Notices
Results 1 to 80 of 80
Like Tree14Likes
  • 3 Post By marnixR
  • 3 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By tk421
  • 1 Post By pmb
  • 3 Post By pmb
  • 1 Post By KALSTER
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By jrmonroe

Thread: why erich von daniken is called pseudoscience?

  1. #1 why erich von daniken is called pseudoscience? 
    Forum Junior xxx200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    214
    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 ?





    "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication": leonardo da vinci
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,094
    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.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,800
    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
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior xxx200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    214
    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?



    "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication": leonardo da vinci
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    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.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Junior xxx200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post

    Because as was just pointed out to you, he starts with the conclusion and then twists everything he can find to support it.
    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.



    "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication": leonardo da vinci
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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.
    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)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior xxx200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    214
    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:







    "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication": leonardo da vinci
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior xxx200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    214
    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)
    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.



    "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication": leonardo da vinci
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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.
    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.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,820
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,094
    This thread makes it so clear why those books sell so well.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    pmb
    pmb is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    the scientific method includes observation and experimentation in general. i am not going to the detail.
    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. They
    simply 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.


    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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


    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    pmb
    pmb is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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?

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    we thought that in ancient time people's height were same as ours today.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    with this short height in mind we cannot understand how they built such giant architecture?

    That’s not a logical argument. You’re employing too many questionable premises.

    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    there are many skeleton of human being found which are giant in size.

    Where’s your proof?

    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    here is the video showing giant skeleton found
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    then why daniken is called pseudoscience ?
    Because he draws the wrong conclusions from real observations.

    for examples he came into conclusion that ancient astronauts visited earth by seeing the picture and models of flying machines
    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.

    if he saw a picture of flying man,
    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.
    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...

    we fail to understand how pyramids are built without any sophisticated equipment.
    Err, no. All it took was manpower. A lot of manpower, and some understanding of basic geometry.

    there are many skeleton of human being found which are giant in size.
    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.
    Btw, those videos you posted are well known fakes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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:




    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!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,229
    Giants built the pyramids? As a tomb for a midget King?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Junior xxx200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    here is the video showing giant skeleton found
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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 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.



    "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication": leonardo da vinci
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Junior xxx200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Giants built the pyramids? As a tomb for a midget King?
    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?



    "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication": leonardo da vinci
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    here is the video showing giant skeleton found
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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 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.
    Since he never presented any proof, that's a moot point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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.
    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.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Junior xxx200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    214
    for examples he came into conclusion that ancient astronauts visited earth by seeing the picture and models of flying machines
    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.
    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.


    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.
    in ancient writings those things that looked like a flying creature are called flying creature. that is a fine documentary evidence.

    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...
    initially they look like a dino, but later it was found that they look like whale and sharks. look does matter.

    we fail to understand how pyramids are built without any sophisticated equipment.
    Err, no. All it took was manpower. A lot of manpower, and some understanding of basic geometry.
    really? then why today midget men cannot built such pyramid with ancient instrument?

    there are many skeleton of human being found which are giant in size.
    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.
    Btw, those videos you posted are well known fakes.
    [/QUOTE]

    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?



    "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication": leonardo da vinci
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Junior xxx200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    214
    Well, lets see...

    Is there any documented evidence of giants? No
    ancient religious scriptures talk about giants.

    Can movie special effects used to create giants and monsters? Yes
    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?

    I think I have to go with "fake". Thanks for asking.
    ofcourse you can. since you accept anything without proper reasoning and proof.



    "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication": leonardo da vinci
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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.
    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.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    Well, lets see...

    Is there any documented evidence of giants? No
    ancient religious scriptures talk about giants.
    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?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Just as a general point of posting here,...

    Is there some point where a thread is just so fucking stupid 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.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,094
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Just as a general point of posting here,...

    Is there some point where a thread is just so fucking stupid that it doesn't deserve any attention at all?

    Because if there is, this one has reached it.
    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.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,229
    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.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,800
    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
    KALSTER, pyoko and Cephus like this.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    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.
    KALSTER, pyoko and tk421 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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:




    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    since you accept anything without proper reasoning and proof.
    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.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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 ?
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Junior xxx200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    214
    If it looks like an ancient spaceman, are there any ancient spaceships?
    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.

    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?




    Are there any remains of spacesuits?
    if there is a spacecraft then must there be a spacesuit.

    Are there any documents about spaceships?
    i have told you that religious scriptures told about them frequently over and over.

    Is there any alien DNA?
    that needs examination.

    Is there any evidence of landing sites?
    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 encyclopedia


    Is there anything to support the idea?
    sufficient evidence is shown here if you understand things as they are.

    No to all of those. I think we can say that von Daniken was a fraud and liar.
    your mainstream scientists are a fraud and liar.



    "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication": leonardo da vinci
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Junior xxx200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    . God only knows the bounds of what your combined gullibility, lack of understanding of the scientific method and science in general can produce.
    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.



    "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication": leonardo da vinci
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    what do you think ? isn't the chariot flying in the sky? what would you call it now?
    Have you never heard of a thing called "fiction"? Or do you think the Harry Potter movies were documentaries?

    your mainstream scientists are a fraud and liar.
    Most of them haven't spent time in prison for it though.

    Why don't you apply the same scepticism to this crook as you do to everything else?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    90% of scientists reject the idea of god
    Don't believe you. Prove it.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    your mainstream scientists are a fraud and liar.
    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.
    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 !!! )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    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
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Very good ... did you have to reverse it or can you read Chinese mirror writing
    Just mirror it
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,820
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    . God only knows the bounds of what your combined gullibility, lack of understanding of the scientific method and science in general can produce.
    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.
    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.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    pmb
    pmb is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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.
    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?
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    pmb
    pmb is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    . God only knows the bounds of what your combined gullibility, lack of understanding of the scientific method and science in general can produce.
    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.
    Administrators don't usually get 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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Junior xxx200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    what do you think ? isn't the chariot flying in the sky? what would you call it now?
    Have you never heard of a thing called "fiction"? Or do you think the Harry Potter movies were documentaries?
    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.



    "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication": leonardo da vinci
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Junior xxx200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    214
    Administrators don't usually get banned.
    hence they are the great dictator.

    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.
    then you must have a proof of god too. why don't you tell the rest 60% of scientists about those proof?

    I specifically asked you where your proof was regarding the claims you made about giant skeletons? Where is your response?
    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.

    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?
    read his books and you will find.


    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?



    "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication": leonardo da vinci
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,820
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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
    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.


    the point is that you and people like you are blindly following what some particular people are saying.
    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.

    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?
    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.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    pmb
    pmb is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    Administrators don't usually get banned.
    hence they are the great dictator.
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    then you must have a proof of god too. why don't you tell the rest 60% of scientists about those proof?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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?
    read his books and you will find.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    the point is that you and people like you are blindly following what some particular people are saying.
    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."

    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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?
    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!
    KALSTER, Strange and AlexG like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,229
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    what do you think ? isn't the chariot flying in the sky? what would you call it now?
    Have you never heard of a thing called "fiction"? Or do you think the Harry Potter movies were documentaries?
    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.
    You mean like the various gods found in all cultures around the world?

    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...
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,800
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    Administrators don't usually get banned.
    hence they are the great dictator.
    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
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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.
    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.

    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 .
    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".

    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.

    you cannot see those skeletons in museums because museums also reject those skeleton as hoax without ever examining carefully.
    Prove it. Now you are just making things up. This make you dishonest as well.

    the point is that you and people like you are blindly following what some particular people are saying.
    You are the one who is blindly following stories and pictures that people admit to making up. Why is that?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    90% of scientists reject the idea of god
    Don't believe you. Prove it.
    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.

    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    So xxx200 was wrong then.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    pmb
    pmb is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    PS: FYI pmb, I am male...
    Oops!! My appologies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    pmb
    pmb is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    482
    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 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.
    The next page read
    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.
    Well, there's one photon demonstrated to be a hoax.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Junior xxx200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    214
    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.
    i don't understand what you are talking about. but here is some picture of real life semi giants.

    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/



    "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication": leonardo da vinci
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Junior xxx200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by pmb View Post
    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 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.
    The next page read
    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.
    Well, there's one photon demonstrated to be a hoax.
    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.



    "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication": leonardo da vinci
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    i don't understand what you are talking about.
    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?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,820
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    i don't understand what you are talking about. but here is some picture of real life semi giants.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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.
    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.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    pmb
    pmb is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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.
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    pmb
    pmb is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    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.
    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 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.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    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
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    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
    adelady likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    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
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    pmb
    pmb is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    482
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,800
    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
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    pmb
    pmb is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    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
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by pmb View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    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
    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.

    Certainly, the photoshopped hoax that xxx200 keeps passing around displays none of these clear and diagnostic characteristics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by pmb View Post
    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?)
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pmb View Post
    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?)
    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
    Dang -- you're right. I capitulate. She showed no, er, structural problems at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    I'm surprised xxx200 didn't bring that documentary up as evidence.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    pmb
    pmb is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    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.

    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."
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx200 View Post
    i don't understand what you are talking about. but here is some picture of real life semi giants.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    943
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post


    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!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by pmb View Post
    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.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by pmb View Post
    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.
    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.
    pyoko likes this.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    pmb
    pmb is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    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.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    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 we all joined the forum we all agreed to follow the rules. See
    The Science Forum Guidelines
    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.
    Telling someone that they don’t understand something is not an insult. Calling them dumb is an insult.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    If you are questioning accepted science, you need to grow a thick skin.
    And when you agree to follow the rules then you need to follow the rules.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by pmb View Post
    When we all joined the forum we all agreed to follow the rules. See
    The Science Forum Guidelines
    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.
    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.

    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.
    Is ignorance one of those personal traits I am not allowed to point out?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    pmb
    pmb is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    482
    [QUOTE=SpeedFreek;342002]
    That comes under the section of reporting posts if you feel they act outside of the rules.

    [quote]
    Whoops! My bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Is ignorance one of those personal traits I am not allowed to point out?
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. how is it called an accelerating frequency?
    By luxtpm in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 20th, 2010, 03:29 AM
  2. Carl von Clausewitz and War
    By RonPrice in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 16th, 2010, 07:29 AM
  3. What might this be called?
    By An inconvenient lie in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 31st, 2010, 07:52 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 1st, 2009, 05:42 PM
  5. Question about something called toonophilia
    By Sciking in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: July 5th, 2008, 05:22 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •