What Archaeologists Really Think About Ancient Aliens, Lost Colonies, And Fingerprints Of The Gods

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
Middle Ages...is that not when the great cathedrals of Europe were being constructed? You know...those things that make the pyramids look like Lego?

Sorry, but just... no. The three pyramids of Giza make any cathedral ever built and probably 99% of current steel structures a toy.

originally posted by: JohnTheSmith
I wonder if these same Archaeologists have ever wondered what is buried at the Smithsonian, or Vatican?

Must be nice to be willfully ignorant.

As it was pointed out in the article, one of them had inspected the "giant skeletons" himself, in person, which were claimed in a book to be evidence of giants. The skeletons were normal size however.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: schuyler
But the reaction you get is the exalted, supercilious "I know better than you" attitude of "You can lead a horse to water." as a way to dismiss anything an archaeologist doesn't like. You can lead an archaeologist down the same path and show him the evidence, but the same rule applies. He won't accept it because none of his colleagues have, and if he does, he will be ostracized from that small community he so desperately needs.

Since I have been cited (without benefit of reference BTW) I might point out that the water I tried to lead folks to was the article from American Antiquity, in which some of your opinions actually emerge. My point was that there's a lot of commentary on the subject here from people who have not bothered to read the piece. Like I said, deliberate ignorance in this time of uber information availability is...well...stupid.

This is ATS. What do you expect? And a "horse led to water" applies whether you said it or not. Referencing the obvious is not necessary. Calling people ignorant and stupid (see above) here may actually be true, but it doesn't help your cause. Look at the difference in approach compared to Slayer, for example. He does not find it necessary to call people stupid. He just lays out his case.

Just in case it wasn't obvious on my part, I'm not a fan of alien flights of fancy or disappearing technological civilizations either. Rampant speculation does no one any good and certainly does not advance our understanding. The problem is that some very good ideas--with plenty of documentation--are not accepted NOT because they aren't any good or have no merit, but because they do not fit the paradigm academia has adopted. They are very bright guys for the most part. But they suffer from the same myopia as the rest of us.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

Not a crane in the world could lift 1000 ton sections of material. So give me something more plausible than using basic tools and cut down trees ancient people cut and moved these pieces.

Puma punku. Look at the cuts in the rock in that place. Offer me something more than simple tools were used to make precision cuts that we would need to use some laser or maybe diamond type cut to match.

In other words is it aliens, ancient gods, etc. No ( possible I guess) but really give me something more than ancient people using basic tools pulled of what we would struggle to do today. Do that, the other theories wouldn't even get off the ground.

www.youtube.com...

In the video, this man moves a 20 Ton block by himself with sticks and stones. Hows the old saying go?

originally posted by: diggindirt
I've dealt with a lot of professionals who are just as wacky and obstinate as the non-professionals. This is especially true if the professional has published his/her theory in book form and a subsequent dig overturns his/her theory. I've seen it happen firsthand---more than once. I've even seen them stand and look at the evidence in person and deny the "ground truth" before them.

There are those who unadvisedly 'chose the hill to die on' regarding their own pet beliefs. But it's a mugs game, as there's always a bright young spark looking for tenure track who will advance their own theories. That's the way academe works. There is always debate, and that is exceedingly hard to quash. I just read a piece where a prominent Ontario archaeologist stated that she retracts her statement of some years ago, and advances a new conclusion, based upon a rethinking of the available data. That's how science works. I have books on the shelf some five years apart that contradict each other based upon new evidence...yet folks are still talking to each other. Hell, look at Dillihay and Monte Verde!

I worry more about political interference, such as is the case in Biblical archaeology, or as regards our own Dear Leader, Steve, who put the blocks to an investigation of Norse sites on Baffin Island because the Danes are poking around looking at resources on the continental shelf. Even still, the crusty ol' broad (in a good way) managed to publish elsewhere and Harper be damned. New data won't stay hidden and archaeologists talk.

originally posted by: schuyler
This is ATS. What do you expect?

And the ATS motto is...?

Calling people ignorant and stupid (see above) here may actually be true, but it doesn't help your cause. Look at the difference in approach compared to Slayer, for example. He does not find it necessary to call people stupid. He just lays out his case.

I refer to those who rebut any case without knowing what it is, And I stick to my guns...

The problem is that some very good ideas--with plenty of documentation--are not accepted NOT because they aren't any good or have no merit, but because they do not fit the paradigm academia has adopted.

Again, I cite Dillihay.

a reply to: boncho

Great video, showing how to raise and rotate on a fulcrum, awesome! How do you move a 20 ton block a 100 feet laterally?
or a few miles for that matter, plus, he was on a hard surface (concrete) try that in dirt or sand, you will not get the same results.

The stones for Stonehenge traveled 160 miles, I don't think this would enable that. (unless you had a 320 mile piece of wood or something)

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Not a crane in the world could lift 1000 ton sections of material. So give me something more plausible than using basic tools and cut down trees ancient people cut and moved these pieces.

Puma punku. Look at the cuts in the rock in that place. Offer me something more than simple tools were used to make precision cuts that we would need to use some laser or maybe diamond type cut to match.

In other words is it aliens, ancient gods, etc. No ( possible I guess) but really give me something more than ancient people using basic tools pulled of what we would struggle to do today. Do that, the other theories wouldn't even get off the ground.

www.youtube.com...

In the video, this man moves a 20 Ton block by himself with sticks and stones. Hows the old saying go?

Good for him, 20 tons and 1000 tons are very different, as is moving and actually placing them in order to build structures, not to mention line them up etc. Video doesn't prove much. Doesn't address other issues I raised either. Not to mention see how high up those 1000 ton stones are on the great platform. Lifting, moving, placing. Much different than moving a lot less weight. But thanks for the video and nice try.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
Imagine someone in the Middle Ages gazing at the pyramids. They would have to think, "Wow, there is no way we could do that today. Those people were better than us. What happened to them? Something was lost." Today, our ego won't allow us to conceive that ancient humans might have been more advanced than us.

Middle Ages...is that not when the great cathedrals of Europe were being constructed? You know...those things that make the pyramids look like Lego?

You have obviously never gazed upon the Great Pyramid in person. This is is a gob-smackingly obtuse and ignorant statement. I really was open-jawed in amazement when I read it. Here's a guy who is pontificating to the rest of us about proper scientific endeavor and lecturing us on "how science works," calling people stupid along the way, and you have the unmitigated gall to say something like this????

Good Lord. You have lost all credibility. Just go home. Really.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

Lifting, moving, placing

Did you even watch the video? The guy moves his son's barn 300 feet and places it. He moves a 20 ton rock and while it was horizontal, he sets it down on a vertical axis making sure it was level while doing it. By himself.

.Good for him, 20 tons and 1000 tons are very different, as is moving and actually placing them in order to build structures, not to mention line them up etc.

You're right, 1 person moving 20 tons if quite different than a king/pharoah/whatever being in control of millions of slaves moving something bigger.

The king has more resources.

Also, Baaleek is not the largest ancient block moved by hand:

“. . . 1,250,000 kilograms . . . is the weight of the great block of granite the Empress Catherine II of Russia (1762-1796) . . . carried to St. Petersburg (now Leningrad) to serve as a colossal base to the equestrian statue of Peter the Great. This is likely the largest stone ever moved by man, one and a half times the weight trilithon blocks [at Baalbek.]”

michaelsheiser.com...

Challenge accepted. Challenge completed.

a reply to: thedigirati

If you watch the video he speaks about moving it a few hundred feet in a day I think. He also moved his sons Barn a few hundred feet as well I believe.

Its just one method by the way, there are many others as well.

Its not like people thousands of years ago had better things to do. A king owns millions of slaves and says "do this", doesnt matter if it takes a day or a month, a year or a decade, people are going to do his bidding.

For stone henge, the guy in the video is basically trying to recreate the same thing, and doing it single handed.


Consider the giant stone in St Petersburg 1500 tons, was moved 6 kilometres by only 400 men, Im guessing the one you are asking about could be done much easier, much faster.

The Thunder Stone, used as the base of the Bronze Horseman statue in St. Petersburg, was 1,500 tons and transported ~6 km to its current site.
On ball bearings on a track, it took 400 men 8 months to move it 6 km.

www.quora.com...

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
there's a lot of commentary on the subject here from people who have not bothered to read the piece...

I'm guessing that most here on ATS have enough sense to ignore 'What Archaeologists Really Think'...

This isn't Yahoo answers after all.

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Good for him, 20 tons and 1000 tons are very different, as is moving and actually placing them in order to build structures, not to mention line them up etc.

You're right, 1 person moving 20 tons if quite different than a king/pharoah/whatever being in control of millions moving something bigger.

The king has more resources.

Michel Alouf, the former curator of the ruins, once wrote of the Trilithon:

'... in spite of their immense size, they [the Trilithon stones] are so accurately placed in position and so carefully joined, that it is almost impossible to insert a needle between them. No description will give an exact idea of the bewildering and stupefying effect of these tremendous blocks on the spectator'.[4]

Of course you just need more resources. That would of course account for the moving, raising, placement, etc. Current day you might find a crane company that has the ability to lift and place these stones, problem is that last time I saw it checked the cranes can't move with the weight. Two solutions were proposed. Equip the crane with specialized crawler tracks, and level the land entirely flat before attempting to move the 1/4 mile from the quarry to the platform. Or the other alternative a bunch of modular hydraulic trailers to create a platform. This is current proposals

Now you also have to cut the stones, move the stones, and place the stones, matching what the former curator describes. Almost impossible to get a needle between them. Also the two solutions proposed for the move. Just proposals. Our technology, a bunch of problems on the move alone. Not accounting for the precision cuts and placement needed.

You do me a favor taking all this into account how ancient man with simple tools pulled this off. Account for it all, precision cuts, move, lift, placement. If you can't I stand by my statement that there maybe explanations but not the crap archaeology is pushing of ancient man basic tools.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Interesting view point considering scientists still have no idea about anything about where we came from. Science is supposed to be open minded and constantly searching to refine the theories and information. If scientists cant explain where humans came from and what we were doing hundreds of thousands if not millions of years ago then they should not be lecturing others about exploring other possibilities.

Michel Alouf, the former curator of the ruins, once wrote of the Trilithon:

'... in spite of their immense size, they [the Trilithon stones] are so accurately placed in position and so carefully joined, that it is almost impossible to insert a needle between them. .

Almost impossible ???
so quite possible then...

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Interesting view point considering scientists still have no idea about anything about where we came from. Science is supposed to be open minded and constantly searching to refine the theories and information. If scientists cant explain where humans came from and what we were doing hundreds of thousands if not millions of years ago then they should not be lecturing others about exploring other possibilities.

There was a guy called Darwin...

a reply to: Marduk

Michel Alouf, the former curator of the ruins, once wrote of the Trilithon:

'... in spite of their immense size, they [the Trilithon stones] are so accurately placed in position and so carefully joined, that it is almost impossible to insert a needle between them. .


Almost impossible ???
so quite possible then...



I'm sure a point was beginning to emerge on my overall question. But I'll chalk it up to Friday night drinking. Maybe in the morning??????

originally posted by: schuyler
This is is a gob-smackingly obtuse and ignorant statement.

...and context is everything. Nice try, though.

a reply to: Marduk

Darwin established the theory of evolution.. Darwin did not locate the missing link for humans.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Marduk

Darwin established the theory of evolution.. Darwin did not locate the missing link for humans.

Because there isn't a missing link...
Astounding...


en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Marduk

Darwin established the theory of evolution.. Darwin did not locate the missing link for humans.

Because there isn't a missing link...
Astounding...

Really?

What did humans evolve from then?