Apollo 15 Astronaut Says Humans Are Descendants Of Ancient Aliens

originally posted by: Harte
... it's perfectly legitimate to utterly dismiss what he claims.

As it would be to dismiss some of the claims of the likes of Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Bill Nye, PZ Myers, Kenneth Miller (the chromosome #2 fusion storyline and postdiction for example), etc. Too bad many people don't, most people don't even recognize the similarities in behaviour, way of thinking and arguing. For example what charlyv described as:

And the other side of it could be that he shares "some" of the attributes of scientology, but not enough to make it scientology, if that makes any sense.

And way of selling themselves and their storylines, which Phage described as:

Those people are not scholars, they are authors of popular books (which is not the same thing as a respected work).

In previous commentary he made in a thread of mine, it doesn't seem he extends that way of thinking to the names I just mentioned when they publish a book like Stephen Hawking's "The Grand Design" or Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing" or Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker", in spite of the same nonsensical way of fantasizing that I described in my previous commentary, twisting and making their ideas and storylines appear more plausible than they really are, to an audience (market) that wants their ears tickled (to be entertained and intrigued by what they want to hear). A pattern seen in Scientology, Scientism and amongst the fans of unverified evolutionary philosophies (such as chemical evolution and the idea of the common ancestry of all living organisms, by the so-called process or mechanism of "macroevolution", supposedly a logical result of so-called "microevolution").
See what I'm talking about in the video below from 16:10 - 23:04:

Or here:
Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something

originally posted by: whereislogic

Extraterrestrials—The Age-Old Dream: Awake!—1990

...
A Crumbling Foundation

...the question remains, How would life arise on those worlds? This brings us to the very foundation of the belief in beings on other worlds​—evolution.

To many scientists, it seems logical to believe that if life could evolve from nonliving matter on this planet, that could be true on others as well. As one writer put it: “The general thinking among biologists is that life will begin whenever it is given an environment where it can begin.” But that is where evolution faces an insurmountable objection. Evolutionists cannot even explain how life began on this planet.

...

It really is time to Awake! from "The Age-Old Dream".

That dream or those dreams not being limited to just extraterrestrials (did anyone notice this is one of the most popular subforums on ATS?), another just as ancient set of ideas is involved:

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies Part 1

Romans 1:18-22

For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened. 22 Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish 23 and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and birds and four-footed creatures and reptiles.* [Or “creeping things.”]

"Because they are perceived by the things made": such as The Molecular Machinery of Life.

"and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and birds and four-footed creatures and reptiles." The human-reptilelike grey aliens did it? They seeded life on earth and got the ball rolling?

You're being played.

2 Timothy 3:13

But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled.

For "the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." That one, John also said, “is misleading the entire inhabited earth.” (1 John 5:19; Revelation 12:9)

Come on people. Awake! For real this time (not just telling yourself you're so awake, or there has been this great "Awakening" in the circles where you get your information).

Notice how the argument at 0:15 above is 'almost' used in the previous video by the scientist proposing directed panspermia in a much more sophisticated manner (I say 'almost' because it's much less blatant and better hidden behind a fancy way of phrasing things, it isn't made in the same manner, but there is this pattern of arguing and pushing buttons that lead to certain ways of thinking again, really selling it under the marketing banner of "science" while relying on people having been indoctrinated with the 'science does not deal with absolutes'-philosophy and all its subtle variations in what I often refer to and seperate as selective and general agnosticism and a philosophy of vagueness, or a philosophy that promotes vagueness regarding specific subjects, such as the origin of life).

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Harte
... it's perfectly legitimate to utterly dismiss what he claims.

As it would be to dismiss some of the claims of the likes of Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Bill Nye, PZ Myers, Kenneth Miller (the chromosome #2 fusion storyline and postdiction for example), etc. Too bad many people don't, most people don't even recognize the similarities in behaviour, way of thinking and arguing.

Care to point out any of the above that use sources that don't exist?
I note you edited that part of my post out of your quote. I don't wonder why.

Harte

a reply to: toysforadults

Lmao wow all species have evolved what did u doing science class lmao these are lime version 1milion animal's lmao u confuse ignorance with intelligence. Answer this question genius where did the aliens come from lol. How old do u think the earth is lol

originally posted by: ClovenSky
Maybe at some point in the not too distant future, we will learn our true history.

10-15 years max.

originally posted by: easynow
Another Apollo astronaut during an interview mentions 'the Aliens'

The former Apollo 15 member said that not only are aliens real, but they came to Earth in the distant and created our civilization, and if we wanted to look for evidence, all we had to do was look at ancient Sumerian literature.

“We are the aliens, but we just think they are somebody else. But we are the ones who came from somewhere else, because somebody else had to survive, and they got into little spacecraft then they came here and landed, and they started civilization here.” “And if you don’t believe me, go get books on Ancient Sumerians and see what they had to say.” “They’ll tell you right up front,” Worden added.

Link - www.ufosfootage.uk...




Al Worden: The Man Who Flew Around the Moon 75 Times
Link - www.youtube.com...

Seems like every Astronaut has something to say about the existence of Aliens,
and I'm wondering what the members of ATS think about these comments ?

is it just crazy conjecture ? or the truth ?

Thoughts anyone ?

HERE'S ONE.

SERIOSULY, WE ARE STILL HAVING THIS CONVERSATION? IN 2018?

Spoiler: The earth is not billions of years old. *EARTH WAS A MOON OF SATURN LESS THAN 6k YEARS AGO*.

Nearly everything NASA says is a lie. NASA itself a #sciencefiction created after WW2 to hide the secrets of the world: The earth is a hollow #dysonsphere and has an inner sun. The moon is small and close (within the Van Allen Belts & within the earth's outer atmosphere). Gravity is really Electromagnetism (Electric Universe), unrelated to Mass. Space-time does not exist. Dark matter does not exist. Global warming (ozone layer) was caused by Aerosol #geoengineering, not carbon. There is no ocean floor between continents (Hollow). We are not welcome on Mars or the Moon, so we faked every shot. Earth used to be a (flat-oriented) Moon of the planet Saturn. Saturn (EL) is the God of Abraham and the mother planet that created Earth. Every human civilization watched Saturn, Venus, and Mars dance in the sky, and they drew what they saw from a giant cross (Christianity), to a star+crescent (Islam) to the black cube of Saturn (Judaism kabbalah => cube allah => cube god). Gotta use your own brain and do original research, otherwise NASA just another blind faith religion.

a reply to: AriAsulin

All of those items you mentioned that NASA lies about was knowledge that existed for hundreds of years before NASA existed.

For example, the world does not require NASA to tell us that the Earth is billions of years old, or that the Moon is 240,000-ish miles away. These are things that people that had nothing to do with NASA figured out long before there was a space program.

The general public can calculate the distance to the moon themselves using parallax, no NASA or any evil scientist required. The Ancient Greeks did it two thousand years ago, both by using the parallax method and by observing lunar eclipses:

Do-It-Yourself Guide to Measuring the Moon’s Distance

a reply to: Harte
I do not understand your comment. I don't even know what to ask to find out what more you want me to point out for example? Other than what I've already pointed out. It's also unclear why you mention the word "sources" seemingly in response to a rather general statement I made about "some of the claims of the likes of ..." followed by a bunch of names of popular figures in the sciences. Followed by a personal opinion and expression of disappointment with a particular situation. Some examples and further elaboration of the kind of claims I was thinking of when saying that were given in the videolinks further in the comment. All centered around the same subject.

originally posted by: AncientShade

Regardless; Humanity evolved on its own perfectly fine. ~99% of human DNA evolved by pure nature. Ignore the other >1% as you shouldn' t look a given horse in the mount (That and it has already completed its job anyways, good luck finding it now it has deactivated and is part of the pile of junk DNA)

The myth of "junk DNA".

QUESTION 3: Where Did the Instructions Come From?

... Darwin himself was fascinated by the way traits are passed along from one generation to the next, but he knew little about the laws of genetics and even less about the mechanisms within the cell that govern heredity. Now, however, biologists have spent decades studying human genetics and the detailed instructions that are embedded in the amazing molecule called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). Of course, the big question is, Where did these instructions come from?

What do many scientists claim? Many biologists and other scientists feel that DNA and its coded instructions came about through undirected chance events that took place over the course of millions of years. They say that there is no evidence of design in the structure of this molecule nor in the information that it carries and transmits nor in the way that it functions.17

What does the Bible say? The Bible suggests that the formation of our different body parts​—and even the timing of their formation—​involves a figurative book that originates with God. Notice how King David was inspired to describe matters, saying of God: “Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing, as regards the days when they were formed and there was not yet one among them.”​—Psalm 139:16.

What does the evidence reveal? If evolution is true, then it should seem at least reasonably possible that DNA could have come about by means of a series of chance events. If the Bible is true, then DNA should provide strong evidence that it is the product of an orderly, intelligent mind.

When considered in the simplest of terms, the subject of DNA is quite understandable​—and fascinating. So let us take another trip to the inside of a cell. ...

[17: Research News Berkeley Lab, (http://​www.lbl.gov/​Science-​Articles/​Archive/ '___'-molecular-DNA.html), article: “Molecular DNA Switch Found to Be the Same for All Life,” contact: Lynn Yarris, p. 1 of 4; accessed 2/10/2009.]

And to save some time reading, let's do that last thing in video-format to have a look at the evidence in question (the facts and how they relate to the claims earlier described that "DNA and its coded instructions came about through undirected chance events", "that there is no evidence of design in the structure of this molecule nor in the information that it carries and transmits nor in the way that it functions" and "that DNA could have come about by means of a series of chance events."):



Context:
Molecular Machinery of Life
QUESTION 2: Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?
Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? 1 of 2

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Harte
I do not understand your comment. I don't even know what to ask to find out what more you want me to point out for example? Other than what I've already pointed out. It's also unclear why you mention the word "sources" seemingly in response to a rather general statement I made about "some of the claims of the likes of ..." followed by a bunch of names of popular figures in the sciences. Followed by a personal opinion and expression of disappointment with a particular situation. Some examples and further elaboration of the kind of claims I was thinking of when saying that were given in the videolinks further in the comment. All centered around the same subject.

The astronaut cites sources that don't exist.
The scientists you mention do not cite sources that don't exist.
You can dismiss the astronaut's claims because, given that he somehow thinks that Sumerian sources say something that they don't say, it is abundantly clear that he has no idea what he's talking about.
You cannot make anything like the same argument where the scientists are concerned (I don't include Bill Nye in that - he's certainly no scientist - but he doesn't use fake sources either.)

Simple.

Harte

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: ausername

I want to believe the evolution myth but I don't think it's real

why are we the only species to evolve it doesn't make sense? what about sharks and alligator's why is it only a single species that has evolved the way we have?

something else is going on that we can't understand or don't want to believe

All species have evolved to what they currently are. Whatever enables a species to keep eating and reproducing is how evolution works. Sharks are doing fine as they are and haven't needed to adapt for millions of years.

To understand evolution in humans you need to study the evolution of ancient tree apes into hominids (walking apes). Over millions of years and dozens of different species slowly the hominid ape grew more upright, lost it's fur, began eating more protein (causing larger brains) and each new species was a bit closer to homo sapien.
The species right before us was very similar to us (H. heidelbergensis ?) they had tools and wore clothes.

So now all of those pre-homo sapien apes are extinct, we don't see them so it looks like humans are really different from other mammals. But we have the bones of most of the intermediate species.

The phrase "evolved from monkeys" is a way to dis evolution, it isn't even what evolution is saying. It makes it sound like a monkey gave birth to a human which is silly.
Over several 1000 years H. Heidelbergensis evolved into H. sapien, it wasn't a sudden thing. And that was just the final step, you have to go back millions of years to when our ancestors were tree apes. The tree apes from back then are also extinct.

so the idea that aliens took a early hominid doesn't fit with the fossil record. We see a long period where the "almost human" species slowly became human and natural evolution totally accounts for the process. Adding aliens to the mix is redundant.

The Sumerians cosmology and religion has nothing there to indicate aliens visiting. They thought the universe was covered by a dome?

a reply to: Harte
Ah ok, I was just focussing on nonsensical claims. Or nonsense for short, as a justification for dismissal. I mentioned Bill Nye btw because I was primarily listing propagandizers and marketeers of philosophies, fancy storytellers (that prefer to be seen as "scientists" or are often seen as scientists even when they are sometimes way more busy promoting philosophies/ideas as "science" or under the marketing banner of "science"). In that list, Bill Nye fits in nicely, as a promoter of what some people call "scientism" and "philosophical naturalism" (and in so doing functioning as a philosopher rather than a scientist). When he's sticking to the science* one could argue he's functioning as a scientist, regardless of his diplomas or primary education being in engineering.

*: science: from the Latin "scientia" meaning "knowledge", essentially, knowledge means familiarity with facts/certainties/truths acquired by personal experience, observation, or study. Or in other words, that which is factual/certain/true/absolute/correct, without error/conclusive (these are all synonyms, I bolded one as a reminder regarding a particular contradictory philosophy that is sometimes phrased as: 'science does not deal with absolutes'). Newton's law of gravity for example is factual/absolute/true, that's science. Some ideas about or interpretations of the facts are not science, that would be philosophy (like the stuff in Stephen Hawking's book "The Grand Design" emphasized in the John Lennox video, that's nonsensical philosophy, fiction, imagination, based on wishful thinking I might add). Another example of a philosophy that is not science, is Francis Crick's philosophy/idea of "Directed Panspermia", the very same philosophy promoted by the astronaut in the OP. This storyline and idea/philosophy is also often promoted as "science" or under the marketing banner of "science" (by for example publishing articles about it that are deemed to be "peer reviewed" as some people say).

Here are a couple more examples of philosophies/ideas that are "hardly science" (to quote Roger Penrose below), not science or scientific (my choice of words), yet falsely promoted as "science" or under that marketing banner (the multiverse idea/philosophy, misleadingly so-called "M-theory" and so-called "String theory", which do not qualify under what is defined as a "scientific theory" in a dictionary for scientific terminologies that I've seen; which some people will freely admit, yet continue to use those confusing marketing labels that may give some people a false impression):

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: AriAsulin

All of those items you mentioned that NASA lies about was knowledge that existed for hundreds of years before NASA existed.

Why bother? Perhaps you'd be better off addressing the psychology behind the love of the type of nonsense AriAsulin was 'arguing' for, if you can call it arguing (stating? promoting? expressing? expressing his belief therein?). Don't know, might be just as ineffective.

Nevertheless, AriAsulin has a right to know that what he believes in (if he believes what he's saying) is nonsense. So no offense intended if taken because of me using that word, just trying to be honest and clear about it. The situation is as such that It's unconvincing that he believes what he's saying. It looks more like some potentially confusing* sense of humor (*: to others). So I'll leave it at that. Perhaps we should do the same with the claims of the astronaut in the OP, just leave him be. You can't debate all the nonsense floating around in society anyway.

a reply to: Harte
When I said:
"Too bad many people don't, most people don't even recognize the similarities in behaviour, way of thinking and arguing. For example what charlyv described as:"

And the other side of it could be that he shares "some" of the attributes of scientology, but not enough to make it scientology, if that makes any sense.

And way of selling themselves and their storylines, which Phage described as:

Those people are not scholars, they are authors of popular books (which is not the same thing as a respected work).

With the bolded part I was also alluding to some things I mentioned in my preceding commentary such as this comment on the previous page.

I wasn't interested in comparing behaviour regarding citing "sources that don't exist." There is a connection in the way of thinking and fantasizing about these matters with no concern for the facts that might help a person see it's just nonsense propagated by wishful thinking and an effort to make it sound more plausible (with varying levels of succes and sophistication in argumentation). It's this comparitive behaviour that I was talking about on the previous page and building on with my response to you. I just used a phrase of yours to continue my thoughts (as I was also reading your comment shortly after making that last comment on the previous page).

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Harte
When I said:
"Too bad many people don't, most people don't even recognize the similarities in behaviour, way of thinking and arguing. For example what charlyv described as:"

And the other side of it could be that he shares "some" of the attributes of scientology, but not enough to make it scientology, if that makes any sense.

And way of selling themselves and their storylines, which Phage described as:

Those people are not scholars, they are authors of popular books (which is not the same thing as a respected work).

With the bolded part I was also alluding to some things I mentioned in my preceding commentary such as this comment on the previous page.

I wasn't interested in comparing behaviour regarding citing "sources that don't exist." There is a connection in the way of thinking and fantasizing about these matters with no concern for the facts that might help a person see it's just nonsense propagated by wishful thinking and an effort to make it sound more plausible (with varying levels of succes and sophistication in argumentation). It's this comparitive behaviour that I was talking about on the previous page and building on with my response to you. I just used a phrase of yours to continue my thoughts (as I was also reading your comment shortly after making that last comment on the previous page).

You were addressing a statement that this astronaut's claims could be simply dismissed.
You said the same could be said for the scientists (and Nye) that you then proceeded to name.

Whatever you may think of M-Theory (which IS string theory now) or either interpretation of QM - and scientists agree that it's probably not falsifiable and therefore not really science, by the way, but have no control over what the media might call it - those things are based on real, scientific observations (albeit not testable under that hierarchy themselves.)

What this astronaut said is made up completely out of thin air.

So, he is easily and rightfully dismissed, whereas the others you mentioned (with the Nye exception, sometimes) are not, even on the untestable topics you name.

Harte

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I don't quite completely agree with this. However Aliens did mate with humans before the pyramids were built in Egypt. The proof aliens is right there in front of your eyes the Giza pyramids. Yhrres is some slien dna in egyptian people. The only thing standing on this planet 5 million years from now. Humans only have 150 years left on this planet. We killed ourselves and passed the tipping point of no return inorder to save the world. We raped and poluted this planet and glibal warming is real. So it doesn't matter anymore what we do and think. We eill be exstinct 150 years from and theres nothing we can do about it anymore.

Bill Nye is a front man for deep state propaganda, it is clear he is
a mouthpiece for others and uses science as a pulpit for their
agenda.

The ancient stone-builders were not people because people could not
raise the Great Pyramid, it is beyond human capability.

Perhaps the theories of aliens mixing animal and their DNA to
create humans is true.

originally posted by: ThatDidHappen
Bill Nye is a front man for deep state propaganda, it is clear he is
a mouthpiece for others and uses science as a pulpit for their
agenda.

The agenda to popularise science and raise awareness about it among the general populace?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: ThatDidHappen
Bill Nye is a front man for deep state propaganda, it is clear he is
a mouthpiece for others and uses science as a pulpit for their
agenda.

The agenda to popularise science and raise awareness about it among the general populace?

It's even deeper than that.
They're trying to put stuff in our brains. Hard stuff.

Nobody wants that.

Harte