Ancient Extraterrestrials, page 31
Pages: <<  28    29    30    31    32    33    34  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 177 times


reply posted on 20-12-2008 @ 11:41 PM by zacherystaylor
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.


reply posted on 22-12-2008 @ 09:44 AM 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 man, I'm just moaning cos it sucks when you write a decent reply and no one reads it!!!!



reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 03:34 PM by Harte
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


reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 09:36 PM by TheGreensGoblin
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!



reply posted on 7-1-2009 @ 08:15 AM 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.

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]


reply posted on 7-1-2009 @ 04:38 PM by Harte
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


reply posted on 22-1-2009 @ 06:30 AM 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.

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]

Pages: <<  28    29    30    31    32    33    34  >>    ^^TOP^^



Aliens Among Us ...Video
  Posted 9 days ago with 65 member flags
Moon: inexplicable phenomena. Luna Cognita video.
  Posted 17 days ago with 60 member flags
UFOs \'Escort\' Mexican Aircraft - Radar Confirmed.
  Posted 12 days ago with 31 member flags
The Dyatlov Pass Incident--Russia\'s Mountain of Death
  Posted 19 days ago with 28 member flags
The Aurora, Texas UFO Incident (1897)
  Posted 3 days ago with 27 member flags
Jacques Vallee: Implications of UFO Phenomena - Thinking Allowed.
  Posted 1 days ago with 21 member flags