badeskov Posted October 20, 2012 #76 Share Posted October 20, 2012 What makes you right about that and all these other people like Oberth and von Braun wrong? How can you be so sure? I didn't say I was right, I stated what I believe. That may be right or wrong, but so far I have not seen that tangible piece of evidence proving me wrong. Cheers, Badeskov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted October 20, 2012 #77 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Remember that Space Is Really Big ! Mind Boggling Big ! and Getting Bigger in my opinion ! So E.T could actually be out there .To of Seen a couple I would say that E.T also knows just how big it is ! ANd were of no interest to them ! They got bigger Fish to Fry ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted October 20, 2012 #78 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Have you ever heard of Walther Riedel? You should look him up sometime if you haven't. Hint, hint.... "The fact that they can hover and accelerate away from the earth's gravity again and even revolve around a V-2 in America (as reported by their head scientist) shows that they are far ahead of us." Lord Louis Mountbatten, 1950 Hint, hint.... Von Braun was the "head scientist" who told him that, and he knew plenty more about UFOs besides..... Here's another hint. When Edward Ruppelt visited Los Alamos in 1952, the scientists told him something interesting about UFOs. They had also figured out a way to detect them even when they weren't visible. So had the scientists at Oak Ridge, which was getting a lot of visits from UFOs at the time. Among other things, they knew that UFOs caused a jump in radiation at least 100 times above the normal background level, or at least some of them did. This is science fact I'm telling you, ladies and gentleman, not science fiction, and they knew it even in the 1950s. With all of these "hints" I'm compelled to wonder if this is supposed to be some kind of scavenger hunt. I'm really not interested in going on a scavenger hunt. If you could just come out and say what you are intending to say, it would help to speed along a coherent conversation. Dr. Robert Baker told Congress in 1968 about very high-flying UFOs detected on radar: "The system is partially classified and, hence, I cannot go into great detail... Since this particular sensor system has been in operation, there have been a number of anomalistic alarms. Alarms that, as of this date, have not been explained on the basis of natural phenomena interference, equipment malfunction or inadequacy, or man-made space objects." I regard this as old business, though, since it was already known as early as 1946, if not before, that there were things flying around 100 or 200 miles up that just should not have been there. But there they were. Only the obtuse or the misinformed were not aware of all this long ago. "They are flying by means of artificial fields of gravity... They produce high-tension electric charges in order to push the air out of their paths, so it does not start glowing, and strong magnetic fields to influence the ionized air at higher altitudes. First, this would explain their luminosity... Secondly, it would explain the noiselessness of UFO flight... Finally, this assumption also explains the strong electrical and magnetic effects sometimes, though not always, observed in the vicinity of UFOs." Dr. Hermann Oberth, 1962 More old news. Dr. Oberth also knew that UFOs could move very fast when they wanted to--up to speeds of 19 kilometers per second--and that this had been measured dozens of times. That is 11.4 miles per SECOND--over 40,000 miles per hour. Not science fiction. Okay, and this is compelling evidence for ET visitation how exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted October 20, 2012 #79 Share Posted October 20, 2012 You'd say the exact same thing regardless of what I said, but you must by now that realize I do know about these things. So did they. Oberth headed the UFO investigation in West Germany for example, and stated in 1954: "There is no doubt in my mind that these objects (UFO's) are interplanetary craft of some sort. I am confident that they do not originate in our solar system, but they may use Mars or some other body for a way station. It is also our conclusion that they are propelled by distorting or converting the gravitational field." How did he know that? That's the more important question, Boon, since all of them knew that the ETs were here. You won't find one of those big-time German scientists who did not know it. http://www.nationalu...article_440.php the Herr doktor's thinking seems to be largely in line with mine on the matter, I think; both as regards the method of propulsion and the way that using a forward operating base would be much more sensible than coming directly through the vast distances of space. Some people seem to always dismiss that idea out of hand; I've never been sure why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 20, 2012 #80 Share Posted October 20, 2012 With all of these "hints" I'm compelled to wonder if this is supposed to be some kind of scavenger hunt. Of course it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted October 20, 2012 #81 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Of course it is. If you could just come out and say what you are intending to say, it would help to speed along a coherent conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 20, 2012 #82 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I gave you some good advice, but you don't have to take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted October 20, 2012 #83 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I gave you some good advice, but you don't have to take it. And what advice is that exactly? Look up old news which isn't any more compelling today than it was when the original speculations were put forth back in the 50s? That's all these scientists were doing when they mention ET in relation to the phenomenon; speculating. There's nothing wrong with that, but you appear to be attempting to add more weight to this than is actually there. When you suggest that they "knew" that these UFOs were alien in origin, it's simply false. They "knew" no such thing, and neither does anyone else that I'm aware of. A lot of people strongly believe this to be the case, and many of them characterize this strong belief inaccurately with the word "knowing," but it still boils down to strong belief in the end; no matter how much the claimants may say otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 20, 2012 #84 Share Posted October 20, 2012 And what advice is that exactly? Look up old news which isn't any more compelling today than it was when the original speculations were put forth back in the 50s? That's all these scientists were doing when they mention ET in relation to the phenomenon; speculating. There's nothing wrong with that, but you appear to be attempting to add more weight to this than is actually there. When you suggest that they "knew" that these UFOs were alien in origin, it's simply false. They "knew" no such thing, and neither does anyone else that I'm aware of. A lot of people strongly believe this to be the case, and many of them characterize this strong belief inaccurately with the word "knowing," but it still boils down to strong belief in the end; no matter how much the claimants may say otherwise. Semantics. Why are you so sure about what they knew? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted October 20, 2012 #85 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Semantics. Why are you so sure about what they knew? Point taken, I'm now guilty of the same unsubstantiated characterization that you were. I retract anything that might give the impression that I am sure about what they knew or didn't know. Instead, I'll restate it as follows... From the information that I've reviewed it appears to me as though these men were merely speculating when they made mention of ET in relation to the UFO phenomenon. I have not yet seen any compelling reason to believe that any of them actually "knew" what you have claimed they "knew." Better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 20, 2012 #86 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Point taken, I'm now guilty of the same unsubstantiated characterization that you were. I retract anything that might give the impression that I am sure about what they knew or didn't know. Instead, I'll restate it as follows... From the information that I've reviewed it appears to me as though these men were merely speculating when they made mention of ET in relation to the UFO phenomenon. I have not yet seen any compelling reason to believe that any of them actually "knew" what you have claimed they "knew." Better? Yes, it would be far more accurate to say that you don't believe they knew, but they were certainly in a position to know plenty, including information about UFOs that had crashed or been shot down. Lord Mounbatten knew all about that, while Oberth said openly that they had been "helped" by people from other worlds. They were just revealing some information about what these things were, how extremely fast they were, how they detected them and so on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 20, 2012 #87 Share Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) Just trying to hold you to your own standards here, Boon, since you basically don't believe what these people are saying about ETs and all that. They are saying that they did know something about ETs, and you are replying that they haven't convinced you. You want physical evidence and things like that. All right. Lord Mounbatten did indeed say that he was aware of such evidence and that the aliens were small humanoids. I don't KNOW exactly how he was aware of that, but it may very well have been through his high-level military contacts. That would be my best guess, but I don't know. All these old records and statements from the 1940s and 1950s, which are actually a lot better than anything we have from more recent times, are the key to the whole UFO issue. Edited October 20, 2012 by TheMacGuffin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regeneratia Posted October 20, 2012 #88 Share Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) Personal experience. And it isn't a belief. It is a knowing. I KNOW. Belief has nothing to do with it. As I have said before, now it is wheather you KNOW there are other beings not of this time, dimension, and this planet,... or whether you don't know that there are other beings not of this time, dimension, or planet. Belief has been left behind, into an out-dated file that is no longer pertinent nor useful. Edited October 20, 2012 by regeneratia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Unicorn Posted October 20, 2012 #89 Share Posted October 20, 2012 And what advice is that exactly? Look up old news which isn't any more compelling today than it was when the original speculations were put forth back in the 50s? That's all these scientists were doing when they mention ET in relation to the phenomenon; speculating. There's nothing wrong with that, but you appear to be attempting to add more weight to this than is actually there. When you suggest that they "knew" that these UFOs were alien in origin, it's simply false. They "knew" no such thing, and neither does anyone else that I'm aware of. A lot of people strongly believe this to be the case, and many of them characterize this strong belief inaccurately with the word "knowing," but it still boils down to strong belief in the end; no matter how much the claimants may say otherwise. I think when the MacGuffin says there is a scavenger hunt etc. It concerns old declassified material as well as a few old stories that were originally brushed aside by mainstream for various reasons. There are old military reports that say certain cases were "known" to be of "alien" as well as "intellegent" originations. These cases where then studied by other groups within defense. The names of the project group names were blacked out on released documents some 50 years later. Now being from the cold war period they could have meant Soviet but now that we KNOW the Soviets weren't that far ahead in technology. So what was the "alien technology" referring if it wasn't us or them? That remains a good question for the UFO buffs trying to form their own speculation on the subject. Nothing wrong with speculation as long as you don't present it as fact. Some people may say KNOW because they have a certain piece of the puzzle. Ask them why they think they know and move on if you're interested in the subject. The only part of the subject I find interesting is why some of the really old cases, when the whole documents should be declassified they are not. Tells me something else may still be going on if they can't declassify whole documents that are really old. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted October 20, 2012 #90 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I think when the MacGuffin says there is a scavenger hunt etc. It concerns old declassified material as well as a few old stories that were originally brushed aside by mainstream for various reasons. There are old military reports that say certain cases were "known" to be of "alien" as well as "intellegent" originations. These cases where then studied by other groups within defense. The names of the project group names were blacked out on released documents some 50 years later. Now being from the cold war period they could have meant Soviet but now that we KNOW the Soviets weren't that far ahead in technology. So what was the "alien technology" referring if it wasn't us or them? That remains a good question for the UFO buffs trying to form their own speculation on the subject. Nothing wrong with speculation as long as you don't present it as fact. Some people may say KNOW because they have a certain piece of the puzzle. Ask them why they think they know and move on if you're interested in the subject. The only part of the subject I find interesting is why some of the really old cases, when the whole documents should be declassified they are not. Tells me something else may still be going on if they can't declassify whole documents that are really old. Yes, I know. I do understand what he is talking about and I understand what he and many others are under the impression this indicates. I've gone through a lot of those materials myself as well. Probably not all of them, but quite a few. I just don't agree that such documents and statements from antiquity are as substantial as many make them out to be. In order to accept them for more than what they actually are, one must fall victim to some kind of logical fallacy. As a case in point, you've kind of created a false dichotomy right here. You've basically come out and said that if these UFOs didn't belong to the soviets or to us (man made on the one side) then they must be alien (ET on the other side). I know you didn't use those words exactly, but that seems to be basically what you're implying. Forgive me if I'm wrong about that, and even if that wasn't your intention there are many who have looked at the problem with this exact limiting point of view. Why must the phenomena be in one of these two categories? It seems to me that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of possible explanations for UFOs. What about natural phenomena like plasma, clouds, and other atmospheric anomalies? What about simple misidentification of anything from conventional aircraft, to birds, to insects, to reflections, to rockets, to temperature inversions, to (yes) balloons, to (yep) kites, to stars or planets, etc etc etc...? What about hoaxes? What about top secret test aircraft? All of the above have in point of fact been pointed to and labeled UFO, some have been confirmed, some have not. With that said, could ET also be an answer for some of these sightings? Sure, it's definitely within the realm of possibility; but so far there has been absolutely nothing brought to the table which I'm aware of that can be used to draw this as a definite conclusion. Not today, not yesterday, not last year, and not 50 years ago. There are a lot of people who say that there is, but for some reason those claims just never survive scrutiny. Some of them remain unknowns, heck a lot of them do, but that still doesn't mean that ET is the right answer. Maybe tomorrow? I'm completely open to the possibility, but I'm not about to accept this as reality without some kind of verifiable confirmation. I value the importance of the subject too highly, and as a result I refuse to dishonor the subject by accepting anything less than the best from it. To naively believe that the inadequate evidence available is substantial enough to reach an ET conclusion is to treat the phenomenon itself irreverently. That's all I'm saying. With all due respect. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Dave Posted October 20, 2012 #91 Share Posted October 20, 2012 It's a good question, and I don't have an answer. I don't know what he saw. The article suggests that all he based this conclusion on was "three years of studying the information supplied by his own and other governments," but it doesn't go into detail about what this information consisted of. Hmmm that would be interesting sight to see... I am sure that if we had those documents to see, everything would make much sense, but since we don't have those we can guess, But i find it interesting that after 3 years of study, in world war, where nothing else matters than victory, everything is based on military,strategies,logistics,tactics... there is a study on UFOs, They wouldn't gain no profit from that in manner of resourses or money ... so in my opinion they had some sort of event that raise the question of Who and what, when from where... anyways i believe strongly that he had some sort of experience with this phenomena.... Where to find top secret nazi files from times of ww 2 about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted October 20, 2012 #92 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Hmmm that would be interesting sight to see... I am sure that if we had those documents to see, everything would make much sense, but since we don't have those we can guess, But i find it interesting that after 3 years of study, in world war, where nothing else matters than victory, everything is based on military,strategies,logistics,tactics... there is a study on UFOs, They wouldn't gain no profit from that in manner of resourses or money ... so in my opinion they had some sort of event that raise the question of Who and what, when from where... anyways i believe strongly that he had some sort of experience with this phenomena.... Where to find top secret nazi files from times of ww 2 about this? A agree that it would be interesting to see, but why should we guess about what might have been in those materials? We can ascertain from the divergent comments that they probably weren't conclusive. We would need the materials in hand to be sure, but even without them it isn't difficult to see that Oberth was interpreting the information optimistically in favor of possible ET visitation. He says so himself, "Because our galaxy is teeming with planets it should be home to countless extraterrestrial civilizations. That is unless, through some perverse twist in nature, intelligent life is an evolutionary dead-end. But let's be optimistic and assume that some fraction of far-flung worlds rise to the status of a hosting a super-civilization" As to why they would have been investigating it, there is a very simple reason for that. Surely you've heard of Foo Fighters, right? The Allies feared that this phenomena might represent some kind of Nazi technology, and the Nazis thought it was ours. Both sides were investigating it, trying to understand it, imagining all kinds of things about it. Of course they would have paid close attention to such phenomena in the middle of a war. If that really was some kind of technology from the other side, they'd want as much intelligence about it as possible. For all intents and purposes, it would appear that Foo Fighters were probably UAP (as defined by the MOD), which in reality is some kind of naturally occurring atmospheric plasma. That's what the current research seems to indicate at any rate. Neither theirs nor ours, just earth's. I see and understand the desire to guess or imagine that it might be more than that, and I still do that myself. But I must also temper that imagination, as exciting and inspiring as it is, with the understanding that I am in fact imagining or speculating; as distinct from actually knowing. There is still value in it, and it is still enjoyable, even with temperance. Cheers Nuke_em. I really appreciate that we've been able to engage in constructive and mutually respectful dialog of late after so many historical differences. It's really encouraging! You're a good guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawken Posted October 20, 2012 #93 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Aert De Gelder who was one of Rembrandt's pupils back in the 17th century created this painting called The Baptism Of Christ. Makes one wonder where he came up with this image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted October 20, 2012 #94 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Aert De Gelder who was one of Rembrandt's pupils back in the 17th century created this painting called The Baptism Of Christ. Makes one wonder where he came up with this image. Are you sure you want to know? Here's something that might explain it. You tell me. Does imagery like this really represent alien visitation? You might also appreciate watching this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uUUzQINoark Evidence for aliens? Or just iconic religious representations which were actually quite typical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Unicorn Posted October 20, 2012 #95 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Yes, I know. I do understand what he is talking about and I understand what he and many others are under the impression this indicates. I've gone through a lot of those materials myself as well. Probably not all of them, but quite a few. I just don't agree that such documents and statements from antiquity are as substantial as many make them out to be. In order to accept them for more than what they actually are, one must fall victim to some kind of logical fallacy. As a case in point, you've kind of created a false dichotomy right here. You've basically come out and said that if these UFOs didn't belong to the soviets or to us (man made on the one side) then they must be alien (ET on the other side). I know you didn't use those words exactly, but that seems to be basically what you're implying. Forgive me if I'm wrong about that, and even if that wasn't your intention there are many who have looked at the problem with this exact limiting point of view. Why must the phenomena be in one of these two categories? It seems to me that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of possible explanations for UFOs. What about natural phenomena like plasma, clouds, and other atmospheric anomalies? What about simple misidentification of anything from conventional aircraft, to birds, to insects, to reflections, to rockets, to temperature inversions, to (yes) balloons, to (yep) kites, to stars or planets, etc etc etc...? What about hoaxes? What about top secret test aircraft? All of the above have in point of fact been pointed to and labeled UFO, some have been confirmed, some have not. With that said, could ET also be an answer for some of these sightings? Sure, it's definitely within the realm of possibility; but so far there has been absolutely nothing brought to the table which I'm aware of that can be used to draw this as a definite conclusion. Not today, not yesterday, not last year, and not 50 years ago. There are a lot of people who say that there is, but for some reason those claims just never survive scrutiny. Some of them remain unknowns, heck a lot of them do, but that still doesn't mean that ET is the right answer. Maybe tomorrow? I'm completely open to the possibility, but I'm not about to accept this as reality without some kind of verifiable confirmation. I value the importance of the subject too highly, and as a result I refuse to dishonor the subject by accepting anything less than the best from it. To naively believe that the inadequate evidence available is substantial enough to reach an ET conclusion is to treat the phenomenon itself irreverently. That's all I'm saying. With all due respect. The declassified cases that I referred to were ruled out not to be atmospheric or US. Most of the things people are seeing now are us, atmospheric or hoaxes! That's one reason why I never really followed the subject. I find it entertaining but I think any ET believer is mostly lead on many a wild goose chase. ET was considered the answer for a few cases.Eisenhower was very determined to find out what they were for obvious reasons. What people now don't seem to speculate is that they may be closer than they think and have been around a long time. The real what ever they are that made the contacts didn't necessarily have to make a trip from light years away. That is the truly scary part of contact with a different species and their probes. That could also explain some of their interest in us and the classification of what the government did eventually find out. People who know any piece of the puzzle typically can't share their information and civiilians usually don't have sufficient evidence or the even understanding of what they call ET. In the early 60s we were still studying the evidence of the foreign technologies for defense. Back then it was called the undetermined "them" and their flying saucer technology. I know this to be true but I would not expect anyone would believe it except the people working close in the projects. People today who know about some of the things that happened do not worry about the question "if they exist" but wonder about the important questions of where they really came from and why. I respect your opinion because if I were you, I would be the same exact way I hope some day the real truth is disclosed until then we all have our unanswered questions about the subject. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted October 21, 2012 #96 Share Posted October 21, 2012 The declassified cases that I referred to were ruled out not to be atmospheric or US. I've seen some cases that were supposedly 'ruled out' as atmospheric, but I don't buy it. We know more now about atmospheric phenomena than we did back then, and still have an awful lot to learn. Those who 'ruled out' atmospheric explanations back in the day did so from a relative position of ignorance, not one of knowledge when compared to what we know today. That said, if you have some specific cases in question, I'd be happy to take a look as I have time. Most of the things people are seeing now are us, atmospheric or hoaxes! That's one reason why I never really followed the subject. I find it entertaining but I think any ET believer is mostly lead on many a wild goose chase. ET was considered the answer for a few cases.Eisenhower was very determined to find out what they were for obvious reasons. What people now don't seem to speculate is that they may be closer than they think and have been around a long time. The real what ever they are that made the contacts didn't necessarily have to make a trip from light years away. That is the truly scary part of contact with a different species and their probes. That could also explain some of their interest in us and the classification of what the government did eventually find out. Being considered the answer and actually being the answer are two very different things. Don't get me wrong, ET could be the answer for some cases and it would be negligent of us to ignore this possibility, but neither should we jump to it as the de facto answer just because we may not be able to confirm that it was something else. People who know any piece of the puzzle typically can't share their information and civiilians usually don't have sufficient evidence or the even understanding of what they call ET. In the early 60s we were still studying the evidence of the foreign technologies for defense. Back then it was called the undetermined "them" and their flying saucer technology. I know this to be true but I would not expect anyone would believe it except the people working close in the projects. People today who know about some of the things that happened do not worry about the question "if they exist" but wonder about the important questions of where they really came from and why. This is a very convenient stance to take, and is coincidentally the last bastion of belief that many fall behind in order to sustain something that has insufficient evidence. According to this logical fallacy there are people *in the know* who can't, or won't, divulge the sensitive details about the real UFO phenomenon... It is a combined strain of the argument from ignorance and argument from authority which permeates not only UFOlogy, but also conspiracy theories. I'm sorry, but it just isn't compelling. Could it be true? Sure, I suppose, but it shouldn't be used as any kind of support for belief in these things. The military industrial complex may just as well be hiding the reality of magical conjuration from the unsuspecting and uninformed public, or maybe the true answer to the ever critical question of how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop. I respect your opinion because if I were you, I would be the same exact way I hope some day the real truth is disclosed until then we all have our unanswered questions about the subject. Thank you for that White Unicorn, I respect your opinion as well. And I agree that when we truly examine the evidence available, all that we are truly left with are unanswered questions at the end of the day. Which is precisely why I endeavor to point out fallacies when it comes to this phenomenon, especially when some attempt to represent a degree of certainty and knowledge that simply isn't supported or warranted. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 21, 2012 #97 Share Posted October 21, 2012 The declassified cases that I referred to were ruled out not to be atmospheric or US. Most of the things people are seeing now are us, atmospheric or hoaxes! That's one reason why I never really followed the subject. I find it entertaining but I think any ET believer is mostly lead on many a wild goose chase. I think we have to go back to when it first started, back in the 1940s and 1950s, since civilians were not the first to come up with the ET idea but rather it came from the military and then was selectively leaked to some civilians. Why was that? It came from Jimmy Doolittle with his investigations of "foo fighters" and "ghost rockets", or from Wernher von Braun and the scientists at White Sands (among them Robert Sarbacher), who detected UFO interest in their V-2 rockets, and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawken Posted October 21, 2012 #98 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Are you sure you want to know? Here's something that might explain it. You tell me. Does imagery like this really represent alien visitation? You might also appreciate watching this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uUUzQINoark Evidence for aliens? Or just iconic religious representations which were actually quite typical? Interesting video about the Sun and Moon with faces and mistaken for saucers. Quite convincing. I'm always interested in knowing the truth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
synchronomy Posted October 21, 2012 #99 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Giorgio Are you sure you want to know? Here's something that might explain it. You tell me. Does imagery like this really represent alien visitation? You might also appreciate watching this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uUUzQINoark Evidence for aliens? Or just iconic religious representations which were actually quite typical? I had this debunked for me many years ago from the "Chariots of the Gods" era. My Mom was very well read on biblical references and art and explained the Sun, Moon, and angels imagery to me. I never had a chance to believe the AA theory. I remember being quite young and coming home from school and telling my Dad what I had learned that day, that America was never discovered earlier because sailors were scared to go to far because they would fall off the Earth. He freaked out and called the school to educate them. Dad new better as he was Chief Engineer for a major shipping line at the time and had been educated in the true history of global navigation. Giorgio and his colleagues are a bunch of conmen. His hair bugs me too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted October 21, 2012 #100 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Giorgio I had this debunked for me many years ago from the "Chariots of the Gods" era. My Mom was very well read on biblical references and art and explained the Sun, Moon, and angels imagery to me. I never had a chance to believe the AA theory. I remember being quite young and coming home from school and telling my Dad what I had learned that day, that America was never discovered earlier because sailors were scared to go to far because they would fall off the Earth. He freaked out and called the school to educate them. Dad new better as he was Chief Engineer for a major shipping line at the time and had been educated in the true history of global navigation. Giorgio and his colleagues are a bunch of conmen. His hair bugs me too. That's awesome synch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now