Look at this evidence for ancient astronauts.

Lakon said:
Garbonzo, let me make it clear. The silly insinuation which I referred to was your ..

Notice that none of the regular members on this forum have replied to you guys after showing this evidence.

This is a spurious presumption.
Click to expand...

That sentence by itself doesn't presume anything, but may have connotations to go along with it. The point being, though, is that I did not specially presume anything. The undertones were that, yes, maybe these things do have some significance to them, because members on a science forum have not even tried debunking them yet. I'm not saying this proves aliens came to Earth or anything. Like I said, it could be time travel, a lost human civilization, etc. Any number of things that all have equal weight. :thumbsup:

And they still haven't replied to you or I's evidence (which I am claiming to be so)!

Yes, the pics of the ancient Indian flying machines are interesting. But IMO, you fly off into the fantastic rather quickly .. ET's, lost city of Atlanis ..

I simply think that if there is anything to them, it's evidence of mankinds achievments in the distant past, which we know little or nothing about.
Click to expand...

When I reference Atlantis, I am specifically referring to your suggestion of "mankind's achievements in the distant past". Hasn't there just been ruins discovered under the ocean which I saw on the world news? I haven't looked into it however, and I'm not saying it's the Atlantis referred to in history, but a sort of Atlantis, which can mean now, just a lost city. Such as a Frisbee can mean a flying disc, or Jell-O can mean gelatin deserts.

I don't believe such advancements like helicopters can be developed in a known historical city and we have absolutely no evidence for it overflowing from the texts. If it was mankind that made these things in the past, I believe it would have to be a lost civilization we know next to nothing about, who came and visited other civilizations we do know about periodically.

I am no more "flying off into the fantastic" than you are. This is all speculation that cannot be proved and all have the same weight like I said. We are trying to fit an explanation for these evidences.:cool:
 
garbonzo said:
You failed to debunk the picture however. I don't know why you are on SciForums when you can't even practice science correctly. Gmilam had to come and debunk it for you. All you did was speculate and claiming that your speculation was enough. It was not. Gmilam came in and provided actual evidence of your speculation, while you could not. While Gmilam validated your speculation and you can feel like you can be condescending because you think it validated it being "nonsense", it doesn't change the fact that you weren't scientific at all and were claiming things without evidence.

I was claiming things with evidence, which is now debunked. You can't/shouldn't claim things without even backing up your claims.
Click to expand...

Speculation? I gave you all the details, right down to the name of the workman who put it up, as well as a link to an article in the original Portuguese saying when it was done, why it was done. The only thing to be 'debunked' was your ridiculous claim, which it was.

This was your ridiculous, totally unsupported statement
16th, maybe 17th century sculpture I believe, obviously BEFORE any reconstruction.
Click to expand...
, which was so easily proved false.

Of course, I'm sure you never bothered to look at the information, because that would have burst your bubble.
 
garbonzo said:
That sentence by itself doesn't presume anything, but may have connotations to go along with it. The point being, though, is that I did not specially presume anything. The undertones were that, yes, maybe these things do have some significance to them, because members on a science forum have not even tried debunking them yet. I'm not saying this proves aliens came to Earth or anything. Like I said, it could be time travel, a lost human civilization, etc. Any number of things that all have equal weight. :thumbsup:

And they still haven't replied to you or I's evidence (which I am claiming to be so)!



When I reference Atlantis, I am specifically referring to your suggestion of "mankind's achievements in the distant past". Hasn't there just been ruins discovered under the ocean which I saw on the world news? I haven't looked into it however, and I'm not saying it's the Atlantis referred to in history, but a sort of Atlantis, which can mean now, just a lost city. Such as a Frisbee can mean a flying disc, or Jell-O can mean gelatin deserts.

I don't believe such advancements like helicopters can be developed in a known historical city and we have absolutely no evidence for it overflowing from the texts. If it was mankind that made these things in the past, I believe it would have to be a lost civilization we know next to nothing about, who came and visited other civilizations we do know about periodically.

I am no more "flying off into the fantastic" than you are. This is all speculation that cannot be proved and all have the same weight like I said. We are trying to fit an explanation for these evidences.:cool:
Click to expand...

You're off in la la land again. Look, for the third time, you said;

Notice that none of the regular members on this forum have replied to you guys after showing this evidence.

This is spurious and highly presumptuous. It presumes that;

a) I posted what I did as evidence to support some substantial polemic,
b) I defeated the argument of other members by doing so, and rendered them incapable of making a reply to support theirs.

That's it. That's what you need to understand is my substantial beef with you. As the rest of your post, I won't bother, as surely, you will imagine and contrive multitudes.
 
AlexG said:
Speculation? I gave you all the details, right down to the name of the workman who put it up, as well as a link to an article in the original Portuguese saying when it was done, why it was done. The only thing to be 'debunked' was your ridiculous claim, which it was.

This was your ridiculous, totally unsupported statement , which was so easily proved false.

Of course, I'm sure you never bothered to look at the information, because that would have burst your bubble.
Click to expand...

That name in the article might as well be anonymous. There is basically no mention of it anywhere else. That's not enough evidence. Gmilam beat you to it.
 
Lakon said:
You're off in la la land again. Look, for the third time, you said;

Notice that none of the regular members on this forum have replied to you guys after showing this evidence.

This is spurious and highly presumptuous. It presumes that;

a) I posted what I did as evidence to support some substantial polemic,
b) I defeated the argument of other members by doing so, and rendered them incapable of making a reply to support theirs.

That's it. That's what you need to understand is my substantial beef with you. As the rest of your post, I won't bother, as surely, you will imagine and contrive multitudes.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't presume anything technically. Perhaps it connotes things, but that setence in and of itself does not presume anything. It's an observation.

Regarding point A, I told you it was me calling it evidence, I wasn't saying you called it evidence, I called the information you posted evidence. For the third or more time now.

Regarding point B, there was no argument of other members. The information you posted is was new to this conversation. So no, it can't presume to defeat the argument of other members. Again, all it may presume is that there is something to that information since others haven't replied, which in turn may presume that they don't have belies readily available for it. It may presume that the information you posted is, in fact, evidence, that so far, has gone untested. It also can't render them "incapable" of making a reply, as that would surely have to mean some sort of supernatural powers to make the other mute or incapacitated, or unable to click the submit button, etc.

As the rest of your post, I won't bother, as surely, you will imagine and contrive multitudes.
Click to expand...

This is an ambiguous sentence. We all imagine and contrive multitudes. I am no different than anybody else. What's your point?
 
You're simply ridiculous.

The name of the workman is Jeronimo Garcia

Here: http://www.bookofresearch.com/cathedral-of-salamanca-spaceman-carving.htm
and http://www.hoax-slayer.com/cathedral-spaceman-carving.shtml
and http://www.catedralsalamanca.org/catedralvieja.htm
and http://www.salamancaturistica.com/salamanca/monumentos_catedrales_eng.php
and http://www.culturaltravelguide.com/salamanca-mysterious-hidden-carvings
and http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/catedral
and literally thousands and thousands of other sites. In fact, a google search for 'jeronimo garcia salamanca' get 14 million hits.

You buffoon.
 
AlexG said:
You're simply ridiculous.

The name of the workman is Jeronimo Garcia

Here: http://www.bookofresearch.com/cathedral-of-salamanca-spaceman-carving.htm
and http://www.hoax-slayer.com/cathedral-spaceman-carving.shtml
and http://www.catedralsalamanca.org/catedralvieja.htm
and http://www.salamancaturistica.com/salamanca/monumentos_catedrales_eng.php
and http://www.culturaltravelguide.com/salamanca-mysterious-hidden-carvings
and http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/catedral
and literally thousands and thousands of other sites. In fact, a google search for 'jeronimo garcia salamanca' get 14 million hits.

You buffoon.
Click to expand...

You're just being stupid now. Just because "lizard people" turn up 35 million hits means that there are lizard people? :facepalm: No, that's entirely moronic and unscientific. Just because those sites reference the guy, doesn't validate shit. Tons of sites reference lizard people, or claim that 9/11 was an inside job. They get the idea from one person and it spreads, almost copy & paste. Did you even check the sources for those sites? For all we know, it could have came from that SAME newspaper, which would still only be 1 source.

Some of those links don't even name "Jeronimo Garcia", unless his name is spelled different in another language?
 
Never mind. You're invincibly ignorant, who now goes on ignore.
 
AlexG said:
Never mind. You're invincibly ignorant, who now goes on ignore.
Click to expand...

That's like the creationists I debate with who give up with an ad hominem before blocking me. If you didn't want to reply anymore, why didn't you just *stop replying*. Yet instead of doing that, you had to tell me you put me on ignore in order to spite me. It's painfully obvious. You should grow up.
 
garbonzo said:
How do you not see that?
Click to expand...

How did you see that I saw that ?

What do you call the pictures posted then, including your own?
Click to expand...

Your pic has I think, been sufficiently dealt with by other posters.
My pics of the ancient Indian flying things - I've already said what I wanted to say. Just read earlier posts.
 
garbonzo said:
Say what???
Click to expand...

Another absurdity started by you, viz ..

You - You see Lakon?
Me - I don't see that at all.
You - How do you not see that?
Me - How did you see that I saw that ?

The last (mine) follows clearly from the previous which you started, and is in the same context. Your pretence not to now understand, seems like dodging.

Yes of course, I'm not talking about that.
Click to expand...

Your earlier statement was What do you call the pictures posted then, including your own?
The pictures posted, included pictures posted by you (and links thereto).

You never debunked them.
Click to expand...

Presumption again - this time that I wanted to, or should have, debunked them. Read my post #9. I wanted to say that about them, so that is what I did.

If you keep up this stupidity I will not respond to it much further.
 
Lakon said:
Another absurdity started by you, viz ..

You - You see Lakon?
Me - I don't see that at all.
You - How do you not see that?
Me - How did you see that I saw that ?

The last (mine) follows clearly from the previous which you started, and is in the same context. Your pretence not to now understand, seems like dodging.
Click to expand...

I'm saying no one is discussing this except you and me.[/QUOTE]


Lakon said:
Your earlier statement was What do you call the pictures posted then, including your own?
The pictures posted, included pictures posted by you (and links thereto).
Click to expand...

Yes, but obviously not the one which I've admitted to being debunked :facepalm:.

Lakon said:
Presumption again - this time that I wanted to, or should have, debunked them. Read my post #9. I wanted to say that about them, so that is what I did.

If you keep up this stupidity I will not respond to it much further.
Click to expand...

You're saying it's not evidence. I'm saying it's evidence if it's not debunked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top