Ancient Astronauts Evidence

reply to post by cormac mac airt


Well, the implication in your post seems to be that only the hebrews told a story of a great flood. Is that what you are saying?

Of course the Hebrews weren't the only ones to talk about a flood. However, many want to equate the Hebrew story with the end of the last ice age, advanced civilizations, etc. When in reality it is a retelling of the Flood story of Ziusudra, Atrahasis and Gilgamesh depending on which civilization was relating the story. All of which was related as a localized, but very devestating flood for the respective cultures. As the Hebrews originally started out in Mesopotamia, it is entirely understandable that their version has many similarities with the Sumerian, Akkadian and Babylonian versions. There is no reason to equate it with other flood stories as told by say the Chinese, the Aztecs, etc. Again, a matter of context of the times. My 2 cents.

reply to post by cormac mac airt


Still cant be sure if that one huge overwhelming flood did in fact happen or not. Some of us "need" it to have happened because it would explain a lot of things.

Just my opinion, but I think that is the whole problem with those who believe in AAT, advanced ancient civilizations, etc. The truth about human history from what can be reasonably proved appears to be too dull for those types. It is more exciting for them to believe that ancient homo sapiens flew aircraft, space ships, etcetera, possibly even destroying themselves over and over again, than that they took the long, grueling, hard, but entirely human, road towards civilization. Believers evidently don't have very much faith in the ability of humanity to overcome any obstacle. They would rather believe we had help. Real sad.

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
Just my opinion, but I think that is the whole problem with those who believe in AAT, advanced ancient civilizations, etc. The truth about human history from what can be reasonably proved appears to be too dull for those types. It is more exciting for them to believe that ancient homo sapiens flew aircraft, space ships, etcetera, possibly even destroying themselves over and over again, than that they took the long, grueling, hard, but entirely human, road towards civilization. Believers evidently don't have very much faith in the ability of humanity to overcome any obstacle. They would rather believe we had help. Real sad.

I'm sorry but it's even sadder to label everything older than 1500 AD, a fantasy. It's really not the fault of those who point to the evidence and say, what's this ?!! It must mean something more, but it's being ignored because it doesn't fit the already established history. That's sad. It's real real sad.

It's sad to say that your/our ancestors, made all that up.

There is nothing wrong with questioning what we know or don't know. We will always have questions. What is wrong, as subscribed to by many out there, is not using what is known as a basis for the questions we ask. Its one thing to ask "What if" or "Could it have happened this way", but realistically, whether they admit to it or not many want to present science fantasy as if it were a fact, it's just more exciting. Unfortunately, enough seem to subscribe to the fantastic, putting a bad light on those who really want to know the truth, whatever it is. That's what I take exception in.

science fantasy?

you mean like star trek communicators?
(cell phones)

or teleporters ?
(quantum teleportation (it isn't just a clone being teleported now, it's the whole enchilada)

ships that fly in space?

or men that fly in the air?

rockets to the moon and mars.
never happen.

i agree. let's just go back to pretending none of it is/was possible, anyway.

Funny, Undo! Now show me a 1,000,000 year old space ship with Homo Erectus remains at the helm. Or an Australopithicine with a communicator. How about the remains of an Asgard mothership. What!! There are none! Hmmm.

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
Funny, Undo! Now show me a 1,000,000 year old space ship with Homo Erectus remains at the helm. Or an Australopithicine with a communicator. How about the remains of an Asgard mothership. What!! There are none! Hmmm.

they haven't proved to me that erectus or australopith were our ancestors. perhaps they were severely deformed homo sapians who had been abused during the pre-flood era. i'm more inclined to believe they were the ancestors of the reptilians or even a race from another planet, brought here as a slave resource.



[edit on 29-11-2007 by undo]

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
Believers evidently don't have very much faith in the ability of humanity to overcome any obstacle. They would rather believe we had help. Real sad.

Oh, thats not the motivation at all. At least not from my side. I have so much faith in the ability of humans that I even believe they were capable of experiencing more than rubbing rocks and sticks together to create fire or running after cattle. Strangely, this argument comes up repeatedly when discussing this with opponents.

who was it that had the theory that this was a penal colony planet?

there's some support for that idea in the sumerian texts.
Enlil's temple was called the E.KUR. the E just means it's a holy
edifice of a god. KUR means, among other things, "prison" .

Isn't that interesting?

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
There is nothing wrong with questioning what we know or don't know. We will always have questions. What is wrong, as subscribed to by many out there, is not using what is known as a basis for the questions we ask. Its one thing to ask "What if" or "Could it have happened this way", but realistically, whether they admit to it or not many want to present science fantasy as if it were a fact, it's just more exciting. Unfortunately, enough seem to subscribe to the fantastic, putting a bad light on those who really want to know the truth, whatever it is. That's what I take exception in.

You are right about this. I admit that I prefer a worldview that is less dull, more exciting and interesting.

But this goes back to more essential questions on the nature of reality and the nature of the universe. And for me its always been the dullards vs. the awed.

Do I want to believe that the universe is teeming and beaming with intelligent life and worlds of mystery, beauty and fascination and that our history is not what it seems to be and that there is more behind the curtain...

...or do I want to believe that life happened accidentally from dead matter and that not much of anything has any significance and that there is not much of anything out there?

And how will either of the choices effect the immediate quality of my life and how I feel? How will it effect my curiosity and willingness to learn more and look behind more curtains?

I hereby advertise for the view of the curious and fascinated as the EFFECTS of this view are more positive and therefore more fruitful.

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
Funny, Undo! Now show me a 1,000,000 year old space ship with Homo Erectus remains at the helm. Or an Australopithicine with a communicator. How about the remains of an Asgard mothership. What!! There are none! Hmmm.

If you want truth and precision you will have to reword that to "none that I know of" and "none that I can perceive". As shown in this lengthy thread, I do perceive these things and present what I believe to be evidence of them.

i love all the odd references in those old texts, like
the river that eats men.
the door that snatches a man.
the crenellations that rise to the heavens.
the metal temple that floats, flies, rises out of the abyss,
glows, roars, gives advice and is a tangled thread beyond understanding.
the "scorpion" men with eyes that can kill a person with a look, guarding
the gates of paradise.
the shimmering shield that protects the gates of paradise.
the idea only hybrids (gilgamesh) could use the gates of paradise, as humans
weren't genetically capable of it.
there are two seraphim (serpent beings of angelic class) protecting the gates of eden so humans can't go back through

yeah, it's all very interesting.

reply to post by cormac mac airt


again, what you guys call "fantasy" and "science-fiction" and, as other posters have called it "moronic and childish notions", are facts:

One example is our ability to seed and terraform mars. We just dont have the money to do it yet. But once we start, people will be asking "Uh...could it be that thats what some other race did to earth long ago?"

For folks like you, are cell phones and planes "fantasy"?

[edit on 29-11-2007 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by undo


To get on to something more interesting undo: Would you say our bodies were created by extraterrestrials or by a non-physical source (perhaps even ourselves)? Thats something I have been pondering.

one of my favorite old stories for weird references is ancient egyptian "Legend of the Destruction of Mankind." there's so many references to technology in that story, it's mind boggling. It's no wonder German Higher Criticism deemed it a bed time story - they couldn't imagine it.

That's the problem we suffer from at the moment. Our history books and the ancient past, are strained through the opinions of professors of 300 years ago, who couldn't imagine most of what it said in the ancient texts. Children were only born from a woman's womb, period, end of story. People could not be created or cloned, neither could animals. Terraforming was an impossibity, as was space travel or air travel. Weapons capable of killing hundreds of thousands of people all at once, were not possible. Weapons that could wipe out entire cities, not possible. and so on and so on. And today, even though we now know all these things are possible, scientifically even, we still assume the writings of the ancients were fictional because the ETs didn't leave recognizable artifacts. Of course, if they did, the artifacts woul'd be thrown away by today's archaeologist on the pretense that it's just modern junk.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by undo

 

To get on to something more interesting undo: Would you say our bodies were created by extraterrestrials or by a non-physical source (perhaps even ourselves)? Thats something I have been pondering.

I think we were created elsewhere, on another planet, and brought here as slaves (perhaps as prisoner/slaves).

my theory for this is rather brief:

in what way can you enslave a population? answer: by civilizing them and bringing them into civilization with laws, rules, punishments, and so on.

civilization requires work to maintain.

and THAT, i believe, is where all the references to the "serpent" enlightening mankind, comes in. it wasn't enlightenment so much as civilization. when the rules are shown to you, and you realize this is how most of this physical universe operates, you are suddenly under pressure to comply, oblige, follow, and if you aren't always successful at compliance, you become a hindrance to the process of civilization.

reply to post by undo


yes, I understand the slave-theory and agree with it partially. I was wondering about something else though: Your stance on non-physical or soul-level creation. Would you say that the mind/body is slave and the soul free, or that the soul is entrapped within the physical universe? Were our bodies created from a non-physical vantage point or in physical laboratories?

When researching these theories for many years, these are the type of questions that arise (and not whether aliens exist or not, as many are still pondering)

to coin a phrase, "luminous beings are we and not this crude matter." i think when we aren't encased in physical bodies, we have access to other dimensional travel and so on.