Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Ancient Aliens or are We Our Own Gods?


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl
What do you guys think about the Ancient Aliens theory? A lot of it I find very fascinating but that may be because I am a self-taught student in the paranormal and fringe sciences. A lot of it does fill in holes that neither science nor faith can answer. A couple of things to point out: Every single culture believes in some type of 'supernatural being.' With the exception of Atheists. We have lost the science and perhaps even the technology that allowed the ancients to build gigantic structures like the pyramids, and Stonehenge. What is God? The very definition states that he is outside of this world as in.... Extraterrestrial!!!!!!! God creates us in his own image. Sounds like cloning to me! There are many examples of advanced technology in the Bible! Yes, the Bible. Jesus' apparent creation was conceived using intro-vitro fertilization (virgin birth). The Ark of the Covenant is described as being radioactive. Moses receives the Ten Commandments from God in a swirling gust of wind and fire from atop Mt. Sinai. (UFO?) Noah builds an ark to keep two of every animal? How about a DNA Bank? That would certainly be a lot easier to control. The Pharaohs and Kings after them supposedly had a direct link to the Gods. We are taught that the first civilizations were supposed to have become self aware on our own and to magically think up writing and tools and everything else that makes culture. I find it easier to believe that they were taught by the 'Gods' or perhaps even future time travelers. I have more but feel free to chip in. Because after all, if future humanity landed on a distant planet b/c we needed resources. Boosted the population's intelligence and advanced their evolution using advanced technology. Taught them a few things that will allow them to serve us and understand what we want them to do. Wouldn't we do the same thing?
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#2
OrbitalResonance

OrbitalResonance

    Cosmic Emperor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,233 posts
  • LocationDeep Space

magically think up writing and tools


Evolution, many things do it, including culture and how to transmit it. It didn't just pop up overnight, even though history seems to make it seem that way with spouting dates and such.

Because after all, if future humanity landed on a distant planet b/c we needed resources. Boosted the population's intelligence and advanced their evolution using advanced technology. Taught them a few things that will allow them to serve us and understand what we want them to do. Wouldn't we do the same thing?


We wouldn't be dumb enough to go there without a means to extract resources ourselves. Go to a common asteroid or comet to get more resources that your ship would need rather than go to some dangerous planet with a bunch of hot volatiles. And by ourselves i mean automated robotics and the such.

If we are indeed within someones ''domain' i highly doubt they would bother us at all. Just watch us and see how we develop. They would learn alot about themselves that way, they would have had to go something like it in their history. Perhaps not, but its all a opportunity for science.

There are many examples of advanced technology in the Bible!


Active imaginations by desert peoples, the examples of correlation given are vague and based off current knowlege. Think of all the things we talk/dream about on the site we have yet to have a mechanism for like antrgravity pads so we could float off the ground easily. We can speculate on the idea but have no idea what it would may eventually be called or how it would work.

God creates us in his own image. Sounds like cloning to me!


Sounds like overconfidence and self importance when we are nothing but specks of dust floating on a mote of dust.

We have lost the science and perhaps even the technology that allowed the ancients to build gigantic structures like the pyramids, and Stonehenge.


No, we could do that now. Look in Las Vegas and Memphis, Tennessee. There are ones made of glass! There is also a styrofoam stone hinge somewhere in the blue ridge of Virginia. The people who did that stuff were not dumb, they had motive for various reasons(religious) and a bunch of slave labor. Least our large constructions are functional at the practical level. (im saying the pyramids, stonehenge was a very practical calendar)

A more accurate description is ancient Alien hypothesis, there is not enough hard evidence to call it a theory. Its more or less rampart speculation.

I hope none of this post seems to be attacking you, i am only trying to point out the flaws i see, ive got a terrible ulcer in my mouth that is diving me nuts.

We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. - Carl Sagan


#3
Caiman

Caiman

    Funky Duck

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • LocationManchester, England

Every single culture believes in some type of 'supernatural being.' With the exception of Atheists.

I feel that this is more to do with the fact that it's a hell of a lot easier to explain the world around us with 'magic' than it is to discover how things really work or transpired.


We are taught that the first civilizations were supposed to have become self aware on our own and to magically think up writing and tools and everything else that makes culture. I find it easier to believe that they were taught by the 'Gods' or perhaps even future time travelers. I have more but feel free to chip in.

But all this does is remove the burden of advancement elsewhere. These aliens you posit might have taught humanity writing, tools and technology must have developed it themselves right, or someone who taught them must have developed it- and so on. Why if they were capable of developing it naturally and without inteference would we not be, why make it more complicated than that?

~Jon


#4
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl

Every single culture believes in some type of 'supernatural being.' With the exception of Atheists.

I feel that this is more to do with the fact that it's a hell of a lot easier to explain the world around us with 'magic' than it is to discover how things really work or transpired.


We are taught that the first civilizations were supposed to have become self aware on our own and to magically think up writing and tools and everything else that makes culture. I find it easier to believe that they were taught by the 'Gods' or perhaps even future time travelers. I have more but feel free to chip in.

But all this does is remove the burden of advancement elsewhere. These aliens you posit might have taught humanity writing, tools and technology must have developed it themselves right, or someone who taught them must have developed it- and so on. Why if they were capable of developing it naturally and without inteference would we not be, why make it more complicated than that?


I know, that's why I don't currently like the theories of evolution or creationism these are pretty much magic to me! While Evolution does have some scientific methods Species evolve to help themselves adapt to the environment over long periods of time, ok I can handle that. But what environment would allow ancient man to develop thinking writing and tools? Wouldn't all species on the Earth develop those methods? Why only humans? Monkeys today are learning these things because humans are teaching them!!!! The only answer science gives is it just happened and I hate that explanation when it comes to the ancient past.


We have lost the science and perhaps even the technology that allowed the ancients to build gigantic structures like the pyramids, and Stonehenge.


No, we could do that now. Look in Las Vegas and Memphis, Tennessee. There are ones made of glass! There is also a styrofoam stone hinge somewhere in the blue ridge of Virginia. The people who did that stuff were not dumb, they had motive for various reasons(religious) and a bunch of slave labor. Least our large constructions are functional at the practical level. (im saying the pyramids, stonehenge was a very practical calendar)

While these recreations are nice, they are nowhere near as big, beautiful, or majestic as the real thing. We today, could not construct the great Pyramids exactly as they are. We don't even know the exact methods they used to build them. styrofoam Stonehenge, please. The real Stonehenge weighs tons and its on the middle of a hilltop. So how did ancient people move the slabs of rock from where ever they came from? And why? We currently don't know why, Stonehenge was built the calendar is only a theory.

The Pharaohs are supposed to have spent their whole lives developing and creating their own tombs. I'm not saying the Ancients were dumb, the Ancients were very smart peoples and a lot smarter than we give them credit for. But some of their science is lost to us.


There are of course many examples of ancient stuff that just does not make sense in stone age time. Nazca lines, Easter Island, The Olmec Heads, The Voynich manuscript, The Piris Reis Map, The dead sea Scrolls, macchu Picchu and many many others!
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#5
Caiman

Caiman

    Funky Duck

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • LocationManchester, England

I know, that's why I don't currently like the theories of evolution or creationism these are pretty much magic to me!

Well, only one of those things you mentioned is a scientific theory, the latter definitely is magic.

While Evolution does have some scientific methods Species evolve to help themselves adapt to the environment over long periods of time, ok I can handle that. But what environment would allow ancient man to develop thinking writing and tools? Wouldn't all species on the Earth develop those methods? Why only humans? Monkeys today are learning these things because humans are teaching them!!!! The only answer science gives is it just happened and I hate that explanation when it comes to the ancient past.


Without turning this thread into a debate on the merits of the Theory of Evolution, your position still just passes the buck. Even if humans were taught language and technology by an alien source according to your hypothesis, how did they acquire it? Where does the buck stop? There must have been an original source, and if that's the case, why would humanity be incapable of developing and using language and tools ourselves?

~Jon


#6
Nom du Clavier

Nom du Clavier

    Brain in a body-shaped jar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Location/dev/random
We've lost the technology to build Stonehenge?

If we wanted to we could build a much larger and heavier Stonehenge at sea on reclaimed land, with comparative ease.
  • The internets appear to agree on the heaviest stone weighing close to 50 tons.
  • The ship MV Fairplayer has two cranes, each capable of lifting 900 tons. So each of these cranes could lift 6 or 7 statues of liberty, whilst afloat.
  • Land reclamation I think is pointless to demonstrate, with the United Arab Emirates having demonstrated this, but for completeness: same link as the previous, the ship Christobal Colon can dredge up some 1600 dump trucks of sand in one go, enough to bury a football (soccer) pitch 9m deep.
  • ???
  • Profit!

Assuredly that's not how they did things back then, but we've also come a long way since. As for how they did it, they must simply have used the same underlying principles of those monster cranes: pulleys and levers. There's a saying attributed to Archimedes, "Give me a long enough lever and a place to stand, and I'll move the world." It's hyperbolic, sure, but not out of the realm of scientific possibility, if we indeed could give him such lever and place.
This amount of awesome cannot be from concentrate.

#7
Chronomaster

Chronomaster

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 80 posts
Personally I do not believe that our evolution or development of technology has been influenced by an external factor such as aliens or time travellers (though I would have a bigger problem with the latter!), but that doesn't mean I would be opposed to considering it. As you pointed out jj, if at some point down the line we become a species capable of interstellar exploration and happen upon a world home to a life form we think that we can help along, we probably would? But would we then disappear without a trace, leaving no lasting evidence of our presence behind- and why? While I am open to the possibility that ancient aliens visited this planet, I certainly do not believe it is necessary to explain how we came to acquire culture, technology and language- there is plenty of research available to consume on how it is believed we came to develop those abilities.
Counting down...

#8
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl


As for how they did it, they must simply have used the same underlying principles of those monster cranes: pulleys and levers.


I find it extremely hard to picture ancient peoples using cranes, levers, and ropes dragging 50 ton stones from who knows where and then lifting 50 ton stones in the stone age. There are some engineers on this forum. Is that even possible to do? How many people would it take? How much precision does that take to make sure the whole project doesn't come tumbling down? Make sure everything, every person is in place at every single given second? And then as an added bonus they created it to use as some sort of calendar or observatory!!!

I know that this theory and no it isn't mine (I don't want to take credit for it) is hard for some of you traditional scientists to comprehend especially since some of you don't even believe that their is life in the universe. But you have to wonder how and why all these monuments were built? The mysteries of lost and ancient civilizations and the well known stories in all cultures that depict flying chariots! You have to admit that we do not know the whole story, and likely never will.
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#9
Andy

Andy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • LocationUnited Kingdom
Poles of sufficient size to act as wheels, put object on poles, push object so poles roll, object moves. You don't need intricate pulleys and levers to move an object, and while I'm sure what I describe was only the core concept (school physics) and the reality was far more ingenious given the distance and terrain, it's not that hard to expand it to move larger objects.

Be reasonable. You're talking about a species that started building the Pyramids around the time Stonehenge was put together, I'm sure it was within their ability to shift a rocks using relatively simple methods. It probably didn't need to be that precise, some people probably died on the way, but they managed it somehow. Civilisations were building clocks, doing maths and whatever else around the time, so they could have figured out how to make a calendar or observatory or whatever too. Maybe they didn't even know what they were making - their understanding of the world and how things worked would have been completely different from ours, but not so different they were incapable of anything significant.

The only reason there's debate about it is that we don't know exactly how they did it, and what methods they used are of interest to historians and scientists piecing together how humanity developed to what it is today, so lots of theories arise. To say they weren't capable, however, is ignoring quite a large chunk of humanity's past, present and future potential.

And you've bought up so many different topics in your original post I'm not going to touch on the rest for fear of diluting the point I'm trying to make.
For everyone's sake, watch this video

#10
Craven

Craven

    Elephant in the forest

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,325 posts
  • LocationPoland, Cracow

I know, that's why I don't currently like the theories of evolution or creationism these are pretty much magic to me! While Evolution does have some scientific methods Species evolve to help themselves adapt to the environment over long periods of time, ok I can handle that. But what environment would allow ancient man to develop thinking writing and tools? Wouldn't all species on the Earth develop those methods? Why only humans? Monkeys today are learning these things because humans are teaching them!!!! The only answer science gives is it just happened and I hate that explanation when it comes to the ancient past.


Ok ancient constructions were adressed so I'll stick to this part.
Creationism is faith, evolution is scientific verified theory. Use of tools is developed by species that need them to improve their surviability. You might as well say "why only birds developed feathers?". And most important - there are several animals that use tools in wild, without being taught by humans. Those include primates, birds cracking ostrich eggs with stones, dolphins using sponges to search for food on sea floor, elephants (numerous elaborate actions), and some species of octopi.
"I walk alone and do no evil, having only a few wishes, just like an elephant in the forest."

"Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and you weep alone."

#11
Nom du Clavier

Nom du Clavier

    Brain in a body-shaped jar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Location/dev/random



As for how they did it, they must simply have used the same underlying principles of those monster cranes: pulleys and levers.


I find it extremely hard to picture ancient peoples using cranes, levers, and ropes dragging 50 ton stones from who knows where and then lifting 50 ton stones in the stone age. There are some engineers on this forum. Is that even possible to do? How many people would it take? How much precision does that take to make sure the whole project doesn't come tumbling down? Make sure everything, every person is in place at every single given second? And then as an added bonus they created it to use as some sort of calendar or observatory!!!

I know that this theory and no it isn't mine (I don't want to take credit for it) is hard for some of you traditional scientists to comprehend especially since some of you don't even believe that their is life in the universe. But you have to wonder how and why all these monuments were built? The mysteries of lost and ancient civilizations and the well known stories in all cultures that depict flying chariots! You have to admit that we do not know the whole story, and likely never will.


The thing is that to call it a theory is misleading. It's at best a hypothesis and one that suffers from the same problem as creationism: testability. You may say this is nothing more but semantics, but these are important distinctions in science, and it's one of the reasons why scientists got so upset with the evangelical crowd for hijacking the scientific community's terminology in an attempt to make creationism or intelligent design look more respectable and scientific than it actually was.

I'll summarise briefly the rules used to call something a theory:
- an idea = wouldn't it be fun if... - everything starts here
- a hypothesis = okay, I've worked some more on this idea, and here's how we'll know if it's true: if you find this and that, it holds, if you don't find this or find that, it doesn't hold.
- a theory = a hypothesis that's been around a long time, actively tested by many different scholars, and not found to have been falsified
- a law = a theory that's been around long enough

That's generally the gist of it. What it shows is that 'Ancient Alien Theory' is much more of an idea or hypothesis than it is a theory. Many of the component 'theories' you list as being part of the whole aren't even fully hypotheses. In other words, if it's science, it's only so by the skin of its teeth and pseudoscience would be a better term for it.

That's not saying aliens didn't come to this planet and haven't helped us along, but - as someone who watched Ancient Aliens on the History Channel with much amusement - the hypothesis (let's be generous and call it that) suffers from those basic problems. You can't test it! And testing 'it' is made more problematic because it's an amalgam of many disparate pieces each trying to say 'aliens did this', where it would make sense to test these notions individually. Apart from the 'aliens did it', a lot of them have little else in common. Indeed, if any of them were to be proven true - which really means not proven false - it would be a scientific field in its own right, and these component parts each their own hypothesis.

Many of us here no doubt believe in alien life, if only because of the overwhelming odds in favour. What some of us don't believe in, given the immensity of distances involved, is that they actually visited us at any time in the past, let alone during a critical time where they could influence our civilisation. Look at how long it's taken us to go from single celled organisms to putting a man on the moon! We've stalled since then, but even now it looks that it will take a while before we ever visit the nearest star.

So another problem with the hypothesis is that for us to have been visited, this alien species will have had to reach the stage where they could travel freely between stars. I think it's clear that in our own history we've had points where we escaped only barely and if not for those escapes we wouldn't even have made it to the moon, let alone speculate on aliens visiting us. Even so, of all civillisations that could have visited ours, this narrows down the number of possible ones that could have developed interstellar travel. Look at the state of the planet right now and how it's likely we'll be in for a bumpy ride; unless these aliens had vastly different starting conditions, where their cheap source of energy didn't pollute like our hydrocarbons did, that would be another challenge they'd had to overcome to get to the interstellar stage.

Really, if alien life is a given - and it's hard to argue differently - then candidate civilisations to have visited us at any time in the past are winnowed down quickly, just for having to reach a stage where they could survive to the point where visiting another star is relatively easy. I think we can agree that interstellar travel is not something you throw together in a shed one afternoon, never mind find a way that makes this comparatively safe to do. On that note, the odds go down some more just because of that safety: you'll have to make do with whatever's out there between stars and planets and if something breaks, you'd better have spares.

Take into account also the vast interstellar distances and time involved to reach another planet, and the very statistics arguing for interstellar life - number of stars - actually count against the probability that ours in particular will have been visited, with the time component also meaning that it's much more unlikely we'll have been visited in the brief period we were around as human beings than for a visitor to have been here during an earlier stage. Put simply, compared to the planet's age, we've been around here for the blink of an eye. It'd be very convenient for them to have visited during a particularly interesting blink of a blink,

Still, let's ignore for a moment all those fundamental problems and assume for the sake of argument they did visit us during a crucial period. It still leaves a number of gaping holes in the hypothesis in that it doesn't tell us what it is we're looking for. It doesn't say, if you find the Doctor's Sonic Screwdriver, then that's a very convincing argument in favour, and if you don't find any alien technology, it argues against the hypothesis.

So far there have been no signs of alien technology, and it's not at all convincing to say, 'they packed it all up when they left'. Really, everything? Every single bolt?

All these dependent hypotheses that tell us in short 'aliens did it', well, let's just say human ingenuity is easily underestimated. I mentioned elsewhere we're no smarter now than they were in ancient Greece, and it's only because of their legacy we've managed to come so far. Given that the technology needed to build Stonehenge is something you're taught in highschool (at least in most European countries, and not Stonehenge explicitly, but the mathematics and physics that would allow you to) as an introduction to science, it's not that much of a leap to see ancient humanity had these basic skills.

Not unimportantly, when something is so far out the scientific mainstream, it's upon the proponents of the hypothesis to come up with compelling arguments and present evidence. If the show 'Ancient Aliens' is anything to go by, I think the scientific community is still waiting. They spin a nice yarn, yes, but many arguments aren't compelling evidence when we can show humans could have done these things too. As for evidence, where are the unique undeniably extraterrestial screwdrivers?

Where have Von Daniken and friends said, "If you find evidence of this and that having happened, I'll agree it wasn't aliens." Because really, if your entire argument boils down to "Aliens did it, it's much too hard for us." that smacks of "God did it.", and it's impossible to prove a negative. Sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic, right? You can't disprove the involvement of, for all intents and purposes, magic.

So if the argument is, "you can't prove it wasn't aliens," it's not a scientific theory, it can't be falsified. If instead the argument is, "Here are markers to look for that make alien involvement much more likely than not," then sure, shows us those... those are true hypotheses and we can actually test those. But if the scientific community then says, "You can build Stonehenge with a highschool understanding of engineering", be prepared to offer up a better reason why it had to have been aliens.

fix: missing word
This amount of awesome cannot be from concentrate.

#12
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl
Ok fine, i understand how it can't be quite a theory yet. But I have mentioned other mysteries that no scientists can answer. There are still things that we do not quite understand why and how the ancients knew about. How could they map the stars as precisely as they did without using telescopes which weren't supposed to be invented until the 1600s? What was the Antikythera mechanism and why is it sooo complex? What was it used for and how did ancient peoples know about this technology? Why were there at one point two human species walking the planet at the same time? And why do all cultures have the same fundamental belief in a higher power? Scientists cannot answer these questions to date. There are huge chunks of the puzzle missing and it doesn't have to be aliens, but I'm just wondering how it all fits together.
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#13
Nom du Clavier

Nom du Clavier

    Brain in a body-shaped jar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Location/dev/random
There is no shame in saying "We don't know" in science. It wasn't until all that long ago that science had already given us many wonderful things, and yet two fellows managed to discover DNA. Wonderful as that was and much though it explained, it also raised at least as many questions as we answered. "We don't know" is not so much shameful as it is a call to arms to go forth and find out.

I'm not suggesting all these puzzles will one day be answered, but I truly hope they will. They are fascinating questions and when watching the show I also marveled and went, "how about that?" Nevertheless, without positive evidence for alien involvement, we can hardly expect scientists to say (in response to the hypothesis), "Okay, that explains it then. Let's go to the pub, have a pint." If along comes one day enough archeological evidence, science may yet answer a lot of the questions that are currently unanswered. We can but hope they do.

As for alien involvement, it really adds another piece to the puzzle instead of solving it, but who knows... we may yet find the equivalent of the Doctor's screwdriver and find ourselves with inescapable proof. On the other hand, further archeological finds may slowly but surely start to yield answers to all the other unanswered mysteries.

We know what the Antikythera does and how it works, answering the question 'what it was for' is harder. It calls for speculation, but historical records may yet surface. It's been ruled out to be evidence of time travel and thus by extension alien involvement. It's a site well worth reading with lots of detailed information on the device. I celebrate the device as nothing short of an amazing achievement, on par with our digital computers.

As a pinnacle of achievement in ancient times it also shows us yet another example of how dangerous it is to underestimate their ingenuity; it is no less impressive than the first microprocessor was or Turing's code breaking machine before that, but if we see our achievements as superior to theirs - even though we wouldn't have made those 'superior' achievements without their shoulders to stand on - we start too easily to think people were clueless savages back then, that they couldn't have possibly did many things on their own when quite clearly they have. Adding aliens into the mix removes the question one level indirection, "Okay, so I now understand that's how our people did it... they got their technology from aliens, but how did they discover it?" We'll always be questioning things, it's what we do as a species, and tiresome at times may be, but so awesome at others. If not for all those pesky questions we'd not have an internet on which to have this discussion.

I hope you see though that adding aliens into the mix isn't something we should do when we have no other answers, but in response to some artifact which is undeniably extraterrestrial in nature. We didn't know about germs until relatively recently either, the result of which people blamed demons and what not for their illness. Now we laugh at that notion and as we find more answers in the future, I don't doubt our descendants will laugh at the idea people in this age seriously discussed alien involvement in their history.

There are a number of questions left to be answered and I hope you come away not with, "Well, that sucks." It's just as wonderful and mysterious knowing your fellow humans did this at some point, discovering the how and why might not happen in our lifetimes for all of the pieces, but I bet - like Star Trek and SciFi in general - questions like these have inspired many scientists and will continue to do so until we've solved all the mysteries we can. Hopefully none of these questions require evidence which has been destroyed to answer. The mechanism mentioned was the only of its kind ever found. I wonder how many wonderful things we never got to speculate about because they left no trace behind for us to find...

I share your frustration we may not yet know the mechanism behind all our ancestors' deeds (for example the pyramids -- reasonably basic engineering is really needed, but their exact choices remain so far a mystery), nor do we know of all the societies in a great enough detail that we can say, "Oh, they were trying to appease such and such a deity," and use that in our own understanding why the came to build or do what they did. For now, "We don't know" is the only answer we can give to some of these and there is no shame in that; it will only drive science to try and find out. I am happy with that.
This amount of awesome cannot be from concentrate.

#14
Prolite

Prolite

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 609 posts
This topic is so ridiculous. Aliens?! Creationism?! You sound like that fringe lunatic group who makes up .000000001% of society who still believes the moon landing was fake, or that "Jesus" will visit the Earth again. Yeah OKAY. http://www.futuretim...tyle_emoticons/animate/thumbdown.gif
I'm a business man, that's all you need to know about me.

#15
Chronomaster

Chronomaster

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 80 posts
Doesn't mean we cannot discuss the topic maturely^ Constructive debate with reasoned arguments is better than just dismissing someone's opinions out of hand if you don't agree with it! Nom, that's a couple of great posts! You've really highlighted something great about science in your last post there, that we don't know everything and we're not afraid to admit it. That's what science is for, after all. Just because we don't know the answer to a particular phenomenon right now doesn't mean we never will.
Counting down...

#16
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl

This topic is so ridiculous. Aliens?! Creationism?! You sound like that fringe lunatic group who makes up .000000001% of society who still believes the moon landing was fake, or that "Jesus" will visit the Earth again. Yeah OKAY. http://www.futuretim...tyle_emoticons/animate/thumbdown.gif


I only wanted futurists and scientists input on the idea, because the Ancient Aliens show really doesn't interview real scientists. I got some great feedback and responses and appreciated them very much. I never specifically stated that I believed in the idea I am intrigued by it. You may call me crazy for brining up a topic such as this on a scientific forum, but then again some of our ideas for the future are pretty crazy as well. So it goes both ways i think.

Oh, and I bet a lot more people (Christians) believe that Jesus will come again than the moon landing was fake, since that is part of their religious belief system.
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#17
Nom du Clavier

Nom du Clavier

    Brain in a body-shaped jar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Location/dev/random


This topic is so ridiculous. Aliens?! Creationism?! You sound like that fringe lunatic group who makes up .000000001% of society who still believes the moon landing was fake, or that "Jesus" will visit the Earth again. Yeah OKAY. http://www.futuretim...tyle_emoticons/animate/thumbdown.gif


I only wanted futurists and scientists input on the idea, because the Ancient Aliens show really doesn't interview real scientists. I got some great feedback and responses and appreciated them very much. I never specifically stated that I believed in the idea I am intrigued by it. You may call me crazy for brining up a topic such as this on a scientific forum, but then again some of our ideas for the future are pretty crazy as well. So it goes both ways i think.

Oh, and I bet a lot more people (Christians) believe that Jesus will come again than the moon landing was fake, since that is part of their religious belief system.


Well, I'm glad you got something out of it. It's always hopeful to see someone who's willing to challenge their preconceptions, and in general further their knowledge. Kudos to you.
This amount of awesome cannot be from concentrate.

#18
Azureous

Azureous

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts
studying science myself, i can't say its not possible, i've also heard some interesting things about the pyramid, something about pie(lol maths pie), length of pyramid sides add up to the number of days in a year? a hole in the pharaohs tomb points straight at a star? there was also one story of interests to me, there was this one village that worshipped a star that was not visible to the naked eye, only visible by an observatory. The pyramids were also too dark and lacked sufficient oxygen to fuel fire, yet how did people see inside? they suggested mirrors but by the time light made it inside it would be too weak, apparently they were able to generate electricity using some sort of fruit. bogus? i don't know, i'll try to find the documentary that mentions all of these if anyone is interested. Their logic appears to be sound (at least to me) but I haven't checked the sources yet, maybe i should, soon hopefully. before you debunk the ancient astronaut theory i think it is worthwhile giving the documentary a look. i don't believe it enough to fly around the world to see it now but i wouldn't mind a vacation at some of the places, maybe its a marketing gimmick.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users