advanced aliens or ancient humans?

[DONTEATUS]

We aint gonna make another Hundred years ! THats a Fact Jack ! & Jill

[Socio]

I have a opinion that just good old man power built the pyramids due to the fact s,and it only needs a semi-soft serv to understand that we have not to this day ever found any Alien tech,of instructions or hardware !

Now If they open up one someday and find that magic wand or levaitator master tool and laser stone cutter with the Alpha centuri patent number on it were off to the races ! Cheers !justDONTEATUS

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

If Aliens had the technology to come here and wanted to build structures I can't see them stacking rocks to do it when they would have had the knowledge to refine metals, alloys, or even use/create building materials unknown to us.

[badeskov]

I would be glad to. However, I will note that sourcing from the Internet is easier said than done--I am not always successful when I search for Internet versions of my evidence.

Nobody said you needed to source from the internet. A written reference, such as "Author, title, ISBN/publication, year, page number(s)" more than suffices.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Arbitran]

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

If Aliens had the technology to come here and wanted to build structures I can't see them stacking rocks to do it when they would have had the knowledge to refine metals, alloys, or even use/create building materials unknown to us.

Because stone lasts far longer than other building materials. Think about it: in a few millennia, our skyscrapers and houses will be reduced to dust. Stone is not only far more long-lived than other materials, but it also happens to be far easier to craft and build up than metals, which have to be mined, smelted, refined, tempered, crafted, and then built up (only to have a far shorter lifespan than other materials). Glass and stone are the two most common substances used by the gods--they are extremely versatile and efficient, while at the same time being extremely simple to find or craft.

[Arbitran]

Nobody said you needed to source from the internet. A written reference, such as "Author, title, ISBN/publication, year, page number(s)" more than suffices.

Cheers,

Badeskov

When I'm discussing ancient texts such as the Ramayana, an ISBN/publication certainly isn't pertinent... But fine, I can do titles and page numbers.

[DONTEATUS]

When are we going to get to Meet these GOD`s ? Im ready to ask a few questions. WHat will be your first question to the GOD`s ?

42 ?

[psyche101]

The fact is that there are countless eyewitness reports of xts visiting this planet, there are writings about them from ancient times, and there are things like Ganza that suggest xts have been here. Those are facts. There are more. They all back up the possibility that xts have been here, and nothing backs up the possibility that they have not. Nothing!

Fact is? I think you best look up the definition of fact on that one. It is most definitely not at all fact that ET is here and living amongst us, that is simply yet another movie plot, another musing, more tall tales. Nothing more. What suggests ET is here to some is not Ganza (Right spelling?) but Gunja.

There are no such things. That is a fabrication. Some older art has been badly reinterpreted, and some people are of the belief that they have seen a craft from another planet. That is the entire thing. There is no more. The only way to extend this into something that you are describing is to ignore fact and believe in fiction. Not one single piece of technological evidence exists on the planet that is known to be manufactured on another planet. What does exist are hopes dreams an imagination, and I just am not really interested in other peoples dreams, I have my own to pursue.

My interpretation of E=MC2 is that: the total potential energy of an object is equal to its mass times the speed of light squared. If you think it's something different then what do you think it is?

You have listed the parts of the equation, the clip I gave you would have been sufficient for this bland regurgitation. But you have shown no understanding of the equation. That is your filter.

If you're finally considering that ftl travel is possible then maybe you're moving on a little bit.

Again you failed to read the post in depth. I specifically noted that reference was speculative for the purposes of illustrating the size of the Universe. Please do take note of what I write, after all I have been providing you with that courtesy. And please do not rewrite my posts for me.

I was thinking that I was as far behind as you are only a month ago because at that time I was still convinced no xts had ever been here, unless it was God somehow. But even then I considered the possibility of God's existence and also that there's no reason to believe ftl travel is impossible. So really even when I was far behind where I am now I was still way ahead of you.

If you continue to refuse to discuss the subject in an adult and polite manner, please cease and desist answering my posts. I will return a post as courtesy, but I must take this up with the moderators if you must insist on continuing with the snide and snarky remarks that serve no other function than to insult. All I have learned from this post is that you hold yourself in very high regard, you think a great deal of yourself. That is not the Hindu way. Every Hindu I have ever met has been far kinder, respectful and happy to accept the beliefs of others, and do not try to force themselves or their musings on others. As such, I truly find it difficult to believe that you are a Hindu scholar, and if you are still claiming to be a Hindu, you do not subscribe to anything true Hindus do, so why would I believe you are any more than simple another crackpot on the Internet. You do a great disservice to those you claim to hold dear with your unsavoury actions.

I have never believed that 186K miles/second is some sort of physical universal speed limit, especially since no one can give a good explanation as to what that velocity would be relative to. I have my own interpretation what it is, but I like to see if anyone else ever says the same thing. So far I don't recall anyone doing it yet.

That is because you do not read posts, I have given you reference frames more than once in this thread, I honestly feel you do not understand the concept at all and that is why you keep asking the same question. It matter not how many times you are given the answer, you need to understand it. Do you think the speed of light is infinite, or do you think we can just squeeze a few more mph out of it?

I think you are just not hearing others because the sound of your own interpretation is the only one that you are willing to hear.

[Arbitran]

When are we going to get to Meet these GOD`s ? Im ready to ask a few questions. WHat will be your first question to the GOD`s ?

42 ?

My first question would be: how did you evolve? How long did it take you? What sort of beings did you descend from? How long did it take you to develop technology and culture?

That would be my first question. There are many others.

[Arbitran]

Fact is? I think you best look up the definition of fact on that one. It is most definitely not at all fact that ET is here and living amongst us, that is simply yet another movie plot, another musing, more tall tales. Nothing more. What suggests ET is here to some is not Ganza (Right spelling?) but Gunja.

There are no such things. That is a fabrication. Some older art has been badly reinterpreted, and some people are of the belief that they have seen a craft from another planet. That is the entire thing. There is no more. The only way to extend this into something that you are describing is to ignore fact and believe in fiction. Not one single piece of technological evidence exists on the planet that is known to be manufactured on another planet. What does exist are hopes dreams an imagination, and I just am not really interested in other peoples dreams, I have my own to pursue.

You have listed the parts of the equation, the clip I gave you would have been sufficient for this bland regurgitation. But you have shown no understanding of the equation. That is your filter.

Again you failed to read the post in depth. I specifically noted that reference was speculative for the purposes of illustrating the size of the Universe. Please do take note of what I write, after all I have been providing you with that courtesy. And please do not rewrite my posts for me.

If you continue to refuse to discuss the subject in an adult and polite manner, please cease and desist answering my posts. I will return a post as courtesy, but I must take this up with the moderators if you must insist on continuing with the snide and snarky remarks that serve no other function than to insult. All I have learned from this post is that you hold yourself in very high regard, you think a great deal of yourself. That is not the Hindu way. Every Hindu I have ever met has been far kinder, respectful and happy to accept the beliefs of others, and do not try to force themselves or their musings on others. As such, I truly find it difficult to believe that you are a Hindu scholar, and if you are still claiming to be a Hindu, you do not subscribe to anything true Hindus do, so why would I believe you are any more than simple another crackpot on the Internet. You do a great disservice to those you claim to hold dear with your unsavoury actions.

That is because you do not read posts, I have given you reference frames more than once in this thread, I honestly feel you do not understand the concept at all and that is why you keep asking the same question. It matter not how many times you are given the answer, you need to understand it. Do you think the speed of light is infinite, or do you think we can just squeeze a few more mph out of it?

I think you are just not hearing others because the sound of your own interpretation is the only one that you are willing to hear.

Again, there are vast amounts of evidence of the gods' presence here (or at least past presence). I suspect many things will be cleared up when they return.

[badeskov]

When I'm discussing ancient texts such as the Ramayana, an ISBN/publication certainly isn't pertinent... But fine, I can do titles and page numbers.

It was only an example. As long as it can be found from the reference and there is no ambiguity with respect to edition/copy or the like it suffices.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[psyche101]

There are beings who can survive between cycles or there are not, IF there are cycles at all. I don't have a belief, but you can't even comprehend that much. You can't comprehend considering a possibility without believing it apparently, and you sure don't seem able to consider any possibilities without first learning about them in a book or movie. Which particular story are you lying that I "lifted" this possibility from, do you have any idea? I predict you have no idea at all, but if you can find a story about the possibility we're discussing I might like to read it IF you can find one. Good luck.

Yes you are describing the entity Q from Star Trek. That was not all that tough to be perfectly honest. To date you have pretended to not know the movies I mentioned, which I take as a show of outright dishonesty. Did you already know this answer too? The question did seem rather too easy for me.

I can consider a principal. It when I ask you to explain further or provide proof is when this debate typically falls over and degenerates into your insulting others. this is where you and I differ greatly in that I seem to have a better understanding of physics. I am guessing that is why my posts to you contain things like Einsteins equation, and yours are filled with your own personal opinion and insults. I am familiar with popular entertainment. You are immensely upset that I exposed the fact that you are trying to push movies themes as some sort of scientific theory aren't you? I am not restricting myself to two particular movies, they were simply the most obvious and recent titles and again, had you read the posts you would have seen this discussion. I have little doubt that there is the work of many science fiction authors in your musing.

[psyche101]

Your "knowledge" is simply trusting (having faith in) the orthodox Western view. I have no preconceived ideas, as I have explained multiple times on these forums. If you studied the ancient texts it would be undeniably clear that the ancients had knowledge of outer space. I suppose that you'll assume though, based on your Western ideas, that the ancient Hindus believed that the sun orbited the Earth--if you read the texts, it is clear that they believed the opposite. They had an empirical knowledge of the heliocentric solar system--as well as other solar systems, planets, the number of planets in our solar system, etc.

Absolute nonsense. Almost the entire thread has been devoted to your preconceived ideals. The proof you have put forth to bolster your tall tales is nonexistent.

And you use of the word "fact" is somewhat insulting. I noticed the side step you gave to Bade as well regarding the definition of outer space.

Edited April 10, 2012 by psyche101

[Arbitran]

Absolute nonsense. Almost the entire thread has been devoted to your preconceived ideals. The proof you have put forth to bolster your tall tales is nonexistent.

And you use of the word "fact" is somewhat insulting. I noticed the side step you gave to Bade as well regarding the definition of outer space.

If you had read anything that I've written you would know that I have made quite sure not to allow any preconceived concepts or leaps of logic to infiltrate my research. I compiled evidence, and then simply studied it until a clear conclusion could be reached--no preconceived ideas were included in this process. I was very careful of this, and have kept a catalogue recording each step--making sure not to allow any ideas not directly indicated by the evidence to be included.

You are insulted quite easily, it seems.

What "side step"?

It was only an example. As long as it can be found from the reference and there is no ambiguity with respect to edition/copy or the like it suffices.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Alright then.

[psyche101]

How do you want people to believe ravines cut the top off of hills? Can you provide other examples of ravines (or whatever) having done so in similar ways?

I still find it amusing when I encounter someone who appears to believe that one.

I can.

Table Top Mountain. Toowoomba about 2 hours west from where I am sitting typing this.

The region consists of many such examples along hundreds of kilometers. I have driven around on the top of some. There is no current accepted theory that I am aware of, but my personal hypothesis is that the area was an inland sea, or immense lake at some point which drained through the Helidon valley and out through Brisbane, leaving many pillars and in some case the tops were eroded, and water flowed over them in it's rush to the sea creating the flat tops we see today. It seem to be the same path that the devastating floods took the year before last. Massive sandstone beds at the base of Toowoomba exist and I believe lend credence to this hypothesis, which are being raped to provide sandstone blocks for high quality housing. All sorts of things like indigenous artifacts and fossils are being "lost" so that none of the sandstone farms will have production halted. Most locals know the stories and have seen many artifacts that end up crushed out of existence, stashed in someones roof, or simply thrown back into pits and covered over again. The Government does not care own whit, they over rode the community around 10-15 years ago in the same area and destroyed indigenous caves and rock art to extend the Nobby/Warrwick road. A crime of the people the way I see that. I do hope one day someone is held responsible for that outright vandalism. My wife used to visit them as a child, but nobody will ever see them again.

Another example from Mackay - Lords Table Top Mountain.

Another natural formation, nothing to do with ET, but the course of water. If you visit on of these locations, that water created them is obvious.

[nopeda]

There are beings who can survive between cycles or there are not, IF there are cycles at all. I don't have a belief, but you can't even comprehend that much. You can't comprehend considering a possibility without believing it apparently, and you sure don't seem able to consider any possibilities without first learning about them in a book or movie. Which particular story are you lying that I "lifted" this possibility from, do you have any idea? I predict you have no idea at all, but if you can find a story about the possibility we're discussing I might like to read it IF you can find one. Good luck.

Yes you are describing the entity Q from Star Trek.

So far I don't believe you since what I have read about the being didn't say anything about the universe going through cycles of expansion and contraction. You need to provide reason to believe that specific situation is described in your movie or I'll continue to disbelieve you. And even if that specific situation is being described I still was thinking about it years before the movie you're talking about came out. If you want to pretend I learned the concept from a movie instead of from my dad, you need to pick one that was out before 1975 because I was aware of it by then. So since I've been aware of the concept for at least 37 years you need to come up with a movie about it that's over 37 years old before we can even begin to pretend what you apparently want badly to believe for some odd reason.

[psyche101]

If you had read anything that I've written you would know that I have made quite sure not to allow any preconceived concepts or leaps of logic to infiltrate my research. I compiled evidence, and then simply studied it until a clear conclusion could be reached--no preconceived ideas were included in this process. I was very careful of this, and have kept a catalogue recording each step--making sure not to allow any ideas not directly indicated by the evidence to be included.

In the other thread you discuss the same concept. Therefore you came into this thread with a specific mindset, and belittle those that disagree with you. You have provided little if any links to references, you have offered personal assurances by large. As such, how is your postion not preconceived? Just because you take notes of your own ideas does not change this does it?

You are insulted quite easily, it seems.

I know of no other way to describe the so called "facts" presented in this thread. If you have a preferred term, please offer it.

What "side step"?

I would be glad to. However, I will note that sourcing from the Internet is easier said than done--I am not always successful when I search for Internet versions of my evidence.

I have already offered assistance in this respect. And lets face it, the board is designed well and to accomodate ease of use. Placing a link is hardly rocket science, nor is scanning and providing an uncontrolled copy of a page to specifically illustrate a claim. That is if said publication is not already on Google Books.

[psyche101]

So far I don't believe you since what I have read about the being didn't say anything about the universe going through cycles of expansion and contraction. You need to provide reason to believe that specific situation is described in your movie or I'll continue to disbelieve you. And even if that specific situation is being described I still was thinking about it years before the movie you're talking about came out. If you want to pretend I learned the concept from a movie instead of from my dad, you need to pick one that was out before 1975 because I was aware of it by then. So since I've been aware of the concept for at least 37 years you need to come up with a movie about it that's over 37 years old before we can even begin to pretend what you apparently want badly to believe for some odd reason.

I shall repeat my request. Can you please start reading what I post. I am a little bored with you taking my posts and re-writing them to suit your agenda. Again, the post you replied to says:

You are immensely upset that I exposed the fact that you are trying to push movies themes as some sort of scientific theory aren't you? I am not restricting myself to two particular movies, they were simply the most obvious and recent titles and again, had you read the posts you would have seen this discussion. I have little doubt that there is the work of many science fiction authors in your musing.

I want badly to believe what? That your lifted you plot from others? Can you finish your posts if you are to respond please. I have not offered a belief in anything, I have presented facts and I have stated plain and rather obvious conversations which are referenced. Even posts. Can you prove to me that you discussed this with your father 37 years ago, or am I expected to take your word yet again? Honestly, with each post you make that request becomes a bigger ask.

Now slow down and read this entirely before you respond please. You are the cause of enough unnecessary confusion to date.

Edited April 10, 2012 by psyche101

[psyche101]

Again, there are vast amounts of evidence of the gods' presence here (or at least past presence). I suspect many things will be cleared up when they return.

No there is not. We have been over this too many time, Present the evidence ro stop making the claim. Evidence presented to date has been less than convincing.

[DONTEATUS]

I would have to agree with ,psyche101 and Badeskov`s we need to not just read and be told about the GOD`s but modern man must learn and actually grow from real events,physical proof,evidence with quite a bit of research put into it !

Not made up stories ! Thats what THe Bible,and Hollywood do ,give the mind an alternate belief system to sleep good at night and when the BOOGIE man comes to haunt. As for Real Science its how we got where we are today ,and where ww shall go tomorrow. If we can survive ourselfs.

[psyche101]

The deity of the Bible is a fallacy. The gods of the Hindu texts actually existed--

There is not any proof of either. I think there is more evidence for the bible in a piece of toast that looks like Jesus than in the Hindu texts.

Indeed Myles, this is not proof, but an example of extreme arrogance and self assuredness.

[Arbitran]

No there is not. We have been over this too many time, Present the evidence ro stop making the claim. Evidence presented to date has been less than convincing.

I will.

I will have to ask that you be slightly more open-minded about this. For you to plainly say "no there is not" (despite vast amounts of existing evidence to the contrary) is quite biased and narrow.

[psyche101]

I would have to agree with ,psyche101 and Badeskov`s we need to not just read and be told about the GOD`s but modern man must learn and actually grow from real events,physical proof,evidence with quite a bit of research put into it !

Not made up stories ! Thats what THe Bible,and Hollywood do ,give the mind an alternate belief system to sleep good at night and when the BOOGIE man comes to haunt. As for Real Science its how we got where we are today ,and where ww shall go tomorrow. If we can survive ourselfs.

Exactly mate

All this mumbo jumbo personal interpretation of a religion, or be it the Bible itself cannot trump the fossil record. After all it is a record! Just like the Red Hot Chillie Peppers make and who recorded Californication which has thos most prohetic line in it:

"Space may be the final frontier, but it's made in a Hollywood basement" -Red Hot Chilling Peppers.

[Arbitran]

Indeed Myles, this is not proof, but an example of extreme arrogance and self assuredness.

Is it arrogant to insist that historical, physical beings existed, as opposed to the intangible god of the Bible?

[badeskov]

I will.

I will have to ask that you be slightly more open-minded about this. For you to plainly say "no there is not" (despite vast amounts of existing evidence to the contrary) is quite biased and narrow.

Psyche is very open minded, but he also has a good screen to filter out the BS. And he is correct, there is no evidence - whatsoever. Otherwise we would not be having this discussion now.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Arbitran]

Psyche is very open minded, but he also has a good screen to filter out the BS. And he is correct, there is no evidence - whatsoever. Otherwise we would not be having this discussion now.

Cheers,

Badeskov

There is evidence. A massive amount of it. If anyone actually went and studied it as I have done over the past forty years perhaps this would be a more fruitful conversation. Not to be arrogant, but I should hope that after forty years my collection of evidence is fairly expansive.

All I can say of Psyche is that based on his former posts, I have seen naught but clear signs of narrow-mindedness and bias.