Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 7 votes

The Ancient Alien Theory Is True


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
10148 replies to this topic

#241    nopeda

nopeda

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 878 posts
  • Joined:07 Mar 2012

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:23 PM

View PostAtentutankh-pasheri, on 21 November 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

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.
I'm aware that humans are animals and pointed out that they behaved like animals for the vast majority of their existence and then suddenly changed greatly. Accepting those facts is the starting line. Can you get that far? Or is it too far for you to get?


#242    nopeda

nopeda

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 878 posts
  • Joined:07 Mar 2012

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:26 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 21 November 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

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.
. . .
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/
Thanks for the info.


#243    nopeda

nopeda

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 878 posts
  • Joined:07 Mar 2012

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:27 PM

View PostQuaentum, 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
Absolutely you will or I'll be left to believe you're just being dishonest. I've seen that trick attempted countless times. I've never seen it work, like it's not working for you now, but I've sure seen it attempted plenty of times.


#244    nopeda

nopeda

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 878 posts
  • Joined:07 Mar 2012

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:29 PM

View PostQuaentum, on 21 November 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

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.
Humans haven't even traveled to the closest planet, so the farthest star wasn't worth mentioning. Humans suck at space travel but that doesn't mean all beings in the universe do. By now it seems way more likely to me that other beings could have been to Earth than that they could not have, even if none have actually ever come here. But I don't put faith in the idea that they haven't been here, much less that they COULD NOT have.


#245    nopeda

nopeda

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 878 posts
  • Joined:07 Mar 2012

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:32 PM

View PostQuaentum, on 21 November 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

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.  
In contrast to that he would have to be. You haven't gotten to the starting line yet. Are you capable? If so, will you ever get there? If so, when?? What would it take to get you there??? We never find things like that out it seems.


#246    nopeda

nopeda

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 878 posts
  • Joined:07 Mar 2012

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:34 PM

View PostQuaentum, on 21 November 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

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.
. . .
Love the contradiction.
I'm confident enough I didn't contradict myself that I'm not going to search out what I said hadn't been answered, and I also will take it for granted that whatever it was still hasn't been answered unless you provide reason to believe otherwise.

You won't be able to appreciate this aspect, but since this is the starting line for time travel I'll mention it again. All of the matter in the universe is in the condition and positions it's in NOW because of changes it has gone through. It's not like on a tape where the images remain unchanged on different portions of the tape. The matter doesn't exist as it does "somewhere else" because there is no somewhere else for it to exist. And even if it did you'd still have to get there, but there is no "there" to get to. I understand the concept, and the fact that two objects can't occupy the same space. What you're suggesting is that infinite objects can occupy the same space. There's no point pretending that it can. But since apparently you do possibly to the point of even believing it, it seem unlikely you'll ever get to the starting line with this one. It's sad to see people in that position, and even sadder :( that they never seem able to move beyond it.


#247    nopeda

nopeda

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 878 posts
  • Joined:07 Mar 2012

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:37 PM

View PostQuaentum, on 21 November 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

Quote

nopeda, on 20 November 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:
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.
You don't want visitors sh*ting on the floor, but you provide a bathroom. It only seems right that if you're creating forums you should have one or two where people can say what they want without forced infringment on how they express themselves. If you don't give a *h** how the **c* someone else expresses him/her self then you can have a lot more open discussions with people. Maybe one reason there are so few people who consider the possibility of other beings, God or gods having been around this planet is because they're often more open minded and don't like to be restricted, while those who cling to the one possibility (which is that they've never been here in any way) feel more comfortable with the restrictions. That's quite possibly a significant part of it, now that we mention it.


#248    nopeda

nopeda

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 878 posts
  • Joined:07 Mar 2012

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:40 PM

View PostNuke_em, on 21 November 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

Word alien does not always link to little green man, god if existed would be alien in every aspect possible
. . .
Edit; my bad didn't read that part " as you conceive them to be " ..
If God exists and is not from Earth then he's an alien to us. It's surprising how many people have a problem with that, especially since none of them can explain how it could possibly be different.

As for how I conceive xts to be, that person has no clue at all. He has no conception of them himself afaik, much less does he know how many possibilities I consider or what they are. I doubt they would be restricted entirely to any body they would come to Earth in though, but instead would use remotely controlled biological robotic type drones or something, and can probably make them appear pretty much any way they want them to. That would be my guess, and of course it goes on beyond that.


#249    nopeda

nopeda

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 878 posts
  • Joined:07 Mar 2012

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:41 PM

View PostQuaentum, on 21 November 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

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.
I consider the possibility that God does not exist and that no xts have ever been to this planet. But I don't dwell ONLY on those two possibilities. In fact there's no reason to go on about them at all unless that's all you've got, and that's all you appear to have. Very few people in this forum appear able to consider the possibility of such beings in realistic ways, yourself included. For example you seem to believe that if God exists he could somehow be something other than an alien, but I feel certain you can't give a realistic example of what else he could possibly be if he exists. If he doesn't exist he doesn't, but if he does he would have to be an alien unless you can say what else you think he could be.


#250    nopeda

nopeda

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 878 posts
  • Joined:07 Mar 2012

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:44 PM

View PostNuke_em, on 21 November 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

According to the revered Indian Vedas Sanskrit writings, vimanas were flying machines. The word vimana is still used today in the modern Indian language to refer to aircraft.
While most vimanas were used for transportation through the atmosphere, some were described as being used to travel into space while others were a form of limited submarine.
Just like modern aircraft, the vimanas had various configurations and sizes depending on what they were designed to accomplish. Some had two engines, like the agnihotra-vimana; others, like the gaja-vimana, had more. In all there may have been as many as a dozen different types of vimanas all designed for different purposes. Most of them flew.
From my pov it's hard to believe the writers just made it all up and put it in their sacred writings for other people to read. Close to impossible to believe, actually.


#251    nopeda

nopeda

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 878 posts
  • Joined:07 Mar 2012

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:47 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 22 November 2012 - 01:28 AM, said:

If the above could fly, I propose that it would have been done by now.
My impression has been that they did fly and were made and flown by xts who are now outa here. Rumor has it they'll be back though. You can't realistically consider that though can you? You can believe they could come for the first time, right? But not for the second time, or the third, or the hundred thousandth...


#252    nopeda

nopeda

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 878 posts
  • Joined:07 Mar 2012

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:49 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 22 November 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

Ohh yeah, it is only the Illuminati keeping the speed if light restricted to 186,282 mps...
What do you think DOES restrict it? And what do you think bumps it up when it needs that? It probably needs to be increased about as often as it needs to be slowed down, so...? Oh yeah, and don't forget to explain why the velocity is adjusted but the frequency is not.


#253    nopeda

nopeda

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 878 posts
  • Joined:07 Mar 2012

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:56 PM

View PostWearer of Hats, on 21 November 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

the God to which Nopeda is eferring appears to be the Judeo-Christian one, and as such there is only one "primary" source for information, the Bible (and the Torah etc) all other sources referring to this deity refer to him via that source (ie chruches etc).
The Koran says specifically that their God and those of the people of the book are the same. And from my pov:

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.

which doesn't mean there can't be more than one being associated with the project but they work together as a group, possibly against another group thought of as Satan's or reptilian or whatever. Somehow it all ties together and includes the majority of if not all religions imo.


#254    nopeda

nopeda

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 878 posts
  • Joined:07 Mar 2012

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:59 PM

View PostNuke_em, on 21 November 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

One thing still puzzles me about this AA show, when i was watching it back then, in one episode they showed alot of pictures, old in origin, but they all had one thing in common they all had pictures of flying machines i'll try to find that episode.
They've made a nice solid case about how people pictured something in the sky i guess, But they didn't understand the basic of mechanics even less the basics of flight... so why would they draw those??
This page gives a pretty good explanation of some of it:

http://ancientaliens...in-ancient-art/

But even so, they were included to represent beings who could fly and who were not from this planet, meaning aliens. So were the huge structures built of hundred ton rocks etc...all done to honor xts, afaik. And if not all, certainly the vast majority were. And all for no reason? :huh: That seems the most unlikely "possibility" of them all, from my pov. BTW the page debunks the medieval paintings about Jesus etc, but didn't say anything about the paintings of flying objects fighting each other, with all the circles and lines and whatever...

Edited by nopeda, 22 November 2012 - 07:00 PM.


#255    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012

Posted 22 November 2012 - 08:55 PM

View Postnopeda, on 22 November 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

I'm aware that humans are animals and pointed out that they behaved like animals for the vast majority of their existence and then suddenly changed greatly. Accepting those facts is the starting line. Can you get that far? Or is it too far for you to get?
What evidence is there to say humans have behaved like animals for vast majority of our existence? What do you mean by human? homo sapiens presumably, if so, then look up what  sapiens means. There is now plenty of evidence Neanderthals were not "beastial", and likely neither was homo erectus. Almost seems you want us to have been brainless savages needing to be saved by ET. Do you believe in evolution?