Were Humans Created by Reptilians?

FRANCE ALIENS RESISTANCE UN+ON ALERT

I.E.I

IDENTIFIED EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTERVENTION
yf21sama.free.fr...

frère Claude

[edit on 8-3-2010 by frère Claude]

[edit on 8-3-2010 by frère Claude]

reply to post by undo


Loads more guesses piled on top of each other. The picture demonstrates nothing more than the picture exists. To assume any differently is a logical fallacy of the highest order.

We need to adopt critical thinking, or not bother thinking at all - we'll never learn anything.

reply to post by davesidious


so critical thinking is to assume the image means nothing because it contains reptilians and some kind of grey/amphibian looking beings? have to start with a hypothesis and develop a theory from there.

reply to post by undo


Anybody who thinks that reptiles are nice smelling and clean has never owned a reptile.

I often wonder if there was another race of reptiles that lived along side the other dinosaurs. Kind of like modern day man living along side apes. Maybe this race of reptiles was a technologically advanced one. Enough to explore the cosmos possibly. It just seems like early on in our existence we were given the opportunity to meet our creator or have knowledge of them.

reply to post by undo


A brief overview of the over-simplified, concise hypotheses describing your image follow. If the answer is 'no', then stop, and flesh out the current hypothesis into a testable theory. If not, and you can prove the hypothesis with evidence, proceed to the next, in order to make the theory more accurate.

1. Are the images man-made?

2. Is there meaning to the pictures, that they are not merely doodles?

3. Is the meaning meant to represent a factual depiction of real life, as opposed to a fictional illustration?

4. Can the images be accurately, and repeatedly, interpreted as anything non-human?

5. Are the 'things' depicted actual living entities?

... skip a bunch ...

420. Do the images depict these demonstrable, evidence-supporting creatures that are a hybrid between aliens and amphibians?

Do you see? You can't just pick a hypothesis anywhere along the line and go from there - you have to start at the beginning, rule each simplistic explanation out, and then progress to the more complicated explanations. That's how science works, and if you want to use words like "theory" and "hypothesis", it'd help your case to actually use them correctly, and stick to their actual meanings.

I watched The Sky at Night last night on British tv, very interesting.
It was about possible life elsewhere in the Galaxy.

One Astro-chemistry guy was saying what kind of signs to look for regarding other life, he said with quite a strong point and made it quite a long point that we may have to look at our DNA for signs of other life as the main way for looking for other life is weak, like radio signals.

It wasnt taken out of context, he really meant look for signs within our own bodys of possible manipulation of our DNA.

I would post the program but its only viewers inside the U.K that can watch i player, maybe it will turn up on youtube.

reply to post by Aeons


the guy who wrote that book said the reptilians t
hought humans smelled bad

reply to post by Sparkey76


No, he means to see if our DNA shows how life started on Earth, whether it was formed entirely here, or triggered/stimulated/fuelled/aided by extraterrestrial events, such as comet impacts, solar radiation, etc. If found that would mean that the necessary ingredients for life are indeed present in space, as well as on our planet.

Not that our DNA was manipulated by extraterrestrials, or anything like that.

reply to post by davesidious


Did you watch the program?
Are you from the U.K?


He was saying it in the context of has intelligent life visited Earth in its past and we could look at our DNA for clues of this.

The whole program was dedicated about life elsewhere intelligent and non intelligent.

No mention of Comets that started life in this program, which of course is just one theory and not fact, just like the hydrothermal vents, which many scientists are leaning towards as the likely explanation, Still, a big void remains unanswered regarding how Amino acids transformed into DNA.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by Sparkey76]

reply to post by davesidious


i did start at the beginning, literally. that's so ironic
you have faith in a science book.
i have faith in ancient texts and science books.
you don't have to go prove the data presented to you in science books , in order to believe it or build your own hypotheses and theories. so with that nice wide berth of freedom to choose how you will use your available brain space, pardon me, while i enjoy the same freedom


[edit on 8-3-2010 by undo]

reply to post by Sparkey76


I'll download it. I doubt very much that they are seriously talking about that with any likelihood of finding anything. Every other time I've heard scientists talking about DNA and life elsewhere they are talking about the ingredients or catalysts from space, not from ET meddling with our DNA. That is science fiction, and requires as many leaps of faith as Undo's fine work.

reply to post by undo


Ancient texts should be analysed by scientific methods, not taken on par with science books. You are engaging in logical fallacies.

reply to post by davesidious


You do that, You will see the context of what was said and then your assumption will be wrong.

What the hell do you take me for?
someone who cant interpret what people say?

Insulting.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by Sparkey76]

reply to post by davesidious


who SAID ancient texts should be treated any less respectfully than modern texts? you? dunno if you noticed, but me and you are different people

reply to post by Sparkey76


No comment.

reply to post by undo


I said that ancient texts are not the same as science texts. You were implying, albeit not necessarily on purpose, that they were.

reply to post by davesidious


No comment because you have to face the possibilty that you may have been wrong in your assumption?

The Sky at Night's episode "Life" is not online yet, it goes on BBC I Player and can be only viewable for people within the U.K, I shall watch out for it on Youtube as many episodes seem to appear on there over time.

reply to post by davesidious


i believe they are as important, perhaps for slightly different reasons, than modern texts. i have a great deal of respect for words of our ancestors, just as i would for the words of modern texts that don't attempt to throw away 6000 years of history on the premise that it contains material they don't believe or understand. that's alot of history to just pitch out on the context that it wasn't scientifically possible, when today we know most of it is scientifically possible.

allow me to explain:

cloning has proven that a living copy (image) can be made of the original life form, in multiples if needed.

women can give birth to children without having sexual intercourse. it is called artificial insemination.

people can fly in the sky.

items can be rendered invisible.

viable quantum teleportation has been discovered, without the need for destroying the original. this would provide not only movement across vast distances outside the confines of C, but could be used alternatively to create food and other materials on demand



quantum string theory describes many dimensions and universes, even outside our current universe.

as science progresses it proves, scientifically, that what the enlightenment period suggested was impossible and therefore myth because of their limited science, is in reality, very possible.

reply to post by undo


Aaah. So you are not engaging in science I'm glad we cleared that up. Ancient texts are a resource to be rigorously examined, not given a free pass due to "respect of the ancients". That is irrational, and bad science.

You can believe those pictures contain anything you want, and without using science, you'll never ever know, nor ever be able to expect anyone else to take you seriously on the matter.

reply to post by davesidious


would of course depend on how the other person viewed the ancient texts and artifacts. seems academia has a love-hate relationship with the ancient world.

reply to post by undo


No, the relationship is well defined. A document/inscribing/etc. on its own, or vague in meaning, is not suitable evidence to assume anything. Otherwise every story ever written down suddenly has to be treated as fact. That's now how it works. Yes, we have to accept that Atlantis doesn't exist, and that there are no hieroglyphs depicting Apache attack helicopters and space ships, but it means we get to know instead of guess.