What ever happened to Eric Von Danekin - Page 8

R.A.F. · #**211** (**permalink**) 07-January-2005, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

...but you're right, its nothing more than the usual pseudoskeptical observation.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but I was laughing when I posted that...

Outcast · #**212** (**permalink**) 07-January-2005, 07:22 PM

Taibak wrote:

Quote:

Utterly wrong. We know exactly what to look for and I provided a list of possibilities off the top of my head. Show me the tomb of a Sumerian god. Show me an Anunnaki skeleton or parts thereof.

Utterly wrong? we know exactly what to look for?
do we?
we have no understading of Anunnaki technology. we only know they flew in fiery boats, managed mechanical apparattus and communicated with each other using the ME's. the Vedic texts pertain a little more technical information like the use of liquid mercury to power the Vimana engines. but besides that, and hoping there remains any physical evidence of those machines somewhere which survived the last 6000 years, i dont see how we can "exactly" know what to find. regarding a tomb for a Sumerian god i dont remember reading that one was ever burried on Earth, besides they seem to have been immortals. flying in fiery boats wasnt the only reason why they were considered gods.

Quote:

Since they were, presumably, considerably more advanced than the early Sumerians, all you'd need to do is show me something considerably more advanced than the late Stone Age/early Bronze Age.

the Giza pyramid is a good example, but that would open an entirely different can of worms around here. but the cairo batteries are also a good example of OOPARTS that i can remember right now.

Quote:

Doesn't matter. That evidence is still wide open to interpretation and needs to be corroborated by something to prove your case. If you want to bring in the Vedas, you'd have to prove that there was a connection between Mesopotamia and India.

actually it seems there was. the Vedic texts have many similarities in some of its themes. there is a Vedic Utunapishtim counterpart with a similar story and a Vedic Enoch figure as related in the Mahabaratta.

Quote:

In the old Testament there are references to certain spices and other articles in connection with the visit of queen sheba to king solomon of Issad sometimes about 990 B.C. Among the commodities peacocks and
sandalwood are also mentioned. It is definitely certain that 'Tuki' the
Hebrew for peacock is derived from the Tamil word Tokai. In Malaipadukadam and Kurinjippattu the word Tokai denotes peacock only.32 The fact that peacocks went from Tamilakam in the 10th Century B.C. shows that there existed some trade relationships.

An active sea-borne commerce was carried on from about 700 B.C. between Babylon and the East. This is proved by the history of the Chinese. An early colony of South Indian merchants is believed to have been established in Babyloon where it continued to flourish till the 7th Century A.D. Under the persian Emperor Darices in the 5th Century B.C., the Indian commerce was further extended and the merchants continued the trade. Loan words from the Tamil language in Hebrew and Aramaic confirm the existence of trade relations in the past.

from here: http://www.tamil.net/list/2000-12/msg00582.html

Quote:

In a few short years archeology in the Peninsula has proven the Arabian connection to Sumer and its myths. But the connection has more than myth to it, recent excavations have also shown. As the Mesopotamian cities grew rich and markets for luxuries expanded, fabled Dilmun itself revived in the form of an ordinary porl town. It re-established the old trading tie by sea with the north - and for the first time reached out to India in the east to satisfy the burgeoning northern markets. Thus begins the historic "trade route to India" role cast for the Arabian Gulf.

It was a larger world in the third millennium B.C., larger for merchants an traders, with triple the markets - and triple the chances for profit. It was also a world of international politics, with states - even empires - vying for power. As it happened, regional rivalries worked for Dilmun.

Not much later than the appearance of the Sumerian urban civilization, another grew up on another river far to the southeast in India. It also had items to trade which Sumer would buy: spices and precious stones, later cotton and copper. To reach there by land, however, meant crossing through Persia.

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issu...connection.htm

i had a link to a book which discussed in detail the Vedic writtings and some particular similarities to the mesopotamian texts. i'll see if i can find that.

Quote:

It's worth researching, sure, but only so long as you're willing to accept the possibility that there might not be any evidence that supports the theory. If there is no corroborating evidence, even without discarding the theory completely, there's a perfectly good reason not to believe it: it's an overly complicated, ludicrously unlikely theory based on a controversial (at best) reading of ancient texts. The evidence we have favors the much more plausible theory that the ancients worked out the basics of civilization for themselves.

agree with everything you said except this: "it's an overly complicated, ludicrously unlikely theory based on a controversial (at best) reading of ancient texts."

its not an overly complicated, ludicrously unlikely theory its a LITERAL interpretation of the texts. its a way of going beyond the mythical elements and a step into understanding the simbology and the meaning of those ancient texts.

you seem to forget that there is possibly 2/3 of the world population which believe that those texts represent the actions of a metaphysical omnipresent, omnipotent god. the ETH on the other hand represents a reach for understanding of those texts in a materialistic way, away from the metaphysical and the mythological. why that seems ludicrous to some, in my opinion, can only be explained by those previously stated physchological forms of denial. nevertheless is just a valid theory as anyother.

R.A.F. · #**213** (**permalink**) 07-January-2005, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

we have no understading of Anunnaki technology. we only know they flew in fiery boats, managed mechanical apparattus and communicated with each other using the ME's.

Just who is this "we" that you're speaking of?? Certainly not I, nor the vast majority of the posters on this board. Kindly keep your "we's" to yourself.

Quote:

its not an overly complicated, ludicrously unlikely theory its a LITERAL interpretation of the texts.

It's the literal translation of myths.

Quote:

you seem to forget that there is possibly 2/3 of the world population which believe that those texts represent the actions of a metaphysical omnipresent, omnipotent god.

Argument from authority is irrelevent. I don't care what people believe...I want to see some FACTS!!

Quote:

...the ETH on the other hand represents a reach for understanding of those texts in a materialistic way, away from the metaphysical and the mythological. why that seems ludicrous to some, in my opinion, can only be explained by those previously stated physchological forms of denial.

So if we don't believe (literally) in myths, we're in denial?? Please, my side is starting to hurt from all the laughing.

Quote:

nevertheless is just a valid theory as any other.

To use Taibak's phrase...utterly wrong.

Taibak · #**214** (**permalink**) 07-January-2005, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

Taibak wrote:

Quote:

Utterly wrong. We know exactly what to look for and I provided a list of possibilities off the top of my head. Show me the tomb of a Sumerian god. Show me an Anunnaki skeleton or parts thereof.

Utterly wrong? we know exactly what to look for?
do we?
we have no understading of Anunnaki technology. we only know they flew in fiery boats, managed mechanical apparattus and communicated with each other using the ME's. the Vedic texts pertain a little more technical information like the use of liquid mercury to power the Vimana engines. but besides that, and hoping there remains any physical evidence of those machines somewhere which survived the last 6000 years, i dont see how we can "exactly" know what to find. regarding a tomb for a Sumerian god i dont remember reading that one was ever burried on Earth, besides they seem to have been immortals. flying in fiery boats wasnt the only reason why they were considered gods.

You're really not thinking this through, are you? If they used liquid mercury as a fuel (umm... is that even chemically possible?), they must have been producing exhaust that was rich in mercury. Show me evidence of a heightened mercury content in contemporary artifacts. If they flew, presumably we're talking about either light-weight plastics or metals. Show me something made of either of those materials. Since the Mesopotamians and Indians were, at the time, living in the stone age even a small lump of those materials should stick out like a sore thumb. It's a little hard to believe that nothing broke off one of the ships or that nothing ever needed to be replaced and was thrown out.

And if you seriously believe that there were actually immortal beings, you've just destroyed your credibility. Everything we understand about biology tells us that immortality is impossible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

Quote:

Since they were, presumably, considerably more advanced than the early Sumerians, all you'd need to do is show me something considerably more advanced than the late Stone Age/early Bronze Age.

the Giza pyramid is a good example, but that would open an entirely different can of worms around here.

Yes it would, since it was entirely possible to build them with stone age technology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

but the cairo batteries are also a good example of OOPARTS that i can remember right now.

Those have never been definitively proven to have been used as batteries. There were lots of reasons why a clay jar would have had grape juice in it, for instance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

Quote:

Doesn't matter. That evidence is still wide open to interpretation and needs to be corroborated by something to prove your case. If you want to bring in the Vedas, you'd have to prove that there was a connection between Mesopotamia and India.

actually it seems there was. the Vedic texts have many similarities in some of its themes. there is a Vedic Utunapishtim counterpart with a similar story and a Vedic Enoch figure as related in the Mahabaratta.

Quote:

In the old Testament there are references to certain spices and other articles in connection with the visit of queen sheba to king solomon of Issad sometimes about 990 B.C. Among the commodities peacocks and
sandalwood are also mentioned. It is definitely certain that 'Tuki' the
Hebrew for peacock is derived from the Tamil word Tokai. In Malaipadukadam and Kurinjippattu the word Tokai denotes peacock only.32 The fact that peacocks went from Tamilakam in the 10th Century B.C. shows that there existed some trade relationships.

An active sea-borne commerce was carried on from about 700 B.C. between Babylon and the East. This is proved by the history of the Chinese. An early colony of South Indian merchants is believed to have been established in Babyloon where it continued to flourish till the 7th Century A.D. Under the persian Emperor Darices in the 5th Century B.C., the Indian commerce was further extended and the merchants continued the trade. Loan words from the Tamil language in Hebrew and Aramaic confirm the existence of trade relations in the past.

from here: http://www.tamil.net/list/2000-12/msg00582.html

Quote:

In a few short years archeology in the Peninsula has proven the Arabian connection to Sumer and its myths. But the connection has more than myth to it, recent excavations have also shown. As the Mesopotamian cities grew rich and markets for luxuries expanded, fabled Dilmun itself revived in the form of an ordinary porl town. It re-established the old trading tie by sea with the north - and for the first time reached out to India in the east to satisfy the burgeoning northern markets. Thus begins the historic "trade route to India" role cast for the Arabian Gulf.

It was a larger world in the third millennium B.C., larger for merchants an traders, with triple the markets - and triple the chances for profit. It was also a world of international politics, with states - even empires - vying for power. As it happened, regional rivalries worked for Dilmun.

Not much later than the appearance of the Sumerian urban civilization, another grew up on another river far to the southeast in India. It also had items to trade which Sumer would buy: spices and precious stones, later cotton and copper. To reach there by land, however, meant crossing through Persia.

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issu...connection.htm

i had a link to a book which discussed in detail the Vedic writtings and some particular similarities to the mesopotamian texts. i'll see if i can find that.

Okay. There was a connection. I'm not thoroughly convinced by all the evidence your source presents. I'd like to see a little more evidence on the development of religion in both areas before committing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

Quote:

It's worth researching, sure, but only so long as you're willing to accept the possibility that there might not be any evidence that supports the theory. If there is no corroborating evidence, even without discarding the theory completely, there's a perfectly good reason not to believe it: it's an overly complicated, ludicrously unlikely theory based on a controversial (at best) reading of ancient texts. The evidence we have favors the much more plausible theory that the ancients worked out the basics of civilization for themselves.

agree with everything you said except this: "it's an overly complicated, ludicrously unlikely theory based on a controversial (at best) reading of ancient texts."

its not an overly complicated, ludicrously unlikely theory its a LITERAL interpretation of the texts. its a way of going beyond the mythical elements and a step into understanding the simbology and the meaning of those ancient texts.

That you're reading the texts literally isn't what's overcomplicating the theory. What overcomplicates the theory is that it requires the existence of a race of immortals with fantastically advanced technology. How is that less complicated than humans figuring things out on their own?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

you seem to forget that there is possibly 2/3 of the world population which believe that those texts represent the actions of a metaphysical omnipresent, omnipotent god.

I would be surprised if four billion people could even name one of the Sumerian gods.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

the ETH on the other hand represents a reach for understanding of those texts in a materialistic way, away from the metaphysical and the mythological. why that seems ludicrous to some, in my opinion, can only be explained by those previously stated physchological forms of denial. nevertheless is just a valid theory as anyother.

It's a valid theory, but that doesn't mean there's any evidence for it. Again, all we have are a collection of uncorroborated, ambiguous texts. Show us some hard evidence.

Taibak

Outcast · #**215** (**permalink**) 07-January-2005, 11:20 PM

Taibak wrote:

Quote:

You're really not thinking this through, are you? If they used liquid mercury as a fuel (umm... is that even chemically possible?), they must have been producing exhaust that was rich in mercury. Show me evidence of a heightened mercury content in contemporary artifacts. If they flew, presumably we're talking about either light-weight plastics or metals. Show me something made of either of those materials. Since the Mesopotamians and Indians were, at the time, living in the stone age even a small lump of those materials should stick out like a sore thumb.

are YOU thinking this through? the liquid mercury is a freaking example, for god's sake. there are other examples of suposed technical details of the Celestials (the Indian term for their gods which inhabited an Earth orbiting space city) technologies as described by the Vedas and were probably their interpretation of what they saw, after all they only described those things a little bit better than the Sumerians. does that mean we have any chance of finding a "heightened mercury content" lying somewhere in an Indian garbage dump? i dont think so, but hey it can happen.

Quote:

"One time while King Citaketu was traveling in outer space on a brilliantly effulgent airplane given to him by Lord Vishnu, he saw Lord Siva..."
"The arrows released by Lord Siva appeared like fiery beams emanating from the sun globe and covered the three residential airplanes, which could then no longer be seen."
- Srimad Bhagasvatam, Sixth Canto, Part 3

Quote:

"An aerial chariot, the Pushpaka, conveys many people to the capital of Ayodhya. The sky is full of stupendous flying-machines, dark as night,but picked out by lights with a yellowish glare."
- Mahavira of Bhavabhuti

Quote:

"Now Vata's chariot's greatness! Breaking goes it,
And Thunderous is its noise,
To heaven it touches,
Makes light lurid [a red fiery glare], and whirls dust upon the earth."
- Rig-Veda

Quote:

"The airplane occupied by Salva was very mysterious. It was so extraordinary that sometimes many airplanes would appear to be in the sky, and sometimes there were apparently none. Sometimes the plane was visible and sometimes not visible, and the warriors of the Yadu dynasty were puzzled about the whereabouts of the peculiar airplane. Sometimes they would see the airplane on the ground, sometimes flying in the sky, sometimes resting on the peak of a hill and sometimes floating on the water. The wonderful airplane flew in the sky like a whirling firebrand - it was not steady even for a moment."
- Bhaktivedanta, Swami Prabhupada, Krsna

Quote:

"The Puspaku Car, that resembles the sun and belongs to my brother, was brought by the powerful Ravan; that aerial and excellent car, going everywhere at will, is ready for thee. That car, resembling a bright cloud in the sky, is in the city of Lanka."
- Ramayana

Quote:

And if you seriously believe that there were actually immortal beings, you've just destroyed your credibility. Everything we understand about biology tells us that immortality is impossible.

so immortality is IMPOSSIBLE? says who, says mr. Taibak? you must have the gift of clairvoyance since you just predicted the future of all human advancement and knowlledge for the rest of eternity and along with that the possibilities for all other sentient and scientific species in the entire Universe. that is a major feat of useless and baseless extrapolation.

Quote:

Yes it would, since it was entirely possible to build them with stone age technology.

stone age technology? stone age implies the use of stone tools. do you think stone tools could have carved the King's chamber? the most advanced tools the egyptians from the 4th dinasty had, 4000 years ago, were copper saws and chisels. to the believers in such egyptologic quackery i advise the reading of Christopher Dunn's book.

Quote:

Those have never been definitively proven to have been used as batteries. There were lots of reasons why a clay jar would have had grape juice in it, for instance.

yes, but clay jars with copper filaments that produce electricity? maybe that airplane model found in the cairo museum was also a bird with a vertical back wing.

Quote:

That you're reading the texts literally isn't what's overcomplicating the theory. What overcomplicates the theory is that it requires the existence of a race of immortals with fantastically advanced technology. How is that less complicated than humans figuring things out on their own?

so? our corner of the galaxy is a pretty recent one compared to its most inner areas. why is it difficult to think that races with millions of years of advancement over us could have visited humans in the past using technologies we cant even dream of today? maybe the Earth has been seeded by other civilizations in the first place. maybe the "gods" did make us at their likeness. i know what makes that thought difficult, arrogant humanism. the Sumerians had no problem indentifying who gave them civilization, they wrote extensively about it.

Quote:

I would be surprised if four billion people could even name one of the Sumerian gods.

i was talking of the god(s) of the Biblical texts. but in a sense you're right, not many people know that the texts of the Bible were based in early Mesopotamian texts.

Quote:

It's a valid theory, but that doesn't mean there's any evidence for it. Again, all we have are a collection of uncorroborated, ambiguous texts. Show us some hard evidence.

sure will. when and if i find it, you here at Bad Astronomy will be the first to know.

Taibak · #**216** (**permalink**) 08-January-2005, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

Taibak wrote:

Quote:

You're really not thinking this through, are you? If they used liquid mercury as a fuel (umm... is that even chemically possible?), they must have been producing exhaust that was rich in mercury. Show me evidence of a heightened mercury content in contemporary artifacts. If they flew, presumably we're talking about either light-weight plastics or metals. Show me something made of either of those materials. Since the Mesopotamians and Indians were, at the time, living in the stone age even a small lump of those materials should stick out like a sore thumb.

are YOU thinking this through? the liquid mercury is a freaking example, for god's sake. there are other examples of suposed technical details of the Celestials (the Indian term for their gods which inhabited an Earth orbiting space city) technologies as described by the Vedas and were probably their interpretation of what they saw, after all they only described those things a little bit better than the Sumerians. does that mean we have any chance of finding a "heightened mercury content" lying somewhere in an Indian garbage dump? i dont think so, but hey it can happen.

Yes, I am. IF this technology existed, it would have left traces behind. Let's stick with the mercury as an example. First off, it's a fairly heavy material and, according to a friend of mine who's a chemist, doesn't generally produce a lot of energy when it reacts. As such, it would make an extremely poor fuel source. Why would a race advanced enough to build aircraft use such a ridiculously inefficient fuel source? Why not a nuclear reactor or fossil fuels? Heck, they'd even have been better off with Solar power.

On top of that, like it or not, if these people were using large quantities of liquid mercury it should show up in the environment, espescially if it was being used as fuel. Any mercury in the exhaust would tend to be soaked up by the ground - so it should show up in pottery - and work its way through the food chain. As a result, it would cause an increase in brain disease, which someone should have observed and written down. Even if that didn't happen, mercury poisoning tends to damage the teeth so that should be observable in the archaeological record.

Moving to a more philosophical question, you argue that the ancients' descriptions of these technologies were 'interpretation of what they saw.' Are you saying we shouldn't always take them literally?

In the interests of space, I won't copy the texts you quoted, but I will ask this: If there were all these airplanes in service, why have none been excavated?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

Quote:

And if you seriously believe that there were actually immortal beings, you've just destroyed your credibility. Everything we understand about biology tells us that immortality is impossible.

so immortality is IMPOSSIBLE? says who, says mr. Taibak? you must have the gift of clairvoyance since you just predicted the future of all human advancement and knowlledge for the rest of eternity and along with that the possibilities for all other sentient and scientific species in the entire Universe. that is a major feat of useless and baseless extrapolation.

I stand by it. As we currently understand biology, it is impossible to stop the aging process. As such, it's pointless to base an historical theory on something that might not even be physically possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

Quote:

Yes it would, since it was entirely possible to build them with stone age technology.

stone age technology? stone age implies the use of stone tools. do you think stone tools could have carved the King's chamber?

Yes. The process has been reproduced by Egyptologists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

the most advanced tools the egyptians from the 4th dinasty had, 4000 years ago, were copper saws and chisels. to the believers in such egyptologic quackery i advise the reading of Christopher Dunn's book.

Quote:

Those have never been definitively proven to have been used as batteries. There were lots of reasons why a clay jar would have had grape juice in it, for instance.

yes, but clay jars with copper filaments that produce electricity?

Ah... the batteries of Baghdad. Yes, they could very well have been batteries. They could very well have been something else entirely. Supposedly replicas were made in 1978 to test the theory, but, according to the BBC, no records of that experiment remain. The other problem is that nobody has yet found any evidence that these things were actually used as batteries.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/n...4257.stm#story

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

maybe that airplane model found in the cairo museum was also a bird with a vertical back wing.

I'm not familiar with the piece. Could you post a link to some info about it, please?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

Quote:

That you're reading the texts literally isn't what's overcomplicating the theory. What overcomplicates the theory is that it requires the existence of a race of immortals with fantastically advanced technology. How is that less complicated than humans figuring things out on their own?

so? our corner of the galaxy is a pretty recent one compared to its most inner areas. why is it difficult to think that races with millions of years of advancement over us could have visited humans in the past using technologies we cant even dream of today? maybe the Earth has been seeded by other civilizations in the first place. maybe the "gods" did make us at their likeness. i know what makes that thought difficult, arrogant humanism. the Sumerians had no problem indentifying who gave them civilization, they wrote extensively about it.

Again, this is a perfect example as to why your theory is excessively complicated. For your theory to work, you have postulated

The existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life
The existence of ancient aircraft
Interstellar space travel
Mercury-powered engines that leave no environmental traces
Additional as yet undescribed advanced technologies that 'we can't dream of today'
Genetic engineering as the driving force behind human evolution
The secret of immortality

Even if you're getting these from a literal reading of the sources, these are inescapable requirements of your theory. That's an awful lot of speculation to make this work. None of it is supported by the historical record. Some of it isn't even supported by the laws of physics. On top of that, I don't see how we can interpret the text literally and yet still filter out the elements that are the ancients' 'interpretations' of what they saw. Once you start trying to figure out how the ancients interpreted something, you're no longer taking the text literally, not least because we don't know (and can't know) for sure how they interpreted anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

Quote:

I would be surprised if four billion people could even name one of the Sumerian gods.

i was talking of the god(s) of the Biblical texts. but in a sense you're right, not many people know that the texts of the Bible were based in early Mesopotamian texts.

Fair enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

Quote:

It's a valid theory, but that doesn't mean there's any evidence for it. Again, all we have are a collection of uncorroborated, ambiguous texts. Show us some hard evidence.

sure will. when and if i find it, you here at Bad Astronomy will be the first to know.

[/quote]

Please do.[/list]

Taibak · #**217** (**permalink**) 08-January-2005, 03:47 AM

Ack. Double post.

Outcast · #**218** (**permalink**) 09-January-2005, 08:50 PM

Taibak wrote:

Quote:

Yes, I am. IF this technology existed, it would have left traces behind. Let's stick with the mercury as an example. First off, it's a fairly heavy material and, according to a friend of mine who's a chemist, doesn't generally produce a lot of energy when it reacts. As such, it would make an extremely poor fuel source. Why would a race advanced enough to build aircraft use such a ridiculously inefficient fuel source? Why not a nuclear reactor or fossil fuels? Heck, they'd even have been better off with Solar power.

Taibak, there are enumerous sanskript texts which speak of these technologies. the scribes who put these records into writting claimed these were factual records based on ancient tradition. i evidently cannot say a Vimana did or did not flew with the power of liquid mercury or even if it was liquid mercury at all. but the concept that a civilization 2000+ years old could put such things to record is amazing. thousands of years before the invention of artificial flight, before it was even proven that could be done.

for further details i recommend the book "Alien Identities" by Dr. Richard L. Thompson.

Quote:

On top of that, like it or not, if these people were using large quantities of liquid mercury it should show up in the environment, espescially if it was being used as fuel.

that is your assumption, i never said nor presented anything that could infer that large quantities of mercury were dumped into the environment. the Vimanas apparently had different forms of motion power. either way, what i've found is that Mercury 197 (Hg-197) has a radioactive decay of 65 hours and Mercury 203 (Hg-203) a radioactive decay 46.8 hours. im no chemist but from what i've read, there's got to be a substancial effort in mercury pollution to affect humans in the way you exposed, like a consistent and long process of industrialization.

"The vehicles themselves were made of special heat absorbing metals, called 'Somaka, Soundalike and Mourthwika'. According to Dr. Pinotti, the 'principles of propulsion as far as the descriptions were concerned, might be defined as electrical and chemical, but solar energy was involved as well.' Other scientists have put forward the theory that the craft were driven by some sort of mercury ion propulsion system. Dr. Pinotti concluded that the fact that vimanas were written about hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of years ago, plus that they resembled modern UFOs would suggest that India had a '...superior but forgotten civilisation. In the light of this, we think it will be better to examine the Hindu texts and subject the descriptive models of vimanas to more scientific scrutiny'." - Nick Humphries, "UFO Guide"

"G. R.. Josyer, director of the International Academy of Sanskrit Research in Mysore, India, stated on September 25, 1952, that Indian manuscripts several thousands of years old dealt with the construction of various types of aircraft for civil aviation and for warfare.
"The specific manuscript on aeronautics included plans for three types of vimanas (aircraft), the Rukma, Sundara, and Shakuna. Five hundred stanzas of an ancient text treat of such intricate details as the choice and preparation of metals which would be suitable for various parts of vimanas of different types."
"There were eight chapters...that provided plans for the construction of aircraft that flew in the air, traveled under water, or floated pontoon-like on the water's surface. Some stanzas told of the qualifications and training of pilots."
- Brad Steiger, Worlds Before Our Own

Quote:

Moving to a more philosophical question, you argue that the ancients' descriptions of these technologies were 'interpretation of what they saw.' Are you saying we shouldn't always take them literally?

im saying we should try to translate, if possible, those descriptions into modern scientific thought. for example, engineer Josef F. Blumrich, after analysing Ezekiel's encounter in his book "The spaceships of the Prophet Ezekiel", gives us the following conclusion:

Quote:

The over-all result, then, is a space vehicle technically feasible beyond doubt and very well designed to suit function and purpose; its technology is in no way fantastic but, even in its extreme aspects, lies almost within our own capabilities of today. The results indicate, moreover, that Ezekiel's spacecraft operated in conjunction with a mother vessel orbiting the earth. We have no point of firm reference for an exact determination of the dimensions of the landing craft, but we can approximate these within the range I investigated analytically. The illustration at the top shows the shape and proportions. The diameter of the central body would be about 18 m, that of the rotor of a helicopter unit would be 11 m, total weight from the time of lift-off from the earth for the return flight to the mother ship would be 100,000 kg, the engine's specific impulse would be 2,080 seconds, and the craft would carry two or three passengers.

With these conclusions, I had to declare defeat; I wrote to Eric von Daniken, explaining that my attempt to refute his theory had resulted in a structural and analytical conformation of a major part of his hypothesis. Determining the form, dimensions and functional capabilities of what Ezekiel saw makes understanadable a number of passages in his text that are otherwise meaningless; it also aids considerably in separating the prophetic or visionary parts of Ezekiel's book from those concerning encounters with spaceships.

Quote:

In the interests of space, I won't copy the texts you quoted, but I will ask this: If there were all these airplanes in service, why have none been excavated?

well, i have no answers for that. many of these machines seem to have been destroyed in the Vedic texts, others the gods made sure to take them away when they left. for example, if you read the Mahabarata, after the epic hero destroys his rivals and lands his Vimana in his palace, the Celestials return to Earth to take the machine away. on the other hand, and this only my opinion, i think that the UFO encounters of today, at least some of them, are the remnants of those machines.

Quote:

I stand by it. As we currently understand biology, it is impossible to stop the aging process. As such, it's pointless to base an historical theory on something that might not even be physically possible.

well, i think its pointless to use our currently understanding of biology or even of physics to extrapolate what other advanced civilizations out there can or cannot accomplish.

Quote:

Yes. The process has been reproduced by Egyptologists.

no it has not. personaly i've seen few examples of which techniques ancient egyptians might have used, if we assume they used the tools indicated as evidence. the idea is that they used flat copper saws and an abrasive slurry to cut through the stone. none of these techniques is particulary effective with granite. and it takes huge ammounts of time to produce minimum results. how these techniques could have been used to create the precision crafting of the Kings Chamber is yet to be proven.

Quote:

The other problem is that nobody has yet found any evidence that these things were actually used as batteries.

it has been sugested they could have been used for gold plating.

Quote:

I'm not familiar with the piece. Could you post a link to some info about it, please?

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi328.htm

Quote:

Even if you're getting these from a literal reading of the sources, these are inescapable requirements of your theory. That's an awful lot of speculation to make this work. None of it is supported by the historical record. Some of it isn't even supported by the laws of physics. On top of that, I don't see how we can interpret the text literally and yet still filter out the elements that are the ancients' 'interpretations' of what they saw. Once you start trying to figure out how the ancients interpreted something, you're no longer taking the text literally, not least because we don't know (and can't know) for sure how they interpreted anything.

you're absolutely right. in my case, its just a particular interest of mine. i never bought the Christian/Jewish interpretation of those texts. very early i begun to see the descriptions of those flying "things" in the old testament in a different light. i couldnt escape the fact that if so many consider those texts to be trustworthy records of historical events, there had to be an explanation for them besides a metaphysical god, allucinations or disinformation. i could be wrong of course, but on the other hand i still think its too much of a coincidence that the same myths (more or less), the same god like figures with the same history of relations appears in so many civilizations.

Taibak · #**219** (**permalink**) 10-January-2005, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

Taibak wrote:

Quote:

Yes, I am. IF this technology existed, it would have left traces behind. Let's stick with the mercury as an example. First off, it's a fairly heavy material and, according to a friend of mine who's a chemist, doesn't generally produce a lot of energy when it reacts. As such, it would make an extremely poor fuel source. Why would a race advanced enough to build aircraft use such a ridiculously inefficient fuel source? Why not a nuclear reactor or fossil fuels? Heck, they'd even have been better off with Solar power.

Taibak, there are enumerous sanskript texts which speak of these technologies. the scribes who put these records into writting claimed these were factual records based on ancient tradition. i evidently cannot say a Vimana did or did not flew with the power of liquid mercury or even if it was liquid mercury at all. but the concept that a civilization 2000+ years old could put such things to record is amazing. thousands of years before the invention of artificial flight, before it was even proven that could be done.

for further details i recommend the book "Alien Identities" by Dr. Richard L. Thompson.

Well then are we supposed to take the texts literally or not? If so, and we read that a vimana was powered by liquid mercury than we have no choice but to conclude that a vimana was powered by liquid mercury. If we're trying to infer whether or not some other liquid metal was used, then that's not taking the text literally - mercury means mercury.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

Quote:

On top of that, like it or not, if these people were using large quantities of liquid mercury it should show up in the environment, espescially if it was being used as fuel.

that is your assumption, i never said nor presented anything that could infer that large quantities of mercury were dumped into the environment. the Vimanas apparently had different forms of motion power. either way, what i've found is that Mercury 197 (Hg-197) has a radioactive decay of 65 hours and Mercury 203 (Hg-203) a radioactive decay 46.8 hours. im no chemist but from what i've read, there's got to be a substancial effort in mercury pollution to affect humans in the way you exposed, like a consistent and long process of industrialization.

Except it's not an assumption. It's a conclusion that I drew from basic thermodynamics. Every fuel source produces some sort of waste product. Therefore, a mercury-powered enigne will produce some derivative of mercury. If the end product is a gas, it will probably be released into the atmosphere where it will eventually precipitate, fall to the ground, be absorbed into the soil, work its way through the food chain, and, eventually, produce a noticeable effect in the population. If the waste product is removed from any exhaust through some sort of catalytic converter the mercury will remain aboard the ship (it could presumably remain on board if the waste product were a liquid or solid), but it still exists. If that's the case, the aliens were extremely anal retentive about cleaning up after themselves to make sure that nothing reached the environment. I just have a hard time believing that nothing was ever dumped, intentionally or otherwise.

As for the radioactive isotopes you've mentioned, I don't see how those could be used to power anything. I realise I'm hand waving here, but if your sole ion source is an isotope with a halflife on the order of days, you'll need a *lot* of fuel to reach even a modest speed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

"The vehicles themselves were made of special heat absorbing metals, called 'Somaka, Soundalike and Mourthwika'.

What's so special about these metals? Don't all metals absorb heat?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

According to Dr. Pinotti, the 'principles of propulsion as far as the descriptions were concerned, might be defined as electrical and chemical, but solar energy was involved as well.'

Way too vague. About the only thing that says is that these things weren't powered by mechanical energy which, unless these things were driven by a spring, shouldn't come as too much of a surprise. Show me a propulsion system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

Other scientists have put forward the theory that the craft were driven by some sort of mercury ion propulsion system.

Again, show me some chemistry and physics here. How are you getting the mercury ions and how are you getting enough speed to remain airborne?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

Dr. Pinotti concluded that the fact that vimanas were written about hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of years ago, plus that they resembled modern UFOs would suggest that India had a '...superior but forgotten civilisation. In the light of this, we think it will be better to examine the Hindu texts and subject the descriptive models of vimanas to more scientific scrutiny'." - Nick Humphries, "UFO Guide"

Fair enough, but this just brings us back to Rule 1 of archaeology: civilizations leave their trash behind. If there was an advanced civilization, where are the artifacts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

"G. R.. Josyer, director of the International Academy of Sanskrit Research in Mysore, India, stated on September 25, 1952, that Indian manuscripts several thousands of years old dealt with the construction of various types of aircraft for civil aviation and for warfare.

Fair enough, but show me evidence that these machines were actually built. Show me a drawing of one in use. If they were used in war, show me a text from whichever culture they were fighting talking about these aircraft. But, more than anything else, show me physical evidence of fabrication - either the remains of a factory or the remains of an aircraft.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

"The specific manuscript on aeronautics included plans for three types of vimanas (aircraft), the Rukma, Sundara, and Shakuna. Five hundred stanzas of an ancient text treat of such intricate details as the choice and preparation of metals which would be suitable for various parts of vimanas of different types." "There were eight chapters...that provided plans for the construction of aircraft that flew in the air, traveled under water, or floated pontoon-like on the water's surface. Some stanzas told of the qualifications and training of pilots."
- Brad Steiger, Worlds Before Our Own

Has anyone tried building one of these to see if it worked?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

Quote:

Moving to a more philosophical question, you argue that the ancients' descriptions of these technologies were 'interpretation of what they saw.' Are you saying we shouldn't always take them literally?

im saying we should try to translate, if possible, those descriptions into modern scientific thought.

Except that's no longer translating the text literally. Now you're imposing a distinctly modern interpretation onto an ancient text. That's not a very reliable method of historiography.

[quote="Outcast"]for example, engineer Josef F. Blumrich, after analysing Ezekiel's encounter in his book "The spaceships of the Prophet Ezekiel", gives us the following conclusion:

Quote:

The over-all result, then, is a space vehicle technically feasible beyond doubt and very well designed to suit function and purpose; its technology is in no way fantastic but, even in its extreme aspects, lies almost within our own capabilities of today. The results indicate, moreover, that Ezekiel's spacecraft operated in conjunction with a mother vessel orbiting the earth. We have no point of firm reference for an exact determination of the dimensions of the landing craft, but we can approximate these within the range I investigated analytically. The illustration at the top shows the shape and proportions. The diameter of the central body would be about 18 m, that of the rotor of a helicopter unit would be 11 m, total weight from the time of lift-off from the earth for the return flight to the mother ship would be 100,000 kg, the engine's specific impulse would be 2,080 seconds, and the craft would carry two or three passengers.

I don't see anything in the Book of Ezekiel that comes even close to this. If this is referring to the cherubim, Ezekiel seems quite clear that those are living creatures and quite a bit smaller than that. If this is referring to the temple, the text is even more clear that it's a lot bigger. Granted I'm reading this in translation, but there doesn't seem to be anything even close to a spaceship in there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

With these conclusions, I had to declare defeat; I wrote to Eric von Daniken, explaining that my attempt to refute his theory had resulted in a structural and analytical conformation of a major part of his hypothesis. Determining the form, dimensions and functional capabilities of what Ezekiel saw makes understanadable a number of passages in his text that are otherwise meaningless; it also aids considerably in separating the prophetic or visionary parts of Ezekiel's book from those concerning encounters with spaceships.

Problem: Erich von Daniken is not credible. Not only has he been convicted of business fraud, but he's admitted - on tape - to fabricating evidence. With that kind of background, I don't see why we should take anything he says seriously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

Quote:

In the interests of space, I won't copy the texts you quoted, but I will ask this: If there were all these airplanes in service, why have none been excavated?

well, i have no answers for that. many of these machines seem to have been destroyed in the Vedic texts, others the gods made sure to take them away when they left. for example, if you read the Mahabarata, after the epic hero destroys his rivals and lands his Vimana in his palace, the Celestials return to Earth to take the machine away. on the other hand, and this only my opinion, i think that the UFO encounters of today, at least some of them, are the remnants of those machines.

That still stretching credibility quite a lot. If the machines were destroyed, what happened to their parts? Even if every single component was painstakingly recovered - which doesn't seem possible if, as you claim, that the 'remnants' are an explanation for UFO sightings - they would still either be recycled, stored, or discarded. If they were recycled, then presumably they wound up in some other machine so that doesn't answer any questions. If they were destroyed or discarded, what happened to the materials? Again, where we're talking bronze age cultures (at best), any material suitable for an aircraft should stick out like a sore thumb.

As for the machines being removed by the aliens, that doesn't change the fact that the machines still spent time on Earth. Surely *something* must have broken and been thrown out.

If the machines in question are still airborne, as in rather a lot of UFO sightings, what's keeping them aloft and why are there no records of them being tracked by radar? Why aren't we seeing any of these crash?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

Quote:

I stand by it. As we currently understand biology, it is impossible to stop the aging process. As such, it's pointless to base an historical theory on something that might not even be physically possible.

well, i think its pointless to use our currently understanding of biology or even of physics to extrapolate what other advanced civilizations out there can or cannot accomplish.

Fair enough, but that makes for a very weak historical argument. By introducing speculative science and technology, you not only have to prove that the civilization in question existed you also have to prove that the science and technology requried work. At the risk of beating a dead horse, to claim that the ancients used mercury ion engines, you have to prove that mercury ion engines can actually work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

Quote:

Yes. The process has been reproduced by Egyptologists.

no it has not. personaly i've seen few examples of which techniques ancient egyptians might have used, if we assume they used the tools indicated as evidence. the idea is that they used flat copper saws and an abrasive slurry to cut through the stone. none of these techniques is particulary effective with granite. and it takes huge ammounts of time to produce minimum results. how these techniques could have been used to create the precision crafting of the Kings Chamber is yet to be proven.

Point taken, but unless my memory is faulty, which is certainly possible, the best I can do is concede that we don't know the exact process used. Still, I don't see why the builders weren't have taken the time needed to work the granite, considering the ridiculous amounts of effort that were put into building the pyramids in the first place.

Also, I've been thinking about this since I first responded and I got to wondering where these advanced tools are. Have any been excavated? Do they show up in any paintings? In short, is there any evidence that these tools existed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

Quote:

The other problem is that nobody has yet found any evidence that these things were actually used as batteries.

it has been sugested they could have been used for gold plating.

No electroplated objects have ever been found.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

Quote:

I'm not familiar with the piece. Could you post a link to some info about it, please?

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi328.htm

Interesting, but I'm not convinced. For starters, the existence of a small-scale model does not imply the existence of a full-scale machine. Second, the replica used to test the model was made of balsa, which, as far as I can tell, is a lighter and less dense material than the sycamore used in the original. Also, according to this site, the testers added a tailwing although there's no evidence that the original ever had one. That site also argues that the model's center of mass is all wrong for a glider as well. The original test is suspect, at best. The lack of feathers is inconclusive as the piece does have a beak and eyes painted on it, as well as additional traces of paint elsewhere. In short, there's some evidence that paint has worn off. Lastly, check out the drawings at the bottom of that page I linked you to. The Saqqara bird looks an awful lot like the weathervanes in those drawings. As such, the piece probably was a weathervane, and not a model airplane.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

Quote:

Even if you're getting these from a literal reading of the sources, these are inescapable requirements of your theory. That's an awful lot of speculation to make this work. None of it is supported by the historical record. Some of it isn't even supported by the laws of physics. On top of that, I don't see how we can interpret the text literally and yet still filter out the elements that are the ancients' 'interpretations' of what they saw. Once you start trying to figure out how the ancients interpreted something, you're no longer taking the text literally, not least because we don't know (and can't know) for sure how they interpreted anything.

you're absolutely right. in my case, its just a particular interest of mine. i never bought the Christian/Jewish interpretation of those texts.
very early i begun to see the descriptions of those flying "things" in the old testament in a different light. i couldnt escape the fact that if so many consider those texts to be trustworthy records of historical events, there had to be an explanation for them besides a metaphysical god, allucinations or disinformation. i could be wrong of course, but on the other hand i still think its too much of a coincidence that the same myths (more or less), the same god like figures with the same history of relations appears in so many civilizations.

What makes it too much of a coincidence? In most polytheistic religions, the gods tend to represent important elements of society (war, birth, death, love, artistry, learning, nature, fire, etc.). If those elements are common to all cultures, why shouldn't the gods have some similar properties? One would expect at least some level of synchronicity there. Also, as you've pointed out, all of these cultures have been in contact with each other thanks to trade. It is possible, as you've argued, that elements of one religion migrated along those trade routes, the Artemis cult being one example. Granted you'd have to prove that such information actually did travel along these routes (say, by looking at the times and places in which temples were founded, the date various texts appear, artistic representations, etc.), but it's a very simple mechanism that could explain cultic similarities, no aliens required.[/url]

Fram · #**220** (**permalink**) 10-January-2005, 10:48 AM

A more balanced view about the Egypt 'airplane' can be found here.

Taibak · #**221** (**permalink**) 10-January-2005, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fram

A more balanced view about the Egypt 'airplane' can be found here.

Thanx. That's the link I was trying to post.

ops:

rockmysoul67 · #**222** (**permalink**) 12-January-2005, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taibak

Problem: Erich von Daniken is not credible. Not only has he been convicted of business fraud, but he's admitted - on tape - to fabricating evidence. With that kind of background, I don't see why we should take anything he says seriously.

More than 10 years ago, I read at a friends house a small part of a book from the seventies about von Däniken. In that book it says that von Däniken is a betrayer. The example I read was about this very Egypt airplane model. Von Däniken wrote in an other book (so goes the example) that he knew about (or saw) an airplane model in Egypt in a museum at a exibition. The writers of the anti-däniken book checked this. The results were: The museum did exist, but the exibition and the airplane model and the exibition number (and if I remember correct also a mentioned person of the museum) didn't.
So since then for me it was: What von Däniken says is irrelevant.

But NOW I see, that this airplane model does exist! So what is true? Did the writers of the anti-däniken book misinterpretend Dänikens writings, or did von Däniken mixed up something by coincidence?

Anyway, Taibak, you write about "fabricating evidence". Here in Switzerland, von Däniken is well respected (even if his theories aren't believed a lot). So my question is: can you or someone on this board convince me (again) or really prove that von Däniken fabricated evidence?

Disinfo Agent · #**223** (**permalink**) 12-January-2005, 11:36 AM

According to the link above:

Quote:

It's from the 3rd century BC, from an age of invention that followed the death of Alexander the Great. That so-called Hellenistic period gave us gears, screws, plumbing, control valves, Euclidian geometry, Archimedes, and Ptolemy's astronomy.

As you're probably aware, by the 3rd. century BC independent Egypt was no more. It had become a colonial possession of the Macedonians under Alexander the Great. So the object - assuming it was a mechanical device, and not just some sort of sculpture - would have been built by Hellenistic Greeks, not ancient Egyptians from the time of the Great Pyramids.

P.S. One more thing: the "airplane" mentioned in that site was supposedly a glider. Has anyone here ever played with kites? Does it look like space technology to you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockmysoul67

The example I read was about this very Egypt airplane model. Von Däniken wrote in an other book (so goes the example) that he knew about (or saw) an airplane model in Egypt in a museum at a exibition. The writers of the anti-däniken book checked this. The results were: The museum did exist, but the exibition and the airplane model and the exibition number (and if I remember correct also a mentioned person of the museum) didn't.
So since then for me it was: What von Däniken says is irrelevant.

But NOW I see, that this airplane model does exist! So what is true? Did the writers of the anti-däniken book misinterpretend Dänikens writings, or did von Däniken mixed up something by coincidence?

What museum and exhibition number did von Däniken mention in his book?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

but in a sense you're right, not many people know that the texts of the Bible were based in early Mesopotamian texts.

That's because there's no evidence that they were. At least, not most of them. We've been through this before, too, but as usual you tend to forget inconvenient facts, Outcast.

rockmysoul67 · #**224** (**permalink**) 12-January-2005, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent

What museum and exhibition number did von Däniken mention in his book?

I don't know. How should I know? I didn't read that book (it could also be a paper); all I did was reading a part of another book (against von Däniken, about the nonexisting airplane model) for a few minutes in someones house.

The point is that the "Von Däniken Talk" comes up from time to time, here in Switzerland. Than I always say: "Don't believe him because ..." and than I bring up the "Egypt Airplane Model Story". But I can't say that anymore, since the model actually exists. It's to weak an argument to use in a spoken conversation.

I'm a bit ashamed by reading about the existence of the model, because now it seems (to me) that what I said for many years was (at least partly) nonsense. So to bring some thruth in what I said for years would be some PROVE that von Däniken actually does cheat (meaning: doing worse things than just seeing an ufo from the past in every ancient drawing and sculpture). If such a prove doesn't exist, I've got to do some explaining to a bunch of people.

Disinfo Agent · #**225** (**permalink**) 12-January-2005, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockmysoul67

I don't know. How should I know? I didn't read that book (it could also be a paper); all I did was reading a part of another book (against von Däniken, about the nonexisting airplane model) for a few minutes in someones house.

The point is that the "Von Däniken Talk" comes up from time to time, here in Switzerland. Than I always say: "Don't believe him because ..." and than I bring up the "Egypt Airplane Model Story". But I can't say that anymore, since the model actually exists. It's to weak an argument to use in a spoken conversation.

My point is that perhaps Von Däniken gave inaccurate references in his book, and that's why the other authors couldn't find the object. That would be his fault, not theirs.

P.S. It's true that you should't have based your opinion on a passage of a book you never read in its entirety, though...

rockmysoul67 · #**226** (**permalink**) 12-January-2005, 12:23 PM

@ Disinfo Agent

I agree on both points.

Lianachan · #**227** (**permalink**) 12-January-2005, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicolas

The Swiss Franc is as legit as the English Pound. England isn't the only European country not rushing into the Euro

[-(

England?

[-X

Do you mean Britain?

Fram · #**228** (**permalink**) 12-January-2005, 12:57 PM

Great Britain or Little Britain? Sorry, couldn't resist :P

Taibak · #**229** (**permalink**) 12-January-2005, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockmysoul67

Anyway, Taibak, you write about "fabricating evidence". Here in Switzerland, von Däniken is well respected (even if his theories aren't believed a lot). So my question is: can you or someone on this board convince me (again) or really prove that von Däniken fabricated evidence?

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

That mentions his two convictions for fraud. Granted, neither of those were related to his research, but they establish a pattern of fraudulent behavior on his part.

You might also want to get a hold of the Nova episode 'The Case of the Ancient Astronauts.' It was originally broadcast on March 8, 1978 and, unfortunately, doesn't seem available on their website. It might have been broadcast earlier by the BBC on Horizons, but I'm not too sure on that. What happened was the documentary crew was investigating von Daeniken's claims. When they got to looking into some pottery, the crew found the potter who faked some pieces for him. When the crew confronted von Daeniken about this, his response was that the deception was justified on the grounds that some people needed to see proof of his theories - in short that he was right to fake evidence because it proved his case.

Anyway, I first got the story from thehallofmaat.com but the old articles seem to have disappeared. I've started a thread on their message board asking about where they went to and if they could help find some corroborating evidence. You might also want to try http://skepdic.com/vondanik.html. That's the best online source I've been able to find so far. I'll let you know if I can find any others.

Edited to fix a link.

Taibak · #**230** (**permalink**) 12-January-2005, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fram

Great Britain or Little Britain? Sorry, couldn't resist :P

Hmmm... life under King Arthur or King Howell....

Tough choice.

rockmysoul67 · #**231** (**permalink**) 12-January-2005, 04:43 PM

Thanks for the links, Taibak, I'll have a look into it.

Taibak · #**232** (**permalink**) 12-January-2005, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockmysoul67

Thanks for the links, Taibak, I'll have a look into it.

No prob. Try this one too:

http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/PavonDaniken13.htm

NorthGuy · #**233** (**permalink**) 12-January-2005, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taibak

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockmysoul67

Thanks for the links, Taibak, I'll have a look into it.

No prob. Try this one too:

http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/PavonDaniken13.htm

The first debunking of van Daniken that I ever read was "Crash go the chariots!" http://www.campusi.com/isbn_0909423008.htm by Clifford Wilson. I remember seeing a TV special on van Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods!" in the early 70's. I think it was actually narrated by Rod Serling of "Twilight Zone" fame. It convinced me that van Daniken was on to something so I bought and read a couple of his books. I was probably about 15 or 16 at the time and I was fascinated. Then I discovered and read the Wilson book. That was 30 years ago, and I don't remember it in any great detail. But it was my first real experience with critical thinking, and I'll always be glad that I read it. It changed the way I look at things.

JonnyWishbone · #**234** (**permalink**) 13-January-2005, 07:25 AM

NorthGuy, you may have seen one of those Sunn Classic (I think that was the releasing company) "documentaries" of the mid-1970s that were released to theaters first. I believe Serling narrated The Outer Space Connection, and may have narrated Mysterious Monsters as well. I think they predate the In Search Of... series by a year or two, but I'm too lazy to do searches on them.

Cheers, Jon

Maksutov · #**235** (**permalink**) 13-January-2005, 12:20 PM

My (ex) wife bought COTG back in the early 70s and got all excited about it. She insisted I read it, which I did. About 30 minutes later, having finished the book, I asked her, "Doesn't it strike you as rather suspicious that all those ancient astronauts were stuck with what is essentially our current aerospace technology?"

She really didn't understand what I was saying. :roll:

A.DIM · #**236** (**permalink**) 14-January-2005, 05:40 PM

First let me reiterate my initial post by saying that while vonDaniken is a proponent of the AA Theories, he was not the one who "started it" as proposed by the author of this thread. The idea of "those from heaven to earth came" is ages old, most likely rooted in Sumer, and is conveyed similarly in many cultures across many lands.
I've only read vonDaniken's The Eyes of the Sphinx and found it considerably lacking in breadth and scope, and far from scholarly.

And while I'd just as soon see this thread come to an end...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taibak

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taibak

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

And sure I think earthlings, or more exactly homo sapiens sapiens, would've arisen and evolved to such an advanced species, posessing advanced civ & tech, but I think it should've taken considerably longer than it has.

To be honest, that seems to be what this whole discussion is based upon. A.DIM, how long do you think this should have taken? Remember, we're talking some 200,000 years between the rise of homo sapiens and the first farms. How much longer should it have taken? Tens of thousands of years? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? Where do you stop? What is enough time?

Good questions.
I don't know how much longer it might've taken but when I examine our ancestral bush, it is clear that the mills of evolution grind ever so slowly. The appearance of homo sapiens remains largely inexplicable. If we are some 98% percent the same as chimps, genetically, why do we not see similar "punctuated equilibrium" episodes in their evolution? Why wouldn't trauma like the end of the last ice age prompt them to discover Agriculture, instead of us?

Again, you're assuming that evolution has a desired end result - it doesn't. If chimps are adapted well enough to their enviornment, there's no impetus for additional natural selection. For whatever reason, humans evolved much more powerful brains than chimpanzees did, thus giving them greater adaptability. As a consequence, humans have been able to make technological advances that no other known animal could. Since humans had that extra brain power come the ice age, they were able to adapt technologically (fire, agriculture, etc.). Chimps - or any other animal, for that matter - simply didn't have the intelligence to do the same thing. There may be only a 2% genetic difference between humans and chimps, but that makes for a substantial difference between the two species

No, Taibak, I'm not assuming evolution has a desired end result. Evolution does only what is required for "survival of the fittest," nothing more. And "for whatever reason..." evolution brought about "more powerful brains" that led to a species to abandon a far better lifestyle that had been sustained over millennia for a sedentary life that brought about lesser nutrition and more disease, at a most inhospitable time no less!
And you see no puzzle there?
As I said sometime earlier, it is no wonder theories like "punctuated equilibrium" have arisen; they attempt to account for puzzles such as this.

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taibak

When you get right down to it, human development has no schedule and has no overarching plan. All the evidence we have supports this. If it only too a few hundred years to develop agriculture, so what? Look at how much American and European cultures have changed over the past couple hundred years thanks to the Industrial Revolution. Is it really that much harder to think that that Middle Eastern society could undergo a similar reinvention thanks to the development of agriculture?

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

I agree, there is no schedule for human development, but I think it took considerably longer than a "few hundred years" to develop Agriculture, IF we did it ourselves.

No offense, but that doesn't answer my question. How long is 'considerably longer' and do you have any evidence that this is the case?

Well, I suppose it is my opinion based on the various contending Views on Agricultural Origins coupled with the earlier link detailing the troubled theories on its origins. But to answer your question: I think earthlings would still be hunter-gatherers to this day, so no less than 20k yrs. But again, it is my opinion.
The point, though, is that its origins are not factually known.

Quote:

Either way, you're on a very slippery slope here. If a few centuries was too short, why not a few thousand years? Well, if you make that argument, there's no real reason to think that a few thousand years is enough time. Going that route is meaningless speculation since there's no evidence whatsoever that this actually took place.

IMO, the evidence is in the fact that Evolution is not really conducive to Agriculture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

But again, if the practice of seed cultivation took countless generations before anything viable was produced, why would the Myths persist in saying various "gods," bearers of the science of civilization, bestowed upon them Agriculture? Worldwide?

Same reason religions persist in any society: to explain the inexplicable. It's important to remember that agriculture had profound consequences for ancient society: it could support larger populations than hunting and gathering could, enabled humans to settle down. Once humans settled, agriculture became the difference between life and death. As in any other religion, deciding who lives and who dies is the province of the gods. Therefore, if agriculture brings life, it should have a divine origin. Remember, agriculture predates the invention of writing by several thousand years. The only possible records of its invention would have been oral traditions which, by their nature, can be highly mutable. Lacking any firm records as to the development of their societies' foundations, the ancients turned to religion to explain how they got these miraculous farms.

Interesting speculation.
The thing is, though, as I pointed out, an agrarian culture would've had less nutrition and more disease. So once they settled down and contracted more diseases, why would they still claim it was a "Gift of the Gods?"
Also, I read an article dealing with the drug-like properties of the few milks (Husbandry) and cereals that were prevalent in early Agriculture, so can we suppose then, that as Rich suggested, that the Astronomer priests DID invent Agriculture? Along with Writing, Astronomy, Mathematics, legal & educational systems, art & music and more while they too were doped? But what about the similarities worldwide in claiming "the gods" bestowed on mankind Agriculure & Civilization? Are we to suppose a worldwide drug epidemic brought about advanced Civilization?
Just kidding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

And about the exponentially increasing rate of knowledge and technology:
If we are capable of growing into an advanced space faring species / civilization in such an astonishingly short period of time, how can one presuppose it hasn't happened before, considering the age of the universe? If the Anunnaki evolved on their planet a mere 1% sooner than we did here, they would've been capable of space travel some 500k yrs ago.

Fair enough, but I'm not presupposing anything. There's still no evidence that the Anunnaki exist, other than a few ambiguous texts. There's still no evidence for extraterrestrial microbes, let alone intelligent life. Show me some proof here, and I'll believe you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

But no, I don't find it difficult to believe a civilization can undergo revolutionary advances that completely change our understanding of ourselves and our place in the universe.

Then what makes agriculture different? If Western Europe and North America industrialize in under 150 years, why couldn't humans develop agriculture in a comparable time frame?

In a word: Evolution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taibak

Moreover, there's still no evidence to support your theory. When you're talking about ancient history the documentary evidence is so fragmented you need artifacts to corroborate it. Taking Sumerian legends literally isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it is a dangerous route if you can't find any other evidence. Schliemann took the stories of the Trojan War as at least partly historical, but he was able to prove his case by actually digging up Troy. Simply put, if the Anunnaki actually existed, where are the artifacts? Show me a skeleton. Show me an inscription that says 'I was made by an Anunnaki.' Show me something that corroborates the texts. Comparisons with other texts from around the world aren't sufficient. To go that route, you need to prove that there was contact between the two regions. Again, that means you need to find documents on both sides that support the visit OR you need to produce some artifacts. Norse sagas provide inconclusive evidence that the Vikings reached North America, but the excavated settlements in Canada prove the case.

I understand all too well the need for "proof."
I've never claimed to have proof, only that there is in fact evidence that "those from heaven to earth came" are who the sumerians claimed, the "gods," who created Mankind and bestowed on it Civilization. But insofar as this thread goes, it should clear that the idea of ancient astronauts, or more laugh-factorish, "aliens," is ancient.

Like I said, your evidence is ambiguous, at best. On the one hand, we have an otherwise unknown race coming from the sky and proceeded to teach humans all over the world how to farm for no discernable reason before disappearing. On the other hand, we have humans figuring out how to farm by themselves and making up stories as to agriculture being a divine gift. As you point out, there's no proof whatsoever for the first interpretation, so it can be removed with Ockham's razor. The second case is MUCH more plausible.

I've already shown how your lack of knowledge on Myth confuses you.
In my mind, it is obvious the Myths are clear on who that "otherwise unknown race" is. More careful reading will expose those "discernable reasons."

Quote:

And if the Annunaki weren't aliens, what were they?

Who made such an assertion?

Disinfo Agent · #**237** (**permalink**) 14-January-2005, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

IMO, the evidence is in the fact that Evolution is not really conducive to Agriculture.

What do you mean, "Evolution is not conducive to Agriculture"?
It managed to conduct leaf cutter ants to agriculture, didn't it?...

A.DIM · #**238** (**permalink**) 14-January-2005, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fram

I'm trying to see your logic, A.DIM, but I fail. The Anunnaki come here, take some chimps, and genetically alter them, but only for 2%. The result is that we are capable of being teached agriculture and writing and so on, but not of discovering it for ourselves. Then why not make us a bit smarter, so that we are capable of finding it ourselves, sparing them the trouble of teaching it to us? Or did they want little pet humans, for some reason? And why teach us everything in little bits? The risk of us forgetting it again should have been too great, no? Why not give us agriculture and writing simultaneously? And why did they alter all humanity, but teach only one country (or tribe or whatever you want to call it)? The whole story doesn't make any sense, and 'the ways of the Anunnaki are mysterious' isn't good enough.

Indeed, it wouldn't make sense with such an understanding based solely on, apparently, 2 persons ideas in this thread. Like others, more familiarity with the Myths would serve you well.

Quote:

Do you believe all techniques, domestications, ... come from the Anunnaki, or do you think only the principles were explained and we discovered the rest for ourselves? If the first, then that contradicts almost everything we know about the history of agriculture and domestication. If the second, then what makes the principle of agriculture that hard to find out?

What we know about the history of agriculture is that scholars still cannot definitively say how exactly and why it came about.

A.DIM · #**239** (**permalink**) 14-January-2005, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

There are those of you who instinctively apply a low a priori possibility to the ETH and hence don't consider anything as "evidence," unless it were a real spaceship.

While it would be nice to have a piece of alien tech to test, it's not necessary. What is necessary is evidence that can be objectively tested and evaluated so that we can arrive at the TRUTH. Not revisiting old myths to find what you "want" to find. That's not evidence.

Yeah, RAF, I really really "want" the Truth to be that modern homosapiens was created out of a need for slaves. And that through our subjugation, ie. Religion, humans have endured war and atrocity, in the name of this "god" or that, throughout recorded History into our very own time.

Quote:

The "evidence" is in countless texts spanning millennia, it is in the inexplicable appearance of homo sapiens, it is in the anomolous rise of Agriculture and Civilization, it is in the countless ooparts - "out of place, out of time, artifacts" - found around the world, whether it be miniscule cylinder seals that depict a solar system and "gods" with wings, or ancient megalithic constructions conveying knowledge of precession, or the plethora of texts and inscriptions that tell the story of "gods from heaven" creating Mankind and eventually bestowing upon their creation, Civilization. It is in the Fact that human beings, less than 50k years from being primitive hunter gatherers, are now a space faring species, soon to be the "aliens" themselves.

...and it's all a "tale" that has no proof, no evidence, no nothing...except the wishful thinking of some who want it to be true. Wishing won't make it so. Your "evidence" simply isn't enough.

Quote:

So, ultimately, it comes down to what one considers "evidence"

And as I just stated...what you consider "evidence", is just "wanting it to be so". That don't cut it.

Quote:

...and considering your history of pseudoskepticism...

Ya know what? I'm really starting to get tired of having this "moniker" placed on me. I don't call you names...please show me the same courtesy.

Quote:

...I'm convinced that nothing someone you consider "woowoo" posts would ever be accepted as "evidence."

Well, that's a real easy "out"...and it's bull. The "evidence" that you have presented simply does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. How is that my fault??[/quote]

A.DIM · #**240** (**permalink**) 14-January-2005, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

There are those of you who instinctively apply a low a priori possibility to the ETH and hence don't consider anything as "evidence," unless it were a real spaceship.

While it would be nice to have a piece of alien tech to test, it's not necessary. What is necessary is evidence that can be objectively tested and evaluated so that we can arrive at the TRUTH. Not revisiting old myths to find what you "want" to find. That's not evidence.

Yeah, RAF, I really really "want" the Truth to be that modern homosapiens was created out of a need for slaves. And that through our subjugation, ie. Religion, humans have endured war and atrocity, in the name of this "god" or that, throughout recorded History into our very own time.

Quote:

The "evidence" is in countless texts spanning millennia, it is in the inexplicable appearance of homo sapiens, it is in the anomolous rise of Agriculture and Civilization, it is in the countless ooparts - "out of place, out of time, artifacts" - found around the world, whether it be miniscule cylinder seals that depict a solar system and "gods" with wings, or ancient megalithic constructions conveying knowledge of precession, or the plethora of texts and inscriptions that tell the story of "gods from heaven" creating Mankind and eventually bestowing upon their creation, Civilization. It is in the Fact that human beings, less than 50k years from being primitive hunter gatherers, are now a space faring species, soon to be the "aliens" themselves.

...and it's all a "tale" that has no proof, no evidence, no nothing...except the wishful thinking of some who want it to be true. Wishing won't make it so. Your "evidence" simply isn't enough.

Again, I really really "want" alien overlords as the bestowers of civilization, I assure you.

Quote:

So, ultimately, it comes down to what one considers "evidence"

And as I just stated...what you consider "evidence", is just "wanting it to be so". That don't cut it.

Uh uh...
Did you see the "ET Civilization" thread I started dealing with the apparent support for the ETH within current astrophysics?
Your problem is the a priori issue, RAF.

Quote:

...and considering your history of pseudoskepticism...

Ya know what? I'm really starting to get tired of having this "moniker" placed on me. I don't call you names...please show me the same courtesy.

OK, but what you post is all I have to go by and I'm rather certain that in our "history" I shown this to be true from time to time.
No worries though, you can continue thinking of me as a "woowoo."

Quote:

...I'm convinced that nothing someone you consider "woowoo" posts would ever be accepted as "evidence."

Well, that's a real easy "out"...and it's bull. The "evidence" that you have presented simply does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. How is that my fault??

Not your fault, RAF, but what you've done with nearly everything I've presented can hardly be considered "scientific scrutiny."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode