Blue,

First, welcome to the BABB!

Now, if you read the specific sentence of mine you quoted I think that answers everything you are asking.

I wrote:I don't know how to explain it more simply. You can see I am clearly not dismissing other explanations out of hand, other theories have to explain things better than the currently accepted ones when accounting for all of the evidence. Any historian will tell you that there is much we don't know, this is the humility of the scientific process... we don't claim to know something for which we don't have the evidence(unlike Sitchen or Von Daniken). However, when we can so easily document the development of myths, legends, and religions in other contexts it is not asking too much to provide evidence that any other myth, legend, or religion is not more of the same.

As in any other science you will hear historians, archeologists, paleontologists, etc. pop out an awfully lot of "We think...", "We found these artifacts together or in this location so it may be...", "We have good written evidence that their neighbors did this so it is likely that these similar artifacts are for the same purpose.." etc. Even Hawass, much hated by the proponents of alternate theories, is almost always heard using qualifiers. It is telling that so many of the alternate history proponents are so certain of their views and questionable evidence. Who seems more certain and arrogant when you actually listen to what is said?

Here we are more than willing to entertain alternate theories. You simply have to provide some evidence or rationally explain why the current explanations are not as good of a fit for the evidence as any alternative. It's not enough to say, "Theory A has some holes in it, therefore theory B is better." Far better to say, "Theory A has some holes in it which theory B fills in, further theory B explains the other evidence better than Theory A in these ways: ...." We haven't really had that happen here yet. We all welcome any new information however, so please present any that you may have. I'll warn you that a lot of folks here have had a lot of practice dealing with Sitchin and VD's theories and the many evidentiary, logical, consistency, and factual holes in them... so you might find the going tough if you rely soley on those sources.

I must say that I find it interesting to speculate on an unknown ancient history of mankind which predates our written history.

On the one hand there are many mysteries and artifacts out there that are worthwhile for an examination, however most of these accounts are found on the websites involving new-age, pyramid power or ufos, which as a result tend to classify these issues as absurd a priori.

Currently, I am developing a website, which seeks to gather all such recordings, while attempting to come up with a plausible explanation for them. For example many so called mysteries are explainable, or debunked for that matter, e.g. Eltanin antenna, Abydos helicopter or Coso Artifact. Others may be hoaxes or misinterpretations like the Piri Reis map.

Even if they are answerable, or hoaxed, in any way, it remains interesting to clarify such records just like we do on this board regarding ‘Lunar Conspiracies’.

By filtering out the faulty ones, perhaps there remain some cases that have merit afterall.
Take for example the following cases below:

Dashka's stone: http://www.xpeditionsmagazine.com/ma...ia/russia.html
Ancient Nano-technology: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=34

These show up on many places on the internet, yet I cannot find any additional information about them to classify them either as bogus or valid.

There's a third option here, and that's that the non-scholars (such as Von Daniken and Sitchin) who are re-interpreting the texts are actually getting it wrong. They actually can't read the old texts in the original language and misinterpret it to fit their own meanings.

That the ancients did NOT support those ideas and would have laughed at the interpretations (or been highly offended.)

This is true of any archaeologist or anthropologist. We (I'm one) *know* how to read the writings; know the grammar, know the artifacts, know what was said by the people (in writing) and what other cultures said of them.

It's convincing if you've never studied the culture and don't bother to read the muchly translated material. If you've read, you know that these two are simply bad scholars and that they have an Idea that they feel is Ultimate Truth. It wouldn't matter if you time traveled back with them to meet the priests who would tell them the exact same thing we scientists say. Those two and their followers would ignore what the real people said (as they do now) in favor of their own ideas.

Hoax. It's a Slab O Rock. It's not an ancient map. If you take the time and look at it closely, you'll find it that the "ancient aliens with super technology" had remarkably sloppy mapping skills. This might explain why they can fly clear across the galaxy without running into anything and then can't find their collective hindquarters with a map and a GPS while here on Earth.

More of same. Notice that you see technology without references. You're "told" this piece of spring is old and therefore (by golly) it should be old. The spring and jump ring are modern in origin and the only "special" thing about them is the made-up story.

I could present a pencil lead as an ancient artifact, but that would't make it so.

Good points Byrd. The only thing I would add is that we need to remember that several generations removed from the non-supernatural origin of supernatural myths, legends, religions, and other stories the descendants of the originators might actually treat such stories as fact. How else would we get all of the ancient religions? Certainly, a great number of folks thought or knew better (especially those in positions of power vis-a-vis the local dieties), but the masses probably treated these supposed events and personages as very real... or else the myths and religions would have little power over them. Kind of important if you are a religious or secular leader (not that there was much a difference in most ancient civilizations and cultures), as a leader you need these devices of authority to have power over the masses... control, control, control. (What a great tool of authority is must have been to convince followers that you became a god upon death. "Obey me, because I'll go off to the afterlife and bless your crops or give you a nasty case of heat rash all depending on how faithfully you serve me...")

So Byrd is right that these folks may have written or depicted these personages and events as real: to them they were real. Just because they believed such doesn't make it so, however. We all know that opinion and belief do not equate to veracity. Right??? Some people believe that the supposed football god Joe Gibbs can save the Washington Redskins. In this age of the Mighty Philadelphia Eagles they are pathetically wrong, but they are entitled to their opinions. We just need to remember that belief and fact are in no way related. No matter how many of our ancestors believed in anything that doesn't mean they were right. How many folks in Asia believe the dried and powdered... errrrm "maleness"... of certain big-game cats can cure impotence? A couple of billion people spread across a few thousand years can't all be wrong... or can they?

So, where does that leave us? Examining the evidence. Digging to look for more evidence. Looking for cross-references between cultures. Making inferences from other known and documented instances of different, yet similar, data sets. Not relying on the fantastical until all mundane explanations are exhausted or disproven. And that leads us right back to my point as quoted by Blue. Something more than preference for the fantastical has to be provided before the fantastical will be seriously considered.

The True Story of The Dashka Stone may be found in between the lines of the official story:

The Official Story goes something like this:

"A math professor with Bashkir State University (formerly the Ufa Teachers' Training Institute) in the infant Russian republic of Bashkortostan (a.k.a. Bashkiria, located just about due south of the Urals) and his Chinese grad student are looking for evidence that an ancient Chinese people migrated to the Urals, and by implication, to Bashkortostan. Actually, not an insupportably strange proposition, given the tendency of ancient peoples to migrate back and forth across the steppes.

They need look no further than their very own back yard (so to speak): they find some rock carvings in "Old" Chinese right there in Bashkiria that, in their opinion, support their theory. And, while searching through the archives of the Ufa governor general, they discover references to mysterious stone slabs being found centuries ago near a village called Chandar.

Off they go to Chandar, where they immediately charter a helicopter and start flying around looking for the stone slabs. Disappointingly, they are nowhere to be found.

Professor goes back to drawing board. Later, during another visit to the village, a local bigwig comes up to him and says, "I understand you're looking for strange stone slabs with carvings on them. Why, I have a strange stone slab with carvings on it, under my porch!"

Off they all go to his house, where lo and behold, there is indeed a strange stone slab with carvings on it, under his porch. The slab is excavated, and success is triumphantly announced: not only is there a map on it, but also it must be at least 120 million years old!

Professor drops his campaign to prove the Chinese settled in Bashkiria in the face of this new excitement."

What almost certainly happened:

Professor and grad student, in good faith, get as far as looking through the official Ufa archives for references to rock carvings. Somebody, somewhere, down the line, some obliging minor official, some flunky, somebody working for the governor's office, who knows?--somebody fakes some references to mysterious stone slabs and inserts them where the professor will find them.

Off they go to Chandar. However, of course, the slabs are nowhere to be found. Much disappointment on the part of the professor.

Others, perceiving correctly that there's money in this somewhere (helicopters do not come cheap), go to work, and the next thing you know, a local bigwig has amazingly enough found a stone slab under his porch.

Then enlightened self-interest kicks in, either that or the Professor isn't very bright, because nobody could truly believe this thing was carved 120 million years ago, or that it was "impossible to date".

I'm guessing that by this time the Prof has realized he can't prove his theory that the Chinese settled in the Urals. It will have to remain a theory. But this new theory is so much more exciting, and has such a tremendous potential (what's mere "history", pah, when you can have extraterrestrials?), that he discards the Chinese thing and runs with this ball.

Also, by this point he can't risk offending a bunch of local bigwigs in his hometown by telling them their "slab" is a fake, like the Governor General whose archives so obligingly provided the clues.

Nope, everybody benefits from having a mysterious alien artifact being found in Bashkiria.

I see a bunch of people all rushing around desperately trying to accomodate the need of this university professor to prove that something exciting and strange once happened in their tiny little back-of-beyond republic.

Sad, but understandable. Like the people selling "Jersey Devil" t-shirts and bumper stickers... *snerk*

As for the ancient nanotechnology:

The artifacts are supposedly made of tungsten, molybdenum, and copper.

Which, while they may sound exotic to the layman, are easily found in any catalog of supplies for spot welding.

http://www.nsrw.com/groupb.htm

Any high school kid who had welding in Shop Class could have crafted those widgets. Cut off some chunks, bend it into shape, and bob's yer uncle.

And even "microscopically small" widgets can be made in Shop Class--you just use tiny tools to do tiny jobs.

Miniature welding and micro tools. Very handy for folks wishing to handcraft some tiny alien artifacts.

http://www.fpe.co.uk/miniature.htm
http://www.jaderockshop.com/Torch.htm
http://www.micro-tools.com/

I'm curious, why'd you leave out the "Don't bother, ..." part of my remark?

Curiouser... :-?

How so? I've not brought Sitchin into this discussion at all.
What, are you reading my mind again?

...clearly subjective opinion, nonetheless.

And yet you found it important enough to remark above on someone else's "quoting" even though it had nothing to do with this discussion?
You're right, though - SO WHAT.
But now you go "literal" on me? What happened to applying metaphorical meaning, allegory or simile? :wink:

__________________
"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

Thanks Rich, but as I remarked, none of those explanations really works when dealing with the "Divine Myths" - those pertaining to oft depicted anthropomorphic "gods" and their unusual craft, weapons and quarellsome ways.

None of those options effectively explains any of the myths dealing with the Sumerian pantheon, the Egyptian pantheon, the Hindu pantheon and countless others dealing with "the gods."

What Campbell did was recognize that there is in fact a recurring theme within Myth that, in his words, "started in a mud puddle in Sumer."
And again, when considering the Sumerian pantheon, which of those "options" effectively explains who the Anunnaki were?

__________________
"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

OK, but reading more closely one should recognize that the recurring themes and motifs that "must be inherent in the human psyche," all seem to say the same thing: "gods" from heaven, divine beings, came to earth, created mankind, bestowed on us Civilization, Wisdom & Understanding and then apparently left us babel-factored with the promise to one day "return."
Can you explain to me then, what possible basis there is for this to be rooted so deeply in the human psyche?

__________________
"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 way over generalized. The story of Quetzelcoatl's return, for instance, was promulgated only after the Spanish arrived, implying that Cortez and his men were using it to justify their subjugation of the Azteks. Either way, it wasn't a fundamental part of the local religion. In Egyptian mythology, there is no story of the gods leaving for heaven and promising to return. In fact, their mythology tells the opposite: the gods live on Earth and, although Osiris went to the heavens after his death, he didn't come back. In Greco-Roman mythology, not only did the gods not live in the skies (they lived underground, on mountain tops, in trees, or underwater) the only myth in their canon that's even close to your model is the story of Persephone (Proserpina for the Romans) but she explicitly went underground. The Norse gods, essentially, lived on another planet, if you want to think of Asgard that way, but there were never stories of them leaving and promising to return and, like in Egyptian mythology, their deaths were permanent. Granted I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of ancient religions, but those are some major exceptions.

If you're looking for an answer to why humans have religions, I'm not sure anyone can answer that. I certainly can't. On the other hand, there's overwhelming evidence that human cultures develop religions. I would argue that there's plenty of evidence that they weren't inspired by aliens. First, almost all of the gods are anthropomorphic. If they're based on aliens, why are all their designs based on humans? With a few exceptions (e.g. Quetzelcoatl, Bastet) they either look exactly like humans (the Greco-Roman and Norse gods, most of the Hindu and Egyptian gods), look like humans with extra appendages (Shiva) or humans with animal heads (Horus, Thoth). The root of the design is always human. You wouldn't expect that to be the case if they were inspired by aliens.

It's the old adage: Man creates God in his own image. Look at images of Jesus from around the world. In North America and Europe, He's generally portrayed with fair skin, brown hair, and a beard. However, in the Book of Kells, He's portrayed with stereotypical Irish features (very light skin, red hair, etc.). In Latin America, He tends to be depicted with Hispanic features. If images of Christ tend to be look like the main ethnic group in any particular area, why is it so hard to believe that mythologies with anthropomorphic dieties are inspired by humans?

[Edited to fix a typo]

Don't be coy, A.DIM...you don't do it very well. You see, you keep using the phrase, "Those from heaven to earth came", the exact same phrase that Sitchin uses on his website. So am I suppose to ignore the fact that you're a "Sitchinite"?...simply because you haven't mentioned that fact in your most recent postings??

You literally believe these myths to be true. You have not backed up you're belief with any evidence...at least not in the last 2 years or so that we've been discussing this "stuff" on this board.

Edited to change the first sentence for clarity...

Sorry, I just don't see it. Again, we need specific examples for why conventional (and documented in other cases) explanations don't fit. Just saying repeatedly that they don't fit doesn't work. Unfortunately, what all of Sitchin's interpretations, and the sum of his evidence, boils down to is twisting the translations he uses in ways that every expert in those languages takes exception to. Those faulty translations then become his basis for all of his other claims. To him a tool or weapon is unusual because the way he interprets the language. We've covered this here several times I believe.

"Anthropomorphic" is irrelevant and "unusual" is a matter of opinion. You may see specific depictions of tools, weapons, or transportation as unusual because you expect to see something unusual. I would ask again for specific examples that we can discuss here.

You are twisting Campbell's meaning to make it appear he said something he never said. Campbell's analysis, and I know I pointed this out to you in at least one previous thread, is for the benefit of writers, literary scholars, and to a lesser exent early psychologists. He deals with themes and what he specifically terms "characters". He points out several specific types of characters, specific types of adventures and challenges they encounter, and the similar ways in which they solve them.

It is very important to note that at no time did Campbell treat any of the myths or legends he was dissecting as depicting real people or events. It is very dishonest to attempt to use Campbell to support Sitchinite arguments. I would give you the benefit of the doubt, but I know this has been talked about before.

Edit to add: We could have a whole side conversation about Campbellian myths and story telling techniques if you really wanted to. I for one deplore their over use in almost all literature (with the notable exception of a lot of science fiction ) of the last few hundred years. Frankly, I feel the over-reliance on superhuman characters and holier than though heroes who are divinely appointed and deserve to lord over us mere mortals a tad... ummm... medieval.

Taibak, thanks for responding to A.DIM. I couldn't have done it better

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse