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: 9
634
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   
I assume you've seen the odd hiroglyphs found at Abydos? The ones that appear to be a helicopter and various spaceships?

If you haven't seen them I'll see if I can find a photo. The official explanation is that the panel they're carved in was plastered over and re-used, so the image is a composite of two carvings. But from the photo's I've seen, it's hard to believe two overlapped carvings could make such perfect images if it wan't intended that way.




posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo

Actually, the usage of the word Elohim in that instance (there's a thorough treatment on this topic by a linguist and scholar of the ancient languages), is a reference to the supreme God or the God of the gods. He's having a conversation with the gods, who are the elohim (minor gods or angels or anunnaki, as it were).

I agree with your references to the vimanas, although the texts seem to indicate the gods and their hybrid offspring were the culprits, as humans were mere slaves and the occassional dinner.


While we agree with the references in the vedic scriptures, we somehow disagree a bit with the meaning of Elohim. Elohim is plural, even though it has been translated from the bible as if it was singular. IMHO the Elohim are those ebes of higher hierarchy, while the Anunnaki are those ebes who rebelled against the Elohim because the Elohim wanted "the original sin" erased from the Earth.

I believe that the original sin was when many Anunnaki, and some Elohim, "found the daughters of eve attractive and bore children into them, the men of reknown" like Achiles, Hercules, etc, etc. The Elohim decided to destroy "mankind" although some of them loved mankind and tried to help our ancient forefathers, with some success. The Elohim also decided to exile the Anunnaki from "the heavenly abode", the Anunnaki decided to rebel and fought back against the Elohim.

We can find many references to this conflict in many ancient cultures, such as Greek legend (which is erroneously called myth) of the conflicts between the Titans and the Olympians, and how some of the ebes felt compassion and even love towards humans, which led to the Anunnaki been exiled, some of them were tortured for helping mankind and others were killed.

[edit on 10-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
I assume you've seen the odd hiroglyphs found at Abydos? The ones that appear to be a helicopter and various spaceships?

If you haven't seen them I'll see if I can find a photo. The official explanation is that the panel they're carved in was plastered over and re-used, so the image is a composite of two carvings. But from the photo's I've seen, it's hard to believe two overlapped carvings could make such perfect images if it wan't intended that way.


I saw a really good debunking of that particular anomalie. I think the information we are looking for is very obvious, so obvious, we are missing it, either because it's been mistranslated or assumed to mean something that it actually doesn't. For example, I've seen at least 3 different translations of the pyramid texts and each one says something totally different.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

While we agree with the references in the vedic scriptures, we somehow disagree a bit with the meaning of Elohim. Elohim is plural, even though it has been translated from the bible as if it was singular. IMHO the Elohim are those ebes of higher hierarchy, while the Anunnaki are those ebes who rebelled against the Elohim because the Elohim wanted "the original sin" erased from the Earth.


Have you read Michael S. Heiser's explanation for the singular case of Elohim in the passage? It's a single individual speaking in the Royal "us" voice. He is speaking to His "court", the other elohim, the angels who were created by Elohim (singular). He goes into much more explanation but i find it credible, not only because it was the voice of the verses surrounding it and following it, but also because the ancient Egyptians had a One God concept as well. I think these are all going back to the beginning, but have been intermixed along the way, so that various cultures that had spread out around the globe, added their own flavour if you will. Also, the Anunnaki intervened and created a mess of things.

For example, they didn't help us. Does it help us to know how to kill each other more efficiently, how to pollute the earth in order to make weapons to kill each other more efficiently? Does wild sex help anyone? It spreads disease and creates children whose parents don't want to raise them. Put it into context: How much did they actually help us?



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   
In regards to the Anunnaki being different than the Igigi, this is a falsehood in my estimation. According to the sumerian online dictionary, the akkadian word "igigi" was only different because it was a different civilization. The akkadian culture followed the sumerian one. Here's the reason:

A GI



1. to deflower

Akk. naqābu "to penetrate sexually, deflower".

Notice the second symbol actually looks like intercourse?

Well "gi" has the same symbol



The GI glyph is sexual intercourse, perhaps even depicting forcible intercourse (et.al, "rape", abduction and rape, and so on).

So put the "EYE" Inu concept together with the GI concept.

Eye of the Sun Gods, the Watchers, with GI for having or forcing sexual intercourse. Same folks. Same bat time, same bat channel.


[edit on 10-3-2006 by undo]



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by undoThe first one you linked says: "Egypt has been subject to numerous infiltrations, contacts and colonisations, but to what extent newcomers contributed to the gene pool is not clear."

It sounds like whether the other is a text book example or not, they are reaching the same conclusions.


Well, no.

The first says that as people of different races and cultures came into Egypt, we see some of their traits being passed through the population.

The second says "let's pretend we have four skulls and they have THESE measurements and were collected at THESE times. Now, class, your problem for today is...."



The second one says: "A biological affinities study based on frequencies of cranial nonmetric traits in skeletal samples from three cemeteries at predynastic Naqada, Egypt, confirms the results of a recent nonmetric dental morphological analysis. Both cranial and dental traits analyses indicate that the individuals buried in a cemetery characterized archaeologically as high status are significantly different from individuals buried in two other, apparently nonelite cemeteries and that the nonelite samples are not significantly different from each other."

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

It says that the practice of inbreeding in the nobles and royals meant they all sort of looked alike (like cheetahs do.)


These are the experts and you're claiming they are saying the skulls are normal. Or you personally believe they are normal?

The experts say they're normal. They also show that face shapes changed among the nobility as the Egyptian empire expanded southward along the Nile... the nobles came in and married the daughters of the local nobility and interbred. The resulting generations looked more like the Men From The North than they did The Local Guys.

The evidence of the skull shapes shows this change in influence. In the 1700 BC time period, the Lybians came in along with the Semetics (and so there were changes in face and body proportions among the nobles.) After 800 BC or so, the Nubians came to rule Egypt and their skull and body shapes and traits dominated the royal line due to all the inbreeding.

I know not everyone took a lot of ancient world history, but this stuff was known WAY back before 1960. It was used in the 1970's in a sort of "Black power" movement/rewriting of history.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
The problem is you're assuming the ancient texts were all fabrications. You're basing that assumption on three hundred years or so of engrained belief of the German High Critics, who basically decided if its an old text, and if it mentions a supernatural force, it must be a fabrication, a fairy tale, a myth.

Well, no.

I realize that there probably are very few readers here with a degree in ancient world history and literature.

So how many of those tales can you name? The only one mentioned from ancient Sumer is Gilgamesh's misbehavior... and as I said, the Annunaki stopped that. He later reviles Inanna for her frequent lovers (mentioning Tammuz/Dummuz.) Ancient Egyptian tales certainly don't mention it, and in fact, Ptahhotep warns his son to keep true to his own wife and not go straying: touregypt.net...

Nor is there any mention of it in the common wisdom texts:
www.touregypt.net...

Or in the tale of Khemwaset (whose wife wanted to get pregnant), etc, etc.

Like I said, probably not many here read ancient literature. But if you did, you would find out that there's no ancient myth that mentions this (at least not ancient Egyptian, Nubian, Lybian, AmerInd, Roman, Greek, Arabian, Hindu, Sumerian, Chinese, Japanese, Norse, African tales and legends.) It's not even in the unexpurgated versions of the Arabian Nights tales although there's lots of naughty frolics there or in bold and bawdy Chaucer.

Cecil Adams (The Straight Dope) didn't find any real evidence of it, either:
www.straightdope.com...



I disagree. I think the ancient texts are historical. You don't. And there's the rub.


I think there are a lot of historical ancient texts. In fact, anyone who majored in ancient history KNOWS there's stacks and stacks and stacks of ancient reference works and texts. And anyone who's read ancient lit knows all manner of myths and tales.

But I'm open to correction, of course. If you have links to ancient texts that show it was a real thing and commonly practiced, I'd love to see links to the original tales.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Eye of the Sun Gods, the Watchers, with GI for having or forcing sexual intercourse. Same folks. Same bat time, same bat channel.


[edit on 10-3-2006 by undo]

But they didn't speak English.

"I" didn't corelate with "eye" for them. Or watch, for that matter.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indellkoffer

Originally posted by undo
Eye of the Sun Gods, the Watchers, with GI for having or forcing sexual intercourse. Same folks. Same bat time, same bat channel.


[edit on 10-3-2006 by undo]

But they didn't speak English.

"I" didn't corelate with "eye" for them. Or watch, for that matter.


The actual translation is "Those who watch" but with the glyph for intercourse in the word, I think there's more to it than watching.

And Igi is (inu, eye). Believe me, I wouldn't be saying this if I hadn't researched it. You can see it here: psd.museum.upenn.edu...



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indellkoffer


Well, no.

The first says that as people of different races and cultures came into Egypt, we see some of their traits being passed through the population.


Are you choosing to ignore that he says it's "not clear" to what extent or even which interbreeding could've caused the anomalies with the skulls?





The evidence of the skull shapes shows this change in influence. In the 1700 BC time period, the Lybians came in along with the Semetics (and so there were changes in face and body proportions among the nobles.) After 800 BC or so, the Nubians came to rule Egypt and their skull and body shapes and traits dominated the royal line due to all the inbreeding.


How? None of the other races had skulls like that either.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indellkoffer

Well, no.

I realize that there probably are very few readers here with a degree in ancient world history and literature.

So how many of those tales can you name?

But I'm open to correction, of course. If you have links to ancient texts that show it was a real thing and commonly practiced, I'd love to see links to the original tales.


But there is mention of it. In the bible it makes references to the killing of the first born of Egypt. There's a reason for that and it isn't because they stand to inherit. If that were the case, the next eligible inheritor in the family would step up and the problem (and just what was the problem?) would still not be solved.. Think outside the box for a minute.

In the Book of Enoch and the bible it references the Watchers doing the wild thang with the females in the populace. And I already mentioned Epic of Gilgamesh, so you can't count that out.

Slave girls and concubines had no rights, so they essentially could be, at any time, subject to carrying the baby of a royal. Of course, such a child would never inherit the throne unless none of the other eligible inheritors were alive.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo

Have you read Michael S. Heiser's explanation for the singular case of Elohim in the passage? It's a single individual speaking in the Royal "us" voice. He is speaking to His "court", the other elohim, the angels who were created by Elohim (singular).


According to Eliphas Levi, in "The Nuctameron of the Hebrews" the Elohim are many deities, not just one God, and if you read the text in the original Hebrew there are many elohim, such as Baal Elohim and Yahweh Elohim. The Anunnaki are named in Hebrew as beney ha-Elohim. The Anunnaki were/are just a lower caste of the Elohim.

I am sure you do know that Abraham had to choose from the Elohim which one he was going to worship. Abraham had to choose between Baal Elohim, his father's choosen Elohim to worship, and YHWH (Yahweh) Elohim, Abraham chose YHWH Elohim.


'One day, Abraham having come to the age of twelve years, his father said to him: "Tomorrow is the festival of all the gods; therefore we shall go to the great temple and bear a present to my god, great Baal. And thou shalt choose for thyself a god, for thou art of age to have a god."

Excerpted from.
www.barnabas.net...

From the sexual interaction between the Anunnaki and the daughters of men, living on Earth in those times, came forth the Nephilim, or the fallen ones, "mighty men of reknown".

The Elohim are the elite of a society of beings who live much longer than humans but they themselves are mortal.

We can ascertain that the Elohim are mortal, although having lifespans much longer than humans ever will have, because they were afraid of mankind acquiring knowledge, hence when "Eve" (Chavvah) eats the fruit from the tree of knowledge, which is an allegory to her(or the tribe of eve as some scholars ascertain) learned secrets she/they were not suposed to learn and she/they gave this knowledge to the ha 'adam. When Eve eats a fruit from the tree of knowledge she is said to have sin and to have passed this sin to all mankind, a warning to all men that they should not eat from the tree of knowledge. This is what the Elohim wanted of mankind and it is part of the reason they tried to destroy mankind.

Only mortals who have power and want to maintain this power over others who are less knowledgeable, or are ignorant of the truth, will try to stop anyone from "acquiring knowledge", so they will continue to control mankind.

The Elohim were afraid that mankind will know the truth about them and would rebel against them, the Anunnaki knew the truth hence they rebelled against the Elohim. If the Elohim of the bible was/were truly divine, an all powerful and all magnificent being/beings, who in the world would even think about rebeling against such a being/beings? Surely not the Anunnaki who would know the true power of the Elohim, unless they were certain they could revolt against the Elohim and have a chance at success.



Originally posted by undo
He goes into much more explanation but i find it credible, not only because it was the voice of the verses surrounding it and following it, but also because the ancient Egyptians had a One God concept as well. I think these are all going back to the beginning, but have been intermixed along the way, so that various cultures that had spread out around the globe, added their own flavour if you will. Also, the Anunnaki intervened and created a mess of things.


Much has been lost in translations but the Elohim were a group of entities, some who were male and others who were female. When in the bible we find the reference "and the Elohim said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...." - Genesis 1:26 They were literally stating that mankind would be similar to them, having a male and a female counterpart just like they are.

In reference to your allegation of only one God being mentioned you can also find in other ancient texts that "Gods" and not "God" "created" mankind, which was merely genetic manipulation of beings which already existed on Earth, the Elohim didn't really create anything.

In the Epic Gilgamesh we find the following passage about the "creation" of mankind.


"When the gods created Mankind
Death for Mankind they allotted,
Life they retained in their own keeping."


www.geocities.com...

The Elohim do have one figure head which is the main leader, but he/she is not a divine being. Why would a divine being be afraid of mankind acquiring knowledge?



Originally posted by undo
For example, they didn't help us. Does it help us to know how to kill each other more efficiently, how to pollute the earth in order to make weapons to kill each other more efficiently? Does wild sex help anyone? It spreads disease and creates children whose parents don't want to raise them. Put it into context: How much did they actually help us?


You think the Elohim were trying to help by maintaining mankind in the dark and not allowing ancient men/women to have any true knowledge?

Some of the Elohim and the Anunnaki, who rebelled against the orders from the higher Elohim caste, were the only ones who gave knowledge to mankind, and many of them had to pay with their lives or suffer much because of their disobedience.

BTW your reference to "wild sex" really has nothing to do with this topic. The Anunnaki did not teach anyone to 'have wild sex". Some of the Anunnaki fell in love with some of the daughters of men, but that does not equate to "wild sex".

As for your reference to "knowledge to kill each other more efficiently", the Elohim did use that knowledge to kill many ancient men, and they are still fighting amongst themselves, what is the difference?

BTW you have supposedly read ancient texts, then you should know that the Elohim ordered men to kill other men, including women and children. We can find this mentioned in pretty much every ancient text, from the Vedic scriptures to the Bible itself. So the Elohim aren't/weren't as peaceful as they are supposed to be.

Anyways, you are asking me to "put into context" if giving true knowledge to ancient men really helped them, or us?

Have you ever heard of the phrase "give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for life"?

Knowledge/power is not evil, nor is it's only purpose to create chaos, although it is true that with knowledge people can and do create chaos, but is it better to be kept in the dark just because there is a possibility that with knowledge people will try to destroy others? is it better to be ignorant? I think not.

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by Indellkoffer
Well, no.

The first says that as people of different races and cultures came into Egypt, we see some of their traits being passed through the population.


Are you choosing to ignore that he says it's "not clear" to what extent or even which interbreeding could've caused the anomalies with the skulls?


No, but you will also notice that none of them say "wow, we have these huge deformed heads that match the stylistic art of that dynasty!"

The skulls they look at cover a long period of time -- a time, in fact, not associated with the stylized art of the elongated head.





The evidence of the skull shapes shows this change in influence. In the 1700 BC time period, the Lybians came in along with the Semetics (and so there were changes in face and body proportions among the nobles.) After 800 BC or so, the Nubians came to rule Egypt and their skull and body shapes and traits dominated the royal line due to all the inbreeding.


How? None of the other races had skulls like that either.

Nor did the Egyptians, in real life, have skulls that looked like those stylized art pieces. The National Geographic article that you pointed to says this rather clearly.

Furthermore, they say it's a family trait. The page you point to says that this head shape was investigated and "falls within the normal range of human skulls" which means they've seen this kind of skull before and that there are people living now around the world who have this kind of skull shape.

In fact, "falls within the normal range" implies that there are skulls from ordinary folks that are more narrow and elongated than those!



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by Indellkoffer

Originally posted by undo
Eye of the Sun Gods, the Watchers, with GI for having or forcing sexual intercourse. Same folks. Same bat time, same bat channel.


[edit on 10-3-2006 by undo]

But they didn't speak English.

"I" didn't corelate with "eye" for them. Or watch, for that matter.


The actual translation is "Those who watch" but with the glyph for intercourse in the word, I think there's more to it than watching.

And Igi is (inu, eye). Believe me, I wouldn't be saying this if I hadn't researched it. You can see it here: psd.museum.upenn.edu...


I did look. It says that the reference appears in a letter about grain shipments and purchases. The first line of the sentence where that appears refers to soldier/soldiers, then "those who watch" and the next words refer to good/precious -- the third line refers to the expansion of a temple of some sort. Previous lines (I didn't try to work through the whole thing) talk about threshing and before that mention the governor-general and soldiers.

"Those who watch" in that context appears to refer to guarding grain shipment. There's nothing about virgins or sex in the letter. And that's the only instance where that combination of signs (meaning "those who watch") appears.

If it had something to do with the Annunaki, then it would appear in prayers and spells and incantations -- not in a letter about buying grain.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by Indellkoffer

Well, no.

I realize that there probably are very few readers here with a degree in ancient world history and literature.

So how many of those tales can you name?

But I'm open to correction, of course. If you have links to ancient texts that show it was a real thing and commonly practiced, I'd love to see links to the original tales.


But there is mention of it.

No, not in the Bible. Nor is there any mention of the "droit du seigneur" in any of the myths and legends of the Middle East. The only time it's mentioned (as I said) appears to be the legend of Gilgamesh and the gods (the "Annunaki") disapproved of it and put a fast stop to it.


In the bible it makes references to the killing of the first born of Egypt.

That's because the God of the Bible had a thing for sacrifices of the 'first born/first fruits.' There's also something in one of the chapters mandating that the Jewish people dedicate their firstborn son to the service of God. There's a couple of human sacrifice instances in the Bible where God demands human virgins (one of them is a parallel to an old Greek tale (also mentioned in Homer, by the way) about the father who promises the gods the first thing that greets him and it turns out to be his virgin daughter so he sacrifices her.)

And the "firstborn" of the Egyptians didn't mean necessarily babies. Yes, I know we all think of babies, but it's been pointed out in some of my studies that "firstborn" didn't come with an age tag to it. They could have been 2 days old or 20 years old or 80 years old, for that matter.


There's a reason for that and it isn't because they stand to inherit. If that were the case, the next eligible inheritor in the family would step up and the problem (and just what was the problem?) would still not be solved..

Err... huh? Sorry -- I think I lost the thread, here.

We were talking about firstborn and I said that firstborn weren't that significant because the power went to the oldest surviving one -- and that the kings did not run around swiving virgins on their wedding nights (in that case, why wait for the girl to be married? Just ship them to the palace as soon as they had their third menses.)


In the Book of Enoch and the bible it references the Watchers doing the wild thang with the females in the populace. And I already mentioned Epic of Gilgamesh, so you can't count that out.

But the "wild thing" wasn't a "first night" sort of thing. They bred a whole race of "wicked giants" and there's nothing in the text about these "wicked giants" being firstborn or the result of a one night stand.

The book specificially says "took unto themselves wives"
www.earth-history.com...

And none of the Pharoahs were giants. Nor were the rulers of the area of unusual height for the population. The "they're all the result of Annunaki having one night stands" doesn't work out here.


Slave girls and concubines had no rights, so they essentially could be, at any time, subject to carrying the baby of a royal. Of course, such a child would never inherit the throne unless none of the other eligible inheritors were alive.

Actually, concubines had some rights (depending on the society and the era.) It was not unusual for one of them to use poisons to eliminate rivals for her child... and in fact there's a whole lot of words out there on this very practice and how it affected the Caliphate.

BUT... that's off topic. Sorry. History is sort of my thing.

To return to my original point:
There's no evidence in any writing of that time that kings or deities or spiritual beings went running around for a series of one-night stands with new brides to engender a "firstborn." The Watchers took wives, and Gilgamesh had his fun put to an end by the gods.

Aside from a "first fruits" tradition (which covers some ground that you haven't touched on yet), there wasn't that much significant about firstborn children of the areas (they weren't sent for special tutoring, they didn't go to special schools, they weren't given special gifts, there were no special feast days for them and there's no legends about special powers of firstborn children (of seventh sons, yes. Firstborn, no.))

Remember that there's a LOT of stuff out there that told about these people and their beliefs, including blessings and curses and magical incantations and letters and poetry and stories and songs. If you started your intellectual journey with Velikovsky and Von Danniken and Hancock and Sitchin, then you started with people who said "scholars can't be trusted" and then threw out all the evidence and picked up only fragments that fit their theories while shoving the rest of the evidence under the carpet and pretending it doesn't exist.

But my rants about Velikovsky and Von Danniken are not on point here. The points are:

There's nothing in the features or skeletal structures of any royal family on the planet (now or then) that is unusual for good old homo sapiens (including the Windsors. There are funnier looking people out here.) The "right of first night" was a medieval thing and not practiced widely and certainly wasn't part of the ancient Middle East traditions. And finally, beyond a "first fruits" tradition of sacrificial offerings and Jehovah's occasional obsession about firstborns and virgins, there's nothing significant in literature/curses/spells/stories of that time about these children and adults being singled out for any special treatment or favor beyond "inheriting the estate."



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Muaddib,

Okay let's take the instance of the bene elohim, which means sons of God (et.al, Angels/Anunnaki). You think it means sons of gods?

Read this explanation (it's a pdf file), written by a hebrew scholar:
www.sitchiniswrong.com...

We'll discuss the rest of your post after you've commented on the link.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
IndellKoffer,

Lotsa info in your head. I disagree with you on several points, but to answer them all would turn this thread into a huge series of "no!" "yes!" noyesnoyesnoyesnononoyesyesyes! To top it off, I've already given a sizeable portion of my initial information to this site, and am not real crazy about providing all the arguments as well lol

Let's just say I think you're stuck in a rut, a careful, calculating, well-documented rut, but a rut nonetheless. However, you have this tendency to ignore major themes, which I think is the result of learning history from only a select group of scholars and nothing else matters. It's become a mind block of some sort. You're in some kind of denial. This is the problem with history today. The big guys don't want to back pedal so we are stuck with the mess history is in today, such as the incorrect dates given for the egyptian civilization based on only half the information they had available at the time because those other books mentioned supernatural events.

Here's an example of your buddies in action:

"How could the Greeks have preserved authentic histories reaching back 2000 years before the time of Christ, if they did not even know how to write till the seventh century before our era?"

Yeppers, them're the first skeptics using their noodles. And today, we still have to live with their fudged up timeline because they don't want to backpedal.

Anyway, if you wish to continue this, we may just have to wait till I get the book finished.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Ok, this is all very very interesting. I am amazed and can't wait for the next post ing of info but have we not got away from the question of stargates.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
just some thoughts.

would anyone need a 'stargate' if they had anti-gravity technology capable of bending spacetime such that in effect there is no distance between two locations?

maybe stargates, if they exist, they are some kind of giant snooker or pool like game - i remember hearing about giant stone balls somewhere once, and that giant iron rod in india that von daniken mentioned could be the cue....

who knows?



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by gogo
would anyone need a 'stargate' if they had anti-gravity technology capable of bending spacetime such that in effect there is no distance between two locations?


It's easy, it's called evolution.

Advanced races had to advance somehow, they probably didn't go from walking to creating time bending machines. Star gates might have been a necessity to travel to certain areas that have a high density of antimatter, planets with an alloy we can't get in our solar system, or any number of other things that could be around to help lifeforms advance.

Also, stargates could be from our space cousins second uncle who decided to install them all over the universe to help lesser races see what's out there. It's human nature to make traveling as easy as possible, I don't see that changing anytime soon. I could see us installing star gates if we found/figured out the technology.

The possibilities really are infinate, including them not existing. -.-



new topics

top topics



 
634
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join