Opposing the Ancient Astronaut Theory: Religion & Mythology

a reply to: Sahabi

This is fantastic stuff Sahabi.

The thing about ancient astronaut beliefs is that in order to work they have to rob everything of its actual context and reinterpret it with ideas from modern UFO lore. Suddenly a fiery chariot in the story of Elisha becomes a UFO, a representation of the sun and moon in artwork becomes aliens visiting the crucifixion of Jesus and monuments essential to marking seasons and honoring gods become "impossible" without the help of extraterrestrials.

Mythology is so much more interesting in its proper context as are the achievements of our ancestors and I find it insulting when ancient alien believers tell us our ancestors weren't imaginative and intelligent enough to build a pyramid or dream up a pantheon of gods.

a reply to: Tangerine

"Cave painting were what the painter was looking at? There is nothing suggesting they were fictional works of art and imagination? ROFLMAO. Really? On what testable evidence is that load of codswallop based? Are you claiming that humans 30,000 to 10,000 to 1,000 years ago didn't have imaginations? "

Has anyone ever seen a cave painting that they knew was fictional? I haven't. Every single one I have ever seen was something real. Did people a thousand years ago have imaginations? I don't know, but I would think they probably did. Did they take the time and effort to commit their imaginings to cave paintings and intricate sculpture? I don't think so. Not to mention the fact that the fossils resemble the paintings. I think that would qualify as testable, don't you?

On what testable evidence are you suggesting cave paintings were fictional? On what load of codswallop was that based?

a reply to: Sahabi

Marine animals have vertical dorsal fins. Nothing airborne does. At least nothing I know of. It would be unusual at the least to take a physical attribute of a marine creature and attach it to a flying creature for no particular reason, and accidently end up with an airworthy structure based on modern aerodynamics. The simplest explanation is that they saw something like it and duplicated it, that it was created with intent. The Inca, to the best of my knowledge, did not define the meaning or purpose of those items.

I never said the designs were extraterrestrial in origin, and I am not proposing that interstellar craft as shaped as fish, birds, and man-made planes. Although I cant say with any certainty that they aren't either. Unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is probably the best one. Which is the least complex, combining physical attributes of multiple species into an air-worthy design that closely resembles modern aviation designs of supersonic aircraft or an artist recreating what he saw?

I have no idea what the world was like thousands of years before what we refer to as recorded history. It is possible that civilization has come and gone many times before, each time achieving a degree of advancement and achievement far in excess of our own. Occasionally some evidence of such events is found. The antictherum device is one example. (spelling) There are many to consider without having to cherry pick.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Tangerine

"Cave painting were what the painter was looking at? There is nothing suggesting they were fictional works of art and imagination? ROFLMAO. Really? On what testable evidence is that load of codswallop based? Are you claiming that humans 30,000 to 10,000 to 1,000 years ago didn't have imaginations? "

Has anyone ever seen a cave painting that they knew was fictional? I haven't. Every single one I have ever seen was something real. Did people a thousand years ago have imaginations? I don't know, but I would think they probably did. Did they take the time and effort to commit their imaginings to cave paintings and intricate sculpture? I don't think so. Not to mention the fact that the fossils resemble the paintings. I think that would qualify as testable, don't you?

On what testable evidence are you suggesting cave paintings were fictional? On what load of codswallop was that based?

You obviously haven't seen much prehistoric rock art. I've seen a lot, including much in person. I've studied the subject. The claim was made that all rock art is based on that which the artist was looking at and was not the product of the artist's imagine. I suppose it never occurred to you that it would be difficult and dangerous to bring a herd of aurochs into a cave so the artist could look at them as he painted or carved. Therefore, it's obvious that the artist used his/her imagination while painting or carving.

If you had seen much rock art, you would know that much of it is highly stylized and that is clearly the result of an act of the imagination.

Instead of jumping on the asinine ancient aliens bandwagon, I suggest that you actually read the works of experts in the field of prehistoric rock art and look at the many examples of rock art online instead of limiting yourself to the examples posted on those idiotic ancient aliens websites.

a reply to: Tangerine

Wow, you really like to hear yourself rant don't you...

Where exactly do you study cave paintings? By study do you mean you took classes that led to some degree of some kind or do you mean you stared at one really hard for a few minutes? What kind of asinine lunatic rant are you on with bringing a herd of animals into a cave so the artist could look at it? You were the one who was practically apoplectic over the idea that these ancient people had no imagination. Now you seem perfectly fine with the idea that they had no memory. The artist goes out and hunts for food. He sees some animals that look tasty and easy to hunt. He goes back to his cave and paints a picture of what he killed and the weapon he used. No. That couldn't happen. You are right. He was some prehistoric Steven Spielberg sitting in a cave thinking...I bet I could make up an animal no one has ever seen before and paint it on the wall so a thousand years from now some loser can go online and rant about it. Yeah...that's makes much more sense than a caveman painting a picture of what he actually saw. Forgive me for questioning the mighty genius that is tangerine. Let us all bow before your majesty and be blessed by your insane illogical BS.

a reply to: Tangerine

"Communicating with Art"
"Cavemen painted for the same reason all humans make art: They wanted to communicate: I was here. I saw this. I thought it was beautiful. What do you think? The question draws in the viewer, a viewer that they would never meet but that that they imagined."

"Famous Cave Paintings"

Altimira, Spain:
"The first cave paintings were found in 1870 in Altimira, Spain by Don Marcelino and his daughter. They were painted by the Magdalenian people between 16,000-9,000 BC. This would have been 11,000-19,000 years ago. These paintings at Altimira are mainly of the bison. Many
of the bison are drawn and then painted using the boulders for the animal’s shoulders. This made them look three-dimensional. These paintings are sometimes called “The Sistine Chapel of Paleolithic Art”.

Hmmmm Nothing there about fictional art...

Lascaux, France:
"Four boys searching for a lost dog also discovered paintings at Lascaux, France in 1940. These paintings were created around 15,000 BC, which would make them about 17,000 years old. There are seven chambers in the Lascaux cave; the Great Hall of the Bulls, the Painted Gallery, the Lateral Passage, the Chamber of Engravings, the Main Gallery, the Chamber of Felines, and the Shaft of the Dead Man. The Hall of the Bulls is the most impressive. It is composed of horses, bulls, and stags. Some of the animals have been painted over, suggesting that different groups of people might have lived in this same cave. The painting in the Shaft of the Dead Man is unusual because the human figure is not normally drawn. This scene shows the image of a man that appears to have been killed by the bison."

Hmmm.... Still nothing about fictional art...

Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc:
"Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc cave in the South of France is the newest cave painting to be discovered. Jean-Marie Chauvet, Christian Hillaire and Heliette Brunel-Deschamps discovered the cave on December 18, 1994. There is a menagerie of animals on the walls of these caves. Many of the animals like the ones in Lascaux were painted over each other. The oldest were probably painted around 30,000 BC, making them about
32000 years old. The cave was probably occupied for nearly 10,000 years. It is thought that a violent collapse blocked the natural entrance."

Hmmm... We've gone back about 32,000 years now and still no mention of fictional art...

And last, but not least...

"Stone Age cave painters were realists, painting what they saw, rather than what they imagined, according to a study published last week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Paintings adorning cave walls in France frequently depict horses. In some cases, the animals have leopard spots on their bodies. Until this study, however, scientists only had evidence to support the existence of one-colored horses.

Using bones and teeth from more than 30 horses dating back as many as 35,000 years, researchers determined that these animals "shared a gene associated with a type of leopard spotting seen in modern horses," according to an AFP report on the findings."

I don't know where you "studied", but you should get a refund.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

www.google.com... 25252Fnet.indra.com%25252F~dheyser%25252Fbc%25252Fbc_i.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=huVDaSanTPeu3M%253A%252C0q5cduum7DqIRM%252C_&usg=__GV2u1o0sr_E3Dm4Mf-a0 XR5QaUM%3D&dpr=1&ved=0CDYQyjc&ei=_23dVLL2LpC0ogS6jYGwDg#imgdii=_&imgrc=huVDaSanTPeu3M%253A%3B0q5cduum7DqIRM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fnet.indra.com%252F~dh eyser%252Fbc%252Fimages_i%252FTempleMountain-001.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fnet.indra.com%252F~dheyser%252Fbc%252Fbc_i.html%3B640%3B336

freakangels.com...

a reply to: Tangerine

You do realize that a lot of those images are from those asinine ancient alien websites, right?

Please take up your argument with the National Academy of Sciences. I will take their word over yours. If you can convince them you are right and they are wrong, I will believe you and apologize for doubting you.

The ball is in your court.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Sahabi

Very good post OP .I am just book marking it because of all the info you have in it . I have been spending a few hours listening to Micheal Heiser and found it fascinating . I think it really helped me to connect a lot of dot's that I had in my mind . His lecture on the council of God and ( elohim ) really takes away the confusion in scripture . elohim could be better understood as beings of the heavenly realm including the creator God . Heiser also has a good lecture on the two powers in heaven that was well known and taught pre 100 AD in Judaism .

The tower of Babel incident while creating the nations also gave the 70 in the council something to do on earth imo . At the same time God had a plan to recreate a special people for Himself (Israel) to bless all people . I guess we are sometimes guilty of not considering just how complex and complete His plan is .....peace

PS .

Deuteronomy 32:8-9King James Version (KJV)
8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel

ESV ...Deu 32:8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.

Israel was only a future plan when God created the nations so the King James is not correct . Besides there were 70 nations created at Babel and only the 12 tribes of Israel later on.

Dr. Michael Heiser is a really good source for any of these ancient man, ancient gods, ancient aliens, kinda stuff. Good recommend. It can be easy for alot of folks to be taken in by people like Stitchen and his ilk as they can often times talk a good game.
Heiser at lest tells you where you can see for yourself what the ancients say, so you don't have to take his word for anything.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Tangerine

You do realize that a lot of those images are from those asinine ancient alien websites, right?

Please take up your argument with the National Academy of Sciences. I will take their word over yours. If you can convince them you are right and they are wrong, I will believe you and apologize for doubting you.

The ball is in your court.

It doesn't matter where the images were posted. They're photographs of legitimate rock art sites. As you can clearly see, many are imaginal works of art. Apparently, you are so poorly informed about prehistoric rock art that you think the art is the same at all sites. It varies greatly. Of course, you've watched Ancient Aliens so you're knowledgable about prehistoric rock art. Not.

The science of understanding the cosmos had nothing to do with extraterrestrials, but everything to do with forecasting and projecting the future. The importance of observing, documenting, and predicting the movements of the Heavenly Bodies grew hand-in-hand with the development of agriculture, farming, construction projects, planned migrations/travels, and planned military campaigns.

So how did these cultures prosper from their own forecasting of the future? Are any of these civilizations relevevant today as a world power? Are any of these cultures great at construction and or have a military? Do they even have a broad sense of agriculture?

If not, then their knowledge was lost, or else their would be great advances in culture in these areas as compared to modern technological areas of the world.

From my point of view and please dispute, all development sense this period of time has diminished, and thus their evolution of a species has decreased within their own culture. The people that live in those regions today could not reproduce the same feats as their forefathers generations ago, and they have proven to be unable to, as their mining and recreations are juvenile as comparison.

Nice theory based off of "Zeitgeist" but you point remains null. Noone can recreate what was created in the ancient past and yet you have no proof as to how these were created and as to why. BTW Below the equator sees the stars different that above.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Hello again Vroomfondel! Your continued debate is much welcome

"Marine animals have vertical dorsal fins. Nothing airborne does. At least nothing I know of. It would be unusual at the least to take a physical attribute of a marine creature and attach it to a flying creature for no particular reason."

We do not have any descriptions or portrayals from the Inca suggesting these artifacts represent advanced vehicles of flight.

We must admit the similarity of the Inca gold artifacts to the flying fish. The Inca were known builders of reed boats, and were known to have practiced deep-sea fishing.


(Inca pottery showing an Inca fishing with line from a boat at the National Museum of Anthropology, Archaeology, and History of Peru in Lima, Peru)


(Feather Serpent Balsa, as seen in the pottery above)


(Traditional Reed Boat)

According to National Geographic (Link) and the National Wildlife Foundation (Link), found throughout the world's oceans, the flying fish is also native to the waters of Meso and South America, being well within the territory of the Inca Empire where the gold artifacts were found.


(Flying Fish Distribution)


(National Geographic)

"accidently end up with an airworthy structure based on modern aerodynamics"

Several inventors and "proto-physicists" of the past have noted the natural streamline design of both birds and fish. Birds were said to swim through the air, while fish flew through the water.

If we recreate the basic shape of a bird or fish and equip it with an adequate propulsion system, I am sure it will prove just as successful as the aeronautic tests and flight demonstrations of the Incan artifacts.

Additionally, ancient and prehistoric humans were well aware of aero/hydro dynamics and air/water stabilization. This is easily illustrated by considering the aerodynamic technology associated with throwing spears and carved arrow heads, and the hydrodynamics associated with boat design. Air-stabilization technology is demonstrated by feather arrow fletchings, and water-stability technology is demonstrated by boat keels and rudders.

"Which is the least complex, combining physical attributes of multiple species into an air-worthy design that closely resembles modern aviation designs of supersonic aircraft or an artist recreating what he saw?"

The former is the least complex and easiest to believe. Leonardo da Vinci is said to have taken inspiration from the examples of birds and the natural world.

"Did people a thousand years ago have imaginations? I don't know, but I would think they probably did. Did they take the time and effort to commit their imaginings to cave paintings and intricate sculpture? I don't think so. Not to mention the fact that the fossils resemble the paintings. I think that would qualify as testable, don't you?"

Ancient humans Cro-Magnon (Link) and Neanderthal (Link) are now known to have crafted and wore jewelry. They made pigments, glues, and utilized fire. They created specialized tools and weapons for specific uses. Surely such a leap in jewelry, tool, and weapon creation involves creativity, imagination, understanding, and intelligence. This is not at all far off from creating imaginative artifacts, sculptures, paintings, and/or rock carvings.

a reply to: Tangerine

I don't claim to know everything, but you seem to think you do. So please tell me, which of those pictures was imagination? And how do you know it was imagination and not something the artist saw?

How about the one that looks like a spiral. What that imagination? Or the one that looks like an alien. Was that imagination? Don't send me a link to a hundred pictures. Pick one and tell me you KNOW it was imagination. I want to see THAT one.

a reply to: Sahabi

Some very cogent observations there. Nicely done.

I lose the connection between the animal examples and the jewelry. If they were that skilled as craftsmen and that observant, wouldn't the jewelry more closely represent the animals they were inspired by? The same people did make statues of animals that were very good representations of same. And they made this jewelry which resembles delta wing aircraft more closely than anything in the animal kingdom. Though creative license cant be ignored, I still feel the artist had the ability to craft the jewelry in any form he chose to, and ended up with a very well scaled version of a modern aircraft. I find the idea of that creation being completely coincidental hard to believe. That does not mean the only alternative is alien visitation, but it does leave something left unanswered. Much like our ancestors, we may be guilty of looking at something we don't fully understand and filling in the gaps with what we do understand, ignoring the fact that the truth is not dependent on our understanding.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Tangerine

I don't claim to know everything, but you seem to think you do. So please tell me, which of those pictures was imagination? And how do you know it was imagination and not something the artist saw?

How about the one that looks like a spiral. What that imagination? Or the one that looks like an alien. Was that imagination? Don't send me a link to a hundred pictures. Pick one and tell me you KNOW it was imagination. I want to see THAT one.

You choose to believe in extraterrestrials. Have at it. But keep in mind that it's a belief, not a fact. If it were a fact, it would be based on testable evidence and there is none. If you wish to make claims about prehistoric art, archeology, and architecture that produces gales of laughter from experts in those fields, have at it. You've got your alien friends!

a reply to: Tangerine

For the record: I never said I believed in ET's. That is your projection onto me. I am undecided in the absence of proof. But unlike you I do not let the absence of proof determine my belief. I reserve judgment until one or the other is proven. Until them I am open to either possibility. Its called being open-minded. Try it some time.

And what of you? When faced with the task of actually making a selection from the many many pictures you submit as evidence supporting your belief, you fail and resort to sarcasm. The last gasp of the uninformed. You claim such great knowledge in this field. I asked you for ONE and only one picture that you KNOW is of imagination and you failed.

Enjoy your sarcasm. I hope it satisfies you. You have no friends.

a reply to: Tangerine

"Genotypes of predomestic horses match phenotypes painted in Paleolithic works of cave art"
Melanie Pruvosta,b, Rebecca Bellonec, Norbert Beneckeb, Edson Sandoval-Castellanosd, Michael Cieslaka, Tatyana Kuznetsovae, Arturo orales-Muñizf, Terry O’Connorg, Monika Reissmannh, Michael Hofreiteri,1, and Arne Ludwiga,1 aResearch Group of Evolutionary enetics, The Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, 10252 Berlin, Germany; bDepartment of Natural Sciences, German Archaeological Institute, 14195 Berlin, Germany; cDepartment of Biology, University of Tampa, Tampa, FL 33606; Laboratorio de Genética Ecológica y Evolución, Departamento de Ecología Evolutiva, Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico City, 04510, Mexico; eDepartment of Palaeontology, Faculty of Geology, Moscow State University, Moscow 119899, Russia; fLaboratory of Archaeozoology, Universidad Autonoma Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain; gDepartment of Archaeology, and iDepartment of Biology, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, United Kingdom; and hDepartment of Crop and Animal Sciences, Humboldt University, 10115 Berlin, Germany
Edited* by Richard G. Klein, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, and approved October 5, 2011 (received for review June 6, 2011)

Archaeologists often argue whether Paleolithic works of art, cave paintings in particular, constitute reflections of the natural environment of humans at the time. They also debate the extent to which these paintings actually contain creative artistic expression, reflect the phenotypic variation of the surrounding environment, or focus on rare phenotypes. The famous paintings “The Dappled Horses of Pech-Merle,” depicting spotted horses on the walls of a cave in Pech-Merle, France, date back ∼25,000 y, but the coat pattern portrayed in these paintings is remarkably similar to a pattern known as “leopard” in modern horses. We have genotyped nine coat-color loci in 31 predomestic horses from Siberia, Eastern and Western Europe, and the Iberian Peninsula. Eighteen horses had bay coat color, seven were black, and six shared an allele associated with the leopard complex spotting (LP), representing the only spotted phenotype that has been discovered in wild, predomestic horses thus far. LP was detected in four Pleistocene and two Copper Age samples from Western and Eastern Europe, respectively. In contrast, this phenotype was absent from predomestic Siberian horses. Thus, all horse color phenotypes that seem to be distinguishable in cave paintings have now been found to exist in prehistoric horse populations, suggesting that cave paintings of this species represent remarkably realistic depictions of the animals shown. This finding lends support to hypotheses arguing that cave paintings might have contained less of a symbolic or transcendental connotation than often assumed.

The professionals do not appear to be in complete agreement on the subject as you would have us believe. In this case it appears that they agree with me. It would seem that the gales of laughter from the professionals you refer to are directed at you.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Tangerine

For the record: I never said I believed in ET's. That is your projection onto me. I am undecided in the absence of proof. But unlike you I do not let the absence of proof determine my belief. I reserve judgment until one or the other is proven. Until them I am open to either possibility. Its called being open-minded. Try it some time.

And what of you? When faced with the task of actually making a selection from the many many pictures you submit as evidence supporting your belief, you fail and resort to sarcasm. The last gasp of the uninformed. You claim such great knowledge in this field. I asked you for ONE and only one picture that you KNOW is of imagination and you failed.

Enjoy your sarcasm. I hope it satisfies you. You have no friends.

Rubbish. You claimed that there is evidence of extraterrestrials having visited earth and cited rock art as an example. Your examples were absurd so now you're trying to backtrack.

Having spent time with rock art experts, I actually have some knowledge of prehistoric rock art. I rely on the expertise of those who have spent their careers studying it and not some nut on "Ancient Aliens" who makes up stuff about art about which he knows nothing for an audience of gullible people.

You have pulled up descriptions of specific prehistoric rock art sites to support your hypothesis that ancients didn't have imaginations and were only capable of painting and carving that which they saw. Absurd. But don't let me dissuade you of this notion. It would ruin "Ancient Aliens" for you.

a reply to: Tangerine

Rubbish. You claimed that there is evidence of extraterrestrials having visited earth and cited rock art as an example. Your examples were absurd so now you're trying to backtrack.

Shove your rubbish. I absolutely did not claim rock art was an example of alien visitation. If I did, please link it here.

Having spent time with rock art experts, I actually have some knowledge of prehistoric rock art. I rely on the expertise of those who have spent their careers studying it and not some nut on "Ancient Aliens" who makes up stuff about art about which he knows nothing for an audience of gullible people.

You rely on the expertise of others, what others? I cited my references, you did not. I asked you to select ONE image, just ONE, that you KNEW to be imagination, and you have avoided that request for several posts. Because you cant support your hypothesis.

You have pulled up descriptions of specific prehistoric rock art sites to support your hypothesis that ancients didn't have imaginations and were only capable of painting and carving that which they saw. Absurd. But don't let me dissuade you of this notion. It would ruin "Ancient Aliens" for you.

Wrong again. I referenced ONE article in ONE publication by the National Academy of Sciences, which cites an EXTENSIVE list of researchers, all experts in their fields, and which is NOT a rock art site...whatever that is. I have not quoted or referenced the tv show Ancient Aliens once. You are the only one doing that.

I can respect people who have differing opinions. I can respect people who are mistaken. I can respect people who have been misled. But I cannot respect people who refuse to learn, cannot accept any theory other than their own, who cannot cite actual reference supporting their theory in the face of cited reference to the contrary, and whom cannot identify one single item that they know is what they say it is.

Again, show me ONE picture that you KNOW is imagination and can prove it. Show me the testable evidence you keep demanding of me and I will accept your opinion and apologize for doubting you.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

You seem to be a bit overly-exited by this conversation (screaming in all caps, etc.). I'll let you calm down.