Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 11th, 2012, 08:03 PM   #61

Sankari's Avatar
What we have, we hold
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: 6th Century Constantinople
Posts: 3,334
Blog Entries: 1
Arrow


Quote:
Originally Posted by AAS View Post
I still fail to see how all ancient art depictions of strange objects and beings were entirely debunked...references?
Take a look at the post right here.
Sankari is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 11th, 2012, 08:27 PM   #62

Sankari's Avatar
What we have, we hold
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: 6th Century Constantinople
Posts: 3,334
Blog Entries: 1
Arrow


Quote:
Originally Posted by Panthera tigris altaica View Post
I wonder if this guy knows of these funny little potshots at himself?
He probably takes it as a compliment.
Sankari is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 09:07 PM   #63

Zarin's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaddam IV View Post
It think the hammer in question is the one known as the "The London Hammer", reportedly found in London, Texas in 1936, which is claimed to be dated to be hundred of millions of years old based upon the surrounding material it was claimed to be found in.

Here is a nice detailed article that sums up the history of the object and the numerous factual issues that don't support the claims of the hammers reported age.

The London Hammer: An Alleged Out of Place Artifact
I'm having a problem with the material offered up by this link. The author keeps referring to the people involved as "creationist" theorists. Now I may be wrong but "creationists" are not likely to support any age for an object that goes back to the cretaceous many millions of years ago. Creationists tend to believe the world only began around 6,000 years ago. Creationists also believe in a strict interpretation of the Bible.
The other information provided may be geologically accurate, but the object within the surrounding stone is obviously iron and there is a wooden handle attached to it. The handle is surrounded by stone and appears trapped inside this stone like material. The dating of the stone matrix is possible as well as the wood in the handle by carbon dating. Both of these criteria would resolve once and for all the age of this particular object. If the carbon dating placed this object far back in time it would present a major conundrum.
If anything undermines the credibility of this object, it is that it was not discovered as seen "in situ." Much more could be ascertained about it, if it had been left in the matrix in which it was originally discovered.
Zarin is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 02:25 AM   #64
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 684

Quote:
Originally Posted by AAS View Post
I'll stop there....While most if not all the evidence is circumstantial and flimsy I go by the mere quantity (not even a drop in the bucket covered above).
You're employing a common fallacy here. A plethora of little bullshits put together do not make a solid argument. They make a huge, steaming pile of bullshit.

The standard technique for the defence of nonsensical gibberish is to pile up mountains of supposed evidence one after the other, with little detail, to give the impression of a theory with lots of support. Explaining why each is wrong takes a lot more time than a one sentence declaration that it's right, so it's very difficult for anyone to show how you're wrong in any reasonable amount of time. However, since this is the quiet winter season in my job, I will endeavour to devote some time to it. The important thing to remember is that the theory stands on its evidence. When all the individual pieces of evidence are shown to be nonsense or unconvincing, you're left with an unconvincing, nonsensical argument. Falling back on 'but there's loads more!' is a cop out.

Starting from the bottom upwards:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AAS View Post
Stuff about religion and the existence of alien life
This is irrelevant. I don't believe in God and I think the existence of alien life is quite likely. None of this has any bearing on ancient astronauts.

Quote:
"Alien DNA" found in our own....named such because it represents a species only known from the DNA evidence in our DNA, not because it is 'known' to be from ET origin
This is just gibberish. There is no alien DNA in us. It's difficult to grasp exactly what you're trying to claim here, but as far as I can see it's that there is something in human DNA not in any other organism's DNA. All DNA we've found on earth is made up of the same stuff. DNA is a backbone of sugars and a sequence made up of the four nucleobases - adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine. Human DNA is no different, so what is there in it that could be alien? If you mean that it contains unique DNA sequences, then yes it does. That's why we're humans rather than, for example, cabbages. Cabbage DNA has unique sequences, rabbit DNA has unique sequences, E. coli DNA has unique sequences - all species have unique DNA because they're all unique species.

Please clarify what you mean if there's a rational point lurking somewhere that I missed.

Quote:
I may be jumping the gun on this one a bit but I will include the Baltic Sea Anamoly
I had to look this one up, so I will explain for everyone else who has no idea what the 'Baltic Sea Anomaly' is.

A team of commercial divers from Sweden, making a documentary series (and so eager for something dramatic to promote) noticed an object of some 60 metres in diameter at a depth of about 90 metres in the Baltic Sea. They have released a poor quality sonar scan of the object, which people cited on wikipedia have variously identified as a WWII German anti-submarine device, the turret from a warship or, by far the most popular explanation - some rock.

The diving team donated some samples from the object to Stockholm university. Analysis revealed that the samples consisted of.... some rock.

So, to recap, some divers found some rock underwater. I am baffled as to how this could possibly be presented as evidence for aliens interfering in human history.

Quote:
ancient depictions of possiblr UFOs and ETs as well as modern sightings and abduction accounts
This is far too vague to be dealt with. I assume 'possible depictions' means every myth you can find with a monster, or an angel, or something that flies. To a mind already looking for ancient aliens, this may make sense as evidence. But given that no independent evidence has yet been presented, ancient myths are simply evidence that people made myths. Further discussion would require you to present something specific.

Quote:
Ica stones
The Ica stones are a bunch of andesite stones carved with pictures of dinosaurs and tools by a couple of Peruvian farmers and then sold to tourists. They have produced thousands of them. People who use these stones to support whatever wild and whacky theory they have about pre-Columbian America like to claim that, although there are thousands of forged stones, they're copied from genuine originals millions of years old. What reason there is to believe this, and how the 'genuine' stones are distniguished from the thousands of fakes, is unclear.

Quote:
Eltanin antenna (possibly a sea sponge though)
No, not 'possibly' a sponge. It is a sponge. A bizarre looking sponge named Cladorhiza concrecens. It was identified back in the 19th century by Alexander Agassiz (son of Louis Agassiz - one of the last biologists to reject evolution). While it did look very much like a man-made structure in a very poor quality 1960s photograph, at this website you can see a reproduction of Agassiz's 1888 drawing; and here you can see a modern, colour photograph which makes it's biological nature quite clear.

More later - I should do some work at least so I don't get fired.
Kaficek is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 04:17 AM   #65
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 684

Alright - back to the gibberish:

Quote:
Baigong pipes
Once again, I had to look to Wikipedia to discover what you were talking about here. Let's consider exactly what this evidence amounts to:

The Chinese media reported that, on and near Mount Baigong, scientists had discovered some hollow, circular formations. A picture from Wikipedia is included below:

Click the image to open in full size.

Now, before any more is said on the matter, I have to ask what I'm even supposed to be debunking here? I'm not noticing any argument. "There are some cyndrical formations on a mountain in China. Therefore aliens interfered in human history." This seems something of a non sequitur to me.

Quote:
The Dogon tribe's knowledge of the sirius star system. Even claims that it invloves a third star...as well as other ancient cultures claims of knowledge of ETs and heavenly bodies that could not be studied without magnification...so either they made telescopes, or someone taught them about these heavenly bodies
I notice three claims here. That the Dogon had intimate knowledge of the Sirius system; that ancient cultures claimed knowledge of extra-terrestrials; and that ancient cultures had knowledge of heavenly bodies invisible to the naked eye. The latter two claims I shall ignore unless you actually have an example more specific than this. The first claim is a more interesting discussion.

The claim originates from anthropological work Marcel Griaule and Germaine Dieterlen published in 1948. The entire discussion of the Dogon's astronomical lore comes from discussion with one man, a blind man named Ogotemmeli, who claimed to know a lot of the tribe's secret lore. He supposedly identified that the star Sirius was, in fact, made up of several companion bodies in the sky. Sirius is, in fact, made up of two stars which appear to us as one, and it was theorised that there was a third star in the system as well. Recent astronomical observations suggest this isn't true, however, and no evidence has yet been found of planets in the system.

Which raises a few questions about Ogotemmeli's account. As published in Griaule and Dieterlen's book, the Sirius system consisted of nine bodies. Sigu tolo, according to Griaule, was the main star Sirius A; while Po tolo was its smaller companion star Sirius B. What the remaining seven objects are supposed to be is unclear. Of course, it's always possible that there are small planets around Sirius that we're unable to detect with current technologies, and the Ogotemmeli knew about because aliens told him. And at least he was aware that Sirius was, in fact, more than one object.

But was he? An important point to remember is that all this infomation comes from one man, and this one man was blind. Let's assume for a moment that he wasn't simply making things up to amuse himself; or to make himself seem important to the anthropologists ("Oh of course - I know all] the secret Dogon lore. Very well informed, me!"). A blind man described something in the skys to an anthropologist, who also happened to be an amateur astronomer. Could he not simply be projecting his own interpretations onto the myths of others?

One way we can check this is to look at information from latwer anthropological work with the Dogon. Walter van Beek worked with the Dogon in 1991. He tried to find people who could confirm Griaule's and Dieterlen's account. He failed. Sigu tolo, which Griaule had interpreted as Sirius A from a blind man's description, was identified by Dogon who could see as Venus. Not all agreed with the Venus identification - others said that Sigu tolo was invisible. All of a sudden, this apparent deep insight into astronomy turns out to have never existed in the first place.

Back to work!
Kaficek is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 05:33 AM   #66
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 684

To continue:

Quote:
Dogu figurines said to depict aliens or astronauts
Dogu, it seems, are clay figures that were made in neolithic Japan. Some are of animals, others of humanoid figures. They usually have goggle eyes and very broad hips. The broad hips has led people to suggest that they were some sort of fertility symbol or fertility goddess - the same as is said for the 'Venus' figurines from the European Palaeolithic. Humanoid figurines are not evidence for aliens.

Quote:
Pacal's sarcophagus lid depicting (arguably) Pacal operating a spacecraft
'Arguably' is a polite way of putting it. It only looks like someone piloting a rocket ship to people familiar with 20th century pulp scifi. Just as the image shown here instantly looks to us like someone in ancient Rome using a laptop. Speculative interpretations of ancient art, of which you do not understand any of the conventions, is not evidence.

Quote:
ancient accounts in every culture of air and spacecraft. models of aricraft that when scaled up were actually aerodynamic enough to take flight (the only alterations made were the adding on of a power source and propellor). The saqarra bird found in egypt also flew when a scale model was tested
Ancient accounts of flying things simply mean that people believed things could fly. Birds can fly, so not much imagination is required to make this leap. As for these alleged models, I call bullshit - show us what models you're talking about.

As for the Saqqara bird - no, it didn't fly. It is true that Khalil Messiha, an advocate of all sorts of New Age silliness, made a scaled-up model which he claimed could fly. However, he had to add a stabiliser to it, otherwise it didn't fly. If you have to change a design and add bits so that something will fly, it does not mean that the original design could fly. It means the opposite.

Of course, if someone did make a toy which was capable of gliding in the ancient world, this would simply mean that someone made a toy that was capable of gliding, and would not constitute evidence of ancient aliens. Aliens were not necessary for me to fold paper aeroplanes as a child.
Kaficek is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 06:17 AM   #67

Sicknero's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Here to Eternity
Posts: 4,015

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaficek View Post
Once again, I had to look to Wikipedia to discover what you were talking about here. Let's consider exactly what this evidence amounts to:

The Chinese media reported that, on and near Mount Baigong, scientists had discovered some hollow, circular formations. A picture from Wikipedia is included below:

Click the image to open in full size.

Now, before any more is said on the matter, I have to ask what I'm even supposed to be debunking here? I'm not noticing any argument. "There are some cyndrical formations on a mountain in China. Therefore aliens interfered in human history." This seems something of a non sequitur to me.
The 'Baijong pipes' (along with two other similar phenomena, I forget where) are interesting because on first discovery they appeared to be an instance of iron pipework that pre-dated by far any known instance of humans having such technology.

Latest research though says that they are the casts of prehistoric plants - the 'iron' is a deposit formed by natural processes and the explanation is apparently borne out by the discovery of traces of organic matter and tree rings.

The Baigong Pipes
Sicknero is online now  
Old December 12th, 2012, 06:31 AM   #68
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 684

More!

Quote:
Nazca lines
The Nazca lines are big pictures shallowly carved in rock by removing the surface layers. This is not evidence for ancient Aliens. No special technology is required for their construction. We could manage it ourselves, without any fancy equipment. What's your point?

Quote:
dendera lamps (depictions of lightbulbs in egyptian heiroglyphs)
More pareidolia. The images in Dendera are no more lightblubs than the object from the Roman relief I linked to in the previous post was a laptop. They're lotus blossoms. Here below is an image of the reliefs from wikipedia. Not, particularly, the very plant-like appearance of the base of the bulb. Note, also, that the 'filament' inside the bulb is quite clearly a snake, with a head. It's also worth bearing in mind that this inscription isn't from some long lost past about which we have only scanty written evidence. On the contrary, it's in a temple built in 54 BC, during the reign of Ptolemy XII and only a couple of decades before the Roman conquest. None of the ample written materials from this time suggest that people had lightbulbs. It's also worth pointing out, lastly, that the inscriptions underneath say what the object is - it's Ra's sun barge. These are typically depicted with a symbol associated with the sun at the bow - for example, a lotus flower.

Click the image to open in full size.

Quote:
--baghdad battery (used for electroplating but still an example of electricity)
Whilst it has been suggested that the 'Baghdad batteries' were used for electroplating, this is unlikely. It has been experimentally demonstrated that similar devices could be used to generate a weak current but, crucially, not as they were actually designed. The copper cylinders within were coated with insulating bitumen, and thus wouldn't actually produce a current.

Even if these things were very inefficient ways of generating a weak current for electroplating, I fail to see how this implies aliens. I'd like to think someone capable of traversing intergalactic distances would have slightly more effective power sources.

Quote:
kingoodie artifact
Another one I had to look up, and here's what the entire story consists of:

in 1844, Sir David Brewster reported that a nail had been discovered partially embedded in some sandstone.

And that's all we have, No further documentation - no pictures. This is not evidence for ancient aliens! This is nothing to do with ancient aliens. I'm too bored to continue with this silliness. Up to now I can't see any evidence at all for ancient aliens - not even weak, questionable evidence. It's not 'circumstantial'. It's 'non-existent'.
Kaficek is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 06:34 AM   #69
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 684

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sicknero View Post
The 'Baijong pipes' (along with two other similar phenomena, I forget where) are interesting because on first discovery they appeared to be an instance of iron pipework that pre-dated by far any known instance of humans having such technology.

Latest research though says that they are the casts of prehistoric plants - the 'iron' is a deposit formed by natural processes and the explanation is apparently borne out by the discovery of traces of organic matter and tree rings.

The Baigong Pipes
Thanks for the explanation!
Kaficek is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 07:54 AM   #70

Shaddam IV's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,190

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarin View Post
I'm having a problem with the material offered up by this link. The author keeps referring to the people involved as "creationist" theorists. Now I may be wrong but "creationists" are not likely to support any age for an object that goes back to the cretaceous many millions of years ago. Creationists tend to believe the world only began around 6,000 years ago. Creationists also believe in a strict interpretation of the Bible.
The other information provided may be geologically accurate, but the object within the surrounding stone is obviously iron and there is a wooden handle attached to it. The handle is surrounded by stone and appears trapped inside this stone like material. The dating of the stone matrix is possible as well as the wood in the handle by carbon dating. Both of these criteria would resolve once and for all the age of this particular object. If the carbon dating placed this object far back in time it would present a major conundrum.
If anything undermines the credibility of this object, it is that it was not discovered as seen "in situ." Much more could be ascertained about it, if it had been left in the matrix in which it was originally discovered.
Creationist are using the hammer as evidence that current accepted Earth geological dating methods are wrong because of the material the hammer is supposedly found in. The hammer's design itself seems to date it to 19th century. Given the fact that there is no evidence that the hammer actually came out of the Lower Cretaceous Hensel Sand Formation in London, Texas which is dated to around 110-115 million years old, and that there is a well known natural process that can cause modern objects to be encased in material from older geological strata, it seems only logical that one would conclude that the hammer is relatively modern and the claims made about it's age are simply wrong.

The London Hammer: An Alleged Out of Place Artifact
Quote:
Although the hammer has been kept under close guard by Baugh and thus not readily available for detailed analysis by conventional scientists, in 1985 NCSE researcher John Cole briefly reviewed Baugh's hammer claims. Although Cole did not challenge Baugh's presumption at the time that the nearby rocks were Ordovician, Cole pointed out that minerals dissolved from ancient strata could harden around a recent object, stating:
The stone is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. How could a modern artifact be stuck in Ordovician rock? The answer is that the concretion itself is not Ordovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically soluble (Cole, 1985).
Cole also noted that the hammer is of "recent American historic style," and concluded that it was probably a 19th century miner's hammer. Others have suggested that it might be a metal working hammer, and that the protrusion on one end of the head might have once contained a leather or wood cap that has since weathered away (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994). Perhaps further research will clarify its actual use and precise age.
The ‘London hammer’ (Texas) | Bad Archaeology
Quote:
One of the major problems with this object is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the nodule was ever part of the Red Creek’s geology, which is the Lower Cretaceous Hensel Sand Formation. These deposits are thought to be roughly 110-115 million years old. Having acquired the object in the early 1980s, Baugh promoted it as a ‘pre-Noachian’ artefact (in other words, dating from a time before the mythical Flood of Noah). However, it was soon pointed out by a geologist that minerals dissolved from ancient strata can harden around a recent object, making it look impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. In fact, the style of the hammer would lead us to recognise it as nineteenth-century in date and of definitely American provenance.

Last edited by Shaddam IV; December 12th, 2012 at 08:23 AM.
Shaddam IV is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
alien, ancient, argument


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ancient Alien/Gods Cavanboy Speculative History 32 November 17th, 2012 10:21 PM
Ancient Alien Theorem The Cell Speculative History 69 July 26th, 2012 09:59 AM
ancient alien belief and december the 21st amazedkat Speculative History 17 June 29th, 2012 07:42 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.