Discussion
Guvernator said:
skwdenyer said:
Ah, gotcha, what mathematicians call “proof by assumption.” Personally I prefer the scientific method, but I get that pre-Copernican approaches still have their devotees.
Hardly pre-Copernican considering the following.1. Every single one of these previous so called finds has proven to be a hoax.
2. It seems very suspicious timing that someone has dug up "aliens" just as UFO fever is at it's highest it's been for decades.
3. The person who discovered the "aliens" has previous form for discovering aliens which later turned out to be fake.
Also since you mentioned it, the scientific method also dictates careful observation coupled with rigorous scepticism because cognitive functions can distort interpretation. That last part sounds a lot like what often happens in this thread. People interpret things the way they want because they want them to be true.
I'm an avid sci-fi reader and would love for us to find real aliens so I should be pre-disposed to lap this stuff up, however I'm also detached and sceptical enough to realise that is very very unlikely to actually happen.
2. I don't disagree. But have you watched the video linked above, for instance?
3. Even a broken clock is right sometime. Clearly the guy you're talking about is an optimist and a believer. It may be he's presented "fakes" (the official line isn't that they were faked, so much as they are "dolls" IIRC), and these may not be that. Again, the evidence seems quite interesting.
I'm hugely sceptical. But scepticism =/= cynicism. "Show me, prove it" is not the same as "I don't believe it before you've showed me anything."
skwdenyer said:
Guvernator said:
skwdenyer said:
Ah, gotcha, what mathematicians call “proof by assumption.” Personally I prefer the scientific method, but I get that pre-Copernican approaches still have their devotees.
Hardly pre-Copernican considering the following.1. Every single one of these previous so called finds has proven to be a hoax.
2. It seems very suspicious timing that someone has dug up "aliens" just as UFO fever is at it's highest it's been for decades.
3. The person who discovered the "aliens" has previous form for discovering aliens which later turned out to be fake.
Also since you mentioned it, the scientific method also dictates careful observation coupled with rigorous scepticism because cognitive functions can distort interpretation. That last part sounds a lot like what often happens in this thread. People interpret things the way they want because they want them to be true.
I'm an avid sci-fi reader and would love for us to find real aliens so I should be pre-disposed to lap this stuff up, however I'm also detached and sceptical enough to realise that is very very unlikely to actually happen.
2. I don't disagree. But have you watched the video linked above, for instance?
3. Even a broken clock is right sometime. Clearly the guy you're talking about is an optimist and a believer. It may be he's presented "fakes" (the official line isn't that they were faked, so much as they are "dolls" IIRC), and these may not be that. Again, the evidence seems quite interesting.
I'm hugely sceptical. But scepticism =/= cynicism. "Show me, prove it" is not the same as "I don't believe it before you've showed me anything."
tuscaneer said:
....unless the person presenting the "aliens" has previous form for faking it.....
My (perhaps limited) understanding was there was no evidence that the person in question had faked anything, but instead may have been too credulous in presenting something without first obtaining detailed verification. Unless we're talking about a different person?skwdenyer said:
tuscaneer said:
....unless the person presenting the "aliens" has previous form for faking it.....
My (perhaps limited) understanding was there was no evidence that the person in question had faked anything, but instead may have been too credulous in presenting something without first obtaining detailed verification. Unless we're talking about a different person?Skeptisk said:
skwdenyer said:
tuscaneer said:
....unless the person presenting the "aliens" has previous form for faking it.....
My (perhaps limited) understanding was there was no evidence that the person in question had faked anything, but instead may have been too credulous in presenting something without first obtaining detailed verification. Unless we're talking about a different person?Mainstream scientists? Who do you think are the people working on the analysis of the latest finds? Neil deGrasse Tyson got an official invitation last year, but declined on the basis he was an astrophysicist and therefore the wrong sort of mainstream scientist; otherwise he has stated publicly he'd have accepted.
The latest US scientists to speak about the issue (who were present at the recent presentation that was shut down by the Peruvian government!) included Dr. James Caruso, (Chief medical examiner and Coroner of city and county of Denver, Colorado), Dr. William Rodriguez (Forensic Anthropologist, Maryland State Medical Examiner), and Dr. John McDowell (retired professor at University Colorado, Forensic Odontologist). At that event, McDowell (the most renowned) spoke on behalf of his colleagues, stating they believed those bodies urgently need further investigation and that there was no evidence currently so support a claim they are fake.
As regards Governments, it is a widely-discussed topic as to whether Governments would like to acknowledge something like that if it were real, for a variety of reasons. How much panic might Governments think headlines such as "aliens lived amongst us - and maybe still do" could cause? The religious dimension hardly bears thinking about - how secure would science be in a world in which zealots could say "see, we told you evolution was nonsense"? Or the further splintering of the world between those who follow science and those who follow religious "leaders"?
This whole issue has many, many dimensions.
tuscaneer said:
Well, we can worry about the ramifications of that at a later date as these aliens will turn out to be a load of b
ks just like the last lot were despite several posters in this thread getting very excited by them.
So have you watched the video linked up-thread? Link here again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlNjET011Q8ks just like the last lot were despite several posters in this thread getting very excited by them.In particular, start at about the 30 minutes mark and take a look at the various information presented (which is not being presented by a "believer" per se). Based upon that, what would you like to see to lead you to consider this more than just a hoax to be dismissed out of hand?
skwdenyer said:
So have you watched the video linked up-thread? Link here again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlNjET011Q8
In particular, start at about the 30 minutes mark and take a look at the various information presented (which is not being presented by a "believer" per se). Based upon that, what would you like to see to lead you to consider this more than just a hoax to be dismissed out of hand?
7 minutes I managed...nearly turned it off at the " they have DNA, we don't know what it is but it's weird"... Ok.... Then all this guff about only having single bones in the forearms and legs "proving" that they haven't come from anywhere other than possibly the deepest reaches of evolution..... So, the implications are that's not possible....so..... ALIEN.... The lizard skin, the eggs the lack of hip joints so there's no possibility these things could even walk despite having lizard toes ...give me a break ... fIn particular, start at about the 30 minutes mark and take a look at the various information presented (which is not being presented by a "believer" per se). Based upon that, what would you like to see to lead you to consider this more than just a hoax to be dismissed out of hand?
k me I can't believe I'm saying it again but I've wasted yet another 7 minutes of my life watching the absolute dog st that gets posted in this threadMy main problem with stuff like this is that it damages the credibility of this whole topic.
It's already quite an esoteric and excuse the pun, out there topic but when you add in all the fakers, hoaxers, crackpots, conspiracy theorists and all the other BS that surrounds it, it turns it into a circus and makes it very difficult to distinguish fact from fiction.
It's already quite an esoteric and excuse the pun, out there topic but when you add in all the fakers, hoaxers, crackpots, conspiracy theorists and all the other BS that surrounds it, it turns it into a circus and makes it very difficult to distinguish fact from fiction.
tuscaneer said:
skwdenyer said:
So have you watched the video linked up-thread? Link here again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlNjET011Q8
In particular, start at about the 30 minutes mark and take a look at the various information presented (which is not being presented by a "believer" per se). Based upon that, what would you like to see to lead you to consider this more than just a hoax to be dismissed out of hand?
7 minutes I managed...nearly turned it off at the " they have DNA, we don't know what it is but it's weird"... Ok.... Then all this guff about only having single bones in the forearms and legs "proving" that they haven't come from anywhere other than possibly the deepest reaches of evolution..... So, the implications are that's not possible....so..... ALIEN.... The lizard skin, the eggs the lack of hip joints so there's no possibility these things could even walk despite having lizard toes ...give me a break ... fIn particular, start at about the 30 minutes mark and take a look at the various information presented (which is not being presented by a "believer" per se). Based upon that, what would you like to see to lead you to consider this more than just a hoax to be dismissed out of hand?
k me I can't believe I'm saying it again but I've wasted yet another 7 minutes of my life watching the absolute dog st that gets posted in this thread I'm less interested by the lecturer than that he's gone to the trouble of assembling a bunch of sources.Re hip joints, this is what is there on "Clara":
and also
What is being described as "lack of hip joints" is anything but. There's a clear bearing pair between the medial top of the leg and a corresponding point on the pelvis. The problem is you're expecting the joint to be in the plane of the pelvis, as it is in humans, and an identical configuration, but it is not. Furthermore, given how tiny these skeletons are, the mechanics of the joint need to be very different to humans.' There's no reason why there should not be a lot of soft tissue to constrain and define the hip movements, just as there are in some other animals.
They may still be hoaxes (or, if not hoaxes, something else from antiquity), but it seems there's an awful lot of detail here that would be pretty tough for anyone to just knock up on a whim.
skwdenyer said:
Fair enough I'm less interested by the lecturer than that he's gone to the trouble of assembling a bunch of sources.
Re hip joints, this is what is there on "Clara":
and also
What is being described as "lack of hip joints" is anything but. There's a clear bearing pair between the medial top of the leg and a corresponding point on the pelvis. The problem is you're expecting the joint to be in the plane of the pelvis, as it is in humans, and an identical configuration, but it is not. Furthermore, given how tiny these skeletons are, the mechanics of the joint need to be very different to humans.' There's no reason why there should not be a lot of soft tissue to constrain and define the hip movements, just as there are in some other animals.
They may still be hoaxes (or, if not hoaxes, something else from antiquity), but it seems there's an awful lot of detail here that would be pretty tough for anyone to just knock up on a whim.
to the bit i've highlighted.... why? go and look at the skeleton of something like a spider monkey...it does feel like you are REALLY grasping at anything here you know pal..... I'm less interested by the lecturer than that he's gone to the trouble of assembling a bunch of sources.Re hip joints, this is what is there on "Clara":
and also
What is being described as "lack of hip joints" is anything but. There's a clear bearing pair between the medial top of the leg and a corresponding point on the pelvis. The problem is you're expecting the joint to be in the plane of the pelvis, as it is in humans, and an identical configuration, but it is not. Furthermore, given how tiny these skeletons are, the mechanics of the joint need to be very different to humans.' There's no reason why there should not be a lot of soft tissue to constrain and define the hip movements, just as there are in some other animals.
They may still be hoaxes (or, if not hoaxes, something else from antiquity), but it seems there's an awful lot of detail here that would be pretty tough for anyone to just knock up on a whim.
tuscaneer said:
to the bit i've highlighted.... why? go and look at the skeleton of something like a spider monkey...it does feel like you are REALLY grasping at anything here you know pal.....
Grasping? No. Keeping an open mind? Yes. Dismissing physiology because it doesn't suit our preconceptions of how it should be seems very peculiar to my mind.Your elbow joint has no ball and socket. Neither does your knee. Why do you think it necessary that a hip joint must operate in the same way? A ball and socket is favoured in nature where a wide range of motion is required.
There are three types of joints in the human body. One type are those that are freely mobile ("synovial joints)", which in turn are divided into six sub-types: Condyloid (e.g. fingers, jaw); Gliding (e.g. wrist); Saddle (clavicle-sternum, or base of thumb); Hinge (e.g. knee); Pivot (e.g. between C1 and C2 vertebrae); and, finally, Ball and Socket.
You seem to have decided that a "hip" joint in an unknown species *must* be of a particular sub-type; and that, because you don't think you can see that, this must be some sort of fake.
Think about the movement. Now consider, say, the human ankle. That offers a range of motion very similar to the hip, and yet where is the ball and socket? If you had a limb attached below your ankle, could you not achieve a walking motion?
Consider the hips of the Archosaur:
Specifically, this is the structure of the hindlimbs of the Euparkeria capensis, a small reptile that lived in the Triassic Period 245 million years ago. You can get a sense of how such a joint functions in the video on this paper published in Nature's Scientific Reports series: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-70175-y...
You can see a marked similarity with the xrays above - substantial, flat-topped upper leg bone, relatively very small conventional hip joint, large amounts of space for fibrous tissue to stabilise and active the joint.
More technically, what you're referring to as "normal" or "usual" is a spherical (or nearly-spherical) acetabulum (the "socket" of the hip bone, into which the head of the femur fits), and you're stating that all relevant animals have this arrangement. But that's simply not true.
This is referred to in the literature as a "supra-acetabular rim" and allowed the limbs to tuck under the body, supporting the upper body in a columnar arrangement. A characteristic is the much wider pelvis, since (with soft tissue), vertical loads must be resolved up into the pelvis not only through the hip joint - the "columnar" arrangement.
Now, the arrangement here isn't identical to the x-rays above. In the "mummy," the xrays suggest a really quite small acetabulum, coupled with the columnar load path arrangement described above. It doesn't seem inconsistent with the evidence of the fossil record that such an arrangement could develop in nature.
So we're clear, none of this is evidence that the "mummies" are "real" - it is simply observing that looking at the world through a lens of preconception tends to preclude the consideration of what is possible or feasible.
Very long winded and thorough...but that still doesn't explain what I highlighted in bold .. why "must" they be different to human hip bones due to their size? A spider monkey, for example, is a tiny creature with ball and socket hip joints...
I'll not be drawn in any further as none of this matters one jot... When someone proves that these creatures are aliens , not " we have DNA, we don't know what it is but it's weird" then wake me up because until then this looks like a load of old bks yet again .... Just like every single bit of "evidence" that's been presented in this thread so far
I'll not be drawn in any further as none of this matters one jot... When someone proves that these creatures are aliens , not " we have DNA, we don't know what it is but it's weird" then wake me up because until then this looks like a load of old b
ks yet again .... Just like every single bit of "evidence" that's been presented in this thread so farGassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff