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.

 

Ancient Astronauts Evidence

page: 15
2
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by evanmontegarde

If you think 1.5 million years is impressive, how about 3.5 billion for fossil stromatolites? Purely biological and yet they left detectable traces. Now I'm pretty sure that bacteria leave less traces behind than advanced technology...



You bring forward one of the better arguments vs. AAT. This is precisely the reason "ancient astronaut theory" is not taken seriously in academic circles.

Still I have to ask myself what the ancients were talking about when talking about flying Gods, and if this "ruling elite" was keen on leaving their technology behind.

Some sources, such as the Bible, clearly show that the "Gods" wanted to leave humankind in ignorance.




posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


The fact that traces of a campfire 1.5. million years ago actually supports the ideat that civilization exists longer than formerly assumed.

How about you adressing the last three pictures posted? Your interpretation of them will be interesting.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Oh, and since you guys keep defending consensus history as "THE correct and factual and irrefutable history", here`s yet another thread (just opened recently)...

"Puzzling" Map


Isnt it funny how academics are always "puzzled" by anything that contradicts what they have been indoctrinated to believe?

If they werent brainwashed into accept a certain version of history, then they wouldnt constantly be "puzzled" and "baffled" at anything outside of that tiny box.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   
heh like i wrote in that other thread , its so funny when all the sceptics and debunkers rush to any thread defending the modern view of history based on all the "historical data " and then a map shows up that blantly shows that our umm "grat" historian could not even make their story straight about the past 400 years or so let alone make it a thousand years .. rofl



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Thill
 


thill....some clowns are not only trying to tell me what happened a 1000 years ago...something we can still re-construct a little, they are trying to tell me they know what happened 10 000 years ago...

...and on the pages before, they are telling me what happened 1.5. million years ago and more than a billion years ago on earth.

Not only is there no consensus on what happened only 6 years ago (9/11), but I doubt they can tell me "for a fact" what happened billions of years ago.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   
References in the hindu texts to Indra's many headed iron weapon have been run threw the skeptics filter, and the result was that they believed it was simply a meteor or meteor shower. So the question then became, what of the weapon that was shot from earth and went up into space (the firmament, the starry sky)? Was this a meteor, also? One that launched itself from the planet? Meteors did odd things back then, apparently.

In truth, I can see why someone would be skeptical of their stories, but to offer the meteor excuse when other examples contradict it, makes for poor argument, because:

1) It suggests that it was a real event BUT only as a natural phenomenon and not what the texts claim at all.
and
2) To maintain that position, it must ignore the other references that don't fit.

Again, to be fair, I can see why someone would be skeptical of some of the references, such as the mingling of arrows, maces and so forth, with advanced tech or what sounds to be advanced tech. But to assume the advanced tech isn't real BECAUSE it is mingled with lower level tech or sounds as if it is mixed with lower level tech, is only going to fly if you have
valid reason to not believe any of it in the first place. Afterall, the incredible descriptions of the advanced tech, in some cases, is a page right out of NASA handbook, a physics lab and a modern day military, all rolled into one.

For example, Saubhwa's flying city cloaks. It has cloaking technology. Cloaking technology is not a fairy tale. It exists today. One of the pilots of a vimana is piloting the thing with thought. Another, protects himself with a forcefield of some kind. These are not Childress texts now, these are straight out of the Hindu texts, so no excuses that it's obviously fringer stuff. It isn't. If you don't like what the sumerians, hindus, hebrews, akkadians and babylonians had to say, it's not my fault. You'll have to blame your current dilemma on the guys at university who told you ancient history was one big metaphor.

[edit on 6-12-2007 by undo]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by evanmontegarde

If you think 1.5 million years is impressive, how about 3.5 billion for fossil stromatolites? Purely biological and yet they left detectable traces. Now I'm pretty sure that bacteria leave less traces behind than advanced technology...



You bring forward one of the better arguments vs. AAT. This is precisely the reason "ancient astronaut theory" is not taken seriously in academic circles.

Still I have to ask myself what the ancients were talking about when talking about flying Gods, and if this "ruling elite" was keen on leaving their technology behind.

Some sources, such as the Bible, clearly show that the "Gods" wanted to leave humankind in ignorance.


Thanks


I'm definitely open to the idea of "ancient astronauts" and I'm not trying to 'debunk' you at all, I just like to ask where the evidence is!

Last summer I saw an interesting presentation by a guy named George Haas about the Cydonia structures on Mars, and he too invoked Sumerian mythology to explain the possibilities of how advanced civilization could have arisen. There is some very possible circumstantial evidence, but so far not nearly enough to convince (or others here as this thread has shown).




The fact that traces of a campfire 1.5. million years ago actually supports the ideat that civilization exists longer than formerly assumed.


Very true. The date of human origin keeps being pushed farther and farther back, to the point where it's impossible to determine what exactly defined a human from our hominid ancestors.

That link about the map above supports something I do agree with - that the 15th century Europeans had more knowledge about the rest of the world than accepted history agrees on. Pi Ri's (spelling?) map has always been interesting to me, and I don't think I've ever read a convincing argument against its authenticity.

As for the pictures I'm tired and lazy at the moment so I'll check them out later.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by evanmontegarde


I'm definitely open to the idea of "ancient astronauts" and I'm not trying to 'debunk' you at all, I just like to ask where the evidence is!



People continually saying "show me the evidence" will drive me to look deeper into my stuff. Keep it coming people





Last summer I saw an interesting presentation by a guy named George Haas about the Cydonia structures on Mars, and he too invoked Sumerian mythology to explain the possibilities of how advanced civilization could have arisen. There is some very possible circumstantial evidence, but so far not nearly enough to convince (or others here as this thread has shown).



There is the faint possibility that all this ancient astronaut stuff has something to do with mars, with us being survivors from mars or with some giant flood or comet-impact disaster having struck mars. But thats so difficult to find indicators for, I dont go into it much.




Very true. The date of human origin keeps being pushed farther and farther back, to the point where it's impossible to determine what exactly defined a human from our hominid ancestors.




If you believe that the universe is densely populated it naturally follows some of "them" will have showed up here in that large time-span. Its also easy to speculate that civilization has grown and collapsed many, many, many times during that time.

The alternative is to believe that we are alone or almost alone and that nothing much has happened in Billions of years. Which is what some of the skeptics showing up here actually believe. For me it would be premature to conclude that nothing else than hunting buffalo has occured in that time-span.




That link about the map above supports something I do agree with - that the 15th century Europeans had more knowledge about the rest of the world than accepted history agrees on. Pi Ri's (spelling?) map has always been interesting to me, and I don't think I've ever read a convincing argument against its authenticity.




The fairy tale goes that our ancestors had no idea of how the world looked, no idea of what the sky was and had never travelled beyond their own little villages.

Given the curious nature of humans, I find this somewhat unlikely. Given the written accounts as mentioned by undo and myself, its even more unlikely that they didnt know what the sky was.

Instead, I would suggest that this "not knowing" is a product of the dark ages...which is why they are called dark.

Now, if some of these skeptics can produce accounts of people believing in "the flat earth" that are 2000 years old, I might change my mind.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   
While this is an interesting speculative topic, this thread is almost impossible to read. (in fact, I managed three pages before I had enough.) On one side we have someone who is putting forth all the common alternate theories...on the other, we have someone who is reciting what they have been taught. Does anyone think around here?

Let's start with the "heaven" and "sky" issue. Unless I miss my guess, what the OP was trying to say is that, when those of us who speak and read English read translations of various ancient texts, anything involving the sky is termed heaven, which gives it a religious connotation. Which I do think is misleading.

As one person pointed out on here, many ancients referred to the sky as being like a river. Of course, that only strengthens how misleading it is to dismiss their descriptions as uneducated bunk. Yes, some cultures thought of the skies as though they were a lid on the world, if you would. But that is because object have a vanishing point, and thus it appears that there is a point at which the sky comes to an end. It is somewhat deceptive to act like this means any description of the sky should be taken as meaning something different than we would mean if we stood on the ground and watched something in the sky. It would be the same thing, the only difference being that we can more accurately describe it, rather than having to compare it to terrestrial phenomenon.

That being said, obviously some mythology is obviously not meant to be an attempt at any sort of literal history. But say...take something from the Bible. Say, the flying fiery chariot from the Old Testament. Hm. That would be a luminescent, flying, airborne vehicle. We can argue all day as to what is mythology and what was an attempt to record history. Mostly, that comes down to opinion, the mainstream opinion of course being to label anything mention gods or feats which we do not think have ever occurred prior to the modern era as being mythical. Nobody can PROVE either POV, as it stands. Its something that is interesting to think about, a possibility to ponder.

There are two things that define a fool; the inability to entertain any new ideas, and the compulsion to blindly accept all new ideas.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
While this is an interesting speculative topic, this thread is almost impossible to read. (in fact, I managed three pages before I had enough.) On one side we have someone who is putting forth all the common alternate theories...on the other, we have someone who is reciting what they have been taught. Does anyone think around here?



Yes, the thread got derailed to some extent. One could have assumed that (of all places) this is the place to discuss alternative theories but some act like its not even a matter of discussion.




Let's start with the "heaven" and "sky" issue. Unless I miss my guess, what the OP was trying to say is that, when those of us who speak and read English read translations of various ancient texts, anything involving the sky is termed heaven, which gives it a religious connotation. Which I do think is misleading.



yes, that is what I was trying to say. well put.




As one person pointed out on here, many ancients referred to the sky as being like a river. Of course, that only strengthens how misleading it is to dismiss their descriptions as uneducated bunk. Yes, some cultures thought of the skies as though they were a lid on the world, if you would. But that is because object have a vanishing point, and thus it appears that there is a point at which the sky comes to an end. It is somewhat deceptive to act like this means any description of the sky should be taken as meaning something different than we would mean if we stood on the ground and watched something in the sky. It would be the same thing, the only difference being that we can more accurately describe it, rather than having to compare it to terrestrial phenomenon...



That would be the balanced viewpoint of neither one side nor the other side but an openness to various possibilities. The topic was made black-white by us, thanks for bringing it back to normal.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
man the Earth is flat.

all this "universe" crap is just a lie to trick us into thinking there is no Jesus!

we are the center of everything!



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   
I just noticed this thread. If you replace the phrase "ancient astronauts" with "ancient flight" to be more specific, then yes, it is 100% fact that there was ancient flight. I could fill a page quoting what cultures all around the world said about ancient flight and flying machines, but that would take more time than it's worth. But just in case nobody else has bothered, below are pictures of what some ancient planes looked like. Archaeologists date these to about 1500 years ago (about the date attributed to the Nasca lines), but in reality they may be much older. These small models of ancient airplanes were found in several places in Columbia. What better proof of ancient flight than actually seeing artifacts that ancient people made of them.







posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Elhardt
 


yes, thanks for posting those planes. And thats only 1% of the evidence for ancient flight.

Our entire religious mythology is based on beings that flew the skies and heavens.

The trick our "modern" day establishment used was to label ALL of it as "religion" and "mythology".


The people who show up here purporting to know what happened 13 000 years ago, dont seem to realize that a tiny meteorite (neednt be bigger than a mile) can wipe out an entire planet and with it lots of evidence. Thats why we are lucky to have this evidence left.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Skyfloating -

balance is what I was trying to get at. It is vitally important for everyone, whatever side they are on, to understand what we KNOW and what we THINK. It is amazing how blurred the lines between fact and opinion have become, in every aspect of life.

While I don't like all the ideas youve put forth, I like the spirit of it. You're questioning things that appear to you to not be factual, but opinion based. That, to me, is a vital part of growing knowledge.

Ive read a decent bit on the subject, from both sides of the aisle. I think its pretty obvious that there is no available proof that there were any AA's, but I think there are certainly a lot of curious details. I am curious what the opinion of the hardcore skeptics on here is about the instances of UFO's in the arts throughout history is? That is one of that aspects that gives me a little pause.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet

balance is what I was trying to get at. It is vitally important for everyone, whatever side they are on, to understand what we KNOW and what we THINK. It is amazing how blurred the lines between fact and opinion have become, in every aspect of life.



Its interesting to see that fanatics breed opposing fanatics. In other words, I became unbalanced once I came under hard attacks and insults in this thread.
These attackers now gone, its easier to see both sides of the story.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Howdy Skyfloating



The fact that traces of a campfire 1.5. million years ago actually supports the ideat that civilization exists longer than formerly assumed.




How about you adressing the last three pictures posted? Your interpretation of them will be interesting.


Sure which three?

Oh but before I answer YOUR questions why haven't you explained the evidence for your dismissal of the fact of archaeological survivals for materials more than 10,000 years? You haven't explained how you arrived at that stunning statement.


Here is your comment:


After 10 000 years? You gotta be kidding. Where are the remains of the World Trade Center? Where is the evidence it ever existed? Alright, after 6 years you might still find some rubble and a piece of molten plane, but after 100 years? Doubtful. After 1000 years? I dont know. After 10 000 years? No way.


1. Please explain, with evidence, why you can say “no way”, I mean you do have a basis for saying so don’t you? I mean its not just you making up stuff to stroke your ego is it?

2. Why the use of the phrase “Doubtful” please explain

3. Oh and you’ve never came back with your criteria for determining whether a myth is “real” or a myth. I mean you are not just cherry picking those myths that you like and rejecting those that which doesn’t fit your mind set are you? What is that criteria?



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Hello Hanslune,

nice to have you back.

A short answer to your question: A small meteorite can have a large impact.

My theory holds that earth was destroyed around 11000 years ago, after which the Gods left the earth to "return maybe someday". The few technological remains leftover after the disaster were kept in hiding by the ruling elite.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Howdy Skyfoating



My theory holds that earth was destroyed around 11000 years ago, after which the Gods left the earth to "return maybe someday". The few technological remains leftover after the disaster were kept in hiding by the ruling elite.


What an amusing side step. Thats nice but what are the answers to my three questions?

Oh and if the world was destroyed 11000 years ago-where exactly are we now?



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


In reply to your three questions: I am highly skeptical of our ability to determine any past that is older than a few thousand years. Even more so considering that a single meteorite of the size of a mile can wipe out an entire civilization.

You, on the other hand, are making statements of what went on not only 10 000 years ago, but also a million years ago and a billion years ago. Go ahead and do that, but I have my doubts.

The only basic difference between us and others is that we believe in a populated universe and the reality of interstellar travel, while others believe we have been isolated for thousands and millions of years.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 07:22 AM
link   


In reply to your three questions: I am highly skeptical of our ability to determine any past that is older than a few thousand years.


Hans: Why? Is this you rejecting a large body of knowledge so it fits your personal world view or do you have evidence of this? How do you explain the volume of materials that have been found from these time periods?



Even more so considering that a single meteorite of the size of a mile can wipe out an entire civilization.


Hans: What does that have to do with the first sentence? Such an impact would be readily detectable, especially if it occurred recently.



You, on the other hand, are making statements of what went on not only 10 000 years ago, but also a million years ago and a billion years ago.


Hans: I’m presenting evidence of what was going on then or what is thought was going on then that is supported by the evidence, especially 10,000 years ago I don’t recall making any comment on millions and billions of years ago.



Go ahead and do that, but I have my doubts.


Hans: Yet you seem to be so knowledgeable of this period as to not only know that the available evidence is wrong but that you also know what REALLY happened. How is that?




The only basic difference between us and others is that we believe in a populated universe and the reality of interstellar travel, while others believe we have been isolated for thousands and millions of years.


Hans: You appear to have a religious like belief in that yes, unfortunately the evidence to support it is lacking. While the evidence for man being on his own and developing at his own pace is overwhelming. By the way I believe there are aliens out there somewhere but I’m also aware of how difficult interstellar space is to travel thru. I await evidence of alien intervention.

I personally like to think an alien AI scout went thru this system many millions of years ago. Evidence, none



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join