Ancient Astronauts Evidence

Originally posted by kerkinana walsky
you want to lose another debate skyfloating or you got some excuse why you can't face it ?

Now thats at last an interesting proposal. Since we do nothing but fight here anyway, might as well make it official. One thing is for sure...that your insults would not be enough to win a debate. Since I already completed an ancient-astronaut debate though, it would have to be another topic. Atlantis perhaps.

reply to post by kerkinana walsky


oh, by the way...you are wrong about crick. w-r-o-n-g.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by kerkinana walsky
you want to lose another debate skyfloating or you got some excuse why you can't face it ?

Now thats at last an interesting proposal. Since we do nothing but fight here anyway, might as well make it official. One thing is for sure...that your insults would not be enough to win a debate. Since I already completed an ancient-astronaut debate though, it would have to be another topic. Atlantis perhaps.

there is nothing in the rules that says you can't debate the same thing with someone else
when did you hear me say anything about Atlantis
obviously you don't have the balls to face me on another ancient astronauts debate so don't bother trying to move the goalposts again
everyone just saw you decline

so you already lost didn't you


btw

In the early 1970s, Crick and Orgel further speculated about the possibility that the production of living systems from molecules may have been a very rare event in the universe, but once it had developed it could be spread by intelligent life forms using space travel technology, a process they called “Directed Panspermia”.[49] In a retrospective article,[50] Crick and Orgel noted that they had been overly pessimistic about the chances of abiogenesis on Earth when they had assumed that some kind of self-replicating protein system was the molecular origin of life. Now it is easier to imagine an RNA world and the origin of life in the form of some self-replicating polymer besides protein..

in other words he thought about it and then later decided against it because of new evidence. you could learn from that. And he never said anything about ancient astronauts visiting humanity at all so were you deliberately misunderstanding that one as well like you are with abydos ?

so yes
you're still wrong

Originally posted by kerkinana walsky

obviously you don't have the balls to face me

uh....what?

everyone just saw you decline

the AAT I have debated often and will debate often in the future. no problem with that. I was only suggesting a slight variation on it as it might be odd to debate the exactly same thing again.

so you already lost didn't you

if you say so (yawns).

Originally posted by kerkinana walsky

in other words he thought about it and then later decided against it because of new evidence.

Thats your interpretation of that piece of text? Weird.

you could learn from that. And he never said anything about ancient astronauts visiting humanity at all

He, like many other scientists and researchers have speculated on the possibility and will continue to do so. Whats the big deal? Are we allowed to speculate?

so were you deliberately misunderstanding that one

"deliberately misunderstanding?"

please post any link to any site where Francis Crick discusses his belief in ancient astronauts interacting with mankind

I think you'll find as has been already pointed out that its pseudo historians who don't change their facts when new evidence is presented
you are a perfect example of that

Originally posted by kerkinana walsky
please post any link to any site where Francis Crick discusses his belief in ancient astronauts interacting with mankind

So first you claim that Crick changed his mind about his starseed idea and then you request a link to show he ever had that idea?

NOW SERIOUSLY: How can he have changed his mind about something he never said? Make up your mind.

I think you'll find as has been already pointed out that its pseudo historians who don't change their facts when new evidence is presented
you are a perfect example of that

And followed by yet another insult. This is getting lame.

reply to post by kerkinana walsky


I would like to say that I happen to know some of the people you label as morons, liars, frauds and "below the age of 12" personally. I have met them and found them to be respectful, trustworthy and intelligent people. Among them Graham Hancock and von Daniken. I dont know Scott Creighton over on his ATS Forum, but he too is providing pretty good evidence for the ancient astronaut theory and most certainly doesnt appear to be a complete idiot like you would have it. The people you get to know in the field of the ancient astronaut theory and alternative history are most often well-educated, eloquent and respectful people and I find the way you talk about them saying more about YOU than about them.

a very interesting website to ponder, below taken from here www.thehiddenrecords.com...

For Wayne the three pillars seen in the ‘Hiram Abif star map’ were particularly intriguing. On closer examination of their possible meaning, he was convinced that in the context of his existing theories they could be celebrating three separate ‘visitation’ events. The visitation of Earth by our human ancestors after colonising three different star systems at three different epochs. It is therefore highly likely that these people who had remarkably advanced technology are the references to “angels” we read about in our holy books. Beings, who were clad in bright clothing, and who could fly and perform great ‘miracles’.

Wayne interprets the largest pillar (on the left) as a commemorative ‘Genesis’ monument as it were, celebrating the discovery of our solar system by the first space travelling human beings. An epoch apparently dating back 200 000 years ago matching the first consistent collection of modern human fossil remains found. He believes our ancient star ancestor visitors most likely set up a very small number of experimental penal colonies on Earth. History has indeed found people to be living primitively as hunters and gatherers at this epoch.

and to be fully discussed here www.abovetopsecret.com...

I know what i think, what do you make of this?

Tutankhamun's regal necklace piece of glass is much older than civilization

[edit on 28-11-2007 by rapturas]

reply to post by rapturas


I saw the thread today and also browsed through the article, but I didnt respond to it just yet. Need to gather further info. Since Im a freemason myself I am very familiar with the tracing board but have never seen or heard that interpretation of it within the lodge. I will discuss it with some fellow masons and get back to you on it on this thread.

What are your thoughts on it?

reply to post by rapturas


One thing I can share with you though is that freemasons have a keen and ongoing interest in ancient egypt.

reply to post by Skyfloating


wow, what degree are you if you dont mind me asking? yeap i sort of noticed (from what i had seen) that the masons were some what focused on the AE's or maybe, further back than the AEgyptians (atlantis maybe?). I have to read the whole thing again to be honest, as i was reading my heart began to race with excitement for some reason lol I’ll read it over again and follow the other links, may take me a while though but be certain I will be back =]

Originally posted by rapturas

wow.

My degree is master mason, but here`s a Disclaimer: None of the opinions I express here, reflect the opinions of freemasonry, alright? They are all only my private views. The interest of freemasons in ancient egypt is due to some of us believing that our teachings and rituals dont only go back to the 17th Century or to the Templars but to ancient egypt. You might want to open a thread asking about the connection. You will find some responders who say there is none and that they dont believe it, and you will find other masons who say there is and who believe it. Should make for an interesting thread.

I wanted to chime in here about the discussion that used to be happening concerning language.

It's pretty obvious that you guys haven't thought very much about this and are throwing stuff at the wall hoping something sticks.

The arguement of heaven = sky is sound. If you go back to something like the bible and it's revisions, you will see that many things are almost unrecognizable by our standards of english. Making the bible a very dense read. Same with Shakespeare.

The thinking that it could be the translation of sky to heaven may be on the shoulders of the people translating the heiroglyphs, and their shortcomings or limitations.

If you found an ancient tablet that described (in ancient terms) something along the lines of:

"Great smoke and fires in the heavens. Everyone got the plague, earth rumbled and shook, darkness for days"

It wouldn't be hard to attribute those things to something like an ancient witnessing or retelling a nuclear bomb, but give that to someone from the 16th century and you'd have a very different translation.

There is no way someone from the 16th century would have any idea of what that was describing. It's the same with flight. If a 16th century archeologist (I'm just throwing 16th century out there as a number) found something describing space travel or flight, he wouldn't be able to translate it because he wouldn't have the requisite knowledge to relate it to.

What the TS is saying is that maybe it's time to look at these things again, with our new understanding of what's possible in physics and see if there is any evidence that would cause a revision to the thinking of ancient peoples and their relationship with their gods.

i]reply to post by kerkinana walsky

tell me where did you study ancient egypt from ?

i dont know, where did you, you still havent said?

right I see so anyone who doesn't immediately agree with you is part of the global conspiracy to hide the truth and the reason you are continuously being made to look like you don't know what youre talking about is because you do and you advise the taking of hallucinogenic drugs to prove it

whos starting to unravel now?

now we're 8 pages into this pointless thread and you still havent produced any evidence at all

heres a thought, why dont you take your own advice and go and prove/disprove these theories yourself instead of taking other peoples word for it like you claim that we are doing?

While we haven't proved anything as you claim, well to put it simply, neither have you. In fact you have spent more time trying to ridicule everyone here than you have telling us what makes you the authority on the subject. How come, afraid well dig up something on you? Or perhaps well attack your credentials? Why do you continuously avoid this?
Does any of this sound familier? It should, these are the kinds of things you subject us to.

Honestly i don't mind a skeptic but this little crusade of yours borders on obsession, perhaps you should take more of your own advice and seek some medical attention yourself. If you have nothing to add to this discussion other than claiming to know it all then maybe you should start a thread about how much it is you think you know and how you believe that you are right and everyone else is wrong, and then we will gladly go to your thread and dicuss that.

reply to post by Hanslune

Failing to provide links to your references is a poor action for a member of a forum dedicated to exchanging information. Telling people to go "look it up" especially when challenge on it is an indicator. I let you decide what that indicator shows.

Sure if it were possible to link to several books i own i would be happy to , also i had to write that fast as i was leaving.
But i will take note on that and provide a little more on future posts. Oh and i agree with skyfloating that google is only a click away. The only problem i have is that i hate to have to waste time providing sources when i know they wont be looked at, i dont have to prove anything to those with an open mind because they already know what it is i am trying to say.

Originally posted by Hanslune
Oh my so much to comment on


Undo could you be so kind as to specifically state which Sumerian story has that story about the metal thingy? I've read every known piece of Sumerian literature and don't recall that - its not - dare I say it - Sitchin stuff is it?

What's with you? Not only did I quote directly from the Oxford University source, I also linked the thing right afterwards with the source document.
/2yx8k6

please note i made a correction to the ENKI AND THE WORLD ORDER quote in my post above. It is NOT in ENKI AND THE WORLD ORDER. It's in ENKI'S JOURNEY TO NIBRU, www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk... which is the name of Enlil's sumerian city (not Sitchin's planet Nibiru).


N I B R U
not
N I B I R U

And i've linked it. And it's also from the same Oxford University site as ENKI AND THE WORLD ORDER.

Why is it that debunking this topic actually results in some people actually assuming everything related to Sumer is a Sitchin topic?

marduk, this is partly your fault. fix it.


[edit on 28-11-2007 by undo]

Here's more (also from Enki's Journey to Nibru)

As it has been built, as it has been built; as Enki has raised Eridug up, it is an artfully built mountain which floats on the water.

www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk...

Also, check this out from Samuel Noah Kramer (the scholar/assyriologist who originally translated many of the sumerian texts)

ENKI BUILDS THE E-ENGURRA

The lord of the abyss, the king Enki,
Enki the Lord who decrees the fates,
Built his house of silver and lapis lazuli;
Its silver and lapis lazuli, like sparkling light,
The father fashioned fittingly in the abyss.
The creatures of bright countenances and wise, coming forth from the abyss,
Stood all about the lord Nudimmud;
The pure house he built
He ornamented it greatly with gold,
[...]
Then Enki raises the city of Eridu from the abyss and makes it float over the water like a lofty mountain.

Source: Kramer, Samuel Noah (1988) Sumerian Mythology, University of Pennsylvania Press, West Port, Connecticut.
www.utexas.edu...

Notice it says UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANNIA.
Notice the other says UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.

Perhaps Hanslune is really just pretending to debunk, as it seems hard to believe someone would claim to know all the sumerian texts and not know the E-Abzu (E-Engurra, E-Nun,etc) was said to be built of metals in their own texts.

Edit to add: I see no reason for why this would be a controversial topic, either. It's very plain and simple. They said it in their texts. The texts were translated by assyriologists and experts in the cuneiform, and provided by several accredited and acknowledged universities.
Where's the controversy?






[edit on 28-11-2007 by undo]

Howdy Undo

You appear to have gone off the handle due to your misreading the question

The following text is what I was asking for a link to, my apologies for not making it clear that I was referring to your previous message not one several pages back:

the next problem is, there were some big changes in world history prior to the time. for example, the library at alexandria was burned down countless times. each time taking most of the accumulated knowledge of cultures other than the Grecian, Holy Roman and Pagan Roman empires. also, prior to that, the Sumerian flood, not only eradicated Sumer, it wiped out much of their history. to this day, we still believe they built only mudbrick ziggurats with simple interiors, during sumer, when it was obvious from their own texts (found some 4700 years later), that at least Enki and Enlil had temples composed entirely of metal, and in the case of Enki's temple, it could float on the water, hover, give advice, had a door that could snatch a man, roared, shone so brightly it lit up the area, had an interior that was a tangled thread beyond understanding, and so forth)

To THIS comment you added no link to an earlier post some pages back you did link to Tinyurl.

The lord of the abyss, the king Enki,
Enki the Lord who decrees the fates,
Built his house of silver and lapis lazuli;
Its silver and lapis lazuli, like sparkling light,
The father fashioned fittingly in the abyss.
The creatures of bright countenances and wise, coming forth from the abyss,
Stood all about the lord Nudimmud;
The pure house he built
He ornamented it greatly with gold,
[...]
Then Enki raises the city of Eridu from the abyss and makes it float over the water like a lofty mountain.

You are rather creative in your interpretation wouldn't you say? This is mythical statement...so how does a lofty mountain float on water?

Your above English translation which you didn't link to shows you made a number of creative "interpretations" which was my point.

The controversy is that Kramer (whose book I have on my shelf) didn't believe - nor did the University, or the translators - beleive these are real - you imply that they are. That is the question or controversy. There are lofty mountains of imagination when men talk of gods - it is later modern men who seem to think these things were not myths but "real".





[edit on 28/11/07 by Hanslune]