Ancient Indians and their Ufo folklore which does not speak with forked tongue

reply to post by magma

The whole thing is a lame Stichin esque attempt and smells the same. Stinky..

If there is any stink around here its the Stink coming off a Troll.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by magma

 

The whole thing is a lame Stichin esque attempt and smells the same. Stinky..

If there is any stink around here its the Stink coming off a Troll.

You asked for a rebuttal and you got it. You can't handle it so your resort to low blows and name calling.

Mate , like I said provide some proof to you speculative claims. Back it up with some intelligence and you might have something.

Like I said I don't have the patience to debate this. I am sorry for cutting you down in mid flight, but it needed to be done early as to not mislead people.

Originally posted by magma
reply to post by sweord

 

That legend is similar to the Australian Aborigines.

I am not disputing the legend. It may have happened.

The dispute I have is the so called waveforms on the rocks.

Which are clearly the mountains and the rivers.

The whole thing is a lame Stichin esque attempt and smells the same. Stinky..

you picked the ones that looked MOST like mountans...they also look like crocodile teeth, and they also look like waveforms.
the other pictures dont look like mountains or rivers at all. that is some pretty uniform mountains and rivers.

Which are clearly the mountains and the rivers.

yes....clearly

reply to post by Enzo954


Well, these cats were on some heavy, heavy hallucinogens.

reply to post by sweord


Have look at the region the drawings are in. The curvey swirley patterns are the actual mountains themselves. The square patterns are mountains and triangles are mountains. It is not hard to see.

Different curley patterns reresent the bendy river system.

reply to post by magma

Mate , like I said provide some proof to you speculative claims. Back it up with some intelligence and you might have something.

i presented my evidence in the OP. Now you presented something stronger evidence to refute the evidence i am presenting. Posting replies about simple drawings and stinky ancients isnt gonna work with me. And lastly your not my mate so please dont refer to me as such in subsequent replies. And no the below is not stronger evidence.

Have look at the region the drawings are in. The curvey swirley patterns are the actual mountains themselves. The square patterns are mountains and triangles are mountains. It is not hard to see.

Different curley patterns reresent the bendy river system.

reply to post by AthlonSavage


Mate in this instance is a term of endearment.

I have looked long and hard into to sine wave theory and no scholar nor scientist would dare propose it to be plausible.

You have not proposed any evidence. You had a thought, seperated a few pictures that look like sine waves, presented screen shots of modern representations of sine waves then bundled them together with your own speculative theory.

Don't get your nose outta joint over it. It was a good try.

While everyone is arguing about squiggly lines all I can think about is the part where 2 flying crafts bumped into each other causing one craft to be damaged enough to crash or land until it was repaired. Damage means there could be parts of the craft, small or large, lying out there somewhere in Death Valley.

Someone (maybe retired) with an RV and a good metal detector should scour the areas around those petroglyphs for a few weeks and see if they can find any evidence of a damaged craft. ie: metal scraps

I find this absolutely fascinating. I'd love to know what they saw that made them decide to preserve the memory for posterity. Unfortunately, we'll probably never know 100% for sure. That's what makes all these ancient drawings and such so interesting. The information is speculative and circumstantial and therefore means something different to everyone. I don't think there is a right or wrong interpretation of the ancient petroglyphs.

Personally, I think they saw something technological. Ancients weren't stupid. They just didn't have a knowledge of technology or a basis for comparison. Plus, these drawings look like they took a long time- too long to just make up a sci-fi fantasy. And to come up with the idea of flying objects crashing into each other? That's pretty far fetched to just make up when there is no knowledge of planes, hot air balloons or anything else of the sort for comparison.

reply to post by magma

Don't get your nose outta joint over it. It was a good try.

I think you go and find some stronger evidence than what i have presented (and yes a picture is worth a thousand words). So MATE go off find something or what ever you think is good evidence to provide a better explanation and come back and ill look at it then. Until then just go and wash your car or something more meaningful.

Originally posted by magma
reply to post by sweord

 

Have look at the region the drawings are in. The curvey swirley patterns are the actual mountains themselves. The square patterns are mountains and triangles are mountains. It is not hard to see.

Different curley patterns reresent the bendy river system.

complete speculation from top to bottom.

perhaps they are pictures of mountains. perhaps they are pictures of waveforms. perhaps something else entirely.
key word : perhaps. perhaps you could use it occasionally.

reply to post by ImpactoR

Were they gaining money out of it, were they making themselves more popular or smth? No.

So we should assume that people many moons ago didn't tell tall tails, myths or stories? No reason for them to lie? Popularity... Still existed then as it does today. Money? Goods, wares... Wives... Same thing.

reply to post by sweord


Perhaps you are right.

As you have said it all speculation.

In it's entirety

reply to post by boncho

So we should assume that people many moons ago didn't tell tall tails, myths or stories? No reason for them to lie? Popularity... Still existed then as it does today. Money? Goods, wares... Wives... Same thing.

Well answering your question i guess thats what someone or something will assume one day when they find this plaque which is on the spaceship Voyager which by now is about to or just has left our Solar system. All myths all tall tails.

reply to post by magma

Perhaps you are right.

As you have said it all speculation.

In it's entirety

So next time time i suggest try speculating with some pictures it may be the simplest way to wash the stink out of a post.

Excellent thread....I seriously need to find In Search Of in its entirety.

A show way ahead of its time.

I agree with previous poster, someone needs to get out there with a metal detector pronto!

reply to post by AthlonSavage


Please not more of this ancient alien nonsense that has been debunked time and again. Most ancient petroglyph which look somewhat like what an 'alien craft' may look like are really not all and have perfectly normal explanations. Only those with an agenda make out that they are something else that they're not. Is there even any evidence to confirm this ancient indian ufo crash story? For all we know you could have made this up, not saying you are though. The history channel is also not a credible source of information.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

Please not more of this ancient alien nonsense that has been debunked time and again. Most ancient petroglyph which look somewhat like what an 'alien craft' may look like are really not all and have perfectly normal explanations. Only those with an agenda make out that they are something else that they're not. Is there even any evidence to confirm this ancient indian ufo crash story? For all we know you could have made this up, not saying you are though. The history channel is also not a credible source of information.

Dude i dont watch the History channel the evidence in my OP was brought out in a show called "In Search of " a 70s show that predates History Channel. And as for the debunked time and time again i couldnt care less about Debunker rhetorical catch statemens as such, because i can think for myself and dont need your summary. Thank you for your opinion input now goodbye for ever.

reply to post by AthlonSavage


Stink was probably a too strong or touchy word for you so I apologise for that.

I should have used the word.... Smells.


Ancient aliens.... Smells of Stitchen.


Is that better for you....

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by AthlonSavage

 

Please not more of this ancient alien nonsense that has been debunked time and again. Most ancient petroglyph which look somewhat like what an 'alien craft' may look like are really not all and have perfectly normal explanations. Only those with an agenda make out that they are something else that they're not. Is there even any evidence to confirm this ancient indian ufo crash story? For all we know you could have made this up, not saying you are though. The history channel is also not a credible source of information.

It's important to remember that it's just your interpretation of what you see. Others have different interpretations. None of us were there to witness and catalog events. It's all speculative.

Question- If this is nothing but "ancient alien nonsense" then why even bother to reply to the thread?