Ancient Extraterrestrials

reply to post by Skyfloating


I'll second that thought.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
In my most paranoid moments I wonder if ATS intentionally employs agent provocateurs who pose as "skeptics" to make skeptics look silly and inadequate.

Skyfloating, when confronted by a skeptic, I have noticed you spend less time countering the skeptics arguments, and more time discussing the skeptics personality.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Skyfloating
In my most paranoid moments I wonder if ATS intentionally employs agent provocateurs who pose as "skeptics" to make skeptics look silly and inadequate.

Skyfloating, when confronted by a skeptic, I have noticed you spend less time countering the skeptics arguments, and more time discussing the skeptics personality.

Not if you read the last few pages. Take a close look at what happened.

1. I refer to a discovery I made on wikipedia
2. The Debunker says: Thats from Daniken

3. I refer Winged Discs
4. The Debunker talks about book-sales

5. I refer to Jacques Vallee
6. The Debunker implies he is not a serious source

I will add that Ive quite enjoyed your brand of skepticism on several ATS threads, which actually addresses what is happening rather than deflecting and disrupting.

So Kudos to you

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Tha Nazca Lines Part 1
For those having read press-releases declaring the Nazca Lines mystery "solved", please consider the "explanations" as to what they are that have been put forward up to now..

Just because there remains some questions and debate within the archaeological community about the origins and purpose of the Nazca geoglyphs, it does not somehow lend any weight to the belief that aliens drove their creation. In fact, the competeting theories do just the opposite, showing there could have been multiple human rhymes and reasons behind the lines without a need for some sort of alien influence. Further, while his work does not provide the "why" behind the geoglyphs, Dr. John Nickell has shown that the Nazca people were very capable of producing the geoglyphs themselves.

[edit on 5-12-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
while his work does provide the "why" behind the geoglyphs, Dr. John Nickell has shown that the Nazca people were very capable of producing the geoglyphs themselves.

did you mean to say "while his work does not provide the "why"?

If so, I agree. I am not saying they were incapable of doing it themselves. I am asking about who they were dedicated to.

[edit on 5-12-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
3. I refer Winged Discs
4. The Debunker talks about book-sales

Thanks for the compliment.

However, have you not engaged in the same behavior? You attributed to works attacking paleo-contact theories and books as being motivated by jealousy. not scientific interest.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Thanks for the compliment.

However, have you not engaged in the same behavior? You attributed to works attacking paleo-contact theories and books as being motivated by jealousy. not scientific interest.

Yes, thats a compliment. Your brand of skepticism has produced some good laugh-out-loud moments within the last months...rather than moments of anger.

To correct that statement: I did not attribute skeptics books as being motivated by jealousy. I said that the continual reference to book-sales is motivated by jealousy.

reduntant post removed.

[edit on 5-12-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
So what you're saying is that this is the next big paradigm of control?

no, i would not go that far because if i know we are overwhelmed with lies, i don't know where is the truth. However if global warming happen to be a scam, and in the same time blue beam a real agenda, then only i would see a common pattern in the building of what would then be pure myth. There might be other cases (if you refer to Shlomo Sand, zionism would be another)

But maybe removing knowledge of our history is the main means of control.

Sure they write the mainstream history books even in advance to control the sheeple.
But are they machiavelic enough to write also the alternative theories (or have them written somehow) always keeping full control of collective consciousness to serve the agenda ?

Maybe the "Gods" do not really want us to know who they are. Religious Scripture would indicate so.
Why, for example, do religious scriptures talk about the "Gods" having mixed up the languages of the earth so that humans do not gain too much power (build a high tower)?

I generally don't know enough about these subjects to make an opinion.
vedic scriptures (the most ancient books known i believe) are very different and carry loads of knowledge very much man&the universe centered, empowering him on a spiritual level. And that is the most powerful a man can get : when absolute consciousness is reached, man has become god.
As for an opinion, I actually like the Atlantis idea, along with the great cycle of consciousness idea as the solar system travels in the galaxy (we would be just getting out of the dark ages and progressing toward a new golden age) which would explain why civilisations declined over the last millenia until recently, but it surely would not solve the missing link and the apparition of man on this planet.

reply to post by ::.mika.::


yes of course. Supposing there is a grand conspiracy, you would also have to control the anti-conspiracy.

And I agree that one way to discern sources of information is whether they are empowering/liberating/inspiring or not.

Obviously, saying "You are alone in the universe and your life is a pointless coincidence", as we are taught in school, is disempowering.

""Skyfloating, when confronted by a skeptic, I have noticed you spend less time countering the skeptics arguments, and more time discussing the skeptics personality. ""

yes , you are right. thats really a strange´discussion´tactic .

maybe he got cold feet, as he tried to relativate his former claims of aliens. now its maybe aliens:

"
The AA-Theory holds that it is likely that we are talking about aliens when referring to Gods. But they dont have to be aliens, if that makes some feel really uncomfortable. They could just as well be technologically advanced or especially manipulative humans who pose as Gods. It doesnt really matter who exactly they are. What matters is that there appears to have been some sort of intervention of "beings" in the past. This is what all religions and mythologies indicate."


..and we are still waiting for proof for his wild claims.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
did you mean to say "while his work does not provide the "why"?

Yes, I did. Thank you for pointing that out; I went back and corrected it.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
If so, I agree. I am not saying they were incapable of doing it themselves. I am asking about who they were dedicated to.

I stand by my previous point. While there are competeting theories regarding the "why," they do show that the Nazca did not need to be worshipping aliens to produce the geoglyphs. For instance, what possible alien-influence could there be behind the theory the geoglyphs were a "walking temple" for shamanistic purposes?

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Yes, thats a compliment. Your brand of skepticism has produced some good laugh-out-loud moments within the last months...rather than moments of anger.

Not sure if that's a compliment or not...

Originally posted by Skyfloating
To correct that statement: I did not attribute skeptics books as being motivated by jealousy. I said that the continual reference to book-sales is motivated by jealousy.

If I misread, I apologize.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
I stand by my previous point. While there are competeting theories regarding the "why," they do show that the Nazca did not need to be worshipping aliens to produce the geoglyphs. For instance, what possible alien-influence could there be behind the theory the geoglyphs were a "walking temple" for shamanistic purposes?

Perhaps they were shamanic grounds. Perhaps not. It is not all that uncommon for ancients to have had places to worship the "Gods". Perhaps shamanism and worship-of-Gods is not a contradiction.

skyfloating, you pulled it out the bag again! what a great thread. It's a subject i'm hooked on, there is a wealth of information for people to go and read up on out there. My favourite bedtime read is this one, (someone mentioned Cremo, I'm just adding the book link):

Forbidden Archeology

Its a mammoth read, but i really enjoy it. Another book i enjoyed was:

Underground!: The Disinformation Guide to Ancient Civilizations, Astonishing Archaeology and Hidden History

I think we can learn from looking at the similarities of locations such as Ankhor wat, the Pyramids, easter island...

I really enjoyed Hancock's documentaries which attempted to tie together certain star systems with certain locations and using star recession to approximate a year. eg. Ankhor wat - draco constellation - 10,500 BC

I'm not going to link Graham Hancocks documentaries because I feel he deserves your cash for his books and documentaries, he's a great guy that doesn't deserve any of the hatred he gets.


Anyway, thats my 2 cents.

Hope people are still hooked to this thread, a lot can be learned from it

Originally posted by anti72

right. another ´discussion tactic´, he then tries to put wrong words in people´s mouth.

You implied Vallee is not a serious source. Why?

You implied I did not find that piece-of-info in wikipedia but with Daniken. Why?

You referred to book sales being significant. Why?

You did not respond to my response to you on winged discs. Why?

To simply ignore questions is not a discussion.

I think you will find your time on ATS more productive and fruitful if you actually engange in discussion, suggestion and rebuttal than making attacks.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Yes. The laughter was the recognition of truth, not a scoffing-laughter.

"You implied Vallee is not a serious source. Why?"

I didnt imply anything. I asked for serious sources for your speculative claims.

"You implied I did not find that piece-of-info in wikipedia but with Daniken. Why?"

No, I didn´t. what has Däniken to do with that?.


"You referred to book sales being significant. Why?"

what book sales? what you are referring to?

"You did not respond to my response to you on winged discs. Why?"

dont try to twist this, you did´t post any proof of your theory.
we are still waiting.

"To simply ignore questions is not a discussion. "
thats what you do by not providing proof.



[edit on 5-12-2008 by anti72]

reply to post by anti72


You can keep repeating "this is nonense" and "you have no proof" or you can address the 10+ posts containing proof already provided.

Its funny how none of you responded, for example to the The Mystery of Magwangdui I posted on page 7.

Or any of the other dozen things I posted.