Ancient aliens

Gabeed

New member
THOSE AREN'T RELIABLE SOURCES. THE ONLY RELIABLE SOURCES ARE THE ONES GIVEN BY CRAZY PEOPLE SUCH AS MYSELF. THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE, BRO, YOU'RE JUST TOO BLIND TO SEE IT.

:rolleyes:

I abandoned any pretense for serious argument when he proposed that there are pyramids in the Great Lakes (which isn't even an exact coordinate anyway), though I probably should have before when he refused to acknowledge Stoo's projection question.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Gabeed said:
THOSE AREN'T RELIABLE SOURCES. THE ONLY RELIABLE SOURCES ARE THE ONES GIVEN BY CRAZY PEOPLE SUCH AS MYSELF. THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE, BRO, YOU'RE JUST TOO BLIND TO SEE IT.

:rolleyes:

:D

Gabeed said:
I abandoned any pretense for serious argument when he proposed that there are pyramids in the Great Lakes (which isn't even an exact coordinate anyway), though I probably should have before when he refused to acknowledge Stoo's projection question.

I find it self-defeating to overturn one set of established traditional views in favour of other less established non-traditional views. The established method offers practical examples, but the non-established only offers aliens and anti-gravitational devices. Did aliens build all the Roman and Greek monuments and the medieval cathedrals, too?

Conspiracy theorists also give governments far too much credit. Aliens are obviously not very good economists, looking at the state of the industrialized world today.

Chaos theory is much more likely!
 

Gabeed

New member
No kidding. You would think if the government was so Machiavellian and all-powerful, it would be able to seal up a damn oil well leak within days, let alone two months.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Gabeed said:
No kidding. You would think if the government was so Machiavellian and all-powerful, it would be able to seal up a damn oil well leak within days, let alone two months.

Precisely.

And the new cap has sprung a leak.

Where are our friendly, helpful aliens when we need them most? We're facing environmental catastrophe, but all the aliens were interested in was building some poxy pyramids to honour the dead and help them travel into the afterlife? :confused: What no cryogenic freezing or alien medicine? :confused:
 

RaideroftheArk

New member
Matt deMille said:
Thank you, Raideroftheark. I'm glad you're willing to take a look at some of the better research.

These three authors are among the best, yes. I stand by their work. Graham Hancock I would go to first.

Thank you, I appreciate the time you took to list some of these books that you hold in such high regard.

I tried to do a little research on the first author (Graham Hancock) you pointed out.

First, I just did a general Google search of the guy which of course lead me straight to Wikipedia. I wasn't about to even look at this as I saw that there was an Official Graham Hancock website. Figuring this source would give me at least a little biography, I was a little bit surprised at what I found.

According to this website, Graham Hancock did not major in archaeology, or history, or anything to do with the ancient world for that matter. He did in fact graduate in 1973 with First Honors in Sociology and then pursued a career in quality journalism...and since then has written books that have become best sellers.

The lack of background on his official site put me off a little. I usually never read that much into sources into I know a bit more about the author. Would you be able to point me in the direction of where I could find more about his background?
 

Matt deMille

New member
RaideroftheArk said:
Thank you, I appreciate the time you took to list some of these books that you hold in such high regard.

I tried to do a little research on the first author (Graham Hancock) you pointed out.

First, I just did a general Google search of the guy which of course lead me straight to Wikipedia. I wasn't about to even look at this as I saw that there was an Official Graham Hancock website. Figuring this source would give me at least a little biography, I was a little bit surprised at what I found.

According to this website, Graham Hancock did not major in archaeology, or history, or anything to do with the ancient world for that matter. He did in fact graduate in 1973 with First Honors in Sociology and then pursued a career in quality journalism...and since then has written books that have become best sellers.

The lack of background on his official site put me off a little. I usually never read that much into sources into I know a bit more about the author. Would you be able to point me in the direction of where I could find more about his background?

Normally, I would not recommend one's whose credentials are merely journalism. But, as always, I ask you to read the book and view the quality of information. A degree does not necessarily confer intelligence. Look at how many educated idiots we have in high places (Montana and Gabeed seem to like to point how how incompetent government is, yet these are all highly educated individuals in charge). Graham was only a journalist, but then he stumbled onto mysteries which led him down the path of research. The research is sound. The books are thick and exhaustively detailed. The info is there, free for you to cross-reference it yourself.

As for Stanton Friedman, he is a different breed. If you prefer a traditional educated man, you needn't look further. As I said, he's a nuclear physicist.

It's sad, though, sometimes when people *do* have the academic credentials, they're dismissed anyway. Take Bob Lazar, the famous ex-engineer from Area 51. He worked at a variety if labs, including Los Alamos, and just because his story (UFOs being reverse-engineered at Groom Lake) didn't sit well with skeptics, they said he "wasn't a scientist".

I believe if you give "Fingerprints of the Gods" a chance you will be pleasantly surprised at, despite a lack of academic credentials, how professional and well researched Mr. Hancock's work is.
 

Matt deMille

New member
Montana Smith said:
Precisely.

And the new cap has sprung a leak.

Where are our friendly, helpful aliens when we need them most? We're facing environmental catastrophe, but all the aliens were interested in was building some poxy pyramids to honour the dead and help them travel into the afterlife? :confused: What no cryogenic freezing or alien medicine? :confused:

The one who makes foolish jokes has obviously lost the argument. Still trying to think for the alien mind, are you? I say this: Maybe aliens don't want anything to do with us because we're a bunch of idiots as a race. Consider this: Would YOU jump into the den of a mad lion at the zoo?

And whoever said the aliens are here to help us? When we go into the wild to study animals, do we have their best interests at heart? No, we tag 'em and bag 'em. Only human arrogance assumes that aliens would be here for our best interests. It's the same arrogance that assumes humans are at the top of the food chain in the first place (ergo that aliens don't exist, despite no evidence that humans are alone in the universe).

Sorry, Montana. I was giving you a chance, but you seem to have retreated into the typical arrogance and senseless joking that categorizes all simple-minded skeptics. I'd hoped better from your previous posts.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Gabeed said:
You, on the other hand, are dismissing my post because you have no real answers to it.
Hey, at least you were dismissed. My questions were completely ignored!
Gabeed said:
I abandoned any pretense for serious argument when he proposed that there are pyramids in the Great Lakes (which isn't even an exact coordinate anyway), though I probably should have before when he refused to acknowledge Stoo's projection question.
Maybe I'm on his ignore list?:confused: Never heard of pyramids in The Great Lakes before...
Matt deMille said:
Stonehenge, Easter Island, Ankor-Wat, Tiwanaco, Giza, Yonaguni's sunken temple, the Great Lakes (there are pyramids sunken there), and others.
O.K. That is a total of 7 points but not enough to make a grid. What are the "others"? (Also, the Great Lakes cover an area of almost 100,000 sqaure miles so you'll need to be more precise.)
Matt deMille said:
I'm talking about using a 2D map instead of a globe so you can see the grid as a whole, bean-head!
Again, I ask: Which cartographic projection are you using?
Matt deMille said:
I like how you bring chronology into it. A pretty bad attempt to rerail the topic. What the hell does chronology have to do with anything? Sacred sites have histories. It's about the site, not the structure.
To be fair, you did intially say "all the ancient monuments". Gabeed's comments about what criteria to follow were warranted. "All" is an absolute, plus in your opnion, at which date is something no longer 'ancient'?
Matt deMille said:
Your "arguments" are really trying to shut down questions rather than ask them. The opposite of what true science and scholarly study should do.
Well, what about my questions? I'm the one person willing to investigate the grid theory and you're not even answering me. (sniff):(
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Matt deMille said:
The one who makes foolish jokes has obviously lost the argument.

There is no argument. You already possess the truth.

Matt deMille said:
Only human arrogance assumes that aliens would be here for our best interests.

So what were they doing helping to build pyramids and imparting knowledge to man?

Matt deMille said:
It's the same arrogance that assumes humans are at the top of the food chain in the first place (ergo that aliens don't exist, despite no evidence that humans are alone in the universe).

It's highly improbable that we're alone in the universe. It's highly improbable that vastly superior technology was here on earth in such recent times as a few thousand years ago, and didn't leave any trace of their actual technology that hasn't already been vaccuumed up by paranoid governments.

Matt deMille said:
Sorry, Montana. I was giving you a chance, but you seem to have retreated into the typical arrogance and senseless joking that categorizes all simple-minded skeptics. I'd hoped better from your previous posts.

So I'm a simple-minded skeptic, yet you're the one that's bought the 'truth' hook, line and sinker without a word of caution? It was you who stated categorically:

Matt deMille said:
Trust me, ancient aliens is a valid theory, and during the 21st century it will prove to be THE most important aspect of our reality.

...

despite my knowledge of the alien reality as well as seeing the Bible and all religious faith as utter trash.

Where is the caution that goes hand in hand with the study of history? Are you willing to believe the views of these proponents so completely? Are not the alternative views also well researched and just as likely to be right? Or have you first hand knolwedge of the aliens that makes you so sure?

What parts of the various theories do you include in your belief? Do you include the idea that the Germans built 'foo fighters', and sent men to the Moon during the second world war, and to Mars with Japanese help at the end of the war? Do you accept he works of Friedrich Mattern aka Ernst Zundel?

The onus of proof does lie with you, since you are the one revising generally accepted history. Yet that proof is only interpretation of geology and artifacts, and interpretation is the work of all historians. The case of Graham Hancock would seem to match the point I made earlier: he isn't an historian or an archaeologist, but a journalist with best-sellers to his name. Controversial history is popular history.

And here's me, a fan of the ideas. But I urge caution, since the conspiracy might be among the believers in alien technology, rather than among the governments who expound the traditional view. ;)

And give Stoo his answer, as he's feeling ignored. :p
 
Last edited:

Gabeed

New member
Matt deMille said:
Sorry, Montana. I was giving you a chance, but you seem to have retreated into the typical arrogance and senseless joking that categorizes all simple-minded skeptics. I'd hoped better from your previous posts.


YEAH MONTANA, WHY WON'T YOU OPEN YOUR MIND TO THE GREAT TEMPLE-PYRAMID OF POSEIDON, BUILT UNDERNEATH LAKE MICHIGAN BY A RACE OF EXTRATERRESTRIALLY-INSPIRED ZEBRA MUSSELS TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO? THE EVIDENCE IS THERE! AND THE GREAT-TEMPLE PYRAMID LINES UP PERFECTLY WITH L'ANSE AUX MEADOWS AND ANCIENT CARTHAGE (It actually does, I used Google Earth) COINCIDENCE!?!?!?

Seriously, though. Being a native Wisconsinite and having studied pre-Columbian North American archaeology to some extent, I can't wait to hear about the Great Lakes pyramids.

I'd also like to add that indeed not all people who can provide new perspectives need be experts in the specific field. Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel was an interesting new boost to the concept of environmental determinism with the intention of disproving racist branches of the view . . .despite him having primarily been an ecologist studying birds in Papua New Guinea rather than an archaeologist. But there's a huge gap between Jared Diamond and Mr. "mother culture" Hancock in terms of scholarship.
 
Last edited:

Matt deMille

New member
Montana Smith said:
There is no argument. You already possess the truth.

Where is the caution that goes hand in hand with the study of history? Are you willing to believe the views of these proponents so completely? Are not the alternative views also well researched and just as likely to be right? Or have you first hand knolwedge of the aliens that makes you so sure?

And give Stoo his answer, as he's feeling ignored. :p

That's a baited question. If I said I have first-hand knowledge, there'd be no end to the insults and jokes made at my expense. I'd immediately be categorized as some attention-seeking, abductee-claiming wannabe. On the other hand, by denying having first-hand information, I open myself to somehow give validity to your words by default. So here's what I say:

Maybe I have first-hand knowledge, maybe I don't. Maybe I've met aliens, maybe I haven't. Maybe I've visited these places I speak of, maybe I haven't.

I'll let everyone in this forum weigh that one however they will. The negative, knee-jerk reactions I've heard a million times before so they don't mean anything to me. What does matter are those who are still interested.

That brings me to Stoo . . .
 

Matt deMille

New member
Sorry, Stoo. I have been absent in answering your question. I've been rather distracted by defending myself against kindergarten insults and accusations from others. I was asked to continue an old thread on this subject matter, so I thought there'd be more open-minded interest, and my first few posts were attacked with ridiculous comments to say the least. It got me distracted. I apologize for the long wait.

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.

As for the worldwide map, I used the term "ancient" sites to separate them from what sites we consider important in modern times. By ancient, shall we say, anything medieval or earlier.

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.

Now, I'm sure some people will say that by my insisting you choose the sites, I'm setting you up for a "see what you want to see", like seeing things in clouds. That's a cross I'm prepared to bear. If I list the sites, all I do is invite myself and this thread to be subjected to another barrage of baseless accusations and insults based upon the sites chosen. Furthermore, there's more of a "wow" factor when you make the discovery yourself. It sticks in the mind better. Me, I always preferred learning not by memorizing stuff, byt by calculating it, figuring it out. Memorizing is dangerous. You just inherit the mistakes made by those before you. Probably why I take such offense at the simple-minded insults flung at me by some of the "adults" on this forum. They think they're smart because they regurgitate what others have said, rather than deconstructing, analyzing and calculating things for themselves. I encourage you to try digging up the sites on your own and literally filling in the blanks. You might be amazed at how they line up!
 

Matt deMille

New member
As for anyone else who wants to continue to beat a dead horse, I've continually tried to make objective and informed arguments and I keep getting a lot of immature responses. So, to those who want to continue that sort of senseless diatribe, I'm not going to dignify any more of your comments with responses. I'd rather not waste my time. I'd rather spend my energy talking to those who are interested and open-minded. So if you're not, if you don't like this sort of subject matter, here's some good advice for you: Don't say anything. Visit another forum or another thread. If you don't have something pleasant or at least impartial or objective to offer, if all you want to do is act like a child on a playground and take cheap shots, spare us and don't leave your comment at all.
 

Gabeed

New member
Matt deMille said:
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.

I'm sure any decent geologist could. It's the same deal with the "sheared-off mountaintop," in that just because they look weird, to the layman the immediate conclusion is that the item in question must be artificial. Not to mention that claiming that they MUST BE PYRAMIDS is a gigantic leap to make if only sonar scans are done and you have no idea what the "pyramids" are even composed of, whether they've been carved, etc. Not to mention that the bottom of the Great Lakes have largely been either covered by water or ice for the ten thousand years. I mean, did any thought go into this besides "OOOH. IT LOOK LIKE PYRAMID, THUS MUST BE PYRAMID?" How can you expect we "mainstream" to possibly hold your theories in any regard when you provide so little information, let alone evidence?

Matt deMille said:
Now, I'm sure some people will say that by my insisting you choose the sites, I'm setting you up for a "see what you want to see", like seeing things in clouds. That's a cross I'm prepared to bear. If I list the sites, all I do is invite myself and this thread to be subjected to another barrage of baseless accusations and insults based upon the sites chosen.

This makes no sense. You have provided no reason for why the choosing of the sites isn't "seeing what you want to see," and yet you call any accusations or criticisms "baseless."

Matt deMille said:
Probably why I take such offense at the simple-minded insults flung at me by some of the "adults" on this forum. They think they're smart because they regurgitate what others have said, rather than deconstructing, analyzing and calculating things for themselves.

Actually, I think I'm smart because I have some respect for the careful conglomeration of scholarship in archaeological, geological, and anthropological thought for the last one hundred and fifty years, rather than purposely making a foe out of it in order to appear enlightened and exercise every "mystery" into being part of of a theory against the mainstream. And I don't see how my "regurgitating" is any different from your "regurgitating" of Hancock, von Daniken, and the other authors/frauds you're influenced by . . . nor do I see any valuable deconstructing, analyzing, and calculating on your part (especially with the Great Lakes pyramids . . .I mean, Jesus . . .).
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
Matt deMille said:
That's a baited question. If I said I have first-hand knowledge, there'd be no end to the insults and jokes made at my expense. I'd immediately be categorized as some attention-seeking, abductee-claiming wannabe. On the other hand, by denying having first-hand information, I open myself to somehow give validity to your words by default. So here's what I say:

Maybe I have first-hand knowledge, maybe I don't. Maybe I've met aliens, maybe I haven't. Maybe I've visited these places I speak of, maybe I haven't.

I'll let everyone in this forum weigh that one however they will. The negative, knee-jerk reactions I've heard a million times before so they don't mean anything to me. What does matter are those who are still interested.

That brings me to Stoo . . .

I'm sorry but you lead us to believe that you did possess some truth:

Matt deMille said:
Trust me, ancient aliens is a valid theory, and during the 21st century it will prove to be THE most important aspect of our reality.

...

despite my knowledge of the alien reality as well as seeing the Bible and all religious faith as utter trash.

So you you've branded me "simple-minded", "immature", "kindergarten", "senseless", "a child in the playground", yet all I've been doing is posing alternate theories and urging caution. When you said that you had "knowledge of the alien reality" I presumed you were going to offer something new and different. It seems, however, that you only want to discuss the matter with those who already believe. I'm waiting to hear the information that will send me off in research that will sway my mind - as this would be a truly exciting discovery.
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Matt deMille said:
I'd rather not waste my time. I'd rather spend my energy talking to those who are interested and open-minded.

Sounds like you're just looking for people to agree with you.

Being afraid to open up your beliefs to scrutiny is the antithesis of good science.
 

Paden

Member
I've done some reading (not extensive, mind you) on sites like Monks Mound in Illinois and Poverty Point in Louisiana. The ancient cultures of the Americas are extremely interesting. I'm aware that some with an interest in the ancient aliens idea have posited that these sites (and others) were designed/engineered by extraterrestrials and had some significance with regard to alleged alien involvement in ancient cultures. My struggle with those assertions is that in most cases, there seems to be some reasonable scientific accounting for how the structures were constructed. I'll grant that the role some of these sites played in ancient cultures is a matter of speculation (there are several theories regarding the use/uses of Poverty Point, for instance), but even the speculation seems to be grounded in what is scientifically known of early cultures. I guess what I'm driving at is that I've yet to read anything that raises sufficient doubt about a pre-Columbian culture's ability to build something like Monks Mound that would then lead me to consider other ideas, such as the ancient alien argument. Frankly, as it stands, it seems as though there are reasonable, earthbound explanations for many of things that proponents of the alien idea point to as "proof".
 

Matt deMille

New member
Lance Quazar said:
Sounds like you're just looking for people to agree with you.

Being afraid to open up your beliefs to scrutiny is the antithesis of good science.

Hi, Lance,

Actually, I welcome differing opinions. I don't want people to "just agree". That's how religions start and that's dangerous. I only request that when folks respond, they ask questions WITHOUT lacing their comments with thinly veiled insults or outright close-minded attacks. This thread got off to a bad start because the first response was "See a psychiatrist". When I get a response like that, I know that person is NEVER going to be objective. I defended myself then other sharks, seeing the blood, started circling, and it continued from there. The forum never got off to a proper start because of cheap-shots and insults being thrown my way by those with a closed-mind.

Now, if someone who HASN'T been on the "He's loony" bandwagon is ready to ask real questions then I'll offer real answers. Contrary to the last few posts whom I'm not going to bother responding to (for the reasons stated above), I do indeed have "new" info and have a lot more to back up what I've said. I just haven't bothered offering it on the forum since they've already shown their colors.

Ever since I started saying things to the effect of "I'll wait for someone objective to join this thread", everything I've said has been purposefully vague, because I don't want to throw good money after bad, so-to-speak. These jokers aren't worth the effort, and they're not going to see outside the box anyway. Most recently, they said they were "hoping for something new". Funny, since I offered multiple theories they hadn't heard before (certainly they hadn't heard because they said as much and because they kept asking about them). But then they ridiculed them. Well, I'm not here to offer new things to ridicule. I'm here to offer new (and old) things for intellectual consideration.

If anyone wants to ask, as I said early on, objective and thought-through questions, I'll be glad to address them. But if I detect one insult in a post from here on, I won't acknowledge the post at all.

To finish, I welcome differing opinions. I'm mature. I can handle that. Consider this: I said in this thread that I was once a Christian, that I was as solid in faith as anyone could be, and that whole world-view was washed away by the data of ufology, that it turned my whole life upside-down.

How does one change their entire world-view based on facts if they're not willing to hear alternate opinions?
 

Matt deMille

New member
Paden said:
I've done some reading (not extensive, mind you) on sites like Monks Mound in Illinois and Poverty Point in Louisiana. The ancient cultures of the Americas are extremely interesting. I'm aware that some with an interest in the ancient aliens idea have posited that these sites (and others) were designed/engineered by extraterrestrials and had some significance with regard to alleged alien involvement in ancient cultures. My struggle with those assertions is that in most cases, there seems to be some reasonable scientific accounting for how the structures were constructed. I'll grant that the role some of these sites played in ancient cultures is a matter of speculation (there are several theories regarding the use/uses of Poverty Point, for instance), but even the speculation seems to be grounded in what is scientifically known of early cultures. I guess what I'm driving at is that I've yet to read anything that raises sufficient doubt about a pre-Columbian culture's ability to build something like Monks Mound that would then lead me to consider other ideas, such as the ancient alien argument. Frankly, as it stands, it seems as though there are reasonable, earthbound explanations for many of things that proponents of the alien idea point to as "proof".

Welcome, Paden. And thank you for this point of view. It offers me a chance to clarify something from earlier in this thread.

When I say ancient moments are connected to aliens, I do not necessarily mean the aliens built them. More often than not, these monuments (save perhaps the Giza site and a few others) are madmade, but built to HONOR the aliens/gods. The Nazca Lines are a good example. Easily made by men, but for what purpose, since they're only visible from the air?

I believe many ancient cultures were "cargo cults". In a nutshell, a cargo cult is a primitive culture that comes into contact with a technologically advanced culture, then worships them as gods. On some South Pacific Islands, scientists have found natives who build bamboo versions of radios, airplanes and other 20th century devices, worshipping the "gods" who arrived in World War II (dumped their cargo on an "uninhabited island" as a staging area), then departed. One tribe even carved an airstrip out of the jungle to try and encourage the "gods" (in their WWII planes) to return.

When I see ancient monuments, in America or elsewhere, whose purpose is unclear, it's interesting to look at what commonalities these monuments have in proposed purpose with other cultures around the world. Construction side (you are right, most of them can indeed be made by primitive man), one must ask "what were they build for?" and "why do they share similar cultural purposes and gods and myths as cultures around the world who have had no contact with one another?"
 
Top