I took this one off air and not just because it was hastily written. But I went to check the stats, and even though this story had only been available a few hours it had gotten a great many hits.
While anomalies exist to do with how on earth some of our stone age forbears, got to be so famously proficient, at cutting and handling huge stone slabs, then it will be the case that speculative history like that which we see from Jason Martel. is a very worthy undertaking.
The stone-handling mystery is by no means the only anomaly that we struggle to explain. But I don’t have access to the source material to judge for myself how powerful the other anomalies are.
Just so I won’t be rabbitting on and leaving you in the dark…. One of the anomalies is about the colour of gas giant Neptune.
But then again, to know how problematic this anomaly is, you have to understand just how well our scholars have nutted out the source language. An informed estimate of how well they have done so is beyond me at this stage.
I had a similiar experience, where my lack of ability to appraise the paradigm boiled down to my lack of familiarity with the source material on an entirely different subject. This occurred when dealing with the Randi skeptic-nutter crowd when it came to the subject of REVERSE SPEECH.
The nutball-skeptics at Randi’s place, erroneously thought they had debunked the Australian proponent of reverse speech. I assured the alleged skeptics that they hadn’t. Then what followed was page after page of people acting like kids on a long road trip. “Are we there yet… Are we there yet…. Are we there yet.” People kept asking me when and what would it take to debunk the idea. Well we don’t have automatic knowledge. Clearly if the lectures presented were indicative of typical source material, then reverse speech would be a revelation. So there was no way of debunking this matter without being familiar with the source material. Which I am not.
I struggled day after day trying to convince these dumb-skeptics that they had no automatic source of knowledge and the matter could not be debunked, even a little bit, without some sort of experience dealing with reverse-speech. For my own part it was the taping of kids that seemed to me to be powerfully convincing. And the backward adult voices a little bit less so.
The subject of reverse speech, and its efficacy-or-otherwise, remains powerfully important. We really need to know one way or another, whether this is just a childhood holdover, or a true representation that can be used, not as incriminating evidence, but as leads to find the truth through other means. We need to know if it is one or the other or if indeed it is just a horrible rort or a delusion of its proponents. Out of the four alternatives listed so far I would at this point put childhood holdover on top. But of course I do not know.
Despite the importance of resolving the matter one way or another, the Randi nitwits could not tell the difference between real and make-believe debunking. Nor could they sort out some sort of methodology for seperating truth from falsehood.
Not being of religious inclination I realise when I JUST DON’T KNOW STUFF. Your average person identifying as a skeptic is fundamentally delusional. That goes for pretty much all my ex-friends at Catallaxy. They really think that if the alleged mainstream agrees, if Republican and Democrats both agree, if Liberals and Labour both agree….. then your average Catallaxian will feel that he has tapped into some fount of rightful certitude. In this respect they are functionally, yet functioning, lunatics. Lunatics who can still hold down a job because they are lunatics with the group. They allow themselves to be lunatics but only by osmotic group decreee.
In this way we know the mystery of who would, and who would not, have passed the 1930’s Germany test.
((((((This is the test that I need not outline, since even mentioning it tangentially, will spark the recognition in the thinking man. He will be reminded of thoughts trawled over in his youth, in the same way that a feeling of the same sort of recognition will have been sparked in him the first time he saw the movie “Groundhog Day.”)))))))
For my part I would have to say that, worthy as they are, I cannot put Jason’s theories right up the top as the leading paradigm yet, without a way to appraise and understand the source material. This for me is different from the subject of the artificiality that we presumably see on Mars.
You see the Mars stuff could be millions of years old. And it is my sense that we would be unlikely to have interstellar visitors except once every several millions of years. We would be unlikely to NEVER have interstellar refugees. But at the same time they would be very infrequent, one would think.
So the idea that we may have had visitors as recently as six thousand years ago seems to defy likelihood. But then this possibility is not to be contemptuously RULED OUT by mainstream idiocy either.
Here is yesterdays angry rant that I’m only taking public again because of what appears to be popular demand. It needs some cleaning up as you can see:
I’m working up for a really big rant about just how stupid 21st century skeptics are. Put your faith in methodology. Because I have news for
you. You don’t KNOW anything. Anything you think you know is a delusion. Since we can only know things by full spectrum convergence without outstanding anomalies, and what you believe about evolution, the big bang, high physics and post-1930’s history is pretty much all bullshit. Therefore I know some things but you know nothing.
You don’t know shit. And yet your official “critical rationalist” philosophy tells you explicitly that you know shit all. So why do you all make complete dicks of yourselves, and get about with this occult understanding that you tired-headed brainless leftist twits are always in possession of the “burden of proof.” You are not in possession of simple sanity, and an understanding of your place in the universe, or the worthlessness of your pathetic opinions on matters big and small.
And yet you magically imagine that the fabled “burden of proof” is always on your side. What a bunch of fucking lunatics and epistemological nitwits.
Yes yes yes. You fucking dummies need a handicap thats true. But reality and GMB are not going to give it to you. You don’t get and have never deserved the burden of proof handicap. And an irrational handicap that is.
A 21st century skeptic (as opposed to one of those brilliant 1970’s skeptics), calling himself a “critical rationalist” is like a WOMAN calling herself an OBJECTIVIST, when we know that all women are crazy, and no woman was ever objective-never could be. The human race would have died out if the sheilas were objective. I’m of course talking about Ayn Rand. Surely the 20th centuries greatest philosopher and at the very least the philosopher we ought to be most grateful for by a very long shot.
But she is a WOMAN. And all woman are crazy and none is objective. Which is why I get so furious at petty people giving her a hard time about this or that. When they ought to be thanking their useless lives for her existence and for the second stay at execution she seems to have given us.
There will be more ranting in this vain and a re-summarising of various aspects of correct epistemological methodology. Rand talked of INTEGRATION. But to me the very WORD was problematic. The word seemed just a little bit tendentious. So I talk about CONVERGENCE. Which is a word that seems to speak of a less dismissive methodology……… recognising that surprising information can come at you from a startling angle, and out of a clear blue sky.
It is for this reason I sez that it is important AND ALSO FUCKING ENTERTAINING AND MARVELLOUSLY INTERESTING to investigate the totally reasonable advocates of supposedly crazy ideas.
The crazy idea we are talking about this very day is THE LEGEND OF THE ANNUNAKI!!!!!
And the seemingly very rational advocate of this idea is a fine young man called JASON MARTEL.
Embarrassment is not a form of cognition. And that there are terrible racists and hopelessly irrational nutballs that also talk about THE LEGEND OF THE ANNUNAKI…….. well that is neither here nor there. And if you are not an idiot and occult epistemologist… if you are someone who realises that all you have is your intellectual honesty, and all you can rely on is good methodology….. well young Jason Martel is your man should you wish to check this field of historical speculation out.
Where do I stand in all of this? Well thats not important. This is one case where I cannot hope to check out the source material with sufficient expertise. At Catallaxy, and with people who now call themselves skeptics, we have this hateful and mindless absolutism that is the opposite of skepticism. We have people who either refuse to consider the possibility of some ideas or who alternatively wrongly and delusionally feel they KNOW certain things to be true or false when they clearly know no such thing. They can never be in a happy medium of weighing the plausibility of competing alternatives. And their absolutism is contagious. I haven’t caught it. But their absolutism forces me to sometimes act as though I have.
Failing being able to get a handle on Jason Martels’ source material, the only contribution I can make to the determination of the plausibility of Jason’s ideas is to say the following:
ECONOMIC SCIENCE SHINES THE LIGHT ON ALL HISTORICAL CONTROVERSIES.
When we look for signs of Ancient Astronauts arriving in a primitive outpost, we must look for the economics specific to faraway outposts.
Seems logical enough right?
Technology used on the fly, in remote outposts, can regress a thousand years, even for the technologically proficient interlopers. For an ancient astronaut to function in stupidtown, a million miles from the back-of-Burke, he needs plentiful cheap energy. These high-tech refugees (and make no mistake about it. They would with very high probability be refugees) couldn’t have got there in the first place without a pentiful energy source. But then again, they would not have been able to bring much else in the way of capital goods with him.
So when we look for evidence of ancient astronauts we must realise that their visitation implies that they have energy to burn. They’ve got the equivalent of 5c per gallon fuel of some sort. Thats a given or they wouldn’t be there. They’ve got the cheap fuel but not much in the way of vehicles.
You see these visitors from another solar system will always be short of capital goods and labour, and their technology will always be in danger of degradation.
This is the light that economic science can throw upon the controversy, since unlike the science fiction stories we have handed to us, the truth is that technology is embedded in capital update. The extent of your capital goods is dependent on global trade. And a high-tech coterie landing amidst primitive tribal people, billions of miles from home, therefore must find themselves with special economic difficulties. So the way they operate amongst the primitives will reflect their strange and extraordinary economic problems. There will be no mistaking about it. These inescapable economic realities will force them into doing things in extraordinarily strange and couter-intuitive ways.
For example no slave society could have developed the technology for interstellar travel. Yet a coterie of interstellar refugees, being chronically short on labour, might be forced to ruthlessly practice slavery, if there were highly evolved primitives available for the purpose.
STRANGE ECONOMIC PROBLEMS OF ANCIENT ASTRONAUTS
1. Extravagant access to cheap energy.
2. Permanent shortages of capital goods.
3. Permanent labour shortages.
An example would be the idea that landing on Mars. The interstellar refugess would likely have the ability to utilize Helium 3, but have scant ability to make comfortable modern-looking buildings with all the flash amenities to keep their sheilas happy. We wouldn’t likely see them making paper within the decade for example.
Inter-stellar refugees would operate in incredibly strange ways. And pretty much all their behaviour designed to maintain the energy source, capital goods and military equipment, that they already had. These would be such urgent and pressing requirements that there would be an air of desperation and ruthlessness to the way they behaved.
But any hypothetical astronauts must have started with plentiful cheap energy or they would have quickly lost everything, and they would have regressed again to animals under conditions remote from civilisation.
Its these economic realities that we must look out for if we are to appraise Jason Martels ideas.
Do I believe in anything that Jason says? The fact is I don’t have a clue. My tendency is to believe the artificiality of some Mars structures but to be unconvinced on this other gear, largely because of the time factor.
But there are certainly some anomalies that need explaining. And my beliefs are irrelevant to the situation since a sane person can only put his faith in methodology.