The Worst Ancient Alien Theory Ever

[jaylemurph]

6 hours ago, SSilhouette said:

Thank you for the apologies.  I think subjects should be discussed without ridiculing people.  Their logical fallacies can be pointed out without demeaning the person himself.  All websites know that as "ad hominem".  And there is a liberal amount of examples of that right here on this thread...this page in particular.  And they highlight the points I've been making lately. 

It's no skin off my teeth if would-be posters who are ghosting here run away for fear of being ridiculed.  After all, it's not my website and lord knows there are plenty of paranormal websites if one was so inclined to share their stories without ridicule.  Let me repeat something that may have slipped several posters' minds here on this page: This is a paranormal website where often reluctant people who have long feared ridicule for sharing their experiences, come to report them without fear of ridicule.  Mull that over for a moment as to the longevity of this site if the garbage on this page is allowed to run roughshod over other posters for merely stating their accounts and wishing to explore them with others.

Behold the foot-stamping, tantrum-throwing, breath-holding anger of one who has not received a universal acknowledgment of his personal genius.

--Jaylemurph

Edited July 26, 2016 by jaylemurph

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

17 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

Behold the foot-stamping, tantrum-throwing, breath-holding anger of one who has not received a universal acknowledgment of his personal genius.

--Jaylemurph

And who, I might add, found offence in an inoffensive post by KMT and then went on to directly insult everyone who disagreed with him.

[Harte]

But it's okay, because this is a "paranormal website" and the poster is a firm believer in the paranormal and thus should be unassailable under any circumstance.

Harte

[kmt_sesh]

8 hours ago, SSilhouette said:

Thank you for the apologies.  I think subjects should be discussed without ridiculing people.  Their logical fallacies can be pointed out without demeaning the person himself.  All websites know that as "ad hominem".  And there is a liberal amount of examples of that right here on this thread...this page in particular.  And they highlight the points I've been making lately. 

It's no skin off my teeth if would-be posters who are ghosting here run away for fear of being ridiculed.  After all, it's not my website and lord knows there are plenty of paranormal websites if one was so inclined to share their stories without ridicule.  Let me repeat something that may have slipped several posters' minds here on this page: This is a paranormal website where often reluctant people who have long feared ridicule for sharing their experiences, come to report them without fear of ridicule.  Mull that over for a moment as to the longevity of this site if the garbage on this page is allowed to run roughshod over other posters for merely stating their accounts and wishing to explore them with others.

Perhaps by the time I've written this you've already seen and read what other posters have said in response to your statement. I need not repeat their remarks in my own post, aside from stressing corm's comment that Unexplained-Mysteries is about, well, unexplained mysteries in general, although it does have its own forum for paranormal discussions. And that last word—discussions—is paramount. UM and other message boards like it are discussion platforms, and discussion is about the free exchange of ideas. There would be little to no purpose of a place like UM if it weren't for discussion—and I honestly think a place like UM would be tediously boring if everyone believed the same things in the same ways.

I will make the observation that in my years here, or at least in the forums in which I myself am most active, the ratio of skeptic to believer has changed. I think there used to be more in the believer category (especially in Alternative History). Many believers in alternative and fringe ideas are still around and still continue to post, but perhaps not as much as in the "old days." I'm aware that among my fellow skeptics, there are quite a few outspoken and aggressive posters, but they do not break any of our rules and thus there is no cause to censure them. They are merely defending their own side as ardently as fringe posters present theirs. That's why I myself joined UM, to defend orthodox history and science, long before I was recruited to be a Mod. And if fringe posters can't sustain a working argument—which many seem unable to do—I can see why they might feel intimidated and leave. But no one if forcing them to leave. It's their decision. We have an ample membership roster at UM, and it's one of the busiest discussion boards on the internet. We do not want to see posters abandon their place here, but we have to leave it up to them.

In other words, we truly have no fear for the longevity of UM.

I know you've taken more than your own share of heat. Speaking for myself, with your Med flood theme (which, again, I don't want to see brought up in this discussion), I applied the heat not because of who you are or anything whatsoever personal about you, but because you were never able to support it with factual, real-world evidence. The thing with the Ica stones can be forgiven and forgotten, but when you present an argument that interests you, you do really need to research it beforehand. That's where a lot of posters get themselves into some embarrassing trouble.

[kmt_sesh]

Gees, I'm a windbag. I didn't mean for that one to get so long. Am I breaking the preaching rules? 

[Jarocal]

19 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Gees, I'm a windbag. I didn't mean for that one to get so long. Am I breaking the preaching rules? 

Not with that post, but proselytizing a heretical feline demon worship in some of your others is certainly disconcerting...

[kmt_sesh]

8 minutes ago, Jarocal said:

Not with that post, but proselytizing a heretical feline demon worship in some of your others is certainly disconcerting...

Bow to your cat masters, lowly human. Bow!

[back to earth]

9 hours ago, SSilhouette said:

Thank you for the apologies.  I think subjects should be discussed without ridiculing people.  Their logical fallacies can be pointed out without demeaning the person himself.  All websites know that as "ad hominem".  And there is a liberal amount of examples of that right here on this thread...this page in particular.  And they highlight the points I've been making lately. 

It's no skin off my teeth if would-be posters who are ghosting here run away for fear of being ridiculed.  After all, it's not my website and lord knows there are plenty of paranormal websites if one was so inclined to share their stories without ridicule.  Let me repeat something that may have slipped several posters' minds here on this page: This is a paranormal website where often reluctant people who have long feared ridicule for sharing their experiences, come to report them without fear of ridicule.  Mull that over for a moment as to the longevity of this site if the garbage on this page is allowed to run roughshod over other posters for merely stating their accounts and wishing to explore them with others.

except you are using this as a cover for personal  BS  agenda .

' I demand my right to BS and not have anyone comment against it ... however I am happy if you agree with me, in that case, post away.  '   ~   No way mate ,   no way are you getting away with that **** .  

[back to earth]

3 hours ago, Lord Fedorable said:

I take offence at being called garbage. 

he should deffinatly apologise .... this is UM site  and is not supposed to  .....     

[back to earth]

3 hours ago, Lord Fedorable said:

And who, I might add, found offence in an inoffensive post by KMT and then went on to directly insult everyone who disagreed with him.

Our graceful mod gave him a polite inch .... well, there ya go . 

[back to earth]

56 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Gees, I'm a windbag. I didn't mean for that one to get so long. Am I breaking the preaching rules? 

Yes ... UM being primarily a non preaching website I greatly offended at the  ......

[Hanslune]

I'm rightly offended by everyone being greatly offended and I will become more offended if this is not stopped.

To show my displeasure I will now stomp off ---

STOMP

        STOMP

                        STOMP

                                STOMP

^{however I'm going camping and won't be back til Sunday but I think my stomping off add great weight to my argument}

 

[kmt_sesh]

1 hour ago, back to earth said:

Our graceful mod gave him a polite inch .... well, there ya go . 

An inch is all I could spare.

Um...er...

[Merc14]

2 hours ago, back to earth said:

Our graceful mod gave him a polite inch .... well, there ya go . 

kmt_sesh is definitely a graceful man.  Every silly question I have ever asked him has been answered with grace, knowledge, infinite patience and in a way I, a layman,  could understand.  I guess that is why we all reacted as we did to sshilouettes "Delicate Snowflake" reply

PS- not kissing up, just happy there are people here who are able to answer the infinite number of questions I have about so many subjects.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Merc14

[kmt_sesh]

13 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

kmt_sesh is definitely a graceful man.  Every silly question I have ever asked him has been answered with grace, knowledge, infinite patience and in a way I, a layman,  could understand.  I guess that is why we all reacted as we did to sshilouettes "Delicate Snowflake" reply

PS- not kissing up, just happy there are people here who are able to answer the infinite number of questions I have about so many subjects.

Thanks so much! 

[SSilhouette]

12 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Science is under no obligation to be nice to people or to patronize them, if you make a claim expect to be challenged on it. Some subjects - like the Ica stones are very well known if the person bringing them up can't be bothered to research the idea (which as been debunked thoroughly and completely decades ago) then that is on them. Yes it is a good idea to have sites where people can express themselves without also defending themselves, very nice, but they are not science based boards.

I didn't say people presenting their experiences didn't have to defend them.  I said if you wanted to disagree, you could do so cordially.  You may not be obligated to be nice to people when you disagree.  But it's a terrible practice for a public website seeking to attract all types for lively debate. 

Thinking further on what you just said, I wonder how long I would last here if I drummed up some of the true believers here and routinely were unkind and slung ad hominems at you for your rational positions which are just as often indefensible.  I've seen some skeptics bend logic to the breaking point trying to explain things such as multiple eyewitness accounts corroborating details of say a haunting or UFO sighting...people who could not have known each other or collaborated to create a hoax.  Skeptics have written such things off to "mass hallucination" or random (unspecified) influences.  in fact, I've found that skeptics in bending logic this way are often not demanding at all in their own self-policing for credibility.  It sometimes gets to the point with skepticism-as-religion, that their positions are so untenable that to believe them means you have to believe in fairy tales.  "Mass hallucination"?  Really?  What the heck is that?  In otherwise sober people who haven't ingested hallucinogens and who people report as "regular old folks" who have nothing to gain?  "Mass hallucination" is as real as a ghost. 

So, there you go.  I have no problem with your faith in skepticism.  So don't be unkind to me if I disagree with your faith now and then.  I am skeptical of habitual skeptics, but I don't feel it necessary to beat them up every time I disagree with them.  I use logic too.  You just don't like my pictures and links I post.  Because sometimes they tend to expose the fallacy in your arguments and then YOU GUYS get hot under the collar and suddenly find reasons to shut the conversation down, or double down on beating me up.  That's actually how things have been going lately.  Speaking of keeping it real. 

Shall I continue now talking about how Ancient Aliens should do a bit on the Sahara having been flooded by the Mediterranean?  Or would that get this thread immediately shut down as it always seems to whenever and wherever I bring it up?  Even on a thread called "The Sahara Desert and Plato's Atlantis"..

Edited July 27, 2016 by SSilhouette

[Carnoferox]

8 minutes ago, SSilhouette said:

I didn't say people presenting their experiences didn't have to defend them.  I said if you wanted to disagree, you could do so cordially.  You may not be obligated to be nice to people when you disagree.  But it's a terrible practice for a public website seeking to attract all types for lively debate. 

Thinking further on what you just said, I wonder how long I would last here if I drummed up some of the true believers here and routinely were unkind and slung ad hominems at you for your rational positions which are just as often indefensible.  I've seen some skeptics bend logic to the breaking point trying to explain things such as multiple eyewitness accounts corroborating details of say a haunting or UFO sighting...people who could not have known each other or collaborated to create a hoax.  Skeptics have written such things off to "mass hallucination" or random (unspecified) influences.  in fact, I've found that skeptics in bending logic this way are often not demanding at all in their own self-policing for credibility.  It sometimes gets to the point with skepticism-as-religion, that their positions are so untenable that to believe them means you have to believe in fairy tales.  "Mass hallucination"?  Really?  What the heck is that?  In otherwise sober people who haven't ingested hallucinogens and who people report as "regular old folks" who have nothing to gain?  "Mass hallucination" is as real as a ghost. 

So, there you go.

Mass hysteria would be a more correct idea. Not hallucinating, but being illogically influenced by the suggestions of others and having a decrease in rational thought due to panic.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Carnoferox

[SSilhouette]

19 minutes ago, SSilhouette said:

I didn't say people presenting their experiences didn't have to defend them.  I said if you wanted to disagree, you could do so cordially.  You may not be obligated to be nice to people when you disagree.  But it's a terrible practice for a public website seeking to attract all types for lively debate. 

Thinking further on what you just said, I wonder how long I would last here if I drummed up some of the true believers here and routinely were unkind and slung ad hominems at you for your rational positions which are just as often indefensible.  I've seen some skeptics bend logic to the breaking point trying to explain things such as multiple eyewitness accounts corroborating details of say a haunting or UFO sighting...people who could not have known each other or collaborated to create a hoax.  Skeptics have written such things off to "mass hallucination" or random (unspecified) influences.  in fact, I've found that skeptics in bending logic this way are often not demanding at all in their own self-policing for credibility.  It sometimes gets to the point with skepticism-as-religion, that their positions are so untenable that to believe them means you have to believe in fairy tales.  "Mass hallucination"?  Really?  What the heck is that?  In otherwise sober people who haven't ingested hallucinogens and who people report as "regular old folks" who have nothing to gain?  "Mass hallucination" is as real as a ghost. 

So, there you go.

 

12 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Mass hysteria would be a more correct idea. Not hallucinating, but being illogically influenced by the suggestions of others and having a decrease in rational thought due to panic.

Mass hysteria is as solid of an argument as mass hallucination.  Especially when the people are SOBER and regular people separately corroborating exacting details of unusual events.  What were they hysterical about if they didn't even know each other and were not even close by when they witnessed the same event?  The Arizona UFO sighting, that huge V shaped UFO that dozens saw, distant from each other but describing the same thing.  That was mass hysteria too?  Mass hallucination?  No, wait, let me guess...it was a "weather balloon"..or maybe a new secret military plane...(you know, flown in plain sight..which makes the "top secret' part like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole).  See what I mean about bending logic to the breaking point? 

I don't know how mass hysteria could be applicable to most paranormal events witnessed by more than one person who doesn't know the other, or was not even in contact with the other at the time.  Then there's the hauntings where even at different times, different years, with people not even remotely familiar with each other, report the ghost's details down to the stitches in their ethereal clothes.  Mass hysteria too I suppose?

The paramount rule of being a skeptic is to keep an open mind.  And when you see your explanations are more silly than the paranormal event described, it's time to take stock and wonder if you haven't made skepticism a religion in itself. 

In a court of law if we have a number of witnesses who don't know each other from Adam, all describing the same event down to minute details, we call that a conviction.  We dont' call it "mass hysteria".  Keep an open mind.  Eyewitnesses can count as fact if there are a number of them all saying the same thing without collaborating behind the scenes.

Edited July 27, 2016 by SSilhouette

[kmt_sesh]

14 minutes ago, SSilhouette said:

I didn't say people presenting their experiences didn't have to defend them.  I said if you wanted to disagree, you could do so cordially.  You may not be obligated to be nice to people when you disagree.  But it's a terrible practice for a public website seeking to attract all types for lively debate. 

Thinking further on what you just said, I wonder how long I would last here if I drummed up some of the true believers here and routinely were unkind and slung ad hominems at you for your rational positions which are just as often indefensible.  I've seen some skeptics bend logic to the breaking point trying to explain things such as multiple eyewitness accounts corroborating details of say a haunting or UFO sighting...people who could not have known each other or collaborated to create a hoax.  Skeptics have written such things off to "mass hallucination" or random (unspecified) influences.  in fact, I've found that skeptics in bending logic this way are often not demanding at all in their own self-policing for credibility.  It sometimes gets to the point with skepticism-as-religion, that their positions are so untenable that to believe them means you have to believe in fairy tales.  "Mass hallucination"?  Really?  What the heck is that?  In otherwise sober people who haven't ingested hallucinogens and who people report as "regular old folks" who have nothing to gain?  "Mass hallucination" is as real as a ghost. 

So, there you go.  I have no problem with your faith in skepticism.  So don't be unkind to me if I disagree with your faith now and then.  I am skeptical of habitual skeptics, but I don't feel it necessary to beat them up every time I disagree with them.  I use logic too.  You just don't like my pictures and links I post.  Because sometimes they tend to expose the fallacy in your arguments and then YOU GUYS get hot under the collar and suddenly find reasons to shut the conversation down, or double down on beating me up.  That's actually how things have been going lately.  Speaking of keeping it real. 

Shall I continue now talking about how Ancient Aliens should do a bit on the Sahara having been flooded by the Mediterranean?  Or would that get this thread immediately shut down as it always seems to whenever and wherever I bring it up?  Even on a thread called "The Sahara Desert and Plato's Atlantis"..

I like a lot of what you said here. I may not agree with all of it, but you said it well.

As for your closing paragraph, like I've emphasized more than once in this thread: No, this is not the thread for you to discuss your flood theme. It is not relevant to the topic here. If you post about it in here, I'll be more likely to remove the post than to close the thread (I already had to remove a number of such posts earlier).

But your mention of the Sahara Desert thread sent me looking, and it turns out it's one of the only threads started by Mario that wasn't locked by one of us Mods. I remember the thread and how you co-opted a good chunk of it for your flood theme, but I don't recall how Mario ever got around to making his own thread at all relevant to its title. I remember it was a lively discussion but an overall, meandering mess. It's still open, so if you want to return to talking about your flood theme, feel free to resurrect it ( I say with the hopes that other Mods and posters won't string me up):

 

[Carnoferox]

8 minutes ago, SSilhouette said:

 

Mass hysteria is as solid of an argument as mass hallucination.  Especially when the people are SOBER and regular people separately corroborating exacting details of unusual events.  What were they hysterical about if they didn't even know each other and were not even close by when they witnessed the same event?  The Arizona UFO sighting, that huge V shaped UFO that dozens saw, distant from each other but describing the same thing.  That was mass hysteria too?  Mass hallucination?  No, wait, let me guess...it was a "weather balloon"..or maybe a new secret military plane...(you know, flown in plain sight..which makes the "top secret' part like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole).  See what I mean about bending logic to the breaking point? 

I don't know how mass hysteria could be applicable to most paranormal events witnessed by more than one person who doesn't know the other, or was not even in contact with the other at the time.  Then there's the hauntings where even at different times, different years, with people not even remotely familiar with each other, report the ghost's details down to the stitches in their ethereal clothes.  Mass hysteria too I suppose?

The paramount rule of being a skeptic is to keep an open mind.  And when you see your explanations are more silly than the paranormal event described, it's time to take stock and wonder if you haven't made skepticism a religion in itself. 

In a court of law if we have a number of witnesses who don't know each other from Adam, all describing the same event down to minute details, we call that a conviction.  We dont' call it "mass hysteria".  Keep an open mind.  Eyewitnesses can count as fact if there are a number of them all saying the same thing without corroborating.

The key to "mass hysteria" is the suggestibility of the human mind.

I once preformed a fun and interesting little experiment. I was at a robotics competition with a few friends/teammates. The stadium where it was held was filled with around 200 other competitors. While the other teams were milling around, my teammates and I began to clap loudly to see if anybody else would. Sure enough, most everyone else began clapping within a few seconds, even though they had no idea why they were doing it. Humans tend to do what others are doing, if only just to fit in (group mentality).

Let's say that a group of people are gathered watching a flying object that they cannot identify. It could be a plane, floating lantern, balloon, drone, bird, etc. Then one person in the crowd suggests that it is an alien spacecraft. Soon, more will follow the claim, until nearly all of the eyewitness believe that they have witnessed an alien spacecraft (even though in reality, they have no idea what it is). 

Just because multiple people report the same thing doesn't make it a fact. The account of one person may influence that of the others. Combine that with the fact that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and you get an understanding of the suggestibility of the human mind.

 

 

[ShadowSot]

Mass hysteria doesn't apply to a large number of people seeing something they don't recognize in the air. 

 Amazingly there have been explanations of the Arizona lights, that was published and, of course, ignored because it was aliens or secret government space craft. 

 I don't know every UFO sighting, but usually the large scale ones that can be corroborated have an expkanation. The issue is believers just don't find them satisfying.

 Ghost reports, well there's a little bit more. 

 I don't remember the publication now, but a great way to promote a haunting is to prime people to expect a haunting. Describe a place as haunted, and suddenly people will report ghosts and goblins. The hotel from the Shining is a good example of this. No haunting were reported until after the movie was made. 

 The Amityville Horror has now been found to be a fabrication. 

 Yet ghost hunters love going there and finding things that mostly show that they don't know how cameras and laser thermometers work, but are convincing to people who don't know better. 

 Sounds, normal visual errors, mistaken recognition, the normall things that if we aren't already primed to think of ghosts we'd just acknowledge for what they are, get lumped into ghosts. 

 You can get this from just watching a good horror movie and then going to sleep. 

 Normal house noises, shadows, so on become spooky. 

 And if you have someone telling you a story of what to expect to see, what you should be seeing, you'll fill in the details yourself. 

 

[ShadowSot]

34 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

The key to "mass hysteria" is the suggestibility of the human mind.

I once preformed a fun and interesting little experiment. I was at a robotics competition with a few friends/teammates. The stadium where it was held was filled with around 200 other competitors. While the other teams were milling around, my teammates and I began to clap loudly to see if anybody else would. Sure enough, most everyone else began clapping within a few seconds, even though they had no idea why they were doing it. Humans tend to do what others are doing, if only just to fit in (group mentality).

Let's say that a group of people are gathered watching a flying object that they cannot identify. It could be a plane, floating lantern, balloon, drone, bird, etc. Then one person in the crowd suggests that it is an alien spacecraft. Soon, more will follow the claim, until nearly all of the eyewitness believe that they have witnessed an alien spacecraft (even though in reality, they have no idea what it is). 

Just because multiple people report the same thing doesn't make it a fact. The account of one person may influence that of the others. Combine that with the fact that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and you get an understanding of the suggestibility of the human mind.

 

 

I can think of two good examples. 

 One is from an older documentary on Loch Ness. The team floated a log into the Loch and drew attention to it. Very quickly the people who didn't know what it was began to describe a head and a curved neck, turning it into the classic Nessie description. 

The other is from a podcast by a pair of ex ghost hunters. 

 The hosts called a local Ghost Hunter group to one of their houses, created a backstory, and set them loose. 

 By the end of the night they had all sorts of evidence to provide proof of haunting. 

 Like EVP, unexplained warm and cold spoke, EMF readings, the usual. 

 The EVP came from carrying and unfiltered mic through a house where numerous other people were walking through also talking and making noise. 

 Warm and cold spots from where someone was sitting, or from an open window, or simply just pointing the laser directly straight out and reading the hallway. 

 EMF they well, just didn't know how EMF readers work. 

 But they certainly found the ghost from the story the guys put together. And three more. 

 

[psyche101]

21 minutes ago, shadowsot said:

I can think of two good examples. 

 One is from an older documentary on Loch Ness. The team floated a log into the Loch and drew attention to it. Very quickly the people who didn't know what it was began to describe a head and a curved neck, turning it into the classic Nessie description. 

The other is from a podcast by a pair of ex ghost hunters. 

 The hosts called a local Ghost Hunter group to one of their houses, created a backstory, and set them loose. 

 By the end of the night they had all sorts of evidence to provide proof of haunting. 

 Like EVP, unexplained warm and cold spoke, EMF readings, the usual. 

 The EVP came from carrying and unfiltered mic through a house where numerous other people were walking through also talking and making noise. 

 Warm and cold spots from where someone was sitting, or from an open window, or simply just pointing the laser directly straight out and reading the hallway. 

 EMF they well, just didn't know how EMF readers work. 

 But they certainly found the ghost from the story the guys put together. And three more. 

 

The Lady of Fátima & the Miracle of the Sun I would also call a notable example. Although conclusions are varied. 

[ShadowSot]

Also a good example of why it's good to do primary research, or know someone who can. 

 The girl made three attempts before everybody stared at the sun. Many didn't see anything, later reports exaggerate the numbers of people who did, and most reported exactly the sort of thing you get when you stare directly into the sun to long. 

[psyche101]

26 minutes ago, shadowsot said:

Also a good example of why it's good to do primary research, or know someone who can. 

 The girl made three attempts before everybody stared at the sun. Many didn't see anything, later reports exaggerate the numbers of people who did, and most reported exactly the sort of thing you get when you stare directly into the sun to long. 

I didn't realise there were three attempts, I thought the first two were individual instances inviting the third. But yes, conflicting accounts, some seeing religious figures, Professor Meessen states that the color changes witnessed were most likely caused by the bleaching of photosensitive retinal cells, but after his performance on the Belgian Flap, I find it hard to see him as credible anymore. I think people saw what they were told they would see, or what they expected to see. Heck of a lot of them though. 

Another good one would be the Virgin Mary I think, if memory serves, she originally died like any other human being, but myths of her ascending to heaven were propagated about the 16th century (I think) and the RCC took the myth on as fact and started promoting it as such, when it never was.