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.

 

Just saw Prometheus, Indoctrination?

page: 12
15
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperFrog


It's still universe that came first
(me being correct
)

Interesting, Jeck Horner was mentioning Jurassic Park movie in his Ted Talk video...

And there are chickens and eggs...


Yes, according to the Book of Genesis God created the Earth , then he created light,

then he eventually created MAN.




posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 



So....anyway.....back to the question.

Which came first the - dinosaur - or the - dinosaur egg -?


Again....the "egg".....But, not in the sense that it was fully evolved.....there was a progression:

Here, watch and learn:












THIS is a shorter video.....but explains much of the same things, as above:



ENJOY!!!!



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by NoRemorse762
 


Eh.. I think it's more likely that writers dig around places like this (ATS) and when they see a popular underground idea/philosophy they use that as a spring board for ideas.


I think you are right on the money there. Where some might see a movie as some sort of disclosure or indoctrination to a future revelation, I think it's more a matter of writers finding some great movie ideas in the forums, and exploiting them.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by NoRemorse762
 


Eh.. I think it's more likely that writers dig around places like this (ATS) and when they see a popular underground idea/philosophy they use that as a spring board for ideas.


I think you are right on the money there. Where some might see a movie as some sort of disclosure or indoctrination to a future revelation, I think it's more a matter of writers finding some great movie ideas in the forums, and exploiting them.


And....sparking debates about the true origins of mankind.

Are the aliens already here???

Was Bob Lazar correct?



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by PluPerfect
 


I think the first egg was made out of plastic.


Henry is the true magic worker!

Along the way life found a way. Go forth be fruitful and multiply.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Just saw this earlier. Like I said on twitter basically : thought it was a really well made film, but too much drama and action without enough information about the engineers. But I don't know why some people have been so negative about it, because as long as the next parts follow up properly with enough story, this film will can work totally fine alongside them. The only problem is that we don't have those films yet!

Personally I think the film could've been extended by even as little as 5 mins, just so that David could've told Shaw some of what he'd learnt. He was speaking to one of the engineers after all and we still have next to nothing about what actually went on there. Or what David had learnt as he'd learnt how to use the controls on the ship, what the other engineer had said in the recording he witnessed when first in there, etc. Or even if he'd accessed some type of database on the ship and actually knows a lot more than we realise.

So personally I think there's too little information to really spark off a proper discussion for now, but hopefully that'll change in what.....3 or so years time when we get the sequel?
Slightly baffled as to how we've hit 12 pages already without much to go on, but still think the film can turn out to work well alongside sequels, so will wait and hopefully see what's next.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Sorry about the "will" in the last post that doesn't fit, changed it to can but missed when editing.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this or not, but there is something very strange in the beginning of the movie that I'm not sure if a lot people caught. It could be a small hint at what's to come...

The day that they are awakened out of cryostasis, is the same day that they arrive on the planet that they believe to be where their Creators came from.

This date is December 21.

I found it very odd that so many people around the world look forward to this date, and then it is shown in a movie about how human beings believe they found the planet that their Creators came from...




posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by PluPerfect
reply to post by WhoKnows100
 


Sorry but......your post, and the one that you replied to, just solidified my disappointment with the script, in "Prometheus".

The premise is flawed, from the outset!! HOW did I not see this before?!?!?

(Full disclosure....at the theatre where I saw the film, there were technical issues, and I missed the first few minutes of the opening.....I GATHER that it involved....(SPOILER ALERT!! Do NOT keep reading past this point!!...

....OK, I gather that it involved the silly notion that the primordial Earth was somehow "seeded" by these "aliens giants". In order to, ultimately, make "US". ("US" = Humans).

Well, that is just stupid.

The genetic and DNA evidence is quite solid....showing the long-term progression of evolution on this planet....and the genetic connections of Human DNA to many, many, many other species...also indigenous to the Earth.

RIGHT THERE, this "prequel" to the original iconic film "Alien" falls flat on its face.....

Disappointing.....now that I think about it......



I'm sorry, I know I'm not going to change you're opinion and I'm not trying to but I just have to ask "the genetic and DNA evidence is quite solid?"

I'm not religious, at all.

However, it it quite obvious that DNA is much too complex for the proteins to have just floated together randomly in the primordial soup. Even one of the two people who discovered the double-helix has recently stated that he believes the the earth must have been subjected to what he calls "directed pam-spermia" And its quite true. There's nothing in the theory of evolution that takes into account how complex DNA is, at the time, yes it sounded like a plausible theory. After the discovery of DNA, it no longer is.

Yes, all the life on earth (that we know of) have 98% similar DNA. This does not discount the idea that life was seeded here with DNA, that is in fact so complex, that every creature on earth could have "evolved" from the original DNA seeded here, not through "natural selection" but through the programming of that original DNA.

REBEL V
edit on 15-6-2012 by rebelv because: gramar

edit on 15-6-2012 by rebelv because: gramar



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quyll
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this or not, but there is something very strange in the beginning of the movie that I'm not sure if a lot people caught. It could be a small hint at what's to come...

The day that they are awakened out of cryostasis, is the same day that they arrive on the planet that they believe to be where their Creators came from.

This date is December 21.

I found it very odd that so many people around the world look forward to this date, and then it is shown in a movie about how human beings believe they found the planet that their Creators came from...



Great find. Yes, it was December 21st, you're right.

REBEL V



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by rebelv

However, it it quite obvious that DNA is much too complex for the proteins to have just floated together randomly in the primordial soup.
Even one of the two people who discovered the double-helix has recently stated that he believes the the earth must have been subjected to what he calls "directed pam-spermia" And its quite true. There's nothing in the theory of evolution that takes into account how complex DNA is, at the time, yes it sounded like a plausible theory. After the discovery of DNA, it no longer is.

Yes, all the life on earth (that we know of) have 98% similar DNA. This does not discount the idea that life was seeded here with DNA, that is in fact so complex, that every creature on earth could have "evolved" from the original DNA seeded here, not through "natural selection" but through the programming of that original DNA.

REBEL V
edit on 15-6-2012 by rebelv because: gramar

edit on 15-6-2012 by rebelv because: gramar


Life on earth had lots of time for many fails, we are talking about millions of years to start and grow complex. It did not start with single form, but many that have merged, some went extinct, other more complex... and thousands of years have passed....

There might be some impacts from asteroids, but that just moves question - where did that life start....
and we come back to the same conclusion...



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperFrog

Originally posted by rebelv

However, it it quite obvious that DNA is much too complex for the proteins to have just floated together randomly in the primordial soup.
Even one of the two people who discovered the double-helix has recently stated that he believes the the earth must have been subjected to what he calls "directed pam-spermia" And its quite true. There's nothing in the theory of evolution that takes into account how complex DNA is, at the time, yes it sounded like a plausible theory. After the discovery of DNA, it no longer is.

Yes, all the life on earth (that we know of) have 98% similar DNA. This does not discount the idea that life was seeded here with DNA, that is in fact so complex, that every creature on earth could have "evolved" from the original DNA seeded here, not through "natural selection" but through the programming of that original DNA.

REBEL V
edit on 15-6-2012 by rebelv because: gramar

edit on 15-6-2012 by rebelv because: gramar


Life on earth had lots of time for many fails, we are talking about millions of years to start and grow complex. It did not start with single form, but many that have merged, some went extinct, other more complex... and thousands of years have passed....

There might be some impacts from asteroids, but that just moves question - where did that life start....
and we come back to the same conclusion...


Yes, I agree with you on that last point you made. Steven Dawkins, renowned biologist, has stated that he believes that random pam-spermia is a definitely reasonable possibility, but falls short of saying that intelligent pam-spermia is an even more likely possibility.

I feel differently, if life was seeded here by an accident, such as an asteroid or comet that just happened to have organic DNA on it, it automatically begs the question, how did DNA get on that asteroid, comet, etc...?

The other point, I still disagree with, respectfully. I think you could give the earth 100 billion years to form into the shape of a message which reads "We Were Here". It'll never happen naturally. DNA will never occur naturally. There have been literally thousands of experiments to replicate the "primordial ooze" and no life has come out of these experiments. Of course, the excuse is, we have to give the experiment a few billion years.
I disagree, this argument reminds me of when science thought that flies were created spontaneously out of spoiled meat.

REBEL FIVE



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by rebelv
 


So, the big question that is on my mind is:

Are they trying to tell us something?

Or, is it just a ploy?

The conspiracy theorist inside of me is telling me that they are trying to tell us something.




posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quyll
reply to post by rebelv
 


So, the big question that is on my mind is:

Are they trying to tell us something?

Or, is it just a ploy?

The conspiracy theorist inside of me is telling me that they are trying to tell us something.




Yes, they are.


- Advanced alien civilizations have reached the planet Earth in numbers and diversity. -



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Loved this movie. Loved it.

I think they were most definitely trying to tell us something, but maybe not about the origins of man. They wanted us to think on that, to be sure, but they offered little answers.

So consider this:

The moon they landed on was a satellite of a Saturn-looking gas giant around Zeta Reticuli II, according to Ridley Scott on the HBO feature (commercial) about the film. That's an homage in and of itself, but I think the real connection here is Saturn. There is a real moon of Saturn called Prometheus, and there is a graphic in the film, one of many holographic projections, that shows the orbit of the moon they are on, and it is quite similar to the 'real' Prometheus' orbit.

When they are about to land and they see mysterious structures, one of them says "God doesn't build in straight lines." Yet there are real photos of Saturn's moons Iapetus and Tethys that show exactly that. Clear evidence of intelligent civilization.

After they land and start to explore they discover that, hey outside the air is toxic, in here it is just fine. Discovery of ancient technology.

And by the end the alien ship is brought down, and the Prometheus destroyed.
How would anyone on Earth knew any of that happened? The specifics anyway..

Our history is so much more than we know that was the message



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by JayDub113
 


- Earth has a hidden history. -

Zeta Reticuli Binary Star System ? Isn't that where the Grays hang out?

----------
BTW, have you heard that Saturn has a - hexagon - pattern on its north pole?



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayDub113
Loved this movie. Loved it.

I think they were most definitely trying to tell us something, but maybe not about the origins of man. They wanted us to think on that, to be sure, but they offered little answers.

So consider this:

The moon they landed on was a satellite of a Saturn-looking gas giant around Zeta Reticuli II, according to Ridley Scott on the HBO feature (commercial) about the film. That's an homage in and of itself, but I think the real connection here is Saturn. There is a real moon of Saturn called Prometheus, and there is a graphic in the film, one of many holographic projections, that shows the orbit of the moon they are on, and it is quite similar to the 'real' Prometheus' orbit.

When they are about to land and they see mysterious structures, one of them says "God doesn't build in straight lines." Yet there are real photos of Saturn's moons Iapetus and Tethys that show exactly that. Clear evidence of intelligent civilization.

After they land and start to explore they discover that, hey outside the air is toxic, in here it is just fine. Discovery of ancient technology.

And by the end the alien ship is brought down, and the Prometheus destroyed.
How would anyone on Earth knew any of that happened? The specifics anyway..

Our history is so much more than we know that was the message


Great Observations!!

I did notice, in the movie, when they were about to depict where this "planet" was, they first showed Orion, but then panned away to another constellation. Orion, as you may know, is the constellation that is being reproduced by the Pyramids in Giza according to at least one archeologist who has been studying this. The funny thing is, is that according to his calculations, Orion could not have been seen in this part of the world since about 10,000 BCE, [I don't remember the exact figures but it was something like 10,000 BCE).

I should correct myself here, the archeologist stated that the last time that Orion was visible from 'Cairo' and its orientation was aligned with the pyramids in Giza was sometime about 10,000 BCE

I did also notice the 'coincidence' of a moon off of a very Saturn looking planet. My first thought was (do they think that Saturn type planets are quite common, because I've never heard that in Science). I even made a joke to my dad 'Did they go to Saturn?'

Good work again.

REBEL V
edit on 16-6-2012 by rebelv because: add one more thought.

edit on 16-6-2012 by rebelv because: accuracy

edit on 16-6-2012 by rebelv because: syntax



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by NoRemorse762
 


The movie did not impress me much, just a re-hash of ideas from the other movies in the series. The aliens looked different, but that is basically it.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by MerkabaMeditation
reply to post by NoRemorse762
 


The movie did not impress me much, just a re-hash of ideas from the other movies in the series. The aliens looked different, but that is basically it.


Will you buy the Prometheus BLU - RAY DVD when it comes out?



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Sorry, But Its just a movie for entertainment, and to make Millions of $$$$$.

I was disappointed, many holes in the story, the beginning didnt make sense, the UFO flying overhead was circular, not horseshoe shaped like later..........I'll wait for the "Directors cut" with an extra hour and alternative ending on DVD soon.
Apparently there are 3 movies in the prequels....ala Star Wars.

This movie is not a Patch on the original Alien...which was a horror, scary movie, within a mild science fiction theme.

Promethius is a director's self indulgence, much like 2001 a Space Oddity....which also didnt make sense in 1969 when I saw it as a kid...or in the 80s on VHS.

Ridley Scott is 73 years old...and Im sorry, it shows.......basic acting (other than Fasbender), weak story.
Definitely not a Blade Runner...which was also a little hard to follow, but meatier...

Personally I like more out there type direction, fast paced and action......Like Crank/Crank2, transporter, 300 etc.

Maybe if a younger director does the next Promethius????

I wasted my money watching it in 3D....regular 2D is fine.
edit on 18-6-2012 by gort51 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join