10148 replies to this topic

[Quaentum]

nopeda, on 21 November 2012 - 01:08 AM, said:

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.

Can you say pareidolia?  I knew you could (with ap9ologies to Mr Rogers)

[Tesla II]

One thing still puzzles me about this AA show, when i was watching it back then, in one episode they showed alot of pictures, old in origin, but they all had one thing in common they all had pictures of flying machines i'll try to find that episode.

They've made a nice solid case about how people pictured something in the sky i guess, But they didn't understand the basic of mechanics even less the basics of flight... so why would they draw those??

[Quaentum]

Nuke_em, on 21 November 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

Right right you know all, i just love people like you knowing everything.. there is just a little problem with this no.2 question.... let me answer it for you...
You have absolutly no idea what you just wrote... Tell me how do you know those structures don't have any links to ET civilizations were you here 3000 b.c. ?
Let me give you a small example most of the super structures on our planet were built on religios fundations, meaning...

Man has created god... because he didn't know what lighting was or lunar/sun eclipse or anything that has to do with hes not-knowing at the time.. So we don't want to angry those gods so they've built pyramids, temples, made human sacrifices, used weird rituals and so on..

From here on AA stuff begins...like maybe they witnessed ETs and thought they were gods.. and they've made those super structures for them, but noone knows not me,you,anybody... untill we have developed some sort of time travel/viewing no one can say they were/were not linked to any sort of ET nature..

There is great link here about building of pyramids but i'm still sceptical on tools topic, why didn't they leave us any notes or information about that, everything else is recorded but the process...

Actually I know exactly what I wrote.  As I said in another post skeptics make conclusions based on evidence and the lack of evidence.  There is no evidence for aliens to have been a part of building say the Great Pyramid.  Among the evidence we do have available is:  Worker camps designed to house thousands of workers and The remains of a ramp found on the south side of the Great Pyramid.  Aliens from a technologically advanced race would not have needed thousands of humans in work crews nor would they have needed ramps.  So by applying a little logic we can see that aliens didn't build the Great Pyramid.  The same process can and has been applied to the other great structures.

[Sweetpumper]

Nuke_em, on 21 November 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

But they didn't understand the basic of mechanics even less the basics of flight... so why would they draw those??

Same reason we draw The Hulk and Thor.  Story telling and imagination.

[booNyzarC]

Nuke_em, on 21 November 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

One thing still puzzles me about this AA show, when i was watching it back then, in one episode they showed alot of pictures, old in origin, but they all had one thing in common they all had pictures of flying machines i'll try to find that episode.

They've made a nice solid case about how people pictured something in the sky i guess, But they didn't understand the basic of mechanics even less the basics of flight... so why would they draw those??

There are several such references in ancient artwork.  A good chunk of this is explained very well in this part of the Ancient Aliens Debunked film.  There are a lot of other resources as well, but that's a really good place to start because it shows similar examples of the imagery used and explains their symbolic meanings in both historical and religious context.

[Tesla II]

Quaentum, on 21 November 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

Actually I know exactly what I wrote.  As I said in another post skeptics make conclusions based on evidence and the lack of evidence.  There is no evidence for aliens to have been a part of building say the Great Pyramid.  Among the evidence we do have available is:  Worker camps designed to house thousands of workers and The remains of a ramp found on the south side of the Great Pyramid.  Aliens from a technologically advanced race would not have needed thousands of humans in work crews nor would they have needed ramps.  So by applying a little logic we can see that aliens didn't build the Great Pyramid.  The same process can and has been applied to the other great structures.

There is no evidence for a God in any form, but 95% of the world belives in him, even though he never existed, like this little green man and yet "God" was present back in J.Christ times he walked this earth like a boss and they still all believe the scared book that MAN wrote...  why would it be so hard to believe that at some point in our past aliens did came here, on our earth and do some " i am god, worship me! " and later out of that ( for egypt still ) every king/Pharao who ruled at the time was entitled God, since lets say those sneaky greenies left this piece of primitive rock and left throne room empty so the people needed a new god ( well semi god ). So they elected a new president!

That is a veeeery loooong shot but is more possible than Jezus Christ for example... You got whole book of "miracles" and people tend to believe that more than aliens what an irony... No offence but people need to realize that there is no such thing as a god if there was one we would have records about it and he would probably still be in touch .

[Oniomancer]

nopeda, on 21 November 2012 - 12:53 AM, said:

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?

OT: Their popularity declined after the major IP's stopped carrying them on account of the porn. There are moderated usenet groups too. It's about the only way you can run one in alt. without the group getting flooded with spam and trolls.

[JGirl]

booNyzarC, on 21 November 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

There are several such references in ancient artwork.  A good chunk of this is explained very well in this part of the Ancient Aliens Debunked film.  There are a lot of other resources as well, but that's a really good place to start because it shows similar examples of the imagery used and explains their symbolic meanings in both historical and religious context.

great link - thanks

[Tesla II]

booNyzarC, on 21 November 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

There are several such references in ancient artwork.  A good chunk of this is explained very well in this part of the Ancient Aliens Debunked film.  There are a lot of other resources as well, but that's a really good place to start because it shows similar examples of the imagery used and explains their symbolic meanings in both historical and religious context.

Was aiming for a specific indian picture, where there was this weird huge flying machine coming out from the clouds, but i failed to find it, but i found something better nothing to do with AAs but it has to do to with flying machines in history at least Indias


The ancient flying machines
According to the revered Indian Vedas Sanskrit writings, vimanas were flying machines. The word vimana is still used today in the modern Indian language to refer to aircraft.
While most vimanas were used for transportation through the atmosphere, some were described as being used to travel into space while others were a form of limited submarine.
Just like modern aircraft, the vimanas had various configurations and sizes depending on what they were designed to accomplish. Some had two engines, like the agnihotra-vimana; others, like the gaja-vimana, had more. In all there may have been as many as a dozen different types of vimanas all designed for different purposes. Most of them flew.

Link to full article here. I am not saying it si true but i'll do some exploring that way...

Anyways i did reading on the link you gave quite informative... i didn't knew they didn't showed full detail paintings and what certain UFOs .... err .. symbols were
( that goes for that picture where AA theorists say there was a war of factions or whatever.... black and white crosses on the sky ).

Well thanks for help boon did blow away some mist around that matter...Cheers!

[booNyzarC]

Nuke_em, on 21 November 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

Was aiming for a specific indian picture, where there was this weird huge flying machine coming out from the clouds, but i failed to find it, but i found something better nothing to do with AAs but it has to do to with flying machines in history at least Indias


The ancient flying machines
According to the revered Indian Vedas Sanskrit writings, vimanas were flying machines. The word vimana is still used today in the modern Indian language to refer to aircraft.
While most vimanas were used for transportation through the atmosphere, some were described as being used to travel into space while others were a form of limited submarine.
Just like modern aircraft, the vimanas had various configurations and sizes depending on what they were designed to accomplish. Some had two engines, like the agnihotra-vimana; others, like the gaja-vimana, had more. In all there may have been as many as a dozen different types of vimanas all designed for different purposes. Most of them flew.

Link to full article here. I am not saying it si true but i'll do some exploring that way...

Anyways i did reading on the link you gave quite informative... i didn't knew they didn't showed full detail paintings and what certain UFOs .... err .. symbols were
( that goes for that picture where AA theorists say there was a war of factions or whatever.... black and white crosses on the sky ).

Well thanks for help boon did blow away some mist around that matter...Cheers!

Ah yes, these are discussed in the film as well, right here.  

[hacktorp]

psyche101, on 20 November 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

No that is not true. This is not wild assed guessing, that is the realm of those wingnuts you referred to. It's called process of elimination and scale. If the carving can be done on a small scale, how does that negate the large scale? Why is a full sized model necessary?

Process of elimination only works when the population being eliminated from is certain to contain the actual truth.  Any ambiguity there and the process fails before it starts.

A single full-sized block IS necessary in order to give proper context of both time and tools needed for the job.  This information can then be easily applied to determine the requirements for producing many.  Attempting to infer all of this from a tiny model introduces too much guesswork to be useful or accurate.

If Protzen or anyone else could produce a full-sized model, they would have done so at the outset since that would prove their claim better than anything else by using truly rigorous methods.  But they can't.  And Protzen isn't about to dedicate years of his career chipping away at something that will ultimately prove him wrong, is he?

[hacktorp]

booNyzarC, on 20 November 2012 - 04:50 AM, said:

Really?  You expect someone to completely re-create the entire thing before you'll accept that it could have been done by human beings?  Do you have that same ridiculous expectation for the pyramids at Giza too?

Of course not, silly.  A single H-block will do nicely for scientific purposes.

See my previous post^^.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Surely, if we're being logical about God we should start not at "god exists, but couldn't have existed on Earth therefore he's an alien" but rather at "God exists as he is presented in the only text that directly references him - the Bible".
The next step would be to disprove that he exists as presented in the Bible.
The step after that is to present what else he could exist as.
After that it's a process of elimination, taking each of those previously presented possibilities and "stress testing" them - the options that come to mind are "he doesn't exist at all", "he was from Atlantis/some other previous super-civilisation" "he's an alien from the planet Gallifrey" or "he's a talking mouse with a time-machine and a zany assistant called Pinky".

Given the only one of those options that doesn't rely on proving something else as yet unproven we're left with the two most likely positions - he either exists as presented in the bible or he doesn't exist at all.

Edited by Wearer of Hats, 21 November 2012 - 09:28 PM.

[hacktorp]

Wearer of Hats, on 21 November 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

Surely, if we're being logical about God we should start not at "god exists, but couldn't have existed on Earth therefore he's an alien" but rather at "God exists as he is presented in the only text that directly references him - the Bible".
The next step would be to disprove that he exists as presented in the Bible.
The step after that is to present what else he could exist as.
After that it's a process of elimination, taking each of those previously presented possibilities and "stress testing" them - the options that come to mind are "he doesn't exist at all", "he was from Atlantis/some other previous super-civilisation" "he's an alien from the planet Gallifrey" or "he's a talking mouse with a time-machine and a zany assistant called Pinky".

Given the only one of those options that doesn't rely on proving something else as yet unproven we're left with the two most likely positions - he either exists as presented in the bible or he doesn't exist at all.

You've got my head spinning on that one!  Yet isn't the general concept of 'God' (by any other name) referenced in texts outside the bible?  What's in a name?

Perhaps what you're touching upon is the likely reality that attempting to apply a process of elimination to an infinite population is a fool's errand.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

the God to which Nopeda is eferring appears to be the Judeo-Christian one, and as such there is only one "primary" source for information, the Bible (and the Torah etc) all other sources referring to this deity refer to him via that source (ie chruches etc).

And as sysiphean as it may be, what I've suggested is what Nopeda should be doing if they want to prove their point and noy just tilt at windmills and stand in speakers xorner shouting nonsense.

Edited by Wearer of Hats, 21 November 2012 - 10:52 PM.