zoser Posted December 22, 2012 #2651 Share Posted December 22, 2012 "A hypothesis (from Ancient Greek ὑπόθεσις, from Greek ὑποτιθέναι – hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose,"[1] plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it". Now, since your views are based on 'your hypothesis', you have 2 choices as seen above 1: Understand that what you are proposing in all cases, "is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon".. Did you get that? Proposed, ie, not factual.. you have no argument without facts, are you with me? 2: And if you like to believe your hypothesis is scientific, then: "the scientific method requires that one can test it" So once you understand where your coming from with you 'own' hypothesis having to fall under one or the other examples above, you might begin to see why you're onto a loser with most things you post. You cannot insist or assume any hypothesis is correct Its just you ...supposing its correct ... you havent lost sight of that have you? yet you try to insist youre right, dont you bud? I thought you had gone to the pub bud? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 22, 2012 #2652 Share Posted December 22, 2012 A repeat for you, Zoser: When you find out how they did it, you will have an idea how the Incas did it. Muscle power, time, sweat. That's your answer. Or it should be. No one nowadays is willing to spend that much time, money and energy to accomplish feats of architecture like these ancients were willing to accomplish.. But in the old days they apparently were willing to do just that. We have become lazy sons of b.., lol. . Let's just say that I haven't sold my soul to classic academia yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted December 22, 2012 #2653 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Yes, you sure are 'constant': you tend to ignore every sane explanation or your mind tends to wander off when you see a sane explanation. And now I want to see some sane post from you where you tell us why you think 'it must have been aliens'. Up til now I haven't seen any. What is sane for one man might be insane for the other. It's not really a matter of sanity, it's a matter of what can be proven and what can't be proven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted December 22, 2012 #2654 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) I thought you had gone to the pub bud? that totally doesn't surprise me..... seeing as I never indicated I would be....so you're imagining stuff, yet again! But any opportunity for a diversion eh? ........ now back to your hypothesis Edited December 22, 2012 by seeder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 22, 2012 #2655 Share Posted December 22, 2012 that doesn't surprise me seeing as I never indicated I would be....so you're imagining stuff, yet again! But any opportunity for a diversion eh? So what would you like to discuss now? I do hope you are not going to forget my Christmas card? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Posted December 22, 2012 #2656 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) Zoser, you have been defeated in every one of your hair-brained ideas. You have been shown (and admitted) that the "experts" you put all your faith in have been making up facts. 670 ton of facts. That allot of BS to spew. Edited December 22, 2012 by Myles 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 22, 2012 #2657 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) Zozer, you have been defeated in every one of your hair-brained ideas. You have been shown (and admitted) that the "experts" you put all your faith in have been lieing and making up facts. That's right. Chris Dunn's work, along with the comments from Roger Hopkins and the 6 years of study by Brien Foerster, and Jans Peter de Jong as well as the original books of Von Daniken, Stitchen and the astronomical research of Hancock, Bauval and West, not to mention a score of other lesser known researchers has all been shot to pieces by the mighty brain power and irrevocable arguments put forward by the skeptic army here at UM. (Just for my benefit you couldn't repeat what those arguments were could you. I kind of forgot while I was in the bath). Edited December 22, 2012 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGirl Posted December 22, 2012 #2658 Share Posted December 22, 2012 I would be delighted: For any investigator with an ounce of reason it should be blatantly obvious that the procedure of skull deformation has it's roots deep in the ancient past. To imply that the ancients dreamt up this ritual and that it has persisted right up to the 20th Century is at best material for a fantasy novel and at worst deliberate planned deception. By the way, many there are many who claim that a lot of prime evidence is locked deep in the vaults of those who fear these revelations the most; but that is an aside. Far more logical to say that there existed people who naturally this way were (elongated skulls). One can only draw the conclusion that for this practice to have persisted that these people with elongated skulls must have been in some way extraordinary. This is further supported by Foerster's investigations at Paracas where he discovered that the majority of these skulls were to be found in a royal cemetary. Now one may ask royal in what way? Royal in terms of blood line or royal in terms of knowledge and accomplishment. That again can be debated. Now also Foerster has discovered a correlation between elongated skulls in Peru and megalithic sites. He also notes that fewer skulls are to be found among the Inca by comparison. Again this is anecdotal but to me interesting nevertheless. So what we see practised among the tribes of the world is nothing more than a ceremony in honour of these 'great ones' plus a desire to be like them it being that they possessed certain desirable characteristics. The idea of performing it for reasons of beauty came only later. The same idea with trepaning. This was again to artificially produce mental effects that were one time naturally achievable among the ancients. As abilities disappeared the yearning to reproduce them grew ever stronger. Next came the use of drugs etc. Now these things Zoser knew well before Brien Foerster began his investigations and for anyone diligent to search a couple of thousand or so posts back will verify that point. That Foerster is well on the road to confirming these things is a nice confirmation to me but it is in no way news. I am however learning many important archaeological facts in the process. Finally why should the burden of this investigation have fell on Foerster? The answer is that the archaeological profession have again been totally delinquent in their presentation of this crucial topic. To this I can only say well done Brien and others for bringing this to the attention of the world. That's my reply Jgirl and I have been sincere all the way. and i do appreciate the reply in full - thank you. still, where is the documentation to support the things you say and that they say? you quote numerous (often times dubious) sources who are all guessing. guessing based on what? nothing that has any basis in logic or historical data. show the documentation that substantiates. that's what i want to see, not comments such as those i bolded in your post .they are opinions of those who have no evidence to suggest they are valid. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted December 22, 2012 #2659 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) That's right. Chris Dunn's work, along with the comments from Roger Hopkins and the 6 years of study by Brien Foerster, and Jans Peter de Jong as well as the original books of Von Daniken, Stitchen and the astronomical research of Hancock, (Just for my benefit you couldn't repeat what those arguments were could you. I kind of forgot while I was in the bath). he's a killer....hahahahahahaha... just quoted every looney on the web.... Classic! Priceless!! OMG !!! quote : "Zecharia Sitchin, along with Erich von Däniken and Immanuel Velikovsky, make up the holy trinity of pseudohistorians. Each begins with the assumption that ancient myths are not myths but historical and scientific texts. Sitchin's claim to fame is announcing that he alone correctly reads ancient Sumerian clay tablets. [Of course, he didn't announce this by taking out an ad in the New York Times but by implying it with his "translations" that do not jibe with the work of legitimate scholars in the field.] If Sitchin is right, then all other scholars have misread these tablets, which, according to Sitchin, reveal that gods from another planet (Nibiru or Niburu, which orbits our Sun every 3,600 years) arrived on Earth some 450,000 years ago and created humans by genetic engineering of female apes. Niburu orbits beyond Pluto and is heated from within by radioactive decay, according to Sitchin. No other scientist has discovered that these descendants of gods blew themselves up with nuclear weapons some 4,000 years ago (The War of Gods and Men, p. 310).* Sitchin alone can look at a Sumerian tablet and see that it depicts a man being subjected to radiation. He alone knows how to correctly translate ancient terms allowing him to discover such things as that the ancients made rockets (ibid., p. 46).* Yet, he doesn't seem to know that the seasons are caused by the earth's tilt, not by its distance from the sun. :w00t: Most of Sitchin’s sources are obsolete. He has received nothing but ridicule from scientific archaeologists and scholars familiar with ancient languages. His most charming quality seems to be his vivid imagination and complete disregard for established facts and methods of inquiry, traits that are apparently very attractive to some people." http://yowcrooks.blo...chronicles.html Just dont start reading Harry Potter books....pls... he didnt exist - as well Edited December 22, 2012 by seeder 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 22, 2012 #2660 Share Posted December 22, 2012 and i do appreciate the reply in full - thank you. still, where is the documentation to support the things you say and that they say? you quote numerous (often times dubious) sources who are all guessing. guessing based on what? nothing that has any basis in logic or historical data. show the documentation that substantiates. that's what i want to see, not comments such as those i bolded in your post .they are opinions of those who have no evidence to suggest they are valid. I really don't think they are guessing. They are taking it extremely seriously. Don't forget that if you watch the whole of Foerster's presentation he is very cautious regarding making claims unless fully supported; that's why he is taking the issue of DNA so seriously. This isn't a group of nobodies making wild claims, it's much much more. The premise of my long post really is extremely simple. That everything that persists has it's roots in something tangible and real. What you are witnessing with the deformation practice is people trying to re-connect to something that once existed. Take a look at this: They are trying to raise money to further this. From what I can gather they intend to succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 22, 2012 #2661 Share Posted December 22, 2012 he's a killer....hahahahahahaha... just quoted every looney on the web.... Classic! Priceless!! OMG !!! Glad you liked it (ps your still here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 22, 2012 #2662 Share Posted December 22, 2012 and i do appreciate the reply in full - thank you. still, where is the documentation to support the things you say and that they say? you quote numerous (often times dubious) sources who are all guessing. guessing based on what? nothing that has any basis in logic or historical data. show the documentation that substantiates. that's what i want to see, not comments such as those i bolded in your post .they are opinions of those who have no evidence to suggest they are valid. Can I just remind you of something in a non-challenging way? Where is the evidence of an alternative hypothesis? Where is this absolute concrete evidence to be found? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted December 22, 2012 #2663 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Glad you liked it (ps your still here). hahahahaha...oh Warrior of Truth...or should that be...'worrier.. about the truth' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 22, 2012 #2664 Share Posted December 22, 2012 hahahahaha...oh Warrior of Truth...or should that be...'worrier.. about the truth' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted December 22, 2012 #2665 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) typical zoser who posts yet another vid when hes trying to convince someone. Zoser I do not ever watch the poop you post, and nothing you can drudge up from youtube will ever give me pause for thought...you keep trying to prove a 'hypothesis'.. but that cant be done. You seem extremely impressionable and gullible too... if you dont like that assesment just look at how you behave and what you believe...from youtube thats why I suggest you stop watching nonsense on youtube.. do you speak to your friends and family by posting vids? Edited December 22, 2012 by seeder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 22, 2012 #2666 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) The above clip explains why the 'conehead' skulls were not the product of deformation . See 6:50 onwards. This clip was put together by an anthropologist by the way; and he or she is convinced that they are the skulls of ET's or Super humans (if there is a difference). See y'all tomorrow. Z Edited December 22, 2012 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted December 22, 2012 #2667 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) The above clip explains why the 'conehead' skulls were not the product of deformation . See 6:50 onwards. This clip was put together by an anthropologist by the way; and he or she is convinced that they are the skulls of ET's or Super humans (if there is a difference). See y'all tomorrow. Z so he or she is convinced? And that convinced you - as they were an anthropologist? were they a 'good' anthropologist, you know, a well respected one? Ah, then I should get convinced too, is that the logic? Youre so gullible.... and would that be an un-named anthropologist by the way....or just a lousy dimwitted one who wanted the dough for appearing in a silly video about aliens? Did you research that bit about who the anthropologist was? Check their credentials before posting your gibberish? or did you just watch it and become convinced without research? doh...let me guess........... Edited December 22, 2012 by seeder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted December 22, 2012 #2668 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Zoser, you have been defeated in every one of your hair-brained ideas. You have been shown (and admitted) that the "experts" you put all your faith in have been making up facts. 670 ton of facts. That allot of BS to spew. I certainly admire his tenacity. Rather reminds me of the good ol' days of the Best Evidence threads and our old friend Skyeagle. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 22, 2012 #2669 Share Posted December 22, 2012 I certainly admire his tenacity. Rather reminds me of the good ol' days of the Best Evidence threads and our old friend Skyeagle. It's not difficult if one is genuinely interested. The information is there for those who seek it. Thanks anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGirl Posted December 22, 2012 #2670 Share Posted December 22, 2012 I really don't think they are guessing. They are taking it extremely seriously. Don't forget that if you watch the whole of Foerster's presentation he is very cautious regarding making claims unless fully supported; that's why he is taking the issue of DNA so seriously. This isn't a group of nobodies making wild claims, it's much much more. The premise of my long post really is extremely simple. That everything that persists has it's roots in something tangible and real. What you are witnessing with the deformation practice is people trying to re-connect to something that once existed. Take a look at this: [media=] [/media]They are trying to raise money to further this. From what I can gather they intend to succeed. of course they are guessing zoser. until they have irrefutable evidence, they are guessing. i don't care how careful they are. as i said before it's not impossible. just highly improbable. all i want is a foundation that is solid. then i can look further into what you propose. until that foundation is there though there is nothing to look at but smoke and mirrors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGirl Posted December 22, 2012 #2671 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) Can I just remind you of something in a non-challenging way? Where is the evidence of an alternative hypothesis? Where is this absolute concrete evidence to be found? i never claimed concrete evidence. what has been repeatedly shown to you in this thread are alternative theories that have a foundation to build on. the techniques proposed may or may not work, but at least they are tangible beginnings to explaining a complex and mysterious event. it has been shown to you in countless posts that your theories do not hold up to even marginal scrutiny because....wait for it...they lack a foundation. edit typos Edited December 22, 2012 by JGirl 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted December 22, 2012 #2672 Share Posted December 22, 2012 It's not difficult if one is genuinely interested. The information is there for those who seek it. Thanks anyway. yeh and so are the facts zoser.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted December 22, 2012 #2673 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Where is the evidence of an alternative hypothesis? Where is this absolute concrete evidence to be found? BINGO! there is no concrete evidence to a hypothesis, if there were, it'd be a fact.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRW Posted December 22, 2012 #2674 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) yeh and so are the facts zoser.... Just out of curiousity, what do you believe engineered human DNA strands? Was it by chance? Or do you think there was an intelligent designer behind it? Lastly, why do you think humans are a stand out intelligence amongst the earths fauna in general? Where do you think humans developed the traits that are not seen amongst some creatures of the earths fauna? What makes you think that humans are the only ones? What makes you think that they are the only super intelligent life forms that inhabit the earth? You say you want evidence of others? what if those others are invisible to your sight? what then? does that make them less real to you, just because you can't see them or feel their presence? does that mean they don't exist? Religon tries to answer those questions, billions believe in christianity, they believe their extraterrestrial supernatural god created the cosmos and humans in the image of itself. You said the ancient alien theory is fringe, its not as fringe as you think, because most religons deities can be described as having alien supernatural origin, whether fictitious or not. Before you try to ridicule zoser for expressing his views, you might want to think about the billions that believe in the ominipresent invisible supernatural extraterrestrial so called god in christianity. But, you are the one with all the facts though apparently? What do you think created humans? Where are your facts for that? Edited December 22, 2012 by LRW 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted December 22, 2012 #2675 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Andesite is a hard stone; and impossible to shape to that precision nursing stone age tools. Granite and diorite was done elsewhere. Do you realize that Puma Punku wasn't built by stone age people? It's only about 1500 years old. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts