Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

PSI, Mediums, Ghosts, UFOs, Things That Go Bump In The Night
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 » Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:18 pm

matripley wrote:I dont see the reasoning.
Yes, that's certainly clear.

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 08, 2010 6:40 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:
matripley wrote:I dont see the reasoning.
Yes, that's certainly clear.
Ahhhh, I see the ego in the ergo;)
http://www.salted.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Laz
New Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by Laz » Thu Dec 09, 2010 7:52 am

It may seem the thing to make fun of the theory, but at least someone had an idea and put it forth- can't be afraid of new ideas or thinking, and the critism is not proof that destroys the theory either. I am not subscribing to it, but I think it is important to consider new ideas with an open mind and not condemn the messenger too harshly either.

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

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by matripley » Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:08 pm

Interestingly, I just read this inb The Register:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/09 ... ilisation/

From the journal Current Anthropology (University of Chicago).

The evidence gets more and more compelling in the confirmation of ancient civilizations, rather than less.
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 » Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:04 pm

The reference in the Register's subhead about "Garden of Eden refugees" left me doubtful, but it appears to be just a poor choice of words made by the Register. Here's a link to the actual press release: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/st ... 12.06.3119" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. It would be nice to read the actual paper, but it's locked behind a password.

The Persian Gulf is shallow and likely would have been a dry extension of Mesopotamia during the last ice age. I see no reason to doubt that early humans occupied the area. Associating the now-submerged area with the origin of Biblical myths (as some media outlets are doing) is interesting speculation, but I see little evidence to support a connection.

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 » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:59 am

Associating the now-submerged area with the origin of Biblical myths (as some media outlets are doing) is interesting speculation, but I see little evidence to support a connection.


Flood myths are widespread. The Noah myth is probably Sumerian. It's likely that at least some flood myths contain folk memories of one or more catastrophic floods. I've seen no evidence that such evens were global.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

As for dismissing "God is an alien" theories out of hand: as Carl Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".So far there is not only no extraordinary evidence,there is no evidence at all.,

In 1968.Erich Von Daniken wrote a series of unintentionally hilarious books,beginning with "Chariots of the Gods" which was where I first came across the Piri Reis map. Von Daniken spawned an industry of similar books throughout the1970's. I read about a dozen. After a while ,they began quoting each other. Most make some startling claims about the Piri Reis map.The claims have been thoroughly debunked over several decades.

That's why I feel free to dismiss the claims made here.To me it's just one of the same crackpot fringe notions resurrected every few years by a new crop of gullible autodidacts.. (same flavour as the claims associated with Dan Brown's 'The Da Vinci Code')


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot_of_the_Gods" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Man is not so much a rational animal as a rationalising one.

User avatar
Laurens
New Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2010 7:38 pm

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by Laurens » Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:01 pm

Laz wrote:It may seem the thing to make fun of the theory, but at least someone had an idea and put it forth- can't be afraid of new ideas or thinking, and the critism is not proof that destroys the theory either. I am not subscribing to it, but I think it is important to consider new ideas with an open mind and not condemn the messenger too harshly either.
Not every idea is a good one though. I can tell right off the bat that giant pink bunnies from Neptune creating the pyramids is absurd. Why? Because it is raising more questions than it answers.

The same applies to the ancient aliens theory. It might provide (for some) a satisfactory explanation for how the pyramids were built and so on. However that explanation makes too many assumptions; that there are advanced forms of life, that they are able to travel to our solar system, that they would have wanted to interact with us etc.

I find the explanation that humans did it far more satisfactory because we know humans exist, we know humans like to build large ceremonial buildings, and we can speculate as to how they built them. That explanation works, without having to introduce anything that requires further explanation.

I think I would be justified in rejecting the ancient aliens theory as being no less absurd than my pink bunnies theory, until adequate evidence was provided.
http://www.thebeautifultruth.org.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Laurens
New Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2010 7:38 pm

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by Laurens » Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:18 pm

matripley wrote:Interestingly, I just read this inb The Register:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/09 ... ilisation/

From the journal Current Anthropology (University of Chicago).

The evidence gets more and more compelling in the confirmation of ancient civilizations, rather than less.
However

Ancient civilization ≠ Alien intervention
http://www.thebeautifultruth.org.uk" 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 » Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:15 pm

Laurens wrote: However

Ancient civilization ≠ Alien intervention
Oh absolutely! I don't see any rational connection between the two.
http://www.salted.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Laurens
New Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2010 7:38 pm

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by Laurens » Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:22 pm

matripley wrote:
Laurens wrote: However

Ancient civilization ≠ Alien intervention
Oh absolutely! I don't see any rational connection between the two.
Indeed, and I think saying aliens helped us achieve civilization is a bit of an insult to our intelligence and ingenuity as a species. People seem to think that because these people lived a long time ago they cannot possibly have been capable of engineering great cities and civilizations for some reason.
http://www.thebeautifultruth.org.uk" 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 12, 2010 4:38 pm

matripley wrote:The evidence gets more and more compelling in the confirmation of ancient civilizations, rather than less.
Yet still no evidence that any ancient civilization knew of Antarctica's coastline and passed that knowledge along.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34969
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 12, 2010 6:33 pm

Laurens wrote:...we can speculate as to how they built them.
We can also investigate. We have their tools, we have the sources of their building materials, we have the graves and bones of the workers, and we have inscriptions showing how they did things.

It's bizarre to see people trying to put reality and fantasy together: Space aliens travelled here, then used rocks and copper tools to laboriously quarry and shape rough stones, drag them long distances, load them onto simple ships, gather them together and stack them into religiously-significant constructs, all using human labourers. With such stunningly advanced technology, those space aliens must have hitchhiked here.
"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
Laurens
New Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2010 7:38 pm

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by Laurens » Sun Dec 12, 2010 7:28 pm

Gord wrote:
Laurens wrote:...we can speculate as to how they built them.
We can also investigate. We have their tools, we have the sources of their building materials, we have the graves and bones of the workers, and we have inscriptions showing how they did things.
I used the word speculate because, as far as I'm aware, we aren't entirely sure as to the system of ramps used, I believe there are several ideas about how they aligned them etc.

Even the exposed inner blocks of stone bear the marks of human origin, they look rushed and hastily shaped, rather than neatly finished like the outer layer.

The pyramids bear all the evidence of their human origin. No one has found any space age tools, or alien bones around there. I think pretty much all the aliens building the pyramids theory is based on is this reasoning: Wow the pyramids are big! How did they build those? Whoa look! That completely unrelated painting looks a bit like a space man... Oh my God - that means Aliens built them!!
http://www.thebeautifultruth.org.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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 » Tue Dec 14, 2010 2:28 pm

matripley wrote:
The problem there is that you don't have any criteria for rejecting some parts of the map and accepting others.
I agree, it is a problem. But it is a problem in both directions of proof...
Well, not really. It's only a problem for the people who are trying to convince people that these maps represent ancient knowledge of Antarctica. The burden of proof is on them.
matripley wrote:
When looking at ancient documents, you can't just accept the parts that you want to because they fit with your theory and reject everything else.
I think my Hamlet analogy shows the error of this. To recap, if we find an ancient document containing parts of hamlet amidst parts clearly not hamlet we still have an unexplained mystery.
Certainly if we were to find an ancient document that contains the lines "To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against... " before tapering off into something that's different from the Hamlet script, that's definitely evidence that there's something strange going on there.

But if you just see some elements that are kind of similar, like a story in which some guy plots revenge against his uncle, then that's not very compelling evidence.

The problem is that in the case of these maps you don't have any really good compelling matches. You just have a bunch of general similarities. In essence, here we're finding a bunch of stories where a guy plots revenge against his uncle and shouting "HAMLET!".

I personally haven't seen any supposed match up that lines up strongly enough with any actual feature of Antarctica
to be convincing on the same level as a word for word recounting of Hamlet would be. But perhaps I haven't seen the most compelling pieces of evidence, so I'm open to being shown something that will blow my mind.

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 14, 2010 3:16 pm

Parrot wrote: Certainly if we were to find an ancient document that contains the lines "To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against... " before tapering off into something that's different from the Hamlet script, that's definitely evidence that there's something strange going on there.
What we actually have is like taking the bolded words above and claiming we have a match to Shakespeare.
. . . 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 » Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:29 pm

Hey Parrot
Parrot wrote:
matripley wrote:I agree, it is a problem. But it is a problem in both directions of proof...
Well, not really. It's only a problem for the people who are trying to convince people that these maps represent ancient knowledge of Antarctica. The burden of proof is on them.
I see what you are saying, but I think we need to be careful about the way react to claims we consider absurd or false.

We should be skeptics, not naysayers. Sometimes we must be emphatic naysayers, for example when there are exploitative claims made in the name of bad science, such as homeopathy or holographic soul-enemas.

These are hypotheses not bold claims of medial bogusity, why do they need to bear the burden of proof? Why cant it just be a point for debate not ridicule and agression? I dont think there is any essential deception going on with many people who believe (for reasons that are rational based on their understanding of the evidence they are pursuaded by.) A very different breed to those who lie and create what is essentially deceptive propaganda, such as woopeddlers or spiritualist dead-speakers.

By the way I don't think you come pover like this on your blog posts, or in this thread, I am referring to the general observation that all unorthodox theories are treated by skeptics with the same derision as the lowest of the charlatan hoaxers.

Certainly if we were to find an ancient document that contains the lines "To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against... " before tapering off into something that's different from the Hamlet script, that's definitely evidence that there's something strange going on there.
Exactly. And in that case we would have a metric in case. we could say 3.5% of the information in the old and new documents correlates. We could then decide if this is enough to say, this is almost certainly enough not for it to be a fluke, something strange is afoot.

What we would need is a metric to quantify the similarities between the maps and the underice. Then, again we could decide.


But we dont have that here, so I think the cynics are not really justified in their cynicism, but that's my opinion. I invite it to be changed:)

Your argument of the australia overlay is probably the best evidence against this. But all it is saying is that its not statistically that unlikley, in a comparative sense. You could probably get matches with many islands, I didn't really see this until i saw the overlay.

But still, it disconfirms one aspect of the thesis, rather than refuiting it. in the same sense as that a river on the map correlating with a river feature under the ice would also confirm it in the positive.
But if you just see some elements that are kind of similar, like a story in which some guy plots revenge against his uncle, then that's not very compelling evidence

Sure, that is a marco scale correlation inst it. There are only a few elements at that level, humans, families, siblings so i would imagine the hamlet plot is probabablistically unexceptional. if we had direct quotes, as you stated, it would be something signifigant. I mean lordy, look at how excited bible coders get when they can prove that the bible contains the name of <insert famous political leader here>.

A ten word phrase would be huge I reckon!:)
I personally haven't seen any supposed match up that lines up strongly enough with any actual feature of Antarctica
Sure, but that is just your opinion, rather than an independent metric. We would not need opinions with a "hamlet match", we would say "We have a 56% match! Gandalf!!"

My opinoon is actually pretty close to yourse now. But i wouldnt say for sure until I had something more clear than my viewpoint.
But perhaps I haven't seen the most compelling pieces of evidence, so I'm open to being shown something that will blow my mind.
There is heaps of evidence that gets shunted around the internet but never into the mainstream media or academia. It might be rubbish evidence, but we wont know for sure because of the swamp of ridicule that must be crossed to engage openelly and rationally with the evidence and theories.

Why do you think it is considered so crazy to discuss the possibility of ancient civilizations?

Could it be that it is asking science to think about a time before the Bible and outside of its areas? Might that at least be an influence? It's all worth considering!:)

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 » Wed Dec 15, 2010 2:31 am

matripley wrote:[...]It's all worth considering!:)
Evidence is worth considering.

The rest is conjecture without support. Not something that you'd base any conclusions on.

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 15, 2010 1:10 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:
matripley wrote:[...]It's all worth considering!:)
Evidence is worth considering.

The rest is conjecture without support. Not something that you'd base any conclusions on.
Of course, I have neither said nor implied otherwise. And yet you seem to have succumbed to conjecture and speculation when you rule out or ridicule ancient civilization theories with an equal lack of evidence.

Do you have evidence there were no ancient civilizations that we are unaware of?

I am sure, like me, you have evidence against homeopathy and 911 faqlse flag theories, but what of the claim that there was an ancient civilization that existed before the sea level rose n100 meters 10,000 years ago? etc

To be a true skeptical thinker, rather than a naysayer or cynic, you need to doubt your own doubts, especially when you are without evidence or dis-confirmation, as is the case here.
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 » Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:09 pm

matripley wrote:
Blacksamwell wrote:
matripley wrote:[...]It's all worth considering!:)
Evidence is worth considering.
The rest is conjecture without support. Not something that you'd base any conclusions on.
Of course, I have neither said nor implied otherwise. And yet you seem to have succumbed to conjecture and speculation when you rule out or ridicule ancient civilization theories with an equal lack of evidence.
Not at all. I merely note that there's no evidence to support any conjecture that the PR map is the result of ancient human knowledge or alien knowledge.
matripley wrote:Do you have evidence there were no ancient civilizations that we are unaware of?
That would involve proving a negative. You should know that it's not possible to do. I'm not even attempting such a thing.
matripley wrote:I am sure, like me, you have evidence against homeopathy and 911 faqlse flag theories, but what of the claim that there was an ancient civilization that existed before the sea level rose n100 meters 10,000 years ago? etc
Evidence for ancient civilizations is not evidence that said civilizations had knowledge of the Antarctic coast or that such knowledge was passed along to become part of the PR map.
matripley wrote:To be a true skeptical thinker, rather than a naysayer or cynic, you need to doubt your own doubts, especially when you are without evidence or dis-confirmation, as is the case here.
So what do you call it when you jump to wild conjecture without evidence?

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34969
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by Gord » Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:27 am

Blacksamwell wrote:
matripley wrote:Do you have evidence there were no ancient civilizations that we are unaware of?
That would involve proving a negative. You should know that it's not possible to do. I'm not even attempting such a thing.
No, he's not asking for proof, just evidence.

When saying something doesn't exist, the lack of evidence that it does exist is evidence that it doesn't exist.

First, predict what evidence must remain from an ancient civilization. (To do so, you will need to define many terms, especially "civilization.") Next, search for it everywhere that it could possibly be. If you don't find any evidence of an ancient civilization, then you have evidence of the lack of an ancient civilization.
"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
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 » Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:39 am

Gord wrote:
Blacksamwell wrote:
matripley wrote:Do you have evidence there were no ancient civilizations that we are unaware of?
That would involve proving a negative. You should know that it's not possible to do. I'm not even attempting such a thing.
No, he's not asking for proof, just evidence.

When saying something doesn't exist, the lack of evidence that it does exist is evidence that it doesn't exist.

First, predict what evidence must remain from an ancient civilization. (To do so, you will need to define many terms, especially "civilization.") Next, search for it everywhere that it could possibly be. If you don't find any evidence of an ancient civilization, then you have evidence of the lack of an ancient civilization.
Thanks Gord. Your insight is appreciated.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34969
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by Gord » Thu Dec 16, 2010 9:47 am

Well, I spend a lot of time looking for things that aren't there.
"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
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by corymaylett » Fri Dec 17, 2010 6:11 am

matripley wrote:
Thylacine wrote:During ages sea levels drop significantly, exposing broad costal plains on continental shelves. The Antarctic continental shelf, however, is quite narrow, then drops off precipitously. Not much additional land would have been exposed. This is really irrelevant, though, since in the middle of an ice age, that narrow band of exposed land would have been covered with ice. The ice cores in the Antarctic indicate that the ice sheet is many, many tens of thousands of years old. It's not very likely that the global cooling that caused Canada, most of Europe and northern Asia to be covered by an ice sheet would have resulted in warm, ice-free coastlines along Antarctica. Remember, the coast (along with the continental shelves) of Antarctic is at a much higher latitude than the equivalent totally iced-over latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere.
This is confusing two issues: the maps in themselves and the notion of an unknown ancient advanced civilization flooded by the sea level rises.
Thylacine wrote:Even if a fertile coastal area existed, which it almost certainly did not,
Where do you get almost certainly from? That it was cold there? I dont see the reasoning.
I'm unsure how to explain that any better than I just did, but I'll try to rephrase it.

Recent ice ages lowered sea levels due to the enormous amounts of water trapped in the greatly expanded polar ice caps. This lowered sea level would have resulted in larger coastal plains along most of the Earth's continents — especially those with a large, shallow continental shelves. Antarctica, however, has a narrow continental shelf, and because of its high latitudes and generally lower temperatures, those now-underwater expanded coastlines would have been under many meters of ice with a sea shelf of ice extending several hundred miles further still. In other words, a civilization living there wouldn't have been possible, and exploration of this coastline would have been highly unlikely.

Just to summarize my views: I've looked at the maps, looked at lots of the evidence, and quite frankly, I don't see what you're seeing. I find it interesting that a few old map makers, through conjecture, imagined a large land mass at the South Pole, but that's about it. What they imagined on their maps, however, bears almost no resemblance to what's actually there, so i just don't see a reason to take the claims of ancient knowledge, ancient civilizations there or ancient aliens particularly seriously. The evidence just isn't there — not even close.

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 » Fri Dec 17, 2010 6:24 am

Indeed, and I think saying aliens helped us achieve civilization is a bit of an insult to our intelligence and ingenuity as a species


Well,I'm not insulted. Why should I be? A proposition is true or not true or we don't know. Getting my knickers all out of focus does not change the evidence.(or lack of it)
Man is not so much a rational animal as a rationalising one.

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 » Fri Dec 17, 2010 6:58 pm

matripley wrote:I see what you are saying, but I think we need to be careful about the way react to claims we consider absurd or false.

We should be skeptics, not naysayers. Sometimes we must be emphatic naysayers, for example when there are exploitative claims made in the name of bad science, such as homeopathy or holographic soul-enemas.

These are hypotheses not bold claims of medial bogusity, why do they need to bear the burden of proof? Why cant it just be a point for debate not ridicule and agression? I dont think there is any essential deception going on with many people who believe (for reasons that are rational based on their understanding of the evidence they are pursuaded by.) A very different breed to those who lie and create what is essentially deceptive propaganda, such as woopeddlers or spiritualist dead-speakers.

By the way I don't think you come pover like this on your blog posts, or in this thread, I am referring to the general observation that all unorthodox theories are treated by skeptics with the same derision as the lowest of the charlatan hoaxers.
The question about how aggressively to go after these types of claims is something that's been kicked around the blogosphere all over the place. I personally think it's best to conduct debates with as much composure and dignity as possible, to try and let the force of your arguments make your case for you rather than just trying to make your opponent look bad.

In my blog I try my best never to get nasty, and to focus my attention more on claims than on people. I personally think that's the best way to go about it, and I think you're saying that you agree with me on that, correct?

What I want to specifically look at here, though, is when you said: why do they need to bear the burden of proof? Why cant it just be a point for debate not ridicule and agression? - I think this encapsulates the general thrust of what you're trying to say, along with these quotes:
What we would need is a metric to quantify the similarities between the maps and the underice. Then, again we could decide.


But we dont have that here, so I think the cynics are not really justified in their cynicism, but that's my opinion. I invite it to be changed:)
There is heaps of evidence that gets shunted around the internet but never into the mainstream media or academia. It might be rubbish evidence, but we wont know for sure because of the swamp of ridicule that must be crossed to engage openelly and rationally with the evidence and theories.

Why do you think it is considered so crazy to discuss the possibility of ancient civilizations?
I want to make it clear that I don't think discussing any possibility is crazy. But I think we should be clear that if we don't have any good evidence, then all we're doing is speculating.

I have no problem with speculation. Hell, I'm even okay with people putting their coin down and forming an opinion based on only speculation, as long as they clearly understand that they're running on pure speculation and don't take themselves too seriously.

I think that most ancient alien theorists actually do take themselves too seriously though. They're not willing to critically examine their evidence, so I figure I might as well do it for them.

You asked why they should bear the burden of proof. The answer is because they're the ones making a claim. They're the ones who are trying to convince the rest of us that they're correct. So it's up to them to present the evidence that will convince us.

We can't just say things like "Aliens visited us in ancient times - prove me wrong!". Even ancient alien theorists recognize this, which is why they entitled their first episode of the History Channel documentary "The Evidence"

So it's up to the believers in ancient aliens to present the evidence, and then we can look at it and make a decision as to whether this really is compelling evidence or not.

You mention the possibility that there might be metrics not yet invented that would allow us to develop better evidence. That's certainly a possibility, but until such a metric comes about, the bottom line is that there currently isn't any compelling evidence.

And we'd have to first look at any new metric in order to determine whether it makes sense.

Sometimes people do come up with new ways of measuring things that dramatically change how science views a certain topic. It can take time to prove the point this way, science often works very slowly. But that's the way it has to be if we want to be sure that we have evidence that we can rely on.

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 17, 2010 10:59 pm

Parrot wrote:The question about how aggressively to go after these types of claims is something that's been kicked around the blogosphere all over the place.

I guess that, as skeptics, we should not go by what is gone before, but what the actual evidence, not opinions, shows. But I figure you know this.
I personally think it's best to conduct debates with as much composure and dignity as possible
For sure:)
to try and let the force of your arguments make your case for you rather than just trying to make your opponent look bad.
Absolutely, though really it is not the force of the argument but the truth of the conclusion that will win out under reason.
In my blog I try my best never to get nasty, and to focus my attention more on claims than on people. I personally think that's the best way to go about it, and I think you're saying that you agree with me on that, correct?
Yes, 100% to all.
I want to make it clear that I don't think discussing any possibility is crazy. But I think we should be clear that if we don't have any good evidence, then all we're doing is speculating.
Absolutely, but we must continue to doubt the orthodoxy, if we wish to remain impartial.

I agree with you 80% that we don't have much good evidence for this thesis. But there is some, not that prooves, but that confirms. And even if there were no evidence it is still not absurd to have a thesis based on the premise that mankind was skilled and civilized ten thousand years before the Sumerians?

I read Finger Prints of the Gods recently, it has some ridiculous claims and conjectures about all this stuff, I guess you have read it. Nonetheless, some of the evidence it cites is interesting, even without anyone elses opinion or interpretation.

I think you have done a good job of showing how the opinions of these people who cite these theories are not as important as they think they are, but some of the evidence, like the maps themselves, remains interesting, and not like homeopathy.

I have no problem with speculation. Hell, I'm even okay with people putting their coin down and forming an opinion based on only speculation, as long as they clearly understand that they're running on pure speculation and don't take themselves too seriously.

Absolutely, again, the skeptical position; testing how the evidence matches the speculations.
I think that most ancient alien theorists actually do take themselves too seriously though.
Like, totalah. They do themselves a disservice perhaps.

They're not willing to critically examine their evidence, so I figure I might as well do it for them.
Yes, you do it well I reckon. more Podcasts!:p

Its not just critically examine their evidence, its compare their evidence with that of others. Metrics!:)

You asked why they should bear the burden of proof. The answer is because they're the ones making a claim. They're the ones who are trying to convince the rest of us that they're correct. So it's up to them to present the evidence that will convince us.
Well, ideally yes.

But they would say they have presented the evidence and it should be up to others to test that evidence.

And this is the thing, with their evidence, its interpretative. if you can find a time in histories night skies when your 4 buildings align with a constellation at that time, you have a theory that you can interpret into all kinds of sci-fi gone real.

And none of us would be able to say that their interpretation was wrong, wheras we could say where the facts disagreed, eg with star patterns or dimensions of buildings.

So we see lots of people attacking the intrepretations(me included) but I dont get the feeling much work is being done on the stuff we could know one way or another, like the metric to assess how similar maps were, that we talked about earlier.

Thats my thoughts:)


We can't just say things like "Aliens visited us in ancient times - prove me wrong!".
It can't be proved wrong, clearly.

It could be proved right, eg if we found an alient spaceship under the great pyramid and could date it to being there five thousand years. That would be proof enough.

That would be exceptional evidence.

I guess there is some threashold of evidence that would make the orthodoxy go, "Ohh wow, we were wrong".

I dont think the maps are that evidence. I am pretty sure you and everyone else here doesn't either. But I do think there is a chance they may confirm the hypothesis. I think after reading your blog I am now placing that evidence much more in the "not confirming" pile.

But its still far from certain in my mind that a lost and greatly ancient civilization did not exist. Its a facinmating topic all round, I think:)
So it's up to the believers in ancient aliens to present the evidence, and then we can look at it and make a decision as to whether this really is compelling evidence or not.
They would say they have presented the evidence.
You mention the possibility that there might be metrics not yet invented that would allow us to develop better evidence. That's certainly a possibility, but until such a metric comes about, the bottom line is that there currently isn't any compelling evidence.
I agree, that I know of, at least to do with the maps.
Sometimes people do come up with new ways of measuring things that dramatically change how science views a certain topic. It can take time to prove the point this way, science often works very slowly. But that's the way it has to be if we want to be sure that we have evidence that we can rely on.
You could have a crowd generated metric, loads of people saying which outlines looked similar. With enough people, there could b a significant confirmation or dis-confirmation of the theory.

what fun!:)

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

thetruth1
New Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:40 pm

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by thetruth1 » Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:00 pm

its funny how ones argument against the smoking gun proof a previous alien visits is to just put down the theory saying its childish. how did our ancestors lift stones up to stack that would take 20 cranes to pick up? maybe aliens advanced technology is based on nature which our plastic heads cant grasp.why would cultures around the world who carve a almost perfect looking aligator into stone also carve a human standing next to a round headed big eyed alien. why would rennisance artists paint ufos in the sky? why would so many historical figures claimed to see 329 BC Alexander the Great records two great silver shields, spitting fire around the rims in the sky that dived repeatedly at his army as they were attempting a river crossing. The action so panicked his elephants, horses, and men they had to abandon the river crossing until the following day. imagine not knowing how to explain what you saw or have no concept of space travel how do you explain it back then?

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 » Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:32 pm

thetruth1 wrote:its funny how ones argument against the smoking gun proof a previous alien visits is to just put down the theory saying its childish. how did our ancestors lift stones up to stack that would take 20 cranes to pick up? maybe aliens advanced technology is based on nature which our plastic heads cant grasp.why would cultures around the world who carve a almost perfect looking aligator into stone also carve a human standing next to a round headed big eyed alien. why would rennisance artists paint ufos in the sky? why would so many historical figures claimed to see 329 BC Alexander the Great records two great silver shields, spitting fire around the rims in the sky that dived repeatedly at his army as they were attempting a river crossing. The action so panicked his elephants, horses, and men they had to abandon the river crossing until the following day. imagine not knowing how to explain what you saw or have no concept of space travel how do you explain it back then?
Well, regarding the stones, there's really no mystery as to how they moved them - they got hundreds of men together and they pulled. Lifting them can be accomplished by a simple process of using a fulcrum and tipping the blocks back and forth while piling lumber into the cavities that creates.

And regarding the incident with Alexander The Great, there's actually no record of that ever happening. The earliest mention of it comes from 1959 by Frank Edwards, and it looks like he just made it up out of whole cloth. There is not a single document written before then which describes this incident as narrated by Edwards.

That's what you find when you look closely at these kinds of claims - there's just nothing to them.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34969
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 19, 2010 10:40 pm

Now let's talk about the Dropa! :pr:
"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?

thetruth1
New Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:40 pm

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by thetruth1 » Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:54 pm

yea that can explain how some stones were lifted but not mammoth sized stones that would snap a cable let alone cheap rope. yet theres no explanation for the carvings in the stones that long ago that have detailed animals then detailed humans than detailed creatures with big round heads/eyes just like aliens seen today. what about rennisance paintings with ufos in the sky? cave paintings of humans standing next to different looking space brothers? precision carving in rocks that would test our diamond coated tools now a days? carvings of men in space suits?a japanese drawing of a samurai standing next to what is an obvious ufo? Please explain that mysterious hole in canada!!! sorry our ancestors couldnt explain exactly what they saw

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 » Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:13 pm

Gord wrote:Now let's talk about the Dropa! :pr:
I personally really like the Crystal Skulls:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Apparently, there are 13 of them hidden in remote deserts and deep in jungles all around the world waiting until man is ready to find them.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34969
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by Gord » Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:03 am

Parrot wrote:...waiting until man is ready to find them.
Like virginal princesses!

I bet they're guarded by dragons.
"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 » Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:47 am

Thylacine wrote:Recent ice ages lowered sea levels due to the enormous amounts of water trapped in the greatly expanded polar ice caps. This lowered sea level would have resulted in larger coastal plains along most of the Earth's continents — especially those with a large, shallow continental shelves.
Yes, we agree. An area the size of a continent would have been exposed.
Antarctica, however, has a narrow continental shelf, and because of its high latitudes and generally lower temperatures, those now-underwater expanded coastlines would have been under many meters of ice with a sea shelf of ice extending several hundred miles further still. In other words, a civilization living there wouldn't have been possible, and exploration of this coastline would have been highly unlikely.
This point I am making is about the plausibilioty of the general thesis of an antediluvian civilization, irrespective of Antarctica.
Just to summarize my views: I've looked at the maps, looked at lots of the evidence, and quite frankly, I don't see what you're seeing.
Then you don't see what I am seeing. As said, I have been dropped my threashold of plausibility that the maps represent "orthodox impossible knowledge". Also, as said, I wont be convinced of this until there is some reasonable metric to judge this.

Until we have this, on the the maps issue, its just fencing opinions.

On the wider issue of an antediluvian civilization. I think there is evidence for this, both above ground (Gobleci Tepi, the sphinx, maybe), below the water and in many of the world's anchient texts, plato being the most recent.

>>>I find it interesting that a few old map makers, through conjecture, imagined a large land mass at the South Pole, but that's about it.

That's your opinion. Is it possible they could be remnant knowldge of ancient expert cartographers?

>>>What they imagined on their maps, however, bears almost no resemblance to what's actually there,

That seems not true. The resemblance is pretty clear , what is important is how significant that is. As Parrot showed with his Australia overlay, it might not be that significant at all. But again, without a test and comparative metric, its all just opinion.

As a skeptic, you should doubt your opinions, and the opinions of experts as much as you doubt the opinion of fruitcakes. The great thing is, that if your opinioon and that of the experts holds up to doubt better than those of the fruitcakes, your douibts become vindicated. I am not sure this has happened yet with these maps, and certainly not with the antideluvian civ hypothesis.

>>> so i just don't see a reason to take the claims of ancient knowledge, ancient civilizations there or ancient aliens particularly seriously.

Lets forget the aliens, that seems much more implausible than the idea that there was a civilization 10k+ years ago.

If you drop all your preconceptions, abrahamic biases, archeological fashions and all these things and start right from nowhere and answer these questions:

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?

I think the answer to the above points are all affirmative and so for me it seems rational and good method to expect more evidence for and test the hypothesis of antideluvian civilizations.

Laying asside your opinions, what do you think?
The evidence just isn't there — not even close.
Maybe you haven't heard of the Gulf of Cambay?

In skepticism not cynicism,

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

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34969
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by Gord » Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:01 pm

matripley wrote:3) Have most civilizations arisen in, or adjacent to, coastal areas?
No, not really. They've usually arisen in river valleys where yearly flooding replenished the fertility of the fields needed to grow enough food to feed large populations.
"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 » Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:40 pm

Gord wrote:
matripley wrote:3) Have most civilizations arisen in, or adjacent to, coastal areas?
No, not really. They've usually arisen in river valleys where yearly flooding replenished the fertility of the fields needed to grow enough food to feed large populations.
Could you name me some, please, that were not coastal?
http://www.salted.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34969
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Let's Talk Ancient Aliens Theory

Post by Gord » Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:38 pm

matripley wrote:
Gord wrote:
matripley wrote:3) Have most civilizations arisen in, or adjacent to, coastal areas?
No, not really. They've usually arisen in river valleys where yearly flooding replenished the fertility of the fields needed to grow enough food to feed large populations.
Could you name me some, please, that were not coastal?
Okay. Hang on, I'll have to Google some of them, I've forgotten the names of the valleys.

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)

Those are the ones that always spring to mind. Not sure if there were others of the same nature or magnitude. Maybe the Ganges River? Wait, I can Google that too:

Nope, nothing pops out. "Harappan," maybe? But I think that's the Indus Valley civilization -- they may have extended to the Ganges, I don't recall, and someone seems to have turned my internet connection down to "slow" again. :glare:

Oh but I did found this map, shows four of the river valleys I'm talking about: http://www.mapsofworld.com/country-prof ... s-map.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"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?

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 » Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:10 pm

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."

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 » Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:24 pm

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?"
. . . 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 » Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:27 pm

matripley wrote:This point I am making is about the plausibilioty of the general thesis of an antediluvian civilization, irrespective of Antarctica.
"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, plus further on in your post, you use the term "Abrahamic bias." 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?
matripley wrote:Also, as said, I wont be convinced of this until there is some reasonable metric to judge this.
Latitude and longitude are off by many hundreds of miles, physical area of the landmasses differ enormously, almost no similarity exists between the coastlines — either between the old maps or when compared to the actual coastline (higher seas, lower seas or covered with ice). There's no need for more precise metrics since a significant correlation fails using even the roughest metrics.
matripley wrote:On the wider issue of an antediluvian civilization. I think there is evidence for this, both above ground (Gobleci Tepi, the sphinx, maybe), below the water and in many of the world's anchient texts, plato being the most recent.
There's plenty of evidence for prehistoric tribal hunter-gatherer societies and small settlements, but I know of no substantive evidence of anything more advanced. Gobleci Tepi? The Sphinx? Plato? You'll need to explain your ideas there.
matripley wrote:
thylacine wrote:I find it interesting that a few old map makers, through conjecture, imagined a large land mass at the South Pole, but that's about it.
That's your opinion. Is it possible they could be remnant knowldge of ancient expert cartographers?
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.
matripley wrote:
Thylacine wrote:What they imagined on their maps, however, bears almost no resemblance to what's actually there...
That seems not true. The resemblance is pretty clear , what is important is how significant that is. As Parrot showed with his Australia overlay, it might not be that significant at all. But again, without a test and comparative metric, its all just opinion.
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.
matripley wrote:As a skeptic, you should doubt your opinions, and the opinions of experts as much as you doubt the opinion of fruitcakes. The great thing is, that if your opinioon and that of the experts holds up to doubt better than those of the fruitcakes, your douibts become vindicated. I am not sure this has happened yet with these maps, and certainly not with the antideluvian civ hypothesis.
As a skeptic, I'm much more skeptical of fruitcakes than I am of experts. 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. 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.
matripley wrote:If you drop all your preconceptions, abrahamic biases, archeological fashions and all these things and start right from nowhere and answer these questions:

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

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.
matripley wrote:Laying asside your opinions, what do you think?
I think the evidence for prehistoric civilizations that extend beyond tribal societies and small settlements is non-existant.
matripley wrote:Maybe you haven't heard of the Gulf of Cambay?
Yes, I've heard of the Gulf of Cambay. Similarly, about ten years ago, I remember reading about archeological structures and evidence of boats being found several dozen meters beneath the Black Sea (Scientific American, I think) prior to its connection the the Aegean and Mediterranean. The large Bering Sea plain is another prime location for now-submerged archeological artifacts. For that matter, I suspect that there are a great number of archeological sites in numerous places that were submerged when the ice sheets from the last ice age melted, retreated and raised the sea level.

There is no evidence, though, of any advanced civilizations during this period. The only evidence is for hunter-gatherer, tribal societies. I suppose it's possibile that a more advanced civilization could have emerged, fallen and its cities flooded when the sea levels raised, but there's no evidence for it. Anyway, it seems unlikely that an advanced civilization would leave no substantive trace of their existence elsewhere in areas that aren't now submerged.

Even if a more advanced, sea-fairing coastal civilization had existed along a now-submerged coastal area, it would have been during the ice age when enormous amounts of the planet's water were tied up in the extensive, miles-thick polar ice sheets. During this time, the shores of Antarctica would have been submerged beneath miles of ice and obscured by thick sea ice extending many hundreds of miles from the shores. It wouldn't have been possible for a prehistoric ice age civilization to have explored the Antarctic coastline unless they had technical expertise corresponding to that of modern-day humans of the last 2 or 3 hundred years. And if that were they case, we would have extensive planet-wide evidence?

Besides, the allegations of similarities between the old maps and the actual Antarctic coastline depend upon a shoreline of an ice-free Antarctica with higher sea levels than today, not lower.

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 7:32 pm

i loved how its a agree to disagree even though the carvings in stone are unexplained...yea hamlet has words but there was never a painting of hamlet with obvious flying saucers in the air. no 1 tells how a stone that would take 21 craines now got moved with cloth rope n people even denying the roap breaking but to move it wouldnt be probable. then move on to carvings huge moutain sides with a flat carved surface rocks that would test our diamond coated tools yet bronze got it done and why carve an alien figure next to a human 1 in rock? why takje the gesnerations of extra short lives then to record that?why do so many cultures draw the same? there is a culture pre summarian they found. its funny how the thought of aliens helps us really hurts our religious views thus making us want to turn a blind eye. how did they carve the stones in Sacsayhuaman? what was gobekli tepe? any explanation for haratonohama 1803? explanations for artwork of aliens???? how do you precisely carve granite? JUST BECAUSE YOU EXCUSE SOMETHING AS NOT REAL DOESNT MEAN THE FACTS ARE NOT THERE. try putting yourself in ancestors shoes who worried about surviving...how do you explain what you saw?