliminate the additional velocities relative to light's velocity, but not relative to its frequency. Oddities. It adjusts light to make it move slower, and also adjusts it to make it move faster, so it appears.
Daughter of the Nine Moons, on 20 November 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:
Tone it down nopeda. The profanity filter is there for a reason.The expectation is that all members post in a civil manner.
Yeah, that's why public news groups have lost popularity imo. There you can say what you want, but in these moderated groups you can only say what whoever decides to let you say. So from my pov people who do forums should make the *majority!* of them open to people saying what they feel, but having "safe" forums where some people can go hide from the stuff they don't like if they can't handle the free zones. But that's just me, and apparently most people don't like the free zones. You folks don't have one at all, do you?
As a side note on profanity itself: When I first learned of the concept I immediately felt that it's not the words, and it's not the people using them, but the people who have problems with them that "are" the problem. Later I learned of languages in which there "is" no profanity. So does that mean that none of those people feel they're in a position that they should be telling other people what words they can and can't use? What else could it mean?
The fact that you choose to ignore the outright blatant lies put forth in the AA series and then quibble over semantics is quite telling.
What outright blatant lies are put forth in the AA series? I've known people in this forum to say they exist, but don't recall anyone giving specific examples. One person told me everything, which I know to be a lie, but otherwise nothing. So, what lies are you referring to?
Atentutankh-pasheri, on 20 November 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:
nopeda, on 19 November 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:
For one thing you don't know whether they did or not, and for another thing you have no reason to believe they didn't. In fact for all you know the human race would have died out a long time ago if they hadn't helped, and possibly wouldn't even exist. Are you forgetting that for about the first 190K years or so of human existence they lived like animals, and it's only in the fraction of about the last 10K years that humans began acting like humans...about the period of time that the xts would have had the most influence? If you're not forgetting about that do you want to deliberately ignore it, and if so why?
And you . . . we are animals . . . I very much doubt they visited us yet.
I find it amusing that some people can't think realistically about the possibility that xts have ever been to this planet yet they apparently have no problem considering the possibility that they could arrive tomorrow, or maybe even later on today. That's a huge and absurd mental restriction, from my pov. Certainly in now way a superior position to much of any other, if any other.
The fact that we're animals is included of my mention that for about the first 190K years or so of human existence they lived like animals, and it's only in the fraction of about the last 10K years that humans began acting like humans. Also the fact that no other animals are even close, none having any true language and none constructing and sort of true buildings and none making any sort of actual tools and none making use of fire, etc, is ALL evidence of xt influence from my pov.
Now back to you. Why do you want to ignore the aspects I pointed out?
You skeptics just don't get it. Here is the ancient alien believer mantra. It should help you to understand better.
You got to accentuate the mythical
Eliminate the logical
Latch on to the preposterous
Don't mess with any of the facts
It's sure not my mantra, and most likely it's not anyone's. I'm not a believer either way, so I consider both possibilities. I do that same in regards to God and by now feel confident that xts and God and whatever all else are all tied together if such beings exist. Here's a list of things I included trying to think realistically about the possibility of God's existence:
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender. (disclaimer: I refer to God as "he" out
of convenience and because that's how we are encouraged to refer to "him"
in most if not all canonical texts.)
15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are
most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.
There are some funny things that happen in the mind when someone wants something to be true badly enough.
I've noticed. In another thread people very badly wanted some carvings to have been carved over, been plastered over, been plastered over and carved over, been plastered over and it "all" fell out, and all resulting super coincidentally in a group of carvings looking like a group of different types of air vehicles. People want very badly for some or all of the above things to be true. From my pov it's impossible for all of them to be true, and so far no one has decided which of the possibilities we should try to believe. One thing they don't consider that I do is that the carvings were intended to look as they do. And even though the carvings LOOK as though they were carved to look as they do, people want very badly to believe one or more of the various other unlikely seeming possibilities. It is sort of amusing. People want very badly for those carvings not to have been carved to appear as they do. Oh, one more thing people sometimes claimed is that the carvings don't look like air vehicles, even though we wouldn't be having discussions about why they do if they did not.
psyche101, on 18 November 2012 - 10:38 PM, said:
In fact there were 19 Jesus' of Nazareth.
That is a minimum sure. Had you read the link I left you, you would see there could be more and none of them originated in Nazareth, but many passed through the area.
I prefer to leave you links as opposed to discussion because I find you outstandingly rude, and because of your manner I do not like you. Not one bit.
Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research. There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs.