Undemocratic knowledge

[timeTraveler]

The fact remains that new (and the best) knowledge is scarcely ever democratic. In the beginning it t is almost always possessed by small group of people. This has happened repeatedly over and over again in history. I try to pick up a few of them from different times. Let’s start with a man who was born 19 February 1473 Nicolaus Copernicus. This is very well known histories with in astronomical theories. We know from numerous sources that ancient astronauts had provided man with substantial knowledge of space both galactic and solar system scale. But during the long times since the AA had left human kind this knowledge with a lot of other knowledge was forgotten.

The small privileged group of our ancestors understood that the information that they possessed meant power and indirectly survival. For this reason they kept it secret – as we by the way still do. For instance Amon-Ra clergy protected and carried the knowledge from generation to generation for several millenniums, which is a remarkable achievement. By the way there are at least two distinct colossal disasters the most probably destroyed almost all of that ancient knowledge. The first was the big fire of the Alexandrian library somewhere in the middle of 1st Century AD. The reason of this fire is clearly unknown. This leaves room for speculation. One possible cause is that the very clergy that hade protected it so long decide to destroy it rather than to put it in the hands of “enemy”. Basically the same kind of thing happen in the New World with Mayan and Aztec writing, but the guilty is well known. This time it was the Catholic Church and their Jesuit monks that systematically destroyed all written Indians material!

Any way the knowledge was almost completely lost and had to be “reinvented”. In the beginning of 1400 century the “mainstream” common understanding of the solar system was geocentric earth immovable in the centre of the “universe”. The trouble with this was that it did not match at all with the findings. The paths of the other planets ”around the earth” become very complex. Copernicus found the roots of the old forgotten right knowledge and he was good enough mathematician to be able to calculate the right elliptic paths for the planets. He was afeard to publish his achievements because he guest what kind of reception he would get from the church. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus . When Kepler and Galileo Galilei confirmed Copernicus work and ecpesially Galilei wrote in Italy instead of Latin then the Catholic Church really got upset.

My next example is Albert Einstein. He created special relativity theory in 1905 when he was just 26 years old. At this time he was completely outside the “mainstream” universities and created his most important works. This text changed Newton’s understanding of physics very profoundly. His new theory actually extended the existing theory rather that replaced it completely. It is very complex mathematics (see :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity ). To be able to even read this stuff one has to have studies of university level mathematics. At the time of the publication of the theory there was a handful of people to even understand so much of the stuff that he/she can take any stand on this issue. Still it took at least 6 years to be generally accepted in spite of that it is very rigorous mathematics. I don’t know how long it took to get general acceptance and understanding at least of the basic principles of relativity theory. My guts feeling about this situation in Finland is that in spite of our high level of public education system, where all the population are thought basic physic still more than half of the population don’t know or understand the basic principles of relativity theory.

Next case is Charles Darwin and his evolution theory. The evidence – the smoking gun – is definitely there or how else could be explained that chimpanzee and human shares far over 90% of their genome and all living things on earth share the same genome passing mechanism: DNA. Still the last inquiry research at 2006 in Finland shoved that ONLY 65 % believed in evolution theory! So evolution theory is based on overwhelming amount of facts. Still there is a remarkable amount of people do not accept these as facts. The reason for their denial of the meaning of the observed facts doesn’t come from the facts or the deduction it self but rather from “other source” like the other beliefs (not knowledge) or especially values that they know or think to be threatened.

Newer similar cases are for instance the creation of one of the biggest inventions in modern mathematics named abstract algebra. Both Nils Henrik Abel and Evariste Galois both died at very young age and independently of each other made a breakthrough in Group-theory, which is the basis of the whole abstract algebra. The best mathematicians in Europe examined there work, did not understand what they saw and totally neglected their great achievements. (see: http://www.no-corporate-stores-here!.com/Equation-That-Cou ... 887&sr=1-4)

This is an endless list. The next great person how has considerably advanced Darwin’s theory of evolution is Stuart Kauffman. (see his remarkable boob of biological evolution and theory of complexity: At Home in the Universe
http://www.no-corporate-stores-here!.com/At-Home-Universe- ... 599&sr=8-1

CONCLUTION: The fact is that the metaphor “smoking gun” is a complete illusion. There is NO SUCH THING in the passed history! The past events have gone for ever and to reconstruct what really happened you need a detective investigation to put the pieces together and there is almost without an exception someone that doesn’t agree!

[~Stormy~]

I am trying to understand how and why you are grouping knowledge and democracy together and how that can be demonstrated in the examples you have provided. Why must everything be presented inside the confines of the modern archetype of politics?

[timeTraveler]

Hi
I am NOT using term "democratic" in political sense but in sense of equality of distribution. My message is that the new breaking knowledge is NOT for big masses but always for small elite !

[Moon]

What you are stating is that no theory here can be proven. To me, that is a way out of trying to get people to prove their theories. While it is true this is one of the more difficult ideas to prove outside of mainstream science, it is very possible something will be found and dated to show a very advanced technology was used thousands of years ago.

Also, strides are being made on the DNA analysis of the Starchild Skull showing it is not possible for it to be human at all. Again, it needs the full (and very expensive) testing to be done for it to be proven to be an alien skull once and for all.

To try and state there is never going to be proof of any fringe idea is to give up too easily. That is what the mainstreamers want to hear from this side.

Never give up, as we have only just begun to find what is out there.

[lunarwing]

It only seems that the AA theorists have the burden of proof of being right.... where in reality, the skeptics have the burden of proof that our theories are NOT the more probable of all the possible theoritical histories.

They are very loud and/or very connected... these nay-sayers can only "nick" our armour... and scream that they slew the reasoning. They have so very little to hold their old wore out version together so they always are on the attack to draw attention away from the flimsy ideas that their support their view.

That said... everyone is entitled to a opinion.... even those who are wrong.

Next case is Charles Darwin and his evolution theory. The evidence – the smoking gun – is definitely there or how else could be explained that chimpanzee and human shares far over 90% of their genome!

It is also a fact that we share 90% (actaully I think the number is closer to 93%) of the molecular base with clouds and watermellon's as well... but you do not tell people that. There is a whole hell of a difference in that 7% that is left between the monkey's and you .

A bit of Trivia.... It is said that Enstein got the idea for E=MC2 form the Book of Genesis. Another brillant thinker, besides Issac Newton, who knew of the possiblities of a Bible code.

[timeTraveler]

to maxmercury

What you are stating is that no theory here can be proven.

.........

To try and state there is never going to be proof of any fringe idea is to give up too easily. That is what the mainstreamers want to hear from this side.

Never give up, as we have only just begun to find what is out there.

You got me wrong!

I did NOT state that theories CANNOT be prove. What I said was that there is NO WAY to make EVERY person to accept (read understand) the proof!

Of course it it most important to seek understanding and truth but don't be mistaken that ANY NUMBER of evidence will convince us ALL!

[Pons Asinorum]

It only seems that the AA theorists have the burden of proof of being right.... where in reality, the skeptics have the burden of proof that our theories are NOT the more probable of all the possible theoritical histories.

Isn't the burden of proof on the assertion?

If one were to assert that Sponge Bob Squarepants is eating cake on the far side of the moon, we would not be able to conclusively prove such an assertion wrong -- at least within the rules of logic.

That is why (I think) the burden of proof must be met by the person making the assertion, and not the skeptic trying to disprove it, because it would not be logically possible.

What you are stating is that no theory here can be proven.

Within a given framework, like modern science, a given theory can be proven (indeed, it must have the property of "provability" or by definition it is not modern science), but in absolute terms, such may be beyond human intellect.

As far as proving something in absolute terms, it may not be possible because there is no absolute framework -- all frameworks in human experience have axioms: science (classical or modern), religion, AAT, etc.

For example, an axiom of classical physics holds that we live in a deterministic universe, yet an axiom in modern physics has an axiom with the opposite assumption. Both physics require their axioms to be true, so which one is valid in the absolute sense? If we exclude classical physics, then how do we know the axiom of modern physics is the ultimate description of reality?

As long as an axiom is present then it seems that the theories dependent upon it are vulnerable -- and yes, modern physics has some problems that need to be resolved...(cough)...EPR paradox...(cough)...

--

Now, with all that said, if a theory in say the AAT framework were proven valid in a different framework, say modern science -- wow, that would be a moment! For certain that would likely create a whole new framework and profoundly change us.

Such an occurrence is possible because an absolute framework is not required.

I am NOT using term "democratic" in political sense but in sense of equality of distribution. My message is that the new breaking knowledge is NOT for big masses but always for small elite!

Are not discoveries and ideas always made by a single person (or small group) and then disseminate, whether by design or inevitability? My apologies, but I am not sure what exactly you are trying to say.

[lunarwing]

If one were to assert that Sponge Bob Squarepants is eating cake on the far side of the moon, we would not be able to conclusively prove such an assertion wrong -- at least within the rules of logic.

Thats kinda like.... If one were to assert that man originated from primordial ooze on the far side of the world, could one be able to conclusively prove such a claim? I don't think its possible, most of that mindset is guesswork too. The accepted mainstrean line of seclular scientists are never put to task as much as the AA theorists or creation scientists.

So what you have these days is three or more theories that hold the answer of our beginings. The Ancient Astronaut theory is just as valid and sometimes quite a bit more so than a lot of current scientific views.

[Pons Asinorum]

Thats kinda like.... If one were to assert that man originated from primordial ooze on the far side of the world, could one be able to conclusively prove such a claim? I don't think its possible, most of that mindset is guesswork too.

Well maybe, but within the scientific belief system (what I call "framework"), just as much effort, debate, and argument would have to occur -- indeed that is why modern science does not hold that life first arose from a "primordial ooze." Such theories have failed to be proven -- so far.

The theory you stated is indeed guesswork and until proven, it will remain that way (where proof, in this case, is defined within the framework of modern science).

The accepted mainstrean line of seclular scientists are never put to task as much as the AA theorists or creation scientists.

Lunarwing, I think you rock, but here we respectfully disagree -- within the scientific framework (which one does not have to consider valid) a theory has to submit to peer review in which every aspect of its assertions are scrutinized: where if even a single chemical, physical or mathematical principle is amiss, then the theory fails (failure means "not proven").

Even then, the critiques continue, sometimes for centuries -- and almost always new scientific laws are discovered, often at the expense of current laws.

Geez, look at the turn of the 20th century: classical physics (which supplanted ancient science that was based on millenniums-old Greek philosophy) gave way to modern physics -- about 300 years of scientific thought turned on its head.

It is also unlikely that modern physics is safe, at least in its present form. Three centuries from now, forget about it!

So the theories within the scientific framework are rigorously challenged in a manner consistent with its current axioms.

(and when Creationist take their theories out of the religious framework and insert it into the scientific framework, it is a blood bath as creationism is currently viewed as a bigger "threat" to science than AAT. Frameworks are belief systems and they do compete).

So what you have these days is three or more theories that hold the answer of our beginings.

Three or more theories that are widely beleived perhaps, but none are proven to the standards within the scientific framework, for example the Big Bang theory is still a theory (the term "Big Bang" was coined by the critics of this theory, in a childish effort to discredit the new cosmology that displaced a nearly two (?) thousand year old theory of an eternal universe. Ironically, this notion of eternity is making a comeback, but in the form of a multiverse as proposed by Dr Steven Hawking in his new book "The Grand Design").

Since they are not yet proven, other theories that are not so widely held cannot be readily excluded.

The Ancient Astronaut theory is just as valid and sometimes quite a bit more so than a lot of current scientific views.

It is a valid theory, but in what framework? To play by the same rules as any other theory within the scientific framework, then it must answer its critics via peer review -- without resorting to logical fallacies (like the straw man, ad hominem, ad hoc hypothesis, etc) or for Pete's sake, any use of the word "they."

I beleive that AAT is its own framework, but often seeks validation in other frameworks (namely modern science and religion). If so, then in the scientific framework, prepare for enormous criticism; no mercy is ever shown -- ask Copernicus, Newton, Galileo, Einstein,... -- and they were pitching for the "home" team.

Dog-eat, dog-world (sometimes).

If, however, the two frameworks do meet, a new paradigm will almost certainly emerge (and not just science). On that day, I will definitely open some cold ones and celebrate like crazy

[Moon]

I grok what you mean now. I also understand the others frustration that many mainstream theories do not go through the problems and ridicule that the ancient astronaut theory does.

I can also answer that one: Extraordinary ideas demand extraordinary proof. That famous quote is from Dr Carl Sagan, who used to be more friendly and open to the AAT when he was younger.

The good news is more and more archeological finds are showing up and proving our civilization is much, much older than they previously thought. Even astronomers are finding planets orbiting stars, showing how common they really are.

Every new find helps to advance some of the ideas spoken of here. There will be other finds that will show some ideas here to be wrong and we all need to be prepared for that.

But even if that happens, there are many other ideas out there to keep on going forward.

[upperworld]

Yes Max the evidence is coming to light.

Think of AAT as a puzzle. But someone gave you all 1000 pieces in a plastic bag with no box. So you have no idea what the big picture looks like. You begin to put pieces together, with little success. Slowly over much time you put 5-10% of the puzzle together. Now here you have the people on this forum, the ones that can mentally piece the big picture together with the clues we have currently unraveled. But for mainstream scientists and society, they will need to see the rest of the puzzle before they can figure it out. For now they will just laugh and say "that's not what it is", and we just have to be patient until we can finish the puzzle.

[truthseeker]

Yes Max the evidence is coming to light.

Think of AAT as a puzzle. But someone gave you all 1000 pieces in a plastic bag with no box. So you have no idea what the big picture looks like. You begin to put pieces together, with little success. Slowly over much time you put 5-10% of the puzzle together. Now here you have the people on this forum, the ones that can mentally piece the big picture together with the clues we have currently unraveled. But for mainstream scientists and society, they will need to see the rest of the puzzle before they can figure it out. For now they will just laugh and say "that's not what it is", and we just have to be patient until we can finish the puzzle.

That's as good a way of putting it as any i have seen.

[timeTraveler]

Yes exactly ! ANd when the puzzle is ready then there still are some who claims that it is still missing some piece!

[Pons Asinorum]

Think of AAT as a puzzle.

Great analogy Upperworld!

[Kepesh]

Personnally, I believe the "puzzle", to first consist of three seperate parts.
The collected data, (note here to avoid referring to this as "proof")
the individuals presenting the data, (we are all human, scientist included)
and finally, and maybe most importantly, if the presentation/opinion of the individual presents unbiased theory.

The third is extrememly important, in the fact, that if any presented aspect, or possibility is left out of the equation, then the entire theory can be easily considered biased on the part of the presenter. In other words, if a scientist takes the stand that evolution is proven, and that any possibility of "outer space people" or "God" is just too pagan and unscientific to even be considered, then, of course his findings are biased. I might point out that this is just what has been happening.

In a discussion I had with a very well known paleontologist, about evolution, I was very curious as to what criterea was being used to specifically identify evolution. I asked about interbreeding. His answer was that interbreeding, or changes/defects as the result of, would not be considered evolution. That evolution was based more on adaptability, and very gradual change over time as a result of various changes in habitat/survival. In effect, he said to me, that interbreeding is most often not even considered, as cross breeds, or hybrids, are typically unable to reproduce, and that sufficient evidence shows that animals just don't do it. In the rare event they might try, no offspring are produced.

You see, dogs are not considered to be "evolved", because they were purposely bred by humans from wolves.

That also brings us to current time, with newer genetic findings, showing that in fact early pre-sapien hominids DID interbreed. Certainly, why wouldn't they? Hasn't man been proven to be one of the horniest mammals on the planet? Why would earlier versions be any different?

Another thing we know today, is that one very small fraction of DNA, can create an enormous difference in the appearance, shape and build of an individual. 2, 3, or 4% could be massive changes. Therefore to omit any possibilities from the equation is not only biased, but neglect, damaging to the foundation of discovery itself. To merely label any suggestions and possibilities as ludicris, absurd, looney, or insane, is tampering with the evidence.

Why are so many afraid of the possibility of alien intervention? Where is the logic, that supports the implied absurdity? Entertain for a moment, that such claimed evidence so far presented supports "Both" theories. That of evolution, and later genetic manipulation/intervention. Why? Because the evidence is not there to rule out intervention is it? Absolutely not. In fact, the more people in science that actually lay their hands on the data, the more look for other answers. That is why today, we continually witness an ever increasing number of individuals with Phd's in the field of ufology. How could that be so, if the evidence claimed is so profound?

Now allow me to point out why the Ancient Astronaut theory, the ancient "Gods", and us being genetically interfered with, as a slave race, makes sense.
First off, for an advanced intelligence to be intentionally perceived as "Gods" is precisely logical. In as much as, their visits here to be periodic, their status as "Gods", would ensure the continuity of their property, the slaves, to return to their duties on their return. To guaranty their loyalty. History has proven that forced slavery, to be problematic for the masters, even after 100's of years, the slaves continue to revolt and escape. By encouraging and provoking their "God" status, extraterrestrials would not have to face the arduous task of rounding up and capturing more slaves on their return. It would even make sense then, to teach these lesser beings various aspects of astronomy, to allow them to watch and prepare for the return, as well as adding another tool to keep their history available for future generations.

Another point, is that of instinct, learned habits and traits, listening to your concience. The study of addictions, has led us to discover that these traits are genetically passed, from one generation to another. Here is where we leave bone samplings and enter behavioral science. Any biologist of common sense will tell you, that we as humans match all definitions of an invasive species. There should exist mountains of evidence, proving much larger populative settlements, prior to the existance of the more reknown ancient cities. The gradual, trial and error period, before succeeding to such granduer. Large population centers are much more involved than simply moving a bunch of people in close proximty and feeding them. There has to be law and order. There has to be great incentive to overcome 1000's of years of tribal habits. There has to be recognized rule. Many of these ancient cities were skillfully laid out and planned. People had to have purpose, and guidance, lest arguements and turmoil tear those foundations apart. Indeed, the binding glue had to be much stronger in the beginning. Today, so much is taken for granted, it is nearly impossible for the average person to come close to imagining the difficulty level involved. Tribal people had security in their small clans. Security is, in fact, the most important sub-concience thing to any human. It therefore makes perfect sense, that to overcome these obsticals, that a race of higher intelligence and sophistication, taught and guided early man into this period. That early man, finding comfort and security in the presense of advanced peoples, were able to quickly adjust to these changes. The other evidence, that could show earlier attempts of man to live in larger populations, just isn't there.
This, timeTraveler, is a piece of the puzzle that is so often never included. Bones alone cannot determine our past. Behavioral science must be included. For it is the incentive of man.

Here is another bit of interesting evidence. One you may have recently seen. A group of Russian scientist were experimenting with domesticating wild foxes. They learned, that in fact, they could be bred to be "human" friendly, and even enjoy human companionship. From each subsequent generation, the aggressive pups were removed. Only the more docile ones were allowed to continue breeding. After a mere 20 generations, the entire litters were very tame. Interestingly as well, they began to turn white. (color of fur in inductive to skin pigment). Yes, many were entirely white, while their aggressive ancestors were black/dark grey. Being another form of mammal, why would the possibility of this same scenario involving humans sound so absurd? Interestingly, science attempts to answer the caucasion from negroid scenario, by claimimg an evolutionary process that resulted from migration further north. If that is so, what of the negroid populations that moved further south? They were still on the African continent, but as far removed from the equatorial areas as the species that migrated to Europe. Why did they not change pigment? How does this make good scientific logic? In fact, for what purpose does science continually reconstruct all known Neanderthal scientific displays as caucasion? Only one sample (that I have heard) was found to have possible red hair, (which was certainly assumed to indicate caucasion attributes) note: (there is no gene for race. there are only very slight genetic differences that determine skin color. For the complete Neanderthal genome known to have been created, fragmentary samples were used from up to 100 different individuals).

But, interestingly enough, we remain an invasive species to this planet. Destroying most of nature, and the environment, that a natural species would have held in very high regard as importance to existance. So we continue to destroy this planet, and deplete resources, so that we may continue to populate, and return to our completely artificial environments. The only plausible answers then, that remain, is that we are either a hybrid race created as slaves by another, more advanced outside race, or we have evolved into complete ignorance through facetiousness, and are doomed to become an evolutionary dead end.

You know, even athiests, non religious people, still, worship other humans that they consider "special". It is a shared trait of most all humans. The ones worshipped are celebrities, football and baseball players, actors, actresses, singers, musicians, poets, scholars, scientists, philosophers, politicians, painters, writers, tv stars, radio personalities, teachers.......and on...and on. You see, after several thousand years of being bred to worship false gods, we still cannot get it out of our system.


I would rather have a mind opened with wonder, than one closed by denial. This is the process of discovery.

[Ace Rimmer]

We are still a slave race, atleast all of us in the civilized ( I use the term loosely) societies. We are wage slaves, we have to follow strict rules or we can not survive.
I really think some of us are wired differently. I really do, some small part of our brains work a little better. I know that probably makes me sound like a nutter. And for decades I have entertained the notion that perhaps I really am nuts. But I have a really hard time relating to people inregards to figuring out what motivates them to do what they do and think what they think, or not think!

I am getting off track here, but anyway, I so know we do not belong here and the sad thing is we don't belong anywhere that I can figure out. We are basically an unnatural creation.

[Kepesh]

We are still a slave race, atleast all of us in the civilized ( I use the term loosely) societies. We are wage slaves, we have to follow strict rules or we can not survive.
I really think some of us are wired differently. I really do, some small part of our brains work a little better. I know that probably makes me sound like a nutter. And for decades I have entertained the notion that perhaps I really am nuts. But I have a really hard time relating to people inregards to figuring out what motivates them to do what they do and think what they think, or not think!

I am getting off track here, but anyway, I so know we do not belong here and the sad thing is we don't belong anywhere that I can figure out. We are basically an unnatural creation.

I coulda wrote that
and yes, we continue to slave for our masters, don't we?
not democratic at all, only the illusion of it

[Ace Rimmer]

Oh good that makes me feel better.

I laugh to myself when I read how we were created and were slaves and they did not care about us, were were only there to mine gold or clean the toilets of the Gods. Well anyway we are in the exact same position right now, nothing has changed one bit!
We are still just slaves and nobody in charge, the ones really running things, care about us at all, we are nothing to them, probably just a big annoyance by now!

[Moon]

Half the fun of the putting the puzzle together is not seeing what the big picture looks like and getting the surprise when it is done.

I also think there is some problems with ancient astronaut theorists as they already think they have all the proof they need. It is one thing to show sculptures and pictures of what appear to be people wearing space helmets, but they can still be explained away as ceremonial masks.

Maybe the gliders that have been found were just toys for children. Again, we don't really know until someone finds an actual ancient spacesuit or a piece of an ancient full sized glider to prove otherwise.

I really do think it is all out there and takes time (and money) to find the evidence that is still out there.

The show is also doing a great job of showing the really ancient sites around the world that were built before humans were supposed to of started that stuff.

[Kepesh]

heh heh, that's actaually kinda nice Max, but not really correct.
Because that is not really what it boils down to exactly.
By definition of your statement it is most certainly implied not as actual proof, but proof acceptable to the individual, isn't it?
Or, who you going to believe?
Because, as in most things, the average Joe probably isn't going to see anything first hand. You will only see it, and accept it, when it is presented in a way that you are programmed to accept.
I could be a relative, someone you've known and trusted all of your life, and tell you actual experiences. But you would continue to doubt until it is broadcast in a manner that the general public would accept. That's just the way it works.
Personally, I have 50+ years of experience, and a loving family and many friends, that have been witness's on countless occasions, I don't need the acceptance of others to believe in what I know.

cheers

[timeTraveler]

To maxmercury:

.......

Maybe the gliders that have been found were just toys for children. Again, we don't really know until someone finds an actual ancient spacesuit or a piece of an ancient full sized glider to prove otherwise.

I really do think it is all out there and takes time (and money) to find the evidence that is still out there.

.....
.

This was actually my initial motivation – the whole clue! There cannot exist any undisputed evidence whatsoever! My point is that we have already exceeded the amount of data for evidence closing the case of extraterrestrial visits to earth.
The REAL question is what is considered evidence! I have studied mathematics in Turku University for 5 years ages ago. During those studies I often was thinking what can be considered as a mathematical proof. This of course boils down to how you define and/or indentify the step in your steps of your proof. How do you justify the evidence of you “evident” step. If we know that x<10 and we know that x is not = 10 then we conclude that the sentence “ x > 10” is true! My big question is how / why this happens and I think I know that there is no way to formalize or agree this! Here lies the dilemma !

[angeloneastralseed]

I mentioned this in another post a while ago, but, what is happening is that some people require to witness an actual event before they "believe" or trust that it is possible; others can see clues and come to their own conclusion that they "believe" or trust that it is possible.

It's a darn good thing we don't require visual witness to solving murder cases.

For those who require personal witness (the "show me" crowd aka; the lawyers).............well, then, there is and will be a lot of things you feel are artificial, unless you are hypocritical. You have never witnessed seeing that the earth is round for yourself, so therefore you cannot "believe" pictures and other witnesses. You cannot "believe" that anything beyond your actual witness is happening or has happened, such as WWI, unless you were there. Why pick and chose what to "believe" of that you have not witnessed? That is hypocritical to say you believe one thing you have not witnessed, yet deny something else you have not witnessed.

For those who can see the clues and decide to "believe" (the "yes it's possible" crowd aka the detectives) Well, then, anything is possible. You can look at a photograph of the round earth and listen to the story from the astronaut who took the picture, and say, "Yes, this is true. I don't NEED to go into space and see for myself."

I'm a detective by nature - I like clues, I like the challenge of piecing together the puzzle; yes, I put the pieces in the wrong spot sometimes - even try to force them in occasionally; but when someone helps me, such as (and there are many on this site, but just to mention an influential few) Truthseeker, Lunarwing, Metaluna, Maxmercury, and AA on History Chanel, then I can accept a new way of thinking or "believing" something because the clues (pieces) fit well. If I required proof by seeing it............I would have never registered for this forum.

[Ace Rimmer]

Atleast we don't take alot of the puzzle pieces and hide them!

Thank you Angel for the vote of confidence! There are so many brilliant people on this forum I am in awe sometimes. I can't believe how much I have learned and I have so many new trains of thought running around in my head it is like Grand Central Station.

I have believed in Alien Intervention for over 40 years and in that amount of time I have yet to run across any information that tells me otherwise. If anything the more I learn, and with new discoveries all the time coming to light, it just reinforces my belief.

[Kepesh]

I've recognized some of our most blatant critics, they were on the O.J. jury.

Good point Metaluna, much evidence is hidden.

But as far as believing, without the smoking gun, well, that's just common sense.
Don't these hardliner skeptics know, in the movies they are ALWAYS the first to get eaten!
I don't wanna be that guy!

[Moon]

While I do know no one here needs others to believe what they believe to be true, I am arguing on a scientific viewpoint here. I also had an out of body experience that some of my family believe and others think it was my imagination. I know it is true, but I cannot prove it scientifically.

The ancient astronaut theory is a theory, it is not a truth. I have seen plenty of evidence that tells me there is much to the theory. Others (and I have many family members who think the AAT is bonkers) need much more than a few pictures and sculptures to show them proof that extraterrestrials landed on our planet in the past.

To them, each of the sculptures, cave drawings and other evidences shown to them is nicely tied up to be imagination, ceremonial masks and coincidences (don't you love that one?).

I do think we have been visited in the past and are still being visited now. I think I can make a very good case of it and win it in a courtroom. However, there could still be enough reasonable doubt on the theory itself until something really big is found.

The greatness about this theory is that so much has yet to be found. Most ancient cities are buried in the dirt, and finding them is the fun part. Then there are the dwellings that are underwater.

I am being a devil's advocate here to show what the other side wants as proof that this theory is true. We ask them the hard questions, and we also need to ask our side the same types of questions.

[Kepesh]

What you may not be aware of Max, is that the "other" side, isn't always just another "ordinary citizen" sitting on the couch with his laptop and chips, while his pooch sits faithfully to the side.
It is their contention to hold discussions to a certain level, lest they attract too much attentions, and questions. To rise above that level, and begin putting more malevolent pieces together, involving gov't contracts, sub-contractors, their projects, and project heads, their satelite offices, etc, then they begin to interfere with web activity. They attack sites, shutting them down, and individuals as well. They also start their own "alien cults" across the web, to cause further distraction and disruptions. If that is not effective enough, then you get the helicopters, slow driving vehicles, or a more ominous presence, a Spectre gunship circling your house. Which of course has some of todays most sophisticated electronic imaging and snooping on board.
It is their intention, to keep discussions to the "even arguement" phase.
Consider for a moment, the proponents of this "other" side, call them "extremist for scientific arguement". You can find them, their affiliations, in some cases their funding, benefactors, and organisations. They have tons of money in ample supply. They are NOT having a full scale replica pyramid built, to show everyone how right they are.
They are instead, building and funding the seed vaults, and collecting dna from every living thing on the planet.

[angeloneastralseed]

Bringing in AA theory, providing some evidence, and providing some clues, then expecting all people (young and old) to just throw away years and years (since kindergarten) of being taught (brainwashed) that we come from primates will be the most difficult thing this subject will face. I know our history books are wrong but they are out there being taught in every classroom. I know many religions do not see God, Jesus, and angels as extraterrestrials (all they need to do is look up the word in the dictionary-plainly states the needed info to come to that conclusion). We have two types of generations fighting this out and I see it in my daily life, with people I talk to. In my opinion, (and in my experience) people born before the 1960's tend to have closed minds on this subject (not all of them, so don't attack me) due to strong beliefs and just plain believing what they were taught as a child and nothing can change their minds. From the 1960's and up until now, these generations of people are looking deeper into many subjects, they are asking more questions and not accepting the traditional answers. They tend to seek out other sources for answers or conclusions (not to mention that the communication between other countries and backgrounds are easier to find now, then they were years and years ago)

I think the new generations coming into our world and soon to be in power have much more of an open mind on many issues, so there are more and more coming forward on a daily basis; we just may see some history books being rewritten with more truths. We may get to see more subjects such as AA on television and available much more often. Giorgio is part of that generation; we can clearly see the enthusiasm and belief in his programs.

[Ace Rimmer]

You make excellent points. I agree. I hope it is true about younger people embracing these ideas easier or atleast thinking about what could be.

And I am not attacking you, nothing of the sort, but from my perspective I think older people are the ones more open to this, but that is just because I am from the older crowd and I know others who have thought this even before EVD wrote his first book, including myself. And we have lots of people on here born before 1960, there are quite a few old geezers on the forum.

[Kepesh]

Yes Angel, your point is understood, but I agree with Metaluna.
I've been a member and moderator on boards with over 40,000 membership. The most ardent supporters of the "ET" and Ufology movement were all us old fogies. The younger crowd were more likely to entertain the GFL hype, or just get stoned and stir up arguements for the sake of entertainment.
I would certainly have higher hopes for the younger generations, but frankly, my experience on-line has left me doubts so far. These topics can be very confusing, considering the amount of dis-info and forgeries thrown into the mix, along with all the youtube wannabe fakers, and folks just out to make a buck. It can take quite a while for a newbie to catch up to speed, to know what traps not to fall for, and who not to believe, and even how to research. For many individuals claim false backgrounds, just to attempt to discredit a worthy individual. A lot of searching involved. A lot of mud to sift through.

[Moon]

Kepesh, I just finished reading Leslie Kean's book "UFOs". It is one of the best ones out there on the subject as she approaches it as a journalist and actually does the full research. It took her two years to do all of the research needed before she wrote the book.

The thing is there are many researchers out there who do all the legwork and have thousands of documents, interviews and evidence (Stanton Friedman has a whole basement full of that stuff).

I agree with you that the older researchers have a head on their shoulders when it comes to all that is out there in the internet. There are many stories out there that have been proven to be either wrong or something else that keep on popping up.

I also used my experience in the military to go over how the debris would of been handled during Roswell. I worked many different jobs, and supply was one of them. If the debris was just string, balsa wood and balloon bits, they would of used the normal supply system, not flown it out on a special ordered flight.

Also, Leslie Kean found out that all permanent records regarding Roswell were destroyed, something that the debunkers never write about. The way Kevin Randle found out about the flights was using the other bases' flight logs.

I am rambling, but I just want people here to understand that I do believe we have been visited now and in the past. I do think it is good and healthy to debate the evidence and theories that are out there.

[Kepesh]

Hey Max, yes, skeptisism is healthy. I've often been considered overly skeptic myself.
I have seen several instances, where a researcher was bashed (and had great material too), but then some dude comes out, and makes all kinds of claims, and lies about data, and even his own ID and credentials. Immediately, it is everywhere that so and so's material had been debunked. When actually it hadn't. The news of the fraudulent debunking doesn't travel like the initial bash. Most don't even look at it. The damage has been done. Some will even refuse the evidence that the debunker himself was a fraud. I've seen that happen many times, and can even name some of these people. This is just another sampling of considerations.
It can be rediculous what some people wish to believe, I know. I had an uncle (now past away), that was in the Navy, and a member of operation Highjump at the Antartic in 1947. I was able to talk with him at length on the phone about that mission. But despite having this firsthand account availble, far too many people continued to carry on with a U.S. vs. UFO battle and an inner earth entrance found on that mission. Entirely untrue, and even based on a forged diary invented after Byrd's death.
Sometimes, the evidence we get our hands on, is more incriminating, just by discovering who is involved. Especially, like you say, if it "was just a weather balloon".

Seen this one?
From an FOIA request in April 22, 1993

[angeloneastralseed]

Very interesting letter, Kepesh.

I don't think the word "debunk" really should be used in most cases. In most cases it really isn't "debunked", just showing another point of view.