Ancient Astronauts Evidence

Originally posted by Skyfloating

While you keep chanting "no evidence of extraterrestrials", "no evidence", "no evidence" allow the rest of us at ATS to continue to present the evidence. ATS was established, among other things, to present evidence of extraterrestrials.

If this is true, then ATS has been exceedingly lax in accomplishing one of its' supposed goals, considering no evidence of any extraterrestrial has ever appeared in this forum.

Or anywhere else, for that matter.

Let me say that that doesn't mean they aren't "out there somewhere."

Harte

reply to post by Harte


You must have been looking at other threads than I have. The archives contain a few hundred threads which have been proven hoax, but just as many that have not.

But none offer any evidence of extraterrestrials.

Note - "UFO" does not equal "Aliens."

Harte

reply to post by Harte


Im not really in the mood to debate something which has been covered again and again on this thread and hundreds of other threads. Going back to "Base 1" in asking "Does ET life exist?" is seen as an obstruction to "Base 2" studies.

I count thousands of abduction reports by my fellow humans, dozens of politicians responding for and responding to extraterrestrial contingencies, artifacts on Mars (Thread Recommendation: "Signs of Alien Engineering on Mars") and the existence of Billions of other stars sufficient for extra-TERRESTRIAL life...in the truest sense of the term extra-terrestrial.

As such a debate over "is there life elsewhere?" is not especially interesting to me.

No offense though

It certainly makes little sense to automatically assume that intelligent life doesn't exist somewhere else besides here.

What makes far, far less sense is the assumption that any of these other life forms have visited our planet.

Making the "there must be intelligent life elsewhere in the universe" argument in this case is somewhat of a straw man. The universe is a big place. To expect to have been visited by aliens based on this argument alone is to expect that every 50th star or so in the Milky Way is inhabited by sentient, intelligent life forms. Otherwise, why would our planet be singled out for visitation? There are enough stars in this galaxy alone that, even if you could go from one star to the next in one second, well over 3,000 years would pass before you had time to visit even half of them. And that doesn't include any time for checking out the planetary system that accompanies the star you're visiting.

That's in our galaxy alone.

No, the bouts of sleep paralysis your friends suffer from aside, there has never been any evidence presented at all, here at ATS or anywhere else, that would in the slightest way support the idea of alien visitation here on Earth.

But, like I said, that doesn't mean they're not "out" there. It also doesn't mean (I'll concede) that they've never visited here. It does, however, mean that there is no reason at all to believe they ever have.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte
It does, however, mean that there is no reason at all to believe they ever have.

Harte

No reason AT ALL? The ancient tales of Gods flying in would seem to be mis-interpretations of extraterrestrials flying in.

Of the hundreds of threads that do present evidence, here´s only one:

non terrestrial artificial structures

The entire problem is, that no matter how much evidence I and others present, the common response is:

Coincidence!

Coincidence!

Coincidence!

Coincidence!


Put when coincidences pair up to the hundreds I must begin accepting that we have been visited, are being visited and will be visited by non-terrestrials.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Harte
It does, however, mean that there is no reason at all to believe they ever have.

Harte

No reason AT ALL? The ancient tales of Gods flying in would seem to be mis-interpretations of extraterrestrials flying in.

It's as likely that they were actually flying Gods as aliens. I mean, both are based on hearsay and secondhand (at best) information.

Originally posted by SkyfloatingOf the hundreds of threads that do present evidence, here´s only one:

non terrestrial artificial structures

And how would these indicate alien visitation on Earth, even if they were the remains of some ancient structures (and they don't appear to be.)

Originally posted by SkyfloatingThe entire problem is, that no matter how much evidence I and others present,

How about presenting some evidence before whining about how nobody will accept "evidence" which you have not even presented?

Somebody's interpretation of some enigmatic shapes on another nearby planet does not constitute evidence. Well, maybe to you it does. To me, it's just somebody's interpretation of some blurry shapes in pictures taken from orbit.

I've seen pics of ufos as well. Why would I accept the Mars photos as evidence of aliens (BTW, I don't dispute that alien civilizations are likely to exist) but not the photos of ufo's?

What the pictures show, when they are not hoaxes, are things that remain unexplained. Because they are unexplained, you feel free to label them with your own desired outcome. I feel no such liberty.

IOW, there is no reason at all to believe the Earth has ever been visited by an alien species. Like I said, that doesn't mean it hasn't.

Originally posted by Skyfloatingthe common response is:

Coincidence!

Coincidence!

Coincidence!

Coincidence!

Not a coincidence at all. More like a fabrication of something you want badly to believe.

Originally posted by SkyfloatingPut when coincidences pair up to the hundreds I must begin accepting that we have been visited, are being visited and will be visited by non-terrestrials.

If you type the word "coincidence" enough, people will believe that the argument against alien visitation boils down to "Coincidence!!!" then, eh?

First we type "coincidence" ourselves several times.

Then we go on to say that too many "coincidences" must mean something, hoping all the while that nobody notices that it was we that created the false argument "Coincidence!" in the first place.

IOW, let's leave straw men out of it. I'm not claiming any coincidences here. Why do you bring this up?

Harte

And how would these indicate alien visitation on Earth, even if they were the remains of some ancient structures (and they don't appear to be.)

They dont appear to be. Right. Four equally spaced objects are surely only a "natural phenomena".

Sorry for sounding impatient, but I have been through this discussion too many times to know that it leads nowhere.

When practicing deliberate speculation and extrapolation you have to suspend orthodox views temporarily and view things from another angle.

The angle all this is viewed from is based on the pre-suppostion that there is a lot of extraterrestrial traffic in the universe.

Without this pre-supposition, the whole theory falls apart.

Now, SUPPOSING that this traffic does exist...can we THEN see possible indocators towards it? I say we can.

But without looking at it from that angle, of course its all a load of nonsense.



[edit on 21-12-2007 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Skyfloating


i concur

Originally posted by Skyfloating

And how would these indicate alien visitation on Earth, even if they were the remains of some ancient structures (and they don't appear to be.)

They dont appear to be. Right.

Four equally spaced objects are surely only a "natural phenomena".

Sorry for sounding impatient, but I have been through this discussion too many times to know that it leads nowhere.

If you've been through it that many times, then you know that there are "natural" explanations for these things, assuming they really are objects and not some trick of the light. Right?

Originally posted by SkyfloatingWhen practicing deliberate speculation and extrapolation you have to suspend orthodox views temporarily and view things from another angle.

The angle all this is viewed from is based on the pre-suppostion that there is a lot of extraterrestrial traffic in the universe.

Without this pre-supposition, the whole theory falls apart.

I have to agree with you here. If you want to engage in speculation, then obviously you have to suspend disbelief.

But I'm not talking about disbelief here. I'm saying there's no reason to believe it.

Originally posted by SkyfloatingNow, SUPPOSING that this traffic does exist...can we THEN see possible indocators towards it? I say we can.

But without looking at it from that angle, of course its all a load of nonsense.

Sure. But the fact that the discussion begins with "Supposing..." means that there's no reason to believe it.

Now, if you want to go back and change what was posted regarding the stated purpose of sites like ATS, (BTW it was )

ATS was established, among other things, to present evidence of extraterrestrials.

then feel free. I didn't see anything in that post about "supposition of heavy alien traffic in this area of space" when it was definitively stated that evidence of extraterrestrials had been presented here at ATS.

It was this statement that drew me in to the conversation, after all.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


The funny thing about many people who ridiculed others throughout history saying that their theories were bunk and that their ideas were silly, untrue, ridiculous, were proven wrong also at some point or another. ANYONE who believes they think they might even be 70% right and that they are on track are probably 90% wrong.

Remember that the great inventors and discoverors over time were the ones with the crazy, outlandish ideas and the only people brave enough to venture into uncharted waters. These were the people who risked their lives and reputations when noone else believed in them.

Now imnot saying that it doesn't happen but the more mainstream people who believe themselves to be 100% right donot take the same risks.
Sure there is not alot of evicence to support alot of these claims but there is an equal lack of evidence to debunk it.

Saying that venturing out into the dark areas of history and science in order to make new discoveries is the wrong thing to do is the same as saying a big F U to all the brave men and women who risked their lives, reputations, and families in order to bring you the knowledge we have today.

BTW debunking something on ATS doesn't mean its counted as being debunked, actual research must be done in the field. All debunking on ATS proves is that some people who own computers who visit a website don't believe you.

Keep on keepin on Skyfloating

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
Saying that venturing out into the dark areas of history and science in order to make new discoveries is the wrong thing to do is the same as saying a big F U to all the brave men and women who risked their lives, reputations, and families in order to bring you the knowledge we have today.

Venturing out into well-lit areas of history and science - and then pretending these areas are "dark areas" - is also the wrong thing to do, is it not?

Originally posted by metaldemon2000BTW debunking something on ATS doesn't mean its counted as being debunked, actual research must be done in the field. All debunking on ATS proves is that some people who own computers who visit a website don't believe you.

This is true. I think if you read anything I've written as a "debunker" here, you'll find links to precisely the research you here have claimed is necessary.

Actually, I hardly ever contradict anything anyone says here at ATS unless I have the evidence - usually in the form of previously published and accepted scientific research (exactly what you said) to back up my statements. Or, at least, I usually submit evidence that the evidence presented in support of the false claim was either hoaxed or fraudulent.

Run a search if you don't believe me.

On the other hand, I'm not debunking anything in this last exchange in this thread. Merely pointing out that evidence of extraterrestrials has never appeared here at ATS (or anywhere else, for that matter.)

Even went out of my way (twice) to assert that the fact that no evidence has been presented doesn't mean that visitations haven't occurred - it just means that there's no reason to believe that we've ever been visited.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


Look im not going to debate on an old thread but what i am going to say is this.

If we do not constantly revisit a subject with new ideas and different perspectives we have done nothing and will do nothing to gain a better understanding about where we came from and where we are going.

Just because the road is "well lit" it doesnt mean that your in the right part of town. Not everything that has been discovered is correct. There are many who believe that Einstiens theories are a dead end and are close but can never prove the unified field theory. The problem with this is that many people have too much invested in the theory and backing out would not only cost alot but it would be embarassing. We all know humans avoid embarrasment like the plague.

This is the same reason why alternative historical theories will remain as such, theories. Imagine every egyptologist in the world finding out they were way off. Their lifes work ruined in minutes. It would not only destroy them but the institutions built around their conclusions. This is why modern thinking is protected almost to the death. We need to break away from this backward thinking if we are to move forward as a society.

Anyways don't bother to reply i am done here.

"Ancient Astronauts" are a misunderstanding of the actual event.

However, there is real evidence and historic data, though it is been mythologized by mankind.

It's Real!

reply to post by Incarnated



yes it is

If that ancient astronaut theory was true then the ancients 'nauts would most like have aimed for the moon, and if they did, they would of left the Ancient Hall of Records.

One mistake is to mix ancient astronauts with aliens.

There is an abundance of evidence on earth that could support that ancient earthing could of had flying machines and elecrto-technologies rather than visitors from afar.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by IvanZana


Well if you want to play that game! It's the same one thing to mix "Aliens" for something that was here on this planet first.

Come on.... Let's not bog down in term semantics.

The reality of the story is that "aliens", that were around from the times before mankind, established life here on earth, and that through rebelion a group of them interacted with humanity in ways that they should not have.

Adam and Eve were more "Aliens" then those creatures where.

Originally posted by metaldemon2000

Look im not going to debate on an old thread but what i am going to say is this.

If we do not constantly revisit a subject with new ideas and different perspectives we have done nothing and will do nothing to gain a better understanding about where we came from and where we are going.

Just because the road is "well lit" it doesnt mean that your in the right part of town. Not everything that has been discovered is correct. There are many who believe that Einstiens theories are a dead end and are close but can never prove the unified field theory. The problem with this is that many people have too much invested in the theory and backing out would not only cost alot but it would be embarassing. We all know humans avoid embarrasment like the plague.

You display a poor grasp of the scientific method with these statements.

Originally posted by metaldemon2000This is the same reason why alternative historical theories will remain as such, theories. Imagine every egyptologist in the world finding out they were way off. Their lifes work ruined in minutes.

Imagine an Egyptologist that makes these discoveries, his life's work exalted in minutes.

Dude could write his own check.

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
Anyways don't bother to reply i am done here.

Really?

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
reply to post by Incarnated

 

yes it is

Harte

skyfloating: thanks for an interesting thread.

Did these gods create the sun? The myths say the did - do you believe that?

hans, you were asking how SF decides what is myth and what is fact, I find it hilarious you fail to see the irony in your question, since this is EXACTLY the problem (I think) SF started this thread to point out :

To be honest I think you are being deliberately disingenuous with this question. It is plainly obvious to me at least what the answer is: as far as we know, creating a sun from scratch is impossible or at least so far beyond our level of knowledge as to be beyond speculation about the possibility thereof. Making a flying metal 'apartment" or a "chariot that ascends to the heavens' or a "thunderbolt that destroys cities" is very much within our level of knowledge and is known to be physically possible.

It should also be obvious that pretty much everyone is going to ask the medicine man what that big bright thing in the sky is and where it came from, so many medicine men are going to have to answer with a similar story: so and so god made it. I fail to see why anyone living in true stone/bronze age style would need to make up a story about
- genetic engineering
- rockets
- airplanes
- nuclear bombs
- powerful creatures from the stars coming and talking to them.
- magnificent cities with all of the above in them ruled by creatures from far away destroyed by flood/etc

nor where they would get there inspiration for many of them. Even allowing for huge imaginations, which might allow these stories to appear once by chance, this fails to explain why they appear in so many cultures, in so many places, at so many times, with so much correlation.

I'm sorry. you can argue that there is no HARD proof if you want, and even though i have seen enough around to pretty much convince me, i will admit you may be right and it may ALL be fabricated/mistakes/misinterpreted. I do NOT see how you can claim there is no evidence at all though, that is patently incorrect and to be honest, feels like something even you don't believe. Multiple matching witness statements by unrelated witnesses is decent evidence, especially if they know things they shouldn't be able to guess/make up: the rapist had a tattoo on his ass or the flying craft took off in a huge column of flames and smoke

as SF said: there are multiple reasons no verifiable high tech relics are known about:
-the society was apparently one of a very small group of elites with technological gadgets and a whole bunch of basically slaves, so there weren't many gadgets to begin with and those that were around would be extremely valuable and kept hidden if found( I'm talking in the old days here).
- if there really was a high tech society back then, then the secret societies (inner circles of priests etc) would know about it and keep this knowledge alive amongst themselves, even after a disaster wiped out general knowledge of it, whilst also trying to hide it from everyone else: eg knowing how to make a machine gun in present day iraq where everyone can get one isnt that useful. knowing the same in 100 AD would be priceless.
- if these societies existed then it is likely that they, or other subsequent ones still exist and have inherited this knowledge, and of course would want all relics for themselves to maintain a tech edge over the rest of the world (eg possible examples of this are the nazis in ww2, pretty much every intelligence agency worldwide, high level Freemasons perhaps etc.
- extremely powerful groups like the Vatican also have it in there interests to keep this sort of thing hidden
- sea level rise of 100 feet? metres? cant remember, since the last ice age would have covered over any coastal/fertile river delta civilisations, which is likely most of them. atlantis was supposed to be an island remember.
-I cant remember how many stories I have heard about discoveries of oopart's which were hushed up, stolen.or destroyed

some other points:
over the entire of human history, say 1.5 million years since those campfires, interactions with either alien technologically advanced "god" beings or human society in an advanced state probably only occurred for hundreds, perhaps 1 or two thousand years, most likely much less a tiny fraction. so not only were the techno gadgets coveted, controlled, probably mostly under the sea, and physically located in only a few places (cities of the 'gods"), they were also only around in use for an extremely short time period.

Of course the biggest obstacle to accepting the possibility of this is accepting the possibility of a global conspiracy , or many small conspiracies around the globe, to cover up any finds that are made, since even i think that some things would be found every now and then if such a technologically advanced group ever existed. This is not a problem for me, i have seen the proof of such a conspiracy, eg, in the similar MO's of "terrorist" problem reaction solution attacks all around the world, from Russia and Spain to America england and Australia, proving to my satisfaction a globally coordinated group with a 'not so nice' agenda. I have seen the control they have over the media, and the influence and confusion that can be sown in physical sciences and medicinal science, so I have no doubt the same can be done to archaeological science. (and no this does not mean I think everyone is in on it, 99% of those doing the bidding of this group don't even know of its existence and think they are acting for their own (benign or even positive) reasons

anyway its very late and this is nowhere near as eloquent as it seemed in my head, so i might leave this till I've had some sleep.
cheers

(Oh and by the way, I'm doubtful of the hieroglyphics helicopter thing too, hans, but Ive seen plenty of other things that convince me enough to make that irrelevant.)