Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 14
Alphamale06

The Ancient Alien Theory Is True

10,149 posts in this topic

They obviously cleared off at some point. It has to be the case. My theory is that they were here at a time when the ecology was different; conducive to what they wanted to achieve. As the cycle of the planet changed over again and no longer sustained their enterprise, they left.

It's a theory.

Eric and Craig Umland in "Mysteries of the Ancients" suggest much the same thing, except the larger "Maya" force left the Solar System, and are due to come back at the end of the "Long Count" calendar, the existence of which was set up by the stranded Maya to work out which generation of their descendants would be rescued by forces from the homeworld.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try applying it. Go:

LOL, you certainly are a clown. I apply it every day in my line of work. If resistance did not work in that way, your computer would not work and I would be spared your inane drivel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graham Hancock is dead wrong about that map showing Antartica without ice. Again that's been debated here and been demostrated as such.

Rontius Finius map, Mercator map and Perry Reese maps are the ones I've heard about. It's doubtful anyone in this froum has somehow debunked them, or whatever...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoser, on 29 November 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

Until a rational explanation is found, the AA hypothesis will stand.

Dear God man, do you realize how bass ackwards that thinking is?

That's obsurd logic.

It's not even logic.

It's...

*shuts prior to being banned*

It's the only answer we've got, so it will have to do until a better explanation comes along. So far not only have no better answers showed up, but none have at all including acceptable worse ones afaik.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to work out the various explanations for PP:

Aliens did it - why? Was it like some sort of summer home? Why not stay in their (presumably) safer spaceships? It's not sterile, so I can't see it being used as a surgery/laboratory. We The locals did it - how? It'd take precise technology, a lot of time, effort and skill. And to what purpose was the place put? We've dozens of ideas and legends about Stonehenge, but what about PP?

Hoaxers did it - why? Ohh this is the easy one, to make it look like aliens did it.

My guess is if they exist they usually sent remotely controlled beings like drones instead of risking their only existence on this planet, or even within the atmosphere. The greys are probably like bioligical machines. Why do it would be to "show" people for thousands of years that they had been here, in case people stopped believing the stories and carvings the ancients left telling us about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess my question would be Is WHY would aliens come here and show ancient man how to do these things. I mean it makes no sense to me and If there that advanced and needed something from this planet why wouldnt they just take it? Why waste there time teaching and showing us things. It just doesnt make any sense to me

It would if it's a project...well, it might not make sense to you, but it would make sense whether it does to you or not. The real question might be "could" anything make sense to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus Sodding Christ, we've gone over this a dozen times already...

That is just how he rolls. He is still posing the same nonsensical musing that he posed in his first post in this section that has been corrected at least a dozen times over. He just insults people and forces his opinion. He has a track record of this too, another poster showed he posted the same argument on another forum, and was equally pleasant to the posters there when they expressed patience and tried to explain these principals.

I do not think there is a structured debate, or any intention to learn. I think it's more like those sickos that post nasty remarks on Facebook when personal tragedy occurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rontius Finius map, Mercator map and Perry Reese maps are the ones I've heard about. It's doubtful anyone in this froum has somehow debunked them, or whatever...

Perry Reese.... PERRY REESE!!!

PIRI REIS.

I find that if we only get our information from the TV we're doomed.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To this day nobody believes I did it myself

I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is just how he rolls. He is still posing the same nonsensical musing that he posed in his first post in this section that has been corrected at least a dozen times over.

You STILL can't say which of the five incorrect seeming things you think I should try to believe in nor which one(s) you believe in yourself, only that you don't believe the most correct seeming which is that the carvings were meant to look as they do by the people who carved them. You even agreed with some bullsh*t about the front of a car if I remember right, and I feel confident that I do because I remember mentioning that it was the worst idea yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nopeda, on 29 November 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

Try applying it. Go:

LOL, you

Wrong. You lost entirely that time. Try again if you can. Go:

(prediction: he can't even make an attempt to explain what causes resistance to the velocity of light)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A premise that I can understand and accept cognitively, it doesn't however explain how "xts" have such physics defying devices at their command.

. . .

The number of hoaxes in relation to crop circles, and the manner in which mundane man can create them IMO invalidates them as a form of "xts" communication or graffitti.

What physics defying devices are you referring to?

Some of the crop circles that were done in four hours in the dark with no one making noises other people in the area could hear make me believe they may very well not have been done by humans. Also, just as I've never known of people demonstrating how hundred ton rocks can be cut and stacked without the use of wheels, pulleys or steel, I'm not aware of people showing how they can make some of the complex crop circles in the dark in only four hours without making noise. So...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What physics defying devices are you referring to?

Some of the crop circles that were done in four hours in the dark with no one making noises other people in the area could hear make me believe they may very well not have been done by humans. Also, just as I've never known of people demonstrating how hundred ton rocks can be cut and stacked without the use of wheels, pulleys or steel, I'm not aware of people showing how they can make some of the complex crop circles in the dark in only four hours without making noise. So...

Tsk, tsk... back to the hundred-ton stone line again? I take it you didn't bother to research any of the references I supplied you...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What physics defying devices are you referring to?

I'm referring to some of the well known abilities of "xts" craft, such as stopping on a dime, right angle turns without shedding velocity etc - all of which are impossible under the laws of phsyics.

Some of the crop circles that were done in four hours in the dark with no one making noises other people in the area could hear make me believe they may very well not have been done by humans.

The CLAIM is that they couldn't have been done in the time supposedly set aside. And many were. And some may not have been done in that time or without the collusion of the owner of the crops.

I'm not aware of people showing how they can make some of the complex crop circles in the dark in only four hours without making noise. So...

It involves a plank of wood, some string and huge plots of land. If my nieghbour was walking on his garden at midnight I'd not hear that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't.

And this is constructive how?

Are you referring to belief or understanding? Belief, that would make sense, you believe movies are real, and understanding, you have displayed such is very difficult for you.

Edited by psyche101
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You STILL can't say which of the five incorrect seeming things you think I should try to believe in nor which one(s) you believe in yourself, only that you don't believe the most correct seeming which is that the carvings were meant to look as they do by the people who carved them. You even agreed with some bullsh*t about the front of a car if I remember right, and I feel confident that I do because I remember mentioning that it was the worst idea yet.

Do you even make sense to yourself?

Front of a car? Good God, it's hard to hold the tongue right now............. I have the most appropriate suggestion................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. You lost entirely that time. Try again if you can. Go:

So you were asking what causes resistance to light were you? Is that what "Go" mean to you? Some sort of personal language shortcut?

(prediction: he can't even make an attempt to explain what causes resistance to the velocity of light)

I already have. If you read posts you would have seen me explain that in a dense medium such as water or glass, light slows down to c/n where n is the refractive index of the medium.

Or perhaps you did read it, and instead of attempting to understand it you decided to make something up and dismiss it.

Prediction: You will refuse to understand the principals involved.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets all go to Cruczco-co nuts and cut a few rocks,and have a few Drinks ! :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They obviously cleared off at some point. It has to be the case. My theory is that they were here at a time when the ecology was different; conducive to what they wanted to achieve. As the cycle of the planet changed over again and no longer sustained their enterprise, they left.

It's a theory.

Stop it.

You are screwing me up in the head.

You say they were here and then buggered off...then why are you leaping to the ETH everytime plastic bags, bugs, and bowls take flight??

"Bags, bugs and bowls"...it's all sounding like Dr. Seuss

"One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish"

Why are you saying ET's have left :w00t:

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop it.

You are screwing me up in the head.

You say they were here and then buggered off...then why are you leaping to the ETH everytime plastic bags, bugs, and bowls take flight??

"Bags, bugs and bowls"...it's all sounding like Dr. Seuss

"One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish"

Why are you saying ET's have left :w00t:

LOL :D

ET!!

Lorax3d.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It was pointed out to you repeatedly, two or three times by myself, that that it is not parts of the plaster that's fallen out but _all_ of the plaster." - Oniomancer

You snake oil salesmen STILL can't say which variety you want me to "buy". Is it 1? or 2? or 3? or 4? or 5? You have no clue apparently yet you still think I should grab one and cling to it, even though it doesn't appear that any of them are correct. Which one do YOU believe? Why can't you say? From my pov you've done nothing but try to bullsh*t me from the start, so I've reacted accordingly. You're still trying as far as I can tell, since you can't say which of the five (at least!) possibilities I'm supposed to try to believe in. I suppose you'd be satisfied if I tried to believe any of the five which appear untrue, but you don't want people to believe the sixth which does appear to be true which is that they were carved to appear as they do because the people who carved them wanted them to look like that.

So, you've transferred your flag here after the other thread sank out from under you. Einstein had some interesting things to say about that sort of repetitious behavior, but then we know how you feel about him..

The 5 points made may sound contradictory to you but they're not. There is some small confusion though.

1 is totally subjective as evidenced bythe amount of time it took for someone to notice the resemblance even allowing for the limited access to the site, and you yourself still haven't been able to tell us what air vehicles the others are supposed to look like. The fancied resemblance or lack thereof has no bearing on the other points.

2 Is a general factual statement. It is in fact contained in the remaining points and therefore does not contradict them.

3 is also a general factual statement since portions of the later glyphs appear to overlap portions of the earlier ones, which requires infill of same.

4 and 5 is is the only part where we have any confusion yet there is still no inherent contradiction, only a matter of imprecision.

As stated elsewhere, both sets of glyphs each separately form an individual cohesive and coherent whole. This is another fact, as verified by the not insignificant presence of identical glyphs elsewhere in the complex. This is only possible if both sets of glyphs are visible in their entirety. This in turn is only possible if the plaster infill is completely missing from those parts where it formerly was.

That pares our decision tree down to two mutually opposing prospects, one rooted in logic and factual evidence, the other in supposition.

I know which one I'm going with.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quoth the Mancer of Onio. :tu:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That pares our decision tree down to two mutually opposing prospects, one rooted in logic and factual evidence, the other in supposition.

I know which one I'm going with.

And we all know which one Nopeda is going to go with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans knew the Earth was a globe back in the 3rd century. That flat-earth stuff is baloney. I'll search for the link and post it later. I know it's been posted in these forums recently. Hopefully someone will chime in with it, as I have to go out shortly for several hours.

...and Graham Hancock is dead wrong about that map showing Antartica without ice. Again that's been debated here and been demostrated as such.

Joe claims this, Tom claims that, and Harry claims something else.

Who is a common man like myself supposed to believe?

Don't know, but at this point the answers to the questions raised by AA are not particularly persuasive.

I don't know if you've read Hancock's book, and it's been a good year since I have, but he includes a letter from some branch of the DoD confirming that modern data supports the geographical features shown on the ancient map.

Edited by Babe Ruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I have not read ALL of this thread, but a fair amount. No, I have not visited ALL the links, but some.

I specified in my first sentence in the previous post that both sides were speculating.

Sure a mathematician might be 10 years old, but that point is about as relevant and persuasive as the rest of your post, which is to say "not very".

The AA folks raise many many issues that certain self-described skeptics cannot explain. I forget the name of the ancient map that Graham Hancock mentioned in one of his books, but how is it that the map depicted geography that we have discovered only recently? How is it that at a time when most humans thought the world was flat, someone had already set up a very accurate system of latitude and longitude?

We humans are vain, arrogant, and way more ignorant than most will admit.

I believe you are talking about the Piri Reis map. If so, it is not as accurate as fringe authors would have you believe. The part they refer to as Antarctica is actually the southern part of South America stretched out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 14

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.