We are not from this planet, possibly from Mars&Nibiru???

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bushfriend
evolution proves you false. There ise a nearly %100 definitive evidence path of evolution for humans and previous humans were to dumb for space travel.

Total rubbish. The origins of homo sapiens sapiens is still totally theoretical, with physical evidence seeming to instantaneously spring up between 40 and 25 thousand years ago. The estimated time period when the first HSS was born is approx. 200 000 years ago. That is a big gap. Too dumb for space travel? I am not saying previous civilizations travelled in space, I have no idea if they did or not. But for you to say they were too dumb, that is just total conjecture. Even if the 25 000 year age of HSS is used, there is over 15 000 years of unrecorded time that people just like you and me, just as smart as us, were living. If the scientists who use genetics to determine the 200 000 year age are right, there is room for Lemuria, Mu, Atlantis, and a couple more advanced civilizations before this one, easily.




posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Theres more evidence for evolution of man on this planet than there is for our magic arrival on earth from mars or any other world.

Mars stopped being geologically active a billion years ago. The atmosphere hsa been too tenuous for running water for a similar period of time. Why would our martian ancestors spend a billion years in space before coming to earth?

As for coming from Nibaru there needs to be a shred of evidence for such a planets existance.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII

Originally posted by bushfriend
evolution proves you false. There ise a nearly %100 definitive evidence path of evolution for humans and previous humans were to dumb for space travel.

Total rubbish. The origins of homo sapiens sapiens is still totally theoretical, with physical evidence seeming to instantaneously spring up between 40 and 25 thousand years ago.

No, the evidence isn't that Homo sapiens sapiens just suddenly showed up sometime after 40,000 years ago. Modern hsap shows up about 200,000 years ago with older forms (h heidelbergensis is considered an earlier hsap, though there is some discussion about this with the limited material avaialable) up to 500,000 years old
www.talkorigins.org...


If the scientists who use genetics to determine the 200 000 year age are right, there is room for Lemuria, Mu, Atlantis, and a couple more advanced civilizations before this one, easily.

Except that if you go with THAT line of reasoning, you also have to come up with some explaination of how they managed to destroy their civilizations and leave NO trace beyond the very primitive living quarters and weapons and so forth that we find.

And that's the big problem with it.

Even if you yanked away all our computers and set all of us out in the desert, there'd be some of us who would retain enough basic knowledge (I could figure out how to smelt metal, for example, and any number of rockhounds could find ore or metal bits from the destroyed places where we used to live.) We could probably make plastics and a number of us could make simple machines and electronics.

Think about it... if YOU and a bunch of friends and families were suddenly the only survivors of a megadisaster, couldn't YOU do better than to run around and bash each other with rocks?

We don't see sudden tech leaps like that. Nor do we see places where huge cities of vast antiquity stood (buildings change the ground beneath them) and there's no garbage piles or lost items lying around.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I - This planet has more intense gravity then our original
II - This planet has too fast circadian rhytm then our original
III - This planet is just too close to Sun then our original
IIII - Sun radiation is far too strong for us to survive


very interesting idea, but your "proof" is a little weak.

I - sprained ankles is proof of a descrepancy in relative gravity ? not only is there a lot of variation in each race, you can break it down in each family. My ankles are like rocks, my sister can sprain an ankle in her sleep....

II - ditto point I, can you tell me my rhythym ? you have people that require 5 hours sleep, others 8 hours, and it changes with age....

IV - 6.5 billion people and growing would seem to differ with this point



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
All the long term experiments done to determine the human sleep/wake cycle, where they shut people away without any timepieces, or any chance to see whether it is day or night, show that our internal clock resets to 25 hour days for some reason................
What a coincidence that Mars days are 25 hours long, huh?


Just a side note, they found that a very small portion of test subjects actually have a 35-36 hour CR. With my sleep patterns, I am sure I am one of them.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Fortunately for all Mars has a 24 hour and 40 min long day.
Therefore we must be from somewhere else.

Or alternatively were all descended from a future race of humans who come from a time when the days are longer!



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd Modern hsap shows up about 200,000 years ago with older forms (h heidelbergensis is considered an earlier hsap, though there is some discussion about this with the limited material avaialable) up to 500,000 years old
www.talkorigins.org...


If the scientists who use genetics to determine the 200 000 year age are right, there is room for Lemuria, Mu, Atlantis, and a couple more advanced civilizations before this one, easily.

Except that if you go with THAT line of reasoning, you also have to come up with some explaination of how they managed to destroy their civilizations and leave NO trace beyond the very primitive living quarters and weapons and so forth that we find.

And that's the big problem with it.

Even if you yanked away all our computers and set all of us out in the desert, there'd be some of us who would retain enough basic knowledge (I could figure out how to smelt metal, for example, and any number of rockhounds could find ore or metal bits from the destroyed places where we used to live.) We could probably make plastics and a number of us could make simple machines and electronics.

Think about it... if YOU and a bunch of friends and families were suddenly the only survivors of a megadisaster, couldn't YOU do better than to run around and bash each other with rocks?

We don't see sudden tech leaps like that. Nor do we see places where huge cities of vast antiquity stood (buildings change the ground beneath them) and there's no garbage piles or lost items lying around.


I accept your info. re hsap, since it is a subject you appear to have studied more than I, thanks for the details. I was going on a recent science news article when I quoted the 200 000 year age, and on 20 year old memories re the 25 - 40 000 year age of the earliest hsap archeological finds.
The book 'Cataclysm' by Allen and Delair, gives good, solid scientific evidence for a global extinction level event in approx. 9 500 BC, which would certainly wipe the slate pretty clean.
The other point that I consider is that our path of technological development is not the only one, and a previous advanced civilization could well have had a very different set of technologies. The idea that there are no items lying around, I disagree, since I have read three books that show numerous erratic finds (1000's), that do not fit our current theories.
Also, as you know, I have studied the literature on the Great Pyramid in fair depth and find it to be the number one biggest piece of evidence that there were previously very advanced people living on earth.



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Can the evidence in the Catclysm book be discussed on board or is it not the sort that can easily be brought up in this sort of medium?



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I've seen a few faulty assumptions made, but I'm not going to rehash the ones that have already been debunked, especially relating to the physical makeup of humans. Instead I think I'll level my guns on the earlier mention of Lemuria/Mu, as well as the suggestion that the pyramids imply higher technology in ancient time.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Forgive me for being a bit of a braggart, but I'd have to say that I've given the "Atlantis-like" Mu/Lemuria story a pretty fair thrashing.

In the 1880s a failed evolutionary theory invented a lost continent to explain the geographic distribution of lemurs. A year later, HP Blavatsky piggy-backed the story of Mu onto to that theory, in keeping with the Theosophical Society's aim of demonstrating the continuity between science and the occult. A man named LePlongeon then simply made up a false translation of a Mayan codex and claimed it was about Mu. (examinations of similar codices have shown that the document he translated was probably an almanac, and its dating has been shown to be post-Spanish conquest.) Thus the entire legend was a gambit by charlatans to demonstrate an agreement between scientists and occultists. The gambit failed when the discovery of continental drift made Haeckel's invention of Lemuria obsolete. Only in ignorance can belief in any such place as Lemuria/Mu be maintained today.

This brings us to the question of non-Lemurian advanced civilizations. Do the pyramids imply high technology? Is is likely that there were ancient civilizations which somehow failed to leave any trace that we can detect? The answer to both is that it is highly unlikely.

The pyramids are a great feat of engineering, but engineering does not require computers, cranes, etc. It is perfectly possible for a crew of sufficient expertise to construct the pyramids using ropes, pulleys, levers, fulcrums, beasts of burden, and assorted clever applications of the principle of leverage. If you will visit the link I provide below, you will see a man who manipulates 10 ton concrete blocks singlehandedly and constructs stone-henges out of them. He claims that with a crew numbering in the hundreds he could built a pyramid in 30 years, working 40 hour weeks. His explanation is convincing. He even shows one possible way of moving the blocks long distances by moving a large concrete block several feet with a just one push of his hand.
Not only this, but Byrd has said repeatedly that descriptions of the construction have been found, and that there is nothing high tech about it. I am not aware of the source on that, but I trust that Byrd will point us in the right direction on that.

Last but not least, what could we expect to be left over from ancient high-tech civilization? Forgive me for this shameless plug, but if you'll read my story "A Vagabond's Tale" you'll eventually get several descriptions
. We could expect a lot.
We'd get right to work rebuilding civilization. We'd find ore-bearing rocks to smelt and make metal tools. The attention span of the average person being what it is, I'm guessing that survivors of an advanced civilization would never even bother to try shaping stone tools when they knew it was possible to cast things from metals instead.
We'd start making glass right away- nobody "civilized" is going to stay happy very long with dirty crude wooden bowls when the sand under their feet is the stuff glass is made of.
And for all of this we'd need fire. Nobody who knows much about chemistry is going to do their smelting and forging with a wood fire. We'd have to create sites for processing animal fats into fuel, or perhaps biomass generators to produce methane for us to burn.
Then there is electricity to consider. If I can generate electricity then I can make a magnet. If I can make a magnet then I can make a crude electric motor. If I can make an electric motors I'm going to crude power tools, like a millstone for sharpening blades, a crude power saw, and a drill.
And if I've got all that, I'm going to build more elaborate structures. etc etc etc.
The bottom line is that if you dropped a few hundred educated people on a new planet, within the first century or two they'd be in a semi-industrial age and growing like mad. You'd think that we'd find traces of such a civilization.
I believe that humans are from Earth. Are we a bunch of genetically engineered monkeys who were trained to work for ETs? I don't know, I suppose it is possible. Did we know a lot of neat stuff early on, maybe even apply it sporadically? When you look at things like the Baghdad Battery you might be inclined to say yes. Does that mean that we had a high tech civilization in the past that widely knew and applied advanced knowledge and technology? Probably not.

We're just a bunch of bald monkeys who've been sitting around here making funny faces trying to build stuff for several thousand years. Somewhere around 5,000 BC we nailed it finally- either we got help or somebody of incredible genius came along to push-start us, or maybe just the discovery of writing allowed us to really retain our discoveries for the first time.

[edit on 6-4-2005 by The Vagabond]



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   
just a link to possible nuclear war in ancient time, how was that with bones and branches our ancestors, with same capacity of brain and physical charateristics did it, large stones they throw, aren't they
abob.libs.uga.edu...
allso

look at this interesting landscape
abob.libs.uga.edu...



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Ouch, those links bring back painful memories. In just 3 weeks I'll have been here for a year. When i first showed up here I was ready to believe just about anything that any quack posted on the 'net. I used the same links you just did to push that ancient nuclear war theory
. Proof positive- ATS helps people grow.


(not that picture though- I've never seen that and have no idea what I'm looking at. The webpage its on seems to be about meteor impacts though.)

Your links deal with enriched uranium deposits and irregularities in carbon-14 in the great lakes area. The conclusion offered is a nuclear event. What we need to remember though is that nuclear events can occur in nature. Uranium deposits can react- there is a natural reactor in Africa in fact.

en.wikipedia.org...

Oklo is a place in the West African state of Gabon.
It is famous as the locale of a number of sites at which self-sustaining nuclear fission reactions took place approximately 2 billion years ago. This fact was discovered in 1972, by French physicist Francis Perrin. Measurements of the relative abundances of the two most significant isotopes of the uranium mined there showed an anomalous result compared to those obtained for uranium from other mines.


If you'll read the article, you'll note that if there was enough water flooding an Oklo reactor so that it couldn't boil away to slow the reaction, the reactor could get hot enough for a meltdown- a natural nuclear explosion.

Another problem that has come up with "evidence" for ancient nuclear war is that sometimes (not in the great lakes case to my knowledge, but in the case of a city in India) the sites just happen to be very close to nuclear test sites or weapons labs.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Can the evidence in the Catclysm book be discussed on board or is it not the sort that can easily be brought up in this sort of medium?


I would if I had a copy of the book, but it was borrowed. If anyone can secure a copy and post some of the data, I would be ecstatic. I is by two scientists, surnames Allen and Delair, and I believe one is a geologist and one is an archeologist. Their findings point to a huge event within +/- 150 years of 9 500 BC, based on C14 dating of charcoal deposits taken from the same strata level in places all over the globe. The part that I personally find interesting is that their proposed cause of the event would cause all the things described in the various ancient oral legends, ie: seas boiling, massive floods, volcanoes, quakes, etc.
It is a great read even if you disagree with their conclusions.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by astroblade
unfortunatly, people sometimes get an insane idea in their heads, develope such a strong belief in it, run with it, conjure up ludicrious support for it, and then hold on to the belief like their lives depended on it. luckily those people's genetics tend not to be passed on.

And for proof on this theory, we have The Darwin Awards for supporting evidence.


I've heard of the theory proposing that Homo Sapiens (& indeed, all Terrestial lifeforms) may have *some* extraterrestrial genetics...Mostly from the "arrived on a meteorite" variety. But this extreme version of that theory has absolutley no factual support. I don't know whether to accept your excuse of "not getting enough sleep" & "just tossed this idea together" as sufficient. This is not a website for people who don't think before they post.

[edit on 12-4-2005 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Couple of thoughts on this subject,
As to the impossibility of ancient technological societies, why do we have to believe that ancients had to use a tech base as we have today? They could have easily of used other roads of though to raise their society. Examples of such are the mythos of the powers of crystals as well as "magic" or mind over matter.
If they were to have actually used a tech similar to ours, what is to say that most (if any would survive after 10 thousand years or more? Much of what we have today would not last in any recognizable form if it were not constantly repaired. What would be found by archeologists 100 thousand + years from now would only be curiosities as what we call the Out of ordinary items such as the "batteries" and "spark plugs" we have found so far to date.
One reason why we may not find much today is that we are not looking in the right places. The human race congregates most of it's cities near water sources such as rivers. Due to terrain changes that occur naturally, the places where our ancestors would have built their cities would not be the same places as we would today. Where an ocean front back then is either under water or even on top of mountains that only goes to address natural terrain changes, more radical changes cause by “atomic wars” asteroid hits etc. would change the terrain even more.
One other reason why such artifact maybe rare, humans will continually rebuilds and or re-uses materials. Examples of where we rebuild on top of other cities, Rome, Paris, San Francisco.
As to being able to rebuild a society quickly is easy to explain. Most of the population today does not have basic survival skills. Most of the world’s population would perish if a cataclysm such as has been proposed would to have occurred. Of those who would survive, most if not all of their time would be spent on their continual existence, feeding themselves, clothing themselves, sheltering themselves. If an event such as the “war” Comet” “flood” were to occur, even today, it would be years / centuries before a survivor could even think about smelting or creating glass etc. If the time were to be more than one single generation, then the knowledge would mean less to the children than to the adults. As more time passed, the “knowledge” that their parents had lived with would eventually pass into legends and myths.
Granted, what we have today cannot conclusively disprove the existence of previous high civilizations, but we also cannot conclusively deny the possibility that they may have been true. When the scientist finally made it into the jungles of the Amazon a few years ago, they met a tribe that called themselves “Man”. These people were still in the Stone Age. Yet they had built altars to the great gods that they had seen. The “gods” were airplanes that they had seen flying above them. Did they have any understanding of what they were seeing? No, but they were worshipped just the same. I present this just as an analogy to point out that what an ancient civilization may have had 100 + thousand years ago would seem like to their ancestors just 5 – 10 generations later.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I still wanna know how you explain how we can survive the extreme temperatur on mars?



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
The book 'Cataclysm' by Allen and Delair, gives good, solid scientific evidence for a global extinction level event in approx. 9 500 BC, which would certainly wipe the slate pretty clean.

Well, since I was studying petroglyphs that are older than that, and am aware of other archaeological material (houses, pots, flints, clothing scraps, bones, etc) that's older than that, I've got to ask "what global extinction?"

Were they just talking about the extinction of the megafauna at the end of the Ice Age (which took place about then, but actually didn't get ALL the megafauna) or what? It couldn't have been one of those "total destruction of everything" because human and animal records continue through that timeline.



The other point that I consider is that our path of technological development is not the only one, and a previous advanced civilization could well have had a very different set of technologies.

True... and the ancient civilizations had technologies very different from our modern ones. But -- the raw materials have to come from somewhere, they have to live in something, and they had to grow something to eat (unless you're trying to hypothesize a global high-tech civilization of, say, plants, and there's no evidence for that.)



The idea that there are no items lying around, I disagree, since I have read three books that show numerous erratic finds (1000's), that do not fit our current theories.

I should point out that in many cases, the authors do incomplete research. I don't know how many times we've seen the bird in the Egyptian museum hawked around as a plane model when (if you actually go SEE the thing) it's pretty obviously a bird.

Sometimes (like the Baghdad batteries) the technology is unusual but there's no evidence it was widely adopted and everything about it is actually consistant with what they could have done or produced.



Also, as you know, I have studied the literature on the Great Pyramid in fair depth and find it to be the number one biggest piece of evidence that there were previously very advanced people living on earth.

Did this include reading up on the texts and ostrikon and other material from the Necropolis and the other buildings around the pyramid (including the records of the foremen and laborers)? I'm generally familiar with this material (but only in a very general sense) and nothing that I've read from the digs or seen (and I can read (a very little bit) some heiroglyphics) indicates that Egypt was more advanced than, say, we are now.

I would agree that in some areas it's very much ahead of its sister civilizations. But it's not THAT much advanced (they weren't doing automobiles, for instance.)



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I think what he is trying to say is that we arrived here from another planet and over the years have evolved to live here.

Not that i believe this but it is quite possible.

And if this is true im glad we chose Earth, where its nice and warm and you dont float away if you havent got concrete shoes.

BUT if we arrived in a spacecraft that killed the dino's on impact, where is it?
It could not have dissintergrated on impact because we would have aswell.

I suppose we could have travelled here in the hollow moon which impacted with Earth, killing the dino's before drifting back out into space.

Not very likely though!!!




posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   
I think humans are too much like other mammals and like very old fossils for it to be believable that we just came here recently. If we were brought here, we were brought here as pets or an experiment a VERY long time ago.
I suppose that to say its impossible is to risk ignorance, so I won't say that I don't understand why we still even are discussing this. What I will say is that I don't think where our space ship went is the biggest question. It probably flew away again with whoever put us here. The big question if we assume that humans are from out of town is who brought us here and why.



Let me float a theory, just in the interest of open mindedness/fun. We are pretty fortunately designed. Almost nothing on this planet comes anywhere close to rivaling the human body's protential dexterity. One could understandably wonder if we had evolved specifically to use tools.
I'm not convinced that we're all that much more intelligent than any other animal- our use of tools (writing utensils) improves our ability to teach our young, that's all.
Suppose that somewhere in extremely ancient history, an alien race is exploring our neck of the woods (this is certainly the system you'd come to if you had the ability. There are probably others like ours, but we haven't seen any yet- there is reason to suspect that this is a pretty odd-ball configuration.) They find semi-bipedal apes with hands and fingers and they realize that they've found an INCREDIBLE beast of burden- one that can be modified and trained to use tools. So they give it a shot. One of two things happens now:
1. They take the best with them to work in whatever location they needed us at (maybe even somewhere in our system) and leave the rest of us here to naturally finish our development on our own with our ability to use tools.
2. They consider us failures and leave us all behind- a bunch of half trained bald, digit-opposed monkeys.

I find it unlikely that they had much of a colony here or did much with us here because we don't see great big ancient mines or anything like that. The harvesting of resources here would stand out like a store thumb. There is a copper mine (I think in Nevada or Colorado) which can be seen from space! (At work we like to joke that when future generations find our mining pit they will think that the primitive people of the 21st century were trying to dig to the underworld, or build and inverse step pyramid.)



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   
someone said this is the most rediculous theory ever on ATS

i will disagree

the "Vampires control the world thru illuminati"
and the " JFK and GWB are shapeshifting reptilian aliens whom want to dominate humanity and enslave us"

those theorys are my favorite party jokes


this theory ranks around '7th most rediculous theory' ever on ATS

dont forget that one guy who said zombies vampires and werewolfs are REAL and that the US Govt has a kill squad searching them down
that ones really ridiculous too

hehe



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   
ever heard of evolution? NO, well it explains all your so called ''proof'' topics.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join