Ancient Astronauts Evidence

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune


The ancient had no idea what “space” was, most cultures considered the sky a solid object.





Are you sure? Really sure? And many of the artifacts and glyphs found (as well as ancient structures) say something completely different. The ancients very well knew what 'space' was.
Just my two cents.

Then again, it will always come down to 'who' was the last people to touch the historic records of anything that determines our past. Right? Manipulation has happened so much in the past that it truly comes down to who won or who had the most influence (money). It's THEIR history that we are taught, not necessarily the real history.




posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
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.


I'm sorry, but this simply isn't an accurate description of the Egyptian system of belief. Let's have it right - the Egyptians believed in a series of Gods they created to represent the key elements of their lives - see a list here - which they personified with some fairly unimaginative creations, usually involving a human body with a domestic animal's head on top. There's nothing extraterristrial or even advanced about a drawing of a fellow with a lion's head.

There's nothing particularly shocking about Egypt being fairly obssessive about sun and sand. There's nothing about this religion that is particularly impressive. Indeed the majority of Ancient Egyptian religious heritage seems to have been about a relatively obnoxious aristocracy lording it over long suffering paupers. Not much sign of advanced or higher learning at work there - that's humankind in a nutshell if you ask me, doing it all on its own.

All this awestruck gazing at Ancient Egypt is fine and dandy - but lets not pretend they were anytihng more remarkable - or any less fundamentally human - than they actually were.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I'm having a problem embedding images in my posts so I apolgize for not posting the actual photo in question found here.

Take a look at the fourth dynasty cartouches. Take a good look at #23 which belongs to "Kafra". The term meaning, "Appearing like Ra" or "rise Ra!" according to the experts.

Do you notice the glyph that resembles one of the "plane" glyphs in question?

Many of these anomalies are probably not what we are trying to make them out to be.

2PacSade-



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by LoneWeasel
 


ok considering the fact you arent impressed by the Ancient Egyptians shall we try the ancient Hindu's (or maybe donts in your case) from India. www.hinduwisdom.info...

One thing i would like to say about the AEgyptians, why is it that modern man has struggled to replicate scaled down versions of the pyramids resorting in having to use modern technology because they struggled so much? Funny that, I would have thought it would be a walk in the park for the so so great modern man, no?

edit to add:- www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 23-11-2007 by rapturas]



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapturas

One thing i would like to say about the AEgyptians, why is it that modern man has struggled to replicate scaled down versions of the pyramids resorting in having to use modern technology because they struggled so much? Funny that, I would have thought it would be a walk in the park for the so so great modern man, no?


have you tried to build anything with normal everyday housebricks ?

what you haven't ?

perhaps thats because you aren't used to it and so don't have the neccesary knowledge. What I'd like to see is an AE attempt to build anything using advanced materials

didn't seem to manage that did they



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

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".

I first became aware of this oddity when learning foreign languages. I remember asking various language teachers "Uh...wait a minute. Sky and Heaven are the same word? They are not in English!"



the words we use today are misleading. for instance the heaven we refer to as the realm of the dead in the ancient world was never in the sky. it was known as the underworld. the place we refer to as heaven when we think of as the place where god lives in the ancient world is always a mountaintop so was also never in the sky. The modern usage of "heavens" to describe the sky above is the same as the ancient usage, but the ancients believed that these heavens were formed of water. this is why you hear about things like the sun barque of Ra, a boat in which the sun travels across the sky. None of these ancient understandings of these terms adds any weight to the claim that they knew anything about astronautics does it.

perhaps you are deliberately missing this crucial piece of evidence because it doesn't fit in with your own falsified attempt at history and frankly silly belief system that you are trying to build with it

you wonder why no one orthodox takes these claims of yours seriously
its not because they are impossible, but because you just don't understand the context. Now I expect you are going to say something abotu debunkers being narrow minded again like you usually do but you might want to consider that if you are theorising about the ancient world the first thing you should do is actually learn about it. to not do so and then attempt to create hypothese about it is the very definition of narrow mindedness



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by kerkinana walsky
 


yes in fact i have and with no training, in fact so has my mother in building a brick wall


But you are missing something, the people that attempted to build a scaled down pyramid were supposedly "experts", they also had people that knew about construction (plus they didnt try to build it in one day) so your argument isnt a very good one imho but nice try


Edit to add: I think your argument has pointed out one thing, unless you lived in those times, you will struggle to fully understand what these people really knew/thought or attempted to construct


[edit on 23-11-2007 by rapturas]



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapturas


Edit to add: I think your argument has pointed out one thing, unless you lived in those times, you will struggle to fully understand what these people really knew/thought or attempted to construct



agreed
unless perhaps you have studied them properly



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Has anyone ever considered that maybe the egyptians did not build the pyramids and they are in fact far older. I mean think about it for a second. Referring to my posts in this thread
about how society would be confused on who did what if we had to start over from scratch again, we could also be confused on the origional builders of the pyramids. The egyptians could have claimed the pyramids as their own, refurbished them from the inside out, and litter them with egyptian culture thus erasing evidence of the previous culture who built them. And since the egyptians held the pyramids in such high regard and not understanding their true purpose decided to bury their dead inside of them.
Now before you say "how bogus", think about it if they had managed to resurface the outside and litter the insides with their own culture, wouldnt the tests to prove their authenticity somehow point to the egyptians building them and not an older culture. I have seen some houses and other structures 100+ years old refurbished and look like they were built brand new. The same can be achieved with the pyramids if we really wanted to do it even nowadays. And it would probably cost less and be less labour intensive than building a pyramid in the first place. Plus it wouldnt be the 1st time one culture has absorbed a previous or recently conquered culture into their own collective and take credit for all their achievements.

Im not saying this is a new theory or anything but its just a thought i was having earlier.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by kerkinana walsky
 


but there are people that study the universe, doesnt mean they know its true essence and meaning =]

Edit to add:
metaldemon2000
i have heard that the ancient egyptians were the end of an old civilisation (atlantis etc) but i still need to look into it in more detail. Will check out the link you provided though so thank you =] there is so much im trying to go over and such limited storage capacity in my mind (any old excuse lol) but time is relative and my time is spent studying & learning.


[edit on 23-11-2007 by rapturas]



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapturas


but there are people that study the universe, doesnt mean they know its true essence and meaning =]


in this forum there are only two types of belief
1. that we build theories from facts that have been established though scholarly work and ignore our personal beliefs in favour of evidence
2. that we build theories from personal belief that has emerged from a love of sci fi and ignore the facts in favour of non scholarly work

which would you suggest is the most effective way to the truth in any discipline

except TV broadcasting



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by kerkinana walsky
 

lol I would chose both in all honesty, many things were considered sci fi a decade or more ago and look what happened =] the imagination is a wonderful place for without it, nothing we do would be possible including having this discussion.

If Einstein did not use his imagination, we wouldnt have special or general relativity. So, i would say a fair helping of both until we know for sure what is going on (having all the facts). Some evidence is elusive and therefore the missing pieces (theories) must come from the mind be it sci fi or whatever. And whos to say that sci fi writers know something we dont? May the force be with you


Do you believe that anti-matter propulsion systems are sci fi? or that string theory is just scifi? Oh and the imagination and the ancient egypitans, you wanna see a crazy set of hieroglyphs with a skull superimposed on to it?

edit:
what do you make of this


and see what happens

coincidence? Also, do you think stargates are sci fi? if so, check this thread out and if you disbelieve, read the last 5 or so pages.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 23-11-2007 by rapturas]



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by kerkinana walsky
 


Ok this is going nowhere fast for either side so im going to set the record strait. I can understand why you defend the mainstream beliefs, it is the same reason why we defend the alternative ones. But you are missing the point. We dont intend to discredit the conventional beliefs or the people who discovered them. Nor is there any intent to cause any upheaval in society. As much evidence that there is to support conventional theories, there are an equal amount of evidence to support the alternative ones too. And you couldnt possibly deny all of the evidence i am sure there are things you question too. And as long as there continues to be evidence that cannot be debunked, so will there be individuals that support it. You want scholars and archeologists to support these claims in order to beleive you say? Fine , but i am not a scholar and in order for people such as that to begin looking into it, an interest has to arise. All i wish to do is raise awareness on the possibility of alternative theories so that maybe some day it will be seriously looked at as a possibility. No one person on the planet can draw a definate conclusion on something if the information goes unchallanged. This is the reason why the court system has both defence and prosecution. Imagine life if we only had prosecution? Which is exactly what happens to anyone who presents alterative theories on history. We get debunked, ridiculed, outcasted, and much worse.
Do you think men like Sitchen and Danniken woke up one days and said " you know what? i want to ruin my career, lose the respect of all my colleagues, and be the laughing stock of the entire planet. Yeah sounds like fun". I highly doubt it.
The system needs to be challenged from time to time to ensure it stays in check and on course. Imagine if we didnt have watchdogs and agencies not to mention whistleblowers, that keep track of politicians? We would live in a police state worse than what most people think the states has already become. Systems left unchecked and unchallanged would probably get away with whatever it wanted to without anyone to stop it. It is for this reason that conventional historical theories must accept that there is evidence to support alternative theories and it is only fair that it should be studied further by qualified, unbiased individuals to properly validate any claims old or new.
As far as you and me are concerned, we are in no way qualified to prove or disprove these theories and can only speculate. The only way that you can truely have the satisfaction of disproving these claims is through the fair process that i mentioned, otherwise, i would only consider that you are trying to discredit for your own personal beliefs which arent necessarily based on everyone else's beliefs. And it is unfair to assume that everyone believes such as you do. All i know is that this thread was created for those who are interested in the subject to discuss the topic and explore possibilites and exchange information. Continuously pointing out that we are not educated in this field is pointless and doing so repeatedly is getting old fast. If you want to engage in some serious discussion and perhaps educate us then by all means but please dont try to discredit or attack anyone as we dont do the same to you.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I would like to ask these questions to any skeptics on the thread. I know i asked earlier but it was to one individual. Unlike a few people around here, I am seriously interested as to what it is you believe. It will help me better my own understanding of my beliefs and for me to see where you are coming from.
Would you be willing to state 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.

I try to answer your questions time after time to the best of my abilities so i think its only fair you answer mine.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
I can understand why you defend the mainstream beliefs, it is the same reason why we defend the alternative ones.

we defend the orthodox beliefs because we have studied them. we don't defend the alternative beliefs because we have studied them. you defend the alternative beliefs because you have studied them. you don't defend the orthodox beliefs because in most cases you haven't got a clue what they are. see anything missing in your claim that its the same reason ?



Originally posted by metaldemon2000
But you are missing the point. We dont intend to discredit the conventional beliefs or the people who discovered them. Nor is there any intent to cause any upheaval in society. As much evidence that there is to support conventional theories, there are an equal amount of evidence to support the alternative ones too.

there is no credible evidence at all to support most of the alternative beliefs raised here. in most cases its crap that was debunked decades ago and you just haven't caught up yet.


Originally posted by metaldemon2000
And you couldnt possibly deny all of the evidence i am sure there are things you question too.

mostly the things I question are why people like you who have never actually studied anything orthodox claim that you don't believe it.

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
And as long as there continues to be evidence that cannot be debunked, so will there be individuals that support it.

correction as long as people base their opinion not on evidence but on personal belief then there will always be people who don't know anything real

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
You want scholars and archeologists to support these claims in order to beleive you say? Fine


isn't it funny that all the scholars and archaeologists support the orthodox viewpoint.


Originally posted by metaldemon2000
but i am not a scholar and in order for people such as that to begin looking into it, an interest has to arise.

they have looked into it. none of the evidence stands up to scrutiny. in most cases its pathetic.

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
All i wish to do is raise awareness on the possibility of alternative theories so that maybe some day it will be seriously looked at as a possibility.

then you are about 100 years too late. Pseudo history has its origins in the bible is a reality beliefs of the 18th and 19th century. Science has moved on and now we know better. well most of us do


Originally posted by metaldemon2000
No one person on the planet can draw a definate conclusion on something if the information goes unchallanged.

when the information goes unchallenged it normally means the information is correct

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
This is the reason why the court system has both defence and prosecution. Imagine life if we only had prosecution?

studying history is based on real evidence, not the stories that are told to paint a picture like you get in a criminal court.

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
Which is exactly what happens to anyone who presents alterative theories on history. We get debunked, ridiculed, outcasted, and much worse.

thats because you don't have a clue what you are talking about half the time and don't understand the context or the facts of anything you try to theorise about.

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
Do you think men like Sitchen and Danniken woke up one days and said " you know what? i want to ruin my career, lose the respect of all my colleagues, and be the laughing stock of the entire planet. Yeah sounds like fun". I highly doubt it.

Daniken was a Hotel concierge facing trial for stealing from the guests when his book was released and Sitchin was an economic historian. thats a person who can look at a market and see what will sell. Guess he picked the right one huh. thats quite funny that you don't even know their backgrounds

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
As far as you and me are concerned, we are in no way qualified to prove or disprove these theories and can only speculate.

well you are't
you prove that with every word you type. so far I have not see any evidence that you know anything about the subjects that you are posting in. its always the same diatribe about why no one believes you and how wrong that is. Why can't you say something on topic for once ?


Originally posted by metaldemon2000
Continuously pointing out that we are not educated in this field is pointless and doing so repeatedly is getting old fast. If you want to engage in some serious discussion and perhaps educate us then by all means but please dont try to discredit or attack anyone as we dont do the same to you.

you don't have to be a degree holding expert to understand ancient history
you just have to spend some time studying it,
most of the people here that you are calling debunkers are the ones who have spent years doing this. while most of you "open minded" individuals have spent no time at all studying real history.
you just don't get it do you
your questions aren't valid because you don't know anything relevant

instead of wasting your time basing hypothesis after hypothesis that gets shot down in flames in 10 seconds why don't you actualy do some work and study the subject first.
and no
Sitchin and Daniken are not study aids
they don't know real history either
they do know that you don't know real history which is how they are milkiing your gullibility to line their pockets



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by kerkinana walsky
 





you don't defend the orthodox beliefs because in most cases you haven't got a clue what they are


thats an assumption i havent actually told you or anyone else what my actual beliefs are on AAT on any thread on ATS. and i never said i havent studied history in fact i have as a hobby for many years now and i can say while i agree with alot of it i think that alot of the conclusions that were reached were done so in the name of profit and religion.



in most cases its crap that was debunked decades ago and you just haven't caught up yet.


well thats because most of the evidence is old and people have had time to fabricate counter evidence also in the name of religion, profit, and well in this case to protect the discoveries of those who wrote the history books.



correction as long as people base their opinion not on evidence but on personal belief then there will always be people who don't know anything real


new evidence is especially hard for me to obtain especially when most artifacts and ancient ruins are situated on the other side world from where i reside and since i am required to work at least 5 days a week to earn a living i cannot just go galavanting around the globe whenever i please. Not to mention most ancient cities and ruins have been ransacked by "professionals" and most of the controversial artifacts have since dissapeared and are located in undisclosed locations. Many museums removed controversial items from displays at the request of patrons many years ago and im also prety sure regular joes such as i arent allowed to go digging up ruins in strange countries that are now major tourist attractions with out some sort of permission.
Also the most controversial ruins are situated in Iraq which is one of the most inaccessable and dangerous regions on the planet these days so i think ill pass on that one. I wonder if any of the artifacts in the national museum in Iraq that were stolen during the war contained any goods but i guess well never know. Unlike the scholars and archeologists i dont have access to research grants and special permissions that would be necessary to fund an expeditions to produce new finds and if you will new "evidence".



isn't it funny that all the scholars and archaeologists support the orthodox viewpoint.


of course they do, they make alot of money supporting those viewpoints



they have looked into it. none of the evidence stands up to scrutiny. in most cases its pathetic.


can you prove that they actually gave it a fair chance or looked into with an unbiased opinion? or werent paid to look the other way? no you cannot, so it is not safe to assume it was given a fair chance at all.



then you are about 100 years too late. Pseudo history has its origins in the bible is a reality beliefs of the 18th and 19th century. Science has moved on and now we know better. well most of us do


religious institutions such as the vatican have survived because they continuously changed their story many times in order to keep up with the times. also it is well documented that the vatican was a huge archeological sponsor during the early 1900s. It is well known that they locked away artifacts on their sponsored expeditions that defied explanation. they have admitted it on many occations. One thing that the vatican is known for is their capacity for survival. They have and will resort to any means necessary to prtect their image of god.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
I would like to ask these questions to any skeptics on the thread. I know i asked earlier but it was to one individual. Unlike a few people around here, I am seriously interested as to what it is you believe. It will help me better my own understanding of my beliefs and for me to see where you are coming from.

I believe the evidence that is presented that is irrefutable

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
Would you be willing to state that conventional theory is 100% or do you feel it still has alot of unanswered questions?

there are always unanswered questions. that is the reason for studying the evidence. it is not a reason to believe in alternative theories that don't have any supporting evidence

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
Do you feel that it conventional understanding is FACT or THEORY?

understanding of what ?

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
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?

are you claiming that YHWH was an alien, what about Jesus,
you need to understand the works of this man
en.wikipedia.org...
maybe then you will understand where the gods came from.
this fundemental truth contained in the link which I expect you didn't bother to read and if you did then you probably didn't understand (test later) was the same reason that Socrates willingly drank poison. to get away from people who based their world on personal belief and not evidence. sometimes I know exactly how he felt


Originally posted by metaldemon2000
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?

the first God of every major civilisation in the ancient world was the Sun
now that you know this (check if you like) can you see how it totally invalidates your question

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
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.

well that kind of suggest that they were human doesn't it


Originally posted by metaldemon2000
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.

Gods are based on people. to start with you need to understand that all the ancient kings of the most ancient civilisations were God kings. that means that they were considered to be living gods during their lifetime.
in later dynasties this is not always true and more and more often it was heroes who became kings. men such as Sargon the great and Hammruabi who both had a lowly start but even though they were not though of as gods in their lifetimes they were considered so by those that followed.

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
I try to answer your questions time after time to the best of my abilities so i think its only fair you answer mine.

its clear that to you the only explanation must be one that is alternative simply because you do not understand or actually know the facts
when you do you will see things differently

so now instead of writing another break free diatribe about why you don't understand people who know more about things than you why don't you go out and learn a few facts



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
thats an assumption i havent actually told you or anyone else what my actual beliefs are on AAT on any thread on ATS. and i never said i havent studied history in fact i have as a hobby for many years now and i can say while i agree with alot of it i think that alot of the conclusions that were reached were done so in the name of profit and religion.

you've stated several times that you believe that aliens did it.



Originally posted by metaldemon2000
well thats because most of the evidence is old and people have had time to fabricate counter evidence also in the name of religion, profit, and well in this case to protect the discoveries of those who wrote the history books.

no its because most of the evidence you are relying on is out of context or fabricated. if its so enlightening it wouldnt be possible to credibly invalidate it by pointing out its faults


Originally posted by metaldemon2000
new evidence is especially hard for me to obtain especially when most artifacts and ancient ruins are situated on the other side world from where i reside and since i am required to work at least 5 days a week to earn a living i cannot just go galavanting around the globe whenever i please. Not to mention most ancient cities and ruins have been ransacked by "professionals" and most of the controversial artifacts have since dissapeared and are located in undisclosed locations. Many museums removed controversial items from displays at the request of patrons many years ago and im also prety sure regular joes such as i arent allowed to go digging up ruins in strange countries that are now major tourist attractions with out some sort of permission.
Also the most controversial ruins are situated in Iraq which is one of the most inaccessable and dangerous regions on the planet these days so i think ill pass on that one. I wonder if any of the artifacts in the national museum in Iraq that were stolen during the war contained any goods but i guess well never know. Unlike the scholars and archeologists i dont have access to research grants and special permissions that would be necessary to fund an expeditions to produce new finds and if you will new "evidence".

none of the debunkers here have trotted all over the globe to study history,
you don't have to be an archaeologist. you just have to be able to read



Originally posted by metaldemon2000
of course they do, they make alot of money supporting those viewpoints

thats complete rubbish. most archaeologists are paid very little. compare that to the millions that Sitchin has made writing fiction about aliens or the millions that Hancock has made deliberately falsifying his evidence. How many world famous archaeologists can you name. now try how many world famous pseudo historians you can name.
that answers that erroneous belief doesnt it



Originally posted by metaldemon2000
can you prove that they actually gave it a fair chance or looked into with an unbiased opinion? or werent paid to look the other way? no you cannot, so it is not safe to assume it was given a fair chance at all.

ah so its all a giant global conspiracy to hide the truth from people so that Sitchin, Hancock, Childress et all can make millions revealing it. wake up and smell the coffee. No conspiracy on the scale you are talking about has ever succeeded. You have no evidence and need to rely on something which has no basis in reality to prove what you are saying. there is a name for what you are claiming. Its called self delusion

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
religious institutions such as the vatican have survived because they continuously changed their story many times in order to keep up with the times. also it is well documented that the vatican was a huge archeological sponsor during the early 1900s. It is well known that they locked away artifacts on their sponsored expeditions that defied explanation. they have admitted it on many occations. One thing that the vatican is known for is their capacity for survival. They have and will resort to any means necessary to prtect their image of god.

please link to any admission by the vatican that they have hidden the truth
and this is a strawman argument anyway. the vatican does not currently control world science. you are taking your conspiracy theory to another level
so far you have archaeologists, egyptologists, scientists, religion and world goverments, members of this forum all conspiring together to not let you know that aliens were present. thats not forgetting of course that the aliens also are in on this conspiracy because they don't want you to know either.
can't you see how stupid that claim is
or are you just willing to believe it because you haven't looked at the evidence and so can't come up with anything valid to say because you don't know anything


[edit on 23-11-2007 by kerkinana walsky]



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
I would like to ask these questions to any skeptics on the thread. I know i asked earlier but it was to one individual. Unlike a few people around here, I am seriously interested as to what it is you believe. It will help me better my own understanding of my beliefs and for me to see where you are coming from.


When i first joined ATS it was because i believed in the possibility of alien intervention, hidden archaeological secrets and conspiracy's to hide the truth. In the past 2 1/2 years ive come to realise through my own study and with the help of others that i was the one that was denying the truth. It is right in front of you if you take the time to search and study. It is worth it.



Originally posted by metaldemon2000
Would you be willing to state that conventional theory is 100% or do you feel it still has alot of unanswered questions?


I still harbour some different, lets say slightly unorthodox views of history or certain elements of it. There will alsways be some unanswered questions imo, doesnt mean that they are the most far fetched ones..


Originally posted by metaldemon2000
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.


As KW states, ALL of the original gods are sun gods. Nothing alien about that, in fact it is the most sensible conclusion that our ancestors would deify something that ultimately decided whether there would be a feast or a famine.

I believed at one time that Australian Aboriginals had contact with aliens due to some rock art depicting human shapes with what appeared to be space helmets on.
After much study and actually talking to the people who lived in the region i came to the understanding that what i had been told all along by archaeologists and scholars was in fact the truth. They were headresses.


Dont get me wrong i dont thing orthodoxy is squeaky clean, they do have some things to answer for, but in this case i think common sense and abundant evidence prevails.

mojo.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by kerkinana walsky
 





thats because you don't have a clue what you are talking about half the time and don't understand the context or the facts of anything you try to theorise about.


i never once professed that anything i stated was factual



Daniken was a Hotel concierge facing trial for stealing from the guests when his book was released and Sitchin was an economic historian. thats a person who can look at a market and see what will sell. Guess he picked the right one huh. thats quite funny that you don't even know their backgrounds




you don't have to be a degree holding expert to understand ancient history


self explanitory contradiction




while most of you "open minded" individuals have spent no time at all studying real history.


no? since when are you an expert on my life? i never actually told you anything i know yet so you wouldnt know what it is that i know.

The truth is you indirectly imply to be some sort of expert on the matter yet you have not replied to my other post asking what it is that you believe and i would like to know what makes you an expert on this matter.

BTW i never once said the the aliens were in on this conspiracy. This is going nowhere all you are doing is twisting what i am saying and attacking what it is you claim to think i know. But you have never answered a single question that i asked. Just because i dont know the names of archeologists and scholars and egyptologists you claim i know nothing. I have read books, many books, the orthodox ones, and hey your know what? alot of those are based on old information too and most modern books are just regurgatated information from previous books, the exception being any books regarding newer findings which really havent been very exciting anyways. Why is it that you care so much to bury this topic anyhow? I have seen you trolling around the boards attacking this theory any which way possible asif you had nothing better to do. What purpose would it serve to obliterate it?
In all honesty out of all the wacky conspiracies and outlandish claims on the internet and in real life as well, AAT is the only theory with the most stigma surrounding it. Why do you suppose that is? Why is it attacked and buried faster than anything else going around. Ill tell you why. If i did not want someone to know about something that i was hiding, i would hide it in plain site. Look at UFO theories for example. Its has become nothing short of a novelty. Everyone knows about it, most think its funny. It is because of that, that it doesnt get taken seriously because its become the norm to think about them as a fairy tale.
AAT is not known to most people, not talked about by most people, and is silenced fast. Now most probably because its the only crazy theory that could actually be true. Nobody wants it in plain sight because the dots can and would be connected.
I bet you have an easy time dealing with a few people such as i but i bet you wouldnt be able to explain to thousands should they become skeptiical to orthodox methods.





top topics
 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join