Ancient aliens

[ResidentAlien]

Actually, I found this link to be very welcome. It seems to support my case more than yours.

Although, your little red-headed doll clearly suggests you're trying to win a debate with volume and antics rather than evidence. While I suspected such foolishness from you, I must say I'm surprised that you just handed over an article that backs me and denounces yourself. That is surprising indeed.

Backs me? Yes. The only things in that article which appear to go against me is saying that guys like Hancock have "given up". Quite the contrary. Hancock simply investigates more monuments and doesn't dwell exclusively on Egypt. He wrote his book on Giza, made his argument, and let it stand. Something a mature, respectable researcher would do. He doesn't have the egomaniacal need to continually pound his chest and proclaim himself right, trying to win with volume rather than reason, like you guys do.

Kinda like you handed me an article that debunks every one of your UFO paintings?

Clearly you didn't read the article. What it does is throw into question the validity of everyone involved.

Can't really say that helps your case in any way... It does make your whole scene look rather shady and dishonest though...

 

[Gabeed]

Funny how these noisy-negativists like to harp on a simple typo (Tire)

No, again. It's not a simple typo, as it shows that you just know nothing about Tyre. I don't suddenly spell Detroit "Deetroyt," because I've actually seen the city written down, and am in a context (the US) where Detroit comes up a lot in written texts. You would never see any historian or expert of the region suddenly spell Tyre "Tire" unless they had just fallen down a flight of stairs and suffered some serious head trauma. It is a representation of you talking without knowing the context. And because you don't know what you're talking about, why should we seriously consider anything you say?

And the fact that you're 50 years off just confirms it all.

Oh, and you keep forgetting the sarcophagus in the Great Pyramid. You know, the "thing that's way too big and deep to be a sarcophagus," despite the other sarcophagi I've posted which are similarly sized.

 

[ResidentAlien]

It also should be said that I, and I'm sure Stoo and Gabeed won't mind me speaking for them as well, seriously don't give a **** what your shadowy mystery email people think about us. Not, mind you, that I believe they exist-- it's merely a hypothetical discussion at this point. If they did exist and they weren't man enough to speak to me directly, then whatever they have to say reeks more heavily of bull**** and non-consequence than what you, Mr. deMille, spew forth.

 

[Matt deMille]

Funny. "Shadowy, mystery email people". Like UFOs, they exist, whether you want to believe it or not. Your denial doesn't change objective reality. And all you're doing now is insulting other posters at The Raven. Bravo!

 

[Gabeed]

I have 11 people who have emailed me lending their support and advice to my Ancient Zebra Mussel Theory. Thus, my theory is more valid.

Also, we're all laughing about how much of a fool YOU'RE looking like, and how when the zebra mussels emerge from their underwater hibernation chamber, you'll be sorry.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Funny. "Shadowy, mystery email people". Like UFOs, they exist, whether you want to believe it or not. Your denial doesn't change objective reality. And all you're doing now is insulting other posters at The Raven. Bravo!

It's not objective if you can't provide objective proof.

You're just talking out of your ass and arguing yourself as an authority without any credentials to speak of. And you can't even provide others to support your claims that themselves have any credible evidence. And you can't even provide others on this board that agree with you-- and why is that? Because they're in your mind?

I'd say yes.

 

[Matt deMille]

It's not objective if you can't provide objective proof.

You're just talking out of your ass and arguing yourself as an authority without any credentials to speak of. And you can't even provide others to support your claims that themselves have any credible evidence. And you can't even provide others on this board that agree with you-- and why is that? Because they're in your mind?

I'd say yes.

Believe what you want. But I'm sure the Moderators could attest to my mailbox having plenty of corresponding email. Because I am respectful of these people and do not drag them into your childish games does not mean they are fictional.

I've said before I'll not dignify your comments with a response. Any of you three noisy-negativists. I did respond, however, simply to give you enough rope. That is done. You have made it abundantly clear to everyone else on this site what total losers you really are. Therefore, I will take the high road and just ignore you from now on, and respond only to others, be it on this thread or elsewhere. Since you seem determined only to "have the last word" (a predictable, childish, immature qualifier of "being right"), I'm sure you won't waste any time adding another useless, insulting post here. Predictably so.

 

[ResidentAlien]

All this rope and only you to lynch...


Well I suppose you'll enjoy your empty, inactive topic then.

It's clear you never wanted any sort of reasoned debate. You just wanted people to suck you off.

Sorry bub, you won't get any from begging. And certainly not from isolating yourself.

 

[Mickiana]

"Unidentified Flying Objects" exist? This sounds paradoxical, to say the least. "Something that is unidentified exists" is a statement that really needs reviewing. But to say they are being steered by lifeforms intent on visiting us is taking it way down the road. It's synonymous with saying an unseen god exists. I think we are better off trying to find intelligent life on earth.

 

[Matt deMille]

"Unidentified Flying Objects" exist? This sounds paradoxical, to say the least. "Something that is unidentified exists" is a statement that really needs reviewing. But to say they are being steered by lifeforms intent on visiting us is taking it way down the road. It's synonymous with saying an unseen god exists. I think we are better off trying to find intelligent life on earth.

Well, when I say UFOs in this thread, I am using it as an abbreviation for manned craft from elsewhere. Although, in previous posts, I did indeed note that UFO does not equate to alien ship, and in any other context I am careful about that. But it is always a good point to raise and remind folks of nonetheless.

Intelligent life on earth . . . I assume you meant that as a joke (meaning we humans don't seem to qualify most of the time)? Good one.

 

[Finn]

But I'm sure the Moderators could attest to my mailbox having plenty of corresponding email.

Nope, can't say we can. Sorry.

---

Anyhoo, I just mired (and partially re-mired) through this whole discussion. A very curious read. And honestly, I can't say what to believe.

The topic itself aside, however, my rather lengthy experience in reviewing Internet squabbles has left me pretty well versed in basic argumentational errors. And there's a very solemn one I see constantly repeated, by both sides of the argument. It's presenting assumptions in the form of something a bit more concrete. Be that any hints of existence in extraterrestial life in the artworks of old, or trying to paint somebody as a troll, non-believer or whatever.

Also, one should be careful when calling for moderators to help, since we don't pick sides. We don't care who is right and who is wrong. All we see are a bunch of people arguing on our turf, and honestly, that's all we need to know. We don't care who started it either, as there's always the choice to walk away.



So, kids... it's time to kiss, hug and make up. And I honestly hope you are able to settle this by yourself. Because if you don't, the moderators will have to do it for you. And while there are a lot of dubious things in this thread, I can be certain that there will be no winners and no saved faces if we have to step in.

 

[Matt deMille]

Sorry about that, Finn. I didn't mean to insinuate that any Moderator would or should speak of my inbox. That would be the same breach of trust of those individuals as if I'd quoted them. My bad in the way I worded that.

Well, I'd be perfectly happy to "hug and make up". I've tried it, in fact. I don't say that in an attempt to restart any argument. I just want to say I have, indeed, tried (with some, not all), to no avail, so what I think is perhaps a better approach here is to say "live and let live" or "agree to disagree". I would appreciate the thread going on, its participants simply offering thoughtful ideas and responding to curiosity in a cordial manner. That's all I've ever wanted. I would simply appreciate that, if someone disagreed with a post, they simply disagreed, sans insults. I will, for my part, as you suggested, certainly cease to make assumptions that others see things the way I do (i.e. I will restrain myself from saying I "know" this or that).

I hope this is a new start here, a renewal of this thread. I thank you for helping it.

 

[Finn]

Sorry about that, Finn. I didn't mean to insinuate that any Moderator would or should speak of my inbox. That would be the same breach of trust of those individuals as if I'd quoted them. My bad in the way I worded that.

There's no need to apologize me or any other member of the upkeep. I'd rather you apologize for any verbal assault towards a fellow ravener and in turn hope they'd apologize back for any they've flung at you.

A word to the wise though. If you think you have something but can't bring it out on the open, best not to mention it at all. If people truly have contacted you in private concerning this matter, feel free to draw encouragement from them. Don't, however, try and use them as leverage. It's another argumentational error to throw something on the table that's openly backed up by nothing but your own word.

 

[Indy's brother]

How about actually reviewing some of the more popular theories and move away from all of this disappointing bickering. I'll throw this one into the room and see what comes of it.

This 1300 year old depiction of King Pacal has been argued to show him piloting some kind of craft, or at least operating a complex machine of some sort.

If the image is given a quater-turn counter clockwise:

......it bears a more than a passing resemblance to this much older sumerian piece, which has also been credited as a depiction of a man piloting a spacecraft by Ancient Alien theorists:

And for the record, I am one of Matt's mystery e-mailers. Let's try to stay on topic guys.

 

[Montana Smith]

How about actually reviewing some of the more popular theories and move away from all of this disappointing bickering. I'll throw this one into the room and see what comes of it.

This 1300 year old depiction of King Pacal has been argued to show him piloting some kind of craft, or at least operating a complex machine of some sort.

If the image is given a quater-turn counter clockwise:

......it bears a more than a passing resemblance to this much older sumerian piece, which has also been credited as a depiction of a man piloting a spacecraft by Ancient Alien theorists:

And for the record, I am one of Matt's mystery e-mailers. Let's try to stay on topic guys.

When I posted an image of this earlier, I also gave it the quarter turn, so that it replicated the image I remembered seeing years ago. However, it doesn't really look like he's piloting anything, but laying more on his back, as in the first picture. This, I think, is a case of the ancient astronaut proponents 'leading the jury'.

 

[Indy's brother]

When I posted an image of this earlier, I also gave it the quarter turn, so that it replicated the image I remembered seeing years ago. However, it doesn't really look like he's piloting anything, but laying more on his back, as in the first picture. This, I think, is a case of the ancient astronaut proponents 'leading the jury'.

I could be wrong about this, but I don't think that I am...I recall seeing Daniken on tv once talking about it, and standing in front of a second, identical carving of Pacal's "rocket ship" above a doorway in the tomb. This one is actually already given the quarter-turn, which would give the theory a little more credibility, and less like seeing shapes in the clouds.

A cursory google didn't get me very far with this, though. I'll have to keep digging for it, unless someone knows offhand where it can be located and post it here....

 

[Matt deMille]

There's no need to apologize me or any other member of the upkeep. I'd rather you apologize for any verbal assault towards a fellow ravener and in turn hope they'd apologize back for any they've flung at you.

A word to the wise though. If you think you have something but can't bring it out on the open, best not to mention it at all. If people truly have contacted you in private concerning this matter, feel free to draw encouragement from them. Don't, however, try and use them as leverage. It's another argumentational error to throw something on the table that's openly backed up by nothing but your own word.

Well said. Advice taken to heart. Thank you.

How about actually reviewing some of the more popular theories and move away from all of this disappointing bickering. I'll throw this one into the room and see what comes of it.

This 1300 year old depiction of King Pacal has been argued to show him piloting some kind of craft, or at least operating a complex machine of some sort.

If the image is given a quater-turn counter clockwise:

......it bears a more than a passing resemblance to this much older sumerian piece, which has also been credited as a depiction of a man piloting a spacecraft by Ancient Alien theorists:

And for the record, I am one of Matt's mystery e-mailers. Let's try to stay on topic guys.

I think I said this before, but it's worth repeating. For all my belief in the ancient alien artifacts, these images are ones that I'm shaky on. I feel that Von Daniken seeing "rockets" is too coincidental given that rockets were all the rage in the 1960s, when he wrote his most popular work. I just have trouble believing inter-galactic or inter-dimensional travelers would use fossil-fuel. Thus, I am dubious of aliens in rockets. I think that is more of humans seeing what we want to see.

However, these are still strange images, and may mean a number of wondrous things. It is possible that these are indeed rockets, but perhaps ones either brought through time by humans from the future, or perhaps even rockets built by an ancient civilization. Von Daniken also points out things like this:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...t2pCw&esq=4&page=1&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0

This "insect" from ancient Columbia does correspond to the aerodynamics of planes rather than insects (wings at the bottom rather than on top). So, it is possible that some ancient human civilization had planes and rockets as well. That's what I feel.

Personally, I'd love to believe that the images here are ancients and rocket ships. I'm eager to see what everyone brings to the thread.

 

[Montana Smith]

I could be wrong about this, but I don't think that I am...I recall seeing Daniken on tv once talking about it, and standing in front of a second, identical carving of Pacal's "rocket ship" above a doorway in the tomb. This one is actually already given the quarter-turn, which would give the theory a little more credibility, and less like seeing shapes in the clouds.

A cursory google didn't get me very far with this, though. I'll have to keep digging for it, unless someone knows offhand where it can be located and post it here....

I have the Daeniken book in which he presents this 'evidence', so I'll dig it out and see how he presented it.

The established theory on the website you linked to said this:

Established Theory:
According to the Mayan legend, the symbols of the lid shows King Pacal falling into the jaws of the Earth monster each night to rise again with the power of the sun each morning. Its teeth are enlarged to demonstrate its encompassing power.

These images are highly symbolic, whether or not they depict a machine or a monster, they are symbolic representations, rather than literal. And that makes them prime choices for re-interpretation so that they fit into a chosen theory.

Either way, it's an intriguing composition.

 

[Montana Smith]

The image below is a carving of the mask of the earth monster, from Balamkú, Campeche.

The main attraction of this early pre-Classic site is to see the building called; the Structure Of The "House Of The Four Kings". In the "House Of The Four Kings" lies the before mentioned frieze made of polychrome molded stucco, unique in the Mayan area, which was built between the years 550 and 650 A. D.

The frieze represents the surface of the Earth formed by several images such as jaguars that symbolize war, aquatic elements that represent fertility and masks of the Monster of the Earth (Cauac), separating the underworld (kingdom of the dead), from the upperworld (kingdom of the gods). From this surface aquatic animals emerge (2 toads and 2 crocodiles) with their mouth opened into 180°, which represent the Earth in its vegetative and fertile feature. The kings of the upperworld are responsible for the abundance and wealth of its subjects. When we enter the edifice through its three doors that are located under the frieze, our entrance symbolizes the entrance to the Mayan underworld.

The following is quoted from an INAH Sign at Balamku.

"Besides illustrating the opposite and complementary aspects of the underworld, Balamkú's frieze compares dynastic and solar cycles. The king raises from the earth monster's maw, just as the Sun emerges from the Earth's mouth. The ruler's death is seen as if it were a sunset, when he falls into the monster's mouth.

http://www.delange.org/Balamku/Balamku.htm

The King Pacal carving may be showing both upper and lower jaw of the monster fully open. Since it's the lid of a sarcophagus it would be very fitting to depict the "sunset" of the king as he finally falls into the earth monster's maw.

 

[Montana Smith]

Von Daniken also points out things like this:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...t2pCw&esq=4&page=1&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0

This "insect" from ancient Columbia does correspond to the aerodynamics of planes rather than insects (wings at the bottom rather than on top). So, it is possible that some ancient human civilization had planes and rockets as well. That's what I feel.

Personally, I'd love to believe that the images here are ancients and rocket ships. I'm eager to see what everyone brings to the thread.

I remember seeing this and similar objects in stone. They are so 'aircraft-like' that our immediate response is probably to see it as such.

Yet, take this quote from the site you linked to:

The trio soon realised that the people of South America were always able depict insects and other flying animals anatomically correct. If this gold artefact was indeed an insect, than it was still an anomaly, as this “insect” was not depicted anatomically correct.

They attest to the fact that the people were able to depict insects correctly. However, they did not depict an aeroplane correctly, as the leading edges of the wings on the golden object are not straight, but formed with a number of discs. The three Germans don't mention this, but go ahead and straighten the wings, and add flaps and a propeller in order to make it fly.

When we dismiss the issues of accuracy, we are once more left with a symbolic object. Not an insect. Not a bird. Not an aircraft as we would know one. We even have to ask which way up is it meant to face, or which direction it is meant to travel in (if it is meant to depict a vehicle). We have to be careful of imposing interpretations from our own time and culture.

Another issue is the idea that if was meant to be an aeroplane, would visitors from space actually be using something that antiquated?