Sayonara Posted January 6, 2004 Posted January 6, 2004 What pattern is thousands of miles wide? When you mentioned "big civilisations" you seemed to be talking about the henges. If not, your paragraph was weird. As far as making long, straight lines goes, I don't see why geometry won't do.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 6, 2004 Posted January 6, 2004 The pattern of henges is thousands of miles wide! Yes I was talking about henges. But the civilisations at that time were not that big. This is like 4000 BC. These people don't have yard sticks to tell how straight it is.
Sayonara Posted January 6, 2004 Posted January 6, 2004 The henges don't make a pattern. If they match anything at all, it's normally the junction of several ley lines. I'd hardly call the Druids or the early Pagans "civilisations" either but I don't think that precludes them from being able to employ any kind of knowledge.
Radical Edward Posted January 6, 2004 Posted January 6, 2004 Rasori said in post #1 :Not exactly sure where this should go, feel free to move it. I'm starting to think that we human beings are from another planet. Sure there's no proof, but it could explain why all 'UFO' and 'alien' sightings are top secret classified documents. Anyway, here's my reasoning: First off, what are the odds that a species evolved, or was created, that completely threw off the natural balance in the world? Before humans, creatures hunted only for food, and hunted only the weak, old, and sick. Before humans, forests kept the world nice and clean (now many of us can barely breathe without coughing, who knows how the animals feel?) Next, we seem to be deevolving. The farther back you go, the better we were. Sure, we have technological 'advances', but they make us MORE barbaric. Look at the Egyptians- they treated what slaves they had VERY well. Lastly, well, this could explain inexplicable things like those heads (you know, those heads on that island), Stonehenge, the pyramids (Mayan and Egyptian) and other stuff like that. So, yeah, that's what I've been thinking. problem is, none of this explains things like HERVs, Chromosome 2, Transposons, the Laryngeal nerve or colour TVs. we are not exactly devolving.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 6, 2004 Posted January 6, 2004 Yes they do make a pattern. A very complex geometric shape. How would they measure over thousands of miles?
Radical Edward Posted January 6, 2004 Posted January 6, 2004 Sayonara?said in post #22 :This is completely aside, but does anyone else think "Olmec" is a wonderful word? it is indeed stunning. I wish I was an olmec, then I would have had a big flying machine that I could use to go to work, and fry pedestrians on the way.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 6, 2004 Posted January 6, 2004 And to see if the Nazca lines are straight.
Sayonara Posted January 6, 2004 Posted January 6, 2004 Cap'n Refsmmat said in post #30 :Yes they do make a pattern. A very complex geometric shape. How would they measure over thousands of miles? Look: Your date for "the henges" is 1000 years before the earliest known examples, you say they are all over Europe when they are in fact unique to mainland Britain, and you seem to have trouble with the concept of geometry being scale-independent. So unless you're going to back all of this up with a source, as I have done, stop right there.
Radical Edward Posted January 6, 2004 Posted January 6, 2004 I find it astounding to think that people think that aliens or humans with vast amounts of technology would use it only to dig a few trenches or move a few pebbles on the Nazca Plateau. we might be getting a bit closer with say, a large sandstone pyramid, but, scale aside, I prefer the iPod as evidence of high technology. call me biased if you like though.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 6, 2004 Posted January 6, 2004 Shoot! The server crashed so my post wasn't displayed! I was guessing the date! I watched the show two years ago! My memory is bad. Maybe it wasn't all over Europe. But it was pretty big. I know it is scale independent!
Radical Edward Posted January 6, 2004 Posted January 6, 2004 Well the Nazca lines and all the other historical structures turn out to be pretty doable, even back then. Stonehenge itself is a marvel of engineering and calculational ability.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 6, 2004 Posted January 6, 2004 How are they doable? How can you make a straight line like that without good surveying equipment? And how to make a geometric shape over hundreds of miles?
Sayonara Posted January 7, 2004 Posted January 7, 2004 Cap'n Refsmmat said in post #37 :How can you make a straight line like that without good surveying equipment? And how to make a geometric shape over hundreds of miles? Sayonara³ said in post #33 : you seem to have trouble with the concept of geometry being scale-independent. Nobody made a straight line: 1) Group A builds a henge in Location 1, 2) Group B builds a henge in Location 2, 3) 3500 years pass, 4) Someone points out that if they draw a direct line between locations 1 and 2 it is straight, and we're all meant to be surprised. The henges in Britain are not "arranged in a complex geometric pattern" other than one that has been artificially superimposed by someone such as yourself.
Sayonara Posted January 7, 2004 Posted January 7, 2004 iglak said in post #38 :use string to make a straight line It's that bloody simple, but for some reason we're supposed to take "ALIENS MADE THEM DO IT" as the only reasonable explanation. This is what Occam's Razor is for people.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 7, 2004 Posted January 7, 2004 Sayonara³ said in post #39 : Nobody made a straight line: 1) Group A builds a henge in Location 1, 2) Group B builds a henge in Location 2, 3) 3500 years pass, 4) Someone points out that if they draw a direct line between locations 1 and 2 it is straight, and we're all meant to be surprised. The henges in Britain are not "arranged in a complex geometric pattern" other than one that has been artificially superimposed by someone such as yourself. Whoa! The straight is in the Nazca Lines, not the henges!
Sayonara Posted January 7, 2004 Posted January 7, 2004 Cap'n Refsmmat said in post #41 :Whoa! The straight is in the Nazca Lines, not the henges! Same answer applies. There is no pattern. Your "facts" are just flat out wrong, and I frankly don't care which popular science TV show they came from. I gave you a link to highly authoratative information on henges earlier on and you clearly did not read it. If you had any real scientific interest in how an ancient civilisation would make straight lines, you'd be either thinking about it real hard, or doing research, instead of sitting there repeating "no, it's impossible! Impossible!". May I also point out that surveying equipment does not "let you make straight lines". It increases point-to-point geometric accuracy over long distances. Go to Nazca with a surveying team and see what they tell you about the accuracy of those simple shapes. All you need to make a straight line is some string, or a big stick that you can stand in the ground. You can even do it with shadows ffs.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 7, 2004 Posted January 7, 2004 Impossible considering what they said... but now I'm not sure they were right... but the henges are in a pattern!
Radical Edward Posted January 7, 2004 Posted January 7, 2004 hay, has anyone heard of timecube? I hear it is relly cool.
Sayonara Posted January 7, 2004 Posted January 7, 2004 There was this research a while ago (check out google, I bet there's loads about this on the web) that suggested certain sets of Egyptian pyramids, and some of the temples of other cultures, were perfectly aligned to match constellations on highly significant dates. A bunch of counter-researchers looked at configurations of buildings in New York (or some American city) -- obviously a randomly assembled collection of buildings -- and found it was a simple matter to find hundreds of matches in the same fashion, for the same constellation dates. The moral: it's easy to see a pattern where none exists. Get some evidence. A map of the alleged pattern would be a good start.
Sayonara Posted January 7, 2004 Posted January 7, 2004 Oh I forgot to say... I know these documentaries about things like the nazca lines go all mysterious and say "oooooh we can't explain it." It's actually not true. We can explain things like that - there is no mystery we don't have any explanations for. Explanations are easy. The only hard bit is proving which explanation is the right one. Don't be misled by "popular science"
Radical Edward Posted January 7, 2004 Posted January 7, 2004 just because other buildings that aren't arranged to match star allignments do just that, doesn't really mean that no buildings have been arranged to match star allignments. I would not be at all suprised if the pyramids were arranged to this allignment, based on the premise that the egyptians were superstitious and believed in such things as heavens, especially considering a number of other factors relating to the pyramids, and indeed many ancient temples. They were clearly very good mathematicians, so it is hardly suprising. just to add, this does not mean that aliens did it.
Sayonara Posted January 7, 2004 Posted January 7, 2004 Unfortunately the documentary was one of those ones that gives evidence for both sides and won't commit to either. The data this guy had for the pyramids though was off by a relatively large degree. The temples he was studying were part of a huge cluster of such buldings, and he just picked out groups of them that vaguely matched Sigma Draconis, the plough etc. This was essentially the same method as the city experiment. The point is, his evidence wasn't evidence. It was a claim that needed evidence.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 7, 2004 Posted January 7, 2004 Sayonara³ said in post #46 :Oh I forgot to say... I know these documentaries about things like the nazca lines go all mysterious and say "oooooh we can't explain it." It's actually not true. We can explain things like that - there is no mystery we don't have any explanations for. Explanations are easy. The only hard bit is proving which explanation is the right one. Don't be misled by "popular science" They must do it for the ratings.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 7, 2004 Posted January 7, 2004 The theory is, do enough studies and you prove your point.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now