The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Science & Alternative Science => Topic started by: rigilkent on March 31, 2015, 05:33:18 AM
-
First time poster, long time reader.
I was wondering, what is the general view of Ancient Aliens on this forum?
-
Are you talking about the show? Or just the theory in general? Either way, it's mostly accurate.
-
Aliens are about as likely as leprechauns.
-
It would seem that the general view is conflicted just as in most any population you sample.
-
Aliens are about as likely as leprechauns.
Incorrect. Given that there are no leprechauns on Earth, any leprechauns that exist (if they do), would have to be aliens. However, it is significantly more likely that any aliens out there, should they exist, would not be leprechauns. In other words, non-leprechaun aliens are more likely than leprechauns.
-
Given that there are no leprechauns on Earth
What are you trying to say?
-
Are you talking about the show? Or just the theory in general? Either way, it's mostly accurate.
The theory, though I've seen the show before, too. It makes complete sense to me to think of ourselves as a mold of something outside of this earth, considering how advanced we are compared to other species -- not saying that other species are not intelligent either. In short, we're hybrids!
I'm wondering how this fits in with FET though? Ancient civilizations thought the world was flat, so did aliens come here and tell them that? Obviously, to the naked eye, the Earth looks flat from our perspective. Or maybe the Aether was somehow involved and is the "alien."
Sorry if this is in wrong thread. I'm just curious if someone has a theory about them and if it ties into the general FET somehow.
-
Ancient aliens is a terrible scam created by a known con artist.
-
Ancient aliens is a terrible scam created by a known con artist.
Wrong. Who is this known con artist?
If you make a claim like that then you need to be able to back it up with a name and source, otherwise the only thing you're contributing to this thread is post count.
I'm only asking about ancient alien theorist because it seems most of then are roundies, but it's perfectly plausible with a flat earth.
-
Ancient aliens is a terrible scam created by a known con artist.
Wrong. Who is this known con artist?
How are you so sure that Rooster is wrong if you don't even know who the con artist is that she's referring to?
-
I cannot see why, should aliens exist, what their motives of remaining hidden would be?
It'd be far easier to turn us all into slaves or replace us entirely with alien tech robots and strip the earth of commodities. But if they can get to earth, they can get anywhere and aren't likely to need commodities. In other words by the time an alien race has the tech to get here, there isn't anything of interest to them when they arrive. We think we are fascinating. An alien race that could traverse the galaxy would likely find us incredibly dull. Especially Americans.
-
Ancient aliens is a terrible scam created by a known con artist.
Wrong. Who is this known con artist?
How are you so sure that Rooster is wrong if you don't even know who the con artist is that she's referring to?
Because it would take more than one "known" con artist to pull off a scam like that. It would take hundreds even. There is plenty of data out there to support ancient aliens, and it spans across several cultures, not just one. Maybe I'm the wrong who is wrong but why would she say that without backing herself up in the same post?
But I digress, my original post is for Flat-earthers who believe in ancient aliens, or of you don't, data for why not. That is what I'm concerned about.
-
I cannot see why, should aliens exist, what their motives of remaining hidden would be?
It'd be far easier to turn us all into slaves or replace us entirely with alien tech robots and strip the earth of commodities. But if they can get to earth, they can get anywhere and aren't likely to need commodities. In other words by the time an alien race has the tech to get here, there isn't anything of interest to them when they arrive. We think we are fascinating. An alien race that could traverse the galaxy would likely find us incredibly dull. Especially Americans.
I don't think they are hidden. We are them, and the truth to our origin was lost over time. As to why we don't see their "machines," the Aether explains this.
-
Our DNA is very similar to most other mammals on earth. We don't seem very alien at all.
-
Ancient aliens is a terrible scam created by a known con artist.
Wrong. Who is this known con artist?
If you make a claim like that then you need to be able to back it up with a name and source, otherwise the only thing you're contributing to this thread is post count.
I'm only asking about ancient alien theorist because it seems most of then are roundies, but it's perfectly plausible with a flat earth.
Erich von Däniken. He made this fringe bullshit more mainstream with his string of books. His first book, Chariots of the Gods? was even heavily rewritten by a Nazi German screenwriter before it was ever published. Däniken is absolutely a con artist. He was a thief as early as 19 and has been embezzling and conning in different enterprises ever since.
There is a myriad of information debunking every single one of his claims. I can help start you down the right path if you give me an example or instance that you're particularly interested in.
-
I thought ancient aliens was made mainstream by fantasy author and con artist L.Ron Hubbard?
-
I thought ancient aliens was made mainstream by fantasy author and con artist L.Ron Hubbard?
I'm not really aware of any of Hubbard's theories or the kind of evidence he draws on. The show Ancient Aliens on the History channel is based on Däniken's books. And before that awful tv show no one was really talking about this.
It's possible that Däniken was influenced by Hubbard. Chariots of the Gods? was published in 68.
-
L. Ron Hubbard is the guy that founded Scientology.
There is some ancient alien nonsense of his linked below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu
-
I know who Hubbard is - I just don't know how much of Scientology is about aliens building pyramids or Pumapunku which is what "Ancient Aliens" refers to.
I guess Hubbard's line of thinking is more that we are aliens. I don't know, his shit is so out there.
-
What about all the smooth stones that are almost perfectly flat at Pumapunka and the pyramids? How did they get them so smooth without using modern technology. Today's technology has a hard time making some of the things from ancient times. How did ancient civilizations make it?
-
Our DNA is very similar to most other mammals on earth. We don't seem very alien at all.
Of course it's similar, but not completely.
We're hybrids!
-
I know who Hubbard is - I just don't know how much of Scientology is about aliens building pyramids or Pumapunku which is what "Ancient Aliens" refers to.
Not much, if any at all. Xenu and all the alien stuff is Scientology's mythology, similar to any religion's mythology. It's really no different than Mormonism's Kolob (star world). The fact that these religions incorporate aliens into their mythology is interesting, which is the only reason I know so much about the two. Although I don't know if I'd call Scientology a religion, it is more like a cult than anything else. I bought Dianetics about 6 years ago and read half of it. I couldn't finish it, I don't remember why... I probably just got bored. But it's pretty much Scientology's holy-book, and it reads like a complex fictional narrative, similar to Hubbard's other books. I did, however, find Scientology's use of aliens in their creation myth more unique and especially more believable than a omnipotent God creating everything.
There's actually a sect of Scientology called "Free Zone" that practice the "religion" without influence from the Church of Scientology (because they're fucking nuts). Free Zone practices what's in Dianetics, which not surprisingly, the CoS strongly deviates from yet still claims that they are following Hubbard's vision. They're not wrong, since Hubbard's actions speak louder than his words, but Dianetics practically condemns the Church of Scientology in it's current exploitative state. I'm fairly convinced Hubbard wrote Dianetics as a part of a larger fictional series, but then something clicked in his brain and he decided to turn it into a psuedo UFO cult text.
Dianetics is not in any way covered by legislation anywhere, for no law can prevent one man sitting down and telling another man his troubles, and if anyone wants a monopoly on dianetics, be assured that he wants it for reasons which have to do not with dianetics but with profit.
—L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (1950)
It's almost like Hubbard didn't even know what he wrote in Dianetics, since his actions after forming the religion were largely inspired by avarice.
Anyways, I'll stop now. This is off-topic, and the whole entire thread should probably be moved anyways since it has nothing to do with FET.
-
What about all the smooth stones that are almost perfectly flat at Pumapunka and the pyramids? How did they get them so smooth without using modern technology.
First, the pyramids are not perfectly smooth or perfectly flat. It depends on which pyramid you're referring to in order for me to go more in detail, but none of them are perfect.
As for Pumapunku, there are a lot of unfinished stones and tools at the site that clearly show how they made them. You don't have to have modern technology to place stones on top of each other to give them the same angle cut or use sand to smooth them. And their dimensions are not all perfectly uniform though Däniken would say otherwise.
Today's technology has a hard time making some of the things from ancient times. How did ancient civilizations make it?
I'm not even sure where you got that. We can recreate these sites using even their old methods. It would just take a long time and a lot of work. People have proven it can be done on smaller scales, though you might have a hard time finding anyone who wants to completely recreate the Great Pyramid using ancient techniques just for the hell of it.
-
Is the term "ancient aliens" something that colloquially means aliens that visited earth in Antiquity? If not, what's the difference between ancient aliens and contemporary aliens?
-
Is the term "ancient aliens" something that colloquially means aliens that visited earth in Antiquity? If not, what's the difference between ancient aliens and contemporary aliens?
Ancient aliens refers to the theory that aliens came to us during ancient times. That's it. There are several deviations depending on who you ask. Some believe that they simply influenced our lives by posing as Gods, making people make complex structures that were at the time impossible (according to some people...), and everything that comes with that.
Some ancient alien theorists will go as far to say that we were planted here by aliens, and that human life actually originates on another planet. Sort of like panspermia, but with aliens instead of meteorites.
That being said, any ancient alien theorist will claim that modern UFO sightings are probably the same aliens that came to us during ancient times. So to them, the two things (ancient aliens, contemporary aliens) are probably the same.
-
Is the term "ancient aliens" something that colloquially means aliens that visited earth in Antiquity?
Yes. Ancient aliens refers to the theory that aliens came to Earth during ancient times and built the ancient marvels. It's the only way some ignorant people can wrap their heads around ancient civilizations building wonderful things. Because to them ancient = unintelligent and incapable.
-
Ancient aliens is a terrible scam created by a known con artist.
Are you referring to Erich von Däniken?
If not, who?
-
Ancient aliens is a terrible scam created by a known con artist.
Are you referring to Erich von Däniken?
If not, who?
Yes, that's what I said in my comment after that one.
-
Ancient aliens is a terrible scam created by a known con artist.
Are you referring to Erich von Däniken?
If not, who?
Yes, that's what I said in my comment after that one.
Shit, that's probably why I shouldn't skip around in a thread. Anyways, I have to agree with you. Most of his work is stolen and adapted from other authors without giving credit to said authors.
-
Ancient aliens is a terrible scam created by a known con artist.
Are you referring to Erich von Däniken?
If not, who?
Yes, that's what I said in my comment after that one.
Shit, that's probably why I shouldn't skip around in a thread. Anyways, I have to agree with you. Most of his work is stolen and adapted from other authors without giving credit to said authors.
Exactly... just because one guy might be a con artist doesn't mean that the rest of the theorists are as well either. I have other examples of how there are unexplained "man-made" monuments but I'm at work and typing on my phone is tedious. I will expand later.
As far as modern aliens go, I don't hold the belief that they are the same as those who visited in ancient times. One thing we do know is that NASA and other government agencies are covering it up, along with everything else.
-
I have other examples of how there are unexplained "man-made" monuments but I'm at work and typing on my phone is tedious. I will expand later.
"Unexplained" means you haven't researched the content. You haven't looked at archaeological or historical evidence. You just see something and go "well, gosh golly how did they do that? It must be aliens."
-
I have other examples of how there are unexplained "man-made" monuments but I'm at work and typing on my phone is tedious. I will expand later.
"Unexplained" means you haven't researched the content. You haven't looked at archaeological or historical evidence. You just see something and go "well, gosh golly how did they do that? It must be aliens."
Incorrect. It means that they have been researched, and they are still unexplained. Like I said, I'll elaborate later.
-
Okay, well even if we didn't know how everything happened back then - why do you think that would mean aliens were involved? It just means that documentation doesn't exist. For everything you think is unexplained there are academic theories and rationalizations that don't include aliens.
-
There are clues if you look deep enough. Just like there are clues that the Earth is flat.
We can't rely on "satellite" pictures of round earth, because we all know that they are faked and/or doctored. How do we know that NASA or some other government agencies, superior groups, et al. isn't in on a global conspiracy where they place these tools in strategic locations to throw us all off? If they can fool all of these people into being roundies, then why couldn't they fake that ancient civilizations didn't actually make these structures. They're doing the same thing they've always done: lying.
What's the point of the Nazca lines if that civilization didn't have the technology to see them from high above? That's the only way you can tell what designs they are.
-
Was the Statue of Liberty built with reference images from high in the sky? Or was it first sketched and then built to scale with calculations?
-
Was the Statue of Liberty built with reference images from high in the sky? Or was it first sketched and then built to scale with calculations?
The difference being that the statue of liberty stands upright and has aesthetic value to those on the ground whereas the Nazca lines don't.
-
The difference being that the statue of liberty stands upright and has aesthetic value to those on the ground whereas the Nazca lines don't.
Funny.
Regarding the Nazca Lines specifically, here's the first sentence under the history heading on the wiki page:
Contrary to the popular belief that the lines and figures can only be seen with the aid of flight, they are visible from atop the surrounding foothills
And about geoglyphs in general, just because it might not have aesthetic value doesn't mean it's meant for aliens.
as recent research has shown that most were not constructed primarily as art, but were rather built to serve a range of purposes including burial sites and funerary customs, aiding in the trapping of migratory animals, and as cleared areas for camps, houses and animal enclosures
Before you say anything further, why don't you first just take a quick glance at the wiki page and save my time.
-
The difference being that the statue of liberty stands upright and has aesthetic value to those on the ground whereas the Nazca lines don't.
Funny.
Regarding the Nazca Lines specifically, here's the first sentence under the history heading on the wiki page:
Contrary to the popular belief that the lines and figures can only be seen with the aid of flight, they are visible from atop the surrounding foothills
And about geoglyphs in general, just because it might not have aesthetic value doesn't mean it's meant for aliens.
as recent research has shown that most were not constructed primarily as art, but were rather built to serve a range of purposes including burial sites and funerary customs, aiding in the trapping of migratory animals, and as cleared areas for camps, houses and animal enclosures
Before you say anything further, why don't you first just take a quick glance at the wiki page and save my time.
Good job quoting Wikipedia, a site funded by NASA and other agencies.
What time zone are you in? It must be amateur hour over there.
-
Well then do your own research. I ain't got time to go pull some academic papers on these subjects, which I have definitely done before. The burden of proof is on you and you're just going by some shitty History channel tv show - which guess what? Is also produced by liars.
-
Well then do your own research. I ain't got time to go pull some academic papers on these subjects, which I have definitely done before. The burden of proof is on you and you're just going by some shitty History channel tv show - which guess what? Is also produced by liars.
I've said I've seen the show. My beliefs were before the show existed, and I never said I believe everything on it. There are plenty of "academic" papers about Round Earth theory, exponentially more than there are about ancient aliens -- doesn't mean it's true.
-
How do you reconcile your ancient aliens belief with your flat Earth belief?
-
I've said I've seen the show. My beliefs were before the show existed, and I never said I believe everything on it. There are plenty of "academic" papers about Round Earth theory, exponentially more than there are about ancient aliens -- doesn't mean it's true.
You're awful at making points. They basically just boil down to "well everything is funded by lies so it must be aliens!" You have literally nothing to back it up and the points you do make are easily debunked.
Anyway, you have learned my general view of ancient aliens.
-
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio
lol
Actually I have found that some "atheists", mainly people who watch the Ancient Aliens show on the Used To Be About History Channel, do believe #11
See?
-
Ah, I remember debunking Ancient Alien claims before. Though it's probably going to be considerably harder now that this crackpot believes in Flat Earth and global outlandish conspiracies. At least most AA cultists accept round Earth.
-
Ah, I remember debunking Ancient Alien claims before. Though it's probably going to be considerably harder now that this crackpot believes in Flat Earth and global outlandish conspiracies. At least most AA cultists accept round Earth.
One does not simply "debunk" ancient aliens.
-
Ah, I remember debunking Ancient Alien claims before. Though it's probably going to be considerably harder now that this crackpot believes in Flat Earth and global outlandish conspiracies. At least most AA cultists accept round Earth.
I went through all of this before with Yaakov as well. It's actually super easy to debunk so long as you have some understanding of ancient history. There is a lot more evidence left behind than people would think.
-
Isn't it the interpretation of the evidence that is questionable, though?
-
Isn't it the interpretation of the evidence that is questionable, though?
When there are literally images of people building the pyramids and tax records showing that farmers paid tax through monument labor rather than slaves building things. No.
-
There are comic books that show people shooting lasers out of their eyes and flying. Does this prove that the people actually existed? Could these comic books be open to interpretation 1000 years from now?
-
Isn't it the interpretation of the evidence that is questionable, though?
When there are literally images of people building the pyramids and tax records showing that farmers paid tax through monument labor rather than slaves building things. No.
There are pictures of Egyptians building the pyramids? Like photographs?
Please post these pictures.
-
Isn't it the interpretation of the evidence that is questionable, though?
When there are literally images of people building the pyramids and tax records showing that farmers paid tax through monument labor rather than slaves building things. No.
There are pictures of Egyptians building the pyramids? Like photographs?
Please post these pictures.
I said image... thanks.
It was in one of my textbooks but when I try to find it online I never have any luck. But there is this one which shows a method of moving large objects - the sled and water method. (http://i57.tinypic.com/330zbpx.jpg)
-
Isn't it the interpretation of the evidence that is questionable, though?
When there are literally images of people building the pyramids and tax records showing that farmers paid tax through monument labor rather than slaves building things. No.
There are pictures of Egyptians building the pyramids? Like photographs?
Please post these pictures.
I said image... thanks.
It was in one of my textbooks but when I try to find it online I never have any luck. But there is this one which shows a method of moving large objects - the sled and water method. (http://i57.tinypic.com/330zbpx.jpg)
Ok, so you got some wall art or something there. Great.
Do you have any real evidence?
(http://i.imgur.com/08RvQYV.jpg)
There's clearly a UFO in this piece of artwork. You have to concede that UFOs are a real thing now. The man on the right is also doing the Vulcan salute.
-
Perhaps this picture is proof of helicopters in ancient Egypt.
(http://members.tripod.com/~A_U_R_A/HelicopterCartouche.jpg)
-
Perhaps this picture is proof of helicopters in ancient Egypt.
(http://members.tripod.com/~A_U_R_A/HelicopterCartouche.jpg)
It seems that Tripod has censored your image. Probably because it contains dangerous knowledge.
-
I doubt the Ancient Aliens theories simply because they are so popular. If the Ancient Aliens hypothesis were true and what we 'know' is false, it wouldn't be freely broadcasted on a national television network. We don't ever see entire television series centered on proving the moon landing was fake (we do, however, constantly see television series try to prove it was real.)
-
I doubt the Ancient Aliens theories simply because they are so popular. If the Ancient Aliens hypothesis were true and what we 'know' is false, it wouldn't be freely broadcasted on a national television network. We don't ever see entire television series centered on proving the moon landing was fake (we do, however, constantly see television series try to prove it was real.)
This is a good point, but you also have to realize that the accredited researchers and geniuses that produce and speak on Ancient Aliens are thoroughly discredited by almost everyone on the internet and by mainstream science. They are almost universally laughed at, in the same way that Moon landing hoaxers are laughed at... It goes both ways.
-
This is a good point, but you also have to realize that the accredited researchers and geniuses that produce and speak on Ancient Aliens are thoroughly discredited by almost everyone on the internet and by mainstream science. They are almost universally laughed at, in the same way that Moon landing hoaxers are laughed at... It goes both ways.
That's just to give you the perception that there is ongoing conflict about the issue. The Ancient Aliens series is a distraction intended to reinforce secular views of history and create pervasive gaps in spiritual knowledge. The show not only airs on national television, but it airs quite frequently to constantly reinforce the idea to target audiences.
-
Egyptians left records of their lives (including their ridiculous deities). If they thought a higher being was helping them they would have added it.
Oh, yeah I know about the Abydos "helicopters" but that's the only place you see those hieroglyphs. If those things actually existed you would see those in other places.
"The glyphs are a result of both erosion of the stone surface (evident elsewhere in the temple) and the process of filling in and re-carving the stone to replace some of the original hieroglyphics. The technical term for such a surface that has been written on more than once is a palimpsest. The usurping and modifying of inscriptions was common in ancient Egypt throughout its history. The Abydos glyph was modified at least once in antiquity, and perhaps twice. Some of the filling has fallen out in places where the older and the newer inscriptions overlap, and the result is unique and odd-looking."
-
Egyptians left records of their lives (including their ridiculous deities). If they thought a higher being was helping them they would have added it.
Oh, yeah I know about the Abydos "helicopters" but that's the only place you see those hieroglyphs. If those things actually existed you would see those in other places.
So you are making a baseless assumption here. You accept evidence that seems to prove you right, but disregard all that doesn't.
(http://i.imgur.com/YMaSQ6x.png)
The fact that Egyptians felt the need to create this cartouche, clearly depicting ufos and advanced flying machines, is proof that aliens visited Egypt. You cannot simply write off one piece of evidence in favor of another simply because it disagrees with you.
-
They probably look like flying machines to you because you're looking at it the wrong way. That's a vertical piece. That's not a helicopter, it's a man standing with a pole. I wouldn't imagine that's too terribly uncommon at the time.
-
"The anomaly is the creation of a cartouche being reused by following generations. The initial carving was made during the reign of Seti I, and the stone was later reused during the period of Ramesses II with one carving being on top of the other. This palimpsest effect coupled with erosion creates the carving in situ."
That's pretty obvious when you notice that those aren't anywhere else in all of Egyptian record keeping. Which is pretty remarkable. If giant flying machines existed they would be noted frequently.
-
It's not a horizontal piece either - just look at the bee on the left.
-
"The anomaly is the creation of a cartouche being reused by following generations. The initial carving was made during the reign of Seti I, and the stone was later reused during the period of Ramesses II with one carving being on top of the other. This palimpsest effect coupled with erosion creates the carving in situ."
That's pretty obvious when you notice that those aren't anywhere else in all of Egyptian record keeping. Which is pretty remarkable. If giant flying machines existed they would be noted frequently.
I would bet that you think that Christopher Columbus proved the shape of the Earth and Napoleon was very short. You seem to believe anything that is in a book. Have you ever tried to think for yourself?
-
It's not a horizontal piece either - just look at the bee on the left.
So you're telling me that it's supposed to look like this?
(http://i.imgur.com/GL72vn1.png)
Why was it carved horizontally then? Also, it looks like a mess of nonsense vertically. I think you need to provide a source for this claim, rooster.
-
I mean it is a horizontal piece. It was not a vertical. Doh
Napoleon was very short.
But he wasn't short...
-
I mean it is a horizontal piece. It was not a vertical. Doh
I'm confused.
-
Yeah well, you confuse easily.
-
rooster seems to believe everything the history books say.
-
rooster seems to believe everything the history books say.
Well first hand evidence is hardly the same thing as a history book, but they do generally consolidate first hand accounts.
-
rooster seems to believe everything the history books say.
Well first hand evidence is hardly the same thing as a history book, but they do generally consolidate first hand accounts.
But history books are not first hand accounts by any means. Simply look up the Civil War in a history book and you can see where I'm coming from.
-
rooster seems to believe everything the history books say.
Well first hand evidence is hardly the same thing as a history book, but they do generally consolidate first hand accounts.
I have first hand evidence that Scooby Doo is real. Does that mean it is proof? Maybe, I am just misinterpreting things to make them fit my view?
-
But history books are not first hand accounts by any means.
I did not say they were, poor child.
I have first hand evidence that Scooby Doo is real. Does that mean it is proof? Maybe, I am just misinterpreting things to make them fit my view?
You have first hand observational evidence that a cartoon show called Scooby Doo is real. I see nothing wrong with that.
-
Mind responding to the main point of my post, rooster? If you admit that history books are not first hand accounts, then stop referencing them.
-
Ah, I remember debunking Ancient Alien claims before. Though it's probably going to be considerably harder now that this crackpot believes in Flat Earth and global outlandish conspiracies. At least most AA cultists accept round Earth.
One does not simply "debunk" ancient aliens.
That's what the AA cultists said.
-
Mind responding to the main point of my post, rooster? If you admit that history books are not first hand accounts, then stop referencing them.
Why? If they come from a respected archaeologist and the information is accepted by the community - why can't I use the expert analysis of the first hand evidence?
-
Mind responding to the main point of my post, rooster? If you admit that history books are not first hand accounts, then stop referencing them.
Why? If they come from a respected archaeologist and the information is accepted by the community - why can't I use the expert analysis of the first hand evidence?
What's that 'phone game' where information slowly gets warped as people continue to pass the same information via whispering?
That's why.
-
Mind responding to the main point of my post, rooster? If you admit that history books are not first hand accounts, then stop referencing them.
Why? If they come from a respected archaeologist and the information is accepted by the community - why can't I use the expert analysis of the first hand evidence?
What's that 'phone game' where information slowly gets warped as people continue to pass the same information via whispering?
That's why.
How could that possibly be the case when I can also look at the first source or "message" and apply their reasoning?
-
Mind responding to the main point of my post, rooster? If you admit that history books are not first hand accounts, then stop referencing them.
Why? If they come from a respected archaeologist and the information is accepted by the community - why can't I use the expert analysis of the first hand evidence?
What's that 'phone game' where information slowly gets warped as people continue to pass the same information via whispering?
That's why.
How could that possibly be the case when I can also look at the first source or "message" and apply their reasoning?
How does that apply to the Egyptian carvings exactly? Can you time travel and ask an Egyptian person what the meaning of the work is or...?
-
No, but the Rosetta Stone helped people decipher hieroglyphs so that we can just read the meanings of the work.
Like I can tell you that the bee means the "King of the North". I also still remember how to write my name in hieroglyphs but that's neither here nor there.
-
What does the helicopter and the spaceship mean?
-
What does the helicopter and the spaceship mean?
They don't mean anything because they're not hieroglyphs, they're just the end result of rewrites.
You can find the two different overlays online, but I'm too lazy to post them for you now so I'll just do that later.
-
Are you talking about the show? Or just the theory in general? Either way, it's mostly accurate.
The theory, though I've seen the show before, too. It makes complete sense to me to think of ourselves as a mold of something outside of this earth, considering how advanced we are compared to other species -- not saying that other species are not intelligent either. In short, we're hybrids!
What actual proof do you have of this?
-
Our DNA is very similar to most other mammals on earth. We don't seem very alien at all.
Of course it's similar, but not completely.
We're hybrids!
Of course our DNA is not completely similar to other mammals, we're humans. That's how evolution works.
-
Well then do your own research. I ain't got time to go pull some academic papers on these subjects, which I have definitely done before. The burden of proof is on you and you're just going by some shitty History channel tv show - which guess what? Is also produced by liars.
I've said I've seen the show. My beliefs were before the show existed.
In that case, you chose to watch something that would confirm your beliefs rather than challenge them. What do you think that says about you?
-
Well then do your own research. I ain't got time to go pull some academic papers on these subjects, which I have definitely done before. The burden of proof is on you and you're just going by some shitty History channel tv show - which guess what? Is also produced by liars.
I've said I've seen the show. My beliefs were before the show existed.
In that case, you chose to watch something that would confirm your beliefs rather than challenge them. What do you think that says about you?
It says I watch shows that talk about subjects I'm interested in... like most people do.
-
Our DNA is very similar to most other mammals on earth. We don't seem very alien at all.
Of course it's similar, but not completely.
We're hybrids!
Of course our DNA is not completely similar to other mammals, we're humans. That's how evolution works.
Then we agree here. Thork is the one saying it's similar.
-
Well then do your own research. I ain't got time to go pull some academic papers on these subjects, which I have definitely done before. The burden of proof is on you and you're just going by some shitty History channel tv show - which guess what? Is also produced by liars.
I've said I've seen the show. My beliefs were before the show existed.
In that case, you chose to watch something that would confirm your beliefs rather than challenge them. What do you think that says about you?
It says I watch shows that talk about subjects I'm interested in... like most people do.
It's one thing to watch a show you're interested in. It's another to have a belief and watch a show that tells you that your belief is absolutely right. It's like conservatives watching Fox News all the time, or Christians watching TBN.
-
Are you talking about the show? Or just the theory in general? Either way, it's mostly accurate.
The theory, though I've seen the show before, too. It makes complete sense to me to think of ourselves as a mold of something outside of this earth, considering how advanced we are compared to other species -- not saying that other species are not intelligent either. In short, we're hybrids!
What actual proof do you have of this?
If you read the first post you would see I was looking for opinions. The "proof" I would put forward would actually be based on evolution, and the fact the humans have grown exponentially faster as a species than others.
-
the fact the humans have grown exponentially faster as a species than others.
What are you defining as "grown [...] as a species" in this sentence?
-
Well then do your own research. I ain't got time to go pull some academic papers on these subjects, which I have definitely done before. The burden of proof is on you and you're just going by some shitty History channel tv show - which guess what? Is also produced by liars.
I've said I've seen the show. My beliefs were before the show existed.
In that case, you chose to watch something that would confirm your beliefs rather than challenge them. What do you think that says about you?
It says I watch shows that talk about subjects I'm interested in... like most people do.
It's one thing to watch a show you're interested in. It's another to have a belief and watch a show that tells you that your belief is absolutely right. It's like conservatives watching Fox News all the time, or Christians watching TBN.
Right.
I love soccer, but I think I'll go watch baseball even though I hate it.
Note: All Flat Earthers should only watch videos on Round Earth.
-
Our DNA is very similar to most other mammals on earth. We don't seem very alien at all.
Of course it's similar, but not completely.
We're hybrids!
Of course our DNA is not completely similar to other mammals, we're humans. That's how evolution works.
Then we agree here. Thork is the one saying it's similar.
You misunderstood. Our DNA similar to other mammals in the since that all members of Class Mammalia share DNA that expresses traits specific to that class. It's different in the sense that ours contains DNA specific to the Genus Homo and the species Homo sapiens. This is how evolution works, it's a gradual change in DNA that results in a new species. Having similar traits in upper classifications but more specific traits in lower classifications is indicative of common ancestry, not extra-terrestrial genetic engineering. If you want to argue that specific traits in humans are a result of extra-terrestrial interference, you'd have to argue that same in dolphins, octopi, and chimps, which all have a high level of intelligence. You could even argue that roaches, the immortal jellyfish, etc were engineered by aliens to survive. Another thing you'd have to deal with is proving that our DNA (or chimp, dolphin or octopi DNA) originated anywhere other than Earth, especially with this tasty bit of evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_%28human%29#Evolution
-
Are you talking about the show? Or just the theory in general? Either way, it's mostly accurate.
The theory, though I've seen the show before, too. It makes complete sense to me to think of ourselves as a mold of something outside of this earth, considering how advanced we are compared to other species -- not saying that other species are not intelligent either. In short, we're hybrids!
What actual proof do you have of this?
If you read the first post you would see I was looking for opinions. The "proof" I would put forward would actually be based on evolution, and the fact the humans have grown exponentially faster as a species than others.
Evolution actually works against this theory.
What do you mean, "grown" as a species?
-
Well then do your own research. I ain't got time to go pull some academic papers on these subjects, which I have definitely done before. The burden of proof is on you and you're just going by some shitty History channel tv show - which guess what? Is also produced by liars.
I've said I've seen the show. My beliefs were before the show existed.
In that case, you chose to watch something that would confirm your beliefs rather than challenge them. What do you think that says about you?
It says I watch shows that talk about subjects I'm interested in... like most people do.
It's one thing to watch a show you're interested in. It's another to have a belief and watch a show that tells you that your belief is absolutely right. It's like conservatives watching Fox News all the time, or Christians watching TBN.
Right.
I love soccer, but I think I'll go watch baseball even though I hate it.
Note: All Flat Earthers should only watch videos on Round Earth.
I love soccer, but I think I'll go watch baseball even though I hate it.
Incorrect analogy, interests are the same thing as beliefs
Note: All Flat Earthers should only watch videos on Round Earth.
Correct analogy.
-
Are you talking about the show? Or just the theory in general? Either way, it's mostly accurate.
The theory, though I've seen the show before, too. It makes complete sense to me to think of ourselves as a mold of something outside of this earth, considering how advanced we are compared to other species -- not saying that other species are not intelligent either. In short, we're hybrids!
What actual proof do you have of this?
If you read the first post you would see I was looking for opinions. The "proof" I would put forward would actually be based on evolution, and the fact the humans have grown exponentially faster as a species than others.
Evolution actually works against this theory.
What do you mean, "grown" as a species?
Waiting for an answer....