Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

PSI, Mediums, Ghosts, UFOs, Things That Go Bump In The Night
thetruth1
New Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:40 pm

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by thetruth1 » Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:44 pm

str8 from the uk gov....http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
matripley
Poster
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by matripley » Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:27 pm

Gord wrote: Nile River Valley
Mesopotamia (which means "between the rivers")
Indus Valley
Yellow River Valley
the Coatzacoalcos River basin (Olmecs) (I think they actually spread to other river basins as well though)
the Oaxaca Valley (Zapotecs)
OK, you are using the definition that involves civilizations with the word valley in their english name?

Are you saying none of those were coastal? Really?

Thats a cool map, thanks.


My only comment would be that all of them have coastal elements.

namaste
http://www.salted.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
matripley
Poster
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by matripley » Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:49 pm

Thylacine wrote:"Antediluvian" is a term usually used in reference to the Biblical flood legend. You use the term several times here and at least once in another post
It's not relevant to me what other context it is used in. If we have a semantic disagreement we can clarify. for the record I take it to mean in its literal sense of before+the flood.
Just for clarity's sake, so I'll know where you're coming from, are you trying to establish a relationship between these maps and your ideas on prehistoric civilizations with the creation stories in Genesis?
If there was a lost civilization before our history began it would seem reasonable to assume there would be cultural evidence of this in the influences that have survived into our history?

It seems plausible to me and many others that the Genisis flood myth refers to this 100m global sea level rise, 10,000 years or so ago.
Latitude and longitude are off by many hundreds of miles, physical area of the landmasses differ enormously, almost no similarity exists between the coastlines —
The kind of matches I would be thinking of would be to do with the interal structural properies of the maps. They could be maps of bacteria diagrams, it wouldn't matter.
There's no need for more precise metrics since a significant correlation fails using even the roughest metrics.
Now you are being dogmatic. I think there is a need for as more precise metric, if you don't, that's fine, but please don't tell me what I do or don't require when it comes to my beliefs.

:)
Gobleci Tepi? The Sphinx? Plato? You'll need to explain your ideas there.
Goblica Tepi - wiki it
The Sphinx - I think there is evidence suggesting it is older than 10,000 years.
Plato - he wrote about atlantis ending 9 thousand years before his time.

Given the lack of evidence and the improbability of prehistoric "remnant knowledge" of detailed geographic information relating to the South Pole being passed along in some unknown form to a handful of geographically and culturally separated Medieval, Renaissance and Ottoman map makers, then disappearing without a trace, it seems highly improbable.
But you talk about improbability as if you know which way the die lands. These are just your opinions based on your understanding of your access to the evidence. In the same was as my opinions are for me.
Again, for me, there's almost no resemblance whatsoever without twisting, shrinking, repositioning, altering sea levels and using a hefty dose of the same sort of imagination that makes clouds look like rabbits and dragons.
have you read the chapter in Fingerprints of the Gods about this? I think the evidence is well presented, the conclusions not good.

As a skeptic, I'm much more skeptical of fruitcakes than I am of experts.
Then you are bias? Would you not have been against gallilao and tesla?

You should be as skeptical as you can with both. That is surely the only way? if not, why not?
It's not that fruitcakes can't be right, it's just that there's a much higher statistical probability of them being wrong than the experts.
Sure, I 100% agree. But again, if we can see the fruitcake is wrong, we can show them, they might not listen but we will have tried.If we cant show them wrong, then maybe they are right, and we are wrong?
Besides, I'm not relying on expert opinions when comparing the old maps to the new. Instead, I look at both, and see no significant correlation that amounts to anything more than a curiosity.
I see correlations that make me curious. I am less curious now than a month ago, but still curious:)
1) 10,000+ years ago were there humans creating art and building structures?
2) 10,000+ years ago was there a massive coastal land area that is now submerged?
3) Have most civilizations arisen in, or adjacent to, coastal areas?
4) Is there any evidence from this flooded land area for (now up to 100m below the sea) supporting civilized human habitation?
Answers: (1) Yes, (2) Yes, (3) No, (4) Yes
[/quote]

OK, so I guess we both can we where we dissagree:)

I guess if you call coastal, tribal-based fishing villages civilizations, sure, they start along coastlines. However, if you're referring to more complicated civilizations of the sort normally referred to as being civilizations, they all started in river valleys, as has already been mentioned. Off the top of my head, the only iffy exception being the Mezo American civilization that, arguably, began along several smaller rivers around the Yucatan. None of these civilizations, however, were dependent upon or the result of a coastline.
OK, but you overlook two key possibilities:

Maybe they were a global coastal civilization that is since flooded.

Maybe you are wrong about the extent of seafaring the known civilizations you mention got up to?

There is no evidence, though, of any advanced civilizations during this period.
If there are structures under the sea, as claimed, then there is certainly evidence for this.
And if that were they case, we would have extensive planet-wide evidence?
Maybe its there and we haven't found it, do you think we are a know it all civilization already?

cool to chat

mat
http://www.salted.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by corymaylett » Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:53 pm

matripley wrote:It seems plausible to me and many others that the Genisis flood myth refers to this 100m global sea level rise, 10,000 years or so ago.
That does not seem especially plausible to me — especially given that this rise in sea levels occurred over many thousands of years. It seems much more plausible to me that the flood myth is of Mesopotamian origin, which makes sense since the Tigris and Euphrates were prone to flooding.
matripley wrote:
Thylacine wrote:There's no need for more precise metrics since a significant correlation fails using even the roughest metrics.
Now you are being dogmatic. I think there is a need for as more precise metric, if you don't, that's fine, but please don't tell me what I do or don't require when it comes to my beliefs.
I have no basis to know what your belief system requires and made claims to that effect. To me, the old maps are clearly and unmistakably not based upon the actual topography or coastal outline of the Antarctic continent. I see almost no significant similarities between the old maps or their relationship to the actual landmass. More precise metrics are not needed when differentiating between several objects that have little to no similarity to one another. I think you're seeing patterns that aren't there, so we'll just have to disagree on this.
matripley wrote:
Thylacine wrote:Gobleci Tepi? The Sphinx? Plato? You'll need to explain your ideas there.
Goblica Tepi - wiki it
The Sphinx - I think there is evidence suggesting it is older than 10,000 years.
Plato - he wrote about atlantis ending 9 thousand years before his time.
Google returns nothing on "Goblica Tepi." As for Atlantis and a prehistoric origin of The Sphinx, they're fanciful stories, but lack compelling evidence.
matripley wrote:
Thylacine wrote:Given the lack of evidence and the improbability of prehistoric "remnant knowledge" of detailed geographic information relating to the South Pole being passed along in some unknown form to a handful of geographically and culturally separated Medieval, Renaissance and Ottoman map makers, then disappearing without a trace, it seems highly improbable.
But you talk about improbability as if you know which way the die lands. These are just your opinions based on your understanding of your access to the evidence. In the same was as my opinions are for me.
Actually, I'm talking about statistical modeling improbabilities — more algebra than opinion.
matripley wrote:have you read the chapter in Fingerprints of the Gods about this? I think the evidence is well presented, the conclusions not good.
Ahhhh! Okay. Now I'm finding a basis for your ideas. To be honest, though, I haven't read the book. Perhaps I should.
matripley wrote:
Thylacine wrote:As a skeptic, I'm much more skeptical of fruitcakes than I am of experts.
Then you are bias? Would you not have been against gallilao and tesla?

You should be as skeptical as you can with both. That is surely the only way? if not, why not?
Once again, it's statistically unlikely for a seemingly silly opinion from a guy off the street to have a higher chance of being correct than that of an expert. Given the limited amount of time available to analyze all opinions as being initially equal, it's necessary to consider the reliability and credentials of the source while staying open minded enough to be persuaded by evidence to the contrary. As for Galileo, sure, he could have been seen as a disciple of that crackpot Copernicus, and I might have dismissed it as such at the time. The difference, of course, was that Copernicus's math described the movement of the planets quite well and did so in a way that made coincidence statistically improbable. Then Galileo backed up the general concepts of heliocentric theory with rock-solid observational evidence.
matripley wrote:
Thylacine wrote:It's not that fruitcakes can't be right, it's just that there's a much higher statistical probability of them being wrong than the experts.
Sure, I 100% agree. But again, if we can see the fruitcake is wrong, we can show them, they might not listen but we will have tried.If we cant show them wrong, then maybe they are right, and we are wrong?
I see no convincing evidence for prehistoric human civilizations, and a preponderance of convincing evidence against. And yes, as far as Graham Hancock's (Fingerprints of the Gods) theories, I'm relying on "expert" opinion to tell me he's a crank. A quick Wikipedia lookup of the guy, however, doesn't inspire much confidence, but I would be interested in reading more.
matripley wrote:
Thylacine wrote:I guess if you call coastal, tribal-based fishing villages civilizations, sure, they start along coastlines. However, if you're referring to more complicated civilizations of the sort normally referred to as being civilizations, they all started in river valleys, as has already been mentioned. Off the top of my head, the only iffy exception being the Mezo American civilization that, arguably, began along several smaller rivers around the Yucatan. None of these civilizations, however, were dependent upon or the result of a coastline.
OK, but you overlook two key possibilities:

Maybe they were a global coastal civilization that is since flooded.

Maybe you are wrong about the extent of seafaring the known civilizations you mention got up to?
A global, coastal civilization might be expected to have been mobile enough to have moved to higher ground over the course of the several thousand years that it took the sea levels to rise. Of course, the civilization could have collapsed and the archeological evidence of its one-time existence flooded. It does seem more than a bit improbable, though, that a coastal civilization capable of charting the topographical details of the interior and coastline of the Antarctic continent that was, at the time, during the ice age, buried beneath a kilometer or two of solid ice, with thick sea ice extending hundreds of miles beyond the actual shoreline, would have left considerable and substantial evidence of its advanced technology or of having explored or colonized more accessible areas of the planet.
matripley wrote:
Thylacine wrote:There is no evidence, though, of any advanced civilizations during this period.
If there are structures under the sea, as claimed, then there is certainly evidence for this.
The structures found beneath the sea are neolithic remnants that equate to small structures and artifacts, not advanced civilizations. There's no evidence of them being more than that.
matripley wrote:
Thylacine wrote:And if that were they case, we would have extensive planet-wide evidence?
Maybe its there and we haven't found it, do you think we are a know it all civilization already?
I don't think we're a know-it-all civilization. I do think, however, that a civilization with highly advanced technology capable of charting the interior of a continent buried beneath kilometers of ice would have left remnants a bit more obvious than a few submerged stone huts or mysteriously carved stones. Once we find the equivalent of a prehistoric 19th Century London or even neolithic garbage dumps containing plastics, milled aluminum or remnants of ice-piercing radar components, I'll change my mind.

I do need to check out that book, though. ;)

Chachacha
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9167
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:07 am
Custom Title: Irrational Skeptic

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by Chachacha » Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:12 am

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Chachacha wrote:My favorite ancient alien theories are: the halo around Jesus' head was an alien helmet, and Jesus was the first to say, "Beam me up, Scotty."
After which, McCoy said "Jesus, how did you get loose? Have you been chewing your nails again?"
1st read: huh?
2nd read: scrunched-up face
3rd read: staring at the screen with a blank look
4th read: Oh!!!!!!!!!! Ha ha ha! :mrgreen:

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11986
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by OlegTheBatty » Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:03 am

Thylacine wrote:A global, coastal civilization might be expected to have been mobile enough to have moved to higher ground over the course of the several thousand years that it took the sea levels to rise.
About 8200 years ago, There was a major freshwater flooding of the oceans when Lake Agassiz Ojibway let between 1.2 x 1014 and 5.0 x 1014 m3 of water into Hudson's Bay. Sea floor sediment core analyses of salinity changes show that the water flowed down the east coast of North America before fully mixing with the sea water. It caused the Gulf Stream to shift, and resulted in a 160 year reversal of glacial melt in the Northern Hemisphere.
Total sea level rise could have been as much as 6m give or take, and would have varied a fair bit between locations because of the way the water flowed and mixed. It is a leading candidate for the flooding that raised the Mediterranean over the Bosporus Bridge and created the Black Sea out of Black Lake.
The event took about 20-25 years. It would still have left time for a coastal civilization to move. We know from pottery and other similar clues that the displaced Black Sea farmers probably relocated westward to Croatia and maybe northern Greece. If they had time, so would a civilization.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

User avatar
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by corymaylett » Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:46 am

OlegTheBatty wrote:About 8200 years ago, There was a major freshwater flooding of the oceans when Lake Agassiz Ojibway let between 1.2 x 1014 and 5.0 x 1014 m3 of water into Hudson's Bay.
The size of the Hudson Bay discharge that seemingly triggered the 8.2 ka cooling event is apparently the subject of some uncertainty. The figures you reference are probably at the upper limits of what would have been possible. A paper from the University of Illinois and Utrecht University in the Netherlands documents a study done on the Mississippi River Delta indicating a more modest sea level rise of less than 1.2 meters during the 8.2 ka event, which would correspond to a smaller discharge. Either, however, are significant water level rises over a geologically insignificant amount of time.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34971
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by Gord » Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:42 pm

matripley wrote:
Gord wrote: Nile River Valley
Mesopotamia (which means "between the rivers")
Indus Valley
Yellow River Valley
the Coatzacoalcos River basin (Olmecs) (I think they actually spread to other river basins as well though)
the Oaxaca Valley (Zapotecs)
OK, you are using the definition that involves civilizations with the word valley in their english name?

Are you saying none of those were coastal? Really?

...

My only comment would be that all of them have coastal elements.
They have the word "valley" in their English names because they arose in valleys. That's not a reason to discount them.

And yes, I was saying none of them were coastal. However, the Olmecs may have been; I haven't looked into them enough to know. They lived in the alluvial plains, which is a feature of coastlines.

Having a coastal element is not enough to declare a civilization coastal. Is Canada a coastal civlization? Is the US? No, because the majority of the population lives away from the coast, and does not rely on the coast for its subsistance.

There was an author once -- I can't remember which one* -- who noted that most of the world's earliest known civilizations where near tall mountains. He claimed this was evidence for a world flood. The only survivors would have been those who sought refuge atop the highest mountains. Afterwards, they would have founded their new civilizations as they descended down the valleys from those mountains.

The major river valleys wherein these civilizations arose have both the mountains and the coastline in common, not because of the mountains or the coast, but because the major rivers start at the mountains and end at the coastlines.



*maybe it was von Däniken?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
matripley
Poster
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by matripley » Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:44 pm

Gord wrote:There was an author once -- I can't remember which one* -- who noted that most of the world's earliest known civilizations where near tall mountains. He claimed this was evidence for a world flood.
I am sure we both see the errors in that claim:)

It's a different claim to the accepted "great flood"...
http://www.salted.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1954
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by Blacksamwell » Tue Dec 21, 2010 10:39 pm

matripley wrote:
Gord wrote:There was an author once -- I can't remember which one* -- who noted that most of the world's earliest known civilizations where near tall mountains. He claimed this was evidence for a world flood.
I am sure we both see the errors in that claim:)

It's a different claim to the accepted "great flood"...
Who accepts this claim?

User avatar
fromthehills
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by fromthehills » Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:18 am

Blacksamwell wrote:
matripley wrote:
Gord wrote:There was an author once -- I can't remember which one* -- who noted that most of the world's earliest known civilizations where near tall mountains. He claimed this was evidence for a world flood.
I am sure we both see the errors in that claim:)

It's a different claim to the accepted "great flood"...
Who accepts this claim?

Not I.

Bunyip
Regular Poster
Posts: 751
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:56 pm
Location: Adelaide South Australia

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by Bunyip » Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:50 am

It's a different claim to the accepted "great flood"..

Which one is that? I wasn't aware there was one.

Many (not all) cultures have a flood myth,but not within the same time frame.. I have not yet seem any evidence of a world flood during human habitation,

Catastrophic floods are one of the most common natural disasters. Until a few centuries ago,if there was a flood to the horizon,many people would have assumed the world was flooded and that [a] god did it.

Tangent: Some Scholars are currently suggesting that at least one civilisation in meso America ended due to periodic floods caused by El Nino.
Man is not so much a rational animal as a rationalising one.

User avatar
matripley
Poster
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by matripley » Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:08 am

Bunyip wrote:
It's a different claim to the accepted "great flood"..

Which one is that? I wasn't aware there was one.
The one in which the sea levels rose tens of meters ten thousand or so years ago. Do you dispute this?
Many (not all) cultures have a flood myth,but not within the same time frame.. I have not yet seem any evidence of a world flood during human habitation,
100m

Catastrophic floods are one of the most common natural disasters. Until a few centuries ago,if there was a flood to the horizon,many people would have assumed the world was flooded and that [a] god did it.
This observation may be true but I don't see the relevance?

Tangent: Some Scholars are currently suggesting that at least one civilisation in meso America ended due to periodic floods caused by El Nino.
I didn't know that. I would imagine these floods are much more recent than the ice age floods. Mind you there seems no reliable date on Tianwanacu/Puma Punku,, which is much higher than any possible flood waters - don't forget, the flood waters are at their highest recent height right now.

well wishes
http://www.salted.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34971
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by Gord » Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:32 pm

matripley wrote:
Gord wrote:There was an author once -- I can't remember which one* -- who noted that most of the world's earliest known civilizations where near tall mountains. He claimed this was evidence for a world flood.
I am sure we both see the errors in that claim:)

It's a different claim to the accepted "great flood"...
Yes, the accepted rising of sea level after the last ice age.

If you're suggesting that people moved up higher in the river valleys because the coastline had been flooded, then I could surely support that if you could find evidence of their previous settlements that would now be submerged. Obviously, when sea levels were lower, those rivers would have continued on to the sea, crossing regions that are now inundated. As the sea level rose, I expect the sediments from those rivers would have buried whatever remains might have been there, so it might be a difficult task.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Parrot
New Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 1:35 pm
Custom Title: Squawking Dumbass

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by Parrot » Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:57 pm

thetruth1 wrote:yea that can explain how some stones were lifted but not mammoth sized stones that would snap a cable let alone cheap rope.
Well, the lumber piling technique will work very well even on extremely large stones. That didn't require ropes - but when they did use ropes to pull stones along the ground, they made sure to use a good number of them and together they were certainly strong enough to move these stones without snapping.

But you don't even have to take my word for that, the Egyptians left us records of how they moved things like this. Here's a 3,900 year old record of ancient Egyptians moving a 57 ton object by pulling it on a lubricated sled:
sled-pull.jpg
Obviously, the ropes didn't break for them.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Bunyip
Regular Poster
Posts: 751
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:56 pm
Location: Adelaide South Australia

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by Bunyip » Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:04 am

The one in which the sea levels rose tens of meters ten thousand or so years ago. Do you dispute this?


Tens of metres? How many tens approximately?

Dispute it? No, I didn't know it happened. Could you point me at some evidence?
Man is not so much a rational animal as a rationalising one.

User avatar
matripley
Poster
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by matripley » Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:49 am

Gord wrote:If you're suggesting that people moved up higher in the river valleys because the coastline had been flooded, then I could surely support that if you could find evidence of their previous settlements that would now be submerged.
There are claims of such evidence, you would need to DYOR on that. I find it interesting and plausible, certainly not conclusive yet and certainly not worthy of ridicule from establishments.

namaste
http://www.salted.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34971
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by Gord » Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:12 pm

matripley wrote:
Gord wrote:If you're suggesting that people moved up higher in the river valleys because the coastline had been flooded, then I could surely support that if you could find evidence of their previous settlements that would now be submerged.
There are claims of such evidence, you would need to DYOR on that. I find it interesting and plausible, certainly not conclusive yet and certainly not worthy of ridicule from establishments.

namaste
Yes, whereas I, having read the best information I could find, found the evidence poor and worthy of being discarded.

Of course, I readily acknowledge that I may not have seen the best and most compelling of the evidence in existence, and would be happy to see it, and willing to change my conclusion to suit such evidence as is newly presented to me. :help:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
matripley
Poster
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by matripley » Fri Dec 24, 2010 7:51 pm

Gord wrote:Yes, whereas I, having read the best information I could find, found the evidence poor and worthy of being discarded.
Sure:)
http://www.salted.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34971
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by Gord » Sat Dec 25, 2010 8:53 pm

matripley wrote:
Gord wrote:Yes, whereas I, having read the best information I could find, found the evidence poor and worthy of being discarded.
Sure:)
But you didn't respond to the best part!
Gord wrote:Of course, I readily acknowledge that I may not have seen the best and most compelling of the evidence in existence, and would be happy to see it, and willing to change my conclusion to suit such evidence as is newly presented to me. :help:
My hope for further evidence!
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
matripley
Poster
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by matripley » Sat Dec 25, 2010 9:23 pm

Gord wrote:
matripley wrote:
Gord wrote:Yes, whereas I, having read the best information I could find, found the evidence poor and worthy of being discarded.
Sure:)
But you didn't respond to the best part!
But it was just your opinion:)

Should I have battled it with mine?:p?


OK!
Gord wrote:Of course, I readily acknowledge that I may not have seen the best and most compelling of the evidence in existence, and would be happy to see it, and willing to change my conclusion to suit such evidence as is newly presented to me. :help:
I think there is considerable evidence that confirms the hypothesis we were much more advanced, much further back, than the orthodoxy accepts.

For example, Gobliki Tepi is the product of a civilization that was supposed to be just out of hunting and gathering. Yet, it unmistakeably shows the presence of art and engineering capabilities comparable with "modern" ancient civilizations, such as the Sumerians and Egyptians.

This is not conjecture and speculation, its just there, in the earth being uncovered more year by year. An amazing complex, I hope to go there soon.

There is also no dispute about its date, unlike Puma Punku and the Sphinx.
My hope for further evidence!
Apart from the underwater stuff, two that seem interesting to me are these dubious pyramids in Bosnia and the pretty compelling evidence for huge civilizations in souther Africa. BTW I'm talking lost ancient civilizations, not ancient aliens:)

Namaste and Happy Holidays!

Mat
http://www.salted.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by corymaylett » Sat Dec 25, 2010 10:26 pm

matripley wrote:For example, Gobliki Tepi is the product of a civilization that was supposed to be just out of hunting and gathering.
Mat, would you mind checking the spelling on that? I'm completely unfamiliar with it, and Google returns nothing but a link back to this thread.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34971
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by Gord » Sun Dec 26, 2010 3:57 am

Thylacine wrote:
matripley wrote:For example, Gobliki Tepi is the product of a civilization that was supposed to be just out of hunting and gathering.
Mat, would you mind checking the spelling on that? I'm completely unfamiliar with it, and Google returns nothing but a link back to this thread.
I assume it's Gobekli Tepe: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-a ... -tepe.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Spellings can be difficult. Often there's more than one way, and authorities differ on which they favour. Even worse, sometimes you just hear the names without seeing them in print, so you have to make your best guess.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
matripley
Poster
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by matripley » Sun Dec 26, 2010 7:47 am

Gord wrote:
Thylacine wrote:
matripley wrote:For example, Gobliki Tepi is the product of a civilization that was supposed to be just out of hunting and gathering.
Mat, would you mind checking the spelling on that? I'm completely unfamiliar with it, and Google returns nothing but a link back to this thread.
I assume it's Gobekli Tepe: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-a ... -tepe.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Spellings can be difficult. Often there's more than one way, and authorities differ on which they favour. Even worse, sometimes you just hear the names without seeing them in print, so you have to make your best guess.

Yes, Gobekli Tepe:)

Is that evidence for an advanced civilization 10,000+ years ago?
http://www.salted.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1954
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by Blacksamwell » Sun Dec 26, 2010 5:06 pm

matripley wrote:Yes, Gobekli Tepe:)

Is that evidence for an advanced civilization 10,000+ years ago?
Certainly.

But it isn't (so far) evidence of a civilization that has knowledge of the coast of Antarctica and passed along a map of such. It does not support the claim that the PR map is in fact showing the coast of Antarctica.

User avatar
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by corymaylett » Sun Dec 26, 2010 6:55 pm

matripley wrote:Is that evidence for an advanced civilization 10,000+ years ago?
Before I say anything else, Göbekli Tepe is incredibly interesting, and for whatever reason, I was completely unfamiliar with it. Thanks for mentioning it.

To answer your question, no, I wouldn't call it evidence for an "advanced" civilization. I would call it compelling evidence for the beginnings of a regional neolithic culture. The remains of the building are unworked stone (rocks piled on top of each other). The carved stones were, apparently, carved by stone tools. No metal, neither bronze nor iron, has been found at the site. Some fired clay was found there, but it dates to a later period. There's no evidence of human habitation, so it appears to have been a religious temple unassociated with a permanent settlement. The level of technology used there was very low and consistent with the stone age.

My best guess is that it was a gathering place for hunter-gatherers and likely served some religious purpose. What I really find interesting is that it is seemingly associated with a regional culture a bit more complex than simple tribal groups. Particularly interesting, from what I've read, is that based on DNA analysis the wheat-like grasses near there are the closest wild relatives of modern wheat yet found. Even though there's no evidence of agriculture at the site, the coincidence suggests that this is the area where wheat was first domesticated. The beginnings of agriculture could easily correspond to the beginnings of established societies and cultures necessary to support a more settled agricultural lifestyle.

Again, I see no evidence of an advanced civilization there (from what I've read). I do, however, see very good evidence of the earliest known expressions of a regional culture or a loose, stratified regional stone-age society — a proto-civilization, I suppose.

User avatar
matripley
Poster
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by matripley » Sun Dec 26, 2010 7:38 pm

Thylacine wrote:
matripley wrote:Is that evidence for an advanced civilization 10,000+ years ago?
Before I say anything else, Göbekli Tepe is incredibly interesting, and for whatever reason, I was completely unfamiliar with it. Thanks for mentioning it.
Isn't it! I first heard about it from a novel the Genesis Secret.


>>>To answer your question, no, I wouldn't call it evidence for an "advanced" civilization.


OK, I might.


>>>I would call it compelling evidence for the beginnings of a regional neolithic culture. The remains of the building are unworked stone (rocks piled on top of each other).

But that's not true, they are not rocks piled on each other. This isn't some cairn on a mountain, its a huge structure of huge carved stones.

Also much of it is still unexamined.

>>>>The carved stones were, apparently, carved by stone tools. No metal, neither bronze nor iron, has been found at the site. Some fired clay was found there, but it dates to a later period.

No bones were found either. Shall we assume humans never went there?

What you are doing is just nit picking. You have spent a few hours looking at google et al and now your just amassing arrows in your quiver. Yet, ironically, you don't seem to be questioning why the orthodoxy and the media haven't made more of this huge find. In age alone it trumps everything else, yet you just want to show it as less significant than it might be. Why are you not neutral about it, I'm curious?

>>>There's no evidence of human habitation, so it appears to have been a religious temple unassociated with a permanent settlement. The level of technology used there was very low and consistent with the stone age.

So you will be able to tell me other stone-age sites where stones of many tonnes were moved, arranged, interlocked and carved?

>>>>I do, however, see very good evidence of the earliest known expressions of a regional culture or a loose, stratified regional stone-age society — a proto-civilization, I suppose.

Your starting bias is very evident.
http://www.salted.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by corymaylett » Sun Dec 26, 2010 8:52 pm

matripley wrote:But that's not true, they are not rocks piled on each other. This isn't some cairn on a mountain, its a huge structure of huge carved stones.
Admittedly my sharply limited expertise on Göbekli Tepe is three or four hours old, so with that said, I mainly looked at articles from mainstream publications and organizations. They specifically mentioned that the remnants of the walls were of fitted, uncarved stone. The photos I've seen of the 25-acre complex confirm this. The carved stones were the exception, and they show all the evidence of being shaped with stone implements, not metal tools.
matripley wrote:No bones were found either. Shall we assume humans never went there?
No, but the dead aren't as casually left around as metallic artifacts. Metal working technology provides such a huge advancement over stone implements that once it's developed, the use of metal becomes ubiquitous and the results of its use — in addition to the actual metal itself — becomes readily evident. There is no evidence of either at Göbekli Tepe. On the other hand, according to the Smithsonian article, stone hammers and stone blades were found there.
matripley wrote:What you are doing is just nit picking. You have spent a few hours looking at google et al and now your just amassing arrows in your quiver.
I think it would be an incredibly exciting discovery to find a neolithic culture with even moderately advanced technology, but the evidence doesn't seem to warrant it. What the evidence indicates is that the organization of the already-known neolithic culture in the area was more complex than once thought.
matripley wrote:Yet, ironically, you don't seem to be questioning why the orthodoxy and the media haven't made more of this huge find. In age alone it trumps everything else, yet you just want to show it as less significant than it might be. Why are you not neutral about it, I'm curious?
In fact, I do wonder why it's not better known — it should be. That's why I spent a couple of hours looking into it. After that couple of hours, though, the most interesting thing about the site doesn't appear to be the site itself — it's the age of the site and the implications of proto-civilizations having developed earlier than once thought. There are a good many smaller archeological sites in the area dating back about 10,000 years, but they're all smaller and decidedly primitive. Over the years, I've read a few articles about these sites, and I remember them being mentioned back in my college archeology classes. The 25-acre Göbekli Tepe site is interesting mainly because it indicates that this culture was more socially organized than previously believed.
matripley wrote:So you will be able to tell me other stone-age sites where stones of many tonnes were moved, arranged, interlocked and carved?
First, the Göbekli Tepe site was apparently in use for two or three thousand years. That's plenty of time to carve a few rock monoliths from stone and to pick up a bunch of stones from the ground and stack them into walls (again, I disagree that the stone walls were carved — they're mostly roundish, naturally worn stones that have been, sometimes, broken and roughly pieced together without motar). There are many neolithic sites and proto-civilizations similar (and dissimilar) to this — just not as old. For that matter, there are too many to list, but they're found all over the world from Europe to China to Southern Africa to the mound-building Mississippian culture in North America. Most of these proto-civilizations died out with hardly a trace other than the archaeological remains left behind. All the evidence indicates that it's only been in the last 3,000 years, or so, that they finally took root and blossomed into sustained, interconnected and technologically advanced civilizations.
matripley wrote:Your starting bias is very evident.
As is your wishful thinking, enthusiasm and difficulty in differentiating those qualities from the picture painted by the evidence.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11986
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by OlegTheBatty » Sun Dec 26, 2010 11:50 pm

The Bighorn Mountain Medicine Wheel was built several hundred years ago. It looks like a primitive version of Gobekli Tepe. The Lakota Souix had a lot less time to work on it than the hunter/gatherers who built Gobekli Tepe.

Features that neither BMMW nor GT does has:
-evidence of writing or any other form of abstract information storage
-evidence of a nearby settlement, nor any structure with internal rooms
-evidence of any kind of metal working
-evidence that the structure was built by anyone other than a nomadic people.

Temple is a rather vague term - if Gobekli Tepe is a temple, so is Stonehenge.
'Advanced' is a relative term. Advanced compared to what?
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

User avatar
matripley
Poster
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by matripley » Mon Dec 27, 2010 9:44 am

Thylacine wrote:Admittedly my sharply limited expertise on Göbekli Tepe is three or four hours old...
Isn't the internet wonderful! have you seen any videos of GT?
No, but the dead aren't as casually left around as metallic artifacts. Metal working technology provides such a huge advancement over stone implements
But isn't it the case no metal tools have been found at the pyramids, sphyinx, machu pichu et all?

In fact, I do wonder why it's not better known — it should be.
It doesnt take much snooping around to find many anomalies in publicity about such things that if one were to be a bit more paranoid one might believe that some kind of suppression was going on.

You mentioned the Smithisonian.... do you think they are open with all of the discoveries they have on their books?

As is your wishful thinking, enthusiasm and difficulty in differentiating those qualities from the picture painted by the evidence.
I certainly have the difficulty you mention, not just with GT but with many such things. I yearn for a common ground between the orthodoxy and the "out there" but it seems there isn't one when, rationally speaking, there should be. These rifts and rubicons of riddicularium!:p


namaste
http://www.salted.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1954
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by Blacksamwell » Mon Dec 27, 2010 4:41 pm

matripley wrote:It doesnt take much snooping around to find many anomalies in publicity about such things that if one were to be a bit more paranoid one might believe that some kind of suppression was going on.
Paranoid delusion is so far the only way to come to such a conclusion as there isn't yet any evidence for it.

User avatar
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by corymaylett » Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:31 am

matripley wrote:But isn't it the case no metal tools have been found at the pyramids, sphyinx, machu pichu et all?
Yes, you're right. Those civilizations were at a late stone age level of development and only beginning to explore metals. My comment, though, was in response to your question about Göbekli Tepe being evidence of an "advanced" civilization some 10,000 years ago. I guess much depends on how we define "advanced" and "civilization," but I'd be hesitant to label any civilization that hadn't developed metal alloys as being advanced, and I'd be equally hesitant to label the Göbekli Tepe stone age culture as a civilization — like I've said, a proto-civilization, I think, but not more than that.
matripley wrote:It doesnt take much snooping around to find many anomalies in publicity about such things that if one were to be a bit more paranoid one might believe that some kind of suppression was going on.... You mentioned the Smithisonian.... do you think they are open with all of the discoveries they have on their books?
I have no reason to suspect that they'd have conspiratorial reasons to deliberately hide evidence unless, of course, those involved in the research didn't want the story to break before they felt comfortable releasing their findings for general-community analysis. Besides, the little research I've done shows that there has been a good deal of archeological work done at Göbekli Tepe by a variety of scientists, institutions and the Turkish government.

I do find it remarkable, though, that a 10,000-year-old neolithic culture would be well developed enough to build and maintain something like Göbekli Tepe. Like I've said, the technology there was decidedly neolithic, so I'm not surprised about that. I'm mostly just amazed at the early date that these people apparently reached this level of regional social cooperation. Just to tie it back into the previous discussion, the chances of these primitive people having mapped the under-kilometers-of-ice topographical features of Antarctica seems virtually nil.

User avatar
matripley
Poster
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by matripley » Tue Dec 28, 2010 4:29 pm

Thylacine wrote:My comment, though, was in response to your question about Göbekli Tepe being evidence of an "advanced" civilization some 10,000 years ago.— ...like I've said, a proto-civilization, I think, but not more than that.
Yes maybe, I guess time will tell. It may come to be known that GT is merely a mountain temple of the vast and now submerged civilization that may or many not have existed way back when...
I have no reason to suspect that they'd have conspiratorial reasons to deliberately hide evidence
Well, it would, for instance, show most of western religion to be based on a falsehood. Is that not a possible reason? I am not saying this is the case, I'm saying its plausible.

Besides, the little research I've done shows that there has been a good deal of archeological work done at Göbekli Tepe by a variety of scientists, institutions and the Turkish government.
Not that much relative to the significance, most of it is unexcavated still. Also, this point is about the strange lack of publicity regarding GT.

I do find it remarkable, though, that a 10,000-year-old neolithic culture would be well developed enough to build and maintain something like Göbekli Tepe.
Yes, and let us not forget the extra mystery that it was buried by human hands, for some reason lost to time. Facinating!:)

Like I've said, the technology there was decidedly neolithic
I think that is uncertain.

Just to tie it back into the previous discussion, the chances of these primitive people having mapped the under-kilometers-of-ice topographical features of Antarctica seems virtually nil.
Oh sure, I agree. there is no apparent connection. It was cited as an example of evidence for an ancient civilization of undisputed age. we can dispute its civilization, but not its age.

There are many many other sites around the world that may be of this age and are clearly the result of an advanced civilization. But these sites have ages in dispute, eg pumpa punku some say is as old as GT and others less old than jesus. Maybe sites in India too.

Thanks for the discussion,

mat
http://www.salted.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1954
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by Blacksamwell » Tue Dec 28, 2010 4:47 pm

matripley wrote:
Thylacine wrote:I have no reason to suspect that they'd have conspiratorial reasons to deliberately hide evidence
Well, it would, for instance, show most of western religion to be based on a falsehood. Is that not a possible reason? I am not saying this is the case, I'm saying its plausible.
Is it really though? It's not enough to just make suppositions about non-existent cabals where there's zero evidence and declare it as plausible.
matripley wrote:
Thylacine wrote:Besides, the little research I've done shows that there has been a good deal of archeological work done at Göbekli Tepe by a variety of scientists, institutions and the Turkish government.
Not that much relative to the significance, most of it is unexcavated still. Also, this point is about the strange lack of publicity regarding GT.
What kind of publicity are you looking for? There are numerous papers and the site has been undergoing excavation for a long while now. The information was all readily available via internet searches as demonstrated by Thylacine. Are you saying that until there's a History channel special on it that there's some kind of conspiracy going on?
matripley wrote:
Thylacine wrote:Like I've said, the technology there was decidedly neolithic
I think that is uncertain.
Then you'd be arguing against the available evidence. What evidence would you point to that would suggest there was anything more than neolithic technology at play?
matripley wrote:
Thylacine wrote:Just to tie it back into the previous discussion, the chances of these primitive people having mapped the under-kilometers-of-ice topographical features of Antarctica seems virtually nil.
Oh sure, I agree. there is no apparent connection. [...]
So then there's still no evidence of any ancient civilization actually mapping out the coastline of Antarctica and passing along a map for PR to copy from.

Isn't that what we've been saying all along?

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34971
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by Gord » Wed Dec 29, 2010 12:01 am

Blacksamwell wrote:
matripley wrote:
Thylacine wrote:Like I've said, the technology there was decidedly neolithic
I think that is uncertain.
Then you'd be arguing against the available evidence. What evidence would you point to that would suggest there was anything more than neolithic technology at play?
To dumb it down a bit, in order to be "neolithic," we'd just need to be able to show that the technology required nothing beyond stone tools. I think that has been shown. The construction shows the appearance of having been worked with stone, rather than metal tools. If a metal tool were to be found associated with the site, that would be suggestive, but even then, there are no marks on the stones that would come from such tools.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
matripley
Poster
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by matripley » Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:15 am

Gord wrote:
Blacksamwell wrote:
matripley wrote:
Thylacine wrote:Like I've said, the technology there was decidedly neolithic
I think that is uncertain.
Then you'd be arguing against the available evidence. What evidence would you point to that would suggest there was anything more than neolithic technology at play?
To dumb it down a bit, in order to be "neolithic," we'd just need to be able to show that the technology required nothing beyond stone tools. I think that has been shown. The construction shows the appearance of having been worked with stone, rather than metal tools. If a metal tool were to be found associated with the site, that would be suggestive, but even then, there are no marks on the stones that would come from such tools.

Currently listening to the red ice radio on gt. It's very interesting. Check it out in interested and let's discuss!
http://www.salted.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by corymaylett » Wed Dec 29, 2010 2:47 am

matripley wrote:
Thylacine wrote:Like I've said, the technology there was decidedly neolithic
I think that is uncertain.
Geech Mat! ;) We're being generous by calling it neolithic. Really, there's little to no evidence of agriculture associated with the site, so it might more accurately be called mesolithic.
matripley wrote:Currently listening to the red ice radio on gt. It's very interesting. Check it out in interested and let's discuss!
I'm listening to the interview with archaeologist Klaus Schmidt right now. Very interesting. http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/20 ... 100624.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
matripley
Poster
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by matripley » Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:54 pm

Thylacine wrote:
matripley wrote:
Thylacine wrote:Like I've said, the technology there was decidedly neolithic
I think that is uncertain.

Geech Mat! ;) We're being generous by calling it neolithic.

5% of it has been uncovered. We should hold back on the labels, what seems clear is that if they were hunter gatherers, they are pretty fly;p
Really, there's little to no evidence of agriculture associated with the site, so it might more accurately be called mesolithic.
It's a temple complex at altitude.

I'm listening to the interview with archaeologist Klaus Schmidt right now. Very interesting. http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/20 ... 100624.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank's for the link, i have just started listening too.So far its better than the one I posted.

xx
http://www.salted.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

taytay33
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:28 am

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by taytay33 » Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:41 am

My problem with the show is that they have overlapping concepts that don't "jive" together. They propose that human life originated from aliens. They site the bible and other sacred texts saying that gods or "aliens" mated with human women because they found them attractive. Does this mean that they found ape women attractive? Or if they somehow tampered with biology of primitive man and mixed alien and homo-sapians to create a new bread, then when they reference the gods/aliens mating with attractive human women they don't make much sense. Is it just me or would apes be unattractive to a highly developed being?

taytay33
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:28 am

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by taytay33 » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:03 am

My problem with the show is that some of the theories they highlight don't jive together. They propose that modern human life began with aliens. They site the bible and other sacred texts and say that gods or "aliens" came down to earth and mated with human woman because they found them attractive. Or we can take the other theory they have that says that the gods/aliens geneticly modified our genes and that we are a crossbreed, like we do with cloning today. If they are trying to say that aliens mated with human woman because they were attractive that doesn't much make sense with their other theory. Are we to believe that these super intelligent beings found ape women attractive?...and that created modern man? They can't site the bible and that theory if they are also arguing that we are merely just test tube baby experiments.