Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Probie
    Member Since
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    4

    Default Stargate is Soft Exposure and/or Based on Conspiracy Theories

    Hello Gate Fans.

    I've only first discovered Stargate in early 2017 and it has become one of (if not) my favorite sci-fi show.

    Anyway, I have done some searches on this forum and haven't heard this discussed much.

    First thing I'm wondering is, has the creator of Stargate talked much about how he comes up with all of the ideas for Stargate?

    Stargate is one of the more believable sci-fi shows with faster than light travel (via wormholes), answering the origins of the pyramids, tales of the lost city of atlantis, religions, government compartmentalization (undisclosed special access programs), soft exposure (wormhole xtreme, etc), and perhaps even the fermi paradox (where are the aliens), etc.

    Also, Stargate seems to be one of these three things.

    1. Stargate is soft exposure; it's entirely real and they are exposing it to the public as a test (exactly as they did in the show with Wormhole Xtreme)
    2. Stargate is based on multiple well-known conspiracy theories.
    3. Stargate is some mixture of 1) and 2).


    The more I watched Stargate the more I realized how much of it is based on conspiracy theories, well known ones. Most of which allegedly comes from whistleblowers who used to work for the government (i.e. whitehouse, navy, airforce, undisclosed military progams).

    The Asgard

    The Asgard are what are known to conspiracists as the Grays. The Grays are grey aliens that are 4-feet tall with disproportionately large heads, wiry bodies, and large, dark almond-shaped eyes. They have a tiny nose area, slimmed face to a peaked chin, and holes in the sides of their heads for ears. They abduct people to perform experimentation. The Grays survival as a species is threatened due to repeated cloning for reproductive purposes which has caused genetic degradation. Sound exactly like the Asgard right? It is claimed that past officials and employees of secret government military programs have worked and lived alongside the Grays. Humans are also reverse engineering Gray technology.

    Stargate
    The name Stargate was the codename for the remote viewing project back in the 70's; remote viewing is a US government run program that used psychics to gather information about the Russians and military threats, etc. It is a way of connecting to what most new-ager's would describe as consciousness or akashic records. It's a way of receiving instant information via query-based intention that is then provided in any form (touch, smell, taste, etc) to the viewer. You are then to interpret the data to form a picture. There was probably a lot more going on and still is that hasn't been disclosed. Besides the names and the instant transfer of information, not much on the surfeace appears to be directly the same to the Stargate objects in Stargate.

    The Goa'uld
    The same theories above commonly tie in with what is described as other advanced aliens which have been manipualting humans since the beginning of mankind on earth. They have done this throughout history via cults, religions, societies, witchcraft, etc. Humans are seen to them as slave labor. They manipualte humans either directly or through human proxy. They continually cause conflict among humans to maintain control.

    Some conspiracy theories talk about a race called the Annunaki who created humanity by mixing their own DNA with primates existing on Earth for slave labor and a natural resource. Apparently, they are concealed in different location on Earth, influencing humanity negatively and waiting for the return of their species. They use "exotic" technologies like psychotronic weapons via thought, psychic abilites, star gates, and time travel (sounds like Goa'uld Kara kesh and stargate is obviously stargate).

    As I am watching Origins, the first episode is already implying Nazi's using alien technology from antartica. This is another one that is directly the same as we have in real life, and it ties into the theories above. Basically, the Nazi's had antartica bases with alien technology during WW2, which led to the 1952 Washington DC UFO incident.

    There is a lot more to this. But long story short, there is far too much in Stargate that is obviously coming from well-known conspiracy theories.

    If I had more time on my hands, perhaps I could see if anything in Stargate pre-dates the first public mentioning of these theories, to see if Stargate predicts/knows something, validating the possibility of it being soft exposure.

    Has anyone else noticed the same things? Has Brad Wright and Jonathon Glassner every discussed this?

  2. #2
    General Falcon Horus's Avatar
    Member Since
    May 2004
    Location
    Kate Heightmeyer's office or thereabouts...
    Posts
    32,376

    Default Re: Stargate is Soft Exposure and/or Based on Conspiracy Theories

    Have you been reading The Stargate Conspiricies by Lynn Pickett and Clive Prince?
    The Tale of Heightmeyer's Lemming by Falcon Horus

    icon by Falcon Horus & signature by JadedWraith || The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research || Pharaoh Hamenthotep @ Patreon
    Proper Stargate Rewatch still happening right now -- season 6 of SG-1

  3. #3
    Second Lieutenant nivao's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The real Atlantis
    Posts
    271

    Default Re: Stargate is Soft Exposure and/or Based on Conspiracy Theories

    The franchise in general is based on the Ancient Astronauts myth primarily, plus various other myths about the pyramids, "gods", and Atlantis, Babylon, etc. etc. So you're not so far off. Without spoiling too much, a lot of it is explained throughout the shows, primarily SG-1 and to a lesser extent Atlantis. Enjoy!

  4. #4
    Captain Xaeden's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,026

    Default Re: Stargate is Soft Exposure and/or Based on Conspiracy Theories

    Quote Originally Posted by sputnick View Post
    to see if Stargate predicts/knows something, validating the possibility of it being soft exposure.
    So let me get this straight... you think seeing an idea in Stargate before it became a widespread conspiracy on the Internet provides "validation" to the conspiracy that Stargate has a basis in reality? You don't think that the conspiracy theory would instead be based off of something someone saw in Stargate or that two writers (the writer of a TV show and the writer of a conspiracy theory) simply have similar ideas (as regularly happens to writers)?

    Any type of fantastical fiction that markets itself as happening in present day deals in conspiracies and coverups as a means of making its viewers "feel" as though what they are writing about could happen. Creating a world where vampires are real, but nobody knows it? Someone is covering that up. Sometimes it's the vampires, sometimes the government is in on it. Is that soft exposure as well? What about the plot of the Sci fi's Invisible Man (which Jonathan Glassner worked on) where the government took a Bigfoot gland, surgically implanted it into a thief so he could turn invisible, and used that thief to engage in missions run by a secret organization operating under the agency of Fish and Game? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVQ3DU6apfQ

    Before coming to Stargate, Brad Wright and Jonathan Glassner used to work on The Outer Limits where conspiracies would regularly be used for a range of individual stories (they linked some of them together, others were contradictory to one another). In one episode written by Glassner, ancient earth parasites took over a town of miners much as the Goa'uld once took over townspeople in Nightwalkers (season 6, episode 5 of Sg-1). Then there's one directed by Glassner where an alien prop looking very much like the Goa'uld prop is seen coming out of someone.

    Wright and Glassner brought these ideas with to them to Stargate and mixed it with Roland Emmerich's conspiracy-leaning source material. Emmerich has a known interest in exploring certain myths and conspiracy theories centered on early human civilization. A favorite of his is that the pyramids were built 10,000 years ago. He used that in the 1994 Stargate movie (it was dropped from the TV show's continuity) and he used it his 2008 movie, 10,000 BC. In the former, he explained this with an alien, while in the latter he did so with references to Atlantis. 10,000 BC also played with the idea that elephants were used in building the pyramids, Atlantis (as mentioned), etc. The movie was so widely panned that discussion of it was dominated by people trying to explain how this or that didn't really happen (e.g. there couldn't be woolly mammoths in Egypt). What they missed was the Emmerich was trying (albeit, badly) to create a story within a story that traced a possible origin for the myths that we have today.

    It was like how we are supposed to know that what we saw in 300 was the version of events that a character in the story was telling, not a factual account of a battle with literal monsters. This is a great concept that speaks both to how humans have invented and magnified in order to generate the mythological stories that date back to our earliest days and how that practice continues with our present day mythology (conspiracy theories). Emmerich, however, has become too focused on creating CGI spectacles to properly relate that to an audience through a story, but that's another issue entirely.

  5. #5
    Probie
    Member Since
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    4

    Default Re: Stargate is Soft Exposure and/or Based on Conspiracy Theories

    Quote Originally Posted by Xaeden View Post
    So let me get this straight... you think seeing an idea in Stargate before it became a widespread conspiracy on the Internet provides "validation" to the conspiracy that Stargate has a basis in reality? You don't think that the conspiracy theory would instead be based off of something someone saw in Stargate or that two writers (the writer of a TV show and the writer of a conspiracy theory) simply have similar ideas (as regularly happens to writers)?
    All of those are possibilities, yes. Stargate is the only sci-fi I've seen that has so many allegedly well substantiated conspiracy theories woven into its story. Even the name is based on a project the government was into back in the 70's. The series even makes a joke about soft exposure by parodying itself through wormhole x-treme.

    There are people who strongly believe the government is using the media to expose the public to these concepts of ET life, etc in order to either push for some agenda and/or to gauge how receptive they are to the idea; one implication being because a hard exposure could eventually be coming. It's not like it would be new to push an agenda through media, after all.

    What am I saying is that if they are doing this, then Stargate seems a good candidate for being one of those shows.

    You say that John Glassner worked for the Outer Limits show. Well, that helps what I'm saying more. The producer of the Outer Limits was Leslie Stevens. His father was U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Leslie Stevens.

    Here is a quote about Admiral Leslie Stevens from Exopolitics:

    Vice Admiral Stevens was a contemporary of Rear Admiral Rico Botta who according to a former aerospace engineer, William Tompkins, oversaw a covert Navy espionage program out of Nazi Germany to learn about Nazi flying saucers during World War II. The 29 Navy spies in the program had not only learned that the Nazis had developed up to 30 different flying saucer prototypes, but were also being directly assisted by an extraterrestrial civilization in building secret bases in Antarctica.
    It's important to not take everything at face value and get bogged down in conspiracy. But we can see how much Stargate has in common with conspiracy theories, real-life people, and conspiracy theories about those real life people.

    Even Woolsey is likely named after R. James Woolsey Jr.: Former United States Director of Central Intelligence.

    Stargate seems to certainly have something going on with it beyond what we see in regular science fiction shows.

  6. #6
    Second Lieutenant nivao's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The real Atlantis
    Posts
    271

    Default Re: Stargate is Soft Exposure and/or Based on Conspiracy Theories

    "Stargate" does not refer at all to that weird CIA project from the Cold War. US agencies tend to apply unrelated names to divert attention. In the case of the 1994 film, the name "Stargate" is literal and has absolutely nothing to do with government conspiracies.

    I think you're also looking way too far into it. The franchise in general is not directly based on any conspiracy theory, it's based around a number of myths and legends, and extrapolations from those (e.g. using Arthur C' Clarke's quote "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"). The series just references certain conspiracy theories, notably the Roswell Greys and Area 51, purely through the creativity of the writers, but it never goes too deep into it. In fact, the Area 51 conspiracy was indeed never true. Instead, it does exactly what it does in real-life, develop advanced technology for the US military. It only started involving alien technology after 1997 when the Stargate Program was created.

    Unlike The X-Files or Outer Limits, Stargate is not a show about conspiracies, but adventures to other planets, not unlike Star Trek. Wormhole X-Treme is simply a self-parody, and a parody of exactly the conspiracy cliches you're referring to, and is not meant as a serious thing.

    I agree it does things very differently than other sci-fi, but only because it takes place in the present day, with the characters being genre-savvy (AKA, they frequently refer to popular sci-fi cliches and franchises).

    I wish I could believe the Stargate was real, and if there is anything I "believe" is that we're not alone. I also believe the concept of what "gods" are in Stargate is much more plausible than just a "man in the sky", and something that rationalizes faith and science (as I always refer to Clarke's quote). But I don't believe in government conspiracies (at least not the alien kind).

  7. #7
    Captain Xaeden's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,026

    Default Re: Stargate is Soft Exposure and/or Based on Conspiracy Theories

    Quote Originally Posted by sputnick View Post
    All of those are possibilities, yes. Stargate is the only sci-fi I've seen that has so many allegedly well substantiated conspiracy theories woven into its story. Even the name is based on a project the government was into back in the 70's. The series even makes a joke about soft exposure by parodying itself through wormhole x-treme.
    Have you not watched the X-files?

    There are people who strongly believe the government is using the media to expose the public to these concepts of ET life, etc in order to either push for some agenda and/or to gauge how receptive they are to the idea; one implication being because a hard exposure could eventually be coming. It's not like it would be new to push an agenda through media, after all.
    People are stupid and believe in a lot of nonsense.

    What am I saying is that if they are doing this, then Stargate seems a good candidate for being one of those shows.
    So who exactly did the government approach with this idea? The people who made the 1994 movie, the people who made the TV show, MGM, all of the above? If Emmerich they really need to feed him some new information because he has not been doing well of late.

    You say that John Glassner worked for the Outer Limits show. Well, that helps what I'm saying more. The producer of the Outer Limits was Leslie Stevens. His father was U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Leslie Stevens.
    What exactly is it that the government is trying to soft expose with The Outer Limits? Its episodes often contradict each other (meaning, they all can't believably exist in the same universe) and they explore fairly generic science fiction ideas. Do you seriously think the government is going around, telling writers to write about basic science fiction plots that thousands of people working in the genre touch upon on a regular basis?

    And congratulations, you found someone who served in the military/came from a military family who transitioned into writing. That only happens all the time. While serving in Korea my father wrote a story about a character who thought he was shooting a leopard only to discover that it was an alien with a message about how he was sent ahead of an alien fleet come to make friends with Earth but if anything happened to their emissary they would take their revenge. It was horribly written and horribly cliche, but he, like many people in the military (because it represents a significant chuck on the population) liked those types of stories and had time on his hands. Had he been more talented he could have been Leslie Stevens or any of the other individuals with a military connection who found success as writers.

    You're taking the loosest of connections and then saying it helps your argument, but you're not citing evidence. What you're doing is telling a story (or, more accurately, citing other people's stories). Writers will often look for gaps and coincidences and then craft their own fictional explanation to tie these things together. When you see this within the framework of a narrative it has the authority of the narrator telling you that all these things are true (within the context of the fictional world that the story is being told in). When, however, people try to tell you this same process points to some truth in the real world, it's nonsense. Can a writer stumble on something that is true? Sure, but nothing you have said proves anything. All you have done is cited connections that you want to believe means one thing and attempted to back that up by saying other people want to believe the same thing.

    Even Woolsey is likely named after R. James Woolsey Jr.: Former United States Director of Central Intelligence.
    I'm not aware of it being said that that was the case. Woolsey is not an uncommon name. It appears that you're making assumptive connections and believing they are correct without any actual verification. You're basically saying, "Stargate is a show that sometimes writes about conspiracies. Ergo a character named Woolsey must be named after the former CIA director! And if he legitimately is this actually has some meaning because writers writing fiction about government, mythology, military, etc., never pull names from those places."

    Stargate seems to certainly have something going on with it beyond what we see in regular science fiction shows.
    Are you new to science fiction? Stargate is among of the most successful science fiction shows to use a coverup as an explanation for what is happening, but it is far from alone. It's also something you see a lot of in movies and books, by the way. This is an established and well-worn trope. Commenting on the idea that the fiction being presented to a reader/writer is a version of real story (both in general and in coverup stories) is also a well-worn trope. It's called being meta. It's also particularly popular in children's stories and Young Adult Lit because they tend to get a kick out of that idea since they have a harder time distinguishing fiction from reality.

  8. #8
    Lieutenant Colonel Platschu's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 2005
    Location
    King's Lynn, UK
    Posts
    3,896

    Default Re: Stargate is Soft Exposure and/or Based on Conspiracy Theories

    I love the books of Erich van Daniken. There were many other writers about different alien conspiracies (like the Orion belt in Egypt). I would like to be believe that somebody guided us in the ancient times. Or what if some people were more clever, talented and creative what we can imagine nowadays with modern equipments. If you have ever been to China, India, Egypt, Greece, Mexico... So many ancients cultures were there who made wonderful palaces, churches, libraries, theatres, aqueducts. And they have not just built them, but they used to be wonderfull painted and decorated. How many buildings would stand in 4000 or 5000 which were built nowadays? And that is absolutely wonderful that they were able to construct such buildings which survived hundreds or thousand years. Maybe it happened with or without the help of aliens, we will never know for sure. I think it is still good to believe that we are not alone in the universe and maybe they will come back one day. But humanity must prove itself until that time and there are so much things to do. So that is the main reason I like Stargate as it was a quite believable tale and what if something similar really happened in the past.
    "I was hoping for another day. Looks like we just got a whole lot more than that. Let's not waste it."

    "Never underestimate your audience. They're generally sensitive, intelligent people who respond positively to quality entertainment."

    "Individual science fiction stories may seem as trivial as ever to the blinder critics and philosophers of today, but the core of science fiction, its essence, has become crucial to our salvation, if we are to be saved at all."


    http://picasaweb.google.com/103478402021017098633

  9. #9
    Chief Master Sergeant Chaka-Z0's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 2018
    Location
    P3X-888
    Posts
    235

    Default Re: Stargate is Soft Exposure and/or Based on Conspiracy Theories

    Quote Originally Posted by Platschu View Post
    How many buildings would stand in 4000 or 5000 which were built nowadays? And that is absolutely wonderful that they were able to construct such buildings which survived hundreds or thousand years. Maybe it happened with or without the help of aliens, we will never know for sure.
    I've seen this argument time and time again. I do not believe we are not able to build such wonders anymore, but simply don't see the need for it. Ancient cultures did some impressive work; huge monuments that last forever. They were driven by exterior motives (Religion, beliefs, monarchy, etc.) and wanted to create a landmark for everyone to see for all eternity.

    The reason we don't see this kind of architecture nowadays is pretty simple: Money. It's all about cost/efficiency in the world we live in, and there is no way that any such project submitted before a Board would get approved. How would you react if your city council would spend millions, raise taxes, only to build gold-plated public toilets with granite walls and ceilings?

    In the ancient times, common people didn't have a say in any decisions made. Their leaders (kings, emperors, etc.) could do as they please, without any regards to the cost or implications of such structures.

    Perhaps this knowledge has been lost over time, and that would be a very saddening thing indeed. Did these people have help? Maybe. Did a Goa'uld visit Earth to enslave people and build pyramids as landing pads for their spaceship? Who knows. I personally don't buy in any Conspiracy theory, but I don't dismiss them either. I'd love to see a lizardman myself and visit their secret base on the Dark side of the Moon!

    On a side note: Anybody who believes that we are alone in the Universe is a really close-minded individual that refutes any sense of logic.

  10. #10
    Captain Xaeden's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,026

    Default Re: Stargate is Soft Exposure and/or Based on Conspiracy Theories

    Quote Originally Posted by Platschu View Post
    I love the books of Erich van Daniken. There were many other writers about different alien conspiracies (like the Orion belt in Egypt). I would like to be believe that somebody guided us in the ancient times. Or what if some people were more clever, talented and creative what we can imagine nowadays with modern equipments. If you have ever been to China, India, Egypt, Greece, Mexico... So many ancients cultures were there who made wonderful palaces, churches, libraries, theatres, aqueducts. And they have not just built them, but they used to be wonderfull painted and decorated. How many buildings would stand in 4000 or 5000 which were built nowadays? And that is absolutely wonderful that they were able to construct such buildings which survived hundreds or thousand years. Maybe it happened with or without the help of aliens, we will never know for sure. I think it is still good to believe that we are not alone in the universe and maybe they will come back one day. But humanity must prove itself until that time and there are so much things to do. So that is the main reason I like Stargate as it was a quite believable tale and what if something similar really happened in the past.
    What involvement exactly do you think aliens had in the construction of ancient structures?

    Do you think they built things like the pyramids themselves? We know this was done by humans. We've found worker towns, we've found human made graffiti where only workers would have had access, we can trace the development of these structures from primitive to advanced (why do aliens need to learn how to build bigger and better pyramids over time?) and we can trace how structures grow or shrink in size and scope based on the economic success of a culture.

    Do you think they directed humans to build these things based on their designs? If so, that takes away the argument that human labor could not have built such impressive structures... unless humans were given technology to operate that they never depicted/described in paintings or writings and every single little bit was recovered and taken away by the aliens instead of discarded or lost near a construction site.

    There's no debate among experts who study ancient human civilizations that ancient structures were built by humans. The maybe they were, maybe they weren't line of thinking is promoted by laymen and the conspiracy oriented. It's like how people claim it was impossible for us to go to the moon and then continually say things that scientists have debunked over and over again. So what someone who believes the moon landings were a hoax is saying is not only have there been no leaks from all the people involved in those missions (scientists, flight crews, mission control operators, other countries who were able to track the Apollo spacecrafts and, today, can readily see the things we left behind, etc.), but when everyone who studies the science of space and space travel goes out into the world they decide to lie and say that it's perfectly possible for humans to survive outside of our magnetic field for a few days or lie and say this or that would not work the way we see something work on the moon landing video recordings.

    The people who promote the moon landing as a hoax use the same deceptive tactics as those who promote ancient alien theories. They like to make it look like there's a debate over whether something is true by carefully selecting information and they continually push debunked falsehoods.

    As for the comparison between modern day structures and past structures; as Chaka-Z0 said, there's money and practicality involved. Limestone slabs will last thousands of years without human intervention. Steel framed skyscrapers will not. We are perfectly capable of constructing a pyramid, but the materials we use in most of our modern designs are cheaper and those designs are intended to have functionality within our society.

    In the case of economics, look no further than the comparison between asphalt and concrete roads and why we increasingly use the former over the latter even though asphalt is less durable: https://www.brighthubengineering.com...asphalt-roads/ In short, it's cheaper to more frequently replace asphalt. We also under-design buildings now, which means we make them structurally weaker because it's cost effective.

    In the case of functionality, what need do we have of a massive pyramid? If there's no need, it's not going to get financed. Even for the purpose of attracting tourists, you can do that a lot more cheaply with a steel bar design like used in the Eiffel Tower. The days when a single person could order the construction of a grand monument to celebrate their ego are mostly gone. Hell, that's sort of also the case for religious motivations. The Hagia Sophia was built in the 6th century and is an amazing engineering feat that was specifically designed to create a sense in visitors that its design should be impossible. Still, as impressive at it is, its design incorporates functionality, which, in its case, means being able to accommodate attendees. Therefore, without regular maintenance an earthquake (something that a pyramid is resistant to) is going to take it down (it already lost its dome once to an earthquake). Same thing for skyscrapers; you can't build a skyscraper out of limestone. If you want a really tall building that can accommodate office and/or living space, steel is the way to go. What this means is that our goals behind building projects are different now and those differences dictate the use of different materials. Why limestone slabs hold up better to the ravages of time than steel is not a mystery that requires an extraordinary explanation.

    Also, while skyscrapers wouldn't last as long as the pyramids if left alone, those designed to stand up to earthquakes (as a lot now are) likely will survive thousands of years with regular maintenance if not torn down. And skyscrapers may be symbolic of our modern architecture, but there are structures built today that are designed in such a way that they can survive thousands of years without maintenance. The Lincoln Memorial is an example. It had an alternate design proposal that imagined it as a pyramid, but its Greek temple design, its use of marble and limestone, and its extensive supports (it's over-built) means it has a high potential shelf life. The Hoover Dam is another often cited example. The turbines wouldn't last long without maintenance, but the concrete dam itself has been estimated to be capable of lasting around 10,000 years in the absence of humans.
    Last edited by Xaeden; June 26th, 2018 at 06:13 AM.

  11. #11
    Chief Master Sergeant Chaka-Z0's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 2018
    Location
    P3X-888
    Posts
    235

    Default Re: Stargate is Soft Exposure and/or Based on Conspiracy Theories

    I think it's a human habit to try and romance things that cannot be simply explained, or appear to simple. People in general don't tend to believe that, for example the pyramids, could have been simply built by humans considering how impressive they are. It's too easy, so there must've been some divine intervention behind it!

    Thankfully we have science that can answer most of these questions, yet some aspects are still not fully understood and people tend to fill the void with either religion, fantastic stories or just want to believe in something as ridiculous as the shape-shifting lizard people because it sounds fun.

    This is basically where all the conspiracies theories originate, in my opinion. The lack of information / misinformation given to the citizens by the Government of the US in regards to classified projects, such as Area 51, the whole psycho-ward army branch in the 70s and many others gave birth to oh so many conspiracies theories. Obama is a lizard man! They are experiencing on aliens in Nevada (perhaps Goa'uld?), 911 was an inside job, you name it. Americans in general always had suspicion against their Government, and that could be easily explained with it's history of revolt and defiance of authority.

    That being said, I'll put my tinfoil hat back on and keep on threading

  12. #12
    Captain Xaeden's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,026

    Default Re: Stargate is Soft Exposure and/or Based on Conspiracy Theories

    That's exactly right. It's the god of the gaps. People like to fill in things they don't understand with magic. In mythology it's the idea that dragons exist in unexplored lands or foreign places are populated by people with tails or a foot on their head. Today it's aliens. It's a great way to tell a story, but they're just stories. I can write about how there's an invisible unicorn in my backyard and that's why my blackberries keep getting eaten when I'm not looking, but there's no logical reason anyone should believe that's true. Same if someone says that aliens built X in ancient times. Okay, that's great, I'll watch a show/read a book about it, but saying something fantastical is the case because it's a cool way to explain something that is not fully understood and having even a shred of evidence are two very different things.

    Also, it's worth noting that a lot of these ideas took root when our understanding the ancient world wasn't what they are today. So while, yes, we may not have uncovered all the secrets of, for example, the pyramids, we've made significant progress in the last few decades that have put to rest popular speculative ideas. For example, we now know that the pyramid builders were not slaves, but seasonal workers who regularly ate meat and had their injuries tended to. We also can see the impact of their labor on their bones. We even now have the diary of Merer, which is a first-hand description written when the Great Pyramid was being completed that includes an account of how limestone was carried to Giza by boat: https://www.livescience.com/55439-an...-unveiled.html

    The problem is that people go around making videos, writing, and talking as if these gaps still exist in order to spread their crazy ideas and they are able to get away with it because they are often the main source others have for information about a particular topic. It's the same way Creationism is able to attract crowds of people by making fundamentally incorrect statements about evolution and pretending as if there are still mysteries to things that new research has resolved. It's also like if someone studied my backyard and found evidence of blackberry rich rabbit droppings, and I decided to go around telling people about the invisible unicorn without ever mentioning that.

Similar Threads

  1. ascension theories BASED ON THE EPISODES
    By Melbol Of Worlds in forum General Stargate Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: May 20th, 2014, 08:23 AM
  2. Stargate: The Imperative indie Stargate based short!
    By Cobra847 in forum Stargate Fandom
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: December 4th, 2010, 05:45 AM
  3. The Stargate Conspiracy
    By Kal-El in forum General Stargate Discussion
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: February 29th, 2008, 01:12 PM
  4. The Stargate Star trek conspiracy
    By Leous in forum General Stargate Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: March 19th, 2007, 07:03 AM
  5. ~Who killed Janet Fraiser & Why Conspiracy Theories (Read First Post)~
    By chyron in forum General Stargate Discussion
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: February 26th, 2006, 06:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •