Ancient Astronaut Theory: The New, Oldest, and Only TRUE Religion

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by SquirrelNutz

beings from the sky carried 'in the bodies of wingless birds'

That fits very very few religions actually

lol, are you kidding me? Yeah, there are 1000s of religions - if you mean ONLY the "Big 6" then I agree with you, 'very few religions'. From the the King James Bible, to the Qur'an, to the Torah, to the Vedas / Mahabharata, etc... they ALL contain sections of unexplainable supernatural events and beings with extraordinary capabilities.

Are you just making stuff up as you go?

and within a given religion most of the gods have various domains. You've got volcano gods, storm gods, gods that live on mountain tops, gods that live deep underground.

Be careful when comparing isolated island (tribal-esque) nations with the mainstream religions - not because they are any less valid, but their sample size is much smaller, less reliable.

There are common threads but there are also differences. But then there are lots of common threads in fiction already. Take any genre of fiction, science fiction for instance, there are a great deal of similar movies with similar ideas depicting similar technology.

Not even sure what you're trying to say here. That some ideas/notions are SO popular and widespread that modern forms of entertainment have chosen to incorporate them into their field? Whoopdie-doo.

1) Similarities in myth do not count as evidence for ancient alien visitation. The finding of a clearly alien artifact of technology (something like a warp core in the middle of the remains of a fairly primitive civilization), alien fossil/remains, alien DNA WOULD count.

Similarities in myth DO count when they all describe objects in the sky that are NOT birds when the only known object IN the sky at the time of account WERE birds. Not to break it down to a sophomoric level, but how do you defend this glaring discrepency?

And, I'll give you your warp core and alien DNA as soon as 1) you get me access to the places where many of us are pretty certain this stuff does, in fact, exist, and 2) you produce an evolutionary chart that DOESN'T have gaping holes in it. Thanks in advance.

2) I'm well aware that the human race has a history of seeing weird things in the sky. This does not, however, mean that the UFOs in question were alien craft, or that if they were aliens they landed AND managed to somehow inspire religious myth making by visiting thousands of diverse cultures over the course of several thousands of years and then miraculously vanishing before modern science can be invented.

Well, then... I'd LOVE to hear your explanation for it. No where in this diatribe did you negate any posit I put forth, nor have you presented any logical alternate explanation.

How about the overwhelming evidence that seems to be mounting (accelerating, in fact) with current technological methods of recording and dissemenating the information...

3) I'm curious as to what you think modern UFO sightings have to do with ancient astronaut theories. The only thing a UFO sighting is evidence of is that someone saw something in the sky they couldn't readily identify - that's all. As far as science is concerned eye-witnesses testimony is not a form of reliable evidence. Human perception is flawed, that's why there is an emphasis on collaboration and peer review in science, if enough scientists independently come to the same conclusion it is more likely to be a sound conclusion.

If you read the first post, you'll note that aknowledging the AAT subsequently acknowledges the fact that it is likely that 'they' are nearby, or perhaps never even left.

Go watch those videos again. Events like this are becoming all too commonplace and it's getting tougher and tougher every day for the MSM to ignore it.

Aside from eye witness testimony and the occasional blurry image or video there is no evidence of UFOs. There certainly isn't any physical evidence of them that stands up to scientific scrutiny, at least to the best of my knowledge. In any case the existence of unidentified objects doesn't mean they are of alien origin and their unidentified nature should make this fact obvious. Any speculation as to what these objects are is just that, speculation.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A few blurry photos doesn't prove that when the Greeks came up with Zeus they were thinking of aliens. In fact if you actually looked at the myths themselves, instead of arrogantly inserting aliens and ignoring context, you'd see most gods already have an explanation. It is exactly the same problem seen when ancient astronaut proponents find "UFOs" in ancient art. Anything remotely saucer shaped, or anything painted in the sky, can be construed as depicting an alien spacecraft.

Baseless speculation is not "overwhelming evidence" that aliens were in contact with the ancients and neither is blurry footage, anomalous radar blips, or stretching ancient myth out of its cultural and historical context to fit your personal interpretation.

I want someone, just once, to explain the 10s of 1000s of reports, by credible (many times, technical) witnesses, that describe objects that perform maneuvers and speeds absolutely impossible to achieve with current technology or human capability/sustainability.

I understand that our government's technological capabilities FAR exceed what is available to the general public, as has always been the case, but these reports have been going on for centuries - we've only recently been able to describe - in quantifiable terms - what was actually being done by these objects.

But, our 'commercial' technology (for lack of a better term) is usually realtively close behind military innovation. These objects have been around forever, and we still cannot immulate.

Either that, OR, our government is much further ahead than we would like to believe, thereby implying that such earth/civilization saving technologies like free/renewable energy are long past discovered and being withheld from humanity (being that they've apparently learned how to manipulate gravity(anti)). [And, why are we sending men off do die in wars, when afore-mentioned technology could easily be used to fight our wars - take the blue pill and find out how far this rat-hole we (all) have really gone.]

reply to post by SquirrelNutz

Yeah, there are 1000s of religions

That's kinda my point. And not the "Big 6" don't all claim that gods descended "in wingless birds" as you stated. Definitely not the God of the Bible at least, who appears as a burning bush, smoke on a mountain top, a pillar of fire but never descends from the sky in anything that could be construed as a UFO. Its true that Ezekiel seems to see something odd in the sky but whether this is a true sighting, a purely religious story or a bad "trip" is entirely up for debate.

Be careful when comparing isolated island (tribal-esque) nations with the mainstream religions - not because they are any less valid, but their sample size is much smaller, less reliable.

The number of people who believe something has no bearing on whether or not its true or reliable (not that tribal religions are more or less true than others). Quite a few mainstream religions followed this model too, the Greeks had a sun god, a sea god, a wind god and gods who lived in the Underworld and to ignore that in favor of an unsupported conclusion like alien beings is absurd. Most gods already have an explanation because they and the myths surrounding them usually explained some aspect of nature the ancients didn't understand. So when thunder clapped and lightning struck it could be chalked up to Zeus or Thor, not to aliens and their flying saucers which so clearly had an influence

That some ideas/notions are SO popular and widespread that modern forms of entertainment have chosen to incorporate them into their field?

Right. The same could be true of common threads in myths. These common threads and ideas became popular and cultures that intermingled could have incorporated them into their stories. Another possible explanation is that the human mind is so similar that the common threads in stories of all kinds stem from these similarities. There are many explanations that are more plausible than alien intervention.

Not to break it down to a sophomoric level, but how do you defend this glaring discrepency?

The human mind can imagine anything being in the sky and then write that down. I assume you're familiar with superman, he's not a bird or a plane either, in fact he's an alien, but when you read a comic book you don't assume its depicting an actual sighting of an actual object. To assume that these myths are describing something that really happened is a step that must be taken tentatively, after all not all the details of a myth have root in truth. Take the Biblical story of Elijah's ascendancy for instance. Many ancient astronaut proponents claim this as a classic alien abduction but in so doing they ignore what the story actually says. The story never says a shiny saucer shaped object beams Elijah up. A whirlwind of flame and a chariot of fire take Elijah to Heaven. Why someone would chose to read a flying saucer into that is beyond me as there is no clear correlation without stretching the imagination.

you produce an evolutionary chart that DOESN'T have gaping holes in it

I'm not an evolutionary biologist but I'm pretty sure things sites like Wikipedia and Talkorigins have everything you need for a basic understanding of human evolution. Fossilization is extremely rare and it is a given that there will be gaps in the fossil record. The strongest evidence for human evolution WITHOUT alien intervention is genetics. We've mapped the human genome and didn't find anything there out of place or that would indicate genetic manipulation. If we had you would have heard about it and the scientist who discovered it would have become an international celebrity.

nor have you presented any logical alternate explanation.

There isn't anything here that needs explanation, most of it already has a proper historical explanation. If you're referring to UFOs I don't know what you want me to say. I don't know what UFOs are, no one does, that's why they are UNIDENTIFIED.

As for myths, my logical alternative is that they were made up by people. This is the same conclusion I have when I read any story that involves magic, gods and the supernatural because none of those things have ever been demonstrated or proved to exist. These myths are evidence that we are a creative species and that's about all they are evidence of IMO.

Give ancient people the credit they deserve. They built the monuments, they crafted the myths and there's no good evidence to indicate otherwise.

I want someone, just once, to explain the 10s of 1000s of reports, by credible (many times, technical) witnesses, that describe objects that perform maneuvers and speeds absolutely impossible to achieve with current technology or human capability/sustainability.

So do I. But right now there is no conclusive explanation for UFOs. I've seen a UFO myself. My guess is that there is no blanket explanation. Most are misidentified known objects such as planes, some are hoaxes, others might be experimental aircraft. Aliens are a distinct possibility albeit an improbable one (given the distances between planets, stars and galaxies and timescales involved with evolution the the Universe in general). Right now we just don't know and until some sort of solid scientific evidence is found the answer to the UFO mystery remains uncertain.

FURTHERMORE... [and, as an addendum to the post above, and to expound upon the question, 'what do modern UFO sightings have to do with ancient astronaut theories...]


Well, scientists did long ago, and now even the most pessemistic of people (*cough* Vatican *cough*) have come forward in recent years and acknowledged that it 'IS likely that intelligent life does exist, elsewhere in the Universe' (and, that such a belief does not necessarily negate a belief in God)...

Here's the problem with that [and modern day UFO sightings]...

Most scientists also agree that it is highly IMprobable that we would ever make contact with such life simply because the vastness of space between us and another communicable civilization, and the unlikeliness that we would even be detected as we've only been emitting radio waves for such a short time (relatively speaking) that the odds of another intelligent lifeform detecting us would be astronomically (pun intended) small.

Unless... The Advanced Civs that are (may) be here, now, would likely only be doing so because they had already been here, before, as they were (likely) the ones that seeded us here, to begin with.

Therefor, in conclusion, modern sightings of UFOs, all but automatically imply ancient visitation, by default.

reply to post by SquirrelNutz

So, no evidence at all then, eh?

Just speculation and stretching old wive's tales to fit your beliefs.

You know, this stuff has been around for over a generation. I read von Daniken's idiotic books as a teenager. I suppose you did too. But have you read Crash Go the Chariots? Daniken was deubunked a generation ago, too.

This 'theory' is just a fantasy, really. There is not a shred of evidence to show that aliens visited Earth in historical or even prehistoric times. Considering how thoroughly we've explored and dug up the Earth, we should have found something by now. We haven't, which means they probably never did.

You don't give enough credit to the human imagination. Which is odd, considering how bizarre your own ideas are.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

Take the Baghdad Battery as an example. An ancient astronaut theorist looks at this and goes "aliens must have given them some insight into chemistry or left this technology behind" while anyone who isn't prepared to leap to absurd conclusions thinks "hey look the ancients were pretty smart for their time."

So saying "aliens did it" - even if the evidence does point to that conclusion - is an absurd conclusion? You accuse Ancient Astronaut Theorists of drawing from preconceptions? You already have a set belief that the mere idea of an alien visitation is complete blaspheme and not scientific. That's where you're completely wrong, you have faulty ideas and misconceptions about what science is, and you are reaching conclusions that "fit in" with the general scientific state of mind without exerting any type of independent thought or in depth research into the matter. You simply follow the crowd. A typical skeptic can only ask "where is the evidence", because the truth is, many have no idea, and can't be bothered researching and presenting facts themselves. The concept of sentient extraterrestrial biological entities is not mythical, absurd or unscientific.

i say, enough chat with this guy....he has no idea what he's talking about - conspiracy of scientists covering the truth, science is a lie etc. Anyone whose been mildly educated knows better.

Go back to school!

reply to post by WhizPhiz

I hope you (and Titen-Sxull) won't mind if I comment on this.

You have faulty ideas and misconceptions about what science is, and you are reaching conclusions that "fit in" with the general scientific state of mind without exerting any type of independent thought or in depth research into the matter. You simply follow the crowd.

Titen-Sxull has a scientific mind but is not, I think, a scientist. Even if he or she is one, that only confers authority to speak definitively on whatever field of science he or she happens to specialize in. Scientists are no better than educated laypersons when it comes to areas outside their speciality.

Any scientist in possession of a full set of marbles will happily grant the truth of this.

Now: in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, where should an educated, curious-minded lay person go to for the best, most consistent and fully validated scientific ideas and information?

Where else but the mainstream? What is the point of going anywhere else? When one is not qualified to hold an opinion on a subject, how can one decide when mainstream science is in error, and the fringe believers are right?

Simply put, one cannot.

Thus any intelligent, sane person will accept what mainstream science and scholarship have to tell us about the world, recognizing always that science and sholarship are human pursuits and thereby naturally liable to error, and recognizing also that scientists and scholars do not always agree among themselves. Despite these caveats, there is really no sensible option but to go with the mainstream unless one really knows better.

Some find mainstream opinion not to their taste. Most make a wry face and accept it anyway. There are a few, however, who cannot stomach it at any price, and instead find refuge in unorthodox schools of thought, fringe theories, popular folklore (like the 'ancient astronaut theory'), religion, mysticism, magical thinking and downright nonsense. Such people are always more likely to be wrong than right.

If you don't know enough about a subject, your wisest course is to accept mainstream opinion. You will not always be right--mainstream abnormal psychology through most of the twentieth century was mostly nonsense, and even present-day social scientists often cling to theories based on false principles and nonexistent facts. Even when the mainstream is wrong, however, seeking alternatives outside it is usually unwise; they are invariably based in less thought, less scholarship and less evidence than the mainstream at its worst.

Especially in science, which is now so highly specialized that a person must spend her entire youth dedicated to learning any particular branch of it, and then spend several more years studying their particular speciality within that branch before she can call herself an expert, lay people--or even diligent amateurs--have no reasonable option but to cleave to the mainstream.

A typical skeptic can only ask "where is the evidence", because the truth is, many have no idea, and can't be bothered researching and presenting facts themselves.

'Where is the evidence?' is the most reasonable of all questions. Without evidence, there is no reason to believe anything. Someone making an extraordinary claim--one that conflicts with mainstream science or scholarship--has not only to show evidence for his claim; he must also show why the mainstream claim is wrong. To do that, the claimant must be at least as much of an expert in the subject as the people in the mainstream whose ideas he is trying to disprove and supplant. To prove Einstein wrong, you need to know as much as Einstein did.

Few lay people, whether they are sceptics or not, are capable of such expertise and dedication. The ones who are become scientists and scholars themselves, whether they work in opposition to the mainstream or within it.

Am I saying that people who aren't specialists in a given subject, who haven't dedicated their lives to the study of it as professional scientists and scholars do, should just accept mainstream opinion without questioning it? Of course not. 'Question everything' is not a bad motto. But in the end, you have to accept the answers you are given and live with them, or dedicate your whole life to bringing about a scientific revolution. That takes more than a few hours on the internet and arguing with people like Titen-Sxull and me on Above Top Secret. It takes a lifetime of dedication and many painful sacrifices. Are you up to that?

The concept of sentient extraterrestrial biological entities is not... absurd or unscientific.

Not at all. But to conclude that they have visited Earth, from such doubtful 'evidence' as SquirrelNutz and others have presented here, is both unscientific and absurd. Titen-Sxull is right.

By the way, at the time of writing, all extraterrestrial entities, sentient or otherwise, are mythical, in the sense of 'imaginary'.

reply to post by Astyanax


So, no evidence at all then, eh?

Just speculation and stretching old wive's tales to fit your beliefs.

Really? That's the best slam you have? Guess you haven't been paying attention. Plenty of evidence contained, within this thread. And certainly no less than anything any other 'theory' has to present. What a joke (your post is).

You know, this stuff has been around for over a generation. I read von Daniken's idiotic books as a teenager. I suppose you did too. But have you read Crash Go the Chariots? Daniken was deubunked a generation ago, too.

I love it when people come out with "so-and-so was debunked long ago" with absolutely know merit or support behind it (One guy/book? One source?). You know what? NIST debunked 9/11 truthers awhile ago, so I guess let's put that puppy to rest, too.

And, are you sure you're not talking about Zacheria Sitchin, and not Von Daneken? Regardless, NO I'm not placing all my hopes and theories on one man, rather the findings and backing/research of 1000s of archeaologists, paleantologists, cosmologists, biolgists, analysis of regligious accounts, theorists (yes, included), and logical (and open-minded) thinkers.

This 'theory' is just a fantasy, really. There is not a shred of evidence to show that aliens visited Earth in historical or even prehistoric times. Considering how thoroughly we've explored and dug up the Earth, we should have found something by now. We haven't, which means they probably never did.

My friend, you just haven't been paying attention.

Continually using words & phrases like 'fantasy' & 'not a shred of evidence' means you are not even evaluating the subject with an open mind, logic, reason, or reviewing any of the empirical evidence, at all.

Keep burying your head in the sand.

You don't give enough credit to the human imagination. Which is odd, considering how bizarre your own ideas are.

I've give credit where credit is due. Yes, we humans are amazing. Big deal. Is that your only defense? Human imagination trumps all? We're so damn smart, that ALL of it can be explained away by human ingenuity. Please, don't be so shallow. There's much more going on here than forgotten human technology and innovation. Period.

You credit me with having an active imagination (I guess, 'bizarre ideas'), when I've explained - with examples - how I came to these conclusions. At no time, have you or anyone else, submitted (new) evidence for an alternate theory, nor anything that negates my (and many others') theories on the subject).


I look forward to a post of yours that contains any actual data-driven arguments refuting any of the videos I've posted, links I've provided, or ideas I've presented, rather than subtle insults, namecalling and age-old rhetoric.

Thanks, in advance.

reply to post by Astyanax

Thus any intelligent, sane person will accept what mainstream science and scholarship have to tell us about the world, recognizing always that science and sholarship are human pursuits and thereby naturally liable to error, and recognizing also that scientists and scholars do not always agree among themselves. Despite these caveats, there is really no sensible option but to go with the mainstream unless one really knows better.

And therein lies the rub, and the negation of your entire argument (against me/AAT, anyway)

'Mainstream Science' is what is coming up with new evidence all the time revealing truths about our ancient past here on this earth, and - turning the scope away from earth - learning more and more about the cosmos in general, as well as our place in it.

Your entire soliloquy, above, applies to AAT, no matter how much you may hate to admit it.
(and remember, [Human] Evolution is only a theory, itself!)

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
(and remember, [Human] Evolution is only a theory, itself!)

Oh no. Tell me you're not serious.
You believe that a scientific theory is simply the same as an informal notion or hypothesis?
*Facepalm*

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
(and remember, [Human] Evolution is only a theory, itself!)

Oh no. Tell me you're not serious.

Oh, yes. I am serious. I am telling you that evolution is a theory. Please, tell me where we disagree.

You believe that a scientific theory is simply the same as an informal notion or hypothesis?[

Those are your words, not mine. No where did I imply it. That's a huge jump to make. To insinuate as much is not only insulting but extremely irresponsible.

*Facepalm*

Good. Keep doing that a few more times. Maybe the rest will begin to sink in.

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz


Oh, yes. I am serious. I am telling you that evolution is a theory. Please, tell me where we disagree.

You said "evolution is only a theory". This is different than saying it is a scientific theory. If you meant it was a scientific theory, in that it is a fact, then we certainly agree.

reply to post by WhizPhiz


No, it is absurd because the evidence does NOT point to aliens.

Ancient astronaut theorists look at a few myths and see a common thread, the gods typically live near or in the heavens, and the conclusion is that these are alien beings. But where are you pulling that from exactly?

You already have a set belief that the mere idea of an alien visitation is complete blaspheme and not scientific.

I used to be an ancient astronaut theorist. Any preset lack of belief I have is based on a preponderance of the evidence and an open-mind. If you show me evidence of an alien visitation I would accept it, but the things ancient astronaut theorists present as evidence ARE NOT evidence of alien visitation. I already explained what would count as evidence, Alien DNA, pieces of alien technology or alien craft, alien remains or fossils, you know something that would ACTUALLY suggest ALIENS rather than just suggest human beings have always had an overactive imagination and too much time on our hands.

or in depth research into the matter

I've already done research into this subject. I used to be an ancient astronaut proponent. It didn't last long because I actually looked at what REAL academics and scientists thought and NONE of them believed any of this stuff was evidence of aliens. That wasn't enough on its own to convince me at first but after looking at the evidence myself I realized the mistake I was making by taking myths and artwork out of their proper context to support by conclusion.

My advice to you would be to stop focusing on how wrong you think I am and actually present the evidence that you think supports the hypothesis. But don't just present it to me, present it to scientists, present your research and evidence for peer review and if it makes it through you'll become one of the most famous scientists in history for proving aliens visited us in the past.

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

'Fall short of convincing evidence'...?! Lol

- I settled on this 'theory' because it is the ONLY one that continues to uncover (convincing) evidence supporting its claims.

I've been an evolutionist my whole life, until I started studying it more. Life on this planet shows abrupt transformations overnight, not slow transitions over time.



I consider myself to be in the same boat,i was an evolutionist most of my life up till a couple years ago.
Since then i have been reading up on and following anything that relates to the ancient alien theory.
It now effects me in everything i do and nearly everywhere i look there is something that points to the theory being true,
For example i was watching a show on tv earlier this evening about dinosaurs.
I don't really know too much about them,but my understanding is that they were about for dozens of millions of years,and that they changed in shapes,sizes ect over those millions of years before they become extinct but nothing drastic.Not like the human race,who have only been around for a few thousand years and have already evolved into the most sophisticated species on our planet.
I guess this is why many people believe there has been some sort of intervention in the evolution of the human race at some point in time,or even the human race being created altogether.

We humans have been around for aprox 200,000 years and look at the technology we have to show for it.
The universe is around 13,7 billion years old... do you really think we are the only species that has technology?
I think it's ridiculous to dismiss the idea of ET's, NASA even has an Astrobiology Program (which should be a ridiculous thing to invest money in if there is no chance of ET's...right?) and surely they should know more about the universe than most... being first on the moon, having hubble up there snapping away etc.

astrobiology.nasa.gov...

reply to post by SquirrelNutz

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
Plenty of evidence contained, within this thread. And certainly no less than anything any other 'theory' has to present.

If that is your opinion, your ability to judge the quality of evidence must be very poor.

No firm evidence of extraterrestrial visitation has been presented in this thread so far. It's all circumstance, hypothesis and coincidence open to a wide range of interpretation. If you expect intelligent people to believe you, you must provide something better.

What a joke (your post is).

I aim to please, but you don't seem to be laughing...

One guy/book? One source?

If the evidence it presents is strong enough, one book will do. Remember The Origin of Species?

Are you sure you're not talking about Zacheria Sitchin, and not Von Daneken?

Von Daniken. Yes, I'm sure.

I'm not placing all my hopes and theories on one man, rather the findings and backing/research of 1000s of archeaologists, paleantologists, cosmologists, biolgists, analysis of regligious accounts, theorists (yes, included), and logical (and open-minded) thinkers.

Fine. Show us this evidence. Or at least, tell us where we can find it.

*

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
My advice to you would be to stop focusing on how wrong you think I am and actually present the evidence that you think supports the hypothesis.

Seconded!

Look, SquirrelNutz, you don't even have to give us explanations, links or references. Just list the findings, papers, etc. you think proves that aliens visited Earth in ancient times. If the evidence is valid, you will convince me, never fear--and convince many others too, no doubt.

Just list the evidence in one post. One-liners we can google will do.

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
I look forward to a post of yours that contains any actual data-driven arguments refuting any of the videos I've posted, links I've provided, or ideas I've presented, rather than subtle insults, namecalling and age-old rhetoric.

Videos? Videos?

Last I heard, YouTube wasn't peer-reviewed. You spoke of scientific evidence. Let's have it, then.

My 2 cents worth....

I don't buy into claims that UFO's and aliens interfere with humanity on almost a day by day basis, however i am quite open to the idea of occasional intervention by ancient astronauts.

It stands to reason that if alien civilisation wanted to interfere in everyday life on earth they would be here openly and omni present.

However if they were simply concerned to give mankind (oe evolution) the occasional nudge or injection of new DNA then it stands to reason day to day inteference would be counter-productive.

Ancient Astronaut Intervention is actually an argument against regular (claimed) UFO sightings

Figure of a God with a helmet, located at the Anthropological Museum of Mexico City, photo taken by Tatjana Ingold.
"http://www.riaanbooysen.com/images/stories/enigmas/Figure-53.-God-with-a-helmet.jpg" alt="sd" />

The Mayan Lord Pacal in a spaceship?
"http://www.riaanbooysen.com/images/stories/enigmas/Figure-59.-Pacal---Herschel-p68.jpg" alt="gr" />

Source: www.riaanbooysen.com...

Whilst living in Cuenca Ecuador, a man known as Father Carlo Crespi received many gifts from the locals. There are remarkable similarities between these figurines and a modern day space suit. The locals claimed they came from subterranean cave systems in the jungles.

"http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/2293/2105714107359cca245fobz0.jpg" alt="gh" />
Source: ancientpuzzles.blogspot.com...

These clay figures found in Equador also have a remarkable resemblance to space suites. For comparison a real astronaut is seen next to the figure.
"http://www.in5d.com/images/11spacesuits.jpg" alt="g" />
Source: revelations-2012.com...

This highly odd figure which seems to be wearing a suit was found in Kiev and is apparently dated at around 4,000 BC.
"http://www.in5d.com/images/11suited-alien.jpg" alt="j" />
Source: www.in5d.com...

A drawing found in Temple of Abydos, it seems to depict a helicopter and submarine and other air craft. Dated at 3000 years old.
"http://vejprty.com/abypanel.gif" alt="r" />
Source: vejprty.com...

Located in Iraq, these sculptures seem to have reptilian type heads. Dated from around 5ooo-4000 B.C.
"http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/7799/uriraqubaid4period45004zq8.jpg" alt="e" />
Source: ancientpuzzles.blogspot.com...

Because these figures are made of gold, they are hard to date, but it's certain that they are least 1000 years. Estimations place them between 500 and 800 CE. They were found around Central America and coastal areas of South America. For anyone who knows anything about aeronautics these items are simply mind blowing. They depict undoubtable knowledge of aeronautics.
"http://imgur.com/gA766.jpg" alt="r" />

This drawing depicts a UFO sighting over Hamburg, Germany on the 4th November 1697. These mysterious objects were described as "two glowing wheels"
"http://www.in5d.com/images/11hamburg.jpg" alt="h" />
Source: www.in5d.com...

This is an illustration from a book entitled "Theatrum Orbis Terrarum" by Admiral Blaeu. It depicts a UFO sighting made by two Dutch ships in the North Sea in 1660.
"http://www.dudeman.net/siriusly/ufo/art/ships1660.jpg" alt="r" />
Source: www.dudeman.net...

An illustration from a book titled "Ume No Chiri (Dust of Apricot)" published in 1803. A "foreign ship and crew" witnessed at Haratonohama, Japan this strange object, said to be made of iron with weird letters inside the ship - shown in the drawing.
"http://www.in5d.com/images/11-1803.jpg" alt="g" />
Source: www.in5d.com...

This peculiar illustration showing a spherical type UFO in the sky, comes from the french book "Le Livre Des Bonnes Moeurs" by Jacques Legrand, dated 1338.
"http://www.in5d.com/images/11ball-ufo.jpg" alt="d" />
Source: www.in5d.com...

These two paintings of crusaders are from a 12th century manuscript "Annales Laurissenses", and depict a UFO sighting in the year 776, during the siege on Sigiburg castle, France
"http://www.in5d.com/images/11laur.jpg" alt="rf" />
www.in5d.com...

This tapestry is titled "Summer's Triumph", created in Bruges, 1538, located at the Bayerisches National Museum. Here we see odd saucer/disk type UFO's in the sky above the horizon.
"http://www.dudeman.net/siriusly/ufo/art/triumph1538.jpg" alt="f" />
www.dudeman.net...

This Crucifixion piece is located in the Svetitskhoveli Cathedral of Mtskheta, Georgia, on one side of the grave of Sidonia. Other variations of the crucifixion done in byzantine style show these objects as the Sun and the Moon.
"http://sprezzatura.it/Arte/Mtskheta-Svetitskhoveli_600x680.jpg" alt="" />
sprezzatura.it...

This 14th century painting is located in the Visoki Decani Monastery in Kosovo. The two objects on either side seem to depict flying crafts of some description, with people inside them.
"http://sprezzatura.it/Arte/Crucifixion_Blago_Archives.jpg" alt="null" />
"http://sprezzatura.it/Arte/Sun_Blago_Archives_480.jpg" alt="" />

This one is titled "La Tebaide" by Paolo Uccello (painted c.1460-1465). Yet another saucer type UFO seen near Jesus during the crucifixion. Located at the Academy of Florence.
"http://www.spiritandflesh.com/Christian-art-UFO-CrucifixionChristianReligion.jpg" alt="" />


This painting is titled "The Annunciation" by Carlo Crivelli, located the National Gallery, London. A beam of some description can be seen coming from a UFO and travelling down to Mary.
"http://www.spiritandflesh.com/Christian-art-Mother-Mary-AnnunciationChristianReligion.jpg" alt="" />

From a series of 15th century tapestries located in the collegiate church of Beaune (France), we can clearly distinguish between the clouds and the UFO in question, also note the classic saucer shape.
"http://sprezzatura.it/Arte/Beaune_arazzo2.jpg" alt="" />
sprezzatura.it...

In this famous 15th century painting of Mary, we can see what looks like a UFO in the upper right hand corner, with a man and his dog looking up curiously.
"http://www.ufoforhumanrights.com/resources/maryufoclose.jpg" alt="h" />

In this painting on a wood drawer located at the Earls D’Oltremond, Belgium, we see Moses is receiving the tablets, and there are also several odd looking objects in the sky. The date and artist unknown.
"http://www.in5d.com/images/11moses.jpg" alt="" />

This odd painting is titled "The Miracle of the Snow", by Masolino Da Panicale (1383-1440), it is located at the church of Santa Maria Maggiore, Florence, Italy.
"http://www.spiritandflesh.com/Christian-art-Jesus-MaryChristianReligion.jpg" alt="" />
omg link rage

reply to post by rajaten

Did you not know that most of those examples came originally from von Daniken's books, and have long been thoroughly explained, debunked and discredited?

The pictures you've posted merely resemble astronauts and spaceships--mostly of the primitive kind that human beings make, not at all what you'd expect of scientifically advanced aliens who must surely have travelled interstellar space to reach Earth. But that was the only kind of spaceship von Daniken's imagination could conceive of, you see, because Star Wars hadn't been made yet. In fact, these images depict not spaceships and astronauts but a variety of other things, well known to and understood by the relevant experts.

But even if the experts had not been able to explain them satisfactorily, the existence of these images still would not prove that aliens visited Earth in ancient times.

Mere resemblance is no proof of anything. False coral snakes look just like the real ones from a distance, but they aren't deadly. Potemkin villages were good enough to fool visiting diplomats, but they weren't real. What you need to show us is evidence that points unambiguously to ancient alien visitation, evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny and cannot possibly be explained any other way.

The stuff you have posted isn't it. Archaeologists are familiar with all these images and can explain to you what they really depict. In fact, they already have. Any ignoramus can come along and say 'they look like spacemen, therefore they are spacemen,' but that doesn't make it so.

reply to post by SquirrelNutz


What came first, the chicken or the egg?

The answer is the egg came first from water in the form of knowledge production! Just like a embrio. All embrios are from this substance. We have excelled to were we are by thinking of each other and our surroundings.

Just as Humans have reached this point where they can manipulate the gene we all have. All living things were born by an embrio or egg! Just as scientists create in a lab.

From the beginning we began as such and achieved what we had via believeing in a higher energy other than ourselves!