It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UFO evidence.. A look back into history..

page: 2
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Misterlondon
 


Some more reading on Wandjanas relating to UFOs should you feel incline
poleshift.ning.com...




posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

And in the case of the ancient cave paintings- isn't it a bit ignorant of us to suggest we know what it is they were scraping on those walls some 8000 yrs ago?



As I said in my earlier post: we have only oral tradition passed down as to the meaning of Wandjana's, it is possible that the story has been distorted over past millenniums, however the tradition told to me was that they are beings from the sky--Im not going to disrespect an elder by claiming that their tradition is only speculation.

I think its a bit ignorant to assume the oldest civilization on earth has completely lost touch with their culture and and traditions because of a lack of written word.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
always seem to show the same 6 or 7 paintings that the poster claims is showing UFO's from ancient times.

Well there's a major problem with this approach. Mainly, you're using art as a basis for evidence.


no claims were made.. and the art is not used as the basis of the evidence, there is alot of other information included in the thread. the art is just a small part of the evidence presesnted.
the point of the thread is not to prove the existence of ufo's, it is to look at the historical evidence that supports the theory.



you're using art as a basis for evidence. And art is completely subjective relative to who is observing it.


yes it is and those pictures contain objects that resemble what are commonly known as ufo's.


In other words just because you see something that to you looks like a UFO of some sort doesn't make it so. And someone else could see something totally different or interpret a different way.


of course it doesnt make it so.. and yes people will always interpret things in different ways.. but at the same time this should still be presented as possible evidence to add weight to the theory, until it is proven otherwise.




And unless we can bring back the original artists from the dead and ask them what it is they were depicting then it's all just highly speculative evidence.


touche my friend.. how can you possibly say they are not depicting ufo's when you make a statement like this?




I think if you do some proper research on these paintings you may find that the "UFOs" are actually just ordinary objects like shields or religious allegories.


unless we can bring back the original artists from the dead and ask them what it is they were depicting then it's all just highly speculative evidence.




And in the case of the ancient cave paintings- isn't it a bit ignorant of us to suggest we know what it is they were scraping on those walls some 8000 yrs ago?


we don't know for sure what they depict.. we can only speculate..but it is ignorant not to look at all possibilities..



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by cartenz
 


I was speaking more about the cave paintings. I can't comment on what the elder told you. But I will say that stories get sensationalized and distorted when passed from person to person. It's human nature to make things sound more interesting. Or if you've ever played telephone then you can see what I mean...

It's possible that a story handed down orally over hundreds if not thousands of years is not entirely accurate by the time it gets to you.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Misterlondon
 


reply to post by Misterlondon
 


Listen mate- Von Daniken is a self admitted fraud. Your entire opening post is a regurgitation of his work. There's been topics upon topics started on the subject. He said himself that some of the material in his books was made up and fudged with to make it more interesting.

All I'm saying is do your own research on the subject and don't base it all off some frauds bs.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by Misterlondon
 


reply to post by Misterlondon
 


Listen mate- Von Daniken is a self admitted fraud. Your entire opening post is a regurgitation of his work. There's been topics upon topics started on the subject. He said himself that some of the material in his books was made up and fudged with to make it more interesting.

All I'm saying is do your own research on the subject and don't base it all off some frauds bs.






your comments are actually laughable.. whilst this level of ignorance is expected from new or younger members.. its surprising to see it coming from such a long serving member..

it seems as though you still do not fully grasp the point behind this thread.. of which the sole purpose is to look at the ufo evidence throughout history..

if you had bothered to actually read the thread instead of looking at the subject matter and replying, you will find the doubts in von danekans work has been mentioned. AT THE BEGINNING OF THE OP!!

the reason he has even been mentioned in the post is because it is entirely relevant within the history of ufology, as stated in the op he was a pioneer to the popular ancient astronaut theory, with his book chariots of the gods..

and just so you know.. my research into the subject goes back many years and involves the reading of many books, reports and various websites.. you are not reading the regurgitated work of von danekans book.. yes some of the evidence presented by von danekan is also used in this thread but imo should be because some of it is very good evidence in relation to the subject matter.... and exactly why should this stuff be ignored?

so in summary "mate" unless you are going to contribute something of substance to this thread i suggest you stop wasting both our time with this nonsense..



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misterlondon
reply to post by Harte
 



The point of this thread is to look at various UFO sightings throughout history.. nowhere am i making claims or trying to convince anybody of the existence of UFO's. ive just presented a small part of the information out there and people can make up their own minds.



There exists no scholarly reference for what has been claimed about the "adventures" of Alexander and the flying sheilds.


that i can neither confirm or deny, im sure though in your quick google search you have conclusively proven that none exist.. Anyway that doesnt change the fact there is a well known "legend" out there involving Alexander and a UFO sighting. why should that be ignored?

Because it's not true?

I mean, that's a pretty good reason in my book.


Originally posted by Misterlondon



From the link in the OP about the Tulli papyrus:

I think that it is safe to say that the authenticity of the "Tulli Papyrus" can be dismissed due to a lack of any solid evidence that it ever existed at all.



You complain because the link is honest...?

Certainly not. Just pointing out that a piece of so-called "evidence" in the OP doesn't actually exist.


Originally posted by Misterlondon
anyway is it not true that every single UFO case to date has been written of due to lack of evidence? That is why we have to look at all the evidence in a fair and balanced way.. whilst trying to paint a bigger picture.

No problem. After all, when people say they've seen something in the sky, at least you have their anecdotal evidence (testimony.)

We don't have anything like that for the papyrus or for Alexander.


Originally posted by Misterlondon


IOW, that's not a pic of this papyrus.


Its the picture i found whilst researching it.. if it is an incorrect image used then i hold my hands up.. honest mistake.]

Sure. Except the link itself notes that the papyrus doesn't exist, so how could you have a pic of it?


Originally posted by Misterlondon



That's about it. Wild claims don't add anything to the subject.

where have i made wild claims? as already stated im just presenting the information, people are entitled to do more research on any story i have covered and come to their own conclusion..


The panel from Abydos showing a "helicopter" is certainly a wild claim ansd completely unfounded. Search here for the real answer to what the panel depicts.

The claim about Alexander is also a wild claim, since there's simply no reason at all to believe such a story is actually true, or ancient.

All the VonDaniken claims are not only wild, they are lies and mischaracterizations.

Harte



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mel1962
 


Thats pic of the 14th April 1561, the citizens of Nuremberg is what the bible has been talking about all this time, there was and there is a celestial war even happening today.

I have made several post, I made some comments about this.

The rods with the blue and red dots are the good guy's Angels.

The red and blue dots ( Flying Saucers ) are angels as well, the black dots are the Annunaki the ones working with our governments of today.

Good pic, all of these pics are awesome.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I think the Nuremberg and Basel 'aerial battles' are probably the most compelling ufological pieces of evidence in pre-20th century history.
How do you debunk something like that?
Short of mass hallucination there's little room for conventional explanations here.
Just fantasy? I mean, this got printed in the local 'newspaper' not on some shady book by an eccentric paranormal enthusiast.
Weather phenomena?
Secret military crafts (in the 16th century none the less)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Some great ancient examples...but it is difficult to assign much credibility to ancient man's accounts. After all, it was a time when men thought thunder to be angry gods, etc. So, it is difficult to tell how accurate any of their observations would be, versus how much would be shaped by their beliefs and fears of the unknown.

To be sure, there were even modern sightings before Arnold's, but it is widely acknowledged as the first well-documented and credible UFO sighting in modern times.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Ancient scripture and painting is the only records of past history humans got today and even back then as well, I think they knew what they were saying in that painting, that was the best way for them to describe it.

Remember the Crusade, they were prohibit to learn about the ancient teachings of the Holy Scripts of the Bible, so they didn't have no other choice than hide it. That painting in particular, if I'm not mistaken was hiden under a table and it wasn't found till many centuries later. ( SOMEONE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG ) Right there you can tell they were hiding the message of the painting, just for us to find out at this end of system of things.
edit on 12-10-2011 by Human4life because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human4life
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Ancient scripture and painting is the only records of past history humans got today and even back then as well, I think they knew what they were saying in that painting, that was the best way for them to describe it.

Remember the Crusade, they were prohibit to learn about the ancient teachings of the Holy Scripts of the Bible, so they didn't have no other choice than hide it. That painting in particular, if I'm not mistaken was hiden under a table and it wasn't found till many centuries later. ( SOMEONE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG ) Right there you can tell they were hiding the message of the painting, just for us to find out at this end of system of things.
edit on 12-10-2011 by Human4life because: (no reason given)

Per your request (bolded above):
Poster Cicada's excellent thread on this subject.

Read it. Or don't read it.

The latter is what most "believers" choose to do.

Harte



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Ha ha ha ha ok



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join