What to do with the Ancient Aliens ?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Harte

I am aware that some copy stuff they saw someone else paint. That becomes a style.
But why was the first one actually painting? They were pretty naturalistic in their depictions...
Don't bore me with Dali. Different epoch.
Just a side note given our modern artists have a weak spot for intoxicating substances, how far do you think that tradition reaches? Not the painters with the UFO (I don't remember what it's called the glowing disc in saint paintings), so probably also not the first one. Where did he get the inspiration from?

An 11 year old thread by ATS member Cicada can answer all your questions - link

Cicada's source for that thread - link
Only half that site is in English.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Well then the only certainty we have "the artist included the symbolic representation of an illusive force interacting with humans" coincidentally looking like an UFO to resemble a modern myth called unknown flying objects, with the blessing of his principal.
Which is weird they mix something so imaginative into their otherwise really straight forward painting style.
But that's just me and a few thousand others.
Or maybe you and your irrational assumption UFO equals ET.

I think either aliens have helped us technologically or biologically

or they havent and they are here to observe , either to keep us under control or to find out about us something they cant do!



I've been told by a person from a special interest group that we are here to terra form earth for others
and that we have been given enough consciousness to communicate and work but not enough to question our creators or our existence to the level we can figure out our bondage

a reply to: Jimjolnir

If you find subtitles please let us know. I'm interested to check that out. From what I've read, and understand, humans have proved to be a very capable species, everything they have achieved thus far has needed no external hands. (*now don't go hatin' me Haaaarte...*) I do think there is a small chance that we have had contact, and maybe it has endured since. I find it hard to ignore the possibility.

ancient aliens has always claimed that humans have had help and humans are the ones that have built lets say the pyramids for example. They dont denie human capability. Peronsally i think our acestors understand the law of pyshics better than we do and i truly think we are yet to discover differetn laws that are either hidden or not aware of.

in terms of porbabilty i reckon aliens 100% exist it would be ver yarragoant to think we the only species in the infitine univerese, as to wether they have come to earth? yeah i think they would ,why wouldnt they? its go decent land, can grow crops, got clean water decent atmosphere. Compared to many planets we have discovered Earth is pretty awesome.

ALiens exist no doubt, how much influence they have had with our development or evolution is questionable. will see about the subtitles and get back to you

a reply to: frenchfries

I agree with the other posts-we underestimate the knowledge of our ancestors.

Stongehenge, Machu Piccu, the Sphinx...We don't fully understand how we made them but we still made them. If we can make a skyscraper with molten metal shaped into girders does that mean that some archaeologist a thousand years in the future will unearth the Empire State Building and assume that only an alien could craft such a structure?

originally posted by: frenchfries
a reply to: uncommitted

I'm not sure where you think you are getting that logic from. At some point there is always a first...

Whoaa ATS such an open minded community amaaazing ... Drake equotation.. common sense and many ufo witness reports.

Yes at some point there is always a first... but hey life has evolved on 3 seperate occasions on earth only..
Keplermissions and many earthlike planets have already been found..

Your point being? You stated that if there is a proven ET visitation to Earth then statistically there have been others previously. No, that isn't statistically correct at all, statistically we will have a record of one visitation.

This has nothing to do with the Drake equation (which works with an actual sample base of one, and doesn't actually even map to your argument), and has zero to do with the possibility of life - any life - elsewhere in the universe which the huge majority of people accept is a strong possibility. Your point was very clear on proven visitation on this planet. Of which at this point there is none. To keep mixing the two and using that as an argument is not going to work.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Harte

Well then the only certainty we have "the artist included the symbolic representation of an illusive force interacting with humans" coincidentally looking like an UFO to resemble a modern myth called unknown flying objects, with the blessing of his principal.
Which is weird they mix something so imaginative into their otherwise really straight forward painting style.
But that's just me and a few thousand others.
Or maybe you and your irrational assumption UFO equals ET.

I think with the art (and Harte's link is really worth looking at, it's a very informative site although unfortunately never seemed to have received full multi language treatment) the answer is really simple if people can reconcile themselves to the actual history. The majority of the artwork in question was commissioned by the church to depict biblical scenes which from the various scenes involved the manifestation of God. They were not commissioned by a bishop to show an eyewitness event of an ET visitation - although of course you can argue what else is God if not an ET.

The point is they were produced for a purpose and to earn a profit. If the person who commissioned them didn't think they represented Gods majesty going by the style of the time they were produced, they would be rejected and the artist wouldn't get paid. It's not their fault we put on our 21st century glasses and wonder if they were meant to represent something that they weren't.

a reply to: uncommitted

To keep mixing the two and using that as an argument is not going to work....

Look saying that something doesn't work doesn't solve a thing either (maybe it makes you sound smart IDK) give me something , a formula , computer simulation paper or something I can work with....

So what do YOU think were there alien visitations in the last 4 bijlon years ? yes or no ?

I didn't give a posibility between 0-100% I just stated that the changes are great that there were visitations ...

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

I am even willing to say that our distance ancestors were technical very advanced.,,

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Harte

Well then the only certainty we have "the artist included the symbolic representation of an illusive force interacting with humans" coincidentally looking like an UFO to resemble a modern myth called unknown flying objects, with the blessing of his principal.
Which is weird they mix something so imaginative into their otherwise really straight forward painting style.
But that's just me and a few thousand others.
Or maybe you and your irrational assumption UFO equals ET.

Apparently you feel completely qualified to comment on the history of art, and haven't even been to the website explaining these works.
Nice blinders.
Like I said, you are being absurd.

Harte

originally posted by: frenchfries
a reply to: uncommitted

To keep mixing the two and using that as an argument is not going to work....

Look saying that something doesn't work doesn't solve a thing either (maybe it makes you sound smart IDK) give me something , a formula , computer simulation paper or something I can work with....

So what do YOU think were there alien visitations in the last 4 bijlon years ? yes or no ?

I didn't give a posibility between 0-100% I just stated that the changes are great that there were visitations ...

I don't understand why you believe the chances "are great."
Obviously, it's not outside the realm of possibility. However, it's also obvious that there is not an iota of evidence for ancient alien visitation.
Because no evidence exists for it, it is FAR more reasonable to believe it didn't happen than it is to believe it did happen.

Harte

Is it possible, the great pyramids of Egypt were built by ancient aliens?...

I guess you can only ask this question so many times before you turn blue in the face...

So here is an add on question that I think is less considered...

Is it possible, the solar system, milky way, distant galaxies, and universe, are, quite literally, smoke and mirrors, not actually infinite in physical size, nor as vast in size as commonly thought ?...

a reply to: Harte

I read you're link. But I am not convinced, just because it's something that became popular, doesn't mean it was intended that way by the first guy painting it.
Maybe it started as stylised meteor? But I wouldn't dare to say you're absurd just because you entirely miss the point.
Can you link me to a first hand confession of the first one inventing this "symbol" explaining what his thoughts were?
Than I'll shut up. All I'm reading is it went viral, everybody adapted it, because it meant something to the customers.

a reply to: Harte

Good point.

it's also obvious that there is not an iota of evidence for ancient alien visitation. Because no evidence exists for it, it is FAR more reasonable to believe it didn't happen than it is to believe it did happen.

That simply isn't true with 'there is' what you mean the scientific accepted by the public known evidence that you know of. It's how one interprets evidence. I've been all over the world and I've chosen to use my own interpretion based on my own experiences . And according to my own empirical experiences chances are great that civilization(s) of other world have visit planet earth.

You have no evidence that your interpretation of evidence is the only right interpretation of evidence don't you (Joke)

Greetings

a reply to: InachMarbank

Is it possible, the solar system, milky way, distant galaxies, and universe, are, quite literally, smoke and mirrors, not actually infinite in physical size, nor as vast in size as commonly thought ?...

hmmm could be who knows.... Somehow I'm more and more inclined to say that the whole solar system is more like a kind of simulation within a higher reality. Indeed just smoke and mirrors made to study humanity. And once in a while our alien friends interact to help us and guide us. Maybe they even did so when our ancestors were building the pyramids...

a reply to: Harte

Like I said, you are being absurd.

Why always this ?

originally posted by: frenchfries
a reply to: uncommitted

To keep mixing the two and using that as an argument is not going to work....

Look saying that something doesn't work doesn't solve a thing either (maybe it makes you sound smart IDK) give me something , a formula , computer simulation paper or something I can work with....

So what do YOU think were there alien visitations in the last 4 bijlon years ? yes or no ?

I didn't give a posibility between 0-100% I just stated that the changes are great that there were visitations ...

I'm not trying to make myself sound smart, you made an incorrect statement.

There is no proven evidence to show we have been visited by sentient ET, therefore the answer can only be I have no reason to believe we have been visited at this point in time. If proof should be found to suggest such visitation has occurred then my opinion will be revised. Note I set the bar fairly high on what I consider proof, but then so do a lot of people.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie

I agree with the other posts-we underestimate the knowledge of our ancestors.

Stongehenge, Machu Piccu, the Sphinx...We don't fully understand how we made them but we still made them. If we can make a skyscraper with molten metal shaped into girders does that mean that some archaeologist a thousand years in the future will unearth the Empire State Building and assume that only an alien could craft such a structure?

No because we have better record keeping now. The construction company for the ES has been documented. On the other hand, those primitive structures architects are suspect due to too much conflicting information. There's no conspiracy surrounding the Empire State.

originally posted by: frenchfries
a reply to: Harte

Like I said, you are being absurd.

Why always this ?

Why always pointing out absurdity?
Might as well ask why all the absurdity.

Harte

originally posted by: frenchfries
a reply to: Harte

Good point.

it's also obvious that there is not an iota of evidence for ancient alien visitation. Because no evidence exists for it, it is FAR more reasonable to believe it didn't happen than it is to believe it did happen.

That simply isn't true with 'there is' what you mean the scientific accepted by the public known evidence that you know of. It's how one interprets evidence. I've been all over the world and I've chosen to use my own interpretion based on my own experiences . And according to my own empirical experiences chances are great that civilization(s) of other world have visit planet earth.

You have no evidence that your interpretation of evidence is the only right interpretation of evidence don't you

(Joke)

Greetings

Saying there is evidence without presenting any is quite easy, isn't it?
But it does nothing for your position.

Harte