[innerverse]

First of all, hi to everyone as this is my first topic in this (well-organized and interesting) forum!
Secondly, the topic that i would like to address here is about ancient cosmonaut theory in general, not so much in specific details about the specific ruins, artifacts etc. found but rather in a general kind point of view, (or a top-down analysis if you prefer).
Having red many books on the subject from many well-known writers of this kind (sitchin, VonDaineken, Temple, ect.) the matter that always held me to the ground and made me more of a skeptic (not that i consider myself a skeptic in general) about this theory, was the lack of evidence of really advanced civilization relics found anywhere in the earth. We surely have many profoundly amazing STONE structures, we uncovered many STONE relics that show an advanced concept of mechanics for it's time. But, if there were beings that traveled the skies and landed on the earth how is it that we have yet to find any trace of some-kind of industrialized or mechanical ruins not based on STONE, which is the prime material ancient civilizations here on earth used? Why do we need to give alternative meanings or theories for ruins or other areas (such as the nazca lines) and how come we don't expect to find some kind of technologically-advanced artifact there, in order to prove this theory to anyone beyond doubt? In other words, why do we need some much use of imagination for this theory rather real evidence, whereas if this theory really took place we should be able to find evidence undeniable to anyone? My personal belief is that this theory is really open-minded but in certain direction whereas other implications that come with this theory are answered in a very close-minded way...
Feel free to comment, believers and skeptics alike but as i said at the beginning let's try to view things from a distance without getting stuck in the details.

[KennyB]

innerverse, You say you don't want details of the alien's presence, but actually, that's what's you're asking for. Absolute, undeniable PROOF!! That's the same thing ALL the sceptics want. I'm a believer, but I'd like to see that kind of proof, myself. KennyB

[innerverse]

KennyB, on 03 November 2009 - 09:39 PM, said:

innerverse, You say you don't want details of the alien's presence, but actually, that's what's you're asking for. Absolute, undeniable PROOF!! That's the same thing ALL the skeptics want. I'm a believer, but I'd like to see that kind of proof, myself. KennyB

Hey kennyB, i think you misunderstood me, what i meant is that i don't want to discuss about the details of specific monuments, for example the stone techniques ancient people used and from there extract the notion that they must have been aided by aliens, rather discuss the absence of alien materials and artifacts.

[danydandan]

innerverse, on 03 November 2009 - 07:53 PM, said:

Hey kennyB, i think you misunderstood me, what i meant is that i don't want to discuss about the details of specific monuments, for example the stone techniques ancient people used and from there extract the notion that they must have been aided by aliens, rather discuss the absence of alien materials and artifacts.

This thread smells of Kenny , I thought to myself he,d be the first one to answer you

Anyway the absence of alien materials and artifacts speak for itself does,nt it
I always thought that more excavation work needed to be done in places like England and Ireland . But that hasmore to do with evolution not little green men
There is people who will tell you that the Inca lines were done for aliens, But the fact is you can clearly make then out from near by mountains.
And there is people like my good mate Kenny here who will tell that there is a man who can prove the alien intervention

[Harte]

Welcome to the forum, Innerverse.

A voice of reason, such as you have demonstrated, is always a welcome thing. Especially to myself and a few others around here.

We'll let you know when it's your turn to beat your head against the wall of self-imposed ignorance that many members here demand the right to maintain.

Harte

[danydandan]

He could start now
Get a head start

[KennyB]

innerverse, Well, if you want to deny as evidence the myths, the megaliths, the intricate stone work, the clay tablets, the cylinder seals, etc, then there is no evidence for the aliens. That would make the alien astronaut theory faith-based like all the religions in the world, including the theory of evolution. KennyB

[innerverse]

KennyB, on 03 November 2009 - 11:12 PM, said:

innerverse, Well, if you want to deny as evidence the myths, the megaliths, the intricate stone work, the clay tablets, the cylinder seals, etc, then there is no evidence for the aliens. That would make the alien astronaut theory faith-based like all the religions in the world, including the theory of evolution. KennyB

Fair point, though as you said yourself, it lacks the evidence of a scientific theory (i might myself also consider the theory of evolution as faith-based or let's say "in dire need of more evidence"), yet is proposed as such one. (Also the fact that is faith-based drives people away from rational thinking, take for example the ica stones.) Something also that we have to consider, is that the discovery of one single ancient alien artifact could literally turn things upside down. For me, one possible explanation that can be linked to cover the hole of the theory is modern ufo sighting (and maybe ufo sightings from ancient times), of course not as a fact, rather as a hypothesis.

@Harte and danydandan thanks for the welcoming! Also, be assured that i will understand any self-imposed ignorance (it comes too loud across the room doesn't it? ) That's why i gave a more general title to this topic.

[KennyB]

innerverse, There's no lack of evidence of the Aliens. There's just a lack of credit being given to the evidence. You know how an official disinformation project is run as well as I do. Take a look at how all the UFO evidence has been mistreated for 50 plus years. If you were to unearth an alien saucer complete with bodies, it would never be seen on the news and you'd be lucky to escape with your life. It would be the same with any artifact that showed absolute proof that aliens had been here. For instance, in Gisa, there is a huge pile of stone that nobody really knows when it was built, by whom or it's purpose. Certain clay tablets left by an ancient civilization says that pile of rocks was built by the aliens as a navigation beacon. That is #999 on a list of 1000 things that is officially listed as the origin and purpose of that pile of rocks. KB

[Harte]

KennyB, on 03 November 2009 - 08:10 PM, said:

Certain clay tablets left by an ancient civilization says that pile of rocks was built by the aliens as a navigation beacon.

That, dear readers, is simply a lie told by a poster too lazy and too completely lacking in curiosity to even make the slightest effort to discover a single fact concerning the subject upon which he wishes to appear knowledgeable.

Harte

[Mattshark]

innerverse, on 04 November 2009 - 01:43 AM, said:

(i might myself also consider the theory of evolution as faith-based or let's say "in dire need of more evidence")

You shouldn't it's about the most evidenced and strongest scientific theory there is.

This post has been edited by Mattshark: 04 November 2009 - 02:09 PM

[Emma_Acid]

innerverse, on 04 November 2009 - 01:43 AM, said:

i might myself also consider the theory of evolution as faith-based or let's say "in dire need of more evidence").

Then I'm afraid you know nothing about evolution, and little about science in general.

[innerverse]

Mattshark, on 04 November 2009 - 03:31 PM, said:

You shouldn't it about the most evidenced and strongest scientific theory there is.

I should clarify here, without making my point link-debated (as we're gonna get lost in the references), that the opinion that i know have of evolution is that it is the result of the interaction of consciousness with matter (or with form in general). Which means, that it allows Darwin's theory of random genetic mutations in it as a step-by-step evolution, but also integrates the term of the one "consciousness" (no need to put the word "god" here) behind all living beings as an intelligent factor or as a directional mosaic for possible future "mutations", giving the ability for a being to "transform" it self within a smaller time period than the one estimated with Darwin's general theory (There are many examples here, but i will leave as it is, as we will probably get off topic). If you resist the term "consciousness" or "higher intelligence" in there, you could also replace it with the scientific term used in modern cosmology of "THE ΑNTHROPIC PRINCIPLE". So for me, Darwin's theory is not WRONG, rather incomplete.

Emma_Acid, on 04 November 2009 - 04:04 PM, said:

Then I'm afraid you know nothing about evolution, and little about science in general.

And I'm afraid that your clairvoyance abilities failed you here.

This post has been edited by innerverse: 04 November 2009 - 02:27 PM

[FurthurBB]

KennyB, on 03 November 2009 - 10:12 PM, said:

innerverse, Well, if you want to deny as evidence the myths, the megaliths, the intricate stone work, the clay tablets, the cylinder seals, etc, then there is no evidence for the aliens. That would make the alien astronaut theory faith-based like all the religions in the world, including the theory of evolution. KennyB

I will agree that the theory of evolution is faith based when the alien astronaut theory (or any religion) makes predictions that lead to a single great discovery.

[Emma_Acid]

innerverse, on 04 November 2009 - 02:17 PM, said:

And I'm afraid that your clairvoyance abilities failed you here.

If you knew anything about it, you'd know that:

evolution is an observed fact, and one of the best understood area of any science;

and

evolution is already backed up my mountains of evidence - if it wasn't, it couldn't be considered as a scientific theory.