Dumb Old Lady vs. Ancient Aliens Debunked

In one of those classically ironic moments, God is so fond of employing, I have been

driven to study the ancient past with a fervor that makes little sense to me, particularly

since I'm just an old, degree-less woman of no real consequence. In fact, I would describe

myself as being rather uninteresting, mathematically inept, bible reader and lacking the

ability to remember most important details, such as when to take my next dose of vitamins or

what day of the week it is. Suffice it to say, I have come to think of this irrational

interest in the ancient past and the equally odd ability to retain details about it (while

still struggling to remember when to wake my husband up for work, my age or home address), as

a sort of comical irony. God, apparently, has a sense of humor.


Anyway, as a result of this intense interest, I was naturally drawn to the work of a fellow

christian named Chris White, who recently produced a polished video on the subject of the TV

Show, Ancient Aliens, which he entitled, Ancient Aliens Debunked. In it, he attempts to

disprove the claims of famous researchers who appear on the TV show. He appears to do a

fairly good job of bringing important questions to the forefront. However, while watching it

I realized something significant about his work and how we humans absorb new information. We

are masters of assumption. I think this is the one area that, as a human being, he fell prey

to, and as a result, his work suffered. Just my opinion, of course, but I'm prepared to back

up that statement.


For example, (info derived from "Who taught the Inca Stonemasons Their Skills" )


-the inca believed Tiwanaku was built by their creator and although Puma Punku is thought to

be in Tiwanaku, it's actually not the same site as the subterannean temple, which appears to

be the biggest and main structure of Tiwanaku. I think both the ancient alien hypothesis

researchers and Mr. White have made several assumptions regarding this, which may be muddying

the waters. In other words, Puma Punku is not the same site as Tiwanaku temple, which for

all intents and purposes may be discussed, generally, and researchers then assume it applies

to all structures in both Tiwanaku and Puma Punku. This would be the equivalent of assuming

that all data related to the causeway temple of the Great Pyramid is identical to all data

about the Great Pyramid. Yes, they are in the same area, but no, they are not necessarily

going to have the same builder, same style or material construction / composition.


-The photograph of the quarry shown in the video, which supposedly represented the site where

the Puma Punku stones were shaped before they were dragged to the Puma Punku site, was

actually for the temple at Tiwanaku, not Puma Punku. How do I know this? Well the article

says the quarry for Tiwanaku but doesn't stipulate Puma Punku. Also a little deductive

reasoning helps: If the Puma Punku stones were a mixture of andecite and sandstone, they had

to be either cut from a quarry with that composition or made from an amalgamate and that's a

whole 'nother topic. Even though parts of the Puma Punku temple are made from red sandstone,

apparently not all the stones were. If the photo in the video is showing a red sandstone

quarry, presumably that quarry is for the temple, which is made from red sandstone, not the H

stones.


-The drag marks on the stones are mentioned only generally as being on Tiwanaku stones. If Mr

White has evidence that the drag marks are also on Puma Punku stones, that'd be good to know.

The photograph shown in the video while referring to drag marks on the stones, is not

displaying drag marks but mortar. The Tiwanaku builders used mortar, uncharacteristically

from other megalithic builders like the inca. Whether that picture is of Puma Punku H stones

or not, is questionable.


-Even the difference in the degree of skill required between the subterranean temple at

Tiwanaku and Puma Punku, seems significant (if we don't count the underground water

causeway). The H stones at Puma Punku don't look stylistically related to Tiwanaku

strucures, nor are they put together the same as those at the Tiwanaku temple. In other

words, no interlocking, lego-like blocks at the Tiwanaku temple.

This does not mean that I think I know who built it. Could have been anybody (except for the

inca, apparently). All I'm saying is, this is a case of assumptions confusing the subject to

the point where the only way to know for certain, is travel there and test each object's

composition and find the related quarry.

Continued in next post

On the subject of Vimanas, I see huge flying vehicles in Mahabharata. For example,


I wouldn't have ventured this far if it hadn't been for other tidbits in the video that

immediately set off alarms, such as Mr. White's instance that the Mahabharata's references to

something like the channeled vimanas mentioned in newer books, only referred to flying

palaces; some sort of fanciful, non-technological vehicles. I had been studying the subject

at one point and had found references in the Mahabharata, that were not from the later

channeled data, nor were they called vimanas, but they did have some kind of technology and

could fly. These were what Mr. White called, flying palaces. I found one reference, for

example, to a flying city that was considered impregnable, which is then shot out of the sky

during an aerial battle, falling into the sea. It seems the text also references something

called a "car" and this car, can fly. In fact, one guy escapes into the sky in a flying car.

And perhaps the most interesting one is:

The Mahabharata: Drona Parva
SECTION CLXXIX
www.sacred-texts.com...

"Naikartana, was now hurled at the Rakshasa. Beholding that excellent and blazing weapon

capable of piercing the body of every foe, in the hands of the Suta's son, the Rakshasa began

to fly away in fear assuming a body gigantic as the foot of the Vindhya mountains. Indeed,

seeing that dart in Karna's hand, all creatures in the sky, O king, uttered loud cries.

Fierce winds began to blow, and thunders with loud report began to fall on the earth.

Destroying that blazing illusion of Ghatotkacha and piercing right through his breast that

resplendent dart soared aloft in the night and entered a starry constellation in the

firmament. "

Naikartana was apparently a blazing missile (it's interchangeably called a dart and a missile

in previous passages in this section). But look what happens when it's launched at Rakshasha

(Ghatotkacha's ship). Creatures in the sky make loud sounds, fierce wind begins to blow,

thunders fall on the earth. (sounds like a rocket launch to me). And the strangest part, it

destroys the "illusion" of Ghatotkacha. What kind of illusion? Early in the same passages, he

suddenly vanishes while in flight in his car and beats his enemies in a "deceiful" way.

Thus, he's flying around in a vehicle that disappears. The illusion itseelf was like a

cloaking technology of some kind that made his flying vehicle, Rakshasha, invisible.

Followed up by the special weapon, Naikartana, that finds and pierces him and his invisible

flying car, causing the illusion to drop and the car to crash to the ground. In spite of

the fact this type of information is often imbedded in what sounds like mundane old world

ground battles with horses and arrows and maces, it will suddenly launch into advanced aerial

battles in horseless cars, with heat seeking missiles and cloaking technology for cars the

size of mountains and cities. For all its fanciful parts, there are sections interspersed

through out, that just scream high technology.


On the subject of ufos appearing in mideval art, I was not particularly thrilled with White's

explanation of the shepherd and dog scenes in which an object containing a star/angel/cloud/

appears and in which ufology researchers, see an ufo. Neither was I enamored with his

description of the "laser beam anunciation" or his glossing over of the Ezekiel 1 vehicle.

I don't think White's argument that angelic or star related references, particularly embedded

in clouds in the sky, contain enough evidence against sentient, flying vehicles, unless he

means to say no sentient beings were present with the star of Bethlehem. Since Mr. White

wasn't present at the time, he really has no way of knowing what the wise men saw other than

a star that moved uncharacteriscally across the sky. Considering stars and angels were used

interchangeably in the text, it's unlikely we have enough information in this particular part

of the story, to say for certain. Same holds true for the "laser beam anunciation," in which

tiny winged angels encircle a beam of light. It appears the artist is attempting to depict

the same vehicle of Jehovah mentioned in Ezekiel 1, which is held aloft by "wheel within a

wheel," angels.

Some of the other examples he listed, are very convincing, but the shepherd with dog, laser

beam anunciation and Ezekiel 1, examples, are not. It is not the fault of the rest of the

known world that catholic depictions of events are romanized. For example, the laser beam

anunciation has cupid like angels but if you look at Ezekiel 1, those are not chubby little

angelic babies. To illustrate what I mean see this video
www.youtube.com...


Having read Mr. Heiser's argument regarding the Ezekiel 1 vehicle, years ago, I can state

most emphatically, that he has over simplified the information. For example, the entrance of

the vehicle in Ezekiel's vision is curious. Why does the sky "open"? Why all the fire coming

out of the hole in the sky? That's odd, doncha think? Why the eyes in the wheels? Do

chariot wheels have eyes in them? Why the metallic coverings of the angels? Why the

lightning fast flight from one side of the sky to the other? There are many questions that

remain unanswered that could seriously push the event from being a mundane reference of the

Earth against the back drop of the ecliptic with Jehovah depicted as controlling the passage

of time events of heaven, to something much bigger. To ignore those details because you

don't know what they are and then state that you know what the entire event is not, is

putting the cart before the horse. We can safely say we know it's 1) in the heavens, 2)

related to travel in the sky in relation to time, 3) metallic and some other substance that's

likened to sapphire, 4) someone who has the likeness of Jehovah is on the main platform which

supports a "throne" (is that like the throne Joseph ascends in his ladder dream?). White has

collected several good references but then ignores large parts of those references, in order

to maintain the position that they are just mundane artistic devices. I don't think so.

Although I greatly admire Mr. Heiser, this is one area where I think he's wrong, specifically

on the over simplification of a major event. More research required.


And lastly, I'm an ardent researher of ancient Sumer. Every source I look at says "An" or

"Anu" is sky or heaven. So I think "princely blood" is another example of over simplifying

the information. In effect, it would seem to more accurately say, "sons of the sky god, Anu

and Ki" or even "sons of heaven and earth." I realize it's tempting to make the bizaare more

familar and vice-a-versa, but let's just stick with the information and do it justice.

Neither side of this debate can claim the superior position if they don't take the whole

picture into consideration.


Furthermore, if the sons of Anu were created in the heavens, it seems logical to suggest they

weren't created on Earth and if they weren't created on Earth, how'd they get to Earth (ki)?

Remember, Earth = Ki. If it was just a reference to the coupling of heaven and earth, does

that mean the Anunnaki are just little baby earths running around out there in the heavens

and if so, how does that make them princely blood? Something is missing, like how the

princely blood thing gets from the heavens to the earth. Things that.....

www.youtube.com...

Excellent thread,undo!

Still reading through it,thanks for sharing.

Great thread!

You bring up some really interesting ideas, can't wait to see more replies!

Thanks

thanks.
i'm wondering if we could get mr. white in the thread!

That was interesting, thanks for posting it.

Now I'll follow the links down yet another rabbit hole

reply to post by undo


Vimana = castles in the clouds. Just ponder over that one and observe the irony.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by undo

 

Vimana = castles in the clouds. Just ponder over that one and observe the irony.

interesting thought but the mahabharata doesn't mention vimanas. However, it does mention a flying city and a huge flying car (apparently not the same as our cars) that could cloak itself. The story reminds me of this:

I am a little skeptical, can we sum it up in a paragraph?

Nice thread Undo!!

I always enjoy your work!

I love the show Ancient Aliens but I don't take what they say as fact. I love to do my own research on topics and I do find contradictions to things they say much like your observation of Tiwanaku and Puma Punku. I find Puma Punku to be a very fascinating structure and I'd love to know what it's purpose was and what it originally looked like. Sure we have what they say it could have looked like but they could be far off!

I haven't seen the documentary Ancient Aliens Debunked. I didn't feel the need to because I dont' think aliens are 100% responsible for what they are given credit for in the show. I like the shows topics and theories but I also dont take it as fact. I look into them myself and it gives me a lot to look into!!

I'll subscribe to this thread to see what others have to say.

Interesting part on the vimana's btw.


Also you made one of my favorite threads on here and I'm STILL reading it lol "Stargates Are Real." I love that thread, so much to read!

Originally posted by greyer
I am a little skeptical, can we sum it up in a paragraph?

sure. i disagree with some, not all, but some of the subject matter of the video, ANCIENT ALIENS DEBUNKED, in which a researcher named Chris White, joins forces with a respected bible scholar and accomplished multi-lingual phD to debunk the claims made on the tv show, ANCIENT ALIENS.
i suggest info on puma punku is being mixed in with the info on the tiwanaku temple and that may not be enough to make a real decision on it. several points he makes seem to be based on the lack of clarification
i suggest the mahabharata describes large flying ships of high technological capacity.
i disagree with his position on ezekiel 1, and the translation of ANUNNAKI.

reply to post by mblahnikluver


thanks
yeah that thread is crazy long. it's like five years old and still going lol

Starred & flagged, GREAT thread!!

reply to post by HomerinNC


thanks. look at all the ETs posting in my thread lol
so far have a grey one, a red one and a blue one. where's the green one?

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by HomerinNC

 

thanks. look at all the ETs posting in my thread lol
so far have a grey one, a red one and a blue one. where's the green one?

edit on 9-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)

I'm not sure if mine counts...

anyway...I usually don't read long posts due to ADD, but I read this. I think the double spacing helped a lot.

Now for Ezekiel, I always find this topic interesting. When I watched AAD, Mr. White states that because Ezekiel was so detailed in his descriptions of what he saw, he saw EXACTLY what he describes he saw and not the UFO thingy that is described in AA. So he takes a literal interpritation to debunk a literal interpritation. So we are left with angels and not aliens...

So we have to assume that Ezekiel was a real person and saw some koind of sky thing in the sky that was in the sky (sorry, just being Childress)

Why couldn't these be visions, hallucinations....or even a made up story. Do we know Ezekiel even existed?

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by HomerinNC

 

thanks. look at all the ETs posting in my thread lol
so far have a grey one, a red one and a blue one. where's the green one?

edit on 9-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)

I'm not sure if mine counts...

anyway...I usually don't read long posts due to ADD, but I read this. I think the double spacing helped a lot.

Now for Ezekiel, I always find this topic interesting. When I watched AAD, Mr. White states that because Ezekiel was so detailed in his descriptions of what he saw, he saw EXACTLY what he describes he saw and not the UFO thingy that is described in AA. So he takes a literal interpritation to debunk a literal interpritation. So we are left with angels and not aliens...

So we have to assume that Ezekiel was a real person and saw some koind of sky thing in the sky that was in the sky (sorry, just being Childress)

Why couldn't these be visions, hallucinations....or even a made up story. Do we know Ezekiel even existed?

Those are all good questions, to do them real justice would require going back thru most of ancient history. lol And I have ADHD, so dunno if you and I would make it to the end of the discussion. lol

I will say this: my personal opinion is that the ecliptic reference (that's the reference to wheels within wheels with 4 faces on the angels who control the wheels, which are specific constellations on the ecliptic) is only one layer of the data and that layer relates to opening the hole in the sky (some kind of device, controlled just like a star gate (see my avatar).

the hole in the sky that's punched out so the event can begin, is actually the formation of a white hole (like a black hole in reverse), i think that scene is hard core scifi without the fi. And the ship that exits the white hole, is supported on some kind of odd electrical field (firmament of awesome ice is the english description) and that it is supporting a pyramidal shaped ship which is the "throne" reference. There are multiple layers in biblical "visions." One approach to the data is not sufficient. As a result, people who don't really study hard, come away with only one set of information and they get cemented in that one approach.

this video is helpful in illustrating the formation of the hole and the arrival of the ship (the throne).

probably wanna avoid talking about the gate theory, however.
will take thread too far off topic

reply to post by undo


You know undo this is an interesting topic. Great read. oh, and, Star Trek clips always get a star from me

Originally posted by SLAYER69

i'm currently watching the vid in your op. this is pretty good!
don't really have anything useful to add to your thread, atm.

great video from slayer's thread on similar topic. this shows a bunch of megalithic sites in bolivia and peru and with all the different kinds of building techniques. this is great