It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Implausability of UFOs Being Alien in Nature

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 







posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
en.wikipedia.org...:AntarcticBedrock2.jpg

Description=The above map shows the subglacial topography of Antarctica. ...Map is not corrected for sea level rise or isostatic rebound, which would occur if the Antarctic ice sheet completely melted to expose the bedrock surface.
Even if the map you linked to is corrected for isostatic rebound, I don't see any way these maps are a match. The isostatic rebound will cause the land mass to rise once the downward pressure of the overlying ice sheets is removed, and to some degree the rising sea level would negate that effect. Where the effect would be different is the isostatic rebound would be the lowest at the coastal areas where the ice is the thinnest and will have the greatest effect where the ice is the thickest. Even allowing for this, I don't see how these two maps can be called a match.


www.thecrowhouse.com...

Are you saying that after looking at these two maps, you believe they are a match, as the author claims?

I even tried rotating them and I can't get a very good match even after rotating.Can you?



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
quote]Originally posted by JohhnyBGood

Originally posted by Desertopa
One point of evidence which I forgot to bring up before strongly favors continental drift over expanding Earth.

Most rock contains at least trace amounts of iron. When the rock solidifies from a molten state, the iron becomes magnetized due to Earth's ambient magnetic field. It's possible to determine what latitude a piece of igneous rock formed at by measuring the degree to which the iron in it is magnetized. Since we can only look so far back by measuring sea floor, this is one of the main methods we use to trace the movement of continental plates over time; by checking igneous rocks that were extruded in the time period we want to look at, and measuring what latitude it formed at.

Not only would we not see the patterns of latitude shift in continental plates that we observe if the Earth were expanding in a uniform manner (which would be necessary for it to retain a spheroid shape,) if the Earth had been smaller in the past, then its magnetic field at the surface would have been more intense, and this would have been reflected in the geological record. The record indicates no such decrease.


So if the Earth expands and suface mag field decreases - you would no doubt interpret that as a lattitude shift.

How do you account for the mountains under the ice in Antartica or the the Andes in the absence of plate collisions, the fact that there is no evidence the Pacific is getting smaller, the absence of 'scraped off' sea bed deposits' at suduction zones - or the scarcity of subduction zones compared to expansion zones.

If the earth were expanding over time, the magnetic record would give the appearance that all land masses have gradually moved away from the poles over time, even land that is currently directly on top of a magnetic pole. It simply would not look anything like the magnetic record we actually have.

I don't know if any of the questions you raise are unexplained by within the mainstream model at present; I'm not an expert in the field, but given that the sources you cite ignore well established and basic information, I'm not prepared to take their word that these are genuine unknowns.

Again, you have ignored my question. Do you want me to explain the data for plate tectonics theory, and how it is at odds with an expanding Earth model? Given that you appear to me much more eager to attack the mainstream model than to actually learn what it entails, I can't help but be skeptical that you're making a good faith effort to determine what model is most likely to be correct. You appear to have a vested interest in drawing non-mainstream conclusions that outweighs any desire to learn whether their predictions actually correspond to reality.
edit on 24-12-2010 by Desertopa because: content



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The other link showed a map corrected for sea level rise.
upload.wikimedia.org...

This is a much better fit, you can argue about the sea level and coastline details forever especially since given the enormous time since it was last ice free, and the fact that these are copies, perhaps many times removed from the original source map - the main point is that many maps do show it was there well before being officialy discoverd, and that it consisted of two separate landmasses,

A real scientist would accept this as true and then worry about how to explain it, as opposed to having no (allowable) explanation for it, and so endlessly nit-pick, deny and ignore.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Desertopa
quote]Originally posted by JohhnyBGood

Originally posted by Desertopa
One point of evidence which I forgot to bring up before strongly favors continental drift over expanding Earth.

Most rock contains at least trace amounts of iron. When the rock solidifies from a molten state, the iron becomes magnetized due to Earth's ambient magnetic field. It's possible to determine what latitude a piece of igneous rock formed at by measuring the degree to which the iron in it is magnetized. Since we can only look so far back by measuring sea floor, this is one of the main methods we use to trace the movement of continental plates over time; by checking igneous rocks that were extruded in the time period we want to look at, and measuring what latitude it formed at.

Not only would we not see the patterns of latitude shift in continental plates that we observe if the Earth were expanding in a uniform manner (which would be necessary for it to retain a spheroid shape,) if the Earth had been smaller in the past, then its magnetic field at the surface would have been more intense, and this would have been reflected in the geological record. The record indicates no such decrease.


So if the Earth expands and suface mag field decreases - you would no doubt interpret that as a lattitude shift.

How do you account for the mountains under the ice in Antartica or the the Andes in the absence of plate collisions, the fact that there is no evidence the Pacific is getting smaller, the absence of 'scraped off' sea bed deposits' at suduction zones - or the scarcity of subduction zones compared to expansion zones.


If the earth were expanding over time, the magnetic record would give the appearance that all land masses have gradually moved away from the poles over time, even land that is currently directly on top of a magnetic pole. It simply would not look anything like the magnetic record we actually have.

I don't know if any of the questions you raise are unexplained by within the mainstream model at present; I'm not an expert in the field, but given that the sources you cite ignore well established and basic information, I'm not prepared to take their word that these are genuine unknowns.

Again, you have ignored my question. Do you want me to explain the data for plate tectonics theory, and how it is at odds with an expanding Earth model? Given that you appear to me much more eager to attack the mainstream model than to actually learn what it entails, I can't help but be skeptical that you're making a good faith effort to determine what model is most likely to be correct. You appear to have a vested interest in drawing non-mainstream conclusions that outweighs any desire to learn whether their predictions actually correspond to reality.
edit on 24-12-2010 by Desertopa because: content


Actually I responded to your patronising question several posts ago - this is the third time you have misrepresented what I have said, and since you admit you are not an expert, and seem completely oblivious to what are well known and longstanding problems with plate techtonic theory - it was never my intention to enter into some detailed off topic debate about the intricacies of geolocal theories - I have merely pointed you at the the sources, if you don't like them fair enough!



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
that it consisted of two separate landmasses,

A real scientist would accept this as true and then worry about how to explain it, as opposed to having no (allowable) explanation for it, and so endlessly nit-pick, deny and ignore.
Nit pick?

None of the maps you linked to show 2 separate land masses. The one you posted that's corrected for sea level shows only one land mass. The whole claim is that we are supposed to be impressed that modern science shows 2 land masses like the 1837 map, but nothing you've shown corroborates that claim.

How can you call that nitpicking?



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
that it consisted of two separate landmasses,

A real scientist would accept this as true and then worry about how to explain it, as opposed to having no (allowable) explanation for it, and so endlessly nit-pick, deny and ignore.
Nit pick?

None of the maps you linked to show 2 separate land masses. The one you posted that's corrected for sea level shows only one land mass. The whole claim is that we are supposed to be impressed that modern science shows 2 land masses like the 1837 map, but nothing you've shown corroborates that claim.

How can you call that nitpicking?


It is effectively two landmasses and you are nitpicking!

I am merely pointing people towards the info here - there are several websited devoted exclusively to validating these ancient maps after converting them to modern projection protocols - only then can thier true shapes be asessed - there is simply no doubt that these maps show a conventionaly inexplicable knowledge of Antarctic before the ice - i know you simply cannot bring youself to take this seriously, as you believe that if it were of any import then MSM sources would have informed you of it - my contention is that it is MSM's job to deliberately misinform you and keep such knowledge away from the public domain!


www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
Charles Hapgood performed a detailed analysis of this map. ...


www.atlantismaps.com...

While Finé 1534 map renders a fairly accurate shape for Antarctica, it is not so easy to discern within the cordiform projection. His 1531 world map (Fig. 2) includes the same design rendered on a double-cordiform projection, which places the world onto two heart-shaped hemispheres, one depicting the northern the other the southern hemisphere. The result being that the Antarctic design is presented with much less distortion, approaching the appearance of modern-day Antarctica presented on a standard polar projection. Considering the map's remarkable resemblance to the actual Antarctic continent, one can easily understand Hapgood's reaction of awe and disbelief when he first stumbled upon it. While our current view of history dictates that this cannot be an authentic map of Antarctica, the accuracy in Finé's design strongly suggests otherwise.

Validating Ancient Maps of Antarctica

Aided by
The Discoveries of Agrippa’s 2,000-year-old Orbis Terrarum and
Ancient Depictions of Antarctica's Siple and Carney Islands.
www.unexplained-mysteries.com...



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
I am merely pointing people towards the info here - there are several websited devoted exclusively to validating these ancient maps after converting them to modern projection protocols - only then can thier true shapes be asessed -
You're aware of these yet you point me to 2 modern maps which look nothing like the 1837 map? Why?


there is simply no doubt that these maps show a conventionaly inexplicable knowledge of Antarctic before the ice - i know you simply cannot bring youself to take this seriously, as you believe that if it were of any import then MSM sources would have informed you of it - my contention is that it is MSM's job to deliberately misinform you and keep such knowledge away from the public domain!
To the contrary, since you are a proponent of this idea, I asked YOU for your best evidence, and you show me 2 maps both of which look NOTHING like the 1837 map. You are really stretching your imagination to say there's a match when there isn't. If I wanted to be convinced or not convinced by MSM I wouldn't be asking YOU for the evidence.

So it's actually YOU, and not the MSM, who have convinced me by showing me that maps that are supposedly the best match you can find don't even come close to the 1837 maps, that it's more a matter of wishful thinking than an idea supported by evidence.

I actually have an open mind and would like to see evidence that ancient mapmakers had knowledge we wouldn't normally attribute to them. In fact I once bought the story that the Piri Reis map showed antarctica before I investigated it further, because i wanted to believe it, but upon further research, the claims and the evidence just fall apart.
edit on 24-12-2010 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Your post sounds very smart so I will add to it in my own way, and hopefully make it better.

Implausibility is the correct spelling you might want to change the title, just to keep your intelligent theme going.

edit on 24-12-2010 by 1IN7MILLION because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The other link showed a map corrected for sea level rise.
upload.wikimedia.org...

This is a much better fit, you can argue about the sea level and coastline details forever especially since given the enormous time since it was last ice free, and the fact that these are copies, perhaps many times removed from the original source map - the main point is that many maps do show it was there well before being officialy discoverd, and that it consisted of two separate landmasses,

A real scientist would accept this as true and then worry about how to explain it, as opposed to having no (allowable) explanation for it, and so endlessly nit-pick, deny and ignore.


You obviously have no concept of what science involves to say that a "real scientist" (are there fake scientists?) would accept something as true without vast amounts of investigation to be able to come to a scientific conclusion.

Here is a wiki definition of scientific method:
"Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[3]"

Heed it!



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Look I refferenced you a whole page of Anomolous, oblects, maps, histories etc - you have decided to zoom in on one item of this huge collection and demand proof , stating that you could not find a map of bedrock Antactica, I have seen this many yrs ago and concluded it as proven - so I did a quick search on gooogle and found you a couple of maps, you didn't like them - so I googled up sites that are set up just to verify these maps - dont try to hold my feet to the fire because I don't know every detail about these maps - it is all there on the internet and in my view they do an excellent job of PROOVING that ancient peoples not only knew about Antartica, but they had specific knowledge of its topography underneath the ice, that could only have been gathered tens of thousands of yrs earlier at the minimum.

You can argue about the minor details of topography all day long - but it doesnt alter the basic facts - these maps upset all of the applecarts of conventional history! - and that is precisely why they are being ignored.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The other link showed a map corrected for sea level rise.
upload.wikimedia.org...

This is a much better fit, you can argue about the sea level and coastline details forever especially since given the enormous time since it was last ice free, and the fact that these are copies, perhaps many times removed from the original source map - the main point is that many maps do show it was there well before being officialy discoverd, and that it consisted of two separate landmasses,

A real scientist would accept this as true and then worry about how to explain it, as opposed to having no (allowable) explanation for it, and so endlessly nit-pick, deny and ignore.


You obviously have no concept of what science involves to say that a "real scientist" (are there fake scientists?) would accept something as true without vast amounts of investigation to be able to come to a scientific conclusion.



The scientific method is simply a way of asking questions, and obtaining definitive repeatable answers, according to established rules of logic, probability and physics.

Do those maps show knowledge about Antartica, that could only have been obtained whilst Ice free?

Now either they did have knowledge from many many thousands of yrs previously or they didn't.
They either just made them up - or they came from an original source, recopied many times over perhaps.

Reviewing all the evidence, of all the maps - I come to the conclusion that it is statistically entirely improbable, that these are made up maps.

I conclude that there existed a source of advanced knowlege about the topography of antarctica many many thousands of yrs ago.

Thats how science works - it asks a question, and arrives at an answer - in this case based on probability.


Fake science has vested interest in all sorts of things - it decides what answers are acceptable beforehand.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Fake science has vested interest in all sorts of things - it decides what answers are acceptable beforehand.
I think the fake science is the one telling me these two maps look alike, when they don't look alike:


From your link a few posts up:

They have only the vaguest resemblance to each other and almost every detail doesn't match.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
I am merely pointing people towards the info here - there are several websited devoted exclusively to validating these ancient maps after converting them to modern projection protocols - only then can thier true shapes be asessed -

www.atlantismaps.com...

While Finé 1534 map renders a fairly accurate shape for Antarctica, it is not so easy to discern within the cordiform projection....
So you never show me a modern map showing 2 land masses as was claimed, and now you change the subject to a different map? OK so you admit there's no modern map showing 2 separate land masses?

Now, I have to ask, did you even read the link atlantismaps that you posted? Because you cherry picked some interesting sentences but that site goes on to point out serious problems with that map:


there are still the issues of the continent's orientation and overscaling which demand an explanation. Finé's Antarctic continent is rotated roughly 20 degrees counterclockwise from its actual alignment with South America, but much more troubling is the fact that Finé renders the continent 2-1/2 to 3 times its actual size. Hapgood attributes the error of overscaling to a copyist confusing the 80th parallel on the source map with the Antarctic Circle. It would seem that Hapgood spent little time investigating this particular theory. Had he done so he would have realized how flawed this idea actually was. If the copyist confused the 80th parallel with the Antarctic Circle—66.6° latitude—and the source map was inscribed with additional latitudinal delineations as Hapgood also suggests, this would mean that the source map had very little resemblance to Finé and Mercator's rendering of the continent and in turn have very little resemblance to Antarctica. The error that Hapgood is postulating would have the copyist overscaling the continent's interior by enlarging it 13-plus degrees latitude in all directions, but maintaining latitudinal scaling beyond the Antarctic Circle with the aid of latitudes marked on the source map. The result would actually be a major distortion or shortening of the continent's perimetric features. This would be similar to an artist doubling or tripling the torso of a model, but maintaining the limbs at their normal size. In the case of both the cartographer and the artist, there is absolutely no possible way that they could overlook the fact that their resulting images in no way resembled the original subject. No, if we intend to validate these maps as ancient chartings of Antarctica, the overscaling of the continent requires a much more reasonable explanation.


So YOUR OWN LINK basically says Hapgood's analysis does not have a reasonable explanation. "In the case of both the cartographer and the artist, there is absolutely no possible way that they could overlook the fact that their resulting images in no way resembled the original subject." THIS IS FROM YOUR OWN LINK!!!!

You keep providing images and now even websites that completely contradict the claims. Have you got blinders on that you can't see this? Of course I can provide a link that debunks Hapgood even further here, but it's almost not necessary since your own link says his map looks nothing like the subject and his explanations make no sense.

The Orontius Finaeus map (1531)


Just as with his treatment of Piri’s map, Hapgood also had to shuffle whole sections of coastline to make them fit. It is unclear how the hypothesised original map had become fragmented and wrongly recombined; it is even more unclear how the fringe writers can go on to claim that various geographical features are shown in their correct places and at the correct scale.


So far virtually every single claim we've looked at from that PDF has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. You try to deflect the defense of these ideas to other websites and people but you're the one here promoting these ideas, yes you can't defend them yourself? I don't think you even read the website link you posted for me to read. If you saw it blew major holes in your theory, you wouldn't have posted it, right?



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


There is a series of maps of Antarctica in the correct geographic position, showing roughly the topography of the under-ice surface!

That is the salient fact! - that you are ignoring.

They are showing them as landmasses, hundreds of yrs before they were discovered, and many thousands of yrs since anyone ever saw them free from ice.

They didn't just make these maps at random, somewhere there was a source map, copied many times over no doubt over thousands of yrs - and that is exactly what I mean about fake science, - instead of considering the case on its merit and accepting the obvious, that someone made a map of Antartica many thousands of yrs ago - they decide beforhand that this answer is so unnaceptable, so threatening to thier vested interests, that they will demand unrealistic levels of proof or more usually just pretend that it doesn't exist.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
A lot of maybe, ,probably,possibly,I thinks, no facts no real sources... truth it no one actually knows, we just have to wait and see, hopefully we'll know in our life time.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
I believe that perhaps a small number of sightings are ET in origin, but, knowing of the science of electrogravitics which was placed into black ops somewhere around 1960 (my father was an aerospace engineer with a company that was heavily invested in electrogravitics research in the 1950's, and tried to teach his toddler daughter about it, painting a lovely picture of floating cars, floating houses, and free energy, before it went secret).

So, given that 50 years have passed, I have to suspect advancements in that tech, and highly suspect that virtually all sightings are human created.


Would agree with this. Some sightings could be of things we don't understand at all yet, and might be about to, but most of them could just be the military playing with their new toys.

Saying that though, ever thought about the risk those pilots are taking if so? Take the Belgium sightings for instance. If they were military pilots and they crashed one of those things and people got footage, there'd be a ton of consequences from around the world. Feel sorry for the testers of those craft too if they do have that tech, if things went wrong at those speeds there'd be some seriously bad crashes.




top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join