Ancient aliens

Matt deMille

New member
Gabeed, how do you know I have no source? You say that awfully quick. Once again, the noisy negativists scream "No evidence!" before the evidence even gets a chance to be seen.

For the record, since it's only been minutes since my last post, I was starting to look for links. Takes time. Not only to find them, but to read them and make sure they're not just forums that others like you reference. No, I was looking for links to the actual accounts and translations thereof. Takes hours, maybe days, to separate the crap from the quality. But in a few minutes you say "No source", i.e. "no evidence".

Why do I bother? Arrogant, close-minded people are what keeps our society held down in a scientific dark age.

Sorry, Parrot, Montana, but I think I'm done here for today. Being called a liar or game player is bad enough (this is why I have short patience, BTW), but when I'm asked to provide links and then not given even a few minutes to find them, I'm not going to waste my time. I'll give it a while for Gabeed and other potential NN's to have their fill of senseless, unscientific blathering, and then I'll come back and see if there's any rational people left.
 

Gabeed

New member
Ha, nowhere am I demanding sources IMMEDIATELY. Any time you find something written before the 1960's that supports what you say about Tyre, I'll be willing to listen. Your flimsy excuse to leave is noted. :gun:
 

Parrot

New member
Matt deMille said:
To Parrot, that's a generous concession, that aliens are here. Not to be ungrateful, but that does still have relevance to ancient aliens, because oftentimes modern sightings must be compared to ancient accounts to see the bigger picture.

Certainly. And if you can show me that there are indeed cases where ancient documents describe situations that bear a remarkable similarity to modern UFO sightings, then I will admit that you have something interesting there.

Matt deMille said:
To revisit part of this thread from long ago, when "silver shields" descended from the sky to attack the city of Tyre before Alexander the Great's eyes, well, in an ancient context, "silver shields" could be fanciful, but when you also consider today's countless sightings of flying discs, it does harken to UFOs/aliens being here not only now, but back then as well. Similarly, modern UFO reports could, perhaps, be seen as our current society interpreting them as spaceships because we live in a space-age, but when we look at ancient accounts of the same thing, and realize of course that the Greeks did not have spacetravel or metallic craft, the description of "silver shields" gains a much greater context.

And if the ancients had indeed talked about "flying shields", then I would admit that was provocative.

Unfortunately, the whole story has absolutely no basis in historical fact. It seems to have been made up completely out of thin air by Frank Edwards in 1959.

There is absolutely no known historical document where there's any mention of flying shields and Alexander The Great. If Edwards didn't make the story up out of whole cloth, then he was relying on a very shaky source.

But, unfortunately, Edwards never listed his sources. Apparently, he didn't think it was important to let people know where he got his information. I've already dealt with this aspect of Edwards when I investigated the tale of a psychic detective for my blog:

http://www.dumbassguide.info/blog.php?bid=35

The bottom line is that we only have Edwards' word to go on here, and nothing else. So as cool as this description of "flying shields" is, I just can't accept it as a historical account.
 

Parrot

New member
Matt deMille said:
Sorry, Parrot, Montana, but I think I'm done here for today. Being called a liar or game player is bad enough (this is why I have short patience, BTW), but when I'm asked to provide links and then not given even a few minutes to find them, I'm not going to waste my time. I'll give it a while for Gabeed and other potential NN's to have their fill of senseless, unscientific blathering, and then I'll come back and see if there's any rational people left.

Matt, I certainly have never called you a liar, and I'm perfectly willing to wait for any evidence that you can provide me with. If you refuse to talk to the others here, I'm still perfectly willing to discuss this issue with you over email.

Unfortunately, though, the fact that there's no historical source for the Alexander encounter is backed up by actual historians who have extensively dug through the historical sources:

http://deliyannis.blogspot.com/2009/11/alexander-great-and-ufos.html

Now, if you can find me an actual historical document that describes these "flying shields", I will gladly admit that I'm wrong about this and write a letter to the (now exposed as incompetent) historian who did that investigation.

So what do you say? This is a chance to get me to eat my words. I'll even post about it on my blog and state publicly that I was wrong about Alexander's flying shields.

Will you return the favor and admit that you were wrong if it turns out that this source doesn't exist after all?
 

Gabeed

New member
Parrot said:

That's the link I posted above. ;)

It covers the issue pretty well. In addition, I noticed a problem with Edwards' text saying that everyone refused to cross "the river." This seems suspect, since there would be better words to describe the several hundred yard crossing between Tyre and the mainland than a river. With the war elephants, this seems to imply more of the Battle of the Granicus than Tyre.

Of course, as we have demonstrated, that issue is just one among many.
 

Parrot

New member
Gabeed said:
That's the link I posted above. ;)

It covers the issue pretty well. In addition, I noticed a problem with Edwards' text saying that everyone refused to cross "the river." This seems suspect, since there would be better words to describe the several hundred yard crossing between Tyre and the mainland than a river. With the war elephants, this seems to imply more of the Battle of the Granicus than Tyre.

Of course, as we have demonstrated, that issue is just one among many.

Ah, I didn't recognize the link in your post when I skimmed over it earlier. I didn't read any of the responses to Matt before doing my own research into the situation. It probably could have saved me some time if I had.

In any case, I owe Matt a debt of gratitude on this one. I hadn't heard about Alexander's flying shields before, and researching them caused me to find this very interesting blog. I've skimmed through some of the other stuff he writes about and it looks like fascinating stuff.
 

Matt deMille

New member
Hi, Parrot. I stopped back in out of curiosity. I'm glad I did. To clarify, I did not mean that you called me a liar. I'm sorry if you thought that was directed at you. I was referring to others, the kind who say things like "flimsy excuse to leave". Ya know, the endlessly negative sorts of posters.

For Gabeed's information, I do not need any "excuse". I come and go by my own volition and do not answer to you. I'm a very busy individual and I often wonder why I bother to take so much time with you people like you anyway, since all I get is grief. This time I came back out of courtesy for Parrot and Montana.

On that note, I will look into this further. I feel it's just going in circles, but I'll still look for different accounts/sources for Alexander and Tyre. In the meantime, can I get some opinions on the Ica Stones?
 

Gabeed

New member
Or perhaps the Nephilim, or perhaps the Zebra Mussels? Anything to avoid Matt admitting that he read the Alexander tale without indulging in the 5-minute investigation required to see that the story was dubious at best.
 

Parrot

New member
I'm personally going put other topics like the Ica Stones to the side for now. Like I've said, I want to keep at least my part of this discussion somewhat focused.

The Alexander claim is on a similar level to the Bible stuff that we were talking about, so I let myself get drawn in by that. But when you have the time, Matt, I'd really love to come to some sort of final conclusion with you about that and then get back to discussing those Bible stories.
 

Parrot

New member
You guys might get a kick out of this - a recent comment on my blog:

http://www.dumbassguide.info/comment.php?bid=38
mblah said:
So you saw a show on The History Channel and thought you were gonna watch and then laugh but became an expert on analyzing ancient artifacts and their true meaning? Have you ever really spent anytime like at least a year researching this information? I doubt it but I have and sorry but it's not crap. People take it seriously because it's ignored. You have been lied to about everything, doesn't that bother you? History taught in schools is a joke. I don't remember most of it because it's not very relevant to me. Everything I have found about hidden histories are much more revealing as are the stories that we have been told that are hugely over exaggerated. It's really amazing.

I do believe our ancestors were not as dumb as people make them out to be. I do believe civilizations have been techonologically advanced in their own way. There is proof of that as well but their methods are methods that have obviously been lost or kept secret thru the ages.
 

Gabeed

New member
In response to that, I thought of typing up another paragraph about education, learning and research, and how reading crap on the Internet a lot doesn't make you Galileo, but . . .it's been said before in this thread already far too many times. So all I can say is, "awful."
 

Matt deMille

New member
Parrot said:
You guys might get a kick out of this - a recent comment on my blog:

http://www.dumbassguide.info/comment.php?bid=38

Hmm, interesting. I do agree with him on one point: History taught in schools is pretty bad. When I was in school they were still teaching the whole "Columbus discovered America" dogma. As so many have said, history as written in the textbooks isn't so much *what* happened, it's what someone wants us to *think* happened.

Okay, we can keep to Alexander for now. But I do want to keep the Ica Stones, the Bible, and a few others stories at the ready, because they tend to connect to one another.

I'll look around and see what I can find. However, that will involve some library time. I do find it dubious that my detractors crow about needing only 5 minutes to study something -- How much can you really learn in 5 minutes? Also dubious is everything relying on google-searches. A lot of what's in old books can still only be found in books. Maybe I'm too traditional. I'll hope to find scans of books online so I can indeed provide links.

But, in all fairness, if I can't provide that, I'll concede to the Alexander story being unsupported and therefore only a myth. We'll see what happens.
 

Parrot

New member
It is a little sad how he spent a year of his life "researching" this stuff. Which is to say, of course, that he just read a bunch of stuff on websites run by people who believe in ancient aliens.

People don't really understand what research really is. We really need to be teaching this to our school children. Research is about asking questions, not just reading something that somebody else has written unquestioningly.

Repeating an argument somebody else has made without doing any thinking about it first isn't research. It's regurgitation.

I love his one line though: You have been lied to about everything, doesn't that bother you?

Well, okay... as funny as the line is, I suppose there are a lot of lies out there in society... and that does kind of bother me. I'm probably not thinking of the same lies that mblah is... but still, I guess I can sympathize with the sentiment. If only he could direct his energy towards debunking actual frauds and lies.

And he doesn't remember any history from school, but somehow he thinks that he has a good enough grasp of it to make the decision that these "hidden histories" are more reliable. That seems pretty telling to me.
 

Matt deMille

New member
I'll be the first to admit that UFO devotees has its fair share of kooks and crackpots. Aliens, like any other "big story", has its religious side (and I don't approve of it, for the record). But, in all fairness, so does science. The "regurgitation" element, of just reading what others wrote, is one reason I have such disdain for the scientific establishment, the "pyramids as tombs" being a prime example. It would be interesting to see if, somehow, research could start at square one, unbiased, on such matters (without, say, the British imperialist attitude of "we're masters of the world so every civilization we dig up must be inferior". Aliens aside, I think it was that kind of arrogant thinking that laid the groundwork for the whole concept of ropes and ramps for pyramid building -- It needed a quick, easy, primitive-looking style to fit that British sense of superiority. And that mind-set stuck. Even if aliens aren't the truth there (I'll concede the possibility), that whole arrogant beginning doesn't do justice to the ingenuity of the ancients.

But I digress. You're right: Schools would do well to teach research. I think ALL beliefs, from ufology to science to religion, could benefit from that. Problems is humans are sheep. We follow the pack. It's more comfortable to our pack mentality. It's a big problem to which I'm sure there's a right answer.
 

Parrot

New member
Matt deMille said:
Hmm, interesting. I do agree with him on one point: History taught in schools is pretty bad. When I was in school they were still teaching the whole "Columbus discovered America" dogma. As so many have said, history as written in the textbooks isn't so much *what* happened, it's what someone wants us to *think* happened.

Actually, I'm in complete agreement about that as well. The Columbus thing isn't a particularly egregious example to me though. It's more about the content that they decide to focus on, making kids remember dates and completely ignoring the narrative of history.

I've heard that college level history professors constantly need to re-educate their new students who have been mis-educated on history in the public schools.

Matt deMille said:
But, in all fairness, if I can't provide that, I'll concede to the Alexander story being unsupported and therefore only a myth. We'll see what happens.

Excellent! I knew we could reach an understanding on this! Let me know what you find.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Gabeed said:
In response to that, I thought of typing up another paragraph about education, learning and research, and how reading crap on the Internet a lot doesn't make you Galileo, but . . .it's been said before in this thread already far too many times. So all I can say is, "awful."

Parrot said:
It is a little sad how he spent a year of his life "researching" this stuff. Which is to say, of course, that he just read a bunch of stuff on websites run by people who believe in ancient aliens.

It's a constant concern, in all walks of life, that some people will just believe what they want to, regardless. They appear irrational, unreachable - the real world manifestation of the movie zombie.

However, this thread appears to be moving in a more positive manner, as long as it keeps on the level of things that are verifiable, or at least worthy of discussion (as in sources by authors of note, as opposed to internet ramblings).
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Montana Smith said:
I suggest we ignore Matt's claims about his personal experiences, as they bear little relevance to the subject of ancient aliens.

For argument's sake we can presume he imagined them, made them up, or mis-interpreted them.
Fishy & dubious details concerning d'uhMille's accounts deserve some attention (and are relevant to the intended purpose of this thread).
Matt deMille said:
And, Stoo, I was using round numbers to illustrate a point, to make an exclamation. But if you read the accounts, I clearly spoke of age 3 being the first experience. A reasonable and objective individual would easily note the difference between my saying "This happened at age 3" and just using round numbers like 35 in conversation. But clearly you are neither reasonable nor objective, because you ignore the account and just take selective bits to further your crusade against me. You never seem to learn, but that makes *you* out to be the fool, not me..
Your age-3 story was not "ignored" but the math (1975 VS. 1977) didn't comply which is precisely why the issue was mentioned. That was the whole point, deMille. (Please, spare us from your persecution complex.)

Even so, your testimonies don't correspond with one another. Your original statement about *3* alien encounters (age: 3, 6, 10) have NOW CHANGED into *4*? (age: 3, 6, 8, 9). You can't even present your own, personal experiences in a consistent manner.
Matt deMille said:
I've had at least three experiences I can remember. Age 3, age 6, and age 10.
---
While I could dismiss a 3yo experience (even my own), my encounters of age 6, 8 and 9 are not so easily attributed to strange memory...
It's quite obvious to everyone that you have a very, strange memory.:rolleyes:
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Stoo said:
Fishy & dubious details concerning d'uhMille's accounts deserve some attention (and are relevant to the intended purpose of this thread).

But, from your own statements, Stoo...

Stoo said:
Your age-3 story was not "ignored" but the math (1975 VS. 1977) didn't comply which is precisely why the issue was mentioned. That was the whole point, deMille. (Please, spare us from your persecution complex.)

Even so, your testimonies don't correspond with one another. Your original statement about *3* alien encounters (age: 3, 6, 10) have NOW CHANGED into *4*? (age: 3, 6, 8, 9). You can't even present your own, personal experiences in a consistent manner.

It's quite obvious to everyone that you have a very, strange memory.:rolleyes:

...it's clear that getting to the facts of the personal experiences will be a futile exercise.

Which is why I wrote:

Montana Smith said:
I suggest we ignore Matt's claims about his personal experiences, as they bear little relevance to the subject of ancient aliens.

For argument's sake we can presume he imagined them, made them up, or mis-interpreted them.

Unless we do, this thread will just keep going round in circles, with the story changing a little here and there. In the end what will we have but more confusion?

If we're going to assess ancient aliens, I think we have to dismiss Matt's supposed more recent aliens.

:hat:
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Matt deMille said:
Aliens aside, I think it was that kind of arrogant thinking that laid the groundwork for the whole concept of ropes and ramps for pyramid building -- It needed a quick, easy, primitive-looking style to fit that British sense of superiority. And that mind-set stuck. Even if aliens aren't the truth there (I'll concede the possibility), that whole arrogant beginning doesn't do justice to the ingenuity of the ancients.
You know, isn't it actually kind of impressive that a man has been able to build something so grand with such simple tech as "ropes and ramps". At least to me, that's about as huge testament to man's ingenuinity as it gets.

If I had a bias towards another culture's achievements and wished to discredit them, I think I'd actually go with the 'they couldn't have done this by themselves, they must have had "outside help"' route.

Besides, egyptology is far from a stagnated science. There are dozens of 'serious' researchers still hoping to make a name for themselves by discovering new facts surrounding the past. To them, starting from "square one" (whichever point in history that is situated) would be a dream come true. You hardly are going to make it to the headlines by parroting your predecessors' statements. Unless, you know, they make sense to you too. Even after going over them yet again, hoping to find a hole or two.


But eh. Since up to my experience, there actually isn't a single turnpoint in history where one thing ends and another begins, I'd be curious to hear where exactly you think this "square one" is. And what conclusions could be drawn if we suddenly were to forget all these rather solidified theories that have been conceived after it.
 

Matt deMille

New member
Stoo said:
Fishy & dubious details concerning d'uhMille's accounts . . . Please, spare us from your persecution complexd

Stoo, your constant need to resort to pathetic insults actually shows that YOU have the persecution complex. YOU are the one who seems to take this personal. Why else would you continue with crap like "duhMille?" Or are you actually *not* making this personal, and just so stupid that you can't spell my name right? So, which is it? You're trying to keep flame wars going, or you don't posses a 1st grade education?
 
Top