Ancient aliens

[Matt deMille]

I believe the "discs" on the front of the wings of the "stylized insect" are meant to represent air movement around the wings. Remember, this is a token, an idol of something else that flew -- the idol itself was not intended to fly. Just like today when a kid buys a little toy airplane. Though that toy is a depiction of a sound aerodynamic design, the toy itself may have fatal flaws in its own aerodynamics, such as a cartoony pilot with a big head popping out of the cockpit.

 

[Indy's brother]

Honestly, the gold aeroplane relic isn't convincing to me. To me it looks like a flying fish.

The same bulging eyes, same placement of wings and it's capable of "flight". The swirls on the wings of the artifact I interpret as creative license on the part of the artisan that created it, along as the four raised nodules to the rear, and the separation of the head from the body. The Bottom half of the tail is missing from the gold piece because it simply would not lay flat and be displayed on a shelf flatly had it been included. Flying fish are in the atlantic and pacific oceans,

It would be more compelling if there were more examples of this in the surrounding relics, artwork, with corresponding stories to support the idea, etc. I understand why it has become a symbol for the ancient alien theory, though. it's simple, symbolic of the AA theory, and can be fashioned into broaches, tie-clips, earing, cuff-links, etc., as a way to instantly identify oneself as a believer in the possibilities. I think it's unfortunate that this particular artifact has been zeroed in on just because of it's instant recognizability when there are much more convincing relics, some of the most amazing of which are the machined granite/diorite structures of Puma Punku, done to milimeter precision by a culture that did not even have a written language.

There are scores of these pieces strewn about with no rational explanation of their purpose or how they were able to achieve such a complex task that can only be achieved today with precision tools that have only become available in the advent of electricity and specialized blades.

Of course, a block of this stuff around your neck would not convey the instant message that the gold airplane does.

Back to the ancient airplane. The more compelling ancient flying device would definitely be the vimana, which are described in great detail

In a sanskrit text known as the Vaimanika Sastra

The ancient Indian epic describes a Vimana as a double-deck, circular aircraft with portholes and a dome, much as we would imagine a flying saucer.

It flew with the "speed of the wind" and gave forth a "melodious sound." There were at least four different types of Vimanas; some saucer shaped, others like long cylinders ("cigar shaped airships"). The ancient Indian texts on Vimanas are so numerous, it would take volumes to relate what they had to say. The ancient Indians, who manufactured these ships themselves, wrote entire flight manuals on the control of the various types of Vimanas, many of which are still in existence, and some have even been translated into English.

Note: These links and pictures are not presented by myself as any sort of absolute proof of anything, just to make these topics available for anyone who cares to go down the rabbit-hole of search engines towards more research.

 

[Stoo]

Funny how these noisy-negativists like to harp on a simple typo (Tire), a misspelling and nothing more (and totally ignoring the account itself, of Alexander reporting five silver shields in the sky), when the ONLY "proof" of the Great Pyramid being a tomb is one single name scrawled on a wall which is, oddly, misspelled. One would think the Egyptians who built this incredible monument, this technological wonder for their god, would actually spell his name right.

A pharaoh is a king, not a god.

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?

There's more where that came from:

Carl Segan (instead of Sagan) Not a simple typo since he did it again after being corrected.
Sodom & Gamorrah (instead of Gomorrah)
Lay Lines (instead of Ley Lines) For this one, deMille retorted, "I'll spell 'em how I please, thank you" and then "Ahh, my use of 'Lay' Lines is just my being weird. Pay it no mind."

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

I figured one of them was you, Indy's bro', after deMille dropped the ball and said that people had been turned from the thread into his mailbox. (So much for protecting their anonymity.) There are 3-4 others who fit the bill, too. Nice to know you had the cojones to come forward but let me ask you this: Do you honestly believe that deMille has seen aliens 3 times, disappeared into thin air for 3 hours and possesses electrokinetic powers due to his supposed close encounters? (Yes, this question is relevant and within the topic.)

Things may be rolling along their merrily way but let's get back to the pyramids because there's still some debunking to be had.

The misspelled cartouche is not the only inscription inside. There are others. The one being focused on here was PROVED to be made at the time of construction. Even your own, precious Hancock went back on his word and admitted to that. A portion of the marking is covered by another block so it was obviously made on the stone prior to being put into place. (At least one of the other inscriptions is on the backside of a block which can only be seen through a gap using a mirror.) Considering that all the inscriptions appear to be ancient graffiti which already existed on the stones before/during the time they were cut, the spelling & meaning of the cartouche in question bears no evidence on the 'ancient alien theory' because it is not a fake. (Case closed. Sarchaphogi on deck...)

If the Great Pyramids were not tombs, then what were they?

 

[Gabeed]

Carl Segan (instead of Sagan) Not a simple typo since he did it again after being corrected.
Sodom & Gamorrah (instead of Gomorrah)
Lay Lines (instead of Ley Lines) For this one, deMille retorted, "I'll spell 'em how I please, thank you" and then "Ahh, my use of 'Lay' Lines is just my being weird. Pay it no mind."

Honestly, I didn't see fit to call Matt out on any of those--they're one-letter typos, and although he as you said ignored suggested spelling corrections for the last two . . . I dunno. They're easy mistakes to make, especially when you're pumping out such gigantic blocks of text in a short amount of time. It's hard to determine whether to judge what he's saying by such mistakes, and I can often see what people mean when they say that criticizing grammar and spelling is the last resort of a debater, so I try to avoid doing so.

But "Tire" is a special case, and I have no such reluctance in judging it. Coupled with the date off by 50 years, it indicates that the guy who's attempting to speak as an authority and trying to tell me about an event in Tyre apparently hasn't cracked open a book on the Phoenician coast in his life, and doesn't know who even wrote the passage about what Alexander allegedly saw. One must be careful when sifting through ancient Hellenistic and Roman sources. I could just as easily state (with the same matter-of-fact tone of Matt) that according to an ancient source, there are ants in Central Asia who dig for gold and can eat camels.

I can only imagine he heard "Tire" on Coast to Coast once, or something, and is regurgitating it out. How else can such a telling error be explained?

 

[Matt deMille]

Honestly, the gold aeroplane relic isn't convincing to me. To me it looks like a flying fish.

The same bulging eyes, same placement of wings and it's capable of "flight". The swirls on the wings of the artifact I interpret as creative license on the part of the artisan that created it, along as the four raised nodules to the rear, and the separation of the head from the body. The Bottom half of the tail is missing from the gold piece because it simply would not lay flat and be displayed on a shelf flatly had it been included. Flying fish are in the atlantic and pacific oceans,

It would be more compelling if there were more examples of this in the surrounding relics, artwork, with corresponding stories to support the idea, etc. I understand why it has become a symbol for the ancient alien theory, though. it's simple, symbolic of the AA theory, and can be fashioned into broaches, tie-clips, earing, cuff-links, etc., as a way to instantly identify oneself as a believer in the possibilities. I think it's unfortunate that this particular artifact has been zeroed in on just because of it's instant recognizability when there are much more convincing relics, some of the most amazing of which are the machined granite/diorite structures of Puma Punku, done to milimeter precision by a culture that did not even have a written language.

There are scores of these pieces strewn about with no rational explanation of their purpose or how they were able to achieve such a complex task that can only be achieved today with precision tools that have only become available in the advent of electricity and specialized blades.

Of course, a block of this stuff around your neck would not convey the instant message that the gold airplane does.

Back to the ancient airplane. The more compelling ancient flying device would definitely be the vimana, which are described in great detail

In a sanskrit text known as the Vaimanika Sastra



Note: These links and pictures are not presented by myself as any sort of absolute proof of anything, just to make these topics available for anyone who cares to go down the rabbit-hole of search engines towards more research.

Very good points, Indy's Brother. I was hoping the stoneworking technology of the ancient world would come into this thread. I don't call it "masonry" because that belittles the feats of engineering we see evidence of, particularly in Central and South America. Many amazing sites have blocks up to 400-tons fit together with laser-like precision, and even have spaces for what look to be links or clamps of some sort. Hardly befitting the crude, simple-minded approach of "laborers hauling ropes" theory that is often used for such sites.

As for the flying thing, a flying fish is a good one. I hadn't thought of that before. I have to say, it's a good argument, and might well be the answer. It'd be kinda sad if it was, but I do go where the evidence leads, and this is a strong case.

But as you said, let's focus more on how some of these structures were built . . .

A pharaoh is a king, not a god.

Stoo, the Egyptians believed the pharaohs and gods were pretty much one and the same. They were more than kings to them. They were the link between man and god. They were deities in their own right. Besides, this is splitting hairs. My point was that such elaborate measures for tombs would not be taken and then their name misspelled for such high and mighty beings, even if they were "only" kings.

And I hold to the misspellings. Several times on the last few pages it's been said that Hancock was debunked, proven a fraud, or retracted his own statements on this. Where and when are these debunkings or retractions?

And please leave Indy's Brother out of this. He said "let's stay on topic". The fact that I was called a liar for having anyone corresponding with me -- and now that accusation of my making this up is clearly been debunked -- should be the end of that. As Indy's Brother said, let's stay on topic. Ancient aliens.

So, back to the Great Pyramid. The graffiti is only one proof of how Egyptology doesn't have the first clue as to what the great pyramids really are. With no body, treasure, or written history of its construction or use, other than the CLAIM of a pharaoh that it was "his" tomb, that's really all it is, the claim of an egomaniacal ruler. I still want to know why pyramid building technology suddenly jumped centuries of progress for one Dynasty alone, then suddenly regressed back down to where it was before the Great Pyramid was supposedly built. And, where did the body and treasure go? By the layout of the pyramid with its sealed passages, grave robbers is simply not a possibility. Was anyone or anything ever entombed there at all? There are more questions than answers to the basics, basics which should be rock solid if it is, indeed, "just a tomb".

As to what I *could* be, that is a baited question. All too often those who disagree with the ancient-alien hypothesis (or alien possibilities in general) ask investigators "what are they thinking?" How are we to know? We can't answer that without making outrageous assumptions. The fact that ufologists DO NOT profess to know what aliens are thinking shows how objective we really are. As for the pyramid itself, as with many mysteries, evidence can say what it ISN'T or WASN'T, but as we don't have all the evidence, we can't say for certain what it is or was. Again, we can only see what it wasn't -- a tomb.

The theory I gravitate toward is that the Great Pyramid (and probably its accompanying two pyramids) were some sort of power-plant. At the end of the hundreds-of-feet-long 8" square shafts, there are stone doors with copper fittings, like the end of a conduit or battery hook-up. Perhaps in some ancient time the pyramid was a storehouse for machinery that has long been gutted. I've compared it before, I believe on this very thread, to a military gun battery -- The bunker remains long after the gun is gone.

Honestly, I didn't see fit to call Matt out on any of those--they're one-letter typos, and although he as you said ignored suggested spelling corrections for the last two . . . I dunno. They're easy mistakes to make, especially when you're pumping out such gigantic blocks of text in a short amount of time. It's hard to determine whether to judge what he's saying by such mistakes, and I can often see what people mean when they say that criticizing grammar and spelling is the last resort of a debater, so I try to avoid doing so.

But "Tire" is a special case, and I have no such reluctance in judging it. Coupled with the date off by 50 years, it indicates that the guy who's attempting to speak as an authority and trying to tell me about an event in Tyre apparently hasn't cracked open a book on the Phoenician coast in his life, and doesn't know who even wrote the passage about what Alexander allegedly saw. One must be careful when sifting through ancient Hellenistic and Roman sources. I could just as easily state (with the same matter-of-fact tone of Matt) that according to an ancient source, there are ants in Central Asia who dig for gold and can eat camels.

I can only imagine he heard "Tire" on Coast to Coast once, or something, and is regurgitating it out. How else can such a telling error be explained?

Gabeed, I thank you for the first paragraph.

But to your second paragraph I can only say this: The date is off by fifty years? Okay, I hit the wrong numerical key. As you say, easy mistake to make in long blocks of text typed quickly. I didn't bother to correct it because by the time I realized the typo, it had already been concluded by other posters that I did not know what I was talking about. Trying to correct it then would be like trying to put out a house fire with a cup of water. Of course I know the dates. Even if I hadn't done any research (which I have), it's not hard to Google or Wikipedia them or something.

 

[Montana Smith]

Honestly, the gold aeroplane relic isn't convincing to me. To me it looks like a flying fish.

The same bulging eyes, same placement of wings and it's capable of "flight". The swirls on the wings of the artifact I interpret as creative license on the part of the artisan that created it, along as the four raised nodules to the rear, and the separation of the head from the body. The Bottom half of the tail is missing from the gold piece because it simply would not lay flat and be displayed on a shelf flatly had it been included. Flying fish are in the atlantic and pacific oceans.

Yes, a flying fish is a more rational explanation.

It would be more compelling if there were more examples of this in the surrounding relics, artwork, with corresponding stories to support the idea, etc. I understand why it has become a symbol for the ancient alien theory, though. it's simple, symbolic of the AA theory, and can be fashioned into broaches, tie-clips, earing, cuff-links, etc., as a way to instantly identify oneself as a believer in the possibilities. I think it's unfortunate that this particular artifact has been zeroed in on just because of it's instant recognizability when there are much more convincing relics, some of the most amazing of which are the machined granite/diorite structures of Puma Punku, done to milimeter precision by a culture that did not even have a written language.

There are scores of these pieces strewn about with no rational explanation of their purpose or how they were able to achieve such a complex task that can only be achieved today with precision tools that have only become available in the advent of electricity and specialized blades.

Of course, a block of this stuff around your neck would not convey the instant message that the gold airplane does.

Stone work such as this is the mark of skilled masons. Over a thousand years earlier the Greeks were creating silky smooth masterpieces from stone. Without metal tools such work in the Americas would have taken longer, with many man-hours likely taken with smoothing the surface with abrasives then finally polishing.

Back to the ancient airplane. The more compelling ancient flying device would definitely be the vimana, which are described in great detail

In a sanskrit text known as the Vaimanika Sastra

With vimana I think of the 'quote' from the Mahabharata where Gurkha supposedly drops an atomic 'bomb' from his vimana on the Triple City:

"...(the weapon was) a single projectile
charged with all the power of the Universe.
An incandescent column of smoke and flame
As bright as the thousand suns rose in all its splendor...

An iron thunderbolt,
A gigantic messenger of death,
Which reduced to ashes
The entire race of the Vrishnis
And the Andhakas.

... the corpses were so burned
As to be unrecognizable.
The hair and nails fell out;
Pottery broke without apparent cause,
And the birds turned white.

... After a few hours
All foodstuffs were infected...
... to escape from this fire
The soldiers threw themselves in streams
To wash themselves and their equipment..."

Yesterday I downloaded a translation of the Mahabharata to find this 'quote', and finally found it in the section of notes at the very end of the book. The translation I got was by Kisari Mohan Ganguli, made between 1883-1896. That is, before the invention of atomic weapons and knowledge of the destructive qualities of radiation, so that the Sanskrit is read in terms of bows and arrows.

This is how it reads:

"Vaishampayana said: 'When the thirty-sixth year (after the battle)
was reached, the delighter of the Kurus, Yudhishthira, beheld many unusual
portents. Winds, dry and strong, and showering gravels, blew from every
side. Birds began to wheel, making circles from right to left. The great
rivers ran in opposite directions. The horizon on every side seemed to be
always covered with fog. Meteors, showering (blazing) coals, fell on the
Earth from the sky. The Sun's disc, O king, seemed to be always covered
with dust. At its rise, the great luminary of day was shorn of splendour
and seemed to be crossed by headless trunks (of human beings). Fierce
circles of light were seen every day around both the Sun and the Moon.
These circles showed three hues. Their edges seemed to be black and rough
and ashy-red in colour. These and many other omens, foreshadowing fear
and danger, were seen, O king, and filled the hearts of men with anxiety.
A little while after, the Kuru king Yudhishthira heard of the wholesale
carnage of the Vrishnis in consequence of the iron bolt. The son of
Pandu, hearing that only Vasudeva and Rama had escaped with life,
summoned his brothers and took counsel with them as to what they should
do. Meeting with one another, they became greatly distressed upon hearing
that the Vrishnis had met with destruction through the Brahmana's rod of
chastisement. The death of Vasudeva, like the drying up of the ocean,
those heroes could not believe. In fact the destruction of the wielder of
Saranga was incredible to them. Informed of the incident about the iron
bolt, the Pandavas became filled with grief and sorrow. In fact, they sat
down, utterly cheerless and penetrated with blank despair.'

"Janamejaya said: 'Indeed, O holy one, how was it that the Andhakas along
with Vrishnis, and those great car-warriors, the Bhojas, met with
destruction in the very sight of Vasudeva?'

"Vaishampayana continued: 'When the thirty-sixth year was reached (after
the great battle) a great calamity overtook the Vrishnis. Impelled by
Time, they all met with destruction in consequence of the iron bolt.'

"Janamejaya said: 'Cursed by whom did those heroes, the Vrishnis, the
Andhakas, and the Bhojas, met with destruction? O foremost of regenerate
persons, do thou tell me this in detail.'

"Vaishampayana continued: 'One day, the Vrishni heroes numbering Samva
amongst them, saw Vishvamitra and Kanwa and Narada arrived at Dwaraka.
Afflicted by the rod of chastisement wielded by the deities, those
heroes, causing Samva to be disguised like a woman, approached those
ascetics and said, "This one is the wife of Vabhru of immeasurable energy
who is desirous of having a son. Ye Rishis, do you know for certain what
this one will bring forth?"

"'Hear now, O king, what those ascetics, attempted to be thus deceived,
said: "This heir of Vasudeva, by name Samva, will bring forth a fierce
iron bolt for the destruction of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas. Ye wicked
and cruel ones, intoxicated with pride, through that iron bolt ye will
become the exterminators of your race with the exception of Rama and
Janarddana. The blessed hero armed with the plough will enter the ocean,
casting off his body, while a hunter of the name of Jara will pierce the
high-souled Krishna while lying on the ground."

"'Endeavoured to be deceived by those wicked ones, those ascetics, with
eyes red in wrath, looked at each other and uttered those words. Having
said so they then proceeded to see Keshava. The slayer of Madhu, informed
of what had taken place, summoned all the Vrishnis and told them of it.
Possessed of great intelligence and fully acquainted with what the end of
his race would be, he simply said that that which was destined would
surely happen. Hrishikesa having said so, entered his mansion. The Lord
of the universe did not wish to ordain otherwise. When the next day came,
Samva actually brought forth an iron bolt through which all the
individuals in the race of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas became consumed
into ashes. Indeed, for the destruction of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas,
Samva brought forth, through that curse, a fierce iron bolt that looked
like a gigantic messenger of death. The fact was duly reported to the
king. In great distress of mind, the king (Ugrasena) caused that iron
bolt to be reduced into fine powder. Men were employed, O king, to cast
that powder into the sea. At the command of Ahuka, of Janarddana, of
Rama, and of the high-souled Vabhru, it was, again, proclaimed throughout
the city that from that day, among all the Vrishnis and the Andhakas no
one should manufacture wines and intoxicating spirits of any kind, and
that whoever would secretly manufacture wines and spirits should be
impaled alive with all his kinsmen. Through fear of the king, and knowing
that it was the command of Rama also of unimpeachable deeds, all the
citizens bound themselves by a rule and abstained from manufacturing
wines and spirits.'"

 

[Montana Smith]

Continued... (the text was too long for a single post)

2

"Vaishampayana said: 'While the Vrishnis and the Andhakas were thus
endeavouring (to avoid the impending calamity), the embodied form of Time
(death) every day wandered about their houses. He looked like a man of
terrible and fierce aspect. Of bald head, he was black and of tawny
complexion. Sometimes he was seen by the Vrishnis as he peered into their
houses. The mighty bowmen among the Vrishnis shot hundreds and thousands
of shafts at him, but none of these succeeded in piercing him, for he was
none else than the Destroyer of all creatures. Day by day strong winds
blew, and many were the evil omens that arose, awful and foreboding the
destruction of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas. The streets swarmed with
rats and mice. Earthen pots showed cracks or broke from no apparent
cause. At night, the rats and mice ate away the hair and nails of
slumbering men. Sarikas chirped, sitting within the houses of the
Vrishnis. The noise made by those birds ceased not for even a short while
by day or by night. The Sarashas were heard to imitate the hooting of the
owl, and goats imitated the cries, O Bharata, of jackals. Many birds
appeared, impelled by Death, that were pale of complexion but that had
legs red of hue. Pigeons were seen to always disport in the houses of the
Vrishnis. Asses were born of kine, and elephants of mules. Cats were born
of *****es, and mouse of the mongoose. The Vrishnis, committing sinful
acts, were not seen to feel any shame. They showed disregard for
Brahmanas and the Pitris and the deities. They insulted and humiliated
their preceptors and seniors. Only Rama and Janardana acted differently.
Wives deceived their husbands, and husbands deceived their wives. Fires,
when ignited, cast their flames towards the left. Sometimes they threw
out flames whose splendour was blue and red. The Sun, whether when rising
or setting over the city, seemed to be surrounded by headless trunks of
human form. In cook rooms, upon food that was clean and well-boiled, were
seen, when it was served out for eating, innumerable worms of diverse
kinds. When Brahmanas, receiving gifts, blessed the day or the hour
(fixed for this or that undertaking) or when high-souled men were engaged
in silent recitations, the heavy tread was heard of innumerable men
running about, but no one could be seen to whom the sound of such tread
could be ascribed. The constellations were repeatedly seen to be struck
by the planets. None amongst the Yadavas could, however, obtain a sight
of the constellation of his birth. When the Panchajanya was blown in
their houses, asses of dissonant and awful voice brayed aloud from every
direction. Beholding these signs that indicated the perverse course of
Time, and seeing that the day of the new moon coincided with the
thirteenth (and the fourteenth) lunation, Hrishikesa, summoning the
Yadavas, said unto them these words: "The fourteenth lunation has been
made the fifteenth by Rahu once more. Such a day had happened at the time
of the great battle of the Bharatas. It has once more appeared, it seems,
for our destruction." The slayer of Keshi, Janardana, thinking upon the
omens that Time showed, understood that the thirty-sixth year had come,
and that what Gandhari, burning with grief on account of the death of her
sons, and deprived of all her kinsmen, had said was about to transpire.
"The present is exactly similar to that time when Yudhishthira noted at
such awful omens when the two armies had been arrayed in order of battle."
Vasudeva, having said so, endeavoured to bring about those occurrences
which would make Gandhari's words true. That chastiser of foes commanded
the Vrishnis to make a pilgrimage to some sacred water. The messengers
forthwith proclaimed at the command of Keshava that the Vrishnis should
make a journey to the sea-coast for bathing in the sacred waters of the
ocean.'"

The version used by ancient astronaut theorists appears to be translated in their favour, by employing charged words that will evoke thoughts of an atomic bomb. Take the radiation sickness reference, "The hair and nails fell out". The earlier version reads, "At night, the rats and mice ate away the hair and nails of slumbering men."

The text of the Mahabharata makes for compelling reading, as the man's imagination of the destructive power that the gods can call upon. Since the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the cold war that followed, culture has been obsessed with nuclear destruction, and has found signs everywhere. Portents from the past.

Taken within the context of its own age, the Mahabharata reads like Biblical references of plagues, curses and of Revelation.

Thoughout this translation the word "sphere" is used for "vimanan", and is synomymous with "car", which I take to be a chariot.

It's all good stuff, and reminscient of the fantastic epics composed by Homer for entertainment. Whether they really tell a tale of ancient nuclear destruction is another matter, clouded as we are by our modern fears and our understanding of the destructive 'god-like' power that man is now capable of.

In the link you provided, Indy's Brother, is a reference to Alexander which came up earlier:

It is interesting to note that when Alexander the Great invaded India more than two thousand years ago, his historians chronicled that at one point they were attacked by "flying, fiery shields" that dove at his army and frightened the cavalry. These "flying saucers" did not use any atomic bombs or beam weapons on Alexander's army however, perhaps out of benevolence, and Alexander went on to conquer India.

Were these simply Indian weapons? The Mahabharata mentions the "discus" as a weapon.

 

[Falxman]

New

Hi I'm new here (haha since this is my first post in these forums you probably can tell). I found this thread when I was looking around for stuff about alien theories and I was happy to see that it was still active!

I haven't read everything here so far because there are 20 pages! I'm a bit curious though about everything posted here and I have my own ideas too. I hope that the thread hasn't already come to a conclusion yet though because I would like to participate. I think that we can learn a lot and will have a good discussion.

 

[Matt deMille]

Hi I'm new here (haha since this is my first post in these forums you probably can tell). I found this thread when I was looking around for stuff about alien theories and I was happy to see that it was still active!

I haven't read everything here so far because there are 20 pages! I'm a bit curious though about everything posted here and I have my own ideas too. I hope that the thread hasn't already come to a conclusion yet though because I would like to participate. I think that we can learn a lot and will have a good discussion.

Welcome aboard! Fair warning, this thread got rather bloody for a while. I hope you have the endurance to read through it nonetheless, for while there is a good deal of negativity, there's a lot of interesting questions as well, on both sides of the argument.

Personally, I'm an ancient alien guy (heck, I started the thread). I'm glad you're happy to find such a thread like this continuing. In fact, it just got better the last day, so, perfect timing! Anyway, I welcome all theories, all possibilities, as I believe the truth is far more fantastic than the history books want us to think.

So, please bring forward your ideas, theories, wonders, questions, evidence, and good humor!

Stone work such as this is the mark of skilled masons. Over a thousand years earlier the Greeks were creating silky smooth masterpieces from stone. Without metal tools such work in the Americas would have taken longer, with many man-hours likely taken with smoothing the surface with abrasives then finally polishing.

I disagree. It *could* be the work of skilled stonemasons, but there aren't any records mentioning them, or the process. If a culture cannot claim how they did something, we cannot assume they did it. Simply because the monument is in the geographical area of a people when European conquest laid out the lines of a new world map doesn't mean the people trapped within those imaginary boundaries were the only ones ever there. Moreover, it is human nature to take credit for the work of others. Cultures, ancient cultures, seem to have a passion for depicting every aspect of their lives and achievements. Why then did the Central and South American builders of fantastic monuments not tell us how or even when they built them? They tell us everything else. Why this silence?

I believe the answer is simple: The great monuments, those which defy our ability to replicate even by today's technology, were built by a technologicaly superior culture (superior even to us) in the distant past. This COULD be an ancient human civilization like Atlantis, but alien intervention is just as plausible. More plausible, I believe, when the ancient accounts constantly tell us that their wonders were given to them by the gods (from the sky).

 

[Falxman]

New

Well, I've started reading through some of it but I have to say that I'm not very far. I don't know if most of the people posting here have backrounds in this sort of thing (history I mean). I'm not trained or anything, just interested. I hope that's not a problem.

 

[Montana Smith]

Very good points, Indy's Brother. I was hoping the stoneworking technology of the ancient world would come into this thread. I don't call it "masonry" because that belittles the feats of engineering we see evidence of, particularly in Central and South America. Many amazing sites have blocks up to 400-tons fit together with laser-like precision, and even have spaces for what look to be links or clamps of some sort. Hardly befitting the crude, simple-minded approach of "laborers hauling ropes" theory that is often used for such sites.

The way I look at it, is that rather than "belittle the feats of engineering", we are ignoring the ingenuity and purpose of the men who created these marvelous structures and works of art, when we say that they must have had help mysterious assistance.

The precise fitting together of blocks was demonstrated in real-life on a documentary, where it was demonstrated how the Egyptians marked out the blocks for cutting. It was simple, yet ingenious. Neither do I see their methods of construction as "simple-minded". The Egyptians were accomplished scientists. Man is probably no more intelligent now than he was thousands of years ago. All we have now is a history of experience upon which to build at an exponential rate. Much of our knowledge was lost in the destruction of civilizations, and had to be relearnt.

The Chinese were far in advance of the west in science. As were the Arabs in the field of mathematics.

I prefer not to belittle "the feats of engineering" by looking for alien intervention, but rather to elevate them by looking for human solutions.

The huge cathedrals of the medieval age were not alien assisted, though their height and scale is dizzying when you look up at them. And you read how many labourers and artisans died in their construction. These edifices were built at human cost, in the name of those who aspired to heaven. As an atheist I view their construction as selfish acts on behalf of the monarch, church, and nobility. Just as the great construction of earlier and ancient times probably valued human life lower than the object of the building itself.

 

[Matt deMille]

Well, I've started reading through some of it but I have to say that I'm not very far. I don't know if most of the people posting here have backrounds in this sort of thing (history I mean). I'm not trained or anything, just interested. I hope that's not a problem.

No problem at all. Actually, I prefer those who do not fancy themselves scientists. Science, like religion, has doctrines, expectations and institutionalized thinking. I believe it's more important to have ideas, open-minds and discuss possibilities and wondrous things. This thread often got bogged down with arguments over "scientific facts", when science and its accepted facts pertaining to the fantastic are simply an endless argument, a hubris of the worst kind.

Welcome to open-minded explorers who want to share ideas and thoughts. Flinging facts is a poor substitute for asking questions.

 

[Gabeed]

But to your second paragraph I can only say this: The date is off by fifty years? Okay, I hit the wrong numerical key.

Except that it's not off by exactly fifty years(despite my "examples" being off by that much for efficiency's sake), as I was rounding up. The siege occurred in 332 BC, so 41 years to be precise (and 323 BC, which I suspect you're thinking of now and is a more famous date, is Alexander's death many years later after he's already gone to Egypt, Persia, Baktria, the Indus, and back through Baluchistan to Babylon). So I maintain that it is evidence that you don't know what you're talking about. Look, you can believe in aliens if you want, but don't attempt to play the authority in events that you haven't bothered to do any research about.

 

[Montana Smith]

I disagree. It *could* be the work of skilled stonemasons, but there aren't any records mentioning them, or the process.

Yes, that's the response I was trying to get from you. The word "could", which is the basis of my skepticism. When we say "could" we are finally shunning blind dogmatism. History is made up of "could be" and "might be", and this is where we have to bring in interpretation, based on likelihoods.

If a culture cannot claim how they did something, we cannot assume they did it. Simply because the monument is in the geographical area of a people when European conquest laid out the lines of a new world map doesn't mean the people trapped within those imaginary boundaries were the only ones ever there. Moreover, it is human nature to take credit for the work of others. Cultures, ancient cultures, seem to have a passion for depicting every aspect of their lives and achievements. Why then did the Central and South American builders of fantastic monuments not tell us how or even when they built them? They tell us everything else. Why this silence?

As much as it irks historians, our ancestors didn't leave us full documentation of their activities. Some cultures didn't even have a written language, so we are left to decipher their symbols.

With pyramids there was good reason not to leave plans: as a tomb it was filled with treasure and goods for the afterlife, and a map showing a potential tomb-robber the way in wouldn't be a mark of good practice. Weren't even the architects sometimes killed to keep the secret?

I believe the answer is simple: The great monuments, those which defy our ability to replicate even by today's technology, were built by a technologicaly superior culture (superior even to us) in the distant past. This COULD be an ancient human civilization like Atlantis, but alien intervention is just as plausible. More plausible, I believe, when the ancient accounts constantly tell us that their wonders were given to them by the gods (from the sky).

This statement would receive a lot of red notations by a professor of history. You state you "believe that the...great monuments, those which defy our ability to replicate even by today's technology, were built by a technologicaly superior culture (superior even to us) in the distant past."

This is a leap of faith, akin to religious fervour, whereas the reality is that the interpretation is still open. There are theories for historical human construction, and also for superior technology. The only "could" you allow for is whether the source was a lost superior human civilization (even more superior than we are today) or an alien one.

Yet, if we look for evidence, we don't find traces of anachronistic objects. We don't find ancient circuit boards or electronics, but we do find works of stone. Or computers made of cogs - that is, they are produced from the materials in use by those ages, not incorporating elements such as silicon. There are no transistors or light bulbs. The lighthouse of Pharos used a copper reflector and a blazing fire.

Many things "could" have happened in the past. Interpretation, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Stoo]

Honestly, I didn't see fit to call Matt out on any of those--they're one-letter typos, and although he as you said ignored suggested spelling corrections for the last two . . . I dunno. They're easy mistakes to make, especially when you're pumping out such gigantic blocks of text in a short amount of time. It's hard to determine whether to judge what he's saying by such mistakes, and I can often see what people mean when they say that criticizing grammar and spelling is the last resort of a debater, so I try to avoid doing so.

As do I because it's petty but Tire is a one-letter typo, too. From what I recall, Tyre was only misspelled once (unlike 2 of the examples provided above). If the story of Sodom & Gomorrah is one of deMille's pet subjects of interest, one would think he'd be able to spell it correctly by pure instinct.

My point was that such elaborate measures for tombs would not be taken and then their name misspelled for such high and mighty beings, even if they were "only" kings.

And I hold to the misspellings. Several times on the last few pages it's been said that Hancock was debunked, proven a fraud, or retracted his own statements on this. Where and when are these debunkings or retractions?

You don't get me, I'm afraid, as I'm not claiming that the cartouche is proof about one of the pyramids being Khufu's/Cheops' tomb. Merely that the inscription was NOT faked. That is all.

As for the Hancock retraction about the cartouche, I'll try and find the quote but am soon going on vacation for a couple of weeks so can't promise anything immediately. (Supposedly, Hancock's admission came out just before a TV special of his was about to air.)

And please leave Indy's Brother out of this. He said "let's stay on topic". The fact that I was called a liar for having anyone corresponding with me -- and now that accusation of my making this up is clearly been debunked -- should be the end of that. As Indy's Brother said, let's stay on topic. Ancient aliens.

Re: private messages. I never called you a liar about that and didn't ask to name names. I was being SKEPTICAL and tried to coax them into posting. They're telling you to keep fighting the good fight but won't stand by you publicly. That's why I made an open call to all those who are backing you to contribute to the thread (and in 1 case, it seems to have worked.) That said, I really want to know whether Indy's brother believes your alien encounter stories, etc. It's totally ON-TOPIC!

As to what I *could* be, that is a baited question.

No, it's simply a question. I already asked you to elaborate on the copper and thought you were here to discuss theories. You're acting paranoid again.

I still want to know why pyramid building technology suddenly jumped centuries of progress for one Dynasty alone, then suddenly regressed back down to where it was before the Great Pyramid was supposedly built. And, where did the body and treasure go? By the layout of the pyramid with its sealed passages, grave robbers is simply not a possibility.

According to your dreaded, conventional thinking, pyramids were abandoned because they were obvious markers of treasure and were eventually robbed, hence the more discreet tombs in the Valley of the Kings. Grave robbers are indeed a possibilty/probability!

For the sake of this thread, put aside your personal dilemmas and PLEASE tell us which pyramid you went into on your supposed 'visit'.

 

[Indy's brother]

Re: private messages. I never called you a liar about that and didn't ask to name names. I was being SKEPTICAL and tried to coax them into posting. They're telling you to keep fighting the good fight but won't stand by you publicly. That's why I made an open call to all those who are backing you to contribute to the thread (and in 1 case, it seems to have worked.) That said, I really want to know whether Indy's brother believes your alien encounter stories, etc. It's totally ON-TOPIC!

I don't have time to address all the posts that have come up since I went to bed (I need to be on my way out the door for work right now!!!!), but I did want to answer this one. The answer is simple, Stoo. I really don't have an opinion about whether or not it happened (Mr. DeMille's alien encounters). I am interested in the theories about "ancient" aliens, not modern encounters. For me this is less about taking sides and more about developing the concept of this thread.

 

[Matt deMille]

. . . it's simply a question. I already asked you to elaborate on the copper and thought you were here to discuss theories. You're acting paranoid again.

Paranoid? Because I don't choose to address everything brought up on this site? I don't have the time. Maybe if people kept on topic I could, but the constant straying into questions about me (and then accusing me of making this thread about myself), trying to kill the messenger, is what takes up the time (and sounds more paranoid to me).

But I will address it, so hopefully we can get (and stay) back on topic. The copper fittings are at the end of the 8" shafts. The ones that were filmed by robot in 1993 (and never seen until then). There are corroding, copper fittings like a battery hook-up at the end of these shafts.

Now, again, if the Egyptians did indeed build the Great Pyramid, why is there no mention, no alluding to these copper fittings at all? Or any mention of the door they are anchored on? Clearly they served a function, even if only ceremonial, but there's not the slightest hint in any Egyptian lore of it. Nor is a similar work (of copper or any other material) found in any truly built Egyptian monument. This is unique to the Great Pyramid, and spiritual functions are not unique -- They're part of the culture and thus should be in other "tombs" as well. Conclusion: The ancient Egyptians, like ourselves, could not explore this 8" shaft, and thus did not know about the copper fittings. Ergo, they did not build this monument, but found it, and wondered about it, as we have, with their limited knowledge from the outside.

According to your dreaded, conventional thinking, pyramids were abandoned because they were obvious markers of treasure and were eventually robbed, hence the more discreet tombs in the Valley of the Kings. Grave robbers are indeed a possibilty/probability!

Stoo, you are making a big, big ASSUMPTION there. The pyramids of the third dynasty and fifth dynasty are roughly equal in terms of building technology, whereas the forth dynasty's so-called construction is well beyond the culture's demonstrated ability. "Grave robbers" is too easy an out. After all, shouldn't the bigger pyramid with the bigger, heavier doors be MORE of an insurance against grave robbers? And why did it take so long for them to go to secret tombs? Why did the fifth dynasty bother to build pyramids at all if the reason for abandoning bigger pyramids was grave robbing? It makes no sense what-so-ever.

For the sake of this thread, put aside your personal dilemmas and PLEASE tell us which pyramid you went into on your supposed 'visit'.

My "alleged visit" to Giza. I'm getting tired of this. As you and others have said, this should be about the evidence, not me personally. And I have said before I do not like to talk about it, okay? Can't you respect someone's personal pain? Besides, anything I could have seen there is something anyone else can see in books or video, or find online, and thus can be discussed here. I don't posses magical powers that allow me access to chambers no other tourist could enter. My presence in Giza does not (or should not) matter to the discussion of ancient aliens.

 

[Gabeed]

Stoo, you are making a big, big ASSUMPTION there. The pyramids of the third dynasty and fifth dynasty are roughly equal in terms of building technology, whereas the forth dynasty's so-called construction is well beyond the culture's demonstrated ability.

Matt, I addressed your thoughts on pyramids in the early dynasties several pages ago (back when you were saying that there were pyramids before the 3rd century):

Firstly, there are no pyramids before the 3rd dynasty, and a mistake of that nature is suspect as to how much you've really thought about this. Secondly, while the process of building the pyramids themselves is not certain, we see the transition quite clearly. It's not like the pyramid was suddenly invented by Cheops (the first of the Great Pyramids pharoahs)--the first true pyramid was built by his father, Sneferu, and one of the pyramids that Sneferu built, "the Bent Pyramid," is a testament to the "trial and error" that pyramid-making went through (hardly implies an extraterrestrial presence). And in the 3rd dynasty, we see the step pyramids, which are a logical evolution from the mastaba, which were the tombs used by earlier pharoahs (not pyramids).

Later on, we see tons more pyramids, they just aren't as big as those of the 3rd dynasty, which was seemingly more wealthy and certainly experienced longer reigns than the norm. Not to mention that pyramid-building just hearkened to grave robbers--one of the real reasons why it was abandoned in later dynasties.

I'd like to add that comparing the trial-and error period pyramids of the 3rd century to the relatively short-reigning kings' pyramids of the 5th dynasty is a huge oversimplification. You keep talking about this mysterious "building technology," as if pharoahs are automatically supposed to make better pyramids, regardless of how short their reign might be, how unstable their realm might be, how small a manpower pool might be available . . . I mean, why can't you think of a single logical reason why pyramids wouldn't be as magnificent besides alien intervention?

Finally, your blanket statement about the 4th dynasty pyramids being better is incorrect. Here's Sneferu's bent pyramid. If that's alien intervention, I guess they were playing a practical joke on the ancient Egyptians, because the builders were seemingly forced to alter the angle of the pyramid, either to stop it from collapsing, or to hurry up the construction with the pharoah's death imminent.

 

[Pale Horse]

...Finally, your blanket statement about the 4th dynasty pyramids being better is incorrect. Here's Sneferu's bent pyramid. If that's alien intervention, I guess they were playing a practical joke on the ancient Egyptians, because the builders were seemingly forced to alter the angle of the pyramid, either to stop it from collapsing, or to hurry up the construction with the pharoah's death imminent.

Sigh. Gabeed, you off the mark here, I am afraid to say. The bent pyramid, is clearly bent, to model the well documented style of the below image. If the foil wasn't bent, the man below would look like a dunce. Hence the bending of aluminium:

It's simple really.

 

[Gabeed]

My goodness. How could I have not taken the infamous Aluminum Foil Hat into consideration?