Ancient Astronauts Evidence

Originally posted by LoneWeasel

If you want the debate to progress, lets have a look at this hard evidence.

A link has been provided.

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.

I opened this thread to present material referring to the ancient astronaut theory. I will continue to do so. I welcome scrutiny and rebuttal as it helps me to decide how strong or weak my case is. In the other thread I have accepted instances in which I felt that I was wrong or debunked. Other instances, such as that of the abdydos-picture are far from debunked.

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

Really? I seem to have missed your answers to my questions about your initial statement that the words sky and heaven were part of the conspiracy to hide the meaning of space.

I also asked which ancient civilizations had a concept of space - instead of a solid object.

You avoided both and continue to do so

The Abydos glyphs remains "open" because you have stated you will not accept "orthodox" evidence, you also refuse, repeatedly, to state in what context these "pictures" are found.

In other words you refuse to acknowledge the evidence against your interpretation.

Originally posted by Hanslune

You avoided both and continue to do so

My opening posts claim is that "heaven" = sky.

Actually even scholars admit that "heaven" and "sky" can be used interchangably. Do you deny this? If so, you dont happen to be christian by any chance?

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by LoneWeasel

If you want the debate to progress, lets have a look at this hard evidence.

A link has been provided.

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.

I opened this thread to present material referring to the ancient astronaut theory. I will continue to do so. I welcome scrutiny and rebuttal as it helps me to decide how strong or weak my case is. In the other thread I have accepted instances in which I felt that I was wrong or debunked. Other instances, such as that of the abdydos-picture are far from debunked.

...that's your interpretation, which it is your right to hold on to. However, it's my opinion that IsaacKoi actually did a very good job of debunking it. For what it's worth, the "helicopter" looks more like a pair of sunglasses, to me - perhaps evidence of Ancient Egyptian Ray Bans?

There are model insects from ancient South America that slightly resemble modern fighter aircraft. Coincidence? Yes. There are cave paintings that seem to depict faces that resemble what we now call greys. Coincidence? Yes. Indicative of ancient interaction with aliens? No. Evidence of ineptitude at drawing. You see what you want to believe is there, be it a face on Mars or a man in the moon or a helicopter in this rock. Quite aside from the question of authenticity, IsaacKoi undermines your point most effectively when he points out that if helicopters or saucers were actually a common occurence they would be on every stone in Egypt, and they aren't. Sorry, but in my view it's unrealistic to believe otherwise.

You started your case with a reference to sun discs. If I were an egyptian and I saw a massive fiery orb rise slowly in the morning and move across the sky to the other side, I too would assume it was in some way propelled. But it's a huge leap to suggest this is "evidence" of anything other than a lack of understanding of what made the sun move across the sky. You classify the word "myth" as a distraction - that's misleading, because it suggests myth making was not a deliberate literary movement - it was.

However, the point is you offered your opinions (and I still think they're opinoins rather than evidence) the majority of people who voted in the debate sided with your opponent. You are entitled to stick to your guns and I've no interest in trying to dissuade you. But I'm still struggling to see what the purpose of this thread is other than to revive a debate that it seems to me you have already lost.

LW

Here is some food for thought, i know what i believe.

Isis and Osiris were two of the most prominent ruling ET gods on Earth at that time. Set was also a very prestigious ET ruler, although he was secondary to Osiris. But Set craved power. He knew that if Osiris and Isis stayed together and had a child, that child Horus would be ruler and he, Set, would stay in the secondary position, so he had to find a way to kill Osiris. During this time the ETs had a lot of technology. He knew that he had to destroy the reproductive organs of Osiris, otherwise they could still produce offspring. We would say that the myth of cutting Osiris up and spreading the pieces around is really just a metaphor for the idea that Osiris was killed and his body was hidden. His body was hidden but not destroyed because Set believed that maybe some time in the future Osiris' genetics could be used to his advantage. But the phallus was taken and put in another location.

Now, Isis found Osiris' body. Obviously, she could not have been impregnated by a dead husband with no phallus. [Germane laughs.] They did have a lot of technology then, though, and Osiris' life was restored; but he could not reproduce in the usual way. So the legend says that they went up to the heavens but, of course, they went up to the ship. And what they did was take some of Osiris' genetics and clone them with Isis' genetics to produce Horus. Through a series of cloning and artificial insemination and processes that you are not familiar with here on Earth, Horus was created - they didn't need the phallus to do it - and Egyptian history talks about the divine birth of Horus. So Horus was born and he became a very powerful ruler. Set, of course, was always angry.

This is an example of how a myth that may not make sense does make sense if you look at it from another point of view. Earth history is filled with myths that seemingly do not make sense, but they really are stories of not only your extraterrestrial heritage but also of the adventures of your forefathers.

www.alienshift.com...

im going to take sometime to thoroughly research ancient myths and try toapply the above thinking to them to see what i get. In all fairness, i dont think it is wise to claim to know exactly what the ancients thought/knew of the sky. imho some ancient cultures were far more advance in their knowledge then the west were when we thought the earth was flat

edit to add: And if you consider that the three pyramids of Giza align with the three belt stars of Orion plus their fascination with the stars etc, is it that farfetched to think that we had been encountered by ET’s in the past?

ps. i keep hearing people say that the hieroglyphs of the craft in Egypt are fakes, if so, then whoever faked them defaced important heritage, unless of course, the picture is also fake EgyptTemples, AbydosWall
www.timstouse.com...

[edit on 23-11-2007 by rapturas]

Originally posted by LoneWeasel


the "helicopter" looks more like a pair of sunglasses, to me - perhaps evidence of Ancient Egyptian Ray Bans?

Why do the responses to the abydos-picture always only refer to the helicopter? This is the correct wording for you: "The helicopter, submarine, plane and tank on one single picture, are a mere coincidence".

undermines your point most effectively when he points out that if helicopters or saucers were actually a common occurence they would be on every stone in Egypt, and they aren't. Sorry.

Who claimed they were a common occurence? Not me. I am claiming they were a rare occurence of "Gods" showing up once in awhile, often not even staying for more than a brief visit.

You classify the word "myth" as a distraction - that's misleading, because it suggests myth making was not a deliberate literary movement - it was.

Yes. The only problem is that "fiction" is usually labelled as such and "non-fiction" is usually labelled as such. Today and back then.

You are entitled to stick to your guns and I've no interest in trying to dissuade you. But I'm still struggling to see what the purpose of this thread is other than to revive a debate that it seems to me you have already lost.

A few people have been telling me I ought to quit providing my case. Thanks for the suggestion, but I think I will pass on it.

There is so much more to discuss and to show on the topic, you cannot possible fit it into a tiny debate. And you know what? I am going to be showing it and discussing it right here.

I dont see the point of people coming here suggesting that I quit talking about it and providing information as I and others see it.

I dont have the time today to provide more, but sure will. Why? Because all in all, and looked at from all sides, the "ancient astronaut theory" is not a closed case just yet. There are plenty of serious and intelligent scientists out there who are STILL considering it.

Originally posted by rapturas

edit to add: And if you consider that the three pyramids of Giza align with the three belt stars of Orion plus their fascination with the stars etc, is it that farfetched to think that we had been encountered by ET’s in the past?

[edit on 23-11-2007 by rapturas]

Yes. Why does everyone view the alignment of the pyramids as such a wondrous feat? It's fairly basic geometry. And I don't see the link between a certain amount of accuracy with a set square and alient encounters, or every 8 year old in a mathematics class would be encountering greys in their pencil cases.

LW

reply to post by LoneWeasel


lol but why would they chose those stars? why even bother with stars at all? maybe they were trying to point to/tell us something? and anyway, are you saying that back then, it wasnt a feat for those mere mortals to do that? btw, are you familiar with Pythagoras going to Ancient Egypt to study with the highest priests and on his return, may havehad the knowledge he is now credited for?

edit to add:-

According to Iamblichus, Thales, impressed with his abilities, advised Pythagoras to head to Memphis in Egypt and study with the priests there who were renowned for their wisdom. He also was discipled in the temples of Tyre and Byblos in Phoenicia. It may have been in Egypt where he learned some geometric principles which eventually inspired his formulation of the theorem that is now called by his name. This possible inspiration is presented as an example problem in the Berlin Papyrus.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 23-11-2007 by rapturas]

My opening posts claim is that "heaven" = sky. Actually even scholars admit that "heaven" and "sky" can be used interchangably. Do you deny this?

They can in certain circumstance but if so that defeats the main thrust of your argument. If they mean the same thing then your conspiracy falls apart. Do you deny that the majority of the worlds langauges have different words for sky and heaven?

If so, you dont happen to be christian by any chance?

Absolutely not are you Shinto?

Skyfloating wrote:

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".

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.

So could we have more evidence about this evil conspiracy that took place a thousand years ago - or do you wish to abandon the theory?

Howdy

im going to take sometime to thoroughly research ancient myths and try toapply the above thinking to them to see what i get. In all fairness, i dont think it is wise to claim to know exactly what the ancients thought/knew of the sky. imho some ancient cultures were far more advance in their knowledge then the west were when we thought the earth was flat

At the time we are discussing there was no 'west', we do have in some cases what they thought about the world around them, most considered the sky a solid object- none AKAIK knew what space was.

edit to add: And if you consider that the three pyramids of Giza align with the three belt stars of Orion plus their fascination with the stars etc, is it that farfetched to think that we had been encountered by ET’s in the past?

Actually they don't they are just three pyramids in a line, the attributes of the stars are not reflected in the pyramid structure (size, etc). The Egyptian could see Orion and if they had been interested in it they could have copied it exactly but they did not nor do they mention Orion as being particularly important to them - they also don't duplicate the arrangement again - an argument against it being an important concept in Egyptian religion where important themes are repeated over and over again.

The "submarine" is a bit odd don't you think? That "snorkel" flairing back (actually part of the royal cartouche) so how did a 'submarine' show up at Abydos?

No propellers either or dive planes.....

Why are the pictures part of an inscription telling people who built the temple?

What does the inscription say?

Why no comment by the Egyptians on these marvy ray ban glasses?

Originally posted by Skyfloating


Why do the responses to the abydos-picture always only refer to the helicopter? This is the correct wording for you: "The helicopter, submarine, plane and tank on one single picture, are a mere coincidence".

Because it's only the "helicopter" that looks even remotely like the object you think it does, I would say. I've genuinely got no idea which other bits on the rock are supposed to be the tank, submarine or plane. I can see a tap. And what looks like a half pipe. Again - evidence that the Ancient Egyptians had mad skating skillz?

Who claimed they were a common occurence? Not me. I am claiming they were a rare occurence of "Gods" showing up once in awhile, often not even staying for more than a brief visit.

This was a culture whose Gods were distinctly unimaginative creations - basically people with the heads of various domestic animals stuck on top. I suspect that a "God" who arrived in a Black Hawk or emerged from the Nile in a huge submarine might just have achieved a slightly more prominent position in the religious hierarchy of the day than they apparently have, don't you?

I'm afraid I simply don't accept that fiction and myth are commonly defined the same - certainly not now and even more certainly not then. To claim they are misses the whole point of mythology - a point I raised in an earlier post. Myths may be fictional, but they are a specific part of our fiction heritage - namely that of taking the fantastical and using it as a device of expression.

I dont see the point of people coming here suggesting that I quit talking about it and providing information as I and others see it.

I dont have the time today to provide more, but sure will. Why? Because all in all, and looked at from all sides, the "ancient astronaut theory" is not a closed case just yet. There are plenty of serious and intelligent scientists out there who are STILL considering it.

Fair enough - and I must say I admire your persistence - I look forward to reading your future missives on the subject - with the caveat that you will need a lot more than you have hitherto offered to persuade me that you have a case!

LW

Originally posted by rapturas
reply to post by LoneWeasel

 

lol but why would they chose those stars? why even bother with stars at all? maybe they were trying to point to/tell us something? and anyway, are you saying that back then, it wasnt a feat for those mere mortals to do that? btw, are you familiar with Pythagoras going to Ancient Egypt to study with the highest priests and on his return, may havehad the knowledge he is now credited for?

It's a lovely idea and I certainly hope it is true! What is certain is that their grasp of geometry was remarkable - my comparison to an 8 year old with a set square was glib, I apologize. The construction of the pyramids itself, let alone their positioning, demonstrates that.

But actually lining up the pyramids is not that difficult if you have the ability to track the movement of the stars. Then all you need is to spot where exactly they're rotating and around which point, and you have an entirely precise map of where to plonk your massive structures. However, see Hanslune's point above about the relevance of Orion to the Egyptians.

LW

quoted from Hanslune Actually they don't they are just three pyramids in a line, the attributes of the stars are not reflected in the pyramid structure (size, etc). The Egyptian could see Orion and if they had been interested in it they could have copied it exactly but they did not nor do they mention Orion as being particularly important to them - they also don't duplicate the arrangement again - an argument against it being an important concept in Egyptian religion where important themes are repeated over and over again.

Yes the three pyramids roughly align with the belt stars, not saying that they attribute the stars characteristics!

The constellation Orion, for instance, represented Osiris, who was the god of death, rebirth, and the afterlife. The Milky Way represented the sky goddess Nut giving birth to the sun god Re. The stars in Egyptian mythology were represented by the goddess of writing, Seshat, whilst the Moon was either Thoth, the god of wisdom and writing, or Khons.

www.egyptologyonline.com...

In 1989 I published a paper in the Oxford Journal, Discussions In Egyptology (vol. 13), in which I demonstrated that the three Great Pyramids and their relative position to the Nile created on the ground a sort of 3-D 'hologram' of the three stars of Orion's belt and their relative position to the Milky Way. To support this contention, I brought into evidence the inclined shaft in the Great Pyramid which were aimed at the south meridian towards these group of stars as well as written evidence from the Pyramid Texts that identified the afterlife destiny of the pyramid-kings with Orion.

www.geocities.com...


edit to add:- Giza / Orion - Further Proof www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 23-11-2007 by rapturas]

I don't think we want to turn this thread into a rehash the Orion issue

If the Orion stars of around 2,500 years ago were brought to earth they would form an X with the pyramids position - they don't match up.

That is why Hancock then moved the construction of the pyramids back to 10,500 BC when they would be in better alignment. The problem is there were no Egyptians there, nor any other organized culture in the Nile valley. The evidence of construction points to circa 2,500 BC so that idea doesn't float - they were probably just following the limestone plateau.

However the main point against the Egyptians doing so deliberately is the non-repeating of the arrangement.

reply to post by Hanslune


It is still part of the debate (the orion rehashing) but that may just be me, eh?
So, you are telling me you know exactly what was going on in 10500BC? When was the end of the last ice age again? Noone knows without a shadow of a doubt (apparently other than you and mainstream) what was going on back then so to rule all this out is not wise in my opinion.

Relevant link here.

Hieroglyphs at Abydos and Elsewhere.

It should be noted that, while the theory of palimpsest did enjoy a brevity of it's own, that some almost identical hieroglyphs were found at the Amon Ra temple in Karnak.

The link is something of a fascinating read, and I think more interdisciplinarian efforts need to be utilized when it concerns ancient anomalies such as the Mahabarata, the Egyptians, and other strange ancient things.

It is due to note that experts are often some of the most shortsighted, pigheaded, and stubborn people you may ever find. There's a reason Socrates despaired of mankind ever gaining wisdom.

Dwell on the fact that a person can spend their entire lives in a perfectly reasonable understanding of reality that was hammered home by their own tutors, peers, and respected friends... only to find the rug yanked out from under them as new evidence is presented that directly refutes a basic tenet of their reality.

That being said, nobody likes to be made a fool of... even if they are a fool. Fools, alike, will do anything (including lie) to prevent themselves from looking foolish.

t is still part of the debate (the orion rehashing) but that may just be me, eh?

No problem with a bit of rehash eh? Especially with some hominy and bacon on the side.

The EVIDENCE we have now shows that there was no other organized cultures in the Nile valley at that time. If new evidence becomes available the theory will be advised - that is how science works. All existing evidence points to the construction of the pyramids at around 2500 BC.

Maybe and speculation is fine but will never cause a theory to be discarded because, maybe, new evidence against it MIGHT be found.

Evidence is the key

reply to post by Hanslune


so, i would assume that your view of the eroded sphinx was caused by sand right?

edit to add:-
reply to post by TheColdDragon


Indeed, and whats to say people have found evidence to suggest that the pyramids were older but are hiding them to help themselves appear to be accurate of their original claims.

About the 'palimpsests' if you look at this image and zoom in www.timstouse.com... you can see that the other hieroglyphs are deeper than that of the crafts depicted, particularly the ones on the right are deeper. Im not sure if it was a fashion to use some kind of plaster and plaster over the original hieroglyphs and then carve in new images? If that were the case, you’d probably be able to see more than one lay of stone where there is a large piece missing from the inscriptions in the image above.

[edit on 23-11-2007 by rapturas]

Ok Haslune, i must ask. Obviously you believe that AAT is a giant load, would you be willing to state then, that conventional theory is 100% or do you feel it still has alot of unanswered questions? Do you feel that it conventional understanding is FACT or THEORY? And finally if the ancients believed they interacted with gods, spoke to gods, even had the offspring of gods, and lived in cities built by the gods, do you believe this was the work of gods at all? How would you explain their interpretation? If not gods then what were they referring to? How were the gods able to achieve flight? Magic? Technology? Illusion?
They viewed their gods as appearing as human or demi human, they had names, personalities, and displayed emotion so im not looking for they mistook a sinister looking tree as an evil god or the wind spoke to them. The only 2 plausable explanations to me is that either there was another advanced civilization on earth who took advantage of the less developed cultures around them or ET's did in fact visit out planet in ancient times.
Rather than tell us what isn't real i would like to hear YOUR OWN opinions on what is real.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Relevant link here.

Hieroglyphs at Abydos and Elsewhere.

It's an interesting link, Cold Dragon, but really there's nothing on it that hasn't already been described in the link in the original post. The suggestion that there are similar hieroglyphs elsewhere would be interesting if we could see the photographs - but I've googled Amon Ra Temple inscriptions and can find no links to anything except your own link - which itself features no images. If you can find them, that would be interesting.

What your link does suggest is that "there is no mistaking" the hieroglyphs for anything other than machines. I just don't accept that this is true. On the contrary. I think what's happened is we've found unintelligible hieroglyphs that could be seen vaguely to appear something like a modern artifact. It's a massive leap from that to suggesting that we've found concrete evidence that there were helicopters in Ancient Egypt.

Meanwhile, there is significant evidence to suggest that there were NOT helicopters in Ancient Egypt. Surely that much is clear?

LW