Ancient Extraterrestrials

Originally posted by anti72
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

sorry, this is NO EVIDENCE.
NO PROVE.
books and hearsay.


Däniken wrote bestsellers bacause he was a broke hotelier these days. dont forget that.

This is not something Daniken discovered. Its something I discovered. And have proven. Right here. On ATS. Learn to read.

Since you are calling the Evidence I posted hearsay I must conclude that you are not interested in it.

[edit on 4-12-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by anti72

Originally posted by Turiddu
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

Its not a matter of spiritual belief or whatever, the fact is that there exists no evidence to suggest that these ancient gods were extraterrestrials.

besides, there is more scientific proof of spiritual science than of aliens.
just think of the old australian painings (´gods´,´astronauts´)
it is plausible that these shamans had strong inner visions of the astral level.

it depends wether you believe spiritual things need landing strips, and the power of flight and always come down from the havens or stars and then decend back to the havens. how anyone can rule out something coming to earth via space is puzzling.

this is their accounts, their recorded accounts, but because it dos'nt fit your belief system you simply go "they were talking rubbish"

the thing you need to understand is nobody in the present day is saying they were aliens, we are just understanding what the ancients said, the ancients are the ones claiming they came from the skies and stars.

the way modern day science copes with that is by ignoring what the people of that time were saying and putting down to myth.

yet anything they said that matches our idea of history is taken as fact.
its the classic cherry picking of evidence to dictate who the ancients were and what happened.

reply to post by Skyfloating



please stop getting personal.
thanks.

I know those books. the authors all try to freely INTERPRET geological finds and datings FOR THEIR OWN PORPOSE and want to present it as´proof´in
an´popular-scientific way´.

its about book sellings. right?
ask Däniken.

Originally posted by anti72
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

please stop getting personal.
thanks.

I know those books. the authors all try to freely INTERPRET geological finds and datings FOR THEIR OWN PORPOSE and want to present it as´proof´in
an´popular-scientific way´.

its about book sellings. right?
ask Däniken.

Again, the Aborigine-"Myth" was not something discovered by Daniken, but by me. You will find a link to it in the opening post.

I will now end this discussion with you because it actually insults my intelligence.

Originally posted by anti72
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

please stop getting personal.
thanks.

I know those books. the authors all try to freely INTERPRET geological finds and datings FOR THEIR OWN PORPOSE and want to present it as´proof´in
an´popular-scientific way´.

its about book sellings. right?
ask Däniken.

you do know you can buy books on any subject right? why is it about book sales when it is a book you disagree with?

[edit on 4-12-2008 by lifeform]

Originally posted by Skyfloating

..
I will now end this discussion with you because it actually insults my intelligence.

again insulting.
discussion ATS-MOD- style.


stay away thinkers.

reply to post by lifeform


well, I liked those books actually. Däniken, Berlitz..all those classics..
but now I dont think they could be right.



[edit on 4-12-2008 by anti72]

Continuing with examining the behaviour of self-proclaimed "Debunkers", the readers of this thread could just see the following:

* I made a case for an Aboriginal statement that was later found to be correct by Australian geologists. I stumbled upon this by chance while searching through Wikipedia (!).

* The skeptic comes along and says stuff completely unrelated to it "Hearsay! Thats Daniken!"

* The then claims I am insulting him

The irrationality displayed...thats whats mind-boggling.

[edit on 4-12-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Continuing with examining the behaviour of self-proclaimed "Debunkers", the readers of this thread could just see the following:

* I made a case for an Aboriginal statement that was later found to be correct by Australian geologists. I stumbled upon this by chance while searching through Wikipedia (!).

* The skeptic comes along and says stuff completely unrelated to it "Hearsay! Thats Daniken!"

* The then claims I am insulting him

The irrationality displayed...thats whats mind-boggling.

[edit on 4-12-2008 by Skyfloating]

Umm.. "Its Daniken"

Yea... often times something said about claims is consider the source, a very legitimate principal. Alot of his work has been debunked, and in the past he made some outragoues claimes..people like you want to belive that humans were far too dumb to do some of these things, like build the pyramids, or the baghdad battery (both of which have been debunked..all human, no alien involvement)

You want to believe this bullarky so bad tht instead of the true scientificd method of examining the evidence and reaching a conclusion, you have a pre formed conclusion and will only accept evidence that meets said conclusion, and any evidence to the contrary you ust ignore off hand, or when ever anyone shows why your "evidence" isnt rally evidence, you ignore it. Same behavior as the rest of the UFO circus.

Originally posted by lifeform

you do know you can buy books on any subject right? why is it about book sales when it is a book you disagree with?

[edit on 4-12-2008 by lifeform]

This is quite common. Daniken, Sitchin, Hancocks book sales are constantly bashed out of jealousy.

Apparently nobody wants to buy "the official version" of history because it just seems so contrived.

reply to post by Skyfloating


or doesn't fit into their agenda's or dogmatic religious views

Originally posted by NavalFC
Daniken. Yea... often times something said about claims is consider the source, a very legitimate principal.

The source in this case was me and wikipedia. Are you guys dense, or what????





[edit on 4-12-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by anti72
reply to post by lifeform

 

well, I liked those books actually. Däniken, Berlitz..all those classics..

but now I dont think they could be right.



[edit on 4-12-2008 by anti72]

your missing the point, book sales have nothing to do with how true or wrong something is. i really do not understand the logic of some sceptic's when they use book sales as evidence against information.

ALL books are written and produced for the purpose of selling books.

it dos'nt mean anything. even books your believe to be true are written and made for the purpose of book sales.

i wish some sceptics would stop using that logic, that books sales = disinfo.
it's not even logical to believe unless you believe ALL books to be disinfo based on their ability to sell, including accepted science books.

reply to post by Skyfloating


just one example.
why the hell is an old depiction of an winged disc ..just an UFO?

generations of ´AAT-believers´ make the same old thinking mistakes.
one of them, they mistake/interprete storytelling as precise technical description, even´evidence´.

Here's some info on Nan Madol in the Pacific



www.thevillagehotel.com...

The oral history of Pohnpei says that Nan Madol was built by two brothers - Olosipa and Olosopa. According to an old story, these brothers sailed their ships along the coast of the Americas, and traded with the natives. When trading was finished at the equator, the westward sail across the Pacific was difficult because the ships couldn’t carry enough food and water for the trip.

[edit on 4-12-2008 by warrenb]

Originally posted by anti72
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

just one example.
why the hell is an old depiction of an winged disc ..just an UFO?

Ah...so after two pages of generalizations, you actually address a specific point brought up?

Well, in that case Im happy to talk with you.

A winged disc depicted men sitting in it, being called "Gods" by the ancients...could, might be...just that: A flying craft with a man sitting in it.

No?

reply to post by Skyfloating


It's cognitive dissonance. It's starting to become more common on even mainstream media, where they say one thing and then it's opposite and leave the viewer, listener, reader, hanging. The goal of the concept is not only to cause confusion but to actually erode knowledge and create, over time, a dumbed down serveant class, even more than what has been created now. It's a commonly referred part of the NWO conspiracy.

The people who ignore or even fly in the face of evidence are either professional debunkers on an elitist agenda or younger, dumber, people who have been victims of it and don't know right from wrong anymore.

The good news is this will bite them in the ass, because besides breaking knowledge they also break memetic control mechanisms, allowing experimental human beings the opportunity to rebuild truer belief systems, which will make the ones they sponsor redundant. This is a cleansing process that will take time.

Sorry for this hijack of your thread, but I've seen this behaviour all over ATS, especially with chemtrails, which imo are the easiest to prove/experience, of the conspiracy theories, but you always get these semirational theoretical debunker types flying in the face of experience. If there is more solid evidence of the paleocontact hypothesis you can bet the controllers don't want it, because it breaks their own myths, so it will be actively repressed by everyone from jesuits to investment bankers. The last thing these people want is people who ask questions... they want people than just accept their answers.

reply to post by Zepherian


Im starting to believe it, man. Ive rarely seen anything like this

reply to post by lifeform


no, perhaps you didnt get it . these authors produce those books in spite they know its rubbish, of course.

reply to post by Skyfloating


you are asking a question ?

where is the proof of an ..er UFO ?