Were Humans Created by Reptilians?

reply to post by Aeons


do you then suggest that bone found in strata that doesn't appear to be from the same time frame as the strata is dated to, is therefore misplaced? think before you answer that because this is where most people lose sight of their facts.

reply to post by undo


It is suggestive. There could be several hypotheses for that. Which would mean that these hypotheses - to employ their meaning - would need to be testable.

Your OPINION may be testable, and it may not. It may employ suggestive context that might suggest other hypotheses.

But the bone is a fact. The strata is measureable. Elements of the bone may be measurable to provide other facts.

Merely being "out of place" isn't a fact. It is an observation. An observation that you can look for more data to support, reject or form hypotheses about why that may be.

[edit on 2010/3/3 by Aeons]

Here, check this out; www.scribd.com...
www.scribd.com...
halexandria.org...
petragrail.tripod.com...
www.halexandria.org...
www.enkispeaks.com...
www.godlikeproductions.com...
tr.wikipedia.org...
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
www.real-dream-catchers.com...
home.cogeco.ca...
Google Book Of The Ancients
A Guide to Dark Magick & Mythology
by Rev. Xul
Table Of Contents
Essays
Introduction

www.rumormillnews.com...
en.wikipedia.org...(moon)
en.wikipedia.org...(moon

Logic Fallacy - circular logic. Begging the question. Converse Fallacy of Accident.

Oh damn. Here. This thread pretty much encompasses the gament.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Aeons


well guess what? they often don't look for other data to support it. they are so sure of their theory, if they find out of place anything in a pre-dated strata, it's disposed of as contamination. they say this is because they can't afford to date every object in a strata, particulary things they can easily verify, visually, are contamination (such as a coke bottle or bottle cap in a 10,000 year old strata).

so does that mean they are using empirical process? i don't think so. THAT my friend, is what happens today. they don't HAVE to use empirical process, and they won't if it isn't financially feasible. may not have happened originally, but it does now. this comes from being so sure you're right, that no other possibility is ALLOWED to enter the picture.

previously, it's more than likely they were required to date everything, even what visually appeared to be contamination, but they don't have to any more, so they don't.

hopefully, you begin to see the point?

[edit on 3-3-2010 by undo]

My grandmother is buried by six feet. But it doesn't mean she lived 2000 years ago.

Dog digs in cache then forgets it, doesn't make the carcas living 50 year earlier.

These are conspiratorial and admittedly off the wall.
This is a world community connected by a red dragon bloodline -symbolic of Lucifer. The connections show a vast network of world powers all related by blood. No wonder the Illuminati are in almost every country originally sprouting out of Bavaria.










continued in next post

[edit on 4-3-2010 by rusethorcain]

reply to post by Aeons


Rh negative can't be mutated or cloned. I see this everywhere. Why do you insist that it can? Are you a hemotologist? What do you know these articles don't, pray tell? And no animal, gorilla or chimp is rh negative.

In fact it also seems no chimp is blood type B
and no gorilla is blood type A
leading me to think both gorillas and chimps were used in early genetic manipulation trials.

Rh negative is present most heavily in the Basques of Northern Spain and lower France as you mention... and also among the Celtic people.

I read people rh- have an extra spinal disk but that's inconclusive.

If it is true - I'm thinking both considerations give new meaning to terms "holy grail" and "Adam's rib"

reply to post by rusethorcain

Originally posted by undo

wait. so now smart people are bad. but they're not bad if they agree with you but otherwise they are bad because they made atom bombs and dangerous chemicals, even though most intelligent people do not make atom bombs and chemicals. if you ask me, your criteria for what is and isn't bad intelligence is pretty wishy washy and highly selective.

No I didn't say "smart people are bad", and I'm talking about the race as a whole. I'm saying that intelligence has made us weak outside of our self created environment. It also has given us the ability to affect the whole planet and everything on it. The problem is it can be good or bad on a global scale. Is this a good or bad trait…who knows, but it defiantly has great possibilities to be a trait that can extinct the host.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

now that's a more honest answer. so we could perhaps accept bones as evidence?

Bones are pretty basic, and very speculative to their true nature, but yes a start. It would be nicer to actually have a live one if they are a race living here, or maybe something that they created that is undeniably beyond our technology in design/material/capabilities…such as a portal that I think you suggested.

Maybe finding underground ruins that are not of human construction…in any event we are still basically at square one.

Originally posted by undo

yes quantum physics is a singular phenomenon. i love it. but this is the thing that gets me about it: it assumes the position of faith and no one in scientific community realizes it. i have no problem with the idea of developing a hypothesis or theory based on faith in my theory or hypothesis, so i don't mind if scientists do the same. but that they don't realize they are doing the same thing, really irks me. and further infuriates me when i'm told my theories are just opinions, when i'm often using things like quantum physics, archaeological evidence and textual evidence to back up what i'm saying.

The problem is we can all agree that theories are basically hunches with even faith mixed in, but does that make all hunches/faith equal?

Another example is whether black holes are real. Our math suggests that they can exist and we see stars in orbit around very small but extremely dense objects, but are black holes really out there? Is this theory/hunch/faith have the same validity as any other?

Within our theories we build data and observations, and as these chains continually link together we come to a conclusion that is most likely on the right path if not correct. Even back when the world was flat we still had many that knew the truth, just as many before religion forced the issue knew with math and observation that the world was not only round but not the center of the universe.

But then we have further hiccups much like the flat theory in that people come up with hunches and bypass/ignore/skew all data or observations to come to their own theory on a particular subject. It’s like with quantum physics, a reasonable person can follow the theory even if it ends up not being correct since there is much data/math that suggests we are at least heading in the right direction. Now what if I come along and suggest that at the quantum level it is actually blue elves that bind all matter together? Yes it is a hunch and or faith, but at what point do we put it side by side with all other theories, or should we treat it the same as any other theory and add it to print?

Originally posted by undo


well guess what? they often don't look for other data to support it. they are so sure of their theory, if they find out of place anything in a pre-dated strata, it's disposed of as contamination. they say this is because they can't afford to date every object in a strata, particulary things they can easily verify, visually, are contamination (such as a coke bottle or bottle cap in a 10,000 year old strata).

So the question is let’s say we find a coke bottle in 10,000 year old strata, what conclusion can we come to with that one piece of data? I’m sure one conclusion is that someone time traveled and left the bottle there, and so here is what we see over and over again, circular logic explaining everything. People take this unknown and create another unknown to explain it. They can also continue the chain and use further unknowns to explain time travel and if you do this enough you write a book on it so people on ATS can Google it to use as empirical data to show proof of their unknown…hehe

Originally posted by rusethorcain


Rh negative can't be mutated or cloned. I see this everywhere. Why do you insist that it can? Are you a hemotologist? What do you know these articles don't, pray tell? And no animal, gorilla or chimp is rh negative.

In fact it also seems no chimp is blood type B
and no gorilla is blood type A
leading me to think both gorillas and chimps were used in early genetic manipulation trials.

We have explained that diseases can change blood in even more extreme cases than what Rh- ended up becoming, as we have seen in isolated parts of Africa. It is also suspected that Rh- started in a very isolated group that lived near France/Spain that once again can explain how it started in a small group and stay within that group for a very long time. With this and other large amounts of data available why do you limit you information to a few bias sites?

I think the bigger question is how do you jump right to aliens using genetic engineering to create it all. It is mind boggling just how huge these leaps are that one must do to get all the way to this conclusion. Where are the steps in-between? That is all we ask on this…

well guess what? they often don't look for other data to support it. they are so sure of their theory, if they find out of place anything in a pre-dated strata, it's disposed of as contamination. they say this is because they can't afford to date every object in a strata, particulary things they can easily verify, visually, are contamination (such as a coke bottle or bottle cap in a 10,000 year old strata).

very nice undo.. since i like posting random 'cryptic' messages i won't say too much about that one, but i think i'm on the same wavelength as you:

reminds me of a movie i saw once..

but, it wasn't a coke bottle.. it was pepsi.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by sum1one]

reply to post by rusethorcain


you might find this interesting, in light of the information on the videos:


SUMERIAN EN.LIL

En (Lord) Lil (Air/Breath/Sky)

see this chart
www.balaams-ass.com...

now stop and think about this for a moment.

Who is Yahweh? Jehovah right?
And who is Jehovah? EL/Elohiym right?

Now follow me here for a moment: babEL is babILU or just babIL

this means that EL is also LIL, which means that EL is EN.LIL

where most people get thrown off the trail is they assume the word ELOHIYM, or EL, refers only to JEHOVAH, which is incorrect.

See this .pdf by a hebrew language and bible scholar, entitled,
"What Exactly is an Elohim?"
www.thedivinecouncil.com...

Enlil's name had become the generic one size fits all god name for nearly every god of the near and middle east, particularly iraq, which includes amongst its numbers Ba'al (and all variations), Al'lah, Bel, Ugaritic EL, Hebrew EL or Elohiym and so on.

There's more to the story than the film suggests because Alexander (Two Babylons) Hislop, was missing a few key points in his data, particularly as it regards the etymology of key words in ancient history, which shaped our understanding of who did what when and where.

It's crucial data, though, but unfortunately, for some, it seems blasphemous to suggest that the God of Abraham would also be the womanizer Enlil is depicted as in the sumerian-akkadian texts. If Enlil is the biblical God, and the rest of the sumerian-akkadian texts regarding him are obviously suggesting as much, at least initially, this piece of womanizing and subsequent references to his punishment by the council of gods for raping a woman, sound a bit too uncharacteristic of everything else said about him, including the fact that humans were not his most prized creation (which is mirrored in biblical texts by repeated references to our sin nature and our punishment with mortality, sickness, disease and other temporal liabilities), that angels were punished for having sex with human women, and etc. Seems there was a little transposing somewhere down the line!


The act of raping a woman and being punished for it, seems to fit the serpent in the garden of eden, a great deal better, wouldn't you say? Let's take for example the word "know". In Genesis lingo, to "know" someone is to have sex with them. And Adam knew Eve and she conceived, for example. So does the serpent impregnate Eve, who then gives birth to Cain, the serpent seed? It sure fits the first born tradition!

THE REAL QUESTION IS, WHO IS THE SERPENT from the Garden of Eden story?
If you follow the sumerian-akkadian text, both Enlil and Enki are dragons. So which one did the deed? Seems unlikely Enlil did it, regardless of which version you read, since he doesn't like humans in either the biblical or sumerian-akkadian texts. He may love humans but he doesn't like humans, that much is obvious. Why would he engage in illicit activities with a human woman, against his own divine laws, afterall, he punishes the angels for doing the exact same thing later?

We can only answer that question (if at all) by asking several more.

For example:

1. If Enlil is Jehovah/Yahweh (and most evidence seems to suggest as much), why then is the creator called ELOHIYM (plural) in the text? Not once, but several times?

2. Why does it say Elohiym created man and woman "in our image" and called them adam? what about adam's rib? i thought woman was created in the image of Elohiym not the image of adam, but later we see woman "Eve" created from adam not from Elohiym? And here's the real brain twister, check this out:

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image

really says this:

(And) ELOHIYM said make adam likeness (image).

That's what the text actually says. It doesn't say IN OUR image, it doesn't say IN HIS image.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Actually says:

ELOHIYM created adam likeness, likeness ELOHIYM created, zakar (male) neqebah (female) created.

???

3. Why do the sumerian-akkadian texts claim Enlil's son, Enki, created humans instead of Enlil? Why does the akkadian text depicting the life of nimrod (enmerkar), also mention that Enki was the one who confused the languages at the tower of babel when the biblical text say it was YEHOVAH?

4. Why is Enlil called "prince of heaven" dragon of the earth? That seems more befitting of Enki, who's name means LORD EARTH and who is called the great dragon and is a son (a prince) of Enlil. Has someone or did someone tamper with the sumerian-akkadian texts? Furthermore, if you recall new testament verses, prince of the air is a reference to satan and would suggest Enlil, because his name EN.LIL means LORD AIR/SKY/BREATH, yet the rest of the data suggests Enki! Just WHAT is going on here?





[edit on 4-3-2010 by undo]

[edit on 4-3-2010 by undo]

But then we have further hiccups much like the flat theory in that people come up with hunches and bypass/ignore/skew all data or observations to come to their own theory on a particular subject. It’s like with quantum physics, a reasonable person can follow the theory even if it ends up not being correct since there is much data/math that suggests we are at least heading in the right direction. Now what if I come along and suggest that at the quantum level it is actually blue elves that bind all matter together? Yes it is a hunch and or faith, but at what point do we put it side by side with all other theories, or should we treat it the same as any other theory and add it to print?

very nice Xtrozero.. do you mean like the ones that live underground in iceland or the ones that live in darnassus?

Enlil's name had become the generic one size fits all god name for nearly every god of the near and middle east, particularly iraq, which includes amongst its numbers Ba'al (and all variations), Al'lah, Bel, Ugaritic EL, Hebrew EL or Elohiym and so on.

Good morning undo, nice to see you again.. since your on this topic again --^ any thoughts on the Djinn? Apparently some think the Djinn were the "genies" of Arabia.. such as the story of Alladin. But in any case, what are Djinn exactly?? Just curious as to what your thoughts are, if any.

reply to post by Aeons


Archaeologists can tell when the earth around something has been disturbed. Give them some credit! That post reeks of your ignorance of archaeology, not of the innate flaws of the discipline itself.

reply to post by Xtrozero


i don't base my theories about this topic on coke bottles though. in the sumerian-akkadian text, ENKI AND THE WORLD ORDER, as translated by Oxford University, Enki's temple is entirely made of metal. It isn't mud bricks. Samuel Noah Kramer, the assyriologist who was the first to translate sumerian cuneiform, translates the arrival of Enki passages to say that Enki raises his E.ABZU (home faraway built) temple from the Abyss and makes it float over the water like a lofty mountain. How many temples from Iraq were boats or submergible, hovering metal homes, far away built? The interior of this metal temple, is "a tangled thread beyond understanding". Ziggurats temples did not have complicated interiors. they couldn't hover or raise themselves up from the abyss, nor were they made from metals. It also roared, the walls gave advice, it had a door that snatches a man, and it glowed so brightly it lit up the area.

so one of three things is happening there:

1. it didn't actually exist, i.e. it's a myth
2. it did exist but the text and translations are faulty or exaggerated
3. it did exist and it's describing something quite surprising.