I'm starting to get tired of know-it-all tards who think they know everything. OK let's take a closer look at the show, so close that you can #ing
hurt your #ing eyes from closeness!
What IS Ancient Astronaut Theory, abbreviated A-A-T (ei-ei-ti
? Ancient? Of having to do with PAST, Astronaut of having to do with visitation because
that's the definition of someone crossing the stars or planets, Astronaut, and then T-h-e-o-r-y, notice THEORY, not FACT, THEORY and again THEORY,
and remember in case you suffer sclerosis - THEORY.
So can a moderator put a rest to this thread by CLOSING it because it's very very start is dumb - 'Debunked'. It's not like you debunk made up
stories. it's how you percept the FACTS - do you consider them normal or do you consider them extraordinary, a theory called AAT gives the second.
Remember: Theory, based not on once upon a time but on 'We have this, it COULD be'.. so THEORY.
Their proponents are absolutely speculating on SOME things, notice - SOME - and while they are rather not accurate about some of the events that could
simply be what science today has to say about, they definitely have a going on on a lot of the things.
Example of things rather uncertain on both scientists and AAT proponents side: Dinosaus - whether they became extinct cause of asteroid, no one can
tell - it could have been climate, pole shift, solar flares, anything you can think of. In the same manner AAT persons cannot be certain aliens used
some nuclear ro clear the planet and start life all over again, this is speculation.
Another example of rather speculating is how in India in ancient times they saw skeletons lying in a certain pose and they decided this could have
been done by soem kind of nuclear weapon. Again they have a reason to think about it so, but maybe they are rushing too fast to conclusions.
Pyramids and who built them? Or how the peak was cut by a huge weapon in Peru and it serves as an airport - yes all this could have been entirely man
made with primitve things.
So I agree that many of the things are mere speculations and may not be so, at the same time some things lead exactly to
what your primitive thinking of only explainable things exist fails to catch
JUST MYTHS?
It's like saying a certain species in the depths of 5000+ meters below the sea level do not exist because you haven't seen them yet say some
researcher has been there and despite not having made the best picture, you disbelieve him for all that.
TROY was just a myth - hello, good morning! It turned out real when Schliemann found proof of that.
The GOLIATH was also just a myth, and anything related to it, then they did find a sling or traces of a giant skeleton or just the place that the
'myth' was talking about -previously none of that had any proof even the place, I don't remember which one exactly they found.
The Indians vs Red Hair Giants was all bullcrap right, also 'a myth'? Then they found the arrows, the giant mummies and
just because of morons
who want to hide anything that looks out of the ordinary (and need to DIE for that) so people remain retarded and brainwashed like some here
garry-nelson.hubpages.com...
Remember that above all AAT is brought to bring a logical and true explanation of the Biblical events if any of them were to be true and how
considering some things 'just a myth' turn out to be true.
Originally posted by Imtor
In case everything was ;just artist expressions; to you
A 16th century woodcutting depicts this scene in which dark spheres were witnessed hovering over the town of Basel, Switzerland in 1566. The
spheres appeared at sunrise, 'Many became red and fiery, ending by being consumed and vanishing', wrote Samuel Coccius in the local newspaper on
this date.
At sunrise on the 14th April 1561, the citizens of Nuremberg beheld "A very frightful spectacle." The sky appeared to fill with cylindrical
objects from which red, black, orange and blue white disks and globes emerged. Crosses and tubes resembling cannon barrels also appeared whereupon the
objects promptly "began to fight one another." This event is depicted in a famous 16th century woodcut by Hans Glaser
Source
So it's not like AAT are fully correct
and my position is that some of the things AAT has to say is probably very true, while others are not and
YOUR position is everything is lie. So im willing to accept all that could be, you won't accept any other possibility? So don't even bother posting
quoting or arguing
because I've seen gazillion times some stubbornly wanting for the sake of them sounding correct deny everything you say as if you know it all
everything, Do u read?
