One World Built On A Firm Foundation
Music1 min ago
Aliens On The Moon? Why Have We Never Returned Back To The Moon?
253 Answers
There are many many videos and information on this theory and it really blow my mind it seems the more deeper I go the more I find and the more that compels me to keep digging.
I think that this the real "rabbit hole" and needs investigating/explaining.
Apparently there are many cover ups/lies and misinformation being spread by the main space body with 4 letters.
What are you thoughts on alien bases on the dark side of the moon/u.f.o's being sighted on/around the moon and various other things which point to the face that we are not alone and many on earth know the truth and do not want to share with us?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Henrietta. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Khandro, that artefact isn’t a spoof - it’s real – and so is the experiment - which is more than can be said for a creator god.
I can understand religionists attacking and baulking and bristling at the idea that ‘God’ might not have been a ‘God’ at all, but it never ceases to amaze me just how hostile some atheists can be when it comes to investigating the possible origins of ‘God’. “Yes, the frogs look like frogs and the fish look like fish, so they must be frogs and fish, but this one looks like an aircraft - but it can’t be because airplanes didn’t exist thousands of years ago so it must be a penis”. Mmmm. Well, for some aircraft may have existed because whoever created the frogs and the fish, along with that little model and all the others, together with all the drawings and all the literature, got their ideas from somewhere – and isn’t it strange that they got so many things so right, but that which doesn’t meet with our preferred world view so utterly wrong? Just imagine, if this theory were ever proven to be correct, and the God of Abraham (the supposed creator) was outed as nothing more than a member of the crew of a craft belonging to an alien race called the ‘Elohim’ (one Biblical name for God, but since it’s the plural form of El, there was clearly more than one of them), the concept of ‘God’ would for Jews, Christians, and Muslims, be no more. Bye bye God, you old devil! That has to be worth thinking about – no? Well, for most here evidently not, but for me, definitely!
Jom, that link you’ve given is to a reputable website – not! Perhaps you were joking?
Hello Mibs. :o)
I can understand religionists attacking and baulking and bristling at the idea that ‘God’ might not have been a ‘God’ at all, but it never ceases to amaze me just how hostile some atheists can be when it comes to investigating the possible origins of ‘God’. “Yes, the frogs look like frogs and the fish look like fish, so they must be frogs and fish, but this one looks like an aircraft - but it can’t be because airplanes didn’t exist thousands of years ago so it must be a penis”. Mmmm. Well, for some aircraft may have existed because whoever created the frogs and the fish, along with that little model and all the others, together with all the drawings and all the literature, got their ideas from somewhere – and isn’t it strange that they got so many things so right, but that which doesn’t meet with our preferred world view so utterly wrong? Just imagine, if this theory were ever proven to be correct, and the God of Abraham (the supposed creator) was outed as nothing more than a member of the crew of a craft belonging to an alien race called the ‘Elohim’ (one Biblical name for God, but since it’s the plural form of El, there was clearly more than one of them), the concept of ‘God’ would for Jews, Christians, and Muslims, be no more. Bye bye God, you old devil! That has to be worth thinking about – no? Well, for most here evidently not, but for me, definitely!
Jom, that link you’ve given is to a reputable website – not! Perhaps you were joking?
Hello Mibs. :o)
-- answer removed --
An idea seems interesting at first but doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Pointing that out isn't hostile. The rest is the usual approach on AB it seems.
I don't think there's anything more in it than modern people interpreting ancient art in modern ways. It's very difficult to avoid that so it's not a criticism of the people who do that. Just a criticism of the approach. Ancient peoples undoubtedly had vivid imaginations and were capable of creating abstract representations of the world around them. And the penis theory is hardly that crazy; it's amazing how obsessed the ancient world seemed to be with sex and phallic symbols.
I don't think there's anything more in it than modern people interpreting ancient art in modern ways. It's very difficult to avoid that so it's not a criticism of the people who do that. Just a criticism of the approach. Ancient peoples undoubtedly had vivid imaginations and were capable of creating abstract representations of the world around them. And the penis theory is hardly that crazy; it's amazing how obsessed the ancient world seemed to be with sex and phallic symbols.
Naomi...don't be so Bl****y po-faced, for goodness sake ! For someone that loves to debate with theists about their daft beliefs, as I do, you seem to be rather keen on science fiction !
This has gone on long enough everybody ......and I don't need your permission to say so Naomi ! Its open house here on AB, as you well know.
This has gone on long enough everybody ......and I don't need your permission to say so Naomi ! Its open house here on AB, as you well know.
/Jom, that link you’ve given is to a reputable website – not/
Yeah, I know it's all completely fictitious, any facts that occur are entirely accidental. The photographs of fish were doctored in photoshop to make them look like the artifacts. EvD would be proud of it...etc.. and Chariot of the Gods is a reputable academic treatise ?
Yeah, I know it's all completely fictitious, any facts that occur are entirely accidental. The photographs of fish were doctored in photoshop to make them look like the artifacts. EvD would be proud of it...etc.. and Chariot of the Gods is a reputable academic treatise ?
I have read Chariots of the Gods, The Gold of the Gods, The Gods were Astronauts, In Search of Ancient Gods and Return to the Stars, all by Erich Von Daniken.
I can see why his approach will appeal to the easily taken of on a shiny tangent kind of person, but his associations don't add up a lot of the time and while I wanted it to be true (I like shiny things), I finished reading them convinced that this was snake oil nonsense.
I can see why his approach will appeal to the easily taken of on a shiny tangent kind of person, but his associations don't add up a lot of the time and while I wanted it to be true (I like shiny things), I finished reading them convinced that this was snake oil nonsense.
FrogNog...how you managed to get past the first volume of his nonsense is beyond me ! To carry on reading is an act over and beyond the call of duty !
Can I repeat what a REAL scientist said about VD ::::
That writing as careless as von Däniken's, whose principal thesis is that our ancestors were dummies, should be so popular is a sober commentary on the credulousness and despair of our times. I also hope for the continuing popularity of books like Chariots of the Gods? in high school and college logic courses, as object lessons in sloppy thinking. I know of no recent books so riddled with logical and factual errors as the works of von Däniken.
—Carl Sagan, Foreword to The Space Gods Revealed
In deciding who to believe, a convicted fraudster, or an eminent scientist like Carl Sagan, there is no room for any doubt in my mind !
Can I repeat what a REAL scientist said about VD ::::
That writing as careless as von Däniken's, whose principal thesis is that our ancestors were dummies, should be so popular is a sober commentary on the credulousness and despair of our times. I also hope for the continuing popularity of books like Chariots of the Gods? in high school and college logic courses, as object lessons in sloppy thinking. I know of no recent books so riddled with logical and factual errors as the works of von Däniken.
—Carl Sagan, Foreword to The Space Gods Revealed
In deciding who to believe, a convicted fraudster, or an eminent scientist like Carl Sagan, there is no room for any doubt in my mind !
Mikey, goodness! You’re rather vocal for someone who’s bored with this thread! I didn’t say you need my permission – but your ignorance and your rudeness is showing – again.
Jim, my remark regarding hostility wasn’t restricted to AB. I actually said ‘atheists’ and I know for a fact that they don't all congregate here. That said, having ‘scrutinised’ this theory for years and in depth, in my opinion it does stand up. It was actually this suggestion that encouraged me to read the bible in full because, like most of the people here, I simply did not believe what was being proposed. In fact, having been raised a Christian, I was utterly appalled. However, after a lot more reading and a lot more travelling, this subject eventually steered me away from religion altogether. It made sense. As regards the experiment, it was conducted by men of science, experts in their field. I have to believe them, don’t I?
Jom, tut tut, resorting to sarcasm again. Come on, you can do better than that! It’s not my fault you linked to a rubbish website. No experiment yet? What are you talking about?
FrogNog, even though you don’t appear to be a serious student, and although I disagree with you, it’s good to see that someone here has actually read something about this. (I suspect Mikey will dine out for years on his bit of googling!). :o)
I too like shiny things, but this is nowhere near shiny enough to dazzle me. For that, I prefer diamonds. ;o)
Jim, my remark regarding hostility wasn’t restricted to AB. I actually said ‘atheists’ and I know for a fact that they don't all congregate here. That said, having ‘scrutinised’ this theory for years and in depth, in my opinion it does stand up. It was actually this suggestion that encouraged me to read the bible in full because, like most of the people here, I simply did not believe what was being proposed. In fact, having been raised a Christian, I was utterly appalled. However, after a lot more reading and a lot more travelling, this subject eventually steered me away from religion altogether. It made sense. As regards the experiment, it was conducted by men of science, experts in their field. I have to believe them, don’t I?
Jom, tut tut, resorting to sarcasm again. Come on, you can do better than that! It’s not my fault you linked to a rubbish website. No experiment yet? What are you talking about?
FrogNog, even though you don’t appear to be a serious student, and although I disagree with you, it’s good to see that someone here has actually read something about this. (I suspect Mikey will dine out for years on his bit of googling!). :o)
I too like shiny things, but this is nowhere near shiny enough to dazzle me. For that, I prefer diamonds. ;o)
/It’s not my fault you linked to a rubbish website. No experiment yet? What are you talking about/
I'm not sure that you are the best judge of what is rubbish and what isn't. w
What precisely did you find so wrong with the website? lets have some reasons rather than a curt dismissal. As for the experiment or lack thereof, if you think that building a model aircraft that bears a passing resemblance to an ancient artifact constitutes an experiment then your grasp of science (and aerodynamics)is poorer than that for which I had given you credit.
I'm not sure that you are the best judge of what is rubbish and what isn't. w
What precisely did you find so wrong with the website? lets have some reasons rather than a curt dismissal. As for the experiment or lack thereof, if you think that building a model aircraft that bears a passing resemblance to an ancient artifact constitutes an experiment then your grasp of science (and aerodynamics)is poorer than that for which I had given you credit.
\\ if you think that building a model aircraft that bears a passing resemblance to an ancient artifact constitutes an experiment //
Experiment.
\\a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, supposition, etc.://
Is this definition wrong?
Experiment.
\\a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, supposition, etc.://
Is this definition wrong?
Latest Posts
Charging Order On Leasehold Flat
Law7 mins ago
Starmer's Approval Rating Plummets,
News11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.