Ancient Extraterrestrials

page: 31
180
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join


posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
The largest is about 455 tons it was moved by Constantine and erected over a thousand years later by the pope.

If there are detailed records of this I'm not aware of them. If you know of an online source please let me know so I can add it to my website which your welcome to check for sources related to the subject before you make false claims like the obelisk is over 500 tons.


Careful, child. You might want to not accuse others of making false claims, when you are claiming Baalbek was constructed by aliens, or that the Romans did it, without doing one modicum of research outside of peddlers of ignorance. Tell me, child, which genuine (NOT SITCHEN AND DANIKEN) archaeological and historical resources have you consulted?

We already know the answer, don't we, child? Because you would not be claiming that Baalbek is not Roman, if you had.

Though I mistyped (meaning 400 as opposed to 500) you have made my point. You claimed they could not move it, and then tell us they moved a massive object hundreds of miles. And you are wrong in the claim that it was a Pope who erected it; it was a Pope who re-erected it. Most obelisks were toppled and the pieces lost until found centuries later.


One of us is behaving like a child.

Both of us mistyped. After thinking about it there was one obelisk or stelae over 500 tons but it was in Axum Etheopia. about 520 tons probably never erected succesfuly. This wasn't moved by the Romans.

I never said it was moved by aliens or cited either Sitchen or Daniken as a source. In fact I stated that both these authors made obvious mistakes. I provided a link with lots of sources which you appear to have ignored. Instead you started jumping to conclusions.

What I have said is that there is a major unsolved mystery here and the official explanation doesn't add up. I then went on to speculate but I didn't attempt to make hard claims.

You seem to be the one jumping to conclusions without paying attention to what I said or the real facts.

I'll try again here is the link to 107 Wonders of the Ancient World feel free to read it and debate things I actualy wrote.



posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


re: the baigong pipes, I did some decent looking into it and sky was very keen on what I had found, it is probably a natural formation, it can take quite a lot of effort creating some of these replies, it feels pretty harsh that you people make quick comments without even reading through what has already been written by others.

Sorry man, I'm just moaning cos it sucks when you write a decent reply and no one reads it!!!!



posted on Dec, 23 2008 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Just making sure everyone on this thread has seen this latest story, it's already had the runs on ATS in the last few days so i expect most will have seen it, but it is so relevant to this topic I thought I'd just make sure:

New Archeological Discovery



posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Indian vedas, upanishads and mythology such as Ramayana & Mahabharatha have always given hints that aliens from outer space are involved with earth.

In the case of Ramayana, take for example the case of Monkeys helping the humans to fight the demons. How do you expect Monkeys to talk to humans in the human language? It could indicate some sort of genetic engineering technology at work. Also, at the end of Ramayana, Rama was informed by lord of death that his purpose on earth has been completed and he is to return back. This means Rama was Human-like but not really a Human.

Hindu religion also strongly believes in the sounds and stress on the words. So, you'll see a lot of importance attached to the way a mantra is told. This could mean communication with the aliens in outer planet with some sort of signals etc.

I can go on writing many more, but just sufficient for the fact that there are many impli



posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Well I suppose it is how you look at it.

Certainly there is a single fact, we don't know all there is from the history of the world and menkind. This does not mean that alians did visit our planet on frequent base.

But there are some strange things, at least in human history. I'm not referring to the pyramides or even the obelisks. Both of them are perfectly explainable with regular human thinking. The pyramides where the only practical way to build up high and the Obylisks where lenghtend derivitives that they andmired (but could not build on a scale te make a tomb)

But perhaps we need to look further then menkind even more way back. Like certain geometrical formations.

An interesting unconfirmed terrestrial crater is the Silverpit Crater located in the North Sea in front of the coast of the UK. The shape is that of a projectile that came at a perfect vertical angle onto the earth. While possible by nature, the angle in combination with earth's atmosphere make it odd.



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheGreensGoblin
reply to post by Harte
 


re: the baigong pipes, I did some decent looking into it and sky was very keen on what I had found, it is probably a natural formation, it can take quite a lot of effort creating some of these replies, it feels pretty harsh that you people make quick comments without even reading through what has already been written by others.

Sorry Goblin, I was responding to that particular claim because I was specifically asked, IIRC.

Also, skeptics here were being belittled for not addressing the so-called "evidence" that sky had indicated was unaddressed in one of his summarizing posts.


Originally posted by TheGreensGoblin
Sorry man, I'm just moaning cos it sucks when you write a decent reply and no one reads it!!!!


No need to tell me that! I can spend an hour and a half finding links and such for my posts only to have the another poster blithely ask the same question again, an hour later, or fifteen minutes later.

People here think it's rude of me to tell them to try the search feature here. This is why I do it!

Harte



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Props to you Harte, Keep it up. I'm enjoying both sides of this thread, there is so much to go through as well on certain subjects...just got back from the british museum so am full of enthusiasm!



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by AncientShade

This does not mean that alians did visit our planet on frequent basis.



Once or twice would have been enough to spawn all these stories of advanced visitors the ancients report.



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fastwalker81
Well this statement strikes me as somewhat odd. Where do you got this notion if I may ask? Last time I checked the US Gov. was busy ridiculing the existence of UFOs...

Are you familiar with the Robertson panel report, obtained through the Freedom Of Information Act?


The Robertson Panel was a committee commissioned by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1952 in response to widespread Unidentified Flying Object reports, especially in the Washington DC area. The panel was briefed on U.S. military activities and intelligence; hence the report was originally classified Secret.



The Robertson Panel concluded that a public relations campaign should be undertaken in order to "debunk" UFOs, and reduce public interest in the subject, and that civilian UFO groups should be monitored. There is evidence this was carried out more than two decades after the Panel's conclusion.


en.wikipedia.org...

Pardon the Wiki link, but I can link the report when I get home if you would like. So to conclude I find it unlikely the US Gov. has promoted the idea of UFOs, let alone without question.


Here's some info on this

Yeah, this source is sort of looney, but note that it first appeared in Popular Mechanics.

The U.S. has promioted the idea of UFOs in the past in order to prevent news of the testing of top-secret aircraft from coming out.

Harte



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
The U.S. has promioted the idea of UFOs in the past in order to prevent news of the testing of top-secret aircraft from coming out.

Harte

Thank you for the link to the article Harte.

It was an interesting read but to be honest the article seems to be somewhat badly researched and contradicts official US government reports.


POPULAR MECHANICS has learned from nonclassified sources that the United States had a serious reason for wanting the public to keep believing that the strange lights in the sky were of unearthly origin.

Nonclassified sources? What sources? The author of the article doesn't list his sources for the above statement anywhere. This leaves us with no verification option, which seems fishy to me.

Furthermore the above claim made by the author directly contradics the Robertson Panel and the Project Bluebook conclusions, both proven official US goverment studies.

Robertson Panel:

Most UFO reports, they concluded, could be explained as misidentification of mundane aerial objects, and the remaining minority could, in all likelihood, be similarly explained with further study.


Project Bluebook:

There has been no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as "unidentified" are extraterrestrial vehicles.


Bluebook and the Robertson panel were both available to the public so we have a huge contradiction here.

The rest of the article can be easely refuted. I will adress on more point because I don't want to stray of topic to much (sorry Sky).


One of the features about UFO sightings that has consistently baffled the experts is their apparent ability to swoop downward, hover and then soar into the sky at impossible speeds.

Viewed head on, this is exactly how an A-12 or an SR-71–its J58-powered successor–appears to move at times during a normal flight. The maneuver is called a "dipsy doodle."

Errr like the article states the aircraft only appears to hover when viewed head on. I'm sure the author is smart enough to notice not all these hovering UFOs were viewed from that angle. And radar has shown these craft to be hovering. Of course radar only views objects head on.


So the article you linked doesn't list its sources, directly contradicts the official US goverment reports and tries to pass of UFOs as SR-71 blackbirds with shallow arguments.

So I'm sorry but I am not buying the "United States had a serious reason for wanting the public to keep believing that the strange lights in the sky were of unearthly origin." statement from that article as the official reports suggest the opposite.




[edit on 7/1/09 by Fastwalker81]



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fastwalker81

Originally posted by Harte
The U.S. has promioted the idea of UFOs in the past in order to prevent news of the testing of top-secret aircraft from coming out.

Harte

Thank you for the link to the article Harte.

It was an interesting read but to be honest the article seems to be somewhat badly researched and contradicts official US government reports.

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you.

Please note that I wasn't trying to explain UFO's, just stating that the government had reasons to use the "UFO craze," if you will, as a means of providing cover to some of it's secret activities.

Thus if a news report of a ufo came out and the ufo actually was accounted for by top secret aircraft tests, the government had good reason to promote the ufo story. For the reasons given uin the article.

Not to fool the US public, but to obscure or avoid altogether the covert investigations that might ensue from foriegn interests.

Regarding the rest of the article, I'm sure that some ufo sightings are due to observers seeing experimental aircraft. I don't think there's much doubt about this. If the government simply said "we didn't pick it up on our radar," it might be that the next test flight would be observed by Soviets (for example.) If they said it was on the radar, and possibly "exaggerated" some of the specifics (speed, turning radius, etc.) then it could get picked up by UFO groups like MUFON and put on their "possible" list, thus adding credence to the idea and maybe avoiding detection by cold war enmemies for a little longer.

That doesn't mean that all UFO sightings are some kind of secret aircraft tests, just that the government has (or had) good reason not to debunk the ones that were

Harte



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you.

Not a problem at all as I'm sure you have a busy schedule like most of us.


Please note that I wasn't trying to explain UFO's, just stating that the government had reasons to use the "UFO craze," if you will, as a means of providing cover to some of it's secret activities.

That doesn't mean that all UFO sightings are some kind of secret aircraft tests, just that the government has (or had) good reason not to debunk the ones that were

Harte

Thanks for the clarifacation. The way you put it sounds plausible in my eyes so in that case I agree.



posted on Jan, 9 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
The reason the apparent "Debunk" (at catchpenny.org) of the Abydos Helicopter, Ship, Tank" is no Debunk:

No other examples of those letters "overlapping to provide a new meaning" are given.

So essentially, the "debunk" is nonsense. Goes to show: Just because someone claims its "debunked" doesnt mean it is. Its not a magic wand that will mysteriously explain-away the obvious.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   
So other than using sock-puppets to post and faulty reasoning borrowed from other sources (rather than their own thinking), the "skeptics" here have nothing to offer.

Thats reassuring.

This thread on Zecharia Sitchin is an example of taking the very WEAKEST links and arguments of the ancient astronaut theory and attacking them.

Same tactic as usual.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
So other than using sock-puppets to post and faulty reasoning borrowed from other sources (rather than their own thinking), the "skeptics" here have nothing to offer.


That is quite the claim, Skyfloating. Do you have any evidence, what-so-ever, that skeptics here are using sockpuppets? If you cannot present such evidence, you should be stripped of your moderator status.

And the second accusation is very insulting. You are pulling your evidence from other sources, and yet since we disagree with you, we are somehow "unthinking" or (as implied) lazy.


Originally posted by Skyfloating
This thread on Zecharia Sitchin is an example of taking the very WEAKEST links and arguments of the ancient astronaut theory and attacking them.

Same tactic as usual.


The same tactics you are engaging in. Take your above condemnation of the catchpenny website. You do not attack it and dismiss it not on the strength of it's argument, but because you think it is the only one with a skeptical explanation for the Abydos palimpsest. There are others.

And yet, you accept Sitchin despite him being the sole source of the Nibiru nonsense and supposedly being the only scholar who can interpret the Sumerian correctly.

By the by, why don't you come over to the Sitchin discussion and contribute, instead of attacking the skeptics there behind their backs?




[edit on 22-1-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

That is quite the claim, Skyfloating. Do you have any evidence, what-so-ever, that skeptics here are using sockpuppets? If you cannot present such evidence, you should be stripped of your moderator status.



The usual disinformation. A brief glance at what occured in this thread and I dont have to "prove any claim". The pseudoskeptic "anti" appeared as with the sock puppet DeKooenig.

Coupled with the usual demand for me to step down as a Mod.

Desperate.


[edit on 22-1-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

And yet, you accept Sitchin despite him being the sole source of the Nibiru nonsense and supposedly being the only scholar who can interpret the Sumerian correctly.



Is it misinfo (unknowing) or disinfo (deliberate) by you? Nowhere do I make the claim that the Nibiru theory is valid. And honestly? I dont think it is.

And that sites theory differs from catchpenny...how?

[edit on 22-1-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

The usual disinformation. A brief glance at what occured in this thread and I dont have to "prove any claim". The pseudoskeptic "anti" appeared as with the sock puppet DeKooenig.

Coupled with the usual demand for me to step down as a Mod.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by Skyfloating]


Today is the first day (as I recall) that I have ever called for you to step down as a mod.

It is not "disinformation," as you claim. You have made the accusation that people are sockpuppets but refuse to back up your claim. Instead, when asked to show how these people are sockpuppets, you accuse the person asking of spreading disinformation.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
sock puppet manipulation:
Page 23





new topics
top topics
 
180
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join