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.
I could not even begin to speculate on the possibilities that history has erased over time. I very much believe in a cyclical cycle pertaining to civilizations on Earth. The only thing that we have left to go on is all of the temples, inscriptions, etc. that were created from stone. None of the tech that some claim existed can be found. There is nothing but subjective evidence left, which includes these accounts of "Gods" and flying machines, etc.
Usually they are simultaneous, and usually what happens in this period five or six hours before a dimensional shift is a visual phenomenon. This almost for certain will happen as 3rd and 4th dimension begin to interface, and our consciousness begins to move into 4th dimensional consciousness and 3rd dimensional consciousness begins to recede away. When that happens, synthetic manufactured objects which consist of materials which do not occur naturally on the Earth, begin to disappear over a wide gradient, depending what the materials are. They do not disappear all at once. When the grid of 3rd dimensional consciousness begins to break down along with the collapse of the magnetic field, these synthetic objects begin to disappear over this five or six hour period. Since axis/conscious/grid changes have happened continously for millions of years, this is why there are few manufactured objects from previous civilizations (some of which have been more advanced than ours) which remain to tell the tale.
Originally posted by CHA0S
...I don't think it's worth wasting my breath on addressing this.
If that's how you interpreted my response, so be it....but I didn't toss you or your opinion aside. I considered it carefully, and I stated my opinion on it. I clearly state neither my, nor your theory on the helicopter hieroglyph were conclusive. And I clearly pointed out my take on the explanation of symbolism, I'll quote the last thing I've said in my thread because it's highly relevant and I doubt you're still reading it.
Of course, as I suspected, I was tossed aside in favor of the magic.
----
Funny, pretty much the same thing you said to my constructive and researched opinions on your thread.
Also, even if there is "supporting evidence it depicts manifestation of heaven", it changes nothing - because AA theory holds it was a misinterpretation, therefore the people depicting these beings are obviously going to believe they are depicting a manifestation of heaven, and write about it in such a way also. It changes nothing even if they did think they were depicting heavily beings on a divine cloud shooting down rays of holy light. That's what I've been trying to say this whole time. Understanding and explaining the symbolism means nothing, unless you can explain the origins of that symbolism and why it looks as it does. What I'm arguing here is that all the common themes we see in this ancient art from all over the world do have origins, and when you look at it rationally, and try to understand from their point of view what it is they were trying to depict, it quickly becomes obvious that they were either depicting aliens or real gods. So, which is more likely? Obviously Humans seem to have thought back then they were Gods, and millions of Humans still do think the same, and follow religions devoted to those Gods. And yet, when a person tries to look at it rationally, and say - hey, wait a minute, lets look at it rationally, maybe they were trying to depict advanced beings, technologically advanced beings - those people have apparently lost the plot, because such a theory is blasphemous to everything we think we know.
So you consider my entire post a "tossing aside" of this thread? Because I didn't agree with every word? THAT is the "magic" to you. Anything that argues against the AA theory is rationalism and sensibility to you, that's the problem, you clearly, from the very beginning, have not wanted Aliens to play a large part in Human history. You clearly already have a set paradigm in your head, and anything that doesn't support that is magic.
Glad to see you tossing this thread aside too:
AA theory argues no such thing. It doesn't say it's impossible for an intelligent species to evolve, it just says that Humans didn't evolve completely naturally, obviously even the method and extent of interference with our genetics isn't something the theory can argue with certainty, without more evidence at least.
Don't forget that a major claim of AA theory is that it would be impossible for humans to evolve naturally. Yet, if that were true then it would mean that it would be impossible for these more advanced creatures to evolve naturally.
Originally posted by CHA0S
I'll quote the last thing I've said in my thread because it's highly relevant and I doubt you're still reading it.
Originally posted by CHA0S
that's the problem, you clearly, from the very beginning, have not wanted Aliens to play a large part in Human history.
Originally posted by adigregorio
...Sorry that my two posts so far have been on the negative side, I am actually saddened about this recent turn of events. I always found those paintings to be unique, now it seems that it was common practice.
Originally posted by CHA0S
You clearly already have a set paradigm in your head, and anything that doesn't support that is magic.
Originally posted by CHA0S
Haha...so...how does that debunk them? Really...I mean come on...can you not see the absurd logic being used here?!?
Originally posted by CHA0S
UFO's are phased into clouds which shoot beams. Helmets into halos, they slowly try to phase out the Alien element and make it look like all the coincidental symbolism means nothing.
Originally posted by CHA0S
BTW, only to a small mind is an advanced intelligent life a magical concept my friend.
Ok, I admit, maybe I didn't show your argument enough respect, but I did consider them carefully, and though maybe a bit harsh in presentation, I want to do nothing but share exactly what I think, and what I think holds weight. I'm not saying neither you or me or correct about the helicopter hieroglyph, I'd be willing to believe it is coincidental if it can be better proven.
Though I did feel that you just "brushed aside" my claims...
No, I saw those posts, however they felt somewhat fake to me at the time, all your other posts didn't fit that picture, I doubt you really felt sad at all when you found that debunking "evidence", which had already been presented in the thread BTW. Then again, I could be wrong, I'm just stating my thoughts.
Really? Maybe you didn't read my posts in your thread:
A "researched" source? That's what really bugs me, this latching onto "mainstream", "expert", and "professional" opinion, and then acting like one little thing debunks it all. I'm not saying they aren't good sources a lot of the time, but any conspiracy theorist can agree mainstream sources obviously aren't as good when dealing with "conspiracies" or "alternative" theories. You wont see such mainstream sources releasing detailed and "researched" information about how many ancient artifacts might have potential alien inspiration or origin, because they like their coffee served one way only, and it doesn't include aliens. That's why you have to "think outside the box" and use "alternative" sources of information, to question mainstream paradigms and look at things from a different perspective.
Seriously? That is how you debunk the claims made by my researched source? And you claim I have a paradigm, and I am close minded to other possibilities.
I'm sorry if you took offense to any of my responses to you, but they were not meant like that. I only laughed and ridiculed the logic because I seriously find it delusional. And the last thing you quoted by me, sorry second last thing, I completely believe to be true, it's the heart of the problem, that the truth has been partially covered up, as is true with most conspiracy theories I expect.
Yeah...I don't say stuff like that...friend.
Originally posted by CHA0S
...I'd be willing to believe it is coincidental if it can be better proven.
Originally posted by CHA0S
No, I saw those posts, however they felt somewhat fake to me at the time...
Originally posted by CHA0S
...all your other posts didn't fit that picture...
Originally posted by CHA0S
I doubt you really felt sad at all when you found that debunking "evidence"...
Originally posted by CHA0S
Then again, I could be wrong, I'm just stating my thoughts.
Originally posted by CHA0S
A "researched" source? That's what really bugs me, this latching onto "mainstream", "expert", and "professional" opinion, and then acting like one little thing debunks it all.
Originally posted by CHA0S
I'm not saying they aren't good sources a lot of the time, but any conspiracy theorist can agree mainstream sources obviously aren't as good when dealing with "conspiracies" or "alternative" theories.
Originally posted by CHA0S
You wont see such mainstream sources releasing detailed and "researched" information about how many ancient artifacts might have potential alien inspiration or origin, because they like their coffee served one way only, and it doesn't include aliens.
Originally posted by CHA0S
That's why you have to "think outside the box" and use "alternative" sources of information, to question mainstream paradigms and look at things from a different perspective.
Originally posted by CHA0S
I'm sorry if you took offense to any of my responses to you, but they were not meant like that.
Originally posted by CHA0S
...ridiculed the logic because I seriously find it delusional.
Originally posted by CHA0S
And the last thing you quoted by me I completely believe to be true, it's the heart of the problem
Isn't a "skeptic" someone who simply considers any given information carefully, they too are in fact "truth seeking" if you think about it. A "debunker" on the other hand uses sneaky tactics and word play to do nothing but debunk everything that doesn't fit the mainstream opinion.
Wait, I thought it was the skeptics that always needed "more evidence".
Ummm...it can be better proven by showing there were actually plaster pieces in some of the grooves, you can slap a bunch of simple looking hieroglyphs over a lot of things and say they fit and also that they say something. It's still just a theory is all I'm saying, even if it did come from "experts".
I mean, how much more makes it "better proven"?
That's a slippery slope, and I will refrain from answering that. I will just say that you have falsely accused me of things in the past to gain an unfair advantage in the debate, and so I obviously am wary. Maybe you misread something and accidentally accused me, but I am still wary.
Are you calling me a liar then?
See, there's the problem again. You are bundling "alternative" with "magical" because it isn't mainstream. I utterly despite that frame of thought, and I am sorry if this is just yet another insult to you, but it's the underlying cause for so many problems with science and society as a whole. And I am not acting like one little thing debunks anything, I presented a vast amount of "anomalous" art, I intend to also present many more parts to the series. I understand that art is a little less "scientific" and more up for interpretation, and that's one of the reasons I got it out of the way first, I'm certainly not saying it's proof of anything, that's the problem, you do act like your one or two "expert THEORIES" debunk everything the "alternative" theory has to offer.
A "alternative" source? That's what really bugs me, this latching onto an "alternative", "shaman", and "magical" opinion, and then acting like one little thing debunks it all.
I didn't say we shouldn't use all avenues of information, I emphasized the importance of "alternative" sources rather than always having only mainstream ones and treating them like infallible outlets of information. It's like mainstream news compared to many news websites on the internet. There's a vast difference in what they will put up for consideration and what they will just laugh at and throw out without second thought.
No, I can not agree with that. I research ALL avenues at my disposal, not just ones that fancy my hopes thoughts.
Ummm...actually, you'll find a vast amount of well researched information about the "non-alien" origins and inspiration of ancient artifacts and symbolism...friend.
You won't see such alternative sources releasing detailed and "researched" information about how many ancient artifacts might have no alien inspiration, or origin, because they like their coffee served one way only, and it has to include aliens.
That's exactly right, I completely agree, I see no conflict in opinion.
That is why I have to think BOTH inside AND outside the box. And use BOTH "alternative" AND "mainstream" sources of information, to question BOTH paradigms and look at things from a BETTER perspective.
As I stated, I find it delusional...but mostly because the same argument had already repeatedly been brought up and I had responded to it rationally and calmly a few times before coming out with a lower blow, I'm sorry.
Really? Then why did you:
Originally posted by CHA0S
...ridiculed the logic because I seriously find it delusional.
Originally posted by CHA0S
Ummm...it can be better proven by showing there were actually plaster pieces in some of the grooves, you can slap a bunch of simple looking hieroglyphs over a lot of things and say they fit
Originally posted by CHA0S
Originally posted by adigregorio
Are you calling me a liar then?
That's a slippery slope...
NOT Originally posted by CHA0S
Originally posted by adigregorio
Originally posted by CHA0S
A "researched" source? That's what really bugs me, this latching onto "mainstream", "expert", and "professional" opinion, and then acting like one little thing debunks it all.
A "alternative" source? That's what really bugs me, this latching onto an "alternative", "shaman", and "magical" opinion, and then acting like one little thing debunks it all.
See, there's the problem again. You are bundling "alternative" with "magical"...
Originally posted by CHA0S
because it isn't mainstream. I utterly despite that frame of thought
Originally posted by CHA0S
, and I am sorry if this is just yet another insult to you,
Originally posted by CHA0S
that's the problem, you do act like your one or two "expert THEORIES" debunk everything the "alternative" theory has to offer.
Originally posted by adigregorio
As for the other things, I am in no positions to agree or refute your stance. The speculative evidence is great, though still speculative. Methinks I have much reading ahead.
Originally posted by adigregorio
Sorry that my two posts so far have been on the negative side, I am actually saddened about this recent turn of events. I always found those paintings to be unique, now it seems that it was common practice.
The statues I suppose I can hunt for next, though I really want to look into that tribe + astronaut. So much to read, so little time.
Originally posted by CHA0S
Originally posted by adigregorio
No, I can not agree with that. I research ALL avenues at my disposal, not just ones that fancy my hopes thoughts.
I didn't say we shouldn't use all avenues of information...
Originally posted by CHA0S
It's like mainstream news compared to many news websites on the internet....
Originally posted by CHA0S
There's a vast difference in what they will put up for consideration and what they will just laugh at and throw out without second thought.
NOT Originally posted by CHA0S
Originally posted by adigregorio
Originally posted by CHA0S
You wont see such mainstream sources releasing detailed and "researched" information about how many ancient artifacts might have potential alien inspiration or origin, because they like their coffee served one way only, and it doesn't include aliens.
You won't see such alternative sources releasing detailed and "researched" information about how many ancient artifacts might have no alien inspiration, or origin, because they like their coffee served one way only, and it has to include aliens.
Ummm...actually, you'll find a vast amount of well researched information about the "non-alien" origins and inspiration of ancient artifacts and symbolism...friend.
No, I didn't "brush it aside" at all, I simply stated it was a theory, to me it is NOT conclusive proof. I admit it's pretty convincing, but "debunking" that one thing still leaves a lot of other things on the table, so there's no reason to feel "sad" when you find one or two professional theories that dispute "alternative" theories. That's implying you've "magically" debunked everything because you know how to copy and paste a few professional opinions.
See what I mean? You "brush aside" any evidence that does not support the "magical".
I could if given enough time, but I'm not going to because it would be a hard task, I'll admit that. As I said, it's a fair explanation with decent evidence to back it, I wouldn't be surprised if it was correct. But there is a difference between fact and theory. I doubt aliens would have helicopters anyway.
If you were asked, could you? (If you say yea, I will go back to that thread and ask you. Fair warning.)
I wouldn't really know would I, I'm not you.
Am I, or am I not, disappointed that the paintings turned out to be representations of the Holy Spirit instead of a UFO?
It makes perfect sense, I just wanted to shorten up my quotes as much as possible, as per ATS policy.
Notice how your rebuttal makes no sense if you include the whole excerpt?
I bundled "researched" with "mainstream" because that's the only place skeptics will accept information from. I was pointing out that researched doesn't in fact mean it's mainstream. And that's why "alternative" isn't always "magic", thus why I pointed out bundling them together is a problem.
So, you are allowed to bundle "researched" with "mainstream" but I can't bundle "alternative" with "magical"?
You are in fact the one constantly assuming I'm "brushing aside" or disregarding your opinion simply because I don't agree...that's not the case at all, and hence why we are basically arguing over an argument rather than focusing on the initial argument. I'm simply giving my opinion, but you call it "magic". Talking about double standards, perhaps you might have considered that is a bit of an insult to many people here on ATS, including myself, and perhaps why I haven't been extremely civil with you right from the start. That, and we also started off on bad terms.
And just because you despise my frame of thought, does NOT mean I despise yours. And that is how you treat me in your responses. Like I despise your position, when you are the only one who has stated what their feelings are regarding positions.
As I said, I'm not you am I, I wouldn't know exactly why you wrote those things, all I'm saying is, they didn't feel genuine, and judging by your posts before and after those statements, and a false accusation against me, I have my doubts. Though I'm obviously not claiming anything, just my thoughts once again.
O'rrly?
Then why did I say these things in your thread:
Your points were put forward, accepted by some, disputed by others. That is not magic only.
After those two responses were "brushed aside" I started saying "magic only". Because THAT is what is going on in there, or shall I point out more examples?
I was eluding that mainstream isn't an all knowing God, and alternative sources aren't magic as you've continually, over and over again, bundled them together.
Oh, then you were just assuming I don't use the alternative?
Or were you eluding that "alternative" is more important than "mainstream"?
I looked briefly over your links, but they were saying the exact same thing as other websites explained, which previous posters had linked to, as I said, you didn't really swoop in with anything "saddening" or ground breaking.
(You know I am beginning to think CHA0S didn't even look at those sites...)
You seem to have misinterpreted that comment. I was saying there is a clear difference in what information you can get from a mainstream TV news show in comparison to "alternative" news websites on the internet. I wasn't saying what you provided was false because it's mainstream opinion, or from a mainstream source, I was simply expanding on that same point again, that mainstream isn't always perfect or correct, other sources need to be considered.
Alright, I am done.
Readers, want to see how "mainstream" my sites were?
www.ufomystic.com...
www.catchpenny.org...
Look at that mainstream awesomeness
I'm not sure what you meant there, but again I'm pointing out the different between filtered mainstream news shows and online news, it's part of the same point I was making.
Originally posted by CHA0S
There's a vast difference in what they will put up for consideration and what they will just laugh at and throw out without second thought.
AGAIN, that is YOUR position. NOT mine. NOR those sites. I assume you read them, point out where they "throw out"...Don't forget the "ex" tags!
No, it doesn't really change at all, in fact it works better, because I was intentionally pointing out the flaws in your reversal of my comments. As I said, ATS policy.
See how it changes when you keep the whole excerpt?
A cargo cult is a religious practice that has appeared in many traditional tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically advanced cultures. The cults focus on obtaining the material wealth (the "cargo") of the advanced culture through magic and religious rituals and practices. Cult members believe that the wealth was intended for them by their deities and ancestors. Cargo cults developed primarily in remote parts of New Guinea and other Melanesian and Micronesian societies in the southwest Pacific Ocean, beginning with the first significant arrivals of Westerners in the 19th century. Similar behaviors have, however, also appeared elsewhere in the world.
Originally posted by miniatus
but the fact they believed them to be Gods or something doesn't make them morons .. this kind of thing still happens to this day .. ever heard the term "Cargo Cult"? .. it's very interesting indeed ..
Originally posted by gncnew
WTF are AA's doing wearing space suits? Enviro suits or breathing apparatus - sure... space suits? News Flash: Earth is NOT space... not a vacuum, and thus no need for the space suit. And what's up with the figures that are "not" in space suits? Could horse looking AA's live outside of suits but the "snake" ones couldn't? What about the "bull" AA's? Or the "Greys"..... and why no humans in space suits? They'll show us how to build temples but not ships or other vehicles and things of actual "use"? *yawn
Occam's razor people - the simplest solution is usually the correct one:
edit on 11-10-2010 by gncnew because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
Right of the top of my head I can think of a couple instances where humans wrote or spoke about being taken into outer space "the heavens" or detailed experiences of out of this world visitations. The major one that comes to mind is the book of Enoch...
Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
There are also many ancient civilizations who depict "gods" who showed them stuff. Some North, Central, and South American native tribes talk about beings from the stars who shared knowledge and life with their ancestors. I believe the same applies to some Australian, Middle Eastern, and East Asian cultures who explain in great detail about other beings sharing knowledge with their ancestors.