The Three Clinchers for Proof of Alien Life

reply to post by Malcram


I welcome anyone new on this thread,however I ask that you refrain from derailing and hijacking the topic(which I started and is doing exceptional has I had hoped) with your personal conflicts with saviorcomplex and any of his pseudonyms(if they exist).He contributed maturely to this thread and stayed on topic.If you have anything pertaining to THIS TOPIC ON THIS THREAD to add I would be glad to hear it(believer or skeptic).I again ask that you no longer continue the topic of your last post,thanks.~JKrog

reply to post by jkrog08


Apologies. That was not at all my purpose. I have no intention of continuing that discussion. I just responded as I did because the post was a carbon copy of SC's and it seemed an opportune time to bring this to attention. But I won't continue with that subject. If anyone replies to my post, I won't respond. I was enjoying this excellent thread immensely and have no intention whatsoever of derailing it.


[edit on 7-4-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by Nohup

 

The people then were as smart as people now.

I don't know about that. ... I think we give ancient cultures to much credit sometimes.

Specific knowledge isn't the same thing as intelligence. I've tried making obsidian arrowheads and all I got for my troubles was bloody fingers.

Anyway, you'd rather attribute the constriction of some ancient sites to space aliens than consider that maybe people a few thousand years ago were basically as smart as us. Interesting choice.

[edit on 7-4-2009 by Nohup]

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

Yes I would expect them to make at least 1 note of a alien as they were prolific record keepers and story tellers.

Huh? If they were, then why haven't they 'documented' the construction of the pyramids with hieroglyphics and also the engineers who supposedly built them? Unless they hadn't a clue as they were built thousands of years before the Egyptians arrived on the scene? (Well, that's the conspiracy theory anyway!

)

If they had done their homework, then we wouldn't be groping in the dark as to how the pyramids were built! Lousy archivists and story tellers, what?

Cheers!

Hi Mike

The step pyramid of Djoser construction does have just that. ...writings on how it was built by the Architect/Engineer Imhotep (yes they used the same name in the Brenden Fraser MUMMY movies) It is believed to predate Cheops (largest pyramid) but thats argued on ATS, and I'm not here to argue for or against at this stage that they did the step pyramids and a wonky pyramid as precursors to the large ones.


Cheers Mate zazz

EDIT link
en.wikipedia.org...




[edit on 7-4-2009 by zazzafrazz]

The so called skeptics and debunkers defeat their own logic when it comes to things like cave paintings, paintings and ancient manuscripts.

They say that some UFO's are a a mistaken natural phenomena. Well doesn't it stand to reason that the ancients would experience this same phenomena if it occurs naturally?

The same way that we record these things with pictures and video, they would record them on cave paintings, ancient manuscripts and some stories that's labeled myth.

The same way that we experience rain, thunder and UFO's, the ancients would have experienced rain, thunder and UFO's.

So if you just use the skeptics logic, then yes these cave paintings and ancient manuscripts are describing UFO's.

The skeptics position actually makes the position of the person that supports things within ufology much stronger.

It's because the ancients have to be describing UFO's if some of these things are mistaken natural phenomena as many so called skeptics and debunkers claim.

This proves that UFO's existed back then and we can incorporate things like cave paintings, paintings and ancient manuscripts into the ET hypothesis just by using the skeptics logic.

reply to post by platosallegory


Well put,I believe now Ufology is at the point where skeptics have to resort to semantics and non-logic because the proof is so overwhelming that it can not be disputed by any other means.I think the time of disclosure is near(IMO).It is good however to have skeptics,they keep us in line and prevent us from going to far with our acknowledged bias(to some degree)in believing.

"This proves that UFO's existed back then and we can incorporate things like cave paintings, paintings and ancient manuscripts into the ET hypothesis just by using the skeptics logic."

It does NOT prove UFO's existed back then, if by UFO you mean little space buddies. It proves the people drew things, but doesn't prove they used aliens as their models. It is more likely they drew somebody in a head dress, an imaginary Great Sky Fairy of your choice, or just something they found pleasing.

Folks, apply the dreaded Occam's Razor to this and you get "mundane", not "little space buddies".

Originally posted by jkrog08
Let me ask the skeptics this:Do you believe in extraterrestrials?

I believe that it is higly likely that life exists outside Earth, that some of that life is intelligent enough to be aware of their environment and the possibility of other life forms besides themselves.

Do you believe that they have the capability to reach other star systems than their system of origin(SO)

I think it is possible that some of the hypothetical aliens from my previous paragraph have the capability of travelling to other star systems besides their own.

Do you think the government would tell us at our present level of evolvement of contact with these beings who could likely have science that would dramatically shift our worldwide paradigm?

What is "our present level of evolvement of contact with these beings"? Don't you think that you are ignoring some connections from "aliens with trans-star system travel methods" to "our present level of evolvement of contact with these beings"?

And even if we have contact with those hypothetical beings, I don't think that we could use all of their hypothetical advanced science, their science may be almost useless to us, or only useful in a way that does not affect the world's status quo.

And when you speak about "the government", which goverment are you talking about? There isn't (yet?) one real world government, so what one government may consider important to keep secret another government may consider important to make public.

What if these beings could prove m-theory, parallel universes, creation of the universe by clashing brains, etc, etc............Don't you think that would drastically change EVERYTHING???

Everything? No. Some things, yes.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


I think your post proves my point.

You can't talk about UFO's without trying to use terms like little space buddies.

Of course you use this term because you think it strengthens your position when it doesn't. It actually makes it look weaker.

Of course it proves that UFO's existed back then because as the so called skeptics and debunkers claim, some UFO's are mistaken natural phenomena so just like we record these things with pictures and video, they would record them on cave paintings and in ancient manuscripts.

I think what this shows is the goal is to debunk these things not seek the truth about the UFO phenomena.

The skeptic can't even seperate UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) from extra-terrestrial and or extra-dimensional beings.

If you use the skeptics logic of course the ancients painted UFO's on cave walls and recorded these things in ancient manuscripts because if some of these things are a natural phenomena then they would have seen the same things.

That's just common sense.

Originally posted by jkrog08
I highly doubt if you threw E=MC^2 at someone from even 1000 AD they would understand that.

If someone had told you E=MC^2 you wouldn't have understood it without some base knowledge, right?

I think that people at that time had the same capabilities as we have now, we only have more information about more things than most people at the time, now we can get new data all the day, every day, when in 1000 AD many people never saw a hand-written (the only method at the time) text.

I think we give ancient cultures to much credit sometimes.

I think we don't give them enough credit most of the time.

Think of some simple things we take for granted and you will wonder how they were invented, things like a shirt, for example. It's the result of making the lines, weaving, cutting and sewing, and all those things have been made for several centuries.

(This was just a quick example that came to my mind, I am not very imaginative, I guess you can come up with something better yourself, just think about how things were created whenever we pick up or look at some object, I do that many times)

Originally posted by platosallegory
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

I think your post proves my point.

You can't talk about UFO's without trying to use terms like little space buddies.

Of course you use this term because you think it strengthens your position when it doesn't. It actually makes it look weaker.

Of course it proves that UFO's existed back then because as the so called skeptics and debunkers claim, some UFO's are mistaken natural phenomena so just like we record these things with pictures and video, they would record them on cave paintings and in ancient manuscripts.

I think what this shows is the goal is to debunk these things not seek the truth about the UFO phenomena.

The skeptic can't even seperate UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) from extra-terrestrial and or extra-dimensional beings.

If you use the skeptics logic of course the ancients painted UFO's on cave walls and recorded these things in ancient manuscripts because if some of these things are a natural phenomena then they would have seen the same things.

That's just common sense.

"I think your post proves my point.

You can't talk about UFO's without trying to use terms like little space buddies.

Of course you use this term because you think it strengthens your position when it doesn't. It actually makes it look weaker."

Tres droll. The term "little space buddies" comes from the movie The Abyss. You should watch it some time. I use the term because the idea of space aliens is tremendously amusing and "little space buddies" sums it up quite nicely.

As for the cave drawings, can you name 10 things any of those pictures might represent without using "aliens"? I can, easily. I think about these kind of things. It really does help.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Did you even read my post?

Of course there can be other explanations for these things.

You are the one that jumped to the conclusion that I said aliens are the only explanation for these things.

Do you know the difference between a UFO and an alien?

Just because I said UFO, you jumped to the conclusion that I was talking about aliens.

I think when your goal is to debunk, you see things that are not there.

Originally posted by platosallegory
They say that some UFO's are a a mistaken natural phenomena. Well doesn't it stand to reason that the ancients would experience this same phenomena if it occurs naturally?

The same way that we record these things with pictures and video, they would record them on cave paintings, ancient manuscripts and some stories that's labeled myth.

The same way that we experience rain, thunder and UFO's, the ancients would have experienced rain, thunder and UFO's.

Now that you say that, I don't remember seeing any cave painting depicting rain or thunder, so you remember seeing any thing like that, a cave painting depicting a atmospheric phenomena? And having said that, have you (or anyone else, obviously) seen any cave painting depicting a aerial phenomena, or stars or something like that?

Now I am curious about it'

So if you just use the skeptics logic, then yes these cave paintings and ancient manuscripts are describing UFO's.

Some sceptics' logic, please do not put us all in just one bag.

platosallegory

Just one thing about your present signature, that I repeat bellow for a possible future time when you have a different one.

Why should we listen to so called skeptics and debunkers?
Skeptic Quote -- "Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax." --William Thomson, Lord Kelvin English scientist, 1899.

That is not the position of a sceptic, that is the position of someone that does not see a real word use of something, it shows how some people think that it is irrelevant to try to achieve some goals, just because they don't see a relevant application for them.

In Portugal we call those people "velhos do Restelo" (old men from Restelo), from a guy from the Lusiadas that thought that they should not spend money sending ships across the ocean to try to find new lands and new ways of reaching known lands, and that it was all useless.

Originally posted by platosallegory
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

Did you even read my post?

Of course there can be other explanations for these things.

You are the one that jumped to the conclusion that I said aliens are the only explanation for these things.

Do you know the difference between a UFO and an alien?

Just because I said UFO, you jumped to the conclusion that I was talking about aliens.

I think when your goal is to debunk, you see things that are not there.

I am a debunker. Unabashedly. I don't allow people to hijack the term to put on the same level with the believers. Bunk is nonsense, to get rid of bunk is a good thing, don't you think? Or are you afraid to engage a debunker because you don't have the conviction to back up your beliefs?

"UFO", in case you're wondering, is an Unidentified Flying Object. Or it used to be. Now it's a "code word" for aliens, used by people who are embarrassed to say "I say an alien spaceship." Again, a lack of conviction. Understandably, of course. If believers were honest about saying what they really meant, people would be avoiding them with great earnestness.

So, please, do continue with the doublespeak, but get used to having me call you on it. At least until the powers that be ban me for making too many people uncomfortable.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by platosallegory
They say that some UFO's are a a mistaken natural phenomena. Well doesn't it stand to reason that the ancients would experience this same phenomena if it occurs naturally?

The same way that we record these things with pictures and video, they would record them on cave paintings, ancient manuscripts and some stories that's labeled myth.

The same way that we experience rain, thunder and UFO's, the ancients would have experienced rain, thunder and UFO's.

Now that you say that, I don't remember seeing any cave painting depicting rain or thunder, so you remember seeing any thing like that, a cave painting depicting a atmospheric phenomena? And having said that, have you (or anyone else, obviously) seen any cave painting depicting a aerial phenomena, or stars or something like that?

Now I am curious about it'

So if you just use the skeptics logic, then yes these cave paintings and ancient manuscripts are describing UFO's.

Some sceptics' logic, please do not put us all in just one bag.

Of course they painting things they saw in nature.

Here's a bird
www.birdwatchersdigest.com...

Here's more birds

Ancient cave paintings known as 'rock art' also show the birds sparsely; some of the best known cave art is at Lascaux (France), Chauvet (France) and Altamira (Spain). Perhaps the primitive man was more worried about the deadly killer-animals and proud about their prowess over the timid and hunted animals. Birds posed no challenge to men.
v-s-gopal.sulekha.com...

The ancients painted things that they saw in nature
www.mazzaroth.com...

So if some UFO's are a natural phenomena as so called skeptics and debunkers claim then of course you would expect to see UFO's on cave paintings and art like this:
www.ufoevidence.org...

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Nope, a UFO is a UFO. That's unidentified flying object.

The ET hypothesis is a theory to explain these UFO's based on the evidence.

What are you debunking?

Can you tell me what constitutes dark matter/energy, which makes up 96% of the universe?
Can you tell me if we exist in a parallel universe?
Can you tell me if your a hologram?
Can you tell me if your a simulation?

Debunkers make no sense to me unless your coming from a place of belief and that would explain some of the things you hear from debunkers that makes no sense.

If you put the universe in a box based on your belief system then that's fine with me.

It's illogical but that's your choice.

I choose not to put the universe in a box so a UFO could be a weather ballon in one instance and in another instance it can be evidence that supports the ET hypothesis. This is because I see both as a reasonable explanation for these things.

We can't even explain our existence or origin on this planet, so I'm not going to try to "debunk" things I don't fully understand because I don't fully understand the universe that we occupy.

I have always wondered what the origin of religion is. I see 3 possibilities.

1. the stories actually happened as they are told.

2. events/stories are explained to the best of their abilities. say for instance to make sense of an alien visitor who arrives from the sky and proceeds to perform miraculous tricks/things, they are then re-created in story as gods.

3. they did not actually happen, they were just trying to explain things they did not understand.

(I am sure most skeptics would choose number 3).

My first experience with this sort of thing as a kid, was learning about greek mythology in grade school. They had a god to explain everything.

Which makes some sense to me. However, what is odd, is the art work. How does some guy who lived 3000+ years ago come up with a figure that today resembles aliens.

Sure artists generally have good imaginations, but since those days, there is alot of previous art to inspire artists or at least lend ideas to artists. Back then, what inspiration would these guys have had? Perhaps the real thing.

Originally posted by PowerSlave
I have always wondered what the origin of religion is. I see 3 possibilities.

1. the stories actually happened as they are told.

2. events/stories are explained to the best of their abilities. say for instance to make sense of an alien visitor who arrives from the sky and proceeds to perform miraculous tricks/things, they are then re-created in story as gods.

3. they did not actually happen, they were just trying to explain things they did not understand.

Which do you think is more likely?

The stories told around campfires in the Neolithic were the only explanations they had. They were illiterate, ignorant (in comparison to (most of) us) and completely at awe of the surroundings. It's no wonder they thought up some gods.

What's sad is that some people haven't advanced beyond the campfire tales.

Awesome thread. Great stuff.