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!
Posts
Mojo isn't paraphrasing him. He actually just wrote source: wikipedia.
Agreed. Wikipedia is a poor source, but it's definitely a start.
That said, I wish he'd actually stop on one topic long enough for us to reasonably pick apart and go over the evidence, rather than constantly rolling on with more and more. The persecution complex doesn't exactly aid matters.
and given we are having a quasi-academic discussion, we should probably adhere to academic rules.
Therefore references to wikipedia are not acceptable as a reputable source.
I just really don't know how to respond to some of these claims, though. They're so weird that I don't really know how to even go about it. Rocks with triangles on them are chunks of a UFO control panel? It's almost a non sequitur.
Thing is, if something is observable and verifiable with the naked eye, knowledge will still crop up around it and be transmitted orally from generation to generation. We often forget about the power of this, but even a fiction like the Iliad, for example, was passed down orally for a long, long time before it was transcribed. We think it would get quickly warped and destroyed, but the importance of a piece of information makes it vital for a culture to keep it alive and intact. In fact, that oral informational flow was their culture. It's what they were good at.
This kind of observation existed and got pretty advanced for what it was, because they had their share of unsung geniuses and philosophers. It's a crude foreshadowing of science, but it got stuff done. And yes, it helped that they could truck around the stones when they saw it didn't quite line up.
An obvious photoshopping.
Everyone is missing the obvious connection!
Our alien visitors didn't work with metals they built their starships out of ROCK
Even ACSIS has overlooked this fact
Why didn't I see this before? It makes perfect sense. I mean think about it, rock is a major component of most asteroids and they travel through space with ease!
What part of "Citation needed" is hard to understand?
You made a huge multi-paragraph post,, and we're supposed to take your word on it being from respectable sources? For all we know you just cited a bunch of articles from Weekly World News.
Micheal Bay only got it half-right. We have been visited by extraterrestrials before. Many times.
But they aren't Transformers.
They're Rock Lords.
Instead of the "hah you're an idiot/spaceships were made of rock/you suck at english/etc" why not just give your counter arguments and then wait for his?
Whats wrong with saying "thats interesting ACSIS but here is why I don't think thats valid...". I know it's the internetzz and all but fuck, I feel like I'm watching a 2nd grade argument.
Are we here to put down peoples beliefs in how/why/when a fucking pyramid was built?
No you are NOT. You are supposed to look into the sources i supplied if you have doubts. If you don't understand or agree with something - ask. Its that easy.
Okay i have jumped from topic to topic and stil there is so much we have missed. Still... if you prefer it: pick a topic.
Step Two: Actually fucking debate it for more than 3 posts.
Jesus, people. This thread is like a running gunbattle with stupid bullets.
GT: batshido Hit me up on ME3.
Sigged.
I get it. You're partial to the idea that there's some undiscovered advanced society. Don't let that color your views when someone consistently fails at honest discourse.
Bold claims require convincing evidence. If I were to submit a paper claiming that... I don't know... the Tunguska event was the crash-landing/explosion of an alien spacecraft to a peer-reviewed publication of some variety I would expect them to demand significant, incontrovertible evidence supporting my assertion. So far ACSIS has responded to all queries and/or arguments with the equivalent of,
"Nuh uh! Besides: aliens did this other thing, too!"
If your belief is that a fucking pyramid was built in a manner or at a time completely out of line with accepted, documented evidence and you have no counter evidence to support this belief then yes, I am going to put it down.
OK, lets talk solely about Stonehenge in the UK. There are three things which are odd about stonehenge.
1) Massive rocks not from the local area.
2) Very good alignment with the location of astronomical bodies at the equinoxes.
3) Very good placement on a location where the stones form a square rather than a parallelogram.
My explanations
1) With enormous manpower, and the application of simple tools as shown in earlier videos it is possible for people to move enormous weights with little difficulty without pulleys and cranes. Furthermore, with the use of religion it is possible to inspire people to work at things for many years.
2) The rocks when initially placed were in OK, but not great alignment. Over the course of some centuries multiple generations of druids and so forth got people together to align the stones better, they are no better than can be done by eye.
3) Numerous similar henges exist, all with similar plans to align with the equinoxes. Druids travelling between ones north of stonehenge and south of stonehenge would have noticed that the shape shifted from one paralellogram to another and became squarer and squarer. Thus it makes sense they might build their greatest henge at stonehenge, or that the henge with the best alignment might eventually become the most important one.
You would imply there is more mystery to it. Why?
The idea for Stonehenge didn't just spring fully formed into the world. The civilization(s) (depends on how you distinguish between Windmill Hill and Essex cultures over time) that built them slowly became better at this stuff (moving stones etc...) over a period of 1000+ years.
Edit: Avebury is far bigger (overall) and older than Stonehenge (though probably built by the same cultures just earlier). But it doesn't get as much interest because in the 1700s puritan Christians set out systematicially pulling down and destroying it. But some study had already been done and with careful archeology you can tell what was there. It just doesn't have the visceral appeal of stonehenge (which was one of the last and latest megalithic constructions in a very long tradition).
Edit: Even more interesting, dating techniques from the last half century have shown that the people building megalithic structures in england and france (what? ACSIS didn't want to talk about the ones in Brittany either? shocking!) started doing so either slightly before or at the same time large scale stone construction got started in Egypt. They did it differently of course, but there is absolutely no weight to the argument that ideas spread from one to the other.
It's only worth playing along with the joke so long before it just gets tiresome, and his habit of throwing shit at the wall hoping sooner or later something will stick stopped being funny a long time ago.
Also, he's insisting on being wrong, on the internet, with a level of determination that borders on masochism. Of course he's attracting flak.
It's easy to forget just how old some of these monuments are; some of this stuff was over a millenia old when the Romans were getting started.
This is the post I'm talking about:
Okay so you have two "sources" in this post. One is an unnamed Discovery Channel program. The other is a vague "BLT Research Team" paper you mention. I can't look into them, because you haven't given us the name of either of them.
Nor have you not provided us with the name of the paper published by this illustrious "BLT Research Team", nor the name of journal they were published in, though I doubt it was anything peer-reviewed.
But more to the point, every one of your sources goes back to the same person. It all hinges on this Nancy Talbot, some leader of what sounds like a sandwich research team. What are her credentials? I doubt she has any. Claiming to be an expert on crop-circles just raises warning flags for me.
OK. Maybe it was aliens. I'll give you that. But, how do we know it was a control panel? It could have been their viewscreen for Bejeweled.
Well, this is a few days old but I finally got around to actually finding that damn table, which was no easy feat, what with the fact that any related search turns up pages and pages and pages of psuedo-archaeological dreck. Of course, the page I found was said dreck, but it has valid conclusions in this case so oh well. Here's the table:
And the source: http://www.mysteria3000.de/wp/?p=22 (you may want to run that through a translator if you don't speak German, though the table's the same). It does accurately address the inconsistencies, as well as providing an explanation as to why the 10-15000 BC figures are bullshit: the site has been tampered with an there are not adequate records to reconstruct it. Therefore, astronomical dating does not work.
As for using carbon dating on stones, that link also addresses it, but that portion is rather horribly mangled by Google translate. Essentially, it goes like this: to carbon-date a stone structure, you date organic material BELOW that structure and say, "Well, it's not particularly likely that people are burying their shit under their buildings, so that stuff was probably there before the rock was, so the structure is no older than what is under it." It then goes on to quote some guy on an even more nutball website (with a broken link, but that's irrelevant) claiming, "they moved these stones once, so maybe they moved the stones again ten thousand years later?" This was met with verbally cockslapping the guy for being dumb.
Look. First thing is i labeled this as a bad example as proof for aliens myself. The interesting thing is it could be REMARKABLE evidence but nobody aside the SCIENTIST and his team getting their hands on the find ever showed interest. It may be a bad example as a proof but it is a PERFECT example of how mainstream science works. They have not debunked it. They have not even bothered to analyse the crystal slabs. Thats why there is no reference. They totally ignored it and discredited it without even taking a look.
And regarding to the pyramid issue: not my BELIF. This is not about belif. All i did was mentioning that your "accepted, documented evidence" tells a story contradicting the ancient records of two arab historians (wich i quoted by name and work) wich is cross referencable to texts contained tin the tora and bible. And interestingly c14 dating is not working on stone. Wich means that your "documented evidence" is not that waterproof as it seems. And since we have historic records tellign another story i thought it would be time to remind you about it. Especially considering that the pyramids fail to give any credit to who actually built them. If i was a king i would have my name everywhere. There is nothing! But we have those astronomical anomalities of the structure harmonizing with the arab story whils your "documented" evidence is completely overlooking the issue. More than enough reason to be a bit sceptical how reliable that "accepted evidence" is.
Many peoples have many questions so that will be impossible but i will divide as much attention as i can.
1) I also think this is the work of humans. But not the design.
2) On the contrary. The choice of the site alone implies in depth planetary&astronomical knowledge wich is impossible to come up without math (the latitude has to be precise considering doing sun and moon observations at one site). I would also be very careful about labeling Stonehenge as "inaccurate". There is a process called global axis tilt wich repeats every 44,000 years if i remeber it correctly. Stonhenge has become indeed MORE accurate over the years.
3) Possibly. But this fails to explain the double use to predict solar eclipses - again i insist on math as a requirement. Coincidence? On a structure like that? The ONLY possible site? I don't think so.
Exactly my point.
"People" have also been retarded dicks being rather insultive than informative. I ignored them for a good reason. Perhaps something important slipped my grasp there. In that case... be perisistant.
But i pointed out Wikipedia as a source, if you look for cropcircles you find everything you need, including:
http://www.bltresearch.com/
Everything you want if you actually cared to use the source i supplied.
"sandwitch research team" ...already into discredition before taking a look at their research? Daring...
And... thanks Garthor. I have to take a close look into that. But i already see reference to pottery there... as i feard... and dating the material below the pieces is in this case equally dangerous since the whole site is kinda... blasted... but seriously: thanks for you hard work. You checked at least into this. Besides: german is my native language.
The astronomical calculations are impossible to be verified because so much has been moved. But its enough to challenge the mainstream dating based on pottery and soil samples. Neither side has really serious evidence.
Of course there are the animal depictions.... and folklore... wich hint to a much older structure predating the Inca civilization.
But the real issue of the site is certainly the way it was consructed wich is very extraordinary. In fact its the only one of its kind. And its totally inachivable by Stonage or even Inca standarts.
Think about this - how would he know what an alien control panel even looked like to compare this to? He'd have to have already seen one, which is impossible.
As far as the Pyramids go, you do realize that the ancient Egyptians kept records of their own, right? Why should we believe the word of two supposed Arab historians from the middle ages who probably couldn't read hieroglyphs when it contradicts the mountain of historical and archaeological evidence that supports the idea that the pyramids were built by the Old Kingdom Pharaohs? And the pyramids aren't mentioned in the Bible/Pentateuch, either.
And finally, yes, Stonehenge was old at the time of the Romans, but nowhere near as old as you seem to be claiming that it is.
I've glanced at the website, before I made that post. I couldn't find information on the site about Nancy Talbot's credentials, and I don't know which paper you are referring to, so I can't look at it even if it's provided on the site. All I saw on the website was more and more evidence of a strong view bias.
1) Evidence for your claim?
2) Evidence for your claim?
3) Evidence for your claim?
ACSIS, please read up on the confirmation bias. We are very good at seeing and creating patterns out of bits of data or observation. A lot happened in the ancient world and there's a lot we don't know about. But there are several things we do know:
1) No aliens have landed in front of any credible witnesses since the dawn of recent history.
2) Even if aliens landed, since aliens are NOT here now, we should look for hard evidence of said landing before leaping to the conclusion that it was, in fact, aliens. Evidence in this case means clear, unambiguous physical artifacts of interstellar spacecraft. If we don't have any evidence at all then the explanation "Aliens did it" is just as credible as the explanation "God did it" or "Magic leaping lizards did it." That is to say, such an explanation explains nothing.
3) People have active imaginations and love to tell stories. People have been telling stories about things that did not occur for all of recorded history. People are telling stories about things that did not occur right now, in 2009.
Given this evidence, which is the more likely explanation?
1) Ancient cultures, who existed a long time ago but had people as anatomically smart as our people today, figured out things and were able to accomplish things that surprise or befuddle us. Ancient cultures also told stories about things that did not occur or were wild embellishments of things that did occur, because storytelling is an indelible part of being human.
2) Aliens landed in every historical site that we cannot, right now, explain with 100% certainty. Ancient writings and tales are direct evidence for alien landings.
*sigh* go to wikipedia and type "crop circles", there among the source list you find:
BLT Research Team INC. - crop circle research lead by Nancy Talbott.
And the link to the site. Its the same woman talking in the video. If you see a huge bias you got it totally wrong.
1) pure speculation
2+3) go to wikipedia and type "stonhenge" there is all the data you ever need - i belive i also quoted the (in my opinion) most relevant part.
1) "Dispersion of energies in worldwide crop formations"
Published by "Munksgaard International Publishers Ltd.", which is a Denmark-based publisher. So this paper is self-published.
Journal Verdict: N/A
2) "Semi-Molten Meteoric Iron Associated with a Crop Formation"
Published by "Journal of Scientific Exploration ".
The writing there gave me the suspicion that while the SSE may be peer-reviewed (in that a panel of the paper writer's peers review it before publishing it), the peers themselves are of dubious distinction. Indeed, right on the front page of the website, under "New SEE Talks" there are such enlightening videos as "Garret Moddel Straightforward and Obvious Disproof of HIV/AIDS Theory" and "Why ESP is Consciousness' Only Hope".
Journal Verdict: Laughable. This is like those "peer-reviewed journals" that are set up by creationists in order to pretend their distortions of facts are real science too.
3) "Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants"
Published by: Munksgaard International Publishers, Ltd.
Again, self-published.
Journal Verdict: N/A
4) "The Physics of Crop Formations,"
Published in: MUFON Journal, October 1998, pp. 3-7
A quick Google reveals that MUFON is the "Mutual UFO Network". I looked around the website but could find nothing about whether the journal is peer-reviewed, but the impression was clear.
Journal Verdict: It's a UFO junkie rag, not a journal.
Everything else on the page are full books or television interviews, and the pages they link to are sensationalist write-ups, not proper summaries of contents.
As you can see, I'm willing to be quite thorough when taking apart dubious sources. But I'm not about to drop money on their books. And I'm not even going to bother watching the Discovery Channel "documentary" because I probably saw it years ago. I know exactly the sort of program it is, because I used to be into the paranormal as a child. Those sorts of programs set themselves up to always present things as though it's incredibly obvious that extraterrestrial life exists. That's how they always are. Television programs, for the purpose of this debate, are worthless in terms of presenting information that we can look at in-depth.
also, you're the one making the claim that aliens from space visited ancient britonians and helped with the building of a stone monument. you don't get to say shit like "just go to google.com. that's all the information you'll ever need to support my theory." it's up to you to supply us with credible links and sources for your claims.
and you didn't address the last part of my post. why not?
This is very curious, isn't it? To see mainstream science behave in such an unscientific way.
ACSIS, have you ever read Carl Sagan? I think you should.
Yes, how dare those scientists, not treating you like a scientist! Why, it's almost as though you weren't doing proper scientific research!
Confirmation bias, bubbo. One of the "journals" is not scientific in that it already presumes UFOs and extraterrestrial life in regular contact with Earth is a foregone conclusion. The other journal publishes material that says there is no link between HIV and AIDS. If I point these things out to you and you get mad about the scientists being all unscientific, I got news for you: the problem isn't with those scientists.
2) No it doesn't, just because some phenomenon only occurs at one small area on the globe doesn't mean that you have to know what that area is to discover it. There were many henges built up and down the British isles, stonehenge just became the most important because it was in the best place.
And why would aliens design a site to be inaccurate at the time of building?
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some