Sky,
Re. the Baigong pipes, I don't see what's wrong with the explanation anyone that bothers to look could find at wiki:
Natural concretionary pipe-like features, which are quite similar to the Baigong Pipes, occur in the Navajo Sandstone and other sandstones of
Southwestern United States in the form of hematite "pipes". Hematite also occurs as other masses of diagenetic "ironstone" that exhibit a wide and
amazing range of bizarre shapes, which can be described as both "strangely shaped stones" and "rusty scraps". For example, strangely shaped
stones, pipe-like features, and other concretionary masses have been observed and described[4] from the Navajo and other Jurassic sandstones within
Utah and adjacent states. [5] Brenda Beitler notes the presence of hollow "subhorizontal planar strata-bound pipes" and "vertical pipes", which
have been created by the precipitation of hematite within the Navajo Sandstone. [4] In addition, the bleached sandstone seen in the picture of the
cave entrance is typical of sandstones, in which natural pipe-like features have been found [4][5]. The pipe-like features are the result of natural
self-organization processes, which occur during the precipitation of iron oxides within sedimentary rocks.
The reported composition of the rusty scraps, 30 percent ferric oxide and large amounts of "silica dioxide" and calcium oxide, is consistent with
the hematite masses found in the Navajo and other Jurassic sandstones in Utah and elsewhere in the Southwestern United States. The ferric oxide and
large amounts of "silica dioxide" is what a person would expect iron oxide cemented sandstone to consist of. "Calcium oxide" is how a
metallurgical analysis would express the calcite found as cement and concretions in sandstone. Calcite and other carbonate cements and concretions are
typically associated with the hematite masses in the Navajo and other sandstones and sedimentary rocks. [4]
Source
I'm no geologist, but my brother in law is. A registered professional geologist, in fact, and he tells me the idea that such "pipes" are not
natural is simply ludicrous.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
In comparing - for example - the Myths of the God Maui...we can see similarities between them all but also differences. The Maori of New Zealand tell
the myth slightly different than the Hawaiians. And the christian missionary who put the myth on paper will add his own bias into the mix.
From those slight differences of the story from tribe to tribe we can conclude that falsehoods and fiction have been added to the original
tale.
In Tonga, where the story might still be a bit closer to truth, Maui was a "wise man" who taught people how to make fire. In Tahiti, where
the story has become more distorted, Maui is suddenly a God who swallowed the sun and therefore knew the secrets of fire. (This is just an example Im
inventing here so that I dont have to go back and look through the books).
Re your posts on this myth, I don't think it's surprising at all that various peoples, all from the Pacific Rim originally, might have similar
stories in their mythos.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
Now...if I actually put the effort into it (which I wont, since its just an internet board afterall), I could give you - realistically speaking -
about 500 different myths from around the world which all essentially tell the same story. That of different beings coming from the sky,
landing and sharing knowledge and then going back up to the sky.
The descriptions of this incident greatly vary. Sometimes its an egg coming down. Sometimes a metal dragon. Sometimes a bird. Sometimes someone
sitting in a "bird". Sometimes a flying chariot. Sometimes a flying serpent.
I wonder...if I went into the effort of laying out these 500+ stories with their relevant passages, side by side...
...would any of you skeptics say "Wait a minute. There just might be some real and very distantly ancient event behind this. There might be
some true core to these legends."
Just maybe.
You would first need to ensure that these tales don't have some one common root. This is because if they were all related, you couldn't say that
the fact that they are spread out has any evidentiary value.
It would be very difficult to establish that many different, and unrelated, "sky god" stories you know, since mythologies pre-date the development
of writing.
Originally posted by SkyfloatingSaying "maybe" is vastly different than the arrogant Inquisition that ran over south america declaring
everything that didnt match their beliefs as "nonsense" or "work of the devil".
Whats more: Why "make up ones mind" about it today? Why is there the need, within the skeptics community, to have "made-up-ones-mind" that
extraterrestrials "never" visited the earth.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by SaviorComplex
Again, if I were to lay out 500 stories from different parts of the globe all essentially talking of people going up to the sky and coming down from
it, wouldnt you find that the least bit odd?
I would not be "choosing" what is and what isnt allegory, because they ALL involve flying around in the sky.
Do you dare say you have reached a final conclusion of ETs never having visited us?
Sky,
First you paint skeptics with the broad brush in the first quote, avering that skeptics have some innate need to deny the very possibility of alien
visitation (no true skeptic does this,) and then you basically express wonder that a skeptic might actually exhibit the very behavior you claim?
The way I see it, if there's no real reason to believe it, then why believe it?
That's not the same as saying it
couldn't have happened. It's simply a statement that there's no evidence (recognized evidence, anyway,)
that it did.
Originally posted by SkyfloatingSo you ask: When does a metal dragon become a spaceship? It becomes one when
1. Compared to other sky-god myths.
2. When it flies up into "the dark sea" (space)
3. When it carries passengers
4. When it spits fire and makes a lot of noise
5. When it is said, for example, "that it reaches a place in 1 hour that others would need 12 weeks for"
6. When it is understood that if you dont have the vocabulary to describe technology you have no choice but to describe it in other words.
1. Did you know that in human mythology, the earliest ideas of "heaven" were mountaintops, and not somewhere in the sky?
You are aware, I'm sure, that many odd things (odd, at least, to prescientific humans) actually come out of the sky. Things like lightning and rain,
sleet, snow, and perhaps strangest of all - meteors. Not to mention the unfathomable sparkly things one can see on a clear night when one glances
upward.
Oh, and the Sun too, of course.
All of these things were not only unreachable and frightening, they all required some explanation as well. Why not the "gods?"
2. Birds also "fly up" into the sky. What about shooting stars? The idea of flying in the sky is, in itself, no indication of anything that is in
the least bit odd, if you stop and think about it.
3. Boats carry passengers. Boats make journeys. A journey "in the sky" would require the concept of a "sky boat," aliens or no aliens.
4. See the previous post about the invention of early forms of gunpowder. Note also that the sky itself "spits fire" with every lightning bolt.
Also, again, meteors. And, what about volcanoes?
5.Humans notice that when speed increases, time taken to arrive decreases. Following this thought to a logical extreme (for the purposes of
embellishing a tale) is not surprising either. Nor does it constitute any sort of evidence for anything except ancient imagination. Assuming such a
tale
is ancient, of course.
6. This statement assumes the presence of technology, therefore it is nothing but circular logic.
Harte
