Ancient aliens and UFO's

vesicles

vesicles

Colonel
For the past couple of weeks, History Channel has been having a show called "Ancient Aliens". Basically, they got a number of so-called "ancient alien theorists" who firmly believe that, based on so-called "convincing" evidence, we had been visited by ET's in ancient times and most of our scientific/technological development has had involvement of these aliens. Every time I watch it, I cannot help but get upset about their so-called arguments. I feel that this would be an interesting topic that many of my fellow forum members would be interested to discuss.

First of all, let me state my own personal view on ET's. Based on the overwhelming statistical probability, I firmly believe that there are lives elsewhere other than Earth in the universe. Many of these lives may be highly intelligent, way more advanced than we are. We have billions of star in our own galaxy, Milky way, and there are billions of known galaxies. It's simply impossible to speculate that we are the only ones.

Now, let's get on to the matter that's more controversial (to me, at least). Has any of these lives visited Earth and HOW can we prove it? It seems that most of "evidence" is derived using process of elimination, which itself in certain circumstances is a powerful analytical tool. With the matter of UFO's, it usually goes like this: someone sees a phenomenon that seems to be controlled by intelligent beings and cannot be identified by the existing physical/chemical theories. Then it is automatically used as an evidence of alien visitation. My view: the process of elimination should NOT be used in attempts to explain an unknown phenomenon. Why? To use the process of elimination, one has to assume that he has ALL the possible options/theories available to him. Then if none of these theories can explain this phenomenon, the conclusion would be that the said phenomenon is not earth-bound and could be an alien-origin. However, the problem is "can we assume that we have ALL the theories that there can be at this time?" I believe that answer is easily "NO". There is still so much for us to learn about our own planet. What we now know, compared to all the natural phenomena existing on Earth, is only like a tip of a HUGE iceberg. A phenomenon may not be explained by the existing theories now, but may well be explained by some new theory 100 years later by the next Newton/Einstein. Just imagine at a time before Newton was born, a number of theories could have existed at the time to explain how an apple could fall to the ground. Using the process of elimination would never get to the correct answer. Why? Because Newton's gravity was not even proposed yet. So the process of elimination should never be used to argue for UFO's or any potentially natural phenomenon.

Next, many ancient alien theorists use many cave drawing and ancient arts as evidence for ancient alien visitation. They argue that our ancestors created these artifacts to commemorate alien visitations that they witnessed. The problem is art is a very subjective matter. Interpreting a piece of art is often dependent on the person's own background and believes. When they say a cave art illustrates an ancient astronaut wearing the whole astronaut suit, I see a medieval knight perhaps wearing a full body armor. Which one is it? No one knows... This is the problem, too much subjectivity. One thing that science hates is subjectivity. And many basic scientific methods have been designed to eliminate subjectivity, such as inclusion of negative/positive controls and designing blinded experiment. So none of the ancient arts should be used as evidence for alien visitations.

Many people feel that some ancient technology is too complex for our primitive ancestors to comprehend. Thus, they must have gotten help from ET's. A good example would be the Egyptian pyramids. Many people sees so many "amazing" things about pyramids that "look too complex and too advanced to be solely a product of ancient humans". I found an interesting trend. This kind of argument is usually made about an artifact made by a civilization that either has extincted or only uses verbal means to carry their legends and myths. Nobody questions how the Great Walls of China was built because the building process was carefully documented, including all the pitfalls and trials and errors. It's easy to tell that these ancient people came up with the technology themselves. When it comes to pyramids, no written records exist to show how they built it, thus giving rise to many speculations, including the possibility of alien help. A piece of technology can look complex, but what is the bench mark for considering it too complex for ancient people?

We have to understand that ancient people did thing differently than us. We now like to develop the theory before designing a product, a kind of top-down approach. Ancient people used a bottom-up approach, simply put: trials and errors. It may be time-consuming, but they got all the time they needed. Many ancient rulers had many servants/slaves whose main job was to think of crazy things to do. For example, a few some toy plane-like artifacts had been found in South America that have been dated to Mayan/Aztec time. Many people immediately argue that this is an evidence of ancient alien visitation since plane wasn't invented until 1900's. But is it possible that some ancient Mayans amazed by how birds fly, as almost all ancient civilizations have been, decided to design something that could fly. So simply using trials and errors, they could come up with something that is aerodynamic. It might have taken them decades to do it, but it is possible that they can do it using trials and errors without understanding any of the underlying mechanisms.

Many hold the notion that some ancient machine is even more advanced than modern ones. Thus, this thing must have been designed with the help of visiting aliens. I think this is also wrong. Like I said above, nowadays, we like to design things in a top-down fashion, meaning that we develop a theory and then design a product according to the said theory. Since our understanding of certain field could be limited, the theory developed could be seriously flawed. Since many physical/chemical theories also depend on mathematical assumptions that are unrealistic, these theories may not even work in the physical world. Thus the products designed used these theories would not work that well. Ancient people mainly used trial and errors. Designer might come up with numerous designs and tested them and modify them. This may take a long time, but is actually the most natural way of doing things. Our own immune system depends almost solely on trial and errors to find antigens and infections and kill bacteria and virus. It may take some time (that's why it takes a few weeks to get better from a cold/flu), but it gets the job done. Evolution itself is also a good example of trial and errors. So it is not surprising that many products designed using this mindset have been good. So even though we now understand WHY we want to do thing in a certain way, our products may/may not be as good as those designed by trial and errors.

I apologize for the long post. So what's my take on this issue? If they want to be recognized as a serious field, they have to do some hard-core science. Find solid evidence of UFO's, not just some fuzzy photos that no one knows what they are. When they find something, don't just say "see, this has to be alien tech because it's too complex to be man-made!" Find solid evidence, meaning show this thing was made by some element that is not found on Earth. For instance, something may contains a type of carbon that has C12/C13/c14 ratio that is different from that found on Earth. This would convincingly and scientifically show this thing could be made by aliens.
 
Last edited:
R

ravenshield936

Banned Idiot
vesicles said:
For the past couple of weeks, History Channel has been having a show called "Ancient Aliens". Basically, they got a number of so-called "ancient alien theorists" who firmly believe that, based on so-called "convincing" evidence, we had been visited by ET's in ancient times and most of our scientific/technological development has had involvement of these aliens. Every time I watch it, I cannot help but get upset about their so-called arguments. I feel that this would be an interesting topic that many of my fellow forum members would be interested to discuss.

First of all, let me state my own personal view on ET's. Based on the overwhelming statistical probability, I firmly believe that there are lives elsewhere other than Earth in the universe. Many of these lives may be highly intelligent, way more advanced than we are. We have billions of star in our own galaxy, Milky way, and there are billions of known galaxies. It's simply impossible to speculate that we are the only ones.

Now, let's get on to the matter that's more controversial (to me, at least). Has any of these lives visited Earth and HOW can we prove it? It seems that most of "evidence" is derived using process of elimination, which itself in certain circumstances is a powerful analytical tool. With the matter of UFO's, it usually goes like this: someone sees a phenomenon that seems to be controlled by intelligent beings and cannot be identified by the existing physical/chemical theories. Then it is automatically used as an evidence of alien visitation. My view: the process of elimination should NOT be used in attempts to explain an unknown phenomenon. Why? To use the process of elimination, one has to assume that he has ALL the possible options/theories available to him. Then if none of these theories can explain this phenomenon, the conclusion would be that the said phenomenon is not earth-bound and could be an alien-origin. However, the problem is "can we assume that we have ALL the theories that there can be at this time?" I believe that answer is easily "NO". There is still so much for us to learn about our own planet. What we now know, compared to all the natural phenomena existing on Earth, is only like a tip of a HUGE iceberg. A phenomenon may not be explained by the existing theories now, but may well be explained by some new theory 100 years later by the next Newton/Einstein. Just imagine at a time before Newton was born, a number of theories could have existed at the time to explain how an apple could fall to the ground. Using the process of elimination would never get to the correct answer. Why? Because Newton's gravity was not even proposed yet. So the process of elimination should never be used to argue for UFO's or any potentially natural phenomenon.

Next, many ancient alien theorists use many cave drawing and ancient arts as evidence for ancient alien visitation. They argue that our ancestors created these artifacts to commemorate alien visitations that they witnessed. The problem is art is a very subjective matter. Interpreting a piece of art is often dependent on the person's own background and believes. When they say a cave art illustrates an ancient astronaut wearing the whole astronaut suit, I see a medieval knight perhaps wearing a full body armor. Which one is it? No one knows... This is the problem, too much subjectivity. One thing that science hates is subjectivity. And many basic scientific methods have been designed to eliminate subjectivity, such as inclusion of negative/positive controls and designing blinded experiment. So none of the ancient arts should be used as evidence for alien visitations.

Many people feel that some ancient technology is too complex for our primitive ancestors to comprehend. Thus, they must have gotten help from ET's. A good example would be the Egyptian pyramids. Many people sees so many "amazing" things about pyramids that "look too complex and too advanced to be solely a product of ancient humans". I found an interesting trend. This kind of argument is usually made about an artifact made by a civilization that either has extincted or only uses verbal means to carry their legends and myths. Nobody questions how the Great Walls of China was built because the building process was carefully documented, including all the pitfalls and trials and errors. It's easy to tell that these ancient people came up with the technology themselves. When it comes to pyramids, no written records exist to show how they built it, thus giving rise to many speculations, including the possibility of alien help. A piece of technology can look complex, but what is the bench mark for considering it too complex for ancient people?

We have to understand that ancient people did thing differently than us. We now like to develop the theory before designing a product, a kind of top-down approach. Ancient people used a bottom-up approach, simply put: trials and errors. It may be time-consuming, but they got all the time they needed. Many ancient rulers had many servants/slaves whose main job was to think of crazy things to do. For example, a few some toy plane-like artifacts had been found in South America that have been dated to Mayan/Aztec time. Many people immediately argue that this is an evidence of ancient alien visitation since plane wasn't invented until 1900's. But is it possible that some ancient Mayans amazed by how birds fly, as almost all ancient civilizations have been, decided to design something that could fly. So simply using trials and errors, they could come up with something that is aerodynamic. It might have taken them decades to do it, but it is possible that they can do it using trials and errors without understanding any of the underlying mechanisms.

Many hold the notion that some ancient machine is even more advanced than modern ones. Thus, this thing must have been designed with the help of visiting aliens. I think this is also wrong. Like I said above, nowadays, we like to design things in a top-down fashion, meaning that we develop a theory and then design a product according to the said theory. Since our understanding of certain field could be limited, the theory developed could be seriously flawed. Since many physical/chemical theories also depend on mathematical assumptions that are unrealistic, these theories may not even work in the physical world. Thus the products designed used these theories would not work that well. Ancient people mainly used trial and errors. Designer might come up with numerous designs and tested them and modify them. This may take a long time, but is actually the most natural way of doing things. Our own immune system depends almost solely on trial and errors to find antigens and infections and kill bacteria and virus. It may take some time (that's why it takes a few weeks to get better from a cold/flu), but it gets the job done. Evolution itself is also a good example of trial and errors. So it is not surprising that many products designed using this mindset have been good. So even though we now understand WHY we want to do thing in a certain way, our products may/may not be as good as those designed by trial and errors.

I apologize for the long post. So what's my take on this issue? If they want to be recognized as a serious field, they have to do some hard-core science. Find solid evidence of UFO's, not just some fuzzy photos that no one knows what they are. When they find something, don't just say "see, this has to be alien tech because it's too complex to be man-made!" Find solid evidence, meaning show this thing was made by some element that is not found on Earth. For instance, something may contains a type of carbon that has C12/C13/c14 ratio that is different from that found on Earth. This would convincingly and scientifically show this thing could be made by aliens.
Click to expand...

Good post. I agree with you with the points you've made. Also, I want to add to it. In addition to what we know, we should think about what we DON'T know, because it's so obvious what we know is merely a consumption of a drop of water from the ocean. This also means that we're also limited by our knowledge as well. Because we explore things of certain methods, it means we've given up the choice of doing things in other ways, and in which, we missed out the learning opportunities of what those other methods may bring. And what I want to say will be, the definition of lifeforms. All along, our perception of lifeforms are intelligent beings with physical properties, and in fact, this is a mistake. Because we have yet to know the truth (and we won't for a good long time, or perhaps never so in human's era of existence), therefore we can't rule out the possibilities of lifeforms existing through the means of other dimensions, habitats, and a complete different realm.

Already we know know, on Earth, life forms include anything from humans to plants to simply cells. And yet all of these are all in physical form, and the reason is because of the properties of our planet. Therefore it is possible on other planets, galaxies, or wherever, they play by a complete different set of rules, and maybe even in another dimension we don't know about. That's my first point.

My next point will also be, that while "experts" can make claims about this and that based on artifacts, they've also omitted the possibilities of these paintings to essentially mean nothing at all. It's funny how on TV we see people study months on some paint on a rock when it's possible how the paint came to be was accidental and yet these people are making a big fuss about it. Can we rule out the possibilities of those paintings on rocks as merely some ancestor's poor artistic attempt? Or simply just random paint splattering on rocks because they "find that fun"? Or even more, we can't rule out some of these "arts" may merely be impressions done by someone long ago with mental health problems or not in a clear state of mind. Heck, maybe even that painting of a figure with an oversized head can be a priest with a particularly large headwear.
 
ABC78

ABC78

Junior Member
I was watchin Ancient Aliens to and what really offended me was one of the them was claiming Chin Shir Wang Di was an alien because some of the metaphoric descriptions of him made him seem unearthly. If that jackass actually did his homework he would have known Chin Shir Wang Di was so full of himself that he declared himself a deity.
 
bladerunner

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
I havent watched the program but decades of SETI programs have revealed nothing meanwhile " Wkipaedia cites Steven Hawking the physicists.who says in his book " A Brief History Of Time", that knowinq what advanced civilisations have done to lesser ones in the past, we should lie low
 
R

ravenshield936

Banned Idiot
bladerunner said:
I havent watched the program but decades of SETI programs have revealed nothing meanwhile " Wkipaedia cites Steven Hawking the physicists.who says in his book " A Brief History Of Time", that knowinq what advanced civilisations have done to lesser ones in the past, we should lie low
Click to expand...

This is to assume other intelligence life forms have similar mindsets, values, morals, and beliefs as us, or close enough, and then that their actions will make an impact

if our paths don't cross, it means nothing
 
Spartan95

Spartan95

Junior Member
Is this the program you guys are talking about?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Personally, I used to read up quite a bit about "Ancient Aliens / Ancient Astronauts" books. Initially, I found their arguments quite interesting. After a while though, most of their evidence is quite flimsy (to put it mildly).

Having said that, there is a serious piece of "evidence" for which there currently isn't a proper explanation for. And this is the Great Pyramid of Giza. Here's a few basic facts about the structure (which Ancient Alien theorists like to quote as "proof" of alien assistance):

1. Believed to be built in 2560 BC, which makes it about 4,500 years old (there are controversial proposals that put the age of the pyramids at 13,000 years old).

2. Made of stone blocks weighing 25 to 80 tons, transported over 500 miles from the quarries at Aswan.

3. Estimated mass of 5.9 million tonnes.

These 3 simple facts make for difficult explanation (even for current science). The established view of Egyptologists is that the Great Pyramid is built over a period of 20 years. Simple maths reveal that 800 tonnes of stones need to be added to the pyramid every day over the 20 year building period.

Also, whatever the age of the pyramid, the ground on which is has stood on has hardly moved over the ages since its construction. Taking a weight of millions of tonnes over several millenia with hardly any movement can hardly qualify as a coincidence. Thus, the question is how was the ground surveyed and determined that it was able to support such a large weight?

There is also no evidence of how the large stones that make up the pyramid are transported over 500 miles. The conventional wisdom is through the use of wooden logs, with the stone being dragged over them. Wooden logs surfaced as a potential candidate as they are bio-degradeable, and hence leave no trace after many years. Experiments have shown that the larger stones will crush the wooden logs.

There is also the issue of how these stone blocks are stacked up on the pyramids. The use of mud slopes along the sides were proposed (and often shown in Hollywood movies). But, there is again no archaelogical evidence for this.

Other than all these, mathematicians who have studied the pyramid are amazed that it is a mathematically perfect building. 2 sides are along to true north (not magnetic), with practically perfect 90 degree corners. The mathematical symbol of pi is also evident in the building dimensions, amongst others. However, I'm not sure if the mathematicians are reading too much into the building.

Other than the Great Pyramid, the presence of ancient megalithic temples are currently a construction mystery as well. These megalithic temples usually have columns that weigh 200 tonnes to 300 tonnes each. The precision with which they are made, and how they are transported remains an enigma.
 
vesicles

vesicles

Colonel
Spartan95 said:
1. Believed to be built in 2560 BC, which makes it about 4,500 years old (there are controversial proposals that put the age of the pyramids at 13,000 years old).

2. Made of stone blocks weighing 25 to 80 tons, transported over 500 miles from the quarries at Aswan.

3. Estimated mass of 5.9 million tonnes.

These 3 simple facts make for difficult explanation (even for current science). The established view of Egyptologists is that the Great Pyramid is built over a period of 20 years. Simple maths reveal that 800 tonnes of stones need to be added to the pyramid every day over the 20 year building period.
Click to expand...


The key is "the established view" of egyptologists. "Established" doesn't mean it's fact. It is only a hypothesis/theory. If facts like the 3 things you listed do not agree with the theory, like the pyramids had been built in 20 years, what one SHOULD do is to look at the theory again and see if it can be modified. IMO, it is totally illogical to stand by an "established" view and argue how "mysterious" the facts, which do not agree with the view, are.

In science, if data disagree with theory, the first thing one thinks about is that the theory is flawed and should be changed...

Spartan95 said:
Also, whatever the age of the pyramid, the ground on which is has stood on has hardly moved over the ages since its construction. Taking a weight of millions of tonnes over several millenia with hardly any movement can hardly qualify as a coincidence. Thus, the question is how was the ground surveyed and determined that it was able to support such a large weight?
Click to expand...

Again, we are assuming that the ancient people were thinking the same way we do. Obviously, before building anything, we would survey the land, along with other things. This is one of those what I called "top-down approach". Ancient people possibly didn't do it this way. They might not have any idea how to survey the land. It just so happened that the land they found for these 3 pyramid was excellent ones. It is very possbile that the quality of the land they found for buliding pyramids was random. Those pyramids built on bad lands collapsed long ago and the only pyramids that we see today had been built on good land and were mere survivors. So the question is: did they found the good land on purpose, or only those pyramids built on good lands survived??

Spartan95 said:
There is also no evidence of how the large stones that make up the pyramid are transported over 500 miles. The conventional wisdom is through the use of wooden logs, with the stone being dragged over them. Wooden logs surfaced as a potential candidate as they are bio-degradeable, and hence leave no trace after many years. Experiments have shown that the larger stones will crush the wooden logs.
Click to expand...

Again, we assume ancient people did things in the same way that we do. Nowadays, labor is very expensive. Whenever we think of finishing a task, we think of high tech tools and a few labor. Almost all the experiments that scientists have done nowadays to test the feasibility of building the pyramids using only primitive tools have used labor less than 100 people. Most of experts also use standard amount of labor force that we use to build modern buildings to estimate the feasibility of using primitive tools. However, ancient people did not do things the same way. They typically had a labor force of hundred of thousands, even millions. Ancient kings never had to worry about how to mobilize a force that big since they thought of themselves as deity and commanded absolute power over all things on the land. These ideas might have devastating consequences, like a rebellion, but the kings never thought about these conseqeunces beforehand.

A good example would be Shi Huang di of China. He wanted to build the great walls, so he mobilized millions of labor. That led to the fall of the Qin dynasty, but that did not prevent the first emperor of China from making the decision to build it and also did not prevent the great walls from being built. Mobilizing this kind of force is absolutely impossible today. Thus, combining today's pathetic labor force with ancient primitive tools would definitely yield the conclusion that it could not be done. However, we need to combine yester-time's massive labor force and old tools. The answer may be that it is possible...

Spartan95 said:
Other than all these, mathematicians who have studied the pyramid are amazed that it is a mathematically perfect building. 2 sides are along to true north (not magnetic), with practically perfect 90 degree corners. The mathematical symbol of pi is also evident in the building dimensions, amongst others. However, I'm not sure if the mathematicians are reading too much into the building.
Click to expand...

Again, did they do it knowingly, or was it some kind of accident? We only build buildings using well-established theories. Where did the theories come from? They have been derived from many many imperical observation. They were only summaried into theories by some genius individuals. Before the theories exist, the observation was still there. It is not hard to imagine that ancient architects were already aware of these observations and following these rules even though they did not summarize them into theories.

It is also possible that ancient architects did not know any of these theories and many pyramids were built according to many standards, some good and some not so good. Those pyramids that were built using not so good theories and had some bad shape and poor structural integrity could not stand the test of time and collapsed. this is why we don't see/know them today. Only those ones built with good measurements survived. We do have evidence of many half-finished pyramids and the pyramids that collapsed later, suggesting many pyramids were not perfect. There also is evidence of maturation of pyramid-building over thousands of years, suggesting trials and errors...

Spartan95 said:
Other than the Great Pyramid, the presence of ancient megalithic temples are currently a construction mystery as well. These megalithic temples usually have columns that weigh 200 tonnes to 300 tonnes each. The precision with which they are made, and how they are transported remains an enigma.
Click to expand...

Lots of time and many people would do the trick. Some severe penalty of beheading and hanging would also be good encouragement for hard working.
 
Last edited:
Spartan95

Spartan95

Junior Member
First off, I think it is important for me to say that I'm not saying the pyramids are evidence of Ancient Aliens. But, there are currently no viable explanations for their construction.

If a viable explanation is found for the construction of the pyramids that does not involve aliens, that it certainly debunks 1 of the key "evidence" that the theorists are using to forward the Ancient alien hypothesis.

vesicles said:
The key is "the established view" of egyptologists. "Established" doesn't mean it's fact. It is only a hypothesis/theory. If facts like the 3 things you listed do not agree with the theory, like the pyramids had been built in 20 years, what one SHOULD do is to look at the theory again and see if it can be modified. IMO, it is totally illogical to stand by an "established" view and argue how "mysterious" the facts, which do not agree with the view, are.

In science, if data disagree with theory, the first thing one thinks about is that the theory is flawed and should be changed...
Click to expand...

Even if the time-line if changed (to say 100 years, which brings up other issues such as different pharoahs continuing the endeavour), it still does not solve the difficulty in transporting stones that weigh up to 80 tonnes over 500 miles.

vesicles said:
Again, we are assuming that the ancient people were thinking the same way we do. Obviously, before building anything, we would survey the land, along with other things. This is one of those what I called "top-down approach". Ancient people possibly didn't do it this way. They might not have any idea how to survey the land. It just so happened that the land they found for these 3 pyramid was excellent ones. It is very possbile that the quality of the land they found for buliding pyramids was random. Those pyramids built on bad lands collapsed long ago and the only pyramids that we see today had been built on good land and were mere survivors. So the question is: did they found the good land on purpose, or only those pyramids built on good lands survived??
Well, if you look at the study of all the different pyramids in Egypt, a strange phenomenon happens. The older pyramids had more advanced masonry, construction and were bigger. The "newer" ones had shoddy construction, slopes that were less stee, were made of smaller stones, suffered badly due to erosion, etc. The majority of pyramids didn't collapse at all, even though they were built near river banks (in those days, Egypt wasn't as arid as it is now). Is that a coincidence? Or is there a method behind it?

Now, if the dating of the pyramids are correct, it means that the technique of constructing pyramids was deteriorating over time, with the result that smaller and smaller pyramids were built even when the Egyptian dynasties were amongst the largest civilisations in its time. Why is that? Again, no viable explanation exists (although Egyptologists have their theories too).

vesicles said:
Again, we assume ancient people did things in the same way that we do. Nowadays, labor is very expensive. Whenever we think of finishing a task, we think of high tech tools and a few labor. Almost all the experiments that scientists have done nowadays to test the feasibility of building the pyramids using only primitive tools have used labor less than 100 people. Most of experts also use standard amount of labor force that we use to build modern buildings to estimate the feasibility of using primitive tools. However, ancient people did not do things the same way. They typically had a labor force of hundred of thousands, even millions. Ancient kings never had to worry about how to mobilize a force that big since they thought of themselves as deity and commanded absolute power over all things on the land. These ideas might have devastating consequences, like a rebellion, but the kings never thought about these conseqeunces beforehand.

A good example would be Shi Huang di of China. He wanted to build the great walls, so he mobilized millions of labor. That led to the fall of the Qin dynasty, but that did not prevent the first emperor of China from making the decision to build it and also did not prevent the great walls from being built. Mobilizing this kind of force is absolutely impossible today. Thus, combining today's pathetic labor force with ancient primitive tools would definitely yield the conclusion that it could not be done. However, we need to combine yester-time's massive labor force and old tools. The answer may be that it is possible...
Click to expand...

The use of a large slave labour force to build the pyramids is largely accepted as conventional wisdom actually. Again, the difficulty is that there isn't a lot of archaelogical evidence to support this "conventional wisdom".

In contrast, as you mentioned, the first emperor of China mobilised a huge labour force for the construction of the Great Wall. The evidence for the large slave labour force was mass graves. Also, it is important to note that the size of stones used for the Grea Wall aren't particularly big. Most of them are only a few feet across, while the larger ones are comparable to the height of a human. Such stones can be moved using sheer manpower.

vesicles said:
Again, did they do it knowingly, or was it some kind of accident? We only build buildings using well-established theories. Where did the theories come from? They have been derived from many many imperical observation. They were only summaried into theories by some genius individuals. Before the theories exist, the observation was still there. It is not hard to imagine that ancient architects were already aware of these observations and following these rules even though they did not summarize them into theories.
Click to expand...

This is a possibility. But, due to the lack of evidence (as captured in Egyptian history), it is difficult for it to be advanced as a viable explanation.

vesicles said:
It is also possible that ancient architects did not know any of these theories and many pyramids were built according to many standards, some good and some not so good. Those pyramids that were built using not so good theories and had some bad shape and poor structural integrity could not stand the test of time and collapsed. this is why we don't see/know them today. Only those ones built with good measurements survived. We do have evidence of many half-finished pyramids and the pyramids that collapsed later, suggesting many pyramids were not perfect. There also is evidence of maturation of pyramid-building over thousands of years, suggesting trials and errors...
Click to expand...

There remain several sites in egypt where pyramid construction was abandoned half-way for unknown reasons, as well as a few pyramids that have collapsed due to shoddy construction. The surprising thing is that these are dated to be more recent than the Great Pyramid and that they were using smaller stone blocks.

vesicles said:
Lots of time and many people would do the trick. Some severe penalty of beheading and hanging would also be good encouragement for hard working.
Click to expand...

Check out this megalithic temple:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The largest stone block is estimated at 1,500 tonnes (that's heavier that the Cheonan corvette that was allegedly sunk by DPRK). This temple was built before the Roman empire.

What tools and techniques do you think was used? I would be interested in knowing how these are constructed as I have not been able to find any viable explanation given the state of construction technique and tools at that time.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
vesicles

vesicles

Colonel
The possibilities I've given are simply meant to be alternatives to the ancient alien hypothesis. I am not saying these are actually THE explanations. Again, you stress the fact of "no viable explanation" as a possible evidence of involvement of other intelligent beings although you didn't clearly say that. As I have painfully stated in my first post, "no viable explanation" cannot be an evidence for any theory. The process of elimination cannot work here.

Spartan95 said:
First off, I think it is important for me to say that I'm not saying the pyramids are evidence of Ancient Aliens. But, there are currently no viable explanations for their construction.

If a viable explanation is found for the construction of the pyramids that does not involve aliens, that it certainly debunks 1 of the key "evidence" that the theorists are using to forward the Ancient alien hypothesis.
Click to expand...


Many ancient alien theorists share the same logic: "I have put forth a theory, ancient aliens in this case. I will believe it as viable until someone proves me wrong". This kind of thinking is simply illogical. One can test the validity of a theory, but cannot disprove a theory. You can try to find evicence of the involvement of aliens, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to find "evidence" for non-involvement. Since these aliens could come at any time and land anywhere, you'll have to go back and count every sinlge second and look under every stone to show that they didn't come. You can see that this is impossible to do. Simply put, if they didn't do it, there should be no evidence about them at all. Then how can you find no-evidence? (note that no evidence exists).

That's why in science, one should NEVER try to disprove a theory. It's scientifically and logically impossible. So in the case of ancient aliens, if you believe in alien involvement in building the pyramids, find evidence for it. And so far, no solid evidence has been found. And what should happen to the hypothesis when no evidence can support it? It is still a hypothesis, nothing more. And unitl tested and proven, no one should/would take it seriously. The attitude in the field of ancient aliens seems to be "I have a theory/hypothesis, prove me wrong!" This kind of attitude is seen as irresponsible at the best and as insulting by many standard. Why? Anyone can sit around with a coffee mug in hand and formulate dozens of theory in one day. To disprove it, generation of scientists have to work in the sand and endure the heat, dehydration, poisonous snakes, years of separation from family. You can see how unfair this process can be. So like I said many times, if one believes in alien visitations, find evidence to support their claim. Don't expect anyone else to do the hard work for them.

In the lab, we have a custom. Once a week, we would sit in our office and "shoot bulls". Meaning we simply sit in office and talk about all the crazy theories we can think of. We can come up with many at any given day. But until we can find evidence for any of them, they remain what they are, bulls... The ancient alien hypothesis should be in the same category.

Again, I'm not saying I don't believe it ancient aliens. It is simply that the way most of the ancient alien theorists try to prove it is illogical. That's why they are not getting any meaningful attention in the scientific society. Many of the ancient alien theorists sound and look frustrated in the show and they cannot understand why no scientists take them seriously. I'd say this is why. They are simpy shooting bulls, but they think they are proposing the next "general theory of relativity".
 
Last edited:
vesicles

vesicles

Colonel
Many times even the craziest theories have some merrit because there is at least SOME indirect evidence pointing to the possibility of the said theory. In the case of ancient aliens, no one has even found a piece of indirect evidence linking pyramid-building to aliens. The ONLY thing people can say about it, time and time again, is many things about the pyramids cannot be explained by existing theories. that is NOT evidence at all, not even indirect evidence.

If it can't be explained NOW, it could be explained tomorrow. If not, what about other possibilities, like some help from God?? Can you prove God does not exist?? If not, why can't God help the Egyptians build momuments? or what about ghosts and spirits? they got supernatural power that would allow them to move heavy things around. Can you prove these spirits don't exist? probably not. If not, it is also possible ghosts and spirist did it. you can see why "no viable explanation" cannot be used as evidence...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top