It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stargates are real

page: 258
634
<< 255  256  257    259  260  261 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Rosha
 


i have no disagreement with that, as i don't believe they were humans in the first place. i think we arrived sometime round 4000 BC, give or take 1k




...and you are prepared to provide research to support this theory or is it just opinion, suposition and speculation?

Are you denying or refuting the discovery of Ardi? Dated at 3.4 million years? Lucy, 2 million?

Even ignoring the Ardi's and other proto homonids like Lucy et al....what of the 10,000-year-old human skeleton found by divers in the Chan Hol underwater cave system near Tulum, Mexico recently?
What about the bones of two humans located near Kibish, Ethiopia, thought to be 130,000 years old on discovery that are now known to be the earliest members of our exact species, Homo sapiens and now dated to 195,000 years ago?

The archeological evidence alone is reasonably clear..'we' where here a lot longer than 4000 years ago give or take a k.

Given that, how do you support your assertion of 4000 years?




Rosha.




edit on 23-9-2010 by Rosha because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Rosha
 


i have no disagreement with that, as i don't believe they were humans in the first place. i think we arrived sometime round 4000 BC, give or take 1k



And if itis historically documented that human cities were around in 10 000 BC... Are you saying the inhabitants of Damascus circa 9000BC were not human/homospaien?

When you say 'we' arrived..just exactly who or what 'we' are you talking about?


?






edit on 23-9-2010 by Rosha because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Rosha
 


the "enlightenment period" started off in german universities, primarily run by catholic priests, who were the sole purveyors of knowledge of any kind, be it spiritual or scientific. german higher criticism en.wikipedia.org... was implemented with the purpose of proving that the papal interpretation of ancient history was the most accurate history available. particularly, the papal interpretation of biblical ancient history.

in an effort to corroborate this, scholars such as friedrich august wolf, wrote critical texts on the ancient world. mr. wolf, in his critical work, homeric problem, community.middlebury.edu... claimed the ancient greeks couldn't write during the time when it was said their ancient texts, epics and histories, were written. as a result, all the greek texts were removed from historical consideration. this caused a snowball effect.

as the number of available texts to support the rest of the ancient world declined, the less likely the other ancient texts would survive higher criticism. as a result, the entirety of the ancient world was eventually hurled into the mythology bin and ruled unreliable for historical purposes. at the end of this metaphorical book burning, the final book to be hurled into the void, was the bible itself, no longer having any foundation in surrounding historical texts, which had all been tossed out as well and called fairy tales and myths.

this started the enlightenment period en.wikipedia.org... where university professors, who were once german catholic professors, became hard core atheists, who viewed the entirety of ancient history as one big lie. archaeology hadn't been created yet and ancient egypt was mostly still buried in sand. here they had the opportunity to set a new time line for history, since the one they had been using was based on papal interpretation of ancient histories, now ruled unreliable. so off to ancient egypt they went, with the rest of the european academic world.

evidence was later found that the ancient greeks could write, but it was too late for the texts of the ancient world. too many scholars, respected authors and institutes of higher learning, had weighed in on the subject, and science had "advanced" beyond the need for the ancient past, other than what they were discovering with the newly developed science of archaeology. en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Rosha
 


precisely, i'm saying what they are calling human settlements are not likely homo sapian, but rather, reptilian-mammalian or amphibian-mammalian.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Rosha
 


it was also called mt.sumeru.
i'm not sure about the other examples you listed but that is definitely interesting!

(sumer is spelled sumer. not sumar. sumerian is spelled sumerian not sumarian. just thought i'd mention that as etymology can be a tricky thing in mesopotamian and texts of the ancient world)


edit on 23-9-2010 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 04:47 AM
link   
another interview i did with feet 2 fire. in it, i discuss briefly my theory on tiamat and abzu from enuma elish as the bottomless pit/abyss of revelation, 2012, super massive black holes, michio kaku, spirituality and the identity of yeshua.

media.abovetopsecret.com...




edit on 23-9-2010 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Among many others there is one problem which stands out (for me) is breasts. Whether big and balloony or flat and floppy they are distinctly a mammalian feature. And the gash, only mammals give birth.

What think you are doing is picking up on separate events which happened to occur at the same time period. I don't think we built the GP, not the way we built subsequent ones. In ancient texts I have read in a significant amount of evidence for visitors.

Such can cause confusion for millennia.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Matyas
 


that's why i am saying they are reptilian-mammalians and amphibian-mammalians. dogs have penises and scrotal sacs but they aren't homo sapians. there are examples of breasts and so forth, in mammalians that aren't homo sapians. sometimes it's just too obvious.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


O-K. I proved I am not qualified to make a comment. I am not familiar with the hierarchy beyond race-species. Homo-other? Still a mammal....



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Matyas
 


i don't have any problem with the idea of mammalians creating civilizations, i just don't think they were homo sapians (although the word itself is based on the idea we were evolved apes, which i'm not convinced of). i'm just trying to show that there were many mammalian species, humanoid in appearance, on this planet, but they weren't human beings. that we didn't arrive here ourselves, until around 4000 BC, shang haied as it were, and brought here from other places in the universe, as a slave species.

it shouldn't be too far of a stretch considering our science is finally admitting life is possible on other planets. and that there's many planets in our galaxy alone, capable of sustaining life forms similar to those found here.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   



edit on 23-9-2010 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
nevermind delete this please


edit on 23-9-2010 by Solofront because: Undo fixed the video



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Kinda leaves us speechless....



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Solofront
 


lol i was like....oh no, it's the numa numa guy!
what's he doing in this video lol



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Matyas
 


i wouldn't have reached my conclusions on all this if it hadn't been for the various artifacts, texts, and of course, modern science. when put into perspective, the picture emerges that i've tried to elucidate on in the thread. i could be wrong on the dates of our arrival to the planet, but the fact humans in art don't appear until after 3900 BC seems to support the theory.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Rosha
 


precisely, i'm saying what they are calling human settlements are not likely homo sapian, but rather, reptilian-mammalian or amphibian-mammalian.




oh..ok..

no problem.

*shakes head*

sigh.

so much for intelligent debate.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Rosha
 


well i have no other evidence that they were homo sapians.

do you?



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Matyas
 


i don't have any problem with the idea of mammalians creating civilizations, i just don't think they were homo sapians (although the word itself is based on the idea we were evolved apes, which i'm not convinced of). i'm just trying to show that there were many mammalian species, humanoid in appearance, on this planet, but they weren't human beings. that we didn't arrive here ourselves, until around 4000 BC, shang haied as it were, and brought here from other places in the universe, as a slave species.

it shouldn't be too far of a stretch considering our science is finally admitting life is possible on other planets. and that there's many planets in our galaxy alone, capable of sustaining life forms similar to those found here.





Sigh.

Undo...I know you think you believe what you are saying is the truth or a line pointing to it....but what you are reporting is not just thematically incorrect, it is scientifically unsound. IMO, your theory, doesnt even make the bar for the use of that word. Your speculations are biased, and a compilation of expectations not research. I have also made this mistake personally and productivly, in the past so please consider this post for what it is..a warning from upstream that doing that is a waste and can be dangerous as you mis or sidestep other perspectives and that is a' loss'.

What you are saying in your posts is full of holes. The first of which is that your posts ignore the fact that DARWIN DID NOT SAY HOMOSAPIENS DESCENDED FROM APES!

Darwin was a scientist and as such, SPECULATED and THEORISED that humans and apes had a COMMON ANCESTOR ! Something later prooven by DNA and Genetic research and bought into context by the revelation in the scientific world that nearly ALL life on this planet stems from the same pool of (GTAC) DNA and RNA.

Therefore ALL life is in some way interconnected and in some cases, derivitive.....but... we are not ''decended" from or the 'acendants' of ants or guinea pigs anymore than we are the acendants/decendants of Apes.

Nor are we, as homosapiens, a seperate or distinct species deviod of that connection, the evidence, the science prooves that too. We arent 'special' or an extraterrestrial slave race. If we were there would be evidence within our genetic linages, our DNA RNA structures that proove it. There is no such evidence except as it is taken via the sociological structres that WE humans ourselves have created such as royal familes etc..

If we came from space..as is possible according to panspermia theories..then ALL life here originated there...that doesnt mean little green fish men deposited that life here and us here later.

The distinctions between fact and fiction, truth and suposition is pivitol and the connected web of life on this planet through genetics and the existance of DNA makes an enormous scientific difference and that makes ALL the difference to your interpretations!

Your 'evidence' cant be refuted because it is speculative..opinion based, not fact based..you are also drawing strings of physical and sociopolitical literalcy and spirital symbolism together like a purse - one suited to your own desires. Which is all well and good so long as you are not postulating a theory as fact!

More though, you are encapsulating ideas and theories that dont fit together with pseudoscientific presumptions and your personal interests - what you want to see think and believe. You are drawing your conclusions prior to research, and ones based on misinterpretation and false judgment, like joining jots..no...more like joining lines between the stars in the sky to form the picture you want to see...and expect to see. It is not fact. Doesnt make it real or fact.

A great story for a fiction book yes..but it is not fact.

And 'they' the papalcy, governments, even scientists dont deterime FACT either. They cannot force even one single human brain to capitulate against its will, let alone an entire world..HISTORY prooves that.

They never have had that power you personally are giving them.
The history of the enlightenment was the first time human beings really began to challenege and clarify 'belief' and 'science'. In the 18th bcentury they embraked on a mission to KNOW...not to FEAR. If you knew your actual history you would know that this was the epoch in which the papalcy LOST its power..not gained it.
As is written:
"The Enlightenment was not one movement or idea, and less a set of ideas than it was a set of values. At its core was a critical questioning of traditional institutions, customs, and morals, and a strong belief in rationality and science"

The keyword in that statement being CRITICAL as in CRITICAL analysis of information...not suposition and conjecture, not ego based posturing. Your way of 'researching', would lead us back to an intellectual dark age of mystisism and suposition if not outright superstiction, back to religions rule and fear.

I choose another way.

The evidence - like truth, speaks for itself, and the evidence shows Homosapiens living here on this planet, farming, herding, forming societies and family groups just like ours today, for over 200,000 years with relative periods of mental, technological and psychospirital awakening and quickening.

Deny that if you like....its your right and choice I supose. Just dont call it truth.

TV is not real or some kind of a subconscious projection of hidden mythos's. Even documentry's are biased.

To actualy comprehend the truth on its terms not our minds, we have to think. And after going through this thread I see lots of thoughts being strung like lights on a tree.. but no thinking going on...a shame. To me it is a case of missing the amazing forrest for the trees and such a waste as exohistory is a valid field struggling for funding and resources and people like you whoa re to my mind, deliberatly misleading others, just complicate and undermine its credibility.

If you want the 'real' unvarnished truth then Know whats right in front of your face. Its as simple and as difficult as that...a study undertaken deviod of egotism and prejduice.
The connections being made in your head..arent necessarily the reality of whats in front of your face....and thats the first thing you need to 'get' if you want to take this 'theory' or investigation any further.




R



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


My friend Andrew might shed some light on the subject

www.andrewgough.co.uk...

I beelieve this is one stone unturned.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Rosha
 


you've erected several strawmen to shoot down, not sure why. perhaps you misunderstood some of my positions. i really don't feel like going back over every example and pointing out where i think you've done that. the rest of it can be chalked up to the weight and validity i give the ancient world, vs. how you personally see it. are you wrong? i don't know! am i right? maybe. i think it's quite possible since at least i have artifacts and ancient texts, the world over, to draw my data from. where you getting yours?




top topics



 
634
<< 255  256  257    259  260  261 >>

log in

join