Proof of Reptoid Aliens, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 5-10-2006 @ 04:08 PM by InTrueFiction
Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Originally posted by RubberJohnny
We talked about the fact that to this day, no one knows how such an ancient people could have constructed such amazing feats of architecture as they did, like their pyramids.


These really aren't hard, stack a set of blocks on a larger set of blocks and you create a stepped pyramid. It really isn't hard or complex, just long and hard. Creating tall vertical walls is much harder.
[edit on 2-10-2006 by RubberJohnny]


All kinds of talk about how easy it is to do but no proof. The most I've seen done by researchers is a pyramid maybe 20 feet tall. That is hardly the same scale as the buildings listed. Maybe you can build one for us and show us some pictures though.


One thing that I think is important to remember is that in engineering due to the laws of gravity and a building's stability it is actually much more simple to build a tall structure with the shape of a pyramid (which focuses its weight on the base) than it is to build something perpendicular to the ground. Many archaeologists have due to this fact made the claim that the pyramid style of building is not a demostration of superior engeneering per se but instead the only solution in terms of a heavy structure that could be accomplished at that time. This is also the most common view of researchers as it concerns the fact that you find so many pyramids in ancient history - the fact that in technological and engineering terms the pyramid was simply the only way that ancient cultures could find to build tall structures with their level of technology.

To say that the Eyptian pyramids are a marvel of engineering is absolute truth and to testify to that - when I saw them in person I was simply amazed. There is a reason why they are considered one of the marvels of the world. But to say that it is a feat that exceeds our abilities even today just sounds... silly. Sorry. Any sky-scraper is far more complex in its structure than the pyramids. To say that it is amazing that it was done by an ancient people with little technology is true. To say that they were done by a superior people with superior technology... then it is a sand castle. If we nowadays made the pyramids it would be no big deal whatsoever.

Another aspect that is important while considering pyramids (especially in the case of Sumerian Ziggurats) is that temples were reportedly often rebuilt atop a previous one - the process involving the filling of the initial temple with earth and afterwards the new temple would be built atop (of significantly smaller proportions) which established the beggining (some say) of the pyramid format.

Though the thought of building a temple on top of another may seem ridiculous to us at our time and age you have to remember that in ancient cultures the location for the temples was of more importance than the building itself (due their relative position towards the firmament or even the history of that location). So rebuilding a temple in any other place was simply... troublesome. A lot of times even places of worship from previous cultures were used as a location for a temple. The Catholic Church itself is renowned for this - Europe is filled with churches and cathedrals that were built on places that were already considered sacred even to pagan worship in many (if not most) cases.

EDIT: Just to add on the subject of a building's structure consider this - if you are building a sand castle what is easier and more solid - a pyramid or a perfectly vertical structure?

[edit on 5-10-2006 by InTrueFiction]



reply posted on 6-10-2006 @ 07:27 AM by Byrd
Originally posted by x daedalus x
Recently in my history class we studied the Aztec indians. We talked about the fact that to this day, no one knows how such an ancient people could have consructed such amazing feats of architecture as they did, like their pyramids, the fact that they had heiroglyphics that have still not been deciphered, that their artwork depicted figures in what appeared to be spaceships, the fact that their religion encouraged human sacrifice, and finally, the fact that still today, large lizards exist in huge number, a species of which is confined mainly to that region. To me, this all added up amazingly simply and I couldn't believe I hadn't heard of it before. So here's what I came up with:


What you should have come up with is "the teacher doesn't know much about the subject and needs to read some archaeology instead of speculative nonsense."

Apparently the teacher didn't bother to check and see that the Aztec empire was only around from about 1300 to the time when the Spaniards came through (about 250 years).
www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us...

Your teacher is appallingly ignorant of the fact that the Spanish priests were instrumental in recording what we do know and that some of them wrote down quite a bit about what the people did and believed. That the priests were the first translators of the sacred books (the Codexes.)

Your teacher is getting the Aztecs and Maya and Olmecs mixed up (and this is even worse.) Pacal (whose tomb Von Danniken used a PARTIAL image of in his "spaceship' claim) is Mayan. Not Aztec. That's a very stupid and unprofessional mistake for a teacher and an indication that your teacher's knowledge is very poor quality. There's hieroglyphics on Pacal's tomb (which Von Danniken never shows because it destroys his case) that say what the image is and what's happening to Pacal (falling down the tree of the world to the underworld.)

As to lizards, you're off the mark. The largest lizards are the komodo dragons of the South Pacific, a long way from Mexico and Central America. The lizards of the area (with the exception of some marine lizards) don't grow much larger than a foot or two.

The temples are often a succession of builds, starting with a tiny pyramid that (decades later) gets "remodeled" by adding layers and turning it into a larger pyramid. Shame on your teacher for not explaining that.

They left the heiroglyphics, explaining why we can't decipher them,


Your teacher's ignorance is abysmal. If we "can't decypher them" then how do we know there's an explaination? In fact, they're very translatable.


similary to those on the roswell spacecraft, and also the art with the spaceship. When they sacrificed a member of the tribe, that person was abducted and taken by the reptoids,


Your teacher really didn't bother to read anything. The reason they sacrificed is because the sun god sacrificed himself to keep the world alive. The Western world has known this ever since the first contact with the Aztecs.


and finally the reason for the lizards: They are under-developed, partially-adapted reptoid offspring left on earth and lacking the environmnet needed for their species to flourish into what we know as reptoid aliens.


Uhm... not even close. We know their bloodline and a lot of their evolutionary history. They're not alien. They're descended from the mososaurs and precursors fo the Cambrian era.


reply posted on 7-10-2006 @ 12:23 PM by x daedalus x
Originally posted by Byrd
Originally posted by x daedalus x


and finally the reason for the lizards: They are under-developed, partially-adapted reptoid offspring left on earth and lacking the environmnet needed for their species to flourish into what we know as reptoid aliens.


Uhm... not even close. We know their bloodline and a lot of their evolutionary history. They're not alien. They're descended from the mososaurs and precursors fo the Cambrian era.


You may be a knowledgable person, but you have definitely been duped if you seriously believe this garbage. You claim to know their evolutionary history, but thats under the assumption that the evolutionary theory is fact, which it is not. Darwin himself on his death bed stated that he had made it up. Have you seen the geological column or the ables charting evolution in zoology? Ever see how there's a question mark for each transition? Evolution has been disproved so many times and ways, I'm sorry, but I have to scoff (respectfully of course) at anyone who still beleves that malarkey. I don't intened to start a discussion of evolution versus intelligent design (of which I am a fanatic advocate) but your statement there just, for me, discredited your attempt to debunk my theory.

As to my claim that th lizards are underdeveloped and the fact that that may sound hypocritical with my firm diselief in evolution, I would consider this an adaptation or "micro-evolution" which is scientifically proven and I do believe.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^