What ever happened to Eric Von Danekin

[Sticks]

For those who never heard of him, he came up the idea that Earth was visited in the past by aliens, which can be seen from certain arefacts. He also maintained that ancient civilisations could not have been built without the aid from these advanced alien visitors.

In the 1970's / 1980's the BBC TV series Horizon totally rubbished his ideas.

Today experimental archaeology has reclaimed some of the feats for ancient peoples.

Is Eric still around today and does he still maintain his claim that artefacts prove we were visited by aliens in the distant past?

[electromagneticpulse]

Well the only amazing feat really left is the building of stone henge as the rocks came from wales and took a massive trip. But i still think it was people... if not the builders of stone henge were obviously the more advanced alien race :wink:

[01101001]

Is Eric still around today and does he still maintain his claim that artefacts prove we were visited by aliens in the distant past?
First, you gotta spell his name right.

Welcome to the World of Mysteries of Erich von Däniken (http://www.daniken.com/e/index.html)

Erich von Däniken is an avid researcher and an energetic traveler, averaging 100'000 miles per year to visit remote places of the Earth. This enables him to closely examine the phenomena about which he writes. Together with two planning committees he is currently building a gigantic theme park called "Mysteries of the World" in Interlaken / Switzerland.
A theme park. Pfft.

[Kesh]

Check out the big, gold, shiny edition of the movie Stargate on DVD. One of the extras is called Is there a Stargate? However, it's really just an excuse for Daniken to promote his views and book. This edition only came out a year or so ago.

[Jigsaw]

...which theme park is already open (his website needs updating).

http://www.mysterypark.ch/

Opened in May of 2003. (http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissinfo.html?siteSect=105&sid=1918331)

[Sticks]

The real mystery is why people still buy into this stuff :roll:

[electromagneticpulse]

Media Release 21.09.2004
- Expected profits 5 million francs

Hey this guy doesn't even want to make any real money :lol:
Personaly i'd like something that was still a legit currency

[Humphrey]

Grumble...grumble... No offense is ment but this guy is easily on the lines of Hoagland. He believes what he says and absolutely refuses to hear anything to prove him wrong.

[Taibak]

Grumble...grumble... No offense is ment but this guy is easily on the lines of Hoagland. He believes what he says and absolutely refuses to hear anything to prove him wrong.

He may actually be worse. Hoagland may just be delusional. Von Daeniken has actually admitted - on film - to faking evidence in order to promote his theories.

-Taibak

[kucharek]

Media Release 21.09.2004
- Expected profits 5 million francs

Hey this guy doesn't even want to make any real money :lol:
Personaly i'd like something that was still a legit currency
The Swiss Franc still exists.

[Nicolas]

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

In Belgium cars ride on the right side, and trains on the left. Europe is about as complex as relativity (and follows almost the same principles :lol: )

On topic, if Hoagland ever wanted to open a theme park, someone please stop him from calling it Hoaxland [-(

[A Thousand Pardons]

The real mystery is why people still buy into this stuff :roll:
Wir danken unseren Main Partners (http://www.mysterypark.ch/index.html?&page_id=48&node=57&level=0&l=1): Coca-Cola, Fujitsu, Swatch, Sony, etc.

[Sticks]

The real mystery is why people still buy into this stuff :roll:
Wir danken unseren Main Partners (http://www.mysterypark.ch/index.html?&page_id=48&node=57&level=0&l=1): Coca-Cola, Fujitsu, Swatch, Sony, etc.

Two quotes come to mind

"There's a sucker born every minute" and "A fool and his money are oft soon parted"

I actually was in to EVD when I was a child and read his book, Return to the Stars.

The Horizon programme was a real eye opener

One of the pieces of evidence in his book as "alien runway markings" on a South American pampas was actually quite small. The phot had been quite deceptive. There was a subsequent TV show here about that region of South America where the Archaeologists reclaimed it. This is the place where giant animals were drawn. It all seems to be connected to Shamanism, early narcotics and drug trips thought to be spiritual experiences.

Mind you I have heard people claim that the first chapter of the book of Ezekiel in the Old Testament is an eye witness testimony of a flying saucer :roll: ](*,)

[aurora]

Grumble...grumble... No offense is ment but this guy is easily on the lines of Hoagland. He believes what he says and absolutely refuses to hear anything to prove him wrong.

He may actually be worse. Hoagland may just be delusional. Von Daeniken has actually admitted - on film - to faking evidence in order to promote his theories.

-Taibak

OTOH, they have each won an Ig Nobel prize.

Ig Nobel home page (http://www.improbable.com/ig/ig-top.html)

[Brady Yoon]

His book, Chariots of the Gods, is very convincing. :o

[Musashi]

Convincing of what?

[Humphrey]

Convincing of what?

That the human eye can see common day, modern things in ancient drawings and writings not intended to show those things.

[Ravana]

The only good thing I can think of about von Daniken is that without him there probably wouldn't have been a Thor Heyerdahl. (sp?)

[Brady Yoon]

I mean that I know the stuff's not true, but his writing really makes me think from the other perspective.

[Hans]

The only good thing I can think of about von Daniken is that without him there probably wouldn't have been a Thor Heyerdahl. (sp?)

Thor Heyerdahl was operational well before EVD showed up to promote silliness. Thor H is noted for being nearly always wrong in his theories, but doing so within the methodology of science and being recognized as a 'gentleman' at all times. He was inspirational as hands on experiencer of what the ancients had done or might have done.

Some of his earlier expeditions

The Kon-Tiki Expedition (1947)
After the war, Heyerdahl continued his research, only to meet a wall of resistance to his theories amongst comtemporary scholars. To add weight to his arguments, Heyerdahl decided to build a replica of the aboriginal balsa raft (named the "Kon-Tiki") to test his theories. In 1947, Heyerdahl and five companions left Callio, Peru and crossed 8000 km (4300 miles) in 101 days to reach Polynesia (Raroia atoll, Tuamotu Archipelago). Despite skepticisim, the seaworthiness of the aboriginal raft was thus proven and showed that the ancient Peruvians could have reached Polynesia in this manner.

he Galapagos Expedition (1952)
Following the success of the Kon-Tiki Expedition, Heyerdahl organized and led the Norwegian Archaeological Expedition to the Galapagos Islands. The group investigated the pre-Columbian habitation sites, locating an Inca flute and shards from more than 130 pieces of ceramics which were later identified as pre-Incan. The Galapagos Islands are located about 1000 km off the coast of Ecuador and thus South American archaeology was extended for the first time in to the open Pacific Ocean. Parallel to this expedition, Heyerdahl worked with experts in rediscovering the lost art of the guara, a kind of aboriginal center-board used by the indians of Peru and Ecuador for navigation. From this tool, not used on the Kon-Tiki voyage, it become clear that ancient South American voyagers had the means to navigate as well as travel great distances in the Pacific.

The Easter Island Expedition (1955-56)
Following his successful work, Heyerdahl was encouraged to direct a major archaeological expedition to the Pacific's most isolated island: Easter Island. An expedition of 23 persons reached the island and began the first sub-surface archaeological excavation every attempted. They soon discovered that Easter Island had once been wooded until deforested by its original inhabitants, who also planted water-reeds and other South American plants.

Carbon dating showed that the Island had been occupied from about 380 A.D., about one thousand years earlier than scientists previously believed. Excavations indicated that some ancient stone carvings on the Island were similar to ancient traditions in Peru. Some Easter Islanders claimed that according to their legends, they orginally arrived from the far away lands to the East. The results of Heyerdahl's work were widely discussed and presented at the Tenth Pacific Science Congress in Honolulu (1961) where they were supported by the unanimous statement: "Southeast Asia and the islands adjacent constitute one major source area of the peoples and cultures of the Pacific Islands and South America". Thus, Heyerdahl's eastern migration theory had gained considerable influence.

[Hans]

I mean that I know the stuff's not true, but his writing really makes me think from the other perspective.

Yep he did that, his books were one reason I studied Archaeology - and found out very quickly he was driving an intellectual unicycle with a flat.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Mind you I have heard people claim that the first chapter of the book of Ezekiel in the Old Testament is an eye witness testimony of a flying saucer :roll: ](*,)

Eh

It probably came from the Same Place.

Where exactly that is, is Anybody's Guess ...

But, it probably had to do with Some Psychotropic Manna ....

[Van Rijn]

Mind you I have heard people claim that the first chapter of the book of Ezekiel in the Old Testament is an eye witness testimony of a flying saucer :roll: ](*,)

There was a book written on that back in the '70s. I tried to do a quick Google, but didn't turn it up. The title was something like "Ezekiel's Spaceship." Actually quite fascinating. From what I remember there were extensive diagrams of the "spaceship." I think the author had determined it used an aerospke nozzle and looked a bit like an upside down Apollo command module (but much larger) with three landing legs using sophisticated wheels able to roll in any direction. It was a nuclear rocket design, obviously.

At the age I read it I was much less skeptical, but even then this went way beyond what I could accept. I was mostly interested in the spacecraft design, though. And you have to admire the guy for his audacity.

[rockmysoul67]

an aerospke nozzle and looked a bit like an upside down Apollo command module (but much larger) with three landing legs using sophisticated wheels able to roll in any direction

I remember this drawing.

Are you dutch? Anyway, the dutch on this board might remember a serial of big black books from the seventies called "Grote mysteries". The subtitels were: "Onze Aarde, raadsel in het Heelal; Mysterieuze gebieden op Aarde; Onverklaarbaar verdwenen landen en culturen; Raadselachtige vondsten uit het verleden; Raadselachtige verdwijningen; Vliegende schotels en andere raadsels van het Heelal; Oosterse leefwijzen en medische raadsels; Duistere sekten en zwarte kunst; Geheimzinnige wetenschappen; Mysterieuze monsters; Toekomstvoorspellingen; Mysteries van de droom; Wonderlijke krachten van de menselijke geest; De mens en zijn goden; Mysteries van leven en dood; Is er leven na de dood?"

A lot of hoaxes and nonsense in those books, but I didn't realise that when I was a kid in the seventies. Anyway, the drawings were amazing. The space ships à la von Däniken who were planting the statues on eastern island, the adamski ufo, the laser driven spaceship (that made sense), and oh yes, the ezekiel space ship.

[Van Rijn]

Sorry, I'm American. The "Van Rijn" pseudonym comes from Poul Anderson's "Nick Van Rijn" character. Much of my ancestry IS Dutch, however, perhaps why I felt a connection to that character.

I remember much the same thing in the '70s, though, with a number of writers feeding off the von Daniken "Ancient Astronaut" and the flying saucer craze. I was young and it was very exciting, but somewhere along the line as I read more, I started getting very skeptical.

[Jigsaw]

The Spaceships of Ezekiel, by Josef Blumrich.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/awr_1doug1.htm
'The Spaceships of Ezekiel' by Blumrich is an award-winning book that should be read by anyone investigating Biblical mysteries. Blumrich is a scientist and NASA designer of the Saturn V rocket. He wrote that his son informed him, after reading an Erich Von Daniken book, that the prophet Ezekiel described a spaceship landing. Blumrich was positive that he could disprove that concept because of his technical skills in this field. The ancient text could not possibly portray a feasible craft; he assumed. The NASA designer wrote that he was never so surprised when he actually read the Book of Ezekiel. The ancient words did indeed conform to a realistic vehicle.

The relevant Bible passage begins here. (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=ezekiel+&NIV_version=yes&language=en glish)

[Russ]

Back in the early 1970's there was a TV show about operation Blue Book. It was produced by Jack Webb of "Dragnet" fame. In the opening sequince Jack did a voice over that opened with "Ezekiel saw the wheel...." then went on to describe the Blue Book project. I guess the premis was to add credibility to the show since the Bible talked about alien UFO's. :roll: :roll: :lol:

[Fram]

Jigsaw: this is a typical example of only taking out of a text what confirms your view (I mean not your view, but Blumrich's), and ignoring the rest.

Their faces looked like this: Each of the four had the face of a man, and on the right side each had the face of a lion, and on the left the face of an ox; each also had the face of an eagle.This comes also from that text you link to. What is the explanation of this in a spaceship?

Francis

[Yorkshireman]

I was also an avid reader of Von Daniken when I was 12 or 13. I got Chariots of the Gods, Return to the Stars, Gold of the Gods, and According to the Evidence. It took me a while to get over it! The Horizon programme planted a lot of doubts, then the Ronald Storey book The Space Gods Revealed, a debunking book, finally broke my addiction.

In a way, it did inspire me. A lot of my interest in archaeology stems from around that time, the idea that other civilisations did some great things and that we can still visit the ruins of them today. Many of the places Daniken mentioned in his books, I've since been to myself - including the famous rocket-driving God Pacal, on his tomb lid at the Temple of the Inscriptions in Mexico.

I never saw Heyerdahl in the same pseudoscience league as Von Daniken. He at least didn't invent evidence wholesale, or invoke space aliens. I take Heyerdahl more in the slightly maverick, "Look at this odd looking evidence here. Look, ancient peoples really could have done this thing a different way" mould.

Rob

[Night G]

I believe he has revised his Nazca "theories" a bit. Since it is painfully obvious to anyone who has actually been there that the Nazca "lines" can not possibly be the remants of an airport/spaceport whatever, he now claims that the Nazca people found the "real" spaceport out in the desert somewhere at some location that is now lost to history and that the "real" Nazca lines are really an artistic representation of this desert artifact no one other than EVD seems to know anything about. In short, he can never, ever be wrong.

I mean that I know the stuff's not true, but his writing really makes me think from the other perspective.

Yep he did that, his books were one reason I studied Archaeology - and found out very quickly he was driving an intellectual unicycle with a flat.


Funny you should say that...It made me study physics and chemistry etc.

My conclusion was the same as yours! =D>

[Ravana]

I never saw Heyerdahl in the same pseudoscience league as Von Daniken. He at least didn't invent evidence wholesale, or invoke space aliens. I take Heyerdahl more in the slightly maverick, "Look at this odd looking evidence here. Look, ancient peoples really could have done this thing a different way" mould.

Thor Heyerdahl was operational well before EVD showed up to promote silliness. Thor H is noted for being nearly always wrong in his theories, but doing so within the methodology of science and being recognized as a 'gentleman' at all times. He was inspirational as hands on experiencer of what the ancients had done or might have done.

Right. I wasn't aware that he predated von Daniken, since I'd never checked competing dates, but I do recall that Heyerdahl had a long period where, whenever von Daniken claimed that "humans could not have done so-and-so; therefore, aliens must have," Heyerdahl went out and *did* it... using technologies available to the humans of the relevant time period. I think he gained much of his recognition that way, whether or not he was "right" in that they actually did those things the way he proposed. For those not familiar, he also sailed across the Atlantic on a papyrus boat to prove that the Egyptians could have made it; raised monoliths on Easter Island (and elsewhere), and, if my memory serves me, quarried a building block of the size used to build the pyramids and transported it the requisite distance. (May have been someone else, but I seem to recall this being done; I didn't check first, though, so I could be wrong.)

As someone trying to analyze and present an accurate description of history and past events, he may have been incorrect more often than not. As someone trying to demonstrate the versatility of ancient technology in order to show what was truly possible--to a scientific community still largely beset with Victorian prejudices in this regard at the time--he was a true scientist and an invaluable contributor to archaeology. The field will remember him for quite some time, even if he turns out not to have made a single correct explication: he forced it to reassess its own values and prejudices, and through that its analyses of what was done, what could be done, and how.

I wonder who's going to step up to slap von Daniken around now.

[A Thousand Pardons]

Right. I wasn't aware that he predated von Daniken, since I'd never checked competing dates, but I do recall that Heyerdahl had a long period where, whenever von Daniken claimed that "humans could not have done so-and-so; therefore, aliens must have," Heyerdahl went out and *did* it... using technologies available to the humans of the relevant time period.
I don't remember Heyerdahl ever responding to Daniken. Anybody have any more info on this?

PS: Oops, just googled and found The Space-Gods Revealed: A Close Look at the Theories of Erich Von Daniken (1976) by Thor Heyerdahl and Ronald Story--which had been mentioned by Yorkshireman. Was it written by Heyerdahl too?

[boppa]

Thor Heyerdahl helped design the Atzlan (the la balsa expedition) which is housed about ten minutes drive from here down in ballina

the local marine museum has it and i still remember as a kid getting to go there- 10 years after it had arrived,there was still contriversy over wheither he had done it or it was a snowjob and he had `hitchhiked' it part of the way on another boat
:o

[Yorkshireman]

PS: Oops, just googled and found The Space-Gods Revealed: A Close Look at the Theories of Erich Von Daniken (1976) by Thor Heyerdahl and Ronald Story--which had been mentioned by Yorkshireman. Was it written by Heyerdahl too?

It's definitely the same book I've read. Funny, I don't recall Heyerdahl's name as co-author, but it is a long time since I've read it. Probably in about '81-82.

[A.DIM]

For those who never heard of him, he came up the idea that Earth was visited in the past by aliens...

I've read very little Daniken, but I must point out that this is incorrect.

It is ancient mythology that first asserted there were "those who from Heaven to Earth Came" - the Anunnaki of the Sumerians - the Elohim, Nephilim and Malachim of the Bible, the Egyptians believed their "gods" came from the Planet of Millions of Years, or the Abode of the Gods, and countless other myths tell of the "gods from heaven."
It is an ages old concept merely regurgitated by Daniken.
And rightly so.

[A.DIM]

Ezekiel from my NIV published in '78:

In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month on the fifth day, while I was among the exiles by the Kebar River, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God.

***snip*** - only to point out that "God" here is elohim, a plural word that should be read as "gods."

I looked, and I saw a windstorm coming out of the north - an immense cloud with flashing lightning and surrounded by brilliant light. The center of the fire looked like glowing metal, and in the fire was what looked like four living creatures. In appearance their form was that of a man, but each of them had four faces and four wings. Their legs were straight; their feet were like those of a calf and gleamed like burnished bronze. Under their wings on their four sides they had the hands of a man. All four of them had faces and wings, and their wings touched one another.Each one went straight ahead; they did not turn as they moved. ...

Now, one can either attempt to apply metaphorical and allegorical meanings to this description or one can dare to consider literally what is being said.

I know what I choose. :D

[N C More]

Now, one can either attempt to apply metaphorical and allegorical meanings to this description or one can dare to consider literally what is being said.

I know what I choose. :D

Well, what is literally being said is that the prophet Ezekiel had an encounter with beings that were "angels of the Lord". Not until modern times was this interpreted as being an encounter with ETs. Either way, it's valid only if one has faith in what is being written.

[kmarinas86]

http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_eng.htm

These pages, nevertheless, are not against ufology as a whole. They are just a strong response to those web pages which publish ancient art reproductions without any knowledge of their real subject, meaning and historical value.

[R.A.F.]

Now, one can either attempt to apply metaphorical and allegorical meanings to this description or one can dare to consider literally what is being said.

I know what I choose. :D
Thanks, A.DIM...at least you admit that it's your "choice" to believe that...

[A.DIM]

Now, one can either attempt to apply metaphorical and allegorical meanings to this description or one can dare to consider literally what is being said.

I know what I choose. :D

Well, what is literally being said is that the prophet Ezekiel had an encounter with beings that were "angels of the Lord". Not until modern times was this interpreted as being an encounter with ETs. Either way, it's valid only if one has faith in what is being written.

I agree somewhat, NC, but because much of the Bible has been corroborated through archaeology and historical texts, I lend some credence to what else might be found to be based on Fact. Remember, barely 200yrs ago many peoples, places and events in the OT were considered "myth."

The thing with Ezekiel, though, is as I pointed out: Elohim is used, not malachi'im or even nephilim. So Ezekiel's encounter was with "the gods."
And as far as modern interpretations: I understand what you mean, but all throughout History, in Myths & Religions worldwide, "the gods" and their "skychambers" or "boats of heaven" were often described, and with striking modernity.

[A.DIM]

Now, one can either attempt to apply metaphorical and allegorical meanings to this description or one can dare to consider literally what is being said.

I know what I choose. :D
Thanks, A.DIM...at least you admit that it's your "choice" to believe that...

You're welcome, R.A.F.
Although, I've always maintained that I choose to read myths & religion more literally, from day 1 two years ago. You see, it is necessary to put oneself in the proper histori-politico-religious context in order to properly evaluate the "evidence," as it were, and the ancients knew their "gods" to be anthropomorphic beings, physically present, but immediately that they were "gods" who possessed technologies and weapons as well as means for amazing flight, ascent and descent.
Again, strikingly modern.

So the purpose of your post is either you've forgotten or ..... ?

Whatever the case, my only intent here was to point out that the idea of "those from heaven to earth came" is NOT a new concept.

[N C More]

Ezekiel's encounter with the Elohim means creatures that are subject to Yahweh (there is only one God in Judaism). As explained here (http://www.concordant.org/expohtml/GodAndChrist/onegod3.html). There is nothing that indicates to me that they were talking about aliens. However, since the discussion of religion is forbidden, I can only say that it seems to me to be quite an extrapolation to see Ezekiel's "wheel" as being of ET origin. I consider this incident to be strictly a matter of faith.

[Rich]

Ezekiel from my NIV published in '78:

In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month on the fifth day, while I was among the exiles by the Kebar River, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God.

***snip*** - only to point out that "God" here is elohim, a plural word that should be read as "gods."

I looked, and I saw a windstorm coming out of the north - an immense cloud with flashing lightning and surrounded by brilliant light. The center of the fire looked like glowing metal, and in the fire was what looked like four living creatures. In appearance their form was that of a man, but each of them had four faces and four wings. Their legs were straight; their feet were like those of a calf and gleamed like burnished bronze. Under their wings on their four sides they had the hands of a man. All four of them had faces and wings, and their wings touched one another.Each one went straight ahead; they did not turn as they moved. ...

Now, one can either attempt to apply metaphorical and allegorical meanings to this description or one can dare to consider literally what is being said.

I know what I choose. :D

Funny, what quotes like these from religious or mythical texts always bring to my mind is an old Dennis Miller addage (before he became a bit of a kook): "If you got rid of alcohol, pot, and every other drug people will still find ways to get high... even if it means spinning around on their front lawns until they pass out and see god..." Or something to that affect. In other words, such quotes simply serve to remind me that humans (btw - other animals imbibe substances to "get high") have always sought ways to mess with their brain chemistry. The end result, whether the result of alcohol, peyote, LSD, or other chemicals, tends to be an artificial and imagined broadening of consciousness that allows one to see all sorts of things from UFOs, pixies, and pink elephants, to gods.

My first inclination, and btw far more likely than actual heavenly visitors whether supernatural or extraterrestrial, is that our friend Ezekiel was high on the local variation of peyote or some other mind altering substance and had a religious experience. Drive down to a detoxt center some time and watch it happen a dozen times a day.

[Jigsaw]

There's a plausible case (http://library.thinkquest.org/C003603/english/phenomena/sundogs.shtml) to be made that what Ezekiel saw were sundogs.

[Nicolas]

Sundogs seem to be a very plausible explanation indeed, surely when combined with our will to see something extraordinary.

I've seen a sundog once, I only knew what I saw because I had read about them before. It was quite an unusual one, as it stood almost at the opposite side of the sun (morning sun on a cold, somewhat hazy day).

Sundogs have a modern world variant which can nowadays lead to some very strange sightings: instead of the sunlight reflecting on ice cristals in the sky we can't see, we also have the reflection of any light source (including the sun) on a transparent surface we can't clearly see. Example: driving on the highway at night, you're passing under a bridge. Suddenly you see a strange light rapidly descending ("at thousands of miles an hour, and in complete silence"), and then suddenly hanging still right above the bridge above the highway ("it was watching us"). What you didn't see was that the bridge had a plexiglass sound damping wall on which you saw a simple reflection of the highway lights.
...and that slow driving truck in front of you that was far away before you started staring at the aliens above the bridge. :D

At least you're seeing the gods after all.

PS anyone notices: sundog -dog - D.O.G. - G.O.D - god! They are sending us messages, let's all start decoding the sundogs language!! (4 suns = we're all gonna die, 59 suns = I knew you are high, shame on you , etc)

[A.DIM]

Ezekiel's encounter with the Elohim means creatures that are subject to Yahweh (there is only one God in Judaism). As explained here (http://www.concordant.org/expohtml/GodAndChrist/onegod3.html). There is nothing that indicates to me that they were talking about aliens. However, since the discussion of religion is forbidden, I can only say that it seems to me to be quite an extrapolation to see Ezekiel's "wheel" as being of ET origin. I consider this incident to be strictly a matter of faith.

Interestingly, that appears to have been the reason NASA scientist Blumrich was compelled to analyze "Ezekiel's Wheel;" he, too, initially dismissed the idea as "strictly a matter of faith."
But what did he find?


And from your "explanation:"

"There are not only those both in heaven and on earth who are termed “GODS” (or “ELOHIM”), but there are also those who are “GODS” (“there are many gods and many lords”; 1 Cor.8:5). “Nevertheless,” declares the apostle Paul, “for us there is one God, the Father, out of Whom all is . . . .” (1 Cor.8:6). "

So you seem to be overlooking the fact that the Babylonians elevating Marduk as Supreme among the gods of heaven and earth was the first major step in the direction of monotheism. The Hebrews then did the same thing when they elevated Yahweh or JHVH as their "supreme among gods" god. It is clear that the reason elohim even exists in the plural is because of the polytheistic myths from which "the gods" are drawn.

[A.DIM]

Ezekiel from my NIV published in '78:

In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month on the fifth day, while I was among the exiles by the Kebar River, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God.

***snip*** - only to point out that "God" here is elohim, a plural word that should be read as "gods."

I looked, and I saw a windstorm coming out of the north - an immense cloud with flashing lightning and surrounded by brilliant light. The center of the fire looked like glowing metal, and in the fire was what looked like four living creatures. In appearance their form was that of a man, but each of them had four faces and four wings. Their legs were straight; their feet were like those of a calf and gleamed like burnished bronze. Under their wings on their four sides they had the hands of a man. All four of them had faces and wings, and their wings touched one another.Each one went straight ahead; they did not turn as they moved. ...

Now, one can either attempt to apply metaphorical and allegorical meanings to this description or one can dare to consider literally what is being said.

I know what I choose. :D

Funny, what quotes like these from religious or mythical texts always bring to my mind is an old Dennis Miller addage (before he became a bit of a kook): "If you got rid of alcohol, pot, and every other drug people will still find ways to get high... even if it means spinning around on their front lawns until they pass out and see god..." Or something to that affect. In other words, such quotes simply serve to remind me that humans (btw - other animals imbibe substances to "get high") have always sought ways to mess with their brain chemistry. The end result, whether the result of alcohol, peyote, LSD, or other chemicals, tends to be an artificial and imagined broadening of consciousness that allows one to see all sorts of things from UFOs, pixies, and pink elephants, to gods.

My first inclination, and btw far more likely than actual heavenly visitors whether supernatural or extraterrestrial, is that our friend Ezekiel was high on the local variation of peyote or some other mind altering substance and had a religious experience. Drive down to a detoxt center some time and watch it happen a dozen times a day.

Yeah, but I don't see or hear about detoxers' "visions and gods" making it into Religious texts or even popular mythology. :wink:

I suppose my hangup would be that Ezekiel's encounter was by no means a singular event. Perhaps Gilgamesh found some ancient near eastern herb that brought about his experiences? Adapa, too, might've cooked up something to invoke his encounters. And what about Enoch? Heavy stuff he had to have come up with all that math and astronomy, no? And what do you suppose Abraham was on? :o :)

[N C More]

Interestingly, that appears to have been the reason NASA scientist Blumrich was compelled to analyze "Ezekiel's Wheel;" he, too, initially dismissed the idea as "strictly a matter of faith."
But what did he find?



Ok, what did he find? Somehow I don't think it was proof that aliens were visiting the earth.

Also, I said that Judaism was monotheistic. The polytheism that preceded Judaism isn't the faith of Ezekiel. The explanation I put forth isn't mine but rather derived from a site (http://www.concordant.org/index.html) that offers basic understanding of the Old and New Testament.

[Rich]

Yeah, but I don't see or hear about detoxers' "visions and gods" making it into Religious texts or even popular mythology. :wink:

I suppose my hangup would be that Ezekiel's encounter was by no means a singular event. Perhaps Gilgamesh found some ancient near eastern herb that brought about his experiences? Adapa, too, might've cooked up something to invoke his encounters. And what about Enoch? Heavy stuff he had to have come up with all that math and astronomy, no? And what do you suppose Abraham was on? :o :)

I have no idea what they all might have been on. I think certain insane or drug induced ravings previously got more attention for two reasons:
1. Folks didn't know of natural explanations for what they witnessed day-to-day and were more prone to accept fantastical stories.
2. When someone in a position of authority tells the story people tend to believe it. Conversely when some people tell fantastical stories that others want to believe are truth they will invest authority in the story tellers or their proxies.

Both of these instances happen today. However when David Koresh says he talks to god and we should join his cult, dissolve our marriages, and let our wives and teenage daughters have sex with him we recognize it as a load of B.S. (well most of us). The fact that guys like Jimmy Jones and Koresh can attract followers in this day and age only serves to highlight just how much easier it would have been thousands of years ago when desperation, ignorance, and poverty were the rule of thumb rather than the exception. Not so coincidentally, these are exactly the folks modern cults target; the desperate, the ignorant, and the poor. Big surprise.

Place David Koresh 4000 years ago and who knows what religious texts would evolve around his... ahem... "religious" visions and teaching?

All of your examples simply point to multiple instances of similar cult figures. That some of them were authority figures, or were used by authority figures is no big surprise. That some of them may have had other accomplishments is no big surprise. (Can you think of no other accomplished, yet whacky figures from history?) That complex myths and religions arose around some of them is also no big surprise.

What's surprising is that today, when we should know better, we still think there is something to all of this. That anyone assumes that the fantastical may be true when there are countless more likely, known, and understood alternatives is what is truly amazing.

[Van Rijn]

Well, as I mentioned before, Blumrich came up with a nuclear powered alien spaceship that could roll around the countryside on wheels - basing his conclusions on the Ezekiel story. HOW he managed to come to that conclusion, however, is completely beyond me. To me, this interpretation makes about as much sense as finding fossils in the shape of random Martian rocks. My cynical suggestion is that he was merely playing off the "Ancient Astronaut" craze at the time.

[N C More]

Well, as I mentioned before, Blumrich came up with a nuclear powered alien spaceship that could roll around the countryside on wheels - basing his conclusions on the Ezekiel story.

Ok, I stand corrected, this fellow did conclude that Ezekiel's wheel was ET. The "how" regarding this conclusion is beyond me as well. Talk about "jumping to conclusions"!

When talking about events that happened thousands of years ago and are entangled with myth and religious beliefs....I don't see how any conclusions can be arrived at.

[Maksutov]

Well, as I mentioned before, Blumrich came up with a nuclear powered alien spaceship that could roll around the countryside on wheels - basing his conclusions on the Ezekiel story.

Ok, I stand corrected, this fellow did conclude that Ezekiel's wheel was ET. The "how" regarding this conclusion is beyond me as well. Talk about "jumping to conclusions"!

When talking about events that happened thousands of years ago and are entangled with myth and religious beliefs....I don't see how any conclusions can be arrived at.

Those conclusions are simple to arrive at. If a person determines that these events could be used to create books that would make the author lots of money, then (provided the author has no ethics) voila!, the conclusion is reached! 8)

[N C More]

Those conclusions are simple to arrive at. If a person determines that these events could be used to create books that would make the author lots of money, then (provided the author has no ethics) voila!, the conclusion is reached! 8)

Of course, silly me, it's all 'bout the Benjamin's!

[Maksutov]

Those conclusions are simple to arrive at. If a person determines that these events could be used to create books that would make the author lots of money, then (provided the author has no ethics) voila!, the conclusion is reached! 8)

Of course, silly me, it's all 'bout the Benjamin's!

Or as Weird Al sang,

It's All About The Pentiums (http://www.com-www.com/weirdal/itsallaboutthepentiums.html). MIDI link here (http://www.barglenawdlezouss.com/midi/pentiums.mid). Tuba optional, accordion mandatory.

Be sure to note how (with the possible exception of the "I Did It For Love" interlude) the incredible lyricism and unforgettable melodies of the original Puff Daddy rap song come shining through.

[Outcast]

You're welcome, R.A.F.
Although, I've always maintained that I choose to read myths & religion more literally, from day 1 two years ago. You see, it is necessary to put oneself in the proper histori-politico-religious context in order to properly evaluate the "evidence," as it were, and the ancients knew their "gods" to be anthropomorphic beings, physically present, but immediately that they were "gods" who possessed technologies and weapons as well as means for amazing flight, ascent and descent.
Again, strikingly modern.

So the purpose of your post is either you've forgotten or ..... ?


A.DIM, i admire your tenacity trying to bring some sense into the subject but sure enough it wont be long before someone requests of you "the evidence". you know, that elusive piece of ancient UFO noone can quite get hold of just to satisfy the "skeptics" who dont invest a minimum of time studying the matter.

[R.A.F.]

...it won't be long before someone requests of you "the evidence".

WHY is that such an unusual request?? This IS a science board.

...just to satisfy the "skeptics" who dont invest a minimum of time studying the matter.

Yep, if only I "read the book" then all would become clear, RIGHT?? Try another tune...that one doesn't play anymore...

[Taibak]

You're welcome, R.A.F.
Although, I've always maintained that I choose to read myths & religion more literally, from day 1 two years ago. You see, it is necessary to put oneself in the proper histori-politico-religious context in order to properly evaluate the "evidence," as it were, and the ancients knew their "gods" to be anthropomorphic beings, physically present, but immediately that they were "gods" who possessed technologies and weapons as well as means for amazing flight, ascent and descent.
Again, strikingly modern.

So the purpose of your post is either you've forgotten or ..... ?


A.DIM, i admire your tenacity trying to bring some sense into the subject but sure enough it wont be long before someone requests of you "the evidence". you know, that elusive piece of ancient UFO noone can quite get hold of just to satisfy the "skeptics" who dont invest a minimum of time studying the matter.

Actually, I HAVE looked into claims of ancient alien visitations. There is no evidence that aliens have ever visited Earth.

Also, why should requesting evidence be unreasonable? More importantly, why should everyone - skeptical or not - have to study the evidence? If someone is going to make a claim, they should be prepared to convince people and not assume that people will automatically believe them. If you want to convince us, just show us the evidence.

[aurora]

If someone is going to make a claim, they should be prepared to convince people and not assume that people will automatically believe them. If you want to convince us, just show us the evidence.

And prose (text, or a rug, or a painting, etc.) that could be interpreted to mean any of a half dozen or more things is unlikely to be accepted as convincing evidence. Perhaps only by someone that has a desire to believe. It takes something better than that to qualify as evidence. First, the conjecture has to pass a baloney detection sensor. :wink:

[Outcast]

WHY is that such an unusual request?? This IS a science board.

its not that it is an unusual request, it more of an absurd request. the "evidence" usualy requested is of a physical nature. and this is done when we cant even establish that an alien visitation event would leave such kind of evidence.

Yep, if only I "read the book" then all would become clear, RIGHT?? Try another tune...that one doesn't play anymore...

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

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

[Fram]

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

[Taibak]

WHY is that such an unusual request?? This IS a science board.

its not that it is an unusual request, it more of an absurd request. the "evidence" usualy requested is of a physical nature. and this is done when we cant even establish that an alien visitation event would leave such kind of evidence.

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

Yep, if only I "read the book" then all would become clear, RIGHT?? Try another tune...that one doesn't play anymore...

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

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

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

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

[R.A.F.]

WHY is that such an unusual request?? This IS a science board.

its not that it is an unusual request, it more of an absurd request.

On a science board????

...the "evidence" usualy requested is of a physical nature.

Well, DUH!

...and this is done when we cant even establish that an alien visitation event would leave such kind of evidence.

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

there is a miriad of evidence that something might have happened in the ancient past of humanity. this evidence is everywhere in ancient texts.

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

you want to interpret this as myth? go right ahead, but unfortunetly that doesnt work for the sake of skeptic arguments since its equaly non-scientific.

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

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

These "anomalies" exist only in your mind.


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

[Rich]

its not that it is an unusual request, it more of an absurd request. the "evidence" usualy requested is of a physical nature. and this is done when we cant even establish that an alien visitation event would leave such kind of evidence.

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

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

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

studying these anomalies of the past scientificaly implies documenting and trying to undestand those events, even if they sound "mythological".
Not anomalies. We have very good explanations and documented modern and historical examples of how such stories and legends develop.

[vonmazur]

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

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

[Hans]

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

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

[Sticks]

I finally ran into this article on a Christian website about the Ezekiel UFO See this link (http://www.apologeticspress.org/bibbul/2004/bb-04-21.htm)

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

[Rich]

I finally ran into this article on a Christian website about the Ezekiel UFO See this link (http://www.apologeticspress.org/bibbul/2004/bb-04-21.htm)

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

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

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

[vonmazur]

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

Dale in Ala

[A.DIM]

Hmm...
Ways of Interpreting Myth (http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/ways.htm) is relevant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm... :-k

[R.A.F.]

When interpreting myths, students should remember Campbell's wise advice: "There is no final system for the interpretation of myths, and there never will be any such thing"

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

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

Yeah, whatever "floats you're boat".

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

[A.DIM]

When interpreting myths, students should remember Campbell's wise advice: "There is no final system for the interpretation of myths, and there never will be any such thing"

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

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

What??!!!

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

Yeah, whatever "floats you're boat".

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

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

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

Neither a "nice try" nor much new.



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

[R.A.F.]

RAF, you've never appeared to know enough to convince me otherwise.

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

And where'd Sitchin come from anyway?

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

As I pointed out in my initial post on this thread, the idea of "those from heaven to earth came" is ages old. Anyone having done some general reading on Mythology and Religion should recognize this.

...and you're using these myths as if they somehow confirm "Sitchin's Theory's"...they do not.
So your ridiculous assertions as to "not thinking objectively" or "not interested in evidence" are clearly subjective opinion.

I base my "ridiculous assertions" on reading your posts.

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

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

[Rich]

A.DIM,

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

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

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

[Fram]

The mythologist Joseph Campbell sees myth as metaphors or symbols of the unknown. This "unknown" is located in two places: in the spiritual realm and in the depths of the human psyche. Campbell reasons that even though the divine, or "God," or whatever you call it (him/her?) is ultimately unknowable by human thought, men still try to create images of the Godhead. These images and stories may vary from culture to culture, but they remain valid as metaphors which express our experience of something beyond the human. Remarkably, many of themes and motifs in myths reappear in stories told by widely scattered peoples, which for Campbell means that many of them must be inherent in the human psyche. Thus, myths can also tell us truths about our own psychology.
A.DIM, this comes from the site you linked to. It seems to me you misused Campbell and that site to suit your own ideas. Reread the quote above, and then tell me again you support Campbell, or Campbell supports your view. I don't think so.

[Big Blue]

A.DIM,

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

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

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

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

[NGR]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[Big Blue]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[NGR]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[vonmazur]

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

Dale in Ala

[Big Blue]

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

Dale in Ala

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

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

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

[Humphrey]

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

[Big Blue]

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

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

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

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

[01101001]

[quote=Humphrey]Sitchin and Von Daniken also document many statues of gods from across the world carrying space travel, military or metallurgical accoutrements, which from a conventional perspective can only be regarded as 'unusual'.
I think Big Blue's got it. The people of Minneapolis erected a statue honoring their god Uri Geller, who enjoyed the occasional ice cream sundae.

http://www.minneapolisparks.org/graphics/parks/Sculpt_Gdn_Spoon.jpg

[Humphrey]

O.K. lets go over, one by one some examples of anything that show: statues of gods from across the world carrying space travel, military or metallurgical accoutrements, which from a conventional perspective can only be regarded as 'unusual'. This does not have to be statues, but anything that represents this information. I would be glad, and others too, to go over this information with you. Plus i bet A.Dim would too. :-)

Now a few more comments:

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

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

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

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

[Van Rijn]

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


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

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

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

[Jigsaw]

O.K. lets go over, one by one some examples of anything that show..."statues of gods from across the world carrying space travel, military or metallurgical accoutrements..."

This does not have to be statues, but anything that represents this information.
Well, the Mayan Astronaut is probably the most notorious one.

A.K.A. the Palenque tomb lid.

GIF. (http://www.din.or.jp/~n-delphi/library/interview/hunbatz/maya%20astronaut.gif)

The actual tomb lid. (http://www.akropola.org/Slike%20replike/Sarkofag%20iz%20Palenque%20vel.jpg)

Mayan specialists persist in interpreting the symbolism as perfectly straightforward, no "astronaut" crouching over his ship's controls, but just a dead king tooting his own horn on his way to the Afterlife. Lengthy scholarly discussion here. (http://www.mayadiscovery.com/ing/archaeology/palenque/tomb/tomb.htm)

[Humphrey]

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

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

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

[jaydeehess]

Even Troy was a myth, until it was finally discovered.

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

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

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

[R.A.F.]

If I take what Sitchin says on trust...

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

[Rich]

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

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.

[patrick]

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/magazine/articles/Russia/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.

[Byrd]

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

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.)

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

[Byrd]

Dashka's stone: http://www.xpeditionsmagazine.com/magazine/articles/Russia/russia.html

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.

Ancient Nano-technology: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=34
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.

[Rich]

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.

[Jigsaw]

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* :D

[Jigsaw]

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/

[A.DIM]

RAF, you've never appeared to know enough to convince me otherwise.

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

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

And where'd Sitchin come from anyway?
I don't know where he was born...
Curiouser... :-?

As I pointed out in my initial post on this thread, the idea of "those from heaven to earth came" is ages old. Anyone having done some general reading on Mythology and Religion should recognize this.
...and you're using these myths as if they somehow confirm "Sitchin's Theory's"...they do not.

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

So your ridiculous assertions as to "not thinking objectively" or "not interested in evidence" are clearly subjective opinion.I base my "ridiculous assertions" on reading your posts.

...clearly subjective opinion, nonetheless.

Aside: Maybe it's just me, but your use of caps, italics, bold, quotes etc. in attempts at inflection and emphasis continues to read like tourettes.
Tourettes is characterized by uncontrolable use of profanity...yet, I've used none. Anyway, I hear about my "use" of caps, italics, etc. a lot. SO WHAT! Forget about how I post....it has nothing to do with this discussion.

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:

[A.DIM]

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

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.

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

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."

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

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?

[A.DIM]

The mythologist Joseph Campbell sees myth as metaphors or symbols of the unknown. This "unknown" is located in two places: in the spiritual realm and in the depths of the human psyche. Campbell reasons that even though the divine, or "God," or whatever you call it (him/her?) is ultimately unknowable by human thought, men still try to create images of the Godhead. These images and stories may vary from culture to culture, but they remain valid as metaphors which express our experience of something beyond the human. Remarkably, many of themes and motifs in myths reappear in stories told by widely scattered peoples, which for Campbell means that many of them must be inherent in the human psyche. Thus, myths can also tell us truths about our own psychology.
A.DIM, this comes from the site you linked to. It seems to me you misused Campbell and that site to suit your own ideas. Reread the quote above, and then tell me again you support Campbell, or Campbell supports your view. I don't think so.

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?

[Taibak]

The mythologist Joseph Campbell sees myth as metaphors or symbols of the unknown. This "unknown" is located in two places: in the spiritual realm and in the depths of the human psyche. Campbell reasons that even though the divine, or "God," or whatever you call it (him/her?) is ultimately unknowable by human thought, men still try to create images of the Godhead. These images and stories may vary from culture to culture, but they remain valid as metaphors which express our experience of something beyond the human. Remarkably, many of themes and motifs in myths reappear in stories told by widely scattered peoples, which for Campbell means that many of them must be inherent in the human psyche. Thus, myths can also tell us truths about our own psychology.
A.DIM, this comes from the site you linked to. It seems to me you misused Campbell and that site to suit your own ideas. Reread the quote above, and then tell me again you support Campbell, or Campbell supports your view. I don't think so.

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."

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.

Can you explain to me then, what possible basis there is for this to be rooted so deeply in the human psyche?

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]

[R.A.F.]

I've not brought Sitchin into this discussion at all.

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??

[R.A.F.]

...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."

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...

[Rich]

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

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.

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.

[Rich]

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?

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 :D ) 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.

[Fram]

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

[A.DIM]

The mythologist Joseph Campbell sees myth as metaphors or symbols of the unknown. This "unknown" is located in two places: in the spiritual realm and in the depths of the human psyche. Campbell reasons that even though the divine, or "God," or whatever you call it (him/her?) is ultimately unknowable by human thought, men still try to create images of the Godhead. These images and stories may vary from culture to culture, but they remain valid as metaphors which express our experience of something beyond the human. Remarkably, many of themes and motifs in myths reappear in stories told by widely scattered peoples, which for Campbell means that many of them must be inherent in the human psyche. Thus, myths can also tell us truths about our own psychology.
A.DIM, this comes from the site you linked to. It seems to me you misused Campbell and that site to suit your own ideas. Reread the quote above, and then tell me again you support Campbell, or Campbell supports your view. I don't think so.

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."

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.

OK, perhaps the "return" part obfuscated my generalization; however, ALL the ancient myths, from the mesopotamian, to the egyptian, the greek and hindu, and even the mayan, speak of when the gods first descended from heaven to become "gods of heaven and earth." And while there were many "gods" and also demi-gods (offspring of the mix), there is often a central pantheon of "great gods," usually numbering 12 and usually descended from "heaven." Moreover, these pantheons all speak of an age when it was only the gods on earth, but also having a counterpart in "Heaven" (eg. the egyptian "planet of millions of years," or even Zeus' great hall in heaven on Olympus). The gods then created Man as a servant and eventually bestowed on him Kingship, Civ and such.

As far as Quetzlcoatl: I think you're referring to a recent work about Malainari (?), the translator for Cortez? All I know is Quetzlcoatl is an ancient god, dating to the earliest establishment Teotihuacan, where there is a pyramid depicting him as the "plumed sesrpent" - millennia before Coretez. Additionally, there are certain likenesses betwixt him and Enki / Ptah of the Sumerian & Egyptian pantheons.

Can you explain to me then, what possible basis there is for this to be rooted so deeply in the human psyche?
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 humans.

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?

Excellent points, Taibak. And most reasonable.

What then are we to make of the Sumerians? These people were ingenious, what will all their "Firsts." And yet they repreatedly claim it was the Anunnaki who bestowed on Mankind Civilization? Why? If these people were smart enough to come up with much of what defines advanced civ, and remains largely extant in today's world some 6K yrs later, why wouldn't these feats be attributed to humans themselves? Is it really something rooted in the psyche, as Campbell suggests, to proclaim "gods from heaven" created us and gave us Kingship & Civ? It appears so considering how separated various cultures were and yet they came up with such strikingly parallel stories as allegorical "truth."

[A.DIM]

I've not brought Sitchin into this discussion at all.

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??

"coy," RAF?

Long before Sitchin the Anunnaki were recognized as the Sumerian "gods." Much earlier scholars established "Anu" or "An" as "heaven" - hence the link to Annual. "Ki" was tranlsated as "earth" - hence the link to Gi which became the Greek "Geo," referring to the same thing.
Hmm... gods from Heaven who were on Earth.

So you see RAF, your lack of knowledge of even some basic terms leads you to post such drivel. Why not delve into Ancient Near East history et al and really learn something instead of making such associations with Sitchin in your usual dismissive tone?

At least Rich, Taibak and Fram have made reasonably informed posts.

[Humphrey]

Blue? You coming back for a response?

[Astronomy]

So you see RAF, your lack of knowledge of even some basic terms leads you to post such drivel. Why not delve into Ancient Near East history et al and really learn something instead of making such associations with Sitchin in your usual dismissive tone?

Sitchin's astronomy is very bad. He has unphysical orbits and collisions that cause catastrophic violations of conservation of angular momentum. I'm not sure how anyone could accept his as having any bearing on astronomy.

Makes a good science fiction book, but it's divorced from physical reality (at least where the orbital mechanics are concerned).

[A.DIM]

...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."

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...

No, I say I read the myths literally and what comes through is a tale of "those from heaven to earth came" which profoundly affected the course of human evolution. I don't "believe" as you suggest, I just don't dismiss it so readily as you. I acknowledge that once over the hurdle of "intelligent life" elsewhere, why not here, in the past? I know there's no "proof" as you'd have it, but again, I remain open to the possibility, especially since it could explain many things.

Anyway, I'd hardly consider what you've done over that time as "discussing" this "stuff" since I'd think one would learn through discussion. You see, the translation of Anunnaki is a good example; I'm rather certain that anyone engaged in discussions of these sorts would've learned such a thing. Either that, or research it on their own. So, either you haven't, or your blinded by your Sitchin fetish when engaging me.

[A.DIM]

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

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.

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.

Yes, we have. Can you use any of the aforementioned "options" with the Vedas? How about with Gilgamesh? The Descent of Ishtar into the Netherworld?

Regarding Sitchin:

There exist only a "few certain terms," as stated by scholar M. Heiser, that "boils down" the difference in translations. And even then, I've previously showed how Heiser's and Sitchin's translations don't differ much at all, which in turn, is amusing considering the BA's initial use of Heiser as Sitchin's detractor. I'd say something about Ian Lawton's anti Sitchin work, but he's hardly the trained scholar, and is as much a revisionist as anyone.
What other "experts" are you referring to?

"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.

Wrong. When reading the ancient Myths and Religion, weapons of all sorts are described, powerful devastating weapons. Vehicles too, such as the vimanas, "ezekiel's wheel," "celestial barges" and "fiery chariots" in which the gods traverse the skies. These are the exact depictions given. So which of those options explains these?

[Rich]

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

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.

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.

Yes, we have. Can you use any of the aforementioned "options" with the Vedas? How about with Gilgamesh? The Descent of Ishtar into the Netherworld?

Surely you aren't saying that you don't see how obsfucation, aggrandizment, story inflation, mistaking natural phenomena for supernatural phenomena, misunderstanding natural phenomena to be supernatural, not to mention just plain old getting high or making stuff up... couldn't apply to any and all of those stories? Gilgamesh always read to me like a really good buddy tale that you might see on a serial cop or political show. It was merely important to a group of people at a point in time. Those people aggrandized the orginal tale, because that's what people do, and we know about it because those people became a regional power and passed it on to others; probably even further inflating the tale (by then myth, legend, or religion) as evidence or justification for their authority. Someone else comes to the forefront and we might have gotten a whole different set of stories.

People still do the same thing today. There is nothing remarkable about any of the other stories to suggest anything else is the case.

Regarding Sitchin:

There exist only a "few certain terms," as stated by scholar M. Heiser, that "boils down" the difference in translations. And even then, I've previously showed how Heiser's and Sitchin's translations don't differ much at all, which in turn, is amusing considering the BA's initial use of Heiser as Sitchin's detractor. I'd say something about Ian Lawton's anti Sitchin work, but he's hardly the trained scholar, and is as much a revisionist as anyone.
What other "experts" are you referring to?

"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.

Wrong. When reading the ancient Myths and Religion, weapons of all sorts are described, powerful devastating weapons. Vehicles too, such as the vimanas, "ezekiel's wheel," "celestial barges" and "fiery chariots" in which the gods traverse the skies. These are the exact depictions given. So which of those options explains these?

For crying out loud aboriginal people the world over have some really neat stories about the weird atmospheric phenomena following the Tunguska comet/meteor explosion and the explosion of Krakatowa (sp?) in the South Pacific. Does that mean their supernatural explanations are more correct, just because we know the real reasons? Do you think some alien/god with a big raygun made the crater out in Arizona? Can you truly not accept that ancient people's, with very limited knowledge of how the natural world works, wouldn't explain devastating natural events as the work of gods and monsters? If you believed in such gods where would you place them? A flying chariots sounds pretty cool to me, given that we couldn't fly until the past century the sky would seem a great domain for the gods.

When I we ask for specific examples you return generalities. Give us specific sets of depicted tools, weapons, and vehicles to look at to see what is so unusual about them. I have a feeling it is nothing more than what would be expected from most scientifically ignorant people. Or was Zeus a real god because lightening weapons are too stupendous to imagine? No chance that the lightening, earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanoes, tidal waves, weird weather, famine, disease, pestilence, forest fires, occasional meteor strike, ad naseum came first and the gods second? I wonder what ancient people would attribute those to and the aggrandizment that would occur from ruling classes intent on keeping power through such tales and their supposed connections to ancient superheroes and gods?

[Van Rijn]

Wrong. When reading the ancient Myths and Religion, weapons of all sorts are described, powerful devastating weapons. Vehicles too, such as the vimanas, "ezekiel's wheel," "celestial barges" and "fiery chariots" in which the gods traverse the skies. These are the exact depictions given. So which of those options explains these?

I enjoy reading fantasy. That doesn't mean I must assume the writer actually met elves or has seen magic swords. It means he has imagination. Am I to assume that ancient writers had no imagination? Wheels? Barges? Chariots? Why wouldn't I expect ancient writers to have these in their stories? A chariot that magically moves in the sky is not a great conceptual leap. You need to demonstrate why imagination isn't enough.

[Rich]

Wrong. When reading the ancient Myths and Religion, weapons of all sorts are described, powerful devastating weapons. Vehicles too, such as the vimanas, "ezekiel's wheel," "celestial barges" and "fiery chariots" in which the gods traverse the skies. These are the exact depictions given. So which of those options explains these?

I enjoy reading fantasy. That doesn't mean I must assume the writer actually met elves or has seen magic swords. It means he has imagination. Am I to assume that ancient writers had no imagination? Wheels? Barges? Chariots? Why wouldn't I expect ancient writers to have these in their stories? A chariot that magically moves in the sky is not a great conceptual leap. You need to demonstrate why imagination isn't enough.

Too right!

I often wonder if future generations will ascribe god-like or mythic characteristics to random movie characters, mistaking fiction for historical documentary. Can you imagine a future in which "Bill S. Preston, Esquire" and "'Ted' Theodore Rogan" are viewed as historical personages?

[Taibak]

OK, perhaps the "return" part obfuscated my generalization; however, ALL the ancient myths, from the mesopotamian, to the egyptian, the greek and hindu, and even the mayan, speak of when the gods first descended from heaven to become "gods of heaven and earth."

Not as such. In both Egyptian and Greco-Roman mythology, the gods were descendents of Heaven and Earth. However, they saw Heaven and Earth as living creatures in their own right. To the Egyptians, the skies were the goddess Nut, whose body was covered in stars. To the Greeks, Ouranos (Uranus to the Romans) was an ancient god who married Mother Earth (Gaia, Terra) and sired the Titans. Either way, the Greeks and Romans were very clear that the gods lived on Earth and *never* lived in the sky.

And while there were many "gods" and also demi-gods (offspring of the mix), there is often a central pantheon of "great gods," usually numbering 12

That's still an over generalization. Part of the problem is how you define a 'great' god in these religions. Yes, the Greco-Roman Pantheon had the Twelve Olympians, but if you look at their religion Bacchus and Hades were every bit as important as, say, Artemis or Hephaestos. What do you make of Hercules, whose popularity rivaled the more important gods'.

In Hindu mythology, you're left with only eight major gods: Agni, Ganesh, Shiva, Kali, Brahma, Kama, Vishnu, and Indra and of those Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are by far the most important. Either way, that's fewer than twelve.

In Norse mythology, there were dozens of Aesir, the central pantheon. Of those, I would argue that only Odin, Thor, Loki, Balder, Frey, Freya, Tyr, and maybe Frigg and Heimdall were overly important. That's only nine.

In Egyptian mythology, with its immense pantheon, only a few gods could be considered important: Osiris, Horus, Isis, Set, Anubis, Thoth, and the various incarnations of Ra.

I can't comment on Central American mythology, since I'm not overly familiar with most of it, but looking at these cultures, there doesn't seem to be much of a pattern.

and usually descended from "heaven."

That's a key point actually: for the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians, they mean 'descended' in a geneological sense. In Greco-Roman mythology, the sky was the god Ouranos (Uranus in Latin) who married Mother Earth (Gaia/Terra) and sired the Titans. In that cosmology, both Heaven and Earth were living gods in their own right. For the Egyptians, the skies were the goddess, Nut, whose body was covered with stars. Much like Ouranos, she married the Earth, Seb, and gave birth to Osiris, Isis, Set, and Nepthys. If we're talking aliens landing on Earth, why bother with personifying the sky? Why not just say that the gods flew in from the unknown?

Moreover, these pantheons all speak of an age when it was only the gods on earth,

That's a feature of ALL creation myths: the gods create man. Therefore, the gods must be older than man. Doesn't matter if we're talking about Brahma, Yahweh, or Odin.

but also having a counterpart in "Heaven" (eg. the egyptian "planet of millions of years," or even Zeus' great hall in heaven on Olympus).

Like you say, Zeus's great hall was on Mt. Olympos: on Earth. It is explicitly identified as a real mountain, on this planet, and NOT in the heavens.

The gods then created Man as a servant and eventually bestowed on him Kingship, Civ and such.

In Greek mythology, man was created for the gods' amusement, as much as anything else. Similarly, in the Book of Genesis, God never gives a reason as to why He created Adam (Genesis 1:26 - 31). I haven't been able to find a reason for creating man in Egyptian mythology. I have, on the other hand, found two mutually exclusive stories: Khnum sculpting man out of clay and Ra bringing man into existence simply by saying 'man.' I also don't know of any stories where the gods bring civilization to man in any of these cultures. The closest I know if is Prometheus teaching man how to use fire, but other than that the myths simply state that mankind was given the gift of intelligence.

As far as Quetzlcoatl: I think you're referring to a recent work about Malainari (?), the translator for Cortez? All I know is Quetzlcoatl is an ancient god, dating to the earliest establishment Teotihuacan, where there is a pyramid depicting him as the "plumed sesrpent" - millennia before Coretez.

[quote=A.DIM]Additionally, there are certain likenesses betwixt him and Enki / Ptah of the Sumerian & Egyptian pantheons.

Quetzlcoatl was generally depicted as a feathered serpent. Enki was depicted as a human. Ptah was depicted as a mummy. Those are three very different aspects.

Similarly, while both Enki and Ptah are associated with craftsmanship, Ptah is associated with rebirth while Enki is associated with water. By contrast, Quetzlcoatl is associated with the skies, reading, timekeeping, corn, and rebirth. The only thing all three have in common is that they're all gods.

Excellent points, Taibak. And most reasonable.

Thanks.

What then are we to make of the Sumerians? These people were ingenious, what will all their "Firsts." And yet they repreatedly claim it was the Anunnaki who bestowed on Mankind Civilization? Why? If these people were smart enough to come up with much of what defines advanced civ, and remains largely extant in today's world some 6K yrs later, why wouldn't these feats be attributed to humans themselves? Is it really something rooted in the psyche, as Campbell suggests, to proclaim "gods from heaven" created us and gave us Kingship & Civ? It appears so considering how separated various cultures were and yet they came up with such strikingly parallel stories as allegorical "truth."

No, I have to agree with Campbell here. First off, while the Mesopotamians were among the first to settle in cities, practice agriculture, discover mathematics, and create writing, we're talking about developments that occured gradually over thousands of years. Odds are most of these developments were gradual enough that it probably never occured to them to document the process - not to mention the fact that the Sumerians nevered developed historical writing, as we understand it. Heck, agriculture and cities were developed before writing so any records they did have of their creation would have been buried in an oral tradition, which, like any similar tradition, would have been constantly changing over generations.

Second, the Mesopotamians probably never realised how momentous their advances were. They wanted protection from their enemies, therefor they built walled cities. They wanted to eat more, they figured out how to farm. They wanted better tools, they developed crafts, particularly once they could spare the labor. They wanted better administration, they created writing and mathematics. That's just pragmatism in action. There's no way they knew they were laying the foundations for the rest of human history. To be honest, they probably never even realised they were the first people to do these things where their culture was taking its sweet time with these and where their neighbors in Egypt weren't all that far behind.

Lastly, while there are some similarities between mythologies, the simplest and most likely explanation is that they all reflect the basic needs and desires of mankind. We shouldn't be surprised that all religions talk about key aspects of human behavior (war, love, death, ethics), keys to survival (water, agriculture, craftsmanship), andthe big questions that humans ask (cosmology, origin and role of mankind). Why wouldn't a religion reflect the most important parts of life?

Where these parallels only reflect the basic aspects of being human, the differences between creation myths are profound. In Norse mythology, Odin and his brothers created the first man and woman from trees. In Mesopotamian mythology, mankind was created from Ishtar's blood. In Genesis and in some Egyptian myths, man was made from clay. In Mayan mythology, man is created from dough. In the Chinese myth of the celestial egg, man is descended from the lice that infested Pan Gu. In Hindu mythology, man was created from Brahma's body with higher castes being created from his head and lower castes from his feet. In New Guinea alone the various mythologies don't agree on whether or not man emerged fully formed out of the sky, the trees, or the earth or even on whether or not this was a natural process or an act of creation. IF all these stories reflect a shared experience of aliens creating life, you'd expect them to agree on how the aliens pulled this off.

Moreover, if, as you say, aliens were responsible for bringing civilization to the entire Earth why are there so many differences between cultures? Why didn't the Incas ever develop the wheel? Why did the natives of New Guinea ever develop cities on the same scale as the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Indians, and Chinese? Why was the caste system unique to India? If these aliens passed on their civilization, why didn't they pass on their language as well? Even if you argue that the aliens spoke whatever the local humans were speaking, why do Sanskrit, Hebrew, Egyptian, Chinese, Phonecian, Ogham, and the various Mesopotamian, Nordic, and Mesoamerican languages all use such totally different forms of writing? Heck, how come the Polynesians never developed writing on their own? Why did the Mesopotamians and Mayans understand zero when nobody else did? Basically, were the aliens being inconsistent, or are these just the results of various human cultures developing along their own paths and coming up with different explanations of how they got there?

[Jigsaw]

GoogleAd for plush Minotaur. (http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/iclk?adurl=http://givemetoys.com/product/TV08007MINOTAUR%3Fmeta%3Da19a&sa=l&ai=AeDt3KVsiBFY xdoIwBx53FDID3nNzCgenk2YAA34tB4TAMW89BAA0GOQAEEAmW EfyD-_AAc3d35iYhRWYzRncv52btlnLj9WbAcjM4gXOw8VYzBAABAAa 0RHc68yL3d3duIWYkF2c0J3bu9Wb55yYv12LwhGcCJ0L2lWZ3R 3bwl2YuAHaw9Dd9EjN1YTNmMHdhJHd9EDMwAA&num=1&client =ca-pub-639777231992501) :D :D :D

[Rich]

Excellent post Taibak, thank you!

[Fram]

Thanks again, Taibak.
And let's not forget that the discussion of who was the first for many developments and inventions is still open. The Mesopotamians were early and probably were often the first, but it is highly debatable that they were always the first. E.g. writing may well have developed in Egypt before it appeared in Mesopotamia.

[R.A.F.]

At least Rich, Taibak and Fram have made reasonably informed posts.

A.DIM, If you're more comfortable being bebunked by Rich, Taibak, and Fram...well, I have no problem with that. :)

For the moment, I'll just sit back and watch the fun...

[Rich]

Taibak,

You post jogged from my memory a point which has often been asked of A.DIM and never answered. He often claims that the Mesopotamians/Sumerians "suddenly" made all of these developments. We still have no idea what "suddenly" means to him. I hold, and it seems that you do, to the widely accepted paradigms that have these developments taking place slowly over tens of thousands of years. We didn't just "suddenly" go from wandering hunter/gatherers to building walled cities and creating math and writing.

I know that I have asked exactly this question of A.DIM almost everytime this topic has come up here and we are still waiting for an answer. What is the period of time over which he thinks these changes and developments occurred? That will tell us a lot about the rest of his argument. Does he think that humans could have done all of this over thousands of years, or not? If not thousands of years, what kind of timeline are we looking at?

[Taibak]

Thanks again, Taibak.
And let's not forget that the discussion of who was the first for many developments and inventions is still open. The Mesopotamians were early and probably were often the first, but it is highly debatable that they were always the first. E.g. writing may well have developed in Egypt before it appeared in Mesopotamia.

Even then, you have to ask yourself what being 'first' means in the big picture. Chronologically, the Mesopotamians seem to have developed, say, agriculture and writing slightly before anyone else did, but does that really mean anything? Like you point out, Egypt may have beat Mesopotamia to the punch in a few cases or, at very least, developed independently. China and India almost certainly developed independently at about the same time. Mesoamerica developed somewhat later and I'm not sure when agriculture was developed in New Guinea. Any one of these could have coneivably beat the Mesopotamians to the punch.

Also, how to the Mesopotamian accomplishments stack up compared to their neighbors'? Well, the Mesopotamians invented writing, but the Phoenecians were the first to move to a phonetic alphabet. Their ziggurauts were impressive, but outdone by the Pyramids in Egypt. They may have been the first to master bronze working, but it was the Hittites of Asia Minor who were the first in the region to master Iron. Their math and astronomy were good, but it wasn't until the rise of Athens later on that a culture developed a full-scale interest in science. Basically, the Mesopotamians were first in a lot of things, but they certainly weren't first in everything.

[Taibak]

Taibak,

You post jogged from my memory a point which has often been asked of A.DIM and never answered. He often claims that the Mesopotamians/Sumerians "suddenly" made all of these developments. We still have no idea what "suddenly" means to him. I hold, and it seems that you do, to the widely accepted paradigms that have these developments taking place slowly over tens of thousands of years. We didn't just "suddenly" go from wandering hunter/gatherers to building walled cities and creating math and writing.

I know that I have asked exactly this question of A.DIM almost everytime this topic has come up here and we are still waiting for an answer. What is the period of time over which he thinks these changes and developments occurred? That will tell us a lot about the rest of his argument. Does he think that humans could have done all of this over thousands of years, or not? If not thousands of years, what kind of timeline are we looking at?

Absolutely that's a big part of this. Odds are, the first cities were founded about 9,500 years ago. Writing wasn't invented for at least another 2000 years - if not longer. On top of that, it was another 2700 years before anyone thought to write down the law. That's hardly sudden.

[Taibak]

No, I say I read the myths literally and what comes through is a tale of "those from heaven to earth came" which profoundly affected the course of human evolution. I don't "believe" as you suggest, I just don't dismiss it so readily as you. I acknowledge that once over the hurdle of "intelligent life" elsewhere, why not here, in the past? I know there's no "proof" as you'd have it, but again, I remain open to the possibility, especially since it could explain many things.

True, but where do you draw the line then? Most creation myths say that the gods created the Earth as well. If you argue that they should be taken literally when they say that the gods came from heaven and created man, there's no reason to not take them literally when they say that the gods created the Earth. The only way out of that is to pick and choose which bits of the myths are literally true and which aren't. If you go that route, you're stuck with an arbitrary approach of patchwork interpretations.

[A.DIM]

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?

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.

From The Masks of God (pgs146-7):

"... at circa 3,500 BC, the south Mesopotamian temple areas can be seen to have increased notably in size and importance; and then, with stunning abruptness, at a crucial date that can be almost precisely fixed at 3,200 BC ... there appears in this little Sumerian mud garden - as though the flowers of its tiny cities were suddenly bursting into bloom - the whole cultural syndrome that has since constituted the germinal unit of all the high civilizations of the world. ... the highly conscious creation ... of the mind and science of a new order of humanity, which had never before appeared in the history of mankind; namely the professional, full-time, initiated, strictly regimented temple priest."

Campbell argues that this had to do with discovery of the established courses of the visible planets, together with the notion that they were governed by the same laws that governed life on earth - the Sumerians as cultic astrologers.

"It was at this moment in human destiny that the art of writing first appeared in the world and that scriptorially documented history therefore begins. Also, the wheel appeared. And we have evidence of the development of the two numerical systems still normally employed throughout the civilised world, the decimal and the sexigesimal; the former was used mostly for business accounts ... and the latter for ritualistic measuring of space and time as well. Three hundred and sixty degrees, then as now, represented the circumference of a circle - the cycle of the horizon - while three hundred and sixty days, plus five, marked the measurement of the circle of the year, the cycle of time. The five intercalated days.... Were taken to represent a sacred opening through which spiritual energy flowed into the round of the temporal universe [so] they were designated, consequently, days of holy feast and festival."

So how does this contradict anything I've said, Rich, making me dishonest?

It is clear that Campbell recognized the "germinal unit" that was Sumer, and not only regarding "myth" and its "characters," but their relation to astronomy / astrology.
But what do you suppose he meant when he stated "...scriptorially documented history therefore begins." ?

[Taibak]

But what do you suppose he meant when he stated "...scriptorially documented history therefore begins." ?

I can't be sure without knowing the context of the quote. However, all he seems to be saying is that the Sumerians began writing down what was going on.

[Rich]

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?

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.

From The Masks of God (pgs146-7):

"... at circa 3,500 BC, the south Mesopotamian temple areas can be seen to have increased notably in size and importance; and then, with stunning abruptness, at a crucial date that can be almost precisely fixed at 3,200 BC ... there appears in this little Sumerian mud garden - as though the flowers of its tiny cities were suddenly bursting into bloom - the whole cultural syndrome that has since constituted the germinal unit of all the high civilizations of the world. ... the highly conscious creation ... of the mind and science of a new order of humanity, which had never before appeared in the history of mankind; namely the professional, full-time, initiated, strictly regimented temple priest."

So over a period of 300 years temple areas increase in size and importance and out of an increasing importance in religion a professional priest class arises. And this surprises you? If your hypothesis was correct shouldn't we see massive temple complexes built at the behest of our alien overlords and a professional priest caste indoctrinated almost immediately? Why would our powerful alien benefactors take 300 years to accomplish this? Isn't this a time frame in which we poor humans could develop such institutions on our own?

It's of note that the "tiny cities" came first and the larger religious complexes came second. Shouldn't we see the opposite in the alien/god theory? If aliens gave us all this stuff big cities based around religious function should be seen to develop first, rather than second, would make a lot more sense. Even if we attribute all of this to aliens that means we were already building cities and creating religious institutions when they showed up and handed us everything else... over how many more hundred years again? Boy they sure took their time getting the secret of the wheel out, no wonder they didn't have time to teach us something as simple as electricity. It's not like we had tons of copper in use at the time or anything. :roll: The wheel plus copper tool use equals electricity, if someone just shows you how. Wonder why the benevolent aliens didn't help out with that, or cancer, or smallpox, or any number of other diseases plaguing us. How about domes? They can come all that way, but can't show us how to do something as simple as an arch or dome? These guys sounds less and less remarkable to me the more we talk about this.

Campbell argues that this had to do with discovery of the established courses of the visible planets, together with the notion that they were governed by the same laws that governed life on earth - the Sumerians as cultic astrologers.

Yes, and at no time does Campbell claim that any supernatural entities were the cause of any of this. By using Campbell to suggest such things you are twistings his analysis to fit your own.

"It was at this moment in human destiny that the art of writing first appeared in the world and that scriptorially documented history therefore begins. Also, the wheel appeared. And we have evidence of the development of the two numerical systems still normally employed throughout the civilised world, the decimal and the sexigesimal; the former was used mostly for business accounts ... and the latter for ritualistic measuring of space and time as well. Three hundred and sixty degrees, then as now, represented the circumference of a circle - the cycle of the horizon - while three hundred and sixty days, plus five, marked the measurement of the circle of the year, the cycle of time. The five intercalated days.... Were taken to represent a sacred opening through which spiritual energy flowed into the round of the temporal universe [so] they were designated, consequently, days of holy feast and festival."

Well sure, if you have people creating bigger settlements then you have a increasing percentage of the population not dedicated to food production. This gives them all kinds of time for things like creating new tools and ideas and creating the trade to spread them. I believe that the mainstream theory is that temple priests created writing to keep track of goods and services that moved through the temples. Wouldn't this explain why priests were typically the literate castes in most societies? And again, it is of note that these things came after the development of cities and professional religious castes instead of before... as your hypothesis would suggest.

So how does this contradict anything I've said, Rich, making me dishonest?
Asked and answered. You are attempting to apply Campbell as evidence of alien/supernatural intervention in human affairs. Campbell never made any such claim.

It is clear that Campbell recognized the "germinal unit" that was Sumer, and not only regarding "myth" and its "characters," but their relation to astronomy / astrology.
But what do you suppose he meant when he stated "...scriptorially documented history therefore begins." ?
Two things:
First, just because Campbell rightfully recognizes Sumer as the starting point of western civilization does not mean that aliens had anything to do with it. Nor does Campbell ever say he believes that gods of any form are responsible for Mesopotamian development. Everything I have read of him demonstrates he believes these people did all of this on their own, stating otherwise is dishonest.

Second, "scriptorially documented history therefore begins" is as simple a statement as any to decipher. How can you have history documented in writing without writing? We can document much of what these people accomplished specificially because they developed writing A.DIM... you can't have "scriptorially documented history" without writing. What is so suggestive of aliens about that statement?

Edit: To fix a few of the grammatical errors I often make... sure there are more to be fixed later.

[Rich]

Quote:
"It was at this moment in human destiny that the art of writing first appeared in the world and that scriptorially documented history therefore begins. Also, the wheel appeared. And we have evidence of the development of the two numerical systems still normally employed throughout the civilised world, the decimal and the sexigesimal; the former was used mostly for business accounts ... and the latter for ritualistic measuring of space and time as well. Three hundred and sixty degrees, then as now, represented the circumference of a circle - the cycle of the horizon - while three hundred and sixty days, plus five, marked the measurement of the circle of the year, the cycle of time. The five intercalated days.... Were taken to represent a sacred opening through which spiritual energy flowed into the round of the temporal universe [so] they were designated, consequently, days of holy feast and festival."


Well sure, if you have people creating bigger settlements then you have a increasing percentage of the population not dedicated to food production. This gives them all kinds of time for things like creating new tools and ideas and creating the trade to spread them. I believe that the mainstream theory is that temple priests created writing to keep track of goods and services that moved through the temples. Wouldn't this explain why priests were typically the literate castes in most societies? And again, it is of note that these things came after the development of cities and professional religious castes instead of before... as your hypothesis would suggest.

Addendum to the above.

The development of mathematics and the measurements of circles and other geometric patterns go right along with the development of the professional priesthood. If your society depends on good crops for survival, and you are one of the guys who can let them know exactly when to start planting and when to harvest... there's a lot of power in that. Who wouldn't start working on the tools to improve that predictive power? So you developed temples for people to make donations at, and worship the "gods" you made up, and us those donations to subsidize further research into tracking the procession of the seasons through signs in the heavens. What system would you come up with to do that, which wouldn't resemble math? It's a heck of a lot better than guessing when next spring comes along, or when the flood season hits. If you livelyhood, and maybe life, depends on getting these kinds of things right... and you've got several generations to dedicate to it, don't you think those folks are perfectly capable of developing these tools on their own?

And about floods... now that I think of it. The benevolent visitors couldn't institute some flood control measures on the Tigris and Euphrates? What kind of supreme gods are these anyway? Thousands of acres of crops lost each year and how many lives gone to flooding and they don't help out with that a bit? Again, string together some rudimentary flood control with the wheel and copper tools and now we've got hydroelectric power!!! These are the most inefficient and ignorant spaceflight capable guys I can think of in the history of science fiction!

[Kesh]

Sounds like the Zetans. :D

[Outcast]

The development of mathematics and the measurements of circles and other geometric patterns go right along with the development of the professional priesthood. If your society depends on good crops for survival, and you are one of the guys who can let them know exactly when to start planting and when to harvest... there's a lot of power in that. Who wouldn't start working on the tools to improve that predictive power? So you developed temples for people to make donations at, and worship the "gods" you made up, and us those donations to subsidize further research into tracking the procession of the seasons through signs in the heavens. What system would you come up with to do that, which wouldn't resemble math? It's a heck of a lot better than guessing when next spring comes along, or when the flood season hits. If you livelyhood, and maybe life, depends on getting these kinds of things right... and you've got several generations to dedicate to it, don't you think those folks are perfectly capable of developing these tools on their own?

Rich, i find your reasoning very interesting but also very humanistic. its possible that things went the way you describe and that certainly is a scholarly interpretation. but just out of curiosity do you have a explanation for why humans would leave the safety of the forests where they lived for thousands of years and engage in agriculture. how and why did they spent the coutless and necessary generations perfecting their seeds in order to have growable and usefull food to eat. why "civilization" at all when other tribes of humans still live in the jungles and find absolutely no reason to leave them?

[Excelsior]

If primitive civilizations like humans need to be "uplifted" how did the aliens themselves gain technology ? :D

[Fram]

Rich, i find your reasoning very interesting but also very humanistic. its possible that things went the way you describe and that certainly is a scholarly interpretation. but just out of curiosity do you have a explanation for why humans would leave the safety of the forests where they lived for thousands of years and engage in agriculture. how and why did they spent the coutless and necessary generations perfecting their seeds in order to have growable and usefull food to eat. why "civilization" at all when other tribes of humans still live in the jungles and find absolutely no reason to leave them?

Do those tribes find 'no reason', or 'no means'? You have to invent and discover a lot of things to have agriculture, and you have to have some time to do that, ome peace, and a large enough tribe, and so on. Why metallurgy? Why clothes?
I find it more amazing that some tribes have not developed agriculture than the fact that some did. You only need one thought: 'Hmm, those plants are tasty and have lots of fruits. But they are so far from my home near the fresh water. Wouldn't it be easy if they grew closer by?', and then try to achieve that. The hard part is the achieving, not the fact that you start with it. Perhaps the tribes that are still hunters-gatherers haven't been able to achieve that dream?

[Rich]

Corret Fram. Why anything? We were roaming in fairly well armed and fairly technologically advanced (for primates) equipment before we started settling down and staying in smaller regions and then finally creating settlements.

I will take a stab at "why", though it will be an unconventionally conventional one-word answer. Beer.

Yeah, I said it. Most professionals think beer was accidentally discovered. Someone let the wild barley stew go a little too long. But surely the effects were noticed... and desired. The most likely turn of events is that spiritual leaders ("medicine men" if you will) probably controlled the secret of fermentation for a long time for use in religious ceremonies. But it wouldn't have taken too long for the secrets to alcohol production to get out. At that point you've got a really good impetus to find better ways of securing the materials to make the alcohol. That may be wheat and barely in some places and rice in others.

Not to mention that settling down allows for larger families, which from a purely "survival of the species" stand-point make great sense and is a really good survival move. The folks who settle down have more stable food income and therefore are more likely to live and pass on their genes. And when you start building structures it is much easier to protect against other predators and take shelter from the elemts, both of which contributed mightily to human fatality. With even limited success you exponentially increase your time to tinker and create even better survival tools. Of course, there are trade-offs: more people closer together makes a population more susceptible to disease and for many generations settlements were likely just one or two bad crops away from starvation (then again early on they probably very easily reverted to hunter-gatherer mode if the need arose).

I find it funny that you would have a problem with a humanistic approach to human affairs. What other approach would you take? These developments even make sense from a naturalistic approach, as there are quite obvious survival benefits to all of this... yes even religion (to a point).

I would ask why anyone would revert to a supernatural cause (whether actual dieties or simply aliens pretending to be dieties). For things for which there are quite rational explanations and even a great deal of evidence for those explanations. Have you actually seen any of the really neat early fertility idols or funerary objects that predate all of what we have been discussing? There's the roots of your religions... unless aliens were coming down and directing those behaviors as well.

And I'll pose the same question to you as I did to A.DIM: How long a time period is suddenly in reference to the "sudden" development of larger settlements and religious beauracracies? If you have hundreds of generations to develop even marginally sustainable crop foods, what's the big deal?

FYI - The "other tribes of humans" that still live in the jungles and find no reason to leave them almost all have two strikes against them: they are geographically isolated and have limited access to superior building materials. They are a lot of South Pacific islanders and rainforest denizens that fit that bill, and very few cultures in close proximity to others and easily reached metals that didn't start to advance.

Another thing... the whole "jungle" thing is a very common misconception. Our distant primate ancestors may have originally developed in jungle settings (and I can't stress "may" enough), but Homo Sapiens is almost certainly a product of savanah life. Our physiology is very indicative of two major environmental impacts: plains and waterways. (We have a number of seemingly water-mammal adaptations that most other land mammals don't have... jury is still out on that and what it means however.) So, not to nit-picky, but we wouldn't have come out of the jungle at all. We simply would have chosen increasingly smaller areas to wander over after wandering out of savanahs in Africa and into other savanahs, forests, plains, and jungles elsewhere.

[Outcast]

Do those tribes find 'no reason', or 'no means'? You have to invent and discover a lot of things to have agriculture, and you have to have some time to do that, ome peace, and a large enough tribe, and so on. Why metallurgy? Why clothes?

why on earth would some tribes strive to find "the means" when they had no reasons to do it. humans were hunter/gatherers for a long time, why the change in behavioural habits, when those same habits have provided for human kind for millenia and still do in some parts of the world?

I find it more amazing that some tribes have not developed agriculture than the fact that some did. You only need one thought: 'Hmm, those plants are tasty and have lots of fruits. But they are so far from my home near the fresh water. Wouldn't it be easy if they grew closer by?', and then try to achieve that.

well, you need much more than a thought and that is an over simplification of the problems involved with practicing agriculture. specially in its development. most of the seeds in use today have gone through a process of genetic selection which transformed them into usefull growable food, unlike their wild counterparts. if this process was done entirely by trial and error by humans then it would have taken a very long time. actually, so long a time that one has to wonder what was their motivation at all to go through the process without even knowing the end result. and even if it was possible or made any sense for humans to engage in agriculture we still would have to explain how some of their seeds came into existance, for example maze which has no counterpart in wild plants.

[Outcast]

I will take a stab at "why", though it will be an unconventionally conventional one-word answer. Beer.


somehow your explanation doesnt jive. shamans have used natural substances to induce alterate states of mind for millenia. shamanism is still a practice of many jungle dwellers.

Not to mention that settling down allows for larger families, which from a purely "survival of the species" stand-point make great sense and is a really good survival move.

do you have any example of another primate species that has that natural need for larger families? a human baby is unlike most other animal cubs, its quite fragile and dependant for a great part of his young life. therefore it is also quite a burden to human females, not forgetting the fact that it takes nine months on average to conceive a child. i do not see the whys and hows for that need to constitute larger families.

The folks who settle down have more stable food income and therefore are more likely to live and pass on their genes.

all primates in this planet are hunter/gatherers, all have survived for countless millenia. all have passed on their genes and are absolutely adapted to their surroundings. why on earth only one species of primates found the will to settle down and invent civilization.

I find it funny that you would have a problem with a humanistic approach to human affairs. What other approach would you take? These developments even make sense from a naturalistic approach, as there are quite obvious survival benefits to all of this... yes even religion (to a point).

you find it "funny" but i never said i had "a problem" with a humanistic approach. that is in itself quite funny. i just dont find it to be the only available way to explain observations. besides being an unbiased stance of mine i found out that an intervention scenario copes much better with all the anomalies of human development. it even explains that shadowy part of human culture which some have dubbed "mythology".

And I'll pose the same question to you as I did to A.DIM: How long a time period is suddenly in reference to the "sudden" development of larger settlements and religious beauracracies? If you have hundreds of generations to develop even marginally sustainable crop foods, what's the big deal?

compared to the millions of years proposed by the evolution theory for all the tiny mutations which lead to a functional human body. and the millions of years that humans dwelled in forests and jungles. i find that the appearance of civilization was a relatively quick process.

http://flash3d.no.sapo.pt/sumeria/enki_bestows_plough.jpg

in this ancient sumerian tablet of circa 4.500 b.c. the sumerians depicted the god EN.KI bestowing humans with agricultural tools (the plough). in fact all traits of civilization are attributed to the god EN.KI instead of human invention. the god EN.KI goes by many names in many civiliations, some of which never had contact with each other. therefore i see no reason why any serious study of ancient history should neglect the intervention of these "gods" in the ancient past (as detailed in ancient writings) focusing instead in playing detective with flimsycal evidence and taking one sided interpretations of events that happened millenia ago.

FYI - The "other tribes of humans" that still live in the jungles and find no reason to leave them almost all have two strikes against them: they are geographically isolated and have limited access to superior building materials.

that is an overtly western view of "those other tribes of humans". a view which i will not indulge with a commentary. i will just say that those tribes have lived in union with nature for ages and are being destroyed precisely because of those "building materials" which you call inferior.

Another thing... the whole "jungle" thing is a very common misconception. Our distant primate ancestors may have originally developed in jungle settings (and I can't stress "may" enough), but Homo Sapiens is almost certainly a product of savanah life.

that is a theory yet to be proven since there are no certainties as to where exactly did we came from. one fact though, as a species we're one of a kind.

Another thing... the whole "jungle" thing is a very common misconception. Our distant primate ancestors may have originally developed in jungle settings (and I can't stress "may" enough), but Homo Sapiens is almost certainly a product of savanah life.

well, yep. but that was my initial question all along. a question which i think you did not answer and for which there are anything but open interpretations. the intervention theory is just another interpretation just as valid has anyother, despite the bad mouthing it usualy takes by the likes of those who pretend to know and which seek the funding to engage in their pet theorizing and see no further than mainstream aggrandizement.

[Kesh]

why on earth would some tribes strive to find "the means" when they had no reasons to do it. humans were hunter/gatherers for a long time, why the change in behavioural habits, when those same habits have provided for human kind for millenia and still do in some parts of the world?

Your ancient humans must have been quite lazy. :)

Why do humans do anything? Because we are a curious and territorial species. We're constantly exploring, experimenting and spreading to other regions as our populations grow.

And, as populations grow, hunter/gatherer strategies can't keep up.


well, you need much more than a thought and that is an over simplification of the problems involved with practicing agriculture. specially in its development. most of the seeds in use today have gone through a process of genetic selection which transformed them into usefull growable food, unlike their wild counterparts. if this process was done entirely by trial and error by humans then it would have taken a very long time. actually, so long a time that one has to wonder what was their motivation at all to go through the process without even knowing the end result. and even if it was possible or made any sense for humans to engage in agriculture we still would have to explain how some of their seeds came into existance, for example maze which has no counterpart in wild plants.

Wild wheat works pretty well for bread, beer, etc. All it takes for agriculture, is bringing a bunch of wild wheat seed to a patch of ground and planting/watering it for the season.

Trial and error? Of course. However, it only takes one success to start a trend. And from that one successful process, others can spread the technique and experiment with it.

It sounds like you simply believe humans would have sat around, unchanging, for millennia. That doesn't sound like the humanity that climbs rocks, dives under the sea, and goes to the moon "just to do it."

[Kesh]

somehow your explanation doesnt jive. shamans have used natural substances to induce alterate states of mind for millenia. shamanism is still a practice of many jungle dwellers.

And, unlike some of those substances, beer is relatively simple to prepare. Then, when you consider the other substances that can be used without much preparation (mushrooms, tobacco), why wouldn't they start developing small crops near home?


do you have any example of another primate species that has that natural need for larger families? a human baby is unlike most other animal cubs, its quite fragile and dependant for a great part of his young life. therefore it is also quite a burden to human females, not forgetting the fact that it takes nine months on average to conceive a child. i do not see the whys and hows for that need to constitute larger families.

Practically all the great ape species?

Gorillas: Gestation is 8½ months. There are typically 3–4 years between births. Infants stay with their mothers for 3–4 years. Females mature at 10–12 years (earlier in captivity); males 11–13 years, sometimes sooner if they assume leadership early. Lifespan is between 30–50 years. ... {One silverback} typically leads a troop of 5 to 30 gorillas... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorillas)

Bonobos, our closest relatives, live in a tribe of about a hundred... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_paniscus)

Large, extended families are primate nature. Some of the smaller species survive as individuals, but those closest to us genetically thrive in large family groups.


all primates in this planet are hunter/gatherers, all have survived for countless millenia. all have passed on their genes and are absolutely adapted to their surroundings. why on earth only one species of primates found the will to settle down and invent civilization.

Only one? Well, if you discount the other varieties of genus Homo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_%28genus%29), maybe.

you find it "funny" but i never said i had "a problem" with a humanistic approach. that is in itself quite funny. i just dont find it to be the only available way to explain observations. besides being an unbiased stance of mine i found out that an intervention scenario copes much better with all the anomalies of human development. it even explains that shadowy part of human culture which some have dubbed "mythology".

Not really. Mythology can easily be explained by human imagination. Whereas the intervention hypothesis requires extrapolating the existence of an interstellar-travel-capable, benevolent alien species who decided to stop off here long enough to 'engineer' us for civilization, and then took off without so much as a forwarding address. Bit more complicated.

compared to the millions of years proposed by the evolution theory for all the tiny mutations which lead to a functional human body. and the millions of years that humans dwelled in forests and jungles. i find that the appearance of civilization was a relatively quick process.

Humanity has been in existance for less than 1% of the lifespan of Earth. Compared to that, everything about us has been a relatively quick process.

http://flash3d.no.sapo.pt/sumeria/enki_bestows_plough.jpg

in this ancient sumerian tablet of circa 4.500 b.c. the sumerians depicted the god EN.KI bestowing humans with agricultural tools (the plough). in fact all traits of civilization are attributed to the god EN.KI instead of human invention. the god EN.KI goes by many names in many civiliations, some of which never had contact with each other. therefore i see no reason why any serious study of ancient history should neglect the intervention of these "gods" in the ancient past (as detailed in ancient writings) focusing instead in playing detective with flimsycal evidence and taking one sided interpretations of events that happened millenia ago.

Now you're reaching. One civilization attributes their creation and history to a god. You immediately make the leap to 'aliens'. And you think the more rational explanation that "they wanted something bigger than themselves" is flimsy?

Humans have been creating fantastic stories for... well, all our existence. Why do you dismiss this possibility out of hand for the Sumerians?


that is an overtly western view of "those other tribes of humans". a view which i will not indulge with a commentary. i will just say that those tribes have lived in union with nature for ages and are being destroyed precisely because of those "building materials" which you call inferior.

How is that 'overtly western?' And turning up your nose at an argument is not scientific.

Another thing... the whole "jungle" thing is a very common misconception. Our distant primate ancestors may have originally developed in jungle settings (and I can't stress "may" enough), but Homo Sapiens is almost certainly a product of savanah life.

that is a theory yet to be proven since there are no certainties as to where exactly did we came from. one fact though, as a species we're one of a kind.

Given the extreme amounts of evidence, what do you disagree with about the origins of humanity? Also, why do you change your mind with:

Another thing... the whole "jungle" thing is a very common misconception. Our distant primate ancestors may have originally developed in jungle settings (and I can't stress "may" enough), but Homo Sapiens is almost certainly a product of savanah life.

well, yep. but that was my initial question all along. a question which i think you did not answer and for which there are anything but open interpretations. the intervention theory is just another interpretation just as valid has anyother, despite the bad mouthing it usualy takes by the likes of those who pretend to know and which seek the funding to engage in their pet theorizing and see no further than mainstream aggrandizement.

Now, this is straying into the realm of "I'm so much smarter because I'm arguing against a mainstream theory." ;)

It 'takes a bad mouthing' because of what I pointed out above: we have zero evidence that aliens exist at all, and yet your hypothesis requires a highly advanced, friendly alien species that conveniently left us behind after their miraculous 'uplifting' of our species.

Which is another point: how, exactly, did this uplifting occur? I've never seen a good explanation for it.

{Edited to fix a missing UBB tag.}

[A.DIM]

Happy Holidays, All!

Covered in snow for days with my family, my 14yr old son who lives with his mother in NC included. What fun!

Anyway... sorry so slow in getting back to you, Rich, but here goes:

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

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.

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.

Yes, we have. Can you use any of the aforementioned "options" with the Vedas? How about with Gilgamesh? The Descent of Ishtar into the Netherworld?

Surely you aren't saying that you don't see how obsfucation, aggrandizment, story inflation, mistaking natural phenomena for supernatural phenomena, misunderstanding natural phenomena to be supernatural, not to mention just plain old getting high or making stuff up... couldn't apply to any and all of those stories? Gilgamesh always read to me like a really good buddy tale that you might see on a serial cop or political show. It was merely important to a group of people at a point in time. Those people aggrandized the orginal tale, because that's what people do, and we know about it because those people became a regional power and passed it on to others; probably even further inflating the tale (by then myth, legend, or religion) as evidence or justification for their authority. Someone else comes to the forefront and we might have gotten a whole different set of stories.

Perhaps, and I also see how much more convoluted our understanding of Myth becomes when employing so many methods of interpretation, which as I pointed out earlier, is interesting in and of itself.
From here (http://www.pibburns.com/myth.htm):

"In common parlance, a myth is a fiction -- something which is untrue. Scholars of mythology define myth differently: a myth is a special kind of story which tries to interpret some aspect of the world around us. Robert W. Brockway, in his book Myth from the Ice Age to Mickey Mouse concisely summarizes a number of different scholarly ideas about the meaning of myth as follows:

A collective definition of myth composed of many theories might be framed by the following paraphrase:

Myths are stories, usually, about gods and other supernatural beings (Frye). They are often stories of origins, how the world and everything in it came to be in illo tempore (Eliade). They are usually strongly structured and and their meaning is only discerned by linguistic analysis (Lévi-Strauss). Sometimes they are public dreams which, like private dreams, emerge from the unconscious mind (Freud). Indeed, they often reveal the archetypes of the collective unconscious (Jung). They are symbolic and metaphorical (Cassirer). They orient people to the metaphysical dimension, explain the origins and nature of the cosmos, validate social issues, and, on the psychological plane, address themselves to the innermost depths of the psyche (Campbell). Some of them are explanatory, being prescientific attempts to interpret the natural world (Frazer). As such, they are usually functional and are the science of primitive peoples (Malinowski). Often, they are enacted in rituals (Hooke). Religious myths are sacred histories (Eliade), and distinguished from the profane (Durkheim). But, being semiotic expressions (Saussure), they are a "disease of language" (Müller). They are both individual and social in scope, but they are first and foremost stories (Kirk)."

So with so many different "scholarly" ideas, it appears rather convenient to pick and choose among the more mundane explanations. And this obviously adds to the difficulty in discerning the "truth" inside the Myths.
And as I also pointed out earlier, I only dare to ask what such lists don't, that is all.
I just have much difficulty in accepting the spooked caveman thinking thunder is an anthropomorphic "god," terrible and frightening, to be revered with libations in order for favorable conditions from time immemorial through the development of agriculture and an advanced civ comprised of writing, mathematics, astronomy, legal systems, education systems, music, art and more that produced the "germinal unit" of all later high civilizations and yet the very denizens of such a civ maintained that it was all attributable to "the gods." A form of control you might siggest? Perhaps, but why then were there so many "local" gods that the people described as physically present? Were the controlling astronomer-priests doling out massive amounts of opium? Sorry, I just don't see it.

People still do the same thing today. There is nothing remarkable about any of the other stories to suggest anything else is the case.

I disagree. Perhaps it is confused in our respective understanding of Myth.
"Myths" have long been considered "sacred histories" and as such always pertain to "the gods," cosmologic origins, the creation of Man, origin of Agriculture and Civ, etc. I never claimed that Campbell suggested "aliens" or whatever, I cited him only to show that "Myth," as it were, can largely be traced to Mesopotamia, or more precisely, Sumer. He said, "with stunning abruptness" the whole "germinal unit" for advanced civilization arose in a little "mud garden" in Sumer.
My initial post here was only to show that "those from heaven to earth came" - the Sumerian Anunnaki - can likewise be shown to be the prototypes, archetypes et al for countless mythologies and religions, especially those contained in the OT of the most influencial book in History.

Again, all I do is dare to read them more literally.

Regarding Sitchin:
There exist only a "few certain terms," as stated by scholar M. Heiser, that "boils down" the difference in translations. And even then, I've previously showed how Heiser's and Sitchin's translations don't differ much at all, which in turn, is amusing considering the BA's initial use of Heiser as Sitchin's detractor. I'd say something about Ian Lawton's anti Sitchin work, but he's hardly the trained scholar, and is as much a revisionist as anyone.
What other "experts" are you referring to?

You did not answer this question. I am curious

**snip**

When I we ask for specific examples you return generalities. Give us specific sets of depicted tools, weapons, and vehicles to look at to see what is so unusual about them. I have a feeling it is nothing more than what would be expected from most scientifically ignorant people. Or was Zeus a real god because lightening weapons are too stupendous to imagine? No chance that the lightening, earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanoes, tidal waves, weird weather, famine, disease, pestilence, forest fires, occasional meteor strike, ad naseum came first and the gods second? I wonder what ancient people would attribute those to and the aggrandizment that would occur from ruling classes intent on keeping power through such tales and their supposed connections to ancient superheroes and gods?

Well, from reading the Vedas, one reads the most detailed descriptions of such "chariots," Vimanas.

A Tribute to Hinduism: Vimanas (http://www.atributetohinduism.com/Vimanas.htm).

Wanna discuss the natural phenomena that evoked such descriptions? Or perhaps consider it the first SciFi? Or even the drugs that might've prompted such imagination?
OR, as I like consider what is literally being described? :D

[A.DIM]

OK, perhaps the "return" part obfuscated my generalization; however, ALL the ancient myths, from the mesopotamian, to the egyptian, the greek and hindu, and even the mayan, speak of when the gods first descended from heaven to become "gods of heaven and earth."

Not as such. In both Egyptian and Greco-Roman mythology, the gods were descendents of Heaven and Earth. However, they saw Heaven and Earth as living creatures in their own right. To the Egyptians, the skies were the goddess Nut, whose body was covered in stars. To the Greeks, Ouranos (Uranus to the Romans) was an ancient god who married Mother Earth (Gaia, Terra) and sired the Titans. Either way, the Greeks and Romans were very clear that the gods lived on Earth and *never* lived in the sky.

I think you're confusing the "primordial gods", aka the celestial gods, who came first to witness the creation of heaven and earth, and those with their respective later, earthly personages. Remember, it was commonplace for a "god" to have a celestial counterpart, and through the many arguments and battles over succession and position within the "olympian circle," changed from time to time. This is the "difficulty" I refered to earlier; discerning which are astronomical texts, and there are many within the "myths," and which are describing the activities of "those from heaven to earth came." The Creation story as described by Hesiod in Theogony is a definite parallel, or in my mind, a derivation, of the earlier Enuma Elish, which should be read as an astronomical text.

And while there were many "gods" and also demi-gods (offspring of the mix), there is often a central pantheon of "great gods," usually numbering 12
That's still an over generalization. Part of the problem is how you define a 'great' god in these religions. Yes, the Greco-Roman Pantheon had the Twelve Olympians, but if you look at their religion Bacchus and Hades were every bit as important as, say, Artemis or Hephaestos. What do you make of Hercules, whose popularity rivaled the more important gods'.
Indeed, and as I pointed out, the ancients themselves described the many local dieties as physically present, approachable beings. "Gods" who could ascend to the heavens to take council with other gods and then return to earth. That "council" is the Olympian Twelve and took place in the Great Hall of the leading god, be it Anu or Zeus. And while Zeus' Olympus IS described as being on earth, recognition that the greek myths also were derivations of the earlier mesopotamian myths via Asia Minor (where nearly everything for which the Greeks are recognized as "advanced" first appeared) makes clear that while there were counterparts on earth, the gods were known to ascend to the "heavenly abode" from whence they first came, not just to a mountaintop.

In Hindu mythology, you're left with only eight major gods: Agni, Ganesh, Shiva, Kali, Brahma, Kama, Vishnu, and Indra and of those Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are by far the most important. Either way, that's fewer than twelve.

The Vedic tales and the Greek tales are startling similar, with a basic concern for genoelogical record keeping - who fathered whom and who was the firstborn of whom etc. The gods on earth originated in the heavens. In primeval times, the Rishis "primeval flowing ones" flowed celestially when the gods Rahu and Ketu were a single celestially body. The God of Storms hurled a flaming weapon and cut it in two (sound familiar?). Kash Yapa, God of Stroms, was also chief of the "shining ones" and bore the title Dyaus-Pitar (sound familiar?) "shining father." Then, with his consort, Prit Hivi (representing Earth) and their ten children made up the "divine family" of Adityas - each also represented by a zodiacal sign.

In Norse mythology, there were dozens of Aesir, the central pantheon. Of those, I would argue that only Odin, Thor, Loki, Balder, Frey, Freya, Tyr, and maybe Frigg and Heimdall were overly important. That's only nine.

OK, but again, confusion arises.

Are you superstitious (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/02/0212_040212_friday13.html#main)?

"Dossey traces the fear of 13 to a Norse myth about 12 gods having a dinner party at Valhalla, their heaven. In walked the uninvited 13th guest, the mischievous Loki. Once there, Loki arranged for Hoder, the blind god of darkness, to shoot Balder the Beautiful, the god of joy and gladness, with a mistletoe-tipped arrow.

"Balder died and the whole Earth got dark. The whole Earth mourned. It was a bad, unlucky day," said Dossey. From that moment on, the number 13 has been considered ominous and foreboding."

So it is clear that even the Nordic myths, separate both geogrphically and in time, contain tales of "the gods" in "heaven" numbering twelve at council or dinner.

In Egyptian mythology, with its immense pantheon, only a few gods could be considered important: Osiris, Horus, Isis, Set, Anubis, Thoth, and the various incarnations of Ra.

Yes, and again, rules of succession and battles over dominion plague the tales. I've pointed out parallels between the Sumerian Egyptian myths previously; all I'll say for now is that Enki is Ptah and Marduk is Ra.

I can't comment on Central American mythology, since I'm not overly familiar with most of it, but looking at these cultures, there doesn't seem to be much of a pattern.

Actually, what is interesting about central american myths is that they too refer to various Ages of Man, and contain within them references to the Precession of the Equinoxes. Astronomer priests were the "go between" for the gods, and Quetzlcoatl is curiously possessed of the similar attributes as Enki, his son Maurduk or the egyptian version, Ra.


and usually descended from "heaven."
That's a key point actually: for the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians, they mean 'descended' in a geneological sense. In Greco-Roman mythology, the sky was the god Ouranos (Uranus in Latin) who married Mother Earth (Gaia/Terra) and sired the Titans. In that cosmology, both Heaven and Earth were living gods in their own right. For the Egyptians, the skies were the goddess, Nut, whose body was covered with stars. Much like Ouranos, she married the Earth, Seb, and gave birth to Osiris, Isis, Set, and Nepthys. If we're talking aliens landing on Earth, why bother with personifying the sky? Why not just say that the gods flew in from the unknown?

They did! That's what I've said all along, according to the sumerians themselves, the Anunnaki were "those from heaven to earth came" who also returned to the Abode of the Gods (aka Nibiru, Olympus, Valhalla et al).

But again, I think you're confusing the astronomical texts as "myth" while also drawing on the escapades of the physically present beings. I think it is clear that while the Greeks drew heavily from Asia-Minor, by their time, much had already been forgotten and remembered only as Myth. This is why I persist in looking at Sumer; this is the place that these "stories" originated. And again, if they were so brilliant as to establish all things that comprise advanced, Western civilization, why did they persist in claiming it was these physically present beings "from heaven" who did all this? Is it possible that all high civilization is the result of the first ruling astronomer priests who kept the masses doped for control in such large numbers while also creating a legal system, an educational system and so on? I myself have proclaimed "Religion is the opium of the masses" but I never realized how profound that is. What is scary is the thought that barely a hundred years ago, it was The Church who controlled, and still do, the most prestigious learning institutions. And then to wax political, our very own icon of Western Civ, the US, continues to be controlled by it. Furthermore, what wouldn't astround me is to hear the W consults an astrologer. :wink:

Moreover, these pantheons all speak of an age when it was only the gods on earth,

That's a feature of ALL creation myths: the gods create man. Therefore, the gods must be older than man. Doesn't matter if we're talking about Brahma, Yahweh, or Odin.

Quite right, and as I asked earlier in this thread, agreeing with Campbell, why does it appear the whole cultural syndrome in our psyche clings to such a notion as "gods from heaven" having created us in their image?

but also having a counterpart in "Heaven" (eg. the egyptian "planet of millions of years," or even Zeus' great hall in heaven on Olympus).

Like you say, Zeus's great hall was on Mt. Olympos: on Earth. It is explicitly identified as a real mountain, on this planet, and NOT in the heavens.

I think I addressed this well enough; think greek origins and the local myths.

The gods then created Man as a servant and eventually bestowed on him Kingship, Civ and such.

In Greek mythology, man was created for the gods' amusement, as much as anything else. Similarly, in the Book of Genesis, God never gives a reason as to why He created Adam (Genesis 1:26 - 31). I haven't been able to find a reason for creating man in Egyptian mythology. I have, on the other hand, found two mutually exclusive stories: Khnum sculpting man out of clay and Ra bringing man into existence simply by saying 'man.' I also don't know of any stories where the gods bring civilization to man in any of these cultures. The closest I know if is Prometheus teaching man how to use fire, but other than that the myths simply state that mankind was given the gift of intelligence.


I'd have to say read them again, more carefully, since "The Story of The Pickaxe" is an example of the gods bestowing on mankind Agriculture. It should be clear that "the Adammu," the earthling, or "the Adam" was placed in the Garden of Eden to tend it for the gods. But the earlier sumerian myths shed light on what the "lulu" or "mixed ones" were used for before Enlil decided he wanted one in the E.DIN, the "Garden of the Gods." Of course a "mixed one" can't procreate, hybrids don't, but since Enki (depicted as entwined serpents) went to the garden and gave the Adam and Eve the ability to procreate through "Knowing" or the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, they were expelled by Enlil, upset that they "have become as one of us." This of course led to the "sons of gods," the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 fame, coming down to take "daughters of man" as wives who bore children for them.

Writing, as well, is attributed to various gods in many myths. I believe you'll even find among Hopi myths of Coyote having bestowed on them Agriculture and Civilization.

Additionally, there are certain likenesses betwixt him and Enki / Ptah of the Sumerian & Egyptian pantheons.
Quetzlcoatl was generally depicted as a feathered serpent. Enki was depicted as a human. Ptah was depicted as a mummy. Those are three very different aspects.
Similarly, while both Enki and Ptah are associated with craftsmanship, Ptah is associated with rebirth while Enki is associated with water. By contrast, Quetzlcoatl is associated with the skies, reading, timekeeping, corn, and rebirth. The only thing all three have in common is that they're all gods.

This is a gloss. More careful analysis will reveal how similar they are.
I've done it here before, but not this time.

Where these parallels only reflect the basic aspects of being human, the differences between creation myths are profound. In Norse mythology, Odin and his brothers created the first man and woman from trees. In Mesopotamian mythology, mankind was created from Ishtar's blood. In Genesis and in some Egyptian myths, man was made from clay. In Mayan mythology, man is created from dough. In the Chinese myth of the celestial egg, man is descended from the lice that infested Pan Gu. In Hindu mythology, man was created from Brahma's body with higher castes being created from his head and lower castes from his feet. In New Guinea alone the various mythologies don't agree on whether or not man emerged fully formed out of the sky, the trees, or the earth or even on whether or not this was a natural process or an act of creation. IF all these stories reflect a shared experience of aliens creating life, you'd expect them to agree on how the aliens pulled this off.
You've confused several things here but I'll have to reread a couple of things before I post a response.

But lastly,

Moreover, if, as you say, aliens were responsible for bringing civilization to the entire Earth why are there so many differences between cultures?

Are there? When considering the Myths, as we have, why are there so many similarities? And why the "sacred histories" of "gods from heaven creating man?"

Why didn't the Incas ever develop the wheel? Why did the natives of New Guinea ever develop cities on the same scale as the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Indians, and Chinese?

Great question! Why are there primitives existing in our world that continue to live as if tens of thousands of years ago? I suspect most scholars will suggest because they've been isolated, but isolated from what?

Why was the caste system unique to India? If these aliens passed on their civilization, why didn't they pass on their language as well? Even if you argue that the aliens spoke whatever the local humans were speaking, why do Sanskrit, Hebrew, Egyptian, Chinese, Phonecian, Ogham, and the various Mesopotamian, Nordic, and Mesoamerican languages all use such totally different forms of writing?

The written word is fascinating, and our very own language can be traced ever further back to the Akkadian, the first semitic language, which absorbed the Sumerian pictograph / cuneiform. Oddly, Chinese strongly resembles cuneiform. But I suppose the answer to your question may lie in the "myth" of the Tower of Babel, no?

Heck, how come the Polynesians never developed writing on their own? Why did the Mesopotamians and Mayans understand zero when nobody else did? Basically, were the aliens being inconsistent, or are these just the results of various human cultures developing along their own paths and coming up with different explanations of how they got there?

No, what IS consistent is that worldwide we have ancient "myths" of "gods from heaven" creating mankind and bestowing on him a Civilization that remains to this day, where those like us, are left to examine these "sacred histories" in order to understand our world.


Sorry about all this; I've much catching up to do. :)

[Outcast]

It sounds like you simply believe humans would have sat around, unchanging, for millennia. That doesn't sound like the humanity that climbs rocks, dives under the sea, and goes to the moon "just to do it."

why not? all other species of primates did exactly that. the question is what exactly happened to this one particular specie that made the jump to civilization.

[A.DIM]

Taibak,

You post jogged from my memory a point which has often been asked of A.DIM and never answered. He often claims that the Mesopotamians/Sumerians "suddenly" made all of these developments. We still have no idea what "suddenly" means to him. I hold, and it seems that you do, to the widely accepted paradigms that have these developments taking place slowly over tens of thousands of years. We didn't just "suddenly" go from wandering hunter/gatherers to building walled cities and creating math and writing.

I know that I have asked exactly this question of A.DIM almost everytime this topic has come up here and we are still waiting for an answer. What is the period of time over which he thinks these changes and developments occurred? That will tell us a lot about the rest of his argument. Does he think that humans could have done all of this over thousands of years, or not? If not thousands of years, what kind of timeline are we looking at?

Absolutely that's a big part of this. Odds are, the first cities were founded about 9,500 years ago. Writing wasn't invented for at least another 2000 years - if not longer. On top of that, it was another 2700 years before anyone thought to write down the law. That's hardly sudden.

It appears to me that it was a one-two-three punch that brought about "advanced civilization" after the last ice age circa 12k yrs ago. Agriculture first, small "cities" next, and then advanced civ as typefied by Sumer with Writing, Astronomy, Mathematics, commerce, legal and educational systems (i emphasize "legal" in regard to your reference to Hammurabi's Code), music, art & poetry, and much more.
And in my opinion, these "steps" forward are closer to being 3600yrs apart.
But you're right, that's hardly sudden...
until you consider how slowly evolutionary advances in our ancestral bush ocurred. A couple million years between A. Austr. and Neandertal and yet their tools are virtually identical. Then suddenly and mostly inexplicably, homosapiens appears. After millions of years of slow evolutionary progress, Man suddenly began to use specialized tools and paint magnificent cave art that bespeaks depth of feeling and realism; all the while, CroMagnon's success ebbed and flowed. The Shanidar Cave findings showed that man's habitation in the cradle of civilization was on the decline, and rightly so. During the end of the last ice age, that area was rather inhospitable, and yet, just following the final throes of deglaciation and inundation, Man becomes a farmer...
and goes on to write "myths" about how after a "deluge" the "gods" taught mankind Agriculture, Civilization and Writing.

It should be clear why hypotheses like "punctuated equilibrium" have arisen. They help explain the various "sudden" advances in Man's march toward Civilization.

[Outcast]

Kesh wrote:

And, unlike some of those substances, beer is relatively simple to prepare. Then, when you consider the other substances that can be used without much preparation (mushrooms, tobacco), why wouldn't they start developing small crops near home?

you think beer is simpler to prepare than for example ayuaska or other shaman concoctions? i dont think so.
the process of brewing beer is first document in ancient Sumeria 6.000 years ago, curiously enough Tobacco is believed to have been cultivated in the Americas since 6.000 years ago also. actually if you study the appearance of most of humanities agricultural begginins you'll see that they all started more or less at the same time.
as for the intricacies of producing drinkable beer instead of a poisonous concoction: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/2/25/172117/694

Practically all the great ape species? Large, extended families are primate nature. Some of the smaller species survive as individuals, but those closest to us genetically thrive in large family groups.

???

again, your own quote:

"Gestation is 8½ months. There are typically 3–4 years between births. Infants stay with their mothers for 3–4 years. Females mature at 10–12 years (earlier in captivity); males 11–13 years, sometimes sooner if they assume leadership early. Lifespan is between 30–50 years. ... {One silverback} typically leads a troop of 5 to 30 gorillas... "

5 to 30 gorillas or a tribe of about a hundred is nowhere near the exponential growth of humans. even human jungle dwellers live in relatively small tribes. actually there seems to be something quite unnatural in the way that humans grew in number. the Sumerian texts
tell us that even the gods looked down on us like a noisy rabble, and our number was troublesome.

Only one? Well, if you discount the other varieties of genus Homo, maybe.

are you claiming that:

Homo rudolfensis
Homo habilis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo floresiensis
Homo heidelbergensis

invented civilization before homo-SAPIENS? quick, run to your nearest paleoanthropologist you've got the scoop of the century, allthough i think you'll a hard time proving it.

Not really. Mythology can easily be explained by human imagination.

human "imagination" is not an "explanation" for anything, but i guess i understand what you mean. allthough claiming that the records left by these early peoples, their scribes which so painstakingly copied and preserved for millenia what they considered the origins of human kind and their own history are "simply" flights of the imagination is quite the overstatement, besides being a tactless and misinformed disrespect.

Now you're reaching. One civilization attributes their creation and history to a god. You immediately make the leap to 'aliens'. And you think the more rational explanation that "they wanted something bigger than themselves" is flimsy?

there is nothing "immediate" in the leap to the intervention scenario. the evidence claims an explanation for the "gods" existance and the way the ancient peoples interacted with them. mythology, on the other hand, is but an unscientific umbrella for those in denial. whether these "gods" were extraterrestrial or something else remains to be proven, nevertheless their intervention in those ancients texts should be taken as seriously as Gilgamesh was.

Humans have been creating fantastic stories for... well, all our existence. Why do you dismiss this possibility out of hand for the Sumerians?

how do you know they're "fantastic stories"?? why cant they be exactly what the people who wrote them said they were: historical records.
the Vedic texts, for example, are filled with depictions of the "gods" interventions in human affairs. the scribes who preserved those texts knew perfectly well the different between fiction and historical texts, they had specific words to define their literature, nevertheless they considered those "fantastic stories" to be true. by the way, i consider this possibility in all ancient cultures since they all share a common theme.

And turning up your nose at an argument is not scientific.

where did i turn my nose at the argument? in case you missed my point:
"i will just say that those tribes have lived in union with nature for ages and are being destroyed precisely because of those "building materials" which you call inferior."
the Mayans and the Aztecs, for example, built great cities in the jungles. so it wasnt for the lack of "inferior" building materials that jungle dwellers failled to invent civilization.

Given the extreme amounts of evidence, what do you disagree with about the origins of humanity? Also, why do you change your mind with:

where are those "extreme ammounts of evidence"? i didnt realize that we had figured out the puzzle. so please point me out to where and how EXACTLY did humanity start and where are the transitional species that separated humans from apes.

It 'takes a bad mouthing' because of what I pointed out above: we have zero evidence that aliens exist

is it that "we" have zero evidence or is that you have zero knowlledge of the evidence that exists?

Now, this is straying into the realm of "I'm so much smarter because I'm arguing against a mainstream theory."

or maybe we're straying into the realm of: look i like to play a skeptic in the internet with other skeptics because if we all say the same loud enough and often enough eventually it will become true.

[A.DIM]

So you see RAF, your lack of knowledge of even some basic terms leads you to post such drivel. Why not delve into Ancient Near East history et al and really learn something instead of making such associations with Sitchin in your usual dismissive tone?

Sitchin's astronomy is very bad. He has unphysical orbits and collisions that cause catastrophic violations of conservation of angular momentum. I'm not sure how anyone could accept his as having any bearing on astronomy.

Makes a good science fiction book, but it's divorced from physical reality (at least where the orbital mechanics are concerned).

Why does our sun possess some 99% of our system's mass and a mere 1% of it's angular momentum? Is the present model so complete (at least where orbital mechanics are concerned)?
Prevailing theories hold:
Binary systems are commonplace.
Collision created earth/moon system
Collision devastated Mars
Collision created asteroid belt?
Collision or near miss pulled/pushed various moons and planetoiods into present orbits, some strange - Pluto being one. Sedna, CR105, 2004DW et al beings others.
Collision or near miss tipped Uranus over on its side.
Collision created retrograde motion of various bodies in our system.

Now, at the behest of all these observations, why would a "perturber hypothesis" be declared as "divorced from physical reality"? :-?

This brings to mind how we continue to see what was less than a hundred years ago, Science Fiction, become Science Fact.
Need I provide examples?

Sitchin wrote The Twelfth Planet in '76 suggesting Nibiru as part of our solar system, no? I find it most satisfying that approaching 30yrs and we find astronomers still puzzling over the various leading "collisional" theories that explain our solar system makeup coupled with taking the idea of additional "perturber" bodies or binary systems seriously; even suggesting "earth-sized" planets remaining to be found in our own, having, or caused by, strangely elliptical orbits, that, by our understanding, should've either flung themselves free into deep space, or been pulled into the larger outer planets. And yet... we continue to see "plausible" move to "probable" toward "fact."
So, like much SciFi, I suspect we'll continue to see it become SciFact.
But then what? We debate over whether or not Life could arise there?
I also suspect that "life out there" will be considered even more commonplace than it is now over the next few years of discovery.

Ah, we earthlings are like adolescents going through puberty in our quest for identifying "self," except with this, it is more of a species identity.
:D

[NorthGuy]

Not really. Mythology can easily be explained by human imagination.

human "imagination" is not an "explanation" for anything, but i guess i understand what you mean. allthough claiming that the records left by these early peoples, their scribes which so painstakingly copied and preserved for millenia what they considered the origins of human kind and their own history are "simply" flights of the imagination is quite the overstatement, besides being a tactless and misinformed disrespect.


Isn't it also disrespectful to declare that the ancients were incapable of writing good fiction? I suspect that as long a people have been able to write, they have painstaking written down not only literal truth, but what was believed to be true as well as what was known to be pure imagination. I think the important question is how do you discern one type of writing from the other? That's probably a tricky thing to do with writings that are thousands of years old. You seem to have considerable experience with ancient writings (I mean that sincerely). So I would like to know how you make this distinction.

[Outcast]

NorthGuy wrote:

Isn't it also disrespectful to declare that the ancients were incapable of writing good fiction?

i dont know, whoever said they didnt write fiction or were incapable of? i provided the example of the Vedic texts as its a fact that some are considered to be factual writings and others fictional or thematic texts. sometimes they appear in the form of riddles, common sense stories or moral teachings. there are Sumerian texts where the gods, as an authoritary or knowlledgeable figure, are used in short moral stories.

I think the important question is how do you discern one type of writing from the other? That's probably a tricky thing to do with writings that are thousands of years old.

of course its a tricky thing to do. but there are those who've gone further than the mythological barriers and have drawn paralels between ancient civilizations and the records they've left for us. Sitchin is one of those persons. Im one of those persons, A.DIM is another. there are many who've done this kind of work. there are those who are not afraid of interpreting the origins of our species in a pragmatic way without resorting to misticism, supernatural gods or that other form of religion which many practice but few recognize: humanism.
what i've done all my life was keeping an open mind and follow the knowlledge to the source. i dont know if im right or wrong in my interpretations therefore i'll never pretend to have all the answers and treat other ideas with a lifeless skepticisim.

You seem to have considerable experience with ancient writings (I mean that sincerely). So I would like to know how you make this distinction.

you mean sincerely? 8-[
well, i do not have a "considerable experience" with ancient writings, if i had that i would be a scholar, which i'm not. but what i've learned to this day, and the ancient texts i've read, lead me to supose that maybe the intervention theory has merit and should be closely look upon.
no matter what everyone says, its a personal journey.

[A.DIM]

But what do you suppose he meant when he stated "...scriptorially documented history therefore begins." ?

I can't be sure without knowing the context of the quote. However, all he seems to be saying is that the Sumerians began writing down what was going on.

Exactly!

Coupled with what they'd been told, of course.

:)

[A.DIM]

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?

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.

From The Masks of God (pgs146-7):

"... at circa 3,500 BC, the south Mesopotamian temple areas can be seen to have increased notably in size and importance; and then, with stunning abruptness, at a crucial date that can be almost precisely fixed at 3,200 BC ... there appears in this little Sumerian mud garden - as though the flowers of its tiny cities were suddenly bursting into bloom - the whole cultural syndrome that has since constituted the germinal unit of all the high civilizations of the world. ... the highly conscious creation ... of the mind and science of a new order of humanity, which had never before appeared in the history of mankind; namely the professional, full-time, initiated, strictly regimented temple priest."

So over a period of 300 years temple areas increase in size and importance and out of an increasing importance in religion a professional priest class arises. And this surprises you? If your hypothesis was correct shouldn't we see massive temple complexes built at the behest of our alien overlords and a professional priest caste indoctrinated almost immediately? Why would our powerful alien benefactors take 300 years to accomplish this? Isn't this a time frame in which we poor humans could develop such institutions on our own?

Yeah, but many humans the world over still live as if many thousands of years ago. Again, why? Why haven't they developed such institutions?

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. Like I said, I think trauma can prompt discovery, but the sudden change to "farmer" continues to baffle scholars. Yes, punctuated equilibrium may help to explain things... some, but not entirely and in my mind certainly not satisfactorily.

It's of note that the "tiny cities" came first and the larger religious complexes came second. Shouldn't we see the opposite in the alien/god theory? If aliens gave us all this stuff big cities based around religious function should be seen to develop first, rather than second, would make a lot more sense. Even if we attribute all of this to aliens that means we were already building cities and creating religious institutions when they showed up and handed us everything else... over how many more hundred years again? Boy they sure took their time getting the secret of the wheel out, no wonder they didn't have time to teach us something as simple as electricity. It's not like we had tons of copper in use at the time or anything. :roll: The wheel plus copper tool use equals electricity, if someone just shows you how. Wonder why the benevolent aliens didn't help out with that, or cancer, or smallpox, or any number of other diseases plaguing us. How about domes? They can come all that way, but can't show us how to do something as simple as an arch or dome? These guys sounds less and less remarkable to me the more we talk about this.

Seems reasonable since you presume much about the "aliens." I don't, I only know of what is written, or depicted.
But it's of note that those "tiny cities" were not only found to be factual places, after having been already dismissed as "myth" for ages, but were the "cult centers" for the few initial anunnaki, or "gods" that landed on earth. As described in the "myths," a "primitive worker" or "mixed one" was created first, to take over the work of the rank and file "gods" in the "mines," to toil for and serve their "gods" (it's of note here that the Hebrew word avod is wrongly translated as "worship" - it literally means "work for").

Also described in the "myths" are the many shapes that Enki & Ninursahg "toyed" with while creating Man. Descriptions of "man" with blindness, lameness, urinary problems, sexual dysfunction, animal limbs and so on. Additionally, Enki oft depicted with the entwined serpents (DNA helix?) and being responsible for altering Man by bestowing on him "Knowing" in the Biblical tale, in the biblical sense - the ability to procreate, and was hence expelled from the "garden of the gods" by Enlil.
The struggle between Enlil and Enki, as I've said many times, is the archetypal God / Devil(serpent) Good/Evil conflict, and the two brothers comprise most of the character of YHWH Elohim in The Bible; otherwise, it was "My Lord."

Lastly, countless technologies are described in ancient myths, from electrum in the Bible, to "divine trumpets" that with their sound carried and placed the megalithic stones at Macchu Pichu. But again, I don't presume to know the reasons for our "benevolent alien benefactors' " behavior. I merely am considering what is written, and when I do so literally, explanations are less convoluted and definitely make more sense. However, I realize I can't "prove" this as you'd have it; if I could I'd probably be off writing a book. :wink:

Campbell argues that this had to do with discovery of the established courses of the visible planets, together with the notion that they were governed by the same laws that governed life on earth - the Sumerians as cultic astrologers.

Yes, and at no time does Campbell claim that any supernatural entities were the cause of any of this. By using Campbell to suggest such things you are twistings his analysis to fit your own.

No, Rich, I've shown repeatedly how my use of Campbell is not to "suggest supernatural entities" but to highlight Sumer for the astounding Civilization it was, for the origins of most "Myth."
It gave us everything, plus "the gods."
And we yet know so little of them.

"It was at this moment in human destiny that the art of writing first appeared in the world and that scriptorially documented history therefore begins. Also, the wheel appeared. And we have evidence of the development of the two numerical systems still normally employed throughout the civilised world, the decimal and the sexigesimal; the former was used mostly for business accounts ... and the latter for ritualistic measuring of space and time as well. Three hundred and sixty degrees, then as now, represented the circumference of a circle - the cycle of the horizon - while three hundred and sixty days, plus five, marked the measurement of the circle of the year, the cycle of time. The five intercalated days.... Were taken to represent a sacred opening through which spiritual energy flowed into the round of the temporal universe [so] they were designated, consequently, days of holy feast and festival."

Well sure, if you have people creating bigger settlements then you have a increasing percentage of the population not dedicated to food production. This gives them all kinds of time for things like creating new tools and ideas and creating the trade to spread them. I believe that the mainstream theory is that temple priests created writing to keep track of goods and services that moved through the temples. Wouldn't this explain why priests were typically the literate castes in most societies? And again, it is of note that these things came after the development of cities and professional religious castes instead of before... as your hypothesis would suggest.

Astronomer-priests were the first Kings of Men, possessors of "Knowledge and Wisdom," as appointed by "the gods." Gilgamesh for example, who claimed he deserved immortality because of being 2/3 divine - his mother was a goddess (curious how females pass on 2/3 of the genetic makeup to their offspring, no?) and yet while scholars acknowledge he was a real king, they fail to acknowledge that these "mythological" aspects actually contain info which we've only rediscovered in that last hundred years or so. When the Epic of Gilgamesh was discovered, even at that time travel to outer space was "impossible," yet, there in the epic, we see Gilgamesh travel to the Land of Tilmun where things (shems -names?) ascend to the "abode of the gods" so he can do so and confront the gods about his right to immortality, being born of a "goddess."

So how does this contradict anything I've said, Rich, making me dishonest?
Asked and answered. You are attempting to apply Campbell as evidence of alien/supernatural intervention in human affairs. Campbell never made any such claim.

I've used Campbell most reasonably. See above.


It is clear that Campbell recognized the "germinal unit" that was Sumer, and not only regarding "myth" and its "characters," but their relation to astronomy / astrology.
But what do you suppose he meant when he stated "...scriptorially documented history therefore begins." ?
Two things:
First, just because Campbell rightfully recognizes Sumer as the starting point of western civilization does not mean that aliens had anything to do with it. Nor does Campbell ever say he believes that gods of any form are responsible for Mesopotamian development. Everything I have read of him demonstrates he believes these people did all of this on their own, stating otherwise is dishonest.

That's just it, I never said "Campbell said aliens did this," did I?

Second, "scriptorially documented history therefore begins" is as simple a statement as any to decipher. How can you have history documented in writing without writing? We can document much of what these people accomplished specificially because they developed writing A.DIM... you can't have "scriptorially documented history" without writing. What is so suggestive of aliens about that statement?

Nothing about "aliens" at all. I asked that question more rhetorically since you stated " ... it is very important to note that Campbell never meant these depicted real events or people..." or some other such, and yet here you're acknowledging that these ancient "myths" in fact contain historical evidences of people, places, and events.

So, what you appear to be doing yourself, Rich, is picking and choosing among the many mundane explanations since "we can document what these people accomplished (or what they claim to have occurred)specifically because they themselves wrote it, right?
That's what I'm saying, Rich.

[A.DIM]

Addendum to the above.

The development of mathematics and the measurements of circles and other geometric patterns go right along with the development of the professional priesthood. If your society depends on good crops for survival, and you are one of the guys who can let them know exactly when to start planting and when to harvest... there's a lot of power in that. Who wouldn't start working on the tools to improve that predictive power? So you developed temples for people to make donations at, and worship the "gods" you made up, and us those donations to subsidize further research into tracking the procession of the seasons through signs in the heavens. What system would you come up with to do that, which wouldn't resemble math? It's a heck of a lot better than guessing when next spring comes along, or when the flood season hits. If you livelyhood, and maybe life, depends on getting these kinds of things right... and you've got several generations to dedicate to it, don't you think those folks are perfectly capable of developing these tools on their own?

"Several generations" can be maybe a few hundred years, and considering the archeological and genetic evidence for seed domestication, I'd say, No.
Several generations is also too short a time span to realize precession of the equinoxes, it takes some 2100yrs for a zodiacal shift, or 1 degree every 72 years! How then, after "several generations" did they come up with a mathematical system that bespeaks a spherical geometry, incorporating the sexigesimal system into their myths expressing numbers related to precession? Coincidence?
Harrumph.... those damned dope-doling astronomer-priest-kings who invented agriculture, astronomy and math, a calendar and writing and all else, and then turned around and blamed it on the "gods" to maintain control! :-?

I find this Origin of Agriculture (http://www.dailygrail.com/node/view/682) paper to be both pertinent and scientific.

"Conclusions:

Agricultural origins cannot at present be conclusively proven to have begun close to 10,000 years ago when additional evidence for agriculture extends further back in prehistory. What can be unequivocally stated is that agriculture had already emerged several times in numerous parts of the world in the last 12,000 to 20,000 years, and possibly as early as 50,000 years ago, with the last 6,000 years producing the most evidence for this cultural phenomenon.

New findings challenge the hypothesis that humans first began as hunter-gatherers and later evolved to agriculturists some 10,000 years ago—a hypothesis that at present has no solid basis in proof, yet is readily believed by many.

Genetic manipulation of plants, particularly cereal grains, occurred at some point in prehistory by people who already had the knowledge to do so. These same people created a vital and lasting human food source, no doubt for very specific reasons.

In each of the major areas of the world where plants and animals were domesticated, we find legends, both written and oral, describing the origin of agriculture as a gift of the gods, culture-bearers who taught indigenous peoples agriculture and the sciences of civilization. (I have written about this elsewhere, in an article soon to be posted on this site.) Could this possibly be coincidence, the accident of mere imagination?

Our ancestors left us more than bones, seeds, stone tools, priestly cults and ritualistic incantations to exotic gods—they left us examples of extraordinary feats of engineering, architecture and sustainable methods of agriculture. They left us legends, myths, epics, and sagas. Isn’t it about time we hear them out?"

My emphasis

And about floods... now that I think of it. The benevolent visitors couldn't institute some flood control measures on the Tigris and Euphrates? What kind of supreme gods are these anyway? Thousands of acres of crops lost each year and how many lives gone to flooding and they don't help out with that a bit? Again, string together some rudimentary flood control with the wheel and copper tools and now we've got hydroelectric power!!! These are the most inefficient and ignorant spaceflight capable guys I can think of in the history of science fiction!

Odd, the tale involving Enki's "splashdown" on earth tells how he performed great feats of irrigation to control such rivers, in order to establish Eridu, a most ancient site, and which means "home in the faraway." Curiously, the word "Earth" can be traced back through, Earthe, Erthe, Ordu..... to Eridu - earth - a "home in the faraway" for the anunnaki, the "gods," ultimate bestowers of civilization upon the earthlings.
But I'd have to say that what the Anunnaki taught the Sumerians far outweighs your opinion that "these are the most inefficient and ignorant" beings, because according to the "myths," what they DID do for us has had a lasting and most profound influence on human progress.

[Disinfo Agent]

***snip*** - only to point out that "God" here is elohim, a plural word that should be read as "gods."
A.DIM, elohim isn't necessarily a plural. You've been told this before (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=158970#158970).

For those who never heard of him, he came up the idea that Earth was visited in the past by aliens...
I've read very little Daniken, but I must point out that this is incorrect.

It is ancient mythology that first asserted there were "those who from Heaven to Earth Came" - the Anunnaki of the Sumerians - the Elohim, Nephilim and Malachim of the Bible, [...]
So? I see no reference to aliens in there.

[...] the Egyptians believed their "gods" came from the Planet of Millions of Years, or the Abode of the Gods [...]
Can we see a source for this?

[Rich]

why on earth would some tribes strive to find "the means" when they had no reasons to do it. humans were hunter/gatherers for a long time, why the change in behavioural habits, when those same habits have provided for human kind for millenia and still do in some parts of the world?
Who said they "strove" for domesticated crops? It could have been quite accidental selection... and all you really have to do is leave a few handfuls of the larger seeds in the field in which you found them. We know that Homo Sapiens was wandering about for at least 400,000 years before we began to "settle down". Is 400,000 years of mostly undirected crop selection too few for you?

well, you need much more than a thought and that is an over simplification of the problems involved with practicing agriculture. specially in its development. most of the seeds in use today have gone through a process of genetic selection which transformed them into usefull growable food, unlike their wild counterparts. if this process was done entirely by trial and error by humans then it would have taken a very long time. actually, so long a time that one has to wonder what was their motivation at all to go through the process without even knowing the end result.
Again, what "motivation" is needed. Is near 400,000 years too short a time period for you. Certainly at some point folks started to notice certain seeds were getting bigger and might have tried to further the process deliberately. At that point how many of those 400,000 years are needed?

and even if it was possible or made any sense for humans to engage in agriculture we still would have to explain how some of their seeds came into existance, for example maze which has no counterpart in wild plants.
Modern cattle also have no wild counterparts. They are beasts completely removed from a "natural" existance over thousands of years of domestication. How did they get here? We can largely trace their development so we know we did it over more than 100,000 years, no real mystery. So, I kind of have to ask: What's your point?

somehow your explanation doesnt jive. shamans have used natural substances to induce alterate states of mind for millenia. shamanism is still a practice of many jungle dwellers.
I said it "an" explanation, not "the" explanation. And many animals love to get high and seek out plants with mind-altering properties and over-ripe fruit, watch Animal Planet sometime... it's a riot watching lemurs get all pyschedelic on millipede toxins. In anycase, if you can find a way to make more of a substance in demand that is always better. I'm sure it didn't take long for some tribal cook to figure out how to make beer and to share that secret with the rest of the tribe. Afterall, who would want to grab a little bit of power away from the group leaders.

And forms of shamanism are still practiced by individuals in many western societies as well, you point?

do you have any example of another primate species that has that natural need for larger families? a human baby is unlike most other animal cubs, its quite fragile and dependant for a great part of his young life. therefore it is also quite a burden to human females, not forgetting the fact that it takes nine months on average to conceive a child. i do not see the whys and hows for that need to constitute larger families.
All species strive for larger numbers, it is a necessary survival instinct. The typical limitations are livable habitat and the resources therein. A group will expand to fill the liveable habitat, always. Sometimes they produce numbers beyond what a habitat will support. Several things generally happen then. They strip their food supply and all but those resistant to famine (or strong enough to fight for food) die; predators feast and boom in numbers and cull the group back down; they move to close-by similar habitat; and somtimes they go extinct.

So, what happens when you get a species sufficiently different enough to be able to survive in a larger range of habitats? They begin to fill all of those habitats. Enter Homo Sapiens stage right.

all primates in this planet are hunter/gatherers, all have survived for countless millenia. all have passed on their genes and are absolutely adapted to their surroundings. why on earth only one species of primates found the will to settle down and invent civilization.
By this loose definition every animal on the planet (and some plants) are hunter gatherers. Why do some grow larger populations than others? Why do some develop the ability to use tools?

you find it "funny" but i never said i had "a problem" with a humanistic approach. that is in itself quite funny. i just dont find it to be the only available way to explain observations. besides being an unbiased stance of mine i found out that an intervention scenario copes much better with all the anomalies of human development. it even explains that shadowy part of human culture which some have dubbed "mythology".
Alien/intervention explanations are not the best explanations. They don't even jibe with much of what we do know. There are no "anamolies" but those that you invent. What you think of a strange or unexplained are actually normal and well explained. You simply prefer a less well supported and wild explanation. That's a choice, not a matter of evidence, and not "unbiased".


compared to the millions of years proposed by the evolution theory for all the tiny mutations which lead to a functional human body. and the millions of years that humans dwelled in forests and jungles. i find that the appearance of civilization was a relatively quick process.
Once the millions of years of evolution present a physiology and brain structure capable of complex tool creation, advanced language, and long-term planning I would hope civilization should come in short order after that. Once again we see here a confusion between biological evolution and the development and advancement of culture and civilization. Once the biological tools are in place the species can go as far as it's phsyiology will allow. There was no necessary biological change for homo sapiens to move from hunter/gathering to settlements. We already had all the necessary tools.

Quote Rich:
FYI - The "other tribes of humans" that still live in the jungles and find no reason to leave them almost all have two strikes against them: they are geographically isolated and have limited access to superior building materials.
that is an overtly western view of "those other tribes of humans". a view which i will not indulge with a commentary. i will just say that those tribes have lived in union with nature for ages and are being destroyed precisely because of those "building materials" which you call inferior.
The phrase "those other tribes of humans" was yours Outcast, hence the quotation marks. If you have a problem with it address yourself. I don't view any aboriginal people as inferior, though the tool making and building materials available to them may be. No Outcast, you won't get by me with any veiled racebaiting, deliberate or not.

And the comment stands. Wood, clay, obsidian, and flint are inferior tool making and building materials to metals such as copper and iron. You might not like it, but the fact remains. Almost every modern instance of "primitive" societies have two things in common they are geographically isolated from others who they might share knowledge and trade with for better tools, and they have very limited (or no) access to the materials to create superior tools. This is true in parts of the South Pacific, the Amazon, in parts of Africa and elsewhere. You can't just brush facts away because you, wrongly, label them the product of Western chauvanism... sorry. And yes, some of those societies are dying because the environment is changing and they don't have access to better tool making materials to survive those changes. It is unfortunate and irrelevant to this thread.

And to demonstrate that even Homo Sapiens is not immune to the results of outstripping their resources look up Easter Island. There you have a perfect example of what happens when even we expand beyond what our habitat can provide.

that is a theory yet to be proven since there are no certainties as to where exactly did we came from.
Won't argue this with you since places like Talk Origins can explain it so much better than I can. Please note I said "almost certainly". It is not polite to suggest I intended to indicate certainty when my words clearly indicate otherwise.
one fact though, as a species we're one of a kind. This is just a weird non-sequitor... so what? Or should I start listing our similarities with other mammals?

Quote Rich:
Another thing... the whole "jungle" thing is a very common misconception. Our distant primate ancestors may have originally developed in jungle settings (and I can't stress "may" enough), but Homo Sapiens is almost certainly a product of savanah life.
well, yep. but that was my initial question all along. a question which i think you did not answer and for which there are anything but open interpretations. the intervention theory is just another interpretation just as valid has anyother
What are you concerned with now? Because you're starting to head in a totally different direction with this. Are we talking about how Homo Sapiens got to be Homo Sapiens or are we talking about how Homo Sapiens went from hunter/gatherers to largely settled peoples? Notice, we don't stop being Homo Sapiens as we transition from one to the other. So, where does your problem lay: that Homo Sapiens emerged as a primate with all the biological tools at our disposal or that after several hundred thousand years we started to move from a wandering lifestlye to a hunter/gatherer lifestyle?

despite the bad mouthing it usualy takes by the likes of those who pretend to know and which seek the funding to engage in their pet theorizing and see no further than mainstream aggrandizement.
Hmmm, or is it that you really just like to feel like the downtrodden outsider? Poor you, asked to provide evidence instead of empty conjecture before people will give you money to pursue your theories. Unlike all those mainstream guys who get bags of money for simply spouting nonsense and are never asked to demonstrate any evidence or to pass their findings for peer review.... :roll: .... Oh wait... Yeah, sarcasm blaster at full charge, I'd say I'm sorry but a) I'm not and b) this is such an oft-used, ridiculous, and thoroughly debunked excuse that you really should be ashamed to use it.

Hey A.DIM, I'll try to get to your responses sometime soon, I'm not ignoring you!

[Taibak]

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?

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?

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.

Edited to add a missing word.

[Outcast]

Who said they "strove" for domesticated crops?
you did:

At that point you've got a really good impetus to find better ways of securing the materials to make the alcohol. That may be wheat and barely in some places and rice in others.

this was your assumption, wasnt it? that beer and its making materials were a reason for humans to settle down and begin agriculture, further developing civilization as a necessity for maintaining its production. at least thats how i interpreted your words.

It could have been quite accidental selection

it could have. or maybe it was exactly how those ancient peoples said it happened. they have texts describing how agriculture was tought to them, did you know? do you think they were lying? or maybe their brains got fried from drinking too much beer.

[Outcast]

Simply put, if the Anunnaki actually existed, where are the artifacts?

why should there be any "artifacts"? what kind of artifacts are you expecting to find? maybe a space rocket or a wrist watch?
maybe we've allready found artifacts but they were wrongly interpreted as being something else. for example the vase like objects found beneath Zoser's pyramid. were such precisely crafted objects used as kitchen utensils?

the recent tsunami in indonesia is a perfect example of how nature can lay entire cities to waste. who knows what happened in the millenia that passed since the anunnaki presence on Earth. Sumeria itself was beneath the sands of the desert untill it was found and dug out. actually at the time of the Sumerians, that desert was a verdant and fertile plain.

[Outcast]

Unlike all those mainstream guys who get bags of money for simply spouting nonsense and are never asked to demonstrate any evidence or to pass their findings for peer review.... .... Oh wait... Yeah, sarcasm blaster at full charge, I'd say I'm sorry but a) I'm not and b) this is such an oft-used, ridiculous, and thoroughly debunked excuse that you really should be ashamed to use it.

despite your attempt at sarcasm, you forget the most important problem. those "poor" mainstream guys do not go against the secular ingrained institutions which dominate the "civilized" world. religion and state power are, despite your sarcasm, what rules our world and anything that contradicts both those religions is not to be pursued or supported.
with all your sapience it seems you do not understand this most simple premise: knowlledge is power.

[Kesh]

Outcast, it sounds as if your entire argument relies on one premise: "The Powers That Be dictate what is acceptable."

Which is a straw-man argument. It's an unprovable which allows you to selectively choose from any examples we give to contradict your points.

[Rich]

Who said they "strove" for domesticated crops?
you did:

At that point you've got a really good impetus to find better ways of securing the materials to make the alcohol. That may be wheat and barely in some places and rice in others.

this was your assumption, wasnt it? that beer and its making materials were a reason for humans to settle down and begin agriculture, further developing civilization as a necessity for maintaining its production. at least thats how i interpreted your words.
You are confusing the difference between an impetus to settle with already sustainable food crops and the impetus to create those crops. I never claimed that those crops were, at least at first, intentionally developed. But once you have a sustainable foodcrop and very desirable products to make with it you have a strong impetus to stay in one place to raise and reap such materials. You haven't answered how long you think it might take to get a sustainable foodcrop through accidental selection. Is 100,000 years long enough? How about 400,000?

It could have been quite accidental selection

it could have. or maybe it was exactly how those ancient peoples said it happened. they have texts describing how agriculture was tought to them, did you know? do you think they were lying? or maybe their brains got fried from drinking too much beer.
Their brains may just have been fried from taking in too many narcotic and psychedelic substances... or at least with very little understanding of how those products changed their brain chemistry they believed anything they saw or heard during such non-lucid moments was real instead of the product of a drunk or drug addled mind.

despite your attempt at sarcasm, you forget the most important problem. those "poor" mainstream guys do not go against the secular ingrained institutions which dominate the "civilized" world. religion and state power are, despite your sarcasm, what rules our world and anything that contradicts both those religions is not to be pursued or supported.
Are you actually confusing the difference between secular authority and religious authority? You think that religion determines secular thought? By definition you got it bassackwards.

I find it highly amusing that you think religious and other centers of power have a highly vested interest in portraying sets of beliefs very beneficial to continuing their hold on power today(though you fail to explain how a secular gov't or evil corporation benefits from one explanation of ancient history over another), but you can't see how ancient religious leaders and kings would have benefitted in the same way from any versions of history that actually directly legitimized their hold on power. After all, if you are a god, are descended from one, or are the duly appointed mouthpiece for one that's a pretty good reason to listen to you... right? So, if you feel so strongly that the holders of power are deliberately lying today than you are a hypocrit to not accept that ancient leaders were just as prone and benefitted just as much from lying about their history.

with all your sapience it seems you do not understand this most simple premise: knowlledge is power.
And with all of your misdirection you have confused yourself. Read my last paragraph and please explain why you can so readily accept extremely duplicitous behavior across the academic, religious, corporate, and secular governmental world today but fail to accept that any such lies were not only possible, but more likely in the ancient world given the distribution of power and literacy.

why should there be any "artifacts"? what kind of artifacts are you expecting to find? maybe a space rocket or a wrist watch?
maybe we've allready found artifacts but they were wrongly interpreted as being something else. for example the vase like objects found beneath Zoser's pyramid. were such precisely crafted objects used as kitchen utensils?

the recent tsunami in indonesia is a perfect example of how nature can lay entire cities to waste. who knows what happened in the millenia that passed since the anunnaki presence on Earth. Sumeria itself was beneath the sands of the desert untill it was found and dug out. actually at the time of the Sumerians, that desert was a verdant and fertile plain.
And yet we have artifacts from the human societies of those days. You're telling us that not a single alien artifact remains. No space-age materials, no platics, no off-world isotopes, nothing? Sorry, the failure of logic and evidence here is complete. How about some evidence.

And again I ask where your argument lies. You keep jumping tracks between Homo Sapiens not having the ability to create crops accidentally or on purpose, not having the "drive" to create settlements, not having the ability to create of invent much of anything, and that any and or all of this happened too "suddenly" with no definition of "suddenly". What exactly do you object to again, or is it that you simply object to everything that humanity has accomplished?

[Taibak]

Simply put, if the Anunnaki actually existed, where are the artifacts?

why should there be any "artifacts"?

It's a fundamental rule of archaeology. Whenever people go somewhere, they leave their trash behind. If, as you say, the Annunaki were in contact with Earth for an extensive period of time, they should also have left stuff behind. Something should have found its way into a trash heap. Alien seeds should have found their way to Mesopotamia. Someone should have lost something and left it behind. Where are the artifacts?

what kind of artifacts are you expecting to find? maybe a space rocket or a wrist watch?

Actually, those would be perfect examples of what I'd want to see. If the Annunaki had all this advanced technology that they were using to help teach the Sumerians, we should be able to find some. Show me something that is definitively NOT bronze age Mesopotamian.

maybe we've allready found artifacts but they were wrongly interpreted as being something else. for example the vase like objects found beneath Zoser's pyramid. were such precisely crafted objects used as kitchen utensils?

Possible, but you'd need something that's induspitably alien to prove your case. As for the vases, they could be kitchen utensils, they could be ceremonial, they could be decorative.

the recent tsunami in indonesia is a perfect example of how nature can lay entire cities to waste. who knows what happened in the millenia that passed since the anunnaki presence on Earth. Sumeria itself was beneath the sands of the desert untill it was found and dug out. actually at the time of the Sumerians, that desert was a verdant and fertile plain.

This doesn't help your case, to be honest. Nature rarely erases all evidence of human activity. We've found cities buried beneath deserts, we've found settlements that are now underwater, we've found cities that have been buried by volcanos. You can't just postulate a natural disaster that wiped out any and all evidence for something. Bottom line - if you don't have any evidence, you don't have a case.

[Van Rijn]

the recent tsunami in indonesia is a perfect example of how nature can lay entire cities to waste. who knows what happened in the millenia that passed since the anunnaki presence on Earth. Sumeria itself was beneath the sands of the desert untill it was found and dug out. actually at the time of the Sumerians, that desert was a verdant and fertile plain.

This doesn't help your case, to be honest. Nature rarely erases all evidence of human activity. We've found cities buried beneath deserts, we've found settlements that are now underwater, we've found cities that have been buried by volcanos. You can't just postulate a natural disaster that wiped out any and all evidence for something. Bottom line - if you don't have any evidence, you don't have a case.

I'd go further and say that disasters like tsunamis are exactly why you would expect to find evidence if there was some. Buildings, ships, etc. that aren't destroyed tend to be recycled and reused for other purposes. Disasters are fantastic sources for archaeological evidence. In the future, digs will turn up bits and pieces from the current disaster.

I look at this as a type of ID argument, based on the assumption that people are unable to do their own thinking. I don't think it should be a surprise that it takes tools to make tools, and some of those tools are conceptual. After certain key tools are developed, you should see some acceleration in technological development: Agriculture allows people to stay in one place, so they can accumulate possessions. Timing becomes important, hence math. Tracking material becomes important, hence writing. This builds on itself leading to further developments. If anything, I think development was held back repeatedly by mistakes, war, and natural disaster.

So, a question: In the last 200 years technological development has dwarfed anything that happened before. Is this supposed to be "evidence" that we are being supplied by aliens in the shadows?

[Outcast]

Rich wrote:

You haven't answered how long you think it might take to get a sustainable foodcrop through accidental selection. Is 100,000 years long enough? How about 400,000?

how about never?
species tend to move to where the food is, primates will never get too far from the jungle or from where they can easily find food. primates do not engage in agriculture just because such thing is possible, even through "accidental selection". if that was possible we'de have to explain why all other species of primates did'nt have the same "idea".

as a matter of fact its in the hands of those who propose that such thing as "accidental selection" is possible to prove exactly how and why it happened and where did it all start. if this was a human invented activity why isnt it described as such in the Sumerian texts? after all, the Sumerians are believed to be the craddle of civilization and from their texts its understood they knew the difference between the human's and the "god's" activities. they wrote extensively about them both.

You are confusing the difference between an impetus to settle with already sustainable food crops and the impetus to create those crops. I never claimed that those crops were, at least at first, intentionally developed. But once you have a sustainable foodcrop and very desirable products to make with it you have a strong impetus to stay in one place to raise and reap such materials.

again you do not touch the why's for how such process should have occured and also how the first seeds were "accidentaly selected" in order to become the growable and usable food they became. like i said before many of these seeds didnt exist in nature and some of them are so different from their wild counterparts that they seem to have been genetically engineered. who was making this kind of work in Mesopotamia (and in other places of the world) 6000 + years ago and what were their motivations?

Their brains may just have been fried from taking in too many narcotic and psychedelic substances... or at least with very little understanding of how those products changed their brain chemistry they believed anything they saw or heard during such non-lucid moments was real instead of the product of a drunk or drug addled mind.

do you know what exactly these psychadelic substances do in the brain? the last time i checked, science understood which chemicals are involved (at least some of them) but has no idea of what is happening in the brain while its under the influence of these chemicals or why they do what they do.
have you ever thought that maybe shamans know exactly what they're doing when they take this substances? i guess thats a subject for another discussion.

anyway if their brains were that addled then i wonder how on earth did they managed to erect the Sumerian civilization. some of the Sumerian texts i've read do not seem to come from the minds of drug addled folks but if psychadelic substances are the reason for that amazing culture why are they consistently being banned from our society?

Are you actually confusing the difference between secular authority and religious authority? You think that religion determines secular thought? By definition you got it bassackwards.

i dont understand what you mean.
what is your definition of a "secular authority"?
do i think that religion determines secular thought? if secular thought means what i think it means then yes.

I find it highly amusing that you think religious and other centers of power have a highly vested interest in portraying sets of beliefs very beneficial to continuing their hold on power today(though you fail to explain how a secular gov't or evil corporation benefits from one explanation of ancient history over another),

how does a secular "corporation" benefit from the belief that there exists an omnipotent metaphysical god which created mankind from the mud of the earth, rules over the whole world in an omnipresent way, has set positions of power on a secular authoritarian cast ruling system and shall in the end judge us after our death? why, indeed... what an idea that that could be in anyway beneficial to some and of interest to maintain.

but you can't see how ancient religious leaders and kings would have benefitted in the same way from any versions of history that actually directly legitimized their hold on power. After all, if you are a god, are descended from one, or are the duly appointed mouthpiece for one that's a pretty good reason to listen to you... right? So, if you feel so strongly that the holders of power are deliberately lying today than you are a hypocrit to not accept that ancient leaders were just as prone and benefitted just as much from lying about their history.

why are you calling me a hyprocit? do you really need to resort to name calling? sheesh. [-X

there are reasons why the Kingships of old lost their power to the metaphyscal strength of the religions of today. the most important of all is that the "gods" left us to our chance. the "gods" who once commandered Kings like Gilgamesh, Ammurabi, Abraham or David and participated directly in maintaining their kingships over the "rabbles" are apparently gone. in fact, it wasnt only the Kings who benifited from or witnessed the gods in action, there are enoumerous examples of texts which speak of those times. therefore, according to you, everyone was either lying, drunk or high on psychadelic drugs. not a very scientific interpretation though.

but fail to accept that any such lies were not only possible, but more likely in the ancient world given the distribution of power and literacy.

so you're saying that we should throw away all of the ancient texts because they could have been influenced by political or religious agendas?
im with you, but first lets start with all the history books of recent centuries. or do you believe there's no political or religious agendas influencing those?

And yet we have artifacts from the human societies of those days.

so? we have pottery and other artifacts, which is only natural for there were large ammounts of people. people which lived in those cities produced artifacts for use in their daily lives.
on the other hand the ancient texts speak of a very reduced number of gods. according to the Sumerians, 50 was the number of Anunnaki (meaning "those who from heaven to earth came") that first landed on the waters of the Persian Golf, this first group was followed by another 300. 300 others remained in the orbiting space station, the so called I.GI.GI, meaning "those who observe". so, if we trust the Sumerians, we understand that there was never an alien civilization on Earth at any time like some of you insinuate. the most of their operations (which are yet to be understood) were mainly extracting materials from Earth and taking them to the orbital space station. not only that, but according to the Sumerians, very few of the "gods" actually stayed on Earth for long periods of time.

i'll not pretend to know what they were doing, what were their intentions. i dont even follow Sitchin's theories on this. but i'll not discard something that was recorded for so many thousand of years by so many people, in such different parts of the world, just because we cannot find an Anunnakian wrist watch.

besides that, there is recorded evidence that the King Naram-Sin, descendant of Sargon destroyed most of the Anunnakian instalations on Earth. including their operations space port. Naram-Sin boasts of having destroyed EN.LI's E-kur (the house which is like a mountain). the akkadian poem "The curse of Agade" describes the effect of Naram-Sin's weapons:

"Leveled it down to the foundation of the land.
He tore up its mes-trees,
The raining dust rose sky high.
He struck its doorposts,
Cut off the vitality of the land."

"From its "Gate from which grain is never diverted", he diverted grain, and the Land was deprived of grain. He struck the "Gate of Well-Being" with the pickaxe, and well-being was subverted in all the foreign lands. As if they were for great tracts of land with wide carp-filled waters, he cast large spades to be used against the E-kur. The people could see the bedchamber, its room which knows no daylight. The Akkadians could look into the holy treasure chest of the gods. Though they had committed no sacrilege, its lahama deities of the great pilasters standing at the temple were thrown into the fire by Naram-Suen."

swift retribution came to Naram-Sin though, EN.LIL with the suport of the convenant of the gods destroyed the city of Agade so thourougly that to this day the site of the city has not been found. the poem tells us how nothing could ever be grown in that area after EN.LIL's attack and people died of hunger and desease.

Sorry, the failure of logic and evidence here is complete. How about some evidence.

there is no failure of logic here. in fact, failure of logic would be to engage in "mythologification" of all these events. allthough i cannot present an Anunnakian space rocket to satisfy the skeptics i will say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Outcast]

Taibak wrote:

Actually, those would be perfect examples of what I'd want to see. If the Annunaki had all this advanced technology that they were using to help teach the Sumerians, we should be able to find some. Show me something that is definitively NOT bronze age Mesopotamian.

now here's a frequent misconception. if you'd read the Sumerian texts you'd undestand that there is no word for "worship" in Sumerian. in fact, the Sumerians did not worship their gods they litteraly worked for them. most of the earlier texts are just accounting and business relationship records. in these texts the gods are real figures which take their share of the provisions. some are described has having particular culinary tastes, and the "priests" were required to make certain preparations with their food before serving. maybe the origins of some religious cerimonies?

what seems apparent is that there was no concerted effort to teach humanity in anyway. the gods did chose from time to time certain human individualities to teach their ways but i think that the origins of agriculture and animal breeding happened because they didnt want to make the job themselfs.

[Omicron Persei 8]

How is a story suppose to be considered fact? Is someone 4000 years from now going to discover a copy of 2001 and determine that past humans had found a monolith on Iapetus? Why couldn't there be something along the lines as fiction so long ago?

The line between imagination and reality is blurred to those who want it that way. You're looking at stories as concrete proof.

[Rich]

Rich wrote:

You haven't answered how long you think it might take to get a sustainable foodcrop through accidental selection. Is 100,000 years long enough? How about 400,000?

how about never?
Ok, at least we are establishing what you really think.

species tend to move to where the food is, primates will never get too far from the jungle or from where they can easily find food. primates do not engage in agriculture just because such thing is possible, even through "accidental selection". if that was possible we'de have to explain why all other species of primates did'nt have the same "idea".
Because none of the other species of primates developed brains capable of long-term planning... it is one of the hallmarks of Homo Sapiens. Are you really saying there is no fundamental difference between Homo Sapiens and all of our primate predecessors and modern cousins? You need to go back to biology class and study your own evolution some more.

as a matter of fact its in the hands of those who propose that such thing as "accidental selection" is possible to prove exactly how and why it happened and where did it all start. if this was a human invented activity why isnt it described as such in the Sumerian texts?
Because the process was so far removed in their own past that they had to invent reasons and processes by which it happened, because no one remembered how it really was. By your logic every creation tale must be correct as well. Most of simply acknowledge that creation myths are the product of humans trying to explain "how we got here" and have little bearing on the actual creation of the universe, solar system, and planet. Should we literally interpret all of these accounts too? Does Earth ride upon the back of a giant turtle?

after all, the Sumerians are believed to be the craddle of civilization and from their texts its understood they knew the difference between the human's and the "god's" activities. they wrote extensively about them both.
There are a number of other societal centers in Southern Asia and in Africa which may have actually been first actually. But, how exactly is it "understood" that they knew the difference between human and "godly" activities? Because their priest classes wrote such things? The very people the most vested, and with the most to gain, in a belief in dieties told you dieties exist.... hmmmmm? Just because they wrote about them doesn't mean they didn't just make them up. You have to give actual evidence that it isn't just all made up, not just keep repeating that it simply can't be.

You are confusing the difference between an impetus to settle with already sustainable food crops and the impetus to create those crops. I never claimed that those crops were, at least at first, intentionally developed. But once you have a sustainable foodcrop and very desirable products to make with it you have a strong impetus to stay in one place to raise and reap such materials.

again you do not touch the why's for how such process should have occured and also how the first seeds were "accidentaly selected" in order to become the growable and usable food they became.
All that it takes is for one person to say, "Hey, I like this stuff. We should leave some of the seeds here, so when we return next season there will be more of it..."

You aren't claiming that Homo Sapiens (us, remember, physically and brain capability exactly the same as you and me) couldn't recognize that plants came from seeds? Or are you claiming that no one might have thought it nice to leave some seeds behind to ensure more juicy berries, or more tasty barley for next year? Or are you claiming that no one might suppose that leaving some of the bigger seeds behind will mean plants that in turn tend to have bigger seeds on a return visit? Mix and stir for 400,000 years and you might just get sustainable food crops. Once again, is 400,000 years long enough for this kind of selection to produce something sustainable?

like i said before many of these seeds didnt exist in nature and some of them are so different from their wild counterparts that they seem to have been genetically engineered. who was making this kind of work in Mesopotamia (and in other places of the world) 6000 + years ago and what were their motivations?
Once again, the process of creating sustainable crops started (most likely not deliberately) looooong before this... stop changing tracks. Or are you being deliberately obtuse? We know we have done the same thing with animals over a much shorter time period, and we can genetically track the changes. I'll point you to cattle, again. BTW, there is no real difference between selective breeding and genetic engineering when you get right down to it. All the modern genetic engineering gives you is a wider range of species from which to choose your genetic material... like even between the different kingdoms.

You need to remember that humans were living in well developed agricultural settlements for thousands of years before the vaunted Mesopotamians. We have bountiful archeological evidence for this. It is simply that around 4000 BCE that we see some interesting things like the development of writing, much larger settlements start to become more common, and collections of communities that we might call "states", that share common language, laws, and religion. So, once again we have a time discrepancy with the Annuki/alien intervention argument. Why would the aliens come down and hand out agriculture to thousands of scattered human tribes who formed thousands of scattered settlements throughout the world... but wait for at least 20,000 years and maybe as many as 50,000 years to come back and hand out law, writing, appoint kings, etc.? Don't you think that at least 20,000 years of settled living might be enough for some folks to develop those things on their own? You've got between 20,000 and 50,000 years to develop these things and you can't imagine anyone could do it without help can you?

Their brains may just have been fried from taking in too many narcotic and psychedelic substances... or at least with very little understanding of how those products changed their brain chemistry they believed anything they saw or heard during such non-lucid moments was real instead of the product of a drunk or drug addled mind.

do you know what exactly these psychadelic substances do in the brain?
Actually, we do have a pretty good idea of exactly what alcohols and drugs do to the brain these days. You should pick up a medical journal sometime. It's pretty neat to see the changes through an MRI and watch long-term degradation through a series of MRIs scans of the brain.

the last time i checked, science understood which chemicals are involved (at least some of them) but has no idea of what is happening in the brain while its under the influence of these chemicals or why they do what they do.
Whoa! Waaaaay wrong there Outcast. Again, you might want to get out a do some reading of actual peer reviewed medicine these days. Heck, even trash like Time and Newsweek do a somewhat legitimate job of boiling it down to something understandable if you can get past the political posturing and scare tactics.

have you ever thought that maybe shamans know exactly what they're doing when they take this substances? i guess thats a subject for another discussion.
I think they thought they knew exactly what they were doing. I don't think they even understood how their brains worked, heck we know the Egyptians thought conciousness was in the heart and the brain was largely useless. Are you suggesting that by taking the local equivalent of peyote that they actually did commune with the spirit world and talk with the gods? This should be an interesting reply.

anyway if their brains were that addled then i wonder how on earth did they managed to erect the Sumerian civilization. some of the Sumerian texts i've read do not seem to come from the minds of drug addled folks but if psychadelic substances are the reason for that amazing culture why are they consistently being banned from our society?
Hey, just because they believed what they say while high was real, doesn't mean they were high all the time... and nowhere did I make such an assertion. Stop creating strawmen for us to topple back onto you and start to make some coherent arguments please.

Are you actually confusing the difference between secular authority and religious authority? You think that religion determines secular thought? By definition you got it bassackwards.

i dont understand what you mean.
what is your definition of a "secular authority"?
do i think that religion determines secular thought? if secular thought means what i think it means then yes.
Secular is by definition outside of religion. Some might even say it's opposite.

I find it highly amusing that you think religious and other centers of power have a highly vested interest in portraying sets of beliefs very beneficial to continuing their hold on power today(though you fail to explain how a secular gov't or evil corporation benefits from one explanation of ancient history over another),

how does a secular "corporation" benefit from the belief that there exists an omnipotent metaphysical god which created mankind from the mud of the earth, rules over the whole world in an omnipresent way, has set positions of power on a secular authoritarian cast ruling system and shall in the end judge us after our death? Again you confuse secular and religious... a secular authority (present U.S. president aside) does not claim it's power from a religious source. To claim such is oxymoronic. But, seriously, please explain how... say... GE benefits from you or I believing that there weren't really ancient Mesopotamian gods who did all of this stuff. How exactly does that particular ancient history benefit GE, or GM, or Sony, or Haliburton (which might just be a truly evil corporation... but still)....

why, indeed... what an idea that that could be in anyway beneficial to some and of interest to maintain.
Yeah, modern religions certainly have vested interest in you not believing in any other gods... even each others. But please explain again why Colgate would care?

but you can't see how ancient religious leaders and kings would have benefitted in the same way from any versions of history that actually directly legitimized their hold on power. After all, if you are a god, are descended from one, or are the duly appointed mouthpiece for one that's a pretty good reason to listen to you... right? So, if you feel so strongly that the holders of power are deliberately lying today than you are a hypocrit to not accept that ancient leaders were just as prone and benefitted just as much from lying about their history.

why are you calling me a hyprocit? do you really need to resort to name calling? sheesh. [-X
It's not name-calling if your thought patterns and behavior reflect a hypocrisy. Namely that you think modern invested powers capable of such culminy but can't accept that ancient elites would have been not only more interested and vested in creating myths that directly empowered them, but more capable of such culminy due to the vast imbalances in ancient power structures and the very limited literacy of the day.

there are reasons why the Kingships of old lost their power to the metaphyscal strength of the religions of today. the most important of all is that the "gods" left us to our chance. the "gods" who once commandered Kings like Gilgamesh, Ammurabi, Abraham or David and participated directly in maintaining their kingships over the "rabbles" are apparently gone. in fact, it wasnt only the Kings who benifited from or witnessed the gods in action, there are enoumerous examples of texts which speak of those times.
Blah, blah, blah... how very convenient that the guys who benefitted the most from the stories of ancient gods were the only ones who typically saw them in action. Outcast, Annukai aliens call me every night and tell me you are full of it. Seriously, they only talk to me their soon to be appointed planetary emperor. They say that all of humanity should bow to my will because I am the annointed one and that on my death I shall become on of them (neener, neener, neener... Iiiii'm better than youuuuu-ewwww). Come-on, prove me wrong. Oh, but let's add to the scenario that I am very rich, have my own private army, can read and write... but you are so poor you literally farm mud, can't read, regularly suppliment your meager diet with fleas and lice off of your own body, and are lucky just to find a non-diseased female to bare your children. Assuming you had some evidence that I was full of crap, who are your fellow mudwallowers going to believe... the guy with the crazy hair who eats lice... or me: with the nice cloths, who might give them a piece of bread, and who hangs-out with the gods. In fact, my very success: the cloths, the money, the harem, the good food, all inidicate that I must be favored by the gods where you are not. How else could I have gotten all that while you wallow in misery? (Well, at the point of a spear of course... but it doesn't benefit me to remind you of that. Much better that you think "the gods" have made me somehow better than you.)

therefore, according to you, everyone was either lying, drunk or high on psychadelic drugs. not a very scientific interpretation though.
Don't forget honestly mistaken. But it only takes a couple of generations to make this crap up and lie. After that just about everyone else will buy the story if only because, as far as they know, everyone always has.

but fail to accept that any such lies were not only possible, but more likely in the ancient world given the distribution of power and literacy.
so you're saying that we should throw away all of the ancient texts because they could have been influenced by political or religious agendas?
im with you, but first lets start with all the history books of recent centuries. or do you believe there's no political or religious agendas influencing those?
No, I'm saying we have to recognize what those agendas were and filter the information we get from them accordingly. Realize that the powerful in those days staked their very survival on the masses believing this stuff and suddenly a lot of these stories make more sense. And if you think there is not tons of fighting about the content and biases of a lot of modern histories (let's say the last 400 years) then you don't do a lot of actual academic historical reading. (Like I couldn't tell.) There is great debate on a number of issues and how much all kinds of biases may have influence certain interpretations of various events. That you would draw another strawman on this particular topic demonstrates just how lacking your actual knowledge of how modern historical research is conducted.

And yet we have artifacts from the human societies of those days.
so? we have pottery and other artifacts, which is only natural for there were large ammounts of people. people which lived in those cities produced artifacts for use in their daily lives.
on the other hand the ancient texts speak of a very reduced number of gods. according to the Sumerians, 50 was the number of Anunnaki (meaning "those who from heaven to earth came") that first landed on the waters of the Persian Golf, this first group was followed by another 300. 300 others remained in the orbiting space station, the so called I.GI.GI, meaning "those who observe". so, if we trust the Sumerians, we understand that there was never an alien civilization on Earth at any time like some of you insinuate. the most of their operations (which are yet to be understood) were mainly extracting materials from Earth and taking them to the orbital space station. not only that, but according to the Sumerians, very few of the "gods" actually stayed on Earth for long periods of time.

i'll not pretend to know what they were doing, what were their intentions. i dont even follow Sitchin's theories on this. but i'll not discard something that was recorded for so many thousand of years by so many people, in such different parts of the world, just because we cannot find an Anunnakian wrist watch.
Special Pleading is what this and most of the remainder of your post boil down to. They didn't leave anything behind because of some extra special destruction above and beyond the kind that has left traces of every other ancient civilization. I don't need a wristwatch... just a scrap of ancient plastic, an artifact of alien isotopes... something. Heck, I will take a regular pottery shard with a clay of alien isotopes... or that has the remains of a glaze with alien isotopes... where is this stuff? You know where archeologists get a whole lot of their best stuff? Ancient trash heaps. Where are the alien trash heaps... you don't suppose they recycled everything do you? I mean they can't be bothered with rudimentary electricity or the arch, so I'm kind of assuming recycling might have been low on their list of priorities as well.

Sorry, the failure of logic and evidence here is complete. How about some evidence.
there is no failure of logic here. in fact, failure of logic would be to engage in "mythologification" of all these events. allthough i cannot present an Anunnakian space rocket to satisfy the skeptics i will say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I stand by my assertion. You have provided nothing but your preference that ancient myths be true. Your repeated strawmans and assertions that are so wrong about the actual state of such things as actual modern academic historical debate and modern medical knowledge demonstrates a deep ignorance of almost everything about which you are arguing. Really Outcast, I enjoy these discussions but your obtusity, strawmen, and either deliberate of faked ignorance on a wide range of subjects upon which you draw to support your arguments is simply frustrating and become fruitless to debate. How can one argue with someone who makes false or blind assertions about almost everything? I'll do my best to continue, but am simply reaching the end of my patience with your complete misunderstanding of so many different subjects.

And A.DIM... I promise I will get to you eventually. My time has been limited and I've been trying not to lose track of what Outcast has to say.

[Outcast]

Does Earth ride upon the back of a giant turtle?

ah, this curious skeptic comment. i've seen it come up before. unfortunetly for the ones who say such a thing it denotes an absolute ignorance of the way the ancient Indian knowledge was encrypted in its poetic texts. again a sign of your rooted western views and its natural lack of insight.

"The Vedic priest in India believed that the world to be supported upon twelve massive pillars, during the hours of darkness, the Sun passed underneath, somehow managing to thread its way between the pillars without hitting them. According to the Hindus, Earth stood on the back of four elephants, the elephants in turn rested upon the back of a huge tortoise, while the tortoise itself was supported by a serpent floating in a limitless ocean. One cannot help feeling sorry for the serpent.!" - British astronomer, Patrick Moore

for those who understand the reverse symbolism the twelve pillars that support the world are the twelve months of the year. the four elephants on which Earth rests are the Dikarin, the sentinels of the four directions, North, South, East and West. these in turn rest on a tortoise's back and a serpent.

the tortoise is a representation of Vishnu's Kurma and symbolizes the fact that the Earth is supported in space in its annual orbit around the Sun. the coiled serpent represents the rotation of the earth around the Sun. and Vishnu himself rests on top of Adisesha, another coiled snake which represents the rotation of the Sun on its own axis.

[Rich]

So, then... it's not actually literal but symbolic. How does one decide which is which? Or is it only the benightedly enlightened?

If it is "western" arrogance to demand some proof... then I guess I'm an arrogant westerner. But you might want to be a little careful of how you bandy that about, because you really have no idea what kind of cultural upbringing I have had or whose histories I read.

[Edit to add:]

P.S. - My giant turtle comment was based upon the East Coast U.S. Native American tradition (specifically the tradition of the Delaware Valley tribes closely related to the Iriquois). How biased of you to assume I meant some other culture. :P

[Outcast]

Rich wrote:

Because none of the other species of primates developed brains capable of long-term planning... it is one of the hallmarks of Homo Sapiens.

that is simply not true. there are primates who apply and transmit their knowlledge of tool making, its use and also particular methods of finding food through generations. there are recent studies with certain species of primates where they were taught how to express themselfs with sign language. it was witnessed that the monkeys tought each other the rudiments of the language.
there are studies that show that it is possible to teach primates the principles of racional and abstract association. their brains, besides being quite capable of achieving abstract thoughts are perfectly capable of "long-term planning". the question, just to be perfectly clear is why did this particular species of primate developed such a large brain and became so physically different from the other species of primates and why did it find the need to invent agriculture?

before you answer that, i'll refer you the following article which apparently was forgotten:
http://www.dailygrail.com/blog/3899

There are a number of other societal centers in Southern Asia and in Africa which may have actually been first actually.

which ones?

But, how exactly is it "understood" that they knew the difference between human and "godly" activities? Because their priest classes wrote such things?

not only the "priests". but why do you call them priests anyway? that is in itself an apriori concept. those "priests" had many duties in their role of attendants of the "gods". like refered earlier cooking was one of them, so why go to such an extent of mischief when you could simply take the power by the force of arms. infact thats what happened more or less all over the world when the true "gods" left us. the system is still in place but the gods are gone, therefore we invented metaphysics.

hmmmmm? Just because they wrote about them doesn't mean they didn't just make them up. You have to give actual evidence that it isn't just all made up, not just keep repeating that it simply can't be.


humm, yeah. i think i explained my position in this matter quite clearly so... well, whatever.

All that it takes is for one person to say, "Hey, I like this stuff. We should leave some of the seeds here, so when we return next season there will be more of it..."

no. its not like that at all. there are many references as to how difficult it has been to explain the appearance of many of these seeds. i've read recent Botanical works which deal with this subject and the problem still maintains. again referer to this: http://www.dailygrail.com/blog/3899

yada, yada, yada... Much better that you think "the gods" have made me somehow better than you.

that is a pretty story, yet way too fancifull and unecessary. if i was a King of yore and you lice infested person bothered me with dissent i would just crush your skull. i wouldnt spend my wealth conjuring a complex set of gods with particular supporting casts of priests just to fool my people. i would rather make sure that you believe that if you do not obey i can easily crush you. its much more efficient.

Don't forget honestly mistaken. But it only takes a couple of generations to make this crap up and lie. After that just about everyone else will buy the story if only because, as far as they know, everyone always has.

with the help of this crap there have been made important archeological finds. if all men of science thought like you do, the tomb of Gilgamesh would not have been found. since according to you, because his tale was written by these drunk lying rats from ancient times he probably must have been just a crappy invention to fool the generations to come. why would they even bother to write and preserve all these records of lies (thousands of tablets) in libraries that their people couldnt even consult and therefore be deceived?

No, I'm saying we have to recognize what those agendas were and filter the information we get from them accordingly.

that is one of my interests regarding ancient history. but the fact that some prefer to look at these events as mythology does not make them automaticaly untrue. its just an interpretation and thats what i've been defending from the start. the fact that you take great offense in this to the point of calling me ignorant in all subjects im arguing is quite the defamatory act. i've said before that i'm not a scholar and research this subject in my spare time and by my own means but im not the stupid you're trying to make me with your invectives.

by the way, im not impressed with your style either. so you know your Logical Fallacies... big deal. i've stated my thoughts with more or less reason and to the extent of my english vocabulary (which is not my first language) and all you've presented is contempt, appeal to ridicule (see it works both ways) and belitling. so, allthough this kind of treatment was to be expected i find it rather odd that it comes from such a "knowlledgable" folk such as yourself. what am i saying, if this works in the academic circles why shouldnt it work in an internet BBS? sheesh.

[Outcast]

P.S. - My giant turtle comment was based upon the East Coast U.S. Native American tradition (specifically the tradition of the Delaware Valley tribes closely related to the Iriquois). How biased of you to assume I meant some other culture.

no bias. like i said, i've heard it before. most of the times refering to the Indian texts. so... maybe those tribes of indians had contact with other cultures or maybe not?
i for sure dont know. but it serves to show the similarity between cultures beliefs, i guess.

[Outcast]

Secular is by definition outside of religion. Some might even say it's opposite.

sec·u·lar·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sky-l-rzm)
n.
Religious skepticism or indifference.
The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education

sec·u·lar ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sky-lr)
adj.
Worldly rather than spiritual.
Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
Relating to or advocating secularism.
Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.
Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
Lasting from century to century.

n.
A member of the secular clergy.
A layperson.


well, a small misconception of mine with the idea of secular thought. but i would like to insist that religious dogma has indeed permeated our secular institutions. as per previous argument.

[Outcast]

I think they thought they knew exactly what they were doing. I don't think they even understood how their brains worked, heck we know the Egyptians thought conciousness was in the heart and the brain was largely useless. Are you suggesting that by taking the local equivalent of peyote that they actually did commune with the spirit world and talk with the gods? This should be an interesting reply.

From 1990 to 1995 Dr. Rick Strassman conducted DEA-approved clinical research at the University of New Mexico in which he injected sixty volunteers with DMT, one of the most powerful psychedelics known. His detailed account of those sessions is an extraordinarily riveting inquiry into the nature of the human mind and the therapeutic potential of psychedelics. DMT, a plant-derived chemical that is also manufactured by the human brain, consistently produced out-of-body, near-death, and mystical experiences. Many volunteers reported convincing encounters with intelligent nonhuman presences: angels, aliens, spirits. Nearly all agreed that the sessions were among the most intense experiences of their lives.

Strassman's research connects dmt with the pineal gland, considered by Hindus to be the site of the sixth chakra and by Rene Descartes to be the seat of the soul. DMT: The Spirit Molecule makes the bold case that DMT, naturally released by the pineal gland, facilitates the soul's movement in and out of the body and is an integral part of the birth and death experiences, as well as the highest states of meditation and even sexual transcendence. Strassman also believes that alien abduction experiences are brought on by accidental releases of DMT. If used wisely, dmt could trigger a period of remarkable progress in the scientific exploration of the most mystical regions of the human mind and soul.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0892819278/ref=ase_thedailygrail/002-5785652-9604051?v=glance&s=books

shamans have been relating their experiences with phsycotropic substances to researchers without the fear to step into the unknown and they sure have thousands of years of experience in their use. we are only recently beggining to understand what these persons have been witnessing for ages. so, i guess i infer from your comments that your westerner brain thinks they're all poo-poo heads. whatever, i for one do not think so.

there, enough of an interesting reply?

[Rich]

First Outcast, I would appreciate you replying to my arguments in whole, not just snipping the parts that support your strawmen. It makes it exceedingly difficult to debate with you if you simply ignore the depth of my counter arguments and only highlight one or two sentence which seem flimsy without the supporting information. I know it can make replying take longer, but I try to extend everyone else the courtesy and think it fair to ask for the same from you.

Rich wrote:

Because none of the other species of primates developed brains capable of long-term planning... it is one of the hallmarks of Homo Sapiens.

that is simply not true. there are primates who apply and transmit their knowlledge of tool making, its use and also particular methods of finding food through generations. there are recent studies with certain species of primates where they were taught how to express themselfs with sign language. it was witnessed that the monkeys tought each other the rudiments of the language. there are studies that show that it is possible to teach primates the principles of racional and abstract association. their brains, besides being quite capable of achieving abstract thoughts are perfectly capable of "long-term planning".
No. None of what you describe demonstrates any capability for long-term planning. It demonstrates that they are capable of some learning and may teach learned skills to new generations. It does not show that they recognize the need to conserve food against coming famine, that they can build increasingly complex tools by building on past knowledge, or that they have the capability to "imagine" that better territory may be beyond the next mountain.

the question, just to be perfectly clear is why did this particular species of primate developed such a large brain and became so physically different from the other species of primates and why did it find the need to invent agriculture?
Another track change. We really need to decide what you have a problem with. So, now your problem is with how Homo Sapiens, beings quite capable of all we have accomplished, could possibly have come to be. Why, is irrelevant, it presupposes someone had a purpose. That it happened and how is quite relevant and I suggest, again, you go check out Talk Origins for more on that.

There are a number of other societal centers in Southern Asia and in Africa which may have actually been first actually.

which ones?
I can get to that later, but it is really quite irrelevant, because your argument is that no Homo Sapiens could have managed any of this without help in any case.

But, how exactly is it "understood" that they knew the difference between human and "godly" activities? Because their priest classes wrote such things?
not only the "priests". but why do you call them priests anyway?
Because that is a common and accepted term for their functions as intermediaries with the gods.
that is in itself an apriori concept. those "priests" had many duties in their role of attendants of the "gods". like refered earlier cooking was one of them, so why go to such an extent of mischief when you could simply take the power by the force of arms.
Unless of course, the priests just found this a really convenient way to get exactly the food and drink they liked. "Hey guys, the gods are big surf and turf fans. As such they will require a 12 ounce filet mignon and a large rock lobster tale everynight"

"... and a cold Guiness... "

"Oh yeah... and a cold Guiness... everynight... get on it peons!"

Plus, if you're going to lie it helps if you follow through on the lie. If you say you've got a god hanging out in the back of the temple it would probably serve to have folks meeting that god's needs. Nice way to make some extra profit besides. This is all so much more simple an explanation than having an actual god hanging around.

infact thats what happened more or less all over the world when the true "gods" left us. the system is still in place but the gods are gone, therefore we invented metaphysics.
Presupposition that those gods were already there that results in circular logic. Therefore irrelevant.

hmmmmm? Just because they wrote about them doesn't mean they didn't just make them up. You have to give actual evidence that it isn't just all made up, not just keep repeating that it simply can't be.


humm, yeah. i think i explained my position in this matter quite clearly so... well, whatever.
Yes, you position comes down do, "Ya-haaaaaa! Did-So!"

All that it takes is for one person to say, "Hey, I like this stuff. We should leave some of the seeds here, so when we return next season there will be more of it..."

no. its not like that at all. there are many references as to how difficult it has been to explain the appearance of many of these seeds. i've read recent Botanical works which deal with this subject and the problem still maintains. again referer to this: http://www.dailygrail.com/blog/3899
So, it is that way because you say so... it seems much of your argument comes down to that. Nice way to cut off the rest of my explanation here as well. I don't think the problem is nearly as difficult as you paint it if you have 400,000 years in which to accomplish this.

I like how you ignored the fact that human agricultural settlements existed for tens of thousands of years before the emergence of Mesopotamian culture and power centers. Isn't it a bit of a problem for your argument that folks were sitting around farming for at least 20,000 years and perhaps as long as 50,000 years before Sumer?

yada, yada, yada... Much better that you think "the gods" have made me somehow better than you.

that is a pretty story, yet way too fancifull and unecessary.
Thank you. No more unnecessary than any of the ancient gods.

if i was a King of yore and you lice infested person bothered me with dissent i would just crush your skull.
Which is exactly what they often did. Problem is that the rabble outnumbered the powerful by a significant margin. So, what do you do when they all try to rise up? How do you keep your soldiers, barely more than peasants themselves in line? I mean you arm these guys. Concepts of state and nationality did not exist yet, so you can't appeal to patriotism. Of course, they get some pie crumbs, but have nowhere near as much wealth and power as the few bigwigs whom they could so easily kill with their weapons and superior numbers.

i wouldnt spend my wealth conjuring a complex set of gods with particular supporting casts of priests just to fool my people. i would rather make sure that you believe that if you do not obey i can easily crush you. its much more efficient.
Except everything I wrote above is true. The rabble outnumber you, how do you keep them in line. So you arm some of them and give them some meager benefits, how do you keep these now armed guys in line? And it goes on and on. But if you have gods on your side, or are yourself a god... that kind of changes the equation doesn't it. At first, the cost wouldn't have been all that high either. But as the stories took on a life of their own even the priests and kings start to believe their own B.S. It was taught to them as rote truth by previous generations... why should they question a system that benefits them so much?

Don't forget honestly mistaken. But it only takes a couple of generations to make this crap up and lie. After that just about everyone else will buy the story if only because, as far as they know, everyone always has.

with the help of this crap there have been made important archeological finds. if all men of science thought like you do, the tomb of Gilgamesh would not have been found. since according to you, because his tale was written by these drunk lying rats from ancient times he probably must have been just a crappy invention to fool the generations to come. why would they even bother to write and preserve all these records of lies (thousands of tablets) in libraries that their people couldnt even consult and therefore be deceived?
Hey, except unearthing an actual tomb kind of qualifies as "evidence" don't it? Strange that. And I didn't say that all of the information contained in ancient texts was wrong, did I? Just that the far more likely explanation was that any gods were most likely invented and completely unnecessary to producing the accomplishments and culture of any given civilization. Nor did I say that all ancient rulers were "drunk lying rats". Keep building those strawmen. Though, I imagine it might be getting a bit cramped to keep them all around.

No, I'm saying we have to recognize what those agendas were and filter the information we get from them accordingly.
that is one of my interests regarding ancient history. but the fact that some prefer to look at these events as mythology does not make them automaticaly untrue. its just an interpretation and thats what i've been defending from the start. the fact that you take great offense in this to the point of calling me ignorant in all subjects im arguing is quite the defamatory act.
It is not defamation if it is true Outcast. You have demonstrated that you are quite ignorant in matters of biology and academic historical research and debate, among other things. I pointed out exactly what you got wrong and why. Now if you care to debate the substance of my rebuttal instead of crying that I called you a name, we might get somewhere. Show me where I am wrong in labelling ignorant for your reply about the state of medical knowlegde regarding the affect of certain substances upon the brain. Or where I was wrong in stating that you are clearly ignorant on the state of modern debate among academic historians. You stated things that are flat out wrong. This is mostly, I believe, because your preferred world-view needs those things to be that way. But this in no way means your statements have any relation to fact and it is only fair to alert other readers to this.

i've said before that i'm not a scholar and research this subject in my spare time and by my own means but im not the stupid you're trying to make me with your invectives.
By no means do I think you are stupid Outcast, nor have I said so. Being ignorant and being stupid are two very different things. I have said your arguments on certain subjects appear based on ignorance, but this does not mean you are stupid. To the contrary you may actually be deluding us and know full well that some of your arguments have no basis in fact. This would make you quite smart, yet dishonest. I choose to believe that you are honest (and smart), but simply don't know what you are talking about on some of these subject.

For fairness sake, there are a number of things about which I am quite ignorant. I just try not to post about them. :D

by the way, im not impressed with your style either. so you know your Logical Fallacies... big deal.
I don't care to impress you my style or not Outcast. The fact is you have consistently used a number of logical fallacies. If you use them you can't complain where others point them out. Sorry, debate just works that way.

i've stated my thoughts with more or less reason and to the extent of my english vocabulary (which is not my first language) and all you've presented is contempt, appeal to ridicule (see it works both ways) and belitling.
I'm actually quite impressed with your use of English, as a second language. I studied a number of languages and, frankly, stunk at all of them. I'm good with pronunciation, but seem to have a limit with tenses in particular... no biggie. In any case, don't see how pointing out where your arguments are fallacious, based on ignorance, or are wrong in any other way are contemptuous, ridiculing, or belittling. If your arguments need some facts to back them up that is your problem. You can't just cry that I am "mean" because I show you where and how you are wrong.

so, allthough this kind of treatment was to be expected i find it rather odd that it comes from such a "knowlledgable" folk such as yourself. what am i saying, if this works in the academic circles why shouldnt it work in an internet BBS? sheesh.
I am truly sorry you think I am attacking you instead of your arguments Outcast. The problem it seems is that you take issues with demands for evidence and anyone pointing out where you make mistakes or use fallacious logic. If you just want us to all agree with you so that you can feel good about yourself... well you might have to take your arguments elsewhere, because it simply won't happen here.

And yes, the same kind of standards apply in the academic world. How else can arguments be evaluated? You need evidence to support your theories and if your theories are based on obvious fallacies or misconcpetions you will be hard pressed to find any support to look for evidence. Do you propose another way it should work? I won't even claim that it is always fair, but it works - as the last 300 years of progress attest.

[Rich]

From 1990 to 1995 Dr. Rick Strassman conducted DEA-approved clinical research at the University of New Mexico in which he injected sixty volunteers with DMT, one of the most powerful psychedelics known. His detailed account of those sessions is an extraordinarily riveting inquiry into the nature of the human mind and the therapeutic potential of psychedelics. DMT, a plant-derived chemical that is also manufactured by the human brain, consistently produced out-of-body, near-death, and mystical experiences. Many volunteers reported convincing encounters with intelligent nonhuman presences: angels, aliens, spirits. Nearly all agreed that the sessions were among the most intense experiences of their lives.

Strassman's research connects dmt with the pineal gland, considered by Hindus to be the site of the sixth chakra and by Rene Descartes to be the seat of the soul. DMT: The Spirit Molecule makes the bold case that DMT, naturally released by the pineal gland, facilitates the soul's movement in and out of the body and is an integral part of the birth and death experiences, as well as the highest states of meditation and even sexual transcendence. Strassman also believes that alien abduction experiences are brought on by accidental releases of DMT. If used wisely, dmt could trigger a period of remarkable progress in the scientific exploration of the most mystical regions of the human mind and soul.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0892819278/ref=ase_thedailygrail/002-5785652-9604051?v=glance&s=books

shamans have been relating their experiences with phsycotropic substances to researchers without the fear to step into the unknown and they sure have thousands of years of experience in their use. we are only recently beggining to understand what these persons have been witnessing for ages. so, i guess i infer from your comments that your westerner brain thinks they're all poo-poo heads. whatever, i for one do not think so.

there, enough of an interesting reply?

Yet, those feelings are well understood to be associated with biological brain functions centered in a very materialistic world. We can actually see the affect they have on the brain with an MRI. These substances do not actually take your soul out of your body... though they may make you feel like it. These substances do not actually make you able to see ghosts or extra-dimensional beings... though you may believe you are seeing and hearing such things. These substances simply produce reactions in the brain that evoke such responses.

I am confused from the above information whether Straussman is making the claim that these substances actually have an affect on a "soul" (which itself can not be seen or measured or proven to exist) or whether another party has used his research to further their own arguments in a book Straussman has nothing to do with. It seems however that Straussman believes in the naturalistic/materialistic interpretation since he states that accidental DMT releases by the brain may result in reports of alien abduction. Seems he thinks these things aren't actually occuring but are a byproduct of brain function or misfunction.

I don't think anyone is a "poo-poo" head. I do think that it is awfully presumptuous to say that these affects are real rather than products of fairly well understood biological and chemical processes in the human body. Processes that can be reproduced by-the-way. What does it say that when these folks were seeing angels, no one else saw them...only the person on drugs? Perhaps the angels weren't really there. Isn't that the single most likely explanation? That the chemicals impacted the sight, hearing, and memory areas of the brain to produce unreal visions. Which is more likely... this explanantion or that all of those folks were really seeing angels and aliens?

I can clearly see which explanation you prefer but which one is far more likely?

[Edit:] After re-reading the book review it is clear that this is Strassman's agenda. Though I point out how ridiculous it is to feel on one hand that experiences such as alien abduction are an unreal experience and accidental by-product of DMT misfunction... yet everything else that results from DMT or other substances simply must be real. Get real.

[Rich]

LOL, to furthe prove that I am by no means perfect I've had to re-edit my last big post no less than five times to fix quote coding, spelling, and grammar. Oh, and I really stink at calculus... seriously, I'm really, really bad at it.

[Edit to fix grammar... SEE! It's true!]

[alfricnow]

these guys may be quacks but they did do something good.
they got people interested in studying.
my mom always said "If you cant say something nice about someone dont say anything at all"

[A.DIM]

***snip*** - only to point out that "God" here is elohim, a plural word that should be read as "gods."
A.DIM, elohim isn't necessarily a plural. You've been told this before (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=158970#158970).

Disinfo Agent, you legitimize your name.

With much less sarcasm and citing credible sources, I replied to The Curtmudgeon making it abundantly clear why elohim even exists in the plural. And yet you felt compelled to post that as some sort of rebuttal? :-?

I'd like to think that, coupled with my reply in that thread, Legends of Babylonia and Egypt in Relation to Hebrew Tradition (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/beheb.htm) by scholar LW King will end your attempted disinfo and make clear that "the gods," plural, aka "ilu" and "Neteru" of Babylon and Egypt respectively, are why "elohim," plural, even exists. You can not argue against Malachim being plural "angels" or "emmissaries" of god, and Nephilim being plural "giants" or "sons of god" and then argue the Elohim is singular, especially where it is stated, plurally, "let US make man in Our image after Our likeness" or "behold, they are as one of US, let US go down and confound their language... "

For those who never heard of him, he came up the idea that Earth was visited in the past by aliens...
I've read very little Daniken, but I must point out that this is incorrect.

It is ancient mythology that first asserted there were "those who from Heaven to Earth Came" - the Anunnaki of the Sumerians - the Elohim, Nephilim and Malachim of the Bible, [...]
So? I see no reference to aliens in there.

Again, you live up to your name.
But let's see.... "those from heaven to earth came" ... hmmm...
...those not from earth who came here, not terrestrial beings who left first and came back, those from somewhere else, somewhere "not of thise earth" somewhere extraterrestrial or alien, extraterrestrials who came to earth, are extraterrestrials aliens?

[...] the Egyptians believed their "gods" came from the Planet of Millions of Years, or the Abode of the Gods [...]
Can we see a source for this?

I think it is an obscured reference in The Pyramid Texts, but maybe this (http://www.civilization.ca/civil/egypt/egcr09e.html) can help:

"The earth was seen as a sacred landscape, a reflection of the sky world where the gods resided."

"Now Re lived in the heavens, where order was established. Each morning he was reborn in the east and travelled across the sky in a boat, called the Bark of Millions of Years, accompanied by a number of gods who acted as his crew."

I suppose it is left to inference for now, but using the detailed paper by LW King, the "civilization.ca" link, and a general understanding that several of the more prominent "olden gods" in the egyptian pantheon were actually adopted from Syria and the mesopotamian pantheon, the Eternal Abode of the gods, Re's "Bark of Millions of Years" is the same "celestial disk" as depicted in both mythologies, to and from where "celestial barges" (of millions of years) were used to ascend and descend. The "winged disk" motif was used widely in mesopotamia, most often accompanying representations of "the gods" from their "heavenly abode" - a "Planet of Millions of Years."

[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?

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?

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.
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?

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.

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.

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.

[Disinfo Agent]

Disinfo Agent, you legitimize your name.
My username has always been legitimate. :)

With much less sarcasm [...]
"With much less sarcasm"? Than whom? (See above.) Oh, well, nevermind. Let's get to the juice of your post:

[...] and citing credible sources [...]
Sources which you obviously neglected to read, since they didn't support what you were saying.

[...] I replied to The Curtmudgeon making it abundantly clear why elohim even exists in the plural.
The Curtmudgeon made it abundantly clear to you and everyone else why elohim, while sometimes a plural, may also be a singular. So have other authors presented to you.

But let's see.... "those from heaven to earth came" ... hmmm...
...those not from earth who came here, not terrestrial beings who left first and came back, those from somewhere else, somewhere "not of thise earth" somewhere extraterrestrial or alien, extraterrestrials who came to earth, are extraterrestrials aliens?
:lol: Slippery slope if I've ever seen one.
"From Heaven" does not = "extraterrestrials", and it never will, no matter how much you try to stretch the words. The extraterrestrial reading of the myths is all an interpretation of yours, not something the ancients actually wrote.

[...] the Egyptians believed their "gods" came from the Planet of Millions of Years, or the Abode of the Gods [...]
Can we see a source for this?
I think it is an obscured reference in The Pyramid Texts, but maybe this (http://www.civilization.ca/civil/egypt/egcr09e.html) can help:

"The earth was seen as a sacred landscape, a reflection of the sky world where the gods resided."

"Now Re lived in the heavens, where order was established. Each morning he was reborn in the east and travelled across the sky in a boat, called the Bark of Millions of Years, accompanied by a number of gods who acted as his crew."
I see no reference to planets in there. They are entirely your extrapolation. Your inferential leaps lack discipline.

Edited for spelling and clarity.

[R.A.F.]

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.

Evidence??? I've been waiting for a long time for "anyone" to post anything that might be considered as evidence of these alien visitations...and I'm still waiting...

[Taibak]

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

[quote=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.

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

[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.

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?

[Rich]

I know I have a tendency to get a little long-winded so I'm going to try to boil down some of my previous posts and some of the most serious problems for the alien/intervention scenario into some short sentences... ahem.

I'll preface everything by pointing out that the interventionists speculate that homo sapiens seems to have appeared from nowhere and that the appearance of major civilizations around 6000 years ago happened "suddenly" with no build-up of knowledge or technology. Things such as argriculture, writing, and religion are too complex to have arise "suddenly" at that time around 6000 years ago and therefore humans must have had some help. Religion itself must be a product of outside forces. Aliens used religion to guide us, or alternatively toenslave us and all cultural artifacts of ancient religion are really by-products of alien-overlord worship. Not only this, but as the "only" primate to have achieved hallmarks of higher culture and civilization we are unique and this leads them to further believe that we must have somehow been uplifted above our other primate cousins to achieve all of this.

1. Homo Sapiens has been roaming the planet for at least 400,000 years possibly longer. The H. Sapiens in the fossil record are no different from modern humans in any way. This demonstrates that they had exactly the same capability for invention as modern humans.

2. We are not the "only" higher functioning primate Neanderthals made it almost as far as we did, but just didn't have quite the right package of capabilities to keep going.

3. Homo Habalis (our immediate genetic predecessor) was also quite advanced. H. Habalis also neatly demonstrates that H. Sapiens was not a "sudden" appearance. We've got a great number of examples of increasingly advanced ancestors... and plenty of cousins to our ancestors that didn't make it.

4. Humans had been living in agricultural communities for anywhere from 20,000 to 60,000 years before the rise of Mesopotamian culture.

5. Artifacts from both hunter/gatherer and early agricultural communities demonstrates the development of, at least, rudimentary religion well before the rise of Mesopotamian cultures. Burials and burial artifcats demonstrate a belief in some kind of life after death and numerous fertility symbols and statuettes clearly show a belief in some form of spirits or dieties capable of intervening in human affairs.

6. Aliens from outerspace are an needlessly complex explanation for inventions and cultural institutions that human beings are perfectly capable of creating. No need for aliens where human ingenuity can cover just as well or where human desire to explain the seemingly unexplainable comes in.

7. Religious complexes grew in size quite slowly demonstrating a slower progression in the power and scope of ancient religions. The largest temples in the oldest cities can often be shown to have been built on top of smaller and smaller predecessors. This belies an expected "sudden" building of large religious complexes dedicated to recently arrived or revealed alien diety pretenders.

8. (And this is just a pet peave of mine) Humans did not evolve from monkeys. We are very similar to our cousins such as chimpanzees, not because we evolved from them, but because we both evolved from a common ancestor. I think we all need to be a bit more specific on that count.

Anyway... those were just eight... well seven major problems for this theory that I pulled off of the top of my head. Problems which have not been answered or accounted for by its proponents. I'm sure everyone else could come up with more, but that's not really the point.

I guess the over-arching problem there is really one of timelines. If aliens showed up and genetically engineered H. Habalis into H. Sapiens sometime over 400,000 years ago why wait until somewhere between 40,000 and 100,000 years ago to come back and start working on crops? And then why wait another several dozen millenia to come back and teach things like writing? Between each of those gaps is a significant amount of time in which humans could easily have accomplished what this theory says they had to be handed. This is especially obvious when considering how much has been accomplished since the time of the Sumerians. According to this theory everything that was accomplished in the last 6,000 years was done without alien help. Numerical systems that included the concept of zero, advanced architecture, sailing ships, gunpowder, the steam engine, electricity, flight, spaceflight, atomic energy, lasers, genetic engineering. None of this was done with the help of an outside civilization. That is a whole heck of a lot more accomplishment in the 6,000 years since the aliens supposedly left than in the entire time they were here "helping" us. And if we can cram all of that and more into 6,000 years, why couldn't we have accomplished much less impressive feats in about 400,000 years?

Okay... so I went and got long-winded anyway. #-o Sorry.

[Outcast]

Rich wrote:

1. Homo Sapiens has been roaming the planet for at least 400,000 years possibly longer. The H. Sapiens in the fossil record are no different from modern humans in any way. This demonstrates that they had exactly the same capability for invention as modern humans.

4. Humans had been living in agricultural communities for anywhere from 20,000 to 60,000 years before the rise of Mesopotamian culture.

so you're saying that agriculture is at least 60.000 years older than the first Sumerian settlements? can you give any reference for this statement?
so, when did agriculture start? 100.000 years ago?
you say that Homo Sapiens has been around for 400.000 years. if they had brains equal in capability as ours today, like you said, and were capable of "long-term planning" why did they take more than 300.000 years to get to the Sumerian civilization?

Between each of those gaps is a significant amount of time in which humans could easily have accomplished what this theory says they had to be handed. This is especially obvious when considering how much has been accomplished since the time of the Sumerians. According to this theory everything that was accomplished in the last 6,000 years was done without alien help.

yes, we accomplished much after the Sumerian civilization. there's no doubt about that. but what were we doing in the last 300.000 + years?

ps: edited to correct spelling

[Rich]

Rich wrote:

1. Homo Sapiens has been roaming the planet for at least 400,000 years possibly longer. The H. Sapiens in the fossil record are no different from modern humans in any way. This demonstrates that they had exactly the same capability for invention as modern humans.

4. Humans had been living in agricultural communities for anywhere from 20,000 to 60,000 years before the rise of Mesopotamian culture.

so you're saying that agriculture is at least 60.000 years older than the first Sumerian settlements? can you give any reference for this statement?
No, I'm saying agricultural settlements were starting to form at least 20,000 years ago and probably longer. I'll have to look for some references online. I'll be out of town and away from the computer for a few days so it might take a couple of days to get back to you on this. Rest assured I'll see what I can find for you to peruse online. If I find a good solid couple of pages on this in one of the books at home I'll provide you with that as well.

so, when did agriculture start? 100.000 years ago?
I don't think any solid time has been nailed down, but certainly some humans were settling into small agricultural settlements as early as 20,000 years ago. I believe the "accepted" timeframe is actually right about 40,000 years ago +/- a few thousand years.

you say that Homo Sapiens has been around for 400.000 years. if they had brains equal in capability as ours today
Yes, H. Sapiens of 400,000 years ago as found in the fossil record is indistinguishable from H. Sapiens today. Again, I might suggest Talk Origins for more in the subject.

like you said, and were capable of "long-term planning" why did they take more than 300.000 years to get to the Sumerian civilization?
I don't know. It probably took a quite some time for the crop selection process that resulted in those early farming communities. How long would that process take? I certainly don't know. You think it impossible, but that it happened is proof that it is not. Somehow over about 300,000 years that process of leaving bigger and bigger seeds behind, that you never really disputed in any meaningful way, resulted in something that made farming sustainable. Maybe it could have happened faster maybe some fortuitous accidents occured that speed the process up a little. One thing is for sure, once someone recognizes the process and starts to deliberately follow it you are certain to have a usuable crop in perhaps just a few hundred generations.

That humans can domesticate something is well known. I'll point you once more to the humble cow and also to man's best friend the dog.

Between each of those gaps is a significant amount of time in which humans could easily have accomplished what this theory says they had to be handed. This is especially obvious when considering how much has been accomplished since the time of the Sumerians. According to this theory everything that was accomplished in the last 6,000 years was done without alien help.

yes, we accomplished much after the Sumerian civilization. there's no doubt about that. but what were we doing in the last 300.000 + years?

You entirely miss the point. If we are capable of so much, expanding our knowledge by leaps and bounds, why wouldn't we have been capable of such invention before. Why has the speed of such learning and development accelerated? Because as we accumulate knowledge we have a fancy knack of applying new knowledge and tools to seemingly unrelated problems. The pace of development accelerates. We've seen this in our own lifetimes and can certainly track this acceleration through recorded history. It is too hard to extend this trend backwards and say that if knowledge accumulates knowledge at an ever faster rate then on average the further back in time you go the less accumulated knowledge there will be. Asking why no one had invented the wheel before anyone invented the wheel is just pointless doublespeak. Why no flight, why no atomic energy, why no penicillin, why no crop rotations?

(Speaking of which, why wouldn't that be something to teach us? They can teach us to farm, but not to rotate crops and leave fields fallow? It took the stinking Middle Ages to bring us crop rotation for crying out loud! And I'll point out, again, how silly it is that aliens capable of spaceflight can't show a civilization with lots of copper implements and the wheel how to generate electricity.)

Keep in mind that we needed no physiological changes to manage flight, harness the atom, or develop computers. The folks who made such accomplishments were no different from the humans who invented the wheel or stalked wooly mammoths.

[Outcast]

Rich wrote:

First Outcast, I would appreciate you replying to my arguments in whole, not just snipping the parts that support your strawmen.

what do you mean? i have done nothing that you have not done yourself. i fail to understand this little comment of yours but i reckon its another ad hominem (in disguise).

It makes it exceedingly difficult to debate with you if you simply ignore the depth of my counter arguments and only highlight one or two sentence which seem flimsy without the supporting information.

you're a real artist my friend. the "depth" of your counter arguments? all you've done untill now was state YOUR opinions regarding the subjects presented. never once you presented any references whatsoever. anyway if anyone wants to read your "supporting information" one can allways read the original posts. its not like im deleting them.

None of what you describe demonstrates any capability for long-term planning. It demonstrates that they are capable of some learning and may teach learned skills to new generations.

i dont see how one can have long-term planning without the capability for learning and specialy the capability for teaching. who's using circular logic now?

It does not show that they recognize the need to conserve food against coming famine, that they can build increasingly complex tools by building on past knowledge, or that they have the capability to "imagine" that better territory may be beyond the next mountain.

how do you know "it does not show", are you familiar with these studies? again you're stating your opinions without knowlledge of fact. those capabilities you speak of are latent in these primates. if not, none of this research could have happened with success (or with varying degrees of success). in fact there were some experiments that shown that they could use tools they had never seen before in imaginative ways to solve complex puzzles.

Quote:
But, how exactly is it "understood" that they knew the difference between human and "godly" activities? Because their priest classes wrote such things?

not only the "priests". but why do you call them priests anyway?

Because that is a common and accepted term for their functions as intermediaries with the gods.

does a thing become true if its repeated often enough?
i've said before that the Sumerians had no concept of religion. they did not worship a god, they worked for the "gods". they called themselfs the LU.LU AMELU, the mixed ones or the primitive workers.

Presupposition that those gods were already there that results in circular logic. Therefore irrelevant.

well, your supposition is that they werent there. nevertheless it is YOUR supposition, and nothing else besides that. since i have a different opinion based on my own knowlledge, i consider your suppositions quite irrelevant also.

I like how you ignored the fact that human agricultural settlements existed for tens of thousands of years before the emergence of Mesopotamian culture and power centers. Isn't it a bit of a problem for your argument that folks were sitting around farming for at least 20,000 years and perhaps as long as 50,000 years before Sumer?

a problem? no. according to the Sumerian King List the Anunnaki have been around for 400.000 years. interesting that these records match with the appearance of Homo Sapiens. by the way, why dont you address this issues here: http://www.dailygrail.com/blog/3899

Except everything I wrote above is true. The rabble outnumber you, how do you keep them in line. So you arm some of them and give them some meager benefits, how do you keep these now armed guys in line? And it goes on and on. But if you have gods on your side, or are yourself a god... that kind of changes the equation doesn't it.

no it doesnt change the equation, it makes it worse. you seem to have taken human nature out of the equation alltogether. humans are curious by nature, if one invents a god that suposedly protects and one puts him in an altar, you can bet that some will question that god and will surely want to test him to see how far they can go. if one claims that there is a god in a specific temple that needs to be fed at a specific time then i have no doubt that the people would want to see him.

like i said, the Sumerian deities seem to be something else besides the anthropomorphic version of the thumber bolt or of the rising sun. the fact that these deities were deeply involved in human affairs calls for a different interpretation. im sorry but the explanation that this people were in some sort of mass dilusion does not suffice for me.

Hey, except unearthing an actual tomb kind of qualifies as "evidence" don't it? Strange that. And I didn't say that all of the information contained in ancient texts was wrong, did I?

you didnt state specificaly that "all" the information was wrong. but it seems it's you whos nit-picking what to believe now.
how do YOU know that "all" the information is not true? because it involves the GODS? what if those gods were as real as Gilgamesh's tomb?

It is not defamation if it is true Outcast. You have demonstrated that you are quite ignorant in matters of biology and academic historical research and debate, among other things. I pointed out exactly what you got wrong and why. Now if you care to debate the substance of my rebuttal instead of crying that I called you a name, we might get somewhere. Show me where I am wrong in labelling ignorant for your reply about the state of medical knowlegde regarding the affect of certain substances upon the brain. Or where I was wrong in stating that you are clearly ignorant on the state of modern debate among academic historians. You stated things that are flat out wrong. This is mostly, I believe, because your preferred world-view needs those things to be that way. But this in no way means your statements have any relation to fact and it is only fair to alert other readers to this.

not happy with calling me ignorant you went further and called me obtuse and a hypocrit. that is not only defamation its also slander. the only argument you have against my position on this matters, and you've used repeatedly, is that im both obtuse and ignorant. besides, the simple fact that you think you "should point my ignorance" to others speaks volumes of how you do "debate" with people you disagree with. for someone who presumes to know so much and is so quick in pointing logical fallacies in others you seem to miss your own use of ad hominems.

In any case, don't see how pointing out where your arguments are fallacious, based on ignorance, or are wrong in any other way are contemptuous, ridiculing, or belittling. If your arguments need some facts to back them up that is your problem. You can't just cry that I am "mean" because I show you where and how you are wrong.

im not crying, i dont need baby sitters and i dont give a c*ap about your opinions, because... their JUST YOUR opinions. the facts that back my opinions are supported by a miriad of authors in many disciplines of science. or do you think it was me who invented the concept of alien intervention in human history? so what if i do not have the time to go through tons of references and post them here just to feed your "debate" dynamics. so what if im not the best person the defend the ancient astronaut theory? does that make you the holder of the truth?

After re-reading the book review it is clear that this is Strassman's agenda. Though I point out how ridiculous it is to feel on one hand that experiences such as alien abduction are an unreal experience and accidental by-product of DMT misfunction... yet everything else that results from DMT or other substances simply must be real. Get real.

above is a sample of your own redundant thoughts. you point out "how ridiculous" it is to discover that there is a relation between DMT and certain types of experiences. ridiculous? what do you know about dr. Strassman's research to be accusing him of pushing an "agenda"? or is it just your interpretation that the reactions happening on the brain during a DMT experience are merely quemical reactions? how do you know that those reactions are not an epiphenomenon for something else? how do you know, have you ever experienced the effects of DMT personaly?

there are a number of scientists and medics studying these matters nowadays with published peer reviewed works out there, you better hurry and tell them you think its ridiculous before they waste anymore time on this issue.

[Taibak]

does a thing become true if its repeated often enough?
i've said before that the Sumerians had no concept of religion. they did not worship a god, they worked for the "gods". they called themselfs the LU.LU AMELU, the mixed ones or the primitive workers.

That's an overly narrow definition. You don't need to worship to have a religion. In Buddhism, for instance, it is entirely possible to fulfil all the tenets of the religion and reach Enlightenment without worshipping anything. If the Sumerians viewed certain beings as gods, regardless of whether or not they worshipped them, it's fair to say that they had a concept of religion, espescially where, as you say, the gods demanded certain things from their people.

what if those gods were as real as Gilgamesh's tomb?

Then you should be able to show us some corroborating evidence. Like Rich and I have been saying, ambiguous texts aren't sufficient proof. Show us some more evidence. Yes, Gilgamesh was believed to be legendary, but finding his tomb proves otherwise. If, as you claim, the Mesopotamian gods actually existed, show us some evidence. A tomb would do quite nicely, actually. Surely one of them must have died while he or she was on Earth.

[Jigsaw]

so what if i do not have the time to go through tons of references and post them here just to feed your "debate" dynamics.

Well, that's the way this particular message board works, those are the ground rules, that's the "debate dynamic" that obtains here at the BABB.

[shrug]

Actually, I think you're making some interesting points. Don't get all hissy and wind up getting this thread locked, 'kay? ;)

[Rich]

Rich wrote:

First Outcast, I would appreciate you replying to my arguments in whole, not just snipping the parts that support your strawmen.

what do you mean? i have done nothing that you have not done yourself. i fail to understand this little comment of yours but i reckon its another ad hominem (in disguise).
Actually, you and I have done things quite differently. When I quote you I quote everything you write so that your quote and my replies are in context. You leave out quite a bit of what I responded to you with. And this was in no way an attack, simply a polite request.

It makes it exceedingly difficult to debate with you if you simply ignore the depth of my counter arguments and only highlight one or two sentence which seem flimsy without the supporting information.

you're a real artist my friend. the "depth" of your counter arguments?untill now was state YOUR opinions regarding the subjects presented. never once you presented any references whatsoever. anyway if anyone wants to read your "supporting information" one can allways read the original posts. its not like im deleting them.
I've pointed you to Talk Origins for references to the origin of Homo Sapiens a number of times. And I said above that I will see what I can find online for you. A number of sources I am familiar with are on my shelf or in a library... again, I'll provide you with some of those when I come back from out of town. And sorry, I accidentally snipped a few words of you text above when my finger slipped and hit the "insert" key.

None of what you describe demonstrates any capability for long-term planning. It demonstrates that they are capable of some learning and may teach learned skills to new generations.

i dont see how one can have long-term planning without the capability for learning and specialy the capability for teaching. who's using circular logic now?
You are really quite confused Outcast. Yes, you it might be hard to have the ability to plan for the long-term without the ability to learn or pass on rudimentary skills. However, as we see in many animals, just because a species has some capacity for learning (for other primates about what a human toddler can manage btw) , doesn't mean that they can then also plan for the long-term. Again, I don't know whether you are simply being obtuse, truly cannot comprehend what I am writing, or are deliberately misrepresenting what I say. This is where it would be a little easier if you quoted the entire segment of my reply that you are referring to instead of one little piece.

I would be interested to know if you think that other primates have nearly the capacity for learning and sharing knowledge that we do.

It does not show that they recognize the need to conserve food against coming famine, that they can build increasingly complex tools by building on past knowledge, or that they have the capability to "imagine" that better territory may be beyond the next mountain.

how do you know "it does not show", are you familiar with these studies?
I am familiar with some such studies, yes. They are frequently presented with little critical analysis in such places as the "Discovery Channel". But such studies are linked to over at the JREF forums all the time sparking a lot of lively debate there as well.

again you're stating your opinions without knowlledge of fact.
Obviously, I disagree. I have been stating what is generally accepted and backed by evidence in the academic community. If what I am typing is merely opinion, it seems you provide nothing but empty conjecture.

those capabilities you speak of are latent in these primates.
They are? Really??? Is that you opinion or established fact. Do all primates such as howler monkey share these latent capabilities?

if not, none of this research could have happened with success (or with varying degrees of success). in fact there were some experiments that shown that they could use tools they had never seen before in imaginative ways to solve complex puzzles.
Yes, and I'll repeat that the "smartest" of the other primates, Orangatangs (sp?), manage to do about as well as the average four year-old human. Now are you really comparing their capabilities with ours? Those cousins and our ancestors went their seperate ways on the evolutionary ladder a long time ago. We won the brain power race... they didn't.

Quote:
But, how exactly is it "understood" that they knew the difference between human and "godly" activities? Because their priest classes wrote such things?

not only the "priests". but why do you call them priests anyway?

Because that is a common and accepted term for their functions as intermediaries with the gods.

does a thing become true if its repeated often enough?
i've said before that the Sumerians had no concept of religion. they did not worship a god, they worked for the "gods". they called themselfs the LU.LU AMELU, the mixed ones or the primitive workers.

Taibak answered this quite well enough. Silly that they had all the trappings of religion, but that you want to call it something else though. What would you call the people that I referred to as priests? A duck by any other name.

Presupposition that those gods were already there that results in circular logic. Therefore irrelevant.

well, your supposition is that they werent there. nevertheless it is YOUR supposition, and nothing else besides that. since i have a different opinion based on my own knowlledge, i consider your suppositions quite irrelevant also.
Most of your argument rests on an assumption that alien/gods were there. Therefore any human accomplishment were the result of the aliens' intervention. Since humans accomplished all of those things, aliens must have helped them.

Where as the mainstream explanation needs no outside force. Humanity simply did what it did. This is by far the explanation that best fits all available evidence.

I like how you ignored the fact that human agricultural settlements existed for tens of thousands of years before the emergence of Mesopotamian culture and power centers. Isn't it a bit of a problem for your argument that folks were sitting around farming for at least 20,000 years and perhaps as long as 50,000 years before Sumer?

a problem? no. according to the Sumerian King List the Anunnaki have been around for 400.000 years. interesting that these records match with the appearance of Homo Sapiens. by the way, why dont you address this issues here: http://www.dailygrail.com/blog/3899
But wait! What were they doing for 400,000 years? I thought they helped us with all of this quite "suddenly"? So it took advanced godlike aliens nearly half of one million years to do things that we could probably help another sapient species with in a few hundred? Gee-whiz those are some smart interstellar aliens.

Except everything I wrote above is true. The rabble outnumber you, how do you keep them in line. So you arm some of them and give them some meager benefits, how do you keep these now armed guys in line? And it goes on and on. But if you have gods on your side, or are yourself a god... that kind of changes the equation doesn't it.

no it doesnt change the equation, it makes it worse. you seem to have taken human nature out of the equation alltogether.
No, I am counting on human nature. Humans love power and privilege and will do just about anything to get it and keep it. Especially, if they don't have any enlightened views about helping each other out. Making up gods or pretending to be one yourself is not above human beings. And it's not like we haven't seen plenty of examples of exactly such behavior over the last 200 years or so.

humans are curious by nature, if one invents a god that suposedly protects and one puts him in an altar, you can bet that some will question that god and will surely want to test him to see how far they can go.
Ah, but all the evidence you need comes from the literate priests themselves (or whatever you choose to call them). These guys can do godlike things like predict eclipses and tell me the best time to plant the crops to avoid frost and flood. And this is where another aspect of human nature comes in, ego. If my neighbor and I can't figure that kind of stuff out, surely no one else can. Those guys in the temple must be talking to gods... because there's no way they did this themselves.

Really, it's amazing how few questions people are willing to ask when they want to believe.

if one claims that there is a god in a specific temple that needs to be fed at a specific time then i have no doubt that the people would want to see him.
Nope. Only the priests and the king can see him. Everyone else is too dirty and lowly. You must go through the proper rights to cleanse your soul, you see... or heal burn your eyes out and smite out your tongue. Send a couple more curious blokes back to the village with no eyes and no tongue and see how many more come around asking hard questions.

like i said, the Sumerian deities seem to be something else besides the anthropomorphic version of the thumber bolt or of the rising sun. the fact that these deities were deeply involved in human affairs calls for a different interpretation. im sorry but the explanation that this people were in some sort of mass dilusion does not suffice for me.
Like the Greek gods or the Hindu gods? They get pretty involved too. Still nothing that humanity has done requires their help and you still haven't demonstrated a single thing that we couldn't have done without them.

Hey, except unearthing an actual tomb kind of qualifies as "evidence" don't it? Strange that. And I didn't say that all of the information contained in ancient texts was wrong, did I?

you didnt state specificaly that "all" the information was wrong. but it seems it's you whos nit-picking what to believe now.
No. I'm quite sure that crop reports, temple collections, order of succession, etc. was all pretty accurate. Battle murals were probably generally true, but another aspect of human nature (one which you seemingly don't believe in), self-aggrandizement, means we need to take all of those with a grain of salt. These guys wrote about a lot more than their gods you know. It's amazing what one can learn from such things.

It is not defamation if it is true Outcast. You have demonstrated that you are quite ignorant in matters of biology and academic historical research and debate, among other things. I pointed out exactly what you got wrong and why. Now if you care to debate the substance of my rebuttal instead of crying that I called you a name, we might get somewhere. Show me where I am wrong in labelling ignorant for your reply about the state of medical knowlegde regarding the affect of certain substances upon the brain. Or where I was wrong in stating that you are clearly ignorant on the state of modern debate among academic historians. You stated things that are flat out wrong. This is mostly, I believe, because your preferred world-view needs those things to be that way. But this in no way means your statements have any relation to fact and it is only fair to alert other readers to this.

not happy with calling me ignorant you went further and called me obtuse and a hypocrit.
Well, you have yet to rebutt the reasons I called you ignorant. If you can show that you didn't get the two specific things I pointed out wholly wrong, I may reconsider. Again, what you wrote demonstrated ignorance in the areas you were drawing from. You may indeed be obtuse for willfully ignoring this and other things I have explained repeatedly, or for wholly misrepresented what others have said. And you will continue to be a hyprocrit for the reason previously outlined. Please, if you can demonstrate it doesn't make you a hypocrit I will surely apologize.

that is not only defamation its also slander.
Boy-oh-boy, awfully touchy and still wrong. Nothing is slander if it is true. I have shown you several times why I said what I said and you have not demonstrated in any way that I am wrong on those points. It's because you can't, but you should probably do more than simply complain.


Actually, I have provided many arguments that do neither. You can't see that and that is your problem. You do continue to be both however and I can't help that, only you can.

besides, the simple fact that you think you "should point my ignorance" to others speaks volumes of how you do "debate" with people you disagree with.
Outcast, other folks besides the folks in this thread read it. And folks not members of the board may as well. It is not unfair to point out to those "other readers" just where and why your arguments are so wrong. That's how one debates Outcast... again, you might be better off finding folks who will just accept anything you say and love you for it... but that won't be debate.

for someone who presumes to know so much and is so quick in pointing logical fallacies in others you seem to miss your own use of ad hominems.
No, an ad hominem would be to say that you are a"woo-woo" and therefore nothing that you say should even be considered. I don't engage in such tactics... though you are skirting awfully close.

[quote]In any case, don't see how pointing out where your arguments are fallacious, based on ignorance, or are wrong in any other way are contemptuous, ridiculing, or belittling. If your arguments need some facts to back them up that is your problem. You can't just cry that I am "mean" because I show you where and how you are wrong.

im not crying, i dont need baby sitters and i dont give a c*ap about your opinions, because... their JUST YOUR opinions. the facts
I stand by what I said above again. And "facts" what facts are those. You've presented not a single one. In that glaring absence the conventional explanation is unchallenged. You've provided only empty conjecture and little else. But again, show me where I am wrong. I've already shown you where you were dead wrong twice (and ironically you provided a link further demonstrating you mistatements on knowledge of certain substances on the brain).

that back my opinions are supported by a miriad of authors in many disciplines of science. or do you think it was me who invented the concept of alien intervention in human history?
Yet, you act as if I invented the conventional explanations for these events in humans history. Did I? That would be news to me. I'll collect my PhD's now please.

so what if i do not have the time to go through tons of references and post them here just to feed your "debate" dynamics. so what if im not the best person the defend the ancient astronaut theory? does that make you the holder of the truth?
Well, that's kind of what you have to do here provide evidence. Sorry if you don't like it, but it ain't gonna change.

After re-reading the book review it is clear that this is Strassman's agenda. Though I point out how ridiculous it is to feel on one hand that experiences such as alien abduction are an unreal experience and accidental by-product of DMT misfunction... yet everything else that results from DMT or other substances simply must be real. Get real.

above is a sample of your own redundant thoughts. you point out "how ridiculous" it is to discover that there is a relation between DMT and certain types of experiences. ridiculous? what do you know about dr. Strassman's research to be accusing him of pushing an "agenda"?
I can read his own contradictory conclusions from the summary. Certain experiences involved with DMT are not real, such as alien abductions, but others, like angels, are. How strange. If you can not see from that one simple statement that he has an agenda and that his conclusions were predetermined by that agenda... well, then it really is becoming pointless to debate you then.

or is it just your interpretation that the reactions happening on the brain during a DMT experience are merely quemical reactions? how do you know that those reactions are not an epiphenomenon for something else? how do you know, have you ever experienced the effects of DMT personaly?
He says it himself! Alien visitations are merely the result of the brain interacting with the drug.... but angels are real when the same drug causes the vision? Please??!!

there are a number of scientists and medics studying these matters nowadays with published peer reviewed works out there, you better hurry and tell them you think its ridiculous before they waste anymore time on this issue.
Yes and few of them are claiming that the bio-chemical changes in the brain actually result in people seeing real angels, demons, ghosts, or dieties. Or that their "souls" actually leave the body. I'd be interested to see some more such studies, which you have read, though so we can see how many treat these affects as real metaphysical happenings and how many treat them as simply bio-chemical processes the result of a very material world.

I'll close this post by asking you to please contact the BA if you really think I have gone over the line with you. I wouldn't be the first regular on the mainstream side he has punished or even banned. I would heartily disagree with the BA if he took your side on this issue, but it's his board and he decides, not me. So please Outcast, if you really think you have a valid complaint e-mail Phil and let him know. Obviously, I think my assessments of your arguments are totally fair and dead-on, but who knows, maybe I crossed a line without knowing it and someone else needs to decide whether that is so (aside from you and me). Either way good luck.

[Fram]

I like how you ignored the fact that human agricultural settlements existed for tens of thousands of years before the emergence of Mesopotamian culture and power centers. Isn't it a bit of a problem for your argument that folks were sitting around farming for at least 20,000 years and perhaps as long as 50,000 years before Sumer?

a problem? no. according to the Sumerian King List the Anunnaki have been around for 400.000 years. interesting that these records match with the appearance of Homo Sapiens. by the way, why dont you address this issues here: http://www.dailygrail.com/blog/3899



So the agriculture did not suddenly arise in Sumer, as Rich said, and you point us to a site that says the same. That's very friendly, but what's your point? You implicitly say he's right and then you ignore that again?
And as has been pointed out: those Anunnaki did a bloody awful job in teaching us, didn't they? Needing 390.000 years to get it right?
Perhaps the real reason that it took so long was that you need a sufficiently large population to be able to start with agriculture? And that takes time, lots of time, certainly when there are some mass destructions in between.
And I'm getting confused, by the way: did the Sumerians have twelve gods or no gods?

EDIT: I've searched a bit on the Internet about the Sumerian King List, but I found no reference to the Anunnaki in it, and the 400.000 years is a bit rough as well I believe. Or do you think that because someone supposedly rules for 28000 years or so, he certainly must have been an Anunnak (or whatever is the singular)? And then, for some reason, the lifespan of the kings starts to diminish, until in more 'historical' times they have normal lifespans. Perhaps the blood of the Anunnaki got mixed with human blood and they disappeared in our gene pool? Or do you have an even more plausible explanation for such bizarre things?

[Rich]

So the agriculture did not suddenly arise in Sumer, as Rich said, and you point us to a site that says the same. That's very friendly, but what's your point? You implicitly say he's right and then you ignore that again?

I am glad someone else recognized this Fram. The link he provided actually supported the points I was making, yet he still says I can't possibly be right or I'm just making it all up from the top of my head.

From the article Outcast linked to:
"The recent and totally unexpected find of several grains of morphologically domestic emmer wheat at the Palestinian site of Nahal Oren also raises the possibility that grain was under cultivation as early as 14,000 BC.7

An archeological site called Ohalo II in Israel reveals 19,000 well-preserved grass grains. Among the specimens are pieces of wheat and barley dating 23,000 years ago8—about 7,000 years older than the Nahal Oren samples cited above!"

So, there we have it: Sustainable grains existing at least as early as 23,000 years ago. Do you take exception with the information provided in one of your links a second time Outcast?

[A.DIM]

Disinfo Agent, you legitimize your name.
My username has always been legitimate. :)

Indeed, and you appear to take pride in it.

With much less sarcasm [...]
"With much less sarcasm"? Than whom? (See above.) Oh, well, nevermind. Let's get to the juice of your post:

[...] and citing credible sources [...]
Sources which you obviously neglected to read, since they didn't support what you were saying.

What?! Ridiculous!

From Biblical Research (http://www.biblicalresearch.info/page387.html):
"Since this word has the plural ending and is listed by all lexicographers and grammarians as a noun in the plural number, we must accept this connotation in every instance unless there are facts in the context showing a departure from the ordinary, usual literal meaning. In this connection let me call attention again to what I term the Golden Rule of Interpretation which is: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise."

Every context must be consulted in order to get the full significance of a given term. For instance, in Exodus 21: 5, 6, the word הָאֱלֹהִים, ha'elohim, appears, but from the context we see that it refers to the judges, the representatives of God. Again, in Psalm 97:7 this same word occurs in the sentence: "Worship him, all ye אֱלֹהִים, gods." Here it refers to the angels who are called upon to worship the Supreme Being; but in Exodus 20: 3, we have these words: "Thou shalt have no other אֱלֹהִים, gods, before me."

Here our word signifies foreign gods or idols. This interpretation is demanded by the facts of the context. Such examples could be multiplied greatly, but these are sufficient to show that the word Elohim has various connotations and that each context must be examined closely to determine its meaning in a given case.

We are to assume, however, that it has its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning in every case where the evidence does not point to a secondary or derived meaning. Whenever, therefore, there is no contrary evidence, we are to understand our word as referring to the plurality of persons subsisting in the one divine nature.

To clarify the matter further, let us look at Genesis, chapter 1. In this stately narration, we see Elohim occurring thirty-two times. When we glance at the ending, we know that this is a noun in the plural number, masculine gender, and that it refers to the Eternal Creator. When we notice, in verse 26, that אֱלֹהִים, 'elohim, said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness . . . ," we know that this word can have only a plural connotation. A conversation was held among the Elohim in regard to making man. Someone spoke, addressing others, and urged that they, the speaker and the ones addressed, should make man in their own image. The one talking and those addressed had only one image and one likeness. This fact precludes our understanding that this proposal was spoken to created beings. Angels cannot create anything. The word בָּרָא, bara', which means to create, that is, to bring into existence that which had neither form nor substance, occurs fifty-odd times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Every time it appears in the active voice. God is the subject, because He and He alone can perform the act of creating. In view of this fact we may be absolutely certain that the speaker in this instance was not talking to created beings, but to other divine personalities, who have the power to create. Furthermore, we know that the Almighty has one image, being uncreated; the angels, being created, have a nature and image essentially different from God. But those engaging in this conference are in the same image and likeness--in the absolute sense of the term. There is but one likeness and one image. They therefore are of the same nature and essence. Since this conversation was held prior to the creation of man, and since those engaged in the conference are of one nature and substance, we see that these facts corroborate the position that the word Elohim is in the plural number. No other construction can be placed upon it in this context."

You are ignoring this context to perpetuate your disinfo.

The Origins and History of the Hebrew Language (http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/5_intro.html) shows clearly how Hebrew is derived from the first sesmitic language - Akkadian - and it is no surprise, many of the "myths" between the two are startlingly similar. So if the much earlier "myths" were describing the actions of "gods," plural, and we clearly see these stories mirrored later in The Bible, (eg, let US create Man...), why would you cling to such an argument? Living up to your username?

From The Names of God (http://www.judeministries.org/Trinity/namesofgod.htm), first definition:
" God (in the Hebrew Elohim is plural)"


From Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (http://www.netwaysglobal.com/hebrew/intro.html):

"The first rule thing to remember is that Hebrew is READ FROM RIGHT TO LEFT. The word "Elohim" meaning literally "Gods" is written..."

"All Hebrew words ending in "im" or "eem" (Yodh-Mem) are PLURAL. "Elohim" literally refers to "Gods" or as we understand it, the "Godhead"..."

Still convinced it is singular?
And remember, even M Heiser, Hebrew Scholar and Sitchin detractor, clearly states it is a "morphologically plural word."

[...] I replied to The Curtmudgeon making it abundantly clear why elohim even exists in the plural.
The Curtmudgeon made it abundantly clear to you and everyone else why elohim, while sometimes a plural, may also be a singular. So have other authors presented to you.

The operative phrase there is "may also be a singular." I've not seen anyone argue against this. My point, which you clearly missed in your attempted disinfo, is that elohim IS morphologically plural, is as often as not in plural context, and is most certainly referring to "the gods" as described in the earlier tales on which the OT is based.

But let's see.... "those from heaven to earth came" ... hmmm...
...those not from earth who came here, not terrestrial beings who left first and came back, those from somewhere else, somewhere "not of thise earth" somewhere extraterrestrial or alien, extraterrestrials who came to earth, are extraterrestrials aliens?
:lol: Slippery slope if I've ever seen one.
"From Heaven" does not = "extraterrestrials", and it never will, no matter how much you try to stretch the words. The extraterrestrial reading of the myths is all an interpretation of yours, not something the ancients actually wrote.

Well, if you choose to ignore the countless descriptions of the gods' Heavenly Abode replete in the "Myths" as somewhere "not of this earth," from whence the "gods" originated, then yeah... "from Heaven does not = extraterrestrials." :-?

[...] the Egyptians believed their "gods" came from the Planet of Millions of Years, or the Abode of the Gods [...]
Can we see a source for this?
I think it is an obscured reference in The Pyramid Texts, but maybe this (http://www.civilization.ca/civil/egypt/egcr09e.html) can help:

"The earth was seen as a sacred landscape, a reflection of the sky world where the gods resided."

"Now Re lived in the heavens, where order was established. Each morning he was reborn in the east and travelled across the sky in a boat, called the Bark of Millions of Years, accompanied by a number of gods who acted as his crew."
I see no reference to planets in there. They are entirely your extrapolation. Your inferential leaps lack discipline.

I find it hilarious that you'd leave out my "inferential leaps" when they make clear why such a suggestion is reasonable. But what would you suggest is the "sky world" where the "gods" reside?

[A.DIM]

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.

Evidence??? I've been waiting for a long time for "anyone" to post anything that might be considered as evidence of these alien visitations...and I'm still waiting...

IMHO, this is the crux of the debate. 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.
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.

So, ultimately, it comes down to what one considers "evidence" and considering your history of pseudoskepticism, I'm convinced that nothing someone you consider "woowoo" posts would ever be accepted as "evidence." That's ok, I'm not really trying to convince you or anyone, just desensitizing you some. :)

[frogesque]

This is all getting very far away from the tread title What ever happened to Eric Von Danekin, (the answer to which was fairly adequately covered on p1). Now on p8 it looks more like a religious discussion. Perhaps it's time to let this die.

[Disinfo Agent]

Disinfo Agent, you legitimize your name.
My username has always been legitimate. :)
Indeed, and you appear to take pride in it.
Legitimate and trademarked. Don't mess with it, or I'll send Fox News's lawyers after you. :P

[R.A.F.]

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.

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.

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.

...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.

...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??

[Eta C]

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.

Or as a Lewis Carrol character put it

If it was so, it might be. And if it were so, it would be. But as it isn't, it ain't.

Seriously, A.Dim, what's so "mysterious" about the appearance of Homo Sapiens? While, like any scientific theory, evolution is a continuing work in progress, the basic progression from primative primates, to early hominids, to us is well established. From what I see the only ones who find human origins mysterious are those who want to ascribe it to supernatural or extra-terrestrial causes. Ultimately, their theories are not falsifiable. Interpretations of fragmentary ancient texts are not adequate as scientific evidence.

[Taibak]

R.A.F., EtaC: Those aren't necessarily the right standards to use for historical research though. You have to accept the texts as evidence because, in many cases, that's all you have to go on. All you can do is look at the evidence that exists, eliminate anything that your sources don't support, and pick whichever outcome is most likely. In this case, all the texts tell us is that the Sumerians believed their gods came from the sky. That's true, but only so far as the Sumerians believed it to be true.

What we need to do - and this is where I agree that the scientific method is the right approach - is look for evidence that supports your interpretation of the texts. If you accept that the Anunnaki actually existed, came from the sky, and taught the Sumerians civilization, you need to find something to back up the texts. Since the texts are so fragmented and are so subjective, that's one possible interpretation.

The problem is that it's ridiculously improbable. There should be more evidence out there: an object one of them left behind, a tomb, a skeleton, something made out of non-native materials. A.DIM, Outcast, we don't need a whole spaceship - just something that demonstrably proves the existance of the Anunnaki. It could be something as simple as a text from a nearby civilization saying they'd seen one of the Sumerian gods in person. Mentioning that other cultures had similar stories isn't sufficient. The similarities could be superficial (as I've argued), they could be the result of other cultures emulating the Sumerians, or they could be a simple case of synchronicity.

Gilgamesh's tomb, on the other hand, isn't even relevant. Could the Anunnaki have existed just as Gilgamesh existed? Sure. But one doesn't prove the other. It's a bit like saying that the existence of pudding somehow proves that lizards can talk - they really don't have anything to do with each other. To use a more sensible comparison, we know that Troy existed; archaeologists have dug it up. That doesn't prove that anyone actually built the Trojan horse.

[Disinfo Agent]

...Or that Zeus, Athena and Aphrodite (characters of Homer's Illiad) were actual living beings from the planet Olympus.

[Eta C]

You and I are in violent agreement here Taibak. Although they are sorely lacking as scientific evidence, for history, texts are often all there is. Even then one needs to exercise judgement; origianal source material is often flawed. To use the Troy example. Historians thought that it was a myth, despite the descriptions in the Iliad and Odyssey. Schlieman felt otherwise, dug, and turned up a city at the likely spot of about the right age. So there was a Trojan War after all. However, and this is something you need to consider A.Dim, that city and that war bear little resemblence to the one described in the Homeric epics. It would also be too much to claim from that discovery that people named Agamemmnon, Achilles, Hector, and Priam actually lived. The textual evidence was useful as a guide, little more.

[Disinfo Agent]

It would also be too much to claim from that discovery that people named Agamemmnon, Achilles, Hector, and Priam actually lived.
Well, the discovery of Troy doesn't prove that those people existed, but it does make their existence more plausible. I can't say the same about immortal gods from outer space, though.

[Outcast]

Rich wrote:
So, there we have it: Sustainable grains existing at least as early as 23,000 years ago. Do you take exception with the information provided in one of your links a second time Outcast?

i dont know who's being obtuse anymore. or maybe im failling to get my points across the language barrier.

im not arguing a date for the appearance of agriculture. i dont think i ever said that the Sumerians invented agriculture either. before Sumeria existed as a whole civilization, the sumerians were scattered across Mesopotamia living in mud huts. in fact, the first sumerian settlements were mud huts. this pretty much is recorded in the Sumerian texts. EN.KI.DU or the creature of EN.KI, was a "beast" who lived among the animals before given civilization.

anyway, what im saying is that these seeds were genetically created from wild plants by the Anunnaki and given to mankind. the link A.DIM presented argues precisely the appearance of these seeds and how some plants now found in the wild could be offsprings of those original seeds and not the other way around. i dont know if i made myself clear or not, so... whatever.

[Outcast]

so what if i do not have the time to go through tons of references and post them here just to feed your "debate" dynamics.

Well, that's the way this particular message board works, those are the ground rules, that's the "debate dynamic" that obtains here at the BABB.

[shrug]

Actually, I think you're making some interesting points. Don't get all hissy and wind up getting this thread locked, 'kay? ;)

"Well, that's the way this particular message board works, those are the ground rules, that's the "debate dynamic" that obtains here at the BABB. "

well, my friend then this should also apply to everyone else besides the "woo-woos". but alas, we all keep mouthing our opinions and stating them as fact. nevertheless, if you've read my ealier posts in other threads i think you'll find that i've tried to present my case at least with a link or a quote for reference. so i dont feel obliged to spill my library of references everytime i want to make a comment, besides i dont have such a library.

"Actually, I think you're making some interesting points. Don't get all hissy and wind up getting this thread locked, 'kay? "

dont worry, i'll not answer to provocations anymore and i'll temper my post atitude. after all i dont want to deprive anyone from their joy. anyway, its very flatering that you consider that im making interesting points but im just an ignorant obtuse person and possibly its a little hypocritical of me to advise that you should'nt listen to what i say. [-X

[Taibak]

It would also be too much to claim from that discovery that people named Agamemmnon, Achilles, Hector, and Priam actually lived.
Well, the discovery of Troy doesn't prove that those people existed, but it does make their existence more plausible.

Not by a whole lot, admittedly. I don't even think we have any mentions of these people from outside of the legend of the Trojan War and its associated stories. Using Agamemnon as an example, you'd expect to find his name on an inscription somewhere in Mycenae - either on a building or on something found there. Granted, the evidence is ridiculously incomplete, but there's nothing that actually proves he existed. There's nothing that proved he didn't exist either, but that's a much safer conclusion given what we do have.

[Outcast]

Taibak wrote:
R.A.F., EtaC: Those aren't necessarily the right standards to use for historical research though. You have to accept the texts as evidence because, in many cases, that's all you have to go on. All you can do is look at the evidence that exists, eliminate anything that your sources don't support, and pick whichever outcome is most likely. In this case, all the texts tell us is that the Sumerians believed their gods came from the sky. That's true, but only so far as the Sumerians believed it to be true.

What we need to do - and this is where I agree that the scientific method is the right approach - is look for evidence that supports your interpretation of the texts. If you accept that the Anunnaki actually existed, came from the sky, and taught the Sumerians civilization, you need to find something to back up the texts. Since the texts are so fragmented and are so subjective, that's one possible interpretation.


why, that is very well put. apparently there seems to be some confusion in the minds of the "desinfo agents", first because they do not intimately know the texts and other details which present themselfs as evidence and second because they supose the ETH defenders argue the possibility out of religious motivations. two fundamental problems which leave many in the realms of the pseudoskepticism.

nevertheless you're very much correct in stating that we should pursue the physical evidence, the problem is, and extrapolating that the ETH is correct, we dont really know what to look for since we dont know in which terms the events happened. we have no idea what technologies they possessed and we dont know what they were truly doing on Earth, what were their objectives or their motivations. therefore we dont really know if their presence in this planet should have left any trace.

like A.DIM said, what remains is the question of OOParts, the textual evidence, and the fact that ancient civilizations had knowlledge they suposedly shouldnt have had or in the case of the Vedas, knowlledge we are still rediscovering.

allthough its not a proven theory, which i never said it was and i believe no ETH defender will ever say, the fact is that there are a number of reasons why the theory shouldnt be discarded, it should be instead supported with research and a reevaluation of humanity's past under the view of the 21th century Man. unfortunetly the typical sorts of attack the ETH receives comes more from the natural phsycological forms of denial than from a consistent and indepth understanding of the available evidence.

[R.A.F.]

What we need to do - and this is where I agree that the scientific method is the right approach - is look for evidence that supports your interpretation of the texts.

Or evidence (such as observations of planetary motions) which are completely contrary to the "Sitchin interpretation".

Outcast...I find it very interesting that you would quote the first 2 paragraphs of Tiabak's post, while completely ignoring the last 2 paragraphs of the same post.

In the interest of completeness, (and since it's a new page, and I don't want anyone to miss it), here are the last 2 paragraphs of that post...

The problem is that it's ridiculously improbable. There should be more evidence out there: an object one of them left behind, a tomb, a skeleton, something made out of non-native materials. A.DIM, Outcast, we don't need a whole spaceship - just something that demonstrably proves the existance of the Anunnaki. It could be something as simple as a text from a nearby civilization saying they'd seen one of the Sumerian gods in person. Mentioning that other cultures had similar stories isn't sufficient. The similarities could be superficial (as I've argued), they could be the result of other cultures emulating the Sumerians, or they could be a simple case of synchronicity.

Gilgamesh's tomb, on the other hand, isn't even relevant. Could the Anunnaki have existed just as Gilgamesh existed? Sure. But one doesn't prove the other. It's a bit like saying that the existence of pudding somehow proves that lizards can talk - they really don't have anything to do with each other. To use a more sensible comparison, we know that Troy existed; archaeologists have dug it up. That doesn't prove that anyone actually built the Trojan horse.

Ya know, it doesn't really sound like Taibak is agreeing with you, Outcast. Just my pseudoskeptical observation. :lol:

[Taibak]

Taibak wrote:
R.A.F., EtaC: Those aren't necessarily the right standards to use for historical research though. You have to accept the texts as evidence because, in many cases, that's all you have to go on. All you can do is look at the evidence that exists, eliminate anything that your sources don't support, and pick whichever outcome is most likely. In this case, all the texts tell us is that the Sumerians believed their gods came from the sky. That's true, but only so far as the Sumerians believed it to be true.

What we need to do - and this is where I agree that the scientific method is the right approach - is look for evidence that supports your interpretation of the texts. If you accept that the Anunnaki actually existed, came from the sky, and taught the Sumerians civilization, you need to find something to back up the texts. Since the texts are so fragmented and are so subjective, that's one possible interpretation.


why, that is very well put. apparently there seems to be some confusion in the minds of the "desinfo agents", first because they do not intimately know the texts and other details which present themselfs as evidence and second because they supose the ETH defenders argue the possibility out of religious motivations. two fundamental problems which leave many in the realms of the pseudoskepticism.

Well, much thanks to R.A.F. for pasting the other half of my post. Now if you'd mind posting these 'other details which present themselfs [sic] as evidence....'

nevertheless you're very much correct in stating that we should pursue the physical evidence, the problem is, and extrapolating that the ETH is correct, we dont really know what to look for since we dont know in which terms the events happened. we have no idea what technologies they possessed and we dont know what they were truly doing on Earth, what were their objectives or their motivations. therefore we dont really know if their presence in this planet should have left any trace.

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. Show me something made of a material that you can't find anywhere near Mesopotamia. Show me something that looks nothing like a typical Sumerian object. Show me a postcard from Bob the Hittite to his wife, Doris, telling all about getting to meet Enki and Innanna. Heck, we don't even need to know the specifics of their technology to recognize it. 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.

like A.DIM said, what remains is the question of OOParts, the textual evidence, and the fact that ancient civilizations had knowlledge they suposedly shouldnt have had or in the case of the Vedas, knowlledge we are still rediscovering.

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.

allthough its not a proven theory, which i never said it was and i believe no ETH defender will ever say, the fact is that there are a number of reasons why the theory shouldnt be discarded, it should be instead supported with research and a reevaluation of humanity's past under the view of the 21th century Man. unfortunetly the typical sorts of attack the ETH receives comes more from the natural phsycological forms of denial than from a consistent and indepth understanding of the available evidence.

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.


Edited to fix a pair of typos.

[Kesh]

"Desinfo {sic} agent?" Outcast, you've been reading too much GLP. 8-[

[Fram]

why, that is very well put. apparently there seems to be some confusion in the minds of the "desinfo agents", first because they do not intimately know the texts and other details which present themselfs as evidence and second because they supose the ETH defenders argue the possibility out of religious motivations. two fundamental problems which leave many in the realms of the pseudoskepticism.


Outcast, we do not need to know the texts intimately. You and other people point out what you consider evidence, and we study that. We go to the links you give, we read about it, and we point out the holes and leaps in the logic, the misinterpretations, the possible other interpretations, the mistakes, ...
I have had another discussion about the same theme with A.DIM where he claims some Sumerian text is an astronomical text. When I point out all the things in there that you cannot interprete astronomical in any way (a 'planet' laying at the feet of another 'planet' and weeping and so on), it turns out that those parts are symbolical, but the rest is literal. A bit strange for an astronomical text, and a much weaker starting point. And so we discuss what you bring as evidence, and for the moment, we find it unconvincing and much much less plausible than other explanations.
I cannot say that it is impossible that once there have been aliens who teached some humans something, and even that those humans considered them as gods. But I have no evidence for it, and so I have no reason at all to believe it.
But at least you don't seem to have the habit of A.DIM of using strong adjectives to make an issue out of a non-issue (inexplicable, anomalous, countless, ...). It is not because science doesn't have all the answers yet that the correct explanation is the most far-out one.

[Disinfo Agent]

I don't even think we have any mentions of these people from outside of the legend of the Trojan War and its associated stories.
But the legend of the Trojan War shows up everywhere in ancient Greek culture. Other authors besides Homer mention it (Plato, for instance), and it shows up in artwork (pottery, etc.)

Using Agamemnon as an example, you'd expect to find his name on an inscription somewhere in Mycenae - either on a building or on something found there.
Did the Greeks (the Mycenians) already have a written language at that time?

The Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_War) says the Trojan War is supposed to have taken place sometime in the 13th or 12th century BC, but according to this timeline (http://www.ancientscripts.com/ws_timeline.html) Greek only started to be written after 1000 BC. Mycenae had been abandoned by then.

[Eta C]

Did the Greeks (the Mycenians) already have a written language at that time?

The Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_War) says the Trojan War is supposed to have taken place sometime in the 13th or 12th century BC, but according to this timeline (http://www.ancientscripts.com/ws_timeline.html) Greek only started to be written after 1000 BC. Mycenae had been abandoned by then.

Yes, there was a written Greek script from Mycenean times. Linear B (http://www.greek-language.com/historyofgreek/linear_b.html) tablets were found at Mycenae, Pylos, Knossos, and many other Bronze age Greek sites dating between 1300 and 1200 BCE. At first it was thought that they represented some unknown Minoan language, but in the 50's it was convincingly demonstrated by Michael Ventris that the tablets were in Greek. (I recommend John Chadwick's book "The Decipherment of Linear B" for the full story.) Unfortunately, the tablets are not literary documents, but more in the form of inventories. Still, it would be quite a discovery to find a tablet that said something to the effect of "Kleomenes the farmer provides 1000 bushels of grain to Agamemnon the King in support of the war on Troy." Hasn't happened, but it could.

[Taibak]

I don't even think we have any mentions of these people from outside of the legend of the Trojan War and its associated stories.
But the legend of the Trojan War shows up everywhere in ancient Greek culture. Other authors besides Homer mention it (Plato, for instance), and it shows up in artwork (pottery, etc.)

Bad example. Plato was living some 800 years after the war supposedly took place. We'd need something at least close to contemporary here. Similarly, the artwork doesn't help much either.

Using Agamemnon as an example, you'd expect to find his name on an inscription somewhere in Mycenae - either on a building or on something found there.
Did the Greeks (the Mycenians) already have a written language at that time?

The Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_War) says the Trojan War is supposed to have taken place sometime in the 13th or 12th century BC, but according to this timeline (http://www.ancientscripts.com/ws_timeline.html) Greek only started to be written after 1000 BC. Mycenae had been abandoned by then.[/quote]

As EtaC points out, any such texts would have been written in Linear B and not in the classical Greek alphabet. Moreover, the city wasn't abandoned until 486 BC.

[Disinfo Agent]

Bad example. Plato was living some 800 years after the war supposedly took place. We'd need something at least close to contemporary here. Similarly, the artwork doesn't help much either.
Mind you, I'm not saying that any of this proves that Homer's characters were based on real people...

Using Agamemnon as an example, you'd expect to Using Agamemnon as an example, you'd expect to find his name on an inscription somewhere in Mycenae - either on a building or on something found there.
Did the Greeks (the Mycenians) already have a written language at that time?
As EtaC points out, any such texts would have been written in Linear B and not in the classical Greek alphabet. Moreover, the city wasn't abandoned until 486 BC.
My point is that if the Myceneans did not regularly write about contemporary events, then it's unreasonable to expect to find Agamemnon's name on an inscription somewhere in Mycenae.

[Outcast]

R.A.F. wrote:

In the interest of completeness, (and since it's a new page, and I don't want anyone to miss it), here are the last 2 paragraphs of that post... Ya know, it doesn't really sound like Taibak is agreeing with you, Outcast. Just my pseudoskeptical observation.

i did read Taibak's WHOLE post. and i agree with him, even with his last statements. though i wanted to comment on his initial statements i believe i NEVER said he agreed with me. so its a rather mute point that last invective of yours.

also there was realy no need to uphold that "completeness interest" of yours. but you're right, its nothing more than the usual pseudoskeptical observation.

[R.A.F.]

...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]

Taibak wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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

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/issue/198002/the.sumerian.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.

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.]

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.

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

It's the literal translation of myths.

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!!

...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.

nevertheless is just a valid theory as any other.

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

[Taibak]

Taibak wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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/issue/198002/the.sumerian.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.

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?

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.

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]

Taibak wrote:

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.

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

Taibak wrote:

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?


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.

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.

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.

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/nature/2804257.stm#story

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?

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.

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.

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]

Ack. Double post.

[Outcast]

Taibak wrote:
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.

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

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:

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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]

Taibak wrote:
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.

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.

"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?

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.

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?

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?

"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.

"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?

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.

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:

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.

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]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 wo