Jump to content

Ancient Aliens, The Kali Yuga, Science in crisis


Recommended Posts

Why does the scientific community still continue to deny the Ancient Alien hypothesis?

 

Are we to still asume that our ancient ancestors simply had an over active imagination? This is seriously not good enough. If we continue to think this way, we go into the future with a blindfold, this idea of the world - a mechanistic world view must change as we approach the end of the Kali Yuga.

 

It seems ridiculous that the majority still hold the narrow view, considering what we now know and understand, to even claim that we couldn't possibly have had celestial interventions throughout our history and we must have then developed in more or less liner progression will soon become part of an old worldview.

 

Many people still focus on the ideas of a God who created the universe.

 

It is important remember that the idea of a monotheistic creator is fairly new and the Old Testament itself talks about the Sons of God (contradicting the New Testament which sugests there is only the one Son) who came down from the kingdom of heaven to have intercourse with the daughters of men and bore children to them. We must remember - ancient people saw extra terestrials as Gods, but these beings who have intervened throughout history gave us monotheism later to develop our consciousness : to help us develop the idea that everything is part of everything else : now, in Quantum physics we find new meaning, finally we can come closer to God when we realise that the kingdom of heaven is inside all of us, God as a particle : we are part of the universe, our DNA is celestial. This is finally breaking the Kali Yuga, we are in a time of great change, science is in crisis.

 

There is plenty of evidence, but no credible scientist will go there for fear of their reputation - isnt the modern scientific community is the equivalent of the church in medeval times? It must break.

Edited by articlevol
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does the scientific community still continue to deny the Ancient Alien hypothesis?

Perhaps because it is utter nonsense?

 

 

There is plenty of evidence

Remember crop circles? It was a prank. The goofy alien crowd continued to hang on to their delusion that crop circles were done by aliens -- even after videos showed exactly how it was done.

 

There's lots of money to be made off a gullible public, and some people have absolutely no qualms about doing so. People dress up in fake sasquatch costumes, pander snake oil concoctions, and make false claims regard alien visitors just to make a few legal but rather unethical bucks.

 

There is no credible evidence of ancient aliens.

Edited by D H
Link to post
Share on other sites
There is plenty of evidence, but no credible scientist will go there for fear of their reputation - isnt the modern scientific community is the equivalent of the church in medeval times? It must break.

I was a big fan of ancient aliens once. All of the evidence I've seen is more easily explained by terrestrial means. It's not fear of ridicule, it's simply a case of Occam's Razor. There is no need for an extra-terrestrial explanation.

 

Believe me, if you had compelling evidence that couldn't be explained any other way, science would be extremely supportive. Think of all the research grants that would suddenly be available to scientists who might find alien technology. Fame, fortune and power are great motivators. Ask yourself why no one is seriously paying to find ancient alien technology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is important remember that the idea of a monotheistic creator is fairly new and the Old Testament itself talks about the Sons of God (contradicting the New Testament which sugests there is only the one Son) who came down from the kingdom of heaven to have intercourse with the daughters of men and bore children to them. We must remember - ancient people saw extra terestrials as Gods,

 

Are you talking about this --> The Return of the Nephilim. Chuck Missler would say that Gods were the extraterrestrials and not some kind of aliens from outer space.

Link to post
Share on other sites

articlevol,

First decide what you believe in. You mention 'Kali Yuga', a Hindu term. It seems that you are impressed by the Indian scriptures. And after that, you mention the Bible.

There are countless dissimilarities between the content of the two holy scriptures.

Edited by rktpro
Link to post
Share on other sites

Surya Siddhant is an interesting ancient text on highly genius divsion of time.

 

I have not read the text but isn't it that it has nothing to do with the motion of planets and more to do with the Sun God and his chariots i.e the way he moves from Uttarayana and Dakshinayana.

 

It is interesting to note that both the Mayan and the Hindu calendar start with the same starting dates around 3102BCE but the Hindu calendar doesn't end on this year, it continues for 432000.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does the scientific community still continue to deny the Ancient Alien hypothesis?

No one's insisting to deny it, we're insisting on having evidence before we accept it. There's a big difference.

 

Do you have any real evidence to show us here?

Not some theoretical stories - real evidence. Show us some of that, and accept scrutiny (like any other scientific theory) and if it passes the scrutiny, the scientific community will accept it.

 

Easy.

 

~mooey

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a big fan of ancient aliens once. All of the evidence I've seen is more easily explained by terrestrial means. It's not fear of ridicule, it's simply a case of Occam's Razor. There is no need for an extra-terrestrial explanation.

 

Believe me, if you had compelling evidence that couldn't be explained any other way, science would be extremely supportive. Think of all the research grants that would suddenly be available to scientists who might find alien technology. Fame, fortune and power are great motivators. Ask yourself why no one is seriously paying to find ancient alien technology.

 

A very good point.

 

I'm pretty sure that most scientists would love to find evidence of extra terrestrials.

 

It's definitely not that they want to cover it up

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one's insisting to deny it, we're insisting on having evidence before we accept it. There's a big difference.

 

Do you have any real evidence to show us here?

Not some theoretical stories - real evidence. Show us some of that, and accept scrutiny (like any other scientific theory) and if it passes the scrutiny, the scientific community will accept it.

 

Easy.

 

~mooey

 

If you think it is simply that easy you are seriously mistaken, think about how much visionary knowledge has been suppressed throughout history because of institutions that have other interests in mind.

 

 

There is been plenty of artifacts worthy of consideration , most of it has fallen into the realm of what a lot of people consider quackery and become associated with pseudoscience simply because there are many giant institutions and orthodoxies that uphold their agenda that keeps us from moving forward ; governments, corp[orations, organised religion, mainstream science and by no means least of all : A bewielderd mass ready to defend the rigid ideas of the status-quo at any cost.

 

We are already seeing how the evidence of climate change has been suppressed and covered up by corporations, its pretty obvious that something like ainchent astronauts canot be taken seriously in this climate, and there will always be a mass of people who rigidly back up this orthodoxy exemplified by most of the responses here.

 

I would say most religious texts that claim to be prophecy and the word of god are good enough artifacts, as evidence of the case for ancient astronauts : they all clearly state in one way or other that beings came down from the heavens and created humans in their own image, had intercourse with them, give them knowledge, ruled over them, had a kingdom in the sky with chariots of fire or birds of thunder. The main problem is that the postmodern mechanised mind wants everything to be quantified and objectified, it feels safe thinking that these historical accounts are purely mythological.

 

Isn't the story of Jesus a good enough evidence, actual historical evidence that states that a woman from earth bore a child through artificial insemination.

 

There has been lots of physical evidence too, much of it has either been discontinued, secretly worked on or fallen into the realms of the new age movement which no one takes seriously. It doesn't take much

 

Heres an example : Something like this comes out in the Daily Mail, hardly a credible source http://www.dailymail...huaylillas.html - will we ever hear anything else about this? despite how significant it is, wil the evidence ever come back : NO! people will just forget about it and we won't hear anything. This sort of thing happens all the time.

 

People often are put off as soon as any implication of conspiracy comes about, but come on, its no secret that the government doesn't make everything transparent, of course they have secrets and cover things up , anyone who thinks the worlds governments are transparent is seriously nieve. Even yesterday I was at a family gathering of in-laws and I heard someone mention that he knew someone who was on a panal with David Cameron and was made aware that the UK Government is taking samples every new child's DNA for 'future provisions', the government gets up to things that we don't know about, its just that most people are scared to go down the conspiracy road and its easier for them to forget about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say most religious texts that claim to be prophecy and the word of god are good enough artifacts, as evidence of the case for ancient astronauts

 

Oh dear... Do you not see the flaw in using the above as evidence?

 

 

the story of Jesus a good enough evidence, actual historical evidence that states that a woman from earth bore a child through artificial insemination.

 

 

It's just a story, there is no actual historical evidence of this

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguments for ancient aliens are... interesting. It would a be joke of cosmic proportions if we found that our major religious beliefs were in fact based in part on contact with aliens. There are some interesting artifacts that are reminiscent of "cargo cult" type behavior. The sad fact is that the noise level of the evidence is just as bad as evidence for UFO's as alien space craft. Some of it is compelling but the noise level of the signal is so high that no real information can be extracted from the evidence.

 

I am how ever always willing to discuss the possibilities but i admit i cannot provide any evidence that would convince skeptics or really even myself...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think it is simply that easy you are seriously mistaken, think about how much visionary knowledge has been suppressed throughout history because of institutions that have other interests in mind.

I don't think it's easy at all, you're the one who seemed to be baffled about why no one believed it.

 

It's not scientific community's habit to accept unfounded theories. We go by evidence, empirical data, and the scientific method.

 

If there's no proof, we won't waste our time turning around everything we know for a nice-sounding idea.

 

Stories and myths are great, but they're not evidence. To each of these "artifacts" there are several alternative explanations that seem to be a lot more reasonable than "aliens did it". So when that's the case, there's a need for a stronger piece of evidence, not just random and unrelated anecdotal stories/ideas.

 

There is been plenty of artifacts worthy of consideration , most of it has fallen into the realm of what a lot of people consider quackery and become associated with pseudoscience simply because there are many giant institutions and orthodoxies that uphold their agenda that keeps us from moving forward ; governments, corp[orations, organised religion, mainstream science and by no means least of all : A bewielderd mass ready to defend the rigid ideas of the status-quo at any cost.

Wait a minute.

 

You claim that the "bewieldered mass ready to defend the rigid ideas of the status quo at any cost" but admit that the evidence are bunk.

 

Huh?

 

If there's evidence, show it to us. More often than not, these things fall into the realm of pseudoscience because they are discovered to be unfounded. Prove us wrong right here, and give us the evidence that was discarded... maybe we'll all be so impressed that we'll start the scientific revolution from the inside.

 

 

 

The scientific community is not at all "rigid" in the status quo. It's just CAREFUL in changing it. Throughout history (especially recent 100 years) the status quo changed a number of times when big discoveries were made, and good theories were compiled from evidence.

 

The problem isn't the scientific community. The problem is evidence to thi myth. If there's sufficient evidence and it stands in scrutiny, no one will deny it.

 

But there is no evidence, only random anecdotes.

 

We are already seeing how the evidence of climate change has been suppressed and covered up by corporations, its pretty obvious that something like ainchent astronauts canot be taken seriously in this climate, and there will always be a mass of people who rigidly back up this orthodoxy exemplified by most of the responses here.

What? Climate change evidence are not being suppressed, they're out there in the open. They're just being argued against in POLITICS.

 

Not in science.

 

I would say most religious texts that claim to be prophecy and the word of god are good enough artifacts, as evidence of the case for ancient astronauts : they all clearly state in one way or other that beings came down from the heavens and created humans in their own image, had intercourse with them, give them knowledge, ruled over them, had a kingdom in the sky with chariots of fire or birds of thunder. The main problem is that the postmodern mechanised mind wants everything to be quantified and objectified, it feels safe thinking that these historical accounts are purely mythological.

 

Isn't the story of Jesus a good enough evidence, actual historical evidence that states that a woman from earth bore a child through artificial insemination.

 

There has been lots of physical evidence too, much of it has either been discontinued, secretly worked on or fallen into the realms of the new age movement which no one takes seriously. It doesn't take much

 

Heres an example : Something like this comes out in the Daily Mail, hardly a credible source http://www.dailymail...huaylillas.html - will we ever hear anything else about this? despite how significant it is, wil the evidence ever come back : NO! people will just forget about it and we won't hear anything. This sort of thing happens all the time.

 

You admit the daily mail is hardly a credible source -- so why are you giving it as an example of evidence?

 

Either evidence exist or it doesn't. The scientific community flipped physics on its head when Rutherfurd discovered the nucleus, and then again when Einstein came out with general/special relativity. These things DO happen. It seems the crackpots forget they do and insist on claiming science is "afraid" to "change" the "status quo".

 

As a young physicist I can tell you that anything revolutionary is *GREAT* for me. It means I have new opportunities for original research and a brand new field to put my claim in.

 

I will not do that, though, with unsupported myths and a collection of non credible stories, each of which could be explained with something less "out there" than "aliens did it, then never returned, for some odd reason".

 

There are so many holes in this idea, that the evidence need to be CONVINCING before you can be baffled about why no one accepts it.

 

~mooey

Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect him as an astronaut, sure. I don't really consider him telling me a third hand story that someone else relayed to him as Earth shattering however.

Question, do you think the Romans had help, or just the little bronw people?

Edited by Keenidiot
Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe you people will respect this man, then again, maybe not.

If I recall correctly Ed was the guy who tried to send ESP messages from the moon. More power to him: be original, test current paradigms, but it does suggest he is attracted to the unusual simply because it is unusual. I'm fine with that: I like ghosts and ESP and the Loch Ness Monster and clairvoyance.

 

I would love to learn that we were visited by ancient astronauts. Several other posters here have reflected the same viewpoint. It would make by day, month and year, if not my whole life to learn that such were the case. But where is the solid evidence? It just evaporates on close inspection. Disappointing, but I will allow my desire for these things to be true to corrupt my objectivity in examining the evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

maybe you people will respect this man, then again, maybe not.

 

real evidence is in your head

 

The fact we may respect the man does not mean we automatically take stories he says as a fact. That, in fact, would be a fallacy (appeal to authority).

 

Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the two conditions from the previous section.[1][2] Specifically, when the inference fails to meet the first condition, this is sometimes called an "appeal to inappropriate authority".[3] This occurs when an inference relies on individuals or groups without relevant expertise or knowledge.[3]

 

Secondly, because the argument is inductive (which in this sense implies that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises), it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[2] Such an assertion is a non sequitur; the inductive argument might have probabilistic or statistical merit, but the conclusion does not follow unconditionally in the sense of being logically necessary.[4][5]

 

Anecdotal references are not good evidence. Einsteins had to supply evidence to his theories even after he received a Nobel Prize, and so do everyone else. Respecting the person has no bearing on the theory needing *substantiation*.

 

Is there any *evidence* for any of the stories he's telling?

 

~mooey

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres an example : Something like this comes out in the Daily Mail, hardly a credible source http://www.dailymail...huaylillas.html - will we ever hear anything else about this? despite how significant it is, wil the evidence ever come back : NO! people will just forget about it and we won't hear anything. This sort of thing happens all the time.

(...), its just that most people are scared to go down the conspiracy road and its easier for them to forget about.

 

People remind, like the Starchild skull which has been proved after DNA analysis to be human. Probably a hydrocephalus. Take a Google search at hydrocephalus child pictures.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People remind, like the Starchild skull which has been proved after DNA analysis to be human. Probably a hydrocephalus. Take a Google search at hydrocephalus child pictures.

 

 

I wouldn't even go that far, personally. It looks like an infant, with molars. Not to uncommon today. Though the article does also point to head binding as a possible solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't even go that far, personally. It looks like an infant, with molars. Not to uncommon today. Though the article does also point to head binding as a possible solution.

 

where has its DNA been proven human?

 

 

 

head binding is always thrown up as a possible solution, its ridiculous, some traditional tribal cultures have binded the heads of infants to try to emulate the God's but you cant simply bind a head into any shape and size, come on people.... mmm a little bit of head binding and here we have the results http://blogs.independent.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/skull.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

where has its DNA been proven human?

Right here.

 

Wikipedia entry -

DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes".[4] Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. However, the adult female found with the child belonged to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother.[1]

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

so wikipedia is proof?

 

and a pervious statement michel123456 made "Probably a hydrocephalus" strikes me as somewhat speculative (sarcasm marks again) I thought people here were advocates of science.

like with most of these cases, there is conflicting evidence and opinion, the interesting thing is that the wikipedia article on the Roswell crash is actually not bad, it just depends wether you want to believe some flimsy story by government officials that it was a weather balloon or the years of evidence and research that states otherwise, Id rather not trust governments or any bodies with private interests, but suckers still want to defend the authoritarian bodies.

 

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

 

also side note @ someone suggested that climate science was not being suppressed http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/17/michael-mann-climate-war?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

Link to post
Share on other sites

so wikipedia is proof?

 

It's a bit better than a YouTube video, but it's not proof on its own.

On the other hand, you should go over the references at the end. Example: http://www.theness.com/index.php/the-starchild-project/ (AND its OWN references at the end).

 

That said, the one who needs to bring "proof" forward is the one making the claim. That is -- you.

 

The evidence is then scrutinized; if it passes, great. If it fails, the burden of proof reverts to you. That means that the claims in those articles require your answer. We are not the ones who need to prove you wrong -- you need to prove your own claim right.

 

That's the way things work.

 

~mooey

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.