Reply to Re: The Alienic connection
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
April 10th 2013, 07:49 PM
shevek
Building a structure in one part of the world that aligns (almost) exactly with more than 4 structures spread across the world (which they couldn't have even known about) is somewhat suspicious wouldn't you say?
Not really. Do you know with how many impressive sites it doesn't line up? If you have as many structures on earth as we do, it would be very unlikely that you couldn't draw a broad line through a lot of them.
They are saying that this line is tilted 30° compared to the geographic north pole, and goes exactly through the magnetic north pole. But that's impossible: the magnetic north pole is only about 5° away from the geographic one (that used to be 20°, but nowhere near 30°: proof).
high end science ... is very often driven by a need to get published and acknowledged by their peers.
I can only speak for physics, because I'm not familiar with other fields. However, while it is true that publishing (and thus being acknowledged) is important, this doesn't usually lead to lies.
Scientists value the procedure more than anything. If the research is properly done, then no matter what the results are, they will be accepted. That's the whole point of scientific articles: presenting you research in a way which convinces to the reader that your results are correct.
I realize that physics is a great field for this, and especially the social sciences suffer from difficulty to prove anything. Also, I have heard so many stories about pharmaceutical and tobacco companies bribing researchers that I tend to believe that the problem you describe does actually occur in medical research, but I am really not sure about it; I haven't investigated it at all.
There are certainly examples in physics of people claiming things which sound like rubbish, like Einstein claiming that the stars don't move. But this was not because he didn't want to be different: it was simply because "the stars don't move" was such a well-known fact in his day, that it didn't occur to him that it might not be true.
Scientists are supposed to doubt everything, but they are not perfect.
So coming back to Skull: I think I am very open minded. If someone gives me convincing arguments for an alternative explanation, I'll happily consider it. Only giving arguments against the dominant explanation is also useful, but it only makes me think "probably the details aren't entirely right" (for example, perhaps it took them more than 20 years, or they had more people working than previously thought). "Not A, therefore B" is not valid logic in my world. Sherlock Holmes was wrong: if all likely alternatives are exhausted, the very unlikely one doesn't need to be true; it is well possible, and even probable, that you have overlooked another likely alternative.
I am not aware of the texts you are talking about, but AFAIK the texts are all pretty cryptic, so it isn't quite clear what they mean. Texts about gods written today are cryptic, even written in my own language. So I'm not surprised at all if they are hardly understandable when written in a strange language by people from a culture which isn't well understood.
Not really. Do you know with how many impressive sites it doesn't line up? If you have as many structures on earth as we do, it would be very unlikely that you couldn't draw a broad line through a lot of them.
They are saying that this line is tilted 30° compared to the geographic north pole, and goes exactly through the magnetic north pole. But that's impossible: the magnetic north pole is only about 5° away from the geographic one (that used to be 20°, but nowhere near 30°: proof).
high end science ... is very often driven by a need to get published and acknowledged by their peers.
I can only speak for physics, because I'm not familiar with other fields. However, while it is true that publishing (and thus being acknowledged) is important, this doesn't usually lead to lies.
Scientists value the procedure more than anything. If the research is properly done, then no matter what the results are, they will be accepted. That's the whole point of scientific articles: presenting you research in a way which convinces to the reader that your results are correct.
I realize that physics is a great field for this, and especially the social sciences suffer from difficulty to prove anything. Also, I have heard so many stories about pharmaceutical and tobacco companies bribing researchers that I tend to believe that the problem you describe does actually occur in medical research, but I am really not sure about it; I haven't investigated it at all.
There are certainly examples in physics of people claiming things which sound like rubbish, like Einstein claiming that the stars don't move. But this was not because he didn't want to be different: it was simply because "the stars don't move" was such a well-known fact in his day, that it didn't occur to him that it might not be true.
Scientists are supposed to doubt everything, but they are not perfect.
So coming back to Skull: I think I am very open minded. If someone gives me convincing arguments for an alternative explanation, I'll happily consider it. Only giving arguments against the dominant explanation is also useful, but it only makes me think "probably the details aren't entirely right" (for example, perhaps it took them more than 20 years, or they had more people working than previously thought). "Not A, therefore B" is not valid logic in my world. Sherlock Holmes was wrong: if all likely alternatives are exhausted, the very unlikely one doesn't need to be true; it is well possible, and even probable, that you have overlooked another likely alternative.
I am not aware of the texts you are talking about, but AFAIK the texts are all pretty cryptic, so it isn't quite clear what they mean. Texts about gods written today are cryptic, even written in my own language. So I'm not surprised at all if they are hardly understandable when written in a strange language by people from a culture which isn't well understood.
