So what's the deal with the "Galactic Alignment"?

[garbonzo607]

I've always believed the Galactic Alignment was fact, but it seems there is conflicting views on the matter on the internet.

This site deems it as fact:

It is important to define what the Galactic Alignment is in precise astronomical terms. (See the Glossary below for terms.)

The Galactic Alignment is the alignment of the December solstice sun with the Galactic equator. This alignment occurs as a result of the precession of the equinoxes.

Precession is caused by the earth wobbling very slowly on its axis and shifts the position of the equinoxes and solstices one degree every 71.5 years. Because the sun is one-half of a degree wide, it will take the December solstice sun 36 years to precess through the Galactic equator (see diagram below).

The precise alignment of the solstice point (the precise center-point of the body of the sun as viewed from earth) with the Galactic equator was calculated to occur in 1998 (Jean Meeus, Mathematical Astronomy Morsels, 1997).

Thus, the Galactic Alignment "zone" is 1998 +/- 18 years = 1980 - 2016. This is "era-2012."

This Galactic Alignment occurs only once every 26,000 years...



While a 2009 NASA webpage says it is junk: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-guest.html

In fact, astronomy cannot pinpoint such a "galactic alignment" to within a year, much less a day. The alignment depends on the rather arbitrary modern definition of the galactic equator, and/or the visual appearance of the Milky Way. There is no precise definition of the Milky Way's edges -- they are very vague and depend on the clarity of your view.

Real astronomy does not support any match between the Baktun-13 end date and a galactic alignment.

So which is it? Can Cecil clarify this matter once and for all?

[Duckster]

So which is it?

Galactic Alignment?



Short answer - Astrological bullshit.
Long answer - The NASA link you cited.

[garbonzo607]

Galactic Alignment?



Short answer - Astrological bullshit.
Long answer - The NASA link you cited.


How do you know? Are you an astronomer? We are always appealing to authority or reading things other people say. I want the source. This is why I hope Cecil will really look into this matter. It seems to me that NASA doesn't even know, as they profess themselves.

[Andy L]

How do you know? Are you an astronomer? We are always appealing to authority or reading things other people say. I want the source. This is why I hope Cecil will really look into this matter. It seems to me that NASA doesn't even know, as they profess themselves.

NASA doesn't say that NASA doesn't know. NASA says that no one knows, because the concept isn't well defined.

[garbonzo607]

NASA doesn't say that NASA doesn't know. NASA says that no one knows, because the concept isn't well defined.

Exactly. But the Mayans may have known. =)

[Andy L]

Exactly. But the Mayans may have known. =)

Known something that's not well-defined?

[garbonzo607]

Known something that's not well-defined?

Yes. They may have defined it.

[Andy L]

Yes. They may have defined it.

"Not well-defined" in this context means that any one of a variety of definitions would be equally valid, and thus meaningless.

[Patty O'Furniture]

Yes. They may have defined it.

So I can know something simply by defining it?

[GIGObuster]

The reality is that the source of the ideas that 2012 and the Galactic Alignment are big deals came from book authors that at best are philosophers with no experience in astronomy.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/2012-the-end-of-the-world/

The most trusted sources on the right side of the graphic tell you how inadequate the theories from those philosophers are.

[GIGObuster]

More detailed explanations on why this "Galactic Alignment" is just woo woo can be found in this Google Doc from the makers of that graph:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmCeWwNKr6FmdDJnMmtSY3JGZF9GNlUzRTN6SEMyNWc&hl=en#gid=0

[PacifistPorcupine]

Thus, the Galactic Alignment "zone" is 1998 +/- 18 years = 1980 - 2016. This is "era-2012."


Just what exactly do they mean by "era-2012?" 2012 is just one of 37 years in that interval, why is it more meaningful than 1984 or 1998? Because somebody is trying to fit a "meaningful" date to another "meaningful" date?

[Exapno Mapcase]

Just so everybody knows, the nutcase being quoted by the OP is John Major Jenkins, whose Alignment2012 (http://alignment2012.com/about_jmj.html) site is a focal point for those spouting gibberish about this non-event.

I doubt that the OP has "always believed" in the Galactic Alignment, because Jenkins just invented it a few years ago.

[Alan Smithee]

So I can know something simply by defining it?
Well, you can if you define that as knowing.

[BigT]

The problem with the logic here is that not being well-defined doesn't mean there's not a definition that is true. Having multiple definitions does not preclude one from aligning with reality.

The real problem is trying to assert that any of this can have any effect on Earth itself. The question is not whether there is Galactic Alignment, but whether the concept in that definition is useful. As far as we can tell, even that is when there is perfect alignment, there would be no effect.

[garbonzo607]

The problem with the logic here is that not being well-defined doesn't mean there's not a definition that is true. Having multiple definitions does not preclude one from aligning with reality.

The real problem is trying to assert that any of this can have any effect on Earth itself. The question is not whether there is Galactic Alignment, but whether the concept in that definition is useful. As far as we can tell, even that is when there is perfect alignment, there would be no effect.

Maybe their "Gods" need a Galactic Alignment to reach Earth with the space-travel technology they currently have?

[panache45]

I've always believed the Galactic Alignment was fact . . .

We are always appealing to authority or reading things other people say.
Sounds like your problem is more epistemological than astronomical.

At some point you have to look at the evidence with your own eyes, even the evidence of authorities, and take responsibility for your own rational judgment.

[Absolute]

Maybe their "Gods" need a Galactic Alignment to reach Earth with the space-travel technology they currently have?
There is no conceivable means of space travel in which this could matter. The earth is just a spinning rock in space. The exact direction in which the earth is currently spinning has fuck-all to do with anything reaching earth.

I'm not sure what kind of cite you want, if you won't accept a NASA website written by an actual astronomer. Cecil is not an astronomer, he's just going to call NASA himself and report what they say.

[Rhythmdvl]

Shouldn't this be in Cafe Society?

[gunnergoz]

Seems to me that astronomers have yet to define the boundaries and content of our galaxy in complete, verifiable detail, let alone such refinements as an actual "galactic equator." Perhaps we never will, given the scale and distances involved. So we can never be completely sure of what or where we are "in alignment" with or to. We can approximate all sorts of things, but is that sufficient data to determine something as definite as "the end" that some claim to be able to predict? I don't think so. I think they are blowing galactic smoke out their equatorial @ss.

[njtt]

The reality is that the source of the ideas that 2012 and the Galactic Alignment are big deals came from book authors that at best are philosophers with no experience in astronomy.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/2012-the-end-of-the-world/

The most trusted sources on the right side of the graphic tell you how inadequate the theories from those philosophers are.

You don't know what a philosopher is, do you? A philosopher is not someone who just makes up shit. A philosopher is most definitely not someone who credulously accepts nonsense without subjecting it to rigorous rational critical examination, quite the reverse.

[RaftPeople]

Just so everybody knows, the nutcase being quoted by the OP is John Major Jenkins, whose Alignment2012 (http://alignment2012.com/about_jmj.html) site is a focal point for those spouting gibberish about this non-event.

Gibberish?

Did you read the website?

He's been to Mexico and Central America seven times. SEVEN TIMES! This guy must know what he's talking about.

[Ken001]

I have been interested in astrophysics for many years but have never come across the Galactic Alignment as a matter of serious study. Faintly interesting, ok, but not useful when examining the Universe.

However you may be interested to know that our solar system is part of a dwarf galaxy, captured by the Milky Way, which is diving at an angle through the local galactic arm. This explains why the Milky Way crosses the sky at an angle instead of being flat as you'd expect if our system was on the galactic plane.

[dtilque]

I have been interested in astrophysics for many years ...

However you may be interested to know that our solar system is part of a dwarf galaxy, captured by the Milky Way, which is diving at an angle through the local galactic arm. This explains why the Milky Way crosses the sky at an angle instead of being flat as you'd expect if our system was on the galactic plane.

I've been interested in astronomy for many years, too, but have never heard that. Can you provide a cite?

[Ken001]

I've been interested in astronomy for many years, too, but have never heard that. Can you provide a cite?

Yes, I should have done so. Its only just been discovered that we are part of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy.



EDIT: I might have to apologise and withdraw. This website http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/06/27/is-the-sun-from-another-galaxy/ says it isn't true. :smack:

[panache45]

You don't know what a philosopher is, do you? A philosopher is not someone who just makes up shit. A philosopher is most definitely not someone who credulously accepts nonsense without subjecting it to rigorous rational critical examination, quite the reverse.
In general I agree. But you have to admit, there have been a few philosophers who just made up shit.

[Czarcasm]

How do you know? Are you an astronomer? We are always appealing to authority or reading things other people say. I want the source. This is why I hope Cecil will really look into this matter. It seems to me that NASA doesn't even know, as they profess themselves.Would you feel better if Cecil quoted the same sources, or is it those fact-based sources themselves you are having trouble with?

[Anne Neville]

However you may be interested to know that our solar system is part of a dwarf galaxy, captured by the Milky Way, which is diving at an angle through the local galactic arm. This explains why the Milky Way crosses the sky at an angle instead of being flat as you'd expect if our system was on the galactic plane.

No.

I'm assuming that what you mean by "the Milky Way crosses the sky at an angle instead of being flat" is that the plane of the Milky Way is not lined up with the ecliptic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecliptic) or the celestial equator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_equator). The plane of the ecliptic was determined when the Sun was forming. This process occurs at random (it may be triggered by a nearby supernova, or may just happen at random). There's no reason why the cloud should rotate in the same plane as the galaxy as a whole. As far as we can tell, stars' rotational axes are oriented randomly, not preferentially lined up with the plane of the galaxy. If the plane of the galaxy had some effect on star formation, that's not what we would see. The celestial equator has to do with the Earth's orientation in space. We think large impacts in the early solar system were what determine planetary orientations. The planets in our solar system do not have their poles or equators oriented in any preferred direction, so we think this is random.

I have a master's degree in astronomy, and know many professional astronomers. I do not know any who think the galactic alignment is anything other than bull.

[Czarcasm]

Maybe their "Gods" need a Galactic Alignment to reach Earth with the space-travel technology they currently have?Excuse me, but does a god need with a starship? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYW_lPlekiQ)

[GIGObuster]

You don't know what a philosopher is, do you? A philosopher is not someone who just makes up shit. A philosopher is most definitely not someone who credulously accepts nonsense without subjecting it to rigorous rational critical examination, quite the reverse.

First there is what panache45 mentioned, then there is what Anne Neville reported, I never mentioned that they made shit, only that astronomy is not an area of expertise these philosophers come from.

Nothing wrong with that, but it is clear that they did not consult the science nor the experts, they misunderstood or misrepresented what the experts and astronomers do say, and the longer philosophers continue to say that this Galactic Alignment or 2012 end of calendar deserves attention one has to realize that what they are doing is in reality to make a mockery of philosophy; after years of this charade, eventually one has to drop the idea that these specific philosophers are just misguided.

[Maus Magill]

The Galactic Alignment was just a bit out of whack. We added some weight to the rim at the third sector of the Beta Quadrant, and that should stop the wobbling. Let us know if the ride doesn't smooth out.

[ZenBeam]

First, what exactly is supposed to be aligned with what? Assume for this question that the galactic center can be well-defined, and is somehow well-known, and also that the galactic plane is likewise well-defined and well-known. In this alignment, is the Sun eclipsing the galactic center, or is the ecliptic parallel to the galactic plane, or what?


Yes, I should have done so. Its only just been discovered that we are part of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy.

EDIT: I might have to apologise and withdraw. This website http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/06/27/is-the-sun-from-another-galaxy/ says it isn't true. :smack:Are any nearby stars potentially part of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, based on their motion? Barnard's Star has the largest proper motion, but it's nearby, so that doesn't translate directly to a large enough velocity relative to the Sun. Would we be able to tell, or are most stars just too far away to know?

[Anne Neville]

To all these people who say the Maya are predicting an apocalypse in 2012: do you have any evidence that the Maya predicted the Classic Maya collapse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Maya_collapse), or the coming of the Spanish and smallpox in the 1500s, or perhaps the Guatemalan civil war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Civil_War)? If not, it seems they don't have such a good track record of predicting real apocalyptic events...

[Chronos]

The Galactic equator is well-defined, and one can speak of the solstice point being aligned with it. It is not, however, precisely defined. It's basically the same problem as having a smudgy line on the ground, and asking at what precise moment you cross it when walking. You do definitely cross it, but you can't say precisely when.

[gunnergoz]

The whole Maya 2012 Armageddon thing just seems to me to be paranoid hysteria in search of plausible "facts" to hang itself upon.

[garbonzo607]

To all these people who say the Maya are predicting an apocalypse in 2012: do you have any evidence that the Maya predicted the Classic Maya collapse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Maya_collapse), or the coming of the Spanish and smallpox in the 1500s, or perhaps the Guatemalan civil war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Civil_War)? If not, it seems they don't have such a good track record of predicting real apocalyptic events...

To my knowledge no one here is saying the Maya predicted an "apocalypse" or "Armageddon" in 2012. I myself have never said that. I've said that maybe the Mayan calender presented 12.21.12 as a significant date because of something astronomical, since they were astronomers, and damn good ones at that.

They couldn't predict their fall because this wasn't astronomical. They weren't given this information from their "Gods". Whereas they were great astronomers without any of the advanced tools we have today! So someone else had to give it to them, is my theory. This is why they were such great astronomers.

So I believe that their "Gods" may have some reality to them. But this is also why I put quotation marks. I don't believe in Gods. And I don't believe in supernatural powers. Everything supernatural that is true is just unexplained.

Now are these Mayan statues true or fake? (http://www.ufo-contact.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/mayan-astronaut.jpg)

And this one. (http://www.tomorrowstarted.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/sky-people-Mayan-ruins-Tikal-Guatemala.jpg)

And who is this Physicist, "Nasim Haramein"? Is he really a physicist or has he gone overboard?


Gibberish?

Did you read the website?

He's been to Mexico and Central America seven times. SEVEN TIMES! This guy must know what he's talking about.

Do you believe him or are you being sarcastic?

[Anne Neville]

The whole Maya 2012 Armageddon thing just seems to me to be paranoid hysteria in search of plausible "facts" to hang itself upon.

It's actually people trying to sell stuff. Some people are trying to sell books or TV/movie scripts, some are trying to sell trips to the Maya area of Mexico. Scaring people is a good way to get their attention so you can sell them stuff.

Wikipedia has a very long list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events) of dates on which the world was supposed to end, or when some apocalypse was supposed to happen. It looks like the doomsday predictors are doing even worse than the economists who have predicted 13 of the last 8 recessions.

[garbonzo607]

The Galactic equator is well-defined, and one can speak of the solstice point being aligned with it. It is not, however, precisely defined. It's basically the same problem as having a smudgy line on the ground, and asking at what precise moment you cross it when walking. You do definitely cross it, but you can't say precisely when.

So is this smudgy line 1980 - 2016?

If so, then we have a 1 in 5 chance that the Galactic Alignment is on the December solstice. This may have been what the Mayans were predicting. They got the day of the solstice right.

It's actually people trying to sell stuff. Some people are trying to sell books or TV/movie scripts, some are trying to sell trips to the Maya area of Mexico. Scaring people is a good way to get their attention so you can sell them stuff.

Wikipedia has a very long list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events) of dates on which the world was supposed to end, or when some apocalypse was supposed to happen. It looks like the doomsday predictors are doing even worse than the economists who have predicted 13 of the last 8 recessions.

How can they predict 13 of 8? O.o

Yes there are a lot of dates based on some vague mathematical formula or "code breaking". This is different. But like I said, no one is saying anything about an "apocalyptic event"! I don't believe that shit.

[garbonzo607]

It's actually people trying to sell stuff. Some people are trying to sell books or TV/movie scripts, some are trying to sell trips to the Maya area of Mexico. Scaring people is a good way to get their attention so you can sell them stuff.

Wikipedia has a very long list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events) of dates on which the world was supposed to end, or when some apocalypse was supposed to happen. It looks like the doomsday predictors are doing even worse than the economists who have predicted 13 of the last 8 recessions.

How can they predict 13 of 8? O.o

Yes there are a lot of dates based on some vague mathematical formula or "code breaking". But like I said, no one is saying anything about an "apocalyptic event"! I don't believe that shit.

[wolfman]

The Galactic Alignment was just a bit out of whack. We added some weight to the rim at the third sector of the Beta Quadrant, and that should stop the wobbling. Let us know if the ride doesn't smooth out.

Damn, and our 100,000,000,000,000 mile warranty just expired.

[AndrewL]

The Mayans didn't predict anything. They have a calendar that rolls over approximately every 400 years. The next roll-over is (probably) at the end of 2012, although there is some dispute as to exactly how their calendar lines up with ours. But at no point is there actually a prediction that anything will happen on that date.

[Chronos]

So is this smudgy line 1980 - 2016?

If so, then we have a 1 in 5 chance that the Galactic Alignment is on the December solstice. This may have been what the Mayans were predicting. They got the day of the solstice right.
I don't know off the top of my head where the smudgy line is, and it's the nature of smudgy lines that you can't pin down precise boundaries for them, either. And I don't see how you get from there to a 1 in 5 chance on the December solstice, either: Assuming you mean "on the same day as the solstice", then (even if the alignment could be defined precisely), there'd be only a 1/365 chance of it being on that date of the year.

[Bytegeist]

How can they predict 13 of 8? O.o

That's a common dig made at economists' expense.

The "dismal science", and all that.

[Anne Neville]

How can they predict 13 of 8? O.o

They predicted all 8 of the recessions that did happen, and predicted 5 that didn't happen.

Predictions aren't terribly useful unless they have specific details about what is going to happen when. Anybody can predict that "something astronomical" is going to happen on December 21, 2012, or on any other date. That's vague enough that the sun rising and setting could qualify. Now, if the Maya had predicted a solar or lunar eclipse for a particular date, that's more interesting, because it's more specific. The Maya were, of course, not the only ancient civilization that managed to predict eclipses.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Once more with feeling. The Mayans had a calendar with cycles. Period.

And real archaeologists keep finding real things that don't gibe with the idiotic maunderings of people trying to sell books to the gullible.

New Mayan calendar may eclipse doomsday prediction (http://www.ksl.com/?sid=20542295&nid=1012)
The discovery was initially reported in the journal Science and will appear later this month in the May 29 edition of National Geographic.

It is probably the most important Mayan ruin discovery in several decades. The room contained a more ancient version of a Mayan calendar and mathematical tables including a 260 day ceremonial calendar, a 365 day solar calendar, a 585 day trajectory for Venus and a 780 day trajectory for Mars. The new calendar and another found nearby contain 17 baktuns — 400 year periods — and continues for an additional 4,000 years beyond the 21st century.
Nothing about this December was any more significant for the Mayans than Jan. 1 is for us each year.

[Blakeyrat]

The Mayans didn't predict anything. They have a calendar that rolls over approximately every 400 years. The next roll-over is (probably) at the end of 2012, although there is some dispute as to exactly how their calendar lines up with ours. But at no point is there actually a prediction that anything will happen on that date.

It "rolls over" about every 5125 years, actually. And there's also strong evidence that the Mayans prepared additional "digits" of precision, anticipating the roll-over long in advance. And we know within a week or so how closely it lines up with our own calendar. (There's actually three plausible date possibilities. December 21st is the most plausible.)

I agree with you, though, that the Mayans certainly never stated that something was due to happen on the date the calendar rolls-over. They just either added another "digit" of precision, or started over again from 0.

Edit: if you're interested, the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar) goes over a lot of this.

[garbonzo607]

They predicted all 8 of the recessions that did happen, and predicted 5 that didn't happen.

Predictions aren't terribly useful unless they have specific details about what is going to happen when. Anybody can predict that "something astronomical" is going to happen on December 21, 2012, or on any other date. That's vague enough that the sun rising and setting could qualify. Now, if the Maya had predicted a solar or lunar eclipse for a particular date, that's more interesting, because it's more specific. The Maya were, of course, not the only ancient civilization that managed to predict eclipses.

Exactly. They all got their information from the same source.

I'll me the first to give up my theories if by Dec 24th comes and nothing happens, but right now, it's looking pretty good.

The sun rising and setting would not be reason of celebration. Something has to happen that usually doesn't happen, and that is the solstice.

[Lemur866]

So is this smudgy line 1980 - 2016?

If so, then we have a 1 in 5 chance that the Galactic Alignment is on the December solstice.


How do you figure? That's like saying that either the Galactic Alignment will happen on 12/21/12, or it won't, so there's a 1 in 2 chance that it will.

[Lemur866]

The sun rising and setting would not be reason of celebration. Something has to happen that usually doesn't happen, and that is the solstice.

Except the solstice is easy to predict, innit? Aside from the 26,000 year cycle of the precession of the equinoxes, and if you know about that you can predict the date of the solstices from now until the cows come home. Predicting next year's solstice is about as difficult as predicting tomorrow's sunrise.

[Chronos]

They predicted all 8 of the recessions that did happen, and predicted 5 that didn't happen.Or they failed to predict some that did happen, and predicted even more that didn't.

[garbonzo607]

Once more with feeling. The Mayans had a calendar with cycles. Period.

And real archaeologists keep finding real things that don't gibe with the idiotic maunderings of people trying to sell books to the gullible.

New Mayan calendar may eclipse doomsday prediction (http://www.ksl.com/?sid=20542295&nid=1012)

Nothing about this December was any more significant for the Mayans than Jan. 1 is for us each year.

Thanks for the link. I do not think this discovery was a coincidence that this happened while we are nearing 12.21.12. There are many codes to break with this discovery and I think it will lead us to know more about the truth for 12.21.12! It is exciting indeed, and this is further proof 12.21.12 is a significant date. Especially since the calendar goes on another 4000 or 7000 years!

[RaftPeople]

Do you believe him or are you being sarcastic?

I do believe that he's been to Mexico and Central America seven times, but that's about it.

[eburacum45]

The Galactic equator is well-defined, and one can speak of the solstice point being aligned with it. I hope that people realise that the Galactic Equator is only the line that defines the plane of the Milky Way as seen from the Solar System; it is not the actual midplane of the galaxy, which appears to be several tens of parsecs towards galactic south of our location - and we are moving away from it every year.

[eburacum45]

Also I hope that people realise that the node where the ecliptic and the galactic equator cross is around six degrees away from the location of the centre of the galaxy; twelve times the diameter of the Moon.

[Lance Steele]

Exactly. They all got their information from the same source.

Is it me or does this ancient astronaut stuff strike anyone else as kinda racist? Like there's no way brown people could have figured it out so it must be ETs?

[ZenBeam]

So what's being allegedly aligned?

[Czarcasm]

Is it me or does this ancient astronaut stuff strike anyone else as kinda racist? Like there's no way brown people could have figured it out so it must be ETs?It works in two steps:
1. Exaggerate what they could do and how accurate they were in doing it, then declare
2. There is no way they could have been that good on their own, so they must have had help.

[tellyworth]

It is exciting indeed, and this is further proof 12.21.12 is a significant date.

Let me ask a simple question: what sort of evidence would you consider proof that 12.21.12 is not a significant date?

[Exapno Mapcase]

Let me ask a simple question: what sort of evidence would you consider proof that 12.21.12 is not a significant date?

For Pete's sake. The date is palindromic. Backwards it's 12.21.12. Do you think that's just a coincidence? How can it not be significant? To six digits yet!

[DrFidelius]

Once more with feeling. The Mayans had a calendar with cycles. Period.

. . .

So, it resets every 28 days, with much wailing, gnashing of teeth, and general bitchiness?

[garbonzo607]

Is it me or does this ancient astronaut stuff strike anyone else as kinda racist? Like there's no way brown people could have figured it out so it must be ETs?

I'm brown skinned myself. That's ridiculous. Is it not fact that the Mayan cal3nder is extremely accurate, even more so than the current Georgian cal3nder??? They had no tools to map this out themselves. No calculators for the mathematics. How do you explain those statues? Seems like an astronaut to me, unless they are fake.

Anyways, I cannot wait for the new documentary coming out this year that will shed a lot of light on the Mayan predictions:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/17/idUS269735214920110817

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/26/idUS309928438220111026

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/26/idUS333894436320110926

Unless of course the governments step in and stop it! There is of course the chance that this is sensationalism and misrepresentation and untrue, but I don't think so. There will be at least some truth to this documentary if not the whole thing. Depends how greedy the producers are. But sometimes some sensationalism is needed to sell a documentary. It doesn't mean you discredit the whole film! Same can be said about the Ancient Aliens TV show. A lot of it is sensationalism and speculation, even outright lies. But you can't discredit 100% of the whole series because of this! For instance the Bigfoot episode. Really? LOL But there seems to be increasing evidence of ancient aliens, that is just crazy to ignore. The whole Mayan civilization is so twisted and warped by different people trying to make money, people write off the whole notion as a scam, but these people are only trying to take advantage of a real situation! Much like news companies make money off of bad things. Sometimes people misrepresent the truth about a war. It doesn't mean the war isn't happening!!

Many people think the holocaust didn't happen or even 9/11 didn't happen because people misrepresent the truth.

I've done a lot of research on this, and even if the Galactic Alignment is false, there is truth to at least SOME of the ancient alien theory. I hope this documentary provides clear and concise evidence for this theory, which people will understand. I know many of you are skeptics and may remain skeptics. I don't really care, it doesn't effect me any. I myself am not 100% as it is a lot of circumstantial evidence, make no mistake about it. But when you take all the circumstantial evidence together, it really seems like truth. Just like a court case with circumstantial evidence. Sometimes you can clearly see that it was most likely this person, but the verdict is not guilty because there is still that 1 perecent that he is innocent. The same with this theory. There is no explanation for a lot of these mysterious of ancient earth. Ancient Aliens provides a good theory. But maybe there is another explanation? Most likely not, but maybe there is. As the evidence is circumstantial.

I think there is a 99% chance of ancient aliens or at least time travelers that use wormholes/blackholes to time travel. But much more likely ancient aliens. Or a combination/mixing of both.

Like I said, there is a lot of misinformation and untruth to all of this. And people are quick to write it off and dismiss the whole theory! This is similar to what Biblical apologists do. A lot of the contradictions in the Bible can be easily written off with an explaination that could make sense! I'd say 95% of them. But there is still that 5% that disproves the Bible, which apologists either ignore or provide some silly apology for it that doesn't make sense. Many of you know this to be true!!!

Biblical apologists keep a lot from knowing the truth about the Bible. They still believe the Bible is divine because of apologists. Why? Because they take other people's word for it without researching themselves. They don't do further research on the subject! This is EXACTLY like the ancient alien theory. Just because some people who support the theory are nutjobs doesn't mean the whole theory is wack. A lot is sensationalism and untruth, but there is still a lot that is unexplained, mysterious and explain with the theory.

Dr. Michio Kaku himself admits that 95% of UFO stories are false. Misrepresentations, etc. BUT there is 5% that is unexplained! It is a mystery! There are good eye witnesses to some of this stuff. Not nutjobs, but government officials. Kaku said this himself. Kaku is not a nutjob, he is one of the best physicists of our day! His words: We don't have the smoking gun to prove Alien UFOs exist, BUT we do have the smoke.

Like I said, a lot of circumstantial evidence. Kaku himself knows this. But when you put it all together, it makes sense.

TL;DR I believe there is 99% truth to Alien UFOs, the Ancient Alien theory in general, and Mayan astronomical predictions which they got from ETs. Does this mean I believe everything said about 2012, UFOs, and Ancient Alien theory? NO. 95% of it is untruth, and misrepresentation. This is what the skeptics get a hold of. But it is the 5% of it that you have to "worry" about! (Not literal worry, but just think about it.)

[garbonzo607]

(Image) (http://www.thewrap.com/sites/default/files/resize/new-mayan-360x262.jpg)

and another article on the documentary: http://www.thewrap.com/movies/column-post/mayan-documentary-warn-human-race-impending-catastrophe-36576

[samclem]

Since the OP is more interested in presenting his opinion in spite of evidence to the contrary, let's move this from General Questions to IMHO.

samclem, Moderator

[garbonzo607]

For Pete's sake. The date is palindromic. Backwards it's 12.21.12. Do you think that's just a coincidence? How can it not be significant? To six digits yet!

I hope you weren't being sarcastic, because this is actually more circumstantial proof, yes. I don't remember the exact article, and I am not a history major, so I am sorry I do not know the specifics, but the theory is that word got to the King of England and then whoever wrote the Gregorian calender about the Mayan prophecies. After going over the evidence, the King, or whoever saw that it looked to be true. So he ordered the Gregorian calender be made to fit this date, so that it would be easily recognizable and understood by the people living at this time. This is why it is a 12 month calender instead of a 13 months consisting of 28 days each month which was the standard for civilizations calenders including the Mayan. This would have been so much easier, it is peculiar that we have a 12 month calender today. Please look it up if you wish, I don't know how accurate any of this is, but it does seem plausible to me!

[garbonzo607]

Since the OP is more interested in presenting his opinion in spite of evidence to the contrary, let's move this from General Questions to IMHO.

samclem, Moderator

I am suggesting Cecil to do an article on this. This is why it was posted in General Questions???

Can you move it back please?

Or at least leave a ghost thread in the general questions category.

[garbonzo607]

Let me ask a simple question: what sort of evidence would you consider proof that 12.21.12 is not a significant date?

This is like saying what sort of evidence would you consider proof that the theory of evolution is wrong?

The evidence points to the theory of evolution to be correct. I am not sure what I would consider proof that it isn't correct because there has been nothing to show as of yet that it isn't. I'm not saying it is 100% correct.

[Musicat]

Garbonzo607, you are rehashing old, tired speculations and long-ago discredited crackpot theories. Do you really think this is new? Unexamined?
I've done a lot of research on this, and even if the Galactic Alignment is false, there is truth to at least SOME of the ancient alien theory.True. We can definitely prove there were ancients.But when you take all the circumstantial evidence together, it really seems like truth. If none of the evidence is valid, accumulating more of it does not make it more valid. It just makes the presenter look more like a tinfoil hat nutter.

Dr. Michio Kaku himself admits that 95% of UFO stories are false. Misrepresentations, etc. BUT there is 5% that is unexplained! It is a mystery! Just because 5% cannot be explained does not mean it is unexplainable. Perhaps with more info, they could be explained. Nevertheless, just because something cannot be explained doesn't mean aliens did it.I believe there is 99% truth to Alien UFOs, the Ancient Alien theory in general, and Mayan astronomical predictions which they got from ETs.And there you have it. You aren't looking for the truth, you are looking for substantiation for what you believe. That may be your opinion, but it's not science. I hope you can understand the difference.

[Yumblie]

To my knowledge no one here is saying the Maya predicted an "apocalypse" or "Armageddon" in 2012. I myself have never said that. I've said that maybe the Mayan calender presented 12.21.12 as a significant date because of something astronomical, since they were astronomers, and damn good ones at that.

They couldn't predict their fall because this wasn't astronomical. They weren't given this information from their "Gods". Whereas they were great astronomers without any of the advanced tools we have today! So someone else had to give it to them, is my theory. This is why they were such great astronomers.


It's funny that just because of this 2012 business everyone's falling all over themselves about how awesome the Mayans were at astronomy.

What most people don't realize was that in the past, before modern technology, everyone was awesome at astronomy. The stars are up every night, they follow predictable patterns. If you have nothing better to do at night than look up, then you too will become awesome at astronomy. The Greeks were so awesome at astronomy that they calculated the circumference of the Earth and the distance to the Moon thousands of years before the Mayans.

Yes, the Mayans were good at astronomy, for their time. But with modern technology, we are much much better at astronomy than any past civilization. Did the Mayans even have a concept of what a galaxy was? Without a telescope there's no way to tell that the Milky Way we see in the sky is a large disk of stars. Why would the Mayans have any concept of "galactic alignment" if they didn't even know the Earth went around the Sun? You'd think that if they were visited by ancient aliens that'd be one of the first misconceptions the aliens would clear up for them.

[Andy L]

This is like saying what sort of evidence would you consider proof that the theory of evolution is wrong?

The evidence points to the theory of evolution to be correct. I am not sure what I would consider proof that it isn't correct because there has been nothing to show as of yet that it isn't. I'm not saying it is 100% correct.

A Pliocene fossil in an undisturbed pre-Cambrian deposit, or a creature that doesn't fall into the hierarchical taxonomy (a "crocoduck" for example) would be strong evidence against evolution. What would be evidence against the idea that the Mayans knew something astronomically significant about December 21st?

[Andy L]

The Galactic equator is well-defined, and one can speak of the solstice point being aligned with it. It is not, however, precisely defined. It's basically the same problem as having a smudgy line on the ground, and asking at what precise moment you cross it when walking. You do definitely cross it, but you can't say precisely when.

Thanks for clarifying this.

[AndrewL]

I am curious at to exactly what it means for one calendar to be 'more accurate' than another. If we're talking about predictions of astronomical events like eclipses, that's one thing, but the calendar itself is mostly just a series of different intervals that repeat in cycles.

[RaftPeople]

I think there is a 99% chance of ancient aliens or at least time travelers that use wormholes/blackholes to time travel. But much more likely ancient aliens. Or a combination/mixing of both.

I agree. I was watching a documentary called M.I.B. (Men In Black) and it touched on most of these types of things. Basically there are aliens living among us and we don't even know.

But "K" (that's one of the agents, I don't think they wanted to use his real name, for security purposes), he's able to spot them.

[garbonzo607]

I agree. I was watching a documentary called M.I.B. (Men In Black) and it touched on most of these types of things. Basically there are aliens living among us and we don't even know.

But "K" (that's one of the agents, I don't think they wanted to use his real name, for security purposes), he's able to spot them.

Exactly. Men in Black is based on a true story. The government is covering up a lot of it, just like in MIB. As with anything based on a true story, there are creative licenses obtained. The characters are fictional, the aliens are fictional. There wouldn't be that many Aliens and diverse of Aliens like the movie shows. /sarcasm I wouldn't be surprised if the government had a mind wiper like in the movie, however unlikely. We know telepathy is possible. That is in effect reading a language. Reading the brain language. So mind control would just be speaking a language. Inputting something in a brain. But I'm not sure it could work wirelessly. Maybe. If it can intercept brain wave and replace them? I have no idea, I was just watching a speech by Dr. Kaku that said Telepathy will be realized soon.

Anyway, I'm not sure if there was a point to your post besides making a joke. Aka were you making fun of me or just making a joke?

[runner pat]

If telepathy was real, you would know we're making fun of you.

[Ken001]

Sooo....these Galactic Mayans: do they have a flag?

[Trinopus]

I hope that people realise that the Galactic Equator is only the line that defines the plane of the Milky Way as seen from the Solar System; it is not the actual midplane of the galaxy, which appears to be several tens of parsecs towards galactic south of our location - and we are moving away from it every year.

Also I hope that people realise that the node where the ecliptic and the galactic equator cross is around six degrees away from the location of the centre of the galaxy; twelve times the diameter of the Moon.

Is "realize" the right word? If one is never taught this, how could one know? As the song goes, "You've got to be Carefully Taught." To the best of my recollection, the two facts, above, weren't taught in the Astronomy courses I took in college.

(Of course, that was a while ago... Pulsars were still really new stuff at the time...)

I do seem to recall being taught that galaxies don't have really sharp edges; the topology gets mushy. There isn't a sharp "barrier" as in Star Trek. You just find fewer and fewer stars, farther and farther apart. The envelope can't be described with the kind of exactness that the prophecy alluded to in the OP would require.

We don't have a galactic "GPS" system, that can tell us our position to within a tenth of a light-year.

[Oakminster]

I'm pretty sure the Galactic Alignment is Chaotic Neutral.

[garbonzo607]

A Pliocene fossil in an undisturbed pre-Cambrian deposit, or a creature that doesn't fall into the hierarchical taxonomy (a "crocoduck" for example) would be strong evidence against evolution. What would be evidence against the idea that the Mayans knew something astronomically significant about December 21st?

Obviously if the date passes and nothing significant happens! LOL

This is not to say a new theory won't take it's place. Depends on what evidence it has backing it up. Others say it might be Dec. 24th. I'll wait until Christmas until I give up hope. Christmas is a great day to start a new mindset.

I was raised religious, so I grew up believing fantasies and myths believing they were true. Maybe I was raised to want to have something to look forward to in life besides regular human goals. At least believing this isn't damaging others like a lot of religions. And it's not imperative that you need to know this to my knowledge. It's just good to know. And it's always good to look into alternative theories, since a round earth was an alternative theory at one point. America may not have been discovered until English technology advanced enough if not for alternative theories. There is just a lot of conflicting sources found on the internet that can cloud this theory. It's good to be skeptic, but you guys are taking it too far. You refuse to believe anything that isn't universally accepted by your authorities. I can't blame you, this is human nature. Just like Hitler's Germany. Godwin's law, I know, but it is true! I am not sure I wouldn't have agreed with Hitler (especially if I was an Arian with blue eyes) if I lived in Germany at that time. Because we always assume our authorities are doing the right thing.

Sometimes you need to do your own research, which can be done more easily now with the internet, but with the wealth of information you have to pick the good from the bad.

[garbonzo607]

If telepathy was real, you would know we're making fun of you.

That's like saying if nuclear bombs were real you would have dropped one on me. Or if hacking were real, you would have hacked me by now. O.o

Plus, you weren't even the OP I was responding to, so WTF? You have telepathy to know he was making fun or me or are you strawmanning?

Sooo....these Galactic Mayans: do they have a flag?

Maybe. We might find out.

[Yumblie]

I was raised religious, so I grew up believing fantasies and myths believing they were true. Maybe I was raised to want to have something to look forward to in life besides regular human goals. At least believing this isn't damaging others like a lot of religions. And it's not imperative that you need to know this to my knowledge. It's just good to know. And it's always good to look into alternative theories, since a round earth was an alternative theory at one point. America may not have been discovered until English technology advanced enough if not for alternative theories. There is just a lot of conflicting sources found on the internet that can cloud this theory. It's good to be skeptic, but you guys are taking it too far. You refuse to believe anything that isn't universally accepted by your authorities. I can't blame you, this is human nature. Just like Hitler's Germany. Godwin's law, I know, but it is true! I am not sure I wouldn't have agreed with Hitler (especially if I was an Arian with blue eyes) if I lived in Germany at that time. Because we always assume our authorities are doing the right thing.

But don't you see? You're putting faith in an authority too, with all the "research" you're doing. How do you know the Mayan calendar ends in 2012? How do you know the Mayans used astronomy to make predictions? How do you know the Mayans even existed at all?

Conspiracy theorists love to boast about how wonderfully skeptical they are by not following the main authority, but all they're doing is following a different authority. Unless you're a Mayan scholar, you don't really "know" anything about Mayans, so you have to rely on others to do the research for you.

Those of us who disagree about the existence of ancient aliens have simply chosen to follow an authority that we believe is more trustworthy. Don't play the "You're all sheeple, I'm the only one doing real research!" card because all you're doing is putting your faith elsewhere.

So ask yourself, why do you trust what these websites say over professional astronomers? Do you think those websites really are more accurate, or do you just want them to be?

[Andy L]

Obviously if the date passes and nothing significant happens! LOL

This is not to say a new theory won't take it's place. Depends on what evidence it has backing it up. Others say it might be Dec. 24th. I'll wait until Christmas until I give up hope. Christmas is a great day to start a new mindset.

I was raised religious, so I grew up believing fantasies and myths believing they were true. Maybe I was raised to want to have something to look forward to in life besides regular human goals. At least believing this isn't damaging others like a lot of religions. And it's not imperative that you need to know this to my knowledge. It's just good to know. And it's always good to look into alternative theories, since a round earth was an alternative theory at one point. America may not have been discovered until English technology advanced enough if not for alternative theories. There is just a lot of conflicting sources found on the internet that can cloud this theory. It's good to be skeptic, but you guys are taking it too far. You refuse to believe anything that isn't universally accepted by your authorities. I can't blame you, this is human nature. Just like Hitler's Germany. Godwin's law, I know, but it is true! I am not sure I wouldn't have agreed with Hitler (especially if I was an Arian with blue eyes) if I lived in Germany at that time. Because we always assume our authorities are doing the right thing.

Sometimes you need to do your own research, which can be done more easily now with the internet, but with the wealth of information you have to pick the good from the bad.

Sigh.

1) The round earth was established 2000 years before Columbus.
2) Columbus was not English.

(also The London Underground is not a political movement)

Thank you for playing, but if you're not interested in facts, I'm not interested in discussing this with you. Good day.

[kferr]

For Pete's sake. The date is palindromic. Backwards it's 12.21.12. Do you think that's just a coincidence? How can it not be significant? To six digits yet!

That's only if you use the US calendar notation. In Europe it's 21/12/12 and thus no big deal. But if you use the full year you can get 20/12/2012 which means the woo is going to happen a day early!

[Ken001]

Also I hope that people realise that the node where the ecliptic and the galactic equator cross is around six degrees away from the location of the centre of the galaxy; twelve times the diameter of the Moon.

Thats interesting and no I didn't realise it.

Are you saying that the the Milky Way is slightly unbalanced? More mass on one side or to galactic south? Maybe a diagram would help.



Or...as one poster astutely suggested, balance weights on a couple of spiral arms and we're good to go. ;)

[Ken001]

.

(also The London Underground is not a political movement)



Say whut?!!

I thought everyone knew the London Underground relied completely on forecasts from the Weather Underground. Just ask Patty Hurst, she was a meteorologist for them.

[Anne Neville]

The sun rising and setting would not be reason of celebration. Something has to happen that usually doesn't happen, and that is the solstice.

There are lots of holidays in different cultures that have no astronomical significance. We just had one in the US on Monday. Our New Year's Day has no particular astronomical significance. The year 2000 in the Gregorian (not Georgian, btw) calendar had no particular astronomical significance. The Jewish New Year happens when we first see a waxing crescent moon in a certain month (or at least at one time it did, now it happens when Google says it does, as God intended ;)). The Islamic calendar works similarly. Nothing happens, astronomically speaking, when the Jewish or Islamic calendar begins a new year that doesn't happen every month.

The Gregorian, Jewish, and Islamic calendars used today date their year 1 to some supposed historic event (the birth of Jesus, the creation of the world, and the emigration of Mohammed from Mecca to Medina, respectively). The year 2000 in the Gregorian calendar was a date that happened to fall 2000 years after the people who compiled the calendar believed Jesus was born. How do you know that the date 13.0.0.0.0 in the Mayan calendar isn't just a day that happens to fall a certain number of days after the ancient Maya believed some event of historic significance happened? That's what the year 2000 in the Gregorian calendar, the year 5000 in the Jewish calendar, and the year 1000 in the Islamic calendar were. There are certainly cultures that have used the Gregorian and Islamic calendars that are or were quite advanced in astronomy. It doesn't follow from that that every significant date in their calendars is correlated to some astronomical event.

[Maus Magill]

Thats interesting and no I didn't realise it.

Are you saying that the the Milky Way is slightly unbalanced? More mass on one side or to galactic south? Maybe a diagram would help.



Or...as one poster astutely suggested, balance weights on a couple of spiral arms and we're good to go. ;)

Just be glad we're not charging for the tow.

[Anne Neville]

Just be glad we're not charging for the tow.

I sure am glad we paid up our GAA membership for this year.

[eburacum45]

Are you saying that the the Milky Way is slightly unbalanced? More mass on one side or to galactic south?
No, the galaxy probably isn't unbalanced. It is an irregular shape, though, so any estimate of the shape, and the midplane, remains that, an estimate.

But the best estimates I've read places the midplane of the galaxy several tens of parsecs to galactic south of our location; we are currently moving towards galactic north, away from the plane. We will eventually turn round, attracted by the preponderance of mass in the galactic disk, and start moving back towards the plane, crossing it many millions of years in the future.

As far as the centre of the galaxy is concerned, this is an estimate too- but it is an estimate that falls quite close to Sag A*, the black hole at the centre of the galaxy, so it is probably quite close to the actual centre.

Yes; the galactic equator is an uncertain quality, and the Sun is a wide disk superimposed on the ecliptic, so these all add uncertainty to the so-called alignment; to my mind it makes the alignment insignificant, especially since the solstice has been occurring on the node since 1980 and will continue to do so until 2016. There is nothing significant about 21-12-12.

[eburacum45]

One recent (2009) estimate of the location of the Sun with respect to the galactic midplane is given by wikipedia;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_way#Sun.27s_location_and_neighborhood
The Sun is currently 5–30 parsecs (16–98 ly) from the central plane of the Galactic disk.77

[a35362]

How do you know? Are you an astronomer? We are always appealing to authority or reading things other people say. I want the source. This is why I hope Cecil will really look into this matter. It seems to me that NASA doesn't even know, as they profess themselves.

Yeah, if NASA doesn't know, better ask Cecil! :D :cool:

[JohnT]

In general I agree. But you have to admit, there have been a few philosophers who just made up shit.

Like Carly Fiorina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_Fiorina). ;)

[JohnT]

I will say I was a bit depressed when the recent 9/11 thread, "Orbs attacked the WTC!" was half-deleted by the mods... depressed, because that sort of crazy just doesn't show up every day.

But now we got the Galactic Aligners to keep us amused, so times are good again.

Bless you, Garbonzo. Post 61, when you link GA-deniers with Holocaust-deniers, is an instant classic. I really appreciate it. :)

[Miller]

I thought Neil Degrasse Tyson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HghEBxHvgg) had a pretty good take on this. I have to kind of wonder why the ancient astronauts* would fill the Mayans in on so much higher-order astronomical data, but neglect to mention to them that the Earth does not, in fact, rest on the back of a crocodile floating in a lily pond.

*NB: Those aren't statues of astronauts in the pictures you linked to. They're just statues of guys in funny hats, following an apparently universal human drive to put absolutely ridiculous things on top of your head. (http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,2068553,00.html)

[Anne Neville]

I thought Neil Degrasse Tyson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HghEBxHvgg) had a pretty good take on this. I have to kind of wonder why the ancient astronauts* would fill the Mayans in on so much higher-order astronomical data, but neglect to mention to them that the Earth does not, in fact, rest on the back of a crocodile floating in a lily pond.

Or maybe something really useful, like the germ theory of disease and how to vaccinate. Some more diverse crops or livestock might have been nice, too. I wouldn't think that aliens that can travel interstellar distances and don't seem to have a problem with interfering in Earth civilizations should have too much trouble getting some horses, cows, pigs, chickens, rice, or wheat from Eurasia for the Maya.

[JohnT]

Maybe they took them away from the Maya... :eek:

[Ken001]

No, the galaxy probably isn't unbalanced. It is an irregular shape, though, so any estimate of the shape, and the midplane, remains that, an estimate.

But the best estimates I've read places the midplane of the galaxy several tens of parsecs to galactic south of our location; we are currently moving towards galactic north, away from the plane. We will eventually turn round, attracted by the preponderance of mass in the galactic disk, and start moving back towards the plane, crossing it many millions of years in the future.

As far as the centre of the galaxy is concerned, this is an estimate too- but it is an estimate that falls quite close to Sag A*, the black hole at the centre of the galaxy, so it is probably quite close to the actual centre.

Yes; the galactic equator is an uncertain quality, and the Sun is a wide disk superimposed on the ecliptic, so these all add uncertainty to the so-called alignment; to my mind it makes the alignment insignificant, especially since the solstice has been occurring on the node since 1980 and will continue to do so until 2016. There is nothing significant about 21-12-12.

Thanks for that.

And I completely agree that its of generalised interest at best but not otherwise significant. On the other hand, galactic clusters and branes...now why have they occurred?? :D

[Andy L]

Or maybe something really useful, like the germ theory of disease and how to vaccinate. Some more diverse crops or livestock might have been nice, too. I wouldn't think that aliens that can travel interstellar distances and don't seem to have a problem with interfering in Earth civilizations should have too much trouble getting some horses, cows, pigs, chickens, rice, or wheat from Eurasia for the Maya.

See "Those Eyes" by David Brin on this subject http://www.davidbrin.com/thoseeyes.htm

"... What? They were here to help us? Well thanks a lot, you alien gods you! Thanks for neglecting to mention flush toilets, printing presses, democracy, or the germ theory of disease! Or ecology, leaving us to ruin half the planet before finally catching on! Hell, if someone had just shown us how to make simple glass lenses, we could've done the rest. How much ignorance and misery we'd have escaped!
"

[garbonzo607]

Garbonzo607, you are rehashing old, tired speculations and long-ago discredited crackpot theories. Do you really think this is new? Unexamined?

No.... I don't think it's new, but I believe a lot of you have not examined it as thoroughly as I would hope or you would not be saying that these theories are somehow discredited. To be honest, I have not seen a comprehensive in depth analysis of the theory to prove it to be wrong like for instance the many websites that disprove the Bible. I haven't seen this. I see a few articles on how "crackpot" the theory is, but nothing to back up their claims besides, "Just because it's unexplanable doesn't mean Aliens did it."

More on that below.


True. We can definitely prove there were ancients.

This is like a creationist saying there is some truth to the evolution theory: We can definitely prove there humans.

The Ancient Alien theory would not be the same without the aliens. What I mean by SOME is that there are some things people misrepresent just to fit into the theory. I don't believe those things of course. I only believe the facts. Just like there were some guys called out by creationists for misrepresenting facts to fit the Evolution bill. Just like this made Evolution look bad, these guys who lie and give untruth make the Ancient Alien theory look bad.

Why even say this besides making a sly remark?

If none of the evidence is valid, accumulating more of it does not make it more valid. It just makes the presenter look more like a tinfoil hat nutter.

You are strawmanning. I never said the evidences weren't valid! I said they are circumstantial evidence, just like fossils they seem to evolve are circumstantial evidences to Evolution. This is why Evolution is still a theory and not a law if I'm not mistaken. (I'm not a professional scientist here) There may be something that comes a long later that fits the bill but right not Evolution seems valid, and in my eyes, so does the Ancient Alien theory.

You yourself admit some things are unexplained. Why can't you leave it that the theory is possible instead of writing it off and saying it is "discredited"? If it is really discredited, I would want to see the research paper that looks into a lot of things the theory brings up and really does discredit them. Otherwise these unexplained things can easily be Aliens. Of course we don't know for sure. I never claimed to have known for sure.

This is why I say 99%, this is why Evolution is a 99%.

Just because 5% cannot be explained does not mean it is unexplainable. Perhaps with more info, they could be explained. Nevertheless, just because something cannot be explained doesn't mean aliens did it.

And this is like someone saying when the theory Evolution was evolving (really) that just because there are fossils that fit a pattern of evolution and that it is unexplained by science doesn't mean they evolved.

This theory fits the bill. It EXPLAINS how these currently unexplained things COULD have happened.

This is what the theory is. Just like Evolution explained the many evidences we were unearthing in favor of the theory. The Ancient Alien theory explains the many evidences we are unearthing in favor of it.

My point is, if something is unexplained, then a theory is made if one can be thought up. This explains the unexplained until something better comes along. There really is no other theory to fit these unexplained things. Just like Evolution is still a theory until something better comes a long to better explain things. Just like Gravity is still a theory until something else comes to light to show how things work.



And there you have it. You aren't looking for the truth, you are looking for substantiation for what you believe. That may be your opinion, but it's not science. I hope you can understand the difference.

You have certainly lost me. How could you say it's not science when science can't explain it? Evolution was not accepted as science at one time, also! Some scientists still don't accept it as science. I believe the science you are trying to refer to is highly subjective. Maybe be more specific.

I'm not sure what you mean by that I'm not looking for truth. Many of you believe Evolution is 99% true. Does that mean that we aren't looking for truth but for substantiation for what we believe?

Maybe clarify your words more, because I do not understand them

[garbonzo607]

It's funny that just because of this 2012 business everyone's falling all over themselves about how awesome the Mayans were at astronomy.

What most people don't realize was that in the past, before modern technology, everyone was awesome at astronomy. The stars are up every night, they follow predictable patterns. If you have nothing better to do at night than look up, then you too will become awesome at astronomy. The Greeks were so awesome at astronomy that they calculated the circumference of the Earth and the distance to the Moon thousands of years before the Mayans.

I don't believe this is true. If it were so simple every civilization known to man would be as good astronomers as the Mayans.

The Mayans are set out as the best astronomers of their times.

The Greeks may have done that, but they couldn't pass that information on to the Mayans. They Mayans did it on their own, so it's irrelevant to say they did it thousand of years before. They had no contact with each other, so time is irrelevant. A case can be made that it is simple to calculate the circumference of the Earth if even the Greeks, knew, though. But the Greeks were not as good as the Mayans, that is for sure.

Both a normal person and a piano savant can play one key on a piano! I hope you get my point.

European thought was inherited from the Greeks. From around 600 or 400 BC the theory of geocentrism (sun revolves around earth) competed with the theory of heliocentrism (earth revolves around the sun). The Catholic church, dominator of European religion, chose the geocentric view and killed anyone who dared to argue with them. By the 1500s there was enough dissent about the Catholics and the Pope that people could refute their claims and generally live and so we had the Copernican Revolution and the beginning of modern scientific exploration.

Yes, the Mayans were good at astronomy, for their time. But with modern technology, we are much much better at astronomy than any past civilization. Did the Mayans even have a concept of what a galaxy was? Without a telescope there's no way to tell that the Milky Way we see in the sky is a large disk of stars.

Maybe they did. Do you have proof that they didn't? You'll have to do more research on the matter if you want to know. But you can't claim they didn't.



Why would the Mayans have any concept of "galactic alignment" if they didn't even know the Earth went around the Sun? You'd think that if they were visited by ancient aliens that'd be one of the first misconceptions the aliens would clear up for them.

I believe that they did know the Earth went around the sun as did many ancients who were given information from the "Gods".

Read these texts:

"The Sun does never set nor rise. When people think the Sun is setting it is not so. For after having arrived at the end of the day it makes itself produce two opposite effects, making night to what is below and day to what is on the other side. Having reached the end of the night, it makes itself produce two opposite effects, making day to what is below and night to what is on the other side. In fact, the Sun never sets."
Brahmana (3.44)

"The Earth rotates in two ways by the Will of Brahma. First, it rotates on its axis and secondly it revolves around the Sun. Days and Nights are distinguished when it moves on its axis. Season change when it revolves around Sun".
(Vishnu Puran)

"In the initial stages of the creation of the Universe some creation material slipped from the hands of Brahma and collided with Earth resulting in the formation of the Moon.”
(Brahmand Purana)

’Shape of Earth is like an Oblate Spheroid’.
Rig VedaXXX. IV. V

‘Earth is flattened at the poles’.
Markandeya Purana 54.12

”There are suns in all directions, the night sky being full of them. And there are planets in all directions around them.
(Rig Veda)

“The Sun is the center of a small system which includes 9 planets including Earth. The Sun holds more than 98% mass of this small system in this giant universe which contains millions of suns".
Rig Veda

“The sun has tied Earth and other planets through attraction and moves them around itself as if a trainer moves newly trained horses around itself holding their reins.”
Rig Veda 10.149.1


Maybe you should consider how the ancients knew this without the technology we have today. I believe the Mayans did also.

I'm not sure why you make statements without backing them up.

[garbonzo607]

But don't you see? You're putting faith in an authority too, with all the "research" you're doing. How do you know the Mayan calendar ends in 2012? How do you know the Mayans used astronomy to make predictions? How do you know the Mayans even existed at all?

Conspiracy theorists love to boast about how wonderfully skeptical they are by not following the main authority, but all they're doing is following a different authority. Unless you're a Mayan scholar, you don't really "know" anything about Mayans, so you have to rely on others to do the research for you.

Those of us who disagree about the existence of ancient aliens have simply chosen to follow an authority that we believe is more trustworthy. Don't play the "You're all sheeple, I'm the only one doing real research!" card because all you're doing is putting your faith elsewhere.

So ask yourself, why do you trust what these websites say over professional astronomers? Do you think those websites really are more accurate, or do you just want them to be?

What exactly are you talking about? I'm not sure I believe the Galactic Alignment anymore. Afterall, it was never part of the Ancient Alien theory. It was just a little trinket of info I had added to it myself. It seems it is only one guy's brainchild? So it's maybe not true. Who knows. Or maybe it is a good guess.

The NASA website said we don't know. I agree with them.

I put my faith elsewhere because all the evidence I have seen leads me to this conclusion. Why do you put your faith in Big Bang/Evolution vs. Creationism/ID?

Why did Isaac Newton put his faith in his own theories instead of those popular at the time?

I have not seen much refutation against the Ancient Alien theory is the problem. If someone wants to provide it, I'd love to look at it and see if the counters are conclusive or valid. Maybe if the things I research are fake. I can understand that. I am putting my trust in an authority, I understand that. If they are fake so be it. It's fake. It's all fake, it's all wrong. But if it's fake, why aren't there more websites saying how fake it is with evidence that it is fake? Comprehensive. And not just a few issues made by a TV show, but the whole evidence all together?

There are professionals it seems on BOTH SIDES of this fence! Where as one side is providing evidence another side is not providing counters! So I go with the side with the evidence until I see a valid comprehensive counter. Maybe I have just missed it. I am not closed-minded, I'm sure you can see.

[Musicat]

I don't believe this is true. If it were so simple every civilization known to man would be as good astronomers as the Mayans.

The Mayans are set out as the best astronomers of their times.

Maybe you should consider how the ancients knew this without the technology we have today. I believe the Mayans did also.According to Neil DeGrasse Tyson, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HghEBxHvgg) (who dislikes being given credit), the Mayans believed the earth was flat, rested on the back of an alligator in a lily pond, and was supported by 5 trees of different colors. That's pretty much the best of the times, you bet.I have not seen much refutation against the Ancient Alien theory is the problem...But if it's fake, why aren't there more websites saying how fake it is with evidence that it is fake? Comprehensive. And not just a few issues made by a TV show, but the whole evidence all together?Science is not done by counting how many websites there are claiming the impossible. And the whole evidence isn't good evidence just because there is a lot of it out there. Multiplying bad evidence by 100 doesn't improve the quality in the slightest.

No matter how many websites claim bigfoot exists, until solid evidence arrives, it's just so much fantasy.There are professionals it seems on BOTH SIDES of this fence! That's a common misconception. Professionals in the scientific world are not divided on the basic concepts of astronomy or evolution, and are amused by the presumptions of non-scientists, as I am about yours. I've seen it all before, Dude, and it's pretty lame.

[garbonzo607]

Sigh.

1) The round earth was established 2000 years before Columbus.
2) Columbus was not English.

(also The London Underground is not a political movement)

Thank you for playing, but if you're not interested in facts, I'm not interested in discussing this with you. Good day.

Are you kidding me? You point out 1 small error and then you claim I'm not interested in facts? How naive can you be? I meant to say "world" technologies, not "English" it's an obvious mistake. I never even mentioned Columbus or the Underground London or whatever, what are you even talking about? I am seriously confused.

This is similar to someone pointing out a small grammatical mistake and saying their whole argument is invalid because of it and "they are not interested in the facts".

How can you not see this yourself?

[Miller]

According to Neil DeGrasse Tyson, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HghEBxHvgg) (who dislikes being given credit), the Mayans believed the earth was flat, rested on the back of an alligator in a lily pond, and was supported by 5 trees of different colors.

Psst - post 93.

[Miller]

You are strawmanning. I never said the evidences weren't valid! I said they are circumstantial evidence, just like fossils they seem to evolve are circumstantial evidences to Evolution. This is why Evolution is still a theory and not a law if I'm not mistaken. (I'm not a professional scientist here) There may be something that comes a long later that fits the bill but right not Evolution seems valid, and in my eyes, so does the Ancient Alien theory.

Hooboy. Okay.

Fossils are not "circumstantial" evidence in any sense of the word. Evolution is indeed a theory, but "theory" is not some intermediary step on the way to "law." A theory is an explanation for an observed or postulated phenomenon that has not, to date, been shown to have any flaws. A theory represents the highest level of scientific certainty - see, also, the theory of gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_gravity), atomic theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory), or germ theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease). The fossil record represents extremely strong proof of the correctness of evolutionary theory, although it's hardly alone - there are very few theories in science that are more strongly supported by the evidence than evolution. If evolution were proven to be incorrect, it would call into question our fundamental assumptions in virtually every other branch of science.

You yourself admit some things are unexplained. Why can't you leave it that the theory is possible instead of writing it off and saying it is "discredited"? If it is really discredited, I would want to see the research paper that looks into a lot of things the theory brings up and really does discredit them. Otherwise these unexplained things can easily be Aliens. Of course we don't know for sure. I never claimed to have known for sure.

This is why I say 99%, this is why Evolution is a 99%.

The problem here is that there aren't any "unexplained" things that need Ancient Astronauts to explain them. The Mayans were surprisingly skilled astronomers, given their level of technological sophistication, but nothing they discovered was impossible given what we know about their society. You can make some pretty advanced deductions about astronomy with a good set of eyes, some clear skies, and a bit of math.

I don't believe this is true. If it were so simple every civilization known to man would be as good astronomers as the Mayans.

The Mayans are set out as the best astronomers of their times.

To my knowledge, the only people setting the Mayans forward as the best astronomers of their time are the people trying to pimp the Mayan apocalyptic theories.

The Greeks may have done that, but they couldn't pass that information on to the Mayans. They Mayans did it on their own, so it's irrelevant to say they did it thousand of years before. They had no contact with each other, so time is irrelevant.

The lack of contact between the two cultures is, in fact, what makes the point relevant. If multiple cultures can come up with the same correct observations about the universe independently, that indicates that the observations are not particularly difficult to figure out. If the Greeks could do it without aliens, then there's no need to hypothesize aliens when talking about the Mayans.

A case can be made that it is simple to calculate the circumference of the Earth if even the Greeks, knew, though. But the Greeks were not as good as the Mayans, that is for sure.

What's your basis for this assertion?

European thought was inherited from the Greeks. From around 600 or 400 BC the theory of geocentrism (sun revolves around earth) competed with the theory of heliocentrism (earth revolves around the sun). The Catholic church, dominator of European religion, chose the geocentric view and killed anyone who dared to argue with them. By the 1500s there was enough dissent about the Catholics and the Pope that people could refute their claims and generally live and so we had the Copernican Revolution and the beginning of modern scientific exploration.

This is also not a very accurate description of the heliocentric debate during the Renaissance.

I believe that they did know the Earth went around the sun as did many ancients who were given information from the "Gods".

Read these texts:

What do quotes from Indian texts prove about what the Mayans did or did not know?

I put my faith elsewhere because all the evidence I have seen leads me to this conclusion. Why do you put your faith in Big Bang/Evolution vs. Creationism/ID?

Because the people studying evolution are able to make testable predictions about their field, which are later proven to be accurate.

Why did Isaac Newton put his faith in his own theories instead of those popular at the time?

Because he was able to make testable predictions about his field, which he was able to prove to be accurate.

I have not seen much refutation against the Ancient Alien theory is the problem. If someone wants to provide it, I'd love to look at it and see if the counters are conclusive or valid. Maybe if the things I research are fake. I can understand that. I am putting my trust in an authority, I understand that. If they are fake so be it. It's fake. It's all fake, it's all wrong. But if it's fake, why aren't there more websites saying how fake it is with evidence that it is fake? Comprehensive. And not just a few issues made by a TV show, but the whole evidence all together?

The main problem is that there's virtually no evidence for your theory that we can debunk. You've got two things going for you: "Math is hard," and "These guys are wearing hats that kinda-sorta look like space helmets, if you squint right." What is there to debunk, there?

There are professionals it seems on BOTH SIDES of this fence!

There really aren't.

[Musicat]

Psst - post 93.Ah, yes, but you left out the 5 trees of different colors. The alligator is obvious, likewise the lily pond, but the Maya were so far ahead of everyone else that they peeked over the edge to find the middle, 5th tree. How else could they have seen it?

The mind boggles at the wisdom of the ancients. My mother, for instance.

[Anne Neville]

Suppose yourself to be an ancient astronaut. Your ship has just discovered this planet. You've met a few of the locals, and you want to advance their astronomical knowledge.

The most obvious technology to give them would be the telescope. They have mirrors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrors_in_Mesoamerican_culture#Mirrors_in_the_Maya_region), so why not teach them to make a Newtonian telescope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_telescope)?

The printing press would be another good choice of technologies to give them. One problem with ancient civilizations is, they don't have the printing press, so books remain rare. That means fewer people can come across whatever ideas you are trying to advance. It also means there's a better chance of your ideas being lost to history. Say someone were to decide to destroy all the books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_codices). Without the printing press, they have a decent shot at doing this. With the printing press, books can be so cheap that there are just too many books containing one particular idea to destroy them all. Imagine trying to destroy all the textbooks after you had conquered the modern US. You would literally have to search house to house (I'm not the only one who still has boxes of old college textbooks, am I?).

But why would you give your help and advice to only one civilization on the planet you've just discovered? Why wouldn't you also visit the Romans and the Chinese, and give them your astronomical knowledge, too? The Chinese have astronomers, too. You've just discovered this planet, you probably don't have much reason to favor one civilization over another. If you can travel here from another star system, you shouldn't have much trouble getting between Mexico and China. The more people you give your knowledge to, the less chance it has of being lost to history.

[Andy L]

Are you kidding me? You point out 1 small error and then you claim I'm not interested in facts? How naive can you be? I meant to say "world" technologies, not "English" it's an obvious mistake. I never even mentioned Columbus or the Underground London or whatever, what are you even talking about? I am seriously confused.

This is similar to someone pointing out a small grammatical mistake and saying their whole argument is invalid because of it and "they are not interested in the facts".

How can you not see this yourself?

You connected that the fact that the Earth is round, a fact that was established in 500 BC, to the discovery of America some 2000 years later. This is a major blunder, not a small grammatical error. How can you not see that yourself?

[Yumblie]

I don't believe this is true. If it were so simple every civilization known to man would be as good astronomers as the Mayans.

The Mayans are set out as the best astronomers of their times.


Let me ask you something. Have you ever done astronomy before? Astronomy without a telescope is actually really simple. It just takes diligence and careful note taking.

What, exactly, did the Mayans do that no other culture at the time did? What specific discoveries did they make that were ahead of their time?



Maybe you should consider how the ancients knew this without the technology we have today. I believe the Mayans did also.

I'm not sure why you make statements without backing them up.

I've done some preliminary research on astronomy in the Rigveda, and have found nothing other than mention of eclipses and attempts to date the manuscript using star positions listed in it. If the manuscript did indeed claim all those things you said it did, that would be quite remarkable. Do you have a cite for all that? One of those "quotes" is a little confusing, being that it mentions 9 planets but fails to mention the Kuiper Belt. I guess these ancient aliens were fond of Pluto too, huh?

[Bytegeist]

Suppose yourself to be an ancient astronaut. Your ship has just discovered this planet. You've met a few of the locals ...

The printing press would be another good choice of technologies to give them.

Also, gunpowder.

The pre-Columbian Mesoamericans could sure use some gunpowder.

[Anne Neville]

Also, gunpowder.

The pre-Columbian Mesoamericans could sure use some gunpowder.

They could use iron and steel working, too. I really doubt that interstellar ships would be made exclusively of copper, silver, gold, and stone, so the aliens presumably would have metallurgical knowledge that the Mayans didn't. Even if the aliens didn't have such knowledge, it should be pretty simple for them to abduct some people from Europe, Asia, or Africa who did.

One of those "quotes" is a little confusing, being that it mentions 9 planets but fails to mention the Kuiper Belt. I guess these ancient aliens were fond of Pluto too, huh?

Remember, some ancient civilizations classified the sun and moon as planets. Indian astronomers were also aware of the moon's nodes (the points where the orbit of the moon crosses the ecliptic, significant because they are where eclipses can happen), and counted them as planets, too. They called them Rahu and Ketu. They wouldn't have counted the earth as a planet. Just because they came up with the same total of planets that modern astronomers did for much of the 20th century doesn't necessarily mean they were counting the same things. There are two cats and two humans in my household, but that doesn't mean that cats and humans are the same thing (the cats would be quite insulted by anyone not acknowledging their superiority like that).

[garbonzo607]

According to Neil DeGrasse Tyson, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HghEBxHvgg) (who dislikes being given credit), the Mayans believed the earth was flat, rested on the back of an alligator in a lily pond, and was supported by 5 trees of different colors. That's pretty much the best of the times, you bet.

Okay, maybe they did at one time. We don't know if this was always at the centerfold of their culture. It may have been lost in time and antiquity and the culture could have forgotten it.

If you want to talk about DeGrasse, here is DeGrasse on Aliens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RExQFZzHXQ#t=29m42s

So if you want to appeal to our most famous and smart scientists, there you have it. As I've said before Dr. Michio Kaku believes there may be some truth to Alien UFOs. Look it up, or I can look it up for you maybe.

Science is not done by counting how many websites there are claiming the impossible. And the whole evidence isn't good evidence just because there is a lot of it out there. Multiplying bad evidence by 100 doesn't improve the quality in the slightest.

No matter how many websites claim bigfoot exists, until solid evidence arrives, it's just so much fantasy.That's a common misconception. Professionals in the scientific world are not divided on the basic concepts of astronomy or evolution, and are amused by the presumptions of non-scientists, as I am about yours. I've seen it all before, Dude, and it's pretty lame.

Of course I am not appealing to numbers as my argument! I am saying there is good evidence for this theory, but it is circumstantial evidence, like a lot of other evidence. To me, circumstantial just means it's not 100% solid proof, but it explains which is unexplained.

I never said the professionals in science are divided on evolution, etc.

I said there are divided on THIS theory. Not divided in half of course, and not even close to a quarter, but there are still respected professionals that do believe this. If not this, even Dr. Michio Kaku somewhat believes in Alien UFOs, which I keep saying. IF you want to appeal to authority.

[Miller]

Okay, maybe they did at one time. We don't know if this was always at the centerfold of their culture. It may have been lost in time and antiquity and the culture could have forgotten it.

If you want to talk about DeGrasse, here is DeGrasse on Aliens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RExQFZzHXQ#t=29m42s

There is a huuuuuge difference between believing that there is life on other planets, and believing that life on other planets has ever been to this planet. Tyson believes in the former, but I'll eat my hat if he believes in the latter.

Of course I am not appealing to numbers as my argument! I am saying there is good evidence for this theory, but it is circumstantial evidence, like a lot of other evidence. To me, circumstantial just means it's not 100% solid proof, but it explains which is unexplained.

That's not what the word "circumstantial" means to anyone else.

[garbonzo607]

Hooboy. Okay.

Fossils are not "circumstantial" evidence in any sense of the word. Evolution is indeed a theory, but "theory" is not some intermediary step on the way to "law." A theory is an explanation for an observed or postulated phenomenon that has not, to date, been shown to have any flaws. A theory represents the highest level of scientific certainty - see, also, the theory of gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_gravity), atomic theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory), or germ theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease). The fossil record represents extremely strong proof of the correctness of evolutionary theory, although it's hardly alone - there are very few theories in science that are more strongly supported by the evidence than evolution. If evolution were proven to be incorrect, it would call into question our fundamental assumptions in virtually every other branch of science.

I see you like Wikipedia links. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessimistic_induction)



The problem here is that there aren't any "unexplained" things that need Ancient Astronauts to explain them. The Mayans were surprisingly skilled astronomers, given their level of technological sophistication, but nothing they discovered was impossible given what we know about their society. You can make some pretty advanced deductions about astronomy with a good set of eyes, some clear skies, and a bit of math.

You show ignorance of the Ancient Alien/Astronaut theory. I cannot trust you know anything about it with this remark, so please educate yourself on everything there is to know about the theory and then come back to me and counter those points before implying that all there is to the theory are the Mayans.


To my knowledge, the only people setting the Mayans forward as the best astronomers of their time are the people trying to pimp the Mayan apocalyptic theories.

Well who was better than? I didn't know this, so please educate me on my misinformation. =(


The lack of contact between the two cultures is, in fact, what makes the point relevant. If multiple cultures can come up with the same correct observations about the universe independently, that indicates that the observations are not particularly difficult to figure out. If the Greeks could do it without aliens, then there's no need to hypothesize aliens when talking about the Mayans.

Well I was basing this on the above quote, so if you can show me what civilization had better astronomical observations and a better calender than the Mayans at the time, then show me, and I'll retract. The Mayans are not the only evidence supporting the theory, of course. Those ancient texts show that the Ancient Indians (?) knew the Earth revolved around the sun, and other observations that is peculiar for their time. Also explain Pumapunku?


What's your basis for this assertion?

The same as above.


This is also not a very accurate description of the heliocentric debate during the Renaissance.

Funny. I got it from the Wikipedia website you so much like to quote. Maybe I was trying to prove something?


What do quotes from Indian texts prove about what the Mayans did or did not know?

The theory is that "Gods" aka ETs gave it to them.


Because the people studying evolution are able to make testable predictions about their field, which are later proven to be accurate.

How can you test anything but micro-evolution? Do you have a time accelerator?


Because he was able to make testable predictions about his field, which he was able to prove to be accurate.

Noted. As per above, some theories cannot be tested.


The main problem is that there's virtually no evidence for your theory that we can debunk. You've got two things going for you: "Math is hard," and "These guys are wearing hats that kinda-sorta look like space helmets, if you squint right." What is there to debunk, there?



There really aren't.

Again, as per above, you just need to educate yourself more on the theory. Watch some documentaries, and although I do not like to say Ancient Aliens, as it is made a mockery of because of all the speculation and sensationalism, there are some good points made in the series. Just debunk those. You can be the first.

What the fuck other hat looks like THAT? LOL Especially in Mayan environment.

[garbonzo607]

There is a huuuuuge difference between believing that there is life on other planets, and believing that life on other planets has ever been to this planet. Tyson believes in the former, but I'll eat my hat if he believes in the latter.

There is not a huge difference. And I'll eat my hat even he says definitively 100% that there hasn't been life on other planets has ever been to this planet like you seem to be saying. How the fuck would you know for sure? Are you God?



That's not what the word "circumstantial" means to anyone else.

I'm not sure what the word for it is.

In a court case circumstantial evidence can be anything that isn't 100% solid evidence. Like if a picture taken somewhat looks like the suspect, but can't be proven to be true.

[garbonzo607]

Suppose yourself to be an ancient astronaut. Your ship has just discovered this planet. You've met a few of the locals, and you want to advance their astronomical knowledge.

The most obvious technology to give them would be the telescope. They have mirrors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrors_in_Mesoamerican_culture#Mirrors_in_the_Maya_region), so why not teach them to make a Newtonian telescope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_telescope)?

The printing press would be another good choice of technologies to give them. One problem with ancient civilizations is, they don't have the printing press, so books remain rare. That means fewer people can come across whatever ideas you are trying to advance. It also means there's a better chance of your ideas being lost to history. Say someone were to decide to destroy all the books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_codices). Without the printing press, they have a decent shot at doing this. With the printing press, books can be so cheap that there are just too many books containing one particular idea to destroy them all. Imagine trying to destroy all the textbooks after you had conquered the modern US. You would literally have to search house to house (I'm not the only one who still has boxes of old college textbooks, am I?).

But why would you give your help and advice to only one civilization on the planet you've just discovered? Why wouldn't you also visit the Romans and the Chinese, and give them your astronomical knowledge, too? The Chinese have astronomers, too. You've just discovered this planet, you probably don't have much reason to favor one civilization over another. If you can travel here from another star system, you shouldn't have much trouble getting between Mexico and China. The more people you give your knowledge to, the less chance it has of being lost to history.

Exactly. This is why there are examples and evidences supporting the theory throughout the world in different civilizations. Does the I-Ching end in 2012 or is it a myth? Let's do some myth busting.

Also, the Aliens may not have wanted to intentionally give the Mayans knowledge or want it to last to history. This may not be their intent. But the Mayans uncovered some knowledge to help them in their astronomy.

[garbonzo607]

You connected that the fact that the Earth is round, a fact that was established in 500 BC, to the discovery of America some 2000 years later. This is a major blunder, not a small grammatical error. How can you not see that yourself?

I connected it? How CAN you see that yourself? LOL

ie. How so?

[garbonzo607]

Let me ask you something. Have you ever done astronomy before? Astronomy without a telescope is actually really simple. It just takes diligence and careful note taking.

What, exactly, did the Mayans do that no other culture at the time did? What specific discoveries did they make that were ahead of their time?




I've done some preliminary research on astronomy in the Rigveda, and have found nothing other than mention of eclipses and attempts to date the manuscript using star positions listed in it. If the manuscript did indeed claim all those things you said it did, that would be quite remarkable. Do you have a cite for all that? One of those "quotes" is a little confusing, being that it mentions 9 planets but fails to mention the Kuiper Belt. I guess these ancient aliens were fond of Pluto too, huh?

The Kuiper (if you are referring to the asteroid-) Belt was the 9th planet.

[garbonzo607]

That was a joke if it wasn't clear. Above.

[garbonzo607]

The Kuiper (if you are referring to the asteroid-) Belt was the 9th planet.

There are lots of holidays in different cultures that have no astronomical significance. We just had one in the US on Monday. Our New Year's Day has no particular astronomical significance. The year 2000 in the Gregorian (not Georgian, btw) calendar had no particular astronomical significance. The Jewish New Year happens when we first see a waxing crescent moon in a certain month (or at least at one time it did, now it happens when Google says it does, as God intended ;)). The Islamic calendar works similarly. Nothing happens, astronomically speaking, when the Jewish or Islamic calendar begins a new year that doesn't happen every month.

The Gregorian, Jewish, and Islamic calendars used today date their year 1 to some supposed historic event (the birth of Jesus, the creation of the world, and the emigration of Mohammed from Mecca to Medina, respectively). The year 2000 in the Gregorian calendar was a date that happened to fall 2000 years after the people who compiled the calendar believed Jesus was born. How do you know that the date 13.0.0.0.0 in the Mayan calendar isn't just a day that happens to fall a certain number of days after the ancient Maya believed some event of historic significance happened? That's what the year 2000 in the Gregorian calendar, the year 5000 in the Jewish calendar, and the year 1000 in the Islamic calendar were. There are certainly cultures that have used the Gregorian and Islamic calendars that are or were quite advanced in astronomy. It doesn't follow from that that every significant date in their calendars is correlated to some astronomical event.

Yes, but we know why these celebrations exist. We don't know what the fuck the Mayans are celebrating on that date. Or why. And frankly, I doubt the Mayans who will be doing their dance on that day know why anymore either.

[garbonzo607]

I will say I was a bit depressed when the recent 9/11 thread, "Orbs attacked the WTC!" was half-deleted by the mods... depressed, because that sort of crazy just doesn't show up every day.

But now we got the Galactic Aligners to keep us amused, so times are good again.

Bless you, Garbonzo. Post 61, when you link GA-deniers with Holocaust-deniers, is an instant classic. I really appreciate it. :)

Yes, the conspiracy theorists for the WTC are crazy.

But you misrepresent me when you say I link the GA-deniers with the Holocaust-deniers. I link the alien-deniers with the Holocaust-deniers.

[garbonzo607]

*NB: Those aren't statues of astronauts in the pictures you linked to. They're just statues of guys in funny hats, following an apparently universal human drive to put absolutely ridiculous things on top of your head. (http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,2068553,00.html)

Are you serious? Which ass did you pull this out of? No one wore hats like that in the Mayan civilization. I can't say that isn't what it is for sure, but it is much unlikely. This is what I mean by circumstantial evidence.

[Czarcasm]

Are you serious? Which ass did you pull this out of? No one wore hats like that in the Mayan civilization. I can't say that isn't what it is for sure, but it is much unlikely. This is what I mean by circumstantial evidence.Funny hats are unlikely, but spacesuits are likely?

[Ludovic]

Remember, some ancient civilizations classified the sun and moon as planets.
...
Just because they came up with the same total of planets that modern astronomers did for much of the 20th century doesn't necessarily mean they were counting the same things.
I'm confused, I know that some ancients did count the sun and moon as planets, but try as I might I can't come up with 9. Even counting unlikely Uranus I only come up with 8 when you discount Neptune, Pluto, and the Earth, and add in the Sun and Moon. Did they add in imaginary planets? I'm sure I could find that out on my own but I'm not up to slogging through the woo.

[Anne Neville]

I'm confused, I know that some ancients did count the sun and moon as planets, but try as I might I can't come up with 9. Even counting unlikely Uranus I only come up with 8 when you discount Neptune, Pluto, and the Earth, and add in the Sun and Moon. Did they add in imaginary planets? I'm sure I could find that out on my own but I'm not up to slogging through the woo.

1. Sun
2. Moon
3. Mercury
4. Venus
5. Mars
6. Jupiter
7. Saturn
8. Rahu (moon's ascending node)
9. Ketu (moon's descending node)

Yes, but we know why these celebrations exist. We don't know what the fuck the Mayans are celebrating on that date. Or why. And frankly, I doubt the Mayans who will be doing their dance on that day know why anymore either.

Actually, I doubt a lot of Americans could tell you what Memorial Day originally celebrated.

And just because we don't know what's being celebrated on a particular date doesn't mean it has astronomical significance, or was instituted by ancient astronauts.

[Czarcasm]

And just because we don't know what's being celebrated on a particular date doesn't mean it has astronomical significance, or was instituted by ancient astronauts.Let's not be too hasty on rejecting his "don't know->therefore Aliens" logic. It could explain the "Easter Bunny/eggs" conundrum.

[Anne Neville]

Let's not be too hasty on rejecting his "don't know->therefore Aliens" logic. It could explain the "Easter Bunny/eggs" conundrum.

I suppose it could explain the recent spate of inappropriate objects in fridges (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=653450), too.

[Nunzio Tavulari]

Well, whatever the deal is, I'm safe. I did the whole Harmonic Convergence thing, which gave me immunity.

[AndrewL]

How can you test anything but micro-evolution? Do you have a time accelerator?


Evolution can make testable predictions about what evidence may be discovered in the future. For example, when Darwin was first writing about evolution, the mechanism for inheritance was not known. At the time it was assumed that the traits of the parents would be blended together evenly in the offspring through some unknown means. Darwin determined that for the theory of evolution to work, there must be some mechanism by which traits can be passed down as discrete units and not diluted with each generation. At the time there was no evidence of this or known mechanism, but it was a necessary prediction of the theory. Unknown to Darwin, at about the same time Gregor Mendel was conducting experiments with breeding plants that showed that in fact inherited traits could be passed down as discrete units. And of course, much later the actual mechanism of inheritance through DNA was determined.

Another example would be the discovery of the fossils of Tiktaalik. Based on patterns of known fossils of amphibian-like-fish and fish-like-amphibians, paleontologists were able to predict that an unknown intermediate creature must have existed. They were even able to predict roughly how long ago it lived and in what part of the world. Tiktaalik was discovered based on those predictions, right when and where it was supposed to be.

The theory of evolution makes many predictions, even if you can't sit around long enough to wait for it to happen.

[Anne Neville]

Well, whatever the deal is, I'm safe. I did the whole Harmonic Convergence thing, which gave me immunity.

Dave Barry said that involved picking at your straitjacket straps with your teeth. ;)

[Czarcasm]

Dave Barry said that involved picking at your straitjacket straps with your teeth. ;)Ah, yes-mental floss.

[Anne Neville]

The Kuiper (if you are referring to the asteroid-) Belt was the 9th planet.

The Kuiper belt and the asteroid belt are two totally different things. The Kuiper belt is outside the orbit of Neptune, and contains a lot of icy objects.

The asteroid belt was never a planet. The total mass of the asteroids in the belt is about 4% of the mass of our moon. There's an old theory that the asteroids are the remnants of a planet, but astronomers today think that perturbations by Jupiter's gravity prevented the material there from coalescing into a planet (and threw a fair amount of it in toward the sun or out of the solar system, which is why there isn't much total mass there now). Jupiter continues to perturb the orbits of asteroids, and some of the asteroids pushed out of the belt by Jupiter approach or even collide with Earth.

[Miller]

I see you like Wikipedia links. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessimistic_induction)

And your point here is what, exactly?

You show ignorance of the Ancient Alien/Astronaut theory. I cannot trust you know anything about it with this remark, so please educate yourself on everything there is to know about the theory and then come back to me and counter those points before implying that all there is to the theory are the Mayans.

I have, in fact, studied the concept in reasonable detail. I've used it as the backdrop for some science fiction I've written. There is, however, absolutely no evidence to support it that cannot be better explained with mundane answers.

If you disagree with me, feel free to present your arguments here, and I'll do my best to debunk them.

Well I was basing this on the above quote, so if you can show me what civilization had better astronomical observations and a better calender than the Mayans at the time, then show me, and I'll retract. The Mayans are not the only evidence supporting the theory, of course. Those ancient texts show that the Ancient Indians (?) knew the Earth revolved around the sun, and other observations that is peculiar for their time.

Why is the observation that the Earth revolved around the sun peculiar? What evidence do you have that these cultures could not have made this discovery on their own?

Also explain Pumapunku?

It's a large temple complex in South America. What, particularly, do you think needs explaining?

Funny. I got it from the Wikipedia website you so much like to quote. Maybe I was trying to prove something?

The Wikipedia entry on Copernicus does not support your claims about the reaction of the Catholic church to his theories.

The theory is that "Gods" aka ETs gave it to them.

Yeah, I know the theory. I'm not asking for the theory, I'm asking for the evidence.

How can you test anything but micro-evolution? Do you have a time accelerator?

The predictive qualities of evolution have already been covered by other posters, so I'll just point out that there's no such thing as "micro-"evolution as distinct from evolution in general. It's all one things. "Micro-evolution" is a creationist dodge to wave away directly observable evidence of evolution.

Noted. As per above, some theories cannot be tested.

Theories that cannot be tested are not proper scientific theories. This is the primary difference between evolution and intelligent design.

Again, as per above, you just need to educate yourself more on the theory. Watch some documentaries, and although I do not like to say Ancient Aliens, as it is made a mockery of because of all the speculation and sensationalism, there are some good points made in the series. Just debunk those. You can be the first.

Why don't you present this evidence yourself, instead of handing out homework assignments?

What the fuck other hat looks like THAT? LOL Especially in Mayan environment.

What, a big animal head as a hat? It's a pretty (http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2434/3776188682_536a2ff355_z.jpg) common (http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/5822/8681379_2.jpg) motif (http://www.puckator.co.uk/wholesale/images/NAT04_001.jpg) in a variety of societies (http://www.prices4antiques.com/item_images/medium/40/13/07-02.jpg), and not just pre-modern ones. (http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs11/i/2006/212/f/e/White_cat_ear_hat_by_ItSureIsWindy.jpg)

There is not a huge difference. And I'll eat my hat even he says definitively 100% that there hasn't been life on other planets has ever been to this planet like you seem to be saying. How the fuck would you know for sure? Are you God?

Yes, in fact, there is a mountain of difference between the two. We know that life exists because we exist. It's not a stretch to assume that the conditions that led to life here could exist somewhere else. The concept of interstellar travel, however, has no scientific basis: there's no evidence that such a thing exists, and everything we know about physics indicates that faster than light travel is flatly impossible. That's not the same as saying that it's 100% impossible. No one with any understanding of science ever says that something is 100% impossible, and no one in this thread has said otherwise. But if you want to overthrow established scientific theory, you need to have some awfully persuasive evidence. You have none at all.


I'm not sure what the word for it is.

In a court case circumstantial evidence can be anything that isn't 100% solid evidence. Like if a picture taken somewhat looks like the suspect, but can't be proven to be true.

That's not circumstantial evidence, either.

Are you serious? Which ass did you pull this out of? No one wore hats like that in the Mayan civilization. I can't say that isn't what it is for sure, but it is much unlikely. This is what I mean by circumstantial evidence.

Of course they wore hats like that in the Mayan civilization. You know how we know? They left statues and frescoes of themselves wearing those hats. I mean, seriously: is this guy's headgear (http://tysonrobichaudphotography.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/rembrandt-self-portrait-1660.jpg) evidence of extraterrestrial presence in 17th century Holland, or is it evidence that people in Holland in the 17th century liked to wear big poofy hats?

[garbonzo607]

Okay. So is this not true:

The Mayan calendar, based upon the stars, is as accurate as ours is today.

[garbonzo607]

Okay. So is this not true:

The Mayan calendar, based upon the stars, is as accurate as ours is today.

Wasn't the Mayans have a more advanced calender than anyone of their times? This is what I mean. If it was so simple than other civs would have the same thing. The Mayans would not be so special. But apparently they are. Or is this a lie?

I believe the date of 12.21.12 is in and of itself evidence. Most do agree that the Mayan calender ends on this date on the Gregorian calender. The Mayans could have no natural knowledge of the Gregorian calender. The chances of the date being palindromic in any date format is astronomical. NOW. Did the Mayans know this somehow? Maybe. Who knows. But maybe the Gregorian calender was made this way BECAUSE of the Mayan cycle. Whoever did this knew that it can not be palindromic in EVERY date format that they may have in the future. He/they picked one and stuck with it. Maybe it was the easiest one for them to work with.

Now maybe it is just superstition on the part of whoever put the Gregorian calender together? Maybe they are making it out to be more than it is?

We won't know until the date, but that in and of itself tells me the date is significant.

[Miller]

Okay. So is this not true:

The Mayan calendar, based upon the stars, is as accurate as ours is today.

True, although you've stated it in a somewhat misleading manner, as the calendar we use today was formulated in the sixteenth century, using naked-eye observations of the movement of stars and planets, careful record keeping, and some difficult math. In short, nothing that would not have been available to classical Mayan civilization, and nothing that suggests (far less requires) extraterrestrial intervention.

[garbonzo607]

Funny hats are unlikely, but spacesuits are likely?

With this theory, yes they are! You are looking at it from inside the box and not outside. It is being closed-minded.

I understand your view. Guys in spacesuits are such a silly notion when we are talking about a stone age society here. I understand that. But at least educate yourself on how this can be possible.

[garbonzo607]

Actually, I doubt a lot of Americans could tell you what Memorial Day originally celebrated.

And just because we don't know what's being celebrated on a particular date doesn't mean it has astronomical significance, or was instituted by ancient astronauts.

You kind of went off on an irrelevant tangent. I myself have said that the Mayan descendants today who will be celebrating on 12.21.12 will most likely not even know why they are celebrating it. But it has an origin. Just like Memorial Day has an origin. I didn't insinuate everyone knows the origin of every celebration they celebrate. Many Christians celebrate Christmas without knowing it's pagan origins. This is evident because I then went on to relate how even today's Mayans might not know. But it does have an origin.

No celebration is enacted without cause is and was always my point.

No it doesn't mean it has any significance for us today. I admit this myself. But this adds to the information we can collect that makes us think so.

[garbonzo607]

Let's not be too hasty on rejecting his "don't know->therefore Aliens" logic. It could explain the "Easter Bunny/eggs" conundrum.

Is there no origin for the Easter Bunny/eggs? When you try to fit something into a theory it has to make sense within the universe of the theory, though. What would ETs benefit by introducing these things? This is questions that need to be answered before you introduce it this speculation.

So your mocking doesn't even make sense.

Can I say ≠?

[garbonzo607]

Evolution can make testable predictions about what evidence may be discovered in the future. For example, when Darwin was first writing about evolution, the mechanism for inheritance was not known. At the time it was assumed that the traits of the parents would be blended together evenly in the offspring through some unknown means. Darwin determined that for the theory of evolution to work, there must be some mechanism by which traits can be passed down as discrete units and not diluted with each generation. At the time there was no evidence of this or known mechanism, but it was a necessary prediction of the theory. Unknown to Darwin, at about the same time Gregor Mendel was conducting experiments with breeding plants that showed that in fact inherited traits could be passed down as discrete units. And of course, much later the actual mechanism of inheritance through DNA was determined.

Another example would be the discovery of the fossils of Tiktaalik. Based on patterns of known fossils of amphibian-like-fish and fish-like-amphibians, paleontologists were able to predict that an unknown intermediate creature must have existed. They were even able to predict roughly how long ago it lived and in what part of the world. Tiktaalik was discovered based on those predictions, right when and where it was supposed to be.

The theory of evolution makes many predictions, even if you can't sit around long enough to wait for it to happen.

What if it's a theory about the past and not the future?

How about the Big Bang Theory maybe? Does that work?

Thanks for explaining.

[garbonzo607]

The Kuiper belt and the asteroid belt are two totally different things. The Kuiper belt is outside the orbit of Neptune, and contains a lot of icy objects.

The asteroid belt was never a planet. The total mass of the asteroids in the belt is about 4% of the mass of our moon. There's an old theory that the asteroids are the remnants of a planet, but astronomers today think that perturbations by Jupiter's gravity prevented the material there from coalescing into a planet (and threw a fair amount of it in toward the sun or out of the solar system, which is why there isn't much total mass there now). Jupiter continues to perturb the orbits of asteroids, and some of the asteroids pushed out of the belt by Jupiter approach or even collide with Earth.

Yes it was a joke. The question was already answered anyway.

[Miller]

I believe the date of 12.21.12 is in and of itself evidence. Most do agree that the Mayan calender ends on this date on the Gregorian calender. The Mayans could have no natural knowledge of the Gregorian calender. The chances of the date being palindromic in any date format is astronomical. NOW. Did the Mayans know this somehow? Maybe. Who knows. But maybe the Gregorian calender was made this way BECAUSE of the Mayan cycle. Whoever did this knew that it can not be palindromic in EVERY date format that they may have in the future. He/they picked one and stuck with it. Maybe it was the easiest one for them to work with.

The Gregorian calendar was created with the specific purpose of correcting the gradual drift of Easter celebrations through the year. And, of course, the numbering system for the Gregorian calender starts from the birth of Jesus. It also, of course, is only Palindromic if one uses the Arabic numeral system. So, for the Mayans to have created their calendar with the specific intention that it end on a palindrome in the Gregorian date system, they would have to also predict: The birth of Jesus, the death of Jesus, the amount of time attributed between his death and his supposed resurrection, the rise of Christianity as the dominant religious force in Europe, the invention of the Arabic Numeral system, and it's eventual combination with the European calendar. So, not terribly likely.

Working from the other direction, that the Gregorian calendar was based off the Mayan calendar, is much more plausible, insofar as it's not actually impossible to have happened. Except we have extensive documentation of the political and scientific process behind the formulation and adoption the Gregorian calendar, and there's no indication that any step of the process was influenced by Meso-American astronomy. On top of that, the Mayan calendar wasn't deciphered by Europeans until the late 19th century. And during the period that the Gregorian calendar was being formulated, Europeans were engaged in a campaign to eradicate native cultures from Central and South America because they viewed them as dangerously pagan. Also, not super likely.

[garbonzo607]

And your point here is what, exactly?

Does that Wikipedia article pertain to Evolution?

I have, in fact, studied the concept in reasonable detail. I've used it as the backdrop for some science fiction I've written. There is, however, absolutely no evidence to support it that cannot be better explained with mundane answers.

If you disagree with me, feel free to present your arguments here, and I'll do my best to debunk them.

It's too much for me. I have reached the conclusion from skepticism gradually as the evidence adds up. I have a proposition for you. I have fair experience with video editing and web design. The show Ancient Aliens is massively popular. IF you have time on your hands, maybe we can go through the whole series together and you can add your comments. I can edit it in, maybe pay a guy to do a voice over, do the advertising, and we can split the profits? "Debunking Ancient Aliens" How is that? I think it's a great idea.

Why is the observation that the Earth revolved around the sun peculiar? What evidence do you have that these cultures could not have made this discovery on their own?

Because it looks as if the sun revolves around the Earth.

It's a large temple complex in South America. What, particularly, do you think needs explaining?

This just shows your ignorance (and again, I do not mean that in a pejorative sense) on the theory.

The Wikipedia entry on Copernicus does not support your claims about the reaction of the Catholic church to his theories.

Okay. I copied from a rogue Wikipedia subject. Seems it is deleted now. Such is Wikipedia.

Yeah, I know the theory. I'm not asking for the theory, I'm asking for the evidence.

The evidence is separate. If the evidence is true, the theory explains this. If the theory is true, it shows how this happened. Similar to how if the evidence proved the Bible, it would prove a God exists at the same time. But the evidence is separate.


The predictive qualities of evolution have already been covered by other posters, so I'll just point out that there's no such thing as "micro-"evolution as distinct from evolution in general. It's all one things. "Micro-evolution" is a creationist dodge to wave away directly observable evidence of evolution.

I did not know this. It does make sense. I have been hanging around IDers too much, lol.

So for future reference, a good argument to make against IDers is to ask for evidence on what makes micro-evolution different than normal evolution (since there isn't any)?

Theories that cannot be tested are not proper scientific theories. This is the primary difference between evolution and intelligent design.

What about the Big Bang Theory? While some things can be tested in the theory, the only way to accurately test the theory is to actually create a universe, whether contained or not.

Why don't you present this evidence yourself, instead of handing out homework assignments?

Because it's too much for me. We all appeal to authority. See above my proposition.

What, a big animal head as a hat? It's a pretty (http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2434/3776188682_536a2ff355_z.jpg) common (http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/5822/8681379_2.jpg) motif (http://www.puckator.co.uk/wholesale/images/NAT04_001.jpg) in a variety of societies (http://www.prices4antiques.com/item_images/medium/40/13/07-02.jpg), and not just pre-modern ones. (http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs11/i/2006/212/f/e/White_cat_ear_hat_by_ItSureIsWindy.jpg)

Seriously? (http://www.nastyhobbit.org/data/media/2/lol-wut.jpg)

This is your explanation? They look nothing like the statue at all. These are hats, not suits or what do you call them, helmets? The statues look like the head is inside a type of suit or helmet at least. Did the ancient typically wear helmets outside of battle? Did the Mayans even were helmets in battle?

Yes, in fact, there is a mountain of difference between the two. We know that life exists because we exist. It's not a stretch to assume that the conditions that led to life here could exist somewhere else. The concept of interstellar travel, however, has no scientific basis: there's no evidence that such a thing exists, and everything we know about physics indicates that faster than light travel is flatly impossible. That's not the same as saying that it's 100% impossible. No one with any understanding of science ever says that something is 100% impossible, and no one in this thread has said otherwise. But if you want to overthrow established scientific theory, you need to have some awfully persuasive evidence. You have none at all.

Well I was watching some SpaceRip documentaries:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3Kcw0UrIFI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPjXxKpM4DM

And maybe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGcDed4xVD4

(Haven't watched the last one yet)

That's not circumstantial evidence, either.

Well thanks for clarifying. But now you know what I mean. Is there another word I am looking for?


Of course they wore hats like that in the Mayan civilization. You know how we know? They left statues and frescoes of themselves wearing those hats. I mean, seriously: is this guy's headgear (http://tysonrobichaudphotography.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/rembrandt-self-portrait-1660.jpg) evidence of extraterrestrial presence in 17th century Holland, or is it evidence that people in Holland in the 17th century liked to wear big poofy hats?

Again, looks absolutely nothing like those statues. It really makes me wonder how good your eyesight is.

[garbonzo607]

The Gregorian calendar was created with the specific purpose of correcting the gradual drift of Easter celebrations through the year. And, of course, the numbering system for the Gregorian calender starts from the birth of Jesus. It also, of course, is only Palindromic if one uses the Arabic numeral system. So, for the Mayans to have created their calendar with the specific intention that it end on a palindrome in the Gregorian date system, they would have to also predict: The birth of Jesus, the death of Jesus, the amount of time attributed between his death and his supposed resurrection, the rise of Christianity as the dominant religious force in Europe, the invention of the Arabic Numeral system, and it's eventual combination with the European calendar. So, not terribly likely.

Wut? Are you not familiar with the Ancient Alien theory at all? Of course it is likely! This just shows the date being Palindromic is GREAT evidence for the theory!!!

Because of how incredibly unlikely they would have "predicted" this on their own!


Working from the other direction, that the Gregorian calendar was based off the Mayan calendar, is much more plausible, insofar as it's not actually impossible to have happened. Except we have extensive documentation of the political and scientific process behind the formulation and adoption the Gregorian calendar, and there's no indication that any step of the process was influenced by Meso-American astronomy. On top of that, the Mayan calendar wasn't deciphered by Europeans until the late 19th century. And during the period that the Gregorian calendar was being formulated, Europeans were engaged in a campaign to eradicate native cultures from Central and South America because they viewed them as dangerously pagan. Also, not super likely.

Of course there would be no evidence. If there were evidence they would be admitting they believe in superstitions and Aliens, etc. This is not a good idea politically, especially with the religious state of the area.

Also, dangerously pagan? Maybe there was more to it than just that. Dangerous indeed. The things they may have found out.


I know I am working both sides here, but I am saying both sides are plausible.

[AndrewL]

What if it's a theory about the past and not the future?

The theory can always make predictions about evidence that will be uncovered about things that happened in the past. Many such predictions made by the theory of evolution have been found true.


How about the Big Bang Theory maybe? Does that work?


The Big Bang theory predicted that there would be a faint microwave radiation background everywhere in the universe, the afterglow of the initial expansion. At the time this prediction was made, this had not been detected. At about the same time, other researchers developing ultra-sensitive radio telescopes found that there was an annoying microwave background hum present in their equipment, no matter where they pointed the antenna. They thought it was something wrong with their equipment and tried all sorts of things to eliminate every possible source of noise. The noise of course turned out to exactly match the microwave background radiation predicted by the Big Bang theory.

So yes, it is quite possible to make predictions based on theories about things that happened long ago. They're not predictions of things that will happen, but predictions about evidence that you will uncover in the future about what happened in the past.

I have yet to see any predictions made by the Ancient Aliens theory, just suppositions made to connect things we already know. Which means it's more of a hypothesis than a theory.

[garbonzo607]

The theory can always make predictions about evidence that will be uncovered about things that happened in the past. Many such predictions made by the theory of evolution have been found true.



The Big Bang theory predicted that there would be a faint microwave radiation background everywhere in the universe, the afterglow of the initial expansion. At the time this prediction was made, this had not been detected. At about the same time, other researchers developing ultra-sensitive radio telescopes found that there was an annoying microwave background hum present in their equipment, no matter where they pointed the antenna. They thought it was something wrong with their equipment and tried all sorts of things to eliminate every possible source of noise. The noise of course turned out to exactly match the microwave background radiation predicted by the Big Bang theory.

So yes, it is quite possible to make predictions based on theories about things that happened long ago. They're not predictions of things that will happen, but predictions about evidence that you will uncover in the future about what happened in the past.

I have yet to see any predictions made by the Ancient Aliens theory, just suppositions made to connect things we already know. Which means it's more of a hypothesis than a theory.

Well, maybe it is a hypothesis then. Who really cares.

As for the notion of scientific proof, there doesn't appear to be any conclusive proof either way, so it does come down to belief. However, we do have the physical evidence of, for example, certain ancient structures that engineering experts today still don't know how the materials were transported, carved and placed together. It's not proof of ancient aliens, but that we don't know how to replicate the stuff with our modern technology does provide reasonable fuel to the debate. There is more evidence to suggest they existed than not; and just because there is no irrefutable proof of their existence, does not prove they didn't exist.

[Musicat]

Well, maybe it is a hypothesis then. Who really cares.Those of us who know the difference do.As for the notion of scientific proof, there doesn't appear to be any conclusive proof either way, so it does come down to belief. However, we do have the physical evidence of, for example, certain ancient structures that engineering experts today still don't know how the materials were transported, carved and placed together.Such as Stonehenge? Easter Island statues? It's not proof of ancient aliens, but that we don't know how to replicate the stuff with our modern technology does provide reasonable fuel to the debate. There is more evidence to suggest they existed than not; and just because there is no irrefutable proof of their existence, does not prove they didn't exist.You can't prove I don't have an invisible dragon in my garage, either.

[Trinopus]

. . . You can't prove I don't have an invisible dragon in my garage, either.

Having recently burglarized your garage, I can say that the dragon is also either intangible, or very, very, very small.

(Or maybe was hidden inside the water heater tank... Hm... Didn't look there...)

(Joking, obviously; I would never burglarize the garage of a Doper!)

[Musicat]

Having recently burglarized your garage, I can say that the dragon is also either intangible, or very, very, very small.I already told you my dragon was invisible. And he is very big. Maybe he was sleeping when you came by.

(Just in case you didn't get the reference, please check out Sagan's The Demon Haunted World. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World) That goes for the OP, too.

[AndrewL]

However, we do have the physical evidence of, for example, certain ancient structures that engineering experts today still don't know how the materials were transported, carved and placed together. It's not proof of ancient aliens, but that we don't know how to replicate the stuff with our modern technology does provide reasonable fuel to the debate.

Name one ancient structure that we could not reproduce today (provided the money and manpower was provided). The pyramids of Egypt, Stonehenge, the Easter Island statues, these could all be reproduced today. It would take a lot of material and manpower to reproduce the great pyramid, but the Hoover Dam required more material and is built to a higher degree of precision (and has an actual functional engineering purpose, holding back a massive amount of water and generating electricity).

We may not know the exact methods that were used to make them at the time, but plausible ways in which they could have been built using the technology available have been demonstrated.

[Twoflower]

Well, maybe it is a hypothesis then. Who really cares.

As for the notion of scientific proof, there doesn't appear to be any conclusive proof either way, so it does come down to belief. However, we do have the physical evidence of, for example, certain ancient structures that engineering experts today still don't know how the materials were transported, carved and placed together. It's not proof of ancient aliens, but that we don't know how to replicate the stuff with our modern technology does provide reasonable fuel to the debate. There is more evidence to suggest they existed than not; and just because there is no irrefutable proof of their existence, does not prove they didn't exist.

You're actually almost understanding us here .... now, instead of assuming there's no proof either way, think about what evidence might have been left behind if there actually were ancient aliens. How would it be different than what we would find if the Mayans simply used building techniques that we're not familiar with? Find that evidence, and you'll start convincing people.

If you look upthread, you'll find several examples of that type of what-if, where the evidence for your theory was found wanting. Find something that supports your theory, and we'll take note.

[Malleus, Incus, Stapes!]

I'm pretty sure the Galactic Alignment is Chaotic Neutral.

...

...

I was going to say that!



Did someone mention something about telepathy above?

[Grey]

I always love this thought process. Hmmmm there's 2 ways this could have happened...

1. Clever humans find a way to do something --> it gets done

or

2. Clever aliens become technological
2a. Clever aliens become spacefaring
2b. Clever aliens manage to transverse galactic distances
2c. Clever aliens manage to arrive when clever humans exist
2d. Clever aliens instruct clever humans how to do something
2e. Clever human do something --> it gets done

Obviously the preponderance of evidence and likelihood resides with 2

[Miller]

It's too much for me. I have reached the conclusion from skepticism gradually as the evidence adds up. I have a proposition for you. I have fair experience with video editing and web design. The show Ancient Aliens is massively popular. IF you have time on your hands, maybe we can go through the whole series together and you can add your comments. I can edit it in, maybe pay a guy to do a voice over, do the advertising, and we can split the profits? "Debunking Ancient Aliens" How is that? I think it's a great idea.

Well, aside from the fact that it would be illegal, yeah, that's a great idea.

Because it looks as if the sun revolves around the Earth.

Yes, it does look like that. But you can figure out that it doesn't actually revolve around the sun with nothing more than keen observation, and some hard math. It's not easy, sure, but all it takes is one really smart person with enough time on their hands to figure it out. "This would be really hard to do!" is not evidence for space aliens.

This just shows your ignorance (and again, I do not mean that in a pejorative sense) on the theory.

It's not that I'm ignorant on the subject, it's just that there are so many crack-pot theories floating around out there that you're going to need to be more specific about which specific crack-pot theory you're advocating before I can tell you why you're wrong. What part of that ruin is evidence for alien contact?

What about the Big Bang Theory? While some things can be tested in the theory, the only way to accurately test the theory is to actually create a universe, whether contained or not.

As another poster pointed out, the Big Bang theory makes predictions about what sort of evidence we can expect to find once we know where and how to look for it, and those predictions that we have been able to test, have mostly been borne out. It's not a flawless theory, there's still a lot of parts of it we can't test yet, but we haven't yet found anything that flatly contradicts it.

Seriously? (http://www.nastyhobbit.org/data/media/2/lol-wut.jpg)

This is your explanation? They look nothing like the statue at all. These are hats, not suits or what do you call them, helmets? The statues look like the head is inside a type of suit or helmet at least. Did the ancient typically wear helmets outside of battle? Did the Mayans even were helmets in battle?

The first image I linked to is a Roman helmet with a wolf pelt attached to it, which is pretty similar to the images you linked to. But the point of the links was to show that many cultures developed all sorts of unusual headgear, and the Mayan statues you linked to, while having characteristics unique to the Mayan culture, are not particularly out the ordinary, either for ancient cultures, or more modern ones.

Well thanks for clarifying. But now you know what I mean. Is there another word I am looking for?

Perhaps, "Evidence that counters things I want to be true?"

[Trinopus]

I already told you my dragon was invisible. And he is very big. Maybe he was sleeping when you came by.

(Just in case you didn't get the reference, please check out Sagan's The Demon Haunted World. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World) That goes for the OP, too.

Oh, aye, I know the reference. Good one, from a good book. But the deal is, invisible isn't enough. The dragon also has to be able to hide from someone who is stumbling around in your garage. If he's solid, then I'd bump into him. So he also has to be small, or intangible, or possess some other faculty of deceit.

This is, of course, all obvious; I was only making a dumb quip. The serious issue is that such "shy" phenomena continue to elude detection, no matter how many new ways we develop to approach the search. The soul doesn't show up in X-Rays; prayer is not statistically useful in promoting health or wealth; the top of Mount Olympus is just a bare rocky spot; no one has ever succeeded in demonstrating ESP, in all the many duplications of the famous J.B. Rhine tests at Duke University. (Must be embarrassing for them!)

So...your dragon is not only invisible and intangible, he's remarkably unsociable!

[Miller]

Wut? Are you not familiar with the Ancient Alien theory at all? Of course it is likely! This just shows the date being Palindromic is GREAT evidence for the theory!!!

Because of how incredibly unlikely they would have "predicted" this on their own!

So, these aliens are psychic now? Or did you not bother to actually read my post? Because no amount of astronomical knowledge is going to let you predict the birth of specific, culturally significant individuals centuries in advance. If you view that as "great" evidence, you're not only ignoring mainstream scientific thought, you're engaging in outright pulp-paperback fantasy.

Of course there would be no evidence. If there were evidence they would be admitting they believe in superstitions and Aliens, etc. This is not a good idea politically, especially with the religious state of the area.

The Gregorian calendar was instituted at the direct order of the Pope himself. He was the religious state in the area.

I know I am working both sides here, but I am saying both sides are plausible.

And you're wrong. Your position isn't just implausible, it is, in many parts, flatly contradictory of some of our most basic and well-established scientific principles. And yes, while there's always a chance those principles might be wrong, you need a better reason to overturn them than, "Duuuude, aliens!"

[Anne Neville]

I know I am working both sides here, but I am saying both sides are plausible.

"Plausible" and "possible" are not the same thing. Two things can both be possible, but one can be much more likely than the other.

Take the cork trivet that I found in my fridge Tuesday morning. There are two possible theories as to how it got there:

1. Mr. Neville put it there.
2. Someone else broke into my house and put it there, but left no other evidence that they had been there.

Those theories are both possible. One is much more likely than the other, so I conclude that Mr. Neville probably put the trivet in the fridge.

However, we do have the physical evidence of, for example, certain ancient structures that engineering experts today still don't know how the materials were transported, carved and placed together. It's not proof of ancient aliens, but that we don't know how to replicate the stuff with our modern technology does provide reasonable fuel to the debate.

Not necessarily. The technology to do something being provided by aliens is not the only reason why we would not know how something was done in the past. Maybe the people who did it didn't write down how they did it (maybe they didn't have writing, or maybe they didn't think something like that was important enough to write down, or maybe they didn't want anybody else making anything as awesome as they had), or they did write down how it was built, but the written record of how they did it got lost over the centuries since it was done. Maybe better techniques of accomplishing the same goal have been discovered since, and nobody was interested for a long time in how it was done before we knew those techniques.

Most people now are not interested in learning to use slide rules, now that we have calculators and computers to do what people used to use slide rules to do. If we didn't have historians who are interested in how people used to do calculations before calculators and computers existed, the technique of using slide rules could be lost. That's not evidence that slide rules were invented by aliens.

Not every culture has been particularly interested in how things were done in the past, and not every culture has had historians to try to figure those things out. If a culture that doesn't have historians discovers a new and better technique for doing things, the old way might well be lost to history.

Some cultures have actively tried to destroy historical records. China under Qin Shi Huangdi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang#Book_burning_period) would be an example of this. Qin Shi Huangdi tried to destroy all histories of times that predated his reign. If that kind of thing happened, it's not surprising that records of things like how monuments were built could be lost.

We know that some Maya cities were abandoned in the past, because we can go and see those abandoned cities now, overgrown with jungle. When cities get abandoned, the people don't always take all the books and historical records with them. Abandoned and forgotten books and records don't always survive. Some Maya cities were conquered by other Maya cities. The new rulers of the city would have an obvious motivation to destroy histories of the city before they ruled it. They would obviously like people in the conquered city to think that they have always been ruled by their new rulers. They might not want the conquered people knowing that their ancestors had once built something that their conquerors can't build now.

[FlyingRat]

The evidence is separate. If the evidence is true, the theory explains this. If the theory is true, it shows how this happened. Similar to how if the evidence proved the Bible, it would prove a God exists at the same time. But the evidence is separate.

No, that's not the way it works.

A theory in the scientific sense cannot exist without evidence: it is a testable prediction (a hypothesis) that has been supported by experiment or observation over and over and over to the point at which it is accepted as essentially true. Still, it is a requirement that if further reliable, repeatable, testable evidence comes along that contradicts the theory, the theory must be adjusted to account for the new evidence, or (if that fails) be set aside in favor of a better theory.

And there are very strict standards for the type of evidence that is considered valid: testing a hypothesis, whether by experiment or observation or both, is a tricky, rigorous, exacting thing. A good hypothesis has to be falsifiable (you can clearly state the type of evidence that will disprove it) and it also should be parsimonious, not proposing more entities or forces than are essential to answer the question at hand. (This is where the oft-cited "Occam's razor" comes in.)

To use your Bible example, the Bible is first of all not a theory but a religious document put together over thousands of years by a multitude of human beings for diverse purposes...so there is no such thing in the large scale of "the evidence proving the Bible". And even if you can find outside evidence that some of the descriptions in the Bible correspond to historical events (say, a lunar eclipse in 33 AD that might conceivably explain the claim that the "moon turned to blood" at the time of the crucifixion), this is not scientific evidence that God exists, only that the human writer observed an event. It is impossible via scientific hypothesis-testing to falsify the existence of God, and therefore the existence of God is not a scientific theory.

The "ancient astronauts" idea is not a scientific theory, either, and as an attempt at a hypothesis, it sucks pretty badly. If you have an essentially closed system, and two "complete" explanations for a phenomenon occurring within that system-- one which requires inputs from outside the system, and one which can explain the phenomenon completely within the system-- the second explanation is the better one: it's more parsimonious/assumes less, it's more statistically likely, and it's more testable. I have training in archaeology, and I have not seen any aspects of the "ancient astronauts" hogwash that isn't better and more completely explained by other means. Human beings are amazing and endlessly inventive-- just look around at the society you live in today for some "common-sense" indicators of that.

[dropzone]

Thanks for clarifying this.

I am curious...As am I, but in my case I am curious why AndrewL posted right after Andy L. Is this purely coincidental or is Hun Batz, one of the Howler Monkey Gods, messing with us? All monkeys are evil, but Howlers are extra loud, too.

[Musicat]

"Plausible" and "possible" are not the same thing. Two things can both be possible, but one can be much more likely than the other.

Take the cork trivet that I found in my fridge Tuesday morning. There are two possible theories as to how it got there:

1. Mr. Neville put it there.
2. Someone else broke into my house and put it there, but left no other evidence that they had been there.

Those theories are both possible. One is much more likely than the other, so I conclude that Mr. Neville probably put the trivet in the fridge.Or, to look at it another way, using a favorite example of James Randi's: If you are seated near a riding academy and hear approaching hoofbeats, it would be more logical to expect a horse to come around the corner than a zebra.

[garbonzo607]

Those of us who know the difference do.

Why?

Such as Stonehenge? Easter Island statues?

Pumapunku

You can't prove I don't have an invisible dragon in my garage, either.

No I can't, that's why it can exist.

[garbonzo607]

Name one ancient structure that we could not reproduce today (provided the money and manpower was provided). The pyramids of Egypt, Stonehenge, the Easter Island statues, these could all be reproduced today. It would take a lot of material and manpower to reproduce the great pyramid, but the Hoover Dam required more material and is built to a higher degree of precision (and has an actual functional engineering purpose, holding back a massive amount of water and generating electricity).

We may not know the exact methods that were used to make them at the time, but plausible ways in which they could have been built using the technology available have been demonstrated.

Watch Ancient Aliens. While I recognize a lot of the show is speculation and sensationalism (eg. Big Foot), it brings up good and (too my knowledge) irrefutable points. I can give you the same proposition as Miller if he thinks it's "illegal". (I'll respond below.)

[garbonzo607]

You're actually almost understanding us here .... now, instead of assuming there's no proof either way, think about what evidence might have been left behind if there actually were ancient aliens. How would it be different than what we would find if the Mayans simply used building techniques that we're not familiar with? Find that evidence, and you'll start convincing people.

If you look upthread, you'll find several examples of that type of what-if, where the evidence for your theory was found wanting. Find something that supports your theory, and we'll take note.

Pumapunku. If you don't know the significance, then you need to watch that episode of Ancient Aliens and get back to me.

This would be the "evidence [that] might have been left behind if there actually were ancient aliens." As we know Ancients could not have cut the blocks so precisely. We'd have trouble doing it with our own tools.

[garbonzo607]

I always love this thought process. Hmmmm there's 2 ways this could have happened...

1. Clever humans find a way to do something --> it gets done

or

2. Clever aliens become technological
2a. Clever aliens become spacefaring
2b. Clever aliens manage to transverse galactic distances
2c. Clever aliens manage to arrive when clever humans exist
2d. Clever aliens instruct clever humans how to do something
2e. Clever human do something --> it gets done

Obviously the preponderance of evidence and likelihood resides with 2

Yes, because it can't be 1. =)

So are you a Grey alien? =)

[garbonzo607]

Well, aside from the fact that it would be illegal, yeah, that's a great idea.

It's not illegal. Look up Fair Use. I have won battles on one of my Youtube videos because it came under Fair Use. Especially for criticism, fair use is in effect. I would obviously not upload the whole episode, only cut scenes from the episode you are debunking. I can also place timestamps on where exactly the scene you are debunking is found, for those who want to look up and watch the TV show themselves / own the DVD set.


Yes, it does look like that. But you can figure out that it doesn't actually revolve around the sun with nothing more than keen observation, and some hard math. It's not easy, sure, but all it takes is one really smart person with enough time on their hands to figure it out. "This would be really hard to do!" is not evidence for space aliens.

No, but when collected together, yes it is. (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gGxLlnvQbaw/Tv4JvavQdKI/AAAAAAAAA6c/WshTxyn1dJk/s1600/yes_it_is.jpg)

When was the it written, anyway? I mean...what would the likeliness of someone in ancient Sumeria figuring this out, hypothetically?

It's not that I'm ignorant on the subject, it's just that there are so many crack-pot theories floating around out there that you're going to need to be more specific about which specific crack-pot theory you're advocating before I can tell you why you're wrong. What part of that ruin is evidence for alien contact?

I'm not going to tell you, look it up yourself. Why? Because I'm not a savant and remember every single sliver of detail that might convince you something is up. Find the episode on Ancient Aliens, as that's probably the best way to get the information instead of reading it.

As another poster pointed out, the Big Bang theory makes predictions about what sort of evidence we can expect to find once we know where and how to look for it, and those predictions that we have been able to test, have mostly been borne out. It's not a flawless theory, there's still a lot of parts of it we can't test yet, but we haven't yet found anything that flatly contradicts it.

Yea, so I guess it's a hypothesis, but if we find Aliens and they tell us, "Yeah, that was us." Does it become a theory or a fact? LOL

If a detective is putting the pieces together of a cold case murder, and he has a lot of evidence to say he was the guy, is it a theory or a hypothesis?

The first image I linked to is a Roman helmet with a wolf pelt attached to it, which is pretty similar to the images you linked to. But the point of the links was to show that many cultures developed all sorts of unusual headgear, and the Mayan statues you linked to, while having characteristics unique to the Mayan culture, are not particularly out the ordinary, either for ancient cultures, or more modern ones.

Then give examples, because the images you have are not very convincing at all. It would need to be like a helmet that shows the whole face like the statues.


Perhaps, "Evidence that counters things I want to be true?"

Perhaps, "Evidence that counters things I believe to be true after seeing the evidence?"

I can't use the word circumstantial anymore, so I'm not sure what word to use before, "evidence" that means, "not solid proof."

[garbonzo607]

"Plausible" and "possible" are not the same thing. Two things can both be possible, but one can be much more likely than the other.

Take the cork trivet that I found in my fridge Tuesday morning. There are two possible theories as to how it got there:

1. Mr. Neville put it there.
2. Someone else broke into my house and put it there, but left no other evidence that they had been there.

Those theories are both possible. One is much more likely than the other, so I conclude that Mr. Neville probably put the trivet in the fridge.



Not necessarily. The technology to do something being provided by aliens is not the only reason why we would not know how something was done in the past. Maybe the people who did it didn't write down how they did it (maybe they didn't have writing, or maybe they didn't think something like that was important enough to write down, or maybe they didn't want anybody else making anything as awesome as they had), or they did write down how it was built, but the written record of how they did it got lost over the centuries since it was done. Maybe better techniques of accomplishing the same goal have been discovered since, and nobody was interested for a long time in how it was done before we knew those techniques.

Most people now are not interested in learning to use slide rules, now that we have calculators and computers to do what people used to use slide rules to do. If we didn't have historians who are interested in how people used to do calculations before calculators and computers existed, the technique of using slide rules could be lost. That's not evidence that slide rules were invented by aliens.

Not every culture has been particularly interested in how things were done in the past, and not every culture has had historians to try to figure those things out. If a culture that doesn't have historians discovers a new and better technique for doing things, the old way might well be lost to history.

Some cultures have actively tried to destroy historical records. China under Qin Shi Huangdi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang#Book_burning_period) would be an example of this. Qin Shi Huangdi tried to destroy all histories of times that predated his reign. If that kind of thing happened, it's not surprising that records of things like how monuments were built could be lost.

We know that some Maya cities were abandoned in the past, because we can go and see those abandoned cities now, overgrown with jungle. When cities get abandoned, the people don't always take all the books and historical records with them. Abandoned and forgotten books and records don't always survive. Some Maya cities were conquered by other Maya cities. The new rulers of the city would have an obvious motivation to destroy histories of the city before they ruled it. They would obviously like people in the conquered city to think that they have always been ruled by their new rulers. They might not want the conquered people knowing that their ancestors had once built something that their conquerors can't build now.

Noted. But it is highly unlikely. How would Ancients have the technology we have today and not still be around? If they had mechanicals like us today then they were a highly advanced Aquarius-Age-like society, yes?

How likely is that without ETs?

[garbonzo607]

No, that's not the way it works.

A theory in the scientific sense cannot exist without evidence: it is a testable prediction (a hypothesis) that has been supported by experiment or observation over and over and over to the point at which it is accepted as essentially true. Still, it is a requirement that if further reliable, repeatable, testable evidence comes along that contradicts the theory, the theory must be adjusted to account for the new evidence, or (if that fails) be set aside in favor of a better theory.

And there are very strict standards for the type of evidence that is considered valid: testing a hypothesis, whether by experiment or observation or both, is a tricky, rigorous, exacting thing. A good hypothesis has to be falsifiable (you can clearly state the type of evidence that will disprove it) and it also should be parsimonious, not proposing more entities or forces than are essential to answer the question at hand. (This is where the oft-cited "Occam's razor" comes in.)

To use your Bible example, the Bible is first of all not a theory but a religious document put together over thousands of years by a multitude of human beings for diverse purposes...so there is no such thing in the large scale of "the evidence proving the Bible". And even if you can find outside evidence that some of the descriptions in the Bible correspond to historical events (say, a lunar eclipse in 33 AD that might conceivably explain the claim that the "moon turned to blood" at the time of the crucifixion), this is not scientific evidence that God exists, only that the human writer observed an event. It is impossible via scientific hypothesis-testing to falsify the existence of God, and therefore the existence of God is not a scientific theory.

The "ancient astronauts" idea is not a scientific theory, either, and as an attempt at a hypothesis, it sucks pretty badly. If you have an essentially closed system, and two "complete" explanations for a phenomenon occurring within that system-- one which requires inputs from outside the system, and one which can explain the phenomenon completely within the system-- the second explanation is the better one: it's more parsimonious/assumes less, it's more statistically likely, and it's more testable. I have training in archaeology, and I have not seen any aspects of the "ancient astronauts" hogwash that isn't better and more completely explained by other means. Human beings are amazing and endlessly inventive-- just look around at the society you live in today for some "common-sense" indicators of that.

I'm not saying we have any evidence for that, or that constitutes as evidence. I am saying if the theory (just to use the most known word for it) is true, then it would align with the theory. So you are saying why does that prove Aliens did it? I am saying it doesn't, but it would make sense with this theory, if the theory is true.

You knew exactly what I mean when I said "prove the Bible". It is pointless and such a silly and childish thing to do to point out a technicality, effectively shitting on the chess board and strutting around triumphantly.

With your Bible example, I am going to claim ignosticism.

The word "God" would be too poorly defined in this argument. Let me retract and re-phrase:

If everything in the Bible were true and there were no errors at all, and effectively inerrant, then it would prove the existence of a higher being than humans or supernatural force. (Taking into account prophecies)

[garbonzo607]

Or, to look at it another way, using a favorite example of James Randi's: If you are seated near a riding academy and hear approaching hoofbeats, it would be more logical to expect a horse to come around the corner than a zebra.

If you don't see anything, then at the time, then it can be possible to be either or. There is no percentage that you can put at that time if it is a horse or a zebra, because in reality there is only 1 reality, so you'd be guessing at 50%. You pick a horse or you pick a Zebra. = 50%.

[Valgard]

If you don't see anything, then at the time, then it can be possible to be either or. There is no percentage that you can put at that time if it is a horse or a zebra, because in reality there is only 1 reality, so you'd be guessing at 50%. You pick a horse or you pick a Zebra. = 50%.

I buy a lottery ticket. I will either win or lose. So you think that I have a 50/50 shot at being a multi-millionaire tomorrow?

[Trinopus]

If you don't see anything, then at the time, then it can be possible to be either or. There is no percentage that you can put at that time if it is a horse or a zebra, because in reality there is only 1 reality, so you'd be guessing at 50%. You pick a horse or you pick a Zebra. = 50%.

There are about twenty zebras in the county. There are thousands of horses.

Wait, I've got a better idea: you play poker?

[Musicat]

Or, to look at it another way, using a favorite example of James Randi's: If you are seated near a riding academy and hear approaching hoofbeats, it would be more logical to expect a horse to come around the corner than a zebra.If you don't see anything, then at the time, then it can be possible to be either or. There is no percentage that you can put at that time if it is a horse or a zebra, because in reality there is only 1 reality, so you'd be guessing at 50%. You pick a horse or you pick a Zebra. = 50%.I think you may be missing the point. No one is arguing that zebras don't exist, or that it is impossible for a zebra to come trotting by. No one is saying that aliens do not exist (most astronomers think that alien life certainly does, somewhere). We are merely putting an approximate value on two hypotheses and weighing the relative likelihood.

In the case of the riding academy, there is a greater likelihood that a horse will come by than a zebra, unless you are near a zoo with a rickety fence or in Africa.

In the case of ancients writing or building stuff, there is a greater likelihood that the ancients did what they appeared to have done without the help of aliens. A much, much greater chance, because: So far, the presence of aliens on this planet has not been confirmed and No evidence from any quarter suggests a visit by them yet, and Space and time travel effectively rule it out, and We have no need of that hypothesis.
In contrast, we have ample evidence that the ancients were excellent tradesmen in stoneworking, pretty good naked-eye observers of the heavens, and many mundane methods, none of them requiring the supernatural or extra-terrestrial forces have been suggested to accomplish their tasks. Stonehenge has been recreated, pyramids have been reconstructed (at least enough to show how it might have been done), and Easter Island statues have been moved and resurrected, all with tools available to the ancients.

The only people who use the term "scientists are baffled!" are not scientists, and have not investigated anything rationally, but have merely been yelling a lot.

[AndrewL]

Watch Ancient Aliens. )

No.

I have no interest in watching that show, or much on TV at all for that matter. It has been my experience that that type of show is very poor at documenting sources or backing up claims.

I just want you to elaborate on your claim. You claimed that there were ancient structures that couldn't be reproduced even with modern technology. I'd like to know specifically what structure you are talking about.

[Musicat]

Watch Ancient Aliens.I did. It's a wonderful example of *H*O*L*L*Y*W*O*O*D. It is not science. It is not credible. It is riddled with fallacies. If you believe this has the slightest scientific value, you have been royally suckered in and P.T. Barnum has been vindicated.

It's in the same class as Close Encounters..., E.T., Star Wars, and The Blob. Absolutely wonderful Hollywood fantasy.

[garbonzo607]

I buy a lottery ticket. I will either win or lose. So you think that I have a 50/50 shot at being a multi-millionaire tomorrow?

It depends what law you are using. I forget the word for it.

There is only one reality.

It's either you don't have the right ticket or you don't. So in actuality, it is only 50/50. It doesn't mean those are the odds.

[garbonzo607]

I think you may be missing the point. No one is arguing that zebras don't exist, or that it is impossible for a zebra to come trotting by. No one is saying that aliens do not exist (most astronomers think that alien life certainly does, somewhere). We are merely putting an approximate value on two hypotheses and weighing the relative likelihood.

In the case of the riding academy, there is a greater likelihood that a horse will come by than a zebra, unless you are near a zoo with a rickety fence or in Africa.

In the case of ancients writing or building stuff, there is a greater likelihood that the ancients did what they appeared to have done without the help of aliens. A much, much greater chance, because: So far, the presence of aliens on this planet has not been confirmed and No evidence from any quarter suggests a visit by them yet, and Space and time travel effectively rule it out, and We have no need of that hypothesis.


I believe they have been confirmed. It's just not public knowledge.
Yes, there is evidence that suggests. Just look and you will find. Look at these:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89KkYMS8jkk
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_hECbDGz08

But you will always discount these evidences because your head is closed minded. Even Dr. Michio Kaku recognizes this evidence. It is smoke from the smoking gun.
No it doesn't. Did you even watch those spacerip links I posted? Why do I bother posting here if you people do not read 'em?

Don't bother replying if you aren't going to watch the videos I post.

It will take a few years to get there/here, yes, but you don't even know the life span of these creatures.

Those videos didn't even talk about wormholes, which is also plausible.

What constitutes a need? The need is the search for truth.

[garbonzo607]

No.

I have no interest in watching that show, or much on TV at all for that matter. It has been my experience that that type of show is very poor at documenting sources or backing up claims.

I just want you to elaborate on your claim. You claimed that there were ancient structures that couldn't be reproduced even with modern technology. I'd like to know specifically what structure you are talking about.

You are getting me very frustrated. You are supposed to be a smart person, but you don't watch the things I tell you to watch if you want to learn? Then I have NO respect for you. If YOU tell me to watch something, such as that DeGrasse video link, I watch it and I watch MORE. I watched another DeGrasse link after that one to learn more about him. I do not impede by learning with pre-judgement. That is silly and foolish. Watch the show and make your own judgments. How does a TV show list sources, anyway? You should find them yourself.

I didn't tell you to watch TV, I said to look them up online if you want to learn.

I'm not sure I know much more than what the episode already covers.

You are lazy, is my conclusion and don't deserve my respect. Don't talk to me about evidence without trying to learn first. That's just disrespectful.

[garbonzo607]

I did. It's a wonderful example of *H*O*L*L*Y*W*O*O*D. It is not science. It is not credible. It is riddled with fallacies. If you believe this has the slightest scientific value, you have been royally suckered in and P.T. Barnum has been vindicated.

It's in the same class as Close Encounters..., E.T., Star Wars, and The Blob. Absolutely wonderful Hollywood fantasy.

The list examples. I extend the same offer as I did Miller. I recognize some of it is sensationalism, but not all. It's the equivalent as the Magic Schoolbus. There is no such thing as a Magic Schoolbus! This show is unscientific and not credible! It's a wonderful example of *H*O*L*L*Y*W*O*O*D. There is nothing to gain or anything educational from this show, so I won't show it to my kids! That's utterly hilarious. And I doubt you watched the whole series, as you would know my claims.

[Miller]

You are getting me very frustrated. You are supposed to be a smart person, but you don't watch the things I tell you to watch if you want to learn? Then I have NO respect for you. If YOU tell me to watch something, such as that DeGrasse video link, I watch it and I watch MORE. I watched another DeGrasse link after that one to learn more about him. I do not impede by learning with pre-judgement. That is silly and foolish. Watch the show and make your own judgments. How does a TV show list sources, anyway? You should find them yourself.

Look, you need to understand something. Your claims are not new. These ideas have been kicking around for forty years or more. We've seen these arguments dozens, if not hundreds of times before. You're walking into the middle of a conversation most of us have been having for the better part of our adult lives. We've done this with everyone from Erich von Daniken to David Icke. We've seen all these arguments and "evidence" before, and without exception, it's always boiled down to idiocy, insanity, and outright fraud.

Now, I'm a pretty open-minded guy. After personally hearing about this shit for a good two decades, I'm still willing to listen to your ideas. But you've got to actually make an argument here. Don't point me at some TV show and harangue me for not watching it. There's forty two fucking episodes of that Ancient Aliens pap! No one is going to sift through all of that on the off-hand chance that you, after all the lunatics, half-wits, and charlatans we've seen propounding exactly the same ideas, has finally found some legitimate proof. Put forward an example of something that you think can't be explained without alien intervention, and why you think alien intervention is necessary.

Here, I'll even help you out:

"I think Pumapunku was built by aliens, because it has the following features:

1. ____________________________________________________________
2. ____________________________________________________________
3. ____________________________________________________________

Which cannot be reproduced by humans for these reasons:

1. ____________________________________________________________
2. ____________________________________________________________
3. ____________________________________________________________"

If you want to include a link to a video, that's cool, but at least describe what's in the video and why you think it's important. Make a case for your beliefs, man! If you can't be bothered to argue for them, why would anyone else want to follow them?

[Musicat]

Hard to believe your post isn't a whoosh, but I'll proceed as if it isn't. Color me naïve if you must.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89KkYMS8jkk
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_hECbDGz08Ha, ha! Those are funny! Fuzzy, indistinct, jerky, out-of-focus blobs of light at an indeterminate distance, some enlarged to the point of pain, making blobbier, fuzzier lights in patterns that look like...what the fuck do they look like? This is a Rorschach test, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test) right? You see aliens, I see...nothing but undefinable abstract images. And this is the best proof you have?

I also noticed at the end of the second video the text, "the objects remain unidentified!" Anything that is unidentified could be aliens, but it could also be pie plates or hubcaps on strings. That's why it is unidentified.

It all comes back to the old saw...you have to believe it to see it. That's not science.

But it is funny.

[AndrewL]

You are getting me very frustrated. You are supposed to be a smart person, but you don't watch the things I tell you to watch if you want to learn? Then I have NO respect for you. If YOU tell me to watch something, such as that DeGrasse video link, I watch it and I watch MORE. I watched another DeGrasse link after that one to learn more about him. I do not impede by learning with pre-judgement. That is silly and foolish. Watch the show and make your own judgments. How does a TV show list sources, anyway? You should find them yourself.


I asked you a very simple question. You claimed that there were structures from the ancient world that couldn't be built with modern technology. Presumably, if you are making this claim, you should know what structure in particular you are referring to. Otherwise, you aren't really in a position to make that claim, are you? Telling me to watch a TV show that runs 42 episodes isn't a good answer to my question. If you had given me a specific episode number to watch that might be more reasonable, but I'm not going to spend an entire week watching TV just on the off chance that I might get the answer to a question that you should be able to just answer in one word. And that's assuming I even can find the entire run of the show archived online legally somewhere, since otherwise I have to just start watching reruns in the hopes of randomly catching the episode which will answer my question to you.

[Anne Neville]

Noted. But it is highly unlikely. How would Ancients have the technology we have today and not still be around? If they had mechanicals like us today then they were a highly advanced Aquarius-Age-like society, yes?

How likely is that without ETs?

They didn't have all the technology we have today. They didn't even have all the technology that the Spaniards who encountered them in the sixteenth century had. They didn't have the wheel, except for toys. They didn't have iron working. They didn't have guns.

[FlyingRat]

I'm not saying we have any evidence for that, or that constitutes as evidence. I am saying if the theory (just to use the most known word for it) is true, then it would align with the theory. So you are saying why does that prove Aliens did it? I am saying it doesn't, but it would make sense with this theory, if the theory is true.

So what? I can think of two dozen different explanations for why the sun rises in the east in the morning, and the sun rising in the east "makes sense" with any one of them. That doesn't mean they're all equally valid. The best explanation, and the one accepted as scientific theory, is the revolution of the earth and the fact that it orbits the sun: it explains what we observe, without resorting to entities for which we have no evidence.

Other explanations (such as the god Ra carrying the sun across the sky in his solar boat) may be enjoyable to think about, sure...but we have to interact with the world daily in order to survive, and that means that our best chance of surviving and thriving comes from understanding how that world actually works instead of how we want it to work.

If you believe the world is a certain way, and you expect others to act in accordance with it, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that your explanation is the most complete and the most likely.

[Maus Magill]

I'm not saying we have any evidence for that, or that constitutes as evidence. I am saying if the theory (just to use the most known word for it) is true, then it would align with the theory. So you are saying why does that prove Aliens did it? I am saying it doesn't, but it would make sense with this theory, if the theory is true.

You knew exactly what I mean when I said "prove the Bible". It is pointless and such a silly and childish thing to do to point out a technicality, effectively shitting on the chess board and strutting around triumphantly.

With your Bible example, I am going to claim ignosticism.

The word "God" would be too poorly defined in this argument. Let me retract and re-phrase:

If everything in the Bible were true and there were no errors at all, and effectively inerrant, then it would prove the existence of a higher being than humans or supernatural force. (Taking into account prophecies)

This is like saying, "If I had ham, I could make a ham sandwich, but I'll need to get bread first."

[FlyingRat]

You knew exactly what I mean when I said "prove the Bible". It is pointless and such a silly and childish thing to do to point out a technicality, effectively shitting on the chess board and strutting around triumphantly.

With your Bible example, I am going to claim ignosticism.

No, I evidently did not know what you meant by "prove the Bible". Your arguments earlier in this thread suggest that you are attempting to use the word "prove" to mean "establish truth about reality in a scientific or logical sense". I simply pointed out that in this sense, the Bible (or any other religious text) is not a provable document. A large part of it is simply literature or poetry; can you "prove" a Shakespearean sonnet?

As for the historical records and observations present in the Bible, yes, we can attempt to establish whether or not those observations correlate with outside sources, including unambiguous astronomical, geological, archaeological and other evidence. Sometimes we can do this, but at other times we find no evidence that the events in the Bible actually occurred as claimed-- and without a time machine, it is impossible to do so.

If there is another document with which you are more familiar, bring it up; the same argument would still apply.

The word "God" would be too poorly defined in this argument. Let me retract and re-phrase:

If everything in the Bible were true and there were no errors at all, and effectively inerrant, then it would prove the existence of a higher being than humans or supernatural force. (Taking into account prophecies)

As previously explained, it is impossible, practically or philosophically, for us to establish that "everything in the Bible is true". Dwelling on that possibility takes us out of the realm of "proof" altogether, and into pure philosophy.

And even if we could confirm that certain historical "facts" in the Bible happened as claimed, it is still impossible to prove the existence or responsibility of a supernatural force, because anything that can be "proven" by evidence according to scientific methods and processes is, de facto, a natural explanation, not a supernatural one. Science deals with what is natural. This may seem like splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction, because it is an article of faith for many religious that God/the higher power/supreme deity is supernatural, unknowable, ineffable, what have you.

Even if we could go back using a time machine and hear a voice speaking to Moses out of the burning bush, we could not be certain that whatever entity or force produced that phenomenon was "God" in the traditional sense. We'd have some answers to find, but it could have been human trickery, or aliens of some kind, or even other time travelers screwing with humanity.

[Valgard]

It depends what law you are using. I forget the word for it.

There is only one reality.

It's either you don't have the right ticket or you don't. So in actuality, it is only 50/50. It doesn't mean those are the odds.

There is no "law" involved here. What do you mean by "it is only 50/50" and "It doesn't mean that those are the odds"? I don't think that you understand the basics of probability.

You don't need any kind of advanced learning to understand that "There are two possible outcomes" does NOT IN ANY WAY mean "Those two outcomes are equally likely to occur". You can come up with obvious examples by the basketload:

You flip one hundred coins. They either all land balanced on their edge or they don't. Do you think those are anywhere close to being equally likely?

You bet on #10 at the roulette wheel. The ball either lands on #10 or it doesn't. Do you think that's some kind of hidden fact that makes it an even chance to win?

You hear footsteps behind you. It's either a bright blue Tyrannosaurus Rex brought back via unheard-of genetic engineering, wearing size 10,000 Manolo Blahnik shoes, with Jessica Upton wearing nothing but whipped cream riding on the critter's head, or...it's not. Do you think there's a good chance that you'll see Ms. Upton when you turn around?

[Musicat]

You hear footsteps behind you. It's either a bright blue Tyrannosaurus Rex brought back via unheard-of genetic engineering, wearing size 10,000 Manolo Blahnik shoes, with Jessica Upton wearing nothing but whipped cream riding on the critter's head, or...it's not. Whoo, Boy! :eek: That example beats Carl Sagan's invisible dragon all to hell.

[Valgard]

Whoo, Boy! :eek: That example beats Carl Sagan's invisible dragon all to hell.

Invisible dragons? Now that's just silly.

:D

[garbonzo607]

This is like saying, "If I had ham, I could make a ham sandwich, but I'll need to get bread first."

Exactly. If we ever find solid proof to make this an actual theory, then we can make that sandwich. Right now all we have is the ham, which is the smoke from the gun, not the gun itself. I agree with Dr. Michio Kaku. He is a respected authority that I trust and agree with. Plus I've had an obsession with the Japanese for years. <3

[garbonzo607]

There is no "law" involved here. What do you mean by "it is only 50/50" and "It doesn't mean that those are the odds"? I don't think that you understand the basics of probability.

You don't need any kind of advanced learning to understand that "There are two possible outcomes" does NOT IN ANY WAY mean "Those two outcomes are equally likely to occur". You can come up with obvious examples by the basketload:

You flip one hundred coins. They either all land balanced on their edge or they don't. Do you think those are anywhere close to being equally likely?

You bet on #10 at the roulette wheel. The ball either lands on #10 or it doesn't. Do you think that's some kind of hidden fact that makes it an even chance to win?

You hear footsteps behind you. It's either a bright blue Tyrannosaurus Rex brought back via unheard-of genetic engineering, wearing size 10,000 Manolo Blahnik shoes, with Jessica Upton wearing nothing but whipped cream riding on the critter's head, or...it's not. Do you think there's a good chance that you'll see Ms. Upton when you turn around?

You are correct. The point is, we have no solid evidence for it, but we have no solid evidence against it, either. There is only one reality in actuality, we just don't know what it is for sure, yet.

[garbonzo607]

No, I evidently did not know what you meant by "prove the Bible". Your arguments earlier in this thread suggest that you are attempting to use the word "prove" to mean "establish truth about reality in a scientific or logical sense". I simply pointed out that in this sense, the Bible (or any other religious text) is not a provable document. A large part of it is simply literature or poetry; can you "prove" a Shakespearean sonnet?

As for the historical records and observations present in the Bible, yes, we can attempt to establish whether or not those observations correlate with outside sources, including unambiguous astronomical, geological, archaeological and other evidence. Sometimes we can do this, but at other times we find no evidence that the events in the Bible actually occurred as claimed-- and without a time machine, it is impossible to do so.

If there is another document with which you are more familiar, bring it up; the same argument would still apply.

What I meant was as proof was what you said below. By you saying it, you prove that you at least knew that is what I could have meant. I am not stupid; how can you prove literature?

As previously explained, it is impossible, practically or philosophically, for us to establish that "everything in the Bible is true". Dwelling on that possibility takes us out of the realm of "proof" altogether, and into pure philosophy.

And even if we could confirm that certain historical "facts" in the Bible happened as claimed, it is still impossible to prove the existence or responsibility of a supernatural force, because anything that can be "proven" by evidence according to scientific methods and processes is, de facto, a natural explanation, not a supernatural one. Science deals with what is natural. This may seem like splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction, because it is an article of faith for many religious that God/the higher power/supreme deity is supernatural, unknowable, ineffable, what have you.

Even if we could go back using a time machine and hear a voice speaking to Moses out of the burning bush, we could not be certain that whatever entity or force produced that phenomenon was "God" in the traditional sense. We'd have some answers to find, but it could have been human trickery, or aliens of some kind, or even other time travelers screwing with humanity.

This is why I said a higher being that modern humans. This could be aliens, time travelers, etc.

Off topic;
I always thought that science can never prove or disprove a god. But this guy on another forum I am debating with is trying to say science can disprove a god. Is this even remotely true? I argued, like you said, that science only deals with that is natural. Science is a method and a tool to describe the laws and functions of the physical universe. As a method, it measures by observation and records data. As a tool, it is used to find consistencies and similarities and thus arrive at logical conclusions. It is not a method or a tool designed to deal with the abstract spiritual being of God and is therefore, incapable of doing so. This does not make science an imperfect method or tool, because science does what it is supposed to do. It is a mis-use of science to try and define and prove something which is outside of its legitimate purpose. It won't ever prove or disprove God.

His response:

Proof doesn't exist outside of math. Secondly, science already has found evidence against God. Yahweh can be shown beyond reasonable doubt to be false through the scientific method. Perhaps it will someday be able to say for certain whether or not there is some abstract realm where a god may exist, but until it does, and until we know the makeup of such a place, it's not fair to say that science "can't" do that. For all you know, it might. For all you know, a god might exist in a physical place. The Mormons, for example, say God is a physical person living on another planet. There's nothing that says a god must be ethereal or abstract. That's just one conception of it.

Can you explain this to me? Thanks.

[garbonzo607]

I asked you a very simple question. You claimed that there were structures from the ancient world that couldn't be built with modern technology. Presumably, if you are making this claim, you should know what structure in particular you are referring to. Otherwise, you aren't really in a position to make that claim, are you? Telling me to watch a TV show that runs 42 episodes isn't a good answer to my question. If you had given me a specific episode number to watch that might be more reasonable, but I'm not going to spend an entire week watching TV just on the off chance that I might get the answer to a question that you should be able to just answer in one word. And that's assuming I even can find the entire run of the show archived online legally somewhere, since otherwise I have to just start watching reruns in the hopes of randomly catching the episode which will answer my question to you.

I understand what you mean.

Try this link. I don't have time to check it. Hopefully it's the right episode and it's complete, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjoh-EXjEsc&feature=related

Please explain any of this. If you can't then you should watch all the other episodes. Some is crap, some is awesome like the above.

[JohnT]

Exactly. If we ever find solid proof to make this an actual theory, then we can make that sandwich. Right now all we have is the ham, which is the smoke from the gun, not the gun itself. I agree with Dr. Michio Kaku. He is a respected authority that I trust and agree with. Plus I've had an obsession with the Japanese for years. <3

Don't know if it matters to you, but Kaku was born in San Jose, CA, the third generation of his family to be in America, and the second generation born in the US. But yes, his ancestry is Japanese.

[Musicat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjoh-EXjEsc&feature=related

Please explain any of this. If you can't then you should watch all the other episodes. Some is crap, some is awesome like the above.
ALL is crap. Sure, the Puma Punku site is impressive and advanced in engineering for the time. They used material in remarkable ways, but it was readily available then: stone, copper, and primitive alloys. But just because you can't imagine how they did it doesn't mean aliens were involved.

I'm unfamiliar with that site compared to a favorite of mine, Easter Island. Similar claims have been made about the stone statues there, mostly by the ignorant. But archaeological expeditions such as Thor Heyerdahl's 1950's visit uncovered many of the likely techniques thru research and diligence, not thru fantastic postulation that aliens were responsible. It's likely that a similar analysis could suggest how Puma Punku was built as well.

If you consider the alien hypothesis as valid, why not God Did It? Both are equally supported by the evidence.

[Maus Magill]

Exactly. If we ever find solid proof to make this an actual theory, then we can make that sandwich. Right now all we have is the ham, which is the smoke from the gun, not the gun itself. I agree with Dr. Michio Kaku. He is a respected authority that I trust and agree with. Plus I've had an obsession with the Japanese for years. <3

No, not quite.

[Trinopus]

. . . I always thought that science can never prove or disprove a god. But this guy on another forum I am debating with is trying to say science can disprove a god. Is this even remotely true? . . .

Depends on the God...and also on other postulates. A lot of people believe that the "omni-" God is logically self-contradictory, and therefore can be "disproven" simply on logical grounds. Others, obviously, disagree.

Some Gods (or claims about Gods) can be disproven by more ordinary rules of evidence. People have climbed to the top of Mount Olympus, and Zeus does not have a grand palace there. Dante's literal version of Christian geography is false, as there is no giant mountain at the antipodes of Jerusalem.

(I just took a moment to double-check that, using an antipodes map (http://www.antipodemap.com/).)

For those people who insist that the truth of evolution somehow disproves their version of God...well, their version of God is disproven. More rational people can accept both God and evolution.

Another argument is based on a kind of induction. I don't believe in Kretosa, the God of Judges...because I just made him up. I don't believe in Elbereth, the Queen of the Stars, because J.R.R. Tolkien made her up, some fifty years ago or so. I don't believe in some of the stories told about Odin, because Snorri Sturluson made them up 800 years ago. I don't believe some of the stories about Zeus and Apollo because Ovid, Homer, Hesiod, and others, made them up over a long period of literary creativity. And, thus, the same for what Mohammed wrote, and for the JE, P, and D texts of the early Bible. They were made up by people. Kretosa and Elbereth have every bit as much evidentiary support.

However...this kind of induction isn't quite the same as "proof" in the regular mathematical sense. I can't show any specific "chain" that links disbelief in one God to disbelief in the next. (No "N > N+1" step, as in formal mathematical induction.)

I once met a college physics professor who didn't believe in anything he hadn't seen with his own eyes! Yes, literally! He didn't believe in atoms...or New Zealand!

[garbonzo607]

ALL is crap. Sure, the Puma Punku site is impressive and advanced in engineering for the time. They used material in remarkable ways, but it was readily available then: stone, copper, and primitive alloys. But just because you can't imagine how they did it doesn't mean aliens were involved.

I'm unfamiliar with that site compared to a favorite of mine, Easter Island. Similar claims have been made about the stone statues there, mostly by the ignorant. But archaeological expeditions such as Thor Heyerdahl's 1950's visit uncovered many of the likely techniques thru research and diligence, not thru fantastic postulation that aliens were responsible. It's likely that a similar analysis could suggest how Puma Punku was built as well.

If you consider the alien hypothesis as valid, why not God Did It? Both are equally supported by the evidence.

What would God need for a structure such as that? At least ETs are more likely to make that for a reason, rather than God.

[Capt Kirk]

I can't believe I am going to weigh in on this but I have read the whole thing and actually followed a bunch of the links, so here we go....

1.There will absolutely be a cosmic alignment of some sort on Dec 21 2012, and it will be a huge deal, Major event not a doubt in my mind.( that is if we are correct on syncing )

2. The Maya were amazing astronomers and brilliant calendar makers. They understood things that we are only recently able to understand and their understanding of the scale of time was way beyond what was contemporary.

This is super huge if you are an Ancient Maya(AM), has about zero meaning for the rest of us, except the chance for a little humility on the modern worlds part, more on that in a sec.

Alignment. Yep it is going to happen but unless you are AM astronomer you probably don't know what to look for, modern example, the debate as to beginning of Ramadan.

Big Deal. Are you kidding me, hell yeah, we are starting a new Batun(sp?). "We are going to out party 1999, come on that was a millennium, this is a whole calendar reset" but only if you are an AM

Amazing. Not really and absolutely, Calendars serve several important functions, a few being; basic time keeping, agriculture and culture. Almost all terrestrial calendars use the same basic unit the Year appx 365 days, so almost every calendar is easily synced, some math might be needed. Agriculture requires us to subdivide our year so we know when to plant, there are some convenient markers that are easily measured without complex instruments, although writing helps, the moon cycle and equinoxes. You now have the tools to use a correctable calendar, you can begin with a small circle of stones and a stick and refine from there, in a few generations you end up with something far more complex, through observation, and this is where culture plays a huge part. A calendar tells you when to pray, what to eat, when to worship, who to worship, when to work, when to sit idle, when/what to remember, when to give etc. besides all the agricultural timing. Something in AM culture made it important to think in the long scale/long cycle so their culture evolved the Long Count Calendar. I have no idea what would make anyone think on a scale of 52,000 times their lifespan, but obviously they did, how many lifetimes did that take? Kudos to the AM for their awesome math and observational skills, but does this matter to us, not a bit. A big calendar event aligning with an equinox, it would be weird if it did not. Think about it or convert 12.21.2012 into an Islamic of Jewish calendar and go into a number frenzy over that, because the year date is irrelevant. In fact it is rather arbitrary, virtually no one believes JC was born 12.25.0000 and no one cares because where you start is completely unimportant, it is just a reference point.

Humility. Us moderns IMO have a tendency to think we are smarter than the ancients were, that because they knew less than we do they were not as smart, this is just flat out wrong. Modern Humans have been just about the same for at least 100,000 years(general consensus everyone?), same people same motivations and desires(generally). They also lived in a modern developing world, albeit more slowly. Oh lets have an example, go down to your local Home improvement center, go to the tool section, look for the measurement devices, pick up a water level, oogle that amazing piece of technology, invented at least 5000 years ago, probably used it while building the Pyramids of Egypt, in all that time all we have done to improve that tool is better materials and a digital readout, same friggin tool.


More Humility. Ancients built the same way we do now, it was just harder and took longer, they planned for this. Look at the castles and churches of Europe, some of them took hundreds of years to build, the guys who drew up the original plans knew their great grand children would still be working on it, oh BTW, does anybody know who built the Empire State Building(no google fu), but everyone knows The great Pyramid of Cheops, yep the people who do the work rarely get the credit. Some things never change. If there was a plaque with the builders name on it, it was in small type.

Just a little more of this......
Scene)
Puma Punku, our jewel in the green desert, transition stage between 2nd and 3rd construction stages, in the market place, early evening

(Enter Bob)

Narrator: "Bob is in trouble, the Temple walls are separating and the King is displeased, Bob's great great grandfather learned how to make the flat exact stones of the first Temple and his family has been the builder for the king ever since, to keep his head and his childrens jobs, he needs a solution in 5 or 10 years. He paces the marketplace to clear his mind."

(Enter Jim) A jeweler

(J)"Bob come here I want to show you something in my shop"

(B)"Sure Jim I need the distraction, I have had a bad day"

(J)"More trouble with the wife? I have something for that."

(B)"Not that, she doesn't know about the GF yet, what did you want to show me?"

(J)" You know the shiny jewelry I make out of the rocks around here, by melting, well I wanted to make some more complex shapes but the Metal, that is what I am calling it now by the way, wasn't stiff enough to keep its shape so I found a different rock that that made metal too, but it was an ugly color and brittle. So I mixed them and check this out"

Jim displays a small T shaped piece, silver/copper colored and hands it to Bob

(J) "I made the shape in the wet sand and poured the metal in, awesome eh', try to hurt it, you can't break it"

(B) "Wait you poured it into a hole that was T shaped? Why cant I bend this, it is the size of a small twig, is this magic?"

(J) " Please don't accuse me of sorcery, I have enough problems, with the wife dead and the boys in the army, and the unmarriable daughter at home, oy vey, I hope to make enough from this Metal to buy her a dowry and marry that wretched girl off"

(B)(DING) "Er Jim you know, eh you think you can make shapes inside stone? Because this kinda looks like the shape of the wood blocks my Grandfather used to hold the original Temple blocks together, you remember I told you about watering against rot as my first Temple job"

(J) "Yes I can make them in stone, I tried it out on those bad blocks you gave me from the cutters shop, I was just about to show you, funny thing I have to break the stone to get them out"

Lights fade

The End

I know that is completely hypothetical, but problems are made to be solved, if you still need proof, while you are in the tool aisle...... Look at the hatchets and axes

We have never needed the intervention of the gods/aliens/angels etc, we have used what mankind has always done when something needs to get done, ingenuity and hard work. Don't make it complicated

CAPT

[Musicat]

1.There will absolutely be a cosmic alignment of some sort on Dec 21 2012, and it will be a huge deal, Major event not a doubt in my mind.( that is if we are correct on syncing ) Let's take this one thing at a time.

There is a cosmic alignment "of some sort" EVERY DAY. If you have any particular alignment in mind, now is the time to reveal it, whatever it is. And please tell us what this "alignment" will do and what makes it "major". Then I can mark it on my calendar and send you a snicker the day after.

[Ken001]

Dang! I just realised my north fence post aligned with the Horsehead Nebula a few hours ago. And I missed it. :smack:

The cats been acting weird ever since.

[gunnergoz]

My big worry is when the galactic alignment of the black hole does not line up with the galactic toilet.

[AndrewL]

I understand what you mean.

Try this link. I don't have time to check it. Hopefully it's the right episode and it's complete, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjoh-EXjEsc&feature=related

Please explain any of this. If you can't then you should watch all the other episodes. Some is crap, some is awesome like the above.

Are you claiming that the Puma Punku site could not be reproduced with modern technology? Not the technology at the time, but modern-day technology? That was my question - you claimed "certain ancient structures ... that we don't know how to replicate the stuff with our modern technology", and I'd like to know what structures you were referring to.

[garbonzo607]

Are you claiming that the Puma Punku site could not be reproduced with modern technology? Not the technology at the time, but modern-day technology? That was my question - you claimed "certain ancient structures ... that we don't know how to replicate the stuff with our modern technology", and I'd like to know what structures you were referring to.

Maybe I remembered wrong, but in the video they should have interviewed a guy.

[garbonzo607]

I can't believe I am going to weigh in on this but I have read the whole thing and actually followed a bunch of the links, so here we go....

1.There will absolutely be a cosmic alignment of some sort on Dec 21 2012, and it will be a huge deal, Major event not a doubt in my mind.( that is if we are correct on syncing )

2. The Maya were amazing astronomers and brilliant calendar makers. They understood things that we are only recently able to understand and their understanding of the scale of time was way beyond what was contemporary.

This is super huge if you are an Ancient Maya(AM), has about zero meaning for the rest of us, except the chance for a little humility on the modern worlds part, more on that in a sec.

Alignment. Yep it is going to happen but unless you are AM astronomer you probably don't know what to look for, modern example, the debate as to beginning of Ramadan.

Big Deal. Are you kidding me, hell yeah, we are starting a new Batun(sp?). "We are going to out party 1999, come on that was a millennium, this is a whole calendar reset" but only if you are an AM

Amazing. Not really and absolutely, Calendars serve several important functions, a few being; basic time keeping, agriculture and culture. Almost all terrestrial calendars use the same basic unit the Year appx 365 days, so almost every calendar is easily synced, some math might be needed. Agriculture requires us to subdivide our year so we know when to plant, there are some convenient markers that are easily measured without complex instruments, although writing helps, the moon cycle and equinoxes. You now have the tools to use a correctable calendar, you can begin with a small circle of stones and a stick and refine from there, in a few generations you end up with something far more complex, through observation, and this is where culture plays a huge part. A calendar tells you when to pray, what to eat, when to worship, who to worship, when to work, when to sit idle, when/what to remember, when to give etc. besides all the agricultural timing. Something in AM culture made it important to think in the long scale/long cycle so their culture evolved the Long Count Calendar. I have no idea what would make anyone think on a scale of 52,000 times their lifespan, but obviously they did, how many lifetimes did that take? Kudos to the AM for their awesome math and observational skills, but does this matter to us, not a bit. A big calendar event aligning with an equinox, it would be weird if it did not. Think about it or convert 12.21.2012 into an Islamic of Jewish calendar and go into a number frenzy over that, because the year date is irrelevant. In fact it is rather arbitrary, virtually no one believes JC was born 12.25.0000 and no one cares because where you start is completely unimportant, it is just a reference point.

Humility. Us moderns IMO have a tendency to think we are smarter than the ancients were, that because they knew less than we do they were not as smart, this is just flat out wrong. Modern Humans have been just about the same for at least 100,000 years(general consensus everyone?), same people same motivations and desires(generally). They also lived in a modern developing world, albeit more slowly. Oh lets have an example, go down to your local Home improvement center, go to the tool section, look for the measurement devices, pick up a water level, oogle that amazing piece of technology, invented at least 5000 years ago, probably used it while building the Pyramids of Egypt, in all that time all we have done to improve that tool is better materials and a digital readout, same friggin tool.


More Humility. Ancients built the same way we do now, it was just harder and took longer, they planned for this. Look at the castles and churches of Europe, some of them took hundreds of years to build, the guys who drew up the original plans knew their great grand children would still be working on it, oh BTW, does anybody know who built the Empire State Building(no google fu), but everyone knows The great Pyramid of Cheops, yep the people who do the work rarely get the credit. Some things never change. If there was a plaque with the builders name on it, it was in small type.

Just a little more of this......
Scene)
Puma Punku, our jewel in the green desert, transition stage between 2nd and 3rd construction stages, in the market place, early evening

(Enter Bob)

Narrator: "Bob is in trouble, the Temple walls are separating and the King is displeased, Bob's great great grandfather learned how to make the flat exact stones of the first Temple and his family has been the builder for the king ever since, to keep his head and his childrens jobs, he needs a solution in 5 or 10 years. He paces the marketplace to clear his mind."

(Enter Jim) A jeweler

(J)"Bob come here I want to show you something in my shop"

(B)"Sure Jim I need the distraction, I have had a bad day"

(J)"More trouble with the wife? I have something for that."

(B)"Not that, she doesn't know about the GF yet, what did you want to show me?"

(J)" You know the shiny jewelry I make out of the rocks around here, by melting, well I wanted to make some more complex shapes but the Metal, that is what I am calling it now by the way, wasn't stiff enough to keep its shape so I found a different rock that that made metal too, but it was an ugly color and brittle. So I mixed them and check this out"

Jim displays a small T shaped piece, silver/copper colored and hands it to Bob

(J) "I made the shape in the wet sand and poured the metal in, awesome eh', try to hurt it, you can't break it"

(B) "Wait you poured it into a hole that was T shaped? Why cant I bend this, it is the size of a small twig, is this magic?"

(J) " Please don't accuse me of sorcery, I have enough problems, with the wife dead and the boys in the army, and the unmarriable daughter at home, oy vey, I hope to make enough from this Metal to buy her a dowry and marry that wretched girl off"

(B)(DING) "Er Jim you know, eh you think you can make shapes inside stone? Because this kinda looks like the shape of the wood blocks my Grandfather used to hold the original Temple blocks together, you remember I told you about watering against rot as my first Temple job"

(J) "Yes I can make them in stone, I tried it out on those bad blocks you gave me from the cutters shop, I was just about to show you, funny thing I have to break the stone to get them out"

Lights fade

The End

I know that is completely hypothetical, but problems are made to be solved, if you still need proof, while you are in the tool aisle...... Look at the hatchets and axes

We have never needed the intervention of the gods/aliens/angels etc, we have used what mankind has always done when something needs to get done, ingenuity and hard work. Don't make it complicated

CAPT

Send me a video of someone replicating Puma Punku.

[Telemark]

Send me a video of someone replicating Puma Punku.
First, send us a video of someone trying and failing to do so.

[garbonzo607]

First, send us a video of someone trying and failing to do so.

I have. Duh. :smack:

[Trinopus]

Send me a video of someone replicating Puma Punku.

Send me a video of someone replicating the Empire State Building.

Nope? That proves it was built by aliens.

Or, just perhaps, you don't comprehend "burden of proof."

(I originally said "The Eiffel Tower," except that there may very well be video of the construction of the replica of the Eiffel Tower in Las Vegas. Which, come to think of it, I'd actually enjoy seeing such a video!)

[garbonzo607]

Send me a video of someone replicating the Empire State Building.

Nope? That proves it was built by aliens.

Or, just perhaps, you don't comprehend "burden of proof."

(I originally said "The Eiffel Tower," except that there may very well be video of the construction of the replica of the Eiffel Tower in Las Vegas. Which, come to think of it, I'd actually enjoy seeing such a video!)

I dunno, try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG5z03iwsEw

I'm sure there is some documentary on how it was built. The information on how it was built is already official, documented, and validated, so it's not the same as Puma Punku.

It's amazing how much logical fallacies supposedly smart people make in their arguments.

Also, I never said Puma Punku was made by aliens. I said the ancients made it with technology better than our own. This could mean a bunch of things. Aliens, time travelers, or maybe the ancients had more knowledge than we give them credit for (which would open the door to many other questions and mysteries). Either way, it is mysterious and something to look into.

[AndrewL]

Also, I never said Puma Punku was made by aliens. I said the ancients made it with technology better than our own.

Specifically, you claimed:

It's not proof of ancient aliens, but that we don't know how to replicate the stuff with our modern technology does provide reasonable fuel to the debate.

True, you didn't claim aliens, but you did claim that "our modern technology" could not reproduce something, presumably Puma Punku. Not ancient technology, but modern technology, with diamond saws, laser measuring and leveling tools, and computer-controlled milling tools and such, could not reproduce some carved rocks.

I suspect that quite a few modern-day masons and stonecutters will disagree with you.

You may wish to watch these videos:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/23357
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFcMWUeRePw

While not about Puma Punku, they do discuss how to cut granite (which is harder to cut than the red sandstone at Puma Punku) using similar ancient methods.

There is a paper here about Inca stonecutting methods:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/990027?uid=3739808&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21100897250761

Unfortunately, it's not public-access, so you'll only be able to see the preview page.

[Capt Kirk]

Specifically, you claimed:



True, you didn't claim aliens, but you did claim that "our modern technology" could not reproduce something, presumably Puma Punku. Not ancient technology, but modern technology, with diamond saws, laser measuring and leveling tools, and computer-controlled milling tools and such, could not reproduce some carved rocks.

I suspect that quite a few modern-day masons and stonecutters will disagree with you.

You may wish to watch these videos:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/23357
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFcMWUeRePw

While not about Puma Punku, they do discuss how to cut granite (which is harder to cut than the red sandstone at Puma Punku) using similar ancient methods.

There is a paper here about Inca stonecutting methods:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/990027?uid=3739808&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21100897250761

Unfortunately, it's not public-access, so you'll only be able to see the preview page.

Thank you

CAPT

[garbonzo607]

Specifically, you claimed:



True, you didn't claim aliens, but you did claim that "our modern technology" could not reproduce something, presumably Puma Punku. Not ancient technology, but modern technology, with diamond saws, laser measuring and leveling tools, and computer-controlled milling tools and such, could not reproduce some carved rocks.

I suspect that quite a few modern-day masons and stonecutters will disagree with you.

You may wish to watch these videos:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/23357
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFcMWUeRePw

While not about Puma Punku, they do discuss how to cut granite (which is harder to cut than the red sandstone at Puma Punku) using similar ancient methods.

There is a paper here about Inca stonecutting methods:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/990027?uid=3739808&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21100897250761

Unfortunately, it's not public-access, so you'll only be able to see the preview page.

I may have misspoke. What I mean is that they were able to do it when we can't without using modern technology.

Did you watch the video? You ask me for one episode and when I give it to you you don't watch it?

Also this theory does predict the future, so that it can be tested. Based on ancient writings it predicts that there will be some sort of light saber type sword that can cut through almost anything but need some sort of energy source. So like a light sword. This is based on ancient writings. I may upload a clip of what they are trying to say.

[Telemark]

I may have misspoke. What I mean is that they were able to do it when we can't without using modern technology.

But we could; pretty much all ancient construction techniques have been studied and understood. We don't have the time, labor, or interest in rebuilding those structures using those techniques, but we could. This is Van Daniken's Chariots of the Gods all over again, and it's just as racist and insulting.

[JohnT]

Dang! I just realised my north fence post aligned with the Horsehead Nebula a few hours ago. And I missed it. :smack:

The cats been acting weird ever since.

Out of all this, your post is the only one worth replying to.

So... you're cats are OK, right? :D

[garbonzo607]

But we could; pretty much all ancient construction techniques have been studied and understood. We don't have the time, labor, or interest in rebuilding those structures using those techniques, but we could. This is Van Daniken's Chariots of the Gods all over again, and it's just as racist and insulting.

Racist? o.O

Then tell me how they did it. Did you watch the damn video for pete's god damn sake? :smack:

[Musicat]

Then tell me how they did it. Did you watch the damn video for pete's god damn sake? :smack:I did, but not today. Which claim do you wish to discuss?

[Telemark]

Racist? o.O

Yup. It's basically saying those simple backwards folks couldn't have been smart and inventive without outside help. There's no way they could be clever and resourceful. That's the basis of Von Daniken's ideas and it's the same with yours.

[garbonzo607]

Guys, watch s3ep13 "Aliens and the Secret Code" and TELL ME there is not something credible here.

[Musicat]

Guys, watch s3ep13 "Aliens and the Secret Code" and TELL ME there is not something credible here.Is this the show (http://www.tv-links.eu/tv-shows/Ancient-Aliens_22941/season_3/episode_13/) you are talking about?Megalithic monuments linked together by electromagnetic energy... Prehistoric ruins arranged across vast distances in straight lines... And advanced mathematics carved into landmarks more than 5000 years ago. Were ancient man's spectacular structures built by humans alone? Or do they bear evidence of being designed--and interconnected--by otherworldly visitors?And is that the show that is able to connect aliens with the Founding Fathers, the Undead, Gods & Heroes, and for all I know, my pool man and Rover, the Wonder Dog?

Yeah, that's some fantastic shit, man. Want another toke?

[garbonzo607]

Is this the show (http://www.tv-links.eu/tv-shows/Ancient-Aliens_22941/season_3/episode_13/) you are talking about?And is that the show that is able to connect aliens with the Founding Fathers, the Undead, Gods & Heroes, and for all I know, my pool man and Rover, the Wonder Dog?

Yeah, that's some fantastic shit, man. Want another toke?

Watch that episode and see.

[Musicat]

Watch that episode and see.I did. It's utter nonsense. Hollywood is not reality, man, it just sells movies. Mundane explanations don't put bodies in seats, but wild speculations do. Or sell books, as von Daniken did so successfully.

[garbonzo607]

I did. It's utter nonsense. Hollywood is not reality, man, it just sells movies. Mundane explanations don't put bodies in seats, but wild speculations do. Or sell books, as von Daniken did so successfully.

That's not a counter. Respond to the points brought out in the video. Like the different ancient sites being in exact lines, exactly on the opposite site of the world, etc.

[Czarcasm]

That's not a counter. Respond to the points brought out in the video. Like the different ancient sites being in exact lines, exactly on the opposite site of the world, etc.It's absolute crap-misinformation, misdirection, speculation, distortion.

[Musicat]

It's absolute crap-misinformation, misdirection, speculation, distortion.I couldn't have said it better myself.

[garbonzo607]

It's absolute crap-misinformation, misdirection, speculation, distortion.

Did you watch it? Imagine if you told a Christian that about the Bible. Do you think it would help them any? Of course not. They need to know exactly what about it is wrong. That's how you get them to see the truth. I'm not seeing that here at all. It's just wild claim with nothing to back it up. Set a time in which a subject is mentioned and counter it. Simple.

[Czarcasm]

Did you watch it? Imagine if you told a Christian that about the Bible. Do you think it would help them any? Of course not. They need to know exactly what about it is wrong. That's how you get them to see the truth. I'm not seeing that here at all. It's just wild claim with nothing to back it up. Set a time in which a subject is mentioned and counter it. Simple.I'm not wading through that conglomeration of crap again to give you a claim by claim analysis. Why don't you pick out the single most convincing claim in that steaming pile and we'll take a look at it.

[Musicat]

Did you watch it? Imagine if you told a Christian that about the Bible. Do you think it would help them any? Of course not. They need to know exactly what about it is wrong. That's how you get them to see the truth. I'm not seeing that here at all. It's just wild claim with nothing to back it up.Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You supply a list of wild-ass claims, then say that anyone who disagrees is making a wild claim? Sheesh.

[vrmlstudent]

There is no conceivable means of space travel in which this could matter. The earth is just a spinning rock in space. The exact direction in which the earth is currently spinning has fuck-all to do with anything reaching earth.

I'm not sure what kind of cite you want, if you won't accept a NASA website written by an actual astronomer. Cecil is not an astronomer, he's just going to call NASA himself and report what they say.



What if perhaps you had the capability of interstellar travel, and you were planning a trip to an inhabited star system, but you had no way of knowing whether the inhabitants were friendly or hostile. Maybe it would be safest if they didn't know your course of travel and therefore couldn't follow your flight path back to your origin of travel (your home world). Would the Galactic Alignment not provide you with the adequate cover you needed if their sun blocked the view of nearly the entire galaxy when you made your trip to their star system?