Polaris wrote:5,6,7,8 - Mars, Asteroidia, Nibiru, Jupiter
we are talking planetoids here - and these facts have not ignored any planetoid (of significance), - and with only one exception, a description of the sun system would NOT include satellites of planetoids.
Our sciences have confirmed all but one of the planetoids that defines our very solar system and it is the 7th inner planet.
To answer your question about why 'they' didn't give us all the information - that is easy - they did - the early popes didn't like it - so they had it destroyed - so we're left with bits of scrap found here and there - now we have to piece it together - with all the naysayers poo-pooing new ideas - keeping everyone ignorant of the facts...
I re-post the link...http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/
So the first M, following Earth, is the Moon. Why are we including only Earth's moon? I read the chart you linked, but it doesn't display data for any other heavenly bodies, so how is one to compare them to the Moon?
Polaris wrote:Who built the Pyramids of Giza, who built Puma Punka, who built Machu Puchu, please explain the little golden aeroplane, please explain all the references to aeroplanes in ancient religious script, who taught the Mayan to keep time, who taught the Sumerian's timekeeping with ner(360) and shar(3600), please explain who is drawing those crop circles, please explain who drew the Nazca lines
This is still circumstantial - not evidence. You are presenting theories, or the unexplained, as evidence. Just because we cannot explain something does not mean it is evidence for a particular theory. As far as the Pyramids of Giza are concerned, well, you basically have to believe that all the historical, ancient writings that have been found, stating that the Egyptians built the pyramids, are wrong in order to believe that we still do not know who built the pyramids. As far as Pumapunku, and other South American ancient sites are concerned, we don't have a lot of historical writings, as far as I know, documenting who built these structures. It could as easily have been aliens, as giants or, more likely, some indigenous people, now extinct which didn't have a writing system to record their legacy. The structures are fascinating, and baffle what we think we know, but immediately drawing the conclusion that they had to be built by non-humans is irresponsible at best. The fact is that we just don't know enough about the structures yet to form a conclusion about who built them. That doesn't lend credit to chalk them up as evidence for the AAT. It only suggests it is a possibility. There is a distinct difference.
Why do you infer that humankind could never have invented any of these devices on their own? Is it impossible to think that we, as intelligent beings, invented a calendar system? I certainly don't think so. Is it impossible to think that we assigned specific measures of times to words? Not really, no.
Further, don't we know who drew the Nazca lines? I thought it was pretty much commonly accepted that the indigenous people created them; the debate is to what function they served, and what tools they used to create them.
Polaris wrote:Agreed I have strong opinions - I've learned it is required when up against dogma... and I am uncertain as to your position, do you believe the Bible to be fact or fiction? And what is your explanation for the destruction of historical facts by the Vatican's followers, not only did they do it once but several times throughout their history, so what are you trying to tell me, that after they burned, then they tried to say they didn't do it? Based on previous behavior, I speculate that they probably did try to erase all the eyewitness accounts of their dirty deeds...
I believe the Bible is filled with historical content, related by people who didn't fully understand what they were experiencing, and described it as best they could with the facilities they had at their disposal. They could have been witness to aliens, or supernatural beings, exactly as they describe them; that remains unclear. What matters to me about the Bible is that it most certainly records events that have been proven to have happened. What is left to scholars is to decide where to draw the lines between theology, reality, and imagination.
I clearly stated that it is recorded fact that they (being any number of religious sects throughout time) have destroyed ancient writings. Perhaps they destroyed the evidence that shows exactly how the Egyptians, not aliens, built the pyramids. What gets me about what you are proposing is that you are directly inferring, without a doubt in your mind, that the Vatican destroyed documents to cover up our ancient alien origin, in order to preserve their religious stranglehold on the world. You're half right. They definitely wanted to preserve their religious stranglehold on the world, as it was their means to power. They also suffered from conviction. Their holy texts state you shall have no other gods before me. It states that you shall not worship any other gods or idols, etc. They were doing their religious duty to destroy these ancient artifacts. Does that make it right? That's a matter of opinion, which I do not share, but some do. So what facts can we take from this? They destroyed ancient knowledge. What we don't know is A) what that knowledge encompassed and B) that it was evidence of ancient alien origin. Using this type of conjecture as evidence in an argument only serves to discredit your arguments instead of strengthen them.
Polaris wrote:The past and current state of knowledge that we as a collective race, did not and do not have the capability to design and build the ancient structures listed above - it is as simply as that - a piece of the direct evidence that you seek, an indisputable fact. I do not discount nor does AAT discount human ingenuity, we were the labourers, we did it once and we can do it again, with some help from the people from the 7th planet.
This paragraph is borderline incomprehensible, but I believe you are saying that neither in the past, nor present, is humanity capable of designing and building the ancient structures you listed above. If you truly believe that, then you must live in a severely sheltered, and ignorant, facade of a world. We could easily build the Great Pyramids with our advanced technology today. We could build Pumapunku, and any site you unearth. The reason we don't is because A) it's not profitable and B) there is no compelling reason to do so other than to prove the fact that it can be done. So whereas, 10,000 years ago, Egyptian kings might have been able to provide the resources to sustain the labor needed to construct these megaliths, that isn't the case today. No corporation, country, or academic institution is going to afford the resources to build a structure like this which would undoubtedly fail to recover the lost cost in the construction. It would be a huge financial loss. Our world of construction no longer consists of stone architecture; we have advanced beyond the stone age. We now build more advanced, and architecturally sound, structures out of metal alloys. Because the market is so one-sided, there virtually is no complimentary technology for stone work on the scale of building colossal pyramids of limestone.
I'm surprised that so many keep clinging to the idea that the pyramids are the epitome of ancient megaliths that must have been built by alternative means than by human hands. Göbekli Tepe, by comparison, is much more of a scientific enigma. The blocks are superior to those used in the construction of the pyramids. The surrounding countryside could not have supported a vast workforce, as the Giza plateau could have. It is much older than the pyramids are believed to be by mainstream science.
If we, as supporters and believers of AAT, want to advance our theory in the hopes that it will one day be adopted by mainstream science, and the world, then we need to learn to distinguish between what is factual evidence, and what is conjecture. While there is nothing wrong with holding opinions, they should never be used as supporting evidence. We need to learn when it is time to concede possibilities to plausibility. While that does not mean to abandon a far-flung idea, it does mean you don't interject those ideas as arguments of evidence. They are not proof.
I want to see the AAT taken seriously. As long as we continue to dilute our stronger cases with wild, fanciful, unsubstantiated conjecture, we will never get the support we need to discover and disseminate the truth.
I'm not here to tell anyone what to believe, but, in order to maintain your own integrity, you should strive to formulate those opinions based on factual information. All I'm offering is advice on how to form logical opinions, rather than opinions based on conflicting, unproven theories.
---
That's a fascinating read, Bob137. Unfortunately, it sounds like a lot of speculation based on further speculation at the moment. For example, the claims that there are monuments on the surface of Phobos. The claim that two monuments on the surface of Phobos form a straight line (there is always a straight line between any two given points). The claim that there are perfect right angle corridors tunneled out in the core of Phobos. If such tremendous precision is capable of being measured, then it should be indisputable fact that the interior of Phobos is indeed hollow, regardless of if the 90 degree angle claim is correct. That seems still up for debate.
It's definitely interesting, but it's also disconcerting to me. By releasing these preliminary findings, which may end up being proven false in the future due to improved scientific techniques, many have already formed their opinion that Phobos is absolutely hollow, and an artificial satellite. At this point, no matter what information scientists release, if it contradicts this theory, then these proponents of an artificial Phobos will claim that the government is just covering up information, and will reference these initial, inaccurate reports as "evidence".
Sometimes, we have to learn to let certain things go. It's a great theory now, and I hope it is proven to be true, but if it is proven false, then instead of fervently defending it as fact covered in conspiracy, we need to move on and continue to defend the things that hold weight. It's definitely something to continue following closely, though. A truly fascinating subject. Thanks Bob137.
by coomba98 » Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:27 pm 
