A hidden message encoded in the pattern of the Palenque lid?

[Akusius]

That is your pareidolia talking. There is no objective evidence that it represents that (if it represents anything). It could be an image of people comparing hats.

 

We are talking about this diagram, depicting the two (or three) stars and squares between them:

 

 

The two star symbols originally on the lid:

 

 

This diagram could be a really sophisticated way to identify a binary solar system being three times as far away from us as the PC:

 

 

Of course in itself it could be interpreted many ways, but together with the other diagram and considering the entire encoding procedure what other interpretation could be more probable?

 

Note: hats exist. We have no evidence that your Alien Overlords exist. Therefore, which explanation do you think is more likely?

 

Such an argument can be used each time to debunk a potentially first evidence for an alien existence.

 

But perhaps it would be a better approach to focus on the geometrical decoding at first and to ignore the final interpretation.

It is just another ludicrous "ancient alien" theory. The same as all the others: based on made up interpretations and zero facts.

 

OK, perhaps you are right. But is there a point in discussing this topic without even reviewing the operations?

I admit it to be a fantastical (a "lunatic") hypothesis, but how to (dis)prove its potential validity without examining its steps?

Maybe we should leave this topic until there is a motivation to discuss the decoding itself (and not only our prejudices favoring or against alien theories)...

[atbsphotography]

 

 

 

 

It is just another ludicrous "ancient alien" theory. The same as all the others: based on made up interpretations and zero facts.

 

Ludicrous or not, this seems a highly logical theorem. For humanities sake, what if this star system was discovered tomorrow, would you still disapprove of aliens? Up until recently people didn't believe the earth was round, but yet someone came along and said otherwise and it took ages for him to be believed.

[Strange]

Ludicrous or not, this seems a highly logical theorem.

 

I have no idea what you think the word "logical" means.

 

For humanities sake, what if this star system was discovered tomorrow, would you still disapprove of aliens?

 

There is a big difference between something being discovered and people making up stories.

 

Up until recently people didn't believe the earth was round

 

 

I wonder why is this myth is so popular? And why it is so often wheeled out in support of drivel.

 

"The myth of the flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages in Europe saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.^[1][2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

[Ophiolite]

 

Ludicrous or not, this seems a highly logical theorem.

In my experience, limited as it may be, the characteristics "ludicrous" and "highly logical" have always seemed mutually exclusive. How do you justify combining them here?

 

 

For humanities sake, what if this star system was discovered tomorrow, would you still disapprove of aliens?

I have not seen any evidence in the posts challenging Akuisus's hypothesis that any members disapproves of aliens, or even disapproves of the existence of aliens.The objections are to the hypothesis that the Palenque lid is evidence of aliens.

 

I am also at a loss as to how the skepticism of a member on this forum could pose a threat to humanity. Perhaps you will explain.

 

 

Up until recently people didn't believe the earth was round, but yet someone came along and said otherwise and it took ages for him to be believed.

Bollocks. The spherical nature of the Earth has been known for more than two millenia. It is around 2,200 years since Eratosthenes calculated it's circumference. That is hardly, in human terms, "recently".

 

atbsphotography, I do not wish to discourage you, but your defense of Akusius and his hypothesis is ill founded. You are using neither logic, evidence, historical fact, nor the scientific method - hence my refutation of each of your points. I encourage you to use your obvious enthusiasm in combination with more careful thought, for a more valuable outcome.

 

Edit: Cross posted with Strange, hence some repetition.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Ophiolite

[Curious S]

I suggest distinguishing between two issues here, whether there is anything encoded on this lid, and what its meaning is if there is. I would put aside the interpretation that its some kind of solar system, and focus on the issue whether it is realistic that this pattern contains any sort of message to be decoded.

Akusius, you refer several times to the fact that the pattern in the “control phase” is “well-arranged”. What are the characteristics of this pattern that makes it in your view better arranged than any other possible outcome if you do similar transformations with those three-circled items?

[Phi for All]

 

Ludicrous or not, this seems a highly logical theorem.

 

Logical does not mean, "This makes sense to me". And it's not a theorem either. Can you represent it mathematically?

 

All of the refutation is simply saying we have mundane explanations, so you MUST show why the extraordinary explanations are more compelling, or at least compelling enough for further study. Evidence needs to be shown, a case built for the extraordinary, at least enough support that it becomes intriguing (in more than just a pareidolic, satisfying your curiosity way). Serious people need serious support for any new idea.

 

Show some solid evidence for these claims, and it might persuade folks that Occam's Razor favors you.