‘Alien Donuts’ In Space! Too Much Of A Coincidence To Be Debunked?

page: 23
30
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


So what your saying is that the artifact could not have been altered after it was found?

Cause it sure could have..




posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Where did this number 70 to 85% of all ufo sightings are man made come from? Is this another 1 of Jenka's self fullfilling facts , heresay with no proof.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Again.. Your reaching. Spacemen with space suits?? How did you come to the conclusion that these were spacemen with space suits?

And how do you know that they were making art based on what they lived/experienced... Couldn't they have had imaginations back than??

Just as we have sci-fi novels now do you not think that ancient civilizations had sci-fi as well??

And the depiction of "spacemen" and "spacecraft" is not as easily found as you make it seem....

There were a few little depictions here and there but on the grand scale of artifacts found of ancient cultures only .05-1% of the artifacts depict anything like what we are talking about...

therefore, it leads me to believe that these were men/women who had very vivid imaginations.. Just as modern man has vivid imagination.

The image of the "grey" has shown to man since the ancient civilizations, therefore you can't say that they are very much alike or the same as todays reports...

This would be incorrect because ancient man saw these depictions and told their family and friends and slowly but surely throughout many many eons it has became what it is today.

With contacts and abductions to everything random in the sky ufos, reptilians, lion people and all that other nonsense..

Why can you not even open your mind to think that these depictions could very well be of a vivid imagination and/or of a specie that is no longer around(extinct)



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by branty
 


The proof is there. it is for you to find it.

Don't sit and be lazy, go read.

Have you guys read popular mechanics this month??



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Jenka, back 12000 years ago , a guy that had a stick with a point on it thought he had a top of the line killing machine, where would the idea for a spaceship come from, what would be his reference point ?



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
If I did not believe in stealth bombers, and so I asked you to prove it by getting me a part of it as the only proof I will accept

I'm certain you could not get one. Yet we know they exist..we've seen photos!



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by mrjenka
 

You sir are the lazy one, you make claims and want others to research them . I put forth a DARE to you sir. Make a new Thread stating your song (70 to 85% ufo's are manmade), maybe a bit of proof to show your claims, if you cant do that ,my freind , would you plzz post in the BTS section where opinions are welcomed , in the ATS section , some sort of proof is welcomed.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by branty
 


Same reference point that many of todays brilliant sci-fi minds came up with.

"The matrix"
"Star wars"
"Alien"
"Predator"
"Star trek"

Where was the reference point for any of those?

Since the beginnings of time man has glanced into the heavens and wondered "what's out there"

Reference point for ancient man??= The stary night sky.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by branty
 


I did start my own thread. it was "closed"...... oddly enough....

I have stated my "proof" in my thread. Go read it.

Also, "proof" means many different things to many different people.

What constitutes as "proof" to you may not be sufficient "proof" to someone else..

therefore, your unclear on what your asking me for.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrjenka
reply to post by RFBurns
 


So what your saying is that the artifact could not have been altered after it was found?

Cause it sure could have..


No Im not saying that at all. And sure it could have been altered, perhaps washed or the carvings highlighted to improve their clarity after sitting in dirt for 12,000 years.

That still does not mean that it is of modern construction.

The ancients were capable of doing some incredible things, some of which cant be duplicated today even with our modern technology. They (ancients) should be given more credit than just worshiping trees and ants. In their own right, they were quite sophisticated for their time.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by secretnasaman
 


have you also not seen pictures of "ufo's"??

Pictures that have been verified time and time again as genuine not works of a hoaxer??

So, 15 years ago when the stealth was one of the most guarded secrets in the US arsenal, and I would of told you about stealth capabilities, I would of been met with the same scrutiny I am being met with now.

Yet when the stealth was finally introduced to the public it had been utilized for over 30 years and is "obsolete" compared to what lockheed, guntharp, boeing and other such outfits have in their vaults and what we are working on.

So, my "proof" to you would be an explanation on how "pixie-dust" makes crafts go vrooooommmm...
yet you wouldn't understand a word of it because your restricted by the mathematics, physics and sciences of modern man....

Again, I do not have a science background so I am merely making a point. but, how can someone give you "proof" of something you can not understand?



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Burns:

Do you have a degree in anthropology?

Are you an expert or a trained professional in this field you speak of?

Or, are you just regurgitating information you heard on the history channel and what you have read?

All I am saying to you is this.

I am NOT denying the validity of the artifact. However, none of us here can comment of what "they"(ancient civilizations) were really trying to portray.

We can speculate. We can assume. but, at the end of the day we won't have any closure because it is something that can not be "proved" one way or the other.

What may look like "spacemen" and "spacesuits" to us today may have very well be elaborate dresses for ceremonies.

It could be many different things. It is much easier to pawn it of as "Bam! Proof of spacemen visiting the ancients" rather than have an open-mind to it with logics behind it.

There are NO written scriptures referencing any of these claims you make.

Yet many scholars wrote hundreds of scriptures and texts. The most widely distributed holy scripture(bible) makes no mention of spacemen, spacesuits, space crafts etc...

Now, can "god" really be an alien life form? Yes! I 100% agree that is the case, but again, we have no way of proving the validity of that one way or the other.

See my point?



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrjenka

Same reference point that many of todays brilliant sci-fi minds came up with.

"The matrix"
"Star wars"
"Alien"
"Predator"
"Star trek"

Where was the reference point for any of those?


Much of the reference points in those movies you point out come from mythology, ancient archtypes, ancient myths of legend and heroic battles.

Some of them also referenced what was occuring during their time of production...ie Star Trek TOS often mirrored what was occuring during the late 60's and gave it a future parallel.

Predator, again from ancient mythology of a large cameleon like creature that would "use the jungle" and "change colors". Ancient Native Central Americas texts speak of such a creature that would take people and skin them. In Mexico they refer to a similar creature called "Chupacabra".



Originally posted by mrjenka
Since the beginnings of time man has glanced into the heavens and wondered "what's out there"

Reference point for ancient man??= The stary night sky.


Amazing...you seem to be getting the understanding that ancient mankind were in touch with nature, and that what they saw and experienced was documented in their writtings, their paintings and art work. They did not have any technology reference, only their world around them. These things that came from the sky were to them a part of the natural world, since they came from the sky, and the ancients knew the sky was a part of their world, hence the visitors were also a part of their world.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrjenka

Burns:

Do you have a degree in anthropology?

Are you an expert or a trained professional in this field you speak of?

Or, are you just regurgitating information you heard on the history channel and what you have read?


And your point would be...what? Does it surprise you that someone just might know something about several subjects and not just be limited to one subject?

Much of what I know comes from a time when they actually teached these things in grade school social sciences.

I dont claim to be an expert. I dont claim anything. I just happen to have a very diverse understanding and knowlege of things.




Originally posted by mrjenka
All I am saying to you is this.

I am NOT denying the validity of the artifact. However, none of us here can comment of what "they"(ancient civilizations) were really trying to portray.


So what else could they be potraying? Can you give us some valid examples of what those portrayals might have been besides the obvious?



Originally posted by mrjenka
We can speculate. We can assume. but, at the end of the day we won't have any closure because it is something that can not be "proved" one way or the other.


Someday, well into the future, when future archeologists find OUR ruins, do you think they will sit and have this same debate we are having today?


Originally posted by mrjenka
What may look like "spacemen" and "spacesuits" to us today may have very well be elaborate dresses for ceremonies.


There is archeological evidence, and paintings and art work of their elaborate dressings for ritual cerimonies. None of them even come close to the evidence of the obvious visitors.



Originally posted by mrjenka
It could be many different things. It is much easier to pawn it of as "Bam! Proof of spacemen visiting the ancients" rather than have an open-mind to it with logics behind it.


No, its actually easier for people to say its cerimonial dressing or just ant worshiping than to see the obvious. The obvious falls outside of the paradyme of status-quo comfy cozy zone.

A true open mind wont close it to face value.


Originally posted by mrjenka
There are NO written scriptures referencing any of these claims you make.


If you have EVER read the Bible, you wouldnt make that statement. I dont suppose the phrase "charriots of fire in the sky" might mean anything to you?


Originally posted by mrjenka
Yet many scholars wrote hundreds of scriptures and texts. The most widely distributed holy scripture(bible) makes no mention of spacemen, spacesuits, space crafts etc...


Read previous reply. And click HERE for just one example of Bible reference to UFO's.



Originally posted by mrjenka
Now, can "god" really be an alien life form? Yes! I 100% agree that is the case, but again, we have no way of proving the validity of that one way or the other.


We are not talking about God being an alien. We are talking about a stone that is 12,000 years old....arent we?

Or are we just bouncing between one subject to another that is totaly unrelated to the thread topic?


Originally posted by mrjenka
See my point?


Actually.....no. Other than the discussion of the stone.

Edit to add link

Cheers!!!!

[edit on 22-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


I am done talking to you..

I really have nothing more to say.

I am not going to let you bait me into a pointless debate over what ancients saw, believed and reproduced.

Bottom line is this. I know what I know & I know it from first hand knowledge. At the end of the day I lay my head down and I don't "guess" I know.

Whether anyone believes me or not is not my problem.

I am probably speaking with a high schooler.

I will however point out some very interesting points. 1) your claim of general social studies..
2) you discredit yourself by saying you have no degree or a subject of knowledge(you know a little bit about a lot of things yet dont know a lot about one thing)

you need a base, a foundation in order to build a house. you can't just build a little but of a lot of things.

3) all your doing is ASSUMING and SPECULATING on what ancients saw or interpreted...

You have no source of knowledge. I am done speaking with you...

Good luck in your future endeavors..



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mrjenka
 


Im not trying to bait you into anything. I am simply trying to point out certian facts that you simply do not see, or do not want to see.

Remember your other thread, and I had mentioned that I actually gave your statements 2nd consideration? That is being open minded, so much to not just include what I believe, but also other evidence as well, then make conclusions from that point.

I had only intended to show you other evidence that is clearly there to examine by anyone who simply will look at it. It is not meant to "bait" you at all. Only to open the door to it. You are the one who must decide to step through or not.

Sounds like you decided not to.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


I am done talking to you..

I really have nothing more to say.

I am not going to let you bait me into a pointless debate over what ancients saw, believed and reproduced.

Bottom line is this. I know what I know & I know it from first hand knowledge. At the end of the day I lay my head down and I don't "guess" I know.

Whether anyone believes me or not is not my problem.

I am probably speaking with a high schooler.

I will however point out some very interesting points. 1) your claim of general social studies..
2) you discredit yourself by saying you have no degree or a subject of knowledge(you know a little bit about a lot of things yet dont know a lot about one thing)

you need a base, a foundation in order to build a house. you can't just build a little but of a lot of things.

3) all your doing is ASSUMING and SPECULATING on what ancients saw or interpreted...

You have no source of knowledge. I am done speaking with you...

Good luck in your future endeavir



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrjenka

Bottom line is this. I know what I know & I know it from first hand knowledge. At the end of the day I lay my head down and I don't "guess" I know.


Well thats good for you. Just dont expect others to believe as you do and get all huffy puffy over it.



Originally posted by mrjenka
Whether anyone believes me or not is not my problem.


I dont think anyone here is having any problem at all either.



Originally posted by mrjenka
I am probably speaking with a high schooler.


ROFLMAO!!!! Oh see how quickly you degrade the conversation! My my.


Originally posted by mrjenka
I will however point out some very interesting points. 1) your claim of general social studies..
2) you discredit yourself by saying you have no degree or a subject of knowledge(you know a little bit about a lot of things yet dont know a lot about one thing)


It doesnt take a slide rule or nuclear science to see the obvious. Perhaps it does for you..which technically that means you cannot exsist outside of that 8x11 piece of paper most call a degree. However, since I do happen to have my masters in EE, I never limited myself to just one field of knowledge, especially when during my college career, I had plenty of electorial courses to choose from..some of which were:

Archeology
Astrology
Ancient Civilizations..ie ancient social sciences
Mechanincs
Sociology
Psycology

Quite a few more I could list..but I wont bore you with that since you seem to believe your talking to a high schooler. (ROFLMAO!!!)


Originally posted by mrjenka
you need a base, a foundation in order to build a house. you can't just build a little but of a lot of things.


Wanna bet. Its quite easy when you have a diverse foundation as I have. Many other members here at ATS also have a wide diversity of knowledge base that cover many subjects. Its not a new thing or unusual.


Originally posted by mrjenka
3) all your doing is ASSUMING and SPECULATING on what ancients saw or interpreted...


And you? What do you base your point on...being a Lockheed financial manager/officer?




Originally posted by mrjenka
You have no source of knowledge. I am done speaking with you...


Funny, but that almost sounds like a typical exit response of a high schooler.



Originally posted by mrjenka
Good luck in your future endeavors..


Thanks! Good luck to you too!


Now can we put this thread back on topic?


Cheers!!!!



[edit on 22-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrjenkaSo, can we agree that this MAY be a man-made craft that was either training or being transported from location a to location b?


Ummm no we can't agree to that




Also, where is the best place to hide something you don't want anyone else finding?
The answer is in
LAIN SIGHT...
Food for thought perhaps??


If you want to hide it in plain sight then just park the think at the nearest airbase.

"Hiding in plain sight" refers to something that is right in front of you but you cannot see it because you cannot comprehend what your looking at



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Or it's just an invented stone, created by David Gammon for his book "Sungods in exile"...


That... yes...





new topics
top topics
 
30
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join