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.

 

Proof of Reptoid Aliens

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   

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.




posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by realanswers
I've been recently studying the Jim Sparks' case. Not only is this case significant and rare because he was fully awake and conscious during them, but he also participated in an alien school where they taught him the language and other things. Here is a link of good reference: www.mindspring.com...

Did anybody read any of Jim Sparks' books?
This is a very unique and rare case of completely conscious(awake) abductions encounters.
www.mindspring.com...



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   

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]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   
To InTrueFiction

I have a video somewhere all about the Pyramids in Egypt.
While the type of structure that was chosen was perhaps a 'common sense' option for someone wanting to build something of it's size, you have to take into consideration other aspects of the pyramids designs.

For instance: The medium sized pyramid was built first, then the largest, then the smallest one.

The medium and large pyramids are in a perfect diagonal line from each top or keystone, whilst the smallest is offset in another direction.

When looking at the constellation of Orion, the three stars in the sky are mimiced by the pyramids perfectly.

Not only this, but at the time they we're thought built, the constellation of Leo was the 'man of the moment', and the sphinx was built by the egyptions at this time.

Not only that but when astronomers used a computer to find where the stars in the sky would have been in the time of leo, there was a point when they shone perfectly, and with precision down the shafts that are in the pyramids.

Why and how build a struture that semingly has the easiest form to do, yet it has an immensly complicated use?

Still more questions than answers.

P.S. forgot to say that the river Nile mimics the milkyway, and where they are in relation to the stars of Orion.

[edit on 6-10-2006 by j1mb0]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   
It sounds like an interesting documentary. Would it be possible to give me the title for it? I'm curious and would like to search for it.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 07:27 AM
link   

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.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by InTrueFiction
It sounds like an interesting documentary. Would it be possible to give me the title for it? I'm curious and would like to search for it.


Sorry I don't remember the name.
It was a Readers Digest one I think, so you could try their website if they have one.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Once again, Bryd comes and saves (kinda ruins) the day!

It's not fair, when I start reading something that seems to make sense, you come and factify it! You are a very knowledable person!



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I've been recently studying the Jim Sparks' case. Not only is this case significant and rare because he was fully awake and conscious during them, but he also participated in an alien school where they taught him the language and other things. Here is a link of good reference: www.mindspring.com...

Did anybody read any of Jim Sparks' books?
This is a very unique and rare case of completely conscious(awake) abductions encounters.
www.mindspring.com...



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by realanswers
I've been recently studying the Jim Sparks' case. Not only is this case significant and rare because he was fully awake and conscious during them


Where's the evidence of any of this? And I dispute that he was even awake during this whole business. Any story that goes, "there I was sleeping and I was woken up by..." and then presumes that everything that happened after that was REAL and was experienced while awake is a really suspicious story IMHO. Why? My DREAMS start out the same way. There I was sleeping, unconscious, when the next thing I knew I was conscious and going on an adventure you just wouldn't believe...

Add to that the very real phenom of lucid dreaming and I cannot imagine why we would believe that this guy didn't just dream this stuff up.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   

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.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
This whole reptilian connection thing is an interesting angle on things i think.
Im not saying that i specialy believe every thing about it but the arguments are not weak.
In fact the arguments for evolution as we know it are not stronger in my opinion and are to based on a lot of assumptions.
Like the missing link as a big example.

There is not enough proof it seems for eigher of these cases as with most mysteries for us humans.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I never understood the whole reptillian conspiracy thing to be honest.

basically, wasnt it just David Icke? and he watched the movie V too many times, and started wearing purple, and began seeing reptilles?

Is there any physical proof of reptillians? I mean is there any coroners report where they found out somebody was a reptilian?



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Haha

I suppose both theories have a missing link.

One point do, the human brain is still today part reptillian.
So in all reality we are still partly ruled by our reptillian insticts.

[edit on 7-10-2006 by jaamaan]



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Lol!

I guess Darwin was wrong. Is there a Davidickism?

Scopes reptile trial



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I am not saying Darwin was wrong, i am just pointing out that his theory is a real theory like to ones of people like David Icke.
Darwins theory was to be proven by the missing link and whe are still waiting for that one.

It is just interesting that in most ancient cultures they mention strange beeings, sometimes reptillian.
I believe in a lot of asian countries they believe dragons are alive today.
Even in the Bible they mention reptillian or serpent beeings.
Plus our brain is again part reptillian.

That's more of a link than the missing one of Darwin.

I think it is a bit to easy to dismiss this subject with an Icke(ism) , it is always easy to ridicule.

to that i can only quote

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --Mahatma Gandhi

I mean complete cultures like the maya's for example stated that they where visited by people from the stars, and they where not the only ones.
Some where reptillian an others where again different.
You can agree or not what happend to these people but it is a bit to easy to dismiss complete civilisations with a swipe of Icke(ism) ridicule.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by RavenWindfree

Uhh I don't care!!! I don't care what anyone thinks! I saw reptilian hybrids in Florida in a freaking apartment at 3 AM in the morning. It was a horrible experience I had to waste time typing it to people that have a hard time believing in it.
I don't care what anyone has to say, I have heard all of it. You either take it or leave, I'm sorry but it just frustrates me. Ahhh...

Original poster can you please back me up. And why did they get rid of the David Icke thread, that was a good one.


You dont need to be backed up...you believe what you believe.
There is no reason to have to have the confirmation of others...be proud to know what you know.
Others, if they need to know or understand something, will...in their time.

Peace

Dalen



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Nice Man i like it totally makes sence and it does all add up amazingly.
Thanks for the explination.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Good to have other believers Muka.

And for you othe guys, Reptilian aliens aren't just David Icke's creation, a lot of people believed in them before he was around. Sure the theory is not without its holes, but that is what is is: theory. No theory is without its flaws and holes.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Holygamer
I never understood the whole reptillian conspiracy thing to be honest.

basically, wasnt it just David Icke? and he watched the movie V too many times, and started wearing purple, and began seeing reptilles?

Is there any physical proof of reptillians? I mean is there any coroners report where they found out somebody was a reptilian?



For me, that hits the nail on the head. Of all the people who have died over the years,
we've not found one dead one? Thats impossible.

In my eyes thats proof that they dont exist.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join