why I believe ancient astronaut theory

megabyte

so that is what I am referring to - that we have menopause too early compared to other animals who die first [of old age] before their reproductive cycle ends there are many criteria to compare and every time human lifespan seems to be robbed of the vital years I know this thread is all about suposition and that is all it can be as long as discoveries are still some way off

That is really interesting ! human female biology seems to be geared to reproducing early yet we females tend to have a longer lifespan than males
I have noticed that women of the bible tend to have children late in life sort of the reverse of this, like Eve had many children and stayed fertile til she died I gather Sarah Abrahams wife and the mother of Samuel and so on

it doesn't seem that pre flood women had menopause? I always thought that was evidence of the bible as fiction ,but it might refer to some drastic change in our biology within the knowledge base of the writers ... weird

reply to post by Zesko Whirligan


Hi Zesko

I have read that once we used tools marrow became available to us which was, they say readily available by scavaging and this fueled the growth in brain size.

reply to post by Zesko Whirligan


interesting theory, but i think it's altogether pretty silly for a couple of huge reasons. 1) it's contingent on animals somehow dying by "natural fire" for thousands of generations. that's a huge stretch of the imagination that that would somehow keep happening enough to feed them for the thousands upon thousands of years necessary for evolution to take place. and this happened over an extremely short period of time (by evolutions standards), far too short for evolution by nutrition to simply take place.
2) naturally cooked by fire. that doesn't mean anything, something could be completely charred into ash, something could be completely undercooked. the point is, it was brain food before it was cooked. the parasites or sterility of the food had nothing to do with it. the only benefit cooked meat has, is it's easier to chew. other than that, it's not any more nutritional, it's in fact, less, because so many nutrients are destroyed by heat, they would in fact be way less healthy than eating raw meat and vegetables.
3.) i don't think it's hard to imagine at all that they were able to comprehend cooking meat before the whole missing link period. there's like a 2% differential between us and monkeys and apes, yet the difference is extremely vast. they're all social, tool using problem solvers that teach themselves new tricks for survival all the time. i can't think of any environments they live in where fire or lava might naturally be present (and where animals throw themselves into it daily), so i can't say how they'd harness it. the closest thing i can think of are the monkeys who bathe in the hot springs. and c'mon, that's pretty badass.

anyway, i know how bizarre the ancient astronaut theory sounds. and our very own reality is so much more rich and stranger than any fiction we sit around and write to entertain ourselves. the ancient astronaut theory makes too much sense of everything, and it's taken me a long time to come to that conclusion. it sounded so repulsive and stupid at first, but my god, it makes so much sense of the world. it's not hard to imagine that the 'gods' we worshipped and saw very frequently and interacted with in ancient times simply just enhanced our dna a little, to boost our mental faculties. why? who really knows why.

why would you want to create intellectual, thinking beings? think about it. you're a being from a civilization that is in the top food chain of the entire universe, you have the technology to do almost anything, and go anywhere in it. why would you create humans? why groom them and teach them? why pose as their idols and more or less vanish, or watch us behind the scenes?

me personally, i think it has to do with our "souls". and that we were most likely visited by warring entities (hence stories like atlantis, the vedas).

knowing everything i know about the world, it's really not the strangest theory, or strangest thing i've heard of.
in actually makes sense of it all.

this link has some information about the cell division limit in humans and I have read in other places that scientists feel this limit has been imposed on our genes by someone in the past

www.1vigor.com...

quoting

Cell Division. Cell Division is a process by which a cell divides into two or more cells. Cell Division is usually a small segment of a larger cell cycle. A primary objective of Cell Division is the maintenance of the original cell's genome. Before division occurs, the genomic information which is stored in chromosomes must be replicated, and the duplicated genome separated cleanly between cells, creating identical sets of chromosomes in the new cells. Worn-out cells are replaced through Cell Division. In some animals, however, cell division eventually halts. In humans cell division occurs on average, after 52 divisions, known as the Hayflick limit which is named after its discoverer Leonard Hayflick. Genomic information is mostly consistent between "generations", however significant research is taking place regarding Gene Expression + Nutrition. Specifically, researchers are finding that nutrition has an impact on how genes are expressed. Furthermore, there is evidence that some chromosomes change can occur within a generation based upon either good nutrition or bad nutrition.

end of quote


the newspaper I read said that scientists are working on making cells continue to divide more than the 52 division limit that exists now and that will help us all look and feel like we are 25 years old for most of our adult life

the life expectancy that has been given to us so far has really given us more old age years, which is post menopausal

where we want life span extended is the youthful, peak strength, peak performance, peak fertility years

this thread is simply to state that I believe that in the past our DNA was tinkered with, either by humans who were the rich and powerful of the time doing it to the masses who did not know and were kept ignorant, or it was done to humans by aliens who did not want humans living to the sort of old age mentioned in the bible before the flood as then humans could accumulate a lot more wisdom and be a real threat to the ruling class - human elite or aliens

if it was done by humans to other humans who were kept ignorant and subservient then that might explain why some people seem to defy the usual aging. No humans have the aging of pre flood humans in the bible but that could be because they either died without heirs or interbred in the subsequent generations with the subservient masses that the advantage in their gentics was lost or greatly watered down

reply to post by Zesko Whirligan


I understand how our human brains have developed over our entire history as you pointed out. But. . .

As with other complex biological features, scientists explain the evolution of the human brain through natural selection. However, the human brain presents some unique challenges that must be answered through slightly different methods. There are aspects of the brain of homo sapiens that do not fit Darwin's usual pattern. The time scale allowed for significant change is shorter. The mental capabilities of humans are far above other organisms. The unique nature of man puts our brain in a class by itself.

Scientists explain the apparent change and diversity of most biological systems through naturalistic evolution. The generally accepted theory is that small, random changes in an organism sometimes provide an advantage. This advantage allows the organism to be more successful than those without that "upgrade." Soon, the "upgrade" becomes the norm, and eventually another random mutation will occur. Over millions of years, this results in a completely different organism.

Scientists have experienced problems when applying the normal methods of evolution to the human brain.

www.allaboutscience.org...

In short keeping on topic something mutated, gene spliced, tampered, did something to cause our brains to develop abnormally fast which is inconsistent with how evolution occurs here on our planet. No other specie in the millions that have come and gone on our planet have been shown to have done this. Some feel this is the smoking gun we are looking for in ancient alien theory, as of yet I am undecided.

Originally posted by AnteBellum
reply to post by Zesko Whirligan

 

I understand how our human brains have developed over our entire history as you pointed out. But. . .

As with other complex biological features, scientists explain the evolution of the human brain through natural selection. However, the human brain presents some unique challenges that must be answered through slightly different methods. There are aspects of the brain of homo sapiens that do not fit Darwin's usual pattern. The time scale allowed for significant change is shorter. The mental capabilities of humans are far above other organisms. The unique nature of man puts our brain in a class by itself.

Scientists explain the apparent change and diversity of most biological systems through naturalistic evolution. The generally accepted theory is that small, random changes in an organism sometimes provide an advantage. This advantage allows the organism to be more successful than those without that "upgrade." Soon, the "upgrade" becomes the norm, and eventually another random mutation will occur. Over millions of years, this results in a completely different organism.

Scientists have experienced problems when applying the normal methods of evolution to the human brain.

www.allaboutscience.org...

In short keeping on topic something mutated, gene spliced, tampered, did something to cause our brains to develop abnormally fast which is inconsistent with how evolution occurs here on our planet. No other specie in the millions that have come and gone on our planet have been shown to have done this. Some feel this is the smoking gun we are looking for in ancient alien theory, as of yet I am undecided.

just to be clear, i'm also undecided myself. no other theory unifies all the bizarre loose ends of reality as effortlessly as the missing puzzle piece that is the ancient astronaut theory, but i'm still on the fence for the sake of logic. and yes, that example is most certainly a smoking gun with a huge question mark next to it. we really aren't any more unique than any other organism on this planet, and definitely not in a class of our own. were just good at taking two ideas and producing technology, other than that, were like the weakest animal on the planet in comparison to everything else.

MB

Plenty of info in the link you gave but nowhere did I read anything close to scientists feel this limit has been imposed on our genes by someone.
Here is a link: www.bbc.co.uk...

Quote from link above
Tooled up
But around two million years ago, telltale cut marks on the surface of animal bones reveal that early humans were using crude stone tools to smash open the bones and extract the marrow. Stone tools allowed early Homo to get at a food source that no other creature was able to obtain - bone marrow. Bone marrow contains long chain fatty acids that are vital for brain growth and development. This helped further fuel the increase in brain size, allowing our ancestors to make more complex tools.

Pre flood people that lived long lives reported in the bible? Can’t say much about that as there is nothing to back up this claim other than the bible.

Women stopped giving birth 30 years before they died? In Victorian Britain alone a large proportion of women died in childbirth or from the complications. This would have been worse the further you go back its just records were not kept to show this, or at least not readily available.

SH
You say the Ancient astronaut theory explains everything but there is little evidence to support it. Interpretations of old paintings, cave art and artefacts. Why not stick with one of the more traditional religions?

You mention souls. Does this mean that not only did the AA tinker with our DNA for intelligence they also added a soul? It also begs the question if AA did not give us a soul then we already had it and seeing as though before this tinkering took place we were no different than any other animal it must then mean they have souls. So why stop at tinkering with man? Why not any of the other primates? Why not all life on the planet?

Faiol
Why would I not believe the AA theory? Lets start with there is already an explanation of how we evolved backed with evidence from fossil records thru species variations to genetics. The evidence is to say the least overwhelming. As I said before I am open to the earth having been visited throughout history but why the need to explain us being genetically improved I don’t see the need or the reason.

You poor scorn on angels and demons, two of the things others in favour of AA visitation use as evidence. You say you don’t need or want a religion but more often than not that is precisely what appears this is and your description of AA would have more followers than mainstream religions sums it up for me. In that I agree with what AnteBellum wrote.

LordTacos
Lets accelerate our knowledge a few years. We find life on a planet. Do you believe we would tinker with its inhabitants DNA? What has been the effect when we do it now on this planet with the opposition to GM crops?

Mrs Blonde
Yep. I have to agree with you that historians cannot explain the leap from mud huts to monoliths although they do try, Zorg may have played a part as might a lost civilisation. Fascinating isn’t it?

All
Hope you find things in my post interesting and am looking forward to your responses.

Edit
Antebellum
You do realise that the link you gave www.allaboutscience.org...
Appears to be a site who's agenda is to dispute evolution? A very dodgy site for getting facts from on any subject let alone this one.

I do realize the flaws which is why I am undoubtedly on the fence at the moment also. Punctuated Equilibrium makes more sense to me then Darwin's theories at this time but like everything as we learn more our views tend to change. What was truth a thousand years ago is nonsense today. I explained in an earlier post I think this may be more of a religious movement forming at this juncture in time in our history. Unfortunately time is the only way to see how this will pan out in regards to AAliens.

IMO I can't believe we are the only planet in the vastness of the universe that spawned life. Our scientists mostly agree that our planet was seeded by asteroids and comets. In loose terms this even defines the terms of AAlien theory, for if it came here it had to come here from somewhere else, other then Earth. Well like I said only time will tell. . .

Originally posted by colin42


SH
You say the Ancient astronaut theory explains everything but there is little evidence to support it. Interpretations of old paintings, cave art and artefacts. Why not stick with one of the more traditional religions?

You mention souls. Does this mean that not only did the AA tinker with our DNA for intelligence they also added a soul? It also begs the question if AA did not give us a soul then we already had it and seeing as though before this tinkering took place we were no different than any other animal it must then mean they have souls. So why stop at tinkering with man? Why not any of the other primates? Why not all life on the planet?

edit on 8-11-2010 by colin42 because: link news

really, all i have to answer to your first sentence, is so? again, i'm not a firm believer of the AA theory. no, there is very little hard evidence. no, we don't have alien skeletons inside an extraterrestrial spacesuit buried in the pyramids or any evidence of that nature (although i'm sure if we did, there would still be people who wouldn't want to believe it). but we do have plenty of instances where there was some sort of intervention.

firstly, the ancient sumerian texts basically spells it all out. flying "gods" came to earth, tried for a long time to create man from "clay", and genetically engineered us, and imbued us with souls. christian creationist ironically tells the same story. anyway, i don't want to lose my train of thought. take it or leave it, there is an unnatural leap in intelligence in man, and it is the only time this has ever occured in this planet's natural history.

then, all over the world, it's the exact same story. and keep in mind, when i say all over the world, in ancient times, these civilizations are absolutely isolated and ignorant of one another, seperated by continents and oceans, yet they all tell the exact same story. flying "gods" descend from the heavens, impart knowledge of the stars and heavens light years beyond their time and comprehension, in some cases, star systems weren't even visible to the humans, they were just told of them, and then in turn worshipped them. shortly after, the civilizations, who now truly worship these beings as their gods and creators, all over the world, all form religions and rituals and societies of laws.

so we have an unnaccountable leap in intelligence, an isolated incident in natural history.
societies form and are all visited by gods frequently that impart extremely sophisticated knowledge of astronomy and the basics of lawful societies and in some cases push simple technologies on them.
these isolated societies then construct megalithic structures in tribute to them that still stand to this day.
the similarities in paintings and representation of the gods are all uncannily similar, and not godlike or intangible at all, but very physical beings that travel in vehicles, and even fight one another in them.

i could focus on a single religion or civilization, like ancient sumeria, which is basically the copypasta for the rest of the ENTIRE planet. but the point is that this isn't a single religion, or instance of one civilization, it's literally the story for every civilization, society, and less across the entire planet. it's nothing short of blindness that wouldn't let you realize this. that's the point, and that's what i was saying.

your second paragraph, i truly can't answer. it's just my personal inclination to a theory that i don't even fully believe myself, so anything i say wouldn't mean much or give you any satisfaction of shooting down. the logic that animals would also have souls in your question is flawed though, i'm not sure why animals would also have souls if we were only given souls... it's been speculated that the reason we were visited is because we are one of the only beings in the universe that are blessed with souls, and the entire alien intervention is to figure a way to trap our souls on earth and harness them into a slave race that will not ascend spiritually and eventually oppose such evil forces. but like i said..?
god said make em in OUR image, so i'm guessing cave men were the closest thing. bipedal, tool using family oriented animals that live and travel together.

i guess going into a thread with the intent to shoot it down and asking others to respond to your questions/statements and "rivaling" them instead, is a sort of response.

honestly i don't even believe in the theory, but i get rivaled for seeing the objective aspect of it's possibility. this website is so lame.

reply to post by shagreen heart

I don’t know why it is when trying to have a meaningful discussion people here take it as a personal attack. Re your comment of ‘giving me the satisfaction of shooting your views down’. It is not and I think you make some very good points.

Your assumption of the isolated societies being ignorant of groups that have very similar stories/fables. I think it more likely that they were not isolated otherwise the AA would have to fly around teaching all these groups the very same thing.

Without a doubt we have to explain why these cultures, apparently isolated in the past have the same stories, Build similar monoliths. I think we agree on these things.

There are enough ancient unexplainable maps alone to question the accepted age of civilisation and more pointers being proposed with alignments of structures also pointing to a much greater age.

Their knowledge of the stars does not fit with the ‘unsophisticated tribes’ description they are given and also such knowledge is not gained over night. (well probably during the night but you know what I mean)

I read ‘was God An Astronaut’ when it first came out and still have a copy so I am not closed to the idea I just get the feeling that we are again searching for a god instead of searching for the truth.

Can anyone answer the question of what is a soul? I know I cant. Can I discount or prove AA intervention? Of course not.

All I know is that evolution can account for where we are now. We are the same people the ancients were, they are no different than us they just lived at a different time. I have no need for an AA to explain us but that is not to say it did not happen and if planet X suddenly appears I’ll read Sitchins works again, if I have time.

I don’t mean to be blunt but yeah I will ignore the Christian creationists, to me they have nothing to offer.
Why a being so advanced would need to be worshiped is beyond me. I would hate it but then I am not a god. I think it is accepted that most modern religions did a cut and copy exercise which would explain some of the similarities but not all.

Again, just to reinforce my opening line. I am trying to have a discussion, not wave my brain at people and tot up some sort of meaningless score. I don’t expect to change your views, I don’t want to. I just want to exchange them and maybe learn from it as well.

Peace

Originally posted by shagreen heart
i guess going into a thread with the intent to shoot it down and asking others to respond to your questions/statements and "rivaling" them instead, is a sort of response.

honestly i don't even believe in the theory, but i get rivaled for seeing the objective aspect of it's possibility. this website is so lame.

You are so wrong. But if that is how you wish to take my participation in this thead who am I to tell you different.

Ancient astronauts, one of the best documentaries I ever watched.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by shagreen heart

 

I don’t know why it is when trying to have a meaningful discussion people here take it as a personal attack. Re your comment of ‘giving me the satisfaction of shooting your views down’. It is not and I think you make some very good points.

Your assumption of the isolated societies being ignorant of groups that have very similar stories/fables. I think it more likely that they were not isolated otherwise the AA would have to fly around teaching all these groups the very same thing.

Without a doubt we have to explain why these cultures, apparently isolated in the past have the same stories, Build similar monoliths. I think we agree on these things.

There are enough ancient unexplainable maps alone to question the accepted age of civilisation and more pointers being proposed with alignments of structures also pointing to a much greater age.

Their knowledge of the stars does not fit with the ‘unsophisticated tribes’ description they are given and also such knowledge is not gained over night. (well probably during the night but you know what I mean)

I read ‘was God An Astronaut’ when it first came out and still have a copy so I am not closed to the idea I just get the feeling that we are again searching for a god instead of searching for the truth.

Can anyone answer the question of what is a soul? I know I cant. Can I discount or prove AA intervention? Of course not.

All I know is that evolution can account for where we are now. We are the same people the ancients were, they are no different than us they just lived at a different time. I have no need for an AA to explain us but that is not to say it did not happen and if planet X suddenly appears I’ll read Sitchins works again, if I have time.

I don’t mean to be blunt but yeah I will ignore the Christian creationists, to me they have nothing to offer.
Why a being so advanced would need to be worshiped is beyond me. I would hate it but then I am not a god. I think it is accepted that most modern religions did a cut and copy exercise which would explain some of the similarities but not all.

Again, just to reinforce my opening line. I am trying to have a discussion, not wave my brain at people and tot up some sort of meaningless score. I don’t expect to change your views, I don’t want to. I just want to exchange them and maybe learn from it as well.

Peace

sorry but it sounds like you're taking it personal by rivaling me for just saying that. how can any of us have an intelligent conversation about souls? it felt like a set-up, since you don't seem to dig the AA theory, so pardon me avoiding it in such direct words.

if were hypothesizing about the AA theory, i don't see how hard it is to imagine flying all around the world, or that there were more than one "god" visiting societies. seriously, the ancient sumerian texts really read like a soap opera, the egos of the gods and how they vied for power over earth. then with stories like the vedas, and anomolies like irradiated and dead zones on earth, as if they were destroyed by nuclear weapons, it really makes you go "hummm". i believe it was the inuits creation story that literally goes "a metal bird took us from our original home and placed us in the cold north". i mean, if you are going to hypothesize the theory, it's really not hard to imagine multiple entities dealing with different societies around the world, with a general game plan for them. i mean they come from another planet with this in mind i don't think the extra effort it would take to interact with all the different civilizations would bug them.

i do have to disagree and say though, that evolution actually can't account for where we are now, hence the "missing link". it's just really difficult to imagine we have never found any fossil evidence of the missing link, but find ancient organisms millions and billions of years old. not to mention, fossil evidence of the missing link wouldn't be very hidden in time, yet we have everything inbetween but it. the missing link could definitely be an unknown primate, but it's more strange to me that we simply haven't found any evidence of it yet. could the "missing link" be dna manipulation? maybe, and almost seems more likely, considering.

Originally posted by shagreen heart
interesting theory, but i think it's altogether pretty silly for a couple of huge reasons. 1) it's contingent on animals somehow dying by "natural fire" for thousands of generations.

Not so silly if the hypothetical proto-humans somehow made the association between fire and death and food. I can easily envision an omnivorous species discovering that fire (or intense heat) equated to a food source. I don't suppose that open flame would be absolutely essential, either. There are many sources of intense (even lethal) heat readily available in Nature. I can imagine a proto-human species that preferred meat cooked in volcanic hot springs, for example, a constant heat source available for hundreds or thousands of generations.

And, yes, the fact that intense heat destroys parasites and bacteria was an important factor in the advent of homo sapiens — our knowledge of cooking techniques extended our lifespans considerably, allowing our brains to become more sophisticated-per-generation.

— Zesko Whirligan

reply to post by colin42


Hi Colin

With Instincts I was thinking of stuff like animals do natural without the need of first learning it to be able to...

Illness comes with aging. I agree
Pets are easily victim of apathy and selfishness. I agree.

Evolution. I think we think alike.

Women aren't that picky you know and all those evolutionary catalysts are put on hold eversince mankind has been able to defend themselves from nature.

Maybe I misunderstood, You misunderstood me that's for sure.

I love this topic and I come up with connections and possibilieties, but that does not mean I actually believe it's all true.

I agree man does not need intervention. But... IF... You know.

To explain myself. I have difficulties dividing topics. My mind is always connecting dots, leaving my posting of topic posts that I feel that they are on topic.

There is only so little found fosilized more then half of all life on earth didn't turn fosil. there is a huge gap

Originally posted by Zesko Whirligan

Originally posted by shagreen heart
interesting theory, but i think it's altogether pretty silly for a couple of huge reasons. 1) it's contingent on animals somehow dying by "natural fire" for thousands of generations.

Not so silly if the hypothetical proto-humans somehow made the association between fire and death and food. I can easily envision an omnivorous species discovering that fire (or intense heat) equated to a food source. I don't suppose that open flame would be absolutely essential, either. There are many sources of intense (even lethal) heat readily available in Nature. I can imagine a proto-human species that preferred meat cooked in volcanic hot springs, for example, a constant heat source available for hundreds or thousands of generations.

And, yes, the fact that intense heat destroys parasites and bacteria was an important factor in the advent of homo sapiens — our knowledge of cooking techniques extended our lifespans considerably, allowing our brains to become more sophisticated-per-generation.

— Zesko Whirligan

so are they associating this after they have gigantic brains from eating cooked meat? because that still doesn't explain how they were able to feed on all these animal corpses that unwittingly died by natural fire before they got huge brains out of nowhere to make the association and eventually take the animals to the fire. i feel like this diet idea would have been tossed around before, and thrown out. also i don't see how a heat source = food. animals don't go to eat or drink things around a heat source, and get more out of direct sunlight than an arbitrary heat source like a lava pool or hot spring, so why would they be attracted to them?

i think it's all still hinged on the missing link, otherwise, we wouldn't have such a concept, and we wouldn't have a missing chink in evolution whereby we got huge brians outta nowhere. you'd think it'd be pretty easy to narrow down all the hot springs and lava pools to search for missing link fossil evidence. the meat idea just doesn't cut it for me.

and all the same, parasites from raw meat can be countered with a slew of plants you could consume. we of course know this now and that couldn't have applied to them, but i'm just saying, raw meat is still better for you than cooked, and it's a shame we have been eating cooked meat for so long now that we can't handle the bacterias in it. wisdom teeth anyone?!

also, if they're eating all this perfect brain steroid food that put them on the evolutionary light-rail, why didn't their intenstines also evolve to be about 25 feet shorter?

reply to post by shagreen heart

Well just to say the missing link thing is a hangover from years gone by and although not complete there are enough fossil remains to show the path of human evolution. The subject has been done to death really so I think it’s a case of you either accept the evidence or not. So we can agree that we disagree.

I accept it is easy to imagine AA’s. We (humans) have seen, and reported encounters throughout history.
My take is illustrated on another thread. We are told Columbus discovered America ignoring the fact that the Chinese we trading with the Native Americans long before we ever got there. The thread says 4000 years. I must read it.

Our historians have a view and dates and seem incapable of considering a much older history which I am sure you would also agree with. I just watched a lecture by Graham Hancock that I was going to link you to but can’t find it (now that is a missing link). He lays out the evidence for a forgotten history its long but well worth watching (he has written a few good books as well as a novel).

Pulling back the blinds on this lost history may actually give more meat to your point of view only time will tell. I write technical reports for a living which is why I tend to bullet point my comments which may explain why they seem a little abrasive. Due to this though I need enough evidence to satisfy me before taking any leaps of faith and my reasoning based on the evidence put forward by people like Hancock is there could very well be a lost history hidden in old texts, stories fables etc.

I also have great faith in mans ingenuity and although I can’t explain how the buildings in the ancient world were built would not leap to an explanation of AA’s did it, just I don’t know how they did it.

For example. The wife bought a slate stone for the garden it was well over a ton. It took several people to deliver it and left furrows in the lawn (hard ground). The wife wanted it to stand on its end and they recommended a mini digger and a few strong lads. After a couple of hours thought, a few levers, props and a hole I had stood it on its end alone. The chap at the garden centre did not believe my wife when she told him how I had done it on my own.

I know the monolith builders played with stones in excess of 100 tons but just because that leaves me scratching my head does not mean they could not have achieved this. These people survived in a world that I would likely die in within days, I have nothing but respect for them.

Does that rule out AA intervention? No but I cannot rule out the genius of mankind either and in fact that is where my suspicions lay.

Another little snippet. Did you know that the stone ties ( a key like piece of metal placed between stones to tie them together) used in Egypt are almost identical to those used in S. America? Now you could say they were taught by AA’s but it is not beyond the realms that they may have been trading and sharing tech in ancient times.

SK
Thanks for your reply, pretty much how I feel. Love the subject and no one can claim to be the expert.

Yes the what if element is what grabs you.

reply to post by shagreen heart


also, if they're eating all this perfect brain steroid food that put them on the evolutionary light-rail, why didn't their intestines also evolve to be about 25 feet shorter?

They did, follow the link I gave you

Brain food
Because meat is relatively easy to digest and rich in calories and nutrients, early Homo lost the need for the big intestines of apes and earlier hominids. This freed up energy for use by other organs. This surplus of energy seems to have been diverted to one organ in particular - the brain. But scavenging meat from under the noses of big cats is a risky business, so good scavengers needed to be smart. At this stage in our evolution, a big brain was associated with greater intellect. Big brains require lots of energy to operate: the human brain uses 20% of the body's total energy production. But the massive calorific hit provided by meat kick-started an increase in the brain size of early humans

reply to post by colin42


i completely agree with all your points against the AA theory, the sheer humanity factor also keeps me from firmly believing it.

we could have influenced ourselves, the gods could be the sun and the moon and other celestial bodies personified in cultural allegories. the phoenicians sailed all over this planet in tiny ships. the vikings and chinese traded with american natives. the egyptians could have easily sailed and traded stone tie ideas (although i still scratch my head that they carved diorite) to those puma punku punks. i've heard that egyptian heiroglyphics were discoverd in the grand canyon by hikers and then became sealed off.

some coincidence are uncanny though, and keep me drawn in the AA theory.