Ancient aliens

Montana Smith said:

You were there or you weren't there? I'm lost. I thought Giza was one of the places central to your theory/knowledge. If it's hard to talk about, then I'd think the whole alien thing would also be off-topic.

Click to expand...

Hence the close encounter...am I right Matt? Touring Giza inside an out would be a cinch with a certain "tour guide", (pardon the levity please).

Montana Smith said:

You were there or you weren't there?

I'm lost.

I thought Giza was one of the places central to your theory/knowledge. If it's hard to talk about, then I'd think the whole alien thing would also be off-topic.



That's going to be very hard, because the skeptics among us aren't sure what we're dealing with. At first you claimed that you had "knowledge of the alien reality", and now you've left us further contradictory messages.

This topic would have gone better if it was begun with the idea that these are theories, rather than realities. Since skeptics can happily discuss theory, but will find it difficult when the line between theory and reality is blurred - even more so when when it is impossible on a message board to pin down the truth of any personal statement.

Click to expand...

Hi, Montana.

Again, the NN's that posted before you are taking things out of context. I say things like "maybe I was there" in the same context as possibilities as to what happened there. Yes, I'm being deliberately vague about having been to Giza because I already said that I didn't want to talk about it. What so many on this thread seem to like to do is take an example or a suggestion and put words in my mouth. So, the only way to deal with such nonsense is to deliberately muddy the waters.

Besides, my having been to the Giza site or not is immaterial here. According to the skeptics, it's all about research. I wonder if ResidentAlien, Gabeed and Stoo have ALL been to the Giza site and laid eyes directly on everything that pertains to this subject. Yet they speak with authority as if they have, when I suspect their "knowledge", at best, came from books and not personal experience. Why should I be any different? They seem to think I should be, so I just throw 'em red herrings now. Been doing it longer than they realize, in fact. After all, they're going to wist and take out of context anything I say anyway. So, if I bother to reply to one of their posts, please take it as just screwing with them -- They've proven they're not going to respect anything I say anyway.

Originally I said maybe I'd been there, maybe I hadn't. When Stoo challenged that, I said yes, I have (I still had some respect for him at that point), and I didn't wish to discuss it further. Out of charity I did (discuss it further). But, it's my right to be non-specific about my personal experiences. I've already offered a hell of a lot, and my experiences aren't the central issue anyway. It's the evidence everyone and anyone can look at if they choose to that is important -- Giza, and many other things. Research in any field, ufology included, isn't nice and neat. It's a puzzle. Sure, it'd be so simple and easy if I had supernatural experiences at the Giza site that directly connected with my other experiences, but that's not the case. And I never said it was. But morons (not you -- others) seem to always want a convenient, simple, quick story. Yet they profess to be students of history. History isn't nice and neat. Their feeble efforts of trying to put words into my mouth of having had paranormal experiences in Giza is a clear window into their shallow mind-set of just wanting the mystery to go away, to assume quick command over this intrusion upon their reality, to have "solved the puzzle" without any time and effort.

Stoo, Gabeed and ResidentAlien try to twist everything to support a pre-determined "conclusion". What I've said about being at the Giza site is an example of this. I'm sorry it got confusing. As I've said before, I seem to spend more time on this thread dealing with morons like them than being able to address issues. I'm only human and have finite patience and time. As one (anonymous) reader of this thread said when he emailed me privately (as many have), if only these guys spent half the time into checking the stories that they do into causing trouble . . .

I mean, look at how this thread has gone to whether or not I've been to the Giza site, rather than if ALIENS have been there!!!! And, I might add, when the Eastern European mural was "debunked", I questioned the source, the reporter, and his bias, and immediately the morons on this thread said the source wasn't the issue, but the facts (literally) written upon the wall. Well (speaking to the skeptics in general . . .) which is it? If the source isn't the issue, why all the fuss over me and Giza? Shall we discuss whether ALIENS WERE AT GIZA, the topic of this thread, or do we have to revisit those murals with the skeptics having, by their own insistence of questioning THIS messenger, thus throw out the so-called "debunking" of the cosmic mural due to my questioning of ITS messenger?

See? Skeptics want things both ways. Hardly scientific.

Sorry for the long-winded answer. I try to be thorough. But, since my long-winded answer will doubtless be picked through for sound-bytes the others can twist out of context, let me also provide a short version:

Short version: I deliberately mix words about my Giza presence in order to avoid discussing a personal issue because I've already said I don't like to talk about it.

In closing, your last bit about my initial approaching this is theory rather than fact would have been better. I've said that before in this post. But I can easily say it again: I came on too strong and if that threw anyone off, I admit that error. I just hope that some folks can understand my motive: Having had close encounters, for me, this *is* a reality. I can certainly understand others not believing it due to not experiencing it (and society's authorities really don't do anything to introduce people to it), and I don't blame them. I actually envy them. It's not a comfortable thing to live with. It's like a combat veteran's PTS or a rape victim. Others can't fathom what it's like. But, at the least, they should be respectful. You are, and others are. Some, unfortunately, have neither respect nor maturity.

Rocket Surgeon said:

Hence the close encounter...am I right Matt? Touring Giza inside an out would be a cinch with a certain "tour guide", (pardon the levity please).

Click to expand...

Hi, Rocket Surgeon.

No, my close encounters have little to do with Giza. As I said, the only connection there is that my close encounters from years prior broadened my mind so I could see the Giza site objectively, not encumbered by any dogmatic "history".

Matt deMille said:

...According to the skeptics, it's all about research. I wonder if ResidentAlien, Gabeed and Stoo have ALL been to the Giza site and laid eyes directly on everything that pertains to this subject. ...

Click to expand...

We have a forum here, to research and discuss such things. Globe-Trotting.

Matt deMille said:

Stoo, Gabeed and ResidentAlien try to twist everything to support a pre-determined "conclusion".

Click to expand...

Bahahahaha.

Pot, meet kettle.



Allow me to quote from the very first post in this topic.

Matt deMille said:

facts about the alien presence on earth shattered that world view and forced a different one upon me. I think that's one of the main reasons UFO information is suppressed -- fear of the status quo being disrupted doesn't begin to describe it. It's scary, and unwelcome, given our culture context. There's no real precedent for it so it's difficult to accept.

That said, I hope we can keep to facts (not what the mainstream accepts, as that's a rigged game, but rather, "facts" being what others can check out for themselves and so form their own opinion).

I'd like to start the ball rolling with the work of Graham Hancock and his colleagues. In particular, the true age of the Giza site. Weather-based erosion of the rocks geologically redate the Sphinx and great pyramids to 12,000 BC. This doesn't necessarily mean aliens built them, though it does prove that conventional Egyptology is wholly wrong about their premiere monuments. It shows that the true story is unknown, which leaves the door open for alien intervention in the past.

Click to expand...

These are "facts"? Their veracity was begged... where exactly? In some dime store novel whose author is an admitted fraud?

Gabeed already demonstrated how you have twisted information on the Sphinx to fit your preconceived notion.


You, sir, are a bloody hypocrite.


But do continue calling me out. Makes me feel better about myself that I can so raise the ire of a quack and a fraud. Makes me realize that I'm not doing too bad for myself-- I'm grounded, rational, fairly successful and don't need to appeal to the internet to hear my psychotic sob-stories.

Spooky deMille and his abducted sister. Or am I getting my fictional stories mixed up?

Pale Horse said:

We have a forum here, to research and discuss such things. Globe-Trotting.

Click to expand...

Hi, Pale Horse.

I would like to have broached this subject on that more appropriate site, at a later time. I'm sorry it came up here (one of many out-of-context attacks which have hijacked this thread), and believe me, I wish it hadn't. I'm reluctant now to discuss it in any forum, given the excessive negativity some of the posters give me about it.

Perhaps your reminder will also be read by my attackers and they will cease to bring it up here, when the subject of this thread is supposed to be about ancient aliens, not personal globetrotting.

Again, sorry.

Matt deMille said:

Perhaps your reminder will also be read by my attackers and they will cease to bring it up here...

Click to expand...

to suffer the slings and arrows...or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them...

It should be addressed, you likened your plight to that of Galileo, however he was able to prove his view as more than perception. In fact it was Aristotle before him who contended it wasn't necessary to check your work.

But then, we don't simply believe what we're told to believe these days. With good reason, (pun intended).

You did profess fact and in doing so piqued the interest of many, and we're here, reading, waiting, challenging.

What fact(s) were you thinking?

Rocket Surgeon said:

to suffer the slings and arrows...or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them...

It should be addressed, you likened your plight to that of Galileo, however he was able to prove his view as more than perception. In fact it was Aristotle before him who contended it wasn't necessary to check your work.

But then, we don't simply believe what we're told to believe these days. With good reason, (pun intended).

You did profess fact and in doing so piqued the interest of many, and we're here, reading, waiting, challenging.

What fact(s) were you thinking?

Click to expand...

Hi, Rocket Surgeon. I appreciate the perspective. I'm glad I piqued INTEREST in many (if not all). After the bloodbath of this thread, I've kind of forgotten that. Please don't think me sarcastic. Seriously speaking, I've been so flustered by the chaos I need you to clarify: "What facts were you thinking?" Think, in regards to which aspect of this thread? There's been so many now.

Matt deMille said:

...I need you to clarify: "What facts were you thinking?" Think, in regards to which aspect of this thread? There's been so many now.

Click to expand...

Yours reposted by RA:

...facts about the alien presence on earth shattered that world view and forced a different one upon me.

Click to expand...

Got to say I've always though Resident Alien was a play on Resident Evil and Alien...what country are you from? Or are you a fan of Sting Movies?

Rocket Surgeon said:

Yours reposted by RA:


Got to say I've always though Resident Alien was a play on Resident Evil and Alien...what country are you from? Or are you a fan of Sting Movies?

Click to expand...

I'm from the US.

Frankly, I don't even recall where this name came from anymore. Probably some inside joke at the time. But it's a screen name I've been using in some form since I was like 14...

Should be said-- I've phased it out a bit in the last few years... Those on COW know me by a different SN. That's been my preferred user-name lately.

Ahh, got it RS.

For me, facts are the crashes, the held metals, the crop glyphs, the dead cattle, the ancient records and the government's documents.

Despite what others may say to the contrary, there are many examples of each form of evidence that have not been disproven in the least, and moreover, they together prove the larger case. I know that sounds like a leap to some, but even the most hardcore facts can be disputed by those who refuse to accept them. After all, there are people who believe the moon landing photos were faked, that Oswald killed Kennedy with a single bullet, and that the earth is flat (or hollow), despite all the evidence to the contrary. The alien presence within the human story is no different, except in one crucial way -- It's not the popular story told during the last few thousand years as society's accepted story was written. In other words, it hasn't had the same press. People believe largely what gets the best press, be it today's TV time or medieval manuscripts and church doctrine. But fact-for-fact, pound-for-pound, all the elements of the alien story throughout human history are a solid case which no skepticism has yet to come close to "debunking" (a term I find offensive in and of itself, and hardly scientific, as it's assuming and suggesting something *is* bunk until the establishment has found a way to "prove" what they already know -- a bias view from the outset -- a better term for disproving would be "investigated"). Anyway, a skeptical inquiry might have an argument against ONE element of the larger UFO and ancient alien issue, but when placed in the larger context, the skeptical arguments fall apart. No one skeptical theory includes all the elements of the UFO issue. They only use selected bits of evidence, which of course is not reasonable at all.

For example: A typical skeptical "disproving" story is that people have only reported UFOs since the 1940s, when "flying saucers" became popular. Yet when ancient cave art shows flying discs, clearly cavemen were not going to the movies, so what were they seeing? People have been seeing flying discs for centuries, not just the 20th Century, but the skeptical "They see them because of the movies" story sounds good to those too afraid to look closer, so they buy it, hook-line-and-sinker.

Another example: Cattle mutilations *could* be some secret business research (although still a really weird one), but when medieval stories tell of the same phenomena, certainly modern-day blood research companies have to be ruled out. In a similar example, crop glyphs *can* be hoaxed. Some are. Skeptics seize on that as if to say the entire crop glyph mystery is solved. A hoax! Convenient. Now we can go back to our boring lives. Yet, if you find some counterfeit money, does that prove that ALL currency is counterfeit? And, like medieval stories, medieval and Renaissance-era woodcuts depict crop glyphs being formed. Usually they are depicted as "the devil mowing circles in the wheat". But skeptics say the crop circles started forming in the 1970s. Um, what about the 1670s?

For a "debunking" to be accurate, it must include ALL the evidence, not just some of it.

So, again, facts like crashes (bodies and wreckage), crop glyphs (including mutating the plants and the lack of human intervention), the dead cattle (too many weird elements to list), the ancient records (too many examples to list) and the government's documents that CONFIRM this stuff, those are the sorts of facts I speak of. Again, people will probably say "They're disproven" or "They are not facts". But at what point does "proof" become "an inconvenient disruption of my comfortable world view" At some point, proof becomes personal experience and nothing less, and I simply cannot provide that. Oh, believe me, I'd love to be able to organize and witness some skeptics from my past getting a face-to-face meeting, but certainly I can't do that. At best, I can explain my own experiences, which I did. I can't do more than that.

What I *can* do is, as I've tried all along, cite the better paths of research and then encourage people to look at them with an open-mind. Rather than claim a researcher is a crank, why not read the research objectively? That's all I ask anyone to do. It's the "open-minded" part people seem to have the most trouble with.

Note to Rocket Surgeon: I am speaking in generalities here, to the thread overall. I think you're reasonable guy so please don't think my criticisms of mind-set in this reply are aimed at you.

Matt deMille said:

So, again, facts like crashes (bodies and wreckage), crop glyphs (including mutating the plants and the lack of human intervention), the dead cattle (too many weird elements to list), the ancient records (too many examples to list) and the government's documents that CONFIRM this stuff, those are the sorts of facts I speak of.

Click to expand...

Where can I see the wreckage, (I remember the students who created the crop glyphs demonstarted how they did it...), you do know mutations exist without human intervention? Please give me the top 5 examples of ancient records, (the ones that have convinced you), and the names of the government docs. This would be a great help.

Matt deMille said:

Note to Rocket Surgeon: I am speaking in generalities here, to the thread overall. I think you're reasonable guy so please don't think my criticisms of mind-set in this reply are aimed at you.

Click to expand...

No sweat...

Matt deMille said:

...For me, facts are the crashes, the held metals, the crop glyphs, the dead cattle, the ancient records and the government's documents...

Click to expand...

Sounds like your referring a bit to the Val Valerian projects.

Rocket Surgeon . . . thanks. I'll go over things one by one.

Crop glyphs. Some students created some. But there are many well beyond the realm of human creation. For instance, it's not uncommon for crop glyphs to appear by the dozens on the same night all over the world. At the very, very least, a worldwide hoax effort would have to be coordinated. That's another story. The point is, someone claiming credit can only explain a few, not all. But the real mystery comes when all the crops within a formation are mutated and all those outside the formation -- precisely outside -- are normal. Plus, no human footprints.

The wreckage: There are several pieces of purported alien wreckage in private hands. Check with MUFON. They keep up to date on what there is and where it is.

Government documents: Project Blue Book Special Report 14 (from Blue Book -- there's tons of documents in there). The Assessment (1964 NATO research on UFOs -- see Robert Dean). And most of all the MJ-12 documents (see Stanton Friedman's book "Top Secret / Majic" on the verification of these documents). Plus, you can get tons of FOIA papers at your leisure. The really funny ones are those where the CIA claims they have no UFO documents and then turns right around and, sometimes in the same document, says they are withholding 152 UFO documents. Another funny FIOA paper trail to follow is how the government says UFOs are not a threat to national security, then denies the release of documents because of "national security" reasons. And, when you do get FOIA documents, they're usually about 75% blacked out. THAT is convincing of a cover-up at the least. But what are they covering up? When over 300 witnesses to a single event all testify that it was an alien encounter (I'm speaking of Roswell here), that's pretty solid.

Ancient records: The Bible. From the "Ones who came down from the stars" (Genesis) to the nuclear overtones of Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction to the "ladder to heaven", Elijah's being taken up following the "pilalr of cloud by day / pillar of fire by night" (today these are "commonly" seen, but caleld "cigar shaped craft"). But the Bible is just one document. All ancient cultures have similar myths of flying vehicles and "gods" doing similar things. There's just too many coincidences for it to be coincidence. There's a pattern, commonality, intelligence, and also, it seems, an agenda. Then of course, there's the very beginning of this thread -- ancient monuments that nobody can truly say who built them, when, why or how.

And, for some food for thought, here's some links to pictures:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...page=1&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0&tx=86&ty=76

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...1t:429,r:10,s:0&tx=19&ty=114&biw=1024&bih=572

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...4joDQ&esq=7&page=1&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...d=1t:429,r:3,s:0&tx=79&ty=64&biw=1024&bih=572

Pale Horse said:

Sounds like your referring a bit to the Val Valerian projects.

Click to expand...

Actually, I didn't know about VV at all until it was mentioned here.

Matt deMille said:

Rocket Surgeon . . . thanks. I'll go over things one by one.

Click to expand...

Great, now we have something to bite into. Hopefully we'll have some interesting back and forth.

Matt deMille said:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...page=1&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0&tx=86&ty=76

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...1t:429,r:10,s:0&tx=19&ty=114&biw=1024&bih=572

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...4joDQ&esq=7&page=1&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...d=1t:429,r:3,s:0&tx=79&ty=64&biw=1024&bih=572



Actually, I didn't know about VV at all until it was mentioned here.

Click to expand...

Why do you keep reposting these same pictures? You've already had them systematically disproved.

You want to call out others for twisting things to fit their predetermined worldview-- such ****ing hypocritical bull****. You've had it demonstrated to you how these paintings have NOTHING to do with aliens and yet you continue to warp their significance so that they fit to your prescribed outlook.

Rocket Surgeon said:

Great, now we have something to bite into. Hopefully we'll have some interesting back and forth.

Click to expand...

I hope so.

The images are fascinating. Some may be explained as rational objects, such as the cardinal's hat. Some may be simply interpretations of celestial objects. The remainder ask us to look to other explanations, such as a South American carving that I recall, of the man controlling a machine-like object with jets of smoke emitting from it.

I am still fascinated by the idea that in the Mahabharata a single projectile was dropped from a vimana, destroying a city and leaving its surviving population and animals with effects similar to radiation sickness.

The idea that the gods are in the sky seems to be a world-wide phenomenon, and thereby spans different cultures. The Greeks had the idea that the sun was drawn across the sky by Helios or Apollo’s chariot, and similar ideas exist in ancient Egyptian religion.

At first glance there seems to be a world-myth spanning the globe, but it may simply be that humans thought along similar lines because they share a brain with the same potential for understanding.

As science began to explain the events previously ascribed to myth, those myths become stories, and religion changes to maintain its dominance over a newly educated society.

Since the atomic 1950s we have a possible new world myth available to us. For since that period the idea of UFOs has really taken off and entered the popular consciousness. This has given us the opportunity to re-interpret the events of the past and present them in new terminology.

I agree that some images from the past test our skills of interpretation and open up a new seductive way of exploring our history and our future.

Human imagination is not a new invention, though with every year we discover new things, and we have the potential to learn old news from new sources. Consequently, as time passes, the scope of our imagination is expanded. I always think back to Homer’s Odyssey, which was originally conceived in the eighth century BC, and remains a remarkable tale of science fiction and fantasy, with its mention of “tripods” that moved on their own – possibly our first reference to robots?

So who painted this, when was it painted and how do you interpret it?

Rocket Surgeon said:

So who painted this, when was it painted and how do you interpret it?

Click to expand...

Painting of the Madonna and Saint Giovannino, in the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence, attrbuted to the 15th Century school of Filippo Lippi.

A close-up of the upper left section of the painting shows an object in the sky, and below, a man and dog looking at the object.

Further enlargement shows an oval or discoid craft with radiating gold spikes of light painted around its perimeter. In other words, what today would be called a UFO.

Click to expand...

http://www.ancientx.com/nm/anmviewer.asp?a=17&z=1



Some websites say there are portholes on the side of the UFO, but I can't see them. This is the biggest image I've found of it so far. It may resemble the break in the clouds that signifies the presence of God.

EDIT: Here we go:


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ufoart/esp_ovnis_arte_9.htm

2. The Shepherd’s Vision
The practice of representing the Holy Spirit as a dove is familiar to Christians; indeed, it predates the word “Christian.” For example, the oldest of the New Testament Gospels, Mark, recounts that at his baptism, Jesus saw “the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove.” 8 Today, American churches and chapels are commonly named “Holy Dove,” and the tradition thrives worldwide in both visual art and hymns.


In high-resolution reproductions, the identity of Crivelli’s “UFO” is clear, but UFOlogy sites typically offer only hazy, ambiguous, low-resolution smudges. Crivelli no more saw a UFO with his own eyes than cartoonists see clouds emerging from people’s heads when they are thinking; in both cases, these artists simply utilized established conventions for representing abstract or non-visual concepts. The only mysteries here are why some UFOlogists are so quick to leap to unwarranted conclusions, and so slow to provide their readers with the information needed to honestly evaluate the “evidence.”

Madonna Col Bambino e San Giovannino (end of 15th century). (Madonna and Child with the Infant Saint John.) Attributed to Sebastiano Mainardi or Jacopo del Sellaio. The Madonna and Child with the Infant St. John, on display in the Sala d’Ercole in Palazzo Vecchio, Florence, has been attributed to at least three painters active in Florence at the end of the 1400s. For convenience we’ll refer to this as a work by the general favorite, Sebastiano Mainardi.9

This painting has excited UFOlogists more than any other. Many see proof of a “close encounter” with a UFO in the upper-right background behind the Madonna. In the depiction, a far-off character shields his eyes while beholding an apparition in the sky (his dog is equally interested).

Daniele Bedini writes in Notiziario UFO,10

“We clearly see the presence of an airborne object, leaden in color and inclined to port, sporting a ‘dome’ or ‘turret,’ apparently identifiable as an oval-shaped moving flying device.”

Click to expand...

The blown up picture shows that it looks nothing like a UFO!

ResidentAlien said:

...Why do you keep reposting these same pictures? You've already had them systematically disproved...

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure that they have been systematically disproved, here. I did a quick review of the thread and this aspect certainly could be discussed a bit more.


That said, the moderators here have been reading and tentatively posting in this thread. It has been said on more then one occasion that we like to do our best to keep a loose leash on things. And to the credit of all who are participating here, we haven't felt the need to close this yet. Conflict can be good.

But know this. Everyone is on note that the Terms of Service of the Raider.net have been violated in this thread. There have already been two moderator warnings to keep ... passionate... posts in check.

This thread will remain open for now, and this post is the marker that clearly says "enter discussion at own risk".

We (on the moderator side of the screen) would hate to have to close it, and dole out the knuckle raps in the process.

...Well, maybe not. Sometimes we like it.