Ancient Astronauts Evidence

Originally posted by undo
I do not agree entirely with the ancient astronaut theory.
For example, I don't believe that God is an alien in the sense of little grey guy, but I do think He's extra-terrestrial and other dimensional.
Rather, i believe the Anunnaki were the physical alien beings we think of as various angelic races, some of which were of a class known as the elohim. They make up the members of the "Divine Council" which was established following the Etemenanki (Tower of Babel) incident. There's a variation between some of the angels and others, based on events prior to that timeframe, and this is where the concept of "fallen angels" and "Satan" comes from.

I would agree with that. Even more, I personally believe in a supreme being who is not a personified alien in the classical sense.

My version of ancient astronaut theory is that various extraterrestrials may have "posed" as Gods but had not-so-supreme qualities just like us humans.

This becomes evident when looking at the not-so-godly qualities of the old-testament God, who seems to be someone very different than the what the New Testament is referring to.

This link should be enough to cast light on Yaweh for example:

Yaweh - a violent God

[edit on 29-11-2007 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Who decides what was "real" and what was "myth"?

You, apparently.

And I do really mean that, you. As in anyone reading the paper on whatever the archaeologist, historians, whatever has presented.

Archeologists can dig up a temple with a big chair 4x the size of a human chair that according to inscriptions said to be used by some froglike "water God" that came up from the ocean demanding everyone to worship them or he'll tear apart their ships with storms and lighting (along with pretty illustrations of an evil frog eating ships).

Was it "real"? Was it "myth"? Who knows. Archaeologists can only tell you one thing: They've dug up an ancient temple where they apparently worshipped a frog God.

That is it. They are not the judges whether the frog God really existed in physical form and sat in that chair or not.

Well unless they find a giant skeleton of a 10m tall froglike humanoid still sitting in the chair, but for this argument, lets assume no.

[edit on 29-11-2007 by merka]

Originally posted by merka

That is it. They are not the judges whether the frog God really existed in physical form and sat in that chair or not.

[edit on 29-11-2007 by merka]

Precisely.

this is the only amphibious God I know about from an ancient source who was supposed to have educated humans

was he an alien ?

Originally posted by kerkinana walsky


this is the only amphibious God I know about from an ancient source who was supposed to have educated humans

was he an alien ?

how old is this image? gimme a circa.

allegedly
oannes.home.mindspring.com...

"At first they led a somewhat wretched existence and lived without rule after the manner of beasts. But, in the first year appeared an animal endowed with human reason, named Oannes, who rose from out of the Erythian Sea, at the point where it borders Babylonia. He had the whole body of a fish, but above his fish's head he had another head which was that of a man, and human feet emerged from beneath his fish's tail. He had a human voice, and an image of him is preserved unto this day. He passed the day in the midst of men without taking food; he taught them the use of letters, sciences and arts of all kinds. He taught them to construct cities, to found temples, to compile laws, and explained to them the principles of geometrical knowledge. He made them distinguish the seeds of the earth, and showed them how to collect the fruits; in short he instructed them in everything which could tend to soften human manners and humanize their laws. From that time nothing material has been added by way of improvement to his instructions. And when the sun set, this being Oannes, retired again into the sea, for he was amphibious. After this there appeared other animals like Oannes."
"At first they led a somewhat wretched existence and lived without rule after the manner of beasts. But, in the first year appeared an animal endowed with human reason, named Oannes, who rose from out of the Erythian Sea, at the point where it borders Babylonia. He had the whole body of a fish, but above his fish's head he had another head which was that of a man, and human feet emerged from beneath his fish's tail. He had a human voice, and an image of him is preserved unto this day. He passed the day in the midst of men without taking food; he taught them the use of letters, sciences and arts of all kinds. He taught them to construct cities, to found temples, to compile laws, and explained to them the principles of geometrical knowledge. He made them distinguish the seeds of the earth, and showed them how to collect the fruits; in short he instructed them in everything which could tend to soften human manners and humanize their laws. From that time nothing material has been added by way of improvement to his instructions. And when the sun set, this being Oannes, retired again into the sea, for he was amphibious. After this there appeared other animals like Oannes."


An account rendered by Berossus, a Babylonian priest of the 13th century B.C.

Sitchin claimed this evidence showed that aliens were landing pods a la the 1970s apollo missions in the persian gulf
Hancock also used this information to claim that Oannes was also in contact with mesoamerica despite there being about 2000 years seperating the fish men there with the fishman of Babylon or 3000 years if you accept that Berossus lived in the 13th century bce. He didn't as he actually lived 1000 years later in the 3rd century bce. but hey who cares about a millenia eh

Berossus was the first deliberate Pseudo historian but he had a reason for being so.
anyone want to guess what it was ?
I would have said that Herodotus was the first Pseudo historian but he believed most of the crap he was shovelling

you probably know this story already Undo
betcha skyfloating is creaming himself right now at the thought of alien fish gods descending to teach mankind civilisation




[edit on 29-11-2007 by kerkinana walsky]

This is probably a more accurate depiction of Enki, from his city of Eridu, dated circa 4000 BC:


Source:
The Oriental Institute, University of Chicago
oi.uchicago.edu...

Note, it isn't a Sitchin image. It's a University of Chicago image, taken originally at the Baghdad Museum in Iraq.

[edit on 29-11-2007 by undo]

how is that supposed to be Enki
the site you got it from says

terracotta, nude male, with 'lizard-shaped' face and pointed head (hair piece?), holding stick in his left hand; shoulders decorated with applied clay pellets

now I'm pretty sure that Enki was never described as a lizard and that figure has none of Enki's symbolism
theres no horns telling you that its a god to start with and thats something that every single depiction of every single mesopotamian god from Enlil through to Bel Marduk are shown with

sorry
I'm not buying it
especially as 4000bce isn't sumerian
its Ubaidian and the ubaidians didn't worship Enki at all
I went to epsd and checked
there is no word for lizard that is spelled with the dingir (you know what that is) so you know what that means

Lizards weren't considered as Gods by the Sumerians, they would surely have mentioned it if they were
ah I see
you believe this because it fits in with your own personal theory don't you
as such it isn't based on the evidence is it
its just based on your belief


your figure quite clearly is an Udug
a demon
not a god
demons weren't evil in Mesopotamia, they were created by Gods for different reasons
as yours was buried in a grave I would suggest that its a votive offering to some Udug who was responsible for ferrying the dead to the afterlife
a payment for a service

but Enki
not very likely is it, its not from the right civilisation at all


from the british museum you have these genuine Sumerian demons

The upper head is that of Shutu, the demon of the south-west wind, whose wings were broken by Adapa, son of Ea

Pazuzu--A demon from Babylonian myth, sometimes called Zu, who stole the tablets of destiny from the dragoness Tiamat. The tablets were recovered but won back by Marduk who conquered Tiamat. Pazuzu--A wind demon,who was normally shown with a grotesque face,four wings,birds legs,animal front paws and a scorpions tail. Although king of the evil demons,Pazuzu was thought of as benevolent. Bronze amulets of Pazuzus head,worn to protect women in childbirth against the attacks of the she-demon Lamashtu,were very popular in the late Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods.

you might remember this last one
hes a movie star


pea soup anyone ?




[edit on 29-11-2007 by kerkinana walsky]

Enki was described as the "great dragon", in their texts. Note he has scales on his shoulders (the pellets) and that he is holding a staff or sceptre that may very well represent the Me. He's also sporting a single fang in his mouth and slanted eyes like a serpent. Note that is also the only figurine recovered from his city of Eridu.

there are literally thousands of pictures of Enki recovered from Eridu
Eridu was formerly a Ubaidian city taken over by the Sumerians. none of them look like that

and claiming hes a lizard because hes a grand dragon is very weak Undo
the Sumerian dragons weren't lizards at all. Even the cuneiform tells you that much. The title is inherited from the great sea monster mythology as a symbol of power in the same way that Dracula was called a dragon
he wasn't a lizard either
Those serpents were snakelike they weren't bipeds

surely you know this

are you serious that you think that is Enki ?

I think this is a huge weak point in your theory

Originally posted by kerkinana walsky
there are literally thousands of pictures of Enki recovered from Eridu
Eridu was formerly a Ubaidian city taken over by the Sumerians. none of them look like that

and claiming hes a lizard because hes a grand dragon is very weak Undo
the Sumerian dragons weren't lizards at all. Even the cuneiform tells you that much. The title is inherited from the great sea monster mythology as a symbol of power in the same way that Dracula was called a dragon
he wasn't a lizard either
Those serpents were snakelike they weren't bipeds

surely you know this

are you serious that you think that is Enki ?

I think this is a huge weak point in your theory

Pictures of Enki that you refer to, were all post flood. They depict him as a human being with priestly robes, but circa 4000 BC, before the flood, he was a "great dragon" who correlates with the biblical Satan.

[edit on 29-11-2007 by undo]

The Nachash and His Seed, Some Explanatory Notes on Why the Serpent in Genesis 3 Wasn't a Serpent
www.thedivinecouncil.com...

now you are doing a Sitchin
there was no great flood at all until the Akkadian period
theres no Sumerian story at all that talks about it
Satan didn't exist until 550bce and there is no mention of any angel until that point. the Hebrews are commonly believed to have got the idea of them during the Babylonian diaspora

4000bce there was no flood at that time at all
I got soemthing wrong earlier
it wasn't even the Ubaidian period
it was the Halaf period
the Ubaidian started 100 years later in 4000bce Semitic nomads from Syria and Arabian peninsula invade southern Mesopotamia, intermingle with Ubaidian population. theyd hardly do that if it was all flooded would they

so you're mixing a Halaf figure with a Sumerian God with an Akkadian story and connecting it to a biblical character

you need to get your timeline sorted out. we have time so that everything doesn't happen all at once. Sitchin does what you are doing too, he mixes sumerian,akkadian, babylonian and egyptian gods from different periods and has them all interacting together. you should know better that to do that. If you don't have a credible timeline then you don't have credibility

there has never been any evidence of a great flood found in mesopotamia
you're going down the route trailblazed by Sir Leonard Woolley who went to mesopotamia to prove the flood happened. He excavated there for decades and admitted right after he first arrived that there was no flood
he was an expert
he exavated there
he said there was no flood
you are basing your claim on a story that was written by a different culture
thats like me saying that there was no world war 2 because I wasn't there
it doesn't stand up Undo

I'd drop this part from your theory if I were you
it doesn't float
ahah

the pictures of Enki are Sumerian
your Image isn't
who would you think knew what Enki looked like
a culture that venerated and worshipped him or a culture that had never heard of him
I don't see how you can be claiming the latter with a straight face
or is this humour ?

reply to post by kerkinana walsky


you have the habit of not responding to posts which are uncomfortable to your beliefs.

I am still awaiting your response on Francis Crick in which you first claimed he changed his mind about starseeds and then later doubted he ever said it in the first place and requesting a link. No response.

You were also ask by another poster about your credentials to make all the claims about archaeology, egyptology and linguistics you are making. No response.

In the thread that was trashed you were also asked what certain bible passages (ezekiel) have to do with that picture you posted. No response.

You were also asked why you think that people who believe in aliens are dumb or childish. No response.

I suggested to you that the fact we are able to seed and terraform Mars could be an indicator of it already having happened...with earth. From you, no response.

You were told that the "overlapping glyphs of abydos" theory is only a theory and far from a fact. No response.

You said I did not provide a source for the mahabarata, rigveda, ramayana accounts of ancient spacecraft and aircraft, although I did provide the name of the translator. Your response? None.


If you wish to be taken seriously, you could at least sometimes admit you were wrong.

Every other poster in this thread I have once witnessed to say "sorry, I was wrong", me included. This I have never seen with you. Just ignore the wrongs and go on with the discussion, right?

Originally posted by kerkinana walsky

and claiming hes a lizard because hes a grand dragon is very weak Undo
the Sumerian dragons weren't lizards at all. Even the cuneiform tells you that much. The title is inherited from the great sea monster mythology as a symbol of power in the same way that Dracula was called a dragon
he wasn't a lizard either
Those serpents were snakelike they weren't bipeds

so you are saying that lizards, serpents and dragons are not of the same family?

I happened to visit rome last weekend and was surprised at various dragons artfully carved into various ancient sites...next to serpents. This is something I didnt expect of one of the most catholic cities on earth. In any case, most people seem to believe dragon and serpent are related...especially dragon and FLYING serpent.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
In any case, most people seem to believe dragon and serpent are related...especially dragon and FLYING serpent.

They do? They share no traits whatsoever aside from having scales.

If anything, the dragon would be related to a crocodile/alligator.

reply to post by merka


Its all reptilian to me

kerk,

i consider the flood to be around 3000 BC.
i don't have a position on the flood being or not being, worldwide.
i only know that the sumerian civ was dug out of 8 ft. of flood silt.
i consider anything starting in about 4000 BC and forward to 3000 BC to be Sumerian. I don't believe Ubaid and Sumer were as distinctly separate as we are being told they were .

I believe the reptilian-grey looking images that you're calling udug demons created by the Gods, were the fallen angels/Anunnaki, as they were later characterized. In other words, you are melding later texts with the past events.
There are no human figures in Sumer, Ubaid or any other time period prior to 4000 BC. None. The earth goddess figures are all reptilian. I think there may be one case, but her head was missing and the museum extrapolated a human head for her, which was not supported by the remaining artifacts.

I keep hearing from some of you guys there was no deluge, there was no gigantic flood that wiped out large parts of the world (and with it a bunch of evidence I would have needed for my case).

And I understand that this view is based on geological examination.

But it kind of a slap in the face of countless ancident text-writers who say there was a giant flood...maybe even two.

Im not sure on this one.

To believe in the Bible's depiction of the flood you have to agree that the story was written by Hebrews telling a story relating to other Hebrews and would have to fall into a Hebrew timeline. As the Hebrews believed that the start of humanity was in 3760BC, the flood had to have happened since then. Indications of a regional flood in Shuruppak around 2900BC are the greatest indication of a large flood in Mesopotamia during that time. Either the Hebrews knew what they were talking about in general or they weren't talking about the same flood as other peoples.