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!
He's been asking me questions in private messages. I don't normally like to devulge those, but I feel that I should at least provide my responses because I think it will help clear things up.
orogenicman Wrote:There are mesas all over Arizona and Utah that have these features. In addition, in the Andes, there are guyots that have been uplifted from the ocean floor. The one in question likely is an outlier, an eroded remnant of a much larger plateau. But its hard to tell from a fuzzy video. I need detailed aerial photographs and topographic and geologic maps to know for sure.
I've read that people have said that they looked for talus from the top of the plateau and couldn't find it anywhere. All I can say to that is show me the geologic field logs, or a published report on their efforts. Because I can promise that if they are looking for eroded remnants of that mountain, all they have to do is to look in the adjacent valley floors. It is surrounded by fluvial fans. The mountain has a surrounding slope, and as the slope erodes the talus ends up in the valleys, including the edges of the top, which gets cut back over time. Now, this doesn't fully explain how the top got flat, of course. If it is a guyot, then it became flattened long before it was uplifted out of the sea. If it was a mesa, then it is the remnant surface of a former more extensive plateau.
If you can get me a latitude and longitude for the mountain, I can get you more information.
'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 16, 2011 at 9:54 am (This post was last modified: April 16, 2011 at 10:02 am by Napoléon.)
(April 16, 2011 at 9:25 am)lilphil1989 Wrote:
(April 16, 2011 at 9:01 am)Napoleon666 Wrote: then this is the whole point of my thread, i was asking from the beginning COULD. if people cannot give me a specific answer for this question of 'how did that mountain form' then i am entitled just like anybody else to give an explanation
Do you realise how exactly like an intelligent design proponent you sound with that argument from ignorance?
"if people cannot give me a specific answer for this question of 'how did life form from unliving organic molecules' then i am entitled just like anybody else to give an explanation..."
Not all explanations are equally valid, and the ancient astronaut is particularly bad:
it raises more questions than it purports to solve, makes completely unjustified assumptions, and is not supported by any evidence.
(April 16, 2011 at 9:01 am)Napoleon666 Wrote: however the theory about ancient aliens is tangible and there are in my opinion
Sorry, but the scientific method doesn't care about your opinion. To quote one Vince Masuka:
That's not opinion, that's science. And science is one cold hearted bitch with a 14 inch strap on!
(April 16, 2011 at 9:01 am)Napoleon666 Wrote: i believe it is quite plausible.
thanks for the input
So what?
My aunt believes that an invisble guy in the sky impregnated a virgin with himself 2000 years ago so that he could sacrifice himself to himself, to atone for wrongs that were his fault in the first place.
My grandmother believes that a vial of water that once contained an irrelevant active ingredient is a valid medical treatment for all possible ailments (homeopathy).
That doesn't make it so.
please understand i am not fucking claiming any of this as scientific! are you not aware that people can come up with theories to explain things? (yes i do realise the irony)
i feel like i am repeating myself over and fucking over, but i did not make this thread with the intention of converting anyone to believing this ancient astronaut theory. end of. it was intended as a point to talk about.
and so what? i'll tell you so what, it's WHAT I WANT TO SAY. this is a forum. i can express an opinion, that is the whole fucking POINT of a forum right?
if by your analysis everyone is wrong and surely the only way of looking at the world is the way you obviously do because it's perfect and leaves no room for being wrong, then man that is one sad, sad world my friend.
we should be free to express opinions and thoughts without having to back up everything we say unless we are claiming things to be true. WHICH I AM NOT DOING. so take your 'evidence' and stick it up your ass
umm hello, i am right here orogenicman. it's almost like you guys have yourselves a little club or something and the rest of us are unworthy of posting on this forum eh?
But we haven't really heard you opinion yet, have we? You say that the point of the thread was just something to talk about because you find it interesting, but aren't making any claims. Then you say that you believe it is possible that alines have been here and that there is (artifactual?) evidence that this is so. So just to clarify, perhaps you could give us YOUR opinion on what you think this mountain is all about and what evidence you have to support your claim, whatever that may be.
You must realize that atheists, and scientists in particular, are very skeptical of fringe claims, particularly those as old and debunked as the Von Daniken claims. So what, exactly did you expect? That is, how did you expect people to respond to it? I'm willing to provide any information I can on the geology of that region, but I need specifics on the mountain itself.
But we haven't really heard you opinion yet, have we? You say that the point of the thread was just something to talk about because you find it interesting, but aren't making any claims. Then you say that you believe it is possible that alines have been here and that there is (artifactual?) evidence that this is so. So just to clarify, perhaps you could give us YOUR opinion on what you think this mountain is all about and what evidence you have to support your claim, whatever that may be.
You must realize that atheists, and scientists in particular, are very skeptical of fringe claims, particularly those as old and debunked as the Von Daniken claims. So what, exactly did you expect? That is, how did you expect people to respond to it? I'm willing to provide any information I can on the geology of that region, but I need specifics on the mountain itself.
'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! "
Donald Charles Noblea, Edward Farrarb and Edwin John Cobbingc
aDepartment of Geology and Geological Engineering, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931U.S.A.
bDepartment of Geological Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont. Canada
cInstitute of Geological Sciences, 154 Clerkenwell Road, London EC1R 5DUEngland
Received 26 March 1978; revised 19 June 1979. Available online 28 October 2002.
Abstract
The Nazca Group, exposed east of Nazca, Peru, consists of a lower part composed of conglomerate and finer-grained clastic strata and an upper part made up of at least seven ash-flow sheets (cooling units or ignimbrites), collectively known as the Nazca Tuff. These tuffs were erupted between about 22 and 18 m.y. ago from a vent area in the vicinity of Pampa Galeras now marked by a collapse caldera. The early Miocene age of the Nazca Tuff provides additional evidence for a major pulse of largely pyroclastic felsic volcanism throughout the central Andes during the early Miocene. Recognition of the Pampa Galeras caldera supports the idea that many of these rocks were erupted from vent areas of the collapse-caldera type located near the eastern margin of the Coastal batholith.
The Nazca Group overlies a major erosional surface cut on the Coastal batholith and its envelope that can be traced southward to the Chilean border. This surface is a continuation of the post-Incaic erosional surface to the north, which is overlain by conglomerate and radiometrically dated volcanic rock of late Eocene age. The post-Incaic surface therefore represents a major episode of regional uplift and pedimentation that followed early Tertiary orogeny. The absence of volcanic rocks of late Eocene/early Oligocene age overlying the Coastal batholith near Nazca and in southern Peru may reflect a general absence of post-Incaic volcanism in this portion of the Andes possibly related to differences in the angle of subduction and/or restriction of volcanic and volcaniclastic rocks of this age to depositional basins east of the batholith.
_____________________
That mountain top is likely a remnant of that pedimentation that was modified by the builders of the Nazca lines.
I hope this helps
'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 16, 2011 at 10:15 am (This post was last modified: April 16, 2011 at 10:18 am by Napoléon.)
yeah for sure man, i get it entirely; you guys are very critical by nature.
but i just feel as though i'm having what i'm saying picked apart as though i'm the one arguing a point?
am i arguing a point? am i saying this is true? no?
my thoughts on this whole thing, which seem to have already been assumed before they were asked (if you'll read what lilphil first posted) are that it is bullshit. however i do think it's all interesting and i find the answer to the 'what if it did happen scenario' very interesting indeed.
i mean i want to know how that mountain looks as though it's cut in half because, guess what, it's fucking incredible! the fact that there is a huge strip on top that looks like a runway makes it even more weird!
it just seems to me that in trying to ridicule the arguments of this theory, people came very damn close to ridiculing me. some of you guys can be very harsh in the way you come across, and i've only become so agitated by it because i feel as though many people on here have already assumed what my thoughts are without asking.
as for what i expected people to say? if they thought it was bullshit i certainly wasn't expecting them to be jumping on me about it
please understand i am not fucking claiming any of this as scientific! are you not aware that people can come up with theories to explain things? (yes i do realise the irony)
i feel like i am repeating myself over and fucking over, but i did not make this thread with the intention of converting anyone to believing this ancient astronaut theory. end of. it was intended as a point to talk about.
and so what? i'll tell you so what, it's WHAT I WANT TO SAY. this is a forum. i can express an opinion, that is the whole fucking POINT of a forum right?
if by your analysis everyone is wrong and surely the only way of looking at the world is the way you obviously do because it's perfect and leaves no room for being wrong, then man that is one sad, sad world my friend.
Talking about it is exactly what we're doing. If you're going to interpret my criticism of the ancient astronaut theory as a personal insult, there's not a great deal I can do about that.
I never claimed to be incapable of being wrong. I actually conceded the possibility of this alien stuff being true. I really don't know why you feel the need to be so hostile.
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 16, 2011 at 10:58 am)lilphil1989 Wrote: Talking about it is exactly what we're doing. If you're going to interpret my criticism of the ancient astronaut theory as a personal insult, there's not a great deal I can do about that.
I never claimed to be incapable of being wrong. I actually conceded the possibility of this alien stuff being true. I really don't know why you feel the need to be so hostile.
i am sorry i haven't used a forum before so it is kinda hard interpreting the way everyone is saying things. in all honesty i feel as though i'm being misjudged before anyone thought of asking what my point of view was. either way i said from the start it was all more than likely bullshit. this is why i didnt get why you were picking apart what i was saying, because i never claimed any of it to be fact from the beginning. just an interesting topic.
April 16, 2011 at 12:12 pm (This post was last modified: April 16, 2011 at 12:44 pm by downbeatplumb.)
To get back to your original question.
"Could E.T.s have influenced religion"
You first have to prove that aliens exist.
I admit that the existance of aliens is more likely than the existance of gods.
But that is a long way from proving that they exist, are smarter than us and visited in the past.
The 'evidence' for this is spurious at best and is the provinence of people like david icke.
April 16, 2011 at 12:23 pm (This post was last modified: April 16, 2011 at 12:24 pm by Napoléon.)
(April 16, 2011 at 12:12 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: To get back to your original question.
"Could E.T.s have influenced religion"
You first have to prove that aliens exist.
I admit that the existance of aliens is more likely than he existance of gods.
But that is a long way from proroving hat they exist, are smarter han us and visited in he past.
The 'evidence' for this is spurious at best and is the province of people like david icke.
So my answer is, probably not.
thank you, an answer which is precise and to the point, gives good grounds and reasoning and does not pick apart what anyone else has said for no reason eureka!
(April 16, 2011 at 12:23 pm)Napoleon666 Wrote: thank you, an answer which is precise and to the point, gives good grounds and reasoning and does not pick apart what anyone else has said for no reason eureka!
eureka!
