Using Erroneous Information to Support a Hypothesis...

reply to post by terriblyvexed


It's not speculation at all...it's a fact, written down in 820 AD...

One of the worst things about "Ancient Aliens" is that it appears on a network calling itself the "History" channel.

I've recently had several losing discussions about the current state of the Hysteria Channel with a young nephew. Very disturbing.

reply to post by DelMarvel


My nephew watches Jersey shore count your blessings.

As long as he understands ancient alien theory is bunk,I really don't see a problem with it. I'm suspicious of all answers,I think it's a good thing, and if ancient aliens dose anything, it helps show you reason to question.

reply to post by raifordko


I'm willing to concede that the simplest explanation, is usually the right answer.

But you won't convince me that we're not being lied to about our history.

When I see Mayan artifacts in my home state of Georgia, but no one admits the Mayans came to north America, I'm going to say I'm being lied to.

Originally posted by terriblyvexed
reply to post by raifordko

 

I'm willing to concede that the simplest explanation, is usually the right answer.

But you won't convince me that we're not being lied to about our history.

When I see Mayan artifacts in my home state of Georgia, but no one admits the Mayans came to north America, I'm going to say I'm being lied to.

I am from Savannah originally, and I think you may be referring to the "find" from 2011 ish? I am fairly certain that was not Mayan. That was an innacurate media report that got the Mayan thing started. It was basically a hoax buy a guy trying to make a name for himself.

boingboing.net...
www.teoti.com...

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Aye, it was Von Daniken and later Graham Hancock who got me interested in the whole issue of ancient aliens/civilisations. Okay, my conclusions after years of research weren't quite the same as theirs, but without them I might never have become interested in the subject.

Originally posted by DelMarvel
One of the worst things about "Ancient Aliens" is that it appears on a network calling itself the "History" channel.

I've recently had several losing discussions about the current state of the Hysteria Channel with a young nephew. Very disturbing.

Yes, that's another good point.

Though it's no worse than people believing things because they read it in the "news"paper ......

reply to post by raifordko


Your referring to Richard Thornton, he got blasted because he's not a real archeologists. He also claims his DNA proves his connection, I'm not sure about the DNA I'm finding conflicting evidence both ways.

However he did strike Scott Wolter's interest, and he went to investigate, and he believes that more studies need to be shown, and that history may need to be rewritten.

I like Scott he's all about real evidence, but he's willing to ask questions when faced with something that's not mainstream.

For someone on a conspiracy site, you seem very reluctant to anything that challenges what was taught in school.

Originally posted by terriblyvexed

My nephew watches Jersey shore count your blessings.

As long as he understands ancient alien theory is bunk,I really don't see a problem with it..

He doesn't think it's bunk. He also was buying into the 2012 stuff on the History channel. And he's not a stupid kid..

Originally posted by terriblyvexed
reply to post by raifordko

 

Your referring to Richard Thornton, he got blasted because he's not a real archeologists. He also claims his DNA proves his connection, I'm not sure about the DNA I'm finding conflicting evidence both ways.

However he did strike Scott Wolter's interest, and he went to investigate, and he believes that more studies need to be shown, and that history may need to be rewritten.

I like Scott he's all about real evidence, but he's willing to ask questions when faced with something that's not mainstream.

For someone on a conspiracy site, you seem very reluctant to anything that challenges what was taught in school.

I actually love challenging what we think we know. I did it on a daily basis for 5 years and enjoyed every minute of it. The problem is the burden of proof. To make new claims you need evidence supported by observation. If you lie or cheat to get the "obeservations" then your claims are, ipso facto, devoid of merit.

People like Sitchin and Von Daniken blatantly lie to advance their hypothesis, hence they should be completely removed from the equation when attemping to prove or support a new hypothesis.

When I read Velikovsky I had to admit that he only used observable evidenvce via comparative mythology for his claims, even citing every reference he used. Howeve I believe he went a step too far in thinking that a planet sized object like Venus was ejected from Jupiter and then shot around the earth a few times...

Don't get me wrong, that sounds amazing, but from my education I just dont see any observable evidence to support such a claim. Granted my speciatly in education is not astrophysics. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I fully believe that as some of the entriched older men of current sciences relating to earth studies and astrophysics die off, we will see a renaissance in the science world of young eager blood looking to cut a path for themselves...I just don't have the political will to tough it out as it currently stands.

You also have to keep in mind, that technology is finally catching up with scientific theory, and as we measure things we are finding even now that paradigms are shifting.

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by terriblyvexed

My nephew watches Jersey shore count your blessings.

As long as he understands ancient alien theory is bunk,I really don't see a problem with it..

He doesn't think it's bunk. He also was buying into the 2012 stuff on the History channel. And he's not a stupid kid..

Wow,I guess they need some more disclaimers.

reply to post by raifordko


I think maybe you think I support ancient alien theory, or doomsday prophecies if so then no I don't.
I see mysteries from one end of this planet to the other, and they indicate global interactions, ancient technology being more advanced than we believe, and societies being older than thought.

I only say I like these guys, because they do make you question the answers we're given as fact.

Originally posted by raifordko
You also have to keep in mind, that technology is finally catching up with scientific theory, and as we measure things we are finding even now that paradigms are shifting.

This always happens. In fact, the history of measuring technologies is the history of Physics. All hard science is Physics.

Harte

reply to post by raifordko


Using Erroneous Information to Support a Hypothesis...

Or

Using a hypothesis to create erroneous information?

Allow me to reply with an analogy.

Zahi Hawass & Mark Lehner, both renowned eyptologists, have decided that the Great Pyramid (at Giza, Egypt) was built by the Pharaoh Khufu, a 4th Dynasty, Old Kingdom ruler. They have done so based on practically no scientific data. Two Carbon 14 tests on the mortar of the Great Pyramid showed the mortar (and the Pyramid?) to be approximately two centuries older than their theory allowed, therefore the Great Pyramid is older than they suppose or the chronology of their Kings List is wrong. They solved the problem by ignoring the results and inventing a theory why the two Carbon-14 tests are wrong.

Hawass & Lehner have also stipulated that the Great Sphinx was built by Khufu (or Kafhre), but the weather erosion of the Sphinx shows that it must be much older than 4th century Old Kingdom. Once again Hawass & Lehner solved the problem by ignoring the geologic data and ridiculing the geologist that presented the data.

In order to return to your statement. The Ancient Aliens theorists put forward theories on the evolution of mankind and our history. It's speculation, nothing more nothing less, unless claimed otherwise.

Hawass and Lehner is doing something much more serious than AA theorists. Being something of the official spokesmen of egyptology, they have presented their theories as proven facts, while the scientific data does not support their claims. I'm not excluding the possibility that their theories are correct and that future data will support it, but today this is not the case.

I recommend a book called "On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not " by Robert Burton. It explores the dangers of entering a fixed paradigm and letting that paradigm decide what is right and wrong, A reality check every now and then does not hurt, even when you're utterly convinced that you represent logic, sound reasoning and truth.

Originally posted by Heliocentric
The Ancient Aliens theorists put forward theories on the evolution of mankind and our history. It's speculation, nothing more nothing less, unless claimed otherwise.

How would you then account for their ubiquitous use of the phrase "...can only mean that...", when in truth it generally means a whole lot else.