10148 replies to this topic

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

nopeda, on 21 November 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:

I find it amusing that some people can't think realistically about the possibility that xts have ever been to this planet yet they apparently have no problem considering the possibility that they could arrive tomorrow, or maybe even later on today. That's a huge and absurd mental restriction, from my pov. Certainly in now way a superior position to much of any other, if any other.

The fact that we're animals is included of my mention that for about the first 190K years or so of human existence they lived like animals, and it's only in the fraction of about the last 10K years that humans began acting like humans. Also the fact that no other animals are even close, none having any true language and none constructing and sort of true buildings and none making any sort of actual tools and none making use of fire, etc, is ALL evidence of xt influence from my pov.

Now back to you. Why do you want to ignore the aspects I pointed out?

You suggest we are no longer animals and are something else, human. If you think this then look up definitions of animal, vegetable and mineral. You also clearly do not believe in evolution, and want to think that we are what we are only because of external manipulation. This thinking can be easily taken to a reductio ad absurdum, because if we need ET to evolve, then what about the ETs? and on and on. As for ET being here in the past, now or future, well I would love this to be so, but I do not see proof ET has been here. There must be proof, and you do not show any proof, only wishful thinking and a certain amount of confusion.

[Alienated Being]

Of course, that would be through making the following assumptions:

1. All of the claims of seeing "angels" are legitimate. Perhaps they were hallucinating, or simply concocting a story in a petulant attempt to reinforce the "validity" of their beliefs.

2. Extraterrestrials have visited this planet. We have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that extraterrestrial beings have visited this planet, at any time.

[Quaentum]

nopeda, on 21 November 2012 - 12:27 AM, said:

Nor can you. Nor can anyone else, or the combined efforts of many people afaik. One poster in this thread told me there are dozens of documentaries explaining everything, but so far I doubt it because if there were it seems there would no longer be any reason to question how they did it. So far no one has answered my questions including you, that's for sure. So not only can I not envision it but so far from my pov it still seems no one can, you can't, and so far there's no reason to believe people just out of the stone age could either.

Let's try a different question. Why did they build those structures? Do any of the structures in question have anything at all to do with possible xts?

The questions you have posed have been answered many times.  Your continued cry of they haven't been answered is of little consequence.  It is time for you to reread what has been posted that answers those questions.  You of course can continue to feign ignorance and ignore what has been posted but it proves nothing, and does nothing to support your position.

I'm sure your reply will be along the lines of that I have to show you where those posts are.  This is something that was done in the past, showing links to posts or re-posting information but you know what? It is not required of anyone to link to or re-post any previous posts.

As far as your two questions and since you termed it broadly to include all the structures the answers are

1. The many structures were built for a variety of purposes.
2. No they have nothing to do with aliens.

[Quaentum]

nopeda, on 21 November 2012 - 12:29 AM, said:

For one thing the matter composing the universe is in the condition and positions that it's in NOW so in order for your time travel fantasy to be as you imagine it, your "time machine" would have to be able to make all matter in the universe go back to the conditions and positions that it was in during the period you want to "return" to. That's the starting line on time travel. Can you get to the starting line with it? For another thing, IF a person were to operate their computer in the proper way they could do pretty much just as well by going back and reading the thread, unless it's been removed or editted or something. If a person were to do that they might notice that even then I was encouraging you to get to the starting line, and you couldn't get there.... And....

Though time travel as most envision isn't possible, you fail to understand the concept.  Time travel, were it possible, does not require the time machine to actually affect matter.  Think of it as watching a movie then rewinding to a specific point and watching that part again, only in reality not on a tape.

nopeda, on 21 November 2012 - 12:27 AM, said:

So far no one has answered my questions including you, that's for sure.

nopeda said:

If I remember correctly you and other people gave me SEVERAL "explanations" about a couple of things but there's no way I could believe all of them.

Love the contradiction.

[Quaentum]

nopeda, on 21 November 2012 - 12:31 AM, said:

No to begin with it's because if God exists he would have to be an alien imo. If you think you can explain how he could be native to Earth then lets hear it, but when you can't we're left with him necessarily having to be an alien. It goes on from there of course, but that's the starting line. Come to think of it, this isn't the first time I've encouraged you to try to get to the starting line, is it? I don't think so. Well, can you make it this time? If God exists, he would have to be an alien unless you can explain how he could be native to Earth. Try to get that far and THEN move on. Best of luck with this!

Perfect example of one of the major problems with the ancient alien believers.  If it's not A it must be B and ignore any other possibilities.

You keep saying that others can't get to the starting line and inferring that their ability to conceive is limited but you have shown that your own ability to conceive is limited and you start line inconsequential.  Try opening your mind a bit to other possibilities.  What if God is an energy being created during the Big Bang or what if he is what the religious believe him to be, an all powerful entity that created everything.  In both cases he is not native to Earth but in neither case is he an alien as you conceive them to be.  This is not to say that either is true, just trying to help you eliminate the limitations you have placed upon yourself.

[Tesla II]

Quaentum, on 21 November 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

I'm sure your reply will be along the lines of that I have to show you where those posts are.  This is something that was done in the past, showing links to posts or re-posting information but you know what? It is not required of anyone to link to or re-post any previous posts.

As far as your two questions and since you termed it broadly to include all the structures the answers are

1. The many structures were built for a variety of purposes.
2. No they have nothing to do with aliens.

Right right you know all, i just love people like you knowing everything.. there is just a little problem with this no.2 question.... let me answer it for you...
You have absolutly no idea what you just wrote... Tell me how do you know those structures don't have any links to ET civilizations were you here 3000 b.c. ?
Let me give you a small example most of the super structures on our planet were built on religios fundations, meaning...

Man has created god... because he didn't know what lighting was or lunar/sun eclipse or anything that has to do with hes not-knowing at the time.. So we don't want to angry those gods so they've built pyramids, temples, made human sacrifices, used weird rituals and so on..

From here on AA stuff begins...like maybe they witnessed ETs and thought they were gods.. and they've made those super structures for them, but noone knows not me,you,anybody... untill we have developed some sort of time travel/viewing no one can say they were/were not linked to any sort of ET nature..

There is great link here about building of pyramids but i'm still sceptical on tools topic, why didn't they leave us any notes or information about that, everything else is recorded but the process...

[Quaentum]

nopeda, on 21 November 2012 - 12:53 AM, said:

Yeah, that's why public news groups have lost popularity imo. There you can say what you want, but in these moderated groups you can only say what whoever decides to let you say. So from my pov people who do forums should make the *majority!* of them open to people saying what they feel, but having "safe" forums where some people can go hide from the stuff they don't like if they can't handle the free zones. But that's just me, and apparently most people don't like the free zones. You folks don't have one at all, do you?

As a side note on profanity itself: When I first learned of the concept I immediately felt that it's not the words, and it's not the people using them, but the people who have problems with them that "are" the problem. Later I learned of languages in which there "is" no profanity. So does that mean that none of those people feel they're in a position that they should be telling other people what words they can and can't use? What else could it mean?

Tell me, when you visit someone's home how do you act?  Do you follow their rules or your own?  if you were a smoker and went to a home where they didn't want people smoking in their house would you smoke inside anyway or follow their rules?  Internet message boards are like that.  You basically follow their rules because you are just visiting.

[Tesla II]

Quaentum, on 21 November 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

What if God is an energy being created during the Big Bang or what if he is what the religious believe him to be, an all powerful entity that created everything.  In both cases he is not native to Earth but in neither case is he an alien as you conceive them to be.  This is not to say that either is true, just trying to help you eliminate the limitations you have placed upon yourself.

Word alien does not always link to little green man, god if existed would be alien in every aspect possible.. like you have wrote for avatar bad logic 101 ... Have you seen any humans creating firey bushes, splitting lakes apart, walking on water lately? Thought so... everything that is unknown to us if it is some sort of fish deep down in the ocean or some weird bird or any kind of "IT" is alien to us..

Edit; my bad didn't read that part " as you conceive them to be " ..

Edited by Nuke_em, 21 November 2012 - 04:37 PM.

[Quaentum]

nopeda, on 21 November 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:

I find it amusing that some people can't think realistically about the possibility that xts have ever been to this planet yet they apparently have no problem considering the possibility that they could arrive tomorrow, or maybe even later on today. That's a huge and absurd mental restriction, from my pov. Certainly in now way a superior position to much of any other, if any other.

Then you need to expand your pov.  I can't think that we (Earthlings) have traveled to the farthest star yet but I can think that it will happen sometime in the future.  There's nothing absurd about accepting that something specific has not yet happened but could in the future.  That is where some of the inspiration humans get comes from.  The only absurd thing is to think it's absurd.

[booNyzarC]

nopeda, on 21 November 2012 - 12:56 AM, said:

booNyzarC, on 20 November 2012 - 04:06 AM, said:

The fact that you choose to ignore the outright blatant lies put forth in the AA series and then quibble over semantics is quite telling.

What outright blatant lies are put forth in the AA series? I've known people in this forum to say they exist, but don't recall anyone giving specific examples. One person told me everything, which I know to be a lie, but otherwise nothing. So, what lies are you referring to?

You'll notice the lies whenever you see Georgio Tsoukalos, Erich von Daniken, or any of the other people on the episodes move their mouths and sound comes out.  A good rule of thumb is to pay very close attention to everything they say, and then disregard it as falsehood.  Some of it may have grains of truth, but it's better to discover that from legitimate research than to assume under any circumstances that what they are telling you might be factual.


Here are some examples, though this is by no means a comprehensive list.

AA Lie:
Pumapunku was constructed from granite and diorite.
Truth:
Actually, it was constructed from Red Sandstone and Andesite.

AA Lie:
One of the platforms at Pumapunku weighs 800 tons.
Truth:
The heaviest block at Pumapunku is 130 tons, but the vast majority are considerably smaller than that.

AA Lie:
The intricate work found at Pumapunku could only have been accomplished with power tools.
Truth:
The people who built Pumapunku were accomplished with the smithing of metals and the creation of tools that are more than adequate to the task.  Signs of the methodology and tools used has been uncovered at the locations from which the stones were quarried and on the building site.

AA Lie:
The stones at Pumapunku were all cut at very accurate 90 degree angles.
Truth:
The majority of stones aren't actually at right angles, though the workmanship is extremely high quality.

AA Lie:
The H blocks are all the same dimensions, as if they were fabricated by a huge machine.
Truth:
They aren't all identical at all, but again they are of pristine workmanship overall.

AA Lie:
The Amara indians had no writing, and therefore couldn't have made plans needed to build Pumapunku.
Truth:
Even though they didn't have an alphabet, they did use iconography and artwork.  This could have easily facilitated the creation of plans.  All you really have to do for a plan is draw a picture have some form of measurement, which were well within the capabilities of the Amara.

AA Lie:
The stones at Pumapunku must have been placed with some kind of large equipment, levitation, or anti-gravity devices.
Truth:
All of the stones on the site had at least one surface with "drag marks" on it, indicating that the stones were dragged to the sites from where they were quarried.

AA Lie:
No trees grow at the altitude where the site is located, so they could not have used wood to assist in construction or the moving of large stones.
Truth:
There is a dense forest just below the site with plenty of wood for such things...

AA Lie:
Pumapunku is 17,000 years old.
Truth:
Numerous aging methods have been used to show that it was most likely built somewher around 300 to 500 AD (less than 2000 years old...).


And that's just some of the information related to Pumapunku, all from here, where each point is referenced and sourced:
http://ancientaliens...pts/puma-punku/

Of course there are many other examples in the other segments.  Please feel free to view the entire film and/or read through all of the transcripts.  You may find it educational.

Cheers.

[Tesla II]

Rather than replying yourself boon we need credible source and i  guess only one is Wiki ... this is the most factual as it gets to our knowledge..

[booNyzarC]

Nuke_em, on 21 November 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

Rather than replying yourself boon we need credible source and i  guess only one is Wiki ... this is the most factual as it gets to our knowledge..

Wiki is often very accurate, but really shouldn't be relied on as the "end all be all" of sources.  If the content of any given wiki article is sourced by legitimate references, it's usually pretty good.  The transcripts on the Ancient Aliens Debunked website are all sourced with verifiable references of their own as well.

The best rule of thumb in testing the voracity of claims in general is to test and verify.  I don't ask anyone to take my word for the information presented.  By all means, follow up and confirm the original sources.  Even challenge them if they are found to be lacking.

Cheers Nuke_em

[synchronomy]

booNyzarC, on 21 November 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

You'll notice the lies whenever you see Georgio Tsoukalos, Erich von Daniken, or any of the other people on the episodes move their mouths and sound comes out.  A good rule of thumb is to pay very close attention to everything they say, and then disregard it as falsehood.  Some of it may have grains of truth, but it's better to discover that from legitimate research than to assume under any circumstances that what they are telling you might be factual.

Sigworthy!

[Tesla II]

Well i clicked the link and waaaay to much lines came up, i need only facts like weight of stones, tools,age and time of this construction, basics... you got references on everything in wiki, i take it for granted.. what i mean is i don't need to challenge some guy who made history with hes findings but i can challenge him to present hes theory on how those facts became history.

Anyhow were both right! ))

Cheers man

[Quaentum]

nopeda, on 21 November 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:

It's sure not my mantra, and most likely it's not anyone's. I'm not a believer either way, so I consider both possibilities. I do that same in regards to God and by now feel confident that xts and God and whatever all else are all tied together if such beings exist. Here's a list of things I included trying to think realistically about the possibility of God's existence:

1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender. (disclaimer: I refer to God as "he" out
of convenience and because that's how we are encouraged to refer to "him"
in most if not all canonical texts.)
15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are
most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.

This is almost too funny,  using your reply to a post about ancient alien believers as a way to promote your agenda that God had to be an alien .

Concerning ancient aliens, you say you're not a believer either way, but your own posts and actions on this thread contradict that claim.  We skeptics do consider both sides but we apply evidence or the lack thereof, to the concepts to base our conclusions on.  You on the other hand, ignore everything that is presented that does not support ancient aliens, something only a true believer in ancient aliens would do.

As I alluded to in a previous post you are part of the crowd that says if it's not A it must be B while ignoring other possibilities.  Your reply # 12 clearly indicates your belief in God and #s 1 & 13 that God must be an alien from a technologically advanced race.  This of course eliminates other possibilities such as God may just be a fictional character.