10 top pseudoarchaeological subjects of 2008, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 2-1-2009 @ 01:53 PM by Hanslune

The field of ten

1) Kofels Impact
2) Creationist Museum and the Cincinnati Zoo
3) Cable Television
4) Looting Archaeologists
5) Oldest Hebrew Writing Discovered
6) Muslim Sailors in Skeptic
7) 10,000 BC
8 ) Proof of Romulus and Remus (Tie)
8 ) The Queen of Sheba’s Palace (Tie)
9) Dr. James Tabor’s Statistics
10) Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Well according to this guy

Enjoy

[edit on 2/1/09 by Hanslune]

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 03:01 PM by Anonymous ATS

Since when were fiction movies (meant to entertain and only entertain) the subject of archeology or even pseudo-archeology? It seems odd that the entertainment industry would get two hits on the pseudo-archeology top ten list? Next he is going to say Jurassic Park was a pseudo-scientific discovery in gene manipulation and 2001 A Space Odyssey is a pseudo-historical account. Seems rather silly that two movies, even if they were bad movies, would make the list at all.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 05:44 PM by Byrd

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Since when were fiction movies (meant to entertain and only entertain) the subject of archeology or even pseudo-archeology?

Probably because they take popular pseudoarchaeology as their subjects (as Indiana Jones did) rather than taking equally interesting real archaeology as the background.

Next he is going to say Jurassic Park was a pseudo-scientific discovery in gene manipulation

Well, he's only talking about archaeology... but, man, you should hear the paleontologists on Jurassic Park and all the things they got wrong there (and it was things that were known at the time, by the way.)

I suppose it's the same sort of thing as cops finding a lot of cop shows unwatchable (because the actors do things that are against the practices that police use) and doctors find medical shows hard to watch (same thing... the "instant shot" that cures things within 5 seconds) and so on and so forth.

You should hear me shriek about the computer stuff in tv and movies.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 05:55 PM by Byrd

Interesting list, Hans. Some of the items were ones I was unfamiliar with... that article from Skeptic, though, probably needs to be bumped a bit higher... and ol' Indy lowered, IMHO. I enjoy Indy... but this last one with crystal skulls and aliens seemed to mark a "let's retire the guy" point for me. There were a number of good themes using those plot devices that could have been developed but that whole movie seemed more to be an excuse to pull out the S/FX stops than to have an interesting plot (unlike the first one.)

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 07:24 PM by Hanslune

reply to post by Byrd

Interesting list, Hans. Some of the items were ones I was unfamiliar with... that article from Skeptic,

Hans: I hadn't heard of it either as I no longer subscribe to that magazine. I wonder if it might be on their website??

though, probably needs to be bumped a bit higher... and ol' Indy lowered, IMHO. I enjoy Indy... but this last one with crystal skulls and aliens seemed to mark a "let's retire the guy" point for me.

Hans: Yeah it was a bit over the top, even for an Indy movie

There were a number of good themes using those plot devices that could have been developed but that whole movie seemed more to be an excuse to pull out the S/FX stops than to have an interesting plot (unlike the first one.)

Hans: A plot written to allow the S/FX, yep afraid so. Hmmmmm, a thought I wonder where we could get a list of pseudoarchaeological successes, things thought to be fradulent or not real unproven and now established as creditable?

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 07:32 PM by wheresthetruth

Interesting list. I am vaguely familiar with some, not so much with others.

As to the off-topic about films and sciences, of course it is for entertainment value only. They have to cram into a 30/60/90 minute window what takes days/weeks/months/years to cover. I couldnt imagine a criminal using film or tv as a basis for what they can get away with, anymore than a med student looking forward to being able to treat the way they do on tv.

I have noticed that sci-fi really tries to push the envelope since science tries to create the best of sci-fi in reality. I can imagine some writers sitting back thinking, "lets see them create this" as a means to keep well ahead of realistic achievement.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 07:44 PM by Hanslune

reply to post by wheresthetruth

A trended noted since the 30's is that inspired engineers often point to sci-fi they read or saw as the basis for some of their ideas.

reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 02:34 PM by Harte

Didn't go to the linked site, but I had to chime in here that, as far as subjects go, I'd estimate that the Bosnian "pyramids" received more discussion among true believers than any of the above in 2008, even though they'd been shown to be non-existant in 2007.

Harte

reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 04:36 PM by Byrd

A good point... the Bosnian pyramids were the topic of a lot of discussion, but it seems to have died down now. I don't think Osmanagic has promoted anything recently other than a "reported" find of a "ceramic pyramid" that, frankly, doesn't look old (it looks faked). There was a "conference" this year, but I don't think it was well attended.

reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 05:47 PM by Hanslune

reply to post by Byrd

The conference had some befuddle Egyptians attending it. I wonder how long Osmie will be able to milk this?

I've worried that other weak governments and academic structures might fall prey to the 'need' for fame and tourist money. I can just see tours of other non-existent sites coming into being.

Pages: ^^TOP^^