Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The mysterious mysteries of the Ancients!

18911131418

Posts

  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    Selner wrote: »
    Honestly I find even M04-00291 more interesting than Cydonia. And that's a fucking sand dune.

    That is kind of interesting.
    And funny that if you google that you get, Sand Worms! http://ebtx.com/mars/marstube.htm

    Yes, interesting. And quite surprising to come up with. Maybe not all is lost to you guys? If you accept the possibility of extraterestial life... why only on a primitive level?

    Correct, the face was the item that cought attention. But it is not the only feature of the site. I think a face is provoking imagination more than enough. But... HEY... since we got those fancy pyramid structures around... well, probably geometric sand dunes i guess. Coincidence isn't it?

  • Zetetic ElenchZetetic Elench Registered User
    ACSIS, I'm pretty disappointed you haven't posted this yet.

    ABYDOS-HELICOPTER-PHOTO.jpg

    Holy shit, a helicopter! And a tank! And a Zeppelin!

    nemosig.png
  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    Remember i was talking about backing up my ideas? I really do. This one has been throughly explained. Sorry to disappoint you. But i am preparing some new ones for you just hang in a few hours. There is a difference between collecting examples and serious analysis. Whilst this looks nice it are REALLY only stylized pictograms wich were reworked. This is indeed coincidence.

  • DrakmathusDrakmathus Registered User regular
    why don't you pick a single thing and talk about it at length? Stone Henge or crop circles or whatever. Quit jumping around.

  • BogartBogart Registered User regular
    And a landspeeder in the top right! George Lucas is an alien!

  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    Drakmathus wrote: »
    why don't you pick a single thing and talk about it at length? Stone Henge or crop circles or whatever. Quit jumping around.

    I am about to name indications. And there are a lot. Perhaps to get you scream "coincidence" so often you might realize at some point how ridicioulus that is.

    How about... this:

    artid_1243585547.jpg
    Dr. Yuri Labvin, president of the Tunguska Spatial Phenomenon Foundation, insists that an alien spacecraft sacrificed itself to prevent a gigantic meteor from slamming into the planet above Siberia on June 30, 1908.

    The result was was the Tunguska event, a massive blast estimated at 15 megatons that downed 80 million trees over nearly 100 square miles. Eyewitnesses reported a bright light and a huge shock wave, but the area was so sparsely populated no one was killed.

    Most scientists think the blast was caused by a meteorite exploding several miles above the surface. But Labvin thinks quartz slabs with strange markings found at the site are remnants of an alien control panel, which fell to the ground after the UFO slammed into the giant rock.

    "We don't have any technologies that can print such kind of drawings on crystals," Labvin told the Macedonian International News Agency. "We also found ferrum silicate that can not be produced anywhere, except in space."


    His announcement was greeted by loud raspberries from reputable scientists. Interviewed by Space.com, British researcher Benny Peiser, who runs the CCNet website, a scholarly forum devoted largely to asteroid impacts and other potential natural threats, called the Russian report “a rather stupid hoax.” He was equally critical of the press: “It’s a rather sad comment on the current state of anything-goes attitudes among some science correspondents that such blatant rubbish is being reported".

    They never even bothered to check the slabs. The way of "reputable" science: dogmatism.

  • Brian888Brian888 Registered User
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Drakmathus wrote: »
    why don't you pick a single thing and talk about it at length? Stone Henge or crop circles or whatever. Quit jumping around.

    I am about to name indications. And there are a lot. Perhaps to get you scream "coincidence" so often you might realize at some point how ridicioulus that is.

    How about... this:

    artid_1243585547.jpg
    Dr. Yuri Labvin, president of the Tunguska Spatial Phenomenon Foundation, insists that an alien spacecraft sacrificed itself to prevent a gigantic meteor from slamming into the planet above Siberia on June 30, 1908.

    The result was was the Tunguska event, a massive blast estimated at 15 megatons that downed 80 million trees over nearly 100 square miles. Eyewitnesses reported a bright light and a huge shock wave, but the area was so sparsely populated no one was killed.

    Most scientists think the blast was caused by a meteorite exploding several miles above the surface. But Labvin thinks quartz slabs with strange markings found at the site are remnants of an alien control panel, which fell to the ground after the UFO slammed into the giant rock.

    "We don't have any technologies that can print such kind of drawings on crystals," Labvin told the Macedonian International News Agency. "We also found ferrum silicate that can not be produced anywhere, except in space."



    Let's see...the evidence that Labvin cites for his theory that a UFO took one for the team is that (a) there are patterns, sort of, on rock, and (b) the presence of interstellar materials in the debris at Tunguska.

    His evidence is...lacking. I don't see anything more complicated than a triangle on those slabs, and believe it or not, stuff like that happens in nature. As for the presence of ferrum silicate, well, shit, if a meteorite (which is an extraterrestrial body) explodes, I'd sure as hell expect to find interstellar materials in the debris.

  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    Decorated materials? Come on. You can do better than that.

  • BogartBogart Registered User regular
    ACSIS, you go from "Here are some geometric shapes in a rock" to "This is an alien control panel" without ever passing through any logical steps in between.

    Why is "Alien control panel" the most likely explanation of those shapes?

    Protip: it isn't.

  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    Brian888 wrote: »
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Drakmathus wrote: »
    why don't you pick a single thing and talk about it at length? Stone Henge or crop circles or whatever. Quit jumping around.

    I am about to name indications. And there are a lot. Perhaps to get you scream "coincidence" so often you might realize at some point how ridicioulus that is.

    How about... this:

    artid_1243585547.jpg
    Dr. Yuri Labvin, president of the Tunguska Spatial Phenomenon Foundation, insists that an alien spacecraft sacrificed itself to prevent a gigantic meteor from slamming into the planet above Siberia on June 30, 1908.

    The result was was the Tunguska event, a massive blast estimated at 15 megatons that downed 80 million trees over nearly 100 square miles. Eyewitnesses reported a bright light and a huge shock wave, but the area was so sparsely populated no one was killed.

    Most scientists think the blast was caused by a meteorite exploding several miles above the surface. But Labvin thinks quartz slabs with strange markings found at the site are remnants of an alien control panel, which fell to the ground after the UFO slammed into the giant rock.

    "We don't have any technologies that can print such kind of drawings on crystals," Labvin told the Macedonian International News Agency. "We also found ferrum silicate that can not be produced anywhere, except in space."



    Let's see...the evidence that Labvin cites for his theory that a UFO took one for the team is that (a) there are patterns, sort of, on rock, and (b) the presence of interstellar materials in the debris at Tunguska.

    His evidence is...lacking. I don't see anything more complicated than a triangle on those slabs, and believe it or not, stuff like that happens in nature. As for the presence of ferrum silicate, well, shit, if a meteorite (which is an extraterrestrial body) explodes, I'd sure as hell expect to find interstellar materials in the debris.


    My favorite part is that the only remaining fragments of an exploded alien craft are chunks of the control panel. The control panel made from what appears to be a thick slab of rock with some triangles on it, completely lacking in any sort of differentiated composition that would indicate technology. No hull fragments, no parts of the drive system, none of the things that you'd expect to survive an explosion. Nope, just the flintstones-style control panel.

    So, ACSIS, if the aliens are here and have been here for 15,000 years or whatever, why is it that they apparently stopped hanging out with us after we developed writing? Pre-writing: aliens freaking everywhere helping us build shit. Post-writing: they show up here and there to get written about or have their F-16's made into children's toys. And now that we have photography they can only be bothered to mess about with our crops and (apparently) take a meteorite for us. Where are the aliens helping people build shit in Dubai? Are they only good at working with stone?

    Oh, and this one got lost in the deluge somewhere, but: rotating motion generates anti-gravity? Really? If you have a reference for that one then I know a certain Nobel committee who would probably like to hear about it.

    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Jesus, people. This thread is like a running gunbattle with stupid bullets.
  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    Well the Russian went certainly a bit overboard whith his theory. But the important part is we have extraplanetary material wich is decorated in a way we are not able to reproduce (the russian scientist claims). That raises some questions. I have to admit this is not a good example. Because the only one seriously looking into it was the Russian and his expedition. So we are missing a scientific in-depth analysis about it. Wich counts as a huge flaw for me. But it shows how credible science tends to intentionally totally overlook things. He presented his evidence and was turned down without checking his find. If it is a hoax a simple analysis would have rested the case. It never happened. So the only scientist analyzing it is the Russian and i am forced to accept that since there is no other analysis.

  • SelnerSelner Registered User
    ACSIS, you go from "Here are some geometric shapes in a rock" to "This is an alien control panel" without ever passing through any logical steps in between.

    Yeah, that is a sizeable leap in logic. Nature can be quite geometric when it wants to be.

    Also, if an alien species was that interested in saving the Earth from something like this, and was technologically capable of doing so, you would think they'd be able to do it before the asteroid/meteor go to the Earth.

    But maybe they did, and failed. So were forced to sacrifice a ship to do it :) .

    And of course, there are no other pieces of this alien spacecraft, other than some crystal "control panels". Was the entire thing vaporized, except for the crystal bits?

  • themightypuckthemightypuck Registered User regular
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Well the Russian went certainly a bit overboard whith his theory. But the important part is we have extraplanetary material wich is decorated in a way we are not able to reproduce (the russian scientist claims). That raises some questions. I have to admit this is not a good example. Because the only one seriously looking into it was the Russian and his expedition. So we are missing a scientific in-depth analysis about it. Wich counts as a huge flaw for me. But it shows how credible science tends to intentionally totally overlook things. He presented his evidence and was turned down without checking his find. If it is a hoax a simple analysis would have rested the case. It never happened. So the only scientist analyzing it is the Russian and i am forced to accept that since there is no other analysis.

    You should check out SGU for an alternative perspective. I'm not saying you are wrong but you should hear a cogent perspective from the other side.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    We are not missing scientific explanations of asteroids, nor of naturally-occurring funny patterns in rocks. We're just missing explanations that involve OMG ALIENS, which is the only kind you're closed, narrow and single-tracked mind will accept.

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    Thanks for the link. Useful.
    Richy wrote: »
    naturally-occurring funny patterns in rocks
    Ha! Like triangles? Come on...

  • Zetetic ElenchZetetic Elench Registered User
    Oh, and this one got lost in the deluge somewhere, but: rotating motion generates anti-gravity? Really? If you have a reference for that one then I know a certain Nobel committee who would probably like to hear about it.

    Okay, I am really sketchy on this because it was almost a decade ago when I read it, but here's what I remember: supposedly a scientist discovered that rotating rings of superconductors at a very high speed, with a couple other bits and bobs, reduced the weight of objects directly above it by a percent or two. NASA tried to confirm the discovery and failed completely, and a whole bunch of doubts flew around about the validity of the original scientists' methods. I could swear it also involved a microwave somehow.

    But as I say - incredibly sketchy memory on this one.

    nemosig.png
  • Zetetic ElenchZetetic Elench Registered User
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Thanks for the link. Useful.
    Richy wrote: »
    naturally-occurring funny patterns in rocks
    Ha! Like triangles? Come on...

    giants-causeway.jpg

    nemosig.png
  • Mojo_JojoMojo_Jojo Tough on mime. Tough on the causes of mime Registered User regular
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Thanks for the link. Useful.
    Richy wrote: »
    naturally-occurring funny patterns in rocks
    Ha! Like triangles? Come on...

    giants_causeway.jpg
    Oh look a perfectly natural collection of regular shapes made from rock. Or maybe it was the undersea moon bats that did it?

    Edit: Beaten.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Thanks for the link. Useful.
    Richy wrote: »
    naturally-occurring funny patterns in rocks
    Ha! Like triangles? Come on...

    giants-causeway.jpg
    HOLY SHIT! ALIENS!

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • DuffelDuffel Registered User
    ACSIS, you never answered this question.

    How much firsthand experience do you have with archaeology? And now, it must be asked, with geology? Geometric shapes are extremely common in the natural world.

    Have you ever taken any classes or gotten any field experience with any of this stuff? Or did you just hear it all on the history channel/random alien web site?

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Thanks for the link. Useful.
    Richy wrote: »
    naturally-occurring funny patterns in rocks
    Ha! Like triangles? Come on...

    giants-causeway.jpg
    HOLY SHIT! ALIENS!

    Don't be silly. Giants built that.

  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    Clearly volcanic. No triangles there. And regardless what you trying to hint here triangles are NOT a natural form of cristaline growth, sorry. Especially not in huge surface patterns.

  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Thanks for the link. Useful.
    Richy wrote: »
    naturally-occurring funny patterns in rocks
    Ha! Like triangles? Come on...

    giants-causeway.jpg
    HOLY SHIT! ALIENS!

    Don't be silly. Giants built that.

    They also made Lough Neagh and the Isle of Man.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Clearly volcanic. No triangles there. And regardless what you trying to hint here triangles are NOT a natural form of cristaline growth, sorry. Especially not in huge surface patterns.
    venus-natural-crystal-chair-by-tokujin-yoshioka-larger21.jpg
    Nope, no triangles there.

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • DuffelDuffel Registered User
    Why would aliens make their ship's "control panel" out of a rock anyway? What is this, Gilligan's Island?

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    Don't be silly. Giants built that.
    We have proof they existed!

    normal_New%20Hampshire%20Old%20Man%20Mountain.jpg

    If that woman's cleavedge made one more person pick the game up off the shelf, it was a net positive for microprose. And to be blunt, if taking her top off could have increased sales enough to get a sequel, I'd endorse it 100000% because I like playing great games.
  • gjaustingjaustin Registered User regular
    Duffel wrote: »
    ACSIS, you never answered this question.

    How much firsthand experience do you have with archaeology? And now, it must be asked, with geology? Geometric shapes are extremely common in the natural world.

    Have you ever taken any classes or gotten any field experience with any of this stuff? Or did you just hear it all on the history channel/random alien web site?

    That's not really relevant. His (assumed) lack of experience with archaeology and geology has no bearing on the accuracy of his claims.

    And to other people, all these insults are not helping, since they're just giving him more ammunition to cry persecution.



    ACSIS:
    Please, post some sources. You're not going to convince people of your positions without evidence and professional analysis of that evidence. If you can't find any evidence or any experts analyzing it, you can't expect us to believe it.

    Your belief is not required
  • DuffelDuffel Registered User
    gjaustin wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    ACSIS, you never answered this question.

    How much firsthand experience do you have with archaeology? And now, it must be asked, with geology? Geometric shapes are extremely common in the natural world.

    Have you ever taken any classes or gotten any field experience with any of this stuff? Or did you just hear it all on the history channel/random alien web site?

    That's not really relevant. His (assumed) lack of experience with archaeology and geology has no bearing on the accuracy of his claims.

    It does have a bearing on the fact that he displays a total ignorance of how actual archaeological research (and scientific research in general) is conducted. A few pages ago he was posting about how you can't date archaeological sites based on associated artifacts, which would basically mean the entire archaeological research process could not exist. Now he's trying to say that triangular shapes do not exist in natural geologic formations. So yes, this is relevant.

  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt Carrion-Eater Registered User regular
    Duffel wrote: »
    Why would aliens make their ship's "control panel" out of a rock anyway? What is this, Gilligan's Island?
    I really want to post Gary Larson's 'Primitive UFOs' comic, but I'm afraid that ACSIS is gullible enough to start citing that as a primary source to back up his claims:P

    Origin ID: Null_Cypher
  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    Crystaline structure... is not in triangles. As you can see it are collums. As in the volcanic examples you eagerly posted. Thats a lot different from slaps with patterns on the surface.

  • Mojo_JojoMojo_Jojo Tough on mime. Tough on the causes of mime Registered User regular
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Crystaline structure... is not in triangles. As you can see it are collums. As in the volcanic examples you eagerly posted. Thats a lot different from slaps with patterns on the surface.

    Tetrahedral structures are quite common.
    http://www.mindat.org/gallery.php?loc=24816

  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    Oh, and this one got lost in the deluge somewhere, but: rotating motion generates anti-gravity? Really? If you have a reference for that one then I know a certain Nobel committee who would probably like to hear about it.

    Okay, I am really sketchy on this because it was almost a decade ago when I read it, but here's what I remember: supposedly a scientist discovered that rotating rings of superconductors at a very high speed, with a couple other bits and bobs, reduced the weight of objects directly above it by a percent or two. NASA tried to confirm the discovery and failed completely, and a whole bunch of doubts flew around about the validity of the original scientists' methods. I could swear it also involved a microwave somehow.

    But as I say - incredibly sketchy memory on this one.

    There was a guy named Podkletnov who claimed that a rapidly rotating ring of super-conductor created a gravitomagnetic or gravitoelectric or something field around itself, but nobody has been able to reproduce his results. Another scientist claimed to have a working prototype (I forget their name; someone Asian, I think) but nothing ever came of it.

    Usually the whole spinning thing comes up because gyroscopes appear to defy gravity. It's a thoroughly understood effect, though, and has nothing to do with anti-gravity. From misunderstandings of that you get people designing all manner of contraptions that are supposed to create anti-gravity using things that spin. None of them work. I can see the logic in presuming that some kind of gravitoelectric effect is possible but there's no experimental data to back it up.

    And as for the triangles thing... claiming that triangles are outside the realm of natural ability is just ridiculous. A triangle is a very simple, extremely structurally sound shape. It requires zero stretching for me to believe that you could get odd triangular patterns on quartz as an effect of other chunks of triangular-prism-shaped quartz shearing off of the bulk mass.

    Also, read your own post, ACSIS: the 'strange patterns' weren't on the extraterrestrial material. They found traces of extraterrestrial material and some normal rock crystals with odd shapes on them.

    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Jesus, people. This thread is like a running gunbattle with stupid bullets.
  • themightypuckthemightypuck Registered User regular
    Oh Quid you delicious treat. <3

  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    Mojo_Jojo wrote: »
    Tetrahedral structures are quite common.

    *sigh* Lets make this as simple as possible.
    CAN-YOU-TELL-THE-DIFFERENCE-BETWEEN-3D-AND-2D?
    I really want to post Gary Larson's 'Primitive UFOs' comic, but I'm afraid that ACSIS is gullible enough to start citing that as a primary source to back up his claims:P
    At least i am not gullible enough to attribute complex astronomical structures like Stonehenge to cultures wich have not even developed writing, not to mention... math. Your point was... "farming stuff" i belive.

    Newham had found an alignment for the equinonxes by drawing a line between one of the Station Stones with a posthole next to the Heel Stone. Moving away from the sun, he also identified a lunar alignment; the long sides of the rectangle created by the four station stones matched the moon rise and moonset at the major standstill.

    Two of the Station Stones are damaged and although their positions would create an approximate rectangle, their date and thus their relationship with the other features at the site is uncertain. Stonehenge's latitude is unusual in that only at this approximate latitude (within about 50 km) do the lunar and solar events above occur at right angles to one another. More than 50 km north or south of the latitude of Stonehenge, the station stones would have to be set out as a parallelogram.


    source: Wikipedia
    And as for the triangles thing... claiming that triangles are outside the realm of natural ability is just ridiculous. A triangle is a very simple, extremely structurally sound shape. It requires zero stretching for me to believe that you could get odd triangular patterns on quartz as an effect of other chunks of triangular-prism-shaped quartz shearing off of the bulk mass.

    Also, read your own post, ACSIS: the 'strange patterns' weren't on the extraterrestrial material. They found traces of extraterrestrial material and some normal rock crystals with odd shapes on them.

    This scientist here claims those markings are artificial. Do you really belive he would mistake cristalline structure for "markings" or "printings"? ON crystals... not IN...

    And they found ferrum silicate... if it are "traces" or found in the material is (sadly) not clearly specified... pure speculation. We need an actual analysis report here. As i said: not really a good example, i admit that.

    "We don't have any technologies that can print such kind of drawings on crystals," Labvin told the Macedonian International News Agency. "We also found ferrum silicate that can not be produced anywhere, except in space."

  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt Carrion-Eater Registered User regular
    ACSIS wrote: »
    I really want to post Gary Larson's 'Primitive UFOs' comic, but I'm afraid that ACSIS is gullible enough to start citing that as a primary source to back up his claims:P
    At least i am not gullible enough to attribute complex astronomical structures like Stonehenge to cultures wich have not even developed writing, not to mention... math. Your point was... "farming stuff" i belive.

    Newham had found an alignment for the equinonxes by drawing a line between one of the Station Stones with a posthole next to the Heel Stone. Moving away from the sun, he also identified a lunar alignment; the long sides of the rectangle created by the four station stones matched the moon rise and moonset at the major standstill.

    Two of the Station Stones are damaged and although their positions would create an approximate rectangle, their date and thus their relationship with the other features at the site is uncertain. Stonehenge's latitude is unusual in that only at this approximate latitude (within about 50 km) do the lunar and solar events above occur at right angles to one another. More than 50 km north or south of the latitude of Stonehenge, the station stones would have to be set out as a parallelogram.

    source: Wikipedia
    Now I just have to question, are you an idiot, or is it part of some super secret debating technique that you try and counter my point by providing evidence that directly supports the assertions I was trying to make? :lol:

    Origin ID: Null_Cypher
  • kdrudykdrudy Registered User
    So aliens, that can presumably get around the light-speed limit on velocity, couldn't stop a meteor in any other way then to ram their ship into it? These aliens were either the most naive creatures ever, not having any kind of high energy weaponry on their ship, or the dumbest aliens ever.

    tvsfrank.jpg
  • BogartBogart Registered User regular
    kdrudy wrote: »
    So aliens, that can presumably get around the light-speed limit on velocity, couldn't stop a meteor in any other way then to ram their ship into it? These aliens were either the most naive creatures ever, not having any kind of high energy weaponry on their ship, or the dumbest aliens ever.

    With ships whose vital control mechanisms were made of rocks with nice patterns.

    ACSIS, your first guess for everything is "aliens", even where there's no evidence whatsoever for their involvement. You just latch on to something you don't understand and say that aliens must have done it because you don't understand it.

  • Mojo_JojoMojo_Jojo Tough on mime. Tough on the causes of mime Registered User regular
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Mojo_Jojo wrote: »
    Tetrahedral structures are quite common.

    *sigh* Lets make this as simple as possible.
    CAN-YOU-TELL-THE-DIFFERENCE-BETWEEN-3D-AND-2D?
    YES I CAN. WHY ARE WE TYPING IN CAPS?

    Also, if you take a tetrahedron and look at it face-on, you see a triangle, because it has triangular faces. Which was something I presumed was obvious. I'm sorry for making such assumptions.
    ACSIS wrote: »
    source: Wikipedia
    1) "wikipedia" is not a source. Provide information about the specific article
    2) Don't reference wikipedia, it's very poor practice. Instead, you should follow it's references and provide those.

  • gjaustingjaustin Registered User regular
    Duffel wrote: »
    gjaustin wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    ACSIS, you never answered this question.

    How much firsthand experience do you have with archaeology? And now, it must be asked, with geology? Geometric shapes are extremely common in the natural world.

    Have you ever taken any classes or gotten any field experience with any of this stuff? Or did you just hear it all on the history channel/random alien web site?

    That's not really relevant. His (assumed) lack of experience with archaeology and geology has no bearing on the accuracy of his claims.

    It does have a bearing on the fact that he displays a total ignorance of how actual archaeological research (and scientific research in general) is conducted. A few pages ago he was posting about how you can't date archaeological sites based on associated artifacts, which would basically mean the entire archaeological research process could not exist. Now he's trying to say that triangular shapes do not exist in natural geologic formations. So yes, this is relevant.

    And if it turns out he has a PhD in Archaeology, that still wouldn't make him right. Maybe if we drop the ad hominems and appeals to authority he'll stop acting the victim?


    ACSIS:
    How does lifting some rocks and pointing them at the sun, moon, etc. require writing? Your source mentions that the structure forms lines and rectangles, which would only require some simple sketches.

    Your belief is not required
  • ArchArch Trust me, I'm a scientist Registered User regular
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Mojo_Jojo wrote: »
    Tetrahedral structures are quite common.

    *sigh* Lets make this as simple as possible.
    CAN-YOU-TELL-THE-DIFFERENCE-BETWEEN-3D-AND-2D?
    I really want to post Gary Larson's 'Primitive UFOs' comic, but I'm afraid that ACSIS is gullible enough to start citing that as a primary source to back up his claims:P
    At least i am not gullible enough to attribute complex astronomical structures like Stonehenge to cultures wich have not even developed writing, not to mention... math. Your point was... "farming stuff" i belive.

    Newham had found an alignment for the equinonxes by drawing a line between one of the Station Stones with a posthole next to the Heel Stone. Moving away from the sun, he also identified a lunar alignment; the long sides of the rectangle created by the four station stones matched the moon rise and moonset at the major standstill.

    Two of the Station Stones are damaged and although their positions would create an approximate rectangle, their date and thus their relationship with the other features at the site is uncertain. Stonehenge's latitude is unusual in that only at this approximate latitude (within about 50 km) do the lunar and solar events above occur at right angles to one another. More than 50 km north or south of the latitude of Stonehenge, the station stones would have to be set out as a parallelogram.


    source: Wikipedia
    And as for the triangles thing... claiming that triangles are outside the realm of natural ability is just ridiculous. A triangle is a very simple, extremely structurally sound shape. It requires zero stretching for me to believe that you could get odd triangular patterns on quartz as an effect of other chunks of triangular-prism-shaped quartz shearing off of the bulk mass.

    Also, read your own post, ACSIS: the 'strange patterns' weren't on the extraterrestrial material. They found traces of extraterrestrial material and some normal rock crystals with odd shapes on them.

    This scientist here claims those markings are artificial. Do you really belive he would mistake cristalline structure for "markings" or "printings"? ON crystals... not IN...

    And they found ferrum silicate... if it are "traces" or found in the material is (sadly) not clearly specified... pure speculation. We need an actual analysis report here. As i said: not really a good example, i admit that.

    "We don't have any technologies that can print such kind of drawings on crystals," Labvin told the Macedonian International News Agency. "We also found ferrum silicate that can not be produced anywhere, except in space."

    I just want to respond to the bolded part with this- I don't think that guy has ever seen a laser.

    Also- this paper has a nice image of triangular natural etching on naturally-formed hematite. Hematite is softer than quartz (I think so, going by Mohs hardness scale here) but it is not unreasonable to assume that quartz could undergo a natural event that resulted in triangular etchings on the face of the crystal.
    Also quartz can form in a trigonal crystal structure (essentially a triangle). If, say a trigonal quartz crystal formed on those other quartz crystals and then was cleaved off, it would probably leave trigonal etchings on the quartz face.

    (Being engaged to a geologist/archeologist is good times)

Sign In or Register to comment.