Ancient Extraterrestrials

Originally posted by deKooning

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The Mods just discovered that DeKooonig and anti72 happen to have the same IP address.

Thanks for the hint warrenb

no, that is a friend using my pc..

so, now its clear. ATS MODS clearly use unfair methods to get rid of posters when argument fail.
poor.
very poor.

Actually that was me, not sky, that figured this out. Something stank and I checked it out. You say it's a friend? Riiiigggghhhhhhtttttttt. Funny both have the same outlook on the same thread. I'm not buying that for a second. Check out the T&C dude:

2c.) Multiple Accounts: You will not create multiple user accounts and "talk to yourself".

reply to post by intrepid


and the horrible use of English leads one to believe it is the same pitiful individual

Now that this has been addressed I recommend that you stop derailing this thread further, either as anti72 or deKonnig.

Back to the topic please folks.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by intrepid]

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by deKooning

this sounds somewhat fascistoid ..
is this a discussion board or what?

On the last page I posted a list of evidence.

anti72 then returns and posts stuff like "the bagdad battery is debunked"...and half a dozen other stuff I never mentioned either in this thread OR in the list.

I dont mind talking Däniken and even defending him, but his long-ago misstep is not a priority in this thread. The priority are all these strange and out-of-place artifacts and anomalies.




[edit on 9-12-2008 by Skyfloating]

What battery ? Oh, that battery. Check page 4. I postet something about the battery. Even if it was not a part of the OP. But as Sky made clear " So far neither the points brought up in the OP nor the follow-up posts were addressed in any scholary manner".
Actually i love the battery pic. Its a great wallpaper

reply to post by flymetothemoon


I love the Batteries too. And Pyramids too. And all that stuff. Just wont bring it up cos I know what Skeptics pounce on..as opposed to what they cant pounce on.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by flymetothemoon

 

I love the Batteries too. And Pyramids too. And all that stuff. Just wont bring it up cos I know what Skeptics pounce on..as opposed to what they cant pounce on.

Well, its christmas so i thought : lets make it easy for them, as a starter you know

reply to post by anti72


Thank you for answering my questions ANTI, in my eyes you have lost all credibility (if that wasn't already apparent). Thank you for your constant smear campaign against Sky, you've only showed your further lack of composure and arrogance on the subject matter. Officailly Ignored I suggest anyone else trying not to lose brain cells do the same.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by On the level

Giant Unexplained Crater Near Bombay

On the level,

Earlier in this thread Skyfloating bemoaned the absence of legitimate (to him) skepticism here.

I offer the above as an example of why thinking people avoid comment in threads such as this one.

The Lonar crater is not "unexplained" at all, as your own post indicates further down the page. So why do you refer to it as "unexplained?"

What is the point in providing another, skeptical, viewpoint here when such flat-out misrepresentations are so rife in this thread?

Originally posted by On the levelAnother curious sign of an ancient nuclear war in India is a giant crater near Bombay. The nearly circular 2,154-metre-diameter Lonar crater, located 400 kilometres northeast of Bombay and aged at less than 50,000 years old, could be related to nuclear warfare of antiquity.

No trace of any meteoric material, etc., has been found at the site or in the vicinity, and this is the world's only known "impact" crater in basalt.

This is, in fact, another misrepresentation.

First of all, for a meteor crater to be "basaltic," it has to impact in an area where basalt is the local bedrock and where this bedrock is close enough to the surface for the impact to affect it.

Why is this "special?"

Secondly, there is at least one other "basaltic" crater on land, and almost certainly there are the remains of several under the oceans, where bare basalt rock has lain open to the water for millions of years.

The ~50,000 year old Lonar Crater, India, is one of the two known continental impact craters that were excavated on basalt.

source
My emphasis.

Third, there is no evidence whatsoever for any ancient nuclear weapons, much less for their use in any war.

Originally posted by On the levelIndications of great shock (from a pressure exceeding 600,000 atmospheres) and intense, abrupt heat (indicated by basalt glass spherules) can be ascertained from the site. David Hatcher Childress in Nexus Magazine

This intense "great shock" of 600 k atmospheres is very typical of a meteor impact. The info below is one column in a table of calculations of various things like wave dissipation and energy and melt volume, etc, for various sizes of meteoric impact. The column shown gives the shock pressure in pascals. One standard atmosphere = 101325 Pa. Your quote gives this pressure in atmospheres.

Pressure of Shock (Pa)
2.5E+11
5.625E+11
1E+12
1.5625E+12
2.25E+12
3.0625E+12
4E+12
5.0625E+12
6.25E+12
7.5625E+12
9E+12
1.05625E+13
1.225E+13
1.40625E+13

Source: This table, a link to which can be found in This paper on cratering from the University of Michigan.

Please note, the first (and lowest value) entry in the above column is 250,000,000,000 pascals. This equates to 250,000,000,000/101325 = 2,467,308 atmospheres, or about 4 times the "great shock" that Childress is raving about in your quote.

I say, ho hum. I also say, does no one in this thread have any evidence at all that tends to support the AAT over a mundane and well-understood explanation?

Originally posted by On the level
It has remained relatively intact due to low degree of erosion by environmental agents, making it an excellent model for study. However, several strange things happen here:

1. The lake has two distinct regions that never mix - an outer neutral (pH7) and an inner alkaline (pH11) each with its own flora and fauna. You can actually do a litmus paper test here and check this for yourself.

That's certainly not unusual at all. The phenomenon described is a chemocline.

It's presence is explained by the lack of fresh flowing water in the lake and the extreme protection of it's surface from the mixing action that wind would cause, if the wind wasn't blocked by the crater rim and by the fact that it's on a plateau:

The unusual presence of Lonar crater amidst the vast monotonous plateau surrounding it from all sides has caused localised transition in the important geographical, geological, climatic and thereby ecological parameters. Being a subterranean, hollow confined and closed from all sides:
1. It is protected from heavy wind blowing.
2. It retains higher humidity levels.
3. It forms a localised temperature system.
4. It gets partly screened from direct sunlight at different places and different times of the day, throughout the year...

International Society for Salt Lake Research

Originally posted by On the level2. There is a perennial stream feeding the lake with water but there seems to be no apparent outlet for the lake’s water. And it is also a big unsolved mystery where the water for the perennial stream comes from, in a relatively dry region like Buldhana. Even in the driest months of May and June, the stream is perpetually flowing. Lonar generates questions and more questions”. Lilyn Kamath

Sure, questions from people that no nothing on the subject.

There is no "perpetual stream" feeding this lake, though it is fed by a few springs. It's mostly fed by runoff, according to actual Indian citizens that actually live there and have actually studied the lake under the auspices of a scientific research project.

Note:

The district Buldhana, Maharashtra State, India provides geological interest for unique occurrence of picturesque Lonar crater, the only such in the great basaltic province of India. The remarkable shape, size and uniqueness of crater lake at crater basin being saline has attracted the attention of geologist, ecologists, archaeologists, naturalists and astronomists and has been the subject of several studies on various aspects of crater ecosystem. This inland lake with no effluent is fed by a seasonal drainage mainly confined to it’s periphery and also by number of fresh water springs. Maximum depth of brine is 5.50 meters. It is one of the prospective ‘Ramsar Site’ in India. Far from being a sterile wonder it harbours an oasis of life within it’s womb.

Source:
International Society for Salt Lake Research

"Why don't the skeptics weigh in on the real evidence?" Skyfloating asks.

Answer - it truly is a waste of time to try and reason with you. You simply refuse to read, or understand, what any skeptic says, attempting to pre-emptively exclude a reasoned point of view from your every thread with your misrepresentations, mischaracterizations, and outright untruths regarding what any "unbeliever" has to say.

The post I'm responding to here I chose for a reason. I wanted to point out the silly sensationalism that the post was brimming with regarding an ordinary crater lake.

It strikes me that this is exactly the sort of thing that the AAT enthusiasts do with every fact they can come up with.

Well, that and lie about it, like the poster (once again) claiming that Baalbek was constructed by some unknown ancient culture.

Harte

Originally posted by Lokey13
reply to post by anti72

 

Thank you for answering my questions ANTI, in my eyes you have lost all credibility (if that wasn't already apparent). Thank you for your constant smear campaign against Sky, you've only showed your further lack of composure and arrogance on the subject matter. Officailly Ignored I suggest anyone else trying not to lose brain cells do the same.

dont get mad. you can see for yourself how posters get manipulated here.

what ´smear campaign? you mean any constructive critic or what?
never read a more stupid and ignorant post, very unintelligent.
learn to think for yourself.
and stay on topic.

sorry to say that.
(did you read any books of Däniken ? guess not.)



[edit on 9-12-2008 by anti72]

[edit on 9-12-2008 by anti72]

Alright. This is it. Keep to the topic and stop with the childish personal crap.

The way I look at is this. I happen to like the idea that time and space are not all that solid or linear, and that there can be natural fluctuations in spacetime that allow for things to move relatively freely from point to point anywhere or anytime in the universe. There may even be a way for this to be manipulated. And I also like to think that consciousness is a component of this process.

That being said, the thing about this topic I don't understand is how, specifically, are the things being discussed here proven to be "extraterrestrial," rather than, say evidence of time travel?

To me, if you can't offer positive proof of something being extraterrestrial -- which I suppose would include you specifically pinpointing the location of the other planet(s) -- then time travel becomes just as viable an option for explanation.

And if you can't positively dismiss either one of those options, then you really haven't proven anything, and are really stuck with "We don't know what these things are."

So what do we have that definitively proves beyond any doubt that such and such an artifact or piece of artwork has to do with an extraterrestrial civilization? And not time travelers? Not just, "This looks like a spaceman in a pressure suit." As the "ruins on Mars/the Moon" threads illustrate, lots of stuff can look like lots of other stuff, but that don't make it the same.

After all the talk and images, what do we have that absolutely, positively nails it?

[edit on 9-12-2008 by Nohup]

reply to post by Nohup



"And if you can't positively dismiss either one of those options, then you really haven't proven anything, and are really stuck with "We don't know what these things are."

good post..

that was what was posted some pages ago. where´s the proof of alien origin ?
and many things are absolutely naturally explainable.


[edit on 9-12-2008 by anti72]

More food for thought, some of which has already been covered, but a nice overview all the same:

www.crystalinks.com...

aircraft tablet mentioned earlier with modern day comparison:
www.crystalinks.com...



[edit on 9-12-2008 by MCoG1980]

reply to post by Nohup


Obviously we don’t have anything that positively nails it or this wouldn’t be such a broad and interesting discussion. I always like the skeptical points you raise Nohup, they are grounded usually in logical deductions. However I think ancient peoples’ descriptions of some of the ancients don’t sound like humans at all, they sound like the kind of extraterrestrials you hear about in abduction stories now, and sometimes even seem linked to our current UFO sightings. Does this mean those discussed in the past and present were/are aliens? No, but the links seem connected to other worldly beings unless future humans are believed to be considerably physically different than we are now. And just like I wonder what would motivate aliens to assist us in the past we have to ask what would motivate these evolved humans? Why would they travel back to the past and communicate with the ancients and teach them how to prosper in certain areas? Why would they have the ancients revere them as Gods?

I recently found a thread on ATS on the Terra Papers - does anyone know anything more on them, The story makes sense to me and am more inclined to believe them over all the other religious stories or i being naive?

If they were true then it is quite relevant to the thread as it tells of our extra terrestrial origin. It does add up

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 9-12-2008 by MCoG1980]

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
However I think ancient peoples’ descriptions of some of the ancients don’t sound like humans at all, they sound like the kind of extraterrestrials you hear about in abduction stories now, and sometimes even seem linked to our current UFO sightings.

Unfortunately, this tends to lead to the problem of trying to use one unexplained thing to prove another unexplained thing. Similarities of descriptions are the weakest kind of link, since we are all human beings and all think like human beings in the same kind of images and symbols -- Jungian archetypes.

For instance, in ancient times, people all over the world looked at the Sun and the Moon zooming across the sky, and the thought that came to their heads, whether they were in America or China or Europe or Sumeria, was that it was a vehicle -- a boat, chariot, horse, etc. -- driven by somebody. And they drew pictures of who they thought was driving the thing. It's not that there actually was a driver, but because we're human and think in the same way, that's how the images turned out. As another example, nearly all mythologies have chimeras, half-human, half-animal creatures. Are/were they real because everybody described them? Or maybe that's a common thing for people to imagine.

I don't know who or what is behind the abductions. I haven't seen any good proof that it's extraterrestrials of any kind. If anything, they're demons. Entities that are only "half real," or real in a way we don't quite understand.

Again, if we can't nail it down specifically between ET's, time travelers, demons, angels, tulpas, or whatever, we haven't proven anything. And what that does is just add a lot of data to a big pile of data we already have that we have no explanation for. But to claim that this data is evidence of "extraterrestrials," is just plain facetious.