Aliens engineered humans Intervention Theory by Lloyd Pye

reply to post by MuchTooSerious


seem to recall a certain HARVARD professor
TIMOTHY LEARY IS DEAD unfortunately one very smart stoner IMO

Does anyone have any idea where our makers went? Did humans rise up against their slave masters ala' Stargate and kick them back to the stars? Ooooo, so many questions.

Originally posted by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien

Originally posted by MuchTooSerious
reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien

 

Damn, Logic is my number one weapon. Its the A-Bomb of my arsenal.
Back to the drawing board.
Quick, Someone dig up Wernher Von Braun...

edit on 08/25/2011 by MuchTooSerious because: TYPOS

Your brainwashed by the reptilian construct of society, and what your supposed to believe as the truth, instead of the real truth.
Why is it that, Annunki engineering of society, nibiru and reptilians is "false"?
Because you and many others say it's false?
NO, billions of people believe in religion does that make it the truth? not at all.
There are few non-believers or what you call athiests, yet we are not many, because there are little of us, does it mean we are wrong? NO. We are right.
Even if im in a minority of one, the truth still remains as the truth, you may be believe what society deems truth, but it doesnt make it the truth.
We do have evidence, it's just that you and the majority choose not to believe, you blindly deny the real truth, and take comfort in the lie.
And thats the key here, we're only as strong as the majority.

The problem, son, is that you've gotten yourself in too deep. You've stopped being rational and discering.
I never claimed religion to be true, so your point is moot.
I do believe in science and fact and the search for said truth. It should be patently obvious to anyone reading this that I am open to new ideas. i wouldn't be a member of ATS if i wasn't. But I don't believe in bad research and pseudo-science.
I fail to see the logic in the point you try to make about how many people believe or don't believe and using that a measure of "truth". You say you are "right" but have NO PROOF. You have conjecture, you have hypothesis, you have extrapolations, and you have just plain old crazy but you don't have PROOF.
I'm not simply "believing what society deems as truth", I'm using my BRAIN. I am using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, I am doing what science is supposed to do... Pursue the truth.
You say you HAVE evidence but I and the majority "choose" not to believe....
Ok, show me the evidence. I can assure you, I am not "choosing" to disbelieve. I live and die by PROOF. If you have it, show it and I'll believe. it's as simple as that. One does not choose to believe in FACT. IT is what it is. I don't "Believe" the Earth revolves around the sun, I KNOW it.
It may make you feel superior or special to have this SECRET knowledge... to know this "truth" as you call it and say I'm denying this "truth" and taking "comfort in the lie". This is pure ego on your part. You have done no actual research, you simply parrot what you've heard. You watch videos and read articles (and smoke pot) and think you've come across the GREAT TRUTH that the masses deny. But, in all honesty, you're just another pawn. People make money off of this stuff. By and large it's hucksterism.
There are some interesting ideas, some curiious artifcats... I wonder about man's origins myself and do not have the answers. But I am willing to look at EVIDENCE and PROOF.
What you have is not EVIDENCE or PROOF. I'm sorry, friend, it just isn't... and no amount of wishing on your part will make it so.
You can claim to know the TRUTH and instead of debating or discussing these viewpoints,you try to argue down anyone who disagrees. You laud those who support "your" ideas but are not willing to consider a more rational stance on the subject. If you were rational about it. understood that you do not have "proof" but merely a hypothesis then the discussion could interest me. unfortunately you are just as bad as those religious nuts you rail against.
Do you understand that you are identical to them but your "religion" is this nonsense?
Replace a few words in your post and you sound like a zealot.
That is irony.
I hope you , someday, decide to approach this and other subjects in a more rational, intellectual way. You'd learn quite a bit more.
Now i have to go back to my reptilian overlords and tell them my disinformation campaign was a successsssssssssssss.
(Stop watching V)
You want to talk about denial? Or taking comfort in something?

Originally posted by MuchTooSerious

Originally posted by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien

Originally posted by MuchTooSerious
reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien

 

Damn, Logic is my number one weapon. Its the A-Bomb of my arsenal.
Back to the drawing board.
Quick, Someone dig up Wernher Von Braun...

edit on 08/25/2011 by MuchTooSerious because: TYPOS

Your brainwashed by the reptilian construct of society, and what your supposed to believe as the truth, instead of the real truth.
Why is it that, Annunki engineering of society, nibiru and reptilians is "false"?
Because you and many others say it's false?
NO, billions of people believe in religion does that make it the truth? not at all.
There are few non-believers or what you call athiests, yet we are not many, because there are little of us, does it mean we are wrong? NO. We are right.
Even if im in a minority of one, the truth still remains as the truth, you may be believe what society deems truth, but it doesnt make it the truth.
We do have evidence, it's just that you and the majority choose not to believe, you blindly deny the real truth, and take comfort in the lie.
And thats the key here, we're only as strong as the majority.

The problem, son, is that you've gotten yourself in too deep. You've stopped being rational and discering.
I never claimed religion to be true, so your point is moot.
I do believe in science and fact and the search for said truth. It should be patently obvious to anyone reading this that I am open to new ideas. i wouldn't be a member of ATS if i wasn't. But I don't believe in bad research and pseudo-science.
I fail to see the logic in the point you try to make about how many people believe or don't believe and using that a measure of "truth". You say you are "right" but have NO PROOF. You have conjecture, you have hypothesis, you have extrapolations, and you have just plain old crazy but you don't have PROOF.
I'm not simply "believing what society deems as truth", I'm using my BRAIN. I am using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, I am doing what science is supposed to do... Pursue the truth.
You say you HAVE evidence but I and the majority "choose" not to believe....
Ok, show me the evidence. I can assure you, I am not "choosing" to disbelieve. I live and die by PROOF. If you have it, show it and I'll believe. it's as simple as that. One does not choose to believe in FACT. IT is what it is. I don't "Believe" the Earth revolves around the sun, I KNOW it.
It may make you feel superior or special to have this SECRET knowledge... to know this "truth" as you call it and say I'm denying this "truth" and taking "comfort in the lie". This is pure ego on your part. You have done no actual research, you simply parrot what you've heard. You watch videos and read articles (and smoke pot) and think you've come across the GREAT TRUTH that the masses deny. But, in all honesty, you're just another pawn. People make money off of this stuff. By and large it's hucksterism.
There are some interesting ideas, some curiious artifcats... I wonder about man's origins myself and do not have the answers. But I am willing to look at EVIDENCE and PROOF.
What you have is not EVIDENCE or PROOF. I'm sorry, friend, it just isn't... and no amount of wishing on your part will make it so.
You can claim to know the TRUTH and instead of debating or discussing these viewpoints,you try to argue down anyone who disagrees. You laud those who support "your" ideas but are not willing to consider a more rational stance on the subject. If you were rational about it. understood that you do not have "proof" but merely a hypothesis then the discussion could interest me. unfortunately you are just as bad as those religious nuts you rail against.
Do you understand that you are identical to them but your "religion" is this nonsense?
Replace a few words in your post and you sound like a zealot.
That is irony.
I hope you , someday, decide to approach this and other subjects in a more rational, intellectual way. You'd learn quite a bit more.
Now i have to go back to my reptilian overlords and tell them my disinformation campaign was a successsssssssssssss.
(Stop watching V)
You want to talk about denial? Or taking comfort in something?

Ok no, no, you are right, i suppose mocking and ridiculing people makes me no better than the religious and europeans who kill people for disagreeing with their nonsensical beliefs.
But im not mocking anyone, it's called "rebuttal" you post, and i will treat you in the same manner, even if this is the internet, im not one for "brotherly conduct" i do follow the ToS of ATS but what you post, is what i'll try my very best to direct back within the confines of the rules and regs of ATS .


Anyways, but here's the thing, there is proof, but from no source that skeptics would deem credible or legit, and we will NEVER have credible evidence, because those sources that you, and the general populace, deem credible and legit, are against us, they're the ones who are hiding this info from us, now now, you can deny this all you want call me paranoid, but even you could surely realize, that the ones who are "credible" are the ones who against us, the government, NASA, etc.

They would be the only ones who could give out info, and have it 100% believable, but they never will, thats the thing, the evidence here though, that we DO happen to have luckily found, is the only evidence, we'll have for a long time.
The reason why the masses won't believe this, is because we'll NEVER have the government, or NASA, or any credible organization admit to this, this will never happen, so thats what i meant,by the truth, and people deny it blatantly in favor for a lie, no it doesn't make me a zealot, but this IS the truth, the religious, psychotic,KKK, nazis etc are zealots, they BELIEVE in the lie, and are militant about that lie, but when your dealing with the truth, you can never be a zealot, and honestly i don't even come of as zealot.
Plus you say i believe in pseudo-science?
Black Op scientist's, the legit scientist's, not the MSM folks, completely always say and admit, that Einsteins physics are wrong, which the "masses" believe to be right.
If they say his physics wrong, what about the other sciences that are wrong? biology, chemistry etc
That's the thing, people won't keep an open mind that there is a possibility that it's wrong, the general pop believe that if it's right by society, than it's the truth, which clearly doesn't make it so.

Why do Black Op scientists, state einstein's physics as wrong and MSM scientists consider his physics to be right?
It's a simple question, with a simple answer, no paranoia, just logic and common sense, we as society, are brainwashed, into thinking a certain way, and that an idea that is an outlier, even if factual, if not in the mainstream, will always be considered "eccentric" now i know you won't believe me, you'll just go back to your fallacy or the way for thinking that society deems appropriate , and that's ok, because im not here to convince anyone certainly not to convince you and im not going to kill you because you are disagreeing with me like someone who's religous etc would do to you, but what im trying to say is, that you won't believe this, because the mainstream, and society, has conditioned the minds of the general populace to think in a way that will be no threat.
And it's been this way since time immemorial, and it will always be this way till the end of time, so if you dont believe now?
Than you won't believe in the future, when we gather even more evidence to support these claims that i make, with evidence not government approved, and we will never have government evidence, because we CAN never have it, it will be something that disrupts society, it shake the fabric, and foundation on which society is built upon.
So like i said, it's fine you don't believe that's ok, im not going to kill you for not believing or even agreeing with me, i'll shake your hand and say good game, because we are only as good as the majority, and if the majority is not with us, then we lose.

Originally posted by NeverSleepingEyes

An idiotic sweeping generalization, oh well not really surprising, pretty common here on ATS.
You sure your not religious btw? you come of as someone from westboro.

you start to annoy me.
where is the "idiotic sweeping generalization" in my observation that obviously it doesn't matter when others point you at a false statement. Instead of doing your advantage with the positive information, you simply repeat the false statement.

I'm not ATS, i'm just one member. Not responsible for the common things on ATS.

Instead of trying to question my position towards religion and using generalizations yourself (are all people of westboro the same? if not, what's the value of your statement?) you could still decide to update parts of your argument (when dealing with the brain) as to strengthen your assumption about human intervention.

Did you notice that I didn't make any statement about that initial assumption? Or were you too busy feeling the victim of my well-intended replies?

If i started to annoy on the internet, you must be a very weak minded person, much the like the majority of the idiotic general populace.
And i never thanked you for agreeing with me in total, it was for agreeing with the fact i stated about religion, which shouldn't even need to be thanked if for the general populace was smart enough to see through it in the first place.

However I feel this won't change a thing as obviously RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien prefers to repeat his false statement on the 10% mistake instead of adjusting to the newer insights in that mystery called "the brain

You make the sweeping generalization that i believe in only what i deem as appropriate, well i don,t and if you knew how to read, than you'll realize this, but i just stated that i don't, if it's the truth, than i will believe it, and what i believe if in face of the truth is false and a lie, than i will negate it, but nice religious tactic there, like i said, you can't fool me with your logic.

As for the brain using only 10% an error on my part, i've known that our brain usage is 100% at all times since i started Biomed Sciences, but i think there's more to it than that, we use 100% at all times, yet this is the best we can come up with.
I agree that we use 100% at all times ok, i'll agree now, i am wrong, but i just think that there's more to it, than that, obviously there is, since MSM science knows barely anything about the brain, only Black Op scientists, truly know the truth about it.
So we'll never know the truth, unless we go

it's not. This way of representing the brain has been rejected and replaced by newer metaphors. If you study the history of metaphors we invented to describe the brain, you'll learn that we tend to compare the brain with the dominant technology at that moment. Before the personal computer started to dominate the world, we compared the brain with an mechanical tool, the stuff we witnessed all around us in factories. Only when the PC became ubiquitous that image was replaced by the one you seem to prefer, the processor. In recent years the main metaphor has been "decentralized network with autonomous parts that are able to take over whenever a part gets destroyed.

Computers are still high end, and advanced, it's still perfectly fine to use that as a metaphor and it's one that easiest people will understand, you do realize, your only as good as the majority, if the majority can't relate, than just quit, and certainly someone such as yourself, is not going to tell me what is a better "metaphor" to use on things let alone using it on the human brain, which you hold no ownership of mine, you do realize this? im not sure if you do and im not sure how you come with something as utterly moronic, as you telling me what to think and what i should use to describe for the human brain but, if i want to compare it with a book, than i will.
We're not in the 1700's anymore, this is 2011, we don't kill people or tell them what is right to think for disagreeing with the way that we think do you understand?

Ok no, no, you are right, I suppose mocking and ridiculing people makes me no better than the religious and europeans who kill people for disagreeing with their nonsensical beliefs.
But im not mocking anyone, it's called "rebuttal" you post, and i will treat you in the same manner, even if this is the internet, im not one for "brotherly conduct" i do follow the ToS of ATS but what you post, is what i'll try my very best to direct back within the confines of the rules and regs of ATS

.

Again, friend, you make inferences that are unfounded. I am amused at your sarcasm. It is a clever tool to wield in a debate. It’s an empty answer but an answer.
You go on to cite "The religious and europeans" having killed for people disagreeing with them. I will cede some of this point in that it speaks to history and, in particular, the history of Catholicism. You raise a good point but keep dragging religion into the debate. In effect you are comparing yourself and your beliefs against a known entity. You use sarcasm to contrast the two positions. I never claimed you were “killing” anyone, not physically or intellectually. Yet, for all that, you side-step my point. And what is that point? That your 'fanaticism" in this matter is eerily like that of a proselytizing religious person.
What answer do you have for that? You believe something that, frankly, cannot be proven. It involves “supernatural” beings, unexplained occurrences and a willingness to blindly believe something despite better judgment and fact.
You may choose to call it a "rebuttal" but you did not address any of my points. You simply say that those who don't believe as you believe are blind or content in the comfort of their reality and refuse to see the "truth" as you imagine it. You are doing exactly what you claim to be railing against. When I talk of Irony, this is what I mean.
I appreciate your attempt at civility. I am new to ATS, as far as posting goes, and I am still feeling things out. I hope I am staying within the guidelines. To be clear, this is not an attack on you personally nor is it an attack on the idea of “Annunaki/Nibiru/Reptilians”. I am simply asking for PROOF. Real, honest to goodness proof. Quantifiable proof. I realize that there are some dots that can’t be connected. I understand the history whether written, carved, spoken, or even archeologically recorded and its many mysteries, I find the topic of “Ancient alien Theory” to be fascinating. But I am not so foolhardy as to think that it is 100% true. I wish to see evidence. I am willing to believe if shown empirical proof. Something undeniable. So far, all that has been presented is conjecture and theory. That is a far cry from “proof”. Imagine this was a court case. There is no way your case could be proven. It’s tantamount to hearsay and circumstantial evidence.
The circumstantial evidence may be intriguing and speak to the possibility of their having been some sort of contact between man and “alien visitors” but as I said, it’s circumstantial at best. One cannot claim to know something when there is absolutely no way for it to be proven (yet). There may very well come a day when we find this proof. I’ll be the first to believe, but I refuse to put my eggs into this nonexistent basket.

Anyways, but here's the thing, there is proof, but from no source that skeptics would deem credible or legit, and we will NEVER have credible evidence, because those we you, and the general populace, deem credible and legit, are against us, they're the ones who are hiding this info from us, now now, you can deny this all you want call me paranoid, but even you could surely realize, that the ones who are "credible" are the ones who against us, the government, NASA, etc.

You keep claiming that there is, indeed, proof. What are the sources? Don’t confuse a skeptic with someone unwilling to believe. They are not the same thing.
From www.dictionary.com...

skep•tic
skɛp tɪk Spelled[skep-tik]
Noun
1.
a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2.
a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3.
a person who doubts the truth of a religion, especially Christianity, or of important elements of it.
4.
( initial capital letter ) Philosophy .
a.
a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.
b.
any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind. dictionary.reference.com...

As a skeptical person I fall under the first definition. I am skeptical by nature. It does not, however, mean I am not willing to change. As I’ve said, I would love to believe this, but without proof there is nothing to “believe” in.
You make another point about “information” namely that we are not given the full picture of whats out there. And who is holding it back from us? According to you its “The Government” and “NASA”. I don’t doubt that they are, in fact, withholding information. The questions are “Why are they doing this?” and “What do they know?”
The beauty of citing the government et al as the repository for “forbidden knowledge” is that you can pretty much say anything and pin it to them. Aliens? They are hiding them. Weather Control? Hiding it. Cold fusion? They have it. The list is endless.
You say the evidence is there but no one can see it because the powers that be and the establishment of modern science (in all its disciplines) are a part of a larger conspiracy to withhold this information from the general public. Given that stance, where is even the proof of that? Show me the evidence that the government/Nasa is covering up the Annunaki and reptilians. You can’t do that though because it doesn’t exist. Again, at best, you have theories, conjecture, the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence and a willingness to believe and distrust.
You discredit mainstream science, too. Instead of looking at real evidence and proof, you make suppositions based one sketchy “evidence” and conspiracy theory. You look at the pyramids or Tiwwanaku and see extra-terrestrial intervention. Or you read ancient myths from the Sumerians or the Sanskrit epics and claim it as proof positive of the “Ancient Alien” contact. Yet you ignore work done by these “mainstream” scientists as if it is all a cover story for the truth. Yet you, somehow, know the truth and are exposing them? You say “credible” as if to say it’s anything but, yet you turn around and claim your sources are credible.
I have no qualms with saying that there are things we do not know. And perhaps the Government or NASA is indeed withholding information. But you cannot say it is “true” without having the proof.
One could claim the Government is hiding anything. When you do that you allow yourself an excuse for the absence of evidence. This is not a proper way to approach a subject.

They would be the only ones who could give out info, and have it be 100% believable, but they never will, that’s the thing, the evidence here though, that we DO happen to have luckily found, is the only evidence, we'll have for a long time.

I ask, again… What evidence?
And what motivation do you give for scientists to withhold it, if it exists?
You have evidence that was “luckily” found. Yet I say that it is not evidence at all. To reiterate. What you have are pieces of what could be describes loosely as circumstantial. I have done a lot of research in this area. Believe me, I am not new to this theory, but I have yet to be presented with anything conclusive or definitive. As I’ve said before, there are some interesting pieces out there. There is plenty to study. But it should not be confused with proof. People are so willing and want so badly to believe it that they are blindly jumping into this theory without that healthy dose of skepticism that any good researcher should have.
It is a great theory. Exciting and interesting, but it is far from proven. Sometimes people get carried away with an idea and start believing it. That’s when you need to take a step back and reevaluate your position. One has to be a thinker first and a believer second.

The reason why the masses won't believe this, is because we'll NEVER have the government, or NASA, or any credible organization admit to this, this will never happen, so thats what i meant,by the truth, and people deny it blatantly in favor for a lie, no it doesn't make me a zealot, but this IS the truth, the religious, psychotic,KKK, nazis etc are zealots, they BELIEVE in the lie, and are militant about that lie, but when your dealing with the truth, you can never be a zealot, and honestly i don't even come of as zealot.

I’m sorry, but you do. Even in this statement you contradict yourself. You keep claiming it to be “true” yet provide nothing in the way of proof.
It’s dangerous to think you, or anyone, is “above” “The masses”.
I find it amusing that none of us consider ourselves part of “the masses”. As if people, collectively, are this ignorant bunch of sheep. Some use the word “sheeple”. I call that ignorant.
What great conspiracy can there be if every day there are hundreds if not thousands of internet discussions about the very topic? How does Coast to coast AM stay on the air? How does one of the most popular television stations on cable run a successful show about this very topic? It seems plenty of people are aware of this topic. Do you believe you, out of the billions of people in this world and the billions that have come before us, are somehow aware of some great and secret truth? You don’t see how that sounds exactly like a religious zealot? You are so adamant in your support of this that you fail to see rationality in the discussion. I don’t mean to only single you out as there are many others who think the same way. But, as I’ve said numerous times, it comes down to proof. You don’t have it. No one has it. You claim “The government, Nasa, or any credible organization” is actively suppressing this information. That, to me, is much too convenient an answer to the issue. The internet is full of thousands of conspiracy theories. Some are truly bizarre and some make a lot of sense and have proof to back them up. I’m sorry to say that this does not fall into the latter category.

Plus you say i believe in pseudo-science?
Black Op scientist, the legit scientist's, not the MSM folks, complete always say and admit, that Einstein’s physics are wrong, which the "masses" believe to right.

Why do Black Op scientists, state einstein's physics as wrong and MSM scientists consider his physics to be right?
It's a simple question, with a simple answer, no paranoia, just logic and common sense, we as society, as are brainwashed, into thinking a certain way, and that an idea that is an outlier, even if factual, if not in the mainstream, will always be considered "eccentric" now i know you won't believe me, you'll just go back to your fallacy or the way for thinking that society deems appropriate , and that's ok, because im not here to convince anyone certainly not to convince you and im not going to kill you from disagreeing like someone who's religous etc, but what im trying to say is, that you won't believe this, because the mainstream, and society, has conditioned the minds of the general populace to think in a way that will be no threat.
And it's been this way since time immemorial, and it will always be this way, so if you dont believe now? Then you won't believe in the future, when we gather even more evidence, not government approved.

edit on 25-8-2011 by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-8-2011 by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien because: (no reason given)

Yes, I say “pseudo-science”. Some researchers are approaching the subject with the scientific method. They are doing decent research and will tell you there is a difference between “personal belief” and “scientific proof”. One is allowed to believe whatever one wishes to believe. But science speaks for itself. I can believe in Santa Claus but there is no evidence that the man exists. I could say that the government is covering up the truth about Santa Claus and that there is proof he exists. It’s an amusing analogy but fits surprisingly well.
The problem with bad science is that it has bad results.

Science sci•ence
saɪ əns [sahy-uh ns]
Noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
dictionary.reference.com...

You can see “…dealing with a body of FACTS or TRUTHS…” the rest of the definitions explain my point more succinctly than I can.
You, as anyone who is interested in the topic, should be approaching the subject from this point of view. We all, on ATS, seek the truth. It serves no one to blindly believe things. I know you are basing your belief on the “evidence” you’ve seen but you have to acknowledge that none of it is definitive.
There are people out there so wrapped up in their “belief” that they will tell you this THEORY is true and attempt to “prove” it (and, to them, they are.) But one needs a skeptic’s eye.
I’m sure Einstein himself would say some of his THEORIES are “wrong” or at least need to be changed. That is what science does, though. They stand on the shoulders of giants. Science doesn’t “end”. No one can claim that they know absolutely everything… especially a thing like the nature of space and time.
You do seem to hold some sort of grudge against the “mainstream”. This is common in the conspiracy circles and I don’t fault you for it. But when people make statements about the masses being “brainwashed” they are simply giving themselves another excuse or “out” as it were when it comes to rational, scientifically established thought. Science is inherently transient. There are few definitive answers out there. This is why scientists continue to explore, observe and learn.
You seem to think that I have some “mainstream” way of thinking. That Society, as a whole, has a way of thinking. This is not true, however.
By simply questioning your staunch belief in this theory you have labeled me as one of societies brainwashed. This is comically inappropriate. I said before that I am not trying to attack you personally, but I am looking to attack the irrationally blind way of thinking. This is a subject worth STUDYING. We should be questioning what we think we “know” but one cannot simply say the masses are wrong or that society is brainwashed. If that were the case how do you account for the numbers of people that believe in aliens, ghosts, the paranormal et al? Studies have shown that more people believe in ghosts than they do God. If anything it seems like the “masses” want to believe in this sort of thing.
I fail to see how the masses are brainwashed or how society is made to believe what you claim to be false. Sure, your average person does not question much of what they are told but that doesn’t mean what they are told is false. How many average citizens know that Pluto is not classified as a planet anymore? Not many. It doesn’t make it any less true. Perhaps people would be more inclined to believe these “theories” if they were exposed to them. Most people, however, aren’t nor do they really care. I think, when people say the masses are “brainwashed” what they are seeing are people who don’t really care to know. For us, a site like ATS is endlessly fascinating, but to most people they’d look at it and think we are a bunch of kooks. I don’t fault them for that. I think the same thing when I see “The Jersey Shore”.
Saying that your average person is brainwashed is ignorant of human nature. You think we are conditioned to think a certain way but the whole of human experience says otherwise. If that were the case there would be no ATS. You are confusing the data. Most people won’t believe it; most scientists will call it bunk because there is no proof. It’s rather simple.
I want to address the point you made regarding religious “killing” people who disagree with them. This is where human nature comes into play. We can, unfortunately, be a very violent creature. Have people killed in the name of God? Absolutely. But that is not “God’s” fault. You can blame the institution or warped ideal… There are a plethora of reasons this has happened over the course of history (continuing today). I made an analogy once about god, religion and the church. “I like god, but I hate his fan club.”
Sadly it seems it is in our nature to form and adhere to religious doctrine. This has led to many, many tragedies. I don’t excuse them, believe me. But it is a part of who we are as a species. There is a reason for it. Some people have Jesus and some people have conspiracy theories. Whether it’s church, ATS, Facebook… we all have our “gods” so to speak. Thankfully you are correct that you won’t be killing anyone in the name of this theory but you never know. Ideas have a way of evolving and when humans are involved with ideas and beliefs, things can get out of hand. Look at scientology and its “Fair Game” policy.

en.wikipedia.org...(Scientology) The term Fair Game is used to describe policies and practices carried out by the Church of Scientology towards people and groups it perceives as its enemies. Founder L. Ron Hubbard established the policy in the 1960s, in response to criticism both from within and outside his organization.[1][2] Individuals or groups who are "Fair Game" are judged to be a threat to the Church and, according to the policy, can be punished and harassed using any and all means possible.[1][2][3] In 1968, Hubbard officially canceled use of the term "Fair Game" because of negative public relations it caused, although the Church's aggressive response to criticism continued.[1]
Applying the principles of Fair Game, Hubbard and his followers targeted many individuals as well as government officials and agencies, including a program of covert and illegal infiltration of the IRS and other U.S. government agencies during the 1970s.[1][2] They also conducted private investigations, character assassination and legal action against the Church's critics in the media.[1] The policy remains in effect and has been defended by the Church of Scientology as a core religious practice.[4][5][6]”

There are “eccentric” sciences. The hunt for bigfoot is a great example. I, personally, think there may be a Bigfoot out there. I’ve seen photos, footprints, heard the eye witness accounts. But I won’t “Believe” it until I see it. This is how one should look at any “theory” like “ancient aliens” etc. Just know the difference between personal belief and scientific fact. That is all I ask.
My friend, I ask for proof. That is all I want. To use an oft quoted phrase “The truth is out there”. I just want you to be a skeptic. Look at things as they are and not how you wish them to be. This not only applies to you but for many on ATS and beyond. Always question. And, to quote another “Deny Ignorance”

If i started to annoy on the internet, you must be a very weak minded person, much the like the majority of the idiotic general populace.
And i never thanked you for agreeing with me in total, it was for agreeing with the fact i stated about religion, which shouldn't even need to be thanked if for the general populace was smart enough to see through it in the first place.

I'd be careful of how you treat other ATS memebers, mt friend. You shouldn' call people "weak minded" and you continue to refer to the "general populace" in terms of there idiocy.
You're response to "rebuttal" is vitriolic and unnecessary. You could have a decent conversation or debate without having to resort to tactics like these.

You make the sweeping generalization that i believe in only what i deem as appropriate, well i don,t and if you knew how to read, than you'll realize this, but i just stated that i don't, if it's the truth, than i will believe it, and what i believe if in face of the truth is false and a lie, than i will negate it, but nice religious tactic there, like i said, you can't fool me with your logic.

I only implore you to look at facts. It's an interesting theory but one should always deal in facts. There is no need to anger or name calling. If you are willing to change your mode of thinking, as we all should be, than that is a step in the right direction.
Once again I'm not sure where the religious aspect of the argument fits in. i understand that , at times, the views of the "religious" and the "theorist" can clash but they need not be mutually exclusive nor at odds.
I believe it is unnecessary to skewer religion just for the fact that it exists. There is plenty we can learn from religion. Look at history in the Bible or Buddhists and their meditation. i f one wishes to speak of the brain and it's potential "power" there would be an excellent place to start.

Logic is the lynchpin in understnading. There is no being "fooled by logic". something is either logical or illogical. The truth cannot fool you. Logic is the questioners number one tool.

As for the brain using only 10% an error on my part, i've known that our brain usage is 100% at all times since i started Biomed Sciences, but i think there's more to it than that, we use 100% at all times, yet this is the best we can come up with.
I agree that we use 100% at all times ok, i'll agree now, i am wrong, but i just think that there's more to it, than that, obviously there is, since MSM science knows barely anything about the brain, only Black Op scientists, truly know the truth about it.
So we'll never know the truth, unless we go

It is erroneous to look at the brain in terms of percentages. It is something we don't know a lot about but thankfully we are learning more and more each day. Perhaps there is some hidden potential that we may harness. Time will tell. But the fallacy that humans use only 10% of their brain is widespread and not easily dislodged from the collective knowledge of people. It's one of those things you hear and, on the surface seems likely, so you repeat it. Pass it around enough and it becomes "Fact". Most people won't bother ever fact-checking because it has no real bearing on their life. Nor should it. There are those of us interested in unlocking mysteries but most people are busy doing what they like to do and living their lives. There are so many things people believe that have turned out to be untrue or erroneous. But thats how it goes. We live, we learn. This doesn't make them brainwashed or idiotic.
i'm curious about these "Black Op" scientists. i suppose, by their very nature, we'll never know about them though. But one should be careful when making these sort of suppositions about what is and is not known to man (whether it be the masses or the Black Op Scientists.)

Computers are still high end, and advanced, it's still perfectly fine to use that as a metaphor and it's one that easiest people will understand, you do realize, your only as good as the majority, if the majority can't relate, than just quit, and certainly someone such as yourself, is not going to tell me what is a better "metaphor" to use on things let alone using it on the human brain, which you hold no ownership of mine, you do realize this? im not sure if you do and im not sure how you come with something as utterly moronic, as you telling me what to think and what i should use to describe for the human brain but, if i want to compare it with a book, than i will.
We're not in the 1700's anymore, this is 2011, we don't kill people or tell them what is right to think for disagreeing with the way that we think do you understand?

edit on 25-8-2011 by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien because: (no reason given)

while I agree that you can use any analogy for the brain you wish, it benefits you and the reader to have an analogy that fits the model so to speak. It's tru that looking at the brain as if it is a computer is not the best way to describe it. As i said before, we are learning more and more each day. Take the "left brain" "right brain" idea that so many people quote "Oh, I'm right brained. Thats why I'm so analytical" and so on. In reality there is no such thing as being right or left "brained". Its, at best, a gross oversimplification of the brain. It is, by its nature, much more organic than any computer system would ever be. And the brain does not work at all like a computer. I suppose, for the sake of brevity and the layman one could use it as an example but it comes no where near how the brain actually functions.
This is, again, a case of being willing to open ones self to new idea and ways of thinking. One has a belief, sees contradictory evidence and changes. This is SCIENCE at it's best.
I'm glad you changed you mind (ironic, isn't it) and admitted the mistake. it helps your argument, to a degree, and furthers the conversation.
But again with the name calling stuuf. I'd really refrain from that as it makes one look mean spirited. The man made a point and you ceded the point yet are on the offensive. i am willing to debate and discuss but not to be belittled.Let's "right this ship".

reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien


Haven't watched the videos yet however i will soon as i can, but let me say this.

The ancient astronaut theory is the most credible, realistic, logically rational plausible story of our history we have. I mean do you really think the 'impossible' happened, and some magic deity came down and created everyone, gave us strict rules to follow and essentially told us to worship their powers.

From what we know now in science - that is impossible to prove (I'm not saying the idea of a forces we cannot comprehend are not possible, though), however, the idea that an intelligence from somewhere other then earth, came down for whatever reason and genetically created us, is not only scientifically possible, but in comparison to something like the idea of 'God" - it really makes the whole ideology of religion laughable, but i feel the idea of being created by a divine entity out of nothing, is just a huge slap in the face to life and existence itself.

Originally posted by OldCorp
Does anyone have any idea where our makers went? Did humans rise up against their slave masters ala' Stargate and kick them back to the stars? Ooooo, so many questions.

some think They are represented by such people as the British royal family and continue in an unbroken line from ancient times. If one simply accepts this as true ,we can infer that TPTB have held some propitiatory knowledge or perhaps some essential appartness that we cannot break through to elevate our condition. From that we can infer that this appartness was somehow designed into us,like breeding a really good scent hound ,a delicious cow ,or a fast horse
LLyod Pye does bring up some interesting points I don't by his whole schtick hook line and sinker but I do think he brings some good alternative view points to the table

I realize that , by posting , i may be coming off as making the issue a personal one. i want to make sure people realize I am not. i am speaking of a way of thinking. i am very much "in" to many of the topics discussed on ATS. i enjoy a good discussion as well as debate. i may have been carried away in my last few posts but it is because I enjoy the search for the truth.
I'm not lookinf to make enemies nor get ToS'd. Again, i apologize if i have come off as trying to dissuade the OP or put down the Ancient alien/Astronaut Theory. i am most certainly not doing that. I find it a fascinating topic.
What I took umbridge with is the statement of there existing facts, evidence and proof of the Annunaki/Nibiru/Reptilian theory and human physiological manipulation by "aliens" yet none of it being shown or discussed.
I think we can all agree that there is indeed a difference between personal belief and scientific proof. I want the proof. I want to believe, but as a "researcher" of sorts I am looking for truth.

Thank you for the "discussion" and I will do my best to keep on subject and not "attack" anyone, whether we disagree or not.

reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien


What an argument you have there i cant prove my point because the proof is being hidden from us. You do realize that just invalidates everything you say. As far as proof there's only one theory of human creation and its called evolution. Now granted there's still some things missing but not enough so that we cant form a chain proving its the correct answer.

PS saying aliens created us is the same as saying god created us same coin just a different face.

Originally posted by BeforeTheHangmansNoose
reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien

 

Haven't watched the videos yet however i will soon as i can, but let me say this.

The ancient astronaut theory is the most credible, realistic, logically rational plausible story of our history we have. I mean do you really think the 'impossible' happened, and some magic deity came down and created everyone, gave us strict rules to follow and essentially told us to worship their powers.

From what we know now in science - that is impossible to prove (I'm not saying the idea of a forces we cannot comprehend are not possible, though), however, the idea that an intelligence from somewhere other then earth, came down for whatever reason and genetically created us, is not only scientifically possible, but in comparison to something like the idea of 'God" - it really makes the whole ideology of religion laughable, but i feel the idea of being created by a divine entity out of nothing, is just a huge slap in the face to life and existence itself.

It IS intriguing, I will give you that. But i don't believe it has been shown to be "credible", "Realistic" or even "plausible". Perhaps one day we will find that piece of the puzzle that actually proves it but for now it remains an interesting theory.
One does not have to pick between that and God. Science has a thing or two to say on the matter.
Generally, the idea of "God" is easy to pick apart. But we do not have all of the answers. We do not know how the universe was created or why man exists.
While i enjoy the theory itself some of the specifics that people have come up with seem far-fetched. There is an ignorance of history and mans development that exists within the framework of many of the theories postulated as the mans beginnings. When one brings aliens into the picture they it allows for many fanciful if not downright silly ideas to grow.
It's best to be skeptical and examine the proof.
One major concern of mine is that people have taken suppositions and theories and turned them, inadvertently, in "truths". The irony is that what is said about "the masses" and their conditioning/brainwashing is sort of what has happened in the internet age. People see videos on youtube or read posts like these and begin to believe that they are hearing/seeing/reading facts. People tell eachother things they read as if it were a truth and those people do the same. Before you know it people are talking about "facts" that aren't facts at all.
I guess some of that could be chalked up to presentation. People do tend to believe things when they are told something is true. this is why we gossip so much. we are quick to believe even outlandish stories. Take Urban Legends for example. How many of them do people outright believe? Or old wives tales?
We have a penchant for believing things without proof. this is partially why religion, as it is today, has remained such a powerful thing.
To you they are "stupid", "ignorant" and believe in "some magic deity came down and created everyone, gave us strict rules to follow and essentially told us to worship their powers."
What you describe is exactly what you are saying is so "plausible, logical, realistic, and credible"

some ALIEN came down and ENGINEERED everyone...etc.
It's all rather alike, isn't it?
Blindly believing in either is not being "open minded" or searching for the truth.

We humans have lost most of our history, and there may be some wonderful, frightening, amzing things that we have done or created... but we need to approach this in such a way as to discover the truth.
Blindly believing in things like this, depsite evidence to the contrary or lack of evidence does more harm to the theory than anything else. If we look like "nuts" the scientific mainstream will never take it seriously. (And thats why they stay away. No conspiracy. They just just dont want to be friends with the crazy hobo eating out of the trash.)

i think science has become its own religion as never admit maybe i do not know
i have always wondered why everything is mostly empty space ??
you know hit the golf ball thru the tree branches 85 percent air works 85 percent of the time
so if every atom was 85 percent space and universe was 85 percent empty space
could it be that we can only find 15 percent of everything ??
i don not claim to know but when today i read on fox news 4 million undiscovered life forms on earth
and a diamond planet in space diamonds in candle flame maybe we can not know because 85 percent of everything just does not exist and that makes very little actual reality IMHO

reply to post by RUNSILENT


I know everyone has their own opinions, but what did I do ?????

I did something everybody should do and I read his book "Everything You Know Is Wrong"

Read the book folks and then make your decision, he makes more sense that us evolving from aps or that some religious heavenly god made us, both are a load of MALARKY.

Oh, also read Dr. Joseph P. Farrell' book "The Cosmic War", another stunning book on our hidden history.

reply to post by downunderET


i read everything you know is wrong and wholeheartedly agree that we know nothing
we think we know which becomes belief and taught by people who would not lie
we are programmed slaves from 6 or 7 onward i am trying to look at the world my 4 year old great niece sees
it is a very beautiful place in her place space and mind
not gummed up the works yet so everything is untouched by corruption and greed so much more peace in the simplicity of her existence than ours

Originally posted by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien

Originally posted by NeverSleepingEyes

An idiotic sweeping generalization, oh well not really surprising, pretty common here on ATS.
You sure your not religious btw? you come of as someone from westboro.

you start to annoy me.
where is the "idiotic sweeping generalization" in my observation that obviously it doesn't matter when others point you at a false statement. Instead of doing your advantage with the positive information, you simply repeat the false statement.

I'm not ATS, i'm just one member. Not responsible for the common things on ATS.

Instead of trying to question my position towards religion and using generalizations yourself (are all people of westboro the same? if not, what's the value of your statement?) you could still decide to update parts of your argument (when dealing with the brain) as to strengthen your assumption about human intervention.

Did you notice that I didn't make any statement about that initial assumption? Or were you too busy feeling the victim of my well-intended replies?

If i started to annoy on the internet, you must be a very weak minded person, much the like the majority of the idiotic general populace.
And i never thanked you for agreeing with me in total, it was for agreeing with the fact i stated about religion, which shouldn't even need to be thanked if for the general populace was smart enough to see through it in the first place.

However I feel this won't change a thing as obviously RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien prefers to repeat his false statement on the 10% mistake instead of adjusting to the newer insights in that mystery called "the brain

You make the sweeping generalization that i believe in only what i deem as appropriate, well i don,t and if you knew how to read, than you'll realize this, but i just stated that i don't, if it's the truth, than i will believe it, and what i believe if in face of the truth is false and a lie, than i will negate it, but nice religious tactic there, like i said, you can't fool me with your logic.

As for the brain using only 10% an error on my part, i've known that our brain usage is 100% at all times since i started Biomed Sciences, but i think there's more to it than that, we use 100% at all times, yet this is the best we can come up with.
I agree that we use 100% at all times ok, i'll agree now, i am wrong, but i just think that there's more to it, than that, obviously there is, since MSM science knows barely anything about the brain, only Black Op scientists, truly know the truth about it.
So we'll never know the truth, unless we go

it's not. This way of representing the brain has been rejected and replaced by newer metaphors. If you study the history of metaphors we invented to describe the brain, you'll learn that we tend to compare the brain with the dominant technology at that moment. Before the personal computer started to dominate the world, we compared the brain with an mechanical tool, the stuff we witnessed all around us in factories. Only when the PC became ubiquitous that image was replaced by the one you seem to prefer, the processor. In recent years the main metaphor has been "decentralized network with autonomous parts that are able to take over whenever a part gets destroyed.

Computers are still high end, and advanced, it's still perfectly fine to use that as a metaphor and it's one that easiest people will understand, you do realize, your only as good as the majority, if the majority can't relate, than just quit, and certainly someone such as yourself, is not going to tell me what is a better "metaphor" to use on things let alone using it on the human brain, which you hold no ownership of mine, you do realize this? im not sure if you do and im not sure how you come with something as utterly moronic, as you telling me what to think and what i should use to describe for the human brain but, if i want to compare it with a book, than i will.
We're not in the 1700's anymore, this is 2011, we don't kill people or tell them what is right to think for disagreeing with the way that we think do you understand?

edit on 25-8-2011 by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien because: (no reason given)

whatever makes you happy
I'll refrain from debating with you.

OK the guy talking about Yeti, Big Foot, may not be telling a true story, i mean his is just assumption. It did match with many of the things around our history though, he did good points on the skulls' differences but still this is not solid enough.

However, the DARWIN's THEORY is also proven WRONG by other scientists, not any less credible than those who support the Darwin's theory. And it's scientists vs scientists. If you think those who support Darwin's theory are right, they are not necessarily. Either of the two could be right, not the Darwians necessairly.

Though there is 1 thing that caught my attention and I think that Lloyd guy was right about it:
NO SCIENTIST be taken seriously if he said we may have been engineered by other beings. They have to give terrestrial explanations for our origin which is EVOLUTION BUT IT DOES NOT RLY MATCH. Same they gave a terrestrial explanation about the extinction of dinosaurs. What if some otehr beings really have the Earth as 1 big laboratory and decided to replace the big reptiles with some human like creatures by casting a huge weapon of fdestruction, not a comet impact?

WHAT EVIDENCE do you have to support Darwins theory And the extinction of dinosaurs from a comet colliding with the earth? The evidence that we have been mixed with chimps but do not completely evolve from them by ourselves is JUST AS PLAUSIBLE OR NOT as the Darwins theory or the extinction by cometh..

The reason why traditional scientists believe so is we see lots of impacting objects on planets, moons, so that must be it on Earth. But is this solid proof just to suppose so based on other similar events? Not a solid proof.

Traditional Scietists are #HOLES, they think we are so great, we know everything, when there is so much science we do not understand and have no idea it works so

reply to post by Imtor


EXACTLY that is like saying my neighbors house burned down so mine will
nat geo has an article that 86 percent species not identified so as i said we can only learn about fifteen percent as we continue to find more and more like a well wound watch or
the energizer bunny just keeps going and going the true perpetual motion machine LIFE

reply to post by stainlesssteelrat


That's interesting about the views Crick held, i didn't know that, thanks.

Here's just one of infinite possible scenarios..an advanced species, but not yet capable of interstellar space travel (a little like our own level of technology i suppose), discovered their planet was doomed somehow (gigantic asteroid, supernova, you name it) they wanted to preserve their heritage, the diversity of life on their planet.

How could they do this?

One solution could be to take billions (or more) of small, football sized rocks, create a shielded cavity inside in which to load a variety of organic samples of their indigenous life, seal them and shoot them off in all directions in space.

Many would be lost, destroyed, pulled into stars, miss planets completely or land on planets that are inhospitable...but with enough being fired off, many would find hospitable planets, survive entry and crash into the surface or the seas.

Who's to say this didn't happen here, or indeed in many placed around our Galaxy?

The blueprints, the complex proteins Crick talks about would be survive and primitive life would start.
If this were so, i'd imagine there was much more to it that this, but it's a thought.

Originally posted by MuchTooSerious

Originally posted by stainlesssteelrat
Take a look at this: Studies about ayahuasca and DNA


, "The probability that human intelligence developed all the way from the chemical ooze of the primeval ocean solely through random sequences of random mechanical processes has been aptly compared to the probability of a tornado blowing through a gigantic junkyard and assembling by accident a 747 jumbo jet."

Must say, i do think that quote is pretty rad.
there are many, many, many unanswered questiones... I want proof... That's all i ask for!

Me too.

The problems occur when folks confuse faith with truth / proof. Faith is a personal truth of sorts, but it's certainly not proof of anything other than they have faith in a theory.

Not good enough for me either.