Were Humans Created by Reptilians?

reply to post by davesidious


why then are more and more archaeologists using ancient texts to recover ancient places? clearly the old texts have proven themselves to be at least geographically revealing, even if everything else is pitched out on the context of what men 300 years ago claimed, were scientific impossibilities (which turns out, wasn't accurate. and neither was their contention that ancient greeks couldn't write and that little faux pas is what lead to the rest of the ancient world being called a myth. 40 years later they find out the ancient greeks could write but it's too late to recant because too many "smart" people have added their weight to it and now the ball is rolling like a runaway stalin on steroids.

reply to post by undo


I answered that. They use them if they are corroborated by other sources, and if the texts are clear in them being factual accounts, not fictional.

It's all about evidence.

reply to post by davesidious


you realize of course, corroboration of what is and isn't fictional, is based on personal viewpoint AFTER the other methods have been exhausted? for example, it is discovered today, that many things ruled unscientific in the enlightenment period, are in fact quite scientific. however, corroboration that such things transpired is based wholly on the surviving texts. it's a game of circular logic that goes something like this:

1. the books are not legitimate because they are scientifically impossible. this point has been proven to be false. but that isnt a consideration for accepting them as having historical legitimacy.

2. the books are not legitimate because the places mentioned in them, never existed. this point has also been proven to be false. but that isn't a consideration for accepting them as having any historical legitimacy IF the reference is scientific in nature, such as references to advanced science.

---------the rest of these points are really not necessary as 1 and 2 just go around and around in circles but read the rest of the points below for more specifics if you're interested -------------

3. the text can be used to accuse itself, but not to support itself, other than for isolated examples such as for archaeological purposes but not scientific purposes. ignore the fact that archaeology is science.

4. although academia is beginning to use the old texts more frequently for archaeological and historical context, anything discussing scientific evidence in a historical framework is shunned. this arose initially from the mistaken belief that NONE OF IT WAS TRUE. and as time wears on, the more evidence is uncovered that such things are not only possible but occured in places that actually existed.

5. but we can't accept it as evidence because it mentions things that can't be corroborated to be scientifically possible even though they are corroborated to be scientifically possible. so the argument moves ever so slightly to the left and now suggests it can't be corroborated because the artifacts of the ancient technology are not available for evidence (ignoring the possibility that such a thing as advanced technology may not look anything like what we think it should)

6. if none of that works, the new argument is that some pope in the dark ages had his own interpretation of it and he happened to be king of the world at the time, and he was wrong in his interpretation. so therefore anything else from the ancient world is wrong too, not realizing that the pope's INTERPRETATION is what had a problem, not the ancient world itself.

7. if that doesn't work, there's appeal to literary scholarship and translation error. if the information can be corroborated across borders and cultures and religious beliefs, the corroboration is ignored on the basis that's akin to believing in the tooth fairy or santa claus.

8. when it's proven that the context and framework in which this information appears is historically accurate and scientifically credible, it's ignored simply because it is weird.

and the rest just repeats itself


[edit on 8-3-2010 by undo]

reply to post by undo


Wow you've lost it. I withdraw from this discussion as it has left the realms of reality, and my Earth-based education prohibits me from following.

reply to post by davesidious


i'll add that excuse to the end of the list:

if all else fails, don't address the evidence that does exist.

reply to post by undo


No, as soon as you started talking about "impossible texts", you lost the plot. If you are only going to pay lip service to science, to misrepresent it, then forget it. You are no longer engaging in a rational discussion.

reply to post by davesidious


what impossible texts? that's what i've been trying to explain to you for awhile now. nothing in the ancient texts is impossible. it's not impossible for a woman to get pregnant without intercourse or foreplay for that matter. it's not impossible for people to fly in the sky. it's not impossible to speak things into existing, with sufficient technology. it's not even impossible to pilot an aircraft with your mind. you need to catch up to science and realize what it's saying is not what you think it's saying. it's not saying that it proves the old texts are wrong. it's saying that every reason given for the old texts being wrong, is quickly becoming the opposite. what proof do you require?

reply to post by undo


Nothing anyone has ever written in ancient texts is impossible?

Right. Of course. Pardon my ignorance.

HA! Genius.

reply to post by davesidious


correct. nothing is impossible.
name something that's impossible, scientifically, from an old text.

reply to post by undo


OK, let's take the bible. The Earth was created before the sun. There we go! Or, pretty much, the rest of the book.

How about the ancient Greek stories, of gods turning into animals and vice versa? Egyptian stories of gods masturbating to create the world? I could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

I can't believe I'm having to point out things people have written that are impossible.

Where do you (arbitrarily) draw the line between modern and ancient?

reply to post by davesidious


no the belief that the earth was created before the sun is based on papal interpretation. see #6 in my list above.

i can't vouch for the context of the egyptian story, but i bet it has lots of other interesting information in it, that if treated with respect, could explain alot more than just the ability of people to believe anything. it could be a metaphor for something else, which is frequently the case when the context doesn't seem to jive with modern logic

reply to post by undo


Which is exactly my point - that it is not real. It takes corroborating evidence before a single text can be determined to be factual.

reply to post by davesidious


well let me give you an example:

Abzu was the name of a place in ancient Sumer. It was associated with the E.Abzu, which was a temple of Enki. The temple was in a city called Eridu.
All these were real places.

Over in Abydos, Egypt, we have the same thing. Abydos is greek for egyptian Abdju. The dj is pronounced z (djoser is pronounced zoser, for instance), so the word is pronounced Abzu.

If i hadn't found a connection between these two places, I would still be under the impression that the only place the Abzu word was attributed to was Sumer. But the stories are couched in various metaphors. Once you know the metaphor you understand the context and that's when you can translate the meaning. But you have to WANT to understand the context first, and that's where the trouble arises

the metaphor in this case is the primordial mountain rising from the primordial sea, which is said of the function of the osirieon (a subterranean temple in abydos). the actual story of the primordial "mountain" rising from the primordial "sea" is in ENKI BUILDS THE E.ENGURRA, a sumerian-akkadian text in which Enki raises his E.Abzu temple (primordial mountain) from the Abyss (the primordial sea, the Abzu).

can't understand a metaphor till you're willing to discover its meaning.

p.s. the translation of abydos to abzu is from egyptologist david rohl



[edit on 8-3-2010 by undo]

an interview i did with feet2fire.
you can hear it at about half way thru the show. my interview starts at that point
www.jancikradionetwork.com...

Originally posted by undo

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

And here I thought it was created to get the landing party quickly down on the planet surface so they could get to the action, and shuttle travel would have push into the commercial breaks

[edit on 9-3-2010 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by Xtrozero


pardon?
are we having a discussion or are you done?

Hermantinkly originally posted this in the pleiadians thread

Uou have to make it to part 2 or 3 (I am only up to 8 right now) but even the Pleiadians say there are reptiles in our past still trying to control us. I think some of the reptilian species that mastered the planet - dragons both good and very bad were driven under ground.
Why? Because if I were a reptile on this planet (especially a smart one) and an asteroid hit, if I were not annihilated immediately I would go underground and I would stay there until the dust settled. In the meanwhile I would become familiar and comfortable in my new surroundings. Dig in. Bide my time.
It is the simplest most natural and logical conclusion. Because we do not see these species today doesn't mean they don't exist. They are more highly evolved and have found alternative ways to come and go from the interior labyrinth of this planet.

reply to post by rusethorcain


No, it's not logical in the slightest. A dinosaur, after some event that made the world unsuitable for its survival, would be screwed as it would need to leave its hidey-hole cave to eat/reproduce/drink, and if the temperature was too low, or if the sunlight was not sufficient for plant growth, it'd die. And rather quickly.

It's wishful thinking.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by rusethorcain

 

No, it's not logical in the slightest. A dinosaur, after some event that made the world unsuitable for its survival, would be screwed as it would need to leave its hidey-hole cave to eat/reproduce/drink, and if the temperature was too low, or if the sunlight was not sufficient for plant growth, it'd die. And rather quickly.

It's wishful thinking.

Are you kidding? Have you seen the things that live in subterranean earth? What we see is just the tip of the iceberg. It is not wishful thinking it is an extremely possible and credible conclusion.
Especially when you add that for years UFOologists have suspected there are very likely bases here on earth due to the frequency and direction of certain identifiable craft. They are not in a trajectory that supports just passing through.
That and the rest of the evidence.

Soon you will return to show me the errors of my thoughts, naively unaware of the knowledge you will never change my mind
Please now move on to calling me names or debunk my ideas and otherwise lord your superior thought processes and flimsy evidence here in my face. You have made it to my ignore list!

Good luck with that "last-word-itis"

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

pardon?
are we having a discussion or are you done?

You are basically quoting Star Trek along with a ST video, and Gene Roddenberry actually invented the transporter idea to speed up the process in getting the landing party quickly on the planet. Otherwise they would be flying a shuttle craft up and down wasting time better spent on the plot.