[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 129 KB, 500x375, 1319569586437.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4489185 No.4489185 [Reply] [Original]

OOParts thread.
ill start. I recently read about the discovery of japanese anchors off the coast of south america which suggest they were in the americas long before we considered possible. Does anyone have any more information on this?

>> No.4489193

Bump

>> No.4489195

what?

>> No.4489197

I smell bullshit.
Youtube is not a refereed publication.

>> No.4489209

Im not saying its true, its just interesting. I enjoy anachronisms, and as men and women of sci i thought you might have fun discussing them too.

>> No.4489213

zheng he visited america before columbus did

>> No.4489219

we truly are one step closer to the smelloscope

>> No.4489229

Baigong Pipes might be interesting to you, OP.

>> No.4489246

In New Zealand there is a beach that has some natural rock formations called the Moeraki Boulders (Concretions).
There are a hard core bunch of conspiracy theorist nut jobs who insist that the rocks are Chinese Junk anchors, and are evidence for ancient Chinese visiting New Zealand. You can find bullshit websites with fanciful claims about the ancient civilizations visiting New Zealand.

>> No.4489281

>>4489246
Why is it bullshit that an actual civilization with actual ships visited new zealand but totally reasonable that people on rafts drifted to all of the islands of the pacific? Its just as plausible if you ask me.

>> No.4489286

>>4489281

Because the actual civilisation with actual ships had an actual written history that doesn't actually mention anything of the sort.

>> No.4489287

>>4489281
Because they're rocks, fucktard.

>> No.4489291

>>4489286
yeah, but who can read that ching chong shit?

>> No.4489295

>>4489291
Ching Chong himself.

>> No.4489300

>>4489287
Rocks make good anchors and they had ships. Do you deny its plausability?

>>4489286
this is reasonable evidence against it.

>> No.4489304

>>4489281
The Polynesians navigated the pacific on sophisticated craft. The evidence for them navigating to New Zealand and South America is overwhelming.
The evidence for an ancient fleet of Chinese junks visiting New Zealand, exists only in the minds of idiots.
When a geologist points out that the "Ancient Chinese Anchors" are natural concretions
- the rational person accepts it and moves on.
-the deluded not job writes a blog about how the evil geologists are trying to suppress ancient secret knowledge (or some such retardery).

>> No.4489311

>>4489286
Evidence against it, but certainly not proof. We have a written language and we lie/omit constanlty. The vikings intentionally misnamed iceland and greenland. Also, maybe there is written evidence and it hasn't been discovered or verified. Why are you so quick to accept history as fact?

>> No.4489332

>>4489311
Oh god, you're one of those.

>> No.4489358

>>4489332
One of those? Im not one of anything brah. Im interested in the subject and like to discuss. I dont assume anything to be exactly true and i dont go around thinking everything is a lie either. You cant tell me that every oopart is fraud or bullshit.

>> No.4489366

>>4489358
you're one of those people that says "brah"

>> No.4489370

>>4489358
One of those... You can't prove hypothesis X is false, so X has as much merit as hypothesis Y which has overwhelming evidence... We must search for the truth but we can not trust historical evidence and must get our understanding from conspiracy blogs...

>> No.4489393

>>4489370
Nope. If youd take some alieve to relieve your asspain, you would see that i said china having no written record is legit evidence against it. Does not make it unplausible though. Tis all.

>> No.4489409

>>4489393
There are a few tricks I use to decide if something is true.
1) Is the source reliable.
2) Have the sources been discredited.
2)Is there evidence for the claim.
3)Does the evidence for the claim stack up. (can I see it)
4)Is there a better explanation for the evidence.
- If an idea fails these tests I decide on balance that it is not true.
I can not say that all of the ideas about ancient civilizations sailing the world are untrue. Every claim that I have looked into has failed my tests. The repeated failures of similar claims to meet a burden of proof are enough for me to reject all similar claims without extraordinary evidence.