PDA

View Full Version : Humanity's True History - Ancient Aliens



Arthros
2010-Dec-22, 08:57 PM
You may have heard of the ancient astronaut/aliens theory.
What are your thoughts on this subject, have any questions related to it?, or we can discuss anything you like about this subject with respect.
For basic info:
http://www.crystalinks.com/ancientastronauts.html
Quick Videos for the first part: http://www.world-mysteries.com/aa.htm

UPDATED: (Sorry for the last post, I was not clear, and I post it fast.)

PetersCreek
2010-Dec-22, 09:12 PM
Welcome to the BAUT forums, Arthros.

Soliciting opinions on such a broad topic isn't really what this forum is about. If you have a CT claim to make, you are welcome to make your case here, in this forum. Before doing so, you should read our rules, linked in my signature line below.

You may not place any conditions on other members' participation. They do not have to comply with your instructions before posting. And after all, you don't have "ALL the evidence" either.

R.A.F.
2010-Dec-22, 09:35 PM
You may have heard of the ancient astronaut/aliens theory.

Too much so...it is the worst kind of bunk.

I hope you understand that The History Channel is not considered a reliable source of information.

Garrison
2010-Dec-22, 09:35 PM
You may have heard of the ancient astronaut/aliens theory.
Post your opinion on the subject, only after you saw ALL the evidence.
Evidence are being discovered everyday, so you cant make a full decision until you see EVERYTHING.
For BASIC info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Aliens
http://www.history.com/shows/ancient-aliens

Please DO NOT argue until you have seen ALL the evidence until the day you posted.

Best Regards,
The Universe.
Does that include all the evidence that shows the ancient aliens 'proof' offered to date is either the product of misinterpretation or outright hoax? You seem to assume that not believing in ancient aliens is the product of not reviewing the evidence, I would suggest that if you take the program in your link seriously you have failed to review the evidence that shows Von Daniken is a charlatan.

Van Rijn
2010-Dec-22, 10:03 PM
You may have heard of the ancient astronaut/aliens theory.


I used to read a lot about it back when Erich von Däniken was popular. Then I learned about how he did his research (badly, often ignoring well known historical context and sometimes just making stuff up). I haven't heard of anyone that has made a successful argument. If you have arguments you think are convincing, please present them.



For BASIC info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Aliens


The information at that link is about a TV show called "Ancient Aliens." Among other things, it says the pilot episode was about Erich von Däniken. If you watched it, could you tell me how they presented Däniken? Did they discuss some of his more famous errors? If they did, I might be interested in seeing the show. If they let all his nonsense pass, then it should be all anyone needs to know about the show.

eburacum45
2010-Dec-22, 10:36 PM
This subject interests me; my wife is an archaeology graduate, and she has some very interesting insights into the ancient alien mythos.
Arthros; rather than simply pointing as a very general Wiki page, I recommend you chose one or more particularly interesting examples which convince you, and we can discuss them.

Arthros
2010-Dec-22, 11:21 PM
Sorry for the last post. Updated it.

As for the theory, please take a look at the link in the above thread.
As for a quick video evidence, second link.

And is not mainly Eric Von Daniken proposing this theory; many professionals in different fields from archaeology to physics are considering this theory in being somewhat possibly true.
And yes, I agree that the History channel is not always a good information source, and that Eric is somewhat fictional, but as I said, Eric has done little in the true evidence found. But the thing is that, the evidence is there; you may look at the evidence from another point of view, but you still do not have an answer for so many questions that this theory might answer (possibly the right way with the obvious evidence), but again, we have to think a different way to understand this theory which might answer so many questions.
And again, look back in history, so many theories were though to be impossible and unimaginable, yet, we are living them today.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-22, 11:47 PM
I hope you understand that The History Channel is not considered a reliable source of information.

Depending on what you're watching, of course. But if it's about anything even a hint out of the mainstream, there are a lot better sources.

R.A.F.
2010-Dec-22, 11:50 PM
Sorry for the last post. Updated it.

Word to the wise...you don't want to make a "habit" of changing your posts in such a manner...


As for the theory, please take a look at the link in the above thread.
As for a quick video evidence, second link.

No...we're not here to debunk links. If you have an argument, then present that argument.



And is not mainly Eric Von Daniken proposing this theory

This is why you shouldn't have changed your first post...now you are back tracking from what you originally posted without admitting error.


...many professionals in different fields from archaeology to physics are considering this theory in being somewhat possibly true.

Name those "professionals".


And yes, I agree that the History channel is not always a good information source...

Then why link to it in your first post?


...the thing is that, the evidence is there...

Then resent that evidence...not more links.


...look back in history, so many theories were though to be impossible and unimaginable, yet, we are living them today.

Completely irrelevant. We're not talking about "other theories".

R.A.F.
2010-Dec-22, 11:53 PM
Depending on what you're watching, of course. But if it's about anything even a hint out of the mainstream, there are a lot better sources.

Seems that lately, they go way past "a hint out of the mainstream". Heck, their "on demand" selection looks like an advertisement for some sort of paranormal magazine.

There are good shows, but they are becoming more and more fewer and farther between.

Arthros
2010-Dec-23, 12:11 AM
Ok, your saying to post the evidence and no more links.
The thing is that you cant see all the evidence in just some simple definition words.

PetersCreek
2010-Dec-23, 12:13 AM
Sorry for the last post. Updated it.

Arthros,

Please do not go back and edit posts for content like that. We take revisionism very seriously here. Please, you really should read our rules.


Word to the wise...you don't want to make a "habit" of changing your posts in such a manner...

Please leave such corrections to the moderators.

slang
2010-Dec-23, 12:14 AM
Then resent that evidence...

Present? Let's not resent it before we see it. ;)

Strange
2010-Dec-23, 12:25 AM
As for the theory, please take a look at the link in the above thread.

OK. Have you any evidence for these ideas?


But the thing is that, the evidence is there

Where? What evidence?


but you still do not have an answer for so many questions that this theory might answer

What questions? And what is wrong with the existing answers?

Ronald Brak
2010-Dec-23, 01:30 AM
In Australia there are cave paintings of figures that have been interpreted as being of ancient astronauts wearing space helmets floating in space. However, the figures are obviously not wearing any pants. Now this may seem odd, but at various times I've recieved emails offerring to sell me vacuum pump devices that are supposedly good for the lower regions, so perhaps going pantless in space can have benefits. I'm calling this the Von Daniken Spam Filter Conjecture and I will investigate it further every time I delete my junk folder.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-23, 01:45 AM
Seems that lately, they go way past "a hint out of the mainstream". Heck, their "on demand" selection looks like an advertisement for some sort of paranormal magazine.

I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying that, once that small step is taken, they seem to go running as far into the realm of "sensationalized and badly researched" as they can get.


There are good shows, but they are becoming more and more fewer and farther between.

Alas yes. Anyone else miss This Week in History?

Swift
2010-Dec-23, 02:23 AM
And is not mainly Eric Von Daniken proposing this theory; many professionals in different fields from archaeology to physics are considering this theory in being somewhat possibly true.
Name one. Name a single professional from a relevant field who thinks this is possibly true.

ravens_cry
2010-Dec-23, 03:34 AM
Ancient astronauts makes for interesting fiction. Stargate SG-1 was one of my favourite Science Fiction series and considering how long it lasted, for others too. But if you think about it, a lot of the base assumptions are more then a little racist and demeaning of humanity and general. The idea that ancient cultures couldn't do some pretty cool things in their own right, without aid from help from the sky is rather insulting to human ingenuity.
Often,it is a complete failure of imagination on the theorists part.

Stonehenge seems to be one of the classic 'examples' in these theories, and one man has shown that with a little preparation, great stones can be raised and moved literally single handedly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRDzFROMx0). For moving the stones across the landscape to the site, stone rowing (http://archaeoastronomy.wordpress.com/2005/06/30/stonehengelive-the-post-mortem/) has been proposed. I have seen video of this in action, and while slow it works without roads. This is definitely a plus in Neolithic Briton. Were these the methods used? We don't know. But what they do show is that the work could be done by our ancestors without invoking Deus ex machina like aliens.

Another frequent subject of claims of alien intervention and assistance is the great pyramids. One relativity new answer, completely within the means available to the ancient Egyptians, was a rolling stone carrier, described here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62pRzhLmNu4) There is more then just theory to this one, models of these devices have been found in tombs, but until recently we didn't identify them for what they were.
No need for the fictional Atlantean Orb our friend in the Youtube comments posits, just human ingenuity and muscle.

To quote Cassius from Julius Caesar, though hardly in the way the Bard intended, "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves."

gzhpcu
2010-Dec-23, 11:38 AM
I never understood why advanced races coming to earth, could possibily be responsible for technologically primitive structures....

captain swoop
2010-Dec-23, 12:16 PM
Can we keep off the side discussion of the History Channel and its merits please?

Buttercup
2010-Dec-23, 12:33 PM
Well since it's been asked, I've read most of Zecharia Sitchin's books and I think he's onto something. Seriously.

My right/opinion.

captain swoop
2010-Dec-23, 12:41 PM
Buttercup, you need to keep that for a thread of your own. This is for Arthros to defend his own ideas.

gzhpcu
2010-Dec-23, 12:48 PM
The site mentioned in the first post shows Easter Island, Pyramids, the lines seen from the air in South America .Why would advanced aliens need a landing strip?? Why the primitive stones of Stonehenge? Why should they even remotely resemble us? No, these stories I find just too silly....

eburacum45
2010-Dec-23, 01:13 PM
The links you posted contain many different ideas, most of which have been soundly debunked. Please pick one idea- the best one, in your opinion, and we shall discuss it. Then, if necessary, we can move on to other individual cases. But just posting a generalised link is not good enough, as it does not make clear which of the ideas presented within you wish to discuss.

Peter B
2010-Dec-23, 01:37 PM
You may have heard of the ancient astronaut/aliens theory.
What are your thoughts on this subject, have any questions related to it?, or we can discuss anything you like about this subject with respect.
For basic info:
http://www.crystalinks.com/ancientastronauts.html
Quick Videos for the first part: http://www.world-mysteries.com/aa.htm

UPDATED: (Sorry for the last post, I was not clear, and I post it fast.)

I had a quick look at that link, and it mentioned a couple of topics I know a bit about:

Piri Reis map: If I remember correctly, the section of the map which supposedly shows Antarctica includes descriptions of all the snakes and spices in the land. Not a very accurate description of Antarctica.

Pyramids: If you want to build a tall building, there are four things which people knew of in medieval times which would help you: arches, concrete, pulleys and iron tools. If aliens helped the Egyptians build the pyramids, why didn't they demonstrate even these straightforward technologies to them? Or did the aliens have more primitive building technology than Europe's cathedral builders?

NEOWatcher
2010-Dec-23, 02:11 PM
But the thing is that, the evidence is there; you may look at the evidence from another point of view, but you still do not have an answer for so many questions that this theory might answer (possibly the right way with the obvious evidence), but again, we have to think a different way to understand this theory which might answer so many questions.
Evidence is there, but evidence of what. There are plenty of terrestrial explainations of that evidence.
No we don't have answers for "this theory", we have answers for other more plausible theories.


And again, look back in history, so many theories were though to be impossible and unimaginable, yet, we are living them today.
"Thought" is the keyword. Those thoughts were based on lack of evidence. Also based on lack of directly opposing evidence.
For the items in those links, we already have opposing evidence.

A.DIM
2010-Dec-23, 03:48 PM
And is not mainly Eric Von Daniken proposing this theory; many professionals in different fields from archaeology to physics are considering this theory in being somewhat possibly true. And yes, I agree that the History channel is not always a good information source, and that Eric is somewhat fictional, but as I said, Eric has done little in the true evidence found. But the thing is that, the evidence is there; you may look at the evidence from another point of view, but you still do not have an answer for so many questions that this theory might answer (possibly the right way with the obvious evidence), but again, we have to think a different way to understand this theory which might answer so many questions. And again, look back in history, so many theories were though to be impossible and unimaginable, yet, we are living them today.

I'm interested in the questions "that this theory might answer," and what you think accepting it as "true history" portends for humanity's future.

ravens_cry
2010-Dec-23, 04:45 PM
Pyramids: If you want to build a tall building, there are four things which people knew of in medieval times which would help you: arches, concrete, pulleys and iron tools. If aliens helped the Egyptians build the pyramids, why didn't they demonstrate even these straightforward technologies to them? Or did the aliens have more primitive building technology than Europe's cathedral builders?
Heh, reminds me of a certain Futurama episode where the Egyptians indeed helped the aliens.
But in all seriousness, it would not surprise me if in a few thousand years future conspiracy theorists will start claiming that ancient astronauts helped build Ancient European Cathedrals, pointing to the astronaut in the New Cathedral of Salamanca (http://www.snopes.com/photos/architecture/salamanca.asp)as 'proof' of their claims.
Heckles cakes, it's already started.

Garrison
2010-Dec-23, 08:38 PM
Ok, your saying to post the evidence and no more links.
The thing is that you cant see all the evidence in just some simple definition words.

Well here's what you could do in some simple words:

Provide the names of some of those professionals you mentioned in an earlier post.
State which human achievements required alien intervention to accomplish.

eburacum45
2010-Dec-23, 09:39 PM
... ancient astronauts helped build Ancient European Cathedrals, pointing to the astronaut in the New Cathedral of Salamanca (http://www.snopes.com/photos/architecture/salamanca.asp)as 'proof' of their claims.

There's one of those in York Minster, a boss in the roof restored in 1985
http://www.bbc.co.uk/northyorkshire/content/images/2005/10/05/astronaut_boss_120x120.jpg

kleindoofy
2010-Dec-23, 11:20 PM
I really don't understand why anybody would bother taking time to debunk claims about so-called ancient aliens.

If I claimed the shed in my back yard was constructed by an alien so a unicorn could play Atomic Monopoly with an invisible elf, Santa Claus, and Julius Ceasar, I doubt anybody would seriously bother debunking my belief.

So why bother with claims about ancient aliens? They're not any more credible than the activities behind my house. Woo is woo.

Peter B
2010-Dec-24, 12:04 PM
I really don't understand why anybody would bother taking time to debunk claims about so-called ancient aliens.

If I claimed the shed in my back yard was constructed by an alien so a unicorn could play Atomic Monopoly with an invisible elf, Santa Claus, and Julius Ceasar, I doubt anybody would seriously bother debunking my belief.

So why bother with claims about ancient aliens? They're not any more credible than the activities behind my house. Woo is woo.

Why take time to debunk claims like this? Because there are people who are seriously convinced there's something to them. It might be obvious to you that it's bunk, but it isn't at all obvious to others.

gzhpcu
2010-Dec-25, 09:37 AM
Right. If no comments are made, lurkers think that silence means tacit agreement...

Starfury
2010-Dec-25, 02:40 PM
many professionals in different fields from archaeology to physics are considering this theory in being somewhat possibly true.


If you're planning to list Giorgio Tsoukoulas as one of these "professionals", don't waste your time. He is as much of a crackpot as Von Daniken, believes that aliens built all the massive monuments of the ancient world (complete with indoor plumbing and lighting), and basically posits that ancient humans were dumber than the offspring of Jenny McCarthy and Johnny Knoxville.

Van Rijn
2010-Dec-26, 03:37 AM
Why take time to debunk claims like this? Because there are people who are seriously convinced there's something to them. It might be obvious to you that it's bunk, but it isn't at all obvious to others.

Yes, when I was younger I liked the ancient astronaut idea, and read Erich von Däniken books. The problems with the claims were not always obvious to me. Among other things, it was very helpful for me to read what archeologists had to say about the arguments - how, for instance, Däniken and others often ignored known cultural context of artifacts they used in their claims, and rarely corrected their errors even after they were pointed out.

Van Rijn
2010-Dec-26, 05:49 AM
If you're planning to list Giorgio Tsoukoulas as one of these "professionals", don't waste your time.


I googled his name and found this comment:

http://www.disinfo.com/tag/david-h-childress/



Disinformation friend Giorgio Tsoukalos just emailed us to let us know that the “Ancient Aliens” special starring Giorgio and Erich von Daniken (among others) is becoming a full-blown TV series. The special was the rare History Channel show that avoided the usual skeptical treatment afforded by that channel’s producers and was well worth watching, so I have high hopes for the series:

We did it. This time, we REALLY did it!

I don’t even know where to begin, so I’ll just make it very short and VERY sweet:

Due to the success of ANCIENT ALIENS (2009), the show was picked up by the History Channel for a series!


Wow. The key reason I stopped watching the history channel is because there were too many cases where they presented extraordinary claims without a "skeptical treatment," yet this guy seems to think skepticism is the standard for the channel, and that this show is a rare exception. I expect that means this show is massively biased, with no hint of counterarguments at all.

Garrison
2010-Dec-26, 02:19 PM
I googled his name and found this comment:

http://www.disinfo.com/tag/david-h-childress/




Wow. The key reason I stopped watching the history channel is because there were too many cases where they presented extraordinary claims without a "skeptical treatment," yet this guy seems to think skepticism is the standard for the channel, and that this show is a rare exception. I expect that means this show is massively biased, with no hint of counterarguments at all.

And he appears to believe skepticism is somehow a bad thing, that we should simply take the works of Von Daniken and co. at face value.

korjik
2010-Dec-26, 08:18 PM
I really don't understand why anybody would bother taking time to debunk claims about so-called ancient aliens.

If I claimed the shed in my back yard was constructed by an alien so a unicorn could play Atomic Monopoly with an invisible elf, Santa Claus, and Julius Ceasar, I doubt anybody would seriously bother debunking my belief.

So why bother with claims about ancient aliens? They're not any more credible than the activities behind my house. Woo is woo.

Of course your claim is not credible. Unicorns dont have hands....

:)

Lone Wolf
2010-Dec-27, 07:50 PM
The way I remember the Piri Reis map was that he'd copied it from much older sources, one of which showed Antarctica free of ice, and to a remarkable accuracy of what we now know to be under those miles of ice.
It's been some years since I last read of it though, and memory is never a good substitute for reality. :P

Garrison
2010-Dec-27, 09:50 PM
The way I remember the Piri Reis map was that he'd copied it from much older sources, one of which showed Antarctica free of ice, and to a remarkable accuracy of what we now know to be under those miles of ice.
It's been some years since I last read of it though, and memory is never a good substitute for reality. :P

Well the analysis mentioned here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piri_Reis_map#Analysis)suggests a couple of simpler explanations than some lost civilization mapping Antarctica.

JAXAi
2010-Dec-29, 10:45 AM
Ok, now I am not some "ancient alien" promoter, I read a bunch about it a fews years back. Found it slightly fascinating.

Many of the posters in this thread asked for evidence and one point that I didn't see raised (nor debunked) is this:

Roughly 150,000 - 200,000 years ago we went from having 48 chromosomes to 46. None of the other higher primates have 46 chromosomes, our closest relatives. The second and third of the higher primate chromosomes have been fused within the chromosomal package of humans to give us 46 chromosomal spaces instead of 48, even though we retain the full amount of genomic material contained in 48. This is scientific fact.

To paraphrase Loyd Pie:

Why? Why would nature perform this astounding bit of genetic magic to create us? Better yet, how could nature perform such a miracle of microscopic fusion (this is a phenomena not seen elsewhere, but we also havent sequenced every species on the planet yet)? Could it have been completely unguided, by sheer chance? Its not likely; the telomeres at the ends of the 2nd and 3rd chromosomes have to be precisely removed so that when the two truncated remainders are put back together to form one whole, each part will function as if they were still separate.

Again I dont have any strong feelings either way.

However if an alien species was looking for needed resources, found a planet with borderline intelligent hominids which could be modified genetically to increase intelligence and follow orders, and then be used for slave labor mining their needed space materials.

Like Gold. One thing I always found fascinating was that one of the most needed elements for advanced electronics and space materials happens to be the very same element we have valued and (darn near worshiped) since the dawn of our civilization.

It is within the realm of possibility, however it would be almost impossible to prove conclusively even if it were true.

Unless they came back (cue dark music..dun dun dun)

NEOWatcher
2010-Dec-29, 01:30 PM
To paraphrase Loyd Pie:
I wonder if Lloyd Pye knew anything about Aneuploidy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneuploidy), or is ignoring it because he's just an author pushing the ancient alien ideas.


However if an alien species was looking for needed resources, found a planet with borderline intelligent hominids which could be modified genetically to increase intelligence and follow orders, and then be used for slave labor mining their needed space materials.
I don't see why they would do this for small scale mining. If it were large scale, I would think we would see evidence of mines, or areas where the content would be in the wrong concentrations


Like Gold. One thing I always found fascinating was that one of the most needed elements for advanced electronics and space materials happens to be the very same element we have valued and (damn near worshiped) since the dawn of our civilization.
That's one. How about Silicon, Carbon and other metals that are needed?
Yet there are plenty of "oooh shiny" things that are also valued that have no purpose or are more common so the value goes down.

tnjrp
2010-Dec-29, 02:04 PM
Yes, when I was younger I liked the ancient astronaut idea, and read Erich von Däniken booksThis must've been a common pasttime among the young to-be skeptics of certain age :)


Däniken and others often ignored known cultural context of artifacts they used in their claims, and rarely corrected their errors even after they were pointed out.I do believe one of old Eric's tricks was also flatly ignore the age differences of his various pieces of evidence (he riles against scientific dating methods of artefacts in one of his early books, I forget which) in order to make it seem like his "ancient astronauts" visited in an unspecified single period of Earth's history. Or that's the impression I got after re-perusing some of his books during my summer holidays.

naiveharry
2010-Dec-29, 03:22 PM
Evidence from what I saw of the series:

Tiwanaku: Again megalithic structure with stone blocks weighing 400 tons.

Pumapunku: Stone slabs weighing 800 Tons, intricate patterns in granite/Diorite stone, not possible in stone age, need diamond edges.

Interlocking stones, amazing finish, proper 90 degree angles. Joints are not penetrable even with a pin.

Someone mentioned dragging stone, of such mass, from one place to another is possible by even a single man, but what about picking them up and putting them in place, 20 or even 100 feet high.

gunchetan
2010-Dec-29, 03:36 PM
The site mentioned in the first post shows Easter Island, Pyramids, the lines seen from the air in South America .Why would advanced aliens need a landing strip?? Why the primitive stones of Stonehenge? Why should they even remotely resemble us? No, these stories I find just too silly....

i have never found posts like the one above to be a good way to present an argument.
this really a very narrow minded view to disprove a theory that has been put forward - to simply call it "silly"...
if we entertain all these ancient phenomenn and how tech. advanced the old civilization were...if we rationally entertain the idea of why all old manuscripts seem to have this common theme of beings from space ruling over humans and ook at all the unexplained phenomenon and questions from our past...
i believe the ancient astonaut theory comes out real good at explaining all this...

Swift
2010-Dec-29, 04:07 PM
Someone mentioned dragging stone, of such mass, from one place to another is possible by even a single man, but what about picking them up and putting them in place, 20 or even 100 feet high.
I recall from decades ago, a NOVA or other PBS show debunking the von Däniken books. One thing they did was actually go to Easter Island and talk to the current residents. They demonstrated for the cameras, how the large stones for the heads could be carved out of the rock faces there using simple hand tools, moved fairly easily on rollers by people, and how they could dig a hole in the ground and tilt one of these stones into the hole so it stood upright. They just didn't bother to carve the face.

There have been more recent science programs showing how similar simple devices and manpower could make pyramids.

There is no reason to doubt that neolithic people, who were as intelligent as we are, with simple hand tools, enough manpower, and time and patience could do all this stuff. And to think that it requires aliens is actually insulting to their efforts.

Do you think the wonders of ancient Rome, or the great medieval cathedrals of Europe, which were built with similar tools, had to be built by aliens?

NEOWatcher
2010-Dec-29, 04:30 PM
i have never found posts like the one above to be a good way to present an argument.
this really a very narrow minded view to disprove a theory that has been put forward - to simply call it "silly"...
Considering that there were questions posed that frame the situation, it's not "Simply" silly. Plus, posing questions is a sign of being open minded. It's considered silly for the reasons that those questions remain unanswered. Whether you agree or not is another issue.


i believe the ancient astonaut theory comes out real good at explaining all this...
So do I. Unfortunately, I believe in other more reasonable theories that outweigh that one to such an extreme that it's not even worth considering.

JAXAi
2010-Dec-29, 04:35 PM
I wonder if Lloyd Pye knew anything about Aneuploidy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneuploidy), or is ignoring it because he's just an author pushing the ancient alien ideas.

Well I would imagine someone arguing on the side of Mr. Pye would say that Aneuploidy is an abnormality and not the norm for a specific species as is the 48 chromosomes in a normal higher primate, our nearest cousins on the evolutionary tree and that home-sapiens normal which is 46. This is distinctly different than in the case of Aneuploidy which by its very definition is an abnormality and not significant of the species.

From your Wikipedia link:


Aneuploidy is an abnormal number of chromosomes, and is a type of chromosome abnormality. An extra or missing chromosome is a common cause of genetic disorders (birth defects). Some cancer cells also have abnormal numbers of chromosomes.[1] Aneuploidy occurs during cell division when the chromosomes do not separate properly between the two cells. Chromosome abnormalities occur in 1 of 160 live births, the most common being extra chromosomes 21, 18 and 13.

For the abnormality to become significant and a part of the road from homo-eructus et. al. to homo-sapiens we should see evidence of this in the fossell record. There is no existence of such. ALL chomosomal data in the lower steps of the evolutionary tree (undiscovered data not withstanding) show 48 chromosomes. Of the higher apes there is only one species which shows 46, that is us. And it appeared suddenly as heck circa 200k years ago. A blink in the eye of evolutionary time.

Paul Beardsley
2010-Dec-29, 05:16 PM
There seem to be two kinds of people in discussions like this.

Those who want to know the truth, and those who want it to be aliens.

Grashtel
2010-Dec-29, 05:22 PM
There seem to be two kinds of people in discussions like this.

Those who want to know the truth, and those who want it to be aliens.
I'd say three types, those who want to know the truth, those who want it to be aliens, and those who already know The TruthTM and want to spread it, though no type 3s seem to have shown up yet and they tend not to last very long in environments like BAUT.

NEOWatcher
2010-Dec-29, 06:31 PM
Well I would imagine someone arguing on the side of Mr. Pye would say that Aneuploidy is an abnormality and not the norm for a specific species as is the 48 chromosomes in a normal higher primate, our nearest cousins on the evolutionary tree and that home-sapiens normal which is 46. This is distinctly different than in the case of Aneuploidy which by its very definition is an abnormality and not significant of the species.
And that can be said of any kind of genetic drift. They are all caused by abnormalities.
Basically; that leads to saying evolutionary processes as being abnormal.

Not all abnormalities are bad.


For the abnormality to become significant and a part of the road from homo-eructus et. al. to homo-sapiens we should see evidence of this in the fossell record. There is no existence of such.
Missing link? So what's the fossil evidence between other species with chromosonal differences?

ALL chomosomal data in the lower steps of the evolutionary tree (undiscovered data not withstanding) show 48 chromosomes. Of the higher apes there is only one species which shows 46, that is us.
Yep; that's what makes us us.


And it appeared suddenly as <your word> circa 200k years ago. A blink in the eye of evolutionary time.
Define evolutionary time, and define how long it should have taken as opposed to how long it should have taken man to "appear" and not seem "sudden".
(and please watch the language)

Strange
2010-Dec-29, 06:41 PM
Evidence from what I saw of the series:

Pumapunku: Stone slabs weighing 800 Tons, intricate patterns in granite/Diorite stone, not possible in stone age, need diamond edges.

Who says it needs diamond? Surely that would only make it quicker.


Someone mentioned dragging stone, of such mass, from one place to another is possible by even a single man, but what about picking them up and putting them in place, 20 or even 100 feet high.

We have documentary evidence of how some such structures were built. We also have archeological evidence of the processes used. Many of these techniques have been recreated. So where is the need for aliens?

Gillianren
2010-Dec-29, 06:42 PM
The aquatic rat has 92 chromosomes, more than any other mammal. What does that prove?

Strange
2010-Dec-29, 06:48 PM
Well I would imagine someone arguing on the side of Mr. Pye would say that Aneuploidy is an abnormality and not the norm for a specific species as is the 48 chromosomes in a normal higher primate, our nearest cousins on the evolutionary tree and that home-sapiens normal which is 46. This is distinctly different than in the case of Aneuploidy which by its very definition is an abnormality and not significant of the species.

If change in chromosome number were not a normal part of evolution, all species would have the same number of chromosomes.


For the abnormality to become significant and a part of the road from homo-eructus et. al. to homo-sapiens we should see evidence of this in the fossell record. There is no existence of such.

I'm not quite sure what you would expect to see in the fossil record, except a change in the number of chromosomes. Which ...


ALL chomosomal data in the lower steps of the evolutionary tree (undiscovered data not withstanding) show 48 chromosomes. Of the higher apes there is only one species which shows 46, that is us.

... exists. So there is your evidence of a change in chromosome number.

JAXAi
2010-Dec-29, 07:21 PM
(and please watch the language)

Seriously? (Language) is a dirty word here? I happen to be a father of 2 and try as I might, I hear a "heck" of a lot worse than that. Seriously? I mean SERIOUSLY (and I despise the use of all Caps.. but this is called for).

May I ask how old you are? Do you have children? If you have a problem with me using H, E double hockey sticks.. (whooo did he just say that) I am gonna laugh my gluteus maximus all the way to bed this evening. Because that is the most infantile thing I have heard in years. I was laughing just to see you post it. Its not even one of the 7 dirties you cant say on network television! (See Carlin, George)


I'd say three types, those who want to know the truth, those who want it to be aliens, and those who already know The TruthTM and want to spread it, though no type 3s seem to have shown up yet and they tend not to last very long in environments like BAUT.

You missed a type: Those who attack the people making the argument and/or debate as opposed to the actual facts and arguements of the debate (which they may not understand themselves so settle on taking cheap shots on a newbie versus posting something which could possibly expose their lack of knowledge on the subject.

But hey while we are being passive aggressive.

slang
2010-Dec-29, 07:53 PM
For the abnormality to become significant and a part of the road from homo-eructus et. al. to homo-sapiens we should see evidence of this in the fossell record. There is no existence of such. ALL chomosomal data in the lower steps of the evolutionary tree (undiscovered data not withstanding) show 48 chromosomes. Of the higher apes there is only one species which shows 46, that is us. And it appeared suddenly as hell circa 200k years ago. A blink in the eye of evolutionary time.

You'll have to dive into some biology to learn more, but AIUI, chromosomes are less important than the genes themselves. Read PZ Myers' explanation:

Pharyngula: Basics: How can chromosome numbers change? (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/basics_how_can_chromosome_numb.php)

Garrison
2010-Dec-29, 07:58 PM
This must've been a common pasttime among the young to-be skeptics of certain age :)


I think it was, perhaps after you've been burned like that you become much more demanding when it comes to proof and evidence. I think the thing that did it for me was Von Daniken's photo of the Nazca lines showing 'parking bays' for spacecraft. Then I saw a Horizon documentary that showed it was a closeup of a bird drawing about twenty feet across!

Jim
2010-Dec-29, 08:16 PM
Seriously? (Language) is a dirty word here? I happen to be a father of 2 and try as I might, I hear a "heck" of a lot worse than that. Seriously? I mean SERIOUSLY (and I despise the use of all Caps.. but this is called for).

Yes, seriously. BAUT tries to keep itself classroom friendly. If a teacher wouldn't allow it in the classroom, we're not thrilled with it here. BAUT is viewed on school computers, which have "nanny filters" that could block us if we allow inappropriate language.


May I ask how old you are? Do you have children? If you have a problem with me using H, E double hockey sticks.. (whooo did he just say that) I am gonna laugh my gluteus maximus all the way to bed this evening. Because that is the most infantile thing I have heard in years. I was laughing just to see you post it. Its not even one of the 7 dirties you cant say on network television! (See Carlin, George)

...

You missed a type: Those who attack the people making the argument and/or debate as opposed to the actual facts and arguements of the debate (which they may not understand themselves so settle on taking cheap shots on a newbie versus posting something which could possibly expose their lack of knowledge on the subject.

But hey while we are being passive aggressive.

And BAUT also has a policy on Civility and Decorum - including ad hominems - which your remarks are very close to violating. It's Rule 2, and if you haven't yet you should read the Rules for Posting, especially Rule 0.

Garrison
2010-Dec-29, 08:16 PM
Evidence from what I saw of the series:

Pumapunku: Stone slabs weighing 800 Tons, intricate patterns in granite/Diorite stone, not possible in stone age, need diamond edges.


Actually they used techniques based on abrasives in ancient times, and there's plenty of carved granite in Scotland made before the availability of diamond edges


Interlocking stones, amazing finish, proper 90 degree angles. Joints are not penetrable even with a pin.

I saw a documentary that showed the use of a fairly simple tool to transfer the contours of the cut on one stone to another to ensure a snug fit. Should I believe the documentary with the practical demonstration or the one that says it 'must' have been aliens?


Someone mentioned dragging stone, of such mass, from one place to another is possible by even a single man, but what about picking them up and putting them in place, 20 or even 100 feet high.

Good question, did you do anything to find out about the existing explanations that have been developed by actual archaeologists such as ramps, rollers, pits, and barges?

NEOWatcher
2010-Dec-29, 08:19 PM
Seriously? (Language) is a dirty word here?

Would you care to respond to the information in the post rather than a single side comment? Do you have no response?

Swift
2010-Dec-29, 08:20 PM
Seriously? (Language) is a dirty word here? I happen to be a father of 2 and try as I might, I hear a "heck" of a lot worse than that. Seriously? I mean SERIOUSLY (and I despise the use of all Caps.. but this is called for).

May I ask how old you are? Do you have children? If you have a problem with me using H, E double hockey sticks.. (whooo did he just say that) I am gonna laugh my gluteus maximus all the way to bed this evening. Because that is the most infantile thing I have heard in years. I was laughing just to see you post it. Its not even one of the 7 dirties you cant say on network television! (See Carlin, George)
JAXAi

Yes, seriously. We have very strict rules on language. If you have not reviewed the rules (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/32864-Rules-For-Posting-To-This-Board) you may wish to do so, in this case rule 3, which gives the explanation.

I would also point out to both you and NEOWatcher rules 16 and 17, which cover reporting questionable posts and discussing rules and moderator actions, neither of which should be done in this thread.

Thank you for your cooperation.

MartianMarvin
2010-Dec-29, 09:11 PM
I'm pretty sure Borglum's men didn't use diamond- or carbide-edged tools to carve Mt. Rushmore. To be fair, they didn't use ancient tools, either (dynamite did nearly all of the heavy lifting). The point is that those particular tools aren't necessary for carving or shaping granite.

manxman
2010-Dec-30, 12:40 AM
Whats blatantly obvious is no=one here can remotely adaquately refute the chromosone question.

Hence the massive effort to unsettle and ban him as quickly as possible, dont want your schoolkid viewers being left with doubts, so dis-appear him as soon as, pronto.

Why is there no inbetween fossil records,ITS NOT A NATURAL OCCURANCE IS HIS STANCE, counter that, instead of employing under-hand debating tactics.

If you can, which i doubt very much, you will sooner attack me now, as futile as that will be,rather than attack the subject.

Garrison
2010-Dec-30, 12:51 AM
Whats blatantly obvious is no=one here can remotely adaquately refute the chromosone question.

Hence the massive effort to unsettle and ban him as quickly as possible, dont want your schoolkid viewers being left with doubts, so dis-appear him as soon as, pronto.

Why is there no inbetween fossil records,ITS NOT A NATURAL OCCURANCE IS HIS STANCE, counter that, instead of employing under-hand debating tactics.

If you can, which i doubt very much.

It's been responded to by several posters, and that there may be gaps in the fossil record is no evidence for some alien intervention. New fossils turn up every so often to fill in bits of the human evolutionary story but theres no guarantee we will ever have a clear unbroken lineage established, especially given that most hominids had relatively sparse populations.

Strange
2010-Dec-30, 12:53 AM
Why is there no inbetween fossil records,ITS NOT A NATURAL OCCURANCE IS HIS STANCE, counter that, instead of employing under-hand debating tactics.

Can you explain what in-between forms you would expect to see in the fossil record, because it isn't clear to me.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-30, 01:36 AM
Are we somehow expecting to see evidence of chromosome change in the fossil record? Because that's the only thing I can at all see has not been explained here.

And if it is, here's the answer. DNA doesn't fossilize at all well.

naiveharry
2010-Dec-30, 01:51 AM
Actually they used techniques based on abrasives in ancient times, and there's plenty of carved granite in Scotland made before the availability of diamond edges



I saw a documentary that showed the use of a fairly simple tool to transfer the contours of the cut on one stone to another to ensure a snug fit. Should I believe the documentary with the practical demonstration or the one that says it 'must' have been aliens?



Good question, did you do anything to find out about the existing explanations that have been developed by actual archaeologists such as ramps, rollers, pits, and barges?

Now the mainstream science believes that stone age man had limited knowledge, all of a sudden we get examples of his awesome knowledge in astronomy. That should be acknowledged at least and should be taught in school books, that our ancestors knew that earth rotates around sun, but this had to be rediscovered again in middle ages.
Please quote a link, saying I saw a documentary does not prove anything. Share the knowledge with us.
Seriously, 1000 ton stone, we have cranes now that can pick up 60 tons at a time. You say with the help of pits and barges you can place a 1000 tone stone slab in place may be 100 feet high in a megalithic structure. I will try to find this out, in the mean time, again please post some links demonstrating such techniques.
As for story of evolution from Darwin, he himself removed an example from his final book, "A bear taking to the water turning into fish and becoming monstrous whales", so the story narrates that one species turning into another and still such an example is not digestible by its own author, its a known fact that he had his reservation with majority of the evolution story. It should be noted that I am not saying that Aliens cam here and made human beings, I am just saying till we find the missing link, we should not close our eyes on new theories that might explain human origins.

manxman
2010-Dec-30, 02:03 AM
Can you explain what in-between forms you would expect to see in the fossil record, because it isn't clear to me.

Nor to me.
So i had a little nosy around to see if a could get a better handle on it.

You may find both the question and answer in these links interesting, i know i did.

Question
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2006-01/1138293720.Ev.q.html

Answer
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2006-01/1138293720.Ev.r.html

Swift
2010-Dec-30, 02:13 AM
Whats blatantly obvious is no=one here can remotely adaquately refute the chromosone question.

Hence the massive effort to unsettle and ban him as quickly as possible, dont want your schoolkid viewers being left with doubts, so dis-appear him as soon as, pronto.

Why is there no inbetween fossil records,ITS NOT A NATURAL OCCURANCE IS HIS STANCE, counter that, instead of employing under-hand debating tactics.

If you can, which i doubt very much, you will sooner attack me now, as futile as that will be,rather than attack the subject.
manxman,

Chill. There is no massive effort to ban anyone, including you. But we will enforce the rules that we have, including those on language. And as I already said, this thread is not the place to discuss the rules or their enforcement.

We also have rules that those advocating non-mainstream ideas, such as ancient aliens, are required to prove their ideas. It is not up to the rest of us to disprove them, though individual members may address questions if they wish to.

So, since you are talking up the gauntlet of ancient aliens, it is up to you to prove them and to answer questions put to you. If you do not, you will be infracted, without any massive effort.

Swift
2010-Dec-30, 02:19 AM
Now the mainstream science believes that stone age man had limited knowledge, all of a sudden we get examples of his awesome knowledge in astronomy. That should be acknowledged at least and should be taught in school books, that our ancestors knew that earth rotates around sun, but this had to be rediscovered again in middle ages.

I do not believe mainstream science believes stone age man had either limited knowledge or awesome knowledge. But there is ample evidence that many ancient cultures had a good practical working knowledge of astronomy, that could be obtained by careful naked eye observations, record keeping, and in some cases, simple math. None of what they knew required that they understand the Earth rotates around the sun, nor is there evidence that this was known.

As far as being taught in school, I took a course in the History of Visual Astronomy in 1979 at my undergraduate school, Polytechnic Institute of New York. We covered many of these topics. Google archaeoastronomy (http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~tlaloc/archastro/cfaar_as.html) for a lot more information, including multiple textbooks.

manxman
2010-Dec-30, 02:21 AM
Nor to me.
So i had a little nosy around to see if a could get a better handle on it.

You may find both the question and answer in these links interesting, i know i did.

Question
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2006-01/1138293720.Ev.q.html

Answer
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2006-01/1138293720.Ev.r.html


Strange
It looks like he asked the same questions here aswell.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00679.htm.

Moderator

I am not taking his torch, couldnt careless about ancient astronauts, i wanted to learn more about the chromosome gig.
I have now done that, its clear no-one knows why it happened, only occams razor has been applied, and a common consensus reached.

Halcyon Dayz
2010-Dec-30, 02:34 AM
If there is one, it is: no-one knows.

In the absense of facts one can only speculate.

naiveharry
2010-Dec-30, 02:39 AM
I do not believe mainstream science believes stone age man had either limited knowledge or awesome knowledge. But there is ample evidence that many ancient cultures had a good practical working knowledge of astronomy, that could be obtained by careful naked eye observations, record keeping, and in some cases, simple math. None of what they knew required that they understand the Earth rotates around the sun, nor is there evidence that this was known.

As far as being taught in school, I took a course in the History of Visual Astronomy in 1979 at my undergraduate school, Polytechnic Institute of New York. We covered many of these topics. Google archaeoastronomy (http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~tlaloc/archastro/cfaar_as.html) for a lot more information, including multiple textbooks.

At this point, I would also like to draw attention to Sumerian tablet "Cylinder seal VA 243". This clearly proves they knew very well about our solar system.

Swift
2010-Dec-30, 03:19 AM
At this point, I would also like to draw attention to Sumerian tablet "Cylinder seal VA 243". This clearly proves they knew very well about our solar system.
One website debunking that (http://www.michaelsheiser.com/va_243%20page.htm)

Previous discussion, right here on BAUT (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/87926-Nibiru-first-sight-Disprove-please./page3)

naiveharry
2010-Dec-30, 03:40 AM
One website debunking that (http://www.michaelsheiser.com/va_243%20page.htm)
Previous discussion, right here on BAUT (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/87926-Nibiru-first-sight-Disprove-please./page3)
Its a tablet up for interpretation, one interpretation is as good as another, till the Sumerians come and tell what it means.
Mayan calendar :)

gunchetan
2010-Dec-30, 04:39 AM
Its a tablet up for interpretation, one interpretation is as good as another, till the Sumerians come and tell what it means.
Mayan calendar :)

very well said...

the current prevelant theories ahave a lot of holes...the ancient astronomer theory is another theory and must be given due consideration...
the main issues from where the ancient astronomy theory comes forward are the ones that seem to be either unexplained by the prevelant theories or the current anomalies in these theories...dwarinism is facing Major setbacks by our gains in microbiology as they keep on finding big holes and unexplained phenomenon like the very famous 'junk DNA' of the dwarvinists or the 'missing link' in the evolution chain......nobody is saying that evolution is non - existant ..but it is clearly failing to explain the link between current humans and the primitive fossil we have found...

Also, at one point we say that the ancient civilizations should be advanced enough to build mega structure and engineering marvels like the pyramids and all and in the same breath we are also denying all that their scriptures are saying and pointing towards...i find that a bit hypocritic.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-30, 05:05 AM
What about "Mayan calendar"? You mean the fact that it rolls over and no serious scholar of Mayan history or culture believes this 2012 nonsense?

naiveharry
2010-Dec-30, 05:09 AM
^ No man, I mean that Mayan calendar proves that ancients had the knowledge that Earth rotates around the Sun.

Also here :
“The sun has tied Earth and other planets through attraction and moves them around itself as if a trainer moves newly trained horses around itself holding their reins.”
Rig Veda 10.149.1

Rig Veda might be 7000 BC old.

kleindoofy
2010-Dec-30, 05:24 AM
Its a tablet ...
No, it's a cylinder seal, one of thousands, and only of medium quality. It's probably only about one inch high. They were made as signature seals for individuals.

Those things were mass products. Placing any kind of meaning on any individual detail is absolutely ridiculous.

And, the debunking page cited above isn't very good.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-30, 05:56 AM
^ No man, I mean that Mayan calendar proves that ancients had the knowledge that Earth rotates around the Sun.

No doubt you can explain in your own words and without having to link to any websites how.

Swift
2010-Dec-30, 06:07 AM
Its a tablet up for interpretation, one interpretation is as good as another, till the Sumerians come and tell what it means.
No, one interpretation is not as good as another. The claim that aliens visited the Earth is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence. There are ordinary explanations for what is on that tablet (seal, whatever), that don't require aliens. That is not only how science works, but it how the rules around here work. The burden is on you to prove your extraordinary claim.

In fact, if you read through the references I posted, there are inconsistencies in the "alien" explanation that don't make sense. For example, there are eleven "objects" around the "sun". It is claimed that these represent the planets in our solar system, including those not visible to the naked eye. But if somehow (via aliens for example), the Sumerians knew of these objects only visible in a telescope, why didn't they also know other such things, such as the fact that Saturn has rings. And why is the Sun represented by a symbol that was not the standard Sumerian symbol for the Sun.

Swift
2010-Dec-30, 06:15 AM
^ No man, I mean that Mayan calendar proves that ancients had the knowledge that Earth rotates around the Sun.
In the course I mentioned earlier in the thread, we studied the Mayan calendar extensively (I also did a term paper on it) and continued to read about it since then. I know of nothing in the Mayan calendar that shows the Mayans knew the Earth rotated around the sun. Do you have any sort of reference that shows otherwise?


Also here :
The sun has tied Earth and other planets through attraction and moves them around itself as if a trainer moves newly trained horses around itself holding their reins.
Rig Veda 10.149.1

I Googled Rig Veda and it is apparently a Hindu text of some sort (it would nice if you explained that). Do you have any scholarly interpretations of that single line and what it means?

chrlzs
2010-Dec-30, 07:16 AM
I am also interested in this claim - but what is the provenance of the Rig Veda, and specifically the verses in question? It seems that much of it was orally handed down over the ages, and Wiki (that source of all that is true) states "the oldest surviving Rigvedic manuscript dat(es) to the 14th century"... Hmm.

I'm certainly open to seeing more evidentiary coverage, but if the claim is based on translations from very much more recent manuscripts, then the possibility of later additions or revisions is there... Any Rigvedic scholars about?

naiveharry
2010-Dec-30, 07:34 AM
No, one interpretation is not as good as another. The claim that aliens visited the Earth is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence.

I am not claiming that. Remember the discussion started with if the ancients knew about the fact that earth revolves around the sun.

tnjrp
2010-Dec-30, 07:45 AM
How does the Mayan calendar "prove" its designers were aware of Earth revolving around the Sun?

---


Roughly 150,000 - 200,000 years ago we went from having 48 chromosomes to 46. None of the other higher primates have 46 chromosomes, our closest relatives. The second and third of the higher primate chromosomes have been fused within the chromosomal package of humans to give us 46 chromosomal spaces instead of 48, even though we retain the full amount of genomic material contained in 48. This is scientific factIndeed, tho I must say I'm not entirely sure about your proposed timing. I'll have to check up on this.

One reason Starchild Skull mythologist Loyd Pye (who I assume you mean with the elusive Mr. Pie) attributes immense gravitas to the perculiar nature of the human chromosome #2 is that he's not an evolutionary biologist or geneticist AFAIK. Another reason is that he is a believer in directed evolution and is aversive of the more parsimonous explanation of a chance mutation that left the human chromosome 2 with both a vestigial centromere and two vestigial telomeres (so the joining is hardly as neat as he makes it to be in the quote).

gunchetan
2010-Dec-30, 07:49 AM
I am also interested in this claim - but what is the provenance of the Rig Veda, and specifically the verses in question? It seems that much of it was orally handed down over the ages, and Wiki (that source of all that is true) states "the oldest surviving Rigvedic manuscript dat(es) to the 14th century"... Hmm.

I'm certainly open to seeing more evidentiary coverage, but if the claim is based on translations from very much more recent manuscripts, then the possibility of later additions or revisions is there... Any Rigvedic scholars about?

i am not a scholar but i can say this much with confidence that the vedas have a near holy place in hinduism and almost all other sub-continent religions reer to them someplace or another. The ancient Indian society had a whole section - 'Brahmins' dedicated to learning, preserving and teaching the vedas... Also, Sansrit is a language that has survived right from the olden times and is still taught in Indian schools as part of the curriculum..in the wake of these two points, i think we can safely rule out any misinterpretations or wrong translations while carrying forward through the years...
The translations were also done by and studied by many English scholars when the english came to India and i have not heard of any doubts being raised on the authenticity of these translations from anywhere...

gunchetan
2010-Dec-30, 07:59 AM
The main reason that the ancient astronaut theory holds good ground in my thought is that if we look around and see tthe current state which we Humans are at ...if we see the developments in microbiology, astronomy, space exploration and science and tech. in general...it seems almost given that we shall move out of earth in the future (if we keep developing at same rate, of course)...there are already talks of mining operations on the moon for He-3 which is hailed as the next generation fusion fuel...
If we sense the direction in which all our science fiction writings go, we can see all our thoughts on space exploration are aimed right at moving out from our planet and depending on point view, to find newer planeets to live on or to interactc with other species, or to use other planets for our own growth and sustainence...it seems entirely plausible and the most ordinary direction that our future can be extrapolated as...
this line of thought of thought is what afirmed the ancient astronomer theory as a plausible theory in my mind....why cant another civilization on another planet have already done so??? isn't it a little cruel on the universe if we think that it can only spawn one planet of living beings who have developed this far??

Van Rijn
2010-Dec-30, 08:36 AM
Seriously, 1000 ton stone, we have cranes now that can pick up 60 tons at a time. You say with the help of pits and barges you can place a 1000 tone stone slab in place may be 100 feet high in a megalithic structure. I will try to find this out, in the mean time, again please post some links demonstrating such techniques.


This fellow demonstrates methods that allow a single person using simple tools to move massive blocks:

http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/

In relatively recent history the Russians used simple tools to move a 1600 ton stone:

http://it.stlawu.edu/~rkreuzer/pete16/pete16.htm




The 1600 ton piece of granite, on which the statue would stand was located in Lahta on the Gulf of Finland. "Peter had affectionately named it ‘Thunder’ and from it he used to observed the surroundings." (http://win.www.online.ru/sp/fresh/sights.senate.htm). It was "raised by levers, put on a platform of logs and rolled on copper balls along rails with grooves to the Gulf of Finland from whence a specially constructed barge delivered it to the square by the Senate ." (http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/dima/peter.html).

There actually turn out to be a number of methods for moving large masses with simple tools. It does require ingenuity, but not advanced technology.

Van Rijn
2010-Dec-30, 09:00 AM
At this point, I would also like to draw attention to Sumerian tablet "Cylinder seal VA 243". This clearly proves they knew very well about our solar system.




Its a tablet up for interpretation, one interpretation is as good as another, till the Sumerians come and tell what it means.


No, I strongly disagree. Along with being an extraordinary interpretation, it is not consistent with the body of evidence that we have about the Sumerian culture. It also isn't consistent with the solar system.

This gets into the problem I mentioned earlier. While the books of some of the ancient astronaut proponents can be fun to read, they have a habit of doing poor research. That is, they often will come up with things that are physically unlikely and come up with "interpretations" of artifacts or stories that ignore other information we have on the originating culture.

Paul Beardsley
2010-Dec-30, 09:14 AM
Its a tablet up for interpretation, one interpretation is as good as another, till the Sumerians come and tell what it means.
Mayan calendar :)


very well said...

No, it really isn't well said. There are informed interpretations, and there are uninformed interpretations. There are interpretations which fit the facts we have available, and interpretations that are nothing more than flights of fancy. Cylinder seal VA243 clearly does not support the notion that the Sumerians had detailed knowledge of the solar system; the only possible reason for anyone thinking that it does is because they want it to.

In this thread I am seeing one group of people provide reasonable explanations for apparent mysteries, including the work of archaeologists who have got off their backsides and demonstrated how ancient people could have performed amazing feats of engineering. And I'm seeing another group of people who are ignoring this, and effectively saying, "We don't know how this was done so it must be aliens."

Which group is the narrow-minded one?


Also, at one point we say that the ancient civilizations should be advanced enough to build mega structure and engineering marvels like the pyramids and all and in the same breath we are also denying all that their scriptures are saying and pointing towards...i find that a bit hypocritic.

This is because we understand that ancient people, like modern people, make up stories.

naiveharry
2010-Dec-30, 11:47 AM
How does the Mayan calendar "prove" its designers were aware of Earth revolving around the Sun?

---

Indeed, tho I must say I'm not entirely sure about your proposed timing. I'll have to check up on this.

One reason Starchild Skull mythologist Loyd Pye (who I assume you mean with the elusive Mr. Pie) attributes immense gravitas to the perculiar nature of the human chromosome #2 is that he's not an evolutionary biologist or geneticist AFAIK. Another reason is that he is a believer in directed evolution and is aversive of the more parsimonous explanation of a chance mutation that left the human chromosome 2 with both a vestigial centromere and two vestigial telomeres (so the joining is hardly as neat as he makes it to be in the quote).

You have a better chance of assembling a v8 engine after a hurricane passes through a junkyard, then having a chance mutation of the sort described here :)

naiveharry
2010-Dec-30, 11:50 AM
No, it really isn't well said. There are informed interpretations, and there are uninformed interpretations. There are interpretations which fit the facts we have available, and interpretations that are nothing more than flights of fancy. Cylinder seal VA243 clearly does not support the notion that the Sumerians had detailed knowledge of the solar system; the only possible reason for anyone thinking that it does is because they want it to.

In this thread I am seeing one group of people provide reasonable explanations for apparent mysteries, including the work of archaeologists who have got off their backsides and demonstrated how ancient people could have performed amazing feats of engineering. And I'm seeing another group of people who are ignoring this, and effectively saying, "We don't know how this was done so it must be aliens."

Which group is the narrow-minded one?



This is because we understand that ancient people, like modern people, make up stories.

I see one side going through the ancient scriptures and trying to make sense out of it and making an attempt to understand what our ancestors wanted to tell us, and the other side, who discard all of the scriptures as made up stories and elaborate fantasy fiction.

tnjrp
2010-Dec-30, 12:09 PM
You have a better chance of assembling a v8 engine after a hurricane passes through a junkyard, then having a chance mutation of the sort described hereBased on what understanding of genetics on your part? Or did you just gurgitate a bald-faced, non-evidenced assertion? If the latter, all I need to do to counter it is to say "tosh and nonsense, old chap!"

OTOH I can immediately assure you that I personally have a zero chance of assembling a V8 engine regardless of any number of hurricanes passing through any number of junkyards, but that is probably completely beside point unless you were just being pithy.

tnjrp
2010-Dec-30, 12:15 PM
I see one side going through the ancient scriptures and trying to make sense out of it and making an attempt to understand what our ancestors wanted to tell us, and the other side, who discard all of the scriptures as made up stories and elaborate fantasy fiction.So just to firmly establish where you stand, you are in fact maintaining (like good ole Eric Von D. does) that ancient scriptures are (muddled) descriptions of factual real events? In other words, that the ancient peoples were incapable of fabricating works of fiction?

gunchetan
2010-Dec-30, 12:30 PM
So just establish where you stand, you are in fact maintaining (like good ole Eric Von D. does) that ancient scriptures are in fact (muddled) descriptions of factual real events? In other words, that the ancient peoples were incapable of fabricating works of fiction?
The two sentences used by you are not in relation to one another at all...if i say tht my history book is a collection of facts, i am not implying that human beings are incapable of works of fiction.
It is quite obvious what he means - simply disbanding all ancient scriptures and writings by just saying that they are made-up stories instead of trying to understand and make sense of them is just turning a blind eye
These scriptures are relics from our past and belong to our ancients...i am prety sure that just saying that they are made-up stories is not the way to go about them....in fact it is not the way to go about any new discovery...this is not the way of science and knowledge.

Marko S
2010-Dec-30, 01:01 PM
Evidence from what I saw of the series:

Pumapunku: Stone slabs weighing 800 Tons, intricate patterns in granite/Diorite stone, not possible in stone age, need diamond edges.

Brian Dunning says this:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4202

The Mystery of Pumapunku



So once again, we have an accomplishment by ancient craftsmen whom some paranormalists have attempted to discredit by attributing their work to aliens. This is not only irrational, it's a non-sequitur conclusion to draw from the observations. Most people don't know how to intricately cut stones because those are skills we haven't needed for a long time — we've had easier ways to make better structures for a long time. But this argument from ignorance — that just because we don't know how to do it, nobody else could have figured it out either — is an insufficient explanation. Simply say that you don't know, instead of invoking aliens. This is not only the truth, it accurately represents the findings of science so far; and perhaps most importantly, it leaves the credit for this wonderful contribution to humanity where it belongs: with the Tiwanaku themselves.

NEOWatcher
2010-Dec-30, 01:27 PM
the current prevelant theories ahave a lot of holes...the ancient astronomer theory is another theory and must be given due consideration...
Science is all about the holes. It's the conflicting data that causes trouble in theories. Alien theories have a lot of conflicts that need resolved (such as overcoming physics or such advanced technology to get here but not use it here)



You have a better chance of assembling a v8 engine after a hurricane passes through a junkyard, then having a chance mutation of the sort described here :)
How about trillions of hurricanes passing through billions of junkyards?

Number of DNA strands (http://www.numberof.net/number-of-dna-strands/) is about 4.6x10^15.
Mutations occur about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate) 3×10^-6 to 2.7×10^-5 per base per 20 year generation.

Paul Beardsley
2010-Dec-30, 01:29 PM
I see one side going through the ancient scriptures and trying to make sense out of it and making an attempt to understand what our ancestors wanted to tell us, and the other side, who discard all of the scriptures as made up stories and elaborate fantasy fiction.

Far from "discarding" ancient writings, I have long been fascinated by mythology, both the stories themselves and the efforts of scholars to understand what was intended.

I have too much respect for our ancestors to opt for cheap and obviously wrong interpretations. This is why I refuse to believe that the Epic of Gilgamesh (to take one example) is an account of alien astronauts visiting Earth.

Garrison
2010-Dec-30, 02:02 PM
Previous discussion, right here on BAUT (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/87926-Nibiru-first-sight-Disprove-please./page3)

Which was where I made my first ever post on BAUT. :) The seal is dominated by the three human figures with the alleged solar system as a small inset that none of them appear to be looking at. Yeah the object at the centre of the inset probably is a star but if the seated figure is a king associating him with the sun is hardly an unheard of iconography and the eleven objects set around it(in a pattern that is rather rectangular and puts them mostly the same distance from the star)may represent the kings children, provinces, or a royal banner of some sort. It contains no more astronomical information than this does:

Stars (http://us-flag.net/history/3)

Garrison
2010-Dec-30, 02:08 PM
I see one side going through the ancient scriptures and trying to make sense out of it and making an attempt to understand what our ancestors wanted to tell us, and the other side, who discard all of the scriptures as made up stories and elaborate fantasy fiction.

That's right; with the former being the historians and scientists, while the latter are the people like Von Daniken who want to spin it all as a bad sci-fi novel and turn a buck.

naiveharry
2010-Dec-30, 02:21 PM
That's right; with the former being the historians and scientists, while the latter are the people like Von Daniken who want to spin it all as a bad sci-fi novel and turn a buck.

I think you got the former and latter part wrong if it was meant to be sarcastic.

naiveharry
2010-Dec-30, 02:24 PM
Far from "discarding" ancient writings, I have long been fascinated by mythology, both the stories themselves and the efforts of scholars to understand what was intended.

I have too much respect for our ancestors to opt for cheap and obviously wrong interpretations. This is why I refuse to believe that the Epic of Gilgamesh (to take one example) is an account of alien astronauts visiting Earth.

I do not know how you manage to intermingle "respect for ancestors" with "Alien visitation" and "Alien intervention", which is obviously not under their control. Also nothing seems to be obvious at this point, as it is still up for discussion.

A.DIM
2010-Dec-30, 02:41 PM
Which was where I made my first ever post on BAUT. :) The seal is dominated by the three human figures with the alleged solar system as a small inset that none of them appear to be looking at. Yeah the object at the centre of the inset probably is a star but if the seated figure is a king associating him with the sun is hardly an unheard of iconography and the eleven objects set around it(in a pattern that is rather rectangular and puts them mostly the same distance from the star)may represent the kings children, provinces, or a royal banner of some sort. It contains no more astronomical information than this does

Did you follow that thread (where you made your first post) to its end, and perhaps some of the links I provided?
Whatever the seal depicts, it is celestial in nature, that much can be agreed on. Even the scholar Swift points to says as much (although I personally find Heiser's argument rather weak).
What remains an open question is what it is meant to depict.
For the reasons given in that thread, I think it has to do with the Enuma Elish and the 12 primordial gods of the creation epic.

Whatever the case, evidence enough to revise humanity's history it is not.

A.DIM
2010-Dec-30, 02:49 PM
Here's a question:

If we're to suppose a space faring species reached Earth sometime in the past, what evidence should we expect to see?

naiveharry
2010-Dec-30, 03:06 PM
Who says it needs diamond? Surely that would only make it quicker.

We have documentary evidence of how some such structures were built. We also have archeological evidence of the processes used. Many of these techniques have been recreated. So where is the need for aliens?

Plagiarized paragraph removed. Original may be found here (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091116184144AAQcNXg). - Moose

There is no need for aliens but a need to revise the knowledge that we associate with stone age at the least.

Also,
Machining marks on stones found in Egypt as part of the pyramid and sphinx. Can they be explained by use of primitive tools or they need a revision of the techniques and tools we associate with our ancestors?

Strange
2010-Dec-30, 03:18 PM
Plagiarized paragraph removed. Original may be found here (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091116184144AAQcNXg). - Moose

Quite. So they could have used granite, if they didn't have anything harder.


There is no need for aliens but a need to revise the knowledge that we associate with stone age at the least.

Such as?

naiveharry
2010-Dec-30, 03:25 PM
Quite. So they could have used granite, if they didn't have anything harder.

Such as?

So how are you going to even cut out an edge on a piece of granite to make a tool out of it at the first place, let alone cutting big stone with that piece of granite.

Strange
2010-Dec-30, 03:34 PM
So how are you going to even cut out an edge on a piece of granite to make a tool out of it at the first place, let alone cutting big stone with that piece of granite.

Why would you need to "cut" an edge? And I didn't think we were talking about "cutting" the big stone but carving/wearing/scratching patterns in it.


There is no need for aliens but a need to revise the knowledge that we associate with stone age at the least.

Such as?

gunchetan
2010-Dec-30, 03:35 PM
This fellow demonstrates methods that allow a single person using simple tools to move massive blocks:

http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/

In relatively recent history the Russians used simple tools to move a 1600 ton stone:

http://it.stlawu.edu/~rkreuzer/pete16/pete16.htm
There actually turn out to be a number of methods for moving large masses with simple tools. It does require ingenuity, but not advanced technology.

I just read through that link but it did not give much detail on the movement...so i figured it must be famous and widely renowned as it was done in 18th century and checked the (heaven of mainstream literature) wiki
i quote - "After waiting for winter, when the ground was frozen, it was then dragged across the countryside. This was done by means of a metallic sledge which slid over bronze spheres about 13.5 cm (6 inches) in diameter, over a track, a process similar to the later invention of ball bearings. Making the feat even more impressive was that the labour was done entirely by humans; no animals or machines were used in bringing it from the original site to the Senate Square.[8] Once a method to move it was devised, it took 400 men nine months to move the stone, during which time master stonecutters continuously shaped the enormous granite monolith.[3] Catherine periodically visited the effort to oversee their progress. The larger capstans took 32 men at once to turn, this just barely moving the rock. Further complicating the issue was the availability of only 100 m of track, which had to be constantly relaid.[8] Nevertheless, the workers made over 150 m of progress a day while on level ground. Upon arrival at the sea an enormous barge was constructed exclusively for the Thunder Stone. The vessel had to be supported on either side by additional two full-size warships.[8] After a short maritime voyage, it arrived at its destination in 1770, nearly two years after efforts to move it began"

this is anything BUT simple :) ball bearings, 9 months to move one such stone...400 men..ground covered in ice..special barge supported on both sides by full-size battleships!!! on top of this it was carved into a shape that did not require accuracy of thi -

i quote wiki again on the pyramid of khufu - "Khufu’s Pyramid is built entirely of limestone, and is considered an architectural masterpiece. It contains around 1,300,000 blocks ranging in weight from 2.5 tons to 15 tons and is built on a square base with sides measuring about 230 m (755 ft), covering 13 acres. Its four sides face the four cardinal points precisely and it has an angle of 52 degrees. The original height of the Pyramid was 146.5 m (488 ft)"

1 thunder stone took 9 months, but what about precisely cut, 1,300,000stones and elevated to stacked up on an exact pyramid shape150 m high with exact dimensions on EACH stone and 52 deg angle..working in a desert thousands of years back...
i do not think we are talkin about the same levels of difficulty here...

gunchetan
2010-Dec-30, 03:44 PM
Why would you need to "cut" an edge? And I didn't think we were talking about "cutting" the big stone but carving/wearing/scratching patterns in it.



Such as?

of course we would need to cut the graphite to make a cutting edge out of it...before machining process is done ..we need a machining tool and the big stones in the pyramids were cut to exact dimensions..they could not have been quarried in same dimension...so a high precision cutting tool is required...and the means we need to cut the graphite to exact angles to get the required high quality finish as seen on the blocks

and none of this is known in history books that our ancients had at least comparable high machining tech as we do now..

Paul Beardsley
2010-Dec-30, 03:49 PM
I do not know how you manage to intermingle "respect for ancestors" with "Alien visitation" and "Alien intervention", which is obviously not under their control.

This sentence makes no sense.


Also nothing seems to be obvious at this point, as it is still up for discussion.

The fact that people will continue to come up with baseless speculations does not mean it is still up for discussion.


Plagiarized paragraph removed. Original may be found here (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091116184144AAQcNXg). - Moose


Are you familiar with the word "plagiarism"? If you're going to copy and paste, at least have the courtesy to cite your sources.

naiveharry
2010-Dec-30, 03:50 PM
Why would you need to "cut" an edge? And I didn't think we were talking about "cutting" the big stone but carving/wearing/scratching patterns in it.


Such as?

Okay, we have to cut the stones into appropriate size and then make intricate designs on them. Definitely need harder material than granite otherwise can not cut 90 degree surface finish.

Now give them the credit for having machining techniques and they had to have knowledge of harder substances like I mentioned in my previous post.
Give them credit for having good knowledge of Astronomy without telescope. In the light of new discoveries like alignment of Pyramids and tunnels inside of pyramid to certain star constellation, definitely sheds light on there mathematical genius as well.
Recent discoveries also shed light on the composition of limestone used in Pyramids and how they were not quarried:
Abstract from Dr. Joseph Davidovits's research:
"a soft limestone with a high kaolinite content was quarried in the wadi on the south of the Giza plateau. It was then dissolved in large, Nile-fed pools until it became a watery slurry. Lime (found in the ash of ancient cooking fires) and natron (also used by the Egyptians in mummification) was mixed in. The pools were then left to evaporate, leaving behind a moist, clay-like mixture. This wet "concrete" would be carried to the construction site where it would be packed into reusable wooden molds. In the next few days the mixture would undergo a chemical hydration reaction similar to the setting of cement. "
This seems similar to our present knowledge in construction. Give credit where it is due.

I will update this post with things as we discover them together.

naiveharry
2010-Dec-30, 03:52 PM
This sentence makes no sense.



The fact that people will continue to come up with baseless speculations does not mean it is still up for discussion.



Are you familiar with the word "plagiarism"? If you're going to copy and paste, at least have the courtesy to cite your sources.

I do not find anything in this post that adds constructively to the discussion going on.

Garrison
2010-Dec-30, 04:01 PM
I just read through that link but it did not give much detail on the movement...so i figured it must be famous and widely renowned as it was done in 18th century and checked the (heaven of mainstream literature) wiki
i quote - "After waiting for winter, when the ground was frozen, it was then dragged across the countryside. This was done by means of a metallic sledge which slid over bronze spheres about 13.5 cm (6 inches) in diameter, over a track, a process similar to the later invention of ball bearings. Making the feat even more impressive was that the labour was done entirely by humans; no animals or machines were used in bringing it from the original site to the Senate Square.[8] Once a method to move it was devised, it took 400 men nine months to move the stone, during which time master stonecutters continuously shaped the enormous granite monolith.[3] Catherine periodically visited the effort to oversee their progress. The larger capstans took 32 men at once to turn, this just barely moving the rock. Further complicating the issue was the availability of only 100 m of track, which had to be constantly relaid.[8] Nevertheless, the workers made over 150 m of progress a day while on level ground. Upon arrival at the sea an enormous barge was constructed exclusively for the Thunder Stone. The vessel had to be supported on either side by additional two full-size warships.[8] After a short maritime voyage, it arrived at its destination in 1770, nearly two years after efforts to move it began"

this is anything BUT simple :) ball bearings, 9 months to move one such stone...400 men..ground covered in ice..special barge supported on both sides by full-size battleships!!! on top of this it was carved into a shape that did not require accuracy of thi -

i quote wiki again on the pyramid of khufu - "Khufu’s Pyramid is built entirely of limestone, and is considered an architectural masterpiece. It contains around 1,300,000 blocks ranging in weight from 2.5 tons to 15 tons and is built on a square base with sides measuring about 230 m (755 ft), covering 13 acres. Its four sides face the four cardinal points precisely and it has an angle of 52 degrees. The original height of the Pyramid was 146.5 m (488 ft)"

1 thunder stone took 9 months, but what about precisely cut, 1,300,000stones and elevated to stacked up on an exact pyramid shape150 m high with exact dimensions on EACH stone and 52 deg angle..working in a desert thousands of years back...
i do not think we are talkin about the same levels of difficulty here...

But there are techniques for doing so that have been demonstrated without requiring the invocation of aliens intervention. It just took the backbreaking labor of thousands over years and decades to accomplish
And I have an question open to any of the ancient alien proponents here; what's the cutoff point for all this intervention? I mean prior to the nineteenth century everything was essentially built with hand tools by manual labor so at what point do mankind's achievements become their own?

gunchetan
2010-Dec-30, 04:12 PM
The point is that the level of technology present at that time is not coincident with the present day timeline of technological advancement...there is still no agreement among researchers about how these pyramids were constructed...and as naiveharry pointed out, it's not just construction technology but machining tools and chemical engineering principles known to these civilizations...these civs and examples stand out in time as highly advanced and completely off the evolutionary timeline (5th and 4th centuries b.c.) it is these anomalies that can be considered as proper cut-offs to consider that they hint at intervention...OR if not that, as naiveharry pointed out - "a need to revise the knowledge that we associate with stone age at the least"

Garrison
2010-Dec-30, 04:17 PM
Okay, we have to cut the stones into appropriate size and then make intricate designs on them. Definitely need harder material than granite otherwise can not cut 90 degree surface finish.

Now give them the credit for having machining techniques and they had to have knowledge of harder substances like I mentioned in my previous post.
Give them credit for having good knowledge of Astronomy without telescope. In the light of new discoveries like alignment of Pyramids and tunnels inside of pyramid to certain star constellation, definitely sheds light on there mathematical genius as well.

Evidence and references please.


Recent discoveries also shed light on the composition of limestone used in Pyramids and how they were not quarried:
Abstract from Dr. Joseph Davidovits's research:
"a soft limestone with a high kaolinite content was quarried in the wadi on the south of the Giza plateau. It was then dissolved in large, Nile-fed pools until it became a watery slurry. Lime (found in the ash of ancient cooking fires) and natron (also used by the Egyptians in mummification) was mixed in. The pools were then left to evaporate, leaving behind a moist, clay-like mixture. This wet "concrete" would be carried to the construction site where it would be packed into reusable wooden molds. In the next few days the mixture would undergo a chemical hydration reaction similar to the setting of cement. "
This seems similar to our present knowledge in construction. Give credit where it is due.

Again no citation for where this quote came from and you neglect to mention that this is a theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Davidovits#Archaeological_theories) not supported by egyptologists and lacking any direct evidence whereas there is plenty for the quarrying of limestone blocks :

Giza Quarries (http://www.aeraweb.org/gpmp-project/great-pyramid-quarry/)

Moose
2010-Dec-30, 05:16 PM
I do not find anything in this post that adds constructively to the discussion going on.

Do not dig yourself in any deeper.

Space Chimp
2010-Dec-30, 06:08 PM
And I have an question open to any of the ancient alien proponents here; what's the cutoff point for all this intervention? I mean prior to the nineteenth century everything was essentially built with hand tools by manual labor so at what point do mankind's achievements become their own?

The cutoff point is when written records and drawn blueprints prove conclusively that the work was thought out and done by human hands and minds. At that point Von Daniken and company can't easily peddle their bogus theories anymore on the gullible, in the face of such evidence. That's probably why they've never messed with implying an alien intervention in impressive Roman, Chinese or Medieval construction achievements or monuments.

Swift
2010-Dec-30, 06:17 PM
<snip>
it seems entirely plausible and the most ordinary direction that our future can be extrapolated as...
this line of thought of thought is what afirmed the ancient astronomer theory as a plausible theory in my mind....why cant another civilization on another planet have already done so??? isn't it a little cruel on the universe if we think that it can only spawn one planet of living beings who have developed this far??
Why can't another civilization on another planet visit us - the limit of the speed of light for one.

But even if the idea is plausible, there is still no proof I've seen that it actually happened.

Swift
2010-Dec-30, 06:24 PM
Whatever the seal depicts, it is celestial in nature, that much can be agreed on. Even the scholar Swift points to says as much (although I personally find Heiser's argument rather weak).

Actually, I didn't and said so in a post in that thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/87926-Nibiru-first-sight-Disprove-please.?p=1580230#post1580230), if you had read the rest of the thread.

PetersCreek
2010-Dec-30, 06:52 PM
No, one interpretation is not as good as another. The claim that aliens visited the Earth is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence.

I am not claiming that. Remember the discussion started with if the ancients knew about the fact that earth revolves around the sun.

Time for some clarification. This discussion was started with post #1 of this thread which is about ancient aliens and their influence on human history. Anyone who advocates in support of that proposition incurs a rule 13 obligation to answer questions about and challenges to their assertions. Don't try to be coy about it, either. You cannot make supportive statements, then claim that you're not supporting the idea in an effort to avoid your burden, even if you're just playing "devil's advocate".

So, naiveharry and gunchetan, please make your positions and your arguments clear. And if you haven't already done so, please read our rules (linked in my signature line below) with emphasis on rule 13. It also wouldn't hurt for you to read Alternate Theory Advice, also linked below.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-30, 07:17 PM
i am not a scholar but i can say this much with confidence that the vedas have a near holy place in hinduism and almost all other sub-continent religions reer to them someplace or another. The ancient Indian society had a whole section - 'Brahmins' dedicated to learning, preserving and teaching the vedas... Also, Sansrit is a language that has survived right from the olden times and is still taught in Indian schools as part of the curriculum..in the wake of these two points, i think we can safely rule out any misinterpretations or wrong translations while carrying forward through the years...
The translations were also done by and studied by many English scholars when the english came to India and i have not heard of any doubts being raised on the authenticity of these translations from anywhere...

Number one, how much do you know about the study of ancient documents?

Number two, how many translations were there, or are you just using "translations" to mean "one translation of a lengthy document"?

Number three, on the assumption that you mean Sanskrit, what is its status in India? How frequently is it used? Is it, possibly, on the lines of how it's possible for Christian school children to learn Biblical Latin, Greek, and Hebrew? Or are they actually speaking it?

Consider these direct questions under the rules of the board.

Van Rijn
2010-Dec-30, 09:25 PM
The point is that the level of technology present at that time is not coincident with the present day timeline of technological advancement


It isn't? How so? What is the evidence for this claim?



...there is still no agreement among researchers about how these pyramids were constructed


Because more than one method has been demonstrated. What has not been shown is the need for aliens, or high technology.

caveman1917
2010-Dec-30, 09:36 PM
You have a better chance of assembling a v8 engine after a hurricane passes through a junkyard, then having a chance mutation of the sort described here :)

Please share your mathematical analysis that must have preceded a statement such as this. Or did you just pull that out of thin air?


Machining marks on stones found in Egypt as part of the pyramid and sphinx.

Reference please?

caveman1917
2010-Dec-30, 09:39 PM
and none of this is known in history books that our ancients had at least comparable high machining tech as we do now..

Perhaps because it isn't required?

gunchetan
2010-Dec-30, 09:40 PM
Why can't another civilization on another planet visit us - the limit of the speed of light for one.

But even if the idea is plausible, there is still no proof I've seen that it actually happened.
well if they are in our galaxy, then this limitation should not apply :)


Time for some clarification. This discussion was started with post #1 of this thread which is about ancient aliens and their influence on human history. Anyone who advocates in support of that proposition incurs a rule 13 obligation to answer questions about and challenges to their assertions. Don't try to be coy about it, either. You cannot make supportive statements, then claim that you're not supporting the idea in an effort to avoid your burden, even if you're just playing "devil's advocate".
So, naiveharry and gunchetan, please make your positions and your arguments clear. And if you haven't already done so, please read our rules (linked in my signature line below) with emphasis on rule 13. It also wouldn't hurt for you to read Alternate Theory Advice, also linked below.

my stand here is as i have said in previous post - that i believe that the ancient astronaut theory is credible because of the point of view i had posted, where i compared our present scientific & tech. growth and direction points towards us humans becoming some other race's 'ancient astronauts'.
Also, the level of technology present at the time of ancients as can be seen clearly in their structures is not coincident with the presently accepted timeline of evolution of humans in general and technological & scientific advancement in specific...and i believe that it is highly plausible that during or before these times there was an input and influence of aliens or 'ancient astronauts' in human development and / or evolution as a whole, which i feel is also indicated in their texts and writings.


Number one, how much do you know about the study of ancient documents?

Number two, how many translations were there, or are you just using "translations" to mean "one translation of a lengthy document"?

Number three, on the assumption that you mean Sanskrit, what is its status in India? How frequently is it used? Is it, possibly, on the lines of how it's possible for Christian school children to learn Biblical Latin, Greek, and Hebrew? Or are they actually speaking it?

Consider these direct questions under the rules of the board.

1 - i am no authority on the subject , i know as much as any guy with general decent knowledge about history and an interest in it and would know about these things
2 - For this question i would like to point you to here (it is a mainstream accepted point of view, as it has within it links to all references) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda
quote from Wikipedia -
"As with the other Vedas, the redacted text has been handed down in several versions, most importantly the Padapatha that has each word isolated in pausa form and is used for just one way of memorization; and the Samhitapatha that combines words according to the rules of sandhi (the process being described in the Pratisakhya) and is the memorized text used for recitation.
The Padapatha and the Pratisakhya anchor the text's fidelity and meaning[6] and the fixed text was preserved with unparalleled fidelity for more than a millennium by oral tradition alone. In order to achieve this the oral tradition prescribed very structured enunciation, involving breaking down the Sanskrit compounds into stems and inflections, as well as certain permutations. This interplay with sounds gave rise to a scholarly tradition of morphology and phonetics. The Rigveda was probably not written down until the Gupta period (4th to 6th century AD), by which time the Brahmi script had become widespread (the oldest surviving manuscripts date to the Late Middle Ages[7]). The oral tradition still continued into recent times.
The original text (as authored by the Rishis) is close to but not identical to the extant Samhitapatha, but metrical and other observations allow to reconstruct (in part at least) the original text from the extant one, as printed in the Harvard Oriental Series, vol. 50 (1994)"

3 - Yes i mean Sanskrit :) sry for the typo...it is taught as an optional language subject in schools along with Hindi and English from class 5th onwards to 8th...and no it is not used in day-to-day uses by the majority but i would like to add that the 'pundits' are surely fluent in it... for further info - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit#Modern-day_India

caveman1917
2010-Dec-30, 09:54 PM
At this point, I would also like to draw attention to Sumerian tablet "Cylinder seal VA 243". This clearly proves they knew very well about our solar system.
(my bold)

Its a tablet up for interpretation, one interpretation is as good as another, till the Sumerians come and tell what it means.

You are contradicting yourself (in consecutive posts for that matter).
Do you claim the seal as proof or not?

gzhpcu
2010-Dec-30, 09:55 PM
Here's a question:

If we're to suppose a space faring species reached Earth sometime in the past, what evidence should we expect to see?

Certainly not primitive structures like Stonehenge, Easter Island or even the pyramids. Why would a highly advanced species dabble to produce such archaic structures?

Swift
2010-Dec-30, 10:01 PM
Quote Originally Posted by Swift
Why can't another civilization on another planet visit us - the limit of the speed of light for one.

But even if the idea is plausible, there is still no proof I've seen that it actually happened.
well if they are in our galaxy, then this limitation should not apply :)

Since you put in :) are you making a joke? Do you know how big our galaxy is?

caveman1917
2010-Dec-30, 10:03 PM
this is not the way of science and knowledge.

Then what is the way of science?
Hint: it involves trying to prove the null-hypothesis. In other words, suppose you have as your hypothesis that the ancients required alien intervention for moving big rocks. The scientific way of establishing that is trying to show they did it by themselves. Please show how you have done that, and show specifically how you have failed to do so (and thereby lending weight to your original hypothesis).

Van Rijn
2010-Dec-30, 10:20 PM
Also, the level of technology present at the time of ancients as can be seen clearly in their structures is not coincident with the presently accepted timeline of evolution of humans in general and technological & scientific advancement in specific


Again, how so? How does evolution even enter into a discussion of historic structures? And what beyond simple tools would be required to build them?

Garrison
2010-Dec-30, 10:22 PM
Also, the level of technology present at the time of ancients as can be seen clearly in their structures is not coincident with the presently accepted timeline of evolution of humans in general and technological & scientific advancement in specific...and i believe that it is highly plausible that during or before these times there was an input and influence of aliens or 'ancient astronauts' in human development and / or evolution as a whole, which i feel is also indicated in their texts and writings.

And where is your evidence to support this assertion? Which ancients are you referring to? which pieces of technology?




1 - i am no authority on the subject , i know as much as any guy with general decent knowledge about history and an interest in it and would know about these things

And yet you make the kind of flat assertion you did in the previous paragraph, again do you have anything to support it beyond supposition?

slang
2010-Dec-30, 11:46 PM
Please share your mathematical analysis that must have preceded a statement such as this. Or did you just pull that out of thin air?

Just in case you were unaware: the junkyard/backyard, Boeing 747/v8 engine, hurricane/tornado thing is a well-known lame old creationist argument.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-31, 12:57 AM
1 - i am no authority on the subject , i know as much as any guy with general decent knowledge about history and an interest in it and would know about these things

Okay, so here's what you should know. There is always, in ancient documents passed on to modern times, the issue of translation and transcription errors. That you don't know that indicates that you haven't put any real study into it. Therefore, you are plainly making observations without the study required for any kind of real awareness of the issues.


2 - For this question i would like to point you to here (it is a mainstream accepted point of view, as it has within it links to all references) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda
quote from Wikipedia -
"As with the other Vedas, the redacted text has been handed down in several versions, most importantly the Padapatha that has each word isolated in pausa form and is used for just one way of memorization; and the Samhitapatha that combines words according to the rules of sandhi (the process being described in the Pratisakhya) and is the memorized text used for recitation.
The Padapatha and the Pratisakhya anchor the text's fidelity and meaning[6] and the fixed text was preserved with unparalleled fidelity for more than a millennium by oral tradition alone. In order to achieve this the oral tradition prescribed very structured enunciation, involving breaking down the Sanskrit compounds into stems and inflections, as well as certain permutations. This interplay with sounds gave rise to a scholarly tradition of morphology and phonetics. The Rigveda was probably not written down until the Gupta period (4th to 6th century AD), by which time the Brahmi script had become widespread (the oldest surviving manuscripts date to the Late Middle Ages[7]). The oral tradition still continued into recent times.
The original text (as authored by the Rishis) is close to but not identical to the extant Samhitapatha, but metrical and other observations allow to reconstruct (in part at least) the original text from the extant one, as printed in the Harvard Oriental Series, vol. 50 (1994)"

That's charming. You have shown your ability to quote Wikipedia. Can you put it in your own words? Can you explain why some of those statements are historically dubious and others flatly show that there isn't a single preserved text?


3 - Yes i mean Sanskrit :) sry for the typo...it is taught as an optional language subject in schools along with Hindi and English from class 5th onwards to 8th...and no it is not used in day-to-day uses by the majority but i would like to add that the 'pundits' are surely fluent in it... for further info - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit#Modern-day_India

Yes, I'm actually familiar with the information you present there. Do you know why I ask the question?

Van Rijn
2010-Dec-31, 06:06 AM
Many of the posters in this thread asked for evidence and one point that I didn't see raised (nor debunked) is this:

Roughly 150,000 - 200,000 years ago we went from having 48 chromosomes to 46. None of the other higher primates have 46 chromosomes, our closest relatives. The second and third of the higher primate chromosomes have been fused within the chromosomal package of humans to give us 46 chromosomal spaces instead of 48, even though we retain the full amount of genomic material contained in 48. This is scientific fact.


There is good evidence for a chromosome fusion event, though I don't know where you're getting the 150,000-200,000 year estimate (our last common ancestor with the great apes goes back millions of years).



To paraphrase Loyd Pie:

Why? Why would nature perform this astounding bit of genetic magic to create us?


Why not? Chromosome fusion is common, so I don't know why this would be astounding.



Better yet, how could nature perform such a miracle of microscopic fusion (this is a phenomena not seen elsewhere, but we also havent sequenced every species on the planet yet)?


But it is seen elsewhere. For instance, chromosome fusion in pigs:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8697808

Plants:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17036078

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15780.abstract

Fish:

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1415-47572008000200012&script=sci_arttext


Loyd Pie needs to do more research.

manxman
2010-Dec-31, 06:51 AM
Why can't another civilization on another planet visit us - the limit of the speed of light for one.

But even if the idea is plausible, there is still no proof I've seen that it actually happened.

Mainstream scientists in europe are already of the conclusion that they already have done, thats why the french school corriculum teaches their kids in that direction, and i have no doubt other continentals follow their lead.

And just because you keep repeating parrot fashion that something is impossible in an infinate universe dos not actually increase its veracity.


http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/COMETA_part1.pdf
http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/COMETA_part2.pdf

These scientific studies of scientific studies make a mockery of most of te unfounded rubbish spoken at baut.

manxman
2010-Dec-31, 07:17 AM
There is good evidence for a chromosome fusion event, though I don't know where you're getting the 150,000-200,000 year estimate (our last common ancestor with the great apes goes back millions of years).



Why not? Chromosome fusion is common, so I don't know why this would be astounding.



But it is seen elsewhere. For instance, chromosome fusion in pigs:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8697808

Plants:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17036078

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15780.abstract

Fish:

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1415-47572008000200012&script=sci_arttext


Loyd Pie needs to do more research.

Nice post van.
Tat was the main point that got my initial interest in the chromosome talk.
The fact he said it was a unique event nature.

chrlzs
2010-Dec-31, 07:19 AM
Mainstream scientists in europe are already of the conclusion that they already have done, thats why the french school corriculum teaches their kids in that direction, and i have no doubt other continentals follow their lead.
Which mainstream scientists, in which publications, and could you quote some pertinent text examples?


And just because you keep repeating parrot fashion that something is impossible in an infinate universe dos not actually increase its veracity.
:confused:

I would have thought that the first thing you need to do is walk the road that you claim others are not, and CITE the evidence properly.



http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/COMETA_part1.pdf
http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/COMETA_part2.pdf
These scientific studies of scientific studies make a mockery of most of te unfounded rubbish spoken at baut.
That's quite a generalisation, manxman. All of Baut is unfounded rubbish? Just this thread? Just the bits that do not come up with an alien hypothesis for phenomena?

Anyway, you honestly expect us to wade through 90-page pdfs, produced by a private 'ufo research' organisation?? Given this is not peer-reviewed and accepted science, would you like to express your opinions of the people who produced those reports? How many of them had experience/degrees/doctorates in meteorology? Optics, Photogrammetry and Forensic Imaging? Advanced Aeronautics? Witness psychology? (I'll give you a hint, it's not very many at all...)

So, Manxman, would you be kind enough to quote the parts that are relevant, and in your own words explain how that relates to the claim.

manxman
2010-Dec-31, 07:28 AM
Which mainstream scientists, in which publications, and could you quote some pertinent text examples?


:confused:

I would have thought that the first thing you need to do is walk the road that you claim others are not, and CITE the evidence properly.


That's quite a generalisation, manxman. All of Baut is unfounded rubbish? Just this thread? Just the bits that do not come up with an alien hypothesis for phenomena?

Anyway, you honestly expect us to wade through 90-page pdfs, produced by a private 'ufo research' organisation?? Given this is not peer-reviewed and accepted science, would you like to express your opinions of the people who produced those reports? How many of them had experience/degrees/doctorates in meteorology? Optics, Photogrammetry and Forensic Imaging? Advanced Aeronautics? Witness psychology? (I'll give you a hint, it's not very many at all...)

So, Manxman, would you be kind enough to quote the parts that are relevant, and in your own words explain how that relates to the claim.

No i will not be discussing the documents here any further.
If however you or anyone else wishes to do so, then start a thread about the documents.
Only i suggest you read them first that way you wont have to ask about peer reviews and scientists names and qualifications etc.
even on your own admission you didnt read a word of them yet you make unfounded assertions str8 up.
Thats the kind of unadulterated garbbage i refered to.

tnjrp
2010-Dec-31, 07:49 AM
No i will not be discussing the documents here any furtherThat's somewhat unfortunate because it leaves me for one rather doubting your assertions at this present time.


If however you or anyone else wishes to do so, then start a thread about the documentsSo we should do your legwork for you... Fine, I'm game. If I build it, will you guarantee you'll present your evidence (and defend it should the mods decide to throw the thread in ATM or Cons sections) there without any evasion and prequisites?


Only i suggest you read them first that way you wont have to ask about peer reviews and scientists names and qualifications etc.I don't read French personally but I don't doubt I can find people who can.

---


The fact he said it was a unique event nature.Well, yes, like I already mentioned Mr. Pye is either writing in a delibrately misleading manner or else just plain ignorant on the subject. I'm not entirely sure if I am surprised about that either, actually.

manxman
2010-Dec-31, 08:01 AM
That's somewhat unfortunate because it leaves me for one rather doubting your assertions at this present time.

Simply put .
The thread is about ancient astronaughs.

So we should do your legwork for you... Fine, I'm game. If I build it, will you guarantee you'll present your evidence (and defend it should the mods decide to throw the thread in ATM or Cons sections) there without any evasion and prequisites?

You start a thread and i will discuss the documents and their content with you yes.
your talk about my evidence evasion pre requisites etd etc, will have no place in my willingness to discuss the documents content, and any attempts to position me will be ignoed, i am willing as stated to discuss the content of the documentation.

I don't read French personally but I don't doubt I can find people who can.

Paul Beardsley
2010-Dec-31, 08:16 AM
No i will not be discussing the documents here any further.
If however you or anyone else wishes to do so, then start a thread about the documents.
Only i suggest you read them first that way you wont have to ask about peer reviews and scientists names and qualifications etc.
even on your own admission you didnt read a word of them yet you make unfounded assertions str8 up.
Thats the kind of unadulterated garbbage i refered to.

This really, really doesn't wash.

Anybody can come on here, say, "Look at these websites, they will change the way you think forever!" It's happened before, it'll happen again. In every single instance that I've witnessed, the website has proved to be a complete waste of time. Typically it's a YouTube video of someone filming a reflection of the sun on a window and pretending it's a flying saucer or Nibiru or a second sun, or it's a link to a text document that consists of pages and pages of word salad, or it's an article from Wikipedia that the poster thinks supports his ATM view but only because he didn't read it properly.

Life is simply too short to chase up every single link that someone has provided, so the wise person will select only those that someone has made a compelling case for.

You, manxman, have absolutely not made a compelling case for your links. If you'd answered the questions chrlzs asked, your case might have risen above the usual blah. But you didn't, and you took an insulting stance, so it remains well and truly mired in the usual blah.

manxman
2010-Dec-31, 08:22 AM
This really, really doesn't wash.

Anybody can come on here, say, "Look at these websites, they will change the way you think forever!" It's happened before, it'll happen again. In every single instance that I've witnessed, the website has proved to be a complete waste of time. Typically it's a YouTube video of someone filming a reflection of the sun on a window and pretending it's a flying saucer or Nibiru or a second sun, or it's a link to a text document that consists of pages and pages of word salad, or it's an article from Wikipedia that the poster thinks supports his ATM view but only because he didn't read it properly.

Life is simply too short to chase up every single link that someone has provided, so the wise person will select only those that someone has made a compelling case for.

You, manxman, have absolutely not made a compelling case for your links. If you'd answered the questions chrizs asked, your case might have risen above the usual blah. But you didn't, and you took an insulting stance, so it remains well and truly mired in the usual blah.

Thanks for your opinion paul.
Was the the post above yours, by me, really difficult to understand.
I will not be rail-roaded into a derail of this thread, its not rocket science.
My reply with the links was to swift. in reply to his sweeping generalization, and illogical assertion.

Paul Beardsley
2010-Dec-31, 08:33 AM
Was the the post above yours, by me, really difficult to understand.

a) You posted it while I was writing my post so I didn't see it until I'd submitted my post. You would have guessed this if you'd checked the times; it's not rocket science.

b) As a matter of fact, yes it was difficult to understand when I got round to reading it. It wasn't immediately clear which bits were quoted and which were your answers, not least because you quoted one bit and didn't answer it, and you use some bizarre English; what the heck does "any attempts to position me will be igno[r]ed" mean?

c) It doesn't answer the questions chrlzs asked. Make no mistake, they were questions that shouldn't have needed asking.


I will not be rail-roaded into a derail of this thread, its not rocket science.

I think you'll find that regular BAUTers will not be rail-roaded into time-wasting nonsense, for all your blustering.

Tom Servo
2010-Dec-31, 08:35 AM
I am personaly a fan of the theory that the ancients just had too much time on their hands.

Perhaps that is stating it wrongly. They lacked modern distractions, and had the initiative to make something that would last for a long time.


They had the same type of brains we have today. They had large numbers and could communicate their skills and ideas. I don't see why they couldn't build the pyramids, or any of the other things they created.



I also don't see why an ancient alien race would bother coming to earth just to help make pyramids, then wait a long time and help build stone henge, then wait several hundred years inbetween and make nasca lines.(I'm more than likely out of order here but I know that)

It's illogical.

tnjrp
2010-Dec-31, 08:40 AM
Simply put .
The thread is about ancient astronaughs.If your claim does not refer to ancient astronauts then you shouldn't really have brought it up in the first place, yes?


You start a thread and i will discuss the documents and their content with you yes
Please find the thead here:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/111096-Alien-visitations-European-mainstream-scientists-and-the-French-curriculum?p=1835693#post1835693

(obviously anyone else is cordially invited to attend should they have something to add or ask about)


your talk about my evidence evasion pre requisites etd etc, will have no place in my willingness to discuss the documents content, and any attempts to position me will be ignoed, i am willing as stated to discuss the content of the documentation.Nothing personal. I'm not aware of your previous conduct in situations like this. However I'm twice bitten, thrice shy about the willingness of people making exceedingly extraordinary claims to actually present their evidence in a forthcoming manner. You will need to show some co-operation to earn my trust and goodwill. Go ahead.

manxman
2010-Dec-31, 08:42 AM
a) You posted it while I was writing my post so I didn't see it until I'd submitted my post. You would have guessed this if you'd checked the times; it's not rocket science.

b) As a matter of fact, yes it was difficult to understand when I got round to reading it. It wasn't immediately clear which bits were quoted and which were your answers, not least because you quoted one bit and didn't answer it, and you use some bizarre English; what the heck does "any attempts to position me will be igno[r]ed" mean?

c) It doesn't answer the questions chrizs asked. Make no mistake, they were questions that shouldn't have needed asking.



I think you'll find that regular BAUTers will not be rail-roaded into time-wasting nonsense, for all your blustering.

my blustering time wasting nonsence, interesting coming from someone who couldnt be bothered to read a word of those documents, yet can make 2 lenghty posts about nothing much really except the
thinly disguised insult.

My blustering you say.
Funny stuff.

chrlzs
2010-Dec-31, 08:59 AM
Only i suggest you read them first... even on your own admission you didnt read a word of them yet you make unfounded assertions str8 up. Thats the kind of unadulterated garbbage i refered to.

Nice.

FTR, manxman, I have read these documents, in quite some detail, about two years ago. Don't make assumptions.

I would have been most happy to prove that I'm familiar with the documents, if you were prepared to simply quote the bits you found compelling - and then watch what happens when proper scrutiny is applied.

How else do you think I know how ill-informed and ill-selected the authors were, how biased-to-a-result the report was, and why it was rejected/disowned by authorities and even the former employers of the authors..?

And now you are unwilling to quote anything from that to support your case?

Readers can draw their own conclusions.

Paul Beardsley
2010-Dec-31, 09:14 AM
Readers can draw their own conclusions.

Yes, quite.

manxman
2010-Dec-31, 09:21 AM
You over estimate the importance of your opinions, in my opinion, you also under-estimate the intelligence of the audience in my opinion aswell.

Paul Beardsley
2010-Dec-31, 09:25 AM
I am personaly a fan of the theory that the ancients just had too much time on their hands.

Perhaps that is stating it wrongly. They lacked modern distractions, and had the initiative to make something that would last for a long time.


They had the same type of brains we have today. They had large numbers and could communicate their skills and ideas. I don't see why they couldn't build the pyramids, or any of the other things they created.



I also don't see why an ancient alien race would bother coming to earth just to help make pyramids, then wait a long time and help build stone henge, then wait several hundred years inbetween and make nasca lines.(I'm more than likely out of order here but I know that)

It's illogical.

You missed out the part where they waited a bit longer to make those crop circles that were not positively identified as being made by some blokes with time on their hands.

I wonder if the aliens' spaceships had portholes. Hmm, still waiting for evidence for that...

tnjrp
2010-Dec-31, 09:32 AM
I am personaly a fan of the theory that the ancients just had too much time on their handsIndeed. Egyptians for example moved an entire city to another place once :)


I also don't see why an ancient alien race would bother coming to earth just to help make pyramids, then wait a long time and help build stone henge, then wait several hundred years inbetween and make nasca lines.(I'm more than likely out of order here but I know that)The order is mildly irrelevant in this case as indeed many of the claimed ancient astronaut "artefacts" are tought by the mainstream science to have been constructed over an exceedingly long period of time (as well as by different cultures, obviously). Which means that either the AAs sat around on their hands a lot or, like Von Däniken insinuates, the mainstream dating of the artefacts is faulty.

JAXAi
2010-Dec-31, 12:33 PM
There is good evidence for a chromosome fusion event, though I don't know where you're getting the 150,000-200,000 year estimate (our last common ancestor with the great apes goes back millions of years).



Why not? Chromosome fusion is common, so I don't know why this would be astounding.



But it is seen elsewhere. For instance, chromosome fusion in pigs:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8697808

Plants:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17036078

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15780.abstract

Fish:

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1415-47572008000200012&script=sci_arttext


Loyd Pie needs to do more research.

Very good find and after reviewing your links I concede the point regarding chromosomal fusion being an "unprecedented" event.

Regarding the 150,000-200,000 year time reference I was referring to mitochondrial Eve which has become established scientific fact that through the Human Genome Project we have traced our (as a specie) common ancestor to roughly 150,000 years ago in Africa. I thought that was fairly obvious, however in the future I will be sure to make things like this more clear.

However I doubt this area of the forum will be a regular area for me. As I said this subject is barely interesting to me. I`m more interested in looking forward (space colonization, rocketry, space current events) than looking backward.

Paul Beardsley
2010-Dec-31, 12:45 PM
Very good find and after reviewing your links I concede the point regarding chromosomal fusion being an "unprecedented" event.

Everyone makes mistakes but not everyone admits it.


Regarding the 150,000-200,000 year time reference I was referring to mitochondrial Eve which has become established scientific fact that through the Human Genome Project we have traced our (as a specie) common ancestor to roughly 150,000 years ago in Africa. I thought that was fairly obvious, however in the future I will be sure to make things like this more clear.

It's not really obvious, given that the DNA in mitochondria has nothing to do with chromosomes. Or am I mistaken?


However I doubt this area of the forum will be a regular area for me. As I said this subject is barely interesting to me. I`m more interested in looking forward (space colonization, rocketry, space current events) than looking backward.

I don't blame you.

tnjrp
2010-Dec-31, 01:00 PM
It was hardly obvious to me either. On the contrary it seemed very much like the timeframe mentioned was intentented to refer to the chromosome #2 fusion.


It's not really obvious, given that the DNA in mitochondria has nothing to do with chromosomes. Or am I mistaken?Not as such, no. Also, m-Eve has little to do with the very origin of modern human species. Here's a nice video on that subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjdZ5GmU61o

I'm not sure as of yet if even the chromosome #2 fusion can be timed to coincide with the rise of modern human. I would think it would've occured much earlier in the human evolution, given that it's fairly widely assumed for example that Neanterthal and Cro-Magnon humans were able to interbreed (and produce fertile offspring). Would seem much less likely if they had different number of chromosomes.

captain swoop
2010-Dec-31, 01:43 PM
No i will not be discussing the documents here any further.
If however you or anyone else wishes to do so, then start a thread about the documents.
Only i suggest you read them first that way you wont have to ask about peer reviews and scientists names and qualifications etc.
even on your own admission you didnt read a word of them yet you make unfounded assertions str8 up.
Thats the kind of unadulterated garbbage i refered to.

If you don't wish to discuss this any further and won't answer the questions then withdraw the statements. You are obliged to support your claims in this forum.
If your next post does not answer the outstanding questions or withdraw the claims I will infract you

ShadowSot
2010-Dec-31, 03:48 PM
Has anyone pointed out yet that the Pyramids of Giza were not built during the Stone Age, but the Bronze Age?

Tom Servo
2010-Dec-31, 04:23 PM
I wonder why the randomly time travling aliens didn't want to give the dinosaurs something big to worship? Perhaps a Jurasic great wall of China, or something like that.

Or maybe the aliens destroyed the dinosaurs to make room for us humans? :think:

Sorry Im just making wild assumptions based on my own imagination.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-31, 06:16 PM
my blustering time wasting nonsence, interesting coming from someone who couldnt be bothered to read a word of those documents, yet can make 2 lenghty posts about nothing much really except the
thinly disguised insult.

You think those posts were lengthy?


My blustering you say.
Funny stuff.

Well, Paul Beardsley and various of the others have written concise, erudite posts, generally outlining the failings in your argument or at least how it's presented. It is, after all, your responsibility to present your evidence clearly and concisely, not ask people to go chasing about after it. It also helps, and I know we've talked about this before, if you put a little effort into writing the best, clearest communication you can so we actually know what your points are in the first place. I can't speak for everyone, but I am often confused by your writing.

gzhpcu
2010-Dec-31, 06:30 PM
You over estimate the importance of your opinions, in my opinion, you also under-estimate the intelligence of the audience in my opinion aswell.

Yet you underestimate the intelligence of the BAUT members... :)

cjameshuff
2010-Dec-31, 08:18 PM
Regarding the 150,000-200,000 year time reference I was referring to mitochondrial Eve which has become established scientific fact that through the Human Genome Project we have traced our (as a specie) common ancestor to roughly 150,000 years ago in Africa. I thought that was fairly obvious, however in the future I will be sure to make things like this more clear.

Mitochondrial Eve was the last common matrilineal ancestor of everyone today. This has nothing to do with chromosome count, it only means that everyone has mitochondria inherited from her...mitochondria being passed from the mother and not the father. It doesn't mean that other humans alive at the time have no living descendants, only that their line of descent to any person alive today passes through a father at at least one point.

There is a similar patrilineal line of descent for the Y chromosome, which is not carried by the mother. The Y-chromosomal Adam is thought to have lived 50-80 thousand years after Mitochondrial Eve, and there's a reasonable chance he wasn't one of her descendants. All existing Y chromosomes were inherited from him. Other chromosomes are inherited from both parents and contain genetic information inherited from Y-chromosomal Adam's and Mitochondrial Eve's brothers, sisters, and cousins.

These dates weren't arrived at from fossils, but from study of modern populations and modeling of populations over time. They certainly don't mark when we split off from the apes or when two chromosomes fused to form the modern chromosome 2...whoever the original fused chromosome 2 came from could have far predated either of them. The last common ancestor with any surviving species of ape was about 6 million years ago, and the change in chromosome count could have occurred at any point in that period, and could be shared with any number of the proto-humans that we have fossils of.

Przewalski's horse is another example. Przewalski's horse chromosomes 23 and 24 are either merged into chromosome 5 of the domestic horse, or derived from a chromosome 5 that split into two chromosomes in Przewalski's horse. They're still fertile with domestic horses, despite the differing chromosome count. And different species of zebra similarly differ from horses and from each other in chromosome count, due to fusion of chromosomes: http://books.google.com/books?id=oyHr4hVs0m0C&lpg=PA449&ots=GFtbagDc49&pg=PA449#v=onepage&q&f=false

The claims of it being improbably precise are inaccurate...in the human chromosome 2 case, the chromosomes were simply concatenated, with a chunk of telomere stuck in the middle of chromosome 2 along with the remains of an extra centromere. Chromosome 2's a bit like two different books bound in one cover, complete with table of contents, indexes, and blank pages at the start and end of each.

Jim
2010-Dec-31, 09:56 PM
Mitochondrial Eve was ...

Thank you! That was amazingly informative. My day is no longer a waste.

Van Rijn
2010-Dec-31, 10:01 PM
Very good find and after reviewing your links I concede the point regarding chromosomal fusion being an "unprecedented" event.


Fair enough. Believe me, back when I was reading books by some of the ancient astronaut proponents, I ended up having to concede quite a few points I had picked up from them. The important thing is to be willing to go where the evidence leads.



Regarding the 150,000-200,000 year time reference I was referring to mitochondrial Eve which has become established scientific fact that through the Human Genome Project we have traced our (as a specie) common ancestor to roughly 150,000 years ago in Africa. I thought that was fairly obvious, however in the future I will be sure to make things like this more clear.


Thanks for the clarification. Like others, I thought you were referring to the fusion event.

Garrison
2010-Dec-31, 10:12 PM
my blustering time wasting nonsence, interesting coming from someone who couldnt be bothered to read a word of those documents, yet can make 2 lenghty posts about nothing much really except the
thinly disguised insult.

My blustering you say.
Funny stuff.

Yes your blustering manxman, like the Tombaugh portholes statement that you made with such certitude and still haven't come up with a citation for in two months, bluster like that.

PetersCreek
2011-Jan-01, 12:40 AM
That's enough bluster...and dragging up old threads...from both sides. Please return this discussion to the topic and a civil tone.

Swift
2011-Jan-01, 05:00 PM
Kaboom's discussion about pyramids has been moved to this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/111140-Kaboom-s-pyramid-thread).

tnjrp
2011-Jan-03, 10:00 AM
And the thread has been subseqently closed, as has my European scientists/French curriculum one. Oh well.

I still haven't had time or just dumb luck in establishing when the chromosome #2 fusion is assumed to have taken place. I must amend my previous post on the subject a bit tho because it may make it seem like the chromosome count is a by-all factor deciding the ability to produce fertile offspring: it isn't, as specifically evidence by the case of the aforementioned Przewalski's Horse and domesticated horse. It just makes succesful production of a viable hybrid line less likely to occur.

A.DIM
2011-Jan-03, 04:32 PM
Why can't another civilization on another planet visit us - the limit of the speed of light for one.

That's not corect, is it?
Certainly the speed of light limit argument is a solid theory against frequent visitation, but it doesn't preclude interstellar transport at sublight speeds resulting in one maybe every ten thousand years (I read it was Sagan who said as much).

I don't think we know enough to say it's not feasible.


But even if the idea is plausible, there is still no proof I've seen that it actually happened.

I'm still waiting for answers to an earlier query in this thread, from anyone: If we allow the possibility Earth was visited by ancient astronauts what evidence should we expect to find?

eburacum45
2011-Jan-03, 04:59 PM
That depends on how you define 'ancient astronauts'. If these 'astronauts' visited in prehistory, especially in some period before the Holocene, we might not expect to find much evidence, unless they stayed for a long time and set up a colony. If they did set up a colony we might expect to find palaeontological evidence (fossils) or archaeological evidence (their buildings, or their mines/excavations). If they interacted with our biosphere we might expect to find biological remnants of their star (remnants of their food crops, or their intestinal flora, if any).

None of these have been found. I would not be surprised if some evidence of this sort was found eventually; a long-lost colony would be very useful evidence of extraterrestrial life.

If, however, they arrived within the historical period (since the start of human records) we might once again expect to see any or all of these things, plus evidence of cultural interaction. Unless, of course, the visitors sealed themselves hermetically into their landing craft and avoided any contact. No physical evidence has been found from the historical period, and any cultural evidence that has been presented is more easily explained as the results of normal human culture. So there still is no good evidence for sustained contact, and if there has been minimal contact it does not seem to have been historically significant.

Most telling is the lack of genetic evidence, in my opinion. Despite the (quite ancient) reduction in the number of chromosomes, humans are not especially different from other apes genetically, and they are certainly not 'hybrids' with any extraterrestrial species, a possibility which would be incredibly unlikely to be viable in any case.

Garrison
2011-Jan-03, 05:05 PM
I'm still waiting for answers to an earlier query in this thread, from anyone: If we allow the possibility Earth was visited by ancient astronauts what evidence should we expect to find?

Actually surely it's down to those claiming it has happened to provide the evidence? I am fairly well versed in a number of the items they have put forward over the years, from the Nazca lines as alien runways, to egyptian lightbulbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendera_Temple_complex#The_Dendera_light), to Inca jet planes (http://www.2atoms.com/weird/ancient/plane.htm), and none if stands up under closer scrutiny.

R.A.F.
2011-Jan-03, 05:57 PM
...surely it's down to those claiming it has happened to provide the evidence?

Exactly...since there is no evidence for ancient alien visitors, why should we "allow" for it??

ZappBrannigan
2011-Jan-03, 06:01 PM
I'm still waiting for answers to an earlier query in this thread, from anyone: If we allow the possibility Earth was visited by ancient astronauts what evidence should we expect to find?

A 488 foot tall pyramid near Giza consisting of one huge, unbroken block of diamond created by seeding the sand with pre-programmed nanobots.

These guys just crossed interstellar space. I think they can do better than little bronze airplanes and piles of stone.

Paul Beardsley
2011-Jan-03, 09:56 PM
Actually surely it's down to those claiming it has happened to provide the evidence? I am fairly well versed in a number of the items they have put forward over the years, from the Nazca lines as alien runways, to egyptian lightbulbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendera_Temple_complex#The_Dendera_light), to Inca jet planes (http://www.2atoms.com/weird/ancient/plane.htm), and none if stands up under closer scrutiny.

Agreed 100%.

Of course, we could compile a very long list of things that we would accept as evidence, but as it would probably have to include things we haven't even imagined if it were to be exhaustive.

captain swoop
2011-Jan-03, 11:43 PM
Is ther a point to this thread anymore? Who is supporting the OP? If it's just turned into a general discussion then it can be closed.

tnjrp
2011-Jan-04, 06:43 AM
Well, since it looks this thread's going to go anyway it prolly doesn't matter much if I finish addressing the off-topic issue of the following two claims
Mainstream scientists in europe are already of the conclusion that they already have done, thats why the french school corriculum teaches their kids in that direction, and i have no doubt other continentals follow their leadthat are reportedly (as per this locked thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/111096-Alien-visitations-European-mainstream-scientists-and-the-French-curriculum)) evidenced by these two documents:
http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/COMETA_part1.pdf
http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/COMETA_part2.pdf

Having now read both documents (which are in fact two parts of the same document) I can fairly safely say that there is very little to nothing by the way of such evidence to be found in them. The implied claim that mainstream scientist in Europe or anywhere else for that matter would be "coming around" to see the alien hypothesis for UFOs as viable is in fact both refuted (at least twice) but also insininuated to be true (once). The French school curriculum claim is not to be found at all and should apparently be infered from the existence of the document(s).

In addition, on the issue of

These scientific studies of scientific studies make a mockery of most of te unfounded rubbish spoken at baut.(while I have some trouble understanding what "scientific studies of scientific studies" means in this case) I found them to be fairly sub-par, rife with insinuation and rampant speculation and written from the POV of alien visitation being really not at all short of an established scientific fact. There are even some "ancient astronauts" claims offhandedly thrown in but not really addressed, so there is in fact a very marginal connection to the subject matter of this thread.

If memory serves, there are better and more objective GEPAN/SEPRA related documents available "out there", including more in-depth analysis of the UFO/UAP cases listed in the first PDF. Unfortunately I lack time to provide you with any links so anyone who's interest is piqued must do their own "donkeywork".

A.DIM
2011-Jan-04, 02:45 PM
That depends on how you define 'ancient astronauts'. If these 'astronauts' visited in prehistory, especially in some period before the Holocene, we might not expect to find much evidence, unless they stayed for a long time and set up a colony. If they did set up a colony we might expect to find palaeontological evidence (fossils) or archaeological evidence (their buildings, or their mines/excavations). If they interacted with our biosphere we might expect to find biological remnants of their star (remnants of their food crops, or their intestinal flora, if any).
None of these have been found. I would not be surprised if some evidence of this sort was found eventually; a long-lost colony would be very useful evidence of extraterrestrial life.

Agreed, although I'm not sure how to define ancient astronauts. I try not to impose anthropocentric thinking on allegedly advance space faring species. Are they ecologically minded ("pack out what you pack in") leaving as little impact on the environment visited? Could be, and I like to think so, but who knows? Certainly it seems some trace would be discovered if a colony were here. Then again, if humans were to vanish immediately it wouldn't take long for the natural world to reclaim and disguise our presence, and we're all over the planet.


If, however, they arrived within the historical period (since the start of human records) we might once again expect to see any or all of these things, plus evidence of cultural interaction. Unless, of course, the visitors sealed themselves hermetically into their landing craft and avoided any contact. No physical evidence has been found from the historical period, and any cultural evidence that has been presented is more easily explained as the results of normal human culture. So there still is no good evidence for sustained contact, and if there has been minimal contact it does not seem to have been historically significant.

Yes, it's seems humans, at least since they started scratching on cave walls into the present, have an amazing propensity for depicting objects and strange beings, telling stories of people from the heavens who had a hand in their creation. It's quite normal.


Most telling is the lack of genetic evidence, in my opinion. Despite the (quite ancient) reduction in the number of chromosomes, humans are not especially different from other apes genetically, and they are certainly not 'hybrids' with any extraterrestrial species, a possibility which would be incredibly unlikely to be viable in any case.

I don't know, if advanced ET could splice genes why not to the point of allowing hybrids procreation?
The number of chomosomes is a curiosity yes, but no proof of alien intervention to be sure.

Thanks for the response, eburacum45.

A.DIM
2011-Jan-04, 02:54 PM
Actually surely it's down to those claiming it has happened to provide the evidence?

Of course it is.
I simply couldn't recall the question being answered.


I am fairly well versed in a number of the items they have put forward over the years, from the Nazca lines as alien runways, to egyptian lightbulbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendera_Temple_complex#The_Dendera_light), to Inca jet planes (http://www.2atoms.com/weird/ancient/plane.htm), and none if stands up under closer scrutiny.

None of it proves ancient astronauts certainly, but the mainstream explanations for such things are often as lacking, IMO of course. I'm no scholar but I too am fairly well versed.

Paul Beardsley
2011-Jan-04, 05:22 PM
None of it proves ancient astronauts

Oh come on, it doesn't even suggest ancient astronauts.

Gillianren
2011-Jan-04, 05:59 PM
I think it fits into the "when all you have is a hammer" scenario. When you are specifically expecting to find evidence of alien visitation, anything that you, personally, either can't explain or don't believe the mainstream explanation of is automatically aliens. Silly, really.

R.A.F.
2011-Jan-04, 06:04 PM
...the mainstream explanations for such things are often as lacking, IMO of course. I'm no scholar but I too am fairly well versed.

Since you have characterized yourself as "fairly well versed", the implication is that your opinion holds more "weight" that an "uninformed" opinion...for that reason I'd like to see your evidence that mainstream explanations are "lacking".

R.A.F.
2011-Jan-04, 06:05 PM
...the mainstream explanations for such things are often as lacking, IMO of course. I'm no scholar but I too am fairly well versed.

Since you have characterized yourself as "fairly well versed", the implication is that your opinion holds more "weight" that an "uninformed" opinion...for that reason I'd like to see your evidence that mainstream explanations are "lacking".

Garrison
2011-Jan-04, 06:50 PM
None of it proves ancient astronauts certainly, but the mainstream explanations for such things are often as lacking, IMO of course. I'm no scholar but I too am fairly well versed.


And you don't find the alternates threadbare since you are 'fairly well versed'? I mean with the 'jet fighters' you have a mainstream explanation of them as birds, fish, or insects and the stylization fits in with the rest of Inca art. Alternately you had alien jet planes roaming the skies of Mesoamerica and the locals making models of them. You seriously find the former lacking but would entertain something like the latter?

Garrison
2011-Jan-04, 06:56 PM
None of it proves ancient astronauts certainly, but the mainstream explanations for such things are often as lacking, IMO of course. I'm no scholar but I too am fairly well versed.

Lacking compared to what? Mesoasmerican jet planes? Ten foot long Egyptian lightbulbs? Please do tell why explanations based on representations of animals or mythology are lacking in comparison?

MaDeR
2011-Jan-04, 08:51 PM
if advanced ET could splice genes why not to the point of allowing hybrids procreation?
You fail biology forever (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouFailBiologyForever). You would have better luck running on mac (PowerPC) executable stitched half/half from windows executable and linux executable.
This kind of feat would be possible only if aliens and us had common ancestor with same DNA/RNA. And what use would hybrids have anyway?

captain swoop
2011-Jan-04, 11:06 PM
OK I dont even see a hint of a COnspiracy anywhere in this thread. To me it was always borderline.

Closed