I first heard this on what “the Ble@p do we know “and recently from a co-worker that the Indians brains could not process the boats of Columbus
Apparently in 1492 it was so far out of their frame of reference the ships became invisible?
Whats the Dope on this?
Does this mean I could create an invisibility field by dressing up as Huflahuflalacticticus?
Sounds like bullshit to me.
There is a major difference between “not having the terms to describe something” and not seeing it at all. The “Somebody Else’s Problem Field” is a joke, after all.
I seriously doubt it. Children regularly see new things that are outside their former experiences, and I don’t believe that the Indians would have been entirely unfamiliar with boats.
Now, if we interpret “invisible” as “incomprehensible/mind blocking” to the point where they were unable to intellectually, logically, and systematically process/analyze it, I’d be more credible, but I don’t see any physical or psychological way it would render in their mind as transparent.
Oh and to add to my OP where did the story originate?
The first I heard of this crap was from that piece of shit movie ‘What the bleep do we know?’.
It’s true. There are almost no root vegetables on Hispaniola, so the natives all suffered from severe vitamin A deficiency, which gave them really bad vision.
Seriously, though, of course they could see the ships. The Santa Maria was about 70 feet long. If it pulls up in your harbor, you notice that. Honestly, I think the story just comes from a misunderstanding of perceptual blindness, which is basically the fact that people don’t notice things that they’re not looking for. Check out this link for more information:
Subject previously discussed here and later here also.
As DrFidelius and robert_andrews mention, the first natives who saw Columbus’s vessels would have indeed seen large objects in the water, they just did not understand exactly what was that at first.
The story as presented in the documentary is a bogus application of the film-maker’s desire to make some sort of point. This specific example is quoted in one of the threads as a possible origin. Notice: clearly a case of “we don’t know what the hell is that”, NOT a case of not being able to see what you can’t understand.
Most people aren’t aware of the fact that the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria were actually Klingon Birds of Prey.
If that is true, and the Indians actually could not see the ships because it was so far outside their reality, could that be used today to make a invisible craft?
Children have parents who define those things. Children live in a world full of wonder, ever go to a place you played as a small child, having such fond memories, but when you get there it looks much less wonderful.
Though the Indians knew about boats, they had no concept of ocean crossing boats, something probably as large their biggest land structure filled with men getting into big (big to the Indians) rowboats. Their minds must have tried to come up with anything that would make some sense that they have past experience with. Could it have been so outside their defined reality that they couldn’t process it at all and therefor it was invisible, perhaps.
There has not been one shred of scientific evidence presented to support any notion that the ships were invisible.
Probably because the world is full of shit and we don’t see the meta-baggage associated with the shit we see when we’re a child. I used to walk through woods that seemed endless when I was young, in undeveloped parts of the north of my small town. Now much of the woods are still there, but it’s loaded with the baggage of noticing pollution, encroaching Pleasant Valley Sunday homes associations filled with dumbshit middle-class Americans, and the never-ending worry of “why I am out here. I should be working overtime to save my job.” Plus I have a sense of where I am now - I know the woods ends to the north at a filthy 7-11, to the east at a cookie-cutter business park, and to the west at a sewage treatment plant.
Whatever, there’s been no factual evidence shown that the Indians could not actually see Columbus’ ships.
If I shipped my iPad back to 1968, and showed it to the bigwigs at IBM, they would not immediately grasp that the computer I held in my hand was many times more powerful than their vaunted System/360 Model 25.
The further revelation that the absurdly advanced device was dedicated primarily to entertainment purposes would boggle their minds.
It takes us monkeys a while to sort radically new things into our internal frames of reference.
Which is not the same as saying the white-shirts would not be able see the gadget. Not grasping the implications or not understanding what you are looking at is not the same as being unable to see the object at all, which is what is claimed about the first-contact natives.
Here’s Bernal Diaz’s description of first contact with Indians of the Yucatan, from his “The True History of The Conquest of New Spain”
So there’s a story of Indians who not only can see the ships, but actively go out to investigate them.
Sure, they’d ‘see’ it, but would they ‘SEE’ it?
The boat story likely propagates because of that ambiguity.
Grok? 
Because the Indians had “large canoes”, and a large canoe is not all that different from a small sailing ship. So, for example, if you’re familiar with a horse and buggy, seeing a modern truck would not be much of a stretch – you’d think, “That’s huge, and how do you hitch the horses to it?”, but it would make some sort of sense to you. Similarly, the Indians might think, “That’s a really big canoe – so what are those large posts with pieces of cloth on them for, and how do you get the oars to reach the water?”
They might also say “How the fuck did they get a Council Hut (or whatever the Arawak equivalent was) to float?”
The idea that something can be in plain sight, yet invisible makes no sense at all. The story is utter rubbish fnord.
Does any of us ever really SEE anything?
I don’t know about you, but I usually define to my child what they are asking about after they’ve asked about it.
By this line of reasoning, the first Gothic Cathedrals would have been invisible to the peasents of Europe. Sure, they had seen stone churches, but never one that stood one hundred feet tall, and had walls of glass.
This is actually more likely.
[Old Lodge Skins]
[del]I’ve[/del] They’ve never been invisible before.
[/Old Lodge Skins]