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

[garbonzo607]

@AndrewL

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]

@Twoflower

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]

@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

Yes, because it can’t be 1. =)

So are you a Grey alien? =)

[garbonzo607]

@Miller

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.

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]

@Anne_Neville

“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 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]

@FlyingRat

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]

@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%.

[Valgard]

@garbonzo607

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]

@garbonzo607

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]

@garbonzo607

@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:[ol][li]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.[/ol][/li]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]

@garbonzo607

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]

@garbonzo607

Watch Ancient Aliens.

I did. It’s a wonderful example of HOLLYWOO*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]

@Valgard

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]

@Musicat

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:[ol][li]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.[/ol][/li]

[ol]
[li] I believe they have been confirmed. It’s just not public knowledge.[/li][li] Yes, there is evidence that suggests. Just look and you will find. Look at these: [/li]
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.
[li] 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? [/li]
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.

[li] What constitutes a need? The need is the search for truth.[/li][/ol]

[garbonzo607]

@AndrewL

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]

@Musicat

I did. It’s a wonderful example of HOLLYWOO*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 HOLLYWOOD. 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]

@garbonzo607

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.

@garbonzo607

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

Ha, 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, 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]

@garbonzo607

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]

@garbonzo607

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.