 |
reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 07:23 AM 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.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 07:34 AM by Hanslune
|
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.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 07:52 AM by Skyfloating
|
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?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 07:54 AM by LoneWeasel
|
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
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 07:57 AM by rapturas
|
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]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 08:06 AM by Skyfloating
|
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.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 08:12 AM by LoneWeasel
|
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 this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 08:19 AM 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?
edit to add:-
en.wikipedia.org...
[edit on 23-11-2007 by rapturas]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 08:20 AM by Hanslune
|
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.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 08:24 AM by Hanslune
|
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?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 08:27 AM by LoneWeasel
|
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
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 08:35 AM by LoneWeasel
|
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
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 08:39 AM by rapturas
|
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!
www.egyptologyonline.com...
www.geocities.com...
edit to add:- Giza / Orion - Further Proof www.abovetopsecret.com...
[edit on 23-11-2007 by rapturas]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 08:51 AM by Hanslune
|
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 this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 08:58 AM by rapturas
|
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.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 09:24 AM by TheColdDragon
|
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.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 09:26 AM by Hanslune
|
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 this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 09:39 AM by rapturas
|
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]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 10:06 AM by metaldemon2000
|
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.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 10:09 AM by LoneWeasel
|
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
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |