14Likes
July 31st, 2012, 10:36 PM
the scientific method includes observation and experimentation in general. i am not going to the detail. i have read daniken's book. he visited the sites himself, conducted observation and examination himself just like other mainstream archiologists. then why daniken is called pseudoscience ?
Because he skips over steps that the scientific method needs in order to be called scientific and makes a lot of leaps of faith AKA assumptions to get to his goal. I love listening to him; he is interesting. But it is pseudo-science.
For example, he uses a lot of "What if.... surely then..." arguments.
Remember that:
pseudo-science ≠ trash
Last edited by pyoko; July 31st, 2012 at 11:45 PM.
because he started off with the conclusion he wanted to reach and then tried to retrofit the facts to suit his preconceived conclusion
good science may start off with some initial assumptions, but if the facts point the other way, a scientist worth his/her salt will ditch those assumptions rather than shoe-horn the facts to fit them
he based his claim on picture found on caves and temple, on writings of the authors, on artifacts found by mainstream archiologists. for examples he came into conclusion that ancient astronauts visited earth by seeing the picture and models of flying machines, reading ancient writings like vymanika shastram (aeronautics) of india etc. he saw a model of flying machine in the cairo museum.
he saw the statues on a site that wear clothing like those our modern day astronauts wear and he concluded that ancient astronauts visited planet earth.
whats wrong in that conclusion?
Because as was just pointed out to you, he starts with the conclusion and then twists everything he can find to support it.whats wrong in that conclusion?
sounds more authoritetive conservative statement. he saw something and understand exactly what the thing is. if he saw a picture of flying man, he understand it as a flying man. not anything else. bringing unnecessary complication is not only foolish but also ridiculous.Originally Posted by AlexG
He saw something, he thought he knew what it was because that fit with his preconceived ideas. Any evidence that didn't fit was ignored. Any explanations from experts in the material (e.g. "that is a traditional royal headdress shown more clearly in the following images ...") were just ignored.
A combination of bad interpretation and cherry picking evidence.
Just because something looks like something, doesn't mean it is something: Meatballs and spaghetti, and pareidolia in food « Noms and Sciunce (read the comments, although the recipe looks quite good too)
we have difficulty in understanding our past because of some missing links. we saw giant architecture without necessary equipment for construction. for example giant pyramids. we fail to understand how pyramids are built without any sophisticated equipment. many theories are constructed which try to explain how such giant architecture is built with simple ancient tools. but all such theories fail. time for some paradigm shift?
we thought that in ancient time people's height were same as ours today. with this short height in mind we cannot understand how they built such giant architecture? we have to imagine many ways but they fail. but if we consider that height of ancient people are like giants: huge, then we can easily understand how they built these giant architecture. we don't have to imagine that ancient people are of giant height. there are many skeleton of human being found which are giant in size. these skeletons further strengthens the hypothesis that ancient people are giant in size. then these giants built giant architecture with simple tools. now i think thsese giants built huge pyramids by carrying stones with their hands: they are huge in size. that is why no sophisticated tools are found on the site. giants carry huge stones like we carry bags. thus they built pyramids.
here is the video showing giant skeleton found:
will it apply to you too? just you look like a human being does not necessarily mean that you are a human being. you may be an alien visiting earth . your parents don't understand.Just because something looks like something, doesn't mean it is something: Meatballs and spaghetti, and pareidolia in food « Noms and Sciunce (read the comments, although the recipe looks quite good too)
Maybe. But we don't have to rely on just "looks like a human being" to determine that I am human and not a misshapen vegetable.
Because he made things up, that's why. His many transgressions have been documented ad nauseam over the years, but I'll give you just one example: He claimed that a certain ancient iron pillar in Delhi was free of rust, and then attributed this remarkable "fact" to advanced metallurgy from ancient astronauts. The problem? The pillar isn't free of rust. And no extraterrestrial technology is needed to explain its condition.
So the mere (claimed) fact that he personally examined the various sites and objects described in his book tells us nothing about the veracity of his reportage. It's painfully obvious, as others have noted correctly here, that he began with a belief and then selectively pasted together "evidence" to support that belief. He didn't seem to have any problem making up "evidence" as needed. That's why he's properly considered a crackpot (and/or a very clever, cynical entrepreneur preying on the gullibility of a credulous public).
For more concrete evidence of his sloppy "science" and outright fraudulent behavior, see the summary in the Wiki article on von Daniken. For still more, chase the references cited in same.
This thread makes it so clear why those books sell so well.
That's the problem. People who are doing pseudoscience don't look too deeply into things. They also do a lot of information hiding. That means that if someone presents something which shows them to be wrong or lessens the strength of their theories they don't attempt to explain it within the scope of their theory. Theysimply ignore it. Like those designs on the ground on mountan tops. The pseudoscientists claim it can only be viewed from spaceships flying above. They ingore the simplest of all explanations, i.e. that the people who created those drawings wanted their gods to see it, since gods are up in the heavens they made it easy for the gods to see it.
I've never heard of Von Daniken doing any experiments. In fact there are no experiments that can be done to prove his theories. That is what makes it pseudoscience. The theory is also unfalsifiable and as such doesn’t qualify as a scientific theory.
In the American Journal of Physics (AJP) they defined science as follows. From Am. J. Phys. 67(8), August 1999 page 659
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/what_is_science.pdf
Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories. The success and credibility of science is anchored in the willingness of scientists to:
1) expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by other scientists; this requires the complete and open exchange of data, procedures and materials;
2) abandon or modify accepted conclusions when confronted with more complex or reliable experimental evidence.
Adherence to these principles provides a mechanism for self-correction that is the foundation of the credibility of science.
It takes more than looking at things to provide evidence for a theory. And that’s what we’ve all seen of him, i.e. all that he has done is to visit locations. The “conducted observations” and “examination” is nothing more than simply looking at the places he visits. That’s not the scientific method by any means. Recall the statement above from the AJP
Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.
All he does is make things up. Consider those bobbles which look like air planes. Perhaps the kids back then figured out how to sew leafs and branches into the shape of something that will glide. And those bobbles are a way of an adult to remember the fun times of his youth. Does Von Daniken even mention such an alternative hypothesis or prove why it was wrong? Not that I’ve seen.
That’s because you’re assuming that the strudtures used to construct giant structures were saved for prosperity. I see no reason to make that assumption. It seems to me that equipement back then would be recycled for new prodjects and perhaps when finished there they might have become the material used to build with itself.
Just because we can’t figure it out it doesn’t mean that ancient people didn’t figure it out. Ancient doesn’t mean primative. Our modern ability to construct giant buildings hasn’t been around that long. Perhaps a thousands years. Before that people had thousands and thousands of years to learn how to build giant structures with the materials available to them at that time.
Of course we think so. We’ve found countless remains of people whose hieght was similar to ours. There is only a certain height which people can grow to without serious fault damage to the skeleton being damged beyond repair. Think of the blood pressure throoughout that kind of structrure. It’d be huge. So large as to be dangerous. The heart would have a terrible time trying to pump the blood around the body. Bones shown in your pictures are two small to hold up such a frame. They’d break once the person tried to stand.
That’s not a logical argument. You’re employing too many questionable premises.
What information do you have from scientists who have examined such skelatons and their gravesites? I myself would never accept something like that from a mere photo/magazine unless it was backed up by solid science and published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Where’s your proof?
We can’t take those seriously since we don’t know where they came from. People go through a ton of trouble to fake things like that. And nobody really knows why people do that other than being a smart ass.
Because he draws the wrong conclusions from real observations.then why daniken is called pseudoscience ?
No, he saw pictures and models that looked like flying machines. He then concluded that they actually were flying machines, but that conclusion is unsupported by empirical evidence.for examples he came into conclusion that ancient astronauts visited earth by seeing the picture and models of flying machines
Once again, he saw a drawing that looked like a flying man. But where is the evidence to show that it actually was a flying man ? There is none. It is far more likely that it was just a symbolic drawing.if he saw a picture of flying man,
It's like those blobs of blubber washing ashore every once in a while - they look like plesiosaur remains, so the cranks jump on it : "We told you ! Dinosaurs are still alive !". And then it turns out that those blobs are really just the rotting remains of whales and sharks...
Err, no. All it took was manpower. A lot of manpower, and some understanding of basic geometry.we fail to understand how pyramids are built without any sophisticated equipment.
Except that, if you go around and really look for them, no one seems to be able to tell you where they are ! No surprise, because they don't exist.there are many skeleton of human being found which are giant in size.
Btw, those videos you posted are well known fakes.
Come on now, it's obviously a hoax.
"Skeleton of Giant" Is Internet Photo Hoax
Don't get me wrong, it is good to have an open mind, but make sure you don't open your mind so much that you let your brains fall out!
Giants built the pyramids? As a tomb for a midget King?
the main problem of scientists in this forum is that when they got a proof that challenge established belief, they say that the proof is fake. i think this is also the case with daniken. maybe he's got a proof that challenge established belief. all his proof is fake. this is hardcore scientism and not a freethinking.We can’t take those seriously since we don’t know where they came from. People go through a ton of trouble to fake things like that. And nobody really knows why people do that other than being a smart ass.
why not? is there any conflict between giants and midgets? in circus, both giants and midget live together. there is no problem. why not in ancient egypt?Giants built the pyramids? As a tomb for a midget King?
Since he never presented any proof, that's a moot point.the main problem of scientists in this forum is that when they got a proof that challenge established belief, they say that the proof is fake. i think this is also the case with daniken. maybe he's got a proof that challenge established belief. all his proof is fake. this is hardcore scientism and not a freethinking.We can’t take those seriously since we don’t know where they came from. People go through a ton of trouble to fake things like that. And nobody really knows why people do that other than being a smart ass.
The main problem with some posters on this forum is that when presented with evidence that supports established science they reject it in favour of rumour, hoax and conspiracy.
Maybe people who have studied these cultures for decades (and learnt to read their texts) know a bit more about it than a relatively uneducated criminal and liar? He admitted he made up a lot of the stuff in his books, and yet gullible fools still believe it. Pathetic.
if a thing look like an aircraft, it is not necessarily an aircraft. if a thing look like a car, it is not necessarily a car. if a thing look like a human being, it is not necessarily a human being. this kind of reasoning will not help anybody understand anything. understand thing as they are, not as somebody told you to be.No, he saw pictures and models that looked like flying machines. He then concluded that they actually were flying machines, but that conclusion is unsupported by empirical evidence.for examples he came into conclusion that ancient astronauts visited earth by seeing the picture and models of flying machines
in ancient writings those things that looked like a flying creature are called flying creature. that is a fine documentary evidence.But where is the evidence to show that it actually was a flying man ? There is none. It is far more likely that it was just a symbolic drawing.
initially they look like a dino, but later it was found that they look like whale and sharks. look does matter.It's like those blobs of blubber washing ashore every once in a while - they look like plesiosaur remains, so the cranks jump on it : "We told you ! Dinosaurs are still alive !". And then it turns out that those blobs are really just the rotting remains of whales and sharks...
really? then why today midget men cannot built such pyramid with ancient instrument?Err, no. All it took was manpower. A lot of manpower, and some understanding of basic geometry.we fail to understand how pyramids are built without any sophisticated equipment.
[/QUOTE]Except that, if you go around and really look for them, no one seems to be able to tell you where they are ! No surprise, because they don't exist.there are many skeleton of human being found which are giant in size.
Btw, those videos you posted are well known fakes.
such giant skeletons are found all over the world; greece, arabia, india to mention a few name. if those pic and vids(!) are hoax why people all over the world suddenly start making fake picture of giants? what will be their motive? it is perfectly ridiculous, that suddenly people around the world will start making fake picture and videos of giant for no reason.
what about the second video. there people are moving around a giant skeleton. is that also fake?
Well, lets see...
Is there any documented evidence of giants? No
Can movie special effects used to create giants and monsters? Yes
I think I have to go with "fake". Thanks for asking.
Well, lets see...
ancient religious scriptures talk about giants.Is there any documented evidence of giants? No
special effect can sometime create many unusual things. prove that here movie special effect isused. also why people around the world will make fake video of giants suddenly? what is their gain of that business?Can movie special effects used to create giants and monsters? Yes
ofcourse you can. since you accept anything without proper reasoning and proof.I think I have to go with "fake". Thanks for asking.
And that is why law courts and science do not rely on what people think they saw. They look for corroborating evidence: physical evidence that supports what was seen.
If it looks like a plane, is there noise? Are there airports? Are there people who can fly a plane? Are there service manuals for planes?
Yes to all those. I think we can say planes exist.
If it looks like a car, are there tyre tracks? Are their garages? Are their books, magazines and TV programs about cars?
Yes to all those. I think we can say cars exist.
If it looks like a human, does it speak? Does it bleed? Does it have DNA?
Yes to all those. I think we can say it is human.
If it looks like an ancient spaceman, are there any ancient spaceships? Are there any remains of spacesuits? Are there any documents about spaceships? Is there any alien DNA? Is there any evidence of landing sites? Is there anything to support the idea?
No to all of those. I think we can say that von Daniken was a fraud and liar.
I mean these giants. Obviously. If these skeletons have been found all over the world, which museum can I go to to see one? What's that? They can only be seen on the Internet? Why is that, do you think?
Just as a general point of posting here,...
Is there some point where a thread is just sofuckingstupid that it doesn't deserve any attention at all?
Because if there is, this one has reached it.
Last edited by AlexG; August 1st, 2012 at 09:03 PM. Reason: I'm trying to be nicer.
I agree. Some threads reach a point where reason is extinguished and it is put in a repeating loop amounting to bashing your head against a brick wall.
But then again, there is always the entertainment value left.
You will also see that this kind of thread usually gets the most replies.
xxx200, you and mother/father should band together. God only knows the bounds of what your combined gullibility, lack of understanding of the scientific method and science in general can produce.
if you had any understanding of biomechanics then you'd realise that a giant human being would not have the same proportions as a normal human being, for the same reason that a mouse can be far more lightly built than an elephant
an elephant built with the proportions of a mouse would break its legs under its own weight
likewise, a giant would require far more sturdy legs - your video merely shows a normal human skeleton increased in size without changing the proportions, and like the elephant with mouselike proportions would not be able to stand or walk without breaking its legs
xxx200, this - as I think you know - is a science forum. The unwritten policy is not only to encourage a discussion of all things scientific, but also to explore the fringe areas that may represent the next breakthrough and if not can at least be entertaining, as pyoko pointed out.
However, that exploration should be conducted with the spirit and something of the methodology of science. Let me single out one example in this thread where your gullible nature and intransigent commitment to the bizarre appear to overwhelm any rational, reasoning ability you have. I refer to the issue of giants that you impliclty appear to believe to be highly likely to have existed. You base this belief ona minial quantity of data. Against it is the following:
1. Given that a piece of toast with the face of Jesus on it can make the nightly news, the discovery of giants should have spawned not only news items, but a plethora of documentaries, best selling exposes (at least one of which would be by Graham Hancock) and a stream of jokes on late night chat shows. Note that we have had none of the above.
2. Any scientist who discovered such remains would have assured there place in anthropological history and could write their own ticket for university tenure. No scientist has reported such finds.
3. As MarnixR has pointed out the structure of the skeletons demonstrates they could not be real.
Despite this you insist on clinging to the notion that their existence is plausible and we are closing our eyes in an unscientific manner. Bullshit and bollocks. The only closed eyes around here are yours. Why not begin applying the critical thinking to your ideas before you post them, rather than not at all. That would bring your posts into line with the ethos of this forum, would afford members and lurkers much more of interest, and would give you a better understanding and appreciation of what science has achieved and how it achieves it.
This is a well known Internet hoax. Falling for this kind of thing is what happens when you don't approach claims skeptically. This is why von Daniken can still sell books, people are gullible and fall for anything that they see.
It took 10 seconds searching Google to find the actual evidence.
Why not apply some of that skepticism you have for established science and history to the claims of von Daniken and "giant skeletons".
Or do you think there should be two standards of evidence? Established scholarship must prove things beyond doubt but ideas you like should be accepted on the flimsiest faked evidence.
In other words, stop being so fricking gullible and THINK for gods sake.
The problem being, von Daniken has been proven to be a fraud so many times, it's amazing how anyone can take him seriously. He's been caught forging pottery which depicted alien spacecraft. Nova investigated and found the modern-day potter who made the pottery. The majority of von Daniken's failure, however, is conclusion-chasing. He came to a preconceived conclusion that there were ancient astronauts and then set out to find evidence to support his conclusion. By carefully cherry-picking evidence that supports him and discarding all the overwhelming majority of evidence that does not, he presents a case that the ignorant person might find compelling, but anyone with half-an-ounce of common sense and experience finds laughable.
picture and models of spaceships are there. if you don't understand a spaceship as a spaceship, then ii am sorry. look at this one. it is a pic of Pre-Columbian aircraft-like models, State Bank Bogota, Colombia.If it looks like an ancient spaceman, are there any ancient spaceships?
B081.JPG
this one is from Egyptian Museum, Cairo
B082.JPG
now look at this one with an open mind. it is from ancient china.
B102.JPG
what do you think ? isn't the chariot flying in the sky? what would you call it now?
if there is a spacecraft then must there be a spacesuit.Are there any remains of spacesuits?
i have told you that religious scriptures told about them frequently over and over.Are there any documents about spaceships?
that needs examination.Is there any alien DNA?
if there is a flying machine there must be one landing site. one daniken found in najka pleatue in peru.see here Nazca Lines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIs there any evidence of landing sites?
sufficient evidence is shown here if you understand things as they are.Is there anything to support the idea?
your mainstream scientists are a fraud and liar.No to all of those. I think we can say that von Daniken was a fraud and liar.
oh you believe in god!!. don't you have a scientific mind? 90% of scientists reject the idea of god and you being a blind follower of them still believe in god.
you should be banned.
Have you never heard of a thing called "fiction"? Or do you think the Harry Potter movies were documentaries?
Most of them haven't spent time in prison for it though.your mainstream scientists are a fraud and liar.
Why don't you apply the same scepticism to this crook as you do to everything else?
Don't believe you. Prove it.
There is only one person here who has repeatedly been shown to be a fraudster and liar, and his name is mentioned in the title of this thread.your mainstream scientists are a fraud and liar.
I know you don't believe that, but then again, everyone is entitled to his/her own delusions...
And as for the pictures :
1. Insects
2. Bird
3. Mythological character ( that is what the text next to it says !!! )
Very good ... did you have to reverse it or can you read Chinese mirror writing
Just mirror itVery good ... did you have to reverse it or can you read Chinese mirror writing
No. Kalster was referring to Fred God, who works the late shift at the local 7-11. Despite being "just" a convenience-store clerk, Fred is something of a savant. He knows when you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness' sake.oh you believe in god!!. don't you have a scientific mind? 90% of scientists reject the idea of god and you being a blind follower of them still believe in god.
you should be banned.
Where did you get that impression from? It's the furtherest thing from the truth. The average scientist would absolutely love to find something which challenged currently established belief. The scientist who discovered it would win a Nobel Prize. That's how a lot of modern science such as relativity and quantum mechanics got started. It challenged established belief
What you're not distinguishing is the difference between new ideas and crazy ideas. Take a look at the definition of pseudoscience in this thread Definition of "Pseudoscience" and youi'll get a better idea of what I'm talking about. Pseudoscientists don't follow the scientific method. To understand what that is see the . Am. J. Phys. 67 (8), August 1999 article I mentioned above http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.bro...is_science.pdf
I don't mention these things because I love to type. I do it sothat you can read it and get the answers to the questions you're king. What's the sense of answering your questions with the right material if you're not willing to read it?
Administrators don't usually get banned.oh you believe in god!!. don't you have a scientific mind? 90% of scientists reject the idea of god and you being a blind follower of them still believe in god.
you should be banned.
The rest is nonsense. There's no reason one can be both a scientist as well as a theist. I'm a physicist who believes in God. And you got the stats all wrong. About 40% of all scientists are theists.
By the way, why do you expect answers when you ask questions but don't give answers when people ask you questions? I specifically asked you where your proof was regarding the claims you made about giant skeletons? Where is your response?
You also claim that Von Daniken did some experiments. What were those experiments? What scientific journal was the results published? What was the nature of those experiments?
all civilizations all over the world suddenly start writing and drawing fiction huh? all civilizations all over the world suddenly start worshipping fictional character huh? why will they do that? i expect some intellectual reply.Have you never heard of a thing called "fiction"? Or do you think the Harry Potter movies were documentaries?
hence they are the great dictator.Administrators don't usually get banned.
then you must have a proof of god too. why don't you tell the rest 60% of scientists about those proof?The rest is nonsense. There's no reason one can be both a scientist as well as a theist. I'm a physicist who believes in God. And you got the stats all wrong. About 40% of all scientists are theists.
i have given proof of giant skeleton in the form of video and picture but you and people like you call them hoax without ever examining carefully . you cannot see those skeletons in museums because museums also reject those skeleton as hoax without ever examining carefully. now if you don't want to believe in real evidence like bones, then how one can prove his point? i have given enough response to all meaningful questions.I specifically asked you where your proof was regarding the claims you made about giant skeletons? Where is your response?
read his books and you will find.You also claim that Von Daniken did some experiments. What were those experiments? What scientific journal was the results published? What was the nature of those experiments?
the point is that you and people like you are blindly following what some particular people are saying. you think they are worthy of believing and thats why you believe them. you see the world through their eyes and not through your eyes. why? whenever i make some claim you always want some peer reviewd articles or what some scientists say. why don't you look at the things yourself and use your own intelligence to understand things?
That's not proof of anything other than your blind acceptance of silliness that you wish to believe. I have videos and pictures of the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, but I don't imagine for a nanosecond that such images constitute proof.
Giants of the type you claim cannot exist, because of the physics of materials. Strength goes as the cross-sectional area, and hence scales quadratically with linear dimension. Stress is proportional to weight, which scales as the cube of linear dimensions. Thus, if I double the height of a person, the ability of the skeleton to support weight multiplies by 4, but the weight multiplies by 8. Muscles, tendons, ligaments, etc. similarly don't scale linearly.
Taller bipeds also have the problem of higher angular accelerations when falling. Tall enough giants would actually suffer a high probability of dying from accidental falls before reaching reproductive age.
I always find it sadly amusing that nutjobs who are blind adherents to a cherished belief are so self-unaware as to accuse the skeptics of blind following.the point is that you and people like you are blindly following what some particular people are saying.
Yes, we scientists look at the world through the lens of rationality. Sorry if that spoils your fantasies of magical fairies and ancient gods. You are welcome to believe all the fantasies you wish. Just stop complaining that others are not as gullible as you.you think they are worthy of believing and thats why you believe them. you see the world through their eyes and not through your eyes. why? whenever i make some claim you always want some peer reviewd articles or what some scientists say. why don't you look at the things yourself and use your own intelligence to understand things?
Now go back to reading more idiocy by your prophet, von Daniken. Show your faithfulness by buying more of his books. He needs your money.
That's nonsense and you know it. Any Administroters job is to control where material on this forum goes. Just because KALSTER placed this post in this forum she can in no way be considered to be a dictator simply because of that action
The later does not follow from the former, i.e. just because I take the existance of God on faith it doesn't imply that I must have proof of the existance of God.
Nobody would consider that proof. That kind of thing is quite easy to create. And we can't independantly verify its origin either. We hav no way of examining it carefuly as you assert. It's not as if we can bring one of those bones into a lab and see it its real or not. So in reality you saw a video of what appeared to be a real live giant skelton and you assumed it was rea. Do yoiu claim to ave examined it yoiurself? If so then how? Merely by inspection? In case you weren't aware of it one cannot verify the correctness of a bone from a photo.
And how do you know that? Do museums release statements for the press saying that a giant skeleton was found and they decided not to examine it for no reason? That's not the way things work in science. If you were a science then you'd know it. You simply can't go around declaring things as evidence merely because someone showed you a photo or a picture of it. People fake those kinds of things merely for the fun of it, to catch people believing things merely because they made a giant model and had someone take a photo of it. If somene found a huge skeleton here in Boston then the news would be all over it and the scientific institutions (like MIT) around here would be examining it. One of the most famous pieces of "evidence" of the Lockness Monster was eventually proven to be false. But for many decades it was assumed to be real. Scientists are much much much more clever than to fall for something like that.
You mean to tell me that you know about these experiments and use then to substantiate your assertions about his work but you refuse to tell us wat they are and we have to read the books ourselves? Nope. No can do. Everything about him is a crackpot according to that list I showed you. Not only that but I hafve much more important things to read at the moment and in he forseeable future, i.e. reviews on Classical Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, Electrodynamics and relativity to prepare myself for two brush up courses in the fall in EM and QM.
On the contrary, its you who is blindly following people such as Eric Von Daniken who's a textbook pseudoscientist. You don't follow the scientific method and don't veryify the veracity of your so-called "evidence."
Who are these people that you're talking about? If you're referring to modern scientists then you're way out of line. As scientists we're trained, by these same scientists you claim are leading us around by our noses, to be skeptikal. To be cautious about what we accept as evidence without deeply scrutinizing the evidence. The people who train us show us how to take precautions to make sure we're not easily fooled. They are very very very smart people who haveearned our respect. No scientist simply accepts something another scientist says simply because they trust them either. We accept things when they are proven to us beyond reasonable doubt.
Same with the rest. You just don't know what it's like to be a scientist. You seem to think that we believe anything we see or hear. Welle buddy, you're very very wrong. You've shown no understanding of the scientific method. In fact when I showed you what sicence is all about you showed to sign that you evern read it.
Please don't come here making accusations that you can't substantiate. We're not as stupid as you make us out to be. You, on the other hand, don't seem to know how science works at all!
You mean like the various gods found in all cultures around the world?all civilizations all over the world suddenly start writing and drawing fiction huh? all civilizations all over the world suddenly start worshipping fictional character huh? why will they do that? i expect some intellectual reply.Have you never heard of a thing called "fiction"? Or do you think the Harry Potter movies were documentaries?
If I was a dictator, why have you been allowed to lot up over 150 posts of utter nonsense, gobsmacking gullibility, choking arrogance and entirely vacuous ignorance?
Funnily enough, you are teetering ever closer to the threshold of being booted. Even after all my time on this forum, I am still staggered by the degree of bullshit that seemingly otherwise normal people will unshakably cling to. And there is no hope for any improvement. Why should we continue to waste our time listening and responding to thread after thread of incredible ignorance without any hope of chipping away at it? What is in it for us?
PS: FYI pmb, I am male...
if you had any knowledge of Kalster as a person, then you'd know that statement to be absolute poppycock
both Harold and Kalster were proposed as admins by the moderator team for their well-known sense of fairness and tolerance
the fact that you are allowed to write the drivel you have in this thread should be proof of that
and it's no good crying "unfair!" when drivel is given its proper name by all but yourself
I don't know why such idiotic question deserve an answer at all, never mind an intellectual one. Surely you are not that daft. Were has "suddenly" come from? For as long as we have records, people have always told stories, they have always had religion and they always had myths. You cannot take every single thing you read and see as evidence of something real.
You are the most gullible person I have ever encountered. You don't seem to think critically, you just reject things you don't like and accept things you do, without even thinking.
And you have been given a link to an interview with the guy who created the original fake photo. Presumably you call that a hoax "without ever examining carefully".i have given proof of giant skeleton in the form of video and picture but you and people like you call them hoax without ever examining carefully .
Von Daniken has admitted inventing much of the stuff in his books. But presumably you choose to ignore that because it doesn't fit with what you want to believe.
You are a fool and a hypocrite.
Prove it. Now you are just making things up. This make you dishonest as well.you cannot see those skeletons in museums because museums also reject those skeleton as hoax without ever examining carefully.
You are the one who is blindly following stories and pictures that people admit to making up. Why is that?the point is that you and people like you are blindly following what some particular people are saying.
It's not all that hard to prove, just look up some of the studies. The vast majority of scientists express a far more critical view of gods than the population in general. Among the National Academy of Sciences, only 7% claim to hold a belief in a god, with 72.2% actively disbelieving and 20.8% expressed no belief in the existence of gods. There are many other studies that point to the same kind of breakdown.Don't believe you. Prove it.
Further, in tons of studies carried out over the past hundred years, there is a demonstrable inverse correlation between intelligence and religiousity. The more intelligent one is, the less likely they are to believe in a god. Among those studies are:
Thomas Howells, 1927
Hilding Carlsojn, 1933
Abraham Franzblau, 1934
Thomas Symington, 1935
Vernon Jones, 1938
Donald Gragg, 1942
Brown and Love, 1951
Michael Argyle, 1958
Young, Dustin and Holtzman, 1966
C. Plant and E. Minium, 1967
Robert Wuthnow, 1978
Norman Poythress, 1975
Wiebe and Fleck, 1980
So xxx200 was wrong then.
Oops!! My appologies.PS: FYI pmb, I am male...
Here is an article about one of those photos of a giant skeleton. snopes.com: Giant Human Skeleton Found in Saudi Arabia
It explains how it's hoax.
It reads in part the same thing I already stated above, i.e. "The square-cube law" makes it physically impossible that humanoids of that size represeted by these bones could have ever existed."
I looked at other web sites too. They all seem to agree that its a hoax. National Geographic has a spot on it too at
"Skeleton of Giant" Is Internet Photo Hoax
At this site Photo: "Skeleton of Giant" Is Internet Photo Hoax
it reads
The next page readThe National Geographic Society has not discovered ancient giant humans, despite rampant reports and pictures. The hoax began with a doctored photo and later found a receptive online audience—thanks perhaps to the image's unintended religious connotations.
Well, there's one photon demonstrated to be a hoax.IronKite started with an aerial photo of a mastodon excavation in Hyde Park, New York, in 2000. He then digitally superimposed a human skeleton over the beast's remains.
The later addition of a digging man presented the biggest technical challenge.
"If you look, he's holding a yellow-handled shovel, but there's nothing on the end," IronKite said.
"Originally, the spade end was there. But [it] looked like it was occupying the exact same space as the skeleton's temple, making the whole thing look fake. "Now it looks like he's just holding a stick, and people don't notice. It's funny."
....
IronKite said he's tickled that the picture—which took only about an hour and a half to create—has generated so much Internet attention.
i don't understand what you are talking about. but here is some picture of real life semi giants.Giants of the type you claim cannot exist, because of the physics of materials. Strength goes as the cross-sectional area, and hence scales quadratically with linear dimension. Stress is proportional to weight, which scales as the cube of linear dimensions. Thus, if I double the height of a person, the ability of the skeleton to support weight multiplies by 4, but the weight multiplies by 8. Muscles, tendons, ligaments, etc. similarly don't scale linearly.
220px-Robert_Wadlow.jpg
he is robert wadlow link:Robert Wadlow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
here are top 10 tallest man of the world picture. their heights are between 7 ft to 8 ft. this shows that they are semi giant. it shows that a man could be taller than others. and it is possible. if a man could be 8ft tall, why he can't be 10 ft tall? there is a possibility. so giants are not impossible.
http://top10hm.com/top-10-tallest-man-alive/
yes i have read those article before and i am sure that you have your idea based on these article. ok. no problem go on. i don't believe that national geographic is always true and right.Here is an article about one of those photos of a giant skeleton. snopes.com: Giant Human Skeleton Found in Saudi Arabia
It explains how it's hoax.
It reads in part the same thing I already stated above, i.e. "The square-cube law" makes it physically impossible that humanoids of that size represeted by these bones could have ever existed."
I looked at other web sites too. They all seem to agree that its a hoax. National Geographic has a spot on it too at
"Skeleton of Giant" Is Internet Photo Hoax
At this site Photo: "Skeleton of Giant" Is Internet Photo Hoax
it reads
The next page readThe National Geographic Society has not discovered ancient giant humans, despite rampant reports and pictures. The hoax began with a doctored photo and later found a receptive online audience—thanks perhaps to the image's unintended religious connotations.
Well, there's one photon demonstrated to be a hoax.IronKite started with an aerial photo of a mastodon excavation in Hyde Park, New York, in 2000. He then digitally superimposed a human skeleton over the beast's remains.
The later addition of a digging man presented the biggest technical challenge.
"If you look, he's holding a yellow-handled shovel, but there's nothing on the end," IronKite said.
"Originally, the spade end was there. But [it] looked like it was occupying the exact same space as the skeleton's temple, making the whole thing look fake. "Now it looks like he's just holding a stick, and people don't notice. It's funny."
....
IronKite said he's tickled that the picture—which took only about an hour and a half to create—has generated so much Internet attention.
We know that.
Now how about the interviews with the guy who faked the pictures? And the interviews with von Daniken where he admits faking things?
You believe von Daniken when he tells you lies but you don't believe him when he tells you he is lying. What is wrong with you?
Key word is "semi." You are making claims about actual giants, so showing me a picture of a semi giant isn't particularly dispositive, is it? Plus, are you aware of the many serious health problems suffered by semi giants? These health problems stem from precisely the mechanical problems I cited.
You continue to display a sadly typical lack of good reasoning skills. "If 7ft is possible, then 8 should be. If 8 is possible, then 9 should be." By extension of your "logic," then, an infinite height should be possible. Somehow the idiocy of that line of reasoning escaped you.here are top 10 tallest man of the world picture. their heights are between 7 ft to 8 ft. this shows that they are semi giant. it shows that a man could be taller than others. and it is possible. if a man could be 8ft tall, why he can't be 10 ft tall? there is a possibility. so giants are not impossible.
In case you still don't get it, let's replace "tall people" with "tall buildings." By your reasoning, if one skyscraper exists, then a taller one can exist. And therefore a still taller one. Therefore, an infinitely tall skyscraper should be possible.
Really?
Some people are ignorant. Others are stupid. "Ignorance can be fixed, but stupid is forever."
So you are choosing which evidence to accept depending on whether it agrees with what you already believe or not?
Did you notice that that is exactly the reason that von Daniken is a pseudoscientist. (Apart from the fact he admits he lied. And went to prison for fraud. And has been shown to be wrong.)
You are hopeless.
I tend to believe it because it makes more sense then a giant skeleton being discovered. You have the bad habit of ignoring reasons given to you. For example, the fact that its impssible to have a man that size. If a man actuallty had that size his leg bones would collapse under his weight and he wou;dn't be strong enough to carry his own weight. His build is all wrong for his size. Take the picture of the person you called a giant. He's simply the tallest man for his species. But that comes with problems. His weight is so much that it cause all sorts of health problems. So a man 4 times his size couldn't live like we do. He wouldn't be able to walk and his food intake would be enormous. His blood pressure in his lower extremites would be huge. It would be hard for the heart to pump blood through a body of that size. Compare his structure with that of a a huge dinosaur. A dino leg bone is massive compared to a man the size of a dino that size.Why do you disbelieve the person who said he faked the photo? What are his motives for lying? Scientists tend to go with the most reasonable explanation. That principle is called Occam's Razor. Are you familiar with it?
I suggest that we cut him some slack. After all he's not a scientist and as such he is unaware of their methods. Just a suggestion though.So you are choosing which evidence to accept depending on whether it agrees with what you already believe or not?Did you notice that that is exactly the reason that von Daniken is a pseudoscientist. (Apart from the fact he admits he lied. And went to prison for fraud. And has been shown to be wrong.)You are hopeless.
However I'm getting pretty tired of being told that I'm closed minded just because I know crap when I see it. I have a great crap detector.
Last edited by pmb; August 3rd, 2012 at 12:38 PM.
But every thread he starts goes the same way
xxx200: "What do you think of this?"
everybody on earth: "it is wrong for the following reasons"
xxx200: "you are mistaken"
everybody on earth: "have you considered these facts and this evidence"
xxx200: "why are you all so narrow minded"
and so on
I quote the creator of this picture, who, it needs to be made clear, never once claimed that this was in fact a real photograph - it was actually an entry for a Photoshop competition on Worth1000.com :
"I laugh myself silly when some guy claims to know someone who was there, or even goes so far as to claim that he or she was there when they found the skeleton and took the picture," IronKite said. "Sometimes people seem so desperate to believe in something that they lie to themselves, or exaggerate in order to make their own argument stronger."
It says a lot about you, xxx200, that you actually believe this nonsense to be real, even though it has been totally, utterly, completely debunked by even its own creator !!!
Enough said
xxx200,
Maybe you need to learn when to admit you are wrong and back down. I know this requires a lot of courage (I have to do it with depressing frequency). But there is nothing to be admired in rabidly defending a mistaken position because you think you will look a fool if you admit you are wrong.
You will only look a fool if you refuse to admit you are mistaken. You will be seen as courageous and honest if you admit you made a mistake.
As they say, "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging".
Your friend,
Mr Strange
Let's touch back on the physics that xxx200 has been ignoring.
When you double the size of a man then you increase the cross-sectional area of the muscles and its the cross-section that determines its strength. However, when the area of muscle increase as the square of the size its strength increases with the square of the size so that when we increase the size by a factor of k we increase the strength of a muscle increases by a factor of k^2. However the volume increases by a factor of k^3 so that the mass increases by a factor of k^3. Eventually the man will collapse under his own weight.
Got that xxx2000?
this is obviously assuming that the general proportions of an animal remain similar whilst it grows bigger
the example of the giraffe shows that not all large animals need to become elephant-like
however, having said that, if you look at, say the chinese basketball player of 7ft 3in. who's currently competing in the olympics, you'll notice that even here the proportions have changed in that most of the height increase comes from the legs - the so-called giant of the video has normal human proportions, hence does not show any allometric trend in either the elephant or giraffe direction
I was addressing what xxx200 provided us, i.e. a perfect human skeleton (e.g. me times 4), the only difference being that its some 50 feel tall (is that the height?)
Animals which already exist are "designed" to work at their size. The wouldn't work at size 4 times taller. That's why people who have the giantanism disease (pituitary gland disorder?) aren't healthy and don't live all that long.
What xxx200 fails to realize, of course, is that Wadlow, his example above, died at age 22, by which time his body was already failing catastrophically. The majority of people who suffer from gigantism have terrible medical problems including severe spinal curvature. Almost all of them require some help to stand and most are unable to stand at all, being relegated to wheelchairs.I was addressing what xxx200 provided us, i.e. a perfect human skeleton (e.g. me times 4), the only difference being that its some 50 feel tall (is that the height?)
Animals which already exist are "designed" to work at their size. The wouldn't work at size 4 times taller. That's why people who have the giantanism disease (pituitary gland disorder?) aren't healthy and don't live all that long.
Certainly, the photoshopped hoax that xxx200 keeps passing around displays none of these clear and diagnostic characteristics.
Didn't you ever see that movie "Attack of the 50 foot Woman"? There's your proof right there. Filmed in black and white.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_..._50_Foot_Woman
Dang -- you're right. I capitulate. She showed no, er, structural problems at all.Didn't you ever see that movie "Attack of the 50 foot Woman"? There's your proof right there. Filmed in black and white.
Attack of the 50 Foot Woman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm surprised xxx200 didn't bring that documentary up as evidence.
Why are you flaming him? There's no excuse for being so mean. It's posts like this which contributes to making discussion forums so unpleasant. He came here asking an honest question. Granted he seems to have trouble using the scientific method and has trrouble not being able to determine an easily transparent hoax its not a good reason to flame him. And it's not as if he came here to start a flame war either.
He seems quite honest in his intentions. Just because his arguments arent well aren't cogent its no reason to insult him. We should instead stick to educating him.
Key word is "semi." You are making claims about actual giants, so showing me a picture of a semi giant isn't particularly dispositive, is it? Plus, are you aware of the many serious health problems suffered by semi giants? These health problems stem from precisely the mechanical problems I cited.
You continue to display a sadly typical lack of good reasoning skills. "If 7ft is possible, then 8 should be. If 8 is possible, then 9 should be." By extension of your "logic," then, an infinite height should be possible. Somehow the idiocy of that line of reasoning escaped you.here are top 10 tallest man of the world picture. their heights are between 7 ft to 8 ft. this shows that they are semi giant. it shows that a man could be taller than others. and it is possible. if a man could be 8ft tall, why he can't be 10 ft tall? there is a possibility. so giants are not impossible.
In case you still don't get it, let's replace "tall people" with "tall buildings." By your reasoning, if one skyscraper exists, then a taller one can exist. And therefore a still taller one. Therefore, an infinitely tall skyscraper should be possible.
Really?
Some people are ignorant. Others are stupid. "Ignorance can be fixed, but stupid is forever."
We don't need post like this. Your logical refutation or his thinking was sufficient--you went too far through. Giving you a day off to think about it.
You have the right to take this action, but I don't think it is the correct decision given that other posters have been equally critical and dismissive of xxx200.
tk421 may have been a little harsh, but his contributions are of value to this forum.
Having said that, I am aware he does not need me to defend his actions!
He is not simply asking a question, he is trying to defend Von Daniken's position against the answers given. There is a difference, which was the reason I started a thread a while back asking "why do so many nutters post on science boards?". They want to believe, regardless of the scientific method.
They deserve derision. I should be banned too, as I will call an idiot an idiot if I spot one. When I tell someone that they do not understand that they do not understand (as I just did in another thread) I am calling them ignorant. Because they are.
When it was pointed out that Von Daniken is considered by the mainstream to be a fraud and a liar (which is correct), xxx200 replied that mainstream scientists are frauds and liars. A global ad-hominem is not an indicator of someone simply asking an "honest" question.
If you are questioning accepted science, you need to grow a thick skin.
Last edited by SpeedFreek; August 5th, 2012 at 06:17 AM.
Many non-scientists simply don't understand the vast amounts of time, money and energy spent on research and studies. They see in the news that "scientists say..." or that "researchers report...", and maybe they think that science is a matter of I say this and you say that, and maybe that whoever shouts the loudest or the longest wins.
As to Daniken, Wikipedia reports his repeated documented financial dishonesty (and convictions) — theft, fraud, embezzlement, and repeated and sustained embezzlement, fraud and forgery, partly to fund his playboy lifestyle. For me, "repeated and sustained" means habitual, as in a "bad habit". More importantly, Wikipedia also says that Daniken recanted some of his claims that he made in his work and admitted that he fabricated other of his claims to make his work more interesting, so Daniken has has admitted that his own work contains fraud.
I remember at least one TV program debunking his work about 40 years ago. I have never heard of anyone being sued for publishing a book containing inaccurate "scientific" data, especially when it's only a theory. The persuasive Daniken finally found his niche for people who lack the scientific knowledge to know better. Find what interests enough people, and get them to buy a low-priced book.
I know exactly what he’s doing. I’ve been arguing against what he’s saying from the beginning. He asked a question but questioned the answer. He doesn’t accept everything he’s told. That’s not an excuse to insult him. If I ask a question and don’t accept /trust the answer then I too would question it.
When we all joined the forum we all agreed to follow the rules. See
The Science Forum Guidelines
Telling someone that they don’t understand something is not an insult. Calling them dumb is an insult.5(b) Do not flame or in any way insult those who you feel have acted outside of the rules, as you only stoop to their level. Again, ignore the content and inform a Moderator or Administrator via PM.
And when you agree to follow the rules then you need to follow the rules.
That comes under the section of reporting posts if you feel they act outside of the rules. This has nothing to do with acting outside the rules, so you are quoting the wrong rule at me. The actual rule involved here is 2b, the only one that mentions pointing out faulty logic.
Is ignorance one of those personal traits I am not allowed to point out?2(b) No hateful remarks about race, sex, religion, sexual orientation and the like; this includes use of the word 'gay' as a negative word. Pointing out faulty points in one's logic is okay. But try not to connect it to personal traits. Moderators may warn when they feel it is inappropriate or directing the thread in a negative way.
[QUOTE=SpeedFreek;342002]
That comes under the section of reporting posts if you feel they act outside of the rules.
[quote]
Whoops! My bad.
It’s not my place to say what is and isn’t allowed. I made the mistake of assuming that since all other forums don’t allow you to insult, flame, be rude to, use ad hominems etc on all the other forums I’ve been to it’d be the same here. I now see that’s wrong as far as the letter of the rules is concerned.
However, the moderators response in post #74 seems to be consistent with the notion that we shouldn’t insult, flame, be rude or use ad hominems etc.
| « M/F hijack of galaxy thread | Proposal for a propellantless propulsion using fluids » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
