Whoa.
Ancient Aliens
- Thread starter BillJ
- Start date
As a matter of fact, Galileo's information and notes were the SPECIFIC reason why he was arrested.
You DO realize that Chephren was black, right?
Those would be the same kinds of people who claimed the egyptians didn't build the pyramids, that the druids didn't build stonehenge, and that NASA didn't land on the moon.
The ancient egyptians WERE technologically advanced, especially for their time, and by some measures even by our standards. Significantly, they were considerably less advanced than WE are; that does not mean they were only a couple of misplaced rocks away from the stone age (actually, ancient egypt saw the launch of the bronze age).
When did the idea of ancient aliens building pyramids etc.. originate? Didn't Theosophists touch on this? And all those masonic-y rosicrucian type groups?
Theosophy as a study of religions goes back a ways, but the theosophy of folks like Madame Blavatsky and others of her sort who were more into occultism are a late 19th century thing. The folks who developed the magic systems of 'The Golden Dawn', like Crowley, and others brought concepts from Masonry and Rosicrucianism into occult works of the 19th century. The New Age owes most of its existence to the Victorians.
I'm talking about Blavatsky.
Yeah I'm wondering if it is of that era. Just curious as to when people first began speculating about ancient aliens.
From 1888:
In the second volume of the Secret Doctrine, on the origins of humanity ("Anthropogenesis"), Blavatsky speculated on the possibility of life on other worlds, arguing that the ancients were already aware of spiritually advanced creatures on planets such as Venus, and that these creatures (which she viewed as largely spiritual rather than biological entities, following the medieval Christian idea that angels resided on the crystal spheres associated with each planet in geocentric orbit) had visited the earth and aided the evolution of humanity. In his, Blavatsky generated an early form the Ancient Astronaut Theory, which would blossom into its modern form after European writers rediscovered it through its transmission in the work of later Theosophists like Annie Besant A.E. Powell (who were more explicit about the alien visitors) and the fiction of pulp writers like H. P. Lovecraft. Theosophy's Venusian visitors were even incorporated wholesale into the 1953 UFO hoax Flying Saucers Have Landed by Desmond Leslie and George Adamski.
http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blavatsky-on-ancient-astronauts.html
(Yes that was all one sentence.)
So I'm wondering where she got it from since her stuff was usually fluffed up from others.
Yeah I'm wondering if it is of that era. Just curious as to when people first began speculating about ancient aliens.
From 1888:
In the second volume of the Secret Doctrine, on the origins of humanity ("Anthropogenesis"), Blavatsky speculated on the possibility of life on other worlds, arguing that the ancients were already aware of spiritually advanced creatures on planets such as Venus, and that these creatures (which she viewed as largely spiritual rather than biological entities, following the medieval Christian idea that angels resided on the crystal spheres associated with each planet in geocentric orbit) had visited the earth and aided the evolution of humanity. In his, Blavatsky generated an early form the Ancient Astronaut Theory, which would blossom into its modern form after European writers rediscovered it through its transmission in the work of later Theosophists like Annie Besant A.E. Powell (who were more explicit about the alien visitors) and the fiction of pulp writers like H. P. Lovecraft. Theosophy's Venusian visitors were even incorporated wholesale into the 1953 UFO hoax Flying Saucers Have Landed by Desmond Leslie and George Adamski.
http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blavatsky-on-ancient-astronauts.html
(Yes that was all one sentence.)
So I'm wondering where she got it from since her stuff was usually fluffed up from others.
At that time, I think they conceived advanced ancient races, like Ignatius Donnelly proposed in his work 'Atlantis: The Antidiluvian World. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis:_The_Antediluvian_World
Aliens, space travelers, I think is a post WWII idea or slightly before with the development of rocketry and the real possibility of human extra-planetary travel.
Well, a lot depends on the definition of "alien". People have always associated their "gods" or ancestors with various planets and stars or constellations etc. and this is of course, the basic idea behind "ancient alien astronaut" theorist’s (like Däniken) belief that these gods were real and really did come from these places. Since off-times these gods or godlike ancestors were attributed with the construction of pyramids and other megalithic structures, it’s a simple association to the idea that ancient alien astronauts built these structures. But as for “aliens did it” in the scientific (or science fiction) sense specifically, it was Däniken it seems, that first popularized this association in “modern” times.
Kind of like how in 100 years there will be people who actually think Abe Lincoln was a vampire hunter. (Well, I'm sure there are already idiots like that, but I mean it will be more widespread)
Veering slightly from the main topic (but hopefully still related), a co-worker and good friend finds it amusing how many archeologists want to attribute religeous significance to objects they can't otherwise identify in their digs. We humorously speculated how future "diggers" might react if they were to come across, say, pieces of Teenaged Mutant Ninja Turtle action figures. We imagine they'd ponder the purpose of these toys and mistakingly assume they're "totems" or religeous "fetishes" (the original definition of the word). "It seems obvious this ancient culture had connections with the even older Egyptian civilizations as they too appeared to worship animal headed gods. Since we have usually found these fetishes in the children's nurseries, we reason they represent guardian spirits. They may have links with a cult found in the ruins of ancient Nippon where a terrapin of immense scale, baring tusks, was once worshipped."
My point being, is it possible some (not all, but some) of the "totems" we've unearthed may have been nothing more than neolithic children's "toys"?
Sincerely,
Bill
My point being, is it possible some (not all, but some) of the "totems" we've unearthed may have been nothing more than neolithic children's "toys"?
Sincerely,
Bill
Paging David Macaulay....
He wrote a book called "Motel of the Mysteries" in the 1970s. It was a pastiche of the discovery of Tut's tomb. Simultaneously it was a commentary on what happens when you derive too many conclusions from too little evidence.
The book was a mockumentary about a future society which unearthed remnants of our own, and the conclusions they derived from what they found. Suffice it to say that you'd find it familiar.
The book was a mockumentary about a future society which unearthed remnants of our own, and the conclusions they derived from what they found. Suffice it to say that you'd find it familiar.
I think I read that book. Was the premise that everyone was buried alive in junk mail?
That's right!
Come to think of it, certain posters in this thread could benefit from a caution on "deriving too many conclusions from too little evidence."
Come to think of it, certain posters in this thread could benefit from a caution on "deriving too many conclusions from too little evidence."
Ah! Now I understand. I think a friend of mine had that book as I remember him paraphrasing some of the funnier lines.
Thanks for the clarification. I'm at the office so a lot of sites are blocked. (Odd I can access TrekBBS since most message boards are forbidden.)
Sincerely,
Bill
Thanks for the clarification. I'm at the office so a lot of sites are blocked. (Odd I can access TrekBBS since most message boards are forbidden.)
Sincerely,
Bill
Wasn't "A Canticle For Leibowitz" also based around a similar premise? A post apocalyptic monastic order blindly copying ancient texts and circuit diagrams into illuminated scripture without the slightest clue what they are, but all too willing to attribute a divine or mystical meaning.
Never mind modern archaeology, it makes one wonder how many ancient scriptures are based of something far more mundane than their authors might claim. I know it makes me wonder about that ancient Egyptian carving that looks suspiciously like a lightbulb...
But yeah, anyone who watches 'Time Team' knows all about how little archaeologists really understand. I recall Robinson calling bullshit on them a few times when they try to pass something off that can't immediately explain as having "ceremonial significance." I really wish they'd treat their own scientific discipline with a little respect and be upfront about the unknowns. Making such broad assumptions with so little data can easily lead to or indeed compound misconceptions.
Never mind modern archaeology, it makes one wonder how many ancient scriptures are based of something far more mundane than their authors might claim. I know it makes me wonder about that ancient Egyptian carving that looks suspiciously like a lightbulb...
But yeah, anyone who watches 'Time Team' knows all about how little archaeologists really understand. I recall Robinson calling bullshit on them a few times when they try to pass something off that can't immediately explain as having "ceremonial significance." I really wish they'd treat their own scientific discipline with a little respect and be upfront about the unknowns. Making such broad assumptions with so little data can easily lead to or indeed compound misconceptions.
Last edited:
It's even an acknowledged joke in the archaeological profession and community that "ritual purposes" is archaeologist-speak for "we have no fucking idea". It's never been a secret.
Was talking to a friend via chat and we had and he posted this, here's what he said:
Seems to me that the mainstream scientific community is as dogmatic as some religious communities....both of which thinking that we know it all, and that if someone else points out something, he or she is wrong, wrong, wrong......I mean look at the Sphinx, there's water erosion on the Sphinx, as well as it's enclosure, and the last time Eygpt had any sigificant rainfall was like 10,000 years, so that tells me the Sphix is at least twice as old as mainstream says it is, not to mention the fact that I see a black woman's face on it, as oppossed to Chephren. Yet mainstream folks like Zahi Hawass keeps saying it's Chephren and the Sphinx is 5,000 years old. Personally, I think he's blinded by politics, since politics often does get in the way of advacement. And that's just one example of closed mindedness happening. I've done comparisons to a statue of Chephren, the one in Boston, and of the Sphinx, the proportions are way off. I remember on Mystery of the Sphinx, there was a police sketch artist who uses facial proportions and what not to make of both Chephren and the Sphinx, proportions were completely different, especially the protrusion of the jaw, angles from the nose and eyes, etc. And the verdict was the face of the Sphinx is not the same person as represented in the statue of the Pharoh Chephren.....he did not have the Sphinx done....the most he did was repair it during his lifetime, and that's it. Yet mainstream keeps insisting it is Chephren, and won't even consider any alternative ideas...(hell, crazy old Zahi threated a few certain folks suggested altnervies with chopping off their heads should they ever come to Eygpt....and this guy's supposed to be respected?), which makes no sense, expect the same dogma going around. And this is just the Sphinx, same thing goes for the ancient aliens theory.
And one thing the megolithich structures have over modern stuff like sky scrappers are that they last......sky scrappers, bridges, etc need to be maintained and worked on....metal oxidizes, plastics disolve, glass is brittle (unless made in a perfect vaccum, than it would be better than steel).....the Pyramids, both in Egypt and South America and Mexico, they are still there and looking good.
Seems to me that the mainstream scientific community is as dogmatic as some religious communities....both of which thinking that we know it all, and that if someone else points out something, he or she is wrong, wrong, wrong......I mean look at the Sphinx, there's water erosion on the Sphinx, as well as it's enclosure, and the last time Eygpt had any sigificant rainfall was like 10,000 years, so that tells me the Sphix is at least twice as old as mainstream says it is, not to mention the fact that I see a black woman's face on it, as oppossed to Chephren. Yet mainstream folks like Zahi Hawass keeps saying it's Chephren and the Sphinx is 5,000 years old. Personally, I think he's blinded by politics, since politics often does get in the way of advacement. And that's just one example of closed mindedness happening. I've done comparisons to a statue of Chephren, the one in Boston, and of the Sphinx, the proportions are way off. I remember on Mystery of the Sphinx, there was a police sketch artist who uses facial proportions and what not to make of both Chephren and the Sphinx, proportions were completely different, especially the protrusion of the jaw, angles from the nose and eyes, etc. And the verdict was the face of the Sphinx is not the same person as represented in the statue of the Pharoh Chephren.....he did not have the Sphinx done....the most he did was repair it during his lifetime, and that's it. Yet mainstream keeps insisting it is Chephren, and won't even consider any alternative ideas...(hell, crazy old Zahi threated a few certain folks suggested altnervies with chopping off their heads should they ever come to Eygpt....and this guy's supposed to be respected?), which makes no sense, expect the same dogma going around. And this is just the Sphinx, same thing goes for the ancient aliens theory.
And one thing the megolithich structures have over modern stuff like sky scrappers are that they last......sky scrappers, bridges, etc need to be maintained and worked on....metal oxidizes, plastics disolve, glass is brittle (unless made in a perfect vaccum, than it would be better than steel).....the Pyramids, both in Egypt and South America and Mexico, they are still there and looking good.
You're entirely wrong with respect to that.
Similar threads
