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.
Ancient people had no imaginations? Ancient people had no creativity? Ancient people had no artistic sense? Ancient people had no scary stories to make their kids behave? Ancient people had no fun?
ll Igan | 11 MB | PDF | 259 Pages
Maxwell Igan
reply to post by Come Clean
Isn't that just saying NO just to say NO though? I'm still waiting for you guys to present evidence they DON'T exist. Its one thing to present evidence they don't exist. It's another thing to say they don't exist with no evidence.
I can't wait to do the part on ancient structures, it will be juicy! And I think you are correct, we want to believe we are responsible for everything. When dealing with this theory people will often say "hey come on, give the human race some credit"...well I do, I give them credit for what THEY achieve...and I see what they obviously haven't achieved on their own also...I say some groups (aliens) aren't getting credit.
It is plain to see the overwhelming evidence, the physical facts on the ground within so many ancient structures we have already discovered. Main stream archaeology and science is embarrassed BIG TIME and try to debunk all the evidence for one very simple reason. PRIDE.
Right on the money. I've seen historians come up with some REALLY obscure and speculative theories to try to explain ancient structures and other things. In the end it gets to the point where their explanation is completely insane and unlikely, but we can't just accept the obvious conclusion, not when it threatens what we think we know. In their minds their outlandish but "scientific" theories are a lot more likely simply because it doesn't involve "aliens". THAT is the prison of academia. There are always PRECONCEPTIONS. For example Phage will go into any thread with an EXTREMELY predictable stance, despite what type of evidence is presented, he will probably argue the "scientific" or "mundane" explanation, according to mainstream views usually. Science already has an "idea" about how everything works, therefore there is a MISCONCEPTION that science is always correct about everything, and theories become more like fact. Science EXPECTS to see answers it has predicted, therefore it isn't looking where it doesn't think answers exist, and even denies such answers because it already thinks it has the answer without even looking.
They cannot classify these structures because it's beyond their own comprehension.
In affect, we believers can be likened to Galileo..we "see things" somewhat different compared to the "schooled" scientists, archaeologists who are still lost and chained the the walls of belief within their "PRISONS of ACADEMIA" ..
Originally posted by Phage
As has been pointed out, the religious art of the middle ages is rife with specific symbolism.
Without an understanding of that symbolism it is easy to make guesses about what is depicted but it's easy for those guesses to be wrong. Something that puzzles me about the UFO interpretations in this art is that these are artistic renderings of biblical events. Where in the stories which inspired the art are the UFOs?
For me, the Inca objects bear a stylized resemblance to the family of fish, rhinobatidae, more than any aircraft I've ever seen. The arrangement of the empennage does not really make sense from an aerodynamic standpoint, with the horizontal stabilizer positioned so far forward of the vertical. Yes, it can be made to fly, but so can a lawn mower.
]
Interpreting very ancient drawings becomes problematic. Placing the mystical representations by ancient man into the context of reality is a reach but even so, there is no reason to call upon an extraterrestrial interpretation.
Placing the mystical representations by ancient man into the context of reality is a reach but even so, there is no reason to call upon an extraterrestrial interpretation.
Shamans, kings, and warriors often (usually) bear distinctive headgear in order to distinguish themselves from others.
For me, the Inca objects bear a stylized resemblance to the family of fish, rhinobatidae, more than any aircraft I've ever seen. The arrangement of the empennage does not really make sense from an aerodynamic standpoint, with the horizontal stabilizer positioned so far forward of the vertical. Yes, it can be made to fly, but so can a lawn mower.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Come Clean
Not that it is any of your business but I do not consider myself a Christian.