Ancient Anomalies and Aliens - Part 1: Art

reply to post by The Shrike

But being a realist, I don't see any association with visitors from other parts of the universe since I don't accept such visitors in the first place, now or in the past.

lol...huh? You just don't accept "visitors"? Are you being sarcastic? You call that being a realist? So even if I had conclusive proof it wouldn't make a difference to you? ET's are just an "unreal", "fantastical", and "mystical" concept to you?

There's a very good explanation that we archaeologists understand very well: a palimpsest combined with pareidolia

I see we have yet another master of mainstream archaeology and Human origins to tell us all "we already have the answers". The explanations for these anomalies are pathetic or insane in most cases, having said that it is possible those glyphs are coincidence, even though your explanation is far from satisfactory.

reply to post by Phage

You mean this? Pretty lumpy UFOs. Looks like clouds to me.

Now we know which side of the family your daughter got her imagination from; her mother's!

Originally posted by CHA0S
I see we have yet another master of mainstream archaeology and Human origins to tell us all "we already have the answers". The explanations for these anomalies are pathetic or insane in most cases, having said that it is possible those glyphs are coincidence, even though your explanation if far from satisfactory.

Well unless you've taken the time to properly research the context of each piece of art, its influences, its origins, the symbolism's and common representations associated with the culture of the peoples which produced the arts, then throwing away a professional opinion is probably the most ignorant thing you could do. Those ancient "spacesuits" are not spacesuits after all, there is a much more mundane explanation for them. It's a case of seeing what you want to see.

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by manalien
reply to post by Section31

 

I agree with your mindset about researching offline. Absolutely.
One thing I will say is that I am not "young" and I did most of my research into this thematic in libraries reading big old fat books and talking with University professors, writers and philosophers on those subjects and that in at least 3 languages. English German and Spanish.
I would say that the information at that particular time may have lacked certain elements of knowledge and information which has come to light in recent years. However, most of the information as RAW information has not changed. The fundamentals of older books and literature reflects the same thesis as today

Nothing has changed since. Hehehe...

I just graduated with a four year degree (double major) around two years ago, and all of our research was based upon offline references. Nothing online was allowed into our research. We can use the internet to create a quick check-list, but the majority of the work is done in a college library. Sometimes you have to find personal essays, reflection letters, etc... I will share with everyone what I find. I will also give some offline references, which directly come from professors, researchers, and other people who have studied the artifacts. I think it would be rather interesting. Maybe we will learn something new.

edit on 9-10-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)

Well at least you have also been educated on the basis of an alternative vital source of information an knowledge including deriving your own conclusions.
You have explored information from the www you have read books and talked with professors too, who may not all be so narrow minded when it comes to "possibilities" that may seem for the uneducated somewhat out of the ordinary.
I assume you have also come to the conclusion that most information from all of these sources are coherent in substance and hypothesis.
At least there is room to consider the option of intervention and occurrences which may not fit into psychological the framework of acceptance for some people
I believe we are inevitably on the same page

reply to post by serbsta

Well unless you've taken the time to properly research the context of each piece of art, its influences, its origins, the symbolism's and common representations associated with the culture of the peoples which produced the arts, then throwing away a professional opinion is probably the most ignorant thing you could do.

Pictures paint a thousand words. I don't need to learn exact and in depth origins to SEE what a piece of art is trying to depict. Unless you have direct descriptions by the artist in question, "professional" interpretations are completely useless as well, as if they would ever admit or even theorize that Aliens influenced a lot of our ancient art. They already have an idea about what it most likely depicts, and they search for answers in that direction, therefore they ultimately pin it down to symbolism and other "mundane" things that they WANT it to be depicting. I'll again quote relevant things I have said so far:

This isn't a matter of interpretation or guess work, this is simply looking at what facts are telling us. Sure, a few of these may not have any alien inspiration, but it's clear these trends and synchronicity seen in art from all around the world is something more than mere symbolism. What are the origins of the symbolism? You can try to debunk some of this art by showing that variations of that art piece seem to depict more "sensible" things, and so therefore the picture depicting the UFO type object or the astronaut type guy are just symbolism for something which can be seen in other art. It's actually the other way around. And there are many texts which contain these stories, you'll need to wait for that part of the series! But the mainstream texts we teach and study have usually been edited and mistranslated to a fair degree.
----
I've seen historians come up with some REALLY obscure and speculative theories to try to explain ancient structures and other things. In the end it gets to the point where their explanation is completely insane and unlikely, but we can't just accept the obvious conclusion, not when it threatens what we think we know. In their minds their outlandish but "scientific" theories are a lot more likely simply because it doesn't involve "aliens". THAT is the prison of academia. There are always PRECONCEPTIONS. For example Phage will go into any thread with an EXTREMELY predictable stance, despite what type of evidence is presented, he will probably argue the "scientific" or "mundane" explanation, according to mainstream views usually. Science already has an "idea" about how everything works, therefore there is a MISCONCEPTION that science is always correct about everything, and theories become more like fact. Science EXPECTS to see answers it has predicted, therefore it isn't looking where it doesn't think answers exist, and even denies such answers because it already thinks it has the answer without even looking.
----

reply to post by manalien

Ah! So, you understand how I infused philosophy and a science into one paradigm.

Understanding how a culture functions can give great insight into why certain artworks are created. When I look at the crystal skulls for example, I see a society based upon a high admiration for death (self evident). The materials also indicate a sculpting complexity in which is uncommon for such a primitive society. However, we have seen massive Egyptian statues, which an intense attention to detail was a focal point. Was there some type of domestic cross cultural influence, or were these people influenced by something else?

If you consider the fact that Mayans and Egyptians created pyramid structures, we would have to entertain three schools of thought. (1) The Mayans were influenced by the Egyptians. -or- (2) Pyramids (triangles) are embedded into our psychological make up. -or- (3) Some unknown factor was an influence. Before we get to consider an unknown element, we have to eliminate the other more Earthly based ones.

Since we do not have enough information for numbers one and two, more research into the background of the pyramids needs to be done. We do know that triangles, squares, and circles are everywhere. Simplistic forms in which we use for shelter, transportation, and everything else. So, we can check that one off. We must not stop there though. While I am doing research on the subject, I will need to see if someone or something from Egypt made it over to the Mayans. Both share an eerie interest in the afterlife, and to some extent in nightmarish forms.

However, there is a Spanish influence in this whole mess. I will have to consider a third influence after all. Did they bring something over?

reply to post by Section31

Earthly based ones...like:

4) When building a tall stone structure a pyramid offers the most stable design. One readily available through trial and error.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
reply to post by Come Clean

 

You should relax. It's ok, honest. take a breath, or a brief reprieve from ATS, gather your thoughts, and re-engage. Argue/Debate the facts, share your opinion, but share why you believe what you believe, or why you entertain certain ideas and concepts.

No need to get too offended, and if your posts were not in violation in some degree of the Terms & Conditions, they would not have been censored and/or deleted.

In short: Please calm down. This is not a personal competition, it is a quest to understand things and learn. A group discussion.

Sometimes, however, the truth may be plural, and not as singular as our wills would like it to be, on certain issues

Phage is not the devil.
Mods are not the devil, either.

Breath,
ET

Well said,
This began as a really intellectual thread and is unfortunately being destroyed by the pure ignorance of the fact that a great bunch of people are attempting to exchange thoughts and facts over one of the most intriguing aspects of our past history.
Lets stick to this, we all can learn so much by bouncing ideas and information around this forum.
For example has anybody considered or questioned as to how exactly our supposed forefathers were able to actually design, align and cut to perfection these massive complex structures world wide in nearly perfect synchronicity with the stars and planets thousands of years ago, whilst in the 15th century people claiming the world was round were burnt on pyres like Guy Fauwks?
How and where did they gain the technology and knowledge to accomplish these incredible feats?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Section31

 

Earthly based ones...like:
4) When building a tall stone structure a pyramid offers the most stable design.

Exactly.

We have many civilizations that have found the design to be structurally sound. Where did that train of thought come from? Experimentation? How far back into our human history did pyramids (small scale) start to be used, and how did they come across such a simple and ingenious use of materials?

reply to post by manalien

See above. There is nothing magic or highly technological about knowing the movements of the stars. It just takes careful observation. Through careful observation you know when the seasons are going to change, before they actually do. You can know when to get ready to plant.

But no one was burned for claiming the world was round. It was accepted by the educated and had been for hundreds of years (at least). See Eratosthenes.

reply to post by Section31

Well, you can see the evolution of Egyptian pyramids. The first attempts were not very successful.
www.touregypt.net...

Where is the evolution of other cultures' pyramids? I would say that the stones from the failures were used on later models.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Section31

 

Well, you can see the evolution of Egyptian pyramids. The first attempts were not very successful.
www.touregypt.net...

Where is the evolution of other cultures' pyramids? I would say that the stones from the failures were used on later models.

Since I have seen these in art history books, I can agree that some type of experimentation did occur in Egypt. Take a BIG look at the third photo down. It is a step pyramid. Very interesting.

If the Mayans had picked up on that design, they managed to perfect the overall structure through further design considerations. We are just missing one element. How did it get over to the Mayans?


Egyptian = Pyramid of Djoser were constructed 2630 BCE–2611 BCE.
Mayan = Pre-Classic period 2000 BC to 250 AD.

Egyptians were building pyramids before the Mayans. Remember the BCE calander goes backwards.

Just Thought I would throw this like in as information and very interesting

look here www.world-mysteries.com...
have a quick browse through this well documented analysis of how modern day engineers have attempted to back engineer huge megaliths
So how was it done? read this to get some ideas and comparisons including the attempts to find out hoe the pyramids were built.

reply to post by manalien
Coral Castle? Interesting... I don't know a lot about those structures. I will have to do some searching around. Nice find.

When it comes to trying to understand how the pyramids were created, I can only draw upon a hypothesis as to why we cannot understand the process. Theoretically, I think the process was so simple, and we lost the knowledge due to science and engineering becoming complex. It is an interesting subject for another time.

What I want to know is how did the pyramid design get from Egypt to Maya. Was it cognitive? Was it influenced by someone from the Egyptian location? Or, other?

All the art pieces point to an external influence, which can be found in the world at the time. It is all about who, what, where, and when did it all happen..

reply to post by Section31


interesting, what if they do not resemble aircraft but rather spacecraft, if what you suggest is possible, it would also explain the ancient aliens in the O.P. not as being aliens but human spacemen.

www.fotosearch.com...

it would explain no engines under the wings on those models, but not the tail end, the space shuttle only has one part of the tail, where as the models have 3 parts to the tail.

thinking about it, it does sound more plausible than aliens, and would explain a lot if not all in the O.P., but i have no idea if time travel is even possible, unless they are from our future when it might be possible.

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by Section31

 

interesting, what if they do not resemble aircraft but rather spacecraft, if what you suggest is possible, it would also explain the ancient aliens in the O.P. not as being aliens but human spacemen.

www.fotosearch.com...

it would explain no engines under the wings on those models, but not the tail end, the space shuttle only has one part of the tail where as the models have 3 parts to the tail.

thinking about it, it does sound more plausible than aliens, and would explain the a lot if not all in the O.P., but i have no idea if time travel is even possible, unless they are from our future when it might be possible.

Is that not messed up? I was thinking about this many years ago, but I never really dug deeper into the subject. Seriously, could all these UFO phenomenon be us from the future? It would explain a whole lot.

Originally posted by CHA0S
reply to post by The Shrike

 

But being a realist, I don't see any association with visitors from other parts of the universe since I don't accept such visitors in the first place, now or in the past.

lol...huh? You just don't accept "visitors"? Are you being sarcastic? You call that being a realist? So even if I had conclusive proof it wouldn't make a difference to you? ET's are just an "unreal", "fantastical", and "mystical" concept to you?

A realist deals with evidence. If you don't have evidence then all you have is a claim. So far, no one making any claims about the "reality" of aliens/visitors has failed to produce evidence. If you had conclusive proof... but you don't so, again, you don't have a case. ETs only exist in the minds of believers. I'm not a believer. I'm a realist.

There's a very good explanation that we archaeologists understand very well: a palimpsest combined with pareidolia

I see we have yet another master of mainstream archaeology and Human origins to tell us all "we already have the answers". The explanations for these anomalies are pathetic or insane in most cases, having said that it is possible those glyphs are coincidence, even though your explanation is far from satisfactory.

I'm not the archaeologist quoted in my reply. But I am familiar with the story about the Abydos "aircraft." Try to find an early photo that is not cropped and you'll see debris on the floor directly under the palimpsest. I know that having to accept a prosaic explanation in light of what one sees is difficult. But I think that accepting the opposite, that those illusory aircrafts are real and made by ancient Egyptians would be impossible to accept. You gots to make your choice and it should be on the side of common sense.

edit on 9/10/10 by CHA0S because: (no reason given)