Ancient Aliens?

Discussion in 'History' started by Scarecrow, Apr 12, 2009.

  1. spejic

    spejic Cautionary example

    Mar 1, 1999
    San Rafael, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    But if he's right, then all of the world's astronomers, biologists, historians, and Biblical scholars are wrong, and have been been conspiring to tell the same wrong story for far longer. Is that really so believable? It is certainly believable that people convince themselves to believe weird things over long periods of time.

    He's got an amazing story. Wait until he provides amazing evidence before giving it any credence.
     
  2. NYC_COSMOS

    NYC_COSMOS BigSoccer Supporter

    Jan 13, 2007
    Queens, NY
    Club:
    CA Vélez Sársfield
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Yes, you are correct but he's sticking to his story. He starts off with the premise that yes their is a global conspiracy in place to cloud the minds of humans. How true he can be I'm not sure of, but he can't be completely off either.

    Global conspiracy? Pretty big and very exhaustive in resources to maintain, no? I would say so, unless of course the motivation is massive. Alien beings and exploration of the unknown could be that motivating factor.

    Either way, its a fascinating read if you are willing to read it without trying to disprove it from the beginning. Don't read it as a reference text but rather as a story. That's how I approached it. Otherwise it would have been a difficult read.
     
  3. bit_pattern

    bit_pattern New Member

    Oct 30, 2009
    Fermi Paradox says no...
     
  4. NYC_COSMOS

    NYC_COSMOS BigSoccer Supporter

    Jan 13, 2007
    Queens, NY
    Club:
    CA Vélez Sársfield
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,360361,00.html

    If we have only recently found this civilization on earth, what makes you think that we have the capacity and knowledge to find life on another planet?

    Are we that egocentrical as a race and as a species to think that we are alone? We can calculate things until we are blue in the face but it does us no good. We still dont have definite answers, they are still all just assumptions based on earthly experience. Nothing more than that.
     
  5. Ombak

    Ombak Moderator
    Staff Member

    Flamengo
    Apr 19, 1999
    Irvine, CA
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    You repeat this sort of stuff often but there are numerous instances of you defending his point or at least defending the idea that we should listen to his point despite all evidence going against it. So your actions don't match your words.

    For example:
    It's not that I don't like his point of view, it's that it's stupid and completely void of any support. You however simply say "why not" to the idea of letting him make any claim he wants and not challenging his idea. It is your attitude that I am attacking more so than his point of view.
    Not at all. Just because you say you don't agree with him doesn't exonerate you from criticism for bringing up nonsense. You have consistently said you don't agree with him but then followed that up with suggestions that we read his book or give his point of view a chance. Why? Why should we completely divorce ourselves from our critical thinking abilities for this particular story? We shouldn't and we've appropriately called you on defending the idea that we should give his view a chance. Don't get bent out of shape over being taken to task on not thinking. You thought this was a view worth learning about for all of us, but it's not, it is utter nonsense.
     
  6. spejic

    spejic Cautionary example

    Mar 1, 1999
    San Rafael, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Yes you can be sure. It's really, really easy to be sure, and it boggles my mind that you are seriously backing this guy's utterly unbelievable position. In order for him to be right, you would need countless people who have never heard of Sitchin to be part of a conspiracy against him, and you would need countless people who totally disagree with each other (competing scientists, biologists and young-earth creationists) to all be part of the conspiracy. Is that really so easy to believe instead of one person being wrong? Why do you put so much credence in a man who has misquoted texts, doctored evidence, has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of skill in translation to the point of even misidentifying which language he is looking at, and has been wrong about every prediction his theory makes?
    Why didn't you watch Stargate SG-1 with this same openness? Isn't the idea that the ancient gods were actually humans taken over by Goa'uld a lot more consistent than Sitchin's ideas? It matches a lot more mythology than Sitchin does, and it doesn't contradict western science as much.

    Obviously you did not read it as a story. You read it as the secret story of reality. Please, I beg of you to learn something about logic. Logic is a technology developed to prevent people from being taken in by crackpots like Setchin.
     
  7. Foosinho

    Foosinho New Member

    Jan 11, 1999
    New Albany, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I wanted to revisit this because I came up with a better way to explain the intent of my previous posts.

    The Fermi Paradox serves as weak ancillary evidence for the impossibility of FTL travel.

    That's all. I think I perhaps didn't express myself well before, given some of the responses I got.
     
  8. AFCA

    AFCA Member

    Jul 16, 2002
    X X X rated
    Club:
    AFC Ajax
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    Life at temperatures of several hundred degrees Celsius was considered out of the question up until not even that long ago AFAIK.

    Still not the same, I know. But still... We found it at the bottom of the sea.
     
  9. NYC_COSMOS

    NYC_COSMOS BigSoccer Supporter

    Jan 13, 2007
    Queens, NY
    Club:
    CA Vélez Sársfield
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    I'm curious, did you read his book(s)?
     
  10. Barbara

    Barbara BigSoccer Supporter

    Apr 29, 2000
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Okay, in that context what you were saying makes much more sense. Thanks for that.
     
  11. Ombak

    Ombak Moderator
    Staff Member

    Flamengo
    Apr 19, 1999
    Irvine, CA
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    Not only have I not read the book, I can safely say I won't and that I'm not missing anything for it.
     
  12. NYC_COSMOS

    NYC_COSMOS BigSoccer Supporter

    Jan 13, 2007
    Queens, NY
    Club:
    CA Vélez Sársfield
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    I figured as much. I would have respected your opinion much more had you said you read it and found it wanting. Instead you chose to take someone elses opinion and use it as yours.

    Funny how you were the one that was positioning himself as the open minded poster. Even funnier is that you posted a video to try and educate all yet you haven't even read the work in question. Maybe you should watch the video yourself and take some cues from it. Just because you scream louder and more often doesn't make you right.
     
  13. Ombak

    Ombak Moderator
    Staff Member

    Flamengo
    Apr 19, 1999
    Irvine, CA
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    Apparently you completely misunderstood the video, but that's not surprising. I fully expected this post.
     
  14. NYC_COSMOS

    NYC_COSMOS BigSoccer Supporter

    Jan 13, 2007
    Queens, NY
    Club:
    CA Vélez Sársfield
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Had you shown a midpoint we wouldnt be here but you didnt and chose to take another more aggressive route.

    Next time don't be so judgemental. :D Listen, I was never looking to have any confrontations with anyone, just wanted to exchange thoughts and opinions with fellow posters on the topic.
     
  15. Ombak

    Ombak Moderator
    Staff Member

    Flamengo
    Apr 19, 1999
    Irvine, CA
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    You have basically told me I should read the book and that not doing so means I'm not open-minded. You are incorrect and the video explains why fairly well. What do you fail to understand?

    A midpoint would be unreasonable. My position was correct, yours was not (despite your constant claim you had not position).
     
  16. NYC_COSMOS

    NYC_COSMOS BigSoccer Supporter

    Jan 13, 2007
    Queens, NY
    Club:
    CA Vélez Sársfield
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    No that's how you are interpretting it. What I'm saying is that you pass judgement on something that you have not read and then you tell people they are wrong for reading it and trying to judge for themselves.

    Also in the course of our exchange you never showed a midpoint nor a non malicious exchange of thoughts, hence my reaction to your video and your moral high ground, self righteous posturing.

    This just proves I wasn't wrong about you. You were on the attack. I wasn't looking to prove you wrong or slight you in any manner, just simply to exchange ideas and share thoughts with the thread.

    Here's the soap box:

    [​IMG]
     
  17. GloryHunter10

    GloryHunter10 Red Card

    Aug 29, 2009
    Helsinki
    Club:
    FC Internazionale Milano
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  18. Pigs

    Pigs Member

    Everton FC
    England
    Mar 31, 2001
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Club:
    Everton FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Interesting you should say that.

    Type in "ancient atomic warfare" at google and you'll get some interesting results.
     
  19. bigredfutbol

    bigredfutbol Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 5, 2000
    Woodbridge, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Sorry, but you were the one parroting a bunch of nonsense, not Ombak. Your "reasonableness" is seriously undermined by the completely unreasonable position you've staked out.
     
  20. NYC_COSMOS

    NYC_COSMOS BigSoccer Supporter

    Jan 13, 2007
    Queens, NY
    Club:
    CA Vélez Sársfield
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Whether or not the book is nonsense is not the point. I read the book and then read the subsequent debunking of Sitchin. I've seen both sides. Ombak on the other hand, has not, but instead persists, like yourself, on stating that Sitchin and his theories are nonsense when IN FACT and by his own admission have not read Sitchin's work.

    That's all I'm saying getting at.
     
  21. bigredfutbol

    bigredfutbol Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 5, 2000
    Woodbridge, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I know that's all you're getting at. All I'm getting at is that you're giving equal weight to:

    1) A notorious crank, who has a well-documented pattern of mistranslation of sources, misunderstanding of basic facts, and a propensity to stretch a selectively chosen data and information to make a truly extraordinary claim;

    ...versus

    2) Everybody else who knows anything about any of the areas Sitchin sticks his nose in.
     
  22. NYC_COSMOS

    NYC_COSMOS BigSoccer Supporter

    Jan 13, 2007
    Queens, NY
    Club:
    CA Vélez Sársfield
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Initially I wanted to point out that Sitchin, in his book, says that previous translations were incorrect and points out to various reasons why. He even backs this up with evidence.

    There is one thing to say that he's a crackpot and another thing is to say he's a crack pot with out even reading his book. Also to accept the word of someone who debunks Sitchin, without even doing researching on the debunking is extremely poor, as well.

    It's sort of a "throw the first stone" type of thing.
     
  23. bigredfutbol

    bigredfutbol Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 5, 2000
    Woodbridge, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    But his claims aren't reasonable. They're quite fantastic, and his "evidence" goes against an enormous body of knowledge. And what reason would I have to believe that his unorthodox translation of source material is better than those he says are wrong?

    Just because someone writes a book doesn't automatically give his or her claims equal validity. Hell, I'm pretty sure I could find a book--loaded with footnotes--arguing that the world is actually flat and that space travel has been faked. Should I call you close-minded if you state that the world is round even though you haven't read it?
     
  24. NYC_COSMOS

    NYC_COSMOS BigSoccer Supporter

    Jan 13, 2007
    Queens, NY
    Club:
    CA Vélez Sársfield
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Without a doubt they are fantastic, sometimes even magical. But then again this morning I was reading in the news that DARPA had awarded Texas A&M, 9.9 million dollars in a grant to study the "zombifying" of bodies in combat. Mind you that Sitchin makes these claims in his books. He speaks about reanimated bodies and so on.

    Who do you end up believing?

    And I agree with you 100%! Just because you write a book means, nothing. The same criteria should be used to those debunking Sitchin.

    The topics at hand are fantastical like you say. Sometimes they are hard to believe and over the course of my life, I've learned that the established powers are liars. I would rather see both sides and then make my own judgement. So while Sitchin might not be 100% right, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
     

Share This Page