zooboy28
Well-Known Member
I expected ThylacineAlive to say something like that.
I expected him to think of Fijian mermaids
The Nonsense Thread
- Thread starter ThylacineAlive
- Start date
I expected him to think of Fijian mermaids
Pootle
Well-Known Member
I expected ThylacineAlive to say something like that.
You have lost me with that comment??
Anyhow you have crossed a line now Nanoboy.
If it wasn't for 10,500 miles I would be giving you a bunch of fives right now laddie.
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
ah, I did not actually realise that you explicitly believe that aliens are and have been visiting Earth. However, whatever you may choose to believe, the chances of aliens visiting this planet are, according to all logic and real science (not the pretend science of UFOlogists etc), highly improbable so "plausible" does not even come close to being an apt word.If one believes in the existence of aliens, and one believes that they visited earth in the past (and still do today), then it isn't a stretch to believe that some of their technology could have ended up in the hands of the ancients. So yes, plausible is an apt word. However, along with "goad", I shall add "plausible" to the list of words that you need to look up. 10 bird books and no dictionary?
humans living in the Ice Age in the northern hemisphere does not come anywhere near being comparable to humans surviving in Antarctica! They didn't live on top of barren ice sheets, and they had large-bodied terrestrial mammals to hunt and plants to harvest, and the conditions were considerably less extreme than on Antarctica. I'm not quite sure what the relevance of fossil plants is? It sounds like one of the classic arguments of the "alternative" theorists, throwing in random unrelated matter as a distractor ("forests grew in Antarctica tens of millions of years ago, therefore it follows that humans could have lived there recently"??)nanoboy said:Ah, Hapgood. Interesting stuff.
Portuguese explorers coming across NZ while exploring the general Pacific Ocean actually is plausible as a theory. The Ark of the Covenant being an alien artifact is not plausible. The distance between the two arguments is of an insurmountable scale. And again with the non-relevant distractor: how does Vikings reaching North America relate to Vikings (for example) reaching New Zealand?nanoboy said:There is no shred of evidence for Portuguese and Spanish in NZ, yet you think it is plausible.Looks like I have some reading to do about NZ tonight. Maybe I'll just skim it and ask you to summarise the webpages. *chuckle chuckle* All your NZ stories sound plausible to me though.
Sometimes I honestly can't tell when you are winding people up and when you're being serious.....
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
The wife has summoned me for Friday night TV, so I must beat a hasty retreat.
A couple points:
re: aliens visiting earth - the glass is half full for me and half empty for you
re: Antarctica - I believe that a colony could have survived on warmer, ice-free parts of the continent. The Inuit get by with limited (none?) agriculture and mostly fishing, so large terrestrial mammals and farming crops is not a prerequisite for settlements.
re: Portuguese and Vikings - I was not making a tenuous link. I was making the point that the Viking sagas were viewed as myths and legends until they found archaeological evidence of Viking settlements. Maybe in the future archaeological evidence may be found in NZ proving that some of those theories of ancient visitors/settlers to be true.
Me? Moebelle? I don't get angry and bite people's heads off! I do enjoy winding you up especially though.
Have you (or anyone else) read a book called 'The Jesus Mysteries' by Timothy Freke by the way? I find the idea of the man Jesus to have never actually existed to be a fascinating one. But at the same time, I find it just as plausible for the references to Jesus in the Bible to be based on a real man at some point in history who did a few apparently amazing things.
A couple points:
re: aliens visiting earth - the glass is half full for me and half empty for you
re: Antarctica - I believe that a colony could have survived on warmer, ice-free parts of the continent. The Inuit get by with limited (none?) agriculture and mostly fishing, so large terrestrial mammals and farming crops is not a prerequisite for settlements.
re: Portuguese and Vikings - I was not making a tenuous link. I was making the point that the Viking sagas were viewed as myths and legends until they found archaeological evidence of Viking settlements. Maybe in the future archaeological evidence may be found in NZ proving that some of those theories of ancient visitors/settlers to be true.
Me? Moebelle? I don't get angry and bite people's heads off!
I do enjoy winding you up especially though. Have you (or anyone else) read a book called 'The Jesus Mysteries' by Timothy Freke by the way? I find the idea of the man Jesus to have never actually existed to be a fascinating one. But at the same time, I find it just as plausible for the references to Jesus in the Bible to be based on a real man at some point in history who did a few apparently amazing things.
Pootle
Well-Known Member
You spoiled a perfectly good subtle joke by being blunt.
Subtle!!!, is that the new word for crap these days
Pootle
Well-Known Member
we now all know who wears the trousers in your house!.
I think the German beach towel joke went sailing above your head, probably my fault as your an Aussie. It is probably only a European/British joke at best anyhow.
Last edited:
jbnbsn99
Well-Known Member
The idea that a historical Jesus never existed however, is a valid line of thought among serious Biblical scholars.
I think it is rather more than half-full for you, if you think the Ark of the Covenant being an alien artifact is "plausible". To be so you must regard alien visitation as an almost certainty. (I actually just realised as I was typing that, that we are probably using differing meanings of plausible: I take it as "credible or believable"; I suspect you choose the definition of "the deceptive appearance of truth", yes? Darn English language!!)
I thought you might bring up the Eskimos. I can't argue about that one, other than to say that humans settling the Arctic circle by a gradual overland route is not the same as humans settling Antarctica, and (again) the conditions in the Arctic are far more benign than the conditions in Antarctica, even in the currently ice-free patches. (Also I wasn't referring to farming crops, I was making reference to Ice Age humans who survived by hunting terrestrial mammals and harvesting wild plant-stuffs).nanoboy said:
no, it really is a tenuous link. Vikings going to North America has literally no bearing at all on anybody discovering NZ! Vikings sailing across the northern Atlantic is easy stuff. It's not a big trip, relatively speaking. And the tales of North America were in the traditions of the Norsemen themselves. For the NZ stories, there are no traditions of discovering NZ amongst the cultures supposed to have been here, only claimed artifacts and Maori legends shoe-horned into whichever culture the "researcher" decides was here. And NZ is of course a long long way from anywhere (especially for some of the non-sea-faring cultures that are claimed as discovering the country!!). Your equation with Vikings in the north Atlantic is irrelevant.nanoboy said:
I know you do, and I enjoy the debate/argument/challenge/whatever word is best appropriatenanoboy said:I do enjoy winding you up especially though.
never read it. I am not religious in any aspect, but I always understood that it was widely accepted that the Bible is basically a historical account with embellishments (although one half was written at a considerable distance from the time of the events). I can't really debate on the Bible because it isn't something I've ever looked into (in more ways than one!)nanoboy said:
nanoboy- I would rather the Antarctic stay frozen over us finding the remains of some ancient Antarctic civilization. I don't really find it plausable. I thought, if you melted all the ice, Antarctica was just a bunch of islands. If Antarctica is a continent, then so should places like New Guinea, Madgascar, and Greenland as they are all bigger if you disregard the ice which isn't real land anyway.
Also, I do believe in Aliens but I and that they may have visited the Earth at one point but I honsetly doubt any Alien civilization would waste the time and money to come here just to make peace. If the Aliens come again, we might be in big trouble. I heard a theory (Stephen Hawking was talking about it so I think we can trust this one) that one of the moons of Saturn (I think Saturn) is actually completely covered in ice and it is believed that there's a large amount of water beneath this and it's thought that maybe a some underwater plant and animal species might live in it (not exactly super-smart humanoids). Why do we assume all Aliens are much more advanced and intelligent than ourselves? Some Aliens could be uncivilized and unintelligent (depending on your opinion on what intelligence is. Mine is more the ability to survive for generations in your habitat without any help from any technology that can't be build from natural resoruces you can find just find anywhere in that habitat).
jbnbsn99- So we can talk about religions and Jesus and such but not talk a little politics!?
Also, I do believe in Aliens but I and that they may have visited the Earth at one point but I honsetly doubt any Alien civilization would waste the time and money to come here just to make peace. If the Aliens come again, we might be in big trouble. I heard a theory (Stephen Hawking was talking about it so I think we can trust this one) that one of the moons of Saturn (I think Saturn) is actually completely covered in ice and it is believed that there's a large amount of water beneath this and it's thought that maybe a some underwater plant and animal species might live in it (not exactly super-smart humanoids). Why do we assume all Aliens are much more advanced and intelligent than ourselves? Some Aliens could be uncivilized and unintelligent (depending on your opinion on what intelligence is. Mine is more the ability to survive for generations in your habitat without any help from any technology that can't be build from natural resoruces you can find just find anywhere in that habitat).
jbnbsn99- So we can talk about religions and Jesus and such but not talk a little politics!?
jbnbsn99
Well-Known Member
jbnbsn99- So we can talk about religions and Jesus and such but not talk a little politics!?
I was talking history and scholarship, not religion.
This thread has gotten too serious. Where's all the nonsense!!
What's with David Brown and the cookie thing? Does it have something to do with the fact that it says "All cookies cleared!" when you log off?
What's with David Brown and the cookie thing? Does it have something to do with the fact that it says "All cookies cleared!" when you log off?
I haven’t paid much attention to this thread as its title The Nonsense Thread discouraged me from reading it. Eventually I succumbed to glancing through it and the comments about Karl Shuker’s book caught my attention.
Yes, I’ve got a copy.
I agree; it is a very interesting book. However, I hasten to add, that doesn’t mean I believe everything stated within!
To be fair to Karl Shuker; he does not postulate aquatic, walrus-like, sabre-tooth cats himself. He makes it clear he is repeating one of Bernard Heuvelmans’ ideas.
Yes, I’ve got a copy.
no it was indeed an aquatic sabre-tooth cat. Apparently in the rivers of the Central African countries there are massive aquatic creatures with tusks. Basically walruses that attack boats and kill the occupants. But being Africa they can't be walruses, and hence Shuker postulates that sabre-tooth cats in Africa became aquatic, grew to gigantic size due to bouyancy of the aquatic environment, their legs evolved into flippers for swimming, etc etc.
He wrote all this completely seriously. Its a very interesting book but with lots of questionable content
I agree; it is a very interesting book. However, I hasten to add, that doesn’t mean I believe everything stated within!
To be fair to Karl Shuker; he does not postulate aquatic, walrus-like, sabre-tooth cats himself. He makes it clear he is repeating one of Bernard Heuvelmans’ ideas.
that is Europa (one of the moon of Jupiter) and it is covered in ice. The theory is that there is a liquid body under the ice cover, and it may have life forms living there.
I don't think anyone assumes all aliens are super intelligent or advanced technologically, but the ones who supposedly visit Earth have to be so. There is an incredibly high probability that life exists elsewhere in the Universe; but a very low probability that any of it is visiting Earth.
I haven't read it for a while (I don't own it unfortunately), but I should have assumed he was repeating someone else's ideas
I said maybe there was life. Obviously, the super smart ones are the only ones that would've visited Earth. I don't think any would today unless they wanted control over the planet but way back when (talking thousands of years) I believe some may have come to mine things like gold and other precious metals and natural resources that they may have needed. Perhaps one or two missions were conducted for scientific research!!
I would love to see some Alien wildlife.
Last edited:
as I understand it, the most common reasons for aliens visiting Earth are theft (e.g. water), wealth (e.g. gold, which apparently has the same value throughout the Universe), food (e.g. humans), slavery (e.g. humans), vivisection and anal probing (e.g. humans and quite often cows as well, because some aliens are deviants), and casual sex (e.g. humans; but originally apes). Some simply get lost because some advanced alien species suck at navigation. Some are looking for new homes because they destroyed their own home-worlds. And some are just jerks.I said maybe there was life. Obviously, the super smart ones are the only ones that would've visited Earth. I don't think any would today unless they wanted control over the planet but way back when (talking thousands of years) I believe some may have come to mine things like gold and other precious metals and natural resources that they may have needed. Perhaps one or two missions were conducted for scientific research!!
I would love to see some Alien wildlife.
Some say that Aliens made us in order to do for things for them and they destroyed the dinosaurs with that meteor to make the world a safer place for us to live (got that off of that Ancient Aliens show). Also, apparently Aliens built many ancient structures (e.g. pyramids, Mayan Calender*, Stonehenge)
*Or at least helped them make it. Whose ready for the world to end for like the 20th time since Humans existed!?
jbnbsn99
Well-Known Member
Some say that Aliens made us in order to do for things for them and they destroyed the dinosaurs with that meteor to make the world a safer place for us to live (got that off of that Ancient Aliens show). Also, apparently Aliens built many ancient structures (e.g. pyramids, Mayan Calender*, Stonehenge)
*Or at least helped them make it. Whose ready for the world to end for like the 20th time since Humans existed!?
To me, the ancient alien hypothesis is the most insulting idea I have ever heard of. It insinuates that Homo sapiens was not smart enough to create the things that they actually created. If you espouse that idea, then you are essentially saying to yourself - my ancestors were ****** who could not even wipe themselves after going to the toilet.
I don't believe that Aliens contributed to our way of life or anything, I just believe that they are real and some have probably visited the Earth at some pointf. Weither it be for scientific research or to obtain resources for back home.
I'm a little curious as to how you think ancient civilizations built things like the Great Pyramid at Giza (which is perfectly aligned with at the point where longitude and latitude meat or so they say) as we cannot recreate such a structure using the tools they had available, today? I'm not saying Aliens had anything to do with it I just want to know.