Why is the Ancient Alien Theory difficult to accept?

page: 8
27
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ButterCookie
 



Explain how the Dogon 'misinterpreted' the Sirius start system, or that it was a hoax....


Here:


In his book Sirius Matters, Noah Brosch postulates that the Dogon may have had contact with astronomers based in Dogon territory during a five week expedition, led by Henri-Alexandre Deslandres, to study the solar eclipse of April 16, 1893.[28] Robert Todd Carroll also states that a more likely source of the knowledge of the Sirius star system is from contemporary, terrestrial sources who provided information to interested members of the tribes


en.wikipedia.org...

We just don't know what the Dogon believed before Europeans, with their scientific knowledge, first made contact with them.


So in other words, it is a mere hypothesis that the Dogon-stuff is a hoax and not a confirmed fact?




posted on May, 17 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Nope...actually all of them describe the ascending an descending into bodies of water, just like the bible. Except these were not 'water' gods; they were beings that could navigate through water, ie ships, submarines, etc.

No...they never stated that lightning or earthquakes themselves were gods...they thought they were the works of gods, and mostly they were really trying to describe the technology of the gods. For example, lasers were described as lightning.


And no, they did not think the sun or moon was traveling through space in chariots. They specified that the gods were.

edit on 17-5-2012 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Nope...actually all of them describe the ascending an descending into bodies of water, just like the bible. Except these were not 'water' gods; they were beings that could navigate through water, ie ships, submarines, etc.

You mean, other than the ones that were actual fish?


Originally posted by ButterCookieNo...they never stated that lightning or earthquakes themselves were gods...they thought they were the works of gods, and mostly they were really trying to describe the technology of the gods.

And are lightning, earthquakes, etc. the "technology of the gods?"
If you don't know what they are, then maybe that's what they are, ya think?


Originally posted by ButterCookie
And no, they did not think the sun or moon was traveling through space in chariots. They specified that the gods were.

Apparently you are unaware that in these same cultures, the Moon (Sun, planets, etc.) actually were the gods.

For example, in Sumer, An (Anu) is what you would refer to as the sky god, or (according to you and Sitchin) the "god from the sky."

You are unaware that in the beginning, An was the sky itself.

Harte



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


A 'sky' god meant a being that was seen coming from the sky....as many of them were known as.

Lightning and earthquakes are events of nature....ancient people did not understand that, and that is why they thought the gods controlled these events

A lot of comparison went on...a being that could swim for long periods underwater (maybe with advanced scuba equipment), were called 'fishes'...just like the Star of Bethlehem- they called a spaceship a 'star' because it was shiny and bright like stars...



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Humans did not evolve.

All the fish we find are fish, all the birds we find are birds, all the bats we find are bats, all the people we find are people, and single-celled organisms never reproduce into anything except single-celled organisms. There’s no transitional species to be found, and evolution (in the sense of organisms increasing in complexity) is not happening anywhere. In reality, if evolution were true, everything that is or was alive should just be another transitional species, including humans. There would be no point in classifying species, because they all would just be changing into something else continuously. But we find none of that. The evolutionists’ theory suggests that fish grew legs and turned into mammals, and dinosaurs grew wings and turned into birds. If evolution were true, we’d be finding creatures that were:

3% fish, 97% land walking lizard
2% fish, 98% land walking lizard
1% fish, 99% land walking lizard
100% land walking lizard
99% land walking lizard, 1% mammal
98% land walking lizard, 2% mammal
97% land walking lizard, 3% mammal...

and so on, with similar processes for every type of animal that exists




Your ideas are very very false. Evolution just doesn't work that way. Most species that have an established niche will be driven to specialize even further towards their niche, not drive towards something else.

It seems that you do not have a clear understanding on the mechanics that drive evolution. Life does not evolve just because, and you won't find a fish that is progressing towards being able to walk on land "just because". There are plenty of fish species, that due to natural selection, have evolved to be able to walk on land and escape predators in the water.

You also cannot say an animal is 97% reptile and 3% mammal. It doesn't work that way either. WE set the parameters under which an animal is classified. It IS more likely that if a reptile were to ever evolve towards a different class that it would be towards avia or mammalia (since nature already shows the physiology works), but a whole new class could not be entirely ruled out either. Yes, you are right, mammals come from mammals, reptiles from reptiles, etc. They all came from one common ancestor though a long long time ago. This is evident due to homologous structures.

The trend is that more complex organisms have presented themselves on earth over time. Not that organisms are becoming more complex. Also, how do you measure complexity? Physiologically or psychologically? Physiologically and psychologically, there's been little change in complexity in over 100 million years. Psychologically, humans are pretty much the exception.

I can see how you would presume that humans couldn't have evolved. We are very different in many ways from our ancestors. On top of that, the changes occurred over a short period (in evolutionary time). Mutations in the FOXP gene that contain information for transcribing vocal cords is likely what drove our rapid evolution. Even then, the way humans evolved is extremely unlikely (at least naturally). Not impossible though.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by Harte
 


A 'sky' god meant a being that was seen coming from the sky....as many of them were known as.

Good of you to impose you own wishes for what that means on people that died 7,000 years before you were born.

Care to quote any Assyriologists concerning what sky god "means?"


Originally posted by ButterCookieLightning and earthquakes are events of nature....ancient people did not understand that, and that is why they thought the gods controlled these events

Yes, and some of them thought the events themselves actually were gods (are volcanoes aliens?)
However, those cultures don't fit your mold, so it's okay to ignore them, right?


Originally posted by ButterCookieA lot of comparison went on...a being that could swim for long periods underwater (maybe with advanced scuba equipment), were called 'fishes'..

A being that can swim for long periods underwater is also called a "fish."
See, we know fish existed. We have no evidence whatsoever for ancient scuba gear.


Originally posted by ButterCookiejust like the Star of Bethlehem- they called a spaceship a 'star' because it was shiny and bright like stars...

No. And it's funny because I'm no Christian by any stretch, but even I know that the star foretold the birth of the Messiah. The star itself was also foretold.

It's not something that appeared and then Jesus got out and said "Take me to your leader." Back then, if the stars didn't foretell it, it wasn't important.

Is everything from the ancient past that mentions a star talking about a ufo, or only those particular instances you want to be talking about ufos?

Because back in those days, if it was important, there was a star or meteor or comet associated with it, one way or the other.

That's how you backed up your claim of some exceptional occurence if you lived back then, see. By claiming it was foretold by the stars.

Even today, people actually believe such fluff is true.

Harte



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


Of course, technologically advanced artifacts would also be good to find. But if the Ancient Aliens had any, it doesn't look like they were slobs, because they apparently didn't leave any behind. Big rocks are not technology.

Just a novelty key chain made out of osmium would do the trick.

Or a single lost titanium screw found in a place where it would be impossible for it to be a result of later contamination. In the MRI of a still-wrapped mummy. That would also work.

edit on 17-5-2012 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by cenpuppie
reply to post by Blue Shift
 

Agreed. But the proof is looking back at us.

Unfortunately, "stories" are not proof of anything. Unless you somehow believe that people in the past had absolutely no imagination at all. And why the similarities? Maybe because they were all experiencing the same kind of world, staring at the things in the sky (not UFOs), and trying to come up with stories to explain them. It's anthropological. We come up with similar stories because we're human beings and we think in the same ways. Birds tweet. Humans imagine gods and monsters.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nightchild

Originally posted by DJW001
We just don't know what the Dogon believed before Europeans, with their scientific knowledge, first made contact with them.

So in other words, it is a mere hypothesis that the Dogon-stuff is a hoax and not a confirmed fact?

Okay. Simple enough to positively prove that the Dogon knew about Sirius. Find a record of them or archaeological artifact older than their first contact with Europeans that unequivocally, specifically and accurately describes the Sirius system. Good luck.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
.

The people of the World have said that once there was ..

A mythical sky ladder, tree, rope, mountain, .. that connected heaven and the earth.

The ladder ...enables gods and humans to travel between Heaven and Earth.

That is the Story .

Groups that have this common "Myth" from around the world just a few

The Han, Buyi, Miao, Yao, Qiang, Naxi, Dulong, Kazak, Tlingit ,Kwakiutl ,
Chorote, Melanesians, Mataco, Chorote, Nivalke, Tupi, Toba, Makka, Guarani, Carib,Chamacoco, Ringa-Ringaroo...Fiji Islanders

OK it is easier to just say that Every Where on Earth has a similar legend .

Isn't the story of Jacob’s ladder the same "myth"

The son of Isaac dreamt he saw a ladder extending to heaven.

“And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.”

OK ...

The descriptions vary from ladder to rope to tree to mountain .

Sumerian texts the Duranki connected between heaven and earth

The Egyptians recall the destruction of the link ... “when the sky was separated from the earth,
when the gods ascended to heaven.”

In the Rig Veda ...The separation of heaven and earth is said to have occurred shortly after Indra’s birth
amidst cataclysmic circumstances .

The Maya and Olmec ....“The classic texts at Palenque tell us that the central axis of the cosmos was called
the ‘raised-up sky’ because the First Father had raised it at the beginning of creation in
order to separate the sky from the earth.”

I think anyone who reviews the evidence will find that this consistent story has a common truth embedded in it .

The fact that this is still being debated seems rather ridiculous to me .. ????

I'll be glad to tell you how I think they were doing it .. that is 'my theory" ...
but that will take a massive thread to even begin to bring it into focus for the uninitiated .


.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by cenpuppie
reply to post by Blue Shift
 

Agreed. But the proof is looking back at us.

Unfortunately, "stories" are not proof of anything. Unless you somehow believe that people in the past had absolutely no imagination at all. And why the similarities? Maybe because they were all experiencing the same kind of world, staring at the things in the sky (not UFOs), and trying to come up with stories to explain them. It's anthropological. We come up with similar stories because we're human beings and we think in the same ways. Birds tweet. Humans imagine gods and monsters.


Yes, they had imagination...but that not that much.

If mythology is based on older tales, then where are the early civilizations getting their myths from?/

And how much of a coincidence is it for several hundred civilizations to ll come up with similar events and characters? Come on now...

A teacher is in a class of about 40 students and tells them all to close their eyes and imagine something...then to write about it. One student says that he imagined a purple horse riding over the Appalachian mountains with a pink tail, singing the song"Living on a Prayer by Bon Jovi"....

you mean to tell me that is merely coincidence if ALL the children say they imagined the same thing???



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Ancient stone monuments make up the overwhelming bulk of ancient alien "evidence." It is difficult to believe that highly advanced aliens visited here and all they did was pile up rocks.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


You actually think the star of Bethlehem was a star???

Surely you can't think that...

Since when do stars have controlled movement left, right, then hover??

Matthew 2:9 “After hearing the king, they went on their way. And there it was—the star they had seen in the east! It led them until it came and stopped above the place where the child was.“

The closest that a star will ever be to the Earth is the sun...if another star were to even enter our solar system, it would burn up every planet.

edit on 17-5-2012 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


Well, you don't accept the fantasy part of a (which is accepting a magical element unto the human experience)myth, but you do believe what L ron hubbard and sci fi ideological ideas trying to force themselves on ancient history. There is a reason why we shouldn't know.
edit on 17-5-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by Harte
 


You actually think the star of Bethlehem was a star???

Surely you can't think that...

If you really want to know what I think, then I'll tell you.

There was no star of Bethlehem.

I would have thought that you could infer that from my previous post concerning how heavenly objects were associated with events later considered to be important.

The birth of Jesus - assuming he existed - was certainly not heralded by a star that moved around.

If there was some sort of event in the sky, you can be sure it was either a comet or a nova.

But, as I said, I don't think it even happened.

Why do you think it did?

Harte



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by cenpuppie
reply to post by Blue Shift
 

Agreed. But the proof is looking back at us.

Unfortunately, "stories" are not proof of anything. Unless you somehow believe that people in the past had absolutely no imagination at all. And why the similarities? Maybe because they were all experiencing the same kind of world, staring at the things in the sky (not UFOs), and trying to come up with stories to explain them. It's anthropological. We come up with similar stories because we're human beings and we think in the same ways. Birds tweet. Humans imagine gods and monsters.


Yes, they had imagination...but that not that much.

At last, an expert in the field of quantizing the imaginative capabilities of ancient humans has become available on ATS.


Originally posted by ButterCookieIf mythology is based on older tales, then where are the early civilizations getting their myths from?/

And how much of a coincidence is it for several hundred civilizations to ll come up with similar events and characters? Come on now...

No, you "come on now."

Come on now and list these "hundreds" of (unrelated) civilizations that had "similar events and characters" in their mythos.

In the meantime, everyone/everything that lives, dies, right?
Would you not expect cultures that realize this truth to have mythologies built around this obvious reality?

Also - people drink water and can live off fish.

Would you not expect some sort of mythology to arise concerning these two life-giving benefits?

Water also can kill you, can't it? No mythology should involve this dichotomy concerning water?

Also - people kill and eat animals and plants. To fail to do so would invoke the mythology concerning death I mentioned above, wouldn't it? People tend to not want that to happen, don't they?

So, would you not expect some mythology to arise surrounding the life-giving benefits of animals and plants?

After all, they ward off death.

Harte



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I try to watch AA when ever I get a chance and they do make some good points. Although it's hard to put facts together after the fact since there is no real evidence to prove or disprove their approach. But the things that to facinate me is the fact the early humans would have no idea of what flying machines should look like but still they paint objects on cave walls that seem to represent some type of flying machine. Also there is the large stone artifacts that seem impossible even in today's world considering the tight specifications and sheer scale of these stones makes it hard to believe they would have had the skill and technology to do these projects alone. Maybe someday we'll know the truth.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


I study Mythology to find ideas for cures for diseases with great success. This allows me to better track the Pharmaceuticals newly discovered drugs to treat illnesses. A lot of the evidence of these writings has been severely misinterpreted by the sciences. After reading interpretations from different locations I see that archeologists pride of their interpretations gets in the way a lot. Well, all humans do that so it's no surprise.

There is evidence of something like balloons that received their gas from heating of a rock in the Hindu writings. The flame and rock could have been coal also. They could have hauled expensive spices to many areas utilizing balloons. There is also evidence of other flying machines here and there all over the place. It is not unreasonable that these people could have built gliders and possibly aircraft from searching some of their science of the day. Look at how far our aircraft have come since the Wright brothers. Well, there were planes developed before the wright brothers but the Wright brothers stole the limelight with the aid of the right people.

In conclusion I have to say that I cannot discount anyones insight without researching everything myself using research information and discounted information and very little input from the past conclusions that are out there. A lot of our present technology may have origination in old technology that was found and hidden. You have to be the creator of technology for it to be patentable so it opens up a whole insight into deceit. If I were to find a flying saucer it would be beneficial to hide it and patent some of the advanced technology instead of admitting it exists. This way you get rich and famous. I'm sure most smart people would not tell the government knowing for a fact it would be confiscated and that there would be no reward. They may even find that their witnessing of the craft would cause them harm. I'm not turning in a flying saucer if I find one, I'm no where near crazy. I'd haul it home and make it into a sauna or something, telling others I built it



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Harte
 


I study Mythology to find ideas for cures for diseases with great success. This allows me to better track the Pharmaceuticals newly discovered drugs to treat illnesses. A lot of the evidence of these writings has been severely misinterpreted by the sciences. After reading interpretations from different locations I see that archeologists pride of their interpretations gets in the way a lot. Well, all humans do that so it's no surprise.

There is evidence of something like balloons that received their gas from heating of a rock in the Hindu writings. The flame and rock could have been coal also.

I think that the above could be possible.

I would like to read the Vedic literature you're referring to, though.

Please don't tell me that you don't know, that you're just posting this because you read it somewhere.

I mean, David Hatcher Childress (one of the talking gas bags on "Ancient Aliens") has written complete baldfaced lies about Vedic literature. You can't just go by what someone tells you.

For example this was written by Childress::

In 1875, the Vaimanika Sastra, a fourth century B.C. text written by Bharadvajy the Wise, using even older texts as his source, was rediscovered in a temple in India.

Source: link
No, that book was channelled in the early twentieth century.

See here:


The story of this book is as follows: sometime in the period just before World War I, a Brahman named Pandit Subbaraya Sastry began to dictate previously unknown texts in Sanskrit which purported to contain ancient Indian technological knowledge. He in turn, credited a Vedic sage named Maharshi Bharadwaja, as well as other Rishis who appear in legitimate Hindu texts.

One of these 'channeled' texts was, on its face, a technical manual for the construction and use of 'vimanas,' the flying machines of the Vedic sagas. It is unclear as to whether any part of the present work was actually published in print at that time, even though it is implied in the introduction, so it is unclear whether it was published (in the legal sense) prior to 1923. The Sanskrit manuscript of the VS lay unpublished for over fifty years. In 1973, this text was published in a very limited edition by G.R. Josyer, along with a translation which he had produced over a twenty year period. In 1991, the English portion and the illustrations from the Josyer book were reprinted in the above-mentioned Vimana Aircraft of Ancient India & Atlantis.

Source: link

I understand your point, but I would not believe in any ancient flying machine without some kind of concrete evidence.

Many people don't know that before the term "vimana" was used, the Vedas refer to them as flying chariots, drawn by various flying animals.

So, flying ancient alien animals?

Harte
edit on 5/18/2012 by Harte because: fat fingers



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Well, the ancient balloons were probably made from thin animal skins so they would technically be pulled by animals. Yes, I read all the interpretations of the texts myself and some of the interpretations are severly flawed. It's funny how they give things to the wrong scientists to interpret. I was researching an untranslated mayan text that archeologists gave to mathematicians to decipher. It looked like little branches of trees with certain configurations. I think it should have been given to a plant specialist. Mayans saw that a necessity for knowledge of agriculture was also important. It looked like a pruning guide and something to try to find the age of a perennial plant or tree.

That's the problem when specialists are created. Giving evidence to the wrong scientific person will get a guess that is far from the truth. Isn't there a Jack of all trades science out there? I was sent to the wrong specialist by a general practitioner(MD) often over the years and I see that this is not limited to the medical trade. Nobody knows everything, if we did than life would become boring
edit on 18-5-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
27
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join