Ancient aliens

Parrot

New member
I believe that you're severely mistaken about this Matt. Data is the most important factor, there really isn't any reasonable way to argue otherwise.

You start with the data and you develop your theory. If you don't have the data to support your theory, then you have nothing. No matter what mindset you adopt, you can't be saved from the lack of data.

If you can't produce any evidence that aliens visited Earth in ancient times, then what exactly are you basing your argument on?

Certainly I can admit that there may be questions that science can't answer at this point. But there's no other reliable alternative.

You talk about there being phenomena in science that we couldn't explain centuries ago: absolutely true. But at least in those cases we could actually show that those phenomena existed.

Nobody doubted the existence of magnetism before we came up with a theory to explain it. The theory came from the data, even if we couldn't understand what was happening beforehand.

That's not the equivalent of ancient aliens, because nobody has yet shown that they ever visited in the ancient past.

If you want to have science take your theories on ancient aliens seriously, then you need to first show evidence that they existed.

I would very much like it if you could answer my simple questions about the evidence that you said exists.

I will agree to back up everything I say on request or admit that my statements aren't backed up by the data.

Will you agree to the same?
 

Matt deMille

New member
Again, this goes in circles. The mind-set I speak of is clearly the problem here. You say in the past, even if we couldn't explain phenomena, we could see (evidence of) them. Well, UFOs are all around. They're reported every day. They've been photographed and filmed countless times. They're there. We just don't know exactly how they work or why they're here.

But enter the mind-set. The dogma I speak of. To say there's no evidence of them is taking the exact same stance as scientists did centuries ago when they refused to look through the telescope. In their mind-set, the Earth was still the center of the universe and couldn't revolve around the sun. In today's mind-set, there's no evidence of UFOs, even though they're plain for everybody to see.

I was worried it would come to this. But I can clearly see that this conversation, like in our private messaging, is simply going to go nowhere. And the problem is not a lack of evidence. It's a lack of proper mind-set, a lack of willingness to look at the evidence that exists. And it would be just another facet of that dogmatic mind-set to say "We see them now, but that doesn't mean they were here in ancient times". There is an example of how you need a more comprehensive view, to see things besides the data as I encourage -- You need wisdom. if UFOs are here now, it stands to reason they were here in the past, as well. They didn't invent space travel conveniently at the same time such concepts entered our own public consciousness.

And not one mention of the Ica Stones, either. THERE is potential evidence. Why not look at it? Discuss it like I invited? Once again, the evidence is snowed under by a closed mind-set. Evidence ignored.

I'm afraid I'm not going to continue this topic further. It's useless.
 
There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination.
Matt deMille said:
Again, this goes in circles. The mind-set I speak of is clearly the problem here. You say in the past, even if we couldn't explain phenomena, we could see (evidence of) them. Well, UFOs are all around. They're reported every day. They've been photographed and filmed countless times. They're there. We just don't know exactly how they work or why they're here.

But enter the mind-set. The dogma I speak of. To say there's no evidence of them is taking the exact same stance as scientists did centuries ago when they refused to look through the telescope. In their mind-set, the Earth was still the center of the universe and couldn't revolve around the sun. In today's mind-set, there's no evidence of UFOs, even though they're plain for everybody to see.

I was worried it would come to this. But I can clearly see that this conversation, like in our private messaging, is simply going to go nowhere. And the problem is not a lack of evidence. It's a lack of proper mind-set, a lack of willingness to look at the evidence that exists. And it would be just another facet of that dogmatic mind-set to say "We see them now, but that doesn't mean they were here in ancient times". There is an example of how you need a more comprehensive view, to see things besides the data as I encourage -- You need wisdom. if UFOs are here now, it stands to reason they were here in the past, as well. They didn't invent space travel conveniently at the same time such concepts entered our own public consciousness.

And not one mention of the Ica Stones, either. THERE is potential evidence. Why not look at it? Discuss it like I invited? Once again, the evidence is snowed under by a closed mind-set. Evidence ignored.

I'm afraid I'm not going to continue this topic further. It's useless.


"You're travelling through another dimension. A dimension, not only of sign and sound, but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. Next stop, The Twilight Zone." - Rod Serling
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Matt deMille said:
I'm afraid I'm not going to continue this topic further. It's useless.

That's probably the case, but you could break the circle:

Matt deMille said:
And not one mention of the Ica Stones, either. THERE is potential evidence. Why not look at it? Discuss it like I invited? Once again, the evidence is snowed under by a closed mind-set. Evidence ignored.

Present the case for the Ica Stones.
 

Gabeed

New member
Matt deMille said:
I'm afraid I'm not going to continue this topic further. It's useless.

Now cracks a fanatical heart. Goodnight, sweet prince of Tire.
And flights of vimanas sing thee to thy rest.
 
Last edited:

Gabeed

New member
You know, given an outlandish amount of time, I could replace a few key words and phrases in Matt's last couple massive posts to make it seem like he's defending Christianity, or zebra mussels building pyramids in the Great Lakes. The groundwork of "data is secondary to gut feelings and 'wisdom'" has already been laid.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Gabeed said:
You know, given an outlandish amount of time, I could replace a few key words and phrases in Matt's last couple massive posts to make it seem like he's defending Christianity, or zebra mussels building pyramids in the Great Lakes. The groundwork of "data is secondary to gut feelings and 'wisdom'" has already been laid.

"That he is mad, 'tis true: 'tis true 'tis pity;
And pity 'tis 'tis true: a foolish figure;
But farewell it, for I will use no art.
Mad let us grant him, then: and now remains
That we find out the cause of this effect,
Or rather say, the cause of this defect,
...
How pregnant sometimes his replies are! a happiness
that often madness hits on, which reason and sanity
could not so prosperously be delivered of."
 

Gabeed

New member
Why, thou sayest well. I do now remember a saying,
'The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man
knows himself to be a fool.'
 

Matt deMille

New member
Montana Smith said:
That's probably the case, but you could break the circle:

Present the case for the Ica Stones.

I already did. I summarized the stones and invited opinions in order to generate intelligent discussion. But, as usual, the only opinions I received were anything but serious or scientific. And of course the usual gradeschool behavior and issue-dodging from some posters was there, too. And I'll probably be accused of dodging the issue. Sigh.

And people wonder why the aliens don't land openly.
 

Gabeed

New member
Why discuss the Ica Stones when the Ancient Zebra Mussel Theory has been ditched and ignored for 40 pages or so?
 

Parrot

New member
Matt deMille said:
Again, this goes in circles. The mind-set I speak of is clearly the problem here. You say in the past, even if we couldn't explain phenomena, we could see (evidence of) them. Well, UFOs are all around. They're reported every day. They've been photographed and filmed countless times. They're there. We just don't know exactly how they work or why they're here.

I think you're kind of moving the goalpost here.

The question of whether aliens visited us in the distant past is a completely different question to the one of whether aliens are visiting us today.

Even if there are aliens visiting us today, that doesn't mean that aliens visited us in the distant past.

You may be convinced that aliens are currently visiting the Earth, but I'm not really interested in that claim right now. I'm here to discuss the claims that aliens visited us in the ancient past.

So I'm not interested in the question of whether alien spacecraft actually exist or how credible the evidence is that they're abducting and anal probing random victims. That doesn't bear any relevance to this discussion.

The question is did aliens actually visit Earth in the ancient past and have any kind of interactions with humans?

You're taking us completely off topic if you want to talk about the possibility of aliens visiting us today.
 
Parrot said:
The question of whether aliens visited us in the distant past is a completely different question to the one of whether aliens are visiting us today.
If aliens visit us now, why not then too? If aliens visited us then, why not now too? Not that big a deal to mention it...

Parrot said:
Even if there are aliens visiting us today, that doesn't mean that aliens visited us in the distant past.
True, though I've never heard of or seen any documentation that describes aliens, the limitations of early languages in addition to oppresive cultures that forced many to write "in code," mean the dragon with many heads: interpretation, is the best we can do.

Parrot said:
You may be convinced that aliens are currently visiting the Earth, but I'm not really interested in that claim right now. I'm here to discuss the claims that aliens visited us in the ancient past.
This I agree with, you have to stay focused, but I imagine Matt mentions current reports to refute the gods of the gaps concept, which (though not currently highly favored or supported), aptly describes science's missing link concept.
Parrot said:
The question is did aliens actually visit Earth in the ancient past and have any kind of interactions with humans?
Yes, it's going to be a difficult road to hoe but I'm interested where it will go, if you'll humor me a bit. Fair Warning, though I think it possible, I also think the records of the time are far too figurative to provide evidence or proof. We're at the mercy of interpretation.
 
Last edited:

Parrot

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
If aliens visit us now, why not then too? If aliens visited us then, why not now too? Not that big a deal to mention it...

Certainly if we could show that aliens really are visiting us in the present day, that would make a visit in the past a little more plausible.

But it's not a required premise in order to conclude that aliens visited us in the past. It's entirely possible that aliens came here centuries ago, left, and never returned. And it's entirely possible that aliens only got here for the first time a few decades ago.

And it's entirely possible that aliens have been a constant presence in human affairs for millennia.

But possibilities are just possibilities. We need evidence in order to make any real determination.

Just for the purpose of this conversation with Matt, I'm willing to grant him the assumption that aliens are currently visiting the Earth. It's completely a non issue in this debate, and can only serve to sidetrack us. I'm just trying to analyze the evidence that aliens visited in ancient times.

Rocket Surgeon said:
True, though I've never heard of or seen any documentation that describes aliens, the limitations of early languages in addition to oppresive cultures that forced many to write "in code," mean interpretation is a many headed dragon.

Exactly right. But the funny thing about how they often get interpreted by believers in ancient aliens is that they're said to have a level of specificity that isn't shown by the text itself.

Matt's claimed that certain parts of the Bible were "eerily similar" to modern technologies or UFO sightings. Turns out, though, that "eerily similar" actually means "kind-of sort-of similar if you twist the words around and use your imagination a little..."

Rocket Surgeon said:
This I agree with, you have to stay focused, but I imagine Matt mentions current reports to refute the gods of the gaps concept, which (though not currently highly favored or supported), aptly describes science's missing link concept.

Focus is important. I've been saying from the start that I don't want to be dragged down all sorts of alternative discussions when we haven't resolved anything with the first issue yet.

This talk about the limits of science seems like just a huge distraction to me. Either there's evidence or there isn't, and if there's evidence then we can discuss how strong it is. That's perfectly within the bounds of science and human reasoning.

Rocket Surgeon said:
Yes, it's going to be a difficult road to hoe but I'm interested where it will go, if you'll humor me a bit. Fair Warning, though I think it possible, I also think the records of the time are far too figurative to provide evidence or proof. We're at the mercy of interpretation.

I happen to think it's a very interesting discussion as well. That's the reason I'm still here after all. I almost gave up when I thought that Matt wasn't interested in the discussion anymore, but I took one last look and found that he'd started talking again.

I'm not going to get mad at anybody just because I believe that they're wrong. I consider it an opportunity to get involved in some sort of challenging discussion. Matt seems to expect that I'm going to bite his head off at any moment, even though I've taken pains to make sure that my language never became condescending or accusatory.

The fact that I'm still here probably also demonstrates how much of a dumbass I am... but I guess that's a given :)
 

Montana Smith

Active member
This thread is destined to travel in circles as long as we feel the need to keep re-asserting the rules and definitions of what's under discussion.

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.

That levels the playing field back to theory. Once we take the personal experiences out of the equation we can go back and look at individual cases from the past.

It might be a blood tranfusion to patient quickly bleeding out, or it might just be the wrong blood type that will finish them off. Who knows?
 

Matt deMille

New member
Actually, Montana, I'd be GLAD to leave my personal experiences behind. If this thread recalls, I only spoke of them because I was asked. I never intended the thread to become about them and, frankly, am weary of speaking about them here.

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. 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.
 

Gabeed

New member
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.

Well, firstly, not only do you not realize that the Macedonian army of the time had elite, veteran troops called agryaspidai, "silver shields," fighting in their army, but you also have no idea what the source is. I've certainly never heard of this among the ancient sources such as Julian or Ptolemy. Upon going on a paranormal site (http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case491.htm), which, incidentally, is the only place where I could find this stuff, they actually admit that they don't know what the source is, and that the story is quoted from a couple of guys (Frank Edwards and Alberto Fenoglio) who just told the story in the 1960's, who claim to have found this among the works of the 19th century historian Droysen. Even this site (via Bruno Mancusi) admits that the story remains very dubious, as does this one, which calls Alberto Fenoglio an alleged charlatan given, among other things, that no one else has seen this work by Droysen: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=13523.0

I like that that post, despite having admitted that the Italian is probably a fraud, suggests that this could be a "cover up," despite the vast amount of things in ancient historical texts (Herodotus alone!) that could be construed as paranormal. How laughable. I also like that he says that this incident happened in India, not in Tyre . . . I realize that this is just a forum post by some guy, but honestly, no sites of any repute can seemingly be found on this topic. I'm just finding any presentation of this story that I can.

Then you have this site (http://ufo.whipnet.org/xdocs/alexander.the.great/index.html) which states that it was recorded by "Alexander's chief historian," of course not naming him since they have no idea who Alexander's chief historian was, or indeed anything that they're talking about. Nevertheless, they speak with great confidence about this story, not admitting for a second that the first time we actually hear about this is in the 1960's from some Italian guy who has a reputation for making up UFO stories.

Then we get you, who says that Alexander the Great wrote it himself (or rather, he himself saw it, implying that a first-person perspective was being given), while sieging "Tire," with a date given that is roughly 40 years after he actually, historically, sieged the city.

What we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is a game of Moron Telephone, with the tale growing more and more outlandish and incorrect the farther it gets from its most dubious of sources.

Matt, if you can find the ancient source for this, or even something written by Droysen that backs up this story, I'll admit that this topic should be further discussed. But it seems to be complete bull****.

Edit: This site seems to take a detailed look at this hoax, and says some things I've already pointed out (like the existence of the argryaspidai, for example). The translation of Quintus Curtius is in particular interesting: http://deliyannis.blogspot.com/2009/11/alexander-great-and-ufos.html
 
Last edited:

Matt deMille

New member
You call them dubious sources, Gabeed, because you willingly look at shaky ones and focus on the flimsy or the negative. Consider at how you look at me: So I misspelled "Tyre" before. Or got the date wrong. So what? That's easily corrected. The typos in yours and others' accounts doesn't seem to, in your mind, discredit yours or their arguments. The real question is about how "silver shields", be they UFOs or human soldiers, "descend from the sky". Did the ancient Greeks have jet packs or something? I doubt that.

And, lest we forget, there are many, many ancient accounts which form solid building blocks of accepted, mainstream history that come from anonymous sources.

And, Gabeed, I said before that this phenomena was witnessed by both sides of the conflict, not just Alexander's forces.

This all goes back to mind-set. If you don't like an idea, you will focus on the weak accounts rather than look objectively for solid ones (or not even bother to look at all). It is, thus, your own apparent prejudice that is flimsy, not the story itself.
 

Gabeed

New member
Matt deMille said:
You call them dubious sources, Gabeed, because you willingly look at shaky ones and focus on the flimsy or the negative. Consider at how you look at me: So I misspelled "Tyre" before. Or got the date wrong. So what? That's easily corrected. The typos in yours and others' accounts doesn't seem to, in your mind, discredit yours or their arguments. The real question is about how "silver shields", be they UFOs or human soldiers, "descend from the sky". Did the ancient Greeks have jet packs or something? I doubt that.

And, lest we forget, there are many, many ancient accounts which form solid building blocks of accepted, mainstream history that come from anonymous sources.

And, Gabeed, I said before that this phenomena was witnessed by both sides of the conflict, not just Alexander's forces.

This all goes back to mind-set. If you don't like an idea, you will focus on the weak accounts rather than look objectively for solid ones (or not even bother to look at all). It is, thus, your own apparent prejudice that is flimsy, not the story itself.

You have no source, so this is duly ignored. To their credit, seemingly even most of the UFO sites say that this is a fraud.

I should add that I looked for the first sites I found regarding this on a Google search (and to suggest that I was purposefully looking for bad ones is laughable). If you have ones that better explain this, by all means post them.
 
Last edited:
Top