reply to post by JimOberg
The 'lore' itself has clues to its age and origin.
We now know that ALL the outer planets have rings, from Jupiter out to Neptune -- not just Saturn. The other three rings are in the ecliptic plane so
are not visible from Earth.
Space travelers would have seen all four ring systems, and anybody learning from them would know of ALL the ring systems.
Earth-dwellers, until the Space Age, could only see one of the rings -- Saturn's.
Whoever told the Dogon, only knew of one of the rings.
Which source does that suggest?
You're assuming that every member of the tribe has 100% knowledge of their civilization's history, and/or is engaged in the sciences that would have
1) provided this information, and 2) permeated the to all subjects that were interviewed.
Do we know
the exact story of how
they arrived here? Or, just that they came
here from Sirius B? Because that
easy enough to point out from earth: an elder, in the know (or perhaps part of the 'voyage'), pointing to Sirius, explaining that it is actually a
binary system, and saying that's where you're from, seems plausible enough. To the average tribe member, that would be enough [hell, we
(Humans) don't even understand THAT argument - we've been fighting over our true origins forever. They need not have an intricate understanding of
their immediate system (we didn't, as you know) forever, to understand the origin stories handed down through their ancestors]
What percentage of people on this planet (hell, in this country
(U.S.)) do you think could name all the planets, in order, from closest to Sun
to furthest (and, how many of those
know that Pluto was declassified?)? I am willing to bet it's less than 20%. How much history of our own
history has been (remembered as a collective, sure) but, forgotten by the masses.
Weak argument (all outer planets have rings). But, like every other (attempted) 'debunkment' out there: find one - supposed - weak link in the
theory, then extrapolate to all other aspects of it. Even when, you haven't even fully thought out plausible, perhaps even simple explanations
against your argument.
Typical. Dangerous. Irresponsible.
edit on 4/27/2012 by SquirrelNutz because: (no reason given)