Ancient Aliens

[Ringer]

Ancient aliens what do you think of these skeletons?

 

Just looking at the screen before playing let's me know it's a fake. A homonid skeleton that size would collapse under its own weight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law#Biomechanics

[michel123456]

Ancient aliens what do you think of these skeletons?

From this site you took examples before: scroll down till "fake giants".

 

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/giants.htm#giantsinarchaeology

 

I lke this site because it presents things as they are, mysteries included.

[Semjase]

This report pretty well confirms that there was a different ruling elite

race around years ago.

 

 

 

 

[imatfaal]

Semjase

 

 

No NO NO! you don't get to dodge like that - you presented a video as evidence, it was rubbish; Michel even showed from where some of the faked photographs originated.

 

What are your comments on the fact that a video you clearly thought showed evidence were actually fakery? If someone provides me with false evidence for their contention I assume that no evidence is available and even evidence for which I might hold ambivalent views on credibility is suddenly more suspect. And if no evidence other than forgeries is extant why do you continue to ask us to believe in your claims.

 

And what have you done to ensure that the next video is of higher veracity?

 

You don't just get a permit to post your ideas as if this were a blog - you need to discuss and counter criticism; merely continually preaching without regard to comments you are receiving is against the rules.

[arc]

Did you view the videos?

 

Essentially noting ever changes with the MO of Egyptologists. They argue against all other evidence with the same techniques and strategies. They suggest they have all the answers and that other ways to put the evidence together don't fit the "cultural context" of the peoples who built the pyramids. This would be fine if they had the answers or knew the cultural context but they know neither. All their "evidence" is a sort of "sample error" because it comes out of tombs. Something is known about how the Egyptians died and intended to spend eternity but far less is known about how they lived and how they accomplished their greatest feats. Of course even their greatest feats are right before our eyes but Egyptologists can't see it and it's not relevant to "ancient aliens".They also don't know anything about "cultural context" because Egyptology doesn't understand the only single book that survives from the era. One book = no understanding. They believe it is incantations and religious mumbo jumbo. It is impossible to understand a culture through abracadabra and gobblety gook. It is a non sequitur. Meanwhile the physical evidence does not fit their contention in the film that there is a "complete picture". The unfinished pyramids that display ramps are tiny little things where it really doesn't matter ho the stones were lifted.

 

Egyptology slaps down arguments one at a time but in every single case it's not with logic and evidence but with tactics and interpretations that were founded on assumptions. The basis of their understanding is four erroneous assumptions; that the great pyramids were tombs dragged up ramps by changeless and superstitious bumpkins. Egyptologists need the ancients to be changeless because otherwise they couldn't legitimately ascribe the traits and beliefs of later people to them and then suddenly all "cultural context" evaporates and all that's left is the physical evidence. And here is where everything changes. The physical evidence is far more consistent with aliens than it is with ramps. The only way ramps can arise at all is to assume that ramps are the only possible way because evidence for them is exceedingly weak. The word "ramp" isn't even attested in the great pyramid building age. How's that for cultural context. The surviving book does refer to boats that fly but not ramps to drag stones.

 

You're right of course that you didn't mention that it must have been ramps. But this is where it always comes to when people desire to be "scientific". We have today as part of our own cultural context the romantic notion of men struggling on ramps to cooperate to accomplish the impossible while uniting a people and leaving a wonder for all times. I have no problem with this picture except that there were no men struggling on ramps and that it's far more likely men helped aliens build it. I believe that it's far more insulting to suppose the only possible means to build was with the least efficient and barbaric "possible" means. Why waste 100,000 lifetimes to build a tomb for the dead god (as Egyptology claims) when a fifth of that could just pull the stones up the sides?

 

Egyptology got off on the wrong foot and needs to revisit the evidence. The ancients have been insulted long enough (not that there's anything wrong with that).

 

It is probably a common human shortcoming to subconsciously or even consciously insert one's prejudices into one's work, or one's criticism's of other's works. It is likely that those who have studied ancient civilizations have idealize these societies through a lens colored with their own "inflections" of analytic thought. It would be a challenge not to get caught up in the grandeur of ancient civilizations like Egypt or those of Pre-Columbian Americas.

 

Consider, in the case of 18th through early 20th century Egyptologists who were predisposed from an early age to romantic literature of travel and historical fiction. But these influences pale when compared to what the new age pseudoscience and science fiction industries has shadowed over these cultures, blinding a generation of armchair skeptics to logic and a preponderance of evidence.

 

Would it not seem logical that at least one glyph in a tomb or on a monument or one of the scores of papyrus would show a reference to what would be for any culture an Earth shaking encounter between two worlds? Would it not inspire an entire generation of witnesses of a literate society to reproduce in writing, art, science and architecture (besides stone) an extensive historical before and after? And would it not show the cultural shock of the event to these societies? arc

Edited May 16, 2013 by arc