Ancient Astronauts Evidence

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:25 AM
link   
My thread "Ancient Astronauts Discussion", which had more than 137 replies in two days, has been trashed because I copy pasted some of my material from another thread into it. Sorry to all the participants of that thread.

I recently had a debate on ancient astronauts in which I provided a lot of evidence for the theory. You can find that thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I would like to provide this thread to discuss and expand on the evidence already provided and also to present more evidence. Any "results of research" I discover will be put into this thread. Some of it will be original research and writing done by me. It is alright to expose the research to scrutiny and rebuttal on this Forum as it will show us what ancient-astronaut points are strong and which ones are weak. I look forward to collaborators posting their insights here too.

The Sky and the Heavens

Falsifying history is supported by manipulating language. A good example of this is how the word "sky" has been changed to mean some mythical place called "heaven".

I first became aware of this oddity when learning foreign languages. I remember asking various language teachers "Uh...wait a minute. Sky and Heaven are the same word? They are not in English!"

Why is this so important? Well, by just a little tweaking of the meaning of "heaven" to mean some other dimension or a place in the afterlife you can establish religion. And you can "scientifically" discount a bunch of ancient accounts from South America to Europe, from Africa to Australia, from Asia to ancient Egypt, from Russia to North America that talk about a bunch of "Gods", people and beings flying around in the sky, coming down from the sky, flying up into the sky. Orthodox history can then say "Well, they weren`t talking about space or the sky at all. They had no idea what the sky or space is. They were talking religiously. They were talking about some mythical place".

Don`t get me wrong...I am not discounting the existence of an afterlife or other realms. But the word "heaven", which has been seperated from "sky" in the English language is even used interchangably (as in the heavenS) in the Bible and originally refers to the sky and space.

What strikes me the most is how little attention and comment this case of manipulation has received.


I look forward to discussing the topics of that other thread and new topics brought up. Much more to come.




posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Sky comes from Norse and Heaven derived from the German Heofonum, they have different meanings in present day English. Ah the importing of these words occurred over a thousand years ago – was this part of the conspiracy?

The ancient had no idea what “space” was, most cultures considered the sky a solid object.

Perhaps you have not heard of this because it has no basis in fact (the conspiracy to hide words)?

One must ask who would have done this a thousand years ago - how did they know English would become the primary language - but wait a large percentage - even more in the last century of the ancient civilization archaeological material is recorded in German and French.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 05:19 AM
link   
Sky and Heaven mean the very same thing in most languages. I think that is something most people researching these topics should know. Since you are talking about Norse and German, lets take those two. The swedish word "Himmel" means both sky and heaven. And the German word "Himmel" means both sky and heaven.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 05:56 AM
link   
More on Language Translations


What opponents of the ancient astronaut theory dont seem to be taking into account is that we only have flying aircraft since a little more than a hundred years. This necessarily means that all of the TRANSLATIONS done in the last hundreds and even thousands of years didnt have appropriate words for aircraft, saucer, airplane and had to resort to silly translations such as "flying egg", "flying barque", "flyship", "Gods in the sky" and so forth. It is rather obvious that our translators from the 16th, 17th and 18th Century didnt know how to translate words relating to technology.

Now that we are finally catching up with what the ancients knew 10 000 years ago, we can make sense of what some of the mythology means.

Those who say "I cant imagine that the ancients knew flying" are still living in a 17th Century mindset in which flying is not possible.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Talking about words for sky and heaven.

And what about those languages that do? There are lots – could we see your statistical study of language that show how many do and don’t have this. But then the questions remains, why is this important?

By the way: I checked five languages; Turkish, Japanese, Arabic, French, Italian, Czech they all have separate words for sky and heaven.

You failed to address my questions so here they are again:
What ancient cultures thought of space, heaven and sky as we know them? Which thought of them as solid objects? I think that is something most people researching these topics should know? So what is the answer? I would recommend a comparative chart.

So was putting a norse word and a german word into what would become English part of the conspiracy?



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 06:17 AM
link   
Are you just going to keep repeating the same thread every week?

You lost the debate and you admitted you didn't believe your own theories on ancient astronauts and couldn't fool Issac Koi. You wasted everyone's time in the last thread and it got trashed, so you want to do it all over again?



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
[This necessarily means that all of the TRANSLATIONS done in the last hundreds and even thousands of years didnt have appropriate words for aircraft, saucer, airplane and had to resort to silly translations such as "flying egg", "flying barque", "flyship", "Gods in the sky" and so forth. It is rather obvious that our translators from the 16th, 17th and 18th Century didnt know how to translate words relating to technology.


But you make an assumption that because we don't know exactly what they meant, they must necessarily be terms relating to ancient technology. You have no evidence for that at all beyond a supposed linguistic similarity, which is not in itself evidence. You may as well say that because the Greeks had a word for "disk" but vinyl hadn't been invented, any reference to circular objects in Ancient Greek must necessarily refer to ancient gramaphone players.

LW



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Good point Lone Weasel

Ah whatalargeprobethatis (must come up with a nickname for you)

Skyfloating seems to be obsessive about this subject - but then that is why this part of ATS exists.

Lets see "what madness he runs to" in his search for justification of his beliefs.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Are you just going to keep repeating the same thread every week?

You lost the debate and you admitted you didn't believe your own theories on ancient astronauts and couldn't fool Issac Koi. You wasted everyone's time in the last thread and it got trashed, so you want to do it all over again?


Fact 1: Nowhere did I admit I dont believe my own theories.
Fact 2: I was not judged looser of the debate. I lost by member-stars.
Fact 3: My thread which contained hard evidence was trashed, while hundreds of threads such as "reptilian rapists attack teens" can prevail without problems. So who are the time-wasters?

Stick to debunking by fair means (such as you did with the Vimana-subject) rather than using baseless attacks.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Skyfloating seems to be obsessive about this subject



Would you prefer me not to talk about ancient mysteries in the Forum entitled "ancient and lost civlizations"?



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneWeasel


But you make an assumption that because we don't know exactly what they meant, they must necessarily be terms relating to ancient technology.




If one scholar makes the assumption that "Horus flew out into the Nightsea" refers to some mythological place, it is my right to make the assumption that that refers to space.

Or not?



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 06:40 AM
link   



If one scholar makes the assumption that "Horus flew out into the Nightsea" refers to some mythological place, it is my right to make the assumption that that refers to space. Or not?



You can believe whatever you want the problem is you applying your beliefs and knowledge onto an Egyptian writer - who had no idea of what space was- all he saw was a night sky - he didn't know what we knew.

You seem to have declined to continue our discussion on words - are you reverting to "creation blitz" as one item is questioned you just dump more material and move on?



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


A comparitive chart is indeed needed. Surprising that this hasnt received much attention. What would religion do if it turned out that "the heavens" refers to sky? But actually, "the heavens" with the S, does refer to sky, doesnt it?



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

You can believe whatever you want the problem is you applying your beliefs and knowledge onto an Egyptian writer - who had no idea of what space was- all he saw was a night sky - he didn't know what we knew.



Yes, he saw the night sky. Him writing of a God who flew to the nightsea can be interpreted as just that, or distorted by the belief that its "mythic".




You seem to have declined to continue our discussion on words - are you reverting to "creation blitz" as one item is questioned you just dump more material and move on?


How this sentence pertains to our discussion is beyond me.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Questions:

Did an Egyptian writer know what our concept/reality of space was?

No he didn't, he couldn't realize or express that action, you are placing into his writing your knowledge and beliefs. This god had god like powers - are those mythic or real?

You can beleive that but most scholars knowledgeable in the AE culture know the culture, they have a better idea of what the world reality was for Egyptians.

You haven't answered my questions about words- what you started this thread off on - creation blitz is a tactic used by people to avoid answering questions, instead of discussing an issue you just keep adding more material - which is what you did in that debate you linked too.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by LoneWeasel


But you make an assumption that because we don't know exactly what they meant, they must necessarily be terms relating to ancient technology.




If one scholar makes the assumption that "Horus flew out into the Nightsea" refers to some mythological place, it is my right to make the assumption that that refers to space.

Or not?


It is your right to assume and believe whatever you like. However, you have referred to "hard evidence" in previous posts. Your beliefs and assumptions are not "hard evidence". They are beliefs and assumptions. For example. I believe this egg is a tree, even though my friend Pam says it's an egg. My belief is not in itself evidence that the egg is a tree. Indeed, unless the egg sprouts leaves and grows bark, I have no evidence whatever to suggest that Pam is correct.

I would suggest that taking a text that is commonly accepted to be myth and declaring that myth actually not to be fiction at all, but based on technological reality, places a burden of proof on you to demonstrate that the words mean something tangible rather than myth. In the same way, my declaring this egg to be a tree when commonly it would be accepted that it is an egg places a burden on me to prove that it is, in fact, a tree.

I reiterate my point, which is that your assumptions and beliefs, however much we respect them and your right to hold them, are hard evidence of absolutely nothing.

All I would add more generally to dispute the veracity of your beliefs and assumptions is that there was a culture of fantasy to much of the literature to which you prefer. Norse and old english writing used the fantastic as a device to promote the purpose of their writing. As a very basic example, fire was a major health hazard, so were snakes, combine the two and you have dragons: a device to embody the things that people feared at the time.

1000 or so years later, Shakespeare wrote "The Tempest" which include a flying faerie and a hideous monster. It is my right to make the assumption that the faeire was in fact Shakespeare's depiction of a grey, and the hideous monster was a representative of the reptilians. I would be talking complete nonsense, but yes, it would be my right to do so. I doubt I'll be starting a thread on the subject any time soon, though, as I would have absolutely no evidence to back up my claim.

LW



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Questions:

Did an Egyptian writer know what our concept/reality of space was?



Probably not. "Horus flew up into the nightsea" probably has nothing whatsoever to do with united airlines flying up into the nightsky. Its probably "a reference to a mythical place"
Just like the depiction of a helicopter, submarine, tank and plane in ONE picture is probably just hieroglyphs laid over one another...pure coincidence.




You can beleive that but most scholars knowledgeable in the AE culture know the culture, they have a better idea of what the world reality was for Egyptians.



"You can believe"? Interesting wording. I wonder why, everytime someone shows up here asking questions, people refer to "scholars know it better than us!"




You haven't answered my questions about words- what you started this thread off on - creation blitz is a tactic used by people to avoid answering questions, instead of discussing an issue you just keep adding more material - which is what you did in that debate you linked too.



Ive patiently answered all questions in the trashed thread, in other threads and in this thread. Whats your point?



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Ive patiently answered all questions in the trashed thread, in other threads and in this thread. Whats your point?


I'm afraid I haven't seen your trashed thread, on the basis that it's been trashed. Hanslune and I can only respond to what we see in front of us, and the fact is in this thread there is no hard evidence of the point you're trying to make beyond your own speculation. We have answered that speculation with our own thoughts, which happen to speculate differently.

If you want the debate to progress, lets have a look at this hard evidence. If on the other hand you just posted to make the point that your thread had been trashed and you were upset about it, I would respectfully suggest that an e-mail to the mods would be a more appropriate way to go about it.

LW



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneWeasel

They are beliefs and assumptions. For example. I believe this egg is a tree, even though my friend Pam says it's an egg. My belief is not in itself evidence that the egg is a tree. Indeed, unless the egg sprouts leaves and grows bark, I have no evidence whatever to suggest that Pam is correct.



Same goes for what scholars label as "hard facts". As can be seen with the "Nightsea" subject, its a matter of interpretation. And interpretation is indeed a belief/assumption. Be it my interpretation or that of an egyptologist.




I would suggest that taking a text that is commonly accepted to be myth



And thats where it ends. This discussion is not about what is "commonly accepted". Not even this Forum ATS is about that. Its about questioning consensus. One side calls "flying into the nightsea" myth. I call it description of an activity. Why is it called myth? Because of the BELIEF that ancients didnt know what flying into the sky meant.




As a very basic example, fire was a major health hazard, so were snakes, combine the two and you have dragons: a device to embody the things that people feared at the time.



So the universally known "flying serpent" and dragon, as found in China, South America, and norse mythology and the Bible is merely a reflection of fear of snakes and fire and doesnt describe some actual event? Maybe. Maybe not.



1000 or so years later, Shakespeare wrote "The Tempest" which include a flying faerie and a hideous monster. It is my right to make the assumption that the faeire was in fact Shakespeare's depiction of a grey, and the hideous monster was a representative of the reptilians.


You have a point there. Interpretation is an interesting thing. The point made above though is that I find my interpretation less of a streeeeeeeeeeeeetch than some of the stuff the roman catholic church (for instance) came up with.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Fact 1: Nowhere did I admit I dont believe my own theories.
Fact 2: I was not judged looser of the debate. I lost by member-stars.
Fact 3: My thread which contained hard evidence was trashed, while hundreds of threads such as "reptilian rapists attack teens" can prevail without problems. So who are the time-wasters?


These are quotes from your own post in the debate forum.


Originally posted by Skyfloating
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Since its obvious I am not going to catch up in star count to win this debate, I would like to give my congratulations to Isaac Koi.

I still do favour the theory but have learned that it does have weaknesses that must be compensated for by a lot of effort and twisting.

I did attempt to use every trick in the book and kept re-affirming my desire to win the debate, but in the end Isaac Koi deserves this victory for not letting himself be fooled.


You lost, you admitted you twisted the evidence because it's so weak, and you tried to fool your opponent. That's all fine IMO for a formal debate where the topic can be secondary to judging the debating skills, but when you bring the same arguments to an open forum you're breaking the site's T&C and that's probably why your other thread was trashed.

It's a pity because I happen to believe there IS some evidence for AAT but the moment you try to deceive people, your whole body of evidence is tainted.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join