10148 replies to this topic

[psyche101]

nopeda, on 29 November 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

You STILL can't say which of the five incorrect seeming things you think I should try to believe in nor which one(s) you believe in yourself, only that you don't believe the most correct seeming which is that the carvings were meant to look as they do by the people who carved them. You even agreed with some bullsh*t about the front of a car if I remember right, and I feel confident that I do because I remember mentioning that it was the worst idea yet.

Do you even make sense to yourself?

Front of a car? Good God, it's hard to hold the tongue right now............. I have the most appropriate suggestion................

[psyche101]

nopeda, on 29 November 2012 - 11:15 PM, said:

Wrong. You lost entirely that time. Try again if you can. Go:

So you were asking what causes resistance to light were you? Is that what "Go" mean to you? Some sort of personal language shortcut?

nopeda, on 29 November 2012 - 11:15 PM, said:

(prediction: he can't even make an attempt to explain what causes resistance to the velocity of light)

I already have. If you read posts you would have seen me explain that in a dense medium such as water or glass, light slows down to c/n where n is the refractive index of the medium.

Or perhaps you did read it, and instead of attempting to understand it you decided to make something up and dismiss it.

Prediction: You will refuse to understand the principals involved.

[DONTEATUS]

Lets all go to Cruczco-co nuts and cut a few rocks,and have a few Drinks !

[synchronomy]

zoser, on 29 November 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

They obviously cleared off at some point.  It has to be the case.  My theory is that they were here at a time when the ecology was different; conducive to what they wanted to achieve.  As the cycle of the planet changed over again and no longer sustained their enterprise, they left.  

It's a theory.

Stop it.
You are screwing me up in the head.
You say they were here and then buggered off...then why are you leaping to the ETH everytime plastic bags, bugs, and bowls take flight??
"Bags, bugs and bowls"...it's all sounding like Dr. Seuss
"One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish"

Why are you saying ET's have left

[psyche101]

synchronomy, on 30 November 2012 - 04:27 AM, said:

Stop it.
You are screwing me up in the head.
You say they were here and then buggered off...then why are you leaping to the ETH everytime plastic bags, bugs, and bowls take flight??
"Bags, bugs and bowls"...it's all sounding like Dr. Seuss
"One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish"

Why are you saying ET's have left

LOL


ET!!

[Oniomancer]

nopeda, on 29 November 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

"It was pointed out to you repeatedly, two or three times by myself, that that it is not parts of the plaster that's fallen out but _all_ of the plaster." - Oniomancer


You snake oil salesmen STILL can't say which variety you want me to "buy". Is it 1? or 2? or 3? or 4? or 5?  You have no clue apparently yet you still think I should grab one and cling to it, even though it doesn't appear that any of them are correct. Which one do YOU believe? Why can't you say? From my pov you've done nothing but try to bullsh*t me from the start, so I've reacted accordingly. You're still trying as far as I can tell, since you can't say which of the five (at least!) possibilities I'm supposed to try to believe in. I suppose you'd be satisfied if I tried to believe any of the five which appear untrue, but you don't want people to believe the sixth which does appear to be true which is that they were carved to appear as they do because the people who carved them wanted them to look like that.

So, you've transferred your flag here after the other thread sank out from under you. Einstein had some interesting things to say about that sort of repetitious behavior, but then we know how you feel about him..

The 5 points made may sound contradictory to you but they're not. There is some small confusion though.

1 is totally subjective as evidenced bythe amount of time it took for someone to notice the resemblance even allowing for the limited access to the site, and you yourself still haven't been able to tell us what air vehicles the others are supposed to look like. The fancied resemblance or lack thereof has no bearing on the other points.

2 Is a general factual statement. It is in fact contained in the remaining points and therefore does not contradict them.

3 is also a general factual statement since portions of the later glyphs appear to overlap portions of the earlier ones, which requires infill of same.

4 and 5 is is the only part where we have any confusion yet there is still no inherent contradiction, only a matter of imprecision.

As stated elsewhere, both sets of glyphs each separately form an individual cohesive and coherent whole. This is another fact, as verified by the not insignificant presence of identical glyphs elsewhere in the complex. This is only possible if both sets of glyphs are visible in their entirety. This in turn is only possible if the plaster infill is completely missing from those parts where it formerly was.

That pares our decision tree down to two mutually opposing prospects, one rooted in logic and factual evidence, the other in supposition.

I know which one I'm going with.

[booNyzarC]

Quoth the Mancer of Onio.  

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Oniomancer, on 30 November 2012 - 06:25 AM, said:

That pares our decision tree down to two mutually opposing prospects, one rooted in logic and factual evidence, the other in supposition.
I know which one I'm going with.

And we all know which one Nopeda is going to go with.

[Babe Ruth]

synchronomy, on 29 November 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

Humans knew the Earth was a globe back in the 3rd century.  That flat-earth stuff is baloney.  I'll search for the link and post it later.  I know it's been posted in these forums recently.  Hopefully someone will chime in with it, as I have to go out shortly for several hours.
...and Graham Hancock is dead wrong about that map showing Antartica without ice.  Again that's been debated here and been demostrated as such.

Joe claims this, Tom claims that, and Harry claims something else.

Who is a common man like myself supposed to believe?

Don't know, but at this point the answers to the questions raised by AA are not particularly persuasive.

I don't know if you've read Hancock's book, and it's been a good year since I have, but he includes a letter from some branch of the DoD confirming that modern data supports the geographical features shown on the ancient map.

Edited by Babe Ruth, 30 November 2012 - 02:23 PM.

[Quaentum]

Babe Ruth, on 29 November 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:

No, I have not read ALL of this thread, but a fair amount.  No, I have not visited ALL the links, but some.

I specified in my first sentence in the previous post that both sides were speculating.

Sure a mathematician might be 10 years old, but that point is about as relevant and persuasive as the rest of your post, which is to say "not very".

The AA folks raise many many issues that certain self-described skeptics cannot explain.  I forget the name of the ancient map that Graham Hancock mentioned in one of his books, but how is it that the map depicted geography that we have discovered only recently?  How is it that at a time when most humans thought the world was flat, someone had already set up a very accurate system of latitude and longitude?

We humans are vain, arrogant, and way more ignorant than most will admit.

I believe you are talking about the Piri Reis map.  If so, it is not as accurate as fringe authors would have you believe.  The part they refer to as Antarctica is actually the southern part of South America stretched out.

[Quaentum]

zoser, on 29 November 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

How did they achieve the inlaid right angles?  How did they achieve the perfectly circular holes?  Look how close this one is to the vertical face of the block




To produce this with power tools would be difficult enough.



And again:



The accuracy is astonishing.



This workmanship is not easy to explain as the work of indiginous indians.  I don't buy it.

As an ex-engineer I know what it would take to produce this with modern technology.  God only knows how it was done.  On this scale and in that terrain so high above sea level.

Until a rational explanation is found, the AA hypothesis will stand.  The ancients gave testimony to it for a start.

In the top object, the hole could have been drilled before the carving was done.

So only those who aren't/weren't indigenous Indians could make carvings like that?  That's rather condescending.  I don't see you saying that all stone work done before modern technology,  that had drilled holes and right angles couldn't have been done by those indigenous peoples, now why is that?  As far as the altitude, they were accustomed to it.

If you want a rational explanation, start by eliminating the irrational premise that lack of knowledge of the exact methods used to work stone long ago is an indicator it must have been aliens.

The AA hypothesis will remain that, just a hypothesis, because as more information and evidence comes to light, like that concerning the Great Pyramid, more and more of the ancient stone work will be shown to have a human not ET hand in it.

[Quaentum]

zoser, on 29 November 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

Then there is the issue of why?  What on earth did they have in mind when producing this?  Clearly nothing to do with ritual, art, or other fanciful embellishment, this looks to me as if it was done for some definite functional purpose.  The question is what exactly?



Look carefully at the finish.   Why the need to produce a block so exact to that specification.  It's as if cutting, moving, shaping, and finishing multi-tonne blocks was absolutely no effort.  The work of indians?  Really?

If it can ever be determined what it was made for, it will answer the why.  Imagine an engineer 10,000 years from now mulling over a granite counter top, trying to figure out what it's purpose was and why it was made and coming to the conclusion that because the information was lacking it must have been made by aliens.

[Quaentum]

zoser, on 29 November 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

The problem is archaelology.  It proposes certain banal explanations that people just know are idiotic.  A classic example is that the relics at Puma Punku were apparently the creation of the Aymara indians.  No tools or means of achieving these awesome structures have ever been found.

So the derision to me is aimed at the casual experts; people with no engineering or architectural knowledge.

If it was not indiginous indians then who could it have been?  Darwinism just doesn't account for other plausible options.  Their-in lies another major problem.

Yet the banal explanations are the ones, that in the long run, are supported as more information and evidence are unearthed so to speak.

[Quaentum]

nopeda, on 29 November 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

The supposed condition supposedly traveled to doesn't exist any more, so there's no place to travel to ON TOP OF the fact that the supposed traveler doesn't travel but remains the same while everything else in the universe does change. There's nothing left for you, try as you may to cling to.... ...whatever. There's nothing left of it.

You evidently have a very difficult time comprehending the concept and further attempts would get us nowhere.   When you have a better grasp of the concept please post about it again and we'll pick up the conversation.

[Quaentum]

nopeda, on 29 November 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

It's a challenge but you're afraid of it, and rightly so I feel sure. Here it is again: Which particular starting line did I point out that you can't get to, do you have any idea? Do you think there's any chance you ever could get to it if so, and if so what do you think it would take in order for you to be able to get there? Well? What???

No not a challenge, just your inability to come up with a reply to the post I made.  Were you able to do so, you would not continue repeating the same comments over and over that have nothing to do with what I posted.  As long as you use the same reply without actually answering my post, we'll just keep track of how many time you do this.

This is number 3 .