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.

 

HC's Ancient Aliens episode "Aliens and Ancient Engineers" kicked *SS!!!

page: 14
38
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dna221277
For debunkers, i wished you guys could give some evidence like maybe how a stone axe is able to carve out a smooth stone or something being done by XXX at YYY with some pics, instead of being sarcarstic or rude in some of the post i read.


They used copper, not stone, to saw and/or chisel with.

As to the method, not that it hasn't been posted here many times before:


In the rock cutting experiment of Stocks (2001) the slabbing saw consisted of a 14.5 kg saw blade made of copper, which was 1.8 m long, 15 cm wide, and 6 mm in thickness. Two tests were conducted using quartz sand abrasive, one under dry and the other under wet conditions. In the case of the test using dry sand abrasive a saw with a flat-edged cutting surface was used, and a notched cutting surface was used in the case of the test using wet sand.

The granite block used by Stocks (2001) was quarried at Aswan. The surface of the block was initial pounded flat along the line of sawing. In the case of the test with dry sand abrasive, 2 boulders were attached to either end of the saw with ropes to act as weights (Fig. 7). The total weight of the saw was 45 kg, and this exerted a downward pressure of 1 kg/cm2on the cutting surface of the saw blade. During the wet sand test a wooden frame, attached to the top of the saw blade, was used as a weight.

In both tests a team of 2 worker, one on either end of the saw, drew the saw back and forth across the granite surface. It was noted during both tests that the workers had some trouble keeping the saw blade perpendicular to the cut surface of the granite block. This produced a rocking of the saw blade from side to side as the blade was drawn back and forth. As a result, the slot cut in the granite exhibited a V-shaped cross-section (Fig. 8). Stocks (2001) gives for an example Djedefre's granite sarcophagus (9th Dynasty) located in the Cairo Museum, which contains two partially sawn V-shaped slots similar in appearance to that produced in the modern slabbing test.

During the experiment striations of varying depths and widths were produced on the cut surface of the granite, which were rough-edged and parallel. These were presumably the result of angular quartz fragments embedded in the sides and bottom edge of the saw, which would have been drawing over the rock surface during the sawing process. Copper is soft enough that abrasive particles can be embedded into the metal, which is what makes this metal an ideal lapping material (Sinkankas 1984). The saw blade was noted by Stocks (2001) to have numerous pits on its sides and bottom. The cutting was observed to be easier in the case of dry abrasive than that of wet abrasive. In the wet test the wetness of the abrasive slurry needed to be monitored, since if it dried the sawing became more difficult. Both the dry powder abrasive and the abrasive slurry were added at either end of the cut slot during the cutting process. New abrasive was continually added to infuse the cutting surface with newer angular grains of quartz, since as cutting occurred the abrasive was reduced in grain size and the angular edges of the quartz grains were rounded off by abrasion making them less effective.

As sawing proceeded during the dry sand test the tailings, containing both copper and rock powder (consisting of both the granite and abrasive), were easily collected. In the wet test the tailings were washed away by the slurry. Stocks (1989; 1997) proposes that the tailings of the cutting process could be used in the manufacturing of a faience, from a water-based paste of calcite derived tailings (from limestone and travertine coring) and sodium bicarbonate (natron). As well, blue glazes can be produced from diorite and granite tailings. Both the blue glazes and the faience produced by Stocks resembles both chemically and in appearance those common to the ancient Egyptian's. Stocks (1993) suggests that tailings could also be used as a polishing abrasive because of its 0.5-5 micron grain size, and also as an abrasive for the drilling of beads. A grain size of 5 microns (0.0002") is ideal for lapping gloss finishes on rock surfaces, since the transition from frosted to semigloss lapidary finishes occurs with abrasives about 15 micron in diameter, and high quality lapidary polishes are generally done today with abrasive grain size of 6 (0.00025") to 0.5 microns (0.00002") (Craig & Vaughan 1981).

The rate of rock removal is similar for both the wet and dry sand tests at about 12 cm3/hour. Stocks (2001), after comparing the ratios of volume, weight, and depth of removal between the copper saw blade and the granite block (Fig. 10), concludes that the dry test with its flat-edged blade is distinctly better than that of the wet sand test with its notched blade.

source: click here because there's much more info

Harte




posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
Movings a precisely cut 1500 ton stone 5 thousand years ago... and it's something that's not even possible today...


hmmmm....

No 1500 ton stone was ever moved in antiquity.

Your hyperbole is showing.

Harte



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by lkpuede
the former USSR's Zond probes even overshot the moon. it's a fact. it's a fact. you've spent the better part of your life doing homework, you shouldn't need a link all you need to do is google it, just like you did your research for your dissertation.


Perhaps you should google it as well:


Luna 1: January 2, 1959
The mission of the Russian Luna 1 was a lunar impact (crashing into the moon at high velocity), and the craft did succeed in leaving Earth's orbit and flying toward the moon. However, a malfunction at the control center caused the spacecraft to overshoot the moon, and it ended up where you can still find it today: in orbit around the sun, between Earth and Mars. Its orbit is about 23% longer than that of the Earth, taking 450 days to make one revolution around the sun.

source

Calculations are one thing, events are another.

Harte



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by KingJames1337
But why call something a landing pad in ancient texts unless something was flying? And what we can further say is that if it is near impossible to build and is mentioned as a landing pad than what other explanation is there?

The Temple of Jupiter in the Becca valley (Baalbekka) was never mentioned by any Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian, Babylonian or other text. The site is in Lebanon, not Mesopotamia.

It has never been called a "landing pad" by anyone, until Sitchin, and then only by Sitchinistas.

All the evidence ever found there (so far) indicates the huge stones in the base of that temple were laid by the Romans. Roman artifacts have been found under the foundation of the site.

Harte



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by KingJames1337
But why call something a landing pad in ancient texts unless something was flying? And what we can further say is that if it is near impossible to build and is mentioned as a landing pad than what other explanation is there?

The Temple of Jupiter in the Becca valley (Baalbekka) was never mentioned by any Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian, Babylonian or other text. The site is in Lebanon, not Mesopotamia.

It has never been called a "landing pad" by anyone, until Sitchin, and then only by Sitchinistas.

All the evidence ever found there (so far) indicates the huge stones in the base of that temple were laid by the Romans. Roman artifacts have been found under the foundation of the site.

Harte


I knew it was in Lebanon, for real that Azerbaijani no talent ass....what's the point he's already dead and killed my argument in this case too.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
There was no such thing as ancient man, only Star men, and through their manipulation of the apes became man, it is true that man only existed as man for 12,000 years and everything thing else was monkey business



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
FYI this is my first post on Abovetopsecret, although I have been a lurker for over 2 years now. I work as a Mechanical Engineer so I have some experience and real knowledge about this episode of AA in particular. The fact of the matter is that there is no way in h*ll people working with only copper, or bronze tools would have been able to build these ancient structures. The reason being is that copper and bronze tools wear out far too quickly. It IS possible, but not in the time-frame given to us by current accepted theory. It would have taken many, many decades and lots of blood, sweat, and tears to create these structures using said ancient tech. They say the great pyramid was built in 20 years, that is simply impossible given that they only had the technology the 'mainstream' says they had.

Thus we are left with 2 options:

Option 1: The ancients had much more advanced technology than we give them credit for: This theory is interesting in that it means that somehow, in some way, the ancients had amazing technical skills and knowledge, but chose to not write it down, not pass it down, and not keep any record of that technology whatsoever, even though they kept records of almost everything else. Lets explore this theory further- perhaps their was an ancient genius in Egypt, like Nikolai Tesla, or Einstein, who was employed and built the great pyramid but kept his knowledge a secret from everyone else, which would be impossible given all the help he would have needed to build it. Perhaps they did not keep it a secret but instead passed it down to the Elites, and only the privileged few today still know about it.

Or perhaps they had this technology, but maybe a huge disaster struck, and they assumed that the Gods were upset with them because they were manipulating nature with their technology, so they destroyed it and all records of it to 'appease' the gods, given how religious ancient people are assumed to be, this is entirely possible and I invite anyone to disprove this theory.

Yet another theory is that they had advanced technology but it was all made of Iron, but iron oxidizes so readily, that any such technology would have completely rusted away long ago leaving nothing left, again if this is the case their is no record whatsoever depicting such technology.

Yet another theory is that they instead cast the blocks in place using some type of soft easily powdered limestone (which is readily available in Egypt) and mixed it with an as yet unknown solution of water and various binders, similar to modern concrete. As an Engineer I think that this theory is the best explanation from a physics and materials science standpoint. It explains the close fits, the massive stone blocks (because they would not need to be transported as is, they would only have to transport crushed limestone) However this does not explain why no record of this technology exists, unless it was just common knowledge at the time and nobody thought anything of it. I do not think we would leave a record of how we made concrete carved into walls of any of our modern buildings. It is just common knowledge to those of us in the field.

Option 2: Ancient people had the help of Aliens. This theory explains everything, but is supported by only circumstantial evidence. Nothing has been proven. If we accept this theory we have to assume that ancient man was stupid, and incapable of truly explaining in writing what happened, instead only describing what happened in vague myths and legends about gods. However, some aspects are intriguing. Such as the first emperor of China. He is a very interesting figure in the light of this theory. Also the Dogon (spelling?) tribe of Africa, and the ancient Sumerian stories are intriguing in the light of this theory, but it is still only a theory.

Bottom line is nobody really knows that took place back then. The ancients very well could have been much, much, MUCH more patient than we are, willing to spend generations constructing one structure. Or they could have possessed advanced technology, but if they did what happened to it and why do we not know about it? Perhaps the answer is something altogether unknown and not yet thought of by modern researchers. If we ever want to know the real answer we need to keep our minds open, but keep our wits about us, because:

‎"Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise."
-Surangama Sutra

I have no sources, just my own knowledge and experience. If you want to confirm anything I have said use the wonderful tool called Google. Otherwise just ask on this thread, and I will be happy to provide everyone with a source for the specific part you want a source for. I know what I am talking about. Deny Ignorance.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Sorry, but no.


Here are a couple of words that you don't get to redefine:

1. "Evidence"
2. "No"


According to your idea of what evidence is, the Moon may well be made of green cheese, since there exist writings making this claim.


"Idea" is yet another word that you don't get to redefine. You see, I have written about the definitions of "evidence", not my "idea" of evidence. Your uninformed disagreement on the matter changes nothing.

By the way, claims about the moon being made of green cheese would be known as anecdotal evidence, assuming anyone has ever sincerely made the claim.


Sorry, but if what you consider to be a mystery can be explained by mundane means, then the existence of the thing you consider to be a mystery is not in and of itself "evidence" of extraordinary circumstances, i.e alien intervention, miraculous intervention, ancient unknown (advanced) technology, et al.


"Sorry"? I hope you have more up your sleeve than unwarranted condescension (condescension in the face of being demonstrably wrong is not only unwarranted, but laughable). By the way, how is the weather out there in left field? I never mentioned anything that I "consider to be a mystery". Regardless of that, I can see that in addition to your proclivity for attempting to redefine words, you also seem to be paying little or no attention to what you've read. Look at the text of yours that I bolded above and then read this text that I posted earlier, again:

"By the way, circumstantial evidence inherently has more than one possible explanation."

It is apparent that you believe that there are no other forms of evidence beyond conclusive evidence. That is obviously wrong (see above). Things are introduced as evidence in court all the time that are not conclusive evidence. For example, eye witness testimonies are perhaps the most common form of evidence, and those are never conclusive. Tying a murder weapon to a suspect would be evidence, but yet again, not conclusive. In fact, conclusive evidence of a past event, any past event, is next to impossible (if not impossible) to find.

Now, can you give me an example of "circumstantial evidence" (hint: you are going to have to rethink your idea that conclusive evidence is the only form of evidence that exists, in order to answer this question)?



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by gravytrain
FYI this is my first post on Abovetopsecret, although I have been a lurker for over 2 years now. I work as a Mechanical Engineer so I have some experience and real knowledge about this episode of AA in particular. The fact of the matter is that there is no way in h*ll people working with only copper, or bronze tools would have been able to build these ancient structures. The reason being is that copper and bronze tools wear out far too quickly. It IS possible, but not in the time-frame given to us by current accepted theory. It would have taken many, many decades and lots of blood, sweat, and tears to create these structures using said ancient tech. They say the great pyramid was built in 20 years, that is simply impossible given that they only had the technology the 'mainstream' says they had.


I was a mechanical engineer myself, holding the degree, anyway, and working as an engineer in various situations, consulting and salaried.

What you say above is simply wrong. In fact, the article I linked to and quoted actually proves with certainty it could have been done in exactly that way.

You didn't read it, or you decided to ignore the parts about the rates of cuts they got when they (archaeologists, not experienced masons) tried it.

They comply quite well with a 15 (not twenty) year timeline for construction of the G.P. which is, after all, made of over 90% limestone - which didn't have to be cut in any precise way at all.

In fact, limestone could have been quarried to size, given the loose tolerances that can be, and have been, observed in the dimensions of the VAST majority of stones in the Great Pyramid.

On a daily basis I am disappointed by posters on this site exclaiming this or that without bothering to examine what they are saying or what has been demonstrated and/or found by experts in the field.

Cuts were certainly made on granite and limestone using copper saws. Copper residue and saw marks have been observed on many sawn stones that have been examined.

Not only that, both straight and circular copper sawblades have been found at various Egyptian archaeological sites.

Harte



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaximRecoil

Originally posted by Harte
Sorry, but no.


Here are a couple of words that you don't get to redefine:

1. "Evidence"
2. "No"


According to your idea of what evidence is, the Moon may well be made of green cheese, since there exist writings making this claim.


"Idea" is yet another word that you don't get to redefine. You see, I have written about the definitions of "evidence", not my "idea" of evidence. Your uninformed disagreement on the matter changes nothing.

By the way, claims about the moon being made of green cheese would be known as anecdotal evidence, assuming anyone has ever sincerely made the claim.

Okay.

In exactly the same way that Giorgio makes his "sincere" claims, I here claim that the Moon is made of green cheese.

So, start throwing out all your physics books folks. It siomply can't be anything but green cheese. I refuse to believe the moon is made of anything but green cheese and I now have the evidence that so indicates this.

As you can see, I'm not redefining anything. Merely pointing out that wild-eyed (and wild-haird) claims, most of them lies and the rest of them mischaracterizations (purposeful) of unrelated facts, are not "evidence" in any way shape or form.

Period.

Regardless of what you wish to believe "evidence" actually is.

Harte



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard
A very interesting detail, is that Arlan Andrews, PhD, who elaborated about machinery and high advanced technology in the ancient Egypt, was consultant for the Department of Homeland Security and CIA.

www.caller.com...
www.nanotec.org.uk...


You are correct, they hired SCIENCE FICTION authors. A very interesting detail is that Arlan Andrews, PhD, is the founder of SIGMA, a think tank of Science Fiction writers. I think you need to do some more research my friend.
www.sigmaforum.org...
www.usatoday.com...



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Okay.

In exactly the same way that Giorgio makes his "sincere" claims, I here claim that the Moon is made of green cheese.

So, start throwing out all your physics books folks. It siomply can't be anything but green cheese. I refuse to believe the moon is made of anything but green cheese and I now have the evidence that so indicates this.


1. It is obviously not a sincere claim.
2. Even if it were, it is still just anecdotal evidence, and very flimsy anecdotal evidence at that (given the preponderance of scientific evidence that contradicts the claim). Anecdotal evidence is not conclusive evidence; ever. Your failure to understand that evidence of something does not necessarily mean that said something is true, is the cause of your misplaced sarcasm above. Your sarcasm would have worked if "evidence" necessarily = "truth of the matter", but that is not the case.


As you can see, I'm not redefining anything.


That's correct, but you have attempted to do so several times now (see above).


Merely pointing out that wild-eyed (and wild-haird) claims, most of them lies and the rest of them mischaracterizations (purposeful) of unrelated facts, are not "evidence" in any way shape or form.

Period.


That's not what you said. You said that there was no evidence at all of ancient alien visitation, despite there being plenty (see my previous posts). One can certainly dispute the conclusions being drawn from the evidence all he wants to, but it doesn't change the fact that it is evidence in one form or another.


Regardless of what you wish to believe "evidence" actually is.

Harte


It has nothing to do with belief; it has to do with definitions. Words have meaning.

By the way, I said:

Now, can you give me an example of "circumstantial evidence" (hint: you are going to have to rethink your idea that conclusive evidence is the only form of evidence that exists, in order to answer this question)?

Your reply = ?
edit on 9/5/2011 by MaximRecoil because: ETA



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


First of all all do respect to a fellow engineer. I am not trying to disprove your claims at all. I am simply stating that we do not know for certitude, and the facts speak for themselves.

With 2'500'000 stones 342 stones have to be moved daily (working during 365 days a year) or 431 stones daily (working during 290 days a year). That is a lot, imagine the effort put in for literally decades, nothing of the modern age even comes close to comparing to the amount of effort put into this if true.

Now, think about the logistics of this. Smaller and smaller stones were used towards the top of the pyramid, which as I am sure you agree makes sense from an engineering standpoint. All the easier to transport. I did not blatantly refute your post. All I did was show that we simply do not know for certain how they built it, and the amount of labor and time required is baffling, I never once said impossible. I do not at all condone the ancient alien theory, I simply recognize that we humans do not know for certain what happened back then and we ought to keep an open mind. Which as an engineer I am sure that you know how important it is to think outside of the box if you want to stay competitive and relevant in today's market. We simply do not know. Do NOT state as fact that which is theory. Doing so only undermines your theory and alienates those who may agree with you otherwise.

Limestone hardness: 250 as measured on the Vickers scale
Granite hardness: 850 as measured on the Vickers scale
Copper hardness: 40 as measured on the Vickers scale
Bronze hardness: 60 (fully annealed) and 258 (cold worked)

So thus you see. I invite you to try to cut massive limestone blocks with a tool that is only at max 8 vickers points higher than that of normal limestone. It will take a long long time. I looked at your article, it is questionable at best and still does NOTHING to explain exactly how this was accomplished, just speculation and flawed testing like most other so called explanations for how they constructed the pyramid. Nothing is there to convince me otherwise. It is obvious to me that you may have worked as an engineer but lack the know-how and the expertise to truly understand and appreciate the monumental work it took to construct the great pyramid. I would advise anyone to take what you say with a grain of salt, if not 10. People, do your own investigation, look into this yourself from an objective standpoint, anyone who tries to tell you they know for certain do not know, nobody knows for certain and cannot know for certain because the knowledge does not exist anymore. People need to know that there are questions that we do not know the answer to.

As far as your claim that a 1500 ton stone was never moved. It is true, however:

The Unfinished Obelisk, Aswan, Egypt. - Measures 120-feet (42m) and would have weighed over 1,168 tons when complete.

The baalbak stone: Measures 20.9m x 4.8m x 4.2m = 421.344m³. The average density of granite is 2.75 g/cm3
Therefore the approximate weight of this stone is 1158.696 tons

Not 1500 tons-true, but still extremely impressive, and I invite you to show me how exactly these stones would be moved. Please. If you are an engineer as you claim to be. I would love to see what your 'theory' is on how these stones were moved, because without mechanized machinery or even iron, It is quite simply impossible given the laws of physics and the materials available at the time.

Prove me wrong.

edit on 9/5/2011 by gravytrain because: included response



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaximRecoil
That's not what you said. You said that there was no evidence at all of ancient alien visitation, despite there being plenty (see my previous posts). One can certainly dispute the conclusions being drawn from the evidence all he wants to, but it doesn't change the fact that it is evidence in one form or another.

I saw your previous posts.

You presented no evidence at all. Circumstantial or otherwise.

You referred to the History Channel's show and told me that evidence was presented there.

I maintain that it was not.

I still so maintain.



Regardless of what you wish to believe "evidence" actually is.

Harte


It has nothing to do with belief; it has to do with definitions. Words have meaning.

By the way, I said:

Now, can you give me an example of "circumstantial evidence" (hint: you are going to have to rethink your idea that conclusive evidence is the only form of evidence that exists, in order to answer this question)?

Your reply = ?
edit on 9/5/2011 by MaximRecoil because: ETA


Circumstantial evidence is only evidence in the absence of hard evidence. There is no absence of hard evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is supposed to lead to the inference of fact that the evidence itself is unrelated, or not directly related, to.

The statement "Ancient humans couldn't have placed these stones" is opinion, not evidence.

The fact that people here are unaware of the hard evidence is beside the point. They buy into what they are told on TV by a failed sports journalist (Tsoukalos) and a convicted fraud (EVD.)

They are lying on the show.

Tell me one thing on the show that you believe is circumstantial evidence. I'll show you that you've been lied to.

Such lies are exactly the same as my green cheese claim. Baseless and self-promoting.

And not evidence of anything except the notable absence of moral sense in the liar.

Harte



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by gravytrain
reply to post by Harte
 


First of all all do respect to a fellow engineer. I am not trying to disprove your claims at all. I am simply stating that we do not know for certitude, and the facts speak for themselves.

The facts do speak for themselves


Originally posted by gravytrain
With 2'500'000 stones 342 stones have to be moved daily (working during 365 days a year) or 431 stones daily (working during 290 days a year). That is a lot, imagine the effort put in for literally decades, nothing of the modern age even comes close to comparing to the amount of effort put into this if true.

For the facts to speak for themselves, you first have to have the facts.
In this case, the fact you don't have is that nobody knows how many stones are in the GP. Another fact you lack is that the stones on the interior are varied in size from as large as the stones on the outside down to football sized and are not shaped to fit, rather they are jammed in with heaps of mortar taking up the spaces.

Another fact you lack is the 2.5 million stone calculation is the count if the pyramid were a solid structure of nothing but stacked stone all of which are similar in size to the ones you see on the outside.
Another fact is that there are known to be large voids inside the G.P. that are filled with rubble and mortar.

Another fact is that there is a small hill inside the pyramid around which the thing was constructed.
Also, recent estimates of the number of stones in the structure vary from 2 million to less than one million.

As an engineer, you should be able to confirm that the bottom one-third of any pyramid contains well over half the pyramid's volume. IOW, most of the stones require no extraordinary methods for placement, large temporary ramps on all four sides - running the entire lengths of the sides - (for example) could have been used. This would allow for far more than 500 stones to be placed per day in the first few years.

Also, as you indicated, the stones on the exterior get smaller the higher up the structure you go until near the top they are about half the size of the bottom ones.
That certainly indicates that mundane methods were used for the placement of the higher levels.

I realize that we don't know with certainty. What exactly in history do we really know with any certainty?

We can never know exactly how it was done. We can, however, use our brains to see how it could have been done, right?

The fact that I don't (and can't) know what Napoleon said to Josephine after Waterloo is not an indication that I should keep an open mind about whether he said "I was just tryin' to keep it real, baby!"

I mean, it's possible, of course, but come on!

Harte



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
I saw your previous posts.

You presented no evidence at all. Circumstantial or otherwise.

You referred to the History Channel's show and told me that evidence was presented there.

I maintain that it was not.

I still so maintain.


Nearly every claim made on that show was circumstantial evidence by definition. That is a fact. It is not debatable. This text of yours is also circumstantial evidence inferring that you don't know what the word "evidence" means. But, as with all circumstantial evidence, there is more than one possible explanation. You could, for example, simply be putting on an act.


Circumstantial evidence is only evidence in the absence of hard evidence. There is no absence of hard evidence.


Both of those statements are false; the first one is false by definition, and the second one (though rendered irrelevant by virtue of the first statement being false) is false because there is a significant lack of "hard evidence" for most any ancient event that you would care to name.


Circumstantial evidence is supposed to lead to the inference of fact that the evidence itself is unrelated, or not directly related, to.

The statement "Ancient humans couldn't have placed these stones" is opinion, not evidence.


Again you demonstrate a misunderstanding of the concept of "evidence". The statement "Ancient humans couldn't have placed these stones" is not the evidence. Observations of the characteristics of the stones, structures, designs, circumstances, etc. is the [circumstantial] evidence. The statement "Ancient humans couldn't have placed these stones" is the inference/explanation; one of multiple possible inferences/explanations. All circumstantial evidence inherently has more than one possible explanation.


The fact that people here are unaware of the hard evidence is beside the point. They buy into what they are told on TV by a failed sports journalist (Tsoukalos) and a convicted fraud (EVD.)

They are lying on the show.

Tell me one thing on the show that you believe is circumstantial evidence. I'll show you that you've been lied to.

Such lies are exactly the same as my green cheese claim. Baseless and self-promoting.

And not evidence of anything except the notable absence of moral sense in the liar.

Harte


You are confusing the explanations/inferences/conclusions for the evidence. As an example of the difference:

Explanation: John killed Joe.
Circumstantial evidence: John had a fight with Joe over a woman at a bar the previous night and threatened to kill him. The murder weapon was a gun that was registered in John's name. John's fingerprints were found at Joe's house, placing him at the scene of the crime. John does not have a solid alibi for the time in question.

So, did John really kill Joe? Maybe or maybe not; but either way, there is circumstantial evidence there, which to many people, suggests that he did.

Likewise, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that suggests to many people that aliens visited in ancient times. You can offer the alternate explanation for the evidence that John was framed, or that humans had no contact with aliens in ancient times; but either way, the evidence is still evidence.
edit on 9/5/2011 by MaximRecoil because: typo



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   
Funerary Boats are a part of some ancient Egyptian burials.[1] Boats played a major role in religion because they were conceived as the main means by which the gods traveled across the sky and through the netherworld. One type of boat used at funerals was for making pilgrimages to holy sites such as Abydos. A large funerary boat, for example, was found near the pyramid of the Old Kingdom Pharaoh Kheops.

And also Egyptians were crap sailors

Despite the ancient Egyptian's ability to construct very large boats to sail along the easily navigable Nile, they were not known as good sailors and did not engage in widespread sailing or shipping in the Mediterranean or Red Seas.

Why build boats if you're not going to use them?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   
And also there is evidence of a nuclear explosion in the past in Pakistan. What is the explanation? We only developed nuclear technology very recenty.
edit on 5-9-2011 by KingJames1337 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   
I mean for real, I'll go on the record and say it the evidence of a nuclear war in Pakistan IS proof aliens visited us in the past. My reasoning, process of elimination

Couldn't have been humans we didn't have nuclear weapons if you believe conventional history

Couldn't have been a meteor.

Consider these verses from the ancient (6500 BC at the latest) Mahabharata:

...a single projectile
Charged with all the power of the Universe.
An incandescent column of smoke and flame
As bright as the thousand suns
Rose in all its splendour...
a perpendicular explosion
with its billowing smoke clouds...
...the cloud of smoke
rising after its first explosion
formed into expanding round circles
like the opening of giant parasols...

..it was an unknown weapon,
An iron thunderbolt,
A gigantic messenger of death,
Which reduced to ashes
The entire race of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas.
...The corpses were so burned
As to be unrecognisable.
The hair and nails fell out;
Pottery broke without apparent cause,
And the birds turned white.

After a few hours
All foodstuffs were infected...
...to escape from this fire
The soldiers threw themselves in streams
To wash themselves and their equipment.


Until the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, modern mankind could not imagine any weapon as horrible and devastating as those described in the ancient Indian texts. Yet they very accurately described the effects of an atomic explosion. Radioactive poisoning will make hair and nails fall out. Immersing oneself in water gives some respite, though it is not a cure.

When excavations of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro reached the street level, they discovered skeletons scattered about the cities, many holding hands and sprawling in the streets as if some instant, horrible doom had taken place. People were just lying, unburied, in the streets of the city. And these skeletons are thousands of years old, even by traditional archaeological standards. What could cause such a thing? Why did the bodies not decay or get eaten by wild animals? Furthermore, there is no apparent cause of a physically violent death.

These skeletons are among the most radioactive ever found, on par with those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At one site, Soviet scholars found a skeleton which had a radioactive level 50 times greater than normal. Other cities have been found in northern India that show indications of explosions of great magnitude. One such city, found between the Ganges and the mountains of Rajmahal, seems to have been subjected to intense heat. Huge masses of walls and foundations of the ancient city are fused together, literally vitrified! And since there is no indication of a volcanic eruption at Mohenjo-Daro or at the other cities, the intense heat to melt clay vessels can only be explained by an atomic blast or some other unknown weapon. The cities were wiped out entirely.

While the skeletons have been carbon-dated to 2500 BC, we must keep in mind that carbon-dating involves measuring the amount of radiation left. When atomic explosions are involved, that makes then seem much younger.

The radiation from a meteor would usually die down in a couple of days.

So we don't get to insert anything to answer an uncomfortable question....to quote a famous political leader

YES WE CAN

Because if there is no explanation available even the most outlandish explanation is better than saying it is a mystery that cannot be answered by any current scientific reasoning.

Because what is a Question without an Answer?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by gravytrain
 





Option 2: Ancient people had the help of Aliens. This theory explains everything, but is supported by only circumstantial evidence. Nothing has been proven. If we accept this theory we have to assume that ancient man was stupid, and incapable of truly explaining in writing what happened, instead only describing what happened in vague myths and legends about gods. However, some aspects are intriguing. Such as the first emperor of China. He is a very interesting figure in the light of this theory. Also the Dogon (spelling?) tribe of Africa, and the ancient Sumerian stories are intriguing in the light of this theory, but it is still only a theory.


This question is directed to anyone.
Why would ancient man have to be stupid if it turns out that aliens built or taught ancient man to build the pyramids and other such ancient marvels? To me if aliens are responsible for either it means that:

1. Ancient man was smart and savvy enough to interact with an alien species.
2. Ancient man wasn't part of the equation at all.

Something else I would like to comment on and it covers the whole spectrum with alien visitation theories. What we consider extraordinary and therefor requiring extraordinary evidence might be totally mundane and typical to any visiting species. For example it is a mundane thing to take your family to the beach or a park but if you're a responsible person you take your trash with you, five minutes after you leave no one would be able to tell anyone had been there, not because you want to hide that you were there but because it's the right thing to do.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join