In Peru, there are mountains. Between some of these mountains. THere are some (mountains) that are missing there summits ( tops of the mountains ) that look as if they were shaved off. On the part of the shaved area, are lines, that, in many people's opinon's look like runaway lines. Around the area are huge depictions of Animals and men and other drawn out pictures. These can only be seen from thousands of feet in the air. If you go to youtube or even ANY search engine and put in Nazca Lines, Peru, you can see it for yourself.

Aiden

Once again thank you for opposing my theories, but once again this is your opinion, and I do not have enough knowledge to oppose it, doesn't mean it can't be opposed. First off, I said BASE only. Your right, I concede that there dimensions were much different. I was only speaking of the base. Which btw, your only answer to that was "The only thing they have in common is a square base and they get smaller as they go up.

Square bases are the simplest shapes to make the bases of such structures. " Is this your claim that hmmm, that was the best way to do it, so thats why its done that way? No supporting evidence of WHY they were exact? You fall short here, as I have in recent posts.

Also, you may have been there in today's age, but you certainly were not there, when they were built. So you don't know, and neither does anyone else 100% of how they cut, shaped, transported and set in place in the time frame, stated by the ancient egyptians.

To speak about your so called "if aliens built them" thing. I NEVER said they were built by aliens. I support the theory that the technology to build the pyramids was given to certain egyptians that were chosen to have this knowledge by aliens.  And that Egyptians did build them. But not by thousands of workers. Number one, how do you feed that many people on a day to day basis? How do you do this with limited knowledge that we cannot duplicate ( in the time frame) today.

Also, YES we have much better building techniques today that they could not have accomplished. But I propose that skyscrapers, would not last 5,000 years. I believe the pyramids were built to last centuries. AND THAT is why they were built that way. Nothing we have built today, with exception of the great wall of china, would last more than a few hundred years. That is where our technology faulters and the pyramids become wonderous. What they "look like" today, isn't most of the amazement. I personally think, that if I was standing in front of one of the pyramids, my perception of amazement would be different than yours. I think that could be said for most people.

Btw, it has been claimed that the inside chambers of the pyramid, was actually one of the hardest things to accomplish when building something of this size. Just for burial chambers? Why do it the hardest way possible, just to store dead people in? Theories to why they did this are astonishing, but I won't go into that, something about, flooding the chambers to convert into chemical reaction for energy like a power plant. Do I believe it, I say it's posible by the way it was explained, but NOT fact.

Aiden

So I am to conclude that you believe that NOONE, except AAT theorists believe this is a depiction of the solar system? Show me someone or some type of data that proves your claims that its not. See this is what I am talking about, I am willing to listen and believe you, but you are not showing, you are only telling. Just like me.

Why is it, that I have recanted my claims, and willing to be openminded, but you people are not willing to give me the same respect? You just think its all bullshit no matter what I or anyone else tells you. And when you can't explain something ( like the Nazca lines or the base of the 2 pyramids) you either make a joke or play it off and go on to the next thing to debunk. Just admit there is evidence and this discussion can be done, instead of claiming EVERYTHING that I have shown and talked about is bullshit. OR AT the least admit that it is possible. OTHERWISE stop posting, because this is becoming a non issue of evidence, and more about epeen.

aiden

Why make geometric figures and shapes of animals that huge that can only be seen from the sky? I already know the answer, which is conveyed by more people than just AAT's, but lets hear your bullshit answer, that I am sure you won't back up with any real evidence (either).

I have now learned how this site's posters work, you want proof, but other than your own posting, you wont show any of your proof. But you expect it from me. That is called being a hypocrite.

Aiden

NO it isn't a coincidence, it's called a story getting passed down through multiple cultures and generations, no magic to that.

There were other humans besides the Sumerians and BEFORE the Sumerians. They got their stories from prior generations too. Writing something down is not the only media to communicate to others. To single them out because they were the first to write something down doesn't make the human species SUDDENLY magically appear or important to little green men.

You do know that the distance between the outer islands of Alaska and Russia are not that far apart and with the ice cap during the winter would not have made it impossible for humans to get to our continent. It is crap to say Columbus discovered the Americas, and it is crap to say that the Mayans magically appeared out of nowhere. Not having a record of where stories come from our where people came from doesn't make your conspiracy crap true.

It makes sense that humans make up stories.

Lets assume your comic book crap was true and this was all a warning? What then? If this is all supposed to happen and we are all doomed what can we do about it? Thats like saying, "You're going to get old and die someday". Ok, so we only have 2 years left? Do we sulk? Do we build bunkers and buy weapons and kill each other? Or is it that you, because you found the truth, the little green men will swoop you up and save you and fry the rest of us because we dared laugh at your scalely ET BFFs?

HUMN? If you want to talk about motifs, sounds alot like the Christian and Muslim tribalistic bullshit about doomsday.

EVEN scientists cant say exactly what will kill our species or when, but they have a much better idea than you or your doomsday friends in Islam and Christianity. You are a new ager of the same old bullshit. If you want to make the Guinness Book of Word records of "longest time wasted selling bullshit" you have a long way to go, Christians and Muslims have long sold the doomsday crap, long before you posted this.

Your doomsday crap is simply the same old crap with new packaging.

Something WILL get us. But the Christian god, nor Allah or little green men are going to stop our species or all life for that matter, from ending at some point.

I can fart a Lamborghini out of my ass. I don't have to prove that, YOU have to prove I cant.

I would say, if you expect me to justify my claims, you ALSO have to justify yours. If you don't believe this, like your stating, then you ARE A HYPOCRITE.

Aiden

Aiden,

I have watched your first video.  What I see is that a guy tells us that "The pyramids there are lined a perfect distance of each of the orbits of planets of our solar system".  Then, on 45th sec. of the video, there is a diagram of the orbits.  I am not sure what pyramids were taken for the first four orbits since ALL FOUR ARE WITHIN THE SAME PYRAMID.  But O.K., let's go with what we are shown. 

The radii of the shown orbits are:

4-3/4, 7-1/2, 9-1/2, 12-1/2, 37, 57, 91, 140

Now, the actual radii of the orbits of planets of OUR SOLAR SYSTEM are:

0.4, 0.7, 1.0, 1.5, 5.2, 9.5, 19.6, 30

If the first four orbits (somehow happened to be within the same pyramid!!!) might be a relatively O.K. fit to the reality, the rest of the SHOWN orbits .... anyone who knows how to use a calculator can see that they do NOT fit the claim "lined a perfect distance of each of the orbit of planets of our solar system".

So, if you still believe that 1.59 (91/57) = 2.06 (19.6/9.5) then, you know, I am not that kind of doctor....

100%

Edit: Aiden, if you think that in that video it was just an "artistic" representation of orbits, please find the reference to the original diagram.  

Also, Bob described here all the necessary facts to prove the Nazca lines can be explained without aliens' intervention.

NOW THERE is something we agree on.

The issue then becomes HOW, when people have competing claims do we find a universal way to KNOW beyond personal bias what is true.

I'd say basing ANYTHING on ancient superstition of any culture is pretty fucking stupid, be it Chinese, Hindu, Muslim or Christian, or your new age crap.

Isn't it funny that you and I and a Muslim and a Christian and Jew, can all sit in the same science class and KNOW what DNA is or mitosis, or what a light year is, or what an atom is?

I doubt you'd get many Christians to agree with your Mayan/Sumerian Area 51 X-file crap. And you'd be called an Infidel along with me by the 19 hijackers for not believing in Allah.

"Because they believed in Gods in the sky, who could see them, like most other cultures. What is problematic about that? They may have had other reasons, but that is hardly an unlikely reason."

I ask what prompted them to do this, why would they believe that there GODS were in the sky? Why not in the ocean, or in the ground, or in a tree, or a bush(LOL), simply put, something HAD to prompt them to take such drastic measures to create these HUG depictions that have last as long as they have. They didn't just wake up one day and say to themselves, hmmmm, I think I will create GODS in my head, and OH YEA they come from the sky. You proved my point without knowing it. I don't believe they just created these gods out of thin air. Something happened to make them worship and depict these things from the air.

As far as the "so called" real life sherlock holmes debunker. I will concede to you that there are quite a few people out there that can come up with OFF THE wall theories that debunk ANYTHING. So your links mean nothing too me, because for everyone one of your guys who said it isn't I have one that says that it is. FIND ME ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF (100% certainty) that they aren't what I claim them to be. Then I may be swayed, til then I will think what they look like, runways, backed up by signs only seen by people with flight technology. Persuade better. I could easily say this guy is a hack and has no more, or even less credibility than EVD, Sitchin and others in the field. Maybe he makes up shit to sell his books.

Aiden

What makes you so convince that you know how everyone else thinks, or would have though in given situations?  A lot of your arguments seem to be based on what people you have never met would or would not think/believe/do in situations you have never experienced.  Different people and different cultures obviously think and believe differently.    Yet you act like you can be absolutely sure about the motives of people you don't even know. 

Wait. So you get to demand others back things up scientifically (with the astonishing accuracy of 100% no less), yet when you are asked for scientific evidence you don't have to? What gives?

No I assertain, that they saw something significant enough to start a belief system, something they had never seen before. What it was is up for debate. The possibility could be AA, simply because other cultures also tell similiar stories around the world. I just say its possible because of the evidence to support it, your evidence equally supports your theory, but neither is certain, THATS MY POINT. It's what you believe based on the evidence and the way you interrupt that evidence.

Aiden

You do realize that since you are making a claim, and an extraordinary one at that, you have to back your claim up regardless of what anyone else can or can't back up, right?

I don't think people need to have seen something unusual to have a belief system, maybe if you could show the belief system actually started up suddenly you might need to assume some unusual event.

I think most belief systems evolve over time, as an attempt to explain a whole bunch of things about the world that they don't understand.

Both interpretations may be uncertain, but I think the AA idea is definitely more 'out there' and therefore less likely. It isn't MY evidence, it is THE evidence, the difference is in interpretation.

Oh and BTW, I'm sure you mean 'interpret the evidence', not interrupt the evidence'. It is a little distracting. "Interrupt" means to break into something that is happening and stop it, or break into the flow of a conversation, etc, I'm sure you know the word.

Now your an english major. NICE!, I type fast, so sometimes words don't come out exactly spelled right. my bad.

"I don't think people need to have seen something unusual to have a belief system, maybe if you could show the belief system actually started up suddenly you might need to assume some unusual event."

this is YOUR opinon. Mine is I think something has to happen. We disagree. FINE. Still doesn't mean you know any more why they did this than I. BTW, this stuff is becoming more mainstream and I also believe that in the next few years, you WILL hear more about it. Once that happens, I will be back to tell you the ole "I told you so". The earth being round and people going into space, was also thought at one point in time to be "out there" as well, yet today it is normality. I think you need to take that into consideration when making claims of what is and is not in the norm.

"It isn't MY evidence, it is THE evidence, the difference is in interpretation."

How do you claim that it is "THE" evidence, when your own link speaking of it, says "The questions of who and when aside, the mystery of why the markings were made remains, although several hypotheses have been proffered.

Where is "THE" evidence you claim. This guy may have a phd, but he is PAID to debunk things. I state, that if I can't use AAT theorists to support my claims, you shouln't be able to do the same with people that have just as much to gain from debunking it.

Joe Nickell, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) and "Investigative Files" Columnist for Skeptical Inquirer.

CSI HAHAHAH GIMMIE A BREAK. Paid Skeptic, can find anything wrong with anything. Given enough time and money.

" A former stage magician" some who used to get paid to fool people into believing magic, this is your "Expert"? Vs. EVD and Sitchin. I will take there research over a magician any day buddy. The fact that you are backing up with someone like this amazes me.

"author of numerous books" Once again I will claim the same thing you did about EVD and Sitchin, he is after selling his books, not being open to all possibilities.

Aiden

If you had followed Joe Nickell over time and heard how he actually approaches such things, you couldn't say that. He goes out of his way NOT to be a simple 'debunker', he seriously investigates things, and as you yourself noted in that same article, he will admit when there are things he cannot explain. 

But the mystery of another culture's motivation is more a matter of the great range of reasons humans can find to justify doing things, so one should never be so surprised at not understanding why someone else does something that you can't imagine doing, especially if they are from a very different time and culture. Not understanding why someone might have done something is a very poor justification for pulling crap like AA's out of your butt.

You may gather I am losing patience with attempting to engage you seriously....

And I'm sorry, Aiden, if you actually read that article and still take EvD seriously, regardless of anything else Joe Nickell said, you have to be out of your freakin' mind. He gave many examples of EvD jumping to absurd conclusions. Altho maybe I shouldn't be surprised, you seem to share much of EvD's mindset.

Just to reassure you a bit, I am not putting Sitchin in the same class of wacko as EvD, at least not yet. I haven't looked into his stuff enough. He does appear to have some real qualifications in the subject, unlike EvD. 

I had gone into Evd very heavily when his 'Chariots' book first came out, so I am much more confident of my judgement in his case. Seriously dude, you weaken your credibility by using him to support your ideas.

Yea, it is so earth shatteringly true that it is being taught in all the universities as scientific law like the laws of thermodynamics.

The Si Fi channel and X-files does not constitute science. People make crap up and try to retrofit REAL science to prop up their crap. You have merely allowed yourself to fall for elaborate CRAP!

These questions were posed too me a few posts ago, I re-posted them on my other forum to see what responses I could get from them, here are some:

"Aidenkai, would it be true to say that most of the posters on your site are generally inclined to accept the AAT position? I am new here, but I would assume that since this site is devoted to discussing these topics that most people here are open to the possibility of alien intervention.

Do you get many sceptics on there? I can't speak for everyone, but for myself I would say that it is my skepticism that brought me here in the first place. I had a skepticism of conventional answers to the riddles posed by ancient mysteries and wanted to know more. I kept my mind open to other possibilities and at the moment, this one is the best fit.

Could it be that you had gotten way too comfortable with your theories, and your reaction here is at least partly due to you not being accustomed to having possible weaknesses pointed out to you? I don't think the weakness is the theories, but perhaps your knowledge of them. Just let them know that you are new to these concepts and as such you are still learning and do not have all the answers. But you do feel that there is enough "evidence" to warrant further research and study and that's all you are proposing at this point.



Looking through what the Sumerians did, and what they left behind, I would honestly have expected far more things to mark them out from other civilizations of the time if they really had had extensive contact with space-travellers. I'm not sure what the poster is saying here. There are remarkable monuments all over the world that are mysterious in their origins, function and architecture. I don't know what more someone could require to, at least, keep their mind open to unconventional possibilities.

For example, why didn't their visitors help them set up a more advanced system of agriculture than the irrigation system which eventually lead to their decline, due to the build-up of salinity? Ok on this one I just have to say "huh?'' You mean that their knowledge of advanced math and geometry, science, medicine, textiles, ceramics, metalurgy, of the solar system thousands of years before a telescope was invented is all thrown out the window because their irrigation system developed salinity?

Did they record somewhere the distance to the Sun, an accurate diameter of the Earth, distance to the Moon, IOW some really fundamental data on the Solar System which really would have been hard for them to work out without some outside help? Rather than some dots on a small plate which can be interpreted in many ways." There exists a great deal more than "dots on a plate" to illustrate the Sumerian knowledge of their solar system. They had an extremely advanced calendar that even took into consideration the precession of the equinox. The distance between heavenly bodies in numerical terms was not important to them. What was important was the ratios in these distances. If they recorded the distance it would probably be represented in imagery rather than in numbers.

Here’s my 2 cents on that:
Yes, most people on this site are inclined to accept the AAT theories. That’s why they are here. However, there are skeptics here as well at times. Also, not all AAT believers agree with all the different theories and ideas, yet we all have the same general theory that AA’s visited, influenced, etc. It’s complicated.

Yes, there are weaknesses. Everything has weaknesses and there are arguments for and against anything. There is no smoking gun for AAT that the public is aware of. There is no smoking gun that God exists or doesn’t exist. The person who posted the comment quoted may be “too comfortable” with his or her theories as stated of you. The table can always be turned. Why are they so against AAT? Why is their theory so right? They want you to point out evidence yet they have nothing to disprove any of it, other than their words.

I don’t know enough about the intricate details of the Sumerians to comment. However, we don’t know what all information was given to them or any other people by AA’s. Some information could have been lost by the time the Sumerians wrote it down (such as distance from the Sun, etc.). Also, the Sumerians were only documenting what and how they understood things. Maybe someone should study the Cargo Cult tribes of modern times and see how they document the presence of our advanced civilization visiting them….then of course throw in a couple hundred years or even thousands and see what the documentation looks like.

Also, I think the Dogon’s knowledge of the Sirius system is some pretty good evidence of people knowing something that they shouldn’t.

Anyway, I understand your frustration.

Aiden

The shows I speak of are not fictional, of course there are many shows about aliens and vampires (fictional shows), I was not speaking of these. I was speaking of factual historical documentaries, in reference to the Ancient Aliens series on the History Channel and many that are on the Biography Channel that investigate these unsolved mysteries. These are set apart from the fictional Sci fi shows you are speaking of. In that regard, you see more mainstream of them on television today vs. Atheist/Religious debates on mainstream television. IMO, they could have done much better and been much more informed that they were. At least get someone that knows the facts on the atheist side and can come across as such, someone like Christopher Hitchens to debate Kirk and his minion. Sapient and Kelly came off as argumentitive, that never bolds well when your trying to get your facts across to skeptics on both sides, not once did Kirk or the other guy get mad, they listened and spoke very elequantly, vs. Sapient and Kelly who wouldn't even look at them when they were speaking. Christopher Hitchens would not have done that, he kills in debates, they should have taken a lesson from him in that respect. Furthermore, you don't see Christopher referring costantly to a book or something written down for reference, it made them look like they didn't know wtf they were talking about, always referencing something that was on paper. That's no different than Sarah Palin writing down something to say to the crowds when she is speaking. It made them look uninformed in my opinion. If your going to argue a point, know the facts, instead of reading them. I could have done a better job with a little bit of researching and a copy machine.

Aiden

Who was it that said, if you imagine it, it has to be possible? We just lack the knowledge to make it reality. Einstein?

We have imagined Time Travel since H.G. Wells wrote about it, but it has always been sci-fi, yet today they are close to being able to make it reality. Look it up if you don't believe me, Einstein even said it was possible if we could come up with a way to travel fast that the speed of light, Just because we don't have that technology YET, doesn't mean it isnt possible. That's the reality of most sci-fi shows, they tell us what IS possible, in the future. But I nor they make claims that is fact, to our known and LIMITED technology. You are still a RETARD not being able to think outside the box and say "what if" but I guess that the premiss of atheists.

I guess thats why I can't consider myself an atheist anymore, I don't believe in gods or a god, but I do have an open mind to rediscover the possibilities of different points being true. Supernatural is a joke, there is nothing to substantiate those claims, I believe early man saw something, met someone, and at there current level of understanding misunderstood something they could not explain, so equated that to being supernatural. I do not believe that something comes from nothing, there is always cause and effect, this point IS supported by science, you can't have the chicken without the egg and vice versa, so where do you draw the line, even atheists can't explain this, what was first. In you minds, you think, humans just created religion or believe in gods out of thin air, thats just NOT possible, if so, we would have records from mankind from Millions of years ago, that they had some type of belief system, which they don't. This theory of belief only comes from early man, and it wasn't created in there heads, something happened, believe it or not. I would rather believe they misinterupted something they saw or met that can be explained in Natural terms than in supernatural terms, but either could be true, you are not even willing to speculate that. Hence why you are a retard.

Aiden

Aiden

Thank you for not calling yourself an atheist anymore, that is the only rational thing you have said in this entire thread. At least we can agree that you shouldn't call yourself one.

Yea and I can dream up Jessica Rabbit who has the capability of sucking my dick because I dreamed it up, but I wouldn't hedge my bets on it.

The difference between "super natural" claims and scientific fact,  is that one has a history of woo and emotionalism, the other has a history of pragmatism and data and falsification and independent verification.

If you had bothered to look up Bertrand Russell's teapot, you'd understand why you are falling for the crap you are falling for.

You have a layman's attitude to the real human empathy of the idea of fairness. No one here I know of disputes your ability to utter anything on any issue. You can claim what you want, but that doesn't mean we have to respect the claim merely because it came out of your mouth.

OUR issue is strictly about ability to go beyond whims or emotion and DEMONSTRATE.

We are entitled to our own opinions, but no one is entitled to assert that a claim is enough. Disputes are not solved by proxy of popularity or force or zeitgeist, disputes are settled through testing and independent verification.

Which is why you and I accept that the earth is a globe. At one point popular belief was that the earth was flat. Liking something and proving something are completely different.