Ancient Aliens and The Mysterious Origins of Man

I've had mixed feelings about the History channel show Ancient Aliens over the course of its run.  When the original special aired a couple of years ago, I thought it was interesting and presented the information well.  I'm not a believer of the ancient astronaut hypothesis it presented, but I'm open to the possibility (at least certain aspects of it).  So when they decided to turn it into a series, I figured I would give it a shot.  After watching a couple of episodes though, I lost interest.  I thought they were just getting silly about it, seemingly assuming aliens had something to do with almost any ancient mystery.  Although inspired by writers like Zecharia Sitchin and Erich von Daniken, ultimately, all they are doing is inserting science fiction concepts that have been developed primarily over the last 60-70 years into history.

But I did catch some second season episodes that sounded like they might be interesting when I didn't see anything better on.  My impression of the show didn't change much, but I did realize that the information they were presenting was interesting, even if their analysis of it could be a bit silly at times.  So I've decided to watch the third season just to see what they bring up.  I figure whatever they bring up will be interesting, even if I don't agree with their theories.

On the other hand, I was surfing around on Youtube today and came across a video called The Mysterious Origins of Man.  It was obviously pretty old since Charlton Heston was the presenter (from 1996, according to Wikpedia), so there isn't any new information in it, but I thought the information was presented well.  It covers topics such as out of place artifacts, Tiahuanaco, and ancient Egypt.  If you're interested check it out below.



Here is a shortened version of that video: http://youtu.be/nne_-j08yMo

Zahi Hawass, back already!

The other day it was reported that Zahi Hawass lost his job in Egypt as Minister of Antiquities.  Now it is being reported that he is already back to work.

That didn't take long!


H/T

Here is another article I found about it.

This is an excerpt from that article:

Hawass is known for his cheerful spirit, and a closet full of cowboy hats he passes to foreign dignitaries as they come through Egypt. He even gave American President Barack Obama one of those hats.

Despite his jolly spirit, archaeologists, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of permits to dig in the country, which all go through Hawass, tell Bikya Masr a different, behind-the-scenes reality.

“He has a huge temper,” began one archaeologist. “If you don’t agree with him, he simply screams at you and threatens to remove your funding.”

That sounds like a good description of him!

Out of Body Experience; Hallucination or Reality?

This article refers to out-of-body experiences as 'hallucinations' caused by a 'glitch' in the temporal lobe, but is it really a hallucination? I suppose the mind could create a hallucination like that, but what if someone experienced their surroundings the way they really are, and not just as a figment of the mind's imagination (such as seeing something they wouldn't have been able to see with their eyes at the physical location they are at)? If our consciousness, or spirit, whichever term you prefer, exists independently of the material brain, isn't it possible that the only 'glitch' could be in the brain's ability to confine a person's consciousness to their body (or at least the sense of being in our body, looking out from our eyes)?

Something to think about.

Zahi Hawass fired

So I read today that celebrity archaeologist Zahi Hawass has lost his job as Minister of Antiquities in Egypt.  I have mixed feelings about the guy, so in a way I am glad to see him go, but at the same time, it's almost sad to see such an iconic figure of Egyptian archaeology losing his job.  On the one hand, I think he was very passionate about Egypt and history.  But I also think he was very strict in his interpretation of Egyptology and pretty closed minded.

The article linked above notes that archaeologist Nora Shalaby said that Hawass didn't tolerate criticism and that most of his finds were about self promotion.  That sounds about right to me.  Especially after seeing his show Chasing Mummies on the History channel.  I was wondering recently if the show would be returning for another season.  In light of the revolution and Hawass losing his job, I'm guessing it probably won't.

Oh well, I'm curious what direction Egyptology will go in without him leading it.  Will it follow the same direction, or will new ideas be tolerated and considered?  I guess we'll just have to wait and see!

Do 'Green' movements prevent progress?

I came across an article with a title that amused me yesterday about France outlawing hydraulic fracturing as a means for extracting natural gas and oil.  The title of the article is France Vote Outlaws 'Fracking' Shale for Natural Gas, Oil Extraction.  If you are a fan of the reimagined Battlestar Galactica, then you should know why that title sounds amusing.

But it turns out this 'fracking' is just a shortened term for hydraulic fracturing and has nothing to do with the similar term in Battlestar Galactica (which is typically spelled without a c).  I wasn't really all that familiar with the fracking process prior to reading the article, but apparently Green groups aren't to fond of it.  Here is an excerpt from the article:

Fracking, widely used in North America, uses a mixture of water, sand and chemicals injected under high pressure to break dense rock to release trapped oil and gas. Green groups and politicians led protests across France, saying the method could cause environmental damage. Government ministers and industry representatives say it is the only method currently available to extract hydrocarbons from the rock.

I got to wondering after reading that if Green groups prevent progress.  Granted, I do think anthropogenic global warming is a scam devised to collect taxes and redistribute wealth, but overall I am in favor of conservation and protecting natural environments.  We have dominion over this planet so we can do as we see fit, but if we are to be good masters of this planet, then we should protect it's natural environments.  But where do we draw the line between conservation and progress?

I don't know much about the effects of fracking, and maybe it isn't even the best example to use here, but it's not the first time Green groups have been opposed to something due to environmental concerns.  But the Green movement is a fairly new movement.  What if it had been around earlier?  Would we be where we are today?  Whenever the first fire was started, what if there had been someone there to put it out due to the environmental concerns?  What if they claimed the smoke was unhealthy and should be banned?  And that the ash left was unsightly in a natural environment?  Or what about when the first settlements with homes built out of wood were being built?  What if someone had been there to say that chopping down trees was destroying the natural environment and should be banned?  What about when roads were being built?  What about the industrial revolution?

Where would we be today if all of those things had been stopped by some kind of Green movement?  Where can we draw the line between conservation and progress?  I'm in favor of preserving earth's natural environments, but what kind of future progress might we be limiting if we allow Green movements to stop everything that may (or may not) be an environmental concern?

But on the other hand, maybe these Green movement's can actually help us make progress.  With the rising cost of gasoline, I'd like to see some cheaper alternative fuels replace oil and gasoline.  Maybe if oil and natural gas extraction becomes more difficult to get approval for, there will be an incentive to make alternative fuels more available and common.  Maybe that is the progress we really need?