should von daniken sue?

reply to post by Gawdzilla


The serpent Quetzalcoatl of America, the Dragon of China, the Lindwurm of Germanic Mythology, The Rainbow Serpent of the Aborigines...and all of them being connected to the "Gods"...all sounds pretty similar to me.

You say the fiction may have been passed on...which would require transoceanic contact...another concept the current status quo is opposed to.

Made-Up? Maybe. But whats wrong with inquiring if there is more behind it?

Why the opposition to inquiry?

Why the ridicule?

If its all "only fiction" then there is nothing to be worried about.


[edit on 22-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

The serpent Quetzalcoatl of America, the Dragon of China, the Lindwurm of Germanic Mythology, The Rainbow Serpent of the Aborigines...and all of them being connected to the "Gods"...all sounds pretty similar to me.

You say the fiction may have been passed on...which would require transoceanic contact...another concept the current status quo is opposed to.

Made-Up? Maybe. But whats wrong with inquiring if there is more behind it?

Why the opposition to inquiry?

Why the ridicule?

If its all "only fiction" then there is nothing to be worried about.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

Nowhere did I say I was opposed to inquiry. Search away. Just don't expect me to stop saying "what's your proof for that?" (Until I get banned, anyway.)

As for transoceanic contact, there could have been. I'm still waiting on the evidence. And, you might note, people's minds work pretty much alike everywhere. So a common theme isn't at all surprising.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

The serpent Quetzalcoatl of America, the Dragon of China, the Lindwurm of Germanic Mythology, The Rainbow Serpent of the Aborigines...and all of them being connected to the "Gods"...all sounds pretty similar to me.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

You realise, of course, how far apart in history the examples you have quoted are? Quetzacoatl is about 200 AD(?) The Lindwurm is from Norse sagas from 12th century AD(?) Chinese dragons could be a few thousand years BC. I wouldn't have a clue about the aboriginal tales. Anyway, if these are aliens their visits are frequent indeed.

reply to post by Osmoses


There is no telling from when they all originally are or what they are based on. All I can say is that they usually dont involve cats, spiders and horses, but serpents, snakes, dragons...often described as flying vehicles and things from which "Gods" emerge.

But keep in mind that this is only an example given on the previous conversation of what constitutes interpretation and what does not (one page back).

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Why do you think you'll get banned for demanding proof? Look at Harte...who argues similarly..he's been here since years without being banned.


[edit on 22-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Fact is, Harte, the Sheguindah site is a pretty good example of what he is talking about. Thomas Lee was the principal investigator, and apparently dated it as deep antiquity, but presented a 'conservative' date of 30kya.

Johnny, You're aware, right, that the site Steen-McIntyre is noted for (Hueyatlco) Has been dated twice - first at over a million years and then at a "conservative" 250,0-00 years old?

Harte, I wasn't challenging that site in my conversation. I merely pointed out that the academic establishment has, in fact, suppressed non-conformist research and ruined the investigator...and that the effects resonate through the community.

Why hand the...shall we say 'evidentially-challenged'?...yet another straw man? EVD remains a flake and his acolytes remain gullible. They can argue about how many angels can dance on the point of a needle 'til the cows come home, but ultimately it's a circular argument cuz you can't prove what ain't there.

Has the establishment erred? Yes. Does the system correct itself? Slowly, but yes, it does, as solid evidence emerges.

Still, it is well within the purview of Archeo 101 to say EVD is poop. If the aggressively ignorant take umbridge...well, let's just say that when they give away their earthly possessions and head for the mountain top...I hope they give me their car.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I'm not really following your point here. Gods are said to emerge from a chinese dragon (could you give me the name of the legend please, I can't find it). As far as I am aware gods dont emerge from Quetzacoatl or the lindworm. The lindworm doesn't fly and the rainbow serpent came from out of the ground. I can't see any but the most tenuous connection between these 4 examples.

Originally posted by Osmoses
I'm not really following your point here. Gods are said to emerge from a chinese dragon (could you give me the name of the legend please, I can't find it).

If you own any books on Chinese Mythology, have a look.

As far as I am aware gods dont emerge from Quetzacoatl or the lindworm.

In some cultures the dragon IS the God, in others Gods emerge from the Dragon.

I cannot find any cases in which the Dragon is not connected to beings coming from the sky.

The lindworm doesn't fly

The Lindworm has wings.

I can't see any but the most tenuous connection between these 4 examples.

All of them having to do with Gods and being serpents is no indication of connection?

Add to that the flying reptiles of the Koran, the serpent of the Bible, the flying serpents of ancient Egypt and there is still no connection?

If you think so. I dont.

__________________________________________

I dont wish to derail this thread more than I already have. Ive already made my position abundantly clear Here and in other threads. If anyone wants to challenge the idea of ancient gods = extraterrestrials, Im happy to respond.




[edit on 22-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

Why do you think you'll get banned for demanding proof? Look at Harte...who argues similarly..he's been here since years without being banned.


[edit on 22-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

I've been banned from other sites for simply asking "why". It will be a refreshing change of pace if that doesn't happen here.

reply to post by Harte

Hello Harte,

Harte: I'm aware that Steen-McIntyre makes this claim.

SC: Then I question why you would even consider it necessary to ask me to present evidence of her mistreatment by her superiors if you were already aware of this? Curious.

Harte: I respond with the fact that she has continued to be published on that site and others. She continues to give paid lectures on that site and others. She claims people ridiculed her.

SC: Yes – she lectures about her discoveries (based on hard scientific evidence) that STILL have not been accepted by mainstream academia.

Harte: What I want is evidence that this is so,

SC: Okay – so when you have nowhere else to go in this discussion you then target a person’s integrity by implying that they are effectively lying. Steen-McIntyre has no reason to be anything but fully open and honest about the facts of this case. Why do you find it so difficult to accept what she says did indeed happen? If you cannot take her word for what happened then I’m afraid there is little else we can discuss here.

Harte: not a claim made by a person too silly to r4ealize that she would have to explain a date for humans which precedes the known or accepted date by around 50,000 years. - even more if given the time to develop Clovis-type technology.

SC Alas, science is science and facts are facts. You cannot simply dismiss hard scientific facts (or change them as some of her colleagues were forced into) simply because they cannot be explained within or assimilated into the paradigm you happen to consider to be correct. Has it never occurred to you that it might be the paradigm that could be wrong and needs revised?

Regards,

Scott Creighton


[edit on 22/4/2009 by Scott Creighton]

reply to post by Scott Creighton

Now my point here has been made - my work here is done.

If, by that, you mean you have exhausted the permutations available for the 'Steen-McIntyre Defense', I'm not so sure...it seems adaptable enough to apply to Moon Hoax threads also.

Fair play Scott, there's little point in continuing a difference of opinion

Originally posted by Skyfloating

The Vedas describe flying vehicles, gods and half-gods getting out of them, gods having sex with humans, advanced weapon systems and much more.

They attribute the invention of these "flying vehicles" to the Greeks.

The Vedas follow a long tradition of sex with Gods.

No "advanced weapon systems" are mentioned, only godly superpowers. This is simply a preferred interpretation of the fringers, one you've bought into.

Harte

Originally posted by HarteThey attribute the invention of these "flying vehicles" to the Greeks.

The Vedas follow a long tradition of sex with Gods.

No "advanced weapon systems" are mentioned, only godly superpowers. This is simply a preferred interpretation of the fringers, one you've bought into.

Harte

The folks who think the Vedas have references to alien spaceships never give Apollo's chariot any credit. And without that, we wouldn't have daylight.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Harte, I wasn't challenging that site in my conversation. I merely pointed out that the academic establishment has, in fact, suppressed non-conformist research and ruined the investigator...and that the effects resonate through the community.

Academia has in the past done things they shouldn't have.

However, this work was published in a respected scientific journal.

I'd hesitate to call that "suppression."

We have Steen-McIntyre's word for what she claims re. the ridicule, the suppression, and how her career was "ruined." I require more than this. After all, she's been publishing more and more and lecturing more and more about the site (and on other subjects) since 1981.

Harte

[edit on 4/23/2009 by Harte]

Originally posted by Harte We have Steen-McIntyre's word for what she claims re. the ridicule, the suppression, and how her career was "ruined." I require more than this. After all, she's been publishing more and more and lecturing more and more about the site (and on other subjects) since 1981.Harte

This line of conversation is based upon claims that non-conformist research has been suppressed and the investigators marginalised. Yes it has. We can accept that notion and move on.

If the site in question is truly as Steen-McIntyre (and Scott Creighton, et al) says, then it is really only a matter of investigation to winnow out the facts. We know that archaeological investigation costs money, and that money is provided by the tax payer...be it through government grants, tax-exempt charitable foundations, or tuition fees. Exploratory archaeology is paid for by John Q. Public. I do not include excavation that is prompted by development...but even then the cost goes to the subsequent building owner or tenant.

Fact is...you can write about your theories til the cows come home, but unless you can prove it, you may as well blame it on the Smurffs. You want the level of investigation ratcheted up? Make some noise to those people who allocate your tax dollars. Demand more of the system. Otherwise, you are simply indulging in pseudo-academic onanism.

And Scott? Since you are actually dining out on promoting alternative history, I think you are being a little disingenuous in your contribution to this discussion. You are not here to even consider the veracity of the status quo, as you are making money selling books to those who feed off of ignorance, instead. I see that as a conflict.

And Scott? When you make the statement that it is the paradigm that is wrong...you ignore the fact that it, indeed changes. The peopling of North America is a prime example. But...it requires several significant components to cause such change to occur...a sealed site, several dating methods in agreement, a gold standard principal investigator, and time. Bingo...Monte Verde...and the whole 12kya package goes out the window and a new world is opened for discussion.

But I don't hear too much about that...

Again, I say, YES...let EVD sue.

[edit on 23-4-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]

reply to post by Harte

Hello Harte,

Harte: However, this work was published in a respected scientific journal.

SC: Of course Steen-McIntyre published her findings. Why shouldn't she? The POINT, however, is that the findings are IGNORED. Ignored in the hope, perhaps , that they might go away? Ignoring these findings is suppression by silence.

Harte: I'd hesitate to call that "suppression."

SC: The facts of this case speak for themselves. Steen-McIntyre's colleagues were forced by the head Mexican Archaeologist (through the office of the Mexican Ambassador to the US) to drop a zero off the end of the site dates. That is suppression of the truth in anyone's book, except perhaps yours since I sense that if someone said to you white wasn't black you would demand proof of it. And I don't see anyone ever having refuted Steen-McIntyre's claims about how she was treated. And most certainly no one disputes the research dates of the site which contradict the prevailing historical narrative and this is the KEY POINT to be remembered in all of this. Let us not lose sight of that.

Steen-McIntyre should be applauded for having had the backbone to stand up for the truth of her research. Your attempt here to undermine her research by attempting to smear the author as something of a liar is thoroughly deplorable and only serves to demonstrate the lengths you will go to in order to maintain the stauts quo. The desperation of your position here is utterly transparent. I can, however, understand why you are arguing so desperately against the truth of these facts because - well, let's face it - the truth really does hurt, doesn't it.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Scott Creighton


"
SC: Of course Steen-McIntyre published her findings. Why shouldn't she? The POINT, however, is that the findings are IGNORED. Ignored in the hope, perhaps , that they might go away? Ignoring these findings is suppression by silence."

"Ignore" means "massive fail" in the scientific community. Nobody suppressed her findings, they just didn't find them worth the time to comment on. The young guns in the community are always looking for something good to latch onto. And if her work had been good, it would have been noticed.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
And Scott? When you make the statement that it is the paradigm that is wrong...you ignore the fact that it, indeed changes. The peopling of North America is a prime example. But...it requires several significant components to cause such change to occur...a sealed site, several dating methods in agreement, a gold standard principal investigator, and time. Bingo...Monte Verde...and the whole 12kya package goes out the window and a new world is opened for discussion.

But I don't hear too much about that...

Again, I say, YES...let EVD sue.

I'm with you on all of the above.

However, that would be one heck of a paradigm shift, moving from no humans in the Americas to humans in America 250,000 years ago.

Don't forget, these humans would have had to have duplicated the technology we know for a fact wasn't developed until around 11,000 BC by the Clovis peoples, only the earlier humans would have done this 240,000 years before this!

Now, where are the sites that show such advanced knapping of flint around the world, or even in the Americas, with such antiquity? There are none.

The site was dated by dating the overlying ash from a volcanic eruption. A geologist might date that ash and walk away because there are no other considerations. An archaeologist would look at the other considerations and surmise that there's something wrong with either the ash date or the idea that it truly overlies the site and was not simply washed over the site maybe around 11,000 BC. Or that H.Sapiens was in the Americas 250,000 years ago, an age for which there is no evidence of the presence of H. Sapiens anywhere on the surface of the Earth (so far.) Or, lastly, that H. Erectus was in the Americas (a possibility, I'll admit) and that H. Erectus in the Americas somehow was able to develop Clovis-type technology 240,000 years before H. Sapiens was able to do it (which I think is about as unlikely as unlikely can be.)

One more consideration an Archaeologist would have to look at that a Geologist would not - consider the amazingly huge difference between the only two dates given for the site. One million years old or 250,000 years old. That should be a giant red flag for the confidence one should put into any analysis of the date of the site, or any other site.

Harte

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

hello Johnny,

Johnny: And Scott? Since you are actually dining out on promoting alternative history, I think you are being a little disingenuous in your contribution to this discussion. You are not here to even consider the veracity of the status quo, as you are making money selling books to those who feed off of ignorance, instead.

SC: As far as I am concerned, the status quo with regard to this particular issue is demonstrably wrong and evidentially wrong and needs to be revised forthwith. Steen-McIntyre's work proves the case for this revision, in my opinion.

As for ""dining out on promoting alternative history". All I can say is, "If only!" All of my theories are ENTIRELY FREELY available here on ATS and some other sites for people to read and evaluate - absolutely no purchase necessary.

BTW - have you seen the cost of Dr Mark Lehner's "The Complete Pyramids" these days? I guess we can now say that Dr Lehner is dining out on promoting Ancient Egyptian history then?

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Gawdzilla

Hello Gawdzilla,

Gawdzilla: Nobody suppressed her findings, they just didn't find them worth the time to comment on.

SC: Go back and read the part where I explained how Steen-McIntyre's colleagues were forced to drop a zero from the site dates by the head Mexiacan archaeologist but Steen-McIntyre refused to distort the evidence in this way.

Like I said - suppression of the facts through distorting of evidence.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 23/4/2009 by Scott Creighton]