Ancient Aliens

[Reverend]

Wasn't "A Canticle For Leibowitz" also based around a similar premise? A post apocalyptic monastic order blindly copying ancient texts and circuit diagrams into illuminated scripture without the slightest clue what they are, but all too willing to attribute a divine or mystical meaning.

Never mind modern archaeology, it makes one wonder how many ancient scriptures are based of something far more mundane than their authors might claim. I know it makes me wonder about that ancient Egyptian carving that looks suspiciously like a lightbulb...

But yeah, anyone who watches 'Time Team' knows all about how little archaeologists really understand. I recall Robinson calling bullshit on them a few times when they try to pass something off that can't immediately explain as having "ceremonial significance." I really wish they'd treat their own scientific discipline with a little respect and be upfront about the unknowns. Making such broad assumptions with so little data can easily lead to or indeed compound misconceptions.

[Lonemagpie]

It's even an acknowledged joke in the archaeological profession and community that "ritual purposes" is archaeologist-speak for "we have no fucking idea". It's never been a secret.

[The Castellan]

Was talking to a friend via chat and we had and he posted this, here's what he said:

I never understand humans that are so utterly certain they know exactly the way something happened or what limits are imposed by the Universe and just so supremely sure of things they can't possibly be sure of is one of those bizarre and annoying traits that bewilders and irritates me to no end! You'd think Sci Fi fans at the very least would leave open some possibility - however small - that maybe things are different from the currently accepted version of events. I don't claim to know - just that I can't rule it out and that the evidence presented by some does have some intriguing possibilities. To the close minded, it's not even open for discussion.
There as some site I was on not long ago and some poster was stating UFOs couldn't possibly be from alien worlds because physics has shown the distances are far too vast for space travel to be feasible and proceeded to basically slam everyone else for being ridiculously idiotic for even entertaining the idea. I couldn't believe how arrogant and assured he was and posted asking him if he really, truly believed human science in the 21s century had discovered everything ther was to know about physics and biology and the structure of space/time, etc and pointed out even scientists (good ones anyway) know that a new discovery can happen at anytime that could rewrite what we thought we knew or at the very least revolutionize our understanding. It can even show that there may simply be ways around the laws previously accepted as limiting factors.
Not to mention the fact that aliens from another star system may have vastly different lifetimes to our own if they don't simply have superior technology (a given from the traits of th ships so often sen!) to get around the speed of light travel issues, suspended animation, or may not even be biological beings anyway (even we can send a freakin robotic rover to Mars - surely their rovers would look like magic to us!).
My whole point was to simply point out we humans have so very much more to learn, discover, invent - we still have cultures that live as our species has for much of the time we have existed still on this planet (one can argue they may not be the primitive ones!) and yet some people seem to think we know all there is to know now, today, right now already. He of course simply brushed me off as a crackpot who believes in that weird stuff. Totally missed my point, and he still thinks he's the one with the superior intellect. It made me realize an open mind is more valuable IMO than any academic or corporate or social achievements. It also made me feel very sad that some people - possibly even the majority - have views of reality that are as erroneous as the ones they think I believe. I just allow for the possibility and know I don't know everything, nor does proably anyone else right now.

Seems to me that the mainstream scientific community is as dogmatic as some religious communities....both of which thinking that we know it all, and that if someone else points out something, he or she is wrong, wrong, wrong......I mean look at the Sphinx, there's water erosion on the Sphinx, as well as it's enclosure, and the last time Eygpt had any sigificant rainfall was like 10,000 years, so that tells me the Sphix is at least twice as old as mainstream says it is, not to mention the fact that I see a black woman's face on it, as oppossed to Chephren. Yet mainstream folks like Zahi Hawass keeps saying it's Chephren and the Sphinx is 5,000 years old. Personally, I think he's blinded by politics, since politics often does get in the way of advacement. And that's just one example of closed mindedness happening. I've done comparisons to a statue of Chephren, the one in Boston, and of the Sphinx, the proportions are way off. I remember on Mystery of the Sphinx, there was a police sketch artist who uses facial proportions and what not to make of both Chephren and the Sphinx, proportions were completely different, especially the protrusion of the jaw, angles from the nose and eyes, etc. And the verdict was the face of the Sphinx is not the same person as represented in the statue of the Pharoh Chephren.....he did not have the Sphinx done....the most he did was repair it during his lifetime, and that's it. Yet mainstream keeps insisting it is Chephren, and won't even consider any alternative ideas...(hell, crazy old Zahi threated a few certain folks suggested altnervies with chopping off their heads should they ever come to Eygpt....and this guy's supposed to be respected?), which makes no sense, expect the same dogma going around. And this is just the Sphinx, same thing goes for the ancient aliens theory.

And one thing the megolithich structures have over modern stuff like sky scrappers are that they last......sky scrappers, bridges, etc need to be maintained and worked on....metal oxidizes, plastics disolve, glass is brittle (unless made in a perfect vaccum, than it would be better than steel).....the Pyramids, both in Egypt and South America and Mexico, they are still there and looking good.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The Castellan wrote:

---

Seems to me that the mainstream scientific community is as dogmatic as some religious communities...

You're entirely wrong with respect to that.

[sojourner]

The Castellan wrote:

---

And one thing the megolithich structures have over modern stuff like sky scrappers are that they last......sky scrappers, bridges, etc need to be maintained and worked on....metal oxidizes, plastics disolve, glass is brittle (unless made in a perfect vaccum, than it would be better than steel).....the Pyramids, both in Egypt and South America and Mexico, they are still there and looking good.

But those megalithic structures are just lumps of stone. And do you somehow think if we constructed solid simple geometric shapes of stone today that they wouldn't last as long?

A parking garage is not a pyramid. Each one has it's own uses, upkeep, and construction.

What about all the ancient wonders that haven't survived? For every pyramid of Giza there are 5 that have withered away in the sands.Were the aliens contracted to build them doing shoddy work?

Science doesn't work like you think it does. Mainly because you haven't tried to actually apply scientific, critical thinking. Science doesn't just take things on faith and "seems to me" guesses like you apparently favor. It tests the validity of those ideas. The ideas that hold up to scrutiny get accepted. The ones that don't get dropped. People that cling to ideas that hve no scientific merit just reveal their own stupidity.

[Deckerd]

sojourner wrote:

---

Science doesn't work like you think it does. Mainly because you haven't tried to actually apply scientific, critical thinking. Science doesn't just take things on faith and "seems to me" guesses like you apparently favor. It tests the validity of those ideas. The ideas that hold up to scrutiny get accepted. The ones that don't get dropped.

Well he hasn't been trained in any discipline as far as I can see. It's the same as "I haven't seen the film but I know it sucks". To dismiss the entire archeological discipline, never mind the achievement of the sciences, is too silly to even be risible.

[Gov Kodos]

But, training can lead to dogmatism and missing new possibilities for the safety of accepted practice and conventions. If Einstein had accepted the conventions of the past he'd been happy with what he'd learned in school and stayed an obscure patent clerk. Bring on the theories and race for the future.

[Deckerd]

Gov Kodos wrote:

---

But, training can lead to dogmatism and missing new possibilities for the safety of accepted practice and conventions.

But why are those damned archaeologists constantly revising their opinions about stuff? I've just been reading Ewan Campbell's theories on the fact that Dal Riada was not an influx of Irish to Scotland but a separate group who established the area independently. Sweeping away 2000 years of folklore, by just digging around in the dirt. Ridiculous.

[Gov Kodos]

Deckerd wrote:

---

But why are those damned archaeologists constantly revising their opinions about stuff? I've just been reading Ewan Campbell's theories on the fact that Dal Riada was not an influx of Irish to Scotland but a separate group who established the area independently. Sweeping away 2000 years of folklore, by just digging around in the dirt. Ridiculous.

Since no one wants to look into the Picts and their mysterious origins, Atlantis perhaps, why not throw out Dal Riada along with Arthur and pre-Anglo-Saxon Britain.

[Deckerd]

Arthur's real. There's loads of evidence.

[Crazy Eddie]

The Castellan wrote:

---

Seems to me that the mainstream scientific community is as dogmatic as some religious communities....both of which thinking that we know it all, and that if someone else points out something, he or she is wrong, wrong, wrong...

The difference between scientists and clerics is that scientists spend millions of dollars and dozens of years researching the subject before they come to a conclusion, whereas clercis spend hundreds of dollars and dozens of years reinforcing conclusions that were made before they were ever born. "Dogma" is something you believe because you've been taught to believe it, which is not what scientists do.

I'd grant that paradigm shifts in science can shake up the conventional wisdom and sometimes a new theory comes along that blows everyone else's theories out of the water and forces everyone to look at the data again. That is a COMPLETELY different thing from "refusal to look at alternate possibilities." Science is about DATA, not speculation.

I mean look at the Sphinx, there's water erosion on the Sphinx, as well as it's enclosure, and the last time Eygpt had any sigificant rainfall was like 10,000 years

The water erosion on the Sphinx is consistent with the average rainfall in the Giza region over the past 6,000 years (which is noticeably less than it is today). More importantly, most of that erosion on the Sphinx is wind/dust erosion, not water erosion.

not to mention the fact that I see a black woman's face on it, as oppossed to Chephren.

I repeat: you do know Cephren was black, right?

And the verdict was the face of the Sphinx is not the same person as represented in the statue of the Pharoh Chephren.....he did not have the Sphinx done...

That's a dubious conclusion if I ever saw one, considering the people who sculpted the Sphinx were almost certainly not the same people who sculpted the statue.

And one thing the megolithich structures have over modern stuff like sky scrappers are that they last......sky scrappers, bridges, etc need to be maintained and worked on...

Or else they fall into disrepair and begin to show signs of decay and erosion over the millennia. Not totally unlike the pyramids, come to think of it.

OTOH, there's something to be said for the longevity of stone over metal. In which case, there's no doubt in my mind that 3000 years from now someone is going to propose an ancient aliens theory to explain the geopolitical dominance of the United States and use Mount Rushmore as proof of it (George Washington's eroded and cracked face on the mountain doesn't look anything like the statue in the ruins of the smithsonian).

Pyramids, both in Egypt and South America and Mexico, they are still there and looking good.

Having actually BEEN to Chichen Itza and seen the condition of those cities and the pyramids there, I can tell you "looking good" is not the way I would have put it. The people who discovered the city had to clear about a thousand years worth of brush from the ruins just to make it accessible, and in the intervening years both the ancient city and the pyramid have been subject to careful restoration to keep them from crumbling to the elements. The pyramids, too, are showing extreme signs of wear as the outermost stones have all decayed away and blown into dust (it was built with smooth sides originally, remember?).

[Crazy Eddie]

Deckerd wrote:

---

Well he hasn't been trained in any discipline as far as I can see. It's the same as "I haven't seen the film but I know it sucks". To dismiss the entire archeological discipline, never mind the achievement of the sciences, is too silly to even be risible.

That reminds me of a scene from the Boondocks.

Grandad: What do you have against Soul Plane? That movie was funny!
Huey: Funny like a lynching.
Grandad: You never even saw it!
Huey: I've never seen a lynching either, but I know they're not funny.

[BillJ]

The Castellan wrote:

---

...

Still waiting for the smallest piece of tangible evidence to back up your claims.

[TIN_MAN]

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

I repeat: you do know Cephren was black, right?

Curious, Is there scientific proof for this twice-repeated dogmatic statement?

[Crazy Eddie]

TIN_MAN wrote:

---

Curious, Is there scientific proof for this twice-repeated dogmatic statement?

Because Cephren -- better known by his actual name Khafra -- reigned some time during the 4th dynasty, between about 2400 and 2700 BC. Not only would this put it about 5000 years prior to significant Arab colonization of the region, it's also about a thousand years before Egypt had any significant cultural, economic or military exchanges with European or middle eastern cultures (e.g. the Macedonians, the Persians, the Ptolemics, etc). Their closest neighbors and primary trading partners were the Nubians and the Ethiopians and to a lesser extent the Sudanese. The reason Egypt is predominantly Arab NOW is because the Arabs spent a thousand years doing in Egypt what they've only recently begun doing in Sudan. Or, at the risk of oversimplification, they raped all the women and raised the children themselves (a similar thing happened in the Arab conquest of Spain). Prior to at least the Macedonian conquest -- if not slightly earlier -- the Nile Delta civilization wasn't genetically all that different from any other African nation; their CURRENT racial identity is a kind of genetic trailmix with contributions of everyone who ever conquered the place, and that's a VERY long list.

What are you asking for, though? A genetic study proving that Khafra was actually black? You might as well ask for scientific evidence that Caesar was white.