Yes, and it’s clear that a Mayan picture shows a man piloting a space ship.
2 Likes
Okay, that’s the second time you’ve compared what I’m saying to ancient alien crackpots. You can’t tell me you really think this is comparable. Ancient Olmecs painted a figure holding 2 specific items ( a trident and a snake) and wearing the furs of a spotted cat. These are very specific characteristics of a well known Hindu deity. Do you deny this?
That ‘trident’ doesn’t have a staff or points, and the ‘snake’ may not be a snake and isn’t round his neck.
Your similarities are vague enough that you could make any connection you wanted.
1 Like
Any connection I wanted, as long as I was making a connection to a figure that holds a trident and wears cat fur. The trident has 3 points and a short handle.
Superman is always drawn differently by different artists, yet there are characteristics that all include to identify who he is. Much like this. I guess we can just agree to disagree that it’s too vague. Between the trident, the long hair, and the spotted cat fur, the fact that the other item even looks like it could be a snake is pretty specific. Even if it was something completely different than a snake, the rest of it is still very specific. Both having a trident, pretty vague, both having a trident and a snake, can still be argued it’s vague, but the spotted cat fur in addition? Vague?
But I can. There’s no reason to say any more.
All of this is completely beside the point of the thread anyway. You’re right. There’s no reason to continue down this road. I’ll just have to go forward recognizing that blatantly obvious isn’t enough for this group.
Me: Dressed in blue, red cape/boots, dark hair, red ‘S’ on his chest
This group: Too vague to say that’s Superman
Oh, and let’s not forget the yoga position statues that John found so silly. Combine that with the fact that in Hindu legend, yogic asanas were revealed by Lord Shiva.
So now we have long hair, a trident, possibly a snake, leopard/jaguar fur, and another association to that same figure in the form of dozens of statues in poses revealed by that same figure.
Still too vague?
Late Edit … I want to apologize, Roy. I think John’s second comparison to ancient alien stuff kind of miffed me a bit and then I responded to you. So I think I was a little snippy while posting this.
Can we at least acknowledge here that the figure on the left is clearly a depiction of an elephant even though there were no elephants in North/South America for 1000’s of years?
This discussion illustrates well what it is I keep running into.
Dismissal. Most people seem to have the same initial reaction that I did to this idea. That’s ridiculous. Or, like John said, “this is von Daniken level scholarship at best”. Dismissed. He’s moved on. I can’t do the same.
Yet in this discussion I made another seemingly far-fetched claim that was also dismissed out of hand. Even with some pretty direct visual evidence to go along with it.
If I could just dismiss this like everyone else seems to my life would be much more at peace. How do you do it?
So, to tie things up thematically consistent with this thread up to this point.
The only objection so far is John’s challenge to my claim that polytheism is a localized phenomenon. He argued that Mayan mythology proves this false. I have just shown a direct tie between the Mayan/Olmec cultures of South America and Hindu mythology, tying this culture back to the original localized event. Showing that these cultures had Indus Valley/Harappa mythological knowledge right from the beginning.
I think you should discount @John_Harshman’s rejection. He is hard on everyone.
2 Likes
That seems harsh. Are you saying you buy any of this? That my rejection is not reasonable? I’d say I’m hard on poor arguments, which seems to me to be a good thing, not something you should advise someone to discount.
1 Like
Would you agree that you reject things that others sometimes don’t reject? Just because you reject it doesn’t mean others will?
That’s my main point.
For some people, they aren’t very good at making an argument in support of their position. I wonder how this conversation might proceed if you tried to make the best case possible for him.
1 Like
That’s vague enough to be true for anyone. But you told him to discount my opinion, which is quite different.
You are free to try. There is no case to be made. Did you even look at his evidence for an Indian influence on the Olmecs? You must have some standards. Don’t you?
1 Like
How am I to learn to discern at your level of standard if you don’t tell me what specifically it is about what I’ve cited that leads you to the conclusion that there’s “no case to be made”? Because I am right now certain that I am making a case. That’s the whole point of this thread. I don’t want to walk around all day just being wrong. I want to understand.
Because right now I think I’m right. And worse than that, I think I’m the only one who ‘actually’ knows. I’m convinced. I seriously need someone to come in here and knock me off this pedestal so I can get back to being a normal, relatable human being.
In fairness to you, I haven’t look closely at his claims yet.
Well, I’m out. Look if you want.
1 Like
I appreciate it, John. It’s been a good discussion and I do not and will not discount your rejection. I just don’t understand it.
No.
1 Like
That looks like a possum to you? You’re kidding
2 Likes