aliens or not.

[stonehart]

Never discount humans when they are motivated to do a task as we have for example the Apollo project to confirm this from our own modern age.
When Kennedy said we would go to the moon the technology required to a great extent did not exist.

Cutting stone

I find the whole "they could not have cut such hard stone with the tools they had"kind of funny. Now any engineer will tend to smile at this because if like me you need to cut metal often or drill holes you know that we use lubricants to do this.

What I am getting at is that if say I need to cut a 6mm plate or hardened steel (Which I do for mounting brackets for speaker dolly's when we need new ones), the steel at that thickness and density is in most cases harder than the drill being used.
So how do you drill the hole then? Well its easy and a simple matter of physics.

The drill is a small area having a high amount of pressure applied, but this alone will not help as the drill will go blunt very fast or break. What we do is we add a cutting compound which is not even remotely a modern idea.

If say for example you wanted to cut a block of stone with a bronze blade, just the blade alone would not do the job as it would simply ware away far to quick to be of any use.
What you would need is an abrasive between the blade and the stone such as sand or dust of the stone you want to cut.
Mix this with water and you have a cutting compound, I mean this is how we cut diamonds etc and is not a new idea at all.

This was a very simplistic way to look at it but you get the idea.

Good book on the subject
Sticks, Stones, and Shadows: Building the Egyptian Pyramids - Martin Isler - Google Books

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I think for anyone willing to look at physical evidence present right now on the Earth and look at it with an open mind and not through the history taught to us, would have to agree at the very least, accepted human history is incomplete if not just wrong to a large degree.
On most continents there is evidence that seems to pre-date the accepted history and there is a history of such evidence just being ignored or actually suppressed.

If one accepts that a lot of taught history is incorrect and evidence of things to the contrary is suppressed or ignored, you have to ask why is that the case? Science is supposed to be open enquiry into the unknown but often it is more an effort to reinforce accepted theories.

I think the reason such things are suppressed is that they endanger certain institutions and the status quo to such a degree that otherwise honest people are willing to lie to not rock the boat. That is completely un-scientific, it is dishonest and it is morally wrong in my view.

Do I need to name the institutions that seem to be threatened by evidence of older human civilisations?

 

[stonehart]

I think for anyone willing to look at physical evidence present right now on the Earth and look at it with an open mind and not through the history taught to us, would have to agree at the very least, accepted human history is incomplete if not just wrong to a large degree.
On most continents there is evidence that seems to pre-date the accepted history and there is a history of such evidence just being ignored or actually suppressed.

If one accepts that a lot of taught history is incorrect and evidence of things to the contrary is suppressed or ignored, you have to ask why is that the case? Science is supposed to be open enquiry into the unknown but often it is more an effort to reinforce accepted theories.

I think the reason such things are suppressed is that they endanger certain institutions and the status quo to such a degree that otherwise honest people are willing to lie to not rock the boat. That is completely un-scientific, it is dishonest and it is morally wrong in my view.

Do I need to name the institutions that seem to be threatened by evidence of older human civilisations?

In part I agree but not 100%
There are those in the academic field that resist change that is true but they tend to get rolled over these days and yes there are other institutions that will resist the idea of older civilizations as a matter of their very survival.

--------- stoney train of thought --------.


But Aliens did it is not an answer at all.. we may as well say pink pixies did it or the giant flying spaghetti monster for that matter.

The ancient aliens guys work on conjecture and the gaps that may or may not be there in the academic work on any given area, very much like those who fight against evolutionary theory do. Not bringing religion in here at all but it is very much the "God of the Gaps" argument.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Stoney - did you think I meant that 'aliens did it'? - cos i don't think that at all. i am all for ancient civilizations as to me that is a more likely explanation than ET builders!

 

[stonehart]

Stoney - did you think I meant that 'aliens did it'? - cos i don't think that at all. i am all for ancient civilizations as to me that is a more likely explanation than ET builders!

No man not at all googgs it was just a train of thought that was all

The percentage of agreement is like 95% man so no panic

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Phew! Was worried you thought I'd gotten a whacky hairdo, major sunbed time and a regular slot on the history channel!

 

[stonehart]

Phew! Was worried you thought I'd gotten a whacky hairdo, major sunbed time and a regular slot on the history channel!

Lol no sorry man.. my train of thought can miss stations now and then and the readers along for the ride can get a bit confused

 

[Kim323]

Hi, goggs. Yes, do name those institutions. I love history, it was my bread and butter for decades, and I've studied it all my life, or, rather, gotten goose pimples over it all my life, it's such sheer enjoyment for me. In fact, I just ordered the one book I haven't read by Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Boy King: Edward VI. I somehow missed a book by him, don't know how that happened. He, as you no doubt know, goggs, was the half brother of Elizabeth, and, of course, half brother of Mary. King Henry VIII had this knack of having children by different wives! MacCulloch is a professor of history at Oxford. So, yes, goggs, name those universities/scholars who are threatened by evidence of older civilizations. Ancient history is one of my loves, primarily Greek and roman, but predating them as well. Kim

 

[Voyager]

Never discount humans when they are motivated to do a task as we have for example the Apollo project to confirm this from our own modern age.
When Kennedy said we would go to the moon the technology required to a great extent did not exist.

Cutting stone

I find the whole "they could not have cut such hard stone with the tools they had"kind of funny. Now any engineer will tend to smile at this because if like me you need to cut metal often or drill holes you know that we use lubricants to do this.

What I am getting at is that if say I need to cut a 6mm plate or hardened steel (Which I do for mounting brackets for speaker dolly's when we need new ones), the steel at that thickness and density is in most cases harder than the drill being used.
So how do you drill the hole then? Well its easy and a simple matter of physics.

The drill is a small area having a high amount of pressure applied, but this alone will not help as the drill will go blunt very fast or break. What we do is we add a cutting compound which is not even remotely a modern idea.

If say for example you wanted to cut a block of stone with a bronze blade, just the blade alone would not do the job as it would simply ware away far to quick to be of any use.
What you would need is an abrasive between the blade and the stone such as sand or dust of the stone you want to cut.
Mix this with water and you have a cutting compound, I mean this is how we cut diamonds etc and is not a new idea at all.

This was a very simplistic way to look at it but you get the idea.

Good book on the subject
Sticks, Stones, and Shadows: Building the Egyptian Pyramids - Martin Isler - Google Books

Prehistoric Machined Artifacts

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Actually Kim, in a way the number of those institutions I was alluding to is huge. I am talking about virtually anywhere that teaches history, the Egyptian Antiquities Authority, many Abrahamic religious institutions, anywhere teaching anthropology etc.

I can name specific examples of places who've ignored evidence although I'd need to go do some fact checking over names and dates.

I think none of us in this forum will argue that man's history is far from known. The 'missing link' is still an embarrassment to modern anthropology. Explanations of various structures fall well short of satisfactory too. Basically, to me it seems like any evidence that has a civilisation before the Sumeria is ignored. I forget the name but there is that large stone structures off the coast of Japan - archaeologists have been trying to say that is a natural formation. Anyone seeing footage and measurements can be in do doubt it was something built by man, when the sea level was far, far lower. That dates it to before 10,000 years ago.
It's late here and I'm off to bed but I will have to put together some evidence that I think strongly point to huge gaps in accepted history.

 

[trainedobserver]

What "great monolithic structures around the world"? Specifically.

Have you never watched Ancient Aliens? I thinking of the things they mention in this clip.

I think I am indeed in the right place, figuratively, intellectually, literally, spatially, rationally, and on and on regarding the Ancient Human Theory which hypothesizes very high levels of technology.

To be fair Kim, I have to tell I've argued just the opposite here before. It isn't beyond me to go on about these things and run with some lame idea or another and see where it goes. The truth is as I think I've already admitted above, there is nothing that can be said much about it other than you've pointed out, it's just speculation that can't be substantiated. It isn't like I believe this as fact and won't entertain something else just as wild for the sake of conversation.

That's enough, but one last one: What are the "alleged structures on the moon, mars, and elsewhere"?

I would be referring to Hoagland's claims along with other in the same vein. I don't put much hope in much of that being true either but it is part of the larger mythos that I'm referring to. I guess I'm talking in short-hand. Are these sorts of things a recent interest of yours?

Aliens, ancient humans, cryto-terresterials, inter-dimensional whatzits, it all gets down to pure speculation, largely unsubstantiated stories and dreams.

What do I really think Kim? I think human beings are products of evolutionary processes present on the Earth. I don't think aliens or anything else made us. People experience strange things, some of which we can't explain. We sit around in this forum and we talk about various things that might explain those strange experiences. As I've already point out, I've argued against ancient human technological development before. I can do that. I can take one position at one time and play within the mythos and see where it goes.

As you rightly point out, there is no mainstream historical support of anything like a Ancient Human's or Ancient Aliens theory. I would not try to pass off anything like that as scientific fact or something I would teach in a classroom. In a forum dedicated to strange subjects I've never felt inhibited in sticking my neck out and babbling nonsense. There is always someone like yourself who will bring up a reasonable counterpoint.

All said and done, I still would believe humans are responsible for anything I've seen presented on Ancient Aliens.

 

[trainedobserver]

What do I really think Kim? I think human beings are products of evolutionary processes present on the Earth. I don't think aliens or anything else made us.

That was an incomplete thought. I meant say, " I don't think that aliens or supernatural beings are necessary to explain human origins or human achievements like the pyramids, Pumapunku, and other things that the Ancient Aliens or Astronauts theory points to as evidence of alien intervention. Could intelligent non-human beings from somewhere else account for some it? Anything is possible, but how probable is it? That is one thing that makes it difficult to arrive at any real conclusions about these things in general terms. Could aliens have had something to do with Pumapunku? Is is a possiblity, but it isn't necessary to explain the existence of the place and isn't the most probable answer by a long shot.

To be fair to the producers of Ancient Aliens, I think they saw a niche in the market and played to it. Ancient Aliens started off using material developed for the season of UFO Hunters that was canceled. There are a couple of good interviews with Bill where he talks about the demise of UFO Hunters and Ancient Aliens.

 

[tyder001]

It has picked up steam and I think they have been a little more entertaining lately than they were in the first season. Still, I'm in agreement so far as alien intervention in human affairs. I don't completely close my mind to it but I doubt it. I also, highly doubt any other humans have developed space flight and are coming back to the planet. But, I guess I have an interest or I wouldn't be posting on this blog. So, I'll keep watching the skies.

 

[trainedobserver]

It has picked up steam and I think they have been a little more entertaining lately than they were in the first season. Still, I'm in agreement so far as alien intervention in human affairs. I don't completely close my mind to it but I doubt it. I also, highly doubt any other humans have developed space flight and are coming back to the planet. But, I guess I have an interest or I wouldn't be posting on this blog. So, I'll keep watching the skies.

Me too, but it is fun to think about. Have you listened much to Ed Fouche? I tend to believe the guy up to a point. I seize up when I try to rationalize why advanced aircraft wouldn't have been deployed during recent wars though. I can see both sides of the argument as having some traction.

 

[tyder001]

Thanks. I hadn't heard of him. I'm gonna check out his youtube stuff this evening.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Not to bring this thread to the religious debate but 'aliens' could mean many different things and if many tales from the religious texts are to be believed there certainly seems to be a lot of non-human intervention, make of that what you will!

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Me too, but it is fun to think about. Have you listened much to Ed Fouche? I tend to believe the guy up to a point. I seize up when I try to rationalize why advanced aircraft wouldn't have been deployed during recent wars though. I can see both sides of the argument as having some traction.

I disagree strongly with the notion that advanced aircraft would be used in recent wars. If such things exist (novel propulsion etc) then I can completely imagine them kept secret because of the danger of a couple of things:
to prevent them falling into an enemies hands (think back to the Serbians getting their hands on an F-117)
if the technology is revolutionary and could possibly impact current energy uses, the people most likely to own such technology will be the same ones benefiting most from the current energy set up.
those same people have no intention of ending wars too soon. they probably want to make a good show of things but there is nothing in it for them if wars are short. i would imagine only after a certain time will they break even financially! (yes i am that cynical about the powers that be!)

You will recognise the quote from the former head of skunkworks and I paraphrase but it's similar to 'revolutionary tech locked up in black projects and it would take an act of god to get them out'. - I don't think that quote is anything more sinister than said tech could be a game-changer - it need not be anything ET or UFO related (UFO being an ET UFO).

On a related but different thought I am gonna throw in my firm conviction that no politician or civil servant can declare a war unless they actually have relatives who will fight in said war. Yeah!

 

[Voyager]

I disagree strongly with the notion that advanced aircraft would be used in recent wars. If such things exist (novel propulsion etc) then I can completely imagine them kept secret because of the danger of a couple of things:
to prevent them falling into an enemies hands (think back to the Serbians getting their hands on an F-117)
if the technology is revolutionary and could possibly impact current energy uses, the people most likely to own such technology will be the same ones benefiting most from the current energy set up.
those same people have no intention of ending wars too soon. they probably want to make a good show of things but there is nothing in it for them if wars are short. i would imagine only after a certain time will they break even financially! (yes i am that cynical about the powers that be!)

You will recognise the quote from the former head of skunkworks and I paraphrase but it's similar to 'revolutionary tech locked up in black projects and it would take an act of god to get them out'. - I don't think that quote is anything more sinister than said tech could be a game-changer - it need not be anything ET or UFO related (UFO being an ET UFO).

On a related but different thought I am gonna throw in my firm conviction that no politician or civil servant can declare a war unless they actually have relatives who will fight in said war. Yeah!

Here in the United States we call them chicken hawks.
Here is an interesting video:

 

[trainedobserver]

I disagree strongly with the notion that advanced aircraft would be used in recent wars. If such things exist (novel propulsion etc) then I can completely imagine them kept secret because of the danger of a couple of things: to prevent them falling into an enemies hands (think back to the Serbians getting their hands on an F-117)

Yet we have used the Stealth Fighter, the U2 (had one captured), the SR-71, and whatever has replaced them (I assume in the spy plane/platform capacity) in real operations. If we're fighting guys short out of the stone-age, like Don says, maybe you don't use advanced weapons systems on them. However, if a more cost effective means of waging war is available, it seems counter intuitive that the budget crunched military wouldn't want to exploit it. It is a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Yes, I know what you are saying but I am talking about revolutionary propulsion and the like. Real anti-grav etc. New energy sources and suchlike. The U2, F117 and SR-71 are still all running on aviation fuel.
So if we make a distinction on advanced craft being different than completely novel systems (i.e back-engineered tech or whatever) then we may be on the same page?

Absolutely will generals etc want to use the best new stuff but if the job can be done without breaking out stuff that might change the whole world I think that will be the case.

All this depends on there actually being novel propulsion or energy systems. The most advanced craft at Area 51 may still actually be running aviation fuel and they are only tweaking existing technology. My argument does only hold for things that are rumoured to exist such as anti-gravity. I have no factual basis whatsoever really -granted. It's another one of those things I kinda hope are true!