advanced aliens or ancient humans?

[Alienated Being]

Not if they're working on the development of said apes and some members of their society specialize in that sort of thing. If they knew they wouldn't be back for a while it makes sense that they would leave us things to let us know they had been here and will return. If it's all for real I wonder if they expected that people of the future would deny their existence, or continue to appreciate the structures and texts honoring their existence and their influence on this planet.

Those are baseless, unsubstantiated assumptions. There's no morsel of evidence available to suggest that extraterrestrials were involved in the creation of such structures. None whatsoever. All that we have are paintings and purported writings that are misinterpreted by those who want to believe in such nonsense.

[Mallaliak]

Are you still trying to pretend there is no mention of xts in ancient texts? There are lots of references to them and their flying vehicles in Indian texts thousands of years old, and it's very common knowledge that there are:

====================================================================

There are reference to flying machines in the temple carvings and in the ancient writings.

There are also references to people returning from the dead, monsters that would literally devour the sun, eight legged horses and so on.

The images found on the ceiling beams of a 3000-year old New Kingdom Temple, located several hundred miles south of Cairo and the Giza Plateau, at Abydos resembles modern day Aircrafts.

So while Ancient Aliens theory claims they are supposed to aircrafts and so on, more reasonable sources (mentioned on this forum, someone will probally know where to dig out the correct links) as normal old script, where a new script has been carved into it over the old one.

Reference to ancient Indian flying vehicles comes from ancient Indian sources, many are the well known ancient Indian Epics, and there are literally hundreds of them. Most of them have not even been translated into English yet from the old sanskrit.

Highly amusing that the only time people seem to come into contact with these so called flying vechicles is from ET/UFO theories and shows, but not during religious education about hinduism.

It is claimed that a few years ago, the Chinese discovered some sanskrit documents in Lhasa, Tibet and sent them to the University of Chandrigarh to be translated. Dr. Ruth Reyna of the University said recently that the documents contain directions for building interstellar spaceships!

Their method of propulsion, she said, was "anti-gravitational" and was based upon a system analogous to that of "laghima," the unknown power of the ego existing in man’s physiological makeup, "a centrifugal force strong enough to counteract all gravitational pull."

. . .

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vimanas/esp_vimanas_9.htm

====================================================================

Peculiar. After twenty minutes on google, skimming through various searches on this Dr. Ruth Reyna, I do wonder. Is this person real? I can't find anything of the person, NOR the actual university by this name. There are some claims that tries to explain it is infact "University of Panjab" but why not say so right away?

Nearly every Hindu and Buddhist in the world - hundreds of millions of people has heard of the ancient flying machines referred to in the Ramayana and other texts as vimanas.

Vimanas are mentioned even today in standard Indian literature and media reports. An article called “Flight Path” by the Indian journalist Mukul Sharma appeared in the major newspaper The Times of India on April 8, 1999 which talked about vimanas and ancient warfare: according to some interpretations of surviving texts, India’s future it seems happened way back in the past. Take the case of the Yantra Sarvasva, said to have been written by the sage Maharshi Bhardwaj.

Still this is something I have never encountered mention to be the knowledge of a person of hindu or buddhism faith. Random people online, yes. Wackjobs on History Channel, yes. Obvious UFO fanatics, yes. Someone that seems unbiased? No.

But I guess a bunch of text means nothing to you, since you don't seem to believe people can learn new concepts in any ways other than learning about them in movies.

Yes, I did cut things short, I got a bit lazy.

But to be frank. Are you capable of finding and providing NON-biased sources which just sounds like a repeat of Ancient Aliens from History channel? And don't go and try to argue that those links of yours are not biased, becouse even the domain names pretty much gives it all away that they will be.

Credability is important when presenting materials, and if you fail at it, you have a problem. Good reason why say Erich von Däniken got none, seeing he published a book, owned a THEME PARK on the matter and now makes a tv show on History Channel with the purpose of attracting ratings and that's it.

[S2F]

Those are baseless, unsubstantiated assumptions. There's no morsel of evidence available to suggest that extraterrestrials were involved in the creation of such structures. None whatsoever. All that we have are paintings and purported writings that are misinterpreted by those who want to believe in such nonsense.

I agree. It seems human imagination has trumped human ingenuity again.

[nopeda]

In a way I agree, why would a highly advanced alien civilization come here to build primitive stone structures?

They wanted something that would last, and if those ancient people really couldn't have moved all those huge rocks around and piled them on top of each other etc, then they also did it to show they had been here. I remember laughing when the narrator said something like: 'historians want us to believe humans just out of the stone age were quarrying thousand ton rocks and moving them around'.

[S2F]

They wanted something that would last, and if those ancient people really couldn't have moved all those huge rocks around and piled them on top of each other etc, then they also did it to show they had been here. I remember laughing when the narrator said something like: 'historians want us to believe humans just out of the stone age were quarrying thousand ton rocks and moving them around'.

I take it then that you haven't read any of the myriad threads around UM explaining how it is not only likely but pretty much accepted fact that humans built ancient structures like the pyramids? The 'aliens built *insert favorite structure/technology here*' theories are just uninformed nonsense built around fantasy that have zero basis in fact.

[Myles]

We're discussing references to xts in ancient sacred texts, so find some of that if you can.

Just because a text is ancient, does not mean it should be taken at 100% fact.

[Myles]

They wanted something that would last, and if those ancient people really couldn't have moved all those huge rocks around and piled them on top of each other etc, then they also did it to show they had been here. I remember laughing when the narrator said something like: 'historians want us to believe humans just out of the stone age were quarrying thousand ton rocks and moving them around'.

Why didn't they leave a picture on some good card stock. Or maybe a tablet-type of machine. Maybe put lights on the pyramid. Maybe teach humans how to make toilet paper.

Nope, just stack some rocks. Stack rocks in the same way other humans have done in other parts of the world.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Myles

[Oniomancer]

They wanted something that would last, and if those ancient people really couldn't have moved all those huge rocks around and piled them on top of each other etc, then they also did it to show they had been here. I remember laughing when the narrator said something like: 'historians want us to believe humans just out of the stone age were quarrying thousand ton rocks and moving them around'.

So That's where that came from. I thought maybe cladking made it up himself. I'd laugh too because like I told him, The transition point was over 1000 years before the GP, and that's only in technology, not cultural development, which extends even further back.

[DBunker]

I take it then that you haven't read any of the myriad threads around UM explaining how it is not only likely but pretty much accepted fact that humans built ancient structures like the pyramids? The 'aliens built *insert favorite structure/technology here*' theories are just uninformed nonsense built around fantasy that have zero basis in fact.

This "theory" is just another one of those silly "explanations" put fourth by people that cant understand something..... like the moonlandings and their hoax claims.

[psyche101]

No I do not think that we have used that technology as of yet. Nor will we in the near future. Do you suggest that we are at the peak of our technology? The gods are a Type III civilization--they can harness the energy of our entire galaxy at their disposal.

No, we have not, and of course we are not at the peak of our technology, but that had that got to do with anything? New technology will not alter physics, physics remain the same no mater where you are in the Universe. I canot believe any single source can harness the energy of an entire Galaxy, considering the size of a Galaxy that patently makes absolutely no sense at all. Astronomers estimate that there are 200 billion to 400 billion stars contained within the Milky Way.

[nopeda]

All that we have are paintings and purported writings that are misinterpreted

How should they be interpreted and how do you know?

[S2F]

This "theory" is just another one of those silly "explanations" put fourth by people that cant understand something..... like the moonlandings and their hoax claims.

Absolutely, there are no technological 'gaps' that would be indicators of alien intervention with any ancient culture. If one looks at the entire timeline of a culture, incorporating cultural and technological advances they would see that every 'step' is built on the last and that advancement is easily explained by mundane means (human ingenuity). It is only when significant events are taken out of context that the alien intervention theory can even materialize. Open minded? I think not.

[nopeda]

So while Ancient Aliens theory claims they are supposed to aircrafts and so on, more reasonable sources (mentioned on this forum, someone will probally know where to dig out the correct links) as normal old script, where a new script has been carved into it over the old one.

Is that true in all cases or just some? If just some, which ones was it not done to? Why would anyone do it at all, and when do you think they did it? The very idea that anyone would do it is more absurd than the idea that they were based on truth, imo. So far none of you have provided any good reason why anyone would go to the effort of carving lies into sacred structures or put lies in sacred texts. The idea that they would is imo.

[nopeda]

I take it then that you haven't read any of the myriad threads around UM explaining how it is not only likely but pretty much accepted fact that humans built ancient structures like the pyramids? The 'aliens built *insert favorite structure/technology here*' theories are just uninformed nonsense built around fantasy that have zero basis in fact.

I had faith that possibility was the correct one up until recently and still consider that it may be, but now I'm leaning more toward the other possibility with all the evidence there is for it and the fact that there's no reason why it couldn't be correct.

[Alienated Being]

I had faith that possibility was the correct one up until recently and still consider that it may be, but now I'm leaning more toward the other possibility with all the evidence there is for it and the fact that there's no reason why it couldn't be correct.

Just because it's "evidence" for you, that doesn't indicate that it is logically sound evidence in the name of reason and science. The way you perceive evidence equates to how a psychologically delusive individual believes that voices in his head are coming from Jesus.

[nopeda]

Why didn't they leave a picture on some good card stock. Or maybe a tablet-type of machine. Maybe put lights on the pyramid. Maybe teach humans how to make toilet paper.

Nope, just stack some rocks. Stack rocks in the same way other humans have done in other parts of the world.

Maybe you think they emailed diagrams to each other so they could make similar things like pyramids and make up similar stories about beings coming down from the sky, just to try to fool people in the future. Why would they though? And do you really think they had email back then? Or do you think they had some other way(s) of getting in touch with each other to set up the gag?

[Alienated Being]

How should they be interpreted and how do you know?

I don't know with 100% certainty, but I certainly would not take such a giant leap and make ridiculously illogical claims. I am honestly starting to feel like I am arguing with a creationist.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Alienated Being

[S2F]

...but now I'm leaning more toward the other possibility with all the evidence there is for it and the fact that there's no reason why it couldn't be correct.

Conversely I would ask why humans building structures themselves couldn't be correct? As I said, there is a fairly good indication that ancient cultures progressed at a reasonable technological rate. There are no unexplainable leaps of technology present in any ancient culture that I have ever been made aware of.

[nopeda]

It is only when significant events are taken out of context that the alien intervention theory can even materialize.

Unless they did have something to do with it, in which case that would not be taking them out of context. Like the fact that humans had almost no advancement for the first 190 thousand years of their existence. They lived almost as the animals do. Then all of a sudden, for either no reason or a significant reason they started growing crops and building cities. A hundred and ninety thousand years of being animals and then all of a sudden they turned into humans. Is it any more likely that that just happened to happen for no specific reason, than that it happened because it was a plan by other beings? Not to me it's not. It seems more likely that if nothing came along to change things significantly humans would still be living like animals for the past 10 thousand years as they had for the previous 190 thousand years, if they still existed.

[nopeda]

No, we have not, and of course we are not at the peak of our technology, but that had that got to do with anything? New technology will not alter physics, physics remain the same no mater where you are in the Universe. I canot believe any single source can harness the energy of an entire Galaxy, considering the size of a Galaxy that patently makes absolutely no sense at all.

It depends on how you interpret it. If you interpret it that they can make vehicles that are capable of capturing and using all the electromagnetic radiation that comes in contact with them then in that sense they are harnessing a good bit of it. What movie is that from?

Astronomers estimate that there are 200 billion to 400 billion stars contained within the Milky Way.

And even so you still believe there could be no beings in any of those systems that are good at space travel. Hmmm...

[nopeda]

Just because it's "evidence" for you, that doesn't indicate that it is logically sound evidence in the name of reason and science. The way you perceive evidence equates to how a psychologically delusive individual believes that voices in his head are coming from Jesus.

Some of these depict air vehicles imo:

http://is.gd/qnLzWd

regardless of who made them and when. If they were somehow made 2 million years ago they would still depict air vehicles imo.

[S2F]

Unless they did have something to do with it, in which case that would not be taking them out of context. Like the fact that humans had almost no advancement for the first 190 thousand years of their existence. They lived almost as the animals do. Then all of a sudden, for either no reason or a significant reason they started growing crops and building cities. A hundred and ninety thousand years of being animals and then all of a sudden they turned into humans. Is it any more likely that that just happened to happen for no specific reason, than that it happened because it was a plan by other beings? Not to me it's not. It seems more likely that if nothing came along to change things significantly humans would still be living like animals for the past 10 thousand years as they had for the previous 190 thousand years, if they still existed.

So not only do you disregard human ingenuity regarding ancient structures or the limitations of physics regarding space travel but you throw biological evolution out the window too? How far are you going to go to chase this theory of yours? Which modern theory are you going to sacrifice next? Let me guess, any one that doesn't conform to your ideas? How is that objective or open minded?

[Alienated Being]

Some of these depict air vehicles imo:

http://is.gd/qnLzWd

regardless of who made them and when. If they were somehow made 2 million years ago they would still depict air vehicles imo.

Exactly, in YOUR opinion... Your opinion does not necessarily equate to logic.

They bear resemblance to air vehicles, however, that doesn't indicate that they were modeled from air vehicles. Perhaps they were loosely modeled based off of birds?

Edited April 10, 2012 by Alienated Being

[nopeda]

I am honestly starting to feel like I am arguing with a creationist.

Here's a list of things I wrote about considering the possibility of God's existence in a realistic way, and this was written while I was still convinced that xts were not coming around:

_________________________________________________________

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.

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Now that I do consider the possibility of them coming around it all ties together

[nopeda]

So not only do you disregard human ingenuity regarding ancient structures or the limitations of physics regarding space travel but you throw biological evolution out the window too?

We know humans built plenty of structures. What's in question is if xts either built any or helped humans build any. I've never believed that the speed of light in vacuum just happens to be as fast as anything can go, especially since no one can give an acceptable explanation as to relative to what. I believe evolution has occurred naturally plenty of times. What's in question is whether or not xts have influenced any of it. We know humans have.