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 13
Maureen_jacobs

Ancient Aliens

1,876 posts in this topic

I've seen many statues of just hands. Big giant hands. I in no way believe that hands used to roam the earth. I've also seen a 30ft tall Superman statue. I don't believe Superman was a real living being.

Terrible argument Myles.

I've seen scores of pieces of art in one form or another depicting basically the same idea of humanoid beings that look distinctly non planetary. How many statues of giant hands have you seen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrible argument Myles.

I've seen scores of pieces of art in one form or another depicting basically the same idea of humanoid beings that look distinctly non planetary.

And thats because he works at the British Museum - (sweeping up) - :lol: inbetween being online 24/7

zoser your inputs are not inline with this thread, this is about the AA series, not the individual cases.

.

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been checking in but haven't had much time to post. As far as zoser's motivations, it's the same stuff he's posted elsewhere at UM, and while it's not always clear what precisely zoser is trying to establish, I haven't really seen anything (yet) that I would classify as hijacking the thread. Again, it depends on what posters like zoser are trying to say, but in recent posts he's been leaning toward aliens. That is in line with this thread, as are some of the topics zoser has brought up (I've seen some of the same stuff mentioned on Ancient Aliens).

For everyone concerned, and I do understand your concern, if you feel there is a problem such as thread derailment, please do not discuss it publicly in the thread: issue a Report on it.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That out of the way, fringe proponents share many characteristics. One is a lack of familiarity with respected orthodox research, which is a decided handicap because it leads a person automatically to assume the unrealistic and to become prey to things like Ancient Aliens. Going hand in hand with this is a refusal even to try to explore respected research; fringe proponents often deride us orthodox posters for not keeping "an open mind" or not "thinking outside the box," and yet they've rarely bothered to delve into the research conducted by people who've actually worked and excavated at ancient sites, spent countless hours in laboratories analyzing archaeological finds, and countless more hours adhering to rigid research protocols in the reporting and publishing of their finds.

I don't get it. But that's me. I prefer science and research to TV shows and wacky websites put together by alien conspiracists. The people behind these TV shows and websites are not obligated to follow any protocols and nearly always flee from anything even remotely similar to a peer-review environment. In other words, they are free to say or write anything they want, regardless of authentic corroboration or oversight. I cannot imagine how any intelligent and reasoning person would find such a thing reliable. This is where I come from, and this is why I tend to get a little aggressive about the whole silly alien thing.

I highly encourage anyone who may have missed it to go back and visit seeder's Post 168. I for one thank him for taking the time to put that together, with all of its useful links (thanks, seeder!). The average fringe proponent is likely to brush it aside as unimportant, but that is typical of the fringe.

A good example from seeder's post is the link to Puma Punku, an ancient site often misrepresented by the fringe and which often appears on Ancient Aliens. Were we to listen only to fringe venues, we would have an exceedingly poor and uninformed understanding of this ancient place. We are often told the stones there were granite and diorite, and yet the vast majority of the masonry is red sandstone. Any properly assembled critique or report on Puma Punku will relay this fact, which is why I think it's critical to turn to professional research and not one's television set. Sandstone was favored by many ancient cultures because it's easily worked, by anyone with a stone-age or bronze-age technology. Also at the site is andesite, which is indeed a hard stone but hardly impossible to work with ancient technologies.

We are told ancient man could not have accomplished such engineering feats, so therefore it must have been aliens. To me this demonstrates perhaps a healthy imagination but, in the negative, a clear lack of ability in critical-thinking skills. And this is what we get from Ancient Aliens: ancient man was too primitive and unintelligent to build such things. This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Ancient people unquestionably accomplished these things because they, like us, were human beings, and human beings are by nature highly intelligent problem solvers.

We needn't turn to aliens when an abundance of archaeological facts can provide answers. Do we have all the answers? No, and likely we never will. But this ought not give us license to "answer" the questions with aliens. I'll add something I've always got a chuckle out of. We are expected to believe that a super-advanced race of aliens traveled the depths of space to travel to our little blue world to teach our ancient ancestors...to build with stone.

Again, critical thinking. It's damn helpful.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a side note, I for one can't say if zoser has any formal affiliation with the British Museum. Anything is possible. But I can say that at the pair of museums with which I'm affiliated in Chicago, we've had our share of volunteers and other personnel who've gone on to espouse unorthodox, bizarre, and disconcerting beliefs. When that happens (and it's rare, to be honest), that person is promptly asked to leave.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knowing that the ancient world is littered with statues, Icons, legends, and art all depicting non humanoid life forms that we are supposed to believe that they never came here?

How do you make that out?

Isn't that believing what you want to believe?

I'd reckon (sorry kmt, I guess I'm doing a plumb lot of that recently) most people here do not, in fact, know that to be the case. In fact, I reckon you don't /know/ that to be the case, either: you believe this. As I've often pointed out before, belief is completely independent of fact, and it's dangerous and unproductive to to confuse the two. Not that that stops many people...

The deciding factor in any such discussion is not what you, or me, or anybody with anything other than a passing knowledge of Greco-Roman (or any other ancient culture) art thinks. What matters are the opinions of people who have taken the time and expended the energy to be cognizant of the conventions and history of ancient art, who understand the framework these art pieces were created in and meant to be understood in. If you don't know these -- and you don't really show any sign you do -- you really have no call to be telling anyone (including yourself) what these pieces /are/ or /mean/.

And it's telling that not one. single. art historian has ever suggested an extraterrestial model for any ancient god or depiction.

--Jaylemurph

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen many statues of just hands. Big giant hands. I in no way believe that hands used to roam the earth. I've also seen a 30ft tall Superman statue. I don't believe Superman was a real living being.

There are far more unexplained images of non-terrestrial humoids in ancient cultures.

I honestly don't think your argument is going anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd reckon (sorry kmt, I guess I'm doing a plumb lot of that recently) most people here do not, in fact, know that to be the case. In fact, I reckon you don't /know/ that to be the case, either: you believe this. As I've often pointed out before, belief is completely independent of fact, and it's dangerous and unproductive to to confuse the two. Not that that stops many people...

The deciding factor in any such discussion is not what you, or me, or anybody with anything other than a passing knowledge of Greco-Roman (or any other ancient culture) art thinks. What matters are the opinions of people who have taken the time and expended the energy to be cognizant of the conventions and history of ancient art, who understand the framework these art pieces were created in and meant to be understood in. If you don't know these -- and you don't really show any sign you do -- you really have no call to be telling anyone (including yourself) what these pieces /are/ or /mean/.

And it's telling that not one. single. art historian has ever suggested an extraterrestial model for any ancient god or depiction.

--Jaylemurph

I think it's very simple Jay. It's so called scientific people that complicate matters.

They had no cameras. Statues, art, and folklore was how they recorded what they saw and experienced.

The theory is very well supported in terms of artifacts that depict these humanoids, and in terms of what they achieved. Notably the stonework. There are just too many coincidences for it all to be attributed to some other reason such as their imagination. men with spacesuits etc.

For many people including myself the case for AA is right there.

Relics of ancient space ships are not necessary as proof.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a side note, I for one can't say if zoser has any formal affiliation with the British Museum. Anything is possible. But I can say that at the pair of museums with which I'm affiliated in Chicago, we've had our share of volunteers and other personnel who've gone on to espouse unorthodox, bizarre, and disconcerting beliefs. When that happens (and it's rare, to be honest), that person is promptly asked to leave.

Isn't that prejudice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And thats because he works at the British Museum - (sweeping up) - :lol: inbetween being online 24/7

Lol. I happen to be on holdiay this week.

zoser your inputs are not inline with this thread, this is about the AA series, not the individual cases.

If you were awake you would notice that my last few posts are discussing the matter in general terms. I have not posted any images of specific stones or artifacts.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been checking in but haven't had much time to post. As far as zoser's motivations, it's the same stuff he's posted elsewhere at UM, and while it's not always clear what precisely zoser is trying to establish, I haven't really seen anything (yet) that I would classify as hijacking the thread. Again, it depends on what posters like zoser are trying to say, but in recent posts he's been leaning toward aliens. That is in line with this thread, as are some of the topics zoser has brought up (I've seen some of the same stuff mentioned on Ancient Aliens).

For everyone concerned, and I do understand your concern, if you feel there is a problem such as thread derailment, please do not discuss it publicly in the thread: issue a Report on it.

Thanks.

I only have one as far as this thread is concerned. To argue the case that the ancient artifacts of the famous sites around the world were unachievable with the technology they were supposed to have possessed and therefore that the AA hypothesis is valid and well supported. Nothing else.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's very simple Jay. It's so called scientific people that complicate matters.

They had no cameras. Statues, art, and folklore was how they recorded what they saw and experienced.

To suggest -- as you apparently do here -- that all pre-modern art is purely naturalistically representational is in defiance both of the facts and common sense. I'm game though: what was the moment, according to you, when human beings took the quantum leap and began to /imagine/ things and then draw/paint/sculpt them? It's clearly before Horace, who discusses the dangers of doing so I'd love for you to provide a specific date.

The theory is very well supported in terms of artifacts that depict these humanoids, and in terms of what they achieved. Notably the stonework. There are just too many coincidences for it all to be attributed to some other reason such as their imagination. men with spacesuits etc.

So, maybe I missed your actual rebuttal to my argument about the conventionality of art, because I'm sort of unwilling to believe your "nobody ever imagined anything until modern times" as a serious response, and saying "conventions aren't real and people don't have to understand them to appreciate art" is the intellectual equivalent of saying you're invisible when you can't see yourself -- you might think so, but that doesn't mean it's true.

For many people including myself the case for AA is right there.

Okay, then. Your argument /is/ "I believe what I believe and I don't have to justify it". Sophisticated /and/ intellecectually satifying, then!

--Jaylemurph

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, then. Your argument /is/ "I believe what I believe and I don't have to justify it". Sophisticated /and/ intellecectually satifying, then!

It is justified Jay. No one here has even remotely answered the question of the statues. All you have done is relegated the issue to imagination. Humanoids wearing space suits? Really? I don't buy it Jay.

Nor have people answered the pressing questions concerning all the enigmas of the stone. Mr O talks around the issue, having no explanation for the vitrified layers seen on Peruvian stone (see links already provided), and what is indisputable evidence that stone was somehow softened.

Instead all I see people do here is shout as you have just done (although indirectly) the words 'prove it to me'.

Well the proof is there but people seem to evade it.

I won't post again until people do address it.

But please know that there is a gaping hole a mile wide in your assumed assurance that the AA hypothesis is false that will until the stonework issues are fully addressed always be there.

There is no point in just going around in circles with people that are reluctant to address the evidence.

See you soon on the other threads perhaps. No hard feelings either way I hope.

Zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thr OP and many level-headed-sounding types posting afterwards seemed, like me many years ago, to have been greatly excited by the AA series, vd's chariots of the gods etcetera. No we all know how much of a blatant lie 99% of the ancient astronaut 'proof' is, but I'm still really interested to know.

I don't want to hear about some dopey charletan who has channeled the leader of the zoid race, or someones assertion that some rock somewhere is so smooth that only a laser could have cut it, but I want to know more. I think the curiosity aroused by the AA show must be driving some real alternative theories out there amongst the non-crazy?

We can't dismiss the possibility that one day our atomic dating systems will prove to be out of whack by up to millions of years, or that new archeology will be found to turn previous assumptions on their heads. I Wouldn't want to base any assumptions on the hope those things would happen, but hypothetically, what we 'know' about ancient civilisations could turn out to be quite wrong.

Some of you here seem like sensible, open minded and intelligent people, do you know of any scholarly work that seriously posits alternative archeology which might point to ancient astronauts? Personally It feels like the human race is rediscovering alot of technology, and that the history we know of shows traces of it, but the usual go-to theory for anything not easily understood is "religious significance". Anything we cant imagine stupid ancient people using must be some sort of religious artifact.

I'd love to find some real and serious re-evaluations of some of these things by professionals, but there is just too many nutters about for me to find any real information. Any ideas about what might be real? Id love to get that old chariots of the gods feeling of wonder back, but without the lies.

Sorry about the long rambling post!

Edited by Considered_Ignorance
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is justified Jay. No one here has even remotely answered the question of the statues. All you have done is relegated the issue to imagination. Humanoids wearing space suits? Really? I don't buy it Jay.

Nor have people answered the pressing questions concerning all the enigmas of the stone. Mr O talks around the issue, having no explanation for the vitrified layers seen on Peruvian stone (see links already provided), and what is indisputable evidence that stone was somehow softened.

Instead all I see people do here is shout as you have just done (although indirectly) the words 'prove it to me'.

Well the proof is there but people seem to evade it.

I won't post again until people do address it.

But please know that there is a gaping hole a mile wide in your assumed assurance that the AA hypothesis is false that will until the stonework issues are fully addressed always be there.

There is no point in just going around in circles with people that are reluctant to address the evidence.

See you soon on the other threads perhaps. No hard feelings either way I hope.

Zoser

The "vitrification" does not mean the stone was softened. How did anyone conclude that the "vitrification" indicates softening?

I saw that story and thought that was a clear statement that the author had no idea what was being observed or was purposely misrepresenting the marks on the stone.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Within, hopefully, the guidelines indicated by the Moderator for this thread - that is possible evidence of ancient alien or nonterrestrial

influence in the ancient world - it would be remiss not to mention the geographical alignment of ancient sites which early cultures

considered 'sacred' or 'holy'. I am not aware of whether this topic has been covered by the programme Ancient Aliens or not, but would

strongly suggest that, if not, it may be very soon.

Why would 'aliens' set out alignments of sites and landscape designs you might ask : could this not just be coincidence or maybe a

spiritual pastime of some early cultures ? Is there any evidence that this is based on non-terrestrial influence ?

The answer is a matter of scale or distances involved. Ley lines have been discussed for hundreds of years starting in Britain with

the observed alignment of ancient and religious sites over relatively short distances which, if design and not coincidence, could have

been achieved by early humans with basic surveying skills. But long distance alignments are a different matter.

Without wishing to duplicate information which is covered on another UM thread, already mentioned in previous posts, these long distance

alignments and very large landscape designs could not have been achieved by any known culture or civilisation of the ancient world, so if

an ancient geometric design based on later 'sacred' or 'holy' sites are clear evidence of some, as yet unknown, civilisation or the work of

an 'outside' or 'non-terrestrial' intelligence. Some of these designs have only been found with the human ability to fly and see them from

above.

I have no wish to be seen to be trying to 'hijack' this thread, so if any UM users are interested please refer for details to the other thread.

But the topic of Ancient Alien influence is common to both threads, a fact that other UM users should be aware of in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you here seem like sensible, open minded and intelligent people, do you know of any scholarly work that seriously posits alternative archeology which might point to ancient astronauts? Personally It feels like the human race is rediscovering alot of technology, and that the history we know of shows traces of it, but the usual go-to theory for anything not easily understood is "religious significance". Anything we cant imagine stupid ancient people using must be some sort of religious artifact.

I'd love to find some real and serious re-evaluations of some of these things by professionals, but there is just too many nutters about for me to find any real information. Any ideas about what might be real? Id love to get that old chariots of the gods feeling of wonder back, but without the lies.

Sorry about the long rambling post!

There's plenty of evidence but professionals discount it and dismiss it with a wave

of the hand. It's always been this way in all fields. People buy securities when every-

one else is and they all lose money together. It's very easy for people to forget how

little evidence supports even the best foundesd beliefs. In the 19th century most

surgeons' patients died because they believed that delaying an operation to wash

hands and instruments would lead to even more death. They believed this despite

never having tried washing their hands and instruments. Somehow or other all these

deaths have no impact on people today and we've learned nothing from it. Now we

know that introducing germs into a person's body is likely to be fatal and we know

everything else and there just isn't room in this world for both bronze age technology

and aliens.

I like your handle; wanna trade?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is justified Jay. No one here has even remotely answered the question of the statues. All you have done is relegated the issue to imagination. Humanoids wearing space suits? Really? I don't buy it Jay.

You may not buy it, but you apparently don't have one single worthwhile reason for doing so. Which is fine, but it confuses me why you'd then go on to a /discussion forum/ to publicize your lack of ability to discuss your opinions. Or to imply you're somehow cleverer than everyone else in understanding What's Really Going On by virtue of those same unjustified and unjustifiable stances.

(I mean, as a comparison, I think Doctor Who is the greatest show ever, but I don't go to a Star Wars forum say "Doctor Who is far better than this pap because I, like, totally reaallyyy, think so, man" and then pretend like that's a decent argument.)

But different strokes for different folks.

Nor have people answered the pressing questions concerning all the enigmas of the stone. Mr O talks around the issue, having no explanation for the vitrified layers seen on Peruvian stone (see links already provided), and what is indisputable evidence that stone was somehow softened.

...which is totally not what I was responding to. I can't take part in that side of the disucssion, but I can directly address your idea that every piece of art, ever, before a certain magical date was baded on literal reality. Did you think I wouldn't notice you completely dodging my issue and changing the subject, or do you think I'm just sufficiently stupid as to be unable to parse two things that are completely different?

Instead all I see people do here is shout as you have just done (although indirectly) the words 'prove it to me'.

Well the proof is there but people seem to evade it.

...so you /do/ understand the difference between a proven argument and a non-proven one. You just don't feel the need to personally engage in the system. I can groove with that level of irony and totally not call it hypocrisy at all.

Oh. Dammit. I think I just did, anyway. Sorry about that. Mea culpa.

I won't post again until people do address it.

Well, as the intellectual value of you not posting and of you posting your art-based non-arguments is exactly the same, I think we can all get behind that decision.

But please know that there is a gaping hole a mile wide in your assumed assurance that the AA hypothesis is false that will until the stonework issues are fully addressed always be there.

Apparently, you're not too up-to-date with the meaning of "your". I have nothing to do with that part of the discussion, so you may wish to change your possessive adjective there. But you won't because you've taken the very mature, Eric Cartman, "Screw you guys, I'm going home" path of non-discussion.

There is no point in just going around in circles with people that are reluctant to address the evidence.

See you soon on the other threads perhaps. No hard feelings either way I hope.

Zoser

...except you're not doing that very well, either, since you keep. going. on. Sheesh!

--Jaylemurph

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Within, hopefully, the guidelines indicated by the Moderator for this thread - that is possible evidence of ancient alien or nonterrestrial

influence in the ancient world - it would be remiss not to mention the geographical alignment of ancient sites which early cultures

considered 'sacred' or 'holy'. I am not aware of whether this topic has been covered by the programme Ancient Aliens or not, but would strongly suggest that, if not, it may be very soon.

Laver, as I pointed out in the other thread there are no alignments as you claim. You posted hogwash there and you perpetuated that here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laver, as I pointed out in the other thread there are no alignments as you claim. You posted hogwash there and you perpetuated that here.

Please reply to the other thread, as requested, where you lost the argument and ran away..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that prejudice?

Certainly not. It can be described as protecting the intellectual integrity of a respected scientific institution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please reply to the other thread, as requested, where you lost the argument and ran away..........

No. I simply saw no need to continue pointing out your repetitious inane claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stereologist and laver, please let it go. It's not worth pursuing anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id love to get that old chariots of the gods feeling of wonder back, but without the lies.

I'm not sure that's even possible...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrible argument Myles.

I've seen scores of pieces of art in one form or another depicting basically the same idea of humanoid beings that look distinctly non planetary. How many statues of giant hands have you seen?

What exactly makes these humanoid beings look non planetary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may not buy it, but you apparently don't have one single worthwhile reason for doing so. Which is fine, but it confuses me why you'd then go on to a /discussion forum/ to publicize your lack of ability to discuss your opinions. Or to imply you're somehow cleverer than everyone else in understanding What's Really Going On™ by virtue of those same unjustified and unjustifiable stances.

(I mean, as a comparison, I think Doctor Who is the greatest show ever, but I don't go to a Star Wars forum say "Doctor Who is far better than this pap because I, like, totally reaallyyy, think so, man" and then pretend like that's a decent argument.)

But different strokes for different folks.

...which is totally not what I was responding to. I can't take part in that side of the disucssion, but I can directly address your idea that every piece of art, ever, before a certain magical date was baded on literal reality. Did you think I wouldn't notice you completely dodging my issue and changing the subject, or do you think I'm just sufficiently stupid as to be unable to parse two things that are completely different?

...so you /do/ understand the difference between a proven argument and a non-proven one. You just don't feel the need to personally engage in the system. I can groove with that level of irony and totally not call it hypocrisy at all.

Oh. Dammit. I think I just did, anyway. Sorry about that. Mea culpa.

Well, as the intellectual value of you not posting and of you posting your art-based non-arguments is exactly the same, I think we can all get behind that decision.

Apparently, you're not too up-to-date with the meaning of "your". I have nothing to do with that part of the discussion, so you may wish to change your possessive adjective there. But you won't because you've taken the very mature, Eric Cartman, "Screw you guys, I'm going home" path of non-discussion.

...except you're not doing that very well, either, since you keep. going. on. Sheesh!

--Jaylemurph

Him and his vitrified stone again. Do you know on the previous mad AA thread, he kept asking why the 'ancient' builders would 'vitrify' the rock inside a cave... (because there is a cave that shows the apparent vitrification, especially on the roof inside)....and this was a major issue for him " WHY would they vitrify inside a cave"... "How did they do this" and over and over again like a broken record. he had no possible ideas how this could have happened, it must have been done by aliens using high heat lasers to get the rock into such a high heat state that when cooled it left a glassy shiny surface texture. "But why he asked, go to all the hard work and effort to vitrify INSIDE this place?

The question was asked repeatedly, the photos were posted endlessly...

Until that is, I explained the cave had been a kiln.. :lol: you know, where they used HIGH HEAT to fire their bowls and pots....and you could sense, even thru the internet, that he had the slow realisation of what a total fool he had been. Classic zoser :clap:

Oh and heres his humanoids in space suits...just watch first 2 mins or so, more if you like

.

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 13

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.