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: 94
634
<< 91  92  93    95  96  97 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 12:26 AM
link   
That pic of R.D. Andersen above with the Military Brass. And as far as I am on to him, just my way of letting him know that I like him...




posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by antar
That pic of R.D. Andersen above with the Military Brass. And as far as I am on to him, just my way of letting him know that I like him...


He did a fine job representing the air force? lol
He was a grump! (not the real guy, but the character)
He pretended like he had no idea what Sam was talking about and would get irritated with her when she tried to explain. lol
What? Where's Sam?! Sheesh. No honorary for the chick with the brains?



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   
NO kidding good point there. I just cannot believe that he was made honorary Brass for his TV show. Actors as presidents, and now Military brass. Very weird and look at the face of the Colonel. I wonder if he was the one that played the part of R.D. Andersen in real life??? l



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Gofunk
 


People come to ATS to talk about fringe topics and to think "outside the box" without being called crazy deranged trolls. Just because something is new and hasnt been looked at much yet, it doesnt have to be "crazy". The science-fiction of today is the reality of tommorow.

In your attitude of calling people here "crazy" you are in the minority.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Well he's okay, I mean his questions are legit. The topic is definitely controversial. What I found so interesting about it was that I knew the
Old Testament and sumerian-akkadian texts were linked, but I was
unaware of how the New Testament fit into it until I started finding
connections in Revelation to texts like ENKI AND THE WORLD ORDER,
as I've mentioned already in this thread.

It's ironic that the two events (beginning and end) are centered
around the same geographical area of the world, both times.
Let's hope if they found that particular gate, they don't open the
thing. If I'm understanding the data correctly, it's only once they
open the big one, that the real trouble starts.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Cuhail
 




In the movie, the "Stargate" is just a device to access a wormhole. Why does the device have to look like the film version?


That's my point, it doesn't. But to use the word Stargate in such a manner is to imply correlation between the film and reality. I am not contesting the possibility of wormholes or the possibility of technology that can manipulate wormholes. I am contesting the idea that the film's story has any basis in reality, which is what the premise of this thread is.



Funny, I have a flip phone that looks very familiar to Star Trek (OS)communicators and work, generally, the same.


Do you call it a Star Trek communicator though? The similarity between a communicator in sci-fi and a communicator in reality is totally different to the idea that a story about ancient civilisations having Stargates is based on reality.

I am all for discussion of possible technologies and the development of ideas, however I think using creative fiction designed for entertainment as a source of fact is foolish and counter-productive.


As far as if a "Stargate" exists, design techs from movie studios had to invent a "look" for it.


It's not the idea that devices which allow the manipulation of wormholes are possible that's a problem, it's the idea that ancient civilisations possessed circular devices called Stargates that I have a problem with.


reply to post by Skyfloating
 




People come to ATS to talk about fringe topics and to think "outside the box" without being called crazy deranged trolls.


I have no problem with discussing fringe topics outside of the box, I much prefer people who think outside of the box.



Just because something is new and hasnt been looked at much yet, it doesnt have to be "crazy".


Indeed you are correct



In your attitude of calling people here "crazy" you are in the minority.


Some people here are crazy, whether that is a good or bad thing is mater of debate. I am not calling people crazy for thinking outside of the box or for wanting to discuss new ideas. I am saying that people who believe the Stargate story is based on reality and is part of a plausible deniability campaign have a problem with distinguishing reality from fiction and I believe that is counter-productive to the greater cause. In the process of developing theories and ideas, the ability to distinguish between reality and fiction is important.

Unfortunately there are some people on this forum that are mentally disadvantaged and those people are quite often easily influenced by the most creative of ideas regardless of it's basis in fact.

Pandering to people's delusions provides no positive benefit to anybody other than those who wish to mislead.

I personally think the idea behind the premise of this thread makes as much a mockery as the idea that there were no planes on 9/11 does of people who truly wish to uncover conspiracies. And we are discussing the idea behind the premise of this thread are we not?



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Ah, you're getting tripped up on the name of the device. That's interesting.
Okay, if I call it doorway to heaven, same thing, or ladder to heaven, or
wormhole gate. Frequently, I call it the bottomless pit and also the Abzu, the primeval ocean and the abyss. Maybe you should read the whole thread and the e-books ?



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Never had someone come in the thread to complain specifically about the usage of the word "Stargate". Isn't that strange? I think that's strange. I've had people say the entire idea of stargates was ludicrous. And that there's not a stargate of any kind. And that stargate tech is still too far off to be real, due to things like exotic energy requirements. But never someone who just wanted to complain about the word itself. And, to top it off, use that as an example for why it's discrediting the subject entirely. Weird logic. Interesting, but weird.


[edit on 2-3-2008 by undo]



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


You're misunderstanding what I'm saying, I am disputing the idea behind this thread, that ancient civilisations had 'Stargates' and I'm disputing that a Stargate is anything other than the centrepiece of a fictional sci-fi story.

I have read the thread and I've seen no evidence proving the existence of 'Stargates'. I've seen over interpretations of ancient mythology, I've seen unrelated references to scientific theories regarding wormholes, and I've seen references to things completely unrelated to wormholes simply because they contain the name 'Stargate', for example the 'Project Stargate' that's been referred to regards 'remote viewing' through psychic abilities and has absolutely nothing to do with wormholes.

I see a lot of flailing and grasping, but no solid discovery. If I've missed a few points then I apologise, you have to remember that you have been on this thread since 2006, I have been on this thread since yesterday. 94 pages and almost 3 years worth of painfully ambiguous information is a lot to take in at once, so if I miss something please remind me and direct me to the part of the thread where it's covered.

Debating on these forums would be a lot easier and a lot less redundant if people were direct to the point.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gofunk
Debating on these forums would be a lot easier and a lot less redundant if people were direct to the point.


It's a big topic and covers alot of history, so thats also part of the problem.

Do you wish to have the evidence provided for you in a more concise manner? If so, I'll compile a condensed version. THE only problem with that is, I don't wish to waste your time or mine if you have no intention of considering the evidence to begin with. See, I have a hubby, dogs and a couple of pretty cool kids at home and I could be doing any number of other things besides explaining this theory to someone who has already decided it's not real or has some other reason for not considering it. If it's my personal opinions that bother you, well join the club, I don't always like some of my opinions, but I go with what seems logical to me or what I've found to make enough sense to be plausible.

I'd like to think it was important enough to gain serious consideration but I know this will not happen until the thing is opened (at least, the big one). You'll also have to consider this isn't just a topic for generalized consideration, it also is a subject that bible researchers may have an interest in. If you aren't interested in the bible, most of what this thread says will never mean anything to you at all. If such is the case, say so now, and we can both wander off in opposite directions.

There's one thing for certain, I won't take it hard if you don't like my opinions, but I will take it hard if you string me along for some other agenda. If you got agenda, pack it, or this will be a very short trip.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
if stargates are real then so is the interaction with them; and would place into light deformities of human gene in time in the form of greys; as well as the prohibited use of such ancient technologies by laymen and priests only to be used properly by a successionary line of kings and or queens.

so in all reality stargates are false to all but he; and the misuse of them can even be percieved today in the form of ufo's and aliens.

kind of brings to light a whole new view on the religious term alien in the face of god.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ausar
.


Hello Osiris.
I have a thread on the topic of the Osirieon. Have you seen it?
You might find it interesting.

[edit on 2-3-2008 by undo]



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I'm more than eager to consider any real evidence you can provide, that is direct evidence not ambiguous conjecture. I am a person who relies on what can be proven as a measure of reality. I am not a person who does not want to believe, I ma a person who values the importance of humanity being in touch with reality, whatever that reality might be. But as yet nobody I have had a debate with regarding such theories as this one has ever come forward with direct evidence, I would love it if they did because I think the realisation that such fantastic technologies were close to hand would be an amazingly positive experience. So if you can, please do, be direct and upfront.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gofunk
reply to post by undo
 


I'm more than eager to consider any real evidence you can provide, that is direct evidence not ambiguous conjecture. I am a person who relies on what can be proven as a measure of reality. I am not a person who does not want to believe, I ma a person who values the importance of humanity being in touch with reality, whatever that reality might be. But as yet nobody I have had a debate with regarding such theories as this one has ever come forward with direct evidence, I would love it if they did because I think the realisation that such fantastic technologies were close to hand would be an amazingly positive experience. So if you can, please do, be direct and upfront.


then, let's start by examining your parameters of "direct evidence."
you had better be on the up and up with me on this because if not, you are wasting valuable, unretrievable seconds of my life and vice-a-versa. this had better be worth it! i don't consider my time so unimportant that just any tom, dick or harry, can come along and waste it for no other reason than just pure spitefulness. i hope we are clear on that. i have knees and i know how to use them.

And we continue:
I want you to provide the direct evidence for quantum mechanics. You may begin whenever you're ready.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   
for a king not to worry about trifleties; you know math and science but still be all knowledgable on the subject; i can see why such devices as stargates and other exotic ancient technologies are not implemented on a mass basis; the people today have no king but jesus. and then they deny his actual existence. o for people to assimilate ancient math science and technology as has and still been occuring there is no way to properly relate to a worker(and theres no builders other than one) how something such as a stargate work. besides it would not be his need to know how anyway as long as his position in the state hood be well and supplemented by natural works programs; "he" shouldnt even be interested in such "things".

all that aside there are more "exotic" forms of ancient technology than just stargates

[edit on 2-3-2008 by Ausar]



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



then, let's start by examining your parameters of "direct evidence."


Evidence, or more importantly scientific method.


this had better be worth it! i don't consider my time so unimportant that just any tom, dick or harry, can come along and waste it for no other reason than just pure spitefulness.


I seek the truth, I have no spite towards genuine honest people. However if you want people to believe something, you must be prepared to explain it on their level.


And we continue:
I want you to provide the direct evidence for quantum mechanics. You may begin whenever you're ready.


Please don't start on the whole "Why don't you?" cliché, I'm not here to prove quantum mechanics and I am not making any claim about the factuality of quantum mechanics. Your ability to prove your own theories should be completely independent of my ability to prove other people's theories. If you are not here to waste time, please don't waste mine, just get right to the point.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I have to know what you define as direct evidence before I can attempt to provide it. You're setting that goal post way up there, and I have to know how high it is, or I'm not playing. Comprende'?



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
No infinitely receeding horizons, thank you.
Details of what you consider direct evidence sufficient enough to convince,
or I'm gonna go do something brain numbing like watch reruns of some gosh awful TV show from the 60's, which even though I may not enjoy the experience, is preferable to the frustration I would undoubtedly have to endure.

I need to know:

1. If you accept ANYTHING from the bible as evidence?
2. If you accept ANYTHING from other ancient texts as evidence?
3. If you accept ARTIFACTs as evidence and what conditions you would place on those artifacts as evidence?



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I consider findings that are provable through scientific method as direct evidence. For the purpose of this subject I also consider peer reviewed archaeological findings and directly observable consequences of the existence of Stargates in the world around us.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   


peer reviewed archaeological findings


And that's the problem right there. Peer reviews must agree with previous peer reviews or further support previous peer reviews in full or in part sufficient to keep it from being unpopular amongst the decision makers. Nothing earth shttering is ever going to come out of a peer reviewed article. They get all happy and woooo, look! new stuff, when the review adds even the tiniest bit of knowledge to what they've already been saying for the last 300 years. Big changes to previously held theories are rarely if ever seen. They found Troy after saying it didn't exist for 250 years and then argued that it wasn't Troy for another 30 years, just to save face over the original assumption that it didn't exist. These things just don't happen.

You're barking up the wrong tree if you think there's going to be a single shread of peer reviewed archaeological evidence for a device that creates and harnasses a wormhole, native to ancient Sumer or earlier.

For the following reasons:

1. It's a hot potato. You won't find 6000 year old advanced technology in the Smithsonian, not because it absolutely doesn't exist but because if it does exist..... it's a hot potato, a cultural hot potato.
2. It presents a significant technological advantage to have exclusive, private ownership. It's not going to be flaunted around if it's advanced technology beyond even our current (or generally known) tech and you can take that to the bank.



new topics

top topics



 
634
<< 91  92  93    95  96  97 >>

log in

join