Were Humans Created by Reptilians?

reply to post by davesidious


And your the leading Authority on this are you?
No, you aint.

Yes it is up to the Scientific community to look for these kind of things, and test and test again and again, you will never find out if you dont test.

Now Scientists Do not know everything about DNA and the mechanics of it So I really dont know how you can post again and again that its not worth it to look when Real Scientists do not even know everything about the subject.

If Scientists do not know, then how the hell do you come to the conclusion?

It makes sense to look at the broad spectrums of possibilties of Intelligent life and that includes DNA.

It would be Foolish not to as the man says.

Now you can come back again and again with your statements, it just proves you think you know it all when you dont.

reply to post by Sparkey76


I'm not the authority. But I know how the scientific method works, and your idea hasn't even left the earliest stages of being anything scientific.

It's up to the scientific community to spend their limited resources on the endeavours most likely to succeed. Beyond that they have to do nothing.

If, as you say (and I agree with), that science hasn't explained DNA to its fullest, then how on earth can scientists look for alien influences in it?? If they are merely to look into genetic sequences, something well understood, then any signature will be indistinguishable from random creation.

That's why the guy said it was fanciful and science fiction, just like taking our warp drives out to a different sector of the galaxy and messing with the Vulcans. We can't do it.

You seem to think scientists should pick up on a basic idea (not even a hypothesis), and run with it because it's "cool". That is not how science works.

Well, the only way we'll know for sure is when we get our Delorean up to 88 mph and travel back in time to that period. Hopefully, the flux capacitor is still fluxing...

[edit on 10-3-2010 by LuckyStrike]

If, as you say (and I agree with), that science hasn't explained DNA to its fullest, then how on earth can scientists look for alien influences in it?? If they are merely to look into genetic sequences, something well understood, then any signature will be indistinguishable from random creation.

Ok, now we are making ground and agreeing on something.


Its a long way off isnt it to fully understand DNA (years maybe decades or more) and if any small chance their might be some sort of manipulation then that would be a very very long time before that was found out, if as you say things have mutated and having non distinguishable original forms of any sign of natural and manipulated DNA then yes, it would be a tall order to find out, maybe impossible.

Like you mentioned, funds for the scientific community and prioritising those funds is a huge part and this idea would not get a look in at the moment.

Ok, done here I think, just going to go round in circles if we carry on with a discussion on DNA.

reply to post by Sparkey76


Then you see that if it is impossible to determine a signature in DNA that has been mutating constantly for millions of years, hence looking for it is an exercise in futility - if a signature was found, there is no way to know it wasn't formed accidentally.

So why bother looking?

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

This is pretty interesting and if you believe it it is first hand information.

reply to post by rusethorcain


More new-age unsubstantiated nonsense. This thread has enough of that already. Let's try to stick to the facts, ok?

reply to post by davesidious


More disinformation offered from someone who does not seek to edify but to limit, stifle, mock and silence those seeking the truth.

Fact is...I didn't know this was your thread.

reply to post by rusethorcain


No, your link was to nonsense. We are here to deny ignorance, and as such it is incumbent on all of us to call out ignorance when we see it. Your link was demonstrable ignorance, as it had absolutely zero evidence backing it up.

Disinformation? Hardly. It's factual. Just because it shows how irrational you are doesn't make it disinfo. I know it's fun to run around playing X Files, but the real world doesn't work like that. Sorry.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by rusethorcain

 

No, your link was to nonsense. We are here to deny ignorance, and as such it is incumbent on all of us to call out ignorance when we see it. Your link was demonstrable ignorance, as it had absolutely zero evidence backing it up.

Disinformation? Hardly. It's factual. Just because it shows how irrational you are doesn't make it disinfo. I know it's fun to run around playing X Files, but the real world doesn't work like that. Sorry.

HENCE THE DISCLAIMER - IF YOU BELIEVE IT

Listen pal, we are talking about reptilians creating humans and you are asking for facts.
I am not sure you are ever going to get them, that is why others here are having a discussion and presenting information to be considered....believe it or not.
Now either you are returning to offer your deep wisdom (or lack thereof) to this topic because you actually do know something significant and are trying to hide it and keep people from investigating thoroughly... or you disagree with the op (who himself only speculates as we all do except you who refuses to even speculate) and in this case you are showing a rather juvenile obsession for getting in the last word and attempting to derail a fun and entertaining thread.

And BTW I picked up the bibliocapleyades link from DECOY (who's opinion and considerate discourse I respect and admire) in the post about Phil Schneider ...

I believed and still believe Phil Schneider went public as it was the right thing to do. That, in his estimation possibly?, people needed to know about the truth re rep creatures living under the shell and why, as far as he knew. More detail on the rep cabal is in a last, perhaps one and only interview with Mr. Thomas Castello, see Link: www.bibliotecapleyades.net... Decoy

I saw his link, read it with interest and thought it should be reposted here.
By your logic perhaps it is incumbent on you to send Decoy a U2 and correct his/her misguided thinking? We wouldn't want anyone running around ATS with a false assumption...god forbid.





[edit on 14-3-2010 by rusethorcain]

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by rusethorcain

 

Something possibly existing does not magically make it likely to exist. You need evidence, of which there is none.

UFOlogists? Ha! The lack of critical thinking in that field is pathetic. So many people simply want to believe that they don't give a rat's ass about making sure they have any evidence. They treat witness reports like actual samples of alien spacecraft. They are a joke. Them talking about trajectories of unproven spacecraft is not evidence, no matter how much you want it to be.

Yes, I will point out the lack of objectivity in your thought process. For your own benefit.

So let me get this straight....millions of people around the world for a few centuries are all telling the same lies, drawing the same pictures? Many thousands of photos and videos had to be faked, were exactly is the agency responsible for this giant project, and what is it's purpose anyway? Who fund it? You are obviously in the inner circle on this knowledge, so tell us!

While you are at it, how about explaining the ancient artwork that depicts alien spacecraft?
Alien Evidence In Religious Art

If you so strongly believe, and have all of this evidence, please be so kind as to post, so we will all be aware of the giant, century long well funded fake alien conspiracy?

Thank you.

reply to post by autowrench


Wow. Just because someone paints something doesn't mean it's a depiction of reality. Got that? Just as everything written down isn't a depiction of reality. It's not too hard to understand.

Old paintings that possibly show people riding in spacecraft is not evidence of spacecraft. It is solely evidence of people painting what they did.

I don't need evidence for my position. There is no evidence that alien spacecraft exists. None. Please show me the actual scientific evidence (clue: paintings are not scientific, old tales are not scientific) that they exist, and we can talk.

You are being irrational beyond belief. It's sad.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by autowrench

 

Just because someone paints something doesn't mean it's a depiction of reality.

And when someone sees something before the days of the camera how would they describe what they see to another person Dave? That's right! A drawing or a painting. Every drawing and painting is not fiction...not too hard to grasp either. Kind of like you admit here yourself.

It is solely evidence of people painting what they did.

And this is rich....

...I don't need evidence for my position.

Please show me the actual scientific evidence (clue: paintings are not scientific, old tales are not scientific) that they exist, and we can talk.

Somehow I think evidence or not you will keep blathering on. No one has shown you acceptable evidence and yet here you are still talking!

You are being irrational beyond belief. It's sad.

You on the other hand are kinda funny.

Are you sure you are in the right website Dave? Maybe you were thinking you're on Yahoo Answers and people are asking you questions? Is this why you feel the need to blurt out the knee jerk responses. This is a conspiracy website and we base many things on empirical evidence all the time.
_____________________________________________________________
Empirical
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the concept in science. For other uses, see Empirical (disambiguation).
The word "empirical" denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.[1] A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective "empirical" or the adverb "empirically." "Empirical" refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations. Empirical data are data that are produced by experiment or observation.

The standard positivist view of empirically acquired information has been that observation, experience, and experiment serve as neutral arbiters between competing theories. However, since the 1960s, Thomas Kuhn [2] has promoted the concept that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data.[3]

And DaveInsideous -
John Lennon, Walter Cronkite, Christopher Columbus, Alexander the Great, Dan Akroyd, PresCarter, Pres Candidates Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson, Astronauts Chase Mc Divot Ed White, Gordon Cooper (who chased them for 45 minutes in an F86), Edgar Mitchel, & Buzz Aldren, Admiral. Hillenkoetter, Gov Fife Symington, Lt. Gov Joseph Montoya, Gov Brian Schweitzer, Lt Col Chas Brown, Lt Walter Haut, Sgt. Clifford Stone, The Canadian Minister of Defense Paul Hellyer(63-67) FAA Supervisor John Callahan Police Officers, Pilots, Staff at Atomic Missile Edwards Air force Base & 10,000 AZ residents saw the Phoenix Lights & Saucer @ OHare Airport ...ALL Claim to have seen alien craft & tell me alien life is visiting earth.
Yet a few couch potatoes say it is impossible
GOLLY, Who am I gonna believe? ...you Dave?

[edit on 14-3-2010 by rusethorcain]

reply to post by autowrench


Check these out.
Bear with me on the first two videos which lay ground work for all major religious stemming from Babylonian Creation "Myths"
.
Then check out the 3rd video Describing the Babylonian texts discovered uncovered along with a vast array of carvings and scenes depicting Winged Draconian's and other serpent like humanoids.
The 4th gives names to the serpent carvings and repeats the creation accounts mentioning serpents and dragons as predominate themes.

Pt1 Yale Lecture course on the Origin of the Hebrew Bible
/ The ancient Middle East up to Judah's survival after the Northern Kingdom fell to the Babylonians in 586 BCE.
Pt2/ Yale Lecture course on the Hebrew BibleThe 18th century BCE Akkadian Atra-Hasis epic, named after its human hero, contains both a creation myth and a flood account (depictions of draconians throughout)The Mythical Garden of Eden's Serpent is a recast of Sumerian Gods who bore the epithet ushumgal, meaning "great serpent dragon," who were involved in Mesopotamian myths in denying man immortality.In this last video, very interesting reading, you will notice dragons can seem to change from dragons to humans and back again, at will.



[edit on 15-3-2010 by rusethorcain]

reply to post by rusethorcain


That really amazed me.

Maybe all of this is the work of the devil himself . . . trying to lure people away from God by creating the notion of humanity being started by a bunch of lizard people or humanoids with foot-high craniums.

It's as logical as anything else that's been posed here.

I'm trying to understand why people seem to be so convinced that there's reptilians living underground . . . I've read many books on these topics myself and so far, the only thing that seems to be evident to me is that the government conducts black op projects with space technology at some of these locations. I haven't seen anyone shape-shift into a reptile, nor have I seen any evidence that any two-legged reptiles the size of a man or larger have been wandering the planet other than what is indicated by dinosaur fossils.

Do reptiles have some significance to humanity through ancient writings? Yes, it appears they do. All we can do is speculate, as one thing that remains painfully clear is that since the beginning, humanity has been subjected to lies and manipulation with respect to its origins. It is the most cruel of hoaxes we will ever endure and we may never get the truth. Someone out there has it, and unfortunately it has come to pass that whomever that is did not use this information for the betterment of mankind.

Why is this thread still going?

reply to post by NightGypsy


It seems to me that a concerted effort is being made, mostly by Christians, to keep this knowledge hidden, and away from the people. There also seems to be a giant effort to keep knowledge of ET life away from people by the same crowd. Why is this? Are Christians afraid to look beyond their Bibles for knowledge? You know by hiding a thing, you hide it from yourself first of all, don't you? Just as telling a lie, you tell it to yourself first.

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."
– Martin Luther

It often seems that Christian leaders get caught all the time lying or having affairs or doing some other evil thing that contradicts the tenets of Christianity. I mean, they all believe in a God they have never seen, and have no evidence at all that one even exists! I know how it is, though, I once saw an ET craft close, up with a Christian friend, she saw it too, no doubt of that. Later she denied seeing anything, even though at the time she was scared half to death, and had a lot of questions for me as to what it was.

I was once like you, a very long time ago, before I read any books other than the Bible. I was instructed not to ever question the "word of God," even though it is pretty clear Gods didn't write any books, or even a magazine article. And yet, I have heard perhaps over 100 Christians say to me that God wrote the Bible. This or that is the will of God. Well, I guess the will of God is for the human race to kill each other off, because with two active wars, and another on the horizon, humanity is doing a pretty good job of it.

reply to post by autowrench


i don't think it's that christians are hiding it, but alot simply don't believe the other ancient histories are anything more than myth or are outright fabrications. we are taught that from the time we enter public school system. for the same reason, many atheists don't believe any of the ancient histories are true. a very influential time in our history, during which the foundation for modern history was laid, turned people from believing the ancient world was fairly true and real, to not believing it at all. and that influence has laid the foundation of most of the world's understanding of the ancient past.

in defense of the bible i can say that it has some very important information in it, not just the obvious moral lessons, the gospel message, but also the prophetical pieces are time markers, both of the past and the future. its only real glaring problems are: 1) mixing old and new testaments into one book but not including books that even yeshua quoted from. i think that was a mistake. 2) latin and english translation has done a hatchet job on it.

you might find my latest line of research, interesting. the numbers are reference numbers for the original hebrew words used, as listed in strongs concordance:

Gen 1:26 ¶ And God 430 said 559 , Let us make 6213 man 120 in our image 6754, after our likeness 1823: and let them have dominion 7287 over the fish 1710 of the sea 3220, and over the fowl 5775 of the air 8064, and over the cattle 929, and over all the earth 776, and over every creeping thing 7431 that creepeth 7430 upon the earth 776.

Gen 1:27 So God 430 created 1254 man 120 in his [own] image 6754, in the image 6754 of God 430 created 1254 he him; male 2145 and female 5347 created 1254 he them.


the word God in those passages is actually ELOHIYM (which is plural). and the word man is 'adam, which means red or ruddy this is a reference to his skin color being red or ruddy. this image, taken from the tomb of seti I, in valley of the kings, depicts what is known as the four races of man

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/5d56364cb46d8da9.jpg[/atsimg]

as you can see, the egyptians are red or ruddy.

notice also how the second version says elohiym created male and female in his image. the word his is not in the original language. instead it simply says ELOHIYM CREATED MALE AND FEMALE. Bear with me, this is going somewhere interesting.

Anyway, let's leave that for a moment now and look at this:

ATUM The Creator God of the Ennead of Heliopolis, who rose out of the Primeval Waters (the Nun) to form the Primeval Mound, the first piece of land which emerged when the water withdrew. Some of his epiteths were: 'Lord to the limit of the sky', 'He Who came into being of Himself', the 'Lord of All' and 'Lord of Iunu (Gr: Heliopolis)'. He self-developed into a being, standing on a raised mound; i.e. the primeval mound, which became the Benben, a pyramid shaped stone, regarded as the dwelling place of the sun god. Atum is therefore the creator god who created the universe, he is the supreme being and master of the forces and elements of the universe. Utterance 600 in the Pyramid Texts: "O Atum-Kheper! You became high on the height, you rose up as the Benben Stone in the Mansion of the Phoenix in On (Heliopolis)." By this is meant the Primeval Mound itself.

that's the primeval mound rising from the primeval abyss. in short, it's enki's e.abzu rising up from the abzu/the abyss. this information has a two fold purpose: 1) it proves that the god could sometimes be fused with his edifice, in the ancient texts, and 2) it proves that atum was enki. now before you get side tracked, i want you to realize that i'm not saying adam was enki. obviously. however, as i will soon explain, there's more to atum than the egyptologists suggest (or at least, i think so)

back to genesis now.
the two creation verses from genesis that i listed above, cover the FIRST creation of adam who was created in the image of atum. but since the biblical passage is referring to a plurality of gods, atum is also plural, meaning that the gods created males and females in their image, and the whole bulk of the males and females were called atum for their red or ruddy skin color. in other words, the original egyptians should really be called the atum.

note also that it doesn't actually say man. it says 'adam. and 'adam is created male and female. this is important to remember. some believe this indicates that the first creation was a hermaphrodite, having both male and female parts and that creation of eve out of adam's side is an indication that the two parts were separated from each other in a later creation, thought by some to be the second creation of adam because it's a different chapter, and doesn't tell the same story as the first creation of adam.

HOWEVER, if the gods were "dragons", the first adam creation were male and female serpents, not male and female humans. the second creation of adam were not made in the gods image. they were made entirely different.

this means, theoretically, that the first egyptians were red colored reptilians, serpents. the atum.
some were good and some were not so good. they didn't want to labor, so a second adam creation transpired, the creation of human man. human woman was cloned from human man and modified.

moses wrote most of the first five books of the old testament, known as the pentateuch. and he was raised as an egyptian. he would've known alot of this information himself.

it makes sense to me, anyway.

strongs referenced verses for the chapter in question
www.blueletterbible.org...#

[edit on 17-3-2010 by undo]