Ancient Aliens Debunked?

page: 53
132
<< 50  51  52    54  55 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLegend
Yes, I see you rely on strong "facts" here. Let's go skipping.
edit on 5-3-2012 by TheLegend because: (no reason given)


Says the guy offering up rickrichards.com as a credible source.




posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by TheLegend
Yes, I see you rely on strong "facts" here. Let's go skipping.
edit on 5-3-2012 by TheLegend because: (no reason given)


Says the guy offering up rickrichards.com as a credible source.


Showing photos of verified images doesn't mean he uses the whole site as a credible source. He could easily have put the images onto ATS and showed them + I believe there's a photograph of the Earth on some nut's site, does that mean if I show that authentic photo of the Earth that it's fake or unreliable? Don't interrupt the discussion between Harte and him plz, you're an idiot and I like reading their stuff.

Cheers,
Fantom
edit on 5-3-2012 by MasonicFantom because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLegend

Originally posted by Harte
Five minutes of checking would have indicated this to you.
Do you always shoot your mouth off without first considering the facts?

My mouth? I don't talk while I type. Plz refer to "@" point #2 on the post above, it's hard to grasp tho for those that believe everything they read from charlatans.

From Vyse's journal, which he meticulously drew Khufu's cartouche in: www.rickrichards.com...
A photograph taken LATER of the same symbol:
www.rickrichards.com...
They're not identical and don't have the same meaning (one means "Ra"). Why/how could he incorrectly draw a VERY simple depiction that would make him the most famous man of the time?

Actual picture of the pertinant page of Vyse's journal:



The above shows what Vyse expected to see (the "Re" symbol - circle with dot) and what he actually found

Originally posted by TheLegend
The discrepancy is easily explainable. Just before Vyse's "discovery" an academic book was published, "Materia Hieroglphyica" in which the name of Khufu was written incorrectly in the exact same way Vyse drew the symbol above. It's a known fact Vyse had this book with him. It was later known it was incorrect and that's when the photograph of Khufu's name was confidently taken (the red ochre paint was also still in use in 1837).

Sorry, but you are simply incorrect here. The book Vyse had with him, "Materia Hieroglphyica," showed the Khufu name with the Re symbol, as you can see in Vyse's journal page. He was expecting to see this symbol.

In fact, Samuel Birch himself mentioned the apparent discrepancy of Vyse's find, along with the fact that the type of script it was written in was different from any known at that time.

Birch was the head of the Egyptian branch of the Antiquities Dept. at the British Museum when Vyse made his discovery.


Originally posted by TheLegend

Nathaniel Davison discovered the first relieving chamber in 1765 (72 years before Vyse). No hieroglyphic or Hieratic inscriptions were discovered in this chamber. On the other hand, Vyse discovered all the chambers above Davison's, and oddly enough, they are the ONLY chambers with the ONLY inscriptions that have EVER been found inside the GP. There has never been any scientific dating of the paint in question either, which they should have no problem allowing...unless the results would say "it's approximately...200 years old".

Yes, I see you rely on strong "facts" here. Let's go skipping.
edit on 5-3-2012 by TheLegend because: (no reason given)

Apparently you think that red ochre can be somehow dated by objective means. It is iron oxide, not carbon-based, so why would you claim it can be "dated" in any way other than contextually (which, by the way, is what has been done with it to arrive at how old the pyramid is.)

No response to what Graham Hancock saw? You know, the fact that the glyphs run way back deep between the stones and can be seen by peering into the spaces between stones with a flashlight?

How would you propose that Vyse faked those?

Harte



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 

LOL was 5 secs from hitting reply when my PC crashed. Ofc this happens when I'm tired as fvck (from 6 hours of nonstop battling yesterday, quiver with fear, mortal i1207.photobucket.com...).

His writing isn't legible (if there's a translation then plz show me). However, highlighted this: i1207.photobucket.com...
So you think he drew what he "expected"? Why would he expect to see "Re" in a Pyramid supposedly built for/by Khufu? (Edit: Just noticed the journal entries aren't identical. A direct source needs to be located, your source is from a German site about aliens and mine is questionable).
Vyse also "excavated" an iron plate from deep within the GP. www.catchpenny.org... That either means the Iron Age occurred 1,300 years before what global evidence suggests, or it was hoaxed for another quick "discovery" by someone in the early 1800s when the Iron Age was not as detailed.

@Dating the glyphs, I didn't say to "radiocarbon" date it, there are means available to date iron oxide (as of quite recently): www.geo.umass.edu... The results would just have to say is it's over 200 years old, that shouldn't be difficult, if it's supposedly 4.5k+ yrs old. Even an approximation of "older than 500 years" would clear Vyse.

@Graham, he believes aliens either built the GP or helped man to. When I was in the GP they didn't allow anyone to try viewing the glyphs (apparently it's only accessible to fringe journalists and Egyptologists who have books to sale) and I've yet to see the glyphs ever being directly filmed. The only thing that floats around as "proof" they even exist is 1 B&W photograph and 1-2 others. How can something not even publicly accessible + has no measurements or video of it ever be taken seriously to begin with? If this were a UFO case it would be laughed at.

In summary, there's 3 ways to end the GP debate for good: 1) Film Khufu's cartouche 2) Date it to verify its authenticity 3) Build a wooden Egyptian barge (or several) and attempt moving an 80 ton stone 400 kilometers across the Nile...while also quarrying, relocating, sculpting, loading and unloading it without any modern machinery or tools.... They can only use copper toothpicks and balls of yarn (that was a joke). These things are all possible to do - yet they do not. #1+2 would prove the Egyptians did it, #3 would prove the Egyptians needed no "alien assistance" to do it.

Until then, it will always be inconclusive. Making this book with you has been amusing but it's time to wrap it up.
edit on 5-3-2012 by TheLegend because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLegend
So you think he drew what he "expected"? Why would he expect to see "Re" in a Pyramid supposedly built for/by Khufu? (Edit: Just noticed the journal entries aren't identical. A direct source needs to be located, your source is from a German site about aliens and mine is questionable).

Vyse scribbled on several pages in his journal concerning the subject.
You already explained why Vyse expected to see the Re symbol. It was in the book he had with him.

Originally posted by TheLegend
Vyse also "excavated" an iron plate from deep within the GP. That either means the Iron Age occurred 1,300 years before what global evidence suggests, or it was hoaxed for another quick "discovery" by someone in the early 1800s when the Iron Age was not as detailed.

Alternatively, it means that it was left in the pyramid by previous "excavators," such as the guy who originally dug into the thing.

@Dating the glyphs, I didn't say to "radiocarbon" date it, there are means available to date iron oxide (as of quite recently): www.geo.umass.edu... The results would just have to say is it's over 200 years old, that shouldn't be difficult, if it's supposedly 4.5k+ yrs old. Even an approximation of "older than 500 years" would clear Vyse.

Your link would date the iron oxide, not the paint.

Obviously, the iron oxide in ochre paint came from geological deposits. Such deposits can be dated. That is, the age of the mineral deposit itself, not the age of paint subsequently made from the mineral.

Using your logic, we can date the stones in the pyramid to hundreds of millions of years ago, when they were silt being deposited on the ocean floor which would, millions of years later, become the limestone deposits at Giza.
Obviously, these dates are reasonably correct but say nothing at all about when the limestone was quarried and stacked into a pyramid.

Originally posted by TheLegend
@Graham, he believes aliens either built the GP or helped man to. When I was in the GP they didn't allow anyone to try viewing the glyphs (apparently it's only accessible to fringe journalists and Egyptologists who have books to sale) and I've yet to see the glyphs ever being directly filmed. The only thing that floats around as "proof" they even exist is 1 B&W photograph and 1-2 others. How can something not even publicly accessible + has no measurements or video of it ever be taken seriously to begin with? If this were a UFO case it would be laughed at.



A Position Statement From Graham Hancock On The Antiquity And Meaning Of The Giza Monuments
22 July 1998
I am the author of "Fingerprints of the Gods" and the co-author (with Robert Bauval) of "Keeper of Genesis" (entitled "The Message of the Sphinx" in the United States).

Before continuing I advise all who are interested in this position statement to read first the critique of my work posted by Martin Stower on his website (www.dcs.shef.ac.uk...). Please also refer to John Anthony West's open letter to Martin Stower posted on Egyptnews.

Re the 'quarry mark' hieroglyphs in the relieving chambers above the King's Chamber in the Great Pyramid, I have rightly been taken to task for uncritically supporting Zecharia Sitchin's forgery theory. I reported this theory in Fingerprints (published 1995) and in Keeper/Message (published 1996).
As an author and researcher I hope that my work will always be 'in progress' and never finished or set in stone. When I come across new evidence that casts doubt on theories that I previously endorsed I am ready to change my views and admit to past mistakes.
As John West kindly reported in his open letter to Stower I have changed my views on the validity of the forgery theory. The relieving chambers are strictly off limits to the public and are extremely difficult to gain access to. I had been unable to obtain permission to visit them prior to the publication of Keeper/Message in 1996. However, in December 1997, Dr Zahi Hawass allowed me to spend an entire day exploring these chambers. There were no restrictions on where I looked and I had ample time to examine the hieroglyphs closely, under powerful lights. Cracks in some of the joints reveal hieroglyphs set far back into the masonry. No 'forger' could possibly have reached in there after the blocks had been set in place - blocks, I should add, that weigh tens of tons each and that are immovably interlinked with one another. The only reasonable conclusion is the one which orthodox Egyptologists have already long held - namely that the hieroglyphs are genuine Old Kingdom graffiti and that they were daubed on the blocks before construction began.

Source: Hancock's site

Harte



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   


Vyse scribbled on several pages in his journal concerning the subject.
You already explained why Vyse expected to see the Re symbol. It was in the book he had with him.

From the entry it looks as tho he drew what he reportedly saw just as much as it looks like he drew what he "expected" to see. Nothing is actually conclusive from his illegible scribbles.



Alternatively, it means that it was left in the pyramid by previous "excavators," such as the guy who originally dug into the thing.

That doesn't bode well for the credibility (or competency) of Egyptologists then if they're making "discoveries" from themselves (or previous excavators) deep inside the GP.... But I prefer what the researchers say, which is in contrast to mainstream history:


Since the 1800's several very interesting items have been found in the great pyramid of Giza. In the history article on our web site, we mentioned a discovery made by Colonel Vyse in 1836. He discovered and removed a flat iron plate about 12" by 4" and 1/8" thick from a joint in the masonry at the point where the southern airshaft from the King's chamber exits the pyramid. Engineers agree that this plate was left in the joint during the building of the pyramid and could not have been inserted afterwards. What happened to this plate and has it been tested? Colonel Vyse sent the plate to the British Museum. The plate was examined by the famous Sir Flinders Petrie in 1881. He felt it was genuine and stated "no reasonable doubt can therefore exist about its being a really genuine piece".
www.gizapyramid.com...


Your link would date the iron oxide, not the paint.

Fair enough, so let's look at the ochre itself, which is a pigment derived from clay.


Advances in radiocarbon dating by accelerator mass spectrometry now make it possible to date prehistoric cave paintings by sampling the pigment itself

iopscience.iop.org...


Ochre is plentiful across most of Australia and it occurs in many of the older archaeological sites. Some pieces have flattened surfaces indicating use and there is other evidence of pieces of ochre being ground up or pulverised. Most have been carbon dated with ages between 10 000 and 40 000 years (the effective limit of carbon dating)

www.feo.com.au...

@Hancock (using same source as you), the theory he champions implies the pyramids were built over an 8k year period...from 10.5k-2.5k BC. But then he says (paraphrasing) "eh but in theory perhaps not, but perhaps just the GP foundation was, but for certain the Sphinx is maybe possibly likely probably older than Khufu" (he sounds so sure of himself). He also doesn't believe the GP was built as a tomb, as mainstream think, but was built for a "more mysterious and grand purpose".

Doesn't seem like good form to take 1 thing a man claims but ignore everything else he does. So far we have that the GP was started around 10.5k BC (and wasn't a "tomb") and that the Iron Age occurred at some point between 10.5k-2.5k BC.... So either mainstrean history is completely wrong, or you denounce Hancock's glyph claims and the Iron plate research, meaning Egyptologists are incompetent (and Hancock is even more questionable) and the argument is inconclusive yet again.

The tests I mentioned previously still withstand and are quite practical to do. Until they're done, or at least 2/3 are, nobody should believe fringe journalists or egyptologists when it comes to unverifiable, and yet to be proven, claims.
It's like me claiming "I just ran a mile in 55 seconds". It's not verifiable if I did since I was alone while supposedly doing it, it's not proven that I did since I don't bother having it tested or recreated, and it's likely not physically possible that I did. Yet someone, somewhere, will believe it and buy my book.
edit on 6-3-2012 by TheLegend because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLegend


Vyse scribbled on several pages in his journal concerning the subject.
You already explained why Vyse expected to see the Re symbol. It was in the book he had with him.

From the entry it looks as tho he drew what he reportedly saw just as much as it looks like he drew what he "expected" to see. Nothing is actually conclusive from his illegible scribbles.

He draws both the Seive and the Re signs.

You should try and find a copy of Materia Hieroglyphica. Then you would see that the Re sign you claim Vyse found was actually the mistake in the book.

Vyse found (and drew) the seive mark. Materia Hieroglyphica contained the Re mark.

Perhaps here would be a good place to insert another fact - Vyse couldn't read or write hieroglypics well at all. Yet the writings in these chambers translate into intelligible names for work crews.

Work crews that, during Vyse's time, nobody knew had been used to build the GP.

Originally posted by TheLegend


Alternatively, it means that it was left in the pyramid by previous "excavators," such as the guy who originally dug into the thing.

That doesn't bode well for the credibility (or competency) of Egyptologists then if they're making "discoveries" from themselves (or previous excavators) deep inside the GP.... But I prefer what the researchers say, which is in contrast to mainstream history:

Since the 1800's several very interesting items have been found in the great pyramid of Giza. In the history article on our web site, we mentioned a discovery made by Colonel Vyse in 1836. He discovered and removed a flat iron plate about 12" by 4" and 1/8" thick from a joint in the masonry at the point where the southern airshaft from the King's chamber exits the pyramid. Engineers agree that this plate was left in the joint during the building of the pyramid and could not have been inserted afterwards. What happened to this plate and has it been tested? Colonel Vyse sent the plate to the British Museum. The plate was examined by the famous Sir Flinders Petrie in 1881. He felt it was genuine and stated "no reasonable doubt can therefore exist about its being a really genuine piece".



Originally posted by TheLegend

Your link would date the iron oxide, not the paint.

Fair enough, so let's look at the ochre itself, which is a pigment derived from clay.


Advances in radiocarbon dating by accelerator mass spectrometry now make it possible to date prehistoric cave paintings by sampling the pigment itself

iopscience.iop.org...


Ochre is plentiful across most of Australia and it occurs in many of the older archaeological sites. Some pieces have flattened surfaces indicating use and there is other evidence of pieces of ochre being ground up or pulverised. Most have been carbon dated with ages between 10 000 and 40 000 years (the effective limit of carbon dating)

www.feo.com.au...

Haven't checked your link yet - I'm at work - but Ochre itself cannot be carbon dated.
Nor can clay.
Your quote must be referring to something associated with the ochre.


Originally posted by TheLegend
@Hancock (using same source as you), the theory he champions implies the pyramids were built over an 8k year period...from 10.5k-2.5k BC. But then he says (paraphrasing) "eh but in theory perhaps not, but perhaps just the GP foundation was, but for certain the Sphinx is maybe possibly likely probably older than Khufu" (he sounds so sure of himself). He also doesn't believe the GP was built as a tomb, as mainstream think, but was built for a "more mysterious and grand purpose".

What he (and Bauval) actually claim is that the GP was built in the 4th Dynasty of the Old Kingdom, but was designed 8 thousand years earlier.

About as lame as you can get.

IMO, this stupid claim is the result of Hancock finding out that the GP really does date to the old kingdom just before he was to publish "The Message of the Sphinx" with Bauval.

That was the book where they both backtracked on the 10,000 year-old Great Pyramid construction date claim.

More later.

Harte



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
The pigment decay in paint can be approximately dated as of the 21st century but the sample has to be very old...prehistoric to far ancient (so would probably work on the glyphs--if they're authentic. The difference in results for a 4.5k+ yr old sample and one from 180 years ago would be easily discernible however). I don't think the Egyptian government will allow testing though. There are a few excavations and experiments that already want to be undertook but the government denies permission.


Originally posted by Harte IMO, this stupid claim is the result of Hancock finding out that the GP really does date to the old kingdom just before he was to publish "The Message of the Sphinx" with Bauval.

This is a good point. Many involved with claims regarding Ancient Egypt appear to have ulterior motive or are sketchy with what they say/do.

@this discussion, I think it should be put on hold until this project progresses:
news.discovery.com...
Which will yield results in just months. Those writings are entirely inaccessible to modern human hands and are on video. Whatever they are, their authenticity can be trusted. As of now they're not decipherable and it's anyone's guess as to what they might say.
Here's a 3D model of the GP anyone should see. www.youtube.com...=1m4s The perfectly diagonal cuts are amazing when considering it's mostly built of cubes. The robot explorer, which barely fit in the opening, can actually go down all 63 meters of the path because it's so perfectly spaced too.

Hmm, eerie that the excavation was pushed back to 2012 due to a # of factors.

Imo all I can say is IF man built it, then the GP is our greatest achievement in recorded (perhaps I should say "unrecorded", in this case) history. I don't believe it's a tomb however, there's no proof for that. The purpose of its construction is unknown. I remember reading a scientific theory recently of it being used as an energy transformer. I think why it was built is more important than who built it or when.

Cheers,
Fantom
edit on 6-3-2012 by MasonicFantom because: grammar



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
The fact that there are Egyptian glyphs inside the sealed shaft pretty much proves that the thing was built by the Egyptians, wouldn't you say?

Unless Vyse tore down that section of the pyramid, crawled in, forged some glyphs, then rebuilt the thing.

Harte
edit on 3/7/2012 by Harte because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
The Vimana.. is real.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
At UFO Iconoclast, they point out a gigantic flaw in the ancient alien belief...


If extraterrestrial travelers landed on Earth, millennia ago, and worked with humankind to create civilization(s) or societies and their cultural artifacts, those extraterrestrial visitors failed miserably.

No human society, alleged to have been intruded upon by galactic beings, has survived to show the competence of the advanced interplanetary “helpers.”


Despite their civilization supposedly having extensive contact with, and help from, aliens, Egypt was conquered by Libyans, Nubians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans and Caliphate Muslims. Egypt did not know independence for over 2000 years. Similarly, Sumer could not stand in the face of dozens of invaders.
edit on 9-3-2012 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull
At UFO Iconoclast, they point out a gigantic flaw in the ancient alien belief...


If extraterrestrial travelers landed on Earth, millennia ago, and worked with humankind to create civilization(s) or societies and their cultural artifacts, those extraterrestrial visitors failed miserably.

No human society, alleged to have been intruded upon by galactic beings, has survived to show the competence of the advanced interplanetary “helpers.”


Despite their civilization supposedly having extensive contact with, and help from, aliens, Egypt was conquered by Libyans, Nubians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans and Caliphate Muslims. Egypt did not know independence for over 2000 years. Similarly, Sumer could not stand in the face of dozens of invaders.
edit on 9-3-2012 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)


These are moot points.
However, whereas the 'aliens' appear to have passed down some technology and education in the art of reading and writing, there have been no reports of them leaving or issuing weapons of any sort.
Was Egypt conquered whilst the Pharaoh's (rumoured to be alien themselves) were in power?
The supposed 'galactic beings' who 'intruded' upon the Hominid and/or the Homo Sapiens at that time made only minor adjustments to our DNA turning us from 'Ape-like' into 'Forest Gump's'.
All this of course is speculation and unsubstantiated but there has to be an answer as to why our DNA shows what some 'experts' describe as 'significant' changes.
For years the whatever-ists have searched for the 'missing link' between the Hominid (I thought it had been changed to Hominin but the spell-checker will not accept it) and Homo Sapien as the transition appeared to be too quick/too soon to have happened naturally but, from what I have read, the DNA interference occurred during this transition.
We learn something different every day and there is much to be learned yet.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzTiger
These are moot points.
However, whereas the 'aliens' appear to have passed down some technology and education in the art of reading and writing, there have been no reports of them leaving or issuing weapons of any sort.


Yet, the ancient alien proponents point to things such as the supposed "lightbulbs" and supposed modern day "aircraft" in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.


Originally posted by OzTiger
Was Egypt conquered whilst the Pharaoh's (rumoured to be alien themselves) were in power?


Yes, by the Libyans, Nubians and Assyrians.


Originally posted by OzTiger
The supposed 'galactic beings' who 'intruded' upon the Hominid and/or the Homo Sapiens at that time made only minor adjustments to our DNA turning us from 'Ape-like' into 'Forest Gump's'.


Wait...

So did they give us technology and teach us to be civilized or did they just nudge our DNA along a certain route?


Originally posted by OzTiger
All this of course is speculation and unsubstantiated but there has to be an answer as to why our DNA shows what some 'experts' describe as 'significant' changes.


What experts?


Originally posted by OzTiger
For years the whatever-ists have searched for the 'missing link' between the Hominid (I thought it had been changed to Hominin but the spell-checker will not accept it) and Homo Sapien as the transition appeared to be too quick/too soon to have happened naturally but, from what I have read, the DNA interference occurred during this transition.


There's no such thing as the missing link. That is a popular misconception that does not exist in modern anthropology.

Why would the transition be too fast? Who says it too fast? I am unfamiliar with any law or theory that says evolution must happen along a certain time-frame.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by WingedBull
 


I appreciate your answers, thank you.
Firstly, regarding weapons, as you say, the AA supporters have pointed to 'lightbulbs' and 'flying machines' but I can hardly see hordes of Sumerians and/or Egyptians charging at opponents brandishing a lightbulb - brandishing a current Electric Bill would probably frighten them far more - nor have I heard of ancient 'aircraft' being described as war machines.

Regarding the DNA 'intrusions', I believe the first was about 250,000 years ago with the Hominid/Homo Sapien (I believe this was the second and third chromosomes being fused) which prompted some to suggest that after 3 million years of evolution we suddenly made a huge leap which was not conversant with the progress we were making up until then. The second (and here I stand to be corrected) was about the time of the Sumerians where it has been found (I believe) that 9 of our chromosomes have changed somewhat. The cause for this has remained unexplained although the Sumerian tablets seem to have some explanation (and I am not talking about a certain Mr Sitchin). So, the first sounds like a 'nudge' and the second sounds like it was more 'civilized'.

You will note I depicted the word experts as 'experts' as a number of these are self-styled or so-called but a doco I saw some time ago had some boffins describing the changes on the 'rope-ladder' DNA but could give no explanation. The AA fans seized on this to further their beliefs.

The word 'missing link' has been bandied around for yonks and although it does not exist in 'modern anthropology' it most certainly did prior to DNA being discovered.

I always believed that we lived in caves for millions of years up to 250,000 years ago until the Homo Sapien took us into the 'hunter gatherers' period. Here you will have to correct me through your obvious knowledge on the subject but I then understood that we lived like this for the next 240,000 years (or so) before entering into agriculture and building. We seem to have taken an awfully long time suggesting that we perhaps received some help. Since then of course we have made quantum leaps and put a man on the moon (before we put wheels on luggage I might add).

I am totally open-minded on the subject but have found Christian and Barbara Joy O'Briens work very interesting as against Sitchin and Pye.

Thank you again for enlightening me on some of my comments.


edit on 10-3-2012 by OzTiger because: spelling



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by OzTiger
 


The thing about the topic is that even unrecorded by Ancient Aliens proponents cases may have happened. Hell, they may have even come before there was any life on this planet, this is just a topic that remains unknown. I don't know, were SETI silenced or smth, if we hasd to believe some of the texts, correspondence with Eisenhower, some have observed in the middle of the 20th century what could have been asteroids, it turned out smth else.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   
It remains a subject that creates much debate.
Evolution does not give me the answer as to how Homo Sapiens have different skin colours if we came from the same source.
To exist for millions of years and then change in the scope of a few hundred, then go another 240,000 years without building anything and then all of a sudden we are using irrigation and growing our own crops as well as creating huge buildings (the remains of which can be seen to this day) beggars belief to me. I am not learned in this subject and appreciate people who take the time to explain things to me in terms that I can understand but I think the best explanation I got was when someone who was studying this subject said to me that it was like a pregnancy in a woman which, since time began, has lasted for 9 months and 2 days after conception and then all of a sudden they start having their babies a mere 4 and a half months after conception. There would soon be a cry of what the hell is going on here?



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Please change the title?
i hate trolls and that's what this is...

today we cannot build 80% of the crap they built thousands of years before we became "smart".

they also knew things we found out about only a few hundred years ago haha who the hell can debunk obvious advantages...anyone that trys without 100% facts behind them is and always will be a clueless nobody looking for attention.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aarcadius
Please change the title?
i hate trolls and that's what this is...

today we cannot build 80% of the crap they built thousands of years before we became "smart".

they also knew things we found out about only a few hundred years ago haha who the hell can debunk obvious advantages...anyone that trys without 100% facts behind them is and always will be a clueless nobody looking for attention.

If you are only "smart" it doesnt mean that other people arent really smart. Show proof that we cannot build 80% of what they built.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by _kuma_
 


the coliseum was a very nice monument ey? wheres half of it? the leaning tower? thats just a joke.

a lot of our city's that are only a few hundred years old would fall to a quake... yet the pyramids in Giza, the Mayan pyramids, the Easter island statues, the great wall etc... have all been around for so much more then that and guess what mate! they are all still there....yep Im telling you they are! don't believe me? check. if we didn't remove it, then its still there. now just for a bit of humor imagine that 9/11 happened in Egypt and those planes that brought down the twins so easily with or without the missiles(what ever your thoughts about that situation are i personally dont care the slightest.)
had hit any of the pyramids. what result would you come to? that the pyramids would fall? that the explosion would blast away quake proof construction? i somehow doubt anything would happen... maybe we would need to put a few missing blocks back... maybe.

our building structures seem to point to the fact that we are going backwards. yes we are using much newer materials but that changes nothing... all that says to me is we learned to dig and heat.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aarcadius
reply to post by _kuma_
 


the coliseum was a very nice monument ey? wheres half of it? the leaning tower? thats just a joke.

a lot of our city's that are only a few hundred years old would fall to a quake... yet the pyramids in Giza, the Mayan pyramids, the Easter island statues, the great wall etc... have all been around for so much more then that and guess what mate! they are all still there....yep Im telling you they are! don't believe me? check. if we didn't remove it, then its still there. now just for a bit of humor imagine that 9/11 happened in Egypt and those planes that brought down the twins so easily with or without the missiles(what ever your thoughts about that situation are i personally dont care the slightest.)
had hit any of the pyramids. what result would you come to? that the pyramids would fall? that the explosion would blast away quake proof construction? i somehow doubt anything would happen... maybe we would need to put a few missing blocks back... maybe.

our building structures seem to point to the fact that we are going backwards. yes we are using much newer materials but that changes nothing... all that says to me is we learned to dig and heat.


this must be the dumbest post I´ve ever read.
seriously.





new topics
top topics
 
132
<< 50  51  52    54  55 >>

log in

join