It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Ancient Astronaut Thread

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger
reply to post by kidflash2008
 




The Romans built some interesting things, but they were not as technological advanced as the ancient Egyptians once were. The Dark Ages proves a point that we went backwards. Why did knowledge go backwards?

well more advanced is realtive. The egyptians had some things while the romans had others. Just like today South Korea's internet is way faster the the internet in the US and UK but would you say they are more advanced?

Sorry to butt in, zaiger, but I couldn't let Kidflash's statement and your reply stand.

The Romans were far, far more advanced than the Egyptians.

This is an example of people going on about how we know little about history when they themselves know next to nothing at all about history.

I think the argument about the "gaps" of historical knowledge was made by triplescorpio, but the only logical reply to that is to say "How much do you know about history yourself?"

I mean, if one doesn't know what is known, and how it is known, concerning ancient history, then one is not only being foolish when one states that "we don't know" this or that, one is being outlandishly egotistical as well.

Here we have a poster claiming the Egyptians were "more advanced" than the Romans. This is evidence of only one thing - the level of ignorance about history the poster lives with.

Harte




posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


But like i said "advanced" is relative. The egyptians made the plow, black ink, The Sun Calendar and black ink. The egyptians heavily influenced the greeks and the greeks influenced the romans. The term "advanced" in this case is very subjective because it depends on what ther person thinks is advanced is art science philosophy math and what time period they are refering to.



Here we have a poster claiming the Egyptians were "more advanced" than the Romans.


Well they may not get the bigger picture when they read about these things. If you were reading about civilization around 750BC you may not be too far off in saying the egyptians were better off.

[edit on 29-4-2010 by zaiger]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


its nice to see a fresh mind more into learning then debunking.

with threads and ideas like this one i have little respect for anyone who states things like where is your definitive proof of course i dont know or have the smoking gun thats not why the thread was started it is a thread to share ideas about a very hypothetical theory. but very cool concept that deserves as much research and leeway as any new theory.

Be Well



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Harte, I am not ignorant when it comes to history. I may not have a fancy degree on the subject like some do here, but I love the subject and have studied up on it.

I stand by my statement that the Egyptians were highly advanced in the knowledge of monument building, mathematics, astronomy and many other subjects including medicines. The Egyptians had longer life spans as opposed to the Romans also.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by Harte
 


Harte, I am not ignorant when it comes to history. I may not have a fancy degree on the subject like some do here, but I love the subject and have studied up on it.


I'm sorry...but I can't let it pass. You do know that 'those fancy degrees' indicate that the owners have delved pretty deeply into the given subject, right? Reading translations of primary source documents, full immersion, that sort of thing? Unless your 'studies' are actually studies...based on University texts and readings, and not mere popular accounts, then you aren't getting the bigger picture.

If you are doing the deeper research, then by all means, I present my apologies for my impertinence. But to write off a 'fancy degree' in minimising terms is in my opinion, ignorant.

[edit on 29-4-2010 by JohnnyCanuck]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Well the degrees are over rated. For instance there is so much to learn about egypt but you can't get a degree in "egyptology". You can get a degree in history or archeology but not egyptology. So in some fields the degree really does not mean much. You can get someone with a degree in archeology or history but that does not know he know more than the next guy when it comes to egypt.

but lets take a look at our ancient astronaut supporters education level
Erich von Däniken- High-school drop out, was wroking at hotels and reasturaunts (where he was arrested for committing fraud) before he wrote his books.

Zecharia Sitchin- Learned hebrew and graduated from london school of economics majoring in economic history. Somewhere in economic history i guess he found out how to read ancient summarian. but now that the Sumerian Lexicon can be read by anyone, you too can translate the texts for yourself and see if you can get space men out of it.

[edit on 29-4-2010 by zaiger]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Well the degrees are over rated. For instance there is so much to learn about egypt but you can't get a degree in "egyptology". You can get a degree in history or archeology but not egyptology. So in some fields the degree really does not mean much.


You can certainly study Ancient Egypt in history, and also through Anthropology and Geography. Any way you want it. Egyptology is not a science in and of itself. You start off generally...learning how to learn, and as you proceed, you specialise. And if you have ever earned a university credit...done really well...you wouldn't call it into question.


You can get someone with a degree in archeology or history but that does not know he know more than the next guy when it comes to egypt.


Well...not if you don't study it, right? Do I really have to continue this point?



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by zaiger
 


Need i start naming some of the most intelligent influential and promonant people who have not even finished high school you are cherry picking with your examples??

there are plenty of stupid people with college degrees there are also many intelligent people without.

food for your thoughts

Be Well



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by triplescorpio
 


I really do not care about degrees, i just find it funny that one of the starters of the ancient astronaut theory got busted for fraud and then wrote Charriots of the gods when he got out of prison. The other guy just has a degree in economics. So they both have a knowlege and a backround showing that they know a thing or two about making money.



Need i start naming some of the most intelligent influential and promonant people who have not even finished high school you are cherry picking with your examples??


Im not cherry picking the two biggest people in the ancient astronaut theory are those two guys, how is that cherry picking?
Sure you can name prominent people who did not go to school but i really do not care. I know bill gates did not finish school but nobody is going to have a discussion with you over windows being real or not.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I am so not looking for any conflict just you seem(i dont no for sure) to only here your own context and are ignoring the other facts and people involved however you do have a point these two men you picked do have a history of being able to and knowing what to say to get paid.

I am sure you are not here simply to argue so please take what i say lightly i do appreciate your contributing and i understand every theory needs a debunker. do you beleive in et life that is intelligent i am curious your veiw point is???

Be Well



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger



Why did the ancient Americans have wheels on toys but not wheels for use? They also did not improve on their knowledge either.


What ancient americans? They did not improve because they were wiped out.


We Ancient Americans were not 'wiped out', Zaiger.
We survived the genocide of the first American holocaust.
We're still here, watching you and reading what you write.

The rumors of our death were somewhat exaggerated.

In answer to the other poster's question, why we did not use wheels except for toys:

This was a Law of our Ancestors. Wheels were reserved for toys, and for the exclusive use of the People From The Stars. You could say it was a global-warming carbon limit law WAY ahead of its time. The idea of National-Enquirer-reading hominids zooming all over the planet spewing smog was forbidden in the long ago. Anybody who got too uppity in the old days, didn't live for long. So we had close to 100% compliance with that law.

Zaiger, we love you. We are the Cherokee.

Have a nice day.



[edit on 29-4-2010 by Chakotay]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Chakotay
 




We Ancient Americans were not 'wiped out', Zaiger.


The native americans were not all wiped out, been to a casino lately? Native americans were slaughtering each other long before the eruopeans got here.



We survived the genocide of the first American holocaust.


Well to be honest not all the native americans wrote stuff down so the only records we have are the ones written by european settlers. Don't act like the tribes were not killing eachother before the euros came.



This was a Law of our Ancestors. Wheels were reserved for toys, and for the exclusive use of the People From The Stars.


People from the stars, really? I would love to read about the cherokee accounts of the star people.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Well the degrees are over rated. For instance there is so much to learn about egypt but you can't get a degree in "egyptology". You can get a degree in history or archeology but not egyptology.

Why would you think that? click here

True, they're mostly graduate degrees, but there are some undergrad as well.


Originally posted by kidflash2008

I stand by my statement that the Egyptians were highly advanced in the knowledge of monument building, mathematics, astronomy and many other subjects including medicines. The Egyptians had longer life spans as opposed to the Romans also.

Okay, then, tell me what you know about Egyptian astronomy and mathematics.

And, please, the Romans built far more complicated structures than the Egyptians ever dreamed of.

Harte



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 




True, they're mostly graduate degrees, but there are some undergrad as well.


Well i take that back you can get some degrees in egytology but for the most part not worth the effort as many egyptologists do not have degrees egyptology.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger
reply to post by Chakotay
 


[


This was a Law of our Ancestors. Wheels were reserved for toys, and for the exclusive use of the People From The Stars.


People from the stars, really? I would love to read about the cherokee accounts of the star people.

You need to get the book by Dhyani Ywahoo titled "Voices of Our Ancestors."

In it, the author states these ridiculous claims about the origins of the Cherokee.

The Cherokee Nation, by the way, has disavowed Ywahoo's stories and has stated in no uncertain terms that the authors claims in no way reflect traditional Cherokee legends and/or beliefs.

If you're really interested in Native American Folklore/legends, there are a great many official (and unofficial) tribal websites and websites dedicated to collecting these stories.

Re the Cherokee, Here's one

and

this one's a more comprehensive look

Neither of the above is nearly as extensive as many of the others out there, including one in particular that I used to use a lot and have linked here at ATS before. But, that was a couple of hard drive crashes ago and I don't have those links handy. Can't remember the names of the sites I had saved and at the moment I don't have time to click on every google return to find them again.

Harte



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
cherokee "star people"



One night a hunting party camping in the mountains noticed two lights like large stars moving along the top of a distant ridge. They wondered and watched until the lights disappeared on the other side. The next night, they saw the lights moving along the ridge, and after discussing the matter decided to go and see what was going on. In the morning, they went to the ridge and after searching some time, they found two strange creatures very large (making a circle with outstretched arms), with round bodies covered with fine fur or downy feathers, from which small heads stuck out like the heads of terrapins. As the breeze played upon these feathers, showers of sparks flew out.

The hunters carried the strange creatures back to the camp. They kept them several days, and noticed that every night they would grow bright and shine like great stars, although by day they were only balls of grey fur. The creatures kept very quiet, and no one thought of their trying to escape when, on the seventh night, they suddenly rose from the ground like balls of fire and were soon above the tops of the trees. Higher and higher the creatures went, while the wondering hunters watched, until at last they were only two bright points of light in the dark sky, and then the hunters knew that they were stars.


Kind sounds like the normal type of folklore. The stars are furry animals not people from the stars.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by zaiger]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


I will agree with both JohnnyCanuck and Harte that I am ignorant of many things about Egypt. I plan on correcting this by going on a trip to Egypt and seeing things for myself. I will not read the mainstream or other books about it and look at the monuments first hand.

I also want to go to South America and visit the ancient ruins there.

That way, I can make up my own mind and come to my own conclusions, not those based on any one person's book or thesis.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by kidflash2008
 


You really should read some of the main stream stuff to get the whole picture. If you do not understand teh culture going to see the monuments theirself would be breathtaking but you probably would not understand what you were looking at. You might want to studdy up on their religion and how their religion changed over time. Their religion really started out with concepts and latter everything got warped and twisted and that is most of what you read about when reading about the _____ god and things like that. Since their religion changed over time so did their writting and what it means, so if you plan to make the most out of your trip you should read up on these things.



If you can wrap your head around this then you should have no problem

[edit on 30-4-2010 by zaiger]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


I will agree with both JohnnyCanuck and Harte that I am ignorant of many things about Egypt. I plan on correcting this by going on a trip to Egypt and seeing things for myself. I will not read the mainstream or other books about it and look at the monuments first hand.
I also want to go to South America and visit the ancient ruins there.
That way, I can make up my own mind and come to my own conclusions, not those based on any one person's book or thesis.


I would humbly suggest that a first-person visit will not provide you with the results of innumerable excavations and studies that have been conducted by competent specialists. Take a look at what was published in the 19th century and compare it to the knowledge pool available today.

To provide a North American context, consider the Mississippi Mounds. In the past, they were attributed to some noble civilized race who had been subsequently vanquished by by the brutal and base Red Man. We know now it was a First Nations culture that was responsible for them.

By all means, visit these sites...I envy you that opportunity. But to ignore the scientific observations that form our current knowledge base, in favour of that which you can discern as an interested layman, is indeed short sighted.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Let me start by saying I'm 100% open to the possibility of "Ancient Astronauts." But like Zaiger and Harte the reasons many people are using as their basis for it really don't hold a lot of water.

For example:

"The ancient Egyptians went from being a small neolithic community with the basic understandings of agriculture and all of a sudden had the mathematical knowledge to build The Great Pyramid and other monuments? Where is the evidence showing the gradual build up of knowledge?"

As it was previously mentioned there -is- evidence of a gradual development of the skills required to build monoliths and other, large, structures. In actuality, building a large structure, such as a pyramid, is easier to develop and plan for than to build a domed structure, such as you see in Rome.

Again as previously mentioned a pyramid is a very simple shape, and basically follows the simple idea of "stacking blocks." Not terribly hard. Neither still is the development and shaping of rocks. There are dozens of ethnic groups across the world that were able to figure out that smashing one rock against another could shape either of them. From there it's just trial and error.

You also discredit their ingenuity by thinking they couldn't have developed this knowledge on their own. That it had to require an outside knowledge to develop it.

Humanity has shown the ability, when conditions are right, to explosively develop intellectually. Ancient man is not alone in its ability to rapidly advance a technology or process.

Long example but a valid one for my argument (And my apologies if the example doesn't jive with everyone, but I'm in IT and its a simple field for me to use as an example):

Take the internet: Less than three decades and we've gone from multiple, rudimentary forms of connectivity between end-systems to a single cohesive standard linking hundreds of millions of people together. Many of these early standards were developed apart from each other, whether it be universities or countries. While the level of collaboration is undoubtedly higher than the ancient civilizations might have been, they were definitely not on the phone with each other every day comparing notes. Hence why early protocols developed so different from one another, and yet share similarities in the development.

The reality is there's only so many logical ways to connect systems. Each group said "How do we connect A to B, with room to support C through Z?" Through rational thinking and trial and error, you can only come up with so many ways. Eventually, when everyone shows off their results and compares, many things will be the same, and there will also be a variety of ingenious differences in approach.

Now I can say with 99.9% certainty (you can never be 100% about anything I suppose) that "Aliens" or "ET" or "God" did not tell people how to build a global, or even local, network. We took what we know from existing technology, applied concepts to theoretical concepts, and created a working system.

So why is it unreasonable that a group of people couldn't have looked at a stone, decided they wanted to use it to build a structure, or anything really, and developed and subsequently refined a process to do so? They had the man power, all it takes is a few people to teach more people, and then have the gross manual labor done by others while the specialists focus on their work.

Why then is it unreasonable that multiple cultures could have developed similar processes from a similar desire?

You say they developed that skill quickly. From a historical point of view yes, a few decades or even centuries is very quick. From the point of view of a person living then, it's just another example of hard work paying off.

Remember humanity doesn't always have a point behind it's work. Often times it's done "Just to prove we could do it."



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join