Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Unexplained Mysteries and Paranormal
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-18-2017, 06:50 AM
 
14,984 posts, read 23,758,508 times
Reputation: 26468

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
Really, the best archeology can be is a bunch of theories.

Guessing what something was used for is fun but is not really scientific at all and it is no good pretending it is. Dating objects is rather a hit-and-miss affair. Stones cannot be dated and Carbon dating is only good for certain types of materials, also there is a huge margin for error.

Elongated skulls without central sutures are all passed off as head binding but known head bound people do not have missing central sutures because they are still human in spite of the skull similarities.

So, I would say many anomalies are ignored or another theory is made up to account for it.

How does archeology account for the knowledge of the stars and the rotations of the planets ?
No man, that's not what a theory, in regards to when the term is used in a scientific reference, is about. You are misusing the term - you are mistaking that term, "theory", with "conjecture" or "hypothesis". Theories are scientifically established from hypothesis based on rigid criteria including testing and retesting, objective support data, academic peer reviews, etc. This follows a defined scientific process. The "theories" about evolution, ancient archaeology, ancient building, etc are not guesses, are not conjecture, are not hypothesis, but are recognized and accepted based on rigid support.

The problem with aliens and ancient structures is that it has never surpassed the hypothesis stage, or even the wild observation stage as it simply cannot withstand the scientific criteria needed to test and gather data in order to be a theory. In many cases you have "UFO experts" that refuse to even consider the scientific method of establishing a hypothesis or data, they won't share data, they won't undergo peer review.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-18-2017, 08:17 AM
 
Location: Maine
22,831 posts, read 28,056,422 times
Reputation: 30982
Hey, I enjoy ANCIENT ALIENS as much as anyone. But as entertainment, not information. Before anyone disregards decades of peer-reviewed scientific conclusions in favor of ANCIENT ALIENS conjecture, consider the source.

Giorgio A. Tsoukalos (the ANCIENT ALIENS host with the awesome hair) has a Bachelor's Degree in sports information and communication from Ithaca College. He has no professional training in science, archaeology, physics, biology, or chemistry. He began his post-college career as a bodybuilding promoter. So this is a guy you want to take seriously in interpreting archaeology and history?

Giorgio is wonderfully entertaining. But in the same vein as Benny Hinn and Jack Van Impe and John Edwards. Please don't take him seriously.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2017, 10:50 PM
 
Location: UK
6,905 posts, read 6,794,183 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
The problem with aliens and ancient structures is that it has never surpassed the hypothesis stage, or even the wild observation stage as it simply cannot withstand the scientific criteria needed to test and gather data in order to be a theory. In many cases you have "UFO experts" that refuse to even consider the scientific method of establishing a hypothesis or data, they won't share data, they won't undergo peer review.
You know as well as I do that no scientist outside the military would currently do the science on this. It would be the kiss of death to their career and they would not be feeding their family for long. The academic peer review is often not as rigorous as you suggest it should be. Sure, it is the best we have at the moment, but unfortunately there are not many self-financed scientists any longer who could withstand the onslaught of criticism and ridicule. Nikola Tesla died a lonely broken man feeding pigeons - remember?

"UFO experts" have to be citizen scientists because no real scientists have the kahunas to step forward and do the science. There has to be a few scientists who will undertake such an investigation before you can claim all science should be done by scientists.

OK, come on then, you sound like you know what you are talking about...HOW would "ancient structures" on Mars or the Moon be scientifically investigated ? WHO would you get to academically peer review it? When you get down to the nitty-gritty I think you will agree it is hard to achieve this objective in the current scientific climate. However, after all that and being cynical, I doubt whether you will come back and answer my challenge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2017, 07:51 AM
 
Location: Falls Church, Fairfax County
5,162 posts, read 4,455,077 times
Reputation: 6336
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
You know as well as I do that no scientist outside the military would currently do the science on this. It would be the kiss of death to their career and they would not be feeding their family for long.
No, I do not know this. That is because there is nothing to back it up. People have tried in the past and found nothing or made egregious claims that were later proven wrong.

People do not do it because there is nothing to find. If there were something to it people would be researching it and putting time into it FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT.

Ancient Aliens Theorists believe that the lack of evidence is proof of a conspiracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
The academic peer review is often not as rigorous as you suggest it should be.
It does not have to be....the fact is they open themselves up for peer review while you do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
Sure, it is the best we have at the moment, but unfortunately there are not many self-financed scientists any longer who could withstand the onslaught of criticism and ridicule. Nikola Tesla died a lonely broken man feeding pigeons - remember?
This has nothing to do with Tesla. There would be money there if it were real. If they could find metals or technology there would be corporate money. A LOT of corporate money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
"UFO experts" have to be citizen scientists because no real scientists have the kahunas to step forward and do the science.
This is a blatant lie. "real" scientists have stepped forward to do the science it is just nothing was found so they move on.

Citizen "scientists" do this for money and notoriety and when they are proven wrong they use the fact that they are amateurs as an excuse and a cop out.

But regardless if a citizen "scientist" found real evidence it would be taken seriously. I am waiting for them to find something. What has it been? 40?-50?-60? years?

Not to mention the thousands of years of humans watching the sky before UFO's became a thing.

The show Ancient Aliens uses "“ancient alien theorists believe" because they want to say it without anyone backing it up or putting their name to it. It is stupid.

For anyone interested here is a video debunking Ancient Aliens.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9w-i5oZqaQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
There has to be a few scientists who will undertake such an investigation before you can claim all science should be done by scientists.
Well this is a start.

ocpaul20, can you clarify for me please. Are you saying that no scientist has ever looked for proof of alien life?

I just think this is a good opportunity for you to make a stand and us to get you to make a clear and concise statement. Honest people have no problem doing that.

Thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
OK, come on then, you sound like you know what you are talking about...HOW would "ancient structures" on Mars or the Moon be scientifically investigated ?
They do that now.

See this one article about the "face" on Mars.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...001/ast24may_1
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
WHO would you get to academically peer review it?
How about NAS (see above) or Noah Petro, deputy project scientist for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission:

Mystery Of Moon's 'Unnatural' 4-Mile-High Spire Explained | HuffPost

Do you need additional clarification?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
When you get down to the nitty-gritty I think you will agree it is hard to achieve this objective in the current scientific climate. However, after all that and being cynical, I doubt whether you will come back and answer my challenge.
It is difficult to make any scientific claim without evidence.

ocpaul20 give us your best evidence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2017, 07:59 AM
 
14,984 posts, read 23,758,508 times
Reputation: 26468
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
You know as well as I do that no scientist outside the military would currently do the science on this. It would be the kiss of death to their career and they would not be feeding their family for long. The academic peer review is often not as rigorous as you suggest it should be. Sure, it is the best we have at the moment, but unfortunately there are not many self-financed scientists any longer who could withstand the onslaught of criticism and ridicule. Nikola Tesla died a lonely broken man feeding pigeons - remember?

"UFO experts" have to be citizen scientists because no real scientists have the kahunas to step forward and do the science. There has to be a few scientists who will undertake such an investigation before you can claim all science should be done by scientists.

OK, come on then, you sound like you know what you are talking about...HOW would "ancient structures" on Mars or the Moon be scientifically investigated ? WHO would you get to academically peer review it? When you get down to the nitty-gritty I think you will agree it is hard to achieve this objective in the current scientific climate. However, after all that and being cynical, I doubt whether you will come back and answer my challenge.
I don't agree at all. Legitimate science groups and government organizations are spending billions of dollars in attempts to identify life on alien planets - be it beaming and receiving radio waves into space, probes with information on human life and how to contact us, and unmanned craft landing on mars to perform various experiments to find proof of life outside this planet.

Imagine, not the scorn and ridicule, but the celebration by a legitimate archeologists or science if they did indeed find proof of ancient alien life on earth. It would be a sea change. This would be every scientists dream to make such an impact. Pictures on the cover of national geographic, interviews on late night TV, government research grants to last the rest of your life, etc.

No, you are simply getting into tin foil hat territory.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2017, 05:12 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,059 posts, read 106,854,652 times
Reputation: 115809
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
Perhaps playing into the skeptics hands with this one...

I was watching Ancient Aliens Series 12 Episode 4 and they seemed to be making a case for alien architects influencing the building of temples on different continents. The examples they gave the temple ruins at Cambodia Angkor Wat (left) and Guatemala's Tikal Ruins (right). This is a screenshot to illustrate the post but I encourage those who want to know more to try and find this episode (including the guy with the funny hair) online.

These temples both have very similar structures. Although different sizes, they both have a number of steps, central stairs, with a door-like opening at the top of the steps. They also both have a kind of dome on the top too.

Could these similar structures be just a coincidence? Both cultures attribute the design to a being who was taken into heaven and taught design, maths and sciences.
Most of the architecture at Anchor Watt is very different from Mayan architecture. In any case, originally, stepped pyramids like that had thatched=roof huts on top, for ceremonial purposes. As the architecture evolved, the perishable huts were replaced by stone structures. That's why they look similar. Pyramids were the only way ancient man knew of building tall buildings, other than creating high mounds, which is what the pyramids in the Olmec and proto-Mayan regions started out as.

Furthermore, before making the leap to posit extra-terrestrial influence, one would first have to investigate the possibility of human migration being the explanation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2017, 12:48 AM
 
Location: UK
6,905 posts, read 6,794,183 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
Most of the architecture at Anchor Watt is very different from Mayan architecture. In any case, originally, stepped pyramids like that had thatched=roof huts on top, for ceremonial purposes. As the architecture evolved, the perishable huts were replaced by stone structures. That's why they look similar. Pyramids were the only way ancient man knew of building tall buildings, other than creating high mounds, which is what the pyramids in the Olmec and proto-Mayan regions started out as.
I can see how the sky-scraper shape had not yet been invented so a pyramid was a natural alternative. However, we still have to account for the large stones which were moved into place. Some of these are huge, some have been fitted and they have to be moved up mountains too.

Today, we might be able to explain the huge stones getting to the pyramids at Giza by barge on water but how do we account for the pyramids and structures built at the top of mountains?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2017, 08:12 AM
 
Location: Maine
22,831 posts, read 28,056,422 times
Reputation: 30982
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
However, we still have to account for the large stones which were moved into place. Some of these are huge, some have been fitted and they have to be moved up mountains too.

Today, we might be able to explain the huge stones getting to the pyramids at Giza by barge on water but how do we account for the pyramids and structures built at the top of mountains?
Human beings are really smart. Our brains are the same brains that people had 10,000 years ago. We can figure out some amazing things, and modern humans are not inherently smarter than our ancestors from 10,000 years ago.

If you'll do a little research (beyond The History Channel), you'll see that there are very good explanations for all these supposed "unsolved mysteries." Here is just one:

The Construction of Machu Picchu: How Did the Incas Build Machu Picchu? Construction Techniques, Materials, Purpose...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2017, 10:13 PM
 
Location: UK
6,905 posts, read 6,794,183 times
Reputation: 6509
Mark, if you even just read Construction Techniques and Construction Materials in that article you linked to, you will see that what you said is not addressed by this article. It does not offer any explanation - except that they used the wedge and water technique to split the stones. It does however raise another interesting point that he says the Incas did not know of the wheel, although even rolling something along the ground would imply a wheel-like device.

Quote:
The rocks were probably cut with the so-called wooden wedge technique: holes were drilled into the rocks and wet wooden wedges were inserted into them. After that the constructors waited until the wet wooden wedges froze.The ice having bigger volume than water, forces the rock and creates fissures.

But the wooden wedge technique cannot explain the smoothness and perfect straightness of the bricks.

We do not know how the Incas made measurements, calculations. They did not write, but they managed to construct such complex cities.

It is also interesting to mention that the the Incas did not know the wheel!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2017, 06:34 AM
 
Location: Falls Church, Fairfax County
5,162 posts, read 4,455,077 times
Reputation: 6336
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
But the wooden wedge technique cannot explain the smoothness and perfect straightness of the bricks.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Unexplained Mysteries and Paranormal

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top