Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(April 17, 2011 at 12:02 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: ARGH!! Ive been STUMPED! Ancient Astronauts must have OBVIOUSLY landed on Earth to seed it, and to play their mind games with us. I was a fool to question something that was so obvious.
I will imediately go out and buy a copy of "The chariot of the Gods" and learn true science and history..I swear!
not answering my questions i see.
seeking to make light of an argument in order to divert attention away from your own false points does not make you look smart. or right for that matter.
Quote:as for the reason you gave, sure it is all perfectly viable, and a thousand times more likely it happened in a way you suggested than by aliens cutting it with a big fat laser. but it's still not concrete 'this IS how it happened'.
You appear to want science to give you a final answer on this issue. And very likely it can give as final answer as one can be given. The problem is that you are looking for an answer that can't be given to you with the rather sparse information that you've provided (or not). The Nazca plain is a very remote region, and because of this fact, there is very little geologic information readily available without doing a more extensive search. What is not in question is the fact that the Nazca plain is a fluvial fan/apron. What is not in question is that erosion in arid regions that have undergone tectonic uplit often develop exactly the kinds of landscapes you see in the photos about which you queried.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
Quote:as for the reason you gave, sure it is all perfectly viable, and a thousand times more likely it happened in a way you suggested than by aliens cutting it with a big fat laser. but it's still not concrete 'this IS how it happened'.
You appear to want science to give you a final answer on this issue. And very likely it can give as final answer as one can be given. The problem is that you are looking for an answer that can't be given to you with the rather sparse information that you've provided (or not). The Nazca plain is a very remote region, and because of this fact, there is very little geologic information readily available without doing a more extensive search. What is not in question is the fact that the Nazca plain is a fluvial fan/apron. What is not in question is that erosion in arid regions that have undergone tectonic uplit often develop exactly the kinds of landscapes you see in the photos about which you queried.
then it's just a mystery isnt it? it's not wrong to question a mystery is it?
if i cant get an answer then that's fine. don't really see what else is to say about it. i'm sure people can come to their own conclusions and have their own thoughts. hence the point of the post
April 17, 2011 at 3:28 pm (This post was last modified: April 17, 2011 at 6:27 pm by JohnDG.)
(April 17, 2011 at 12:02 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: ARGH!! Ive been STUMPED! Ancient Astronauts must have OBVIOUSLY landed on Earth to seed it, and to play their mind games with us. I was a fool to question something that was so obvious.
How do you know they didn't?(Im not saying they did) They could certainly have just been experimenting with us or seeing how we react in situations. Maybe they believed we were savages and decided to see how blood thirtsy we are. Maybe they simply toyed with us and gave us false beliefs for their own entertainment, you cannot predict the thoughts and motives of an extra terrestrial being, for they would certainly be nothing like us. They might not even have emotions or moral values.
A fine example is a human child, who pulls the legs/wings off and insect just to watch it crawl around in pain. Or feeds ant's to a spider, drowns them, or most commanly burns them alive with a magnifying glass.
We could very well be those ant's.
Live every day as if already dead, that way you're not disappointed when you are.
April 17, 2011 at 7:08 pm (This post was last modified: April 17, 2011 at 7:12 pm by Oldandeasilyconfused.)
Quote:i'm interested to hear any thoughts on this, and please if your going to shoot me down in flames please bear in mind i am not stating this as fact
But then you say
Quote:so humans can carve a mountain in half? and leave no trace of rubble or carving yet mountains around it are all perfectly normal? please something other than humans did that.
You just showed yourself to be disingenuous and not worth bothering with.
April 17, 2011 at 7:16 pm (This post was last modified: April 17, 2011 at 7:23 pm by reverendjeremiah.)
(April 17, 2011 at 12:39 pm)Napoleon666 Wrote: seeking to make light of an argument in order to divert attention away from your own false points does not make you look smart. or right for that matter.
LMFAO - "false points"? Honestly..you honestly think that just because I didnt post the answers to your questions that suddenly makes the specualtion of ancient astronauts correct?
My point was - ancient astronauts are bunk.
Sense when has it NOT been debunked by men and women much smarter and well versed than I?
Quote:as for the reason you gave, sure it is all perfectly viable, and a thousand times more likely it happened in a way you suggested than by aliens cutting it with a big fat laser. but it's still not concrete 'this IS how it happened'.
You appear to want science to give you a final answer on this issue. And very likely it can give as final answer as one can be given. The problem is that you are looking for an answer that can't be given to you with the rather sparse information that you've provided (or not). The Nazca plain is a very remote region, and because of this fact, there is very little geologic information readily available without doing a more extensive search. What is not in question is the fact that the Nazca plain is a fluvial fan/apron. What is not in question is that erosion in arid regions that have undergone tectonic uplit often develop exactly the kinds of landscapes you see in the photos about which you queried.
then it's just a mystery isnt it? it's not wrong to question a mystery is it?
if i cant get an answer then that's fine. don't really see what else is to say about it. i'm sure people can come to their own conclusions and have their own thoughts. hence the point of the post
I didn't say that you can't get an answer. I've gave you about as good an answer as you are going to get from anyone without doing more research on the matter. And frankly, I'm not going to do that since I see nothing out of the ordinary about the geology of that mountain.
It's no more a mystery than it would be to say that because we haven't explored some back country tributary within the Grand Canyon, that we have nothing to say about the geology there. Surely we do have a lot we can say about it. But if we don't even have a lat/lon in order to identify the location, then certainly we can make all kinds of wild stories about it. But doing so isn't going to get one closer to the facts of the place. I'm certain that there is at least one group of geologists who have studied the region and published on it. It is, after all, an archaeological gold mine of sorts, and so I have no doubt that it has been studied in detail. I just don't know of anyone personally who has been down there and studied it. But I did give you a published paper with the names of people who have. If you are truly interested in it, you can always try to contact one of them.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
(April 17, 2011 at 3:28 pm)JohnDG Wrote: How do you know they didn't?(Im not saying they did) They could certainly have just been experimenting with us or seeing how we react in situations. Maybe they believed we were savages and decided to see how blood thirtsy we are. Maybe they simply toyed with us and gave us false beliefs for their own entertainment, you cannot predict the thoughts and motives of an extra terrestrial being, for they would certainly be nothing like us. They might not even have emotions or moral values.
Maybe there's a teapot orbiting Mars that can't be seen with our telescopes. It's not impossible. That doesn't mean we need to give any serious thought to Russell's teapot.
Your arguments all seem to take the form:
"I will demonstrate that alien astronauts are plausible.
They are not impossible.
QED."
Is it really more reasonable to think that there's an advanced extraterrestrial civilisation travelling for thousands upon thousands of years through the cosmos just to teach fledgling civilisations how to build big stone triangles, than it is to think that a few civilisations happened to discover vaguely similar building techniques within a few centuries of one another?
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
April 18, 2011 at 8:17 am (This post was last modified: April 18, 2011 at 8:34 am by Napoléon.)
(April 17, 2011 at 7:08 pm)padraic Wrote:
Quote:i'm interested to hear any thoughts on this, and please if your going to shoot me down in flames please bear in mind i am not stating this as fact
But then you say
Quote:so humans can carve a mountain in half? and leave no trace of rubble or carving yet mountains around it are all perfectly normal? please something other than humans did that.
You just showed yourself to be disingenuous and not worth bothering with.
you are taking two statements completely out of context. the first statement was with regards to the entire ancient astronaut theory, which i am highly doubtful of yet believe it to be a possility just like any other explanation.
the second point was against summerqueen's argument, and i was basically saying that humans did not form that mountain. are you saying they did? i dont think they did.
i WASNT saying aliens did, there's plenty of possibilities as orogenicman has already proven. so be sure to read things in context before you pull them out and have a poor attempt at making me look bad.
(April 17, 2011 at 7:16 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:
(April 17, 2011 at 12:39 pm)Napoleon666 Wrote: seeking to make light of an argument in order to divert attention away from your own false points does not make you look smart. or right for that matter.
LMFAO - "false points"? Honestly..you honestly think that just because I didnt post the answers to your questions that suddenly makes the specualtion of ancient astronauts correct?
My point was - ancient astronauts are bunk.
Sense when has it NOT been debunked by men and women much smarter and well versed than I?
no no no no. why are you jumping to conclusions? i asked you to prove your point. which you have not done. i am not saying i don't believe you i am asking YOU that seen as YOU are so OBVIOUSLY correct to PROVE what you're saying.
more specifically you said that the ancient nazca peoples used sacrifices in order to make the sun come up. and that they thought the earth was flat.
i'm asking you, PROVE IT. sure it might be true, but why the fuck should i listen to something you're claiming as fact if you're not going to back it up?
(April 18, 2011 at 1:56 am)orogenicman Wrote:
(April 17, 2011 at 2:44 pm)Napoleon666 Wrote:
(April 17, 2011 at 1:59 pm)orogenicman Wrote:
Quote:as for the reason you gave, sure it is all perfectly viable, and a thousand times more likely it happened in a way you suggested than by aliens cutting it with a big fat laser. but it's still not concrete 'this IS how it happened'.
You appear to want science to give you a final answer on this issue. And very likely it can give as final answer as one can be given. The problem is that you are looking for an answer that can't be given to you with the rather sparse information that you've provided (or not). The Nazca plain is a very remote region, and because of this fact, there is very little geologic information readily available without doing a more extensive search. What is not in question is the fact that the Nazca plain is a fluvial fan/apron. What is not in question is that erosion in arid regions that have undergone tectonic uplit often develop exactly the kinds of landscapes you see in the photos about which you queried.
then it's just a mystery isnt it? it's not wrong to question a mystery is it?
if i cant get an answer then that's fine. don't really see what else is to say about it. i'm sure people can come to their own conclusions and have their own thoughts. hence the point of the post
I didn't say that you can't get an answer. I've gave you about as good an answer as you are going to get from anyone without doing more research on the matter. And frankly, I'm not going to do that since I see nothing out of the ordinary about the geology of that mountain.
It's no more a mystery than it would be to say that because we haven't explored some back country tributary within the Grand Canyon, that we have nothing to say about the geology there. Surely we do have a lot we can say about it. But if we don't even have a lat/lon in order to identify the location, then certainly we can make all kinds of wild stories about it. But doing so isn't going to get one closer to the facts of the place. I'm certain that there is at least one group of geologists who have studied the region and published on it. It is, after all, an archaeological gold mine of sorts, and so I have no doubt that it has been studied in detail. I just don't know of anyone personally who has been down there and studied it. But I did give you a published paper with the names of people who have. If you are truly interested in it, you can always try to contact one of them.
orogenicman you are far more qualified than myself to come up with an idea on how that mountain formed, and if it doesnt look out of the ordinary to you then i believe you.
i will say that i have tried searching for these answers a long time, and i haven't come across anyone who can say for sure what this mountain is all about.
(April 18, 2011 at 8:16 am)lilphil1989 Wrote:
(April 17, 2011 at 3:28 pm)JohnDG Wrote: How do you know they didn't?(Im not saying they did) They could certainly have just been experimenting with us or seeing how we react in situations. Maybe they believed we were savages and decided to see how blood thirtsy we are. Maybe they simply toyed with us and gave us false beliefs for their own entertainment, you cannot predict the thoughts and motives of an extra terrestrial being, for they would certainly be nothing like us. They might not even have emotions or moral values.
Maybe there's a teapot orbiting Mars that can't be seen with our telescopes. It's not impossible. That doesn't mean we need to give any serious thought to Russell's teapot.
Your arguments all seem to take the form:
"I will demonstrate that alien astronauts are plausible.
They are not impossible.
QED."
Quote:Is it really more reasonable to think that there's an advanced extraterrestrial civilisation travelling for thousands upon thousands of years through the cosmos just to teach fledgling civilisations how to build big stone triangles, than it is to think that a few civilisations happened to discover vaguely similar building techniques within a few centuries of one another?
the first part of that was aimed at JohnDG was it not? so i will let him try to answer that one unless you would like me to answer it?
as for what you said afterwards.
i do not think that it is that unlikely that there is just ONE civilisation that is technologically advanced enough to travel through the galaxy. i believe that such a civilisation would quite often come into contact with worlds which have fledgling life on them. and i also believe that such a civilisation would probably be inclined to get involved or experiment with these civilisations at some level.
now the question is really, do you think this advanced race has came into contact with us and altered our path through history? or do you think we just developed on our own?
honestly i think we have developed on our own.
BUT because there are instances like with the pyramids, and as i described before the likelihood of such a spacefaring race, it does not mean to me that i can entirely rule out that such a possibility exists. and it IS far more plausible because of this than a teacup orbiting mars, becuase why would a tea cup orbit mars?
we have not sent random peices of porcelain into space so there is no reason whatsoever to believe that.
you're comparison of the ancient astronaut theory and an orbiting tea cup is completely unjust and wrong.
April 18, 2011 at 8:43 am (This post was last modified: April 18, 2011 at 8:45 am by orogenicman.)
Quote:there's plenty of possibilities as orogenicman has already proven
Actually, I was pointing out that the possibilities are rather limited, since all of them involve a select few geologic processes slightly mitigated by human activities, none of them involving E.T.
You say that you've been looking for a long time for information on that mountain. Have you tried contacting any geology departments in Peru? It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that you've been asking others to do your homework for you. Here are a few lists of Peruvian universities:
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
