Newly Discovered Artifacts May Prove Mayans Had Alien Contact!

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by purplemer

and this looks very much like it could be a spacecraft..

 

It also looks like it could be a hat.

I was going to say an upside down bowl. Never seen a culture that made hats out of clay.

yeh maybe the alien visitations were not physical but psychological as in they used hallucinogens to travel tthe multiverse.

'___' reports in '___' the spirit molecule people have claimed contact with alien creatures.
many shaman have used ayahuasca to astral travel

Did anyone mention that the Mayans may have used Astral Projection (OBE) to travel the cosmos? This go a long ways to explain how the Mayans knew that Saturn had rings. After all, they were a spiritual people whom I can imagine knew a great deal about out of body experiences. Just my two cents.

Oh, I see that sapien82 mentioned astral projection induced by drugs. Although I don't believe they necessarily needed drugs to project, I know using hallucinogens was part of their rituals. Glad to know I wasn't the only one to think of astral projection though.

Originally posted by boncho
Okay, so I found the original articles that this site is basing its claims off of. Still can't find where the supposed artifacts are from though:

Articl e 1


Article 2

You will notice in article 2 the filmmaker has already misquoted Stephen Hawking, which does not bode well for whether or not the work is going to be unbiased.

edit on 13-3-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)

Not for nothing, but you're wrong. They didn't misquote him at all. They provided a new quote in which they are the only source (which means you cannot verify it to be true OR false) and then they direct quoted him a second time with a quote that you can see him say yourself....

"'I warn humanity that aliens are out there. Just because the aliens were friends with the Mayans doesn't mean they are our friends. Humans should avoid contact with aliens at all costs.'"

^
Can't be corroborated or debunked.... nor does anywhere on that page actually attribute that quote to hawking, it is implied.

"If aliens ever visit us," Hawking has said, "I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn't turn out very well for the Native Americans."

Is a direct quote and is factual and can be corroborated.


All things considered though, hawking is an idiot. While he may be "smart" he's equally dumb. Only a dumb person would impose primitive human behavior upon an ancient and super advanced unknown species.

I.E.

It's naive to assume they'd come here to destroy us, it's not impossible, however; it's definitely improbable.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Art means something TOTALLY different to us, then it did for people back then.

Trying to use your modern view of art and what it should be is completely irrelevant in this case.

Art back then was a way to record history for the most part, to us it's something pretty to look at.

reply to post by purplemer


First 2 pictures = Praying Mantises
Second one is a bowl turned upside down
Third one is a guy in a spaceship flying around the planets toward Saturn, which I dont see how in the heck they knew about that back in that day....no one had telescopes even.

There debunked.

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by hesse
reply to post by InfaRedMan

 

Is your dis-info agent thing supposed to be a joke? I don´t think its funny at all.

*le sigh*

well yeah I guess I was a bit over the top man.

Did anyone else notice this one? I enlarged it to see it better. It looks to me like someone is holding up a smaller person (child?) toward the ship. I'm not sure, but I think I see wings on the one.

Could this be depicting an alien abduction or could this be depicting an 'offering' to the 'gods'? Sacrifice? Offering? Abduction?

reply to post by Cdaddy1034


And what is your basis for this claim? If the art of these people were to merely convey historical events why was it so stylized? Why did the Greeks create an entire school of philosophy devoted to beauty in art? If all they were concerned about was documenting historical events you think they would put more effort into making the historical event it was supposed to depict as accurate as possible as opposed to making it look pretty. Art has always been a means to convey thoughts and feelings that words are incapable of expressing.

Originally posted by cornucopia
cosmic family hung out with ancient peoples because that was a previous golden age and a time when people were in harmony with each other and the planet....notice how they built everything with nature?

when we share more love and end the wars, they/we will return

remember?



you will

Those people were in harmony with eac+h other?

Man.. They ate each other, collected heads and impailed virgins on long spikes or threw them into bottomless pits to apease their gods...

Real harmony..lol

Originally posted by purplemer
I missed this image when I first looked. Its an interesting one.. Shame I cannot get them bigger..

and to all you peeps going on about proof or evidence... I would prefer if you stopped dicing hairs and looked at the artifacts and comment on what you think they might represent. It took scientists 50 years to provide empirical proof that smoking caused cancer and still to this day there is no definite proof..

I guess proof is relative and people see what they want.. Me included..

Hmm looks like pyrimids on this one... But this does most def look like a space craft of somekind. Interesting find none the less.

S/F

-SAP-

its no use posting ´proofable´stuff in threads like this..its about believing , not about debunking.

These all look fake as f-ck, and the source isn't exactly reliable either

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Cdaddy1034

 

And what is your basis for this claim? If the art of these people were to merely convey historical events why was it so stylized? Why did the Greeks create an entire school of philosophy devoted to beauty in art? If all they were concerned about was documenting historical events you think they would put more effort into making the historical event it was supposed to depict as accurate as possible as opposed to making it look pretty. Art has always been a means to convey thoughts and feelings that words are incapable of expressing.

Since you were not living there, how can you possibly say it was "stylized?" Compared to what? Maybe if you pointed out the entire collected works of those who did record something, and we knew more about them personally, we could apply the "stylized" idea in a more rational way. To suggest they didn't put enough "effort" into accurately CARVING images to resemble what they saw is totally and utterly baseless and have zero merit. Further, these are the ones that survived time, it could be that there were far more elaborate depictions that were destroyed, but to make a blanket statement that conveniently supports your argument is childish.

Art is not the same thing as depiction of the common visual reality through imagery, use your terms correctly, so to say "art" , when you mean imagery as a mode of conveyance of ideas, or concepts is also disingenuous. In fact, it would seem more accurate to call the person(s) who did this work writer(s). The ONLY way to know which is art and which is conveyance is to ask the creator, to assume by looking at these items they are artsy is poor form indeed.

While I don't mean to pick on you, this kind of attack argument as a "well there you have it case closed" isn't helpful, but simply serves to reinforce the American way of "I'm right, what I know is all there is to know about all the world that is and ever was, and you're wrong because these are the facts." The facts used in your argument to throw down the final gauntlet are not facts at all.

What I notice the most is the utter lack of critical thinking going on here. Real, solid facts can be laid out ala buffet style---and no one takes a bite.

Its fun and exciting to imagine aliens coming down from the deep Cosmos to teach us all about brick laying and digging ditches, but strains actual credulity when it comes to the truth of how civilizations form and evolve. We do a disservice to those that have come before by assuming they couldn't create this kind of technology without outside intervention.

Again, I ask: Why did these highly advanced aliens come to visit the pre-Colombian peoples, just to teach them how to build dirt mounds faced with stones and basic agriculture? Why not teach them about electricity, advanced medicine, powered land transport, synthetic materials science, heck-even basic nuclear physics?

I think it should also be brought up that the Maya didn't really use metal as an artistic medium as it was an extremely rare resource. Yet at least twp of the "artifacts" posted appear to be carved into metal. It's also worth mentioning that Mayan art places an emphasis on depicting the human form. So why would these "artifacts" go against that and instead place an emphasis on the objects instead of the beings? I will now close this post with examples of actual Mayan art to show how these "artifacts" don't match the style at all.

The whole thing looks fake to me. If it's too good to be true it probably is.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
How did they create an image of Saturn's rings?
They didn't have telescopes....

They know Saturn has rings the same way you know it.

The "artifacts" are not old. There is an industry out there creating these things. It thrives because there are enough gullible people to keep it alive!

reply to post by purplemer


That fourth photo in the OP looks pretty convincing enough but how do we know it wasn't drawn just a few years ago? If it is from way back then, then i have to admit that that is a drawing of a Rocket/Spaceship for sure with the thrusters at back and Alien guy at the front!!

Having said that, it seems a bit laughable but i'll wait to see the Artifacts myself if they go on public view at the History Museum!!

reply to post by crankyoldman


When I refer to stylized I refer to things like this:



That art style was clearly adopted for aesthetic pleasure. Unless of course you believe Mesoamerica used to look like that.

Every civilization has had a certain style that its people found visually appealing. For example, thanks to the writings of people like Plato and Aristotle, we know that the people of ancient Greece found proportion, harmony, and unity to be appealing. We can also see their unique style in their sculptures. These depicted idealized bodies that focused on anatomical proportion, musculature, poise, and grace. The sculptures never contained body hair because this was not seen as beautiful.

From the writings of the people of these times we know that art is much more than a depiction of historical events. It is a means to approach beauty incarnate. It is a means to give thoughts and feelings physical form. Some researchers even argue that this emphasis on aesthetics in art is an evolutionary advantage. Art was more than just a history picture book for these people. It helped define their culture, their people, their beliefs, their area, and their time.