AA artifacts - evidence or speculation ?

[Irna]

I question, for example, one image from your OP: the "cave drawing" supposedly from France and dating to 15,000 to 17,000 years ago. As it happens I've invested a significant amount of time over the past month or so researching this very subject for a large new exhibit on Lascaux at our museum, and my studies have caused me to look into many of the 340 painted caves in southwest France and northeast Spain. This subject of prehistoric Europe is pretty new to me, I admit, but I would ask you exactly in which cave this image is supposed to appear? It doesn't even resemble the cave art of Magdalenian France. What does the wider cave wall show? What other images and symbols are present?. What is your source?

Hi kmt_sesh,

that image is supposed to come from Pech Merle. In fact, it's a very bad rendition of the drawing of "L'homme blessé" (the wounded man) in Pech Merle. Here is what the drawing actually looks like:

See also https://www.nespos.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50168451 and http://www.hominides.com/html/lieux/grotte-pech-merle.php (in French)

[Abramelin]

and i guess, you flew over them nazca lines too, havent you Abe??

Yes I did. And the pilot was an Italian who flew tourists around for some 20 years (1991). The guy loved a prank, and because I was sitting next to him on the co-pilot seat, I ask/whispered to him if it was ok for him if I pretended to fly the plane. So when I said "now we dive to the left, wheeeee!!", I would turn my disabled steering wheel to the left and then he would dive to the left while my friends thought "OH GOD, R. is flying the plane!!"

But what I didn't expect is that they really started panicking, lol, and I had to admit it was only a joke. When we landed I had to run, hahaha !

Oh, and btw: some of these glyphs can be watched from nearby mountains.

.

Edited May 5, 2013 by Abramelin

[cormac mac airt]

Hi kmt_sesh,

that image is supposed to come from Pech Merle. In fact, it's a very bad rendition of the drawing of "L'homme blessé" (the wounded man) in Pech Merle. Here is what the drawing actually looks like:

See also https://www.nespos.o...pageId=50168451 and http://www.hominides...-pech-merle.php (in French)

Thanks Irna for the picture. I knew it was familiar but couldn't remember that it was called "the wounded man". I think a 'very bad rendition' is quite the understatement. So we have two pictures that have been speculated as something more than they are, with the actual knowledge of what they are having been disregarded, and one which isn't even accurate. And alot of the "all opinions are equal" mentality. Am finding it increasingly difficult to take this thread seriously.

cormac

[Abramelin]

If it amuses a bored sock puppet to stir a mess for whatever their purpose is. I'm surprised people have taken this thread seriously......

Well, some people register as a new member, and don't know about the search engine/tool (what's the name??) of this site or how to use it.

[jaylemurph]

what? when did i say they "really" are aliens, in case you missed it. which you clearly DID, i stated uner then 2nd post i believe saying, "IM NOT SAYING THESE ARE ALIENS...THEY APPEAR TO BE".

Esse est percipi. "Appears" and "Seems" are weasel words, unless you throw in to whom things appear or seem. None of those paintings seem or appear to be aliens to me (at the very least), so saying they "appear to be" is not a universal statement you can get away with saying. If you had said, "they appear to be TO ME" it would have been a whole different matter. Everything I said earlier would still apply, but you wouldn't be foisting your opinions on other people -- including me -- willy-nilly.

--Jaylemurph

[jaylemurph]

Not to stir up **** here (more that's been already) but seriously who can claim to truly understand what the ancient people really thought? Even today with so much available communication world wide there's more than a few cultural blocks. What I mean by that is that even if you go live abroad with a different culture and learn everything you can about them you still will never have their mind set.

The ancients made art and wrote a lot about their every day lives. Who's to say that what we interpret as just their beliefs and myths weren't actual descriptions of what really went down?

Time machine or it didn't happen. lol

I encourage you to go back and read my post. You seem to understand that there are different convention in different societies; you just seem to not want to apply that to art and understanding it. The end of of what you suggest -- we can't ever really understand other cultures -- seems to suggest there's no universality in human culture, which is obviously wrong. We wouldn't be able to ever talk to any other culture if that were true, and we obviously can talk to other ones.

Also, you do understand that all fiction is not real, right (I assume you do, and are just leaving out for convenience of your argument.)? If we go with your idea, "Who's to say that what we interpret as just their beliefs and myths weren't actual descriptions of what really went down?" essentially locks you into a position where every fictional idea can be real, with no standard to figure out what is real and what just might be real, which is obviously not a tenable, rational position.

Understanding artistical and social conventions is exactly that key to allow us to know what is literally real and what is fictional. And the truth is that it takes a great deal of study and effort to be able to intelligently talk about them. The ignorance you (or anyone else) have about conventions or cultures should never be confused for a universal condition.

--Jaylemurph

[Harte]

I dont dismiss them, I just dont care to acknowledge them because for one theories of ancient history come a dime a dozen. Accepted theories are not necessarily proven.

Toward a more effective vocabulary, you should understand that "proof" in your immediate world means something different from "proof" in the academic world.

Theories cannot be "proven," nor are they meant to be.

In the hard sciences, theories are merely models that have outcomes that match observations to an agreed-upon level of accuracy. For example, nobody really knows what an atom "looks like."

In Archaeology, it's far worse. Anyone with a few seconds to spend thinking on the subject will certainly realize that it is literally impossible to know every single detail of the past - especially antiquity.

Hence, the idea that "theories of ancient history come a dime a dozen" and that "Accepted theories are not necessarily proven" are meaningless in any academic sense. To me, these "theories" you mention that are a dime a dozen are primarily wild and unevidenced speculation, whereas what you are calling accepted theories are theories in the academic sense; they are evidenced, they've made predictions that were later borne out, and they can be disproven.

But not proven.

The three characteristics I bolded are the hallmarks you should look for when evaluating what you are calling theories. The ones that have these hallmarks are believable. The others are scams to sell books or whatever.

Like exeter said, we seem to think we know everything about people and thier beliefs, myths, and everything theyve seen thousands of years ago.

You should no longer labor under the false belief that Historians, Anthropologists, Archaeologists, or any other types of scientists think they know even ten percent of the information applicable to any bygone ancient culture.

However, that ten percent is far more than you or I care to delve into. We have other occupations.

Harte

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

ohh look ... it's "aliens in religious artwork" time. Marvellous.

Beams of light from the sky (aka "the heavens") touching the ground/people's heads? Obviously it's alien communion with man. Or God sending an email. One of the two.

Odd looking clouds? Well UFOS! Or one of the Host of Heaven as described in Ezekiel and elsewhere.

The "Host of Heaven"? MORE UFOS and some aliens too!! Or the fact that God isn't boring and only creates stuff like man does.

Flying carpets? UFOs. Or magic.

Dragons? UFOs. Or someone found some dinosaur bones and came up with an explanation for them.

Battle of Nuremberg? Okay I'll give you that one

Things that fly and they shouldn't (ie - not birds) in ancient art is not a sign of aliens popping around for tea, but a sign of Divinity thumbing it's nose (or noses if it's a Hindu divinity) at the laws of physics. What's the quickest and easiest way of showing in one picture that what's being depicted is "supernormal"? Have it fly when it shouldn't be able to.

[kmt_sesh]

kmt,

FIRST OFF ,I didnt drag your name in here, im not sure why that dude did. Some people just have an answer for everything i guess

I did not mean to sound combative in my repsonse this. I only wished to clarify that I was not the person who made this comment. My apologies for not phrasing it better. I don't know if you're familiar with me, but few things irritate me more than being misrepresented. I don't see that you were guilty of this and I don't believe you are, but I wanted to nip it in the bud, as it were.

.. Infact i replied saying it wasnt you so calm the freak down. (Who said they could build the giza) hahaha

You're best off not telling Moderators to calm down. No offense was intended, although from the tenor of the rest of my post—which was somewhat confrontational, I agree—I can see how you took it that way. That said, I am a rather calm person and possess quite a bit of tolerance, as I think my acquaintances on UM will agree. I am much more interested in a substantive response to my posts, to wit...

Secondly im not here to "prove" anything. So there goes your argument.

Not quite. You have made numerous statements and have been repeatedly challenged. In my own previous post, I issued a number of specific questions and requests for clarification, and I can't help but notice you did not address a single one of them. I cannot make you answer my questions or the questions others ask of you, but it's certainly in your best interest to do so if you're posting in our forum.

I sure hope youre not refering to me when you say "blablabla-bla bla blah ..push the conspiracy ", because in my initial few posts I said its all speculative coincidence regardless of where i stan. Furthermore I posted the following in the stat bar:

It's entirely possible I misunderstood you with this one. In Post 8 you stated "i cant believe youd go by roman records (which outside the vatican little are to be found). you know how much the vatican backs AA.." In rereading this statement, I confess I don't understand what you were saying. Originally I had thought you were intimating that the Vatican was controlling ancient records, which I now see might not have been the intent of your statement. Still, in defense of my own statement, I don't think you're aware of how widespread Roman records were in the ancient world, and how widespread they are today in universities and museums around the world.

I'm also not sure of the meaning of your statement about "how much the Vatican backs AA." For a point of clarification, the Vatican has no official opinion on "ancient aliens" at all. What the Vatican officially has acknowledged is the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. There is a clear distinction.

She of two men say; "It wasnt Ancient Aliens, it was humans prior to mutating dumbward."

I'm not sure what this means, either.

[kmt_sesh]

Not to stir up **** here (more that's been already) but seriously who can claim to truly understand what the ancient people really thought? Even today with so much available communication world wide there's more than a few cultural blocks. What I mean by that is that even if you go live abroad with a different culture and learn everything you can about them you still will never have their mind set.

The ancients made art and wrote a lot about their every day lives. Who's to say that what we interpret as just their beliefs and myths weren't actual descriptions of what really went down?

Time machine or it didn't happen. lol

This is a perfectly valid point and is worth considering. To a large extent, however, perhaps you're not aware of the methodology of historical research that has allowed us to enter the ancient mind and understand what ancient man produced—and how he himself regarded and understood what he produced. This is of course especially true with civilizations which possessed written scripts that have been deciphered, because we can obviously then read what they themselves said about their beliefs and traditions. This would include Sumer, Egypt, Akkad, Babylon, Israel, Assyria, Persia, Hatti, Greece, and Rome. This would largely not include Minoa, Etrusca, and Meroë, whose scripts have not been deciphered.

What's most important in the pursuit of truly understanding an ancient civilization is immediately divorcing from one's mind the modern attitudes and sensibilities that frame one's modern culture. The student has to approach an ancient civilization with the mindset of a citizen of that ancient civilization, in so far as that is possible.

Do we or will we ever fully understand an ancient civilization? No, of course not. It's impossible. Too much time and material has been lost to us, but that's a far cry from saying we can't know them.

And of course the biggest of all mistakes is to assume we can't know anything about an ancient civilization and therefore must ascribe everything to aliens. I'm not saying this is your position on the matter, Exeter, but I wish only to make a general point as to the overall theme of this particular thread. Giving aliens all the credit is in actuality a form of intellectual sloth and a copout. It's a waste of time. And to add another jab at the TV show I so abhor, this is another reason Ancient Aliens is such a disgraceful if not harmful waste of time.

[kmt_sesh]

Hi kmt_sesh,

that image is supposed to come from Pech Merle. In fact, it's a very bad rendition of the drawing of "L'homme blessé" (the wounded man) in Pech Merle. Here is what the drawing actually looks like:

See also https://www.nespos.o...pageId=50168451 and http://www.hominides...-pech-merle.php (in French)

Thanks for the assist, Irna. You're right on the money. Good work. Pech Merle is not one of the caves with which I'm yet well acquainted, so I will have to include it in my continuing studies. I used your links and looked at other sites to get a better understanding of the overall image.

LOL Like cormac said, "very bad" is a monumental understatement. Sheep Smart did not clarify the source where he got the image, but I wouldn't be surprised if it can be traced back to one of von Däniken's misrepresentations.

An interesting image. The "wounded man" looks much like many of the animals in other caves that were depicted with these lines piercing them, and I rather doubt it was aliens assaulting them.

Sheesh.

[Daughter of the Nine Moons]

for the genius who made the remark about "visual aid" heres some more since the thread is based on visual images.

some 13-15th century paintings with "natural occurances" (that just so happen to look like ufos) in the background.

Whats the latest theory on these?

*snip - too long quote*

Here is an interesting article for you to read The Art of Imagining UFO's

[SHaYap]

~snip

An interesting image. The "wounded man" looks much like many of the animals in other caves that were depicted with these lines piercing them, and I rather doubt it was aliens assaulting them.

Sheesh.

The "wounded man" is a common theme in various sites in different continents and spans across the ages, its also a term used by the Paleo-researchers to denote its similarities boss.

Nobody says its aliens boss .... don't be influenced by the jaded anti fringe league ....

[kmt_sesh]

The "wounded man" is a common theme in various sites in different continents and spans across the ages, its also a term used by the Paleo-researchers to denote its similarities boss.

Nobody says its aliens boss .... don't be influenced by the jaded anti fringe league ....

Hey, I am one of the founding members of the Jaded Anti-Fringe League (JAFL). We are jaded because of the fringe.

[Sheep Smart]

IN That case , proof then constitutes, Not only a valid "academically accepted theory" but better consist of some fairly considerable evidence. With that I say, if everyone were to agree with mainstream , in this case crap based on Egyptian tour dollars, we would be content with not caring.

1, Can anyone explain what the interior is for ? NO

2, when its duplicated. PHYSICALLY at even half the scale ill possibly reconsider.

[SHaYap]

Hey, I am one of the founding members of the Jaded Anti-Fringe League (JAFL). We are jaded because of the fringe.

Aww c'mon boss ... you the honorary Life time Magus of the Anti Fringe League .... leave the jaded symptoms to the link sourcing foot soldiers ....

[kmt_sesh]

IN That case , proof then constitutes, Not only a valid "academically accepted theory" but better consist of some fairly considerable evidence. With that I say, if everyone were to agree with mainstream , in this case crap based on Egyptian tour dollars, we would be content with not caring.

1, Can anyone explain what the interior is for ? NO

2, when its duplicated. PHYSICALLY at even half the scale ill possibly reconsider.

LOL You really are in anti-science mode (both here and in the pyramid discussion). Yes, right, the field of Egyptology is based on tourism revenue. Egyptian tour dollars fund research for the scores of institutes, museums, and universities involved in Egyptological research around the world?

What is the basis for your hate of research methodology? It's entirely your choice to favor the fringe approach, but you should at least try to understand how history is studied by professional scholars before summarily dismissing it.

The interior of what?

[cormac mac airt]

LOL You really are in anti-science mode (both here and in the pyramid discussion). Yes, right, the field of Egyptology is based on tourism revenue. Egyptian tour dollars fund research for the scores of institutes, museums, and universities involved in Egyptological research around the world?

What is the basis for your hate of research methodology? It's entirely your choice to favor the fringe approach, but you should at least try to understand how history is studied by professional scholars before summarily dismissing it.

The interior of what?

The interior of the pyramids, particularly the GP apparently.

cormac

[Exeter]

Hi Oniomancer

And the OP in citing from von Däniken et al is singling out examples which superficially resemble our conceptions of modern space suits, ect. That's not far removed from cherry picking. No, wait, that's the exact definition of cherry picking. L OTOH Makes a valid comparison. If the thesis is that these were artistically intended to represent real things within these cultures, then an examination of what else these cultures produced artistically in context would be in order, which is nowhere near a strawman. Also, when one is dealing from the start with the fantastic, how does one determine what falls within the limits of "extreme"?

Funny isn't it how that required doubt always seems to be so highly specific in it's directionality.

But that's my point. We are looking at those ancient cultures with a biased modern mind set. And as far as cherry picking goes, isn't that what cynics (I'm not saying you) do by picking easily explainable examples and sweeping anything that can't be readily explained under the carpet with them?

It really doesn't matter if what they depicted were aliens from space or an advanced human culture that we've yet to discover. It seems like they're applying the boy who cried wolf excuse when in fact no one can really know for sure what they saw or knew.

Donna

[Exeter]

I encourage you to go back and read my post. You seem to understand that there are different convention in different societies; you just seem to not want to apply that to art and understanding it. The end of of what you suggest -- we can't ever really understand other cultures -- seems to suggest there's no universality in human culture, which is obviously wrong. We wouldn't be able to ever talk to any other culture if that were true, and we obviously can talk to other ones.

Also, you do understand that all fiction is not real, right (I assume you do, and are just leaving out for convenience of your argument.)? If we go with your idea, "Who's to say that what we interpret as just their beliefs and myths weren't actual descriptions of what really went down?" essentially locks you into a position where every fictional idea can be real, with no standard to figure out what is real and what just might be real, which is obviously not a tenable, rational position.

Understanding artistical and social conventions is exactly that key to allow us to know what is literally real and what is fictional. And the truth is that it takes a great deal of study and effort to be able to intelligently talk about them. The ignorance you (or anyone else) have about conventions or cultures should never be confused for a universal condition.

--Jaylemurph

Hi jaylemurph.

I didn't mean to imply that we cannot understand and appreciate the artistic works of foreign cultures. And I understand that there's a difference between fiction and factual accounts. I was only suggesting that something we in our modern way of interpreting things may not be what the ancients may have actually experienced. I believe that's what is meant by having an open mind.

Donna

[Exeter]

This is a perfectly valid point and is worth considering. To a large extent, however, perhaps you're not aware of the methodology of historical research that has allowed us to enter the ancient mind and understand what ancient man produced—and how he himself regarded and understood what he produced. This is of course especially true with civilizations which possessed written scripts that have been deciphered, because we can obviously then read what they themselves said about their beliefs and traditions. This would include Sumer, Egypt, Akkad, Babylon, Israel, Assyria, Persia, Hatti, Greece, and Rome. This would largely not include Minoa, Etrusca, and Meroë, whose scripts have not been deciphered.

What's most important in the pursuit of truly understanding an ancient civilization is immediately divorcing from one's mind the modern attitudes and sensibilities that frame one's modern culture. The student has to approach an ancient civilization with the mindset of a citizen of that ancient civilization, in so far as that is possible.

Do we or will we ever fully understand an ancient civilization? No, of course not. It's impossible. Too much time and material has been lost to us, but that's a far cry from saying we can't know them.

And of course the biggest of all mistakes is to assume we can't know anything about an ancient civilization and therefore must ascribe everything to aliens. I'm not saying this is your position on the matter, Exeter, but I wish only to make a general point as to the overall theme of this particular thread. Giving aliens all the credit is in actuality a form of intellectual sloth and a copout. It's a waste of time. And to add another jab at the TV show I so abhor, this is another reason Ancient Aliens is such a disgraceful if not harmful waste of time.

Hi kmt_sesh

I'm in no way claiming that I know all the answers or even if what is depicted by the OP's pictures has to do with aliens. There's alot of people these days claiming to have had experiences with god-knows-what and the best we can do is apply common sense and scientific evidence to try to explain it. All I suggest is that there may be just a bit more to what we have come to believe what the people from the past have left for us. It might just be nothing more than religious artifacts. But there's always a chance that something they depicted in their art was something that they actually had contact with.

Donna

[Sheep Smart]

I dont hate research ( for who asked above). I simply disagree with conventional theories that are answered halfass. Because thats exactly what they are as of yet.

nor am i content with the conclusions many have made.

emphasis on many.

you can paste as many links up as you wish. fact is i may not agree. probably a couple million others as well.

[cormac mac airt]

I dont hate research ( for who asked above). I simply disagree with conventional theories that are answered halfass. Because thats exactly what they are as of yet.

nor am i content with the conclusions many have made.

emphasis on many.

you can paste as many links up as you wish. fact is i may not agree. probably a couple million others as well.

Kind of like your speculation of the Pacal Sarcophagus lid, Abydos "machines" and an incorrect depiction of the "wounded man" you posted earlier? The first two of which are known and the last of which you evidently didn't even check for accuracy. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

I dont hate research ( for who asked above). I simply disagree with conventional theories that are answered halfass. Because thats exactly what they are as of yet.

nor am i content with the conclusions many have made.

emphasis on many.

you can paste as many links up as you wish. fact is i may not agree. probably a couple million others as well.

But that is my very point. You're not expressing anything I or others could work with or discuss to any useful degree. You use limited ad hominem terms like "half ass" but do not elaborate. You're dismissing conventional, professional historical research without addressing it or dealing with it. That doesn't wash. I understand that you don't agree with professional methodology, but that's hardly the same as dealing with it in a way that carries your point forward.

So, I would suggest this, at least for a start: pick one, specific example of an academic conclusion on some aspect of historical research with which you disagree. Using more than a generic ad hominem, elaborate on why you disagree with it. That way, we all can at least engage in some degree of productive debate.

[jaylemurph]

I dont hate research ( for who asked above). I simply disagree with conventional theories that are answered halfass.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to make much of distinction between "things you haven't bothered to learn much about" and "coventional theories that are answered halfass [sic]". Just because you haven't learned the answer to a question doesn't mean there is no answer (or is answered "halfass" as you rather eloquently put it), or that an answer you subscribe to after 15 mins of YouTube video is as compelling as one that took a scholar 15 years to put forth.

Because thats exactly what they are as of yet.

...so far as you know. Which, as above, is not particularly comprehensive.

nor am i content with the conclusions many have made.

emphasis on many.

Which begs the question -- if all theories are not equal, is ignorance all kinds equal?

you can paste as many links up as you wish. fact is i may not agree. probably a couple million others as well.

See, this what I meant by 'militant ignorance': not just that you /are/ ignorant -- which you've already demonstrated, specifically about conventions in Medieval painting -- but insist on remaining so in the face of opportunities to learn more. It is not a becoming trait.

--Jaylemurph