Wednesday, July 29, 2009
The Ring of Gyges
Clearly Katie Couric is more familiar with Harry Potter than she is with Plato. And rightly so because she represents the mainstream scientific establishment.
"The liberty which we are supposing may be most completely given to them in the form of such a power as is said to have been possessed by Gyges the ancestor of Croesus the Lydian. According to the tradition, Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the king of Lydia; there was a great storm, and an earthquake made an opening in the earth at the place where he was feeding his flock. Amazed at the sight, he descended into the opening, where, among other marvels, he beheld a hollow brazen horse, having doors, at which he stooping and looking in saw a dead body of stature, as appeared to him, more than human, and having nothing on but a gold ring; this he took from the finger of the dead and reascended. Now the shepherds met together, according to custom, that they might send their monthly report about the flocks to the king; into their assembly he came having the ring on his finger, and as he was sitting among them he chanced to turn the collet of the ring inside his hand, when instantly he became invisible to the rest of the company and they began to speak of him as if he were no longer present. He was astonished at this, and again touching the ring he turned the collet outwards and reappeared; he made several trials of the ring, and always with the same result-when he turned the collet inwards he became invisible, when outwards he reappeared. Whereupon he contrived to be chosen one of the messengers who were sent to the court; where as soon as he arrived he seduced the queen, and with her help conspired against the king and slew him, and took the kingdom." -- Plato, philosopher, 360 B.C.
A metal horse with doors (automobile or ufo?) with a (perhaps alien?) giant in it.
According to mainstream scientists who do not believe civilization existed prior to Sumer, the philosopher Plato invented invisibility (The Republic, Book II, 359a-360d).
Of course, this ignores the Sanskrit Puranas which speak of aircraft with cloaking devices, but ignoring history (especially non-white history) and evidence is what mainstream scientists are best at.
Mainstream scientists say the Ring of Gyges was a myth.
In fact, they say all of Plato is a myth.
"The Bible is myth; Plato is myth; Immanuel Kant is myth; ...." -- Carolyn Merchant, revisionist historian, 2004
Mainstream scientists describe anything they don't understand as magic and they don't believe in magic because they think they understand everything.
That's how I know with absolute certainty that there was in fact a historical Ring of Gyges.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
15 comments:
So, from your point of view, if mainstream science says its BS, then it's a fact.
Interesting paranoid psychosis you got there. You are a case study just waitin' to happen.
On a larger note, you view the Puranas as more of an historical record, the gods described are just heroes; normal men and women who did remarkable things. In this view, high technology prevailed and humans were created (not evolved or anything) 308 million years ago?
Where are the remains of their high-tech civilization? We've lots of dinosaur bones from all over that period, but no human bones have ever been found in layers dated more than 1.5 million years.
Pardon my confusion, but while the Gupta Empire was advanced for the time, I don't think they knew anything about the stealth aircraft and invisibility rings and mp3 players of prehistory. This all came down to them as oral history, if you'll recall.
Let's face it, they were the Roman Empire of Central Asia, with high-end literature, philosophy and math. (Or perhaps the Romans were the Gupta's of Europe?)
Is the Bible also just as accurate? and the Mountain Chant of the southwest US? Which holy texts are historical and which do you disgard as nonsense?
Or are you so far up Velikovsky's ass that you think all religious texts are highly accurate, historical views and/or eyewitness accounts? They can't all be right.
I mean, vimanas are cool and all that, but where are they?
Jeffery,
"So, from your point of view, if mainstream science says its BS, then it's a fact."
That's probably an accurate statement.
"... if you say all the adopted positions are wrong, you'll seldom be wrong." -- Jeremiah P. Ostriker, cosmologist, 1996
"Where are the remains of their high-tech civilization?"
"I mean, there were huge battles that took place in Europe during World War II. And you can go back to those places now. I mean, there should be, you know, just tons of equipment and stuff lying around. But it's not there. You can hardly find a thing. So I think, over millions of years, there can be a lot of destruction." -- Michael A. Cremo, author, August 2006
"We've lots of dinosaur bones from all over that period, but no human bones have ever been found in layers dated more than 1.5 million years."
That's absolutely not true. Human shoeprints have been found in Triassic and even Cambrian strata.
"They can't all be right."
Why not? How about 90%?
How is it that every "mainstream" scientist is actually a bald-faced liar?
How do they maintain this vast conspiracy? And how did they do it before email?
Why does everything they do actually work if the fringe says it does not? I mean, this machine we're communicating on is built on the "facts" these liars are selling, isn't it?
Our current civilization is built upon this conspiracy, isn't it?
Scientists are persons of all colors, creeds, religious inclination, nationality and educational background. Why do they get along so well as to maintain this Big Lie you say they are perpetrating?
Economist: Huddled Maths...although I don't necessarily agree with this method since I think there are plenty of papers that do pass peer review to follow up on, there is apparently still quite the interest in this sort of thing, kind of like looking for the gem in the dung sort of thing.
Cambrian Shoeprints? Sorry, you've been had. One of the hazards of beleiving anti-science, is that you occasionally get taken to the cleaners by creationists and folks just wanting to sell books.
The "sandal print" is a spall pattern. The heel of the Meister print is not worn down but is caused by a long crack running across the rock. It lacks the diagnostic features that a real sandal print has. There are many other weathering features in the area identical in character to the so-called sandal prints but in a variety of shapes. They do not occur in a trail but as isolated prints (Conrad 1981).
Geochemical processes, such as solution penetrations, spalling, and other weathering, have been well documented to produce such features on the shales of the Wheeler Formation, where the prints were found (Stokes 1986).
-Talk Origins Archive
As for the Triassic Shoeprint:
Judging from the available photographs, the specimen is most likely a broken ironstone concretion, perhaps one that has suffered some erosion.
-Kuban, 2008
We're a type of chimp, not some billion-year old species with infinite knowledge of the universe. We're still learning, or at least, some of us are.
Skeptic of the Truth & Eternal Optimist(OIM)
Jeffery,
"How is it that every 'mainstream' scientist is actually a bald-faced liar?"
Because for hundreds and thousands of years they thought that the Sun revolves around the Earth, they thought that the stars are fixed and don't move, they thought that meteorite impacts are impossible, they thought that x-rays will prove to be a hoax, they thought that heavier than air flying machines are gravitationally impossible.
Need I go on?
"How do they maintain this vast conspiracy?"
It's collaboration, not conspiracy.
It's not a conspiracy because they are quite open about it.
It's called knowledge filtration and peer review censorship. See Michael Cremo on the topic of knowledge filtration. A blatant is example is Fred Hoyle, whose Russel Prize Lecture was returned by a referee and who was deliberately passed over for the Nobel Prize (it was instead awarded to his co-worker William Alfred Fowler). There are literally censors on Wikipedia like Doug Weller, VSmith, and others who work around the clock censoring all dissident science. And the same is true on every mainstream (and even some against the mainstream) internet message board. Bannings and censorship, etc., and they are quite open about their ideological devotion to censorship and bannings. And there are collaborations by professional geologists such as the one launched by Good Schist to suppress information that the mantle is cold.
"The problem of demarcation between science and pseudoscience has great implications also for the institutionalization of criticism. Copernicus's theory was banned by the Catholic Church in 1616 because it was said to be pseudoscientific. It was taken off the Index in 1820 because by that time the Church deemed that facts have proved it and therefore it became scientific. The Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party in 1949 declared Mendelian genetics pseudoscientific and had it's advocates like Academician Vavilov killed in concentration camps." -- Imre Lakatos, philosopher, 1973
"Scientists are persons of all colors, creeds, religious inclination, nationality and educational background. Why do they get along so well as to maintain this Big Lie you say they are perpetrating?"
They don't. The racist scientists you are referring to are not diverse at all, they are almost 99% white, and they are racist against Jewish, Egyptian, Greek, Chinese, and Native American history and science.
Jeffery,
Furthermore, I submit it is you who believe in a vast conspiracy. How do all non-whites conspire to trick you that the sun stayed in the sky and that the rotation of the Earth reversed?
How are all non-whites conspiring to believe in gods, angels, and giants and to trick you that they existed and perhaps still exist?
How did Sonchis, Solon, Dropides, Herodotus, Sophocles, Euripides, Critias, Philolaus, Democritus, Plato, Crantor, and Proclus, conspire with the Jews Isaiah and Amos, and with the Chinese, and with the Meso and Native Americans and with Von Humboldt living in the opposite hemisphere and in different centuries? Did they conspire against Newton and Darwin with time machines?
How did Sonchis, Solon, Dropides, Herodotus, Sophocles, Euripides, Critias, Philolaus, Democritus, Plato, Crantor, and Proclus, conspire with the Jews Isaiah and Amos, and with the Chinese, and with the Meso and Native Americans and with Von Humboldt living in the opposite hemisphere and in different centuries? Did they conspire against Newton and Darwin with time machines?
They didn't. I do not beleive in conspiracies of the sort you suggest. That the church banned such thoughts and suppressed knowledge is natural considering many scientists were also theologians until recently. They didn't want the fucking pope pulling a Galileo on them.
Besides, a lot of Newton's math is still right, despite the Fixed Stars god-bothering bullshit, and Darwin was merely a good start to 150 years of awesome advancement in biology and pharmeceutical research.
Science redefines itself, dogma has to race to catch up. Every single day something new is learned about our universe. While you may not be happy with the current state of research, I for one am happy people like you are merely a tiny minority. There is no racism in science... just good, testable theory and whiny fringe theorists who look to make a buck selling books to crackpots.
Besides, I'm not sure what you mean about a cold mantle, I've seen subduction in the data. Data you dismissed as "pretty pictures."
Michael Cremo has 13 publications in his CV. In the same period, a random researcher I googled had 35 publications and 3 books. Who's doing science and who's out to make a fucking buck?
Jeffery,
"They didn't."
Then I rest my case.
"Besides, I'm not sure what you mean about a cold mantle."
By cold I mean the oppposite of hot. See sidebar for customarily suppressed science.
Where does magma come from? While I've never actually picked any up, I understand it is very hot indeed.
Please explain. In your own words.
Jeffery,
Magma comes from shallow levels in the crust of the Earth, not from the cold mantle.
Regards.
Where does the heat come from?
If the mantle is cold, and the surface is cool, why is the deep crust so hot as to melt rock?
Post a Comment