Dumb Old Lady vs. Ancient Aliens Debunked

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by Toadmund
.

The theory is (or at least my theory) that the wheels in wheels is about the ecliptic. the cherubim 4 faces are 4 specific constellations on the ecliptic. i think the platform (?) that the throne of the likeness of jehovah is on, is an electrical field of some kind and the throne is actually a flying vehicle, and that the wheels within wheels are a mechanism, like the gate dialing device in stargate, to allow the flying vehicle to enter the area. notice it says "the sky opens" . think wormhole

edit on 11-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)

If by ecliptic you mean the standard flying saucer shape, with a dome that counter rotates to the lower portion. Like a wheel sat onto horizontally.... like two stacked pancakes with one, or both pancakes rotating different ways.
I think the four faces could be decals, or even protruding devices that Ezekiel Pareidoliacally saw as faces, the four wings could be protruding flaps on the UFO's edge.

I just don't know where they got the space chicken imagery.

Originally posted by Toadmund

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by Toadmund
.

The theory is (or at least my theory) that the wheels in wheels is about the ecliptic. the cherubim 4 faces are 4 specific constellations on the ecliptic. i think the platform (?) that the throne of the likeness of jehovah is on, is an electrical field of some kind and the throne is actually a flying vehicle, and that the wheels within wheels are a mechanism, like the gate dialing device in stargate, to allow the flying vehicle to enter the area. notice it says "the sky opens" . think wormhole

edit on 11-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)

If by ecliptic you mean the standard flying saucer shape, with a dome that counter rotates to the lower portion. Like a wheel sat onto horizontally.... like two stacked pancakes with one, or both pancakes rotating different ways.
I think the four faces could be decals, or even protruding devices that Ezekiel Pareidoliacally saw as faces, the four wings could be protruding flaps on the UFO's edge.

I just don't know where they got the space chicken imagery.

edit on 11-12-2012 by Toadmund because: (no reason given)

they got it from the description. i think the 4 faces (not chicken feet but rather, bull feet (think taurus)) are addresses on the gate mechanism that correspond to constellations on the ecliptic. that is not jehovah on that platform, it is somebody/something that has the "appearance" of jehovah (text says as much). notice it says the sky opens? . that's a wormhole opening because the gate device opens a hole in space there and then out comes the big guy in his flying whatever it is. personally, i think it looks something like this (only the pyramidal thing would be blue and crystalline looking and the platform the pyramid thing sits on, would be sparkling with energy and the gate would look more like the golden wheels.


different topic.

My thoughts are that religious people who wish to illustrate these things try to illustrate what they believe god showed Ezekiel, but at the same time try to remove themselves as much as possible to inadvertently (god forbid) interpreting it as a space craft.

Therefore, you get cosmic poultry, and giant wedding rings.

If it looked like an alien craft at all, that would diminish the role of god and put alien beings as 'gods' into the spotlight.
Religiwashing.

Originally posted by Toadmund
My thoughts are that religious people who wish to illustrate these things try to illustrate what they believe god showed Ezekiel, but at the same time try to remove themselves as much as possible to inadvertently (god forbid) interpreting it as a space craft.

Therefore, you get cosmic poultry, and giant wedding rings.

If it looked like an alien craft at all, that would diminish the role of god and put alien beings as 'gods' into the spotlight.
Religiwashing.

edit on 11-12-2012 by Toadmund because: (no reason given)

Wedding rings.... that's interesting. Calm yourself Toad. Read what I'm saying.'

back on topic. lol
that's an example for why i don't think the description in Ezekiel 1 is a mundane artistic device. lol

Originally posted by karen61560
This would be so much easier to read if the spacing wasnt so odd. Sentences end in one paragraph only to continue in the next without the proper punctuation.

you probably have your font zoomed so it's easier to read non double spaced font. if you're using firefox, go to the menu at the top, click view, select zoom from the drop down and then select reset from the drop down that spawns from that.

Howdy Undo!

Great work. You are making a very descent case here. You know so much about the subject... its thrilling and almost to complicated for this simple native speaker to fully understand... So i read it slower, and it works.
Stick to the facts and be honest when you are not totally sure. Thats how you do it!

wink lunica

Originally posted by Lunica
Howdy Undo!

Great work. You are making a very descent case here. You know so much about the subject... its thrilling and almost to complicated for this simple native speaker to fully understand... So i read it slower, and it works.

Stick to the facts and be honest when you are not totally sure. Thats how you do it!

wink lunica

yeah sometimes it's hard for me to express what i'm thinking in a way that's easy to read. i should've added pics and a link to the video, but that would've made the op like 4 posts long lol

We certainly are masters of assumption.

The biggest issue I have with the Ancient Aliens show is that they take scientific method and turn it on its head.

In scientific method, you observe how things work, and then make conclusions based upon those observations, and try and prove those conclusions.

In Ancient Aliens, they jump right to the proof of the conclusion, that aliens MUST be involved with everything they look at, and then try and find the data to back this up.

Massively deceptive practice. Most of the people on this show are there to sell a book or a motivation course.

Originally posted by babybunnies
We certainly are masters of assumption.

The biggest issue I have with the Ancient Aliens show is that they take scientific method and turn it on its head.

In scientific method, you observe how things work, and then make conclusions based upon those observations, and try and prove those conclusions.

In Ancient Aliens, they jump right to the proof of the conclusion, that aliens MUST be involved with everything they look at, and then try and find the data to back this up.

Massively deceptive practice. Most of the people on this show are there to sell a book or a motivation course.

Well there's the rub. Many of their points ARE backed up by research. It's just the point that not everyone agrees on what the research might mean or there's a misunderstanding. Also when a theory or hypothesis develops, it's part of the scientific method to link helpful corollaries to it, to look for confirmation and etc. Are they always right? I dunno, sometimes I disagree with them. But then I dunno if science is always right either. Even scientists claim they don't know if they are always right, they just develop a theory and the more corollaries they find, the more it seems they are right. It's how we learn, I guess. Not all theories are right, clearly, but doesn't mean we should stop looking. Least, I don't think so.

Originally posted by undo
the very last video i posted was from a guy who was touring the place,
and he claims they are diorite.

The problem I see with that is that most people (me included) do not know how to distinguish between all those varieties of granite, so they probably just repeat what someone else told them.

One thing I find strange about those "H" blocks of stone is that they look like they were covered with something (like cement), as the smooth surface is higher than the rough surface. If the stones were smoothed out by some means how is the smooth areas higher than the rough ones?

PS: great thread.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by undo
the very last video i posted was from a guy who was touring the place,
and he claims they are diorite.

The problem I see with that is that most people (me included) do not know how to distinguish between all those varieties of granite, so they probably just repeat what someone else told them.

One thing I find strange about those "H" blocks of stone is that they look like they were covered with something (like cement), as the smooth surface is higher than the rough surface. If the stones were smoothed out by some means how is the smooth areas higher than the rough ones?

PS: great thread.

thanks armap! well the info on them says they originally were covered with decorative surfaces, perhaps like gold and such. would've been pretty.

did a little graphic for my interpretation of ezekiel 1. theoretical of course.



the text says that the sky opens. it doesn't say HEAVEN opened, it says THE HEAVENS were opened. can't wriggle out of that by saying it's just talking about a spiritual experience in heaven. the heavens are physical 3d outer space.. the pyramid here is a likeness of god's throne . it isn't god's throne. it's similar. that isn't jehovah, it's someone who looks like jehovah.

first thing that happens, the wormhole forms. the cherubim come out of the wormhole (these guys are a metaphor for the gate address. the gate address is based on 4 constellations in the ecliptic, during taurus (feet of calf). the gate (represented by the parts that make up the address) begins to dial. you see the wheels with eyes now. these are the gate.
then you see lightning flashing between the parts of the gate addresses (cherubim). this is the gate getting ready to deliver a passenger, as all the parts of the address have been "dialed"
would look something like this but instead of having several parts the lightning jumps to, it only has 4




then suddenly, there's something that looks like a firmament of awesome ice, (they show it rectangular in that ezekiel 1 video,. i bet it's circular!) and above that firmament, is the sapphire colored throne (blue crystalline pyramid). that's the vehicle hovering over the event horizon (firmament of awesome ice). it says the firmament is above them. so their heads must be upside down at that point, so the event horizon in the center of the wheels, is transpiring above their heads. what can i say, 3d space is highly malleable.

the going away and returning thing, is the outerwheel spinning the cherubim away and toward him. when it says the angels are in the wheels, they mean literally in the wheels. NOT IN THE CENTER of the hole in the wheels. so imagine the outerwheel spinning. the angels aren't fixed position, they rotate with the outer wheel, away and back again. when the outer wheel is moving their wing tips touch each other and when the wheel stops, the wing tips must like drop down at an angle, lock into place or something.

there's an inner wheel and outer wheel. the outer one has 4 cherubim literally attached to it. the reason the cherubim by themselves are shown first, is to depict the address each part must "dial." it's a very precise address. the inner wheel must contain representations of the constellations, which in this case are called "eyes", i think. imagine if the outer wheel is moving while the inner wheel is stationary.

so, i don't think saying "just some pretty art of the chariot of god based on his position above the ecliptic" is revealing enough.

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

skeptical would be reading it for it's flaws. This should be read "I am a little lazy, can we some it up in a paragraph." I mean the whole post takes 5-15 minutes to read.

reply to post by undo


Awesome graphic Undo!

A graphic really brings the text to life!

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by undo

 

Awesome graphic Undo!

A graphic really brings the text to life!

thanks btf. would've done more, but i just wanted a quick example. parts are missing also, such as depicting their heads upside down, their wings touching each other, and i did a cruddy job depicting the "lightning", plus the inner ring is too thick and should contain 12 "eyes." there's too many on my example.

i just wanted to give an example for why just sticking to the one view of it, is not enough information. like everyone assumes that's god, but it says "likeness", which doesn't mean it's god. could be a projection of god, i suppose, but that's not the impression i get when reading the text there. to me it almost sounds like it's saying "one who looks like god". but since the OT claims no one has seen god, i'm thinking that ain't god, cause how would he know what god looked like in order to say he looks like god? so this must be one of those cases where god (as in elohim) doesn't mean god and dr. heiser knows what i mean when i say that, since he knows that elohim doesn't always mean god. perhaps this is a case where that leaked over into the interpretation of jehovah. seriously, how do you say "that's what god looks like" or "that's what god's glory looks like" etc, if you've never seen god ?

Originally posted by undo
In addition, both Puma Punku and Tiwanaku have red sandstone, but Puma Punku's H stones, are not red sandstone.

As the guy mentions in the video, they are andecite and sandstone. Andecite, from what I can

tell, is a form of granite, albeit softer than granite. It's only one step below granite

gneiss on moh's hardness scale. It's about mid way the hardness scale, harder than limestone,

softer than granite.

Pumapunku is considered part of Tiwanaku because it is part of Tiwanaku, as are several other structures in the area:

The buildings that have been excavated include the Akapana, Akapana East, and Pumapunku stepped platforms, the Kalasasaya, the Kheri Kala, and Putuni enclosures, and the Semi-Subterranean Temple. These are the structures that are visible to the modern visitor.

Source: Wiki

The source of the andesite is surmised to be an ancient andesite quarry in the Copacabana peninsula:

Based upon detailed petrographic and chemical analyses of samples from both individual stones and known quarry sites, archaeologists concluded that these and other red sandstone blocks were transported up a steep incline from a quarry near Lake Titicaca roughly 10 km away. Smaller andesite blocks that were used for stone facing and carvings came from quarries within the Copacabana Peninsula about 90 km away from and across Lake Titicaca from the Pumapunka and the rest of the Tiwanaku Site. (5)

Source: ancient-wisdom

Regarding Moh's hardness scale, it is not an appropriate measure for the ease of workability for any stone.
For example, most would agree that sandstone would be easier to carve than diorite, right? But on Moh's scale, diorite registers in at 5.5 to 6 while sandstone comes in at 6.5 to 7.

Regarding White's errors, yes there are some I've noticed as well. In his reply to (I believe it was) Philip Coppens, he states that the Great Pyramid is made of sandstone, a egregious error. Also, like you, I never liked the "of princely blood" interpretation of the offspring of Anu.

On the other hand, no Sumerian claimed that the Anunna came literally out of the sky. The Anunna, along with the Igigi, were here from the beginning.

You're aware that the Greeks had a similar story about the sky mating with the Earth to create the Titans (I believe it was the titans - maybe their predecessors.) This seems to be a similar myth. But the "Ki" part of "Anunnaki" can be as easily read as "In Mesopotamia" as "and Earth" in the translation "The sons of the sky and the Earth." "Ki" was their name for the land they lived in, not for the entire planet.

For those who decry White's evangelical background, I have to say that I find it appalling that people here should think that a person should simply keep quiet about lies that are told weekly on television. Are we saying that only atheists have any standing to refute bald-faced lies? You know, Michael Heiser is extensively used in that film. Heiser's no evangelical. He a linguist.

You think White's motives corrupt his facts, then you need to discover the facts for yourself (not you in particular here Undo!) On my own, I already knew everything I've seen in the clips from "AA Debunked" so far. What will I be accused of (other than being a government shill - which cracks me up and has already happened here multiple times.) Who will determine that my motives have corrupted the facts i present?

The very idea is the essence of idiocy. Look for yourself, is my advice. You'll find that White's work is valid.

Harte