Ancient aliens

Gabeed

New member
RaideroftheArk said:
Hey everyone, it's nice to see that this thread has taken a turn for the better.

I'd say rather more cordial, than actually better. I feel like I should start talking about my zebra mussel theory again. I mean, the last couple pages have been merely a continuation of wild theories without a willingness to discuss their veracity or an existence of facts to back them up, besides the History Channel. :rolleyes: Oh, and there was a large amount of Matt's background presented, which although providing insight as to why he believes what he does, fails (even if true) to really provide any evidence/information regarding ancient aliens.

If I had known that this thread was intended to be a show-and-tell, and a circle-jerk of unsubstantiated claims with no effort/desire made to critique or defend said claims in any way, I wouldn't have bothered. I mean, I said in the thread that preceded this one that I'm a big fan of Coast to Coast AM (though back when it had Art Bell more than now), and enjoy hearing these sorts of theories--but only when provided with some evidence and an atmosphere conducive to debate.
 
Last edited:

Stoo

Well-known member
Gabeed said:
If I had known that this thread was intended to be a show-and-tell, and a circle-jerk of unsubstantiated claims with no effort/desire made to critique or defend said claims in any way, I wouldn't have bothered.
deMille's vapid and meandering replies to my specific questions were a real turn-off. When he returns, I'll have a "tête-à-tête" with him re: the world map pattern and the Great Lakes thing but it hardly seems worth the bother...:rolleyes:
 

teampunk

Member
Stoo said:
deMille's vapid and meandering replies to my specific questions were a real turn-off. When he returns, I'll have a "tête-à-tête" with him re: the world map pattern and the Great Lakes thing but it hardly seems worth the bother...:rolleyes:
i think he was talking about ley lines. it's big in the paranormal world. something about energy lines that move through the earth and older cultures were in tune with them and built their places of worship on them. and while i don't believe in them, i do find the whole subject interesting enough to google it.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
teampunk said:
...while i don't believe in them, i do find the whole subject interesting enough to google it.

That's the line I take with these ideas. For me they belong in the weird world of what-if? Like ghosts and psychic powers and all the other oddities that claims are made for, but which lie just at the edge of our reality. It's the stuff that fills pages of fiction, but because people also claim to witness and experience these phenomena, they also appear in works presented as non-fiction. Over time the 'evidence' grows and the numbers of 'non-fiction' books grow until these theories start pushing into the mainstream by popular demand.

But, the question remains: is it myth or reality? On which side of belief does the conspiracy lie? Is there a conspiracy by the mainstream to conceal the 'truth'? Or is there a marketing campaign to carve out a niche for book sales, lecture tours in the field of pseudo-science and pseudo-history? A conspiracy to create a conspiracy theory.

I suppose it's instinctive in man to find connections between things, to find patterns and make sense out of chaos. It's probably also instinctive to wonder at mystery and to see the world of the strange as more alluring than that of the mundane. The first attempts made to explain the sun, the moon, the stars, the seasons, the weather, and the geography of the visible earth, are those that probably gave rise to religions and faith.

Something like a ley line is a pattern seen on a map, yet there is a choice of points to connect. The world is filled with ancient sites, and each one was siginificant to their creators. Reason would say that they couldn't all fit a recognizable pattern, if such a pattern existed. Yet ley lines have always been the least interesting of the theories to me.

The other problem I have with viewing the theories as serious theories about our past, is that from the books I've read, and the photographs they've presented, the interpretation of them by their authors is open to re-interpretation by others. Just as mainstream historians continually re-interpret even the most mundane of historical findings.

The ancient alien version of our history is an interrpetation that, in one way, is a short cut to explaining the past. In another way it's also a longer route, since it involves wrting out portions of history that have been taken to be more likely.

History is always shrouded in the cloak of 'what-if?' Even the facts about our recent past are hotly debated to find the 'truth' of the matter. New material is always likely to come to light and change our perceptions, and force the re-writing of things we thought we knew. Our view of the past can never really be said to be complete, until we've excavated every scrap of the earth for clues.

Therefore, I am more willing to follow the more likely representations of our past, while maintaining an interest in the less likely, because they provide a fascinating alternate history, and even in themselves can prompt further investigation into mainstream theories.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
teampunk said:
i think he was talking about ley lines.
Hi, Punk. I think so, too but it would have been nice if deMille had stated that from the beginning (rather than the whole 'go-look-it-up-yourself' routine.) How & why the Great Lakes are a vital part of the supposed 'symmetry' is something to be challenged...
 

Montana Smith

Active member
A funny thing happened on the way to the forum...

At a car boot sale this morning I bought an immaculate paperback copy of Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods for 50p.

If I hadn't known about Hancock from this thread I would have passed it by as a novel, as the front cover is emblazoned with the slogan "The No. 1 Bestseller". The back cover is more descriptive, but the two quotes chosen to promote the book are at odds with one another:

"500 pages of inspired story-telling" - The Times.

"One of the intellectual landmarks of this decade" - Literary Review.

Nevertheless, it looks an interesting read regardless of the conclusions.
 

Matt deMille

New member
Wow, there's a lot to address here, so I'll try to be brief.

Montana: Have a good read. And yes, the book is somewhat written with a narrative, but that's on purpose in order to help readers get through its high page count. If it were just 500 pages of research, it'd bog down way too much. But there's no shortage of research in it (How I wish my old school textbooks could have been made to be a little easier to read . . .) But also, don't let the blurbs fool you. When this book came out, and for years afterward, people didn't know how to categorize it. It's kind of like how Star Wars was billed as science-fiction rather than what it truly is -- space opera. So, "Fingerprints" may be praised as story telling, but it really is research.

Stoo: I did mention lay-lines early on. It was a comment lost in the ridiculous name-calling that ensued.

Teampunk: Ancient sites are almost always built on lay-lines because we sense them. The grid works because humans, despite culture, are all the same, and respond to the same energies. The ancient builders of these sites may or may not have known it, but they were nonetheless drawn to these places. Plus, the lines' energies may have helped subtle phenomena (dreams, visions, etc) strengthen one site above another (one not along lay-lines) and so these sites "won out". Lay-lines are in the earth itself. An energy we simply haven't analyzed to death yet. But we will. Just like electricity, lay-lines are there, even if we can't fully understand them.

Stoo: I;m back. Ask what you want. But let me say that my "vapid, meandering replies" are a necessity when beginning threads such as this. When dealing with material that basically re-writes history, anyone's accepted beliefs and comfort bubble, if I come out and outright say the hard stuff people dismiss you immediately. It's about easing into a subject. Step by step. Let's also not forget I came under fire from some rather childish attitudes, which derailed things. The more receptive people are, the more open-minded they are, the quicker we can get away from "meandering" and get into the meat of the matter.

Gabeed: The large part about my history was ASKED FOR. And I answered directly, something you claim I avoid doing. Of course it doesn't have anything to do directly with ancient aliens. I was asking the questions presented to me.

Raideroftheark: Feel free to ask me your questions. Nice video, by the way. Yeah, that's as close as we can get NOW. But over the last few decades, the government has been grabbing up land round Area 51. In decades past, you could climb "Freedom Ridge" and see the base much closer. Even then, despite a plethora of videos of the installation, the government said "It doesn't exist". Ya gotta love how skeptics say "The government isn't hiding anything -- they said so!" (even in federal court when families of dead workers sued Area 51, and the judge bought into this "doesn't exist" line of BS). Yet here's the base that doesn't exist! You also have to wonder, when signs basically say "Enter and die!", what the hell are they hiding?

Time-Raider: Alexander's UFO encounter was in 373 BC when he was sacking the city of Tire. Accounts on both sides of the conflict reported "five silver shields" which descended from the sky, then a beam of light emerged from one of them, destroying the wall and thus allowing Alexander to easily capture the city. This is one big reason why Alexander the Grat considered himself to be a demi-god.

By the way, your suggestion of future human time-travelers being UFOs is very good. When we (myself and others who study the subject) say "Aliens", we use that as a catch-all term. In my previous posts I have never claimed to know what aliens are. This is not backpeddling if any of the lesser-minds are going to try to use this as the latest torch for their witch-hunt, by the way. This is clarification, going further into the issue. "Aliens" is a nice term which means "they're not us" (even humans from the future wouldn't be "us", meaning our current society which falsely believes itself to be the pinnacle). These threads would simply go on way, way, waaayyyyy too long without a guiding term like "aliens". Could they be from another planet? Yes. Could they be inter-dimensional beings? Yes. Could they be time-travelers? Yes. Could they be US? Yes.

In fact, "The Assessment" (a 1964 NATO report) asserts that ALL of the above are going on.

Consider this: The working hypothesis for humans (in all their arrogance) is that we are alone and we're it. This is why aliens come under fire. But, seriously, how does anyone know we're alone? Have the authorities who enforce these claims (and the skeptics which cling to their pant-legs) explored all of the trillions of worlds out there? Of course not. And, if there IS life outside of ourselves, then it stands to reason life in the cosmos is the norm, not the exception. Therefore it may not be just one alien civilization visiting us. It could be several, each with different agendas and appearances. Maybe one civilization is from another planet, maybe another is ourselves from the future.

By the way, I love the theme-park ride analogy. Good one!

So, yes, many aliens and UFOs could indeed be ourselves from the future.
 

Gabeed

New member
Matt deMille said:
Gabeed: The large part about my history was ASKED FOR. And I answered directly, something you claim I avoid doing. Of course it doesn't have anything to do directly with ancient aliens. I was asking the questions presented to me.

I've asked you multiple times for more information about the Great Lakes pyramids. I critiqued your citation of the Great Pyramids at Giza with no response. Maybe you were busy answering other questions, but when your credibility is on the line and you're trying to defend the unorthodox, it would behoove you to at least express some acknowledgement to such posts, or else be seen as someone who is avoiding the questions. As it is, you've just asked Stoo "to ask what he wants" when he already asked you about map projections pages ago.

Matt deMille said:
Time-Raider: Alexander's UFO encounter was in 373 BC when he was sacking the city of Tire.

Facepalm.jpg


That's it. This sentence sums up everything that is wrong with your approaches to history and archaeology, and a perfect example of why the theories you and others support will never be accepted by the majority of the educated community.

I mean, just look at that sentence. The statement of fact that Alexander did encounter UFO's, with not even a qualifier like "alleged." The fact that you have no idea who actually wrote about what you're talking about, and have no idea whether they lived during Alexander's conquering of the city, or hundreds of years afterwards during the Roman Empire. The fact that you thus have no idea how reliable the authors are. The fact that your date for the siege of the city is about 50 years off, and that Tyre is not spelled like "Tire." This last observation is not a mere grammar/spelling correction, but a reflection of how little you've actually studied of the context surrounding the "truth" that you have found.
 
Last edited:

Stoo

Well-known member
Gabeed said:
it would behoove you to at least express some acknowledgement to such posts, or else be seen as someone who is avoiding the questions. As it is, you've just asked Stoo "to ask what he wants" when he already asked you about map projections pages ago.
I suspect we won't be getting an answer to that one...
Gabeed said:
Tyre is not spelled like "Tire." This last observation is not a mere grammar/spelling correction, but a reflection of how little you've actually studied of the context surrounding the "truth" that you have found.
Likewise, 'ley lines' are not spelled as 'lay lines' and the name, 'Carl Sagan' is not spelled, 'Carl Segan'.:rolleyes:
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Matt deMille said:
So, "Fingerprints" may be praised as story telling, but it really is research.

Sorry, no. Wrong. The second you bring a whiff of "story telling" into your book, it completely ceases to be research. There is NO room for fiction and flights of fancy in actual research. Once you bring even the tiniest sliver of unreality on board, you call EVERYTHING you have written into question.

There is a reason REAL scientists don't find it necessary to "dress up" their research with stories.

There isn't a fuzzy line between fiction and non-fiction. It's a gigantic, impenetrable wall.

I'm sorry you found your textbooks too devoid of stories to make them more palatable.

But you've just admitted that this "researcher" falsified at least parts of his book. Where do the lies end?

Sorry, that's not science, it's not research and it's not credible. It's storytelling and it's 100% unreliable.
 

Matt deMille

New member
Gabeed, I stopped answering your questions long ago because your focus seems to be on trivial things, like cheap shots and now typos. So I misspelled some things. I thought we were talking about the bigger picture here. You're like a bad lawyer, fixating on little details that are easily corrected. Okay, I misspelled Tyre. Big deal. The question is, what was reported there? Your focus on spelling-versus-phenomena just reveals you as someone trying to debunk rather than look at things objectively.

And Lance, have you even looked at that book? Do you even know what I mean by "Story telling"? You're jumping to conclusions, indeed not checking your evidence, something I seem to be accused of a lot around here. Per the book, here's an example: Hancock simply adds a bit of flavor by describing how exhausting it was to climb the Great Pyramid. That's what the "story telling is". That's not adding facts or sidetracking the research in any way. It's just making it a little more interesting to read, for Christ's sake.

You guys are both alike. Petty. You're like the religious nuts Monty Python makes fun of: Jesus says "Love everyone" then you spend 2000 years butchering each other because you can't agree on exactly how he said it. You guys have a brain, don't you? Obviously you knew I was talking about "Tyre" when I wrote "Tire". Is the spelling really more important than the issue of both armies reporting a sky-based phenomena? Oh, that's right, you're incapable of independent thought. That's why you need everything critically spelled out for you. News flash: Discoveries are made by people who think outside the box and defy what is written in hard black-and-white.

Kill the messenger, right? Me, Hancock, whoever. Instead of checking the information, you want to attack how the information is presented. Yes, I'm sure you're very serious people and know what's best. God help us all.

By the way, Gabeed, I have to ask: Isn't that "angst expression" picture in your post dressing up your argument? Shouldn't your post be hard text alone? I mean, we just want the data, right? No embellishment or theatrics or storytelling, because that invalidates your argument, doesn't it?
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Matt deMille said:
First, a quick comment on the "Great Lakes pyramids". When I say that, I mean pyramidal structures. Not Giza-sized monstrosities. There are pyramidal shapes of varying heights, detected by sonar scans. They are estimated to be between 5 and 25 meters high. They're too symmetrical to be natural, but I can't give anyone more of an answer than that. All I can say is what I've said before: Take the trail-head and explore it on your own.
You don't even know which lake/s? This is about as vague an answer as I expected. How did you "actually line things up fairly and honestly to their coordinates" if you, yourself, don't even know the precise location/s? We're talking approx. 100,000 square miles. I've been to 3 of the Great Lakes (& am at Lake Ontario a few times every year) and am versed in their history. I've NEVER heard of unatural pyramid shapes before. When/Where/How did you hear about them?
Matt deMille said:
Now, there are hundreds of sites. I couldn't possibly list them all. Just start looking at a worldwide map of more prominent ones and start drawing lines between them. You'll see common degrees appear (19.5 is very common), and many are on the same latitude. When I say "grid", its not a square-grid, but rather, should I say, their alignment has symmetry, a pattern if you will. City streets aren't a perfect square-grid either but we refer to them as such. In fact, city blocks are often rectangular, but we nonetheless refer to them as a grid.
Matt, I asked you a specific (unanswered) question about cartography and here you are trying to explain grids and symmetrical patterns. I know about these things (trust me). For the 3rd time now: Which projection are you using? If we don't know what map you're basing it on, the 'common 19.5 degrees' theory is completely irrelevant.

Your short-list of 7 prominent sites listed the 'Great Lakes pyramids'. Yeah, that's a PROMINENT one, for sure...:rolleyes: How many more virtually unknown, dubious locations are included in this perfect symmetrical pattern?
Matt deMille said:
As for facts, certainly. Please bring up a topic, any topic to elaborate on, be they ones I've mentioned or anything else pertaining to ancient aliens. Chances are I can offer up some interesting data.
In this case, you haven't provided ANY data at all...Your basic message is a confusing one:

-Listen to me (Matt deMille) & ask me questions
-Don't ask me (Matt deMille) & do the research yourself.
Matt deMille said:
See, this is what is so terribly wrong with our culture today. No one is willing to get out of the library and do any research for themselves. Instead they blindly memorize that which has been taught to them, or ask others for information, when they could be opening their minds to alternate theories, and going out in the field to make completely valid and well-thought out hypotheses. All I'm asking is that you question everything but the INFANTILE inhabitants of the thread refuse to do that.
Re: "Out in the field". How far have you traveled in your exploration of the 'ancient alien' subject?
 

Gabeed

New member
Matt deMille said:
Gabeed, I stopped answering your questions long ago because your focus seems to be on trivial things, like cheap shots and now typos. So I misspelled some things.

No, it's not that simple. Again--if you misspelled "generally" or used a gerund incorrectly, I can understand, and your spelling and grammar are nothing to complain about in fact. But people who know what Tyre is know how to spell Tyre. People who have heard it once on Coast to Coast or the History Channel and never researched it spell it Tire. Do you spell "Seattle" as "Seeattel?" I doubt it, since you've had some exposure to the word in its' written form. Same thing goes for Tyre. It, like the incorrect date, are representations of how little you seem to know of things you profess to have researched.

I'm not getting the "trivial" part, though. I'd love to know what's trivial about my explanation regarding the Pyramids at Giza, which provided an explanation for the climax of pyramid-building in the 4th dynasty. Or does the subject become trivial as soon as you've stopped talking about it and people attempt to refute your claims?

Oh, and the facepalm was an image aiding in the presentation of how flabbergasted I was that you would type a sentence like that. An image is worth a thousand words, you know. I do like how you attempted to compare a jpeg to "storytelling," though.
 
Last edited:

teampunk

Member
i googles pyramids in the great lakes and got nothing. if you know any sites that has anything about this, i would love to check it out. something with pictures.
 

Matt deMille

New member
Hi, Attila, Stoo,

I am sorry for not getting back to you. I'm just really flustered with others on this site. I only have so much energy. An admitted flaw I have is to not let irritating things go unchecked. Maybe I should learn to do that. Anyway, I'm ignoring Gabeed forever on and so can perhaps focus on your questions. Again, I apologize. I'm only human and emotions get the better of me at times.

The Great Lakes and the world grid. Okay.

There are many mysteries associated with the Great Lakes. Understandable, given their size. The most interesting mystery, to me, is the Great Lakes Triangle. Similar to the Bermuda Triangle, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

The first pyramidal shapes were found in Rock Lake, Wisconsin. Not a Great Lake, nor were these monuments of any great size, but they were unexplainable by geology or archeology, and they're the beginning of the story.

After several ships and planes went missing in the Great Lakes Triangle, naturally, some effort was made to locate them. Of course, this ended up happening years after the fact, a search for salvage and not for survivors. Sonar found shapes that echoed (no pun intended) the mysterious shapes in Rock Lake. Of course, diving in the Great Lakes is a different issue than in Rock. The salvage teams were not equipped with that and in most places you can't dive without a submersible vehicle. They released the sonar tracks but not the coordinates because they did not wish salvage-thieves to take their prize.

The story was often just a footnote, a funny fluff to help make a failed salvage operation look a little better. But, when some research was done into the fate of the Edmund Fitzgerald, which sank in Lake Superior in 1975, these shapes came up again. But still, no funding was available for such "fringe" stuff.

The deal is that echoes of the same story occur again and again, and most often from separate businesses with little to no interest in esoteric things. Hence, no reason to invent such stories. The problem is the usual one: Funding. There's a glint of gold and the hills should be mined, so-to-speak.

From this, I rely more on a comprehensive view and a pattern from around the world: The world is riddled with sunken monuments, both inland and at sea. Often pyramidal shapes, too. Since it's proven that not all pyramids were tombs, one can only logically say that the pyramid was an important but non-specific structure to ancient civilizations. We do not know all its functions, therefore we cannot say that pyramids are or are not man-made based on size. The pyramids in Rock Lake, for example, are small. Smaller than tombs. The pyramids of Lake Superior are larger, but still not huge (I believe the estimated size was 30' corner-to-corner -- I read this years ago and do not save every article, book or periodical I read, else my home would be a library with no room for food and clothes!)

It's a mystery with little data directly, but fits into a larger puzzle of the world's unrecognized ancient history.

On that, I will go on to the "grid" I have mentioned before, and Lay-lines (I'll spell 'em how I please, thank you -- I'm not British but I often spell "colour" and "honour" in such ways too).

Here's a good start: http://atlantisonline.smfforfree2.com/index.php?topic=1956.45

I found this after about five minutes of searching online. I apologize for my sarcasm, Stoo, but I've said over and over in posts exactly WHY others should look into this for themselves. It's not a lack of having data on my part. It's trying to urge others to focus on the right things and to start thinking in the right direction. But since my warnings about just being given the information go ignored, I say with an admitted bit of 'tude that five minutes of searching for yourself could have saved us all five hours of typing in this thread.

Note: I am currently searching for any online videos or scans of the sonar records. If I find anything like that, I'll post 'em here. But I must say, this subject was an off-hand remark, part of something else. This thread and my own focus is about ancient aliens. I thus do not necessarily keep hard data (what little there is) on things like this. I keep what I feel is comprehensively important in for the bigger picture in my head but do not necessarily hoard magazines, etc. Hence, my trying to find them again.
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
Matt deMille said:

antigravitywg017.gif


antigravitywg018.gif


(62) German underground Antarctic base?

:D

What if you were to include every other ancient site on on this globe? The grid would disappear - you can only make a grid by selecting sites that fit, and then joining the points in a specific way. Some of the points on these maps are just arbitrary locations, such as "South Pacific", "North Atlantic", etc.
 
Last edited:

Gabeed

New member
:D

I love the random spots in the ocean--Mid Atlantic North, Nazca Plate, etc. My favorites, though, are the ones in completely mundane parts of the world--Gabon, the Loyalty Islands, Alberta . . . . I mean, Alberta!?

BEHOLD THE MIND-BOGGLING NEXUS OF POWER . . . . ALBERTA.

We should make our own grid. It's clearly not that difficult, if you can just fill in placeholders like that. No doubt my L'Anse Aux Meadows/Carthage/Zebra Mussel Pyramid line intersects the "Tire" line at a key point. :gun:
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Gabeed said:
:D

I love the random spots in the ocean--Mid Atlantic North, Nazca Plate, etc. My favorites, though, are the ones in completely mundane parts of the world--Gabon, the Loyalty Islands, Alberta . . . . I mean, Alberta!?

BEHOLD THE MIND-BOGGLING NEXUS OF POWER . . . . ALBERTA.

We should make our own grid. It's clearly not that difficult, if you can just fill in placeholders like that. No doubt my L'Anse Aux Meadows/Carthage/Zebra Mussel Pyramid line intersects the "Tire" line at a key point. :gun:

Yes, you could make a variety of images by doing dot-to-dot with pre-selected locations around the world.

Is this the image of the owl Moloch surounding the US Capitol building?

Washington%20DC%20Owl.gif


http://www.theconspiracyexplained.com/USA.html


OFF TOPIC ASIDE: were the silver discs that Alexander saw merely wheel hubs belonging to Tyre/Tire?
 
Top