ElasticNinja
Android Expert
LOL X10i
*avoids mentioning tinfoil hat*
*avoids mentioning tinfoil hat*
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
1.000 years old Inca artifact proven to be a replica of an ancient aircraft.
- Thread starter X10iUser
- Start date
momoceio
Android Expert
It has nothing to do with it being "main stream"...rather that there is no credible sources. I can say that there is a blue fish that walks on the dark side of the moon but that doesn't make it true. I just believe that non-fiction is so much more interesting and intriguing than fiction.
For example:
NASA - NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built With Toxic Chemical
The first non-dna based life form ever found...are you kidding me! This is some amazing stuff and yet we waste our time talking about aliens building the pyramids. Give me a break.
For example:
NASA - NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built With Toxic Chemical
The first non-dna based life form ever found...are you kidding me! This is some amazing stuff and yet we waste our time talking about aliens building the pyramids. Give me a break.
It isn't clear that the organism doesn't have some form of DNA (from what I've read) just that it wouldn't be built the way we currently understand it.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
You beat me to the punch.
I skimmed the page then I went back and read the entire article. The piece says this organism is a strain of another organism (that absolutely has DNA) and the article does not claim this variant does not contain DNA, however.
Bob Maxey
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
I agree with the idea that there are some amazing topics we could be discussing. But aliens and pyramids are more mainstream and easier to discuss than some of the more intriguing things one can find if one looks past the wacky web sites that thrive. I will say UFOs are demonstrably real. If you do not know what it is flying through the night sky, it is by definition, an Unidentified Flying Object.
I recall an article in Wired Magazine that posed the question: will the internet become sentient? Billions of connections and interconnections and the author
momoceio
Android Expert
If you think of DNA in the traditional sense then this organism does not contain DNA as defined in text books. This discovery requires that DNA be redefined...which until that happens means that this organism is a non-dna lifeform. When you take phosphorus out of DNA...it is no longer DNA.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
I am not a DNA expert, but it seems to me, if you need to redefine something to fit an argument, we are in trouble. Perhaps you are correct. Or perhaps not.
Bob
some times you have too....
earth was flat.. till it was proven to be wrong.
so it changed the way we look at things. we had to redefine our understanding of the world.. and the universe!
i have this to say about everyone's posts thus far
tl;dr
carry on
tl;dr
carry on
If you define DNA by it's exact molecular structure, then you would be correct.
However, if you define DNA by it's function, then no... it would likely still contain DNA.
I agree with you that sources are in question, what I find humorous is:
I know from other posts I've read that Bob M a smart guy....and maybe I missed some sarcasm in there somewhere, but when folks resort to the "if you believe this your stupid" type comments I find it entertaining and sad at the same time.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
OK, Morons is a tad harsh.
So let me call them undereducated and gullible people that, lacking a modicum of higher education are easily lulled into believing things that are unproven, ridiculous, silly, and completely without merit; by those people that know human nature and often delight in praying on those that simple choose to believe some ridiculous claim without benefit of logic, reasoning, and proof of any kind.
They lack the will or desire to kill those cows that have become sacred to them because it changes their world view and this can be very difficult for some people.
Some people hate Bush or Rush Limbaugh and all attempts to change their view, usually fails. They choose to believe the foolish liars that know not of what they speak and insist that their point of view - completely lacking in proof or evidence - must be right, because some equally idiotic foolish, and gullible fool
X10iUser
Android Expert
Thanks. I too find it interesting, that the further we go back in history there is so much evidence to suggest we were highly technologically advanced, but it's easy to instantly dismiss it because it doesn't fit with what we've been taught in school.
Some see the artefact as a plane, some see it as animal, and as I've said we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I'm surprised no one has commented on the levitating cannonball.
What it doesn't have is "mainstream" sources, which is also why subjects and topics like this are instantly dismissed.
But if you provide some information to help support what you're claiming then at the very least there is something to discuss about the possibility of it being true.
So is our history, and we're talking about the technological advancement of the ancients.
You know what else it doesn't have:
1) any proof that what they are claiming to be an ancient artifact is actually an ancient artifact. (for instance, what's the name of the artifact? where is it currently housed? What dig was it unearthed at? What pyramid was it discovered in? On what date?)
2) any verification that what they built was the ancient artifact to scale.
Which is actually why it is instantly dismissed.
Frisco
=Luceat Lux Vestra=
A lot of things are interesting. Those that are trying to be passed off as credible, with no scientific evidence, though, become "interesting" in the same vein as ghost hunting or time travel, etc: entertainment, not education/learning.
X10iUser
Android Expert
Post links to the threads you started on the subjects you mentioned and I'll happily come discuss any of them. Just because people choose to read and research alternative theories doesn't make someone uneducated, a moron, or gullible. I'm guessing you know who Michio Kaku is, for those that don't he's considered to be the modern day Einstein, you'll find him and his work is discussed on a lot of these "wacky" sites because his work and his theories continue to support what "tinfoil hat" wearers have been saying for years, but why isn't he laughed at and ridiculed, because he's one of thee smartest people on the planet that's why!
What a difference 20 years makes eh...
Here's some more "uneducated" talk from one of the braniest man on the planet.
Look at what Icke and Kaku say in the video, if that is true then it could go along way to explaining the paranormal, but it isn't given the same focus because it doesn't fit with mainstream thinking.
Frisco
=Luceat Lux Vestra=
Sorry, my crackpot radar goes off when reading or listening to Icke.
X10iUser
Android Expert
Not sure why, when so much of what he has said has shown to have been correct, yes he has some wild theories about shape shifting lizards, but when a modern day scientist is pretty much saying what Icke was 20 years ago then that should say something.
Frisco
=Luceat Lux Vestra=
Wellll.. I trust my "radar" on these things.
I don't see a debate. I see imagination at work, which is not a bad thing, but which is also not a reliable foundation for learning.
It's ok, though. Have fun. I remember "Chariot of the Gods," and it was a fun time imagining such things.
OfTheDamned
The Friendly Undead
Let's keep things polite gentlemen.