The Search For Life. Part 1 - Earths Extraterrestrial Past...

looks like a great read rising against, ill have to read it later, but my theory is alians geneticly made us from ever,
homo habilis 2.5 mill years ago or erectus 1.8 mill years ago, but most probly homo sapiens 200,000 y ago.
and they stayed for ( i dont realy know how long lol ), but help'd their newly humans and show'd them how to build,astrolegy ect and then when we new everything we needed to now they took off for some reason an viseted every now an then to keep check and aid us ,
theirs a few reasons i beleve this and one reason is the STONE OF THE PREGNAT WOMAN, its been left in the quary it was carved in near lebanon and it ways 1200 tone (thats probly why they left it lol ) , but there is up to 200 tone slabs in some sites thats just amazing i think.
i carnt wait to go throu your op.

Possibly the longest thread ever and a lot of members seem to love it. I don't. All I see is tired, ol' speculation and assumptions. The imagery used convinces only those who want to be convinced without a second thought. We don't know what the ancients were thinking when they made costumes for rituals, when they painted on rocks, cave walls, etc. But you look at it with a modern eye and you see connections. Do you really think that ancient "astronauts" needed fashions from thousands of years later? Do you really think that the painters were looking at anomalous aerial objects (modern UFOs) when they were painting religious figures? Don't you know that painters were usually commissioned to furnish paintings?

A theory is not true, that's why it's a theory. Just thoughts.
Ancient alien theorists have nothing solid to support their claims.
Von Daniken is not a reliable source.
Stonehenge has nothing to do with extra-terrestrials. That's an insult to the hard work of the humans who put it
together.
"To show how the Moai of Easter island may have been build using mans own hands, I need only one link it would seem.." You've missed some good documentaries explaining just that.
The Nazca lines have long been proved to be done by humans. Nothing to do with ETs.
Those elongated skulls? A practice from childhood. No mystery there, no ETs.
Winged objects? Birds have wings. Whittlers make winged toys. No mystery there. Nothing to do with ETs.
Ancient Aliens TV show? Awful.

Great thread Rising, respect for your efforts.

This is always a tricky topic..... let's be honest, we the people have nothing really solid to go on. In saying that, I believe that Terra has been visited in the ancient times and to this very day. There could be many ETs.... there could be one. They could have come from our solar system, our galaxy or even Andromeda who knows? Then again, all of the UFOs witnessed could just be natural phenomena or suppressed military tech. I'm sure most of you have heard the false flag alien invasion to unite the world rumour........ who knows? Important information is keep quiet, carefully compartmentalised and cleverly covered up in a fashion which makes it pretty much impossible for we the people to discover the truth. It is incredibly frustrating and I fear that nothing short of a full blown, well organised revolutionary uprising of the masses will be able to unearth the secrets hidden by the military industrial complex..... who knows? It just might happen.

I really enjoyed your thread RA, there was quite a bit of material I hadn't seen. Your own input was interesting also, I am of a similar wavelength. At the same time, even though I thought the above poster was a little brash I somewhat agree with The Shrike's sentiments. There is very little hard evidence. I think there is something to it though, but what? Ahhhh! told you it was tricky one

Hey Shrike do you think you could post some links to your counter claims?

Once again Rising, I like your style. Keep it real out there people, the information war is heating up. Be strong, more forward in a positive direction and enjoy the journey

Peace and Love

reply to post by Rising Against


Also remember, a Cataclysm happened a long time ago that affected the whole world. So the reason why these places look like a kid came around and kicked the anthill, is because the cataclysm that happened caused enough damage to destroy either by flood and/or earthquake much of what existed in the Deluvian world at the time. Also I agree with you, it's entirely possible for our ancient ancestors to have been real smart and not aliens building these structures, but here's something to ponder. If as a species your smart and intelligent enough to move large blocks, then your intelligent to also question why move or build with large blocks?. Like Baalbeck and their 2,000 ton stones cut, why do that. It would be easier to just use smaller blocks, even if the "god king" was demanding a spectacular building or whatnot he didn't put himself into the particulars. The reason why they built with these large blocks and the Dolmen's and alot of large megalithic structures may be because their was a race of humanoids on this planet that was able to cut and move large blocks without to much effort. It's quite possible that their was a race of giant humanoids (9 to 12 feet tall) that where strong enough and had the brain power to move large blocks.

All around the planet we hear about giants this and giants that, heck even in the bible the flood was supposed to have washed away a large number of giants. Could it be that the dark secret is that we where ruled by a another sub group of humanoids who where large and extremely strong, and eventually we where their slaves. Then the flood happened (which did happen because the flood myth is in almost all cultures on this planet) and their numbers where knocked down to such levels that they weren't a viable population anymore. So the few that where left mated with humans.

Phew!

Just finished reading it (and watching the videos - not all the suggested material at the end though!!).

You have duplicate content at the Easter Island part which I'm sure a mod will take out for you once you add a link to Part 2 into your post.

Right onto the material. You have shown that each of these structures could have been built by man in the periods they were constructed. Something I already knew but which you made a pleasure to read via your sourcing.

The ET connection to art though is slightly more appealing to my sensibilities and you've focussed on that as being potential proof of involvement between mankind and alienkind.

I think it's too hard to fathom what 'ancient' man was drawing on cave walls or carving from stone as we don't have enough cultural context to understand what is being symbolised beyond guess work. However the paintings from the renaissance period and onwards do give Christians some markers to look at.

There is enough content in the OP to fill a full days worth of ATSing. It is however a very good read and is a nice indicator that someone can hold one set of beliefs and disprove those which don't substantiate that belief.

Excellent work and I wish I could star, flag or do something more to let you know how thoroughly impressed I am with your research and your methods of presenting your findings.

-m0r

Originally posted by born2BWild
Wow great job, I can't wait for the rest! Definetly looks like a good read though, Thanks alot.

Thanks. I'll work on the rest shortly because, as right now, I've not wrote it up, but It shouldn't be too long as I have a rough idea of what I want/need to write about already.

reply to post by rusethorcain


First off, thank you for taking the time to post, Anyway, as far as I can tell, that particular piece of artwork is from Ecuador yes, something that in itself is actually pretty interesting as much of the artwork (as far as I know) coming from there was seemingly pointing to something extraterrestrial. Something out of the ordinary at the very least.

Things like this for example...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5f258cf20856.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6cdc8dc5bfd7.jpg[/atsimg]

Extraterrestrial in origin is always an interesting idea to ponder over, whether that's where it's true origins lie, I don't know admittedly. I'd appreciate it if someone could come in and share an explanation though as I don’t want to assume it may be something it’s not.

what i find astounding is your source for some of those pics is the sprezzatura.it website where it explains & puts into context what these symbols mean.

the most shocking thing is on the same website it has an explanation for the "jesus crucifiction". sprezzatura.it... . If anyone of sound mind reads that page they will see its a cardinals hat not a ufo. But you still post it?

do you think propogating this sort of nonsense is helpfull to ufology?

reply to post by yeti101

do you think propogating this sort of nonsense is helpfull to ufology?

Why would you assume I'm attempting to do such a thing on purpose? Something like this is never my intention and thinking it is, is insulting. Believe it or not, people here do in fact want to learn, not spread min-information.

Anyway, in regards to your post, Here's a quick explanation given for this picture below as an example:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2a92908fdd43.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9ed73125f931.jpg[/atsimg]

It may be absurd but certain authors of ufology web sites consider with astonishment the Annunciation of Carlo Crivelli displayed at the National Gallery of London.
What they consider most surprising is the fact that there is a ray coming down from the sky and reaching the Virgin Mary. They affirm that this ray comes from a saucer-like Unidentified Flying Object standing among the clouds. All the reproductions of the detail concerning the circle of clouds in the sky are awful, blurred and indecipherable. No one seems to have searched for a better reproduction. On the contrary this same version is spreading out from one site to another again and again:

The so called attempt at explaining and putting into context which you say they do is laughable and they are disproving nothing here. In regards to Ufology, do you think I'm the one denoting Ufology by just discarding something which clearly points to something extraterrestrial in origin or what appears so..Or the makers of this website?

reply to post by 3finjo

Religious symbolism is the sceptics catch-cry for the paintings depicting ufo's in the background and point to an art historian/expert in art to back them up. Art historians, like archaeologists (I have some knowledge in this second area) often rely on what their predecessors decided and to get an opinion changed is almost impossible.

I agree. take the previous post as an example, the image looks anything but religious in regards to what's in the sky, looking at it at first glance it doesn't in anyway look like a cardinals hat (as was suggested) but instead a very clear UFO (Unidentified flying object – not necessarily alien in origin) shining down a beam of light

To suggest that not just the image in question, but all supposed "alien art" is nothing but religious art in my opinion incredibly ignorant and isn't a viable explanation for even half of what can be suggested on the side of the believers in AAT.

reply to post by Rising Against


for the moment i would like to stick to the "crucifiction" painting becuase its the most obvious one.

Are you saying its a ufo in the sky and not a cardinals hat on the ground? top of this page here sprezzatura.it...

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Rising Against

 

for the moment i would like to stick to the "crucifiction" painting becuase its the most obvious one.

That' fair enough. I was talking about the one above though which is in my opinion, something very clearly beyond religion.

Are you saying its a ufo in the sky and not a cardinals hat on the ground?

No, I pointed out previously (in a previous post) I was referring to a different image.

In regards to that image though, yes, it does indeed look like the common shape for a UFO and where it's situated is also interesting as this is not the only piece of artwork that's linking Jesus to such a thing. There are many like it.

reply to post by Rising Against



yes but im talking about the crucifiction painting becuase its the most obvious one. I'm i to take from your response you concede its a cardinals hat on the ground?

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Rising Against

 

yes but im talking about the crucifiction painting becuase its the most obvious one.

Wrong, no, It isn't. You can barely see the "UFO" in the crusifiction painting. If you want the most obvious one, this one may suit you, or perhaps this one, but you've rejected the first already (I'm assuming because you simply can't disprove it in all honesty)

I'm i to take from your response you concede its a cardinals hat on the ground?

Why would you possibly think this?

reply to post by The Shrike


Thank you for your post. It's always good to have a sceptical view on things.

Possibly the longest thread ever and a lot of members seem to love it. I don't. All I see is tired, ol' speculation and assumptions. The imagery used convinces only those who want to be convinced without a second thought. We don't know what the ancients were thinking when they made costumes for rituals, when they painted on rocks, cave walls, etc.

Exactly, and I brought this up in my thread. Interpretation is needed and maybe this is the true cause for people in modern times to suggest aliens. Who knows though, but please don't assume I'm not open to this, or open to admitting I'm 100% wrong here because I know it's a possibility. I do believe in this theory though but if you can change my mind, please do.

Do you really think that ancient "astronauts" needed fashions from thousands of years later? Do you really think that the painters were looking at anomalous aerial objects (modern UFOs) when they were painting religious figures? Don't you know that painters were usually commissioned to furnish paintings?

Don't you think an ancient man could've seen one, remembered it and then drawn it on a cave wall for example? The same with painters through the ages?

Also, no one’s ever said anything, UFO wise, was being seen at the moment of any painting being painted. Why do you assume this is how it would have occured?

A theory is not true, that's why it's a theory. Just thoughts.

I agree.

Stonehenge has nothing to do with extra-terrestrials. That's an insult to the hard work of the humans who put it

I assume you didn't read the thread because if you did, you would've known I agree with this also and I tried to once and for all prove it was possible only by human hands. Not Extraterrestrials.

The Nazca lines have long been proved to be done by humans. Nothing to do with ETs.

Again, I agree, but many still believe them to have been made by Extraterrestrials which is why I added some discussion about them. Discarding it completely simply because you know it's not something else is never the correct approach surely?

I'd really appreciate it if you read the thread before trying to shoot me down. Thanks.

reply to post by Rising Against


so you dont think its a cardinals hat on the ground?

scroll down a bit for a much clearer picture of the painting. sprezzatura.it...

I'm curious as to why a red cardinals hat is relevant to the topic at hand. It wasn't cited in the OPs material and was brought up by you Yeti101.

I'm sure you have good reason for it - I'm just curious as to what that reasoning is?

If it is to contest that religious iconography is occasionally labelled, or mislabelled, as UFOs or ET then I'd agree. The red cardinals hat appears in at least 2 other paintings which are listed at the site you linked to. However the origins of that religion have flying angels and huge beamouth's in it - it would be silly to not include the potential for a connection between some of those old stories and something of an extraterrestrial or fantastical nature.

A lengthy post detailing your thoughts may be useful lat this juncture.

-m0r

reply to post by m0r1arty


its is in the OP search the page for " fresco entitled "The Crucifixion" and was painted in 1350" and you will find it.

reply to post by yeti101


Yup! You are right. There was a lot of information on that page. Guess that piece didn't stick too well.

Star for detective work sir!

-m0r

reply to post by The Shrike


You are clearly not reading the op's post and just making blind and uninformed assumptions yourself.
I have been reading for a while now and have yet to come across a part where he unequivocally supports ancient alien theory even though a great many of us here reading do. His opinion so far has been that man is perfectly capable of producing these wonders and his skepticism and doubt about alien intervention is a little disappointing, to be frank.