Ancient aliens

Gabeed

New member
Matt deMille said:
9) Why DO all ancient monuments form a perfect worldwide grid in perfect proportional measurement to one another?

I don't know how you feel like you can elicit any response but laughter with gems like this. Your other numbers are just a series of unsubstantiated statements regarding which I'm sure you have tons of "evidence" ready to post, and I have no wish to get into a giant debate about how you're incredibly misguided, but I'd love to hear more about the grid. Please, attempt to convince me how ALL ANCIENT MONUMENTS are on a worldwide grid and are proportional to each other.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
There is no hard evidence.

von Daeniken got this crazy ball rolling, and he himself later admitted that he's created evidence to bolsdter his 'theory'.

On the water erosion of the Sphinx, wikipedia puts the other theories in a nutshell:

Water erosion debate

A. Schwaller de Lubicz, a French polymath and amateur Egyptologist, first noticed evidence of water erosion on the walls of the Sphinx Enclosure in the 1950s. Author John Anthony West investigated further and in 1989 sought the opinion of a geologist, Robert M. Schoch, associate professor of natural science at the College of General Studies, Boston University.[17]

From his investigation of the Enclosure's geology, Schoch concluded that the main type of weathering evident on the Sphinx Enclosure walls could only have been caused by prolonged and extensive rain.[18] According to Schoch, the area has experienced a mean annual rainfall of approximately one inch (2.5 cm) since the Old Kingdom (c. 2686–2134 BC), and since Egypt's last period of significant rainfall ended between the late fourth and early third millennia BC,[19] he dates the Sphinx's construction to the sixth or fifth millennia BC.[20][21][22]

Contrary to Schoch's paleometeorological conclusions, recent studies by German climatologists Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kröpelin, of the University of Cologne, and geologist Judith Bunbury, of St Edmund's College, Cambridge, suggest that the change from a wet to a much drier climate may have occurred later than is currently thought, and that Dynasty IV (the traditional era of the construction of the Sphinx) may still have been a period of significant rainfall; a conclusion also accepted by Mark Lehner.[23] However, Schoch points out that fragile mudbrick structures nearby, indisputably dated to Dynasties I and II, have survived relatively undamaged, indicating that no heavy rainfall has occurred in the region since the Early Dynastic Period.[24]

Colin Reader, a British geologist, agrees that the evidence of weathering indicates prolonged water erosion. Reader found, inter alia, that the flow of rainwater causing the weathering had been stemmed by the construction of 'Khufu's quarries',[25] which lie directly "upstream" of the Sphinx Enclosure, and therefore concludes that the Sphinx must predate the reign of Khufu (2589–2566 BC), and certainly Khafra, by several hundred years. Reader however disagrees with Schoch's palaeometeorological estimates, and instead concludes that the Sphinx dates to the Early Dynastic Period (c. 3150–2686 BC).[10]

David Coxill, a geologist working independently of both Schoch and Reader, concludes from the evidence of weathering in the Enclosure:

"The Sphinx is at least 5,000 years old and pre-dates dynastic times [before 3100 BC]."[3]

Most Egyptologists, dating the building of the Sphinx to Khafra's reign (2520–2492 BC), do not accept the water erosion theory. Alternative explanations for the evidence of weathering, from Aeolian processes and acid rain to exfoliation, haloclasty, thermal expansion, and even the poor quality limestone of the Sphinx, have been put forward by Egyptologists and geologists, including Mark Lehner,[17] James A. Harrell of the University of Toledo,[26] Lal Gauri, John J. Sinai and Jayanta K. Bandyopadhyay,[27] Alex Bordeau,[28] and Lambert Dolphin, a former senior research physicist at SRI International.[29]

The chief proponents of the water erosion theory have rejected these alternative explanations. Reader, for example, points to the tombs dug into the Enclosure walls during Dynasty XXVI (c. 600 BC), and notes that the entrances of the tombs have weathered so lightly that original chisel marks are still clearly visible. He points out that if the weathering on the Enclosure walls (up to a metre deep in places) had been created by any of the proposed alternative causes of erosion, the tomb entrances would have been weathered much more severely.[30] Similarly, Schoch points out that the alternative explanations do not account for the absence of similar weathering patterns on other rock surfaces in the Giza pyramid complex.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza

What this really means is, that evidence is rarely 'hard evidence', and it's always been open to debate between those working various fields. There is no definitive answer, there is no definitive proof of ancient aliens, ancient astronauts or ancient super-technology.

Most things have a simple and rational explanation.

There was a time when argument raged that the pyramids could not have been built by men without high technology. Now we know that the Egyptians hauled the cut stone up ramps.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
EDIT:

The above is not to say that I don't like reading the theories - but I read them as fiction, rather than as serious history. My interest began as a kid when I picked up a comic book version of Chariots of the Gods. I have about five of Daeniken's books, including some of his more recent ones, as well as books by other authors.

The 'evidence' they present can be pretty coercive, if you don't fully understand the cultures from which the images are taken. It would be neat if it was proved beyond doubt, but I'm highly skeptical of most things. There are too many hoaxers and perpetuators of junk on all sides, from those of religious faith as well as those of 'new-age' tendencies. That's not to mention the junk that perpetuates from writers who are themselves referred to as 'serious historians'.

Believing in aliens is similar to believing in gods.

Believers in gods in ancient times were explaining the world around them without the greater scientific insight that we now poessess.

Believers in ancient technology are explaining the world of the past without the greater scientific insight we will one day possess.

Because we don't yet have finite answers to everything it doesn't imply that we will never have those answers.

That said, I was impressed as a kid by the story from the Mahabarata in which a god in a flying machine dropped a single projectile on the triple-city, thereby destroying it. When he landed, his 'vimana' was glowing like a block of antimony. Survivors of the projectile later lost their teeth and hair.

I never checked out the original text, to see whether all that reference to an atomic bomb was in it, or whether there really was a reference to the earth seen from high above as having the impression of 'porridge'.

As a kid I was impressed, just as I was impressed by the South American carving of the man in the flying machine with the smoke emitting from jets.

As an adult I'm much more skeptical. I'm skeptical about 'traditional' history as well as 'revisionist' history. After all, both are the result of investigation and theory, and we're never sure of the personal agenda of the 'historian'.

Since the days of written record we are able to analyse the texts of the past to infer fact. In the days of pre-writing, we have to analyse images, which may be far more symboilic than written records. It's in the interpretation of symbols where meanings may be mis-applied.

To look at the quote Matt deMille provided from Dr. Steven Greer:

"In no other area of scientific endeavor do you need proof before you actively investigate something. This is a hypocritical standard that scientists have held up. If there is only a 10% chance that all the evidence we have indicates that we are being visited by an intelligent life-form, this is one of the most significant things in human history and we (ufologists) do not have to trot out a dead alien corpse before people in the scientific community should seriously begin to look at it".

Greer's statement is back to front. He's right that no scientist should begin with "proof" before they begin to "actively investigate something." The act of investigation is that which seeks to find "proof". The problems occur when "proof" is asserted, then the investigation begins to find the evidence for it: which is how 'ufologists' seem to function.

The only course of action in history and science is to keep an open-mind to the possibilities, based on rational thought, that is, 'rational' in the current sense of logic, since the scientific approach should be 'empirical'.

Rational as in 'reason'.

Empirical as in 'observation, experience or experiment'.
 
Last edited:

Matt deMille

New member
Oh, jeez. The last few posts have really given me a lot to rebuttle. Sorry in advance for the sarcasm but I can't help it when I'm attacked with arrogance.

Quoting Wikipedia? That's what you trust for evidence? And because mainstream Egyptologists say this or that somehow that's definitive? Did you read nothing about what I said concerning entrenched academia maintaining its dogma and jobs? OF COURSE the tow-the-party-line guys are going to be quoted and referenced. That's the point! New thought and theory is censored. Do you really think that if Egyptologists with differing opinions stated them publicly they'd be put in the canon? No, they'd be fired.

And why do people continue to say Von Daniken started this ball rolling? He didn't. Von Daniken wrote his first stuff in the 60s. There were books and arguments made about ancient astronauts long before Von Daniken.

Another flaw in the traditional thinking: So what if other structures nearby were not weathered? That's the point. The Sphinx and Great Pyramids were not built by the Egyptians. Other monuments nearby (of far lesser quality) were. They emulated what the unknown ancients built. Hence the different dates.

As for the "Now we know the Egyptians hauled the cut out stone ramps", this one is most laughable. Mathematically, there would have been more stone used in the ramps than in the pyramid itself. Where did the excess stone go? Besides, the ramps, even at a steep degree, would have stretched a mile back into the desert. Where's the evidence of the labor for a mile-long track? The pits? The tools? The camps? It isn't there. Ramps weren't how the pyramids were built. That's just an assumption of the British centuries ago that went unquestioned for so long it became accepted for no reason other than it was already in the books.

Ya know, critics of UFOs like to say "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence". The same as in effect been said already several times in this thread. Well, if that's the case, if absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, there's absolutely ZERO evidence that the pyramids were built as tombs or by the Egyptians at all. Nowhere in Egypt are there written records of any kind about the construction of the pyramids (if there were, why do we still speculate on how they were built?) The Egyptians wrote down everything, floor to ceiling, literally. Yet never are the Great Pyramids mentioned. Furthermore, there is NO writing anywhere inside the Great Pyramid. None. Unless you count that misspelled graffiti a wealthy British explorer "conveniently found" when his funding was about to be pulled. One name, that's it, and spelled wrong too. Yet the entirety of the interior of these "tombs" is totally absent of hieroglyphics and treasure, things found in every other real tomb throughout Egypt. The only artifact about the Pharoahs ever found was a dinky statuette a hundred miles away. And don't say grave robbers. When the British dynamited their way into the pyramids, they were clearly opening passages never opened by man. These were slabs that fell into place which no man could lift (why else did they need to dynamite the things?) Yet past these never-opened doors they found absolutely zero treasure, and not even any body in these "tombs". Ergo, they were not tombs, and not built by the Egyptians.

Gabeed: Your own post has drastic internal contradictions. You say to show you the evidence, but then say I'm misguided before you even see it. Kangaroo court, anyone? Well, instead of showing you the evidence, try this: Do it yourself! Get a flat map of the globe, and mark the big sacred sites (Stonehenge, Easter Island, etc.) You'll notice an eerie symmetry. That is, if you're not so "misguided" that you actually line things up fairly and honestly to their coordinates.

Go ahead. Quote some more dogma. It makes me laugh. I'm sorry to be so rude but I thought I'd offer some challenges with this thread. I thought some folks would like the challenge. I asked for rational, informed opinions with open-minds, and instead all I'm getting is Wikipedia quotes that regurgitate the most worn-out and easily disproved dogma of all.

I've said this before an I'll say it again: Truth goes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

Panda bears, Komodo dragons, elephants, the locomotive, submarines, cell phones, the New World, flying machines, electricity, the theory of evolution, going to the moon . . . all things the entrenched, authoritative establishment said was IMPOSSIBLE. In fact, in 1896, the US Patent Office closed down. The reason? There was nothing left to invent. Everything that can be invented has already been invented.

See the kind of arrogance you defend when you just quote the establishment or defend the established views? And people call me misguided? Well, I'm sure no matter what I say you'll just laugh and find some self-delusional way to convince yourself you're right. Have your laugh, then, but it doesn't change a damn thing. The world out there is not what you think it to be or what you want it to be for the sake of your comfort bubble. And it never was.

Lake monsters, sasquatch, anti-gravity engines, sublight ships, new worlds, crystal technology and ancient aliens are simply being ridiculed and violently opposed. Eventually they'll be accepted as self-evident too. It's just a matter of time.

Now, lest one think me too much of a turd, I WELCOME debate. I welcome well thought-out, rational, open-minded arguments. But that's just not what I'm getting here. All I'm getting is status-quotes, and lame ones at that. If people are going to insult me or say I'm wrong outright without checking their evidence, can they at least put a little thought into their arguments? Is that too much to ask?
 

Matt deMille

New member
Montana Smith said:
EDIT:

Greer's statement is back to front. He's right that no scientist should begin with "proof" before they begin to "actively investigate something." The act of investigation is that which seeks to find "proof". The problems occur when "proof" is asserted, then the investigation begins to find the evidence for it: which is how 'ufologists' seem to function.

The only course of action in history and science is to keep an open-mind to the possibilities, based on rational thought, that is, 'rational' in the current sense of logic, since the scientific approach should be 'empirical'.

Rational as in 'reason'.

Empirical as in 'observation, experience or experiment'.

Montana, perhaps you have simply been led along in the dark like so many others. Not all ufologists assert evidence. Like any underdog, they have to really do their homework. The real good ones do. I strongly suggest you look at the works of Timothy Good, Stanton Friedman and Graham Hancock. Their books are kinda thick but that's because they're filled with research.

And I must address something you said, that aliens are similar to gods, in that it's a matter of belief and the unknown. Not really. Aliens and UFOs, if real, are a physical reality and as such can be brought into the lab. There's no faith required. If it exists, then there's a way to prove it. The problem is that when evidence surfaces people simply refuse to look at it. Science has become a religion in and of itself, protecting its establishment. Or like the two major American political parties, rigged to prevent a reform party from ever building up. Aliens and artifacts of UFOs have been found in the public domain and are simply overlooked long enough for them to end up in a warehouse with ten thousand other boxes where Indy can crawl around on them.

You seem a really level headed guy but for the life of me I do not understand why you seem to accept the mainstream version of things. I think your posts are much better without the cumbersome quotes of sanitized views. I really liked your simple, to-the-point "Because we don't yet have finite answers to everything it doesn't imply that we will never have those answers" I agree. The part that maddens me in threads like this is when people say they do indeed have all the answers, that, for example, ancient aliens are not real. How do they know? Saying they aren't is hypocritical coming from those who demand evidence. What's their evidence that aliens aren't real?
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Matt deMille said:
Do it yourself! Get a flat map of the globe, and mark the big sacred sites (Stonehenge, Easter Island, etc.) You'll notice an eerie symmetry. That is, if you're not so "misguided" that you actually line things up fairly and honestly to their coordinates.
Re: "flat map". Which cartographic projection are you using?:confused:

You mention only 2 sites. There's nothing "eerie" about the symmetry of a straight line. Do you have a list of all these "ancient monuments which form a perfect worldwide grid in perfect proportional measurement to one another"?
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Matt deMille said:
You seem a really level headed guy but for the life of me I do not understand why you seem to accept the mainstream version of things.

I said I was skeptical of all views - religious, new-age and so-called historians.

Matt deMille said:
I think your posts are much better without the cumbersome quotes of sanitized views.

I was simply highlighting alternate theories to show that there is no one definitive answer, alien or otherwise. Historians are often in conflict with one another over quite mundane points, not just the grand ones. Evidence is open to interpretation, otherwise they wouldn't be debating with one another.

Matt deMille said:
I really liked your simple, to-the-point "Because we don't yet have finite answers to everything it doesn't imply that we will never have those answers" I agree.

That's why I'm skeptical when people say they already know the 'truth'.

Matt deMille said:
The part that maddens me in threads like this is when people say they do indeed have all the answers, that, for example, ancient aliens are not real. How do they know? Saying they aren't is hypocritical coming from those who demand evidence. What's their evidence that aliens aren't real?

In the other thread I wrote that it would be entertaining if you started this one. It has already proved the case, and that it would be was unavoidable.

In that thread you wrote the following:

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.

You said to trust you, that during this century "it will prove to be THE most important aspect of our reality" and that you possess "knowledge of the alien reality".

Not only do you claim to have personal proof, but you believe that this proof will be made real to everyone else sometime over the next ninety years. The 'fact' that you have these answers was evidence that this thread would prove to be entertaining.

History is never finished. It is never a done deal. Even a personal diary is not indisputable evidence of the past. History will always be re-interpreted, as history is the process of the clash of ideologies, past and present.
 

Gabeed

New member
Matt deMille said:
Gabeed: Your own post has drastic internal contradictions. You say to show you the evidence, but then say I'm misguided before you even see it. Kangaroo court, anyone? Well, instead of showing you the evidence, try this: Do it yourself! Get a flat map of the globe, and mark the big sacred sites (Stonehenge, Easter Island, etc.) You'll notice an eerie symmetry. That is, if you're not so "misguided" that you actually line things up fairly and honestly to their coordinates.


Oh, I'd be willing to do so if the entire concept wasn't so inane. Like Stoo, I'd love to see the list of what constitutes an ancient monument, because I am certain that not every "sacred site" is noted. I also have no idea what you think is "ancient" or not, chronologically speaking. Not to mention that the entire concept of an alien race placing monuments proportionally via a flat map is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Why would aliens ever use a flat map when they are making a global grid and THEY KNOW that the Earth is a globe? You would think intelligent aliens would make the coordinates proportional to a truly global model, given that they are already sharing their advanced technology in order to build these wonders. ;)
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Stoo said:
Re: "flat map". Which cartographic projection are you using?:confused:

You mention only 2 sites. There's nothing "eerie" about the symmetry of a straight line. Do you have a list of all these "ancient monuments which form a perfect worldwide grid in perfect proportional measurement to one another"?

ascn8l.jpg


Flat_Earth_Geography.jpg


rmo0296l.jpg
 

kongisking

Active member
Personally, I think the idea of all our religions basically being the delusions of a bunch of people who were visited by aliens makes a lot of sense. That Daniken fella may have been wrong on some things, but his basic premise is totally possible. It helps that I've always been interested in the ancient astronaut theory, which may be half the reason I loved KOTCS so damn much (Indiana Jones investigating ancient astronauts? EPIC WIN :cool: ).
 

Montana Smith

Active member
kongisking said:
Personally, I think the idea of all our religions basically being the delusions of a bunch of people who were visited by aliens makes a lot of sense. That Daniken fella may have been wrong on some things, but his basic premise is totally possible. It helps that I've always been interested in the ancient astronaut theory, which may be half the reason I loved KOTCS so damn much (Indiana Jones investigating ancient astronauts? EPIC WIN :cool: ).

As a theory it's much more preferable to the generally accepted one. Ever since I had that EVD comic I liked the idea. Believing in it is another matter.

I liked the idea of it being behind KOTCS, and I liked the discovery that Lucas even mentioned it in 1978. I even like taking the idea into forbidden ret-con territory to encompass all the Indy movies. Yet, there is no real evidence that Lucas or Spielberg ever intended that - it's just that it took them 30 years to get round to putting the theme into an Indiana Jones movie.

Believing that aliens or advanced humans visited the earth long ago, and helped primitive man advance his civilization, is a huge leap of faith, considering that no advanced technology has been unearthed or catalogued by archaeologists.

Matt deMille said:
Montana, perhaps you have simply been led along in the dark like so many others.

Who’s to say that you’re not also being lead down a dark path, like so many others?

Conspiracy theories are wonderful for fiction, but in reality I can't see any government being that organized. Most governments appear to limp from one crisis to the next, and the so-called whistle-blowers are often people who say they were in top-secret posts, whom their government would deny existence of anyway.

How do you view the works of Friedrich Mattern, aka Ernst Zundel? (who made his name is the myth of German ufos).

These theorists get discredited by other historians because the facts are just not there to be found. Or the evidence and the 'facts' have been fitted to prove the result. That's just bad history - but it probably sells faster than standard or traditional history, and it makes for controversy, lecture tours and fandom.

All historians should be treated with suspicion, since among them are those who have agendas beyond the act of simply discovering the past.
 

Matt deMille

New member
Gabeed said:
Oh, I'd be willing to do so if the entire concept wasn't so inane. Like Stoo, I'd love to see the list of what constitutes an ancient monument, because I am certain that not every "sacred site" is noted. I also have no idea what you think is "ancient" or not, chronologically speaking. Not to mention that the entire concept of an alien race placing monuments proportionally via a flat map is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Why would aliens ever use a flat map when they are making a global grid and THEY KNOW that the Earth is a globe? You would think intelligent aliens would make the coordinates proportional to a truly global model, given that they are already sharing their advanced technology in order to build these wonders. ;)

So, you're dismissing it before evening looking at it? No surprise there.
 

Matt deMille

New member
Montana Smith said:
As a theory it's much more preferable to the generally accepted one. Ever since I had that EVD comic I liked the idea. Believing in it is another matter.

Believing that aliens or advanced humans visited the earth long ago, and helped primitive man advance his civilization, is a huge leap of faith, considering that no advanced technology has been unearthed or catalogued by archaeologists.

Conspiracy theories are wonderful for fiction, but in reality I can't see any government being that organized. Most governments appear to limp from one crisis to the next, and the so-called whistle-blowers are often people who say they were in top-secret posts, whom their government would deny existence of anyway.

These theorists get discredited by other historians because the facts are just not there to be found. Or the evidence and the 'facts' have been fitted to prove the result. That's just bad history - but it probably sells faster than standard or traditional history, and it makes for controversy, lecture tours and fandom.

All historians should be treated with suspicion, since among them are those who have agendas beyond the act of simply discovering the past.

Again, people aren't looking at facts. Advanced technologies have indeed been found. The Baghdad Battery, the 2000yo computer from a Greek shipwreck, the fact there is NO evidence of torches or fire at all inside the pyramids (so, what was their source of light? Electrical, perhaps? Crystal?)
the pyramids themselves as well as many other ancient monuments are evidence of technology because we could not build them ourselves today (not just the stones, a mystery in itself, but the global alignment of the site as well). The problem with "authorities", not just historians but most scientists as well, is that they look at things from one very narrow view, that of their specific discipline. Nothing makes sense outside the establishment if viewed through such a narrow frame. You have to step back and look at things from a larger, more comprehensive perspective. For example, the pyramids being built by technology. Sure, there's no silicon chips or other artifacts we would call "technology", but that these were built in a way we still do not understand means there was a society capable of doing things we cannot, and therefore a rational man can rightly assume there was more to that society, technology included.

And governments keeping things secret? Yes, they can. 50,000 people worked on the bomb during World War II and that was kept secret for 25 years. Or how about good ol' Area 51? How big is it? How many people work there? Despite decades of investigation nobody can say. The government IS good at keeping secrets. And when they aren't, when secrets leak, what happens? Denial. The government and the sheep of society simply say "it isn't there". Things hide in plain sight. Area 51 is a perfect example. First people said it wasn't there. Ufologists spent years taking photographs of the facility from nearby mountaintops, but an apathetic, sheep-like public continued to say "The government says it isn't there, so that's good enough for me" (I'm surprised they didn't go so far as to say the facility in the photos was a model). The Majestic 12 documents, another good example. There's a smoking gun! Proof positive of the alien cover-up. Meticulously authenticated, no gray area, an in-your-face reality of the alien issue. And what happens? People say they're fakes. But I betcha if those same exact documents provided a terrestrial answer for the UFO mystery everyone would be quick to say "See? Case closed!"

What's the old saying? "For people who don't (want to) believe, no explanation will do".

Montana, I like you, but please, please start looking at a bigger picture. Continuing to say "Facts aren't there" just doesn't hold water. The facts I keep hearing are just the fox watching the henhouse door. Not only are there facts you can research for yourself (don't take anyone else's opinion -- not even mine), but there is mind-set and propaganda to be considered here as well. The establishment, in all forms, likes to protect itself. Historians peddle outmoded ideas. Politicians hide funds. Military hides technology. Any quotes or "proof" from the mainstream is just buying into bull****, far worse than even the UFO book peddler with the tinfoil hat.

And as far as selling lecture tours and fandom and such, that's ridiculous. Sure, there are hucksters and con-men, lots of them, that's human nature (but so there are also con-men and hucksters among historians and scientists, who are often quoted in UFO debunking, because they sell the argument people want to hear so they don't have to face the UFO reality or any threat to their world-view). But most people who go through the UFO gauntlet actually lose a lot more than they gain. Witnesses lose their jobs, friends and family, sometimes even their health and sanity. If this was about publicity or grabbing a cheap buck, there's a million better ways to do it. People who pursue UFOs despite the ridicule, financial loss and other detriments do so because they've either seen something they cannot dismiss or have done the research and come to an unavoidable -- and usually unwelcome -- reality.

I think the public at large really has the wrong idea when they think people want to believe in UFOs. Those who really dig into the matter know that it's a very disturbing reality. Myself, I'd have rather gone right on believing in Christ, and the acceptance of the evidence was very difficult indeed. It's not a pretty story. It takes guts to face it. Perhaps that's why I get so riled up when people attack the issue from a position of ignorance and arrogance. Check your facts first. Do the research. See what's there. When it's dismissed on a whim, when facts are offered and then those are refused to be looked at, I can only see self-serving, smug arrogance from people still sitting in a comfy little fantasy bubble.
 

RaideroftheArk

New member
Matt deMille said:
. I strongly suggest you look at the works of Timothy Good, Stanton Friedman and Graham Hancock. Their books are kinda thick but that's because they're filled with research.

In your opinion, are these the best authors on this subject? For instance, if you were teaching a credited college course, would these be the books you use?

Would you go further and provide us with a definitive book list and perhaps a collection of scholarly sources so that we, like you, could see this topic from exactly your point of view?

I, like ResidentAlien, feel that a lot of this curbs the idea that humans had the ability to "carve our their own path" in history. However, I'm intrigued. I rely heavily on scholarly sources. The more reading material you can provide for me, the better.
 

Gabeed

New member
Matt deMille said:
So, you're dismissing it before evening looking at it? No surprise there.
I'm dismissing it because you haven't told me what monuments I should be looking at (other than merely 2), or what chronology you're following. You, on the other hand, are dismissing my post because you have no real answers to it.
 

Matt deMille

New member
RaideroftheArk said:
In your opinion, are these the best authors on this subject? For instance, if you were teaching a credited college course, would these be the books you use?

Would you go further and provide us with a definitive book list and perhaps a collection of scholarly sources so that we, like you, could see this topic from exactly your point of view?

I, like ResidentAlien, feel that a lot of this curbs the idea that humans had the ability to "carve our their own path" in history. However, I'm intrigued. I rely heavily on scholarly sources. The more reading material you can provide for me, the better.

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. Of all his books, start with "Fingerprints of the Gods" (a 1995 release). His work centers mostly on ancient monuments and has little to do with UFOs until his books of the last few years (another scientist who had no interest in UFOs or ancient aliens -- he in fact resisted the notion -- but decades of research led him down that path as well).

As for Stanton Friedman, check out "Top Secret Majic" (1996). He also can be caught on the lecture circuit (not because he needs it -- He's one of those "kook UFO dudes" -- a nuclear physicist, classmate of Carl Segan, and one who worked on government projects for decades).

And for Timothy Good, "Above Top Secret" (1987) is a good starter. He's a British researcher and his book is kinda thick and a lot of it may sound "boring" today because a lot of its UFO notions have since found their way into pop-culture, but the research is solid.
 

Matt deMille

New member
Gabeed said:
I'm dismissing it because you haven't told me what monuments I should be looking at (other than merely 2), or what chronology you're following. You, on the other hand, are dismissing my post because you have no real answers to it.

Stonehenge, Easter Island, Ankor-Wat, Tiwanaco, Giza, Yonaguni's sunken temple, the Great Lakes (there are pyramids sunken there), and others. This same phenomena also occurs when you concentrate on an area. Take Britain, for example. If you connect the standing stones and sacred sties they too form a grid. It's as if sacred sites were plotted out by some sort of master plan. Some have argued that this is simply done by building sites where lay-lines cross, but it seems too ridged, too sharp of angles for it to be the product of nature. It appears artificial.
 

Matt deMille

New member
Gabeed said:
Oh, I'd be willing to do so if the entire concept wasn't so inane. Like Stoo, I'd love to see the list of what constitutes an ancient monument, because I am certain that not every "sacred site" is noted. I also have no idea what you think is "ancient" or not, chronologically speaking. Not to mention that the entire concept of an alien race placing monuments proportionally via a flat map is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Why would aliens ever use a flat map when they are making a global grid and THEY KNOW that the Earth is a globe? You would think intelligent aliens would make the coordinates proportional to a truly global model, given that they are already sharing their advanced technology in order to build these wonders. ;)

I'm talking about using a 2D map instead of a globe so you can see the grid as a whole, bean-head!

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. For example, Ankor-Wat isn't technically ancient. Not even a thousand years. But the site it's located on matches in that worldwide grid. This means the location was important. We've seen in our own modern culture how important things and places are rebuilt, replaced, but the location is maintained. It's logical that there was something about that location long before the current temple was built. Perhaps there was an earlier temple there we can no longer see.

Your "arguments" are really trying to shut down questions rather than ask them. The opposite of what true science and scholarly study should do.

And as soon as someone starts to pretend to know how aliens would think, I know I'm talking to a total moron. We who study UFOs are often accused of having answers we shouldn't, but those same critics (like you) seem to be able to think for the alien mind? Isn't that just a wee bit more presumptuous than a ufologist advancing any theory?
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
Matt deMille said:
Again, people aren't looking at facts. Advanced technologies have indeed been found. The Baghdad Battery, the 2000yo computer from a Greek shipwreck, the fact there is NO evidence of torches or fire at all inside the pyramids (so, what was their source of light? Electrical, perhaps? Crystal?)

The Greek computer was an intricate combination of cogs, as I recall. It isn't the sort of computer that would enable the visitors to reach us from elsewhere - finding one of those in an undisturbred archaeological site would be groundbreaking news. The people of the past, as I see them, were no less intelligent than the people of today. The benefit that we have today is the resource of thousands of years of history and scientific development. The human brain is no bigger today than it was thousands of years ago.

If we assign all of mankind's early achievements to external sources it doesn't give early man much credit.

EVD also made note of the lack of burning inside the tunnels under Brazil. I, too, was astonished. Then later I read that there was a perfectly natural solution.

Matt deMille said:
the pyramids themselves as well as many other ancient monuments are evidence of technology because we could not build them ourselves today (not just the stones, a mystery in itself, but the global alignment of the site as well).

We know how the pyramids were built. The stones were hauled up sand ramps by a huge army of workers; cranes were employed. Man wasn't stupid.

Matt deMille said:
The problem with "authorities", not just historians but most scientists as well, is that they look at things from one very narrow view, that of their specific discipline. Nothing makes sense outside the establishment if viewed through such a narrow frame. You have to step back and look at things from a larger, more comprehensive perspective. For example, the pyramids being built by technology. Sure, there's no silicon chips or other artifacts we would call "technology", but that these were built in a way we still do not understand means there was a society capable of doing things we cannot, and therefore a rational man can rightly assume there was more to that society, technology included.

So you would replace one establishment with another establishment: the group that believes in ancient technology. What authority does one have over the other?

Matt deMille said:
And governments keeping things secret? Yes, they can. 50,000 people worked on the bomb during World War II and that was kept secret for 25 years. Or how about good ol' Area 51? How big is it? How many people work there? Despite decades of investigation nobody can say. The government IS good at keeping secrets. And when they aren't, when secrets leak, what happens? Denial. The government and the sheep of society simply say "it isn't there". Things hide in plain sight. Area 51 is a perfect example. First people said it wasn't there. Ufologists spent years taking photographs of the facility from nearby mountaintops, but an apathetic, sheep-like public continued to say "The government says it isn't there, so that's good enough for me" (I'm surprised they didn't go so far as to say the facility in the photos was a model). The Majestic 12 documents, another good example. There's a smoking gun! Proof positive of the alien cover-up. Meticulously authenticated, no gray area, an in-your-face reality of the alien issue. And what happens? People say they're fakes. But I betcha if those same exact documents provided a terrestrial answer for the UFO mystery everyone would be quick to say "See? Case closed!"

What's the old saying? "For people who don't (want to) believe, no explanation will do".

Why believe one set of 'truths' over another? Distrust it until there's real evidence. In 1947 the US government supposedly recovered the wreckage of an alien spacecraft at Roswell. Sixty years later they're still using space shuttles with booster rockets. Pretty primitive considering that they've been researching all this wonderful alien technology and holding aliens prisoner underground.

Matt deMille said:
Montana, I like you, but please, please start looking at a bigger picture. Continuing to say "Facts aren't there" just doesn't hold water. The facts I keep hearing are just the fox watching the henhouse door. Not only are there facts you can research for yourself (don't take anyone else's opinion -- not even mine), but there is mind-set and propaganda to be considered here as well. The establishment, in all forms, likes to protect itself. Historians peddle outmoded ideas. Politicians hide funds. Military hides technology. Any quotes or "proof" from the mainstream is just buying into bull****, far worse than even the UFO book peddler with the tinfoil hat.

And as far as selling lecture tours and fandom and such, that's ridiculous. Sure, there are hucksters and con-men, lots of them, that's human nature (but so there are also con-men and hucksters among historians and scientists, who are often quoted in UFO debunking, because they sell the argument people want to hear so they don't have to face the UFO reality or any threat to their world-view). But most people who go through the UFO gauntlet actually lose a lot more than they gain. Witnesses lose their jobs, friends and family, sometimes even their health and sanity. If this was about publicity or grabbing a cheap buck, there's a million better ways to do it. People who pursue UFOs despite the ridicule, financial loss and other detriments do so because they've either seen something they cannot dismiss or have done the research and come to an unavoidable -- and usually unwelcome -- reality.

I think the public at large really has the wrong idea when they think people want to believe in UFOs. Those who really dig into the matter know that it's a very disturbing reality. Myself, I'd have rather gone right on believing in Christ, and the acceptance of the evidence was very difficult indeed. It's not a pretty story. It takes guts to face it. Perhaps that's why I get so riled up when people attack the issue from a position of ignorance and arrogance. Check your facts first. Do the research. See what's there. When it's dismissed on a whim, when facts are offered and then those are refused to be looked at, I can only see self-serving, smug arrogance from people still sitting in a comfy little fantasy bubble.

The bigger picture is this: don't fall for scams, don't become a victim, don't believe everything you see or hear. Don't put faith into things because they're controversial or because they sound better than the traditional view.

Believe me, I'd love for it to all be true. Yet, it doesn't ring true.
 
Last edited:

Matt deMille

New member
Montana . . .

1) The fact that there *is* technology of the past -- be it manmade or or not -- turns history on its ear. That's all I'm trying to say. The history sources often quoted are unreliable. Like pyramid ramps.

2) The pyramids were not built with ramps. That is so foolish. I've already had to explain this one, but I'll say it again: The ramps would have exceeded the size of the pyramids in stone, and in sand they would have been so damn wide as well as to bury the worksites. This is dogma of the worst kind. It was the quick, easy explanation given by early Egyptologists centuries ago and became entrenched in academic foolishness. Practically speaking, the ramps are the most ineffective, implausible way of building a pyramid. Furthermore, they don't explain how the blocks were fit so perfectly together, how the pyramids were perfectly aligned, why there is no writing or treasure or bodies found inside them, etc. A theory must fit ALL the facts, not just one or some of them. As with all other theories of pyramid construction, there is no more evidence of ramps than anything else. It's the assumed party-line, nothing more. There's no hieroglyphics, no papers, no records of any kind proving the ramps theory.

3) Roswell. Yes, we have indeed been reverse-engineering, and we have indeed been seeing results of it. People expect too much. If you could go back in time and give Edison a $2 pocket calculator, he probably wouldn't have been able to replicate it even if he spent the rest of his life studying it. And that's just a human difference of a few hundred years. We're talking about alien technology with perhaps billions of years of difference. In the very short time (cosmically speaking) we've had to research it, hindered even further by secrecy, rotating workers and budget bull****, we've actually learned a lot. Fiber-optics, stealth technology, lasers, microchips -- These are all things that every insider swears came about in some form or fashion due to studying the wreckage of Roswell and other UFO crashes. This is not to say we duplicated them. Only that they were influenced by what we've got locked up. An inspiration here, a technological revelation there, etc. Prior to World War II, our technology was based on vacuum tubes. Then overnight it completely changes direction. The advance of technology and human culture generally doesn't do that. It takes something dramatic to turn us in a new direction. Why, coincidentally, did our technology completely change form in virtually the same year as the Roswell crash?
 
Top