It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ancient Astronauts Evidence

page: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo


you don't think that the fact that at the time these creation stories became popular the only material used to create things was mud, rock and clay then


ENKI AND THE WORLD ORDER

An artfully made bright crenellation rising out from the abzu was erected for lord Nudimmud. Enki, the lord who determines the fates, built up his temple entirely from silver and lapis lazuli. Its silver and lapis lazuli were the shining daylight. [...]

He built the temple from precious metal, decorated it with lapis lazuli, and covered it abundantly with gold. [...]
/2yx8k6

Not a single mention of mud.



[edit on 27-11-2007 by undo]


way to hijack a post and use it to spread your agenda
that does not describe the creation of mankind
it is the creation of mankind we were discussing
How does sumerian mythology describe that event undo ?
not 2300bce Akkadian
we're talking about pre bronze age
or are you thinking mankind was created after the neolithic





posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by kerkinana walsky
 





right so you're claiming that it was built 17,000 + years before it was inhabited


oh please you are missing the point, im saying it could have been reinhabited at a much later date from when it was origionally inhabited. dont twist my meanings.



you're speculating wildly without evidence. You need to learn to look for it before you go shooting your mouth off making unsupported what if style claims. some radiocarbon dates were taken from the organic material used to construct the buildings


yeah you caught me, i didnt check, but if you could is there any way i can perform these tests myself? i would if i knew how would be kinda neat



rubbish, in the mayan creation story men are created to enjoy the earth and praise the gods, there is no mention of legacy


wikipedia haha, i do have reference material on paper i just didnt feel like looking for it




you don't think that the fact that at the time these creation stories became popular the only material used to create things was mud, rock and clay then you're claiming they had samples analysed are you. If you knew basic chemistry you'd soon realise that your average human is not made of sand, silt and decomposing organic material


Oh grow up, maybe thats what they figured origionally but by the time they invented a structured language system and simple mathmatic systems that they would have at least figured out its a little more complicated than that.
And yeah i actually excel at chemistry and physics and i can tell you for certain that our chemical composition contains all the basic minerals, all living things do, why do you think blood tastes metallic it is a huge source of iron. Why is it that we need to balance the minerals going into body as the excess of any one mineral can counter many others and make us very sick, or lack thereof. If you were to explain this to ancient man he might interpret it as being made from the earth. find your own sources on google



well in that case perhaps you should stop using his evidence like you did with VA243 (thats the akkadian cylinder seal you posted claiming it showed advanced astronomical knowledge)


trying to say that because i showed you a picture that sitchen uses on his website that im a sitchinite is like saying im religious because my heavy metal band t shirt has a cross on it.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by metaldemon2000]

[edit on 27-11-2007 by metaldemon2000]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 





there are 2 different arguments transpiring between you and metaldemon


yeah thats why hes the thread police, he is attempting to debunk all statements and is so used to stomping first and asking questions later theat he failed to differentiate between seriousness and sarcasm.

the truth is he is he wont see any point other than his own because he believes he knows it all. i am willing to bet you can have a strait conversation with him regarding the orthodox beliefs as well and he would still try to stomp on you so he can have the last word. i know many such as that.
I can see why though, i mean i do give him credit he obviously has spent alot of time researching, more than me anyways, and does seem to know alot of history however he continuously acts as though he is a big time scholar and insinuates that he is somehow qualified, asif he has some sort of license and you dont, yet fails to tell me that other than reading a ton of books and perhaps maybe has taken some univeristy courses or alot of watching tv, how he is a qualified, certified, authority on ancient cultures.

I can personally say that most of what i say is speculation or thoery "based" on evidence that CERTAINLY exists and discussing them to stimulate the interests of myself and others who enjoy the subject, and that im not out to preach Sitchen and Danniken and read from some damned book. If that were the case it would be no different from any religion or cult and that is not the case here.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Now im going to present a theory that kind of parallels the Alien Astronaut Theory but not quite.
Say that there were no aliens, no Danniken, no Sitchen. There is obvious evidence planetwide that the flood happened and they figure it to be roughly 10000 years ago. (Accept it, it happened, don't cry) I won't be posting any sources in this post so look up your own material this is a very common sense issue.
Many cultures knew of it very early in their development and even include it in their stories. Now, what i ask is that how could primitive cultures know the world ( or at least their corner of the world ) was devestated. Many north american tribes speak of the world before this one, the destruction of atlantis stories as well, even the mayans said there were people who came before them. There are many sources i could point to and many more examples but like i said they can be looked up in many different ways.
So given the evidence we can all agree that a flood happened. It is a very common sense argument. Ok so whats the point right? Well let's say now that there was an advanced civilization before the flood. Maybe they were human? maybe not. Maybe they were more advanced than us, maybe not. Maybe they died out before the flood or maybe not, all these things don't matter. What matters is that (and we argued this before KW) nothing would be left of their cizilization except for simple things, anything carved into stone, pottery. Don't even mention the kind of sediment that would cover just about any evidence from the waters. Surviving peoples would view any structures that survived as being important and try to preserve their old culture as good as they could. However due to lack of structured education systems and no knowledge of our modern times, the information would begin to get distorted and the origional meanings would be lost as each generation passes untill finally they pick up the pieces and form a bustling society of their own. By then all evidence of the previous society would almost be wiped clean from the surface of the planet by weather, oxidization, lack of upkeep, that there would be little evidence of what transpired and they would be forced to adapt their own versions in a way that they can explain it depending on the level of understanding they achieved. Enter OUR ancient man. 4000-2000 BC.
If the world suddenly ended the same way tomorrow lets say, imagine 4000 years from now, a culture like that of the egyptions finding Mt Rushmore? They would believe them to be gods. The pyramyds would probably still be around, in fact they may even give us credit for building them. But they would have no knowledge of our society because it is all recorded on paper and on hard drives, all of which wouldnt survive a flood and then thousands of years of rot. The only thing they would have are stories. Possibly the origional survivors would be smart enough to record on stone. Or on wood which is preserved can survive awhile. But unless the survivors worked hard to preserve our way of life it wouldnt last more than a generation. And coming from someone who has spent long periods of time in the wilderness, even if you had all the food you needed to bring with you, the upkeep for surviving with very few commodities is enormous, especially during winter. You would have little time for education and would be forced to spend all your time surviving and you would spend most of your childhood learning the skillls necessary to one day survive on your own.
Do you find that the more sophisticated we become, the more time that can be spent on education, screwing around, hobbies, play? At our point in history we have the luxory to pass on knowledge in a correct fasion. Ancient peoples however did not.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by kerkinana walsky
ok so heres what you just did

1. state that there are texts available at sacredtexts.com that prove your point and that you know what they are
2. get asked for links to them
3. back away slowly trying to cover your ass because you just got busted for lying again

thats what twice now in the same thread ?
do you have any evidence that isn't speculatory or hearsay or lies at all ?



The post you refer to contained two names of rather famous indian books and the name of a translator.



[edit on 28-11-2007 by Skyfloating]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo

I'm not making any claims as regards the antiquity of the concepts, only that Skyfloating's original comment that the bible doesn't separate the concept of sky/starry firmament and the heavenly abode, is not supported by the biblical texts, as there's evidence in Psalms, for example, that they knew the difference. And as you have pointed out, even older examples exist, that the ancient people of Akkad and Babylon, also knew the difference.


one second...I wasnt seperating sky/starry firmament. I was saying that heaven/sky does not refer to a mythological place or a place in the afterlife (for which other words exist) but simply to the sky or space.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Comments:




There is obvious evidence planetwide that the flood happened and they figure it to be roughly 10000 years ago. (Accept it, it happened, don't cry) I won't be posting any sources in this post so look up your own material this is a very common sense issue.


That is the problem there is no evidence of a world wide flood that wiped out humanity and most terrestial life. There is evidence for regional floods which didn't wipe out large amounts of people and land creature - if this is the basis of your argument then it fails immediately.

Howdy Skyfloating

Failing to provide links to your references is a poor action for a member of a forum dedicated to exchanging information. Telling people to go "look it up" especially when challenge on it is an indicator. I let you decide what that indicator shows.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Failing to provide links to your references is a poor action for a member of a forum dedicated to exchanging information. Telling people to go "look it up" especially when challenge on it is an indicator. I let you decide what that indicator shows.


I referenced two ancient texts and the name of an indian scholar. That should suffice.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
That is the problem there is no evidence of a world wide flood that wiped out humanity and most terrestial life.



There is "no evidence" other than numerous texts telling us so. Also, the logic is flawed: If everything was wiped out, how would there be evidence of it? The evidence is wiped out.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:32 AM
link   


I referenced two ancient texts and the name of an indian scholar. That should suffice.


Obviously it isn't sufficient and the act tells me you are not being honest. The next time you challenge the reality position and I decline to link to my sources - remember that. You are avoiding being shown to be making stuff up. If you don't like people saying it shows us your sources.

Evidence? Oh the texts, well in Shinto text it says that Japan was made by a goddess dipping a spear into the sea and the drops formed into the Japanese island.

So obviously that is true...so where is the spear?

Texts are not the only evidence, in many cases they are wrong or just the imagination of the writers. The physical evidence shows us what and what didn't happen. There was no world wide flood.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


First you say that I didnt reference texts and even the translator/interpreter who makes the claims about the rigveda and ramayana. THEN you claim that the sanskrit texts are worthless as evidence.

Thats not only contradictory but also shows the dishonesty you accuse me of.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:39 AM
link   


First you say that I didnt reference texts and even the translator/interpreter who makes the claims about the rigveda and ramayana. THEN you claim that the sanskrit texts are worthless as evidence.


Sorry Skyfloating but we haven't talked about this. I think you mean KW.

Well the easiest way to solve that perception is to provide the links - why keep stamping your feet?



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Some basic understanding for you:

1. If something doesnt show up on google it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
2. If something doesnt show up on google (yet) it could mean that it is original writing done by me.
3. The rigveda, ramayana and mahabarata are commonly known texts. You dont have to google them to know they exist.
4. The interpreter that refers to "rathas" and "vimanas" as aircraft and spacecraft is Dileep Kumar Kanjal (as already referenced).


I will just continue to provide the information, and you guys just continue to provide the scoffing and accusiation, alright?



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Sorry Skyfloating but we haven't talked about this. I think you mean KW.




YOU originally responded to a comment made to KW.


EDIT: Nevermind, lets get back on topic.

[edit on 28-11-2007 by Skyfloating]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:50 AM
link   
You have provided a title for text without providing the page and paragraph, that is commonly done when referencing (see APA and MLA criteria for this). You are saying that it contains information that proves your point - but don't tell us where it is. This is major failure in any scholarly discussion.

You are not providing information, you are providing an opinion. KW and I seem to know the difference, you do not.

I would think it is on topic

Oh by the way the easiest way to tell KW and myself apart is that she is the smart one and I'm good looking one.



[edit on 28/11/07 by Hanslune]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
You have provided a title for text without providing the page and paragraph, that is commonly done when referencing (see APA and MLA criteria for this). You are saying that it contains information that proves your point - but don't tell us where it is. This is major failure in any scholarly discussion.

You are not providing information, you are providing an opinion. KW and I seem to know the difference, you do not.

I would think it is on topic




Would you like me to flip through the entire thread and cite instances that YOU did not give links and reference to information you provided? I think not. Ive got better things to do.

Besides, by typing in the name of the scholar in question, you can find the info in question.

Rather than trying to put me on the spot, follow the discussion.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


In all fairness, when time allows I can provide dozens of textpassages from the rigveda. Id just have to get a copy from the library and start typing it into here. I guess thats what you want. Will be done in due time.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:20 AM
link   
How to distort reality


In proving the ancient astronaut theory to be valid and worthy one can either cite the evidence or look at what opponents do to refute the evidence.

An excellent example of this was provided earlier in this thread when one of the debunkers said that she stopped believing in aliens when she was 12 years old and asked the AAT-proponent: "How old are you?".

Here we have a case of someone thinking that the belief in extraterrestrial intelligence and realities beyond what is seen with the four senses is "childish and stupid".

This type of fixed viewpoint will not only lead to scoffing at any indicators of extraterrestrial intelligence, but also filter out ANY type of evidence contrary to belief. "So, since aliens dont exist, there cannot be evidence for them. Anyone saying so, must be a fool or a fraud."

With this mindset, it doesnt really matter how much evidence is provided, how logically and coherently it is presented, how much effort is put into building a case. Any attempt will immediatly be stifled by the belief "that doesnt exist, cant exist".

Something is only perceivable if a person is willing to consider the possibility. Not even considering the possibility but instead labelling the belief in ETs as pre-schoolish creates a mixture of arrogance and ignorance...an affliction that is not only suffered by the poster in question but by a majority of so called "skeptics".

"Skeptisism" however, is not a scientific attitude. Skepticism says: "This is nonsense". Science says: "I dont know, but I will look at it with an open mind". True science takes sides for nothing. It only looks at various things, examines, analyzes. A scientist will never say "Belief in ETs is bunk!". It will say: "We´ll see".

Scoffing and making fun of others viewpoints is not a scientific attitude either. Its an indicator of insecurity that what one believes may not be true.

Readers of this thread will witness distortions of reality on this thread. Many distortions. Some of these will be made by me and other proponents of the ancient astronaut theory. We are not without fault. But some of them will also be made by those who claim their worldview is based "strictly on facts". Indeed we have already seen some pretty flaky attempts at rebuttal here.

Discussion means to look at something from many sides, not with the aim of immediate stifle and ridicule. There is more out there than your senses may be able to perceive.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:15 AM
link   
There's a two-fold problem in any interpretation of the past, as it relates to events from 1 AD to today.

First, we had a long stint where the holy roman empire was the sole purveyor of the "truth" and all research, including the validity (or lack thereof) of other cultures texts, gods, etc, were strained threw them first and they didn't fare very well. In fact, it was the common concensus of the time, by the learned and schooled, that only the Holy Roman Empire's approach to God was legit and everything else was a fairy tale, a myth. Welcome the birth of Higher Criticism.

By the time the papal seat moved to Germany for a few years, it was already fairly evident that the Holy Roman guys didn't know everything they claimed they did regarding science. The rush to learn science from a different perspective kicked in (which was both good and bad, btw). The problem was, the same guys who had lorded it over everyone else, that they had the right via their membership and education in the Holy Roman church and its adjunctants, universities, etc, to dictate reality to everyone else, were now becoming the new focal point of the new info. That attitude went with these guys as they began to realize they had developed enough clout to separate themselves from the Holy Roman Church and become popes in their own right -- popes of science.

What happened next was the result of nearly 1700 years of life from the perspective of the papal authority, followed up by another 300 years of life from the perspective of the new popes of "truth," who took with them all of the arguments established by the Holy Roman guys, as regards the lack of validity of the other ancient accounts.





[edit on 28-11-2007 by undo]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I thought this would be obvious to anyone posting at ATS, but apparently it needs to be pointed out. Thanks for doing so.

To add a psychological dimension: We first have the old inquisition, and then the new inquistion in the form of its polar opposite. This new thinking grew out of the disgust with the superstions of the old thinking.

This is why today we are faced with two less-than-accurate worldviews controlling the minds of the masses:

1. The Earth and Human was created in 7 days by the vengeful, bearded God

2. Life originated from dead matter in a chain of coincidences.

Anything digressing from this thesis-antithesis type set-up is not widely accepted (yet).

Fortunately we have some newer lines of thought talking of souls, extraterrestrial civlizations and a universe filled with wonder and mystery beyond the dull idiocy being sold by the roman empire and school.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join