Newly Discovered Artifacts May Prove Mayans Had Alien Contact!

page: 19
121
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Didnt we already prove these to be fake in another thread




posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   
That last picture really looks odd because it has the planet Saturn in it. How could one know what Saturn looks like at that time when one does not own an advanced telescope? Perhaps this must have something to do with a joy-ride.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by tonycodes
 


If so I would like to know where.. I cannot find much reference to them...



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Had alien contact? or themselves dug up artifacts of their own ancestor's journeys.


These beings are humanoid. That right off the bat says Earthly. Aliens will not be humanoid.

EDIT

Also I take note that there is no other data on this, thus making me suspicious of its validity.
edit on 17-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 





Aliens will not be humanoid.


and how would you know that. Unless you where of course one yourself....



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91


These beings are humanoid. That right off the bat says Earthly. Aliens will not be humanoid.


Wouldn't rush to judgement on that..




posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Common sense.



There are over 100 million species on this planet. You an literally construct a Venn diagram between humanoid like species, and higher intelligence.

In the humanoid shape group, you have Homininae, and Spheniscidae.

In the higher intelligence group, you have Delphinidae, Phocoenidae, Odobenocetopsidae, Monodontidae, Kentriodontidae, Balaenidae, Balaenopteridae, Eschrichtiidae, Neobalaenidae, Platanistoidea, Ziphidae, Elephantidae, Corvidae, Hominidae.

And there's probably a few more I don't even recall.

Out of all those hundreds of species. One is man. One walks upright and builds cities. Each of them have potential to become as intelligent as us. But none of them show any direction of becoming in the form of us. Natural selection is favoring increased intelligence in all of them, we know this. There is no favorable selection for our form. No universal direction towards how we are.

Simply put, mathematical probability demands that humanoid aliens be, at most, a rarity. And that's assuming they are culturally, biologically, and mentally anything similar to us. Different climates, environments, and dna could construct theoretically innumerable incompatible species that would stay far away from Earth.

Perfect example would be dextro-dna vs levo-dna. Same dna, different construction method. And the difference determines weather or not +90% of food on Earth is toxic to your dna or not.

To state that Aliens would be in any way similar to us.... well you might as well throw out the science book and pick up a religious text of your choosing. Because now you're arguing creationism. Because nothing short of God would enable any two species to even be able to be in contact with each other without violent alergic, toxic, or other reactions.
edit on 17-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 


Please see the above post. I will rush to judgement on that, because it's what the scientific data says.

As for your pixel art, all I see is a cat face and another person with a male genital for a head. It's relevance is null.
edit on 17-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I know what you mean. Really life could come in all kinds of ways we cannot even comprehend..Although I do not agree that you should negate a find just because the beings are humanoid in appearance.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by tonycodes
 


The post below is quoted from another forum and appears to be posted by Raul Julia-Levy (the Producer of Revelations of the Mayans 2012". It is a post in relation to the artefacts depicted in the video that is discussed in this thread. Here is the link:www.theparacast.com...

"I will like to address every fan and supporter of our project "Revelations Of The Mayans 2012 And Beyond" to inform each and every one of you that we the producers of the film have absolutely nothing to do with this promotional video , not only we are not involve with Mr Hassan and his assistants, but they are also promoting this video making people believe that we are in some way involve with them , the materials they present in this video according to our Archaeologist are fake and do not represent any Mayan artifact in any-way shape or form .

Thank you
RJL"



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by yampa
 


As for your pixel art, all I see is a cat face and another person with a male genital for a head. It's relevance is null.



Originally posted by Gorman91
another person with a male genital for a head.


'Another person' you say? What what!


I'm not saying what you should or shouldn't see. But I personally see one full, and one half figure which could be described as humanoid. One on the left has eyes, mouth, nose, prominent forehead and two detached arms (no legs). The one on the right is upright and has two arms, two legs, feet, a torso, neck, smiling mouth, nose (+ snout?) and ears. That's pretty humanoid in my book. And those pictures are 14 billion years old.

You say it is only possible for humanoid figures to exist in the imagination of humans? I show you some pictures of what are (imo) humanoid figures, which were created by nature. But I guess if you can't see humanoid figures there, then no, you wouldn't find it particularly relevant.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


I am not negating it. I negate the find because of a lack of sources. If it is real, I negate it is alien.


Like I said. Humanoid = earthly. These are earthly people doing earthly things, with clearly earthly technology that looks like 1970s tech.


I suspect, if it were real, it is simply the telling of a tale of our own ancestors at a time when, perhaps, they were as advanced as the 1980s. That's the most I can get out of this.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by phalanx001
reply to post by tonycodes
 



"I will like to address every fan and supporter of our project "Revelations Of The Mayans 2012 And Beyond" to inform each and every one of you that we the producers of the film have absolutely nothing to do with this promotional video , not only we are not involve with Mr Hassan and his assistants, but they are also promoting this video making people believe that we are in some way involve with them , the materials they present in this video according to our Archaeologist are fake and do not represent any Mayan artifact in any-way shape or form .

Thank you
RJL"


Thank you for posting this, good work. Hassan's conduct and the conduct of the people who were originally trying to sell these artefacts makes them look increasingly fake.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 


And how can you make a claim of their age and formations? I need sources.

I see pixel art. Very likely fabricated by humans within the last century. Or perhaps claimed to have been "discovered" in the last century.

I don't have a damn clue where you're getting 14 billion years out of. 14 billion years ago there weren't even galaxies.
edit on 17-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by yampa
 


And how can you make a claim of their age and formations? I need sources.

I see pixel art. Very likely fabricated by humans within the last century. Or perhaps claimed to have been "discovered" in the last century.

I don't have a damn clue where you're getting 14 billion years out of. 14 billion years ago there weren't even galaxies.
edit on 17-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)


I'm getting the '14 billion years old' from the standard model estimate of the age of the universe. Those pictures are written in the fundamental structure of numbers. The source is nature.

The technical source is the numbers:
1
11

and a simple multiplicative rule. This creates a naturally symmetric number triangle with forever fixed numerical values.

If you add up the binary values using the pixels from figure on the left you get the number 6,22,020,800 which = 13! (factorial)

13! = 13 x 12 x 11 x 10 x 9 x 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1

If you add up the binary values of the figure on the right you get 14 factorial.

You can see the right figure in the diagram here. It is the 14th figure along. The figure on the left can not be seen as shown because it requires swapping black pixels for white pixels.
mathworld.wolfram.com...



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 


Irregardless to if this is true, you are forgetting a very important fact.

The skeleton and muscle structure of all large animals on Earth are virtually the same. As a result, strip away the skin, and you can't really see the difference if its dead and lying on its back.

It is only the fact that you are a human that you first see a human in the form. Because humans evolved to see human faces in things. A result of our emotional evolution that is required to read a complex tool like the human face.


Simply put, it is only your imagination that makes it possible to see a human in there. But you can just as easily reverse engineer your thoughts to see many other animals too.

While you may be able to see a human, you can just as easily see an "alien", see the pope, see an elephant, see a bat, see a lion, a tadpole, a fish, a whale, a dolphin, and many other things.


Fact is that the only thing that makes humanity able to be a large upright biped is one very disastrous mutation that actually makes us weaker (just look at the attempt to animate early bipeds. They are walking lion food.) It is just that in our case, in our situation, in our time period, the gains outweighed the losses in intelligence. The ice age put most threats on the brink of extinction, the area we evolved had better terrain and few apex hunters, so we were more ready to adapt to our upright position and specialize into the running spear throwers that early man became.



The conclusion is this. You are using one set of mathematical values that supports your theory, thus it is subjective. And you are using your mind, prone to see human forms by evolution, to justify your case, another subjective case.

Ergo, your claim is simply not valid.
edit on 17-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by yampa
 


Irregardless to if this is true, you are forgetting a very important fact.
...
The conclusion is this. You are using one set of mathematical values that supports your theory, thus it is subjective. And you are using your mind, prone to see human forms by evolution, to justify your case, another subjective case.

Ergo, your claim is simply not valid.


Fair enough, good points. It would have to be accepted that as humans, we must use our minds to perceive these pictures, therefore we can never really escape that layer of abstraction in our perceptions.

It's just that the patterns which form those pictures have existed since the beginning of the universe. We, earthly animals, evolved the ability to form memories of visual representations under conditions where these pictures were always latent in nature. They were exactly as you see now, long before there was an Earth.

Our brains must compute patterns, and the numbers underlying these pictures are computationally important. Those number relationships could quite possibly have been used by evolution to make us (and any organism) cable of responding to patterns more intelligently.

You say I see humanoids because my intelligent human brain makes me see humans. I say (speculatively, for fun's sake) you are capable of perceiving anything at all, because your nervous system uses neurobiological algorithms based on numbers relationships like those shown here.
edit on 17-3-2012 by yampa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 


No, it's not the pattern, it's the numbers put to form. The same can be said for the golden ration. Something which has far more credibility to it for being the dna of all creation, because it's beyond just mere form. What you have shown is a general form. There is far more to question with the golden ratio than anything else, as it suggests a final point for evolution, which otherwise does not appear to be true.

They are also not pictures. They are simply a code aligned to a specific shape. Bare in mind that you are the one putting them to form, based off our number system and our on-off computer system. Something that simply is not universal. We use base ten because we have 10 fingers. You could probably construct a similar code based off other bases and other species. Hell maybe even construct the form of other species based off those numbers. That's a stretch, but a theory if yours is correct.

You can perceive anything at all. But you are going to see something human first. Because we have been looking at humans as a species for our entire existence. You can put aside this human nature and look more abstractly, but never the first time. Only the second time.

If aliens do exist, you would be forced to reveal yourself to another species in their form. There is no other way to look intelligent or equal other than making yourself appear the same as them.
edit on 17-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
No, it's not the pattern, it's the numbers put to form. The same can be said for the golden ration. Something which has far more credibility to it for being the dna of all creation, because it's beyond just mere form. What you have shown is a general form. There is far more to question with the golden ratio than anything else, as it suggests a final point for evolution, which otherwise does not appear to be true.

Bare in mind that you are the one putting them to form, based off our number system and our on-off computer system. Something that simply is not universal.


All good points again. I'm not sure I agree about the lack of universality though, plenty of math done on this planet is not done using base 10, plenty of humans civilizations have not used base 10. I think these patterns are a lot more fixed than you might think.

The golden ratio shows up in a number triangle which is highly similar to the one I am using to source these numbers. Pascal's triangle produces Fibonnaci numbers:



The number triangle I am using to get the numbers for the pictures is intimately connected with the natural logarithm and e. e is as fundamental as the golden ratio.

Euler's number triangle:

1
1,1
1,4,1
1,11,11,1
1,26,66,26,1
1,57,302,302,57,1
1,120,1191,2416,1191,120,1
1,247,4293,15619,15619,4293,247,1
1,502,14608,88234,156190,88234,14608,502,1
1,1013,47840,455192,1310354,1310354,455192,47840,1013,1



Anyway, I'm not trying to make any specific point. I'm just saying some patterns in numbers look humanoid to me, and that these patterns are not created by humans (even if, as you say, they are 'formed').



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 


Well just take the bottom series there. It's not exactly a triangle by proxy. It's slipping down.

At some point in time, you are intervening. And you are creating a form of selection that produces that vaguely humanoid form.

I'd be perfectly interested to see the form under different bases, different series, etc etc. The fact that this one series produces something humanoid (though I would argue it produces something that looks like human reproductive organs), does not close the door to other series being responsible for other intelligences and forms. We are dealing with one set, one condition, and one results. No different than cropping an image to get a face. What about the rest of the image?





new topics

top topics



 
121
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join