Alien-gods and Atlantean warriors in Meso-American civilizations.

The Engine exhaust could be a part ooooof something like this

A drop pod for one being or even as in the flying machine figurines a reproduction of one to give the chief or leader of the kingdom more authority and to appear God like for those that had been told the stories of the Gods coming from space centuries earlier maybe? just conjecture.
I'm looking to see if anyone has deciphered the lid of the tomb yet. That will be my aim on my next post to see if there is.

Originally posted by Harte


That is, however, easily explained by the fact tha Sitchin used their translations!

Sitchin cannot read cuneiform. IIRC, he has in fact never claimed that he could. He took a few legitimate translations and took out some words and put in words of his own.



[edit on 4/15/2010 by Harte]

don't mind sitchin theories and all but

you do have proof for your claims right?

i'd like to see it...

proof of sitchin using their translations and proof sitchin can't read cuneiform...



ahh,I read entire www.sitchiniswrong and what astonishes me is they conclude even by the site's name that all of sitchin's work is bull 'cause he translated a couple of words of the entire opus wrongly....
fascinating...
what a leap of sceptical logic to proove own claim...

it's a paradox see...
you say he used proffessional university translation and yet a guy on the net prooved them,and sitchin, wrong in it's entirety...


so please proof of your claims...thank you very much

Originally posted by serbsta



Don't want to be rude, but why would space aliens travel with such primitive technology? That is what you're implying correct? That these people modeled this 'rocket' from something they saw? I almost find it disrespectful to those people, have you investigated their heritage and their belief system? Maybe that object has something to do with their dogmas and just coincidentally happens to barely resemble a C20 rocket.

don't want to be rude but...
but have you investigated their belief and heritage?

I would like you to refference where you found concrete facts about their dogmas and what is the connection of the dogmas and beliefs to this exhaust-like modelled object?
what does it truely represent?

I hope you have some fact info cuase I'd really like to see it

after all it DOES ressemble an exhaust system and I have no refference to theorize differently, other than YOUR CLAIM that it is connected to their dogma belief system,of which you offered no proof?

please link concrete facts to this claim...so we can use real deductive investigation on this one....
thank you very much

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex


Tell us why it is a rocket? Do you have any other reason than the shallow thought process of "it looks like it, therefore it must be it"?

What do archaeologists have to say about that artifact? Can you tell us why they are wrong, other than the shallow thought process of "it looks like it, therefore it must be it"?

And can you tell us why, if these people were in contact with aliens, that the aliens would be coming to Earth in the most primitive form of space-travel?

i guess again it DOES ressemble an exhaust system of a rocket
so for a disscussion the refference is a rocket

please provide a link on an arheological theory about the artifact you reffer to so we can deduct info....

thanks in advance

Originally posted by darkraver

Originally posted by Harte


That is, however, easily explained by the fact tha Sitchin used their translations!

Sitchin cannot read cuneiform. IIRC, he has in fact never claimed that he could. He took a few legitimate translations and took out some words and put in words of his own.

don't mind sitchin theories and all but

you do have proof for your claims right?

i'd like to see it...

proof of sitchin using their translations and proof sitchin can't read cuneiform...

You have any evidence that he can? Do you have any evidence that he ever claimed he could?

ahh,I read entire www.sitchiniswrong and what astonishes me is they conclude even by the site's name that all of sitchin's work is bull 'cause he translated a couple of words of the entire opus wrongly....
fascinating...
what a leap of sceptical logic to proove own claim...

Excuse me?

If you think this, you didn't "read the entire" website.

"Opus?"

If you want to refer to one of Sitchin's books as an "opus," well, that's your opinion.

But there exists no Sumerian opus for Sitchin to translate.

"A couple of words?"

Please - he says "what if" this word means "rocket." That's not a translation, that's a VonDaniken.

it's a paradox see...
you say he used proffessional university translation and yet a guy on the net prooved them,and sitchin, wrong in it's entirety...

So, here you reveal that you didn't actually read much at that site at all.

Either that, or you want to pretend that Heiser claims that the official translations are wrong - which not only does he not say, he doesn't even touch on the subject of the validity of official translations!

Another "true believer" refusing to remove his blinders.

Fingers in ears.

"LA LA LA LA LA...!!!!"

Harte

Originally posted by Harte


Another "true believer" refusing to remove his blinders.

Fingers in ears.

"LA LA LA LA LA...!!!!"

Harte

ahhhh,thank you for a non reply...

I figured....

another true "dsibeliever" with no contra proof whatsoever....

reply to post by Harte


Nice1 harte i'll have a look soon

I dont think there will be a definate answer to whether Sitchins lying or not as he probably covered his tracks if he lied, but if i was him and telling the truth i would be out all guns blazing to anyone who tried to say i was lying, so why hasnt he?

My downfall is i really want to believe him, i dont have a religion through i believe in one god, the creator.

Back on topic - its advanced Humans not aliens

Originally posted by Lucifer84
My downfall is i really want to believe him,

This I completely understand. I have been in that same place.

i dont have a religion through i believe in one god, the creator.

I think it may be true that the universe was created. That's about all I can bring myself to believe in that arena.

Harte

Originally posted by darkraver
ahhhh,thank you for a non reply...

I figured....

another true "dsibeliever" with no contra proof whatsoever....

Considering that there is no such thing as "contra proof" (IOW, there is no logical process to proving a negative) then this surprises you?

I also have no method for trisecting an angle with compass and straightedge.

I'm worthless.

Harte

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


I made a mistake in the above post. I said the Romans had spent two decades construction the temple complex at Baalbek. Actually, it was two centuries.

Originally posted by darkraver
i guess again it DOES ressemble an exhaust system of a rocket
so for a disscussion the refference is a rocket

please provide a link on an arheological theory about the artifact you reffer to so we can deduct info....

Unfortunately, there is little information available on what the artifact is, aside from Sitchin. The Istanbul Archaeology Museums does not appear to have an online gallery to view objects, much less even a web-presence. However, that is all moot. The onus is not on me to prove what the object is, I am making no claims about it. Sitchin and company, yourself included are; therefore it is on you to prove your claims.

Sitchin (and you) claim it is a rocket based on nothing more than your own biased, modern eyes. You want to look at it in a vacuum, without any context, disregarding the civilization that may have produced it. The totality of your evidence is, it resembles a rocket therefore it is a rocket.

Using the same shallow logic both you and Sitchin are employing and changing the perspective...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5f283b37fd08.jpg[/atsimg]

...it appears to be a fishman wearing a decorative headdress. This was drawn employing the same logic as Sitchin and yourself; it resembles a fishman wearing a headdress, therefore it must be.

While this is a bit facetious, one can make a case that it is a man wearing a headdress by examining the Urartu culture that supposedly made the artifact; a much stronger case than rocket-in-a-vacuum beliefs. Consider these Urartu artifacts and notice the headdresses...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/37c0da8d5ad8.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f7163b55588a.jpg[/atsimg]

To be certain, I am not saying this object is a man wearing a headdress. I don't know what it is. Simply for the purposes of this discussion I am just applying the same logic as Sitchin and yourself to show the flaws in that logic. However, unlike Sitchin and yourself, I have supplied evidence from the culture in question to back up my conclusion.

hi there UCAlien


i was looking back on threads and i came across this and the Do you remember Dolores Barrios, the woman from the planet Venus??? Thread you posted while ago and this thread with the columbian mask


i notice this !






and this
files.abovetopsecret.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>
what got me is the very high bridge
and so similar and knowledge of a connection ?


files.abovetopsecret.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>



[edit on 18-4-2010 by Wolfenz]

reply to post by yadda333


oooohhhh... archaeologist alert!!!!! this thread has been infiltrated...

interesting logic you have there though. this guy doesnt know that incas come from sth america (or didnt feel the need to differentiate), therefore his theory about ancient astronauts must be wrong?

how does that logic work?

maybe you should study logic at uni, because that logic was flawed.

because someone doesn't know something or makes a factual error does not make their IDEA wrong. it takes more than that to discredit an IDEA. you can't discredit an idea just by discrediting a person. you have to actually come up with some facts that show the idea is wrong.

this is why von daniken's ideas survive inspite of all the crap everyone put him through. because try as they might, people can't come up wiht the facts that prove his ideas are wrong.

probably because his ideas are dead right, and so was he.

of course aliens were here in ancient times. one look at the pyramids tells me that.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex


Unfortunately, there is little information available on what the artifact is, aside from Sitchin. The Istanbul Archaeology Museums does not appear to have an online gallery to view objects, much less even a web-presence. However, that is all moot. The onus is not on me to prove what the object is, I am making no claims about it. Sitchin and company, yourself included are; therefore it is on you to prove your claims.

Sitchin (and you) claim it is a rocket based on nothing more than your own biased, modern eyes. You want to look at it in a vacuum, without any context, disregarding the civilization that may have produced it. The totality of your evidence is, it resembles a rocket therefore it is a rocket.

Using the same shallow logic both you and Sitchin are employing and changing the perspective...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5f283b37fd08.jpg[/atsimg]

...it appears to be a fishman wearing a decorative headdress. This was drawn employing the same logic as Sitchin and yourself; it resembles a fishman wearing a headdress, therefore it must be.

While this is a bit facetious, one can make a case that it is a man wearing a headdress by examining the Urartu culture that supposedly made the artifact; a much stronger case than rocket-in-a-vacuum beliefs. Consider these Urartu artifacts and notice the headdresses...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/37c0da8d5ad8.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f7163b55588a.jpg[/atsimg]

To be certain, I am not saying this object is a man wearing a headdress. I don't know what it is. Simply for the purposes of this discussion I am just applying the same logic as Sitchin and yourself to show the flaws in that logic. However, unlike Sitchin and yourself, I have supplied evidence from the culture in question to back up my conclusion.

thank you very much for a constructive reply (as opposed to some above...)

however there is one flaw in your conclusion...
I'm not claiming anything,I'm just observing a statue in question...

as for the perspective I believe you are wrong there...
modelling dynamics surely indicate the statue to be horizontal based ,not vertical(flat surfaces,structural mass distribution...)

I have seen somewhere on the web a picture of this figurine enclosed in a glass box postioned horizontally(however it is not easy to find it again,tried)

as for the details of...i can not see any face or limb detail in a vertical presentation to suggest a representation of a person other than the conical hat-a-like upper end that again does not have the intrinsic details of the headdress you mention...

the difference of adding a observational case logic to this kind of non conclusive evidence is in the eye of the beholder I guess

I guess I'm more open minded to the ancient astronaut theory than you, therefore I have no problem concluding that the detail of the figurine ressembless an exhaust system of some kind of a vehicle

The problem is I have no refference to offer to make my claim more substantial cause the entire ancient astronaut idea is para-arheological

I did try,really try, to find some archeological based theory on this particular object but found none...
long ago I asked in a forum for someone inIstanbul to validate,none answered,not even negative...


Maybe the descriptions of Vimanas in ancient indian texts would serve as reff... to flying machines in ancient times?....therefore substantiating sitchin claims

en.wikipedia.org...

www.hinduwisdom.info...

reply to post by rapunzel222

this is why von daniken's ideas survive inspite of all the crap everyone put him through. because try as they might, people can't come up wiht the facts that prove his ideas are wrong.

Hiya Rapunzel

Mr VD has been proven wrong many times over. He's said so himself. He's admitted to being wrong and describes his books as entertainment in interviews. Way back in a Playboy interview he agreed that the rust-free Indian column of alien 'alloys' was simply an iron column and a bit rusty...

"... when I wrote _Chariots of the Gods?_ the information I had concerning this iron column was as I presented it. Since then, I have found that investigations were made and they came to quite different results, so we can forget about this iron thing."

From _The Space Gods Revealed_ by Ronald Story, 1976 ("The Chariot of the Gods turned into a pumpkin")

30 years ago and no edits made to the book? He's pulling your chain. He has also been clear that the books aren't scientific...

"I am not a scientific man, and if I had written a scientific book, it would have been calm and sober and nobody would talk about it." - Erich von Däniken

Playboy: Are you, as one writer suggested, "the most brilliant satirist in German literature for a century"?
Von Däniken: The answer is yes and no. ... In some part, I mean what I say seriously. In other ways, I mean to make people laugh.

A Primer in the Art of Cooked Science

Originally posted by rapunzel222
this is why von daniken's ideas survive inspite of all the crap everyone put him through. because try as they might, people can't come up wiht the facts that prove his ideas are wrong.

That is a very curious statement. Can you tell us which ideas Von Daniken forwarded that have no been falsified?

Originally posted by darkraver
as for the perspective I believe you are wrong there...
modelling dynamics surely indicate the statue to be horizontal based ,not vertical(flat surfaces,structural mass distribution...)

Interesting. Can you explain further?

Originally posted by darkraver
as for the details of...i can not see any face or limb detail in a vertical presentation to suggest a representation of a person other than the conical hat-a-like upper end that again does not have the intrinsic details of the headdress you mention...

You are right. However, that was my point. I was describing it in a very superficial manner, the same way I feel that it is being described as a rocket.

Originally posted by darkraver
I guess I'm more open minded to the ancient astronaut theory than you, therefore I have no problem concluding that the detail of the figurine ressembless an exhaust system of some kind of a vehicle

I am open to the idea of ancient astronauts, hence my interest in the topic. Like Kadinsky mentioned (I think it was Kadinsky) it was interest in the topic that fostered my love for history as a whole. However, I just see no evidence for it.

Wow I`ve just got through reading it all and i must say good job i recognised a few of them pics but never really knew what they were like the little golden planes.

wonderful thread. I just finished hoagland's book, "dark mission", which opened my eyes to cydonia, the moon, etc, and the connections to what's here on earth. after reading about the level of deception NASA has employed to lie/cheat/distort/discount/deny, I'm no longer shocked by people refusing to see the obvious. even quite a few of those who say they believe in this, were they to get incontrovertible PROOF, would actually deny it out of fear. the duplicity of people is not to be underestimated.

[edit on 25-4-2010 by dragonseeker]