Mistakes in Ancient Aliens

[Hearte]

Not sure how the 22 year figure was calculated, but but here is an example I made, that sort of illustrates how a work-rate for moving and setting the blocks for the Great Pyramid allows it to be completed int 20 years

Pons,

Maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't the 20 (or 22) year thing come from Herodotus?

Harte

[Moon]

First off - Hearte, I for one am glad you are here. Constructive and critical criticism is necessary for growth and improvement. If we all sat around agreeing with each other, well, it'd be pretty boring and we wouldn't really GO anywhere intellectually. I am curious as to the origin of the quote you mentioned also. It'll be interesting to see how that all plays out.

Duende, I really agree with this statement of yours. While I do believe we were visited in the past and in the present still, I also need more physical proof of this subject.

I do think there are too many fringe elements out there and enough crazy conspiracy theories out there without having them bog down what should be a very serious look at a subject that gets ignored by mainstream science. But I can see the reason after seeing the umpteenth post on Nibiru or Annunaki living on that planet.

I listen to all ideas, but I do think it is good to ask those ideas questions too, just as we question the mainstream theories.

(I know I am going to hear about it from Nibiru fans here.)

[Pons Asinorum]

Pons,

Maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't the 20 (or 22) year thing come from Herodotus?

Harte

I bet you are right, Hearte -- that makes sense, but I do not know for sure.

[Moon]

We need a time machine to go back and find out how these monuments were built and what their purpose was. Or a way to view the past as it happened like in some sci fi books and stories.

[Occam Razor]

While I do believe we were visited in the past and in the present still, I also need more physical proof of this subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x60v3E-yZ8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6_HooIJLNc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15yY-1tDabY

[Moon]

While I do believe we were visited in the past and in the present still, I also need more physical proof of this subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x60v3E-yZ8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6_HooIJLNc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15yY-1tDabY

Thank you for those videos. I do think we have been visited and there are many candidates out there of stars that could support life. However we do need to have actual proof the extraterrestrials visited us past or present. I do think it is out there and there are many great finds that actually help move the theory forward.

We have to have patience here as it will eventually be found.

[DivineQueer]

In this Episode (Alien Contacts - originally aired around 12/30/2010), Giorgio Tsoukalos makes reference to Moses describing "Earth as seen from outer space..." About 9 minutes into the episode, He (Giorgio) quotes the Bible as stating, "Thereupon I saw the whole round of the Earth; at once the depth of the Earth, and the vast altitudes of the Heavens."

I have not been able to locate this or any similar verse which I would expect to have been in Exodus... did anyone else catch this? Has anyone been able to reference it? If so, please share... It was amazing to me that there was Biblical reference to Earth being round. I would love to confirm...

I THINK that Giorgio may have referred to Ezekiel's Exodus, when Moses speaks to his Father, retelling; "Thence I looked forth Upon the earth’s wide circle, and beneath The earth itself, and high above the heaven."
This, is very likely the text in question, as it is indeed very similar in its content. If so, then Giorgio apparently used another slightly different version of it. So, if this is the quote, then it was, as said, Ezekiel's Exodus Giorgio got it from.

[Hearte]

"Ezekiel's Exodus" is a play, written by the poet Ezekiel, that we no longer have.

The only reason we know anything about what it contained is because Eusebius wrote some commentary on it.

Hearte

[DivineQueer]

"Ezekiel's Exodus" is a play, written by the poet Ezekiel, that we no longer have.

The only reason we know anything about what it contained is because Eusebius wrote some commentary on it.

Hearte

Yep. None the less, the text is very similar indeed. If otherwise, I hope Giorgio stops twisting and turning on those old rocks or whatever he does for the moment and blesses us with his presence and gives us the answer now already!

[Hearte]

Yep. None the less, the text is very similar indeed.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you.

However, I just saw that episode (again) last night and Giorgio does attribute the quote to Moses (even to the book Exodus, IIRC), without any reference to Ezekiel (the poet) or Eusebius.

Harte

[DivineQueer]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you.

Great.

However, I just saw that episode (again) last night and Giorgio does attribute the quote to Moses (even to the book Exodus, IIRC), without any reference to Ezekiel (the poet) or Eusebius.

Harte

[/quote]

Yeah, that is actually alittle odd... Either, he perhaps considered the quote in itself to be interesting enough to be noted, regardless of its origin, or, he simply screwed up.
Still, he was so very certain and confident when he stated the quote word by word, so either someone have fed him nonsense, or- as I am also open to- Giorgio have come across some ancient orginial Hebrew text that was left out of the Bible, which could be very possible as he travels practically the whole World in his research.

Could be either, really. Without being biased in favour of Giorgio, I, in this case, have a very hard time imagining that he actually made the text up.

[Bob137]

Regardless, most of the Bible is from stories from the ancient Egyptians, and the Ancient Summerians anyway. So in reality, the stories are from older stories, retold in the Jewish texts. From the ancient stories of Ptah, and Atum, and Osiris, and Isis, to the Stories of Tiamut, and Marduk, and Gilgamesh. Whether from sources of Old Testament and parallels with other writings, it all comes down to the facts of ancient people telling stories of beings not of this world, coming down to earth, and creating humans, (aborigines), to do work for the Gods, and to be renowned for being our creators!

[Occam Razor]

While I do believe we were visited in the past and in the present still, I also need more physical proof of this subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x60v3E-yZ8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6_HooIJLNc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15yY-1tDabY

Thank you for those videos. I do think we have been visited and there are many candidates out there of stars that could support life. However we do need to have actual proof the extraterrestrials visited us past or present. I do think it is out there and there are many great finds that actually help move the theory forward.

We have to have patience here as it will eventually be found.

The first video is the proof. Of course only proof for microbic visitors, however you have to take this in context of the other videos. There are quite some earthlike candidates as indetified by the Kepler survey. Unless those are not made of marshmellows, those are made of the stuff other planets are made of... rock and water. Now, if microbes spread around the universe (instead of asuming the cradle of life is on Earth) the probability is very high there are ecosystems. A lot.

Of course you are refering to evidence for "advanced" visitors (keep in mind that - in its own way - every microbe is more advanced than anything we can produce with technology today). In other words: "where is the damm starship?"
I can't satisfy that at this time.

Aside of that i think there is very good empyric evidence...

If we look at the sumerian tablet discussed earlier and use the right translations for the symbols (thanks to Hearthe), what do we look at? A star, not the sun, surrounded by globes wich are neither stars nor the sun. We are looking at planets, are we? And that can tell you a lot if you dare to take objective conclusions. How ON EARTH did that idea emerge at a time the world was considered flat and the heaven a cheese cover?

Now, before objecting i suggest you consider the scope of the universe we are dealing with:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3zLzepBNvc

And given the fact you can see an example of a technological "advanced" specimen this universe is able to produce by just looking into a mirror...

[Moon]

The search for proof just takes a lot of time and work. I do think there is much circumstantial evidence to support the AAT. I do think they will actually find some type of ancient technology or space ship one of these days. I am sure someone hid some stuff somewhere so it wouldn't get taken away.

I also think the Starchild Skull is the real deal and hopefully they will be able to get the genome of it made. That should open more doors for the AAT.

[Hearte]

If we look at the sumerian tablet discussed earlier and use the right translations for the symbols (thanks to Hearthe), what do we look at? A star, not the sun, surrounded by globes wich are neither stars nor the sun. We are looking at planets, are we?

Sorry, no.

The little round circles are also stars. Just not important ones.

I think (without looking back) that I showed this already by posting Sumerian depictions of the Pleiades.

And that can tell you a lot if you dare to take objective conclusions. How ON EARTH did that idea emerge at a time the world was considered flat and the heaven a cheese cover?

Little bright spots in the night sky say absolutely nothing about a round Earth or the existence of other planetary bodies like the Earth. So, the idea had not emerged at the time.

Of course, there's no refutation for your reasonable argument that life exists elsewhere. However, you can't find any support for this in any Sumerian text.

Harte

[Occam Razor]

Hmm, it matters if you look at the depiction of a star system. But i have to agree with you... i went over serveral sumerian Pleiades depictions and they seem not to differentiate there, sometimes they are depicted with the star symbol and somtimes simply as a globe. It still strikes me as odd however that in this case the depictions are mixed. Usually they use stars or globes. It could just reference to the brightness, i have to admit that.

But there are other examples. Stonehenge to name a specific one.

Little bright spots in the night sky say absolutely nothing about a round Earth or the existence of other planetary bodies like the Earth. So, the idea had not emerged at the time.

I am pretty certain Galileo Galilei would disagree.

[Hearte]

Hmm, it matters if you look at the depiction of a star system. But i have to agree with you... i went over serveral sumerian Pleiades depictions and they seem not to differentiate there, sometimes they are depicted with the star symbol and somtimes simply as a globe.

But there are other examples. Stonehenge to name a specific one.

The stars shown with the pointy pattern are the ones they named.

The little round circles are what they considered minor stars.

Named stars included planets, which they thought were the same things as the things we call stars. These were important to them for the same reason they were important to countless other cultures - they move with respect to the "background" stars. (The word "planet" comes from the Greek for "wanderer." In Greek: πλανήτοι, pronounced: planetoi, meaning "wanderers.)
Other named stars are important because they are so bright.

Star names mostly coincided with the names of gods.

For example, what we call the planet Venus (another god), they called Inanna (Ishtar to the Babylonians.)

Inanna was the goddess of love, among other things, just like Venus, BTW.

Harte

[Occam Razor]

A common mistake because Venus is pretty bright sometimes. Most people do not recognize Venus if they are looking at it. They are used to recognizing the sun and moon, but barely anybody is aware they can look at our neigbour planet during a clear night, so, yeah, happens quite often.

[Bob137]

Most people I have ever known have always noticed and k nown of Venus, so that statement of people just not knowing, is not a fact, but pure speculation. In regards to the Pleiades they are of 7 systems, (not a major one, with suns circling around them), so that description is also a fabrication! The actrual tablet shows a sun with planets around it, that is fact. Maybe not our system, but a solar system indeed. One thing is to try to make people believe one thing, another is to be honest when depicting what actually is!

[Hearte]

Little bright spots in the night sky say absolutely nothing about a round Earth or the existence of other planetary bodies like the Earth. So, the idea had not emerged at the time.

I am pretty certain Galileo Galilei would disagree.

He would only disagree after looking through a telescope.

As would have the Sumerians, had they had one.

Hearte

[Occam Razor]

In regards to the Pleiades they are of 7 systems, (not a major one, with suns circling around them), so that description is also a fabrication! The actrual tablet shows a sun with planets around it, that is fact. Maybe not our system, but a solar system indeed. One thing is to try to make people believe one thing, another is to be honest when depicting what actually is!

I agree partially. I don't think its the Pleiades, because those are shown in a uniform manner on other tablets. Its certainly something different. It could also be a reference to another constellation with a bright star in the center and dim stars sourrounding it. However, i have no idea what constellation that could possibly be and the mix of symbols clearly differentiates something. It could be a system. Possibly. "Possibly" isn't good enough.

Unless further conclusions are reached, everything else is pure speculation.

But "possibly" also means we should further look into the matter and neither abandoning it, nor taking things for garanted wich simply hold not up as evidence.

Its a fine line and Hearthe made a good point there, i have to admit that.

[thesaint]

One of the issues i have with season 1 was the mention of Vaimanika Shastra. The is not an ancient document and should not have been mention. The show made it seem like this document was thousands of years old but in actuality its from the 20th century.

[ilacewords]

One of the issues i have with season 1 was the mention of Vaimanika Shastra. The is not an ancient document and should not have been mention. The show made it seem like this document was thousands of years old but in actuality its from the 20th century.

I would have to rewatch that one as I don't remember that being made much mention if you are talking about the episode in reference to the vimanas? I thought they were more talking of the Mahabharata in reference to those. I could be mistaken as the Vaimanika Shastra is dealing with aeronautics. Could it be that they were mentioning it when they compared vimanas to current technology? I'll have to rewatch

[thesaint]

One of the issues i have with season 1 was the mention of Vaimanika Shastra. The is not an ancient document and should not have been mention. The show made it seem like this document was thousands of years old but in actuality its from the 20th century.

I would have to rewatch that one as I don't remember that being made much mention if you are talking about the episode in reference to the vimanas? I thought they were more talking of the Mahabharata in reference to those. I could be mistaken as the Vaimanika Shastra is dealing with aeronautics. Could it be that they were mentioning it when they compared vimanas to current technology? I'll have to rewatch

yes the episode about the vimanas they do talk about the Mahabharata but the Vaimanika Shastra is also thrown in there so one might think it is as old as the Mahabharata. they even show drawings from thevVaimanika Shastra. I'll re-watch to make sure I have the correct episode.

[ilacewords]

One of the issues i have with season 1 was the mention of Vaimanika Shastra. The is not an ancient document and should not have been mention. The show made it seem like this document was thousands of years old but in actuality its from the 20th century.

I would have to rewatch that one as I don't remember that being made much mention if you are talking about the episode in reference to the vimanas? I thought they were more talking of the Mahabharata in reference to those. I could be mistaken as the Vaimanika Shastra is dealing with aeronautics. Could it be that they were mentioning it when they compared vimanas to current technology? I'll have to rewatch

yes the episode about the vimanas they do talk about the Mahabharata but the Vaimanika Shastra is also thrown in there so one might think it is as old as the Mahabharata. they even show drawings from thevVaimanika Shastra. I'll re-watch to make sure I have the correct episode.

That's probably it, I'll look for it too because the Vaimanika Shastra is definitely much newer I think from the 1950s or so.
Of course the Mahabharata is sanskrit so no doubting it's age but I see what you mean.

[Occam Razor]

One of the issues i have with season 1 was the mention of Vaimanika Shastra. The is not an ancient document and should not have been mention. The show made it seem like this document was thousands of years old but in actuality its from the 20th century.

Hmm... yes and no. Yes, its 20th century, however its based on the Samarangana Sutradhara, and that one is ancient (something around 1000-1055 AD), and its even better because it also includes storys about... *seeps air in* ...robots.
So, yes, they should have mentioned that, the text is no good example. However, there are ancient scriptures about Vimanas.

Also, all the storys of ancient nuclear weapons orginate from India (Mahabharata Drona Parva). There you can read about iron thunderbolts filled with the energy of the cosmos, soundseeking missiles, flying cities and stuff like that. Quite interesting.

[DivineQueer]

Hmm... yes and no. Yes, its 20th century, however its based on the Samarangana Sutradhara, and that one is ancient (something around 1000-1055 AD), and its even better because it also includes storys about... *seeps air in* ...robots.

Speaking of the Samarangana Sutradhara, it seems to be very hard to actually find a true, original print of it. Any idea of where to find one? A number of Vedic and hindu-texts seems extremely difficult to track down in its original form, and you really have to turn upside down on alot of stores to find some of them, which is odd.

[thesaint]

One of the issues i have with season 1 was the mention of Vaimanika Shastra. The is not an ancient document and should not have been mention. The show made it seem like this document was thousands of years old but in actuality its from the 20th century.

Hmm... yes and no. Yes, its 20th century, however its based on the Samarangana Sutradhara, and that one is ancient (something around 1000-1055 AD), and its even better because it also includes storys about... *seeps air in* ...robots.
So, yes, they should have mentioned that, the text is no good example. However, there are ancient scriptures about Vimanas.

Also, all the storys of ancient nuclear weapons orginate from India (Mahabharata Drona Parva). There you can read about iron thunderbolts filled with the energy of the cosmos, soundseeking missiles, flying cities and stuff like that. Quite interesting.

Even so, if i'm not mistaken most of the info shown was from the Vaimanika Shastra someone who is looking at the episode and search further for answers will search for info on Vaimanika Shastra and find out "The Vaimanika Shastra was first committed to writing between 1918 and 1923". The point I was making was the episode made it seem like the book was part of the ancient indian manuscripts.

[Occam Razor]

Yes, that is a problem.

However talking about the texts of ancient india, on thing always struck me as odd:

Oppeheimer quoted the Mahabharata whilst witnessing the first succesful nuclear weapon test. And if you start reading up on Oppenheimer you realize this man was a follower of hindu faith. Of course the texts instantly reminded him of the ancient epics. And if you think about it "unleashing the power of the cosmos" is a damm good description of nuclear fission. And then you start reading about an iron thunderbolt dropped by a vimana and you can't help yourself thinking of a plane dropping a bomb or firing a missile. And when you read about people loosing their hair and nails, food and water becoming all of a sudden "poisonous" you can't help to be reminded of radiation sickness. Its interesting when you think about it... was he really inventing or rediscovering?

It gets even more weird when you take a look at the swastica in the same concept. Because that symbol is also straight from the Samarangana Sutradhara. Its a sign of good fortune from a text explaining some kind of technology. And when you look at the WW2 development... it seems they were using the text as a blueprint. Not just Oppenheimer of course, also Von Braun and many others.

Of course one might object that the mantra-magic is quite different from the kind of technology we use today. As an example they propose a mercury engine. We don't build that kind of engine, however we build mercury gyroscopes for navigation equipment. This technology described works, its just our applications are slightly different.

And if you look at some of the technology descibed there its even more advanced than what we use today. I am a bit amateurishly interested in military hardware myself and when i draw comparisions...

Lets take the sound seeking missile as example. A missile with such a guidiance system, and we could build it - we just don't because we went a different route with radar and optics (image recognition and laser guidiance), would totally defeat any countermesures employed today. No chaff would work on it, no flare and no radar absorbing/deflecting frame would safe you from it.

Or the invisbility cloaks are technology we are developing right now (with microcameras, computers and surfaces wich show the image on the other side of the surface).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD83dqSf ... re=related

This stuff is practicable.

Its too precise to be "just" religious guesswork in my opinion. There are far to many coincidences.

[DocSpooky]

In this Episode (Alien Contacts - originally aired around 12/30/2010), Giorgio Tsoukalos makes reference to Moses describing "Earth as seen from outer space..." About 9 minutes into the episode, He (Giorgio) quotes the Bible as stating, "Thereupon I saw the whole round of the Earth; at once the depth of the Earth, and the vast altitudes of the Heavens."

I have not been able to locate this or any similar verse which I would expect to have been in Exodus... did anyone else catch this? Has anyone been able to reference it? If so, please share... It was amazing to me that there was Biblical reference to Earth being round. I would love to confirm...

Yeah this drives me mad as well..
Occasionally there seem to be claims made which are simply incorrect. This is really a shame as it does not help the reputation of the AA theory at all. I think it was one of those slips as the reference from Moses does not exist in any official bible version. However, there are other references that are interesting and likely to be the reason for G's claim. Check this out:

http://www.geocentricity.com/astronomy_ ... teach.html

http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/bo ... eearth.htm

[Bob137]

Interesting that they should say the Egyptians and the Greeks viewed the world as a flat disc, which is fundamentally not the case at all. Maybe mainstream academia believed they did, to fit their theories of where the Romans, and Egyptians believed that, but the Egyptians, and the Greeks both wrote of a spherical earth, not a flat disc! The flat earth theory only came into existence once the Romans took over, prior to that, I could not find any references to a flat earth! You might want to read the Apocrapha, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, book of Enoch, etc.. for his reference.

[Buzi-Blu]

Yep, I agree with Bob.

Just recently I was puzzled why Columbus vastly underestimated the circumference of the Earth despite Eratosthenes calculation some 1600 years previous. As I looked into that I came across a website (below) stating that no-one, of any intelligence at least, ever claimed the Earth to be flat and that this notion came about in the 1830's to discredit the Christians. The flat Earth belief is another of those assumptions I had unwittingly made stemming from childhood that I had never even thought of questioning, or not much anyway.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html
or this, which is more about the Columbus estimate http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm

[DocSpooky]

This makes all perfect sense and I agree. In this case, however, I was mainly interested in the Judeo-Christian references found in the Hebrew bible, following G's TV claim. In this sense, I think it is worth realising that there are problems with the Hebrew translations for the words 'sphere', 'circle' and 'ball'.

Let's take that phrase "the circle of the earth" from Isaiah 40:22 as example. The translation is very unclear and is is hard to say what shape he really meant. Assuming that claims of Hebrew-biblical prophets were likely to be recorded in Hebrew, I would extend this problem to all sayings of the old Hebrew prophets, including good old Moses, who hasn't talked about the shape of the earth though.

This is quite important because when trying to open the eyes of the public, references to the bible as used in the Western World is hugely more authoritative than to non canonical texts. That's why G's claim is so strong. People tend to see i.e. The Book Enoch not as all important, if not even as hoax. I'm not saying it is, I only try to make clear the public view on it.
I seems G mixed up prophets when he made his massive TV claim, bad enough, but even the claims about the earth's shape of the other biblical prophets should be taken with a pinch of salt, due to translation problems. This, by the way, is the reason why ANY claim from ANYone with reference to ancient texts his highly problematic for people like us who are not fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, Egyptian etc and even Greek, as we have to swallow what someone at a certain time thought would be the appropriate translation of a difficult word, not to mention the endless scribing mistakes made throughout the centuries. On top of that is it impossible to fully understand the meaning or perhaps double meaning of all words of a language as it was used 2000 years ago. Heck, try to imagine how difficult it would be for another civilisation to decipher the numerous multiple meanings of words or even phrases in our language and how completely wrong their conclusions about us could be.

[cRush]

Yep, I agree with Bob.

Just recently I was puzzled why Columbus vastly underestimated the circumference of the Earth despite Eratosthenes calculation some 1600 years previous. As I looked into that I came across a website (below) stating that no-one, of any intelligence at least, ever claimed the Earth to be flat and that this notion came about in the 1830's to discredit the Christians. The flat Earth belief is another of those assumptions I had unwittingly made stemming from childhood that I had never even thought of questioning, or not much anyway.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html
or this, which is more about the Columbus estimate http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

As you say, the Flat Earth theory certainly wasn't the predominating theory in Columbus time. However, it seems quite clear that the ancient people, like the Old-testament prophets and Ancient Egyptians, believed the Earth was flat, yet circular in shape. It becomes really hard to defend their knowledge of a spherical Earth when there is so much evidence to the contrary.

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

This scripture seems more likely to suggest that God is looking down upon a circular body of flat land. The sky envelops this land like a canopy, or tent (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament). Describing something as circular is certainly not the same as describing it as spherical - shapes of which we know these ancient cultures were familiar, even if only by empirical means. To try and make the claim that this verse claims ancient knowledge of the spherical nature of the Earth is quite a stretch, to be honest.

[Bob137]

To my understanding of Ancient Civilizations, they most believed the earth was a sphere, not a flat disc, not even the Egyptians, it wasn't until the Greeks that the flat disc was proposed, prior to that, I know of no description from Egypt, China's, or elsewhere that described a flat disc earth. There are reference books in main libraries that tie the different cultures of the Ancient Civilizations, and their similarities in beliefs, and writings, the reference books I have read of t hose, tell of a spherical earth, not a flat disc, not until the Greek civilization, which they may have misconstrued or misunderstood due to translation from Egyptian to Greek, or they may have just came upon it on there own.