Dumb Old Lady vs. Ancient Aliens Debunked

and then there's things like ezekiel 1, which Dr. Heiser (the main scholar behind the Ancient Aliens Debunked video), claims is just a metaphor for the ecliptic and God's mastery over the heavens. he leaves out huge chunks of information to reach that conclusion, although it's commendable that he has incorporated the art and culture of the ancient world in understanding the motifs, he treats the entire thing as if it were literally nothing but a motif. That is not what I read, when I read Ezekiel 1.

For example, the heavens open. This is a hole in the starry sky. What kind of hole forms in the starry sky? I think we all the know the answer to that. Out of the hole, which glows like fire, proceeds different parts of a mechanism, which, using the constellations as markers, finally introduces a blue crystalline flying throne, containing the likeness of Jehovah. Now follow me here: The bible says no one has ever seen jehovah and lived to tell about it, so how does Ezekiel know it looks like Jehovah? I've addressed this earlier in the thread. Heiser is a great scholar, but in his zeal to defend the faith, he's done nothing more than ignore large chunks of data in the passages, and it is these ignored pieces that lead to his positions in the Ancient Aliens Debunked video. He has essentially thrown out the baby with the bath water.

Originally posted by subfab
reply to post by undo

 

thank you for the great thread undo.

I have a question to add to the list of questions about this subject.

is it possible that they (the puma punku natives) melted the stone and created the monoliths there onsite? I don't know anything about geology but when I see the perfect circles/tubes in the stone work, I am thinking the rock was formed around something. the exact lines in the cuts could be done with a form and the molten rock poured into it. if the rocks could be melted, then workers could bring tons upon tons of material to the building site one sack at a time.

just a thought.

well that's one of the theories, that they used a native plant that turned stone into playdoh when mixed with it or rubbed on it or something. not my theory, however, as i don't have a theory on how the stones got there other than to say, there's not enough verifiable evidence of the stones being dragged to puma punku. maybe to the subterranean temple. but i need to see drag marks on puma punku stones to believe that applies to puma punku as well.

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by undo

 

I read a little. I'm cooking so all I can is glance. What I was wondering in that do you dislike the ancient alien series because it conflicts with Christian beliefs? Like in their view this cannot be true because of what the bible says?

Myself, I suppose I'm Christian, since I was raised that way and ever since have never recited the Lord's Prayer backwards or anything (to "unwind" my previous baptism, LOL.)

However, I object to the AAH because of the lies told by its' proponents. These lies involve matters of fact, not faith, and hence it wouldn't matter what my religion was or if I even knew what religion was.

It's not just the actual, enunciated lies that really get to me, though. It's the misrepresentations of selected facts. Also, the fact that they completely ignore modern findings in favor of speculations and claims made a hundred years ago.
Such things lead to far more misunderstandings of the past than the flat-out lies do, IMO.

If you take the time to watch the debunk vid, you'll find that the debunkers report on these mischaraterizations and lies, and back up what they say about them.

Harte

harte

however, white also mischaracterizes such as, a) his claim the picture depicted a puma punku stone that had been dragged to the site and that the tiwanuku sandstone quarry's pounding strones represented the pounding stones for puma punku, b) that the vimana referenced in later texts proves that hindu text references are illegitimate, even though i showed how older texts in mahabharata describe flying vehicles with what sounds like advanced technology (can't use the excuse that it was written later under questionable circumstances), c) his presentation on the laser beam anunciation and d) the whole wishy washy princely blood thing.

I would simply like to disagree to a degree of protest. You have failed miserably, to provide any proof to support your claim and as a matter of fact. You have only managed to provide a perfect argument, that is the best supporting evidence, that is certainly only contrary, to your unwarranted and totally irresponsible claims. Further more, I simply
will not allow such slander to go unchecked, of or by any member of ATS. And that goes two fold for anyone on my friends list. Therefor I must ask you, to please write a redaction, to your claim stating that you are a dumb old lady.
Everything else checks out ok. SnF

randy

whew, for a minute there i thought i was in trouble!

Originally posted by undo
harte

however, white also mischaracterizes such as, a) his claim the picture depicted a puma punku stone that had been dragged to the site and that the tiwanuku sandstone quarry's pounding strones represented the pounding stones for puma punku,

It's a mistake, but we know pounders were used on Pumapunku stones because of tell-tale marks they leave.

I don't think White has claimed that the "H" stones were carved out with pounding stones, and most of the stone at Pumapunku is sandstone, so pounders at a sandstone quarry are relevant.

Originally posted by undo b) that the vimana referenced in later texts proves that hindu text references are illegitimate, even though i showed how older texts in mahabharata describe flying vehicles with what sounds like advanced technology (can't use the excuse that it was written later under questionable circumstances),

The vid and site are in response to the "Ancient Aliens" television program. It is that program that uses the Vimanyka Shastra as a reference for ancient flight. So, White is now to be blamed for responding to that particular reference?

Originally posted by undo
c) his presentation on the laser beam anunciation

Are you talking about the Renaissance painting? Not sure what the "laser beam annunciation" is. A member named Cicada created a thread here years ago explaining that painting and a great many more.

Originally posted by undo
d) the whole wishy washy princely blood thing.

It's contextually correct. What is a "prince?" "Of princely blood" means born of the king. In this case, the highest deity Anu. It's better than "Those who, from Heaven, to the Earth came." Rather a tortuous way to say the offspring of Anu, wouldn't you agree?

Harte

harte

no the h stones are andesite. most of the structure is andesite except for the foundation, which is red sandstone (at puma punku, that is)

he delegitimized the hindu texts, first by pointing out only the channeled data from later texts and then claiming the older stuff was "flying palaces" which he used in the sense of "fanciful" motifs. that's the same problem heiser has with ezekiel 1.

and it isn't textually correct to say the sons of heaven, who were conceived in the sky, didn't manage to get to earth somehow. the part you and they, are resisting, is the means of getting from the sky to the planet.

Originally posted by undo
harte

no the h stones are andesite. most of the structure is andesite except for the foundation, which is red sandstone (at puma punku, that is)

In fact, the site is primarily sandstone, with andesite used for the H blocks and some facing pieces.

Originally posted by undohe delegitimized the hindu texts, first by pointing out only the channeled data from later texts and then claiming the older stuff was "flying palaces" which he used in the sense of "fanciful" motifs. that's the same problem heiser has with ezekiel 1.

The truth is, they were flying palaces. Even written to be flying cities, in some works.

Another fact, the earliest appearances of vimanas - the first times we know of that they were written about - had vimanas being just decorous carriages being pulled through the sky by magically flying animals.

Only later do they appear in the Vedas with flight capability of their own.

Originally posted by undoand it isn't textually correct to say the sons of heaven, who were conceived in the sky, didn't manage to get to earth somehow. the part you and they, are resisting, is the means of getting from the sky to the planet.

The sky is already here, or was, according to the Sumerians. Anu wasn't some far-off god. Truth is, early on, "Heaven" (meaning the home of the gods and not where you go when you die) was a mountaintop - similar to what the Greeks myths say about Olympus.

Harte

harte

can you back up any of those statements with actual documentation?

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by undohe delegitimized the hindu texts, first by pointing out only the channeled data from later texts and then claiming the older stuff was "flying palaces" which he used in the sense of "fanciful" motifs. that's the same problem heiser has with ezekiel 1.

The truth is, they were flying palaces. Even written to be flying cities, in some works.

In the Ramayana both the words "Vimana" and "Ratha" have been used:

Kamagam ratham asthaya...nadanadipatim (3. 35. 6-7). He boarded the aerial vehicle with Khara which was decorated with jewels and the faces of demons and it moved with noise resembling the sonorous clouds.

You may go to your desired place after enticing Sita and I shall bring her to Lanka by air.. So Ravana and Maricha boarded the aerial vehicle resembling a palace (Vimana) from that hermitage.

Then the demons brought the Puspaka aerial vehicle and placed Sita on it by bringing her from the Ashoka forest and she was made to see the battle field with Trijata.

This aerial vehicle marked with Swan soared into the sky with loud noise.

Originally posted by Harte
Another fact, the earliest appearances of vimanas - the first times we know of that they were written about - had vimanas being just decorous carriages being pulled through the sky by magically flying animals. Only later do they appear in the Vedas with flight capability of their own.

In the Ramayana, the pushpaka ("flowery") vimana of Ravana is described as follows:

"The Pushpaka chariot that resembles the Sun and belongs to my brother was brought by the powerful Ravana; that aerial and excellent chariot going everywhere at will .... that chariot resembling a bright cloud in the sky ... and the King [Rama] got in, and the excellent chariot at the command of the Raghira, rose up into the higher atmosphere.'"[3]
It is the first flying vimana mentioned in Hindu mythology (as distinct from the gods' flying horse-drawn chariots).

wiki

Originally posted by Harte
The sky is already here, or was, according to the Sumerians. Anu wasn't some far-off god. Truth is, early on, "Heaven" (meaning the home of the gods and not where you go when you die) was a mountaintop - similar to what the Greeks myths say about Olympus.

The easiest demonstration of the above is the ziggurat - mountain-shaped to imitate the dwelling place of the gods.

I'll get back to you on the sandstone - I'm at work and don't have time. I'm sure I can provide you with a scholarly reference concerning the mountain thing, and the vimana stuff in the first part above is quoted from the Ramayana.

Harte

doesn't sound fanciful to me, though. white's position is that it's all make believe. so when he says flying palaces, he's suggesting like fairy tales of castles floating on clouds.

Originally posted by undo
doesn't sound fanciful to me, though. white's position is that it's all make believe. so when he says flying palaces, he's suggesting like fairy tales of castles floating on clouds.

You tryin' to maneuver me into a position of supporting White?

The vid has and reports far more than the necessary amount of actual facts required to deflate the Ancient Aliens television show, its stated target. The facts in the vid I'll defend, White's statements, and his motives, are his own. I believe I already pointed out the glaring "Sandstone Pyramid" gaffe he made, in print no less.

Harte

Interesting thread and lots of good comments . I am wondering and this is just my little minds imagination but ,what if in the past due to the earths ecosystem (proton, electron , quirks, quarks ) the rock was much easier to work with .Its had lots of time to harden up shall we say .Even todays gravity not making sense when you look at the prehistoric creatures that roamed the earth .It might explain how they might have been able to cut and move the stones .What ever happened it wasn't a small issue because aside from the work that they did that we can look at today,we dont find the tools we would need to duplicate what they have left .

It could also be possible that they(advanced past civilization) could have in a short time developed at a rate similar to our modern day man .We seem to have come a long way sense the industrial revolutions, 300 or so years .Our history of man in the past 3000 years has things in it that just don't fit the facts like that computer they found from Grease just 2000 years ago .And what about the terracotta soldiers of ancient China and the many Pyramids there .

I wonder if they (in the past) had such a thing as fiction ? I guess I am trying to get my mind around obstacles of our modern day fiction .If this planet ever had another event that wiped out our civilization and in a few thousand years someone dug up a movie about space aliens would it prove that they existed ? I find ATS a wonderful site to learn things and a place to cause you to go hmmm . S&F for you undo ....peace

reply to post by the2ofusr1


yeah my current view is that ancient high technology was manipulation of the natural forces without the use of artifical technology. in effect, what might look like a common pillar, rock, pyramid, etc, may in fact be high tech without the artificiality. if you think about it, a sufficiently advanced form of tech would naturally take into account impact on the environment. this kind of lends credence to the mythological information on what happened to atlantis, i.e., they used too much of natural earth forces (magnetism?).

reply to post by undo


I wonder if anyone has made plastic replicas of the H Stones. If so, I would be curious to know how they fit together. Whoever made those stones, def smarter than us.

Emerys
reply to post by undo

 

I wonder if anyone has made plastic replicas of the H Stones. If so, I would be curious to know how they fit together. Whoever made those stones, def smarter than us.

edit on 6-11-2013 by Emerys because: (no reason given)

see this post for more pics of the stones, including diagrams
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a video i made that includes some of my data in this thread. it's basically the same info as the thread with a bit more data than the thread.

a reply to: undo
I read about half of your first post, and want to keep reading, however the spaces in the middle of sentences is frustrating. It's like reading a Maya Angelou poem, no offense, maybe it was a computer or tablet error, but could you possibly edit it to read properly?
Thanks!

originally posted by: Emerys
reply to post by undo

 

I wonder if anyone has made plastic replicas of the H Stones. If so, I would be curious to know how they fit together. Whoever made those stones, def smarter than us.

no - just smarter than you!

The basic premise of this thread is flawed! The assumptions, the twisting of the truth, the need to believe are obvious here.

Harte has gone out of his way to explain things in this thread, yet everything he says has been ignored. Why is that?