fascinating! thanks for the post.Wozaworld wrote:Graham Hancock sheds some compelling evidence of two major impacts stemming from the tail of a passing comet - 13,000yrs ago in the Younger Dryas period seeing a cataclysmic impact of several fragments hitting the Earths landmass spewing fire and ash in to the Atmosphere causing it to shroud the Earth in Darkness bringing on a sudden Ice Age... 1200yrs later in the Pacific Ocean, A further impact believed to be from the same comet returning in orbit spewed Water vapour in to the Atmosphere causing a Greenhouse effect dramatically heating the Earth and icecaps causing world wide flooding.. That he believes wiped out an ancient intelligent civilisation to which is now only remembered in depictions myths and traditions and the story of "The great Flood"Smokejumper wrote:
Some history I've read places the old testament stories as far older than many believe. As in 10,000+ years of oral history. There is evidence of a massive flood about 12,000 years ago and the sudden melting of the polar ice cap. Possible meteor strike? Noah origin story?
.
Back in 1995 when Graham released his book "Fingerprints of the Gods" he was somewhat ridiculed.. but now there is cut and dry evidence produced by mainstream scientists publishing major pier review journals (like the proceedings of the National Academy of Science) to which coincides with Hancocks claims and timeline. The very fact there are Megalithic sites popping up around the Globe dating from this period and beyond, structures built with integrity and sophistication which appear to of been built by a lost civilisation.. And yet we are taught to believe that during this period there existed only primitive "Hunter Gatherers"
Do Aliens exist?
Moderators: Board of Directors, Command
Re: Do Aliens exist?
Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra, i7-9700k (4.9ghz all cores), NH-D15 cooler, 64 GB CL-14 3200mhz RAM, RTX3090FE, Soundblaster Z, Yamaha 5.1 A/V, 2x 512GB Samsung NVMe, 1x 1TB Samsung NVMe, Win 10 Pro, TM Warthog, Virpil WarBRD, MFG Crosswinds, 43" Samsung 4K TV, 21.5 Acer VT touchscreen, TrackIR, JetSeat KW-908, Reverb G2, Wheel Stand Pro Super Warthog, Phanteks Enthoo Pro Full Tower Case, EVGA 850P2 PSU, PointCTRL
-
Broadsword
- Posts: 3124
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 7:54 pm
- Location: Cheshire, UK
Re: Do Aliens exist?
The temperature fluctuation of the Younger Dryas period is certainly eye-catching, and the cause is still disputed. Initially it was thought to be caused by fresh melt-water pouring into the Atlantic as the temperature warmed after the ice age, causing a disruption to the north Atlantic currents which were distributing heat (as they do today) and causing a period of re-cooling which slowed the melt-waters, allowing the natural currents to re-establish and the warming trend took over again.
Then somebody else decided that catastrophic cooling from a comet impact would explain the cooling event - this was suggested because some evidence of burning plant matter was found at the YD boundary at several sites across north America, along with other things like nanodiamonds, excess platinum etc (note that comets are usually considered to be low on platinum, so if you followed the evidence the impact would have to be an asteroid rather than a comet, ho hum...). However, the apparent evidence for an impact has all been gradually explained away by other causes, whilst no impact site has ever been found (the people who favour the impact hypothesis claim it would be an air burst, which is why the want a comet rather than an asteroid, but running the maths suggests that to get the measured climate effect the impactor would have to be large enough that at least a large portion of it would reach the ground and leave either one massive crater, or several thousand craters as big as this one...
Meteor crater is about four times older than the Younger Dryas period, so the craters would still be very, very visible. The lack of supporting evidence for the impact hypothesis has led to a gradual shift in thinking back towards things like Atlantic current changes, and this is supported by evidence that this kind of fluctuation turns out to be common at the end of a stable period - as the climate warms after an ice age the process is apparently quite stuttery and often shows periods like this. It's also worth noting that whilst the Younger Dryas period looks really striking on the graph Woza posted, if you expand the view a little bit...
[fimg 800,500]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... Maxima.png[/fimg]
...you can see that in fact it's a lot less compelling. (Also note that by carefully selecting his starting point Hancock has made the YD look just as cold as the ice age was before that little warming spike, but in fact the preceding ice age was considerably colder). The debate on the cause of the YD isn't settled yet, and an impact event could still swing the day if any further evidence turns up, but it's being investigated with evidence and research, and crucially it has nothing at all to do with Hancock's obsessions with ancient civilisations.
Hancock is an entirely different problem. He takes a reasonable debate about the cause of the YD and turns it into an explanation for his pet hypothesis, that an advanced civilisation was wiped out by the comet, and the few survivors then wandered the globe passing on their knowledge to primitive hunter-gatherers. He thinks this must be true because he can't believe that the humans of 10,900BCE could possibly have built this...
This is Gobekli Tepe, a Neolithic gathering place in Turkey. Hancock suggests that survivors of an 'advanced' civilisation taught the local hunter-gatherers how to erect these stones. Not clear why this would be necessary, but there you go. Trouble is, this site has been excavated since the sixties, and has revealed no pottery, no metal-working (but lots of flints, and clear evidence that the stones were worked with flints), no writing, no domesticated animals (but the bones of thousands of animals from wild species, as you would expect from a group of hunter-gatherers), nothing that would suggest an advanced civilisation. When asked in interviews why the site lacks any evidence of these supposedly advanced folks, Hancock suggests that 'maybe their civilisation didn't use pottery, or metals, and had very sophisticated oral histories but not writing' etc etc. So in what way exactly is it advanced? In what way is it a better explanation for the stones being erected than 'the natural development of early culture'??
The reason Hancock desperately wants an advanced civilisation to be involved is simple - he's a doom-monger. His theory is not just that we got hit by a comet, but that his ancient geniuses figured out that the cause of the comet was the alignment of the sun at the winter solstice with the centre of the galaxy, and that because the position of the solstice moves on a cycle over 26,000 years we're going to get hit by another comet in the future. Further (because doom-mongering for 15,100CE doesn't sell many books) it must be the case that we'll also get hit by a comet halfway around the cycle, which makes it... just about... NOW!
Still here? Thought so. Essentially Hancock's whole schtick is that the world is going to be fucked up anytime now (in his first book he tied it to the end of the Mayan calendar in 2012, and having been proved wrong he's come back with another book explaining his error and how we're actually all going to cop it sometime between now and 2040) and that an ancient advanced civilisation knew all about this and tried to warn us via drawings of animals on rocks (since they didn't have writing). But what happened to these ancient geniuses Graham? Ah well, erm, (**quickly reads through copy of 'Nature' for anything that might explain the absence of their remains**), ah, yes! They got hit by a comet! Ta-daa!
And if you need any more convincing, consider this... The whole cycle of destruction that Hancock posits is based on the 26,000 cycle of the movement of the solstice. For anyone that doesn't know, this is called 'axial precession', and is caused by the wobbling of the Earth's axis of rotation. The Earth's spin (as any fule kno) is tilted at 23.5 degrees to our orbit, which is why we get seasons and shit. But being tilted over, the direction that the axis points gradually wobbles, over a period of about 25,700 years...
This slow movement changes the position of things like equinoxes and solstices, and it's this that Hancock gives as the cause of the upcoming catastrophe. By now of course, anyone with any knowledge of astronomy is asking "just what in the nine-hells does a minor change in the direction of our axis of rotation have to do with our likelihood of being hit by a comet?" Good question. The answer of course is "fuck all", but it hasn't stopped Hancock earning a lot of money by talking about it.
Dr. Marc Defant, a geology professor, was on a radio show discussed these things with Hancock. He brought up the question of how axial precession could affect comet impacts...
Then somebody else decided that catastrophic cooling from a comet impact would explain the cooling event - this was suggested because some evidence of burning plant matter was found at the YD boundary at several sites across north America, along with other things like nanodiamonds, excess platinum etc (note that comets are usually considered to be low on platinum, so if you followed the evidence the impact would have to be an asteroid rather than a comet, ho hum...). However, the apparent evidence for an impact has all been gradually explained away by other causes, whilst no impact site has ever been found (the people who favour the impact hypothesis claim it would be an air burst, which is why the want a comet rather than an asteroid, but running the maths suggests that to get the measured climate effect the impactor would have to be large enough that at least a large portion of it would reach the ground and leave either one massive crater, or several thousand craters as big as this one...
Meteor crater is about four times older than the Younger Dryas period, so the craters would still be very, very visible. The lack of supporting evidence for the impact hypothesis has led to a gradual shift in thinking back towards things like Atlantic current changes, and this is supported by evidence that this kind of fluctuation turns out to be common at the end of a stable period - as the climate warms after an ice age the process is apparently quite stuttery and often shows periods like this. It's also worth noting that whilst the Younger Dryas period looks really striking on the graph Woza posted, if you expand the view a little bit...
[fimg 800,500]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... Maxima.png[/fimg]
...you can see that in fact it's a lot less compelling. (Also note that by carefully selecting his starting point Hancock has made the YD look just as cold as the ice age was before that little warming spike, but in fact the preceding ice age was considerably colder). The debate on the cause of the YD isn't settled yet, and an impact event could still swing the day if any further evidence turns up, but it's being investigated with evidence and research, and crucially it has nothing at all to do with Hancock's obsessions with ancient civilisations.
Hancock is an entirely different problem. He takes a reasonable debate about the cause of the YD and turns it into an explanation for his pet hypothesis, that an advanced civilisation was wiped out by the comet, and the few survivors then wandered the globe passing on their knowledge to primitive hunter-gatherers. He thinks this must be true because he can't believe that the humans of 10,900BCE could possibly have built this...
This is Gobekli Tepe, a Neolithic gathering place in Turkey. Hancock suggests that survivors of an 'advanced' civilisation taught the local hunter-gatherers how to erect these stones. Not clear why this would be necessary, but there you go. Trouble is, this site has been excavated since the sixties, and has revealed no pottery, no metal-working (but lots of flints, and clear evidence that the stones were worked with flints), no writing, no domesticated animals (but the bones of thousands of animals from wild species, as you would expect from a group of hunter-gatherers), nothing that would suggest an advanced civilisation. When asked in interviews why the site lacks any evidence of these supposedly advanced folks, Hancock suggests that 'maybe their civilisation didn't use pottery, or metals, and had very sophisticated oral histories but not writing' etc etc. So in what way exactly is it advanced? In what way is it a better explanation for the stones being erected than 'the natural development of early culture'??
The reason Hancock desperately wants an advanced civilisation to be involved is simple - he's a doom-monger. His theory is not just that we got hit by a comet, but that his ancient geniuses figured out that the cause of the comet was the alignment of the sun at the winter solstice with the centre of the galaxy, and that because the position of the solstice moves on a cycle over 26,000 years we're going to get hit by another comet in the future. Further (because doom-mongering for 15,100CE doesn't sell many books) it must be the case that we'll also get hit by a comet halfway around the cycle, which makes it... just about... NOW!
Still here? Thought so. Essentially Hancock's whole schtick is that the world is going to be fucked up anytime now (in his first book he tied it to the end of the Mayan calendar in 2012, and having been proved wrong he's come back with another book explaining his error and how we're actually all going to cop it sometime between now and 2040) and that an ancient advanced civilisation knew all about this and tried to warn us via drawings of animals on rocks (since they didn't have writing). But what happened to these ancient geniuses Graham? Ah well, erm, (**quickly reads through copy of 'Nature' for anything that might explain the absence of their remains**), ah, yes! They got hit by a comet! Ta-daa!
And if you need any more convincing, consider this... The whole cycle of destruction that Hancock posits is based on the 26,000 cycle of the movement of the solstice. For anyone that doesn't know, this is called 'axial precession', and is caused by the wobbling of the Earth's axis of rotation. The Earth's spin (as any fule kno) is tilted at 23.5 degrees to our orbit, which is why we get seasons and shit. But being tilted over, the direction that the axis points gradually wobbles, over a period of about 25,700 years...
This slow movement changes the position of things like equinoxes and solstices, and it's this that Hancock gives as the cause of the upcoming catastrophe. By now of course, anyone with any knowledge of astronomy is asking "just what in the nine-hells does a minor change in the direction of our axis of rotation have to do with our likelihood of being hit by a comet?" Good question. The answer of course is "fuck all", but it hasn't stopped Hancock earning a lot of money by talking about it.
Dr. Marc Defant, a geology professor, was on a radio show discussed these things with Hancock. He brought up the question of how axial precession could affect comet impacts...
By all means discuss possible causes for the Younger Dryas climate change, but don't get fooled by a charlatan like HancockThe earth wobbling on its axis over 26,000 years does not affect the earth’s orbit, so why would we expect large comet strikes every 12,900 years from the precession of the earth? I asked Hancock this question during our debate and he seemed dumbfounded by its implications. He never answered my question, probably because there is no answer.
I must go up to the skies again, to the peace of silent flight, To the gull’s way, and the hawk’s way, and the free wings’ delight;
And all I ask is a friendly joke with a laughing fellow rover, And a large beer, and a deep sleep, when the long flight’s over.
Re: Do Aliens exist?
Now that is *my* kind of religionJavelina wrote:I believe in Beer, for what it's worth...Broadsword wrote:Got no problem with whatever anyone wants to believe...
The rest of you can F*ck Off!
“It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes I-16s.” - Douglas Adams
-
Macnihilist
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 7:17 pm
Re: Do Aliens exist?
But which beer is the one and only true beer?
Of course it is the Lager. These stupid Ale-drinkers are surely wrong. I know it because... well, because I know it to be true.
Incidentally, I just realized these fucking Ale-drinkers have some pretty sweet resources over there. I would like to have them, and because I follow the one and only true beer, namely the trinity of the hop, the malt and the holy water, I am naturally entitled to take them. In fact, come to think of it, they actually took them away from us in the first place... yes, that it is, we only want back what is rightfully ours. I have little to offer in terms of "proof" or "compelling reason", but... well I know it to be true. Luckily my kinsmen are trained from an early age in the art of faith, aka the art of blindly believing stuff without asking questions, so it should be pretty easy to rile them up. In addition, we try to keep them in our social echo-chambers as best we can, where we bombard ourselves with our own pseudo-scientific bullshit until we all believe it and are really, really radicalized and pissed at those who do not believe in the one and only true beer. God, I love religion, it's almost like it was invented for crowd control.
So, let's get the torches and pitchforks, kill those motherfuckers, and get those sweet resources for me - erm... for us - erm... for the one and only true god.
Of course it is the Lager. These stupid Ale-drinkers are surely wrong. I know it because... well, because I know it to be true.
Incidentally, I just realized these fucking Ale-drinkers have some pretty sweet resources over there. I would like to have them, and because I follow the one and only true beer, namely the trinity of the hop, the malt and the holy water, I am naturally entitled to take them. In fact, come to think of it, they actually took them away from us in the first place... yes, that it is, we only want back what is rightfully ours. I have little to offer in terms of "proof" or "compelling reason", but... well I know it to be true. Luckily my kinsmen are trained from an early age in the art of faith, aka the art of blindly believing stuff without asking questions, so it should be pretty easy to rile them up. In addition, we try to keep them in our social echo-chambers as best we can, where we bombard ourselves with our own pseudo-scientific bullshit until we all believe it and are really, really radicalized and pissed at those who do not believe in the one and only true beer. God, I love religion, it's almost like it was invented for crowd control.
So, let's get the torches and pitchforks, kill those motherfuckers, and get those sweet resources for me - erm... for us - erm... for the one and only true god.
Re: Do Aliens exist?
That sir, sums it up exactly.Macnihilist wrote:God, I love religion, it's (removed) like it was invented for crowd control.
32 Squadron / USAAF 84 Squadron
Re: Do Aliens exist?
Ah, Yes.. Hancock isn't the best researcher to back in this debate - first and foremost he was and in some respects still is a journalist. I remember in my teens first reading his book in amazement when it was released, and then being somewhat subdued by the backlash and dissecting of his theories - to which most of the backlash seemed to attack him as a person rather than his findings (alarm bells for me). Yes he was tarred with the doom-monger brush, yet he has merit for his concern if his hypothesis is correct.. like most who hypothesise.. he believes its true, however his worry is the little we spend preventing or preparing for such an event in the future - this is what he shouts about most.
Few things I must correct you on though, firstly.. it isn't believed to of been a comet that impacted, but rather the Earths orbit merging with a comets tail, comets I'm sure you know are mostly made up of Rock and Ice, and again I am sure you know there are HUGE comets of origins unknown.. the trail we see of comets are debris of rock and ice, this is what he believes impacted the Earth.
As for Gobekli Tepe, the findings of flint and animal bones are to be taken very lightly.. again I am sure you are aware, but carbon dating can only be performed on organic material - So dating the actual structures becomes inaccurate if you base your dating on the carbon dating of organic matter found around the site - it's like someone in the future finding a pepsi can at the foot of a castle and therefore assuming the castle was erected in 2005.. There is one striking resemblance depicted on the structures found at the site though.. and that is this;
What is fascinating about this depiction, is that it is found on most megalithic structures all over the globe.
This without doubt leads me to believe that Gobekli Tepe was not erected by simple Hunter Gatherers.. whoever erected them was either globally travelled, or globally connected. Then we look at the other Megalithic structures, Sumerian - Egyptian - Aztec - Harappan - Mayan - ALL depicting the same "Bag". Structures built with incredible precision, built with stones weighing in excess of 500T.. built with material often sourced hundreds of miles away.. Hunter Gatherers?? really?! What is equally prevalent.. is that the ability to build these structures was suddenly lost. Whoever had the ability and technology to build them vanished of the face of the Earth. And they haven't been replicated since - nor has any structure in the past 2000yrs been built in quite the same way - not even close.
It is now speculated that the Pyramids of Egypt are far older than what we initially thought - our initial dating was via Carbon dating organic material found on site, to which as I mentioned is entirely inaccurate. However we must also take note that 4500yrs ago we should surely have some evidence or passed on knowledge of how they were built? but we haven't.. it was lost. Yet we have quite considerable detail of the Roman Empire to which isn't far back from the initial dating of the Pyramids. The workmanship of granite within the tombs is laser accurate, and we could only attempt to replicate it with machine tools.. flint too perhaps?
Now lets dismiss Hancock entirely, In fact lets focus on Michail Petaev and his colleagues at Harvard University - whom's research appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Now as you pointed out and many scientists have rejected this Comet hypothesis, citing lack of sufficient evidence, in favour of others. The most widely accepted one says that during the deglaciation process, fresh water from the proglacial lake Agassiz discharged into the Arctic Ocean, altering ocean currents - to which you mentioned, however.. Petaev's team says that geomorphological and chronological data do not support this. claim to have uncovered evidence of a cosmic impact at the Younger Dryas boundary. When examining samples from Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2, they found that platinum concentration increased by about 100 times approximately 12,900 years ago.
Platinum/iridium and platinum/aluminum ratios were very high, indicating that the platinum probably did not have a terrestrial source. While most volcanic rocks have high Pt/Ir ratios, their Pt/Al ratios are low. Mantle rocks have low levels of aluminum, but their Pt/Ir ratios are much lower than that measured in the ice core. On the other hand, Pt/Ir and Pt/Al ratios in magmatic iron meteorites are very high, suggesting that the platinum found in the ice core came from a meteor. Debris from a cosmic impact would have caused the climate to cool so quickly that species would have been unable to adapt, leading to their extinction.
Now to refute a cosmic impact because "we haven't found a crater" is absurd. There is a vast amount of Earth we have yet to explore and map out, The cosmic impact believed to of wiped out the Dinosaurs has only recently been believed to of been found.. and again if we refer to the climate graph - yes zooming out perceives the younger dryas period to be less impacting, however lets not be fooled here.. the sudden drop in temperature is catastrophic.. it would literally be hell on Earth, the chances of anything surviving is incredibly slim. And if we compare the drops and climbs to today's current climate and climate worries - you can see how very very severe this was, and it only could of happened with a very influencing catalyst. This was without doubt an extinction level event! further more, standing back and looking at the graph only serves to coincide with Hancock's hypothesis and concern, that this happens to the Earth regularly (in its previous history). Most recently the Tunguska event, had this happened over a populated area rather than a baron 2000Sq kilometers (The size of London) we'd be paying much more attention.. but we're not, such as this ignorant approach to Hancock's hypothesis.
Now to say anyone is correct is naive, after all these are all hypothesis.. however I must point out that Hancock is not alone, and there is now credible evidence to support his theory, not just from Michail Petaev - this is still very much under research. What one should note though, is as the years go on.. Hancock's hypothesis is gaining more credibility, ignore that if you will.. but it is a whole different argument to what it was back in 1995.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep44031
Few things I must correct you on though, firstly.. it isn't believed to of been a comet that impacted, but rather the Earths orbit merging with a comets tail, comets I'm sure you know are mostly made up of Rock and Ice, and again I am sure you know there are HUGE comets of origins unknown.. the trail we see of comets are debris of rock and ice, this is what he believes impacted the Earth.
As for Gobekli Tepe, the findings of flint and animal bones are to be taken very lightly.. again I am sure you are aware, but carbon dating can only be performed on organic material - So dating the actual structures becomes inaccurate if you base your dating on the carbon dating of organic matter found around the site - it's like someone in the future finding a pepsi can at the foot of a castle and therefore assuming the castle was erected in 2005.. There is one striking resemblance depicted on the structures found at the site though.. and that is this;
What is fascinating about this depiction, is that it is found on most megalithic structures all over the globe.
This without doubt leads me to believe that Gobekli Tepe was not erected by simple Hunter Gatherers.. whoever erected them was either globally travelled, or globally connected. Then we look at the other Megalithic structures, Sumerian - Egyptian - Aztec - Harappan - Mayan - ALL depicting the same "Bag". Structures built with incredible precision, built with stones weighing in excess of 500T.. built with material often sourced hundreds of miles away.. Hunter Gatherers?? really?! What is equally prevalent.. is that the ability to build these structures was suddenly lost. Whoever had the ability and technology to build them vanished of the face of the Earth. And they haven't been replicated since - nor has any structure in the past 2000yrs been built in quite the same way - not even close.
It is now speculated that the Pyramids of Egypt are far older than what we initially thought - our initial dating was via Carbon dating organic material found on site, to which as I mentioned is entirely inaccurate. However we must also take note that 4500yrs ago we should surely have some evidence or passed on knowledge of how they were built? but we haven't.. it was lost. Yet we have quite considerable detail of the Roman Empire to which isn't far back from the initial dating of the Pyramids. The workmanship of granite within the tombs is laser accurate, and we could only attempt to replicate it with machine tools.. flint too perhaps?
Now lets dismiss Hancock entirely, In fact lets focus on Michail Petaev and his colleagues at Harvard University - whom's research appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Now as you pointed out and many scientists have rejected this Comet hypothesis, citing lack of sufficient evidence, in favour of others. The most widely accepted one says that during the deglaciation process, fresh water from the proglacial lake Agassiz discharged into the Arctic Ocean, altering ocean currents - to which you mentioned, however.. Petaev's team says that geomorphological and chronological data do not support this. claim to have uncovered evidence of a cosmic impact at the Younger Dryas boundary. When examining samples from Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2, they found that platinum concentration increased by about 100 times approximately 12,900 years ago.
Platinum/iridium and platinum/aluminum ratios were very high, indicating that the platinum probably did not have a terrestrial source. While most volcanic rocks have high Pt/Ir ratios, their Pt/Al ratios are low. Mantle rocks have low levels of aluminum, but their Pt/Ir ratios are much lower than that measured in the ice core. On the other hand, Pt/Ir and Pt/Al ratios in magmatic iron meteorites are very high, suggesting that the platinum found in the ice core came from a meteor. Debris from a cosmic impact would have caused the climate to cool so quickly that species would have been unable to adapt, leading to their extinction.
Now to refute a cosmic impact because "we haven't found a crater" is absurd. There is a vast amount of Earth we have yet to explore and map out, The cosmic impact believed to of wiped out the Dinosaurs has only recently been believed to of been found.. and again if we refer to the climate graph - yes zooming out perceives the younger dryas period to be less impacting, however lets not be fooled here.. the sudden drop in temperature is catastrophic.. it would literally be hell on Earth, the chances of anything surviving is incredibly slim. And if we compare the drops and climbs to today's current climate and climate worries - you can see how very very severe this was, and it only could of happened with a very influencing catalyst. This was without doubt an extinction level event! further more, standing back and looking at the graph only serves to coincide with Hancock's hypothesis and concern, that this happens to the Earth regularly (in its previous history). Most recently the Tunguska event, had this happened over a populated area rather than a baron 2000Sq kilometers (The size of London) we'd be paying much more attention.. but we're not, such as this ignorant approach to Hancock's hypothesis.
Now to say anyone is correct is naive, after all these are all hypothesis.. however I must point out that Hancock is not alone, and there is now credible evidence to support his theory, not just from Michail Petaev - this is still very much under research. What one should note though, is as the years go on.. Hancock's hypothesis is gaining more credibility, ignore that if you will.. but it is a whole different argument to what it was back in 1995.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep44031
"Always treat your kite like you treat your woman, climb inside her five times a day and take her to heaven and back.."
i7 8700K @ 5Ghz H100X Water cooled, Asus Maximus X Hero, 32gb DDR4 3000mhz ram, GTX1080ti 11gb , 250gb SSD, Thrustmaster warthog stick, X-55 H.O.T.A.S, Combat Rudder pedals, TrackIR5, GHD Hair straightners, Quite a nice kettle. Oh! and one of those Oculus majiggy thingys
-
Smokejumper
- Posts: 742
- Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2015 6:44 pm
- Location: British Columbia, Canada eh.
Re: Do Aliens exist?
Jailor, I believe you. I was a teen in the 90's and remember friends doing similar things. I had recipes for shit from them which would without question have authorities knocking. The anarchy cookbook had so much fun stuff in it. Most of it would probably kill you if you tried it. Bathtub nitro anyone? Jesus a Jihadi could make some in a hotel and leave.
I miss the 90's....
Thanks for that post Woza. History is so fucking cool. Atlantis really might have been real and the under sea megalithic structures are something else. I have no doubt that they where able to sail the seas if they where able to do the math to create structures of this weight. That the fuckers are not sinking is a feat itself.
The seas go up and down. It's why I don't swallow the climate change line too hard. I know we are wrecking the joint it's not that. It's that governments use it as a cash grab that has me go, yeah nah.
We arrogantly believe we know what we are doing and history is set in stone..... We don't even know if Jesus was a real person and that was only 2000 years ago.
Broad Ging all, thanks for those posts I am loving this thread! Yay history.
I miss the 90's....
Thanks for that post Woza. History is so fucking cool. Atlantis really might have been real and the under sea megalithic structures are something else. I have no doubt that they where able to sail the seas if they where able to do the math to create structures of this weight. That the fuckers are not sinking is a feat itself.
The seas go up and down. It's why I don't swallow the climate change line too hard. I know we are wrecking the joint it's not that. It's that governments use it as a cash grab that has me go, yeah nah.
We arrogantly believe we know what we are doing and history is set in stone..... We don't even know if Jesus was a real person and that was only 2000 years ago.
Broad Ging all, thanks for those posts I am loving this thread! Yay history.
-
Smokejumper
- Posts: 742
- Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2015 6:44 pm
- Location: British Columbia, Canada eh.
Re: Do Aliens exist?
Gromic wrote:That sir, sums it up exactly.Macnihilist wrote:God, I love religion, it's (removed) like it was invented for crowd control.
Perfect. That's it right there.
-
Macnihilist
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 7:17 pm
Re: Do Aliens exist?
Smokejumper wrote:Gromic wrote:That sir, sums it up exactly.Macnihilist wrote:God, I love religion, it's (removed) like it was invented for crowd control.
Perfect. That's it right there.
Nah, too simplistic and too cheaply polemic. But I do think that people came up with religion for three main reasons:
(a) to understand and influence nature
(b) to establish rules for dealing with each other
(c) to deal with their finiteness and insignificance in the world
For the scientific component (a) we have modern science, and anybody who seriously pitches religious "explanations" and "theories" as alternatives to science doesn't understand the very precise and technical meaning that the words "a theory explains an effect" have in science - at least in the hard sciences. Or they want to maliciously bullshit people.
For the sociological component (b) we have modern constitutions, laws, etc. that do extremely well without religious ballast.
For the psychological component (c), well, if you want to delude yourself to make your life easier be my guest. If you want to think you are somehow infinite, think it. (My favorite Feuerbach quote: "The tombs [of men] are the birthplaces of the gods.") If you want to think you matter beyond what you actually do in your (finite) life, think it. Just be sure not to let this delusion leak into the domains of (a) and (b).
What I wanted to say with the previous beer-post is that it is a slippery slope from "harmless psychological trick you play on ourself" to "dangerous mass-delusion that ends in a gigantic shit-show".
Of course people will always find a justification to fuck other people over, but I have the feeling that religion does make it so very dangerously effortless. I feel that churches and religion have perfected this art over the centuries, literally preaching unconditional, uncritical faith all day long and thus cultivating a mindset of blind obedience.
Anyway, end of sermon. In (a) and (b) religion is an unnecessary anachronism, in my opinion; in (c) it's tolerable but dangerous. And yes, I have no training in sociology and psychology, so I should probably keep my mouth shut on these topics. Maybe I "worshiped" the one and only true beer a little too much last light.
Let's return to aliens, for which there is at least hope of finding scientific evidence, because we don't define them to be immune to scientific evidence.