Using Erroneous Information to Support a Hypothesis...

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by raifordko
...So if on the one side they use a blatant lie (Type of stones used @ Pumapunku) and on the other they use only what has been found and observed, which side would you go with? The side who lies to try and support their case, or the side who is just doing the best they can with what they have?

And don't even lecture me on Academia. I know how hard it is when the people farther up the food chain are entrenched in their current doctrine. With my field of research I was lucky enough for the DoD to hand us a check and say "Hey, figure out what this is, if it's dangerous to craft in low earth orbit and how to tell when/if it is going to happen". They didn't say "Hey, figure this out, and GLOBAL WARMING!"

Science always advances. You can't argue that fact. The truth ALWAYS comes out with science. Sure some guys are in it for the money and will work their data to get paid, but the majorityof those in the scientific fields want the truth to come out, and they want to be credited with finding it.

Haven't seen or heard either of your Pumapunku arguments, so - I'm not taking any sides. Again, however - unless I can prove it to myself, I generally keep listening to both sides...until I'm more convinced one way than the other - but, I still KNOW (maybe the only thing I know)...that I might be wrong.
What you call lying - another may perceive as "doing the best they can with what they have".
As to your directive on what I can or cannot lecture on - Thanks for the guidance.
I do not agree with you on much of your final paragraph. If this were the case - we wouldn't have "half of Science" calling for a carbon tax, and half saying it's cyclical. You have even discussed similar problems with your particular field of scientific study in your Introductory thread.
Thanks for the conversation.




posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by raifordko
 


They blasted in to get to the upper chambers, the tunnel that was found dug into it went down to the well.

Where the suspected burial chamber is was sealed.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


The tunnel went down to the well not the upper chambers.

And when there is 20 different theories on what something may be, I consider that unexplained.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by terriblyvexed
reply to post by Harte
 


The tunnel went down to the well not the upper chambers.

And when there is 20 different theories on what something may be, I consider that unexplained.


The only things unexplained are the details of methods used to drag stones up ramps, and the shapes of the ramps. Masonry techniques from the period are well attested, as are the locations of the quarries where the stones came from.

Mamun's men, BTW, entered both the Queen's Chamber and the King's Chamber. Both were empty by then (around 800 AD.)

I have no idea why you believe otherwise.

Except, possibly, to preserve the sparkly part of your skewed world view.

Here's a handy article about it. Wonder if you (or anyone else) will actually read it?

Harte



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread955530/pg2#pid16582967]post by

The stones were moved by large cranes. I can't link for you, but look up ancient cranes, very interesting read.

I read your link interesting, but I think maybe you should read it, it's speculation and nothing more.


edit on 26-6-2013 by terriblyvexed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by terriblyvexed
 


It's not speculation at all...it's a fact, written down in 820 AD...



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 06:28 AM
link   
One of the worst things about "Ancient Aliens" is that it appears on a network calling itself the "History" channel.

I've recently had several losing discussions about the current state of the Hysteria Channel with a young nephew. Very disturbing.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by DelMarvel
 


My nephew watches Jersey shore count your blessings.

As long as he understands ancient alien theory is bunk,I really don't see a problem with it. I'm suspicious of all answers,I think it's a good thing, and if ancient aliens dose anything, it helps show you reason to question.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by raifordko
 


I'm willing to concede that the simplest explanation, is usually the right answer.

But you won't convince me that we're not being lied to about our history.

When I see Mayan artifacts in my home state of Georgia, but no one admits the Mayans came to north America, I'm going to say I'm being lied to.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by terriblyvexed
reply to post by raifordko
 


I'm willing to concede that the simplest explanation, is usually the right answer.

But you won't convince me that we're not being lied to about our history.

When I see Mayan artifacts in my home state of Georgia, but no one admits the Mayans came to north America, I'm going to say I'm being lied to.


I am from Savannah originally, and I think you may be referring to the "find" from 2011 ish? I am fairly certain that was not Mayan. That was an innacurate media report that got the Mayan thing started. It was basically a hoax buy a guy trying to make a name for himself.

boingboing.net...
www.teoti.com...



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Aye, it was Von Daniken and later Graham Hancock who got me interested in the whole issue of ancient aliens/civilisations. Okay, my conclusions after years of research weren't quite the same as theirs, but without them I might never have become interested in the subject.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by DelMarvel
One of the worst things about "Ancient Aliens" is that it appears on a network calling itself the "History" channel.

I've recently had several losing discussions about the current state of the Hysteria Channel with a young nephew. Very disturbing.


Yes, that's another good point.

Though it's no worse than people believing things because they read it in the "news"paper ......



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by raifordko
 


Your referring to Richard Thornton, he got blasted because he's not a real archeologists. He also claims his DNA proves his connection, I'm not sure about the DNA I'm finding conflicting evidence both ways.

However he did strike Scott Wolter's interest, and he went to investigate, and he believes that more studies need to be shown, and that history may need to be rewritten.

I like Scott he's all about real evidence, but he's willing to ask questions when faced with something that's not mainstream.

For someone on a conspiracy site, you seem very reluctant to anything that challenges what was taught in school.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by terriblyvexed

My nephew watches Jersey shore count your blessings.

As long as he understands ancient alien theory is bunk,I really don't see a problem with it..


He doesn't think it's bunk. He also was buying into the 2012 stuff on the History channel. And he's not a stupid kid..



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by terriblyvexed
reply to post by raifordko
 


Your referring to Richard Thornton, he got blasted because he's not a real archeologists. He also claims his DNA proves his connection, I'm not sure about the DNA I'm finding conflicting evidence both ways.

However he did strike Scott Wolter's interest, and he went to investigate, and he believes that more studies need to be shown, and that history may need to be rewritten.

I like Scott he's all about real evidence, but he's willing to ask questions when faced with something that's not mainstream.

For someone on a conspiracy site, you seem very reluctant to anything that challenges what was taught in school.


I actually love challenging what we think we know. I did it on a daily basis for 5 years and enjoyed every minute of it. The problem is the burden of proof. To make new claims you need evidence supported by observation. If you lie or cheat to get the "obeservations" then your claims are, ipso facto, devoid of merit.

People like Sitchin and Von Daniken blatantly lie to advance their hypothesis, hence they should be completely removed from the equation when attemping to prove or support a new hypothesis.

When I read Velikovsky I had to admit that he only used observable evidenvce via comparative mythology for his claims, even citing every reference he used. Howeve I believe he went a step too far in thinking that a planet sized object like Venus was ejected from Jupiter and then shot around the earth a few times...

Don't get me wrong, that sounds amazing, but from my education I just dont see any observable evidence to support such a claim. Granted my speciatly in education is not astrophysics. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I fully believe that as some of the entriched older men of current sciences relating to earth studies and astrophysics die off, we will see a renaissance in the science world of young eager blood looking to cut a path for themselves...I just don't have the political will to tough it out as it currently stands.

You also have to keep in mind, that technology is finally catching up with scientific theory, and as we measure things we are finding even now that paradigms are shifting.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by terriblyvexed

My nephew watches Jersey shore count your blessings.

As long as he understands ancient alien theory is bunk,I really don't see a problem with it..


He doesn't think it's bunk. He also was buying into the 2012 stuff on the History channel. And he's not a stupid kid..


Wow,I guess they need some more disclaimers.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by raifordko
 


I think maybe you think I support ancient alien theory, or doomsday prophecies if so then no I don't.
I see mysteries from one end of this planet to the other, and they indicate global interactions, ancient technology being more advanced than we believe, and societies being older than thought.

I only say I like these guys, because they do make you question the answers we're given as fact.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by raifordko
You also have to keep in mind, that technology is finally catching up with scientific theory, and as we measure things we are finding even now that paradigms are shifting.

This always happens. In fact, the history of measuring technologies is the history of Physics. All hard science is Physics.

Harte



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by raifordko
 


Using Erroneous Information to Support a Hypothesis...

Or

Using a hypothesis to create erroneous information?

Allow me to reply with an analogy.

Zahi Hawass & Mark Lehner, both renowned eyptologists, have decided that the Great Pyramid (at Giza, Egypt) was built by the Pharaoh Khufu, a 4th Dynasty, Old Kingdom ruler. They have done so based on practically no scientific data. Two Carbon 14 tests on the mortar of the Great Pyramid showed the mortar (and the Pyramid?) to be approximately two centuries older than their theory allowed, therefore the Great Pyramid is older than they suppose or the chronology of their Kings List is wrong. They solved the problem by ignoring the results and inventing a theory why the two Carbon-14 tests are wrong.

Hawass & Lehner have also stipulated that the Great Sphinx was built by Khufu (or Kafhre), but the weather erosion of the Sphinx shows that it must be much older than 4th century Old Kingdom. Once again Hawass & Lehner solved the problem by ignoring the geologic data and ridiculing the geologist that presented the data.

In order to return to your statement. The Ancient Aliens theorists put forward theories on the evolution of mankind and our history. It's speculation, nothing more nothing less, unless claimed otherwise.

Hawass and Lehner is doing something much more serious than AA theorists. Being something of the official spokesmen of egyptology, they have presented their theories as proven facts, while the scientific data does not support their claims. I'm not excluding the possibility that their theories are correct and that future data will support it, but today this is not the case.

I recommend a book called "On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not " by Robert Burton. It explores the dangers of entering a fixed paradigm and letting that paradigm decide what is right and wrong, A reality check every now and then does not hurt, even when you're utterly convinced that you represent logic, sound reasoning and truth.
edit on 28-6-2013 by Heliocentric because: Solve the big ques­tions: How do I know when I know? Who knows the knower?



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric
The Ancient Aliens theorists put forward theories on the evolution of mankind and our history. It's speculation, nothing more nothing less, unless claimed otherwise.
How would you then account for their ubiquitous use of the phrase "...can only mean that...", when in truth it generally means a whole lot else.





top topics
 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join