So is this the organization that runs the evil conspiracy?

This is pointless really, I' just gonna leave you to your rant, because let's be honest, who knows? In our, and many others opinions, there has been more than enough circumstantial evidence, aswell as witness' that suggest there is a conspiracy. You labelling various people kooks, idiots, con men etc doesn't change the fact that they all claim to have been silenced and their work confiscated, this is not just in archeaology as mac put it, but all over, new tech being discovered, people tell the same stories.

Is it the Vatican? I doubt it, they're part of it, but they have no idea what the big picture is, I guess they don't want to lose their followers, as for the govenrment? I've said this before, depends on what they find, for you, this may be laughable, because you don't believe that aliens, or an advanced culture ever existed, therfore there is nothing to find, but to us, I have seen eye witness account of an engine found in the gobi desert (i think) that reacts with emotion, now that could be complete BS, fair enough, but we can only use our 'logic' to determine this, and if your logic has been structured from your early life, to deem stories like this BS, then your never really going be able to judge rationally.

Now please, have a go at the fact that I believe this story could be true, please, my challenge to you though, if you do decide to have ago, is prove YOUR theory right. You can throw logic at people all you want mate, logic is a perspective and yours has been shaped by this 'non existant' system, if 50 years ago, I came up with quantum mechanics, 'logic' would have had it thrown out the window, times change, change with them.

"For there is nothing which We believe to be more needful than that truth should find defenders more powerful and more numerous than the enemies it has to face; nor is there anything which is better calculated to impress the masses with respect for truth than to see it boldly proclaimed by learned and distinguished men."

So you've agreed that censorship did happen 100 years ago, yet doesn't happen anymore. If it worked then, and yes you can say the public knew, but I highly doubt that at the time, then why not now? more people, more technology, alot more theories and ideas to 'dilute' the truth so to speak, IMO, it would be easier now.

The reason I offered a debate is because you accused me of lying, having no evidence and distorting the truth many, many, many times.

And the subject you offered were NOT in those areas. They were "should we research Atlantis" and something about Mars. Not to good on the truth thing are we? Not lying Sky (in those cases, not in the most recent episode where you were lying) that you were making stuff up or believing stuff other people made up.

Howdy EMM

This is pointless really, I' just gonna leave you to your rant, because let's be honest, who knows?

Hans: Calmly do a mind experiment and figure out the number of people you’d need and the organization you’d need to watch all Archaeologist everywhere, in every country plus all looters, antique dealers, etc etc. You would require a massive organization. We’ve seen “information ministries” in fascist and communists states – they are large and not that efficient – and everyone knew about them.

In our, and many others opinions, there has been more than enough circumstantial evidence, aswell as witness' that suggest there is a conspiracy. You labelling various people kooks, idiots, con men etc doesn't change the fact that they all claim to have been silenced and their work confiscated, this is not just in archeaology as mac put it, but all over, new tech being discovered, people tell the same stories.

Hans: Because Ed Conrad IS (was, he is dead now I believe) a crackpot, are you saying that every single person who comes up with a theory is sound and sane? Unfortunately there are crackpots. Yes they tell the same stories because that is part of the myth – odd they can tell the story isn’t it? That they cannot just go to another country and built or do whatever they want. You believe in people to much my friend.

If I was a fraud the first thing I wanted to do to sell an idea is say I was being suppressed.

Is it the Vatican? I doubt it, they're part of it, but they have no idea what the big picture is, I guess they don't want to lose their followers, as for the govenrment? I've said this before, depends on what they find, for you, this may be laughable, because you don't believe that aliens, or an advanced culture ever existed,

Hans: Incorrect, I hold that aliens and an advanced culture could have/ could existed. Why would you think that since I’ve clearly stated that over and over again in many other treads. Why do you think I’m here?

therfore there is nothing to find, but to us, I have seen eye witness account of an engine found in the gobi desert (i think) that reacts with emotion, now that could be complete BS, fair enough, but we can only use our 'logic' to determine this, and if your logic has been structured from your early life, to deem stories like this BS,

Hans: Nobody has been “structured”, again silly reasons to explain a lack of evidence. It’s all about the evidence. If there was evidence we’d all be talking about the newly discovered civilization.

then your never really going be able to judge rationally.

Hans: I’m fully rational I want evidence before I will accept something actually exists, you insist something exists without evidence – that my friend isn’t rational, it more religious.

Example: We are both standing next to a door, we are told that there is a tiger in there.

You immediately believe the story, I ask for evidence, the evidence is blurry photos, a testament from a new age guru and bad translations of myths about tigers behind doors. I decline to accept these, noting that Tigers do in fact exist, that one might be behind the door but we don’t know, you swallow these completely and insist a tiger is behind the door.

So what are our positions on the tiger? I say it could exist but the evidence doesn’t prove it. You say that there is a tiger and the evidence for it is being there is being suppressed due to a conspiracy.

Obviously the only solution is to open the door or find other sources of information about whether there is a tiger there.

Which approach is more logical, blind belief or skepticism?

So is there a tiger behind the door? Only more evidence will tell.

Now please, have a go at the fact that I believe this story could be true, please, my challenge to you though, if you do decide to have ago, is prove YOUR theory right. You can throw logic at people all you want mate, logic is a perspective and yours has been shaped by this 'non existant' system, if 50 years ago, I came up with quantum mechanics, 'logic' would have had it thrown out the window, times change, change with them.

Hans: False statement I didn’t say that, I said very clearly that it happens all the time and when it happens it’s impossible to keep secret. The case from 100 years ago is an example – the censorship was done openly and by an organization everyone knows about. Your view is that the censorship is being done secretly by an organization no one knows about. Oh prove what exactly? That no secret organization is censoring archaeology? It's impossible to prove a negative.

If it worked then, and yes you can say the public knew, but I highly doubt that at the time,

Hans: you are incorrect check the media from that time frame and the output from Catholic dissenters






[edit on 29/7/08 by Hanslune]

[edit on 29/7/08 by Hanslune]

Howdy EMM

Hans: Calmly do a mind experiment and figure out the number of people you’d need and the organization you’d need to watch all Archaeologist everywhere, in every country plus all looters, antique dealers, etc etc. You would require a massive organization. We’ve seen “information ministries” in fascist and communists states – they are large and not that efficient – and everyone knew about them.

I agree with this, but your assuming that the techniques used then, would apply now. Humans have an innate ability to learn from our own mistakes, and possibly even more incredible, although it is underestimated, is our ability to learn from other peoples mistakes, I will go into my perception of it a bit further down.

Hans: Because Ed Conrad IS (was, he is dead now I believe) a crackpot, are you saying that every single person who comes up with a theory is sound and sane? Unfortunately there are crackpots. Yes they tell the same stories because that is part of the myth – odd they can tell the story isn’t it? That they cannot just go to another country and built or do whatever they want. You believe in people to much my friend.

If I was a fraud the first thing I wanted to do to sell an idea is say I was being suppressed.

Of course not, but have you ever met Ed Conrad? or are basing this on what you have read about him, to be discredited, you only need to be labled a crack pot, most people from then on who don't agree with your theory, will use this as the reason not to believe you, especially if they are more inclined before hand with a structured belief system, power of suggestion.

Hans: Incorrect, I hold that aliens and an advanced culture could have/ could existed. Why would you think that since I’ve clearly stated that over and over again in many other treads. Why do you think I’m here?

Then why is hard to believe a cover up? I sort of understood you before (or thought I did, lol) arguing against a cover up, if you believed there was nothing to find. Yet if you believe in the possibility of aliens having visited earth or an early advanced culture, then that is your reason for the cover up, the technology that could have been found, again no proof, but a fair few acqusations.

Hans: Nobody has been “structured”, again silly reasons to explain a lack of evidence. It’s all about the evidence. If there was evidence we’d all be talking about the newly discovered civilization.

No structure? You think they threw together topics at random? a popular theory currently in early developmental psychology is scaffolding, you supply the dots, and allow the child to fill in the lines. It emphasises independence, self confidence and abilities to problem solve,they are allowed to build there own picture, through guidance. This is a structured learning theory and can easily be applied to adults, with more structure of course, this could easily guide beliefs if people don't see it happening.

Hans: I’m fully rational I want evidence before I will accept something actually exists, you insist something exists without evidence – that my friend isn’t rational, it more religious.

Example: We are both standing next to a door, we are told that there is a tiger in there.

You immediately believe the story, I ask for evidence, the evidence is blurry photos, a testament from a new age guru and bad translations of myths about tigers behind doors. I decline to accept these, noting that Tigers do in fact exist, that one might be behind the door but we don’t know, you swallow these completely and insist a tiger is behind the door.

And what if the door is locked? do we continues to accept the evidence we are shown? if they offer to show us what is behind other doors, but not that one? do we still accept their evidence as truthful?

That aside, thought experiments are largely based on our current perception, our answer dictates our view of the world, we are merely debating, in metaphor...m.

Which approach is more logical, blind belief or skepticism?

I would rather have an open mind full of wonder, than a closed mind full of disbelief, personal choice, although I'm not implying your close minded, just mine is more open, which is better? matter of opinion I'm afraid.

Hans: False statement I didn’t say that, I said very clearly that it happens all the time and when it happens it’s impossible to keep secret. The case from 100 years ago is an example – the censorship was done openly and by an organization everyone knows about. Your view is that the censorship is being done secretly by an organization no one knows about. Oh prove what exactly? That no secret organization is censoring archaeology? It's impossible to prove a negative.

Well, I can only answer IMO, so you probably won't agree, but I'll try and show why I believe it possible. War has always been fought, through brute force, the strong conquering the weak, yet, the weak always outnumbered the strong. This always posed a problem, and IMO, explains why all empires are doomed to fail.

Now as I said before, tactics change, people learn from mistakes. For example, hypothetically, Britain (Empire) having learnt from past mistakes, realised, that to keep control over the Empire, they would need to change tactics, it was growing very big, especially America, were it would have been impossible to police at the time, considering the mounting pressure in France and Europe. They tried to tackle this by limiting the land allowed for settlement this didn't work, they tried putting masons (From London) in power, this didn't work, they made more money, but couldn't control the people. They realised that sooner or later, there would be trouble in America, or the New world, people were growing restless, no longer classing themselves as British and things in France were getting worse.

So they did what was 'logical' (IMO), they staged a war, they staged the war of independence so that the 'Americans' 'won'. Now they had an American government in power (seemingly) that answered to the Empire, this has continued to this day, Canada and Australia, both governments answer to the Queen, all territories given back, were to governments put in place by the Empire.

This is my opinion, but as you can see, if something like this is possible from my perception, the ability to hide some artifacts globally doesn't seem to far fetched.

EMM


[edit on 29-7-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

Of course not, but have you ever met Ed Conrad?

Hans: I was on a usenet Sci.alt.archaeology site for a number of years with him. He was a complete crank – trust me on that. I just looked and a number of his responses – classics in their way- are still preserved. His evidence was ^%$# and his methodology none existent.

Then why is hard to believe a cover up?

Hans: Because there isn’t a world-wide or even a regional conspiracy in Archaeology. To do so, it wouldn’t be possible to hide it from the people actually involved in Archaeology. No one in Archaeology seems to be aware of this massive conspiracy - you don't find that odd?

No structure?

Hans: Not in the sense you are using I was using another sense in an evil conspiracy building way.

I would rather have an open mind full of wonder, than a closed mind full of disbelief,

Hans: You mean you want to fantasy un burdened by reality than open your mind to the reality of evidence? No accepting something because their is no evidence is disbelief, it non acceptance of an idea/concept that is not proven.

Now they had an American government in power (seemingly) that answered to the Empire, this has continued to this day, Canada and Australia, both governments answer to the Queen, all territories given back, were to governments put in place by the Empire.

Hans: Very funny, so now seriously what did you mean to say? I've heard that conspiracy theory before. My ancestors where part of the American revolution (unfortunately on both sides) I have the personal journals from several of them. They weren't faking it.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Hans: I was on a usenet Sci.alt.archaeology site for a number of years with him. He was a complete crank – trust me on that. I just looked and a number of his responses – classics in their way- are still preserved. His evidence was ^%$# and his methodology none existent.

Well, I haven't seen any examples of this, but I have never met him, online or off, so I wouldn't know, but let's use your logic, some are bound to be crackpots? ok, but some aren't, and thats were you here about the 'cover-up'.

Then why is hard to believe a cover up?

Hans: Because there isn’t a world-wide or even a regional conspiracy in Archaeology. To do so, it wouldn’t be possible to hide it from the people actually involved in Archaeology. No one in Archaeology seems to be aware of this massive conspiracy - you don't find that odd?

I've addressed this, people in the field have come forward to say their work is being surppressed, they are then discredited, I left some examples before, but I'm sure there are lots more.

Hans: Not in the sense you are using I was using another sense in an evil conspiracy building way.

I'm sorry but the 'theory' doesn't opt whether to be used for good or bad, it's a theory and is applied when needed. Evil conspiracy building way? I was suggesting that through similar structuring, we may have been designed to discard certain theories. even more so through academics as they have been through an even stricted structuring, form primary school, to university.

Hans: You mean you want to fantasy un burdened by reality than open your mind to the reality of evidence? No accepting something because their is no evidence is disbelief, it non acceptance of an idea/concept that is not proven.

Reality of what evidence? Yes I agree, there is compeling evidence for some of the 'conventional' theories, but thats the reason they have become a theory, due to evidence. There is evidence for some of the theories I believe in, would you accept this as reality, or keep looking for other answers? I try for both.

Hans: Very funny, so now seriously what did you mean to say? I've heard that conspiracy theory before. My ancestors where part of the American revolution (unfortunately on both sides) I have the personal journals from several of them. They weren't faking it.

I hardly claimed the war was a fake, to suggest so is ridiculous, I was merely stating that in my eyes, how would any of the ground troops, on either side, know? same as soldiers now don't have all the info, only a 'need to know'. The Americans would be fighting for freedom, because they are told so, and the British were told to fight the dissenters, neither side knew, that it was all planned. The war to them would be no less real, only for the people who staged it, would see the entire picture, who are these? Who knows, Alternative agendas have been common place in governments since they were formed, IMO.

EMM

[edit on 30-7-2008 by Skyfloating]

Howdy Sky

One of your more succinct comments!

ITT: we see how irony and sarcasm are not understood.