Turning The Tables: What On Earth Makes People Think Aliens Are Not Here?

Originally posted by Required01
Look, you can 'try' all you want, honestly i couldn't care less what you think. Everybody has an opinion and i respect those yet the person i replied to with those 'examples' does not. He finds it necessary to make fun of people's opinions and that believers are just stupid.

So i pointed to 2 things that i wanted his view on yet he failed to respond to that simply because he can't explain them! So that just proves my point i wanted to make in my first reply to this thread. I'm not here to fight for anyone to believe my 'opinion' it's nothing more then that just my views. If anyone doesn't agree fine but atleast attack the topic and not the poster as he did (not you tho!).

But to get back at your discription, i never saw a spherecal shaped 'see-thrue' head or carcass form that age sorry. It clearly shows a fishbowl like thing over there head without ANY features of an animal head, or any type of hat for that matter. Things they hold in there hands could be anything that's not what makes this picture so different from others. Also the lines around the head indicates to me that it was radiating light, this is how they indicate that in all ancient art/paintings/drawings if something was glowing or emitting light (like the sun or the halo's, etc).

Thanks for replying tho, but i hope you understand that i'm basicly fed-up with 'defending' my own opinion to people that i was replying to. They don't even have respect for a persons opinion, just because i believe that they visited us does not make it true! But to me when i add up a lot of things from the past (witch i did over years of time not a month!) paints the picture of alien visitation.

You're sick of defending your opinion? Does that mean your opinion is not open to debate? Do you not want to get called out on your inaccuracies and misunderstandings? When confronted with ways in which you might be wrong, do you just plug your ears and retreat, saying that you're entitled to your (wrong) opinion? If your theories really are that solid, they should stand up to open debate.

Let's look more closely at that painting. You see some human figures, with semicircles around their heads with protruding lines.

Here's one explanation: the artist was depicting a sort of feathered headdress worn around the figures' heads.

Here's another explanation: the artist was tripping on mushrooms and hallucinated a glowing aura around these people, decided to paint it on a cave wall.

Here's another explanation: the artist was depicting people laughing, using the circles & lines motif to indicate the energy of laughter.

Here's another explanation: the artist was symbolically depicting the sun and moon, showing them as glowing, personified figures.

You can start to see that you can read just about anything into a couple of abstract cave paintings. Saying that it clearly and unconditionally shows aliens, of all things, is frankly ridiculous. As if anyone who looks at this must conclude that it shows aliens. Nonsense.

Now let's unpack one of your statements in depth:

It clearly shows a fishbowl like thing over there head without ANY features of an animal head, or any type of hat for that matter. Things they hold in there hands could be anything that's not what makes this picture so different from others. Also the lines around the head indicates to me that it was radiating light, this is how they indicate that in all ancient art/paintings/drawings if something was glowing or emitting light (like the sun or the halo's, etc).

It's interesting that you understand that the things in the figures' hands could be anything, while not understanding that the circular motif around their heads could be anything other than a "fishbowl thing."

You also say that " this is how they indicate that in all ancient art/paintings/drawings if something was glowing or emitting light." You're conflating symbolism within art and cultures from around the entire world as if they were all one monolithic thing with a single way of depicting things.

I've got news for you, buddy. The way that the pre-history chinese depicted light would be different from the way pre-historic frenchmen depcited light, or the way that pre-historic native americans depicted light. It's not like they got together and decided on a common set of symbols for their pictorial language.


It's a cave painting. It looks in all ways to be a cave painting of a couple of people which would make sense with what we know of ancient people. It does not explicitly depict aliens.

Originally posted by wirehead

You're sick of defending your opinion? Does that mean your opinion is not open to debate? Do you not want to get called out on your inaccuracies and misunderstandings? When confronted with ways in which you might be wrong, do you just plug your ears and retreat, saying that you're entitled to your (wrong) opinion? If your theories really are that solid, they should stand up to open debate.

Maybe you should read 'all' the posts before clicking on the last one from "Most recent posts" and start judging a person. Maybe then you would understand that i'm fed-up with explaining my opinion to people who DON"T CARE about a persons opinion and start attacking the postert instead of the topic. If you wan't to draw a conclusion of me, base it on all my posts in this thread not just the last one. Because you're 100% off here.

Why should i defend myself against someone who feels the need to mock you because of what your opinion is on the research YOU did? Why whould i even care what a selfish person like that thinks? Does it affect my life? No, does it need to? No. I have no problems 'discussing' my opinions and views with others who show some grain of respect for other people's opinions. And if you read more carefully i said in my last post

"just because i believe that they visited us does not make it true!"

Let's look more closely at that painting. You see some human figures, with semicircles around their heads with protruding lines.

Here's one explanation: the artist was depicting a sort of feathered headdress worn around the figures' heads.

Here's another explanation: the artist was tripping on mushrooms and hallucinated a glowing aura around these people, decided to paint it on a cave wall.

Here's another explanation: the artist was depicting people laughing, using the circles & lines motif to indicate the energy of laughter.

Here's another explanation: the artist was symbolically depicting the sun and moon, showing them as glowing, personified figures.

You can start to see that you can read just about anything into a couple of abstract cave paintings. Saying that it clearly and unconditionally shows aliens, of all things, is frankly ridiculous. As if anyone who looks at this must conclude that it shows aliens. Nonsense.

Please show me where I said that it unconditionally shows aliens? Again read someone full post before replying so you get your facts right. It can be ANYTHING, but TO ME!!!! it clearly shows a fishbowl, there are no eye's beaks, mouths, ears, hair, etc on those 'fishbowls' that indicate ANIMAL heads. It's a spherical shape over a persons head, and with the reseearch i did for years the lines indicate glowing or emitting light.

It's interesting that you understand that the things in the figures' hands could be anything, while not understanding that the circular motif around their heads could be anything other than a "fishbowl thing."

You also say that " this is how they indicate that in all ancient art/paintings/drawings if something was glowing or emitting light." You're conflating symbolism within art and cultures from around the entire world as if they were all one monolithic thing with a single way of depicting things.

I've got news for you, buddy. The way that the pre-history chinese depicted light would be different from the way pre-historic frenchmen depcited light, or the way that pre-historic native americans depicted light. It's not like they got together and decided on a common set of symbols for their pictorial language.

You CLAIM that other parts of the world indicate emitting light differently, so don't just talk. Because that has 0 value and no positive outcome on this subject. SHOW me old chinese, italian, french, etc paintings/drawings that emitting light is depicted differently then on my 'example'. Talk is cheap, pictures tell a 1,000 words.

So again for you is the same as the first person i replied to. SHOW me something that 'incicates' (not prove) that what i'm saying is off. I think you can't because if you could, you would already have done it in this reply. I supply some examples and it seems that all you can do is state some 'other' explanations. Well i can name 10 more if you like but those are not MINE. Neither are those yours that you named. Tell me at least what YOU see in it. What do YOU think it is? A list of options is not your opinion, that should only be one thing.

Great thread OP!!!

I have just read this from start to finish. I don't understand why things have to get so convoluted

It's a no win situation for both sides, yet time and time again, it turns into something it need not be!

I can't prove anything, I have had an experience that cannot be explained, I don't feel 'safe' to try and get to the bottom of it. It happened, I know that much. It would be impossible for me to find the truth now. Lets just say something quite bizarre happened, there were many witness' It sounds crazy when I think back to it, but after the fact, I had a fear, I feel I should let it go.

Basically, what I'm trying to say, is what if people are never given to means to 'prove' or disprove? It's all well and good asking for proof as though we expect people to always have to hand a way of proving anything. Life is life, it happens, we go through it. Things take us by surprise and we miss golden opportunities. However, we know that these things have happened.

How many of you have been on a day out with the camera, put it away, then you miss what would have made a great snapshot!?

I am down the middle myself, I will be until it is proven either way. I am not contradicting myself either, I have had things happen, but there is always that doubt in the back of my mind!!

reply to post by Required01


My interpretation is that it looks like a couple of human people. You seem to agree that this particular work could be a lot of different things. I maintain that the only reason someone would uphold it as evidence of ancient alien visitation is if they're desperately trying to shoehorn a nondescript cave painting into their theory.

I totally agree with Muzzleflash. Alien's walk amongst mankind,always have.Do you think we would seed this planet and leave it unattended? If man would raise his spiritual level he would not only be able to "see" more,but would be able to do far better than he has been. Sad to say there's not much time left for that.

If you wish to find alot of evidence on who I am just google my names Inanna,Ishtar and Irunini of the Anunnaki.I am Antu King God Anu's consort of Nibiru.

There's massive evidence out there,you have to only look and "see".

You gotta love ATS

Originally posted by theruthlessone

Originally posted by TheMindWar


So this goes out to the "non-believers", show me one thing which proves aliens cannot come to earth and are not here now?

so show me an alien......................?

thought not

they can't..
Their argument is go out side and look up....
It's a really bad argument because it proves nothing.

Originally posted by Irunini
I totally agree with Muzzleflash. Alien's walk amongst mankind,always have.Do you think we would seed this planet and leave it unattended? If man would raise his spiritual level he would not only be able to "see" more,but would be able to do far better than he has been. Sad to say there's not much time left for that.

If you wish to find alot of evidence on who I am just google my names Inanna,Ishtar and Irunini of the Anunnaki.I am Antu King God Anu's consort of Nibiru.

There's massive evidence out there,you have to only look and "see".

With people like this, it makes ufology look even more credible......not.

Originally posted by Irunini
I totally agree with Muzzleflash. Alien's walk amongst mankind,always have.Do you think we would seed this planet and leave it unattended? If man would raise his spiritual level he would not only be able to "see" more,but would be able to do far better than he has been. Sad to say there's not much time left for that.

If you wish to find alot of evidence on who I am just google my names Inanna,Ishtar and Irunini of the Anunnaki.I am Antu King God Anu's consort of Nibiru.

There's massive evidence out there,you have to only look and "see".

Haha.. LMAO... ATS is the best :-)

Did I mention that I am King God Anu - so you're my consort...um...can you come over tonight for a little...you know :-)

reply to post by TheMindWar


Other than "keep an Open Mind" what proof do you have that they do exist and no probablility.

if you say hundreds of sightings and such well hate to break it to you but hundreds of people see or hear God and have saints appear everywhere like on tree barkor bagel.

Not credible that ETs exist no real proof.

Originally posted by wirehead
reply to post by Required01

 

My interpretation is that it looks like a couple of human people. You seem to agree that this particular work could be a lot of different things. I maintain that the only reason someone would uphold it as evidence of ancient alien visitation is if they're desperately trying to shoehorn a nondescript cave painting into their theory.

"a couple of human people" you say? So what is that 'thing' on there heads then? What are those 'lines' around it then? So because it looks like a 'humanoid' you automaticly 'presume' it is one?

Seems that you see humans in the picture put totally ignore the thing on there heads, while you know that is what i especially refer to. So my question again but more specific seeing you really need that.

"What do YOU think those are, and especially the thing on there heads?"

Really curious to see what YOU think those are, and don't just say "hats or hood" but ofcourse also explain WHY you think that.

Thanks

reply to post by Required01


I already explained what "those things on their heads" could be. Headdresses. Stylized auras. Weird hairdoos. The artist having fun with it.

You think a circle around the head of a humanoid figure is so OMG unexplainable that it just has to be evidence that this is a painting of aliens?

As someone who witnessed a UFO, I believe that there's something happening in our skies, but I can't say that it was aliens. I think it's a possibility, but before we call all skeptics idiots for wanting real evidence consider what we have to show them: blurred photos, poor videos, and anecdotal evidence. Heck, even most of that evidence doesn't even mention aliens. Science must entertain the possibility of aliens, but at the moment, the topics just a shade above fiction.

Originally posted by wirehead
reply to post by Required01

 

I already explained what "those things on their heads" could be. Headdresses. Stylized auras. Weird hairdoos. The artist having fun with it.

You think a circle around the head of a humanoid figure is so OMG unexplainable that it just has to be evidence that this is a painting of aliens?

Yeah crazy 'see-thrue' hairdoos that's it!

Yet you fail to tell me what YOU think it is. All you do is trow out a buch of 'idea's' what it might be. So conclusion is you have no clue what it is.

maybe keep up with some more recent news, they stated that 'ancient' wall paintins are much more closer to actual apearances then thought! Google it because my source is Dutch and Google translate sucks.

Originally posted by Required01

Originally posted by wirehead
reply to post by Required01

 

I already explained what "those things on their heads" could be. Headdresses. Stylized auras. Weird hairdoos. The artist having fun with it.

You think a circle around the head of a humanoid figure is so OMG unexplainable that it just has to be evidence that this is a painting of aliens?

Yeah crazy 'see-thrue' hairdoos that's it!

Yet you fail to tell me what YOU think it is. All you do is trow out a buch of 'idea's' what it might be. So conclusion is you have no clue what it is.

maybe keep up with some more recent news, they stated that 'ancient' wall paintins are much more closer to actual apearances then thought! Google it because my source is Dutch and Google translate sucks.

Hey, the ancients may have painted "crazy see-thru hairdoos" for any number of reasons. How would I know, I can't go back there and ask them! People do and paint and say all sorts of crazy things all the time. These figures are clearly simplified (they obviously aren't photorealistic!) and more akin to cartoons than detailed portraiture.

Perhaps a future archaeologist will use "The Simpsons" as evidence that people from our time were yellow-skinned (or maybe we had contact with yellow-skinned aliens!)

You're right, I don't know what it is. I'm not foolhardy enough to say that I have only one interpretation of this painting and it is the correct one. I'm just pointing out the many, many possible explanations that do not have to involve aliens. People could have painted anything they wanted for any old reason that is now long forgotten.

I'm not about to rewrite our understanding of history based on one line in one cave painting that could be anything. Think about it. Is this the quality of evidence used to support the claim of ancient aliens?

reply to post by wirehead


You mean were NOT in contact with yellow aliens?

!!?!?!?!?!?!?

pasta fazool!

on a side note, i conquer.