Forums | MacLife

sturner wrote:

Bren wrote:

If the technology was there, howcome the newer pyramids lack the great pyramid's impossible-to-replicate level of precision? And if the great pyramid was built by Egyptians, I again ask, where did the water-erosion damage come from?

Let's not forget the cannon fire damage on the Sphinx put there by Napoleons bored artillerymen.

If you're talking about the nose, that's just a myth.

Tallgeese wrote:

jerwin wrote:

Imagine that you discover an ancient stone room. You get out your metre stick, and find out that the dimensions are 22 cubits by 7 cubits. What does that tell you?

That someone swapped my metre stick for a cubit stick.

Well, exactly. To prove that the room represents pi, you have to measure it with enough precision to differentiate pi from 3. It would be helpful if you had some idea of the mathematical prowess of the surrounding culture. Although there are probably some modern artifacts that are precisely equivalent to 3.14 +/- 0.00000000001

jerwin wrote:

Bren wrote:

Well yes, among other things. There's also the fact that the pyramid's placement relative to other monuments in its vicinity, as well as its placement relative to magnetic North and its lattitude and longitude betray a knowledge of geography and astronomy which the Egyptians are not know to have possessed.

Who were the ancient engineers of egypt?

CSICOP has very little credibility. They start with the basic, unscientific premise that there's nothing extraordinary, supernatural, or contradictory to the received wisdom anywhere, and then they go from there. Very typical of professional skeptics.

Regarding the sphinx: Are y'all familiar with the theories that it originally had some other type of head, and that its current head was later chiseled out of the original by some ego-maniacal pharoah? It certainly does look a bit too small for the body.

Though I guess a human head on a lion's body would look kinda smallish.

It is unscientific to begin your "investigations" with a desired outcome in mind and then ignore any hard facts which might dissuade anybody from believing in your desired outcome. This is exactly what CSICOP and other "skeptic" organizations do. As such, they are practicing pseudo-science, the very thing which they claim to be fighting.

Bren wrote:

It is unscientific to begin your "investigations" with a desired outcome in mind and then ignore any hard facts which might dissuade anybody from believing in your desired outcome. This is exactly what CSICOP and other "skeptic" organizations do. As such, they are practicing pseudo-science, the very thing which they claim to be fighting.

At least they're specifically saying that they're skeptical about the paranormal rather than giving a blanket claim of being "skeptics".

Bren wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

What hard facts are you talking about?

They cling to a strictly mechanical view of the universe, and reject anomalous data,

That's the boundaries in which science can operate. You might not like that they take a scientific approach, but science only works when you assume a solely physical / natural universe.

Its a fine line between filtering data and rejecting data that you don't like. If you are assuming the existence of a natural universe, filtering out data that disagrees with that starting assumption is kosher in my book.

Now, now, I know you think that skeptics are a humorless lot (for modern medicine has debunked the notion) , but I for one was amused by this piece in Skeptic Magazine.

Charioteer of the Gods H.P. Lovecraft and the Invention of Ancient Astronauts

Lovecraft’s works recast the supernatural into materialist terms. He took the idea of a pantheon of ancient gods and made them a group of aliens who descend ed to earth in the distant past. Lovecraft summed up this startlingly original idea in his 1926 short story “The Call of Cthulhu.” In the story, a young man puts together the pieces of an ancient puzzle and discovers the shocking truth about a monstrous race of alien creatures who served as gods to a strange cult:

HP Lovecraft wrote:

There had been aeons when other Things ruled on the earth, and They had had great cities. Remains of Them—were still found as Cyclopean stones on islands in the Pacific. They all died vast epochs of time before men came, but there were arts which could revive Them when the stars had come round again to the right positions in the cycle of eternity. They had, indeed, come themselves from the stars, and brought Their images with Them.

In just these few short sentences we see the root of the entire ancient astronaut hypothesis. The ancient gods or demons were aliens who descended to earth in primal times. They raised great stone cities whose remains are the ancient ruins of today. Lastly, the ancient sculptures depicted the aliens. All of these claims are to be found in von Daniken’s Chariots:

Erich von Daniken wrote:

These first men had tremendous respect for the space travelers. Because they came from somewhere absolutely unknown and then returned there again, they were the “gods” to them.
In advanced cultures of the past we find buildings that we cannot copy today with the most modern technical means. These stone masses are there; they cannot be argued away.
Another quite fantastic discovery was the Great Idol [of Tiwanaku] … Again we have the contradiction between the superb quality and precision of the hundreds of symbols all over the idol and the primitive technique used for the building housing it.

In fact, only one of von Daniken’s major claims is missing from the Cthulhu story, that the ancient gods created mankind in their own image. Lovecraft has an answer for that, too. In his 1931 story “At the Mountains of Madness,” explorers find an incomparably old city in Antarctica, and the sculptures on the walls tell a horrifying story of how the Old Ones created Earth’s lifeforms: “It was under the sea, at first for food and later for other purposes, that they first created earth life—using available substances according to long-known methods. It interested us to see in some of the very last and most decadent sculptures a shambling, primitive mammal, used sometimes for food and sometimes as an amusing buffoon by the land dwellers, whose vaguely simian and human foreshadowings were unmistakable.”

Someone will doubtless point out that Lovecraft was a racist bastard; it might as well be me.

Last edited by jerwin (2009-11-07 11:31 pm)

Though it is never inappropriate to point out that von Daniken was utterly full of smurf.

Tell me, Bren, what's the use of science if we already know that the answers are "god and "aliens"? What's the use of excavating this pyramid, if we know that it's only going to be an inferior copy of "Khufu's"

Last edited by jerwin (2009-11-08 12:48 am)

jerwin wrote:

Tell me, Bren, what's the use of science if we already know that the answers are "god and "aliens"?

The answer doesn't have to be "God" or "aliens." It's entirely possible, and, in fact, probable, that the ancient, highly advanced civilization(s) in question were human.

What's the use of excavating this pyramid, if we know that it's only going to be an inferior copy of "Khufu's"

Your question doesn't make sense. Why would I be opposed to excavating any pyramid? If it can be done without destroying valuable artifacts, go for it!

The burden of proof is on them. They're the ones whose articles only appear to hold water if the reader is ignorant of all the facts the writers have selectively ignored.