Lots of people have tried to explain these stories/myths as things that really happened, but all explanations I have seen are scientifically unsound or so uncontrollable as to be unscientific (the latter sort isn't necessarily wrong, they are just unprovable, mainly metaphysical).
When someone offers a scientific explanation, no matter how tentative, I will look at it (as will many others), and see what parts are right or wrong or uncertain. But when someone declares that we have to take a text literally, and then proceed to pick and choose, I will be very hard to convince...

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

I can only speak for myself here, but I'm looking for ANY kind of evidence. So far, I haven't seen anything that suggests aliens have ever visited Earth. Why did nobody write about these visitations? Surely such an event would have merited more than a few ambiguous references. Why are there no artistic representations of these visitations? Again, such a big event would have been drawn or sculpted by someone. And yes, why is there no physical evidence? It's a golden rule in archaeology that people leave their trash behind when they go somewhere. You'd think alien visitors would have left SOMETHING behind, even if it's just a broken spaceship part.

imo its the skeptic "tune" that doesnt play. there is a miriad of evidence that something might have happened in the ancient past of humanity. this evidence is everywhere in ancient texts. you want to interpret this as myth? go right ahead, but unfortunetly that doesnt work for the sake of skeptic arguments since its equaly non-scientific.

studying these anomalies of the past scientificaly implies documenting and trying to undestand those events, even if they sound "mythological".[/quote]

If there's 'a myriad of evidence,' what is it?

Also, I disagree that accepting mythology as an explanation is unscientific, not least because alien visitations implies a challenge to well-understood laws of physics and biology: Just how are these aliens getting here in the first place? On the other hand, mythology requires nothing more than the human imagination to produce the stories. There's also evidence that religion is part of human behavior, practiced for tens of thousands of years. That's a fairly powerful justification for these mythological stories.

On a science board????

Well, DUH!

Only because it is convenient for your "argument". There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that alien visitors could have "cleaned up" ALL their trash! At the very least, we would have found an empty "Niburu cola" bottle (or something like that) by now. The idea that they removed all evidence of their "visits" is ridiculous. I know that you don't "see it" that way, but that's the way it is.

We've discussed this before on the "What if Sitchin's translations are correct?" thread. The same reasoning applies now. Even if Sitchin's translations are correct, the only thing that would prove is that ancient peoples wrote it down. It wouldn't prove anything about the "truthfullness" of those writings. Another BIG problem is the science. For Sitchin to be correct, we would have to "throw out" our understanding of planetary motion. That's something that needs to be PROVEN, not simply believed because it "fits" the "theory".

My "interpretation" is meaningless. Evidence isn't. What is so "non-scientific" about demanding proof for an idea, when the idea has absolutely no evidence to support it????

These "anomalies" exist only in your mind.


An aside...when I quote a persons post, I always make sure that the first quote is attributed to that person by name. In the future, Outcast, please show me the same courtesy.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Certainly there should be some evidence? The photos and videos are all debunked, implants "magically" disappear, etc. I mean, if there are non-terrestrial critters interacting with us they should leave something behind. None of the folks who supposedly interact with them have claimed they used some kind of super forensic destruction beam removing even the smallest pieces of evidence of said interaction. (Though it shouldn't be too long before the credophiles start making this assertion.) We are talking about a civilization that can prove a man was at a murder scene by the unique genetic traits of plants at the scene for crying-out-loud! Yet none of the visitation believers had thought to hire an independent forensics lab to check out clothes, soil samples, supposed artificats, etc? Money shouldn't be an issue... they make enough from their books and T.V. appearances (all the more lucrative if a forensics lab finds something alien).

We've had this debate here several times. There is simply no evidence, none, that anything in ancient religious texts actually refers to aliens. There is ample evidence that humans lie, invent, fabricate, misperceive, and misunderstand everyday occurances in the world about them and are quite prone to making stuff up to explain what they don't understand. That myths, legends, and religious (and political) movements can develop around misunderstanding, misperceptions, or deliberate lies is also well documented. Events, both common and uncommon, can gain "facts" and details over time that are not part of the original narrative, individuals of note will accrue both good and bad traits or be placed in times and events that they were not physically concurrent with over time... that this happens is established, documented fact. Anthropologists and historians have actually tracked the development of religious ideas and personages and their mythical aggrandizement from certain periods of history, it's no real mystery. We have many modern myths established over the last 300 years that historians and documentarians easily establish as false, yet people continue to believe in their authenticity.

It's therefore anomalous to claim that other religious, legendary, or mythical figures and events might be anything other than more of the same misunderstandings, lies, and aggrandized distortions. A great deal of proof is required before we could accept any individual set of ancient texts as anything else. That's the way it works. Your circular logic i.e. "Alien or supernatural visitations occur because ancient texts seem to provide evidence that they also occured in the past... Ancient texts are interpreted this way because we believe alien or supernatural visitations occur today..." just doesn't wash. Provide some evidence that a particular set of ancient texts isn't just more made-up or inflated hogwash or provide evidence of modern visitation.

Not anomalies. We have very good explanations and documented modern and historical examples of how such stories and legends develop.

I hate to interrupt this Carl Sagenesque debate (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof...) I was wondering if you have noticed the overt racist nature of some of the claims made by EvD, such as the oft repeated mantra; "These people could not have done this without the help of a superior race...." or words to that effect. I remember listening to EvD on Barry Farber in 1970, and wondering about his claim that ancient Peruvians had the aid of extraterrestrial alien aryans, who used x-rays and these images produced in stone carvings proved it.....Right, sure all it proved was that the ancient Peruvians did post mortem examinations, or maybe they did pre-mortem examinations too, but why did they need an x-ray machine from EvD's aliens, to know what the inside of a human looks like????

Sometimes I got the impression that EvD was promoting some sort of crypto-nazi racist therory.....To his credit, Barry Farber called him on this on several occasions, as did other interviewers in the 70's. It has been 30 years since this balderdash was promulgated, and maybe not all of us were around or remember the era.....

__________________
"Ad astra per aspera"

Yes the "humans are too stupid to invent anything, they needed an alien to show them how".

Old argument, until we run into an alien to ask we can presume humans did all these wonderful things themselves.

I finally ran into this article on a Christian website about the Ezekiel UFO See this link

Does this clear up matters on that point ? :-k

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Hehehe... I love that the page you linked to does such a nice job of demonstrating the problem with interpreting ancient (religious and other) texts... invariably the reader will see what he wants to see. Outcast wants to see an alien spaceship the religious findamentalists swear it's a manifestation of "God" and his heavenly host. Both use circular logic to make their case for non-terrestrial supernatural visitations and the far more likely explanation in both cases is that much more mundane (but misunderstood) events actually took place or that the whole thing was simply made-up.

Of these choices which are more likely? Supernatural visitors came to tinker and teach, or some local hermit/medicine man got high on the local peyote and experienced fantastical visions that he believed were real, or some folks witnessed unusual natural events and attributed supernatural causes to them, or some local leaders seeking power through the application of religious mysticism just made the whole thing up? Of those four choices only one sounds unreasonable and we know for fact that all of the other options have occured. Given this, that some people continue to believe in the fantastical interpretations of events really speaks volumes about the education and psychology of the proponents of the fantastical.

Or it could be a metaphor describing a political/philosophical system in religious terms to disguise it from the fundamentalists at the time....

Dale in Ala

__________________
"Ad astra per aspera"

Hmm...
Ways of Interpreting Myth is relevant.

Something for each of us... except me, of course.

"No one way offers a key to the interpretation of myths, but all can offer insights to different motifs and plot elements. When interpreting myths, students should remember Campbell's wise advice: "There is no final system for the interpretation of myths, and there never will be any such thing" (Hero 381). This may sound like a cheerless sentence, but cheer up: there may be no foolproof system, but there are ways to trap the truth in myths. According to Campbell, myths are like the god Proteus (sometimes called the Old Man of the Sea) in the Odyssey who "always speaks the truth" (Homer 52, my emphasis). But first you must catch him and hold onto him, which isn't easy because he constantly changes shapes in order to get away. "He will turn into all sorts of shapes to try you, into all the creatures of that live and move upon the earth, into water, into blazing fire; but you must hold him fast and press him all the harder" (Homer 53). Great advice for any student of myth! Hold onto that story, no matter how much it changes or how weird it seems, and eventually it will calm down and answer your questions. But Proteus only answers the specific questions put to him. So, to get good answers, you have to ask a lot of different questions. ..."

And since that list doesn't ask it: What are ancient myths saying literally?
Particularly those that deal with the Anunnaki - literally "those from heaven to earth came" - who appear to be the archetypal "gods" for many pantheons, and whose stories of the rival brothers Enlil & Enki are the prototypes for "God and Satan" in the most influential historical text the world has ever known? The cited summary points out how scholars will go as far as admitting some mythological kings as factual, but stop short when dealing with "the gods." I'd say because none of those approaches effectively answers what is being told.

What a novel approach, then, to consider them literally, no?

Fascinating how even today scholars debate how myths should be read.
Didn't somebody remark about how amazingly our "learned" society continues to cling to such nonsensical ideas?

Nonetheless, I have to agree with Campbell when he said myths, "always speak the truth."

Hmm... :-k

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Do you somehow think that means that you can interpret myths literally and not be "called" on it?? Nice try...

Yeah, whatever "floats you're boat".

A.DIM, you're not thinking objectively, and you're not interested in evidence. You want the myths to be true to support your "Sitchin ideas". How sad that you just can't see how wrong Sitchin is. But I'll keep trying.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

"... not be called on it??" and "Nice try... " ???

What??!!!

Don't bother, RAF, you've never appeared to know enough to convince me otherwise.
And where'd Sitchin come from anyway? As I pointed out in my initial post on this thread, the idea of "those from heaven to earth came" is ages old. Anyone having done some general reading on Mythology and Religion should recognize this.

So your ridiculous assertions as to "not thinking objectively" or "not interested in evidence" are clearly subjective opinion.

Neither a "nice try" nor much new.



Aside: Maybe it's just me, but your use of caps, italics, bold, quotes etc. in attempts at inflection and emphasis continues to read like tourettes.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

That's me...a big know nothing.

I don't know where he was born...

...and you're using these myths as if they somehow confirm "Sitchin's Theory's"...they do not.
I base my "ridiculous assertions" on reading your posts.

Tourettes is characterized by uncontrolable use of profanity...yet, I've used none. Anyway, I hear about my "use" of caps, italics, etc. a lot. SO WHAT! Forget about how I post....it has nothing to do with this discussion.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

A.DIM,

Please see the other posts in this topic. There are many, many more likely (and documented) explanations of how myths and legends are created by rather normal processes. Why then stoop to gods and aliens?

If you want to seriously discuss this you have to explain why all of the other more likely options are not viable for specific cases before supernatural entities will even be considered.

And remember Campbell was talking about mythical archetypes from the perspective of understanding literature and themes and archetypes that seem to generally appeal to the masses. He was not trying to apply these principals to claims of historical reality of particular myths or characters. Appealing to Campbell here is a little farfetched.

A.DIM, this comes from the site you linked to. It seems to me you misused Campbell and that site to suit your own ideas. Reread the quote above, and then tell me again you support Campbell, or Campbell supports your view. I don't think so.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Coming at this from the opposite direction, I'd like you to explain why so many people have such a deep rooted opposition to the mere idea that at sometime in the past 'beings' of some form or another visited this planet? Now that mankind has visited the moon and sent our own UFOs out into the solar system, just what is so special about us that no-one else can do this in reverse?

The latter is a rhetorical question, I'm not actually that interested in the astronomy that actually 'proves' that such a visitation is not possible, I'm much more interested in the strength of opposition to the idea, and the vehemence and incredulity with which such opposition is usually expressed.

My personal perspective is that this planet and our very own evolution are weirder than they ought to be: this is at the heart of what Von Daniken was saying.

__________________
Think About It

Well you see you are simply wrong. Very few people that I have come across and that applies to the regular inhabitants of this forum, have an oposition to the idea of past visitations by aliens. There is no evidence for alien existance but there is no evidence that they don't exist either. If they could turn up tomorrow there is nothing to suggest that they haven't visited in the past.

I believe people don't have an oposition to the idea, but simply to the flimsy evidence that is trotted forward to support such an argument. All I have seen is speculation based on some dubiuos interpretation of acient texts which to any rational individual would be unconvincing.

If someone comes forward with convincing evidence I would have no trouble with the idea however until that happens its all idle speculation. Might make a good science fiction book or film but thats about it.

I don't see how you can prove aliens don't exist and I havent seen any one try. The Universe is a big place and it would be an awful waste of space if we were the only sentient life around.

I have been an avid science fiction reader for over 40 years and I find the idea of alien civilizations facinating. Its my interest in such things that got me interested in astronomy many years ago. The problem is that there are some people out there who have a low threshold of credulity and are apt to see an alien behind any bush. You might say they have an obsession with such things that approaches a relgious ferver.

If someone comes forward with solid evidence for aliens I would be excited more than most. The provision of some grainy photograph or nebulous acient text does not set my heart aflutter.


I don't know about weird but certainly facinationg. That does not mean that alien visitation deserves any more consideration than anything else. I mean we have no evidence that aliens even exist despite what anyones wishes might be.

It is not a question of me being 'wrong' or indeed you being 'right'; we have a difference of opinion that's all. My experience is that the scientific community (and often the popular press) are very close-minded towards these things and very eager to label anyone thinking along these lines as a 'crank'.

In terms of the evidence you say you need, I would say the ancient texts and writings of which you are so dismissive, are the only evidence we are going to have. So its just a question of which belief system you choose to adopt from here on in. For the claims of the Sumerians etc to be untrue, you would have to believe that they either made everything up for the sake of it, or were manifestly quite stupid in their misinterpretation of natural phenemona. Ditto Ezekiel et Al.

You are choosing to disbelieve the only evidence that now remains, and nevertheless, that in itself is a strong belief system.

I still maintain that any scientist who puts up their hand to support the basic ideas of Sitchin and Von Daniken is going to get ridiculed.

__________________
Think About It

Well looky here another difference of opinion. I don't know perhaps the scientific community simply desire a certain level of evidence before lending credence to a theory. That question of credulity again. As for your comment on cranks, its not something I would use but if the shoe fits what can I say.

You seem agitated about the matter and are beginning to show that vehemence you casually accused your opposition of demonstrating. I'm not dismissive of the texts I'm dismissive of the interpretation of those that are so credulous.

I think you are being harsh on the Sumerians. They made records for their own purposes and it is up to scholars to now interpret what they were saying. Perhaps they are metaphorical in nature or simply an ebellished tale for their amusement. Claims of alien visitation is one interpretation that is not favoured by the bulk of scholars involved in such research. You would claim those scholars are close minded but perhaps they are simply right.

Well you have to make a decision about the evidence some time. Its simply the stength or lack thereof of that evidence that dictates my attitude on the matter.

You are probably right such is the way of human nature. Perhaps it is simply the case that the argument that supports such ideas is very weak.

Just produce the real evidence, today we have trouble with the metaphors used by the ancients, and the creative translations of modern experts, so referring to ancient texts as evidence, is not viable. If anyone can find the remains of an ancient Hindu vimyana, bring it on......Otherwise I am not opposed to eccentric and unusual ideas, just waiting for some evidence....

Dale in Ala

__________________
"Ad astra per aspera"

I think an interesting issue here is that the ancients were not using metaphors when they referred to the gods; they were referring to the gods as just that, gods! Many archeologists (and even deeply religous people) tend to skip over this fact when necessary, and come up with all kinds of strange metaphorical constructs to explain why certain texts say what they say, and certain artefacts appear as they do. In this regard I could be talking about jacob's 'struggle with an angel' or the artefacts referred to by Sitchin et Al. Even Troy was a myth, until it was finally discovered.

I'm curious as to what kind of evidence is needed? For a start it would have to survive mankinds destructive ways for the past 4000 years or so, and even then it would need to avoid being hidden away or buried under a religous shrine.

The stuff that's out there is fascinating, AND it is weird (there is a big difference implied here!) That's what intrigues me.

__________________
Think About It

Big Blue, Please give an example of what you mean. How do you know that specific symbols on a statue picture actual gods instead of representing them?

Hi Humphrey, fair question, and one that gets right to the point of whether the ancients meant gods in a literal or metaphorical sense. When archeologists come across a stature of a 'god' that an ancient people claimed to have had dealings with, they usually say that this is just a metaphor for an interaction with the priesthood or a powerful king etc; despite the fact that the ancients were perfectly capable of making such a distinction when they needed to.

If I take what Sitchin says on trust, then the Sumerian pantheon (Enki, Enlil, Ninti etc.) were literally gods. When they create a tablet showing for example, the creation goddess creating mankind: that is an example of a god actually doing something and it is not a metaphorical picture for what may have happened. Similarly, when the ancient egyptians state their gods could roam the heavens in a 'boat' you can interpret this (and the statues etc) literally or metaphorically as you wish. Dr Hawass interprets all of this stuff metaphorically; Sitchin goes in the opposite direction: either way the egyptians made statues of the 'boats' the gods travelled in.

If you want a specific example of a statue, then I would cite the goddes 'Mari' (see for example Chapter 6 'Earth Chronicles Expedition' by Sitchin); according to Sitchin, Mari was the 'goddess that roamed the skies' which for the scholars is merely a fancy, metaphorical illusion by people who should have known better. There is a famous statue of Mari holding 'something' which can be interpreted any way you wish; Sitchin and Von Daniken also document many statues of gods from across the world carrying space travel, military or metallurgical accoutrements, which from a conventional perspective can only be regarded as 'unusual'.

__________________
Think About It

[quote="Big Blue"]I think Big Blue's got it. The people of Minneapolis erected a statue honoring their god Uri Geller, who enjoyed the occasional ice cream sundae.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

O.K. lets go over, one by one some examples of anything that show: This does not have to be statues, but anything that represents this information. I would be glad, and others too, to go over this information with you. Plus i bet A.Dim would too. :-)

Now a few more comments:

I happen to agree with the mainstream Atchaeologists when they say that a number of statues and monuments represent former kings believ4ed to be gods. But its obvious that some alos represent the belifs in the gods themselves, or how the cultures believed them to look like.

Where i see the differences is that there is no evidence that the likenesses of the "gods" were ever copied from an advanced visitng race. That we need evidence for.

I have an open mind and will listen to all of you evidence. So please do not hold back. :-)

Years ago, I very much liked Von Daniken. Over time, as I studied the issue more, I found out that he had practiced very bad science at best. More likely, he deliberately misinterpreted many items and almost certainly faked some of his "evidence" to make a name for himself. It was a bit like finding out Santa Claus isn't real: The more I looked, the more I realized there was little basis to the "ancient visitation" argument.

I don't oppose the idea of visitation, but I would require strong convincing evidence, and so far have found that completely lacking. I don't accept "ancient people were stupid" arguments or out of context reinterpretations of ancient writing or art based on current cultural biases. I'd need something that couldn't have a conventional explanation like say, examples of advanced alien technology.

Sending spacecraft between the stars is incredibly more difficult than sending them to other planets. Unless there are fundamental changes in science, it would take thousands of years - at best - to reach most of the stars in our galaxy. Currently the best we can do would take tens of thousands of years to reach the nearest star. Yes, it is certainly possible that science WILL change and that star travel WILL become practical, but our current efforts provide no evidence for that.

Well, the Mayan Astronaut is probably the most notorious one.

A.K.A. the Palenque tomb lid.

GIF.

The actual tomb lid.

Mayan specialists persist in interpreting the symbolism as perfectly straightforward, no "astronaut" crouching over his ship's controls, but just a dead king tooting his own horn on his way to the Afterlife. Lengthy scholarly discussion here.

Perfect. :-)
One down, many more to go.

I would imagine Nazca is next. That has been debunked many times. I can give specifics if you want Blue, but i am prety sure you have heard of them.

But since you have not responded yet due to this being a weekend, ill wait for a response to go on. Its only fair. :-)

A good example. Troy was properly regarded as a myth UNTIL real evidence of it's existance was discovered.

Same goes for alien visitation. It is properly regarded as a good, but unproven story UNTIL real evidence is discovered to show otherwise.

If the Mayan or the Hindu were zipping about the skies then where are the machines they used? If the Nazca plains objects are navigational pointers how the #$@^ did any race manage to get accross interstellar space yet require giant pictures on the planet Earth to know where they were? If a picture of a human with a circle around his head is indicative of a helmet why can't it be a circular headress?

__________________
"Man has always found it easier to sacrifice his life than learn the multiplication table." - Somerset Maugham

...Then you would have to "somehow" explain away all the bad astronomy/science that Sitchin "practices".

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov