Ancient Aliens Debunked?

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

 

I am mostly fascinated (and convinced) by the translations of the Enki Tablets.


This is the story of Humans being created. It matches VERY closely with The Terra Papers (linked in my sig). Though the vector to Human creation differs between the Sumerian writings and The Terra Papers, the decription of Us being created is virtually identical...

There exist no Sumerian tablets called the "Enki Tablets."

Your youtube links are referring "The Lost Book of Enki" by Zecharia Sitchin. That, my friend, is a work of fiction, even Sitchin admits it.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

 

I am mostly fascinated (and convinced) by the translations of the Enki Tablets.


This is the story of Humans being created. It matches VERY closely with The Terra Papers (linked in my sig). Though the vector to Human creation differs between the Sumerian writings and The Terra Papers, the decription of Us being created is virtually identical...

There exist no Sumerian tablets called the "Enki Tablets."

Your youtube links are referring "The Lost Book of Enki" by Zecharia Sitchin. That, my friend, is a work of fiction, even Sitchin admits it.

Harte

Sitchin has never admitted his work to be fiction.

The Tera Papers and the Lost Book of Enki are matches to all biblical texts, which I believe is true human history. But as I stated at the beginning of this thread, most atheist are not willing to re-examine the bible.

I admit that when I first began to let religion go, I once too thought it was all fairytale.

But historical artifacts and documents deserved a second look, as it became obvious that many civilizations from different parts of the world were not all under some 'mass hallucination' or coincidentally developed the same 'mythical' stories.

The bible is no longer a book of fables when you consider that these gods and angels were ET's that displayed advanced technology, not magic.

When the Council of Nicea met and begin editing books of what we now know as the bible, stories got changed, many were left.

it was Plagerism at its finest.

I am still not a relgious 'god-believing' person, but that means 'god' in the sense of religious dogma =the supernatural deity that created the universe and controls everything in it.

GOD is what the ancients called aliens.

Just as HEAVEN is what the ancient called space.

reply to post by ButterCookie


Hi, I'm an atheist and former Christian. I still examine the Bible all the time. Indeed at one time I was persuaded to think that perhaps angels and aliens were the same thing, way back when I was a Christian.

Heaven was a term for the sky, those who wrote the Bible had little or no knowledge of how space actually was. For instance the Bible often refers to a firmament, this was a dome over the Earth that kept the waters (space) from pouring in. In Noah's Flood Story God is said to "open the windows of heaven", a reference to allowing water to pour in through the firmament. The sun, moon and stars were said to be set against the firmament, they weren't beyond the Earth. So heavens referred primarily to the sky in the Bible, otherwise the story of the tower of babel wouldn't work.

And no Yahweh is not an alien, the Israelite God is nothing like an alien, he's a storm god associated primarily with mountains. Using the Bible as history doesn't work and reinterpreting Biblical myth as aliens is just as nonsensical as Biblical literalism/fundamentalism.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

Hi, I'm an atheist and former Christian. I still examine the Bible all the time. Indeed at one time I was persuaded to think that perhaps angels and aliens were the same thing, way back when I was a Christian.

Heaven was a term for the sky, those who wrote the Bible had little or no knowledge of how space actually was. For instance the Bible often refers to a firmament, this was a dome over the Earth that kept the waters (space) from pouring in. In Noah's Flood Story God is said to "open the windows of heaven", a reference to allowing water to pour in through the firmament. The sun, moon and stars were said to be set against the firmament, they weren't beyond the Earth. So heavens referred primarily to the sky in the Bible, otherwise the story of the tower of babel wouldn't work.

And no Yahweh is not an alien, the Israelite God is nothing like an alien, he's a storm god associated primarily with mountains. Using the Bible as history doesn't work and reinterpreting Biblical myth as aliens is just as nonsensical as Biblical literalism/fundamentalism.

edit on 9-6-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-6-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)

The gods were said to have come from 'the heavens'

Heaven is space/sky= same thing.

The main point is that heaven is used to described where flight, celestial, and cosmic events take place.

All these clouds, whirlwinds, pillars, vessels, chariots and pavilions are seen hovering in, coming down from or rising into heaven. The thunders, trumpets and voices that are heard are heard from heaven. All the men who leave the ground and all the angels and metallic, glowing beings that come down to the ground do so either to, or from, heaven. All the lightnings, streams of fire, brimstone and other destructive things mentioned have their origin in heaven. Even wars are fought in heaven. Since all these things are seen in relationship to heaven, the way the word ‘heaven’ is used is the key to understanding these phenomenon and must be explained.

Why were all the ancient civilizations describing heaven as the place where the gods descended down from, or ascended up into?

Why were they describing battles being fought there?

Anything cosmic was described as 'heavenly'.

You are correct; those who wrote the bible didn't have very much knowlwedge about space and that's why it seemed wonderous and unreachable, much like we still do toady.

But remember also, those who wrote the bible were not the eyewitnesses to the biblical characters and events. They (the Renaissance artists) drew what they assumed the Dead Sea Scroll and other ancient documents were describing.

They drew angels with bird-like wings, when in fact angels were the ET's who were not in charge (messengers?)
The wings were more than likely the flying vessels.

They drew circles around all of the 'heavenly' characters, when they were more than likely helmets for breathing purposes ( like our astronauts)

reply to post by ButterCookie

Why were all the ancient civilizations describing heaven as the place where the gods descended down from, or ascended up into?

I cover this in the OP. Simply put: not all gods come from the sky. And even many who do don't actually live in the heavens, they live on mountains. This could be said of Yahweh, although later he moved into the Temple supposedly. The Greek Gods convened on Olympus but some of them also had their own domains. You may as well be asking why so many ancient cultures had ocean or water gods, or gods of war.

They drew angels with bird-like wings, when in fact angels were the ET's who were not in charge (messengers?)

While I will grant you that angels having bird wings is indeed an artistic invention I don't think there is any evidence that they were ETs, in fact there's no evidence that they exist outside of mythology at all. Angels, in the Bible, often appear in dreams and they don't typically use any vehicles either.

They drew circles around all of the 'heavenly' characters, when they were more than likely helmets for breathing purposes ( like our astronauts)

This is simply ripping the halo out of context to repaint it. You are aware that Jesus and his disciples are often depicted with halos right? Are you suggesting that they are aliens and walked around Galilee in broad daylight wearing high-tech breathing apparatuses?

Reading aliens into Biblical myth is just empty reinterpretation. It relies on picking out the handful of stories that can be construed as ETs messing with ancient man and ignores the rest. What of Balam and his talking donkey? Jephthah being moved by the spirit to give a burnt offering to God. Pharaoh's heart being hardened? Are you going to speculate into existence an alien mind-control ray as well?

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

 

I am mostly fascinated (and convinced) by the translations of the Enki Tablets.


This is the story of Humans being created. It matches VERY closely with The Terra Papers (linked in my sig). Though the vector to Human creation differs between the Sumerian writings and The Terra Papers, the decription of Us being created is virtually identical...

There exist no Sumerian tablets called the "Enki Tablets."

Your youtube links are referring "The Lost Book of Enki" by Zecharia Sitchin. That, my friend, is a work of fiction, even Sitchin admits it.

Harte

Sitchin has never admitted his work to be fiction.

Really? He admits it right there in the title, for openers (how is it he knows the contents of the "Lost Book" of Enki if it's lost?)

That he had recorded his autobiography is certain, for a long text (stretching over at least twelve tablets) discovered in the library of Nippur quotes Enki’s sayings. Numerous other texts that relate varied aspects of Enki’s role in the ensuing developments serve to complete Enki’s tale; they include a cosmogony, an Epic of Creation, at whose core lay Enki’s own text, which scholars call The Eridu Genesis. For the first time ever, this dispersed and fragmented material has been assembled and used by Zecharia Sitchin to re-create the eyewitness account of Enki--the autobiographical memoirs and insightful prophecies of an extraterrestrial god.

From the introduction of the book.

The book is a compilation of Sitchin's various opinions concerning the Mesopotamian religions, based completely on the meanderings of an ignorant (or, possibly, felonious) mind. Or both.

Harte

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


I am sorry but the pseudoscientific idea is you thinking you debunked anything.

First of all about the Vedas, for the most part and unless i am mistaken the drawings are NEWER than the stories from the Vedas, which means the drawings were made by more contemporary people drawing what they THINK the stories are talking about, but it doesn't make it so. Instead you should have read at least some of the stories yourself. The drawings are "artists' conceptions of vimanas", but it is not exactly what the stories talk about.

For example, go to this website and mouse over the drawing on the top center and see what it says.
www.main.org...

Second of all, you are trying to contend that because some stories about where ufos come from could be wrong, that they all are not true?...

I guess you have never heard of under water ufos, which could have be seen by ancient people as Gods/Goddesses of the seas/ocean/water, and the same with ufos emerging from caves, and such.

One of the many examples from the Vedas, which obviously you did not bother to read, states Mahabharata: "Bhisma flew with his Vimana on an enormous ray which was as brilliant as the sun and made a noise like the thunder of a storm." ( C.Roy 1899).

Another example of not only vimanas but weapons talked about in the Vedas which sound extremely similar to modern weapons include...

A passage from the Mahabharata is bound to make us think:

"It was as if the elements had been unleashed. The sun spun round. Scorched by the incandescent heat of the weapon, the world reeled in fever. Elephants were set on fire by the heat and ran to and fro in a frenzy to seek protection from the terrible violence. The water boiled, the animals died, the enemy was mown down and the raging of the blaze made the trees collapse in rows as in a forest fire. The elephants made a fearful trumpeting and sank dead to the ground over a vast area. Horses and war chariots were burnt up and the scene looked like the aftermath of a conflagration. Thousands of chariots were destroyed, then deep silence descended on the sea. The winds, began to blow and the earth grew bright. It was a terrible sight to see. The corpses of the fallen were mutilated by the terrible heat so that they no longer looked like human beings. Never before have we seen such a ghastly weapon and never before have we heard of such a weapon. (C. Roy 1889).

www.hinduwisdom.info...

I think all you debunked was your inability to do proper research, and instead you showed complete bias against this topic.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

I guess you have never heard of under water ufos, which could have be seen by ancient people as Gods/Goddesses of the seas/ocean/water, and the same with ufos emerging from caves, and such.

It's the other way around which is precisely why I find AAH so offensive. Proponents of this hypothesis are reading modern UFO, in this case USO, sightings into ancient myths and claiming, without any evidence, that this is what the ancients intended the stories to discuss. It is not UFOs being described as gods, it is proponents of AAH describing God's as UFOs.

Another example of not only vimanas but weapons talked about in the Vedas which sound extremely similar to modern weapons include...

Indeed I've read the account before and read the exact text you quoted dozens of times. It does sound a bit like an atomic explosion, it could just as well be describing a meteor strike perceived as a godly weapon, or a particularly violent volcanic eruption. It could also be an invention, a fictional weapon dreamed up only in the imagination of the writer. If the description does indeed describe an atomic or nuclear weapon that does not in any way prove aliens. It could just as well be Hindus having visions of the future.

Second of all, you are trying to contend that because some stories about where ufos come from could be wrong, that they all are not true?...

I'm not trying to claim anything about UFOs, UFOs are, by definition, unidentified. I'm merely pointing out the logical fallacies inherent to AAH as depicted in the show and the places where their reasoning simply doesn't hold water. If I am biased it is toward skepticism and toward actual evidence and biased away from mere reinterpretation of myth and arguments from ignorance regarding man's ancient history.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


If it was a meteor shower,it wouldve been recored through history,these civilisations were smart enough..
LOL mass halucination,ill have what their having..
Yet everything else stacks up agianst you and you STILL fight back -_-"

Originally posted by Winged-Sphinx
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

 

If it was a meteor shower,it wouldve been recored through history,these civilisations were smart enough..
LOL mass halucination,ill have what their having..
Yet everything else stacks up agianst you and you STILL fight back -_-"

Yep you'll see alot of that here. Pure Closed-Mindedness

I've barely read past the video you've provided and I couldn't keep from responding . I love this topic from both ends of the colorful rainbow it is for me. Promoting, debunking, in favor of, or religiously against, this is a topic that interest me a great deal. I'm pouting right now. Cause I passed over your thread so many times, on the running board, and am now so late it will be hard to catch up. At least Slayer sends me a heads up when he puts upa thread. Ya I'm whinning. Whah whah whah whah whah ! Awesome thread Titen. I won't miss a word.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

A passage from the Mahabharata is bound to make us think:

Since your source says this about the quote it's bound to make us think.

(source: Chariots of The Gods - By Erich Von Daniken p. 56 - 60).

www.hinduwisdom.info...

reply to post by Winged-Sphinx


You're assuming ancient Hindus knew that a meteor wasn't an attack from the gods and thus would have written of it solely from a historical perspective and not from a mythological perspective. This isn't what we see when we look at most mythology, typically we see natural phenomenon personified as characteristics of deities such as Zeus being the source of lightning.

Yet everything else stacks up agianst you and you STILL fight back

Actually I've yet to see a single shred of evidence that doesn't already have a terrestrial origin or explanation. On the AAH side there's no evidence, on the other side there's simple skepticism and reason.

reply to post by ObvTruth


You're confusing skepticism with closed-mindedness. I'm open to actual evidence, if AAH proponents presented some I'd be willing to accept it. Unfortunately their idea of evidence is typically logical fallacies and baseless reinterpretation of myth. Actual evidence of aliens would be an alien body, fossil or DNA that doesn't fit into any evolutionary tree here on Earth. There are other things too such as if we found an interstellar space craft buried in some ancient ruins or something. So far no physical of evidence of that or ANY caliber supports AAH.


reply to post by randyvs


Sorry Randy, I thought about sending out a message but didn't end up doing it. Welcome to the discussion

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Winged-Sphinx

 

You're assuming ancient Hindus knew that a meteor wasn't an attack from the gods and thus would have written of it solely from a historical perspective and not from a mythological perspective. This isn't what we see when we look at most mythology, typically we see natural phenomenon personified as characteristics of deities such as Zeus being the source of lightning.

Yet everything else stacks up agianst you and you STILL fight back

Actually I've yet to see a single shred of evidence that doesn't already have a terrestrial origin or explanation. On the AAH side there's no evidence, on the other side there's simple skepticism and reason.

reply to post by ObvTruth

 

You're confusing skepticism with closed-mindedness. I'm open to actual evidence, if AAH proponents presented some I'd be willing to accept it. Unfortunately their idea of evidence is typically logical fallacies and baseless reinterpretation of myth. Actual evidence of aliens would be an alien body, fossil or DNA that doesn't fit into any evolutionary tree here on Earth. There are other things too such as if we found an interstellar space craft buried in some ancient ruins or something. So far no physical of evidence of that or ANY caliber supports AAH.

edit on 10-6-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)

reply to post by randyvs

 

Sorry Randy, I thought about sending out a message but didn't end up doing it. Welcome to the discussion

edit on 10-6-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)

Fair enough i guess. But you need a Open Mind to take in the info. The possibility of finding Ancient Alien Spacecraft is very nill. Why would they leave a spacecraft here in the first place. Your asking for the impossible.

reply to post by ObvTruth


Why would ALIENS have a spacecraft here? Are you serious? I was under the impression that that's what they get around in right? Something than can either break the light barrier or tunnel through a wormhole. Either way there's a stark lack of physical evidence for AAH and that fact, coupled with the constant logical fallacies (such as the arguments from ignorance made repeatedly in the show) is what leads me to my doubt and disbelief.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by ObvTruth

 

Why would ALIENS have a spacecraft here? Are you serious? I was under the impression that that's what they get around in right? Something than can either break the light barrier or tunnel through a wormhole. Either way there's a stark lack of physical evidence for AAH and that fact, coupled with the constant logical fallacies (such as the arguments from ignorance made repeatedly in the show) is what leads me to my doubt and disbelief.

I said LEAVE a spacecraft

reply to post by ObvTruth


My apologies.

You are right about that, probably wouldn't want to leave one of those lying around. But then again maybe one crashed and some parts got left behind. UFO proponents seem keen that those things crash fairly often compared to how high-tech they are. Regardless the issue still has to do with the lack of physical evidence.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by ObvTruth

 

My apologies.

You are right about that, probably wouldn't want to leave one of those lying around. But then again maybe one crashed and some parts got left behind. UFO proponents seem keen that those things crash fairly often compared to how high-tech they are. Regardless the issue still has to do with the lack of physical evidence.

edit on 10-6-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)

But that doesnt necessarily mean that they didnt come here.

reply to post by ObvTruth


Of course not. In no way do I think that a lack of evidence proves a total lack of alien visitation but without that evidence to me it seems unjustified to believe in ancient aliens. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and yet we don't even see ordinary evidence for AAH. What we see are attempts to reinterpret mythology and art and the insertion of aliens into areas of mystery about our ancient past.

Originally posted by ObvTruth

But that doesnt necessarily mean that they didnt come here.

ObvTruth, you are pretty convinced in the "Ancient Aliens" theory.......what in your opinion is the single best evidence to support the Ancient Alien hypothesis?