1 3 Next
Topic: UFO witnesses are ridiculed
mightymoe's photo
Fri 12/02/11 01:10 PM





Did you know that some Native American tribes have origin myths that claim they originally came from somewhere near Sirius?

I would have to dig out the book again, but it was written by a Native American with a PhD who had researched cultural similarities amongst North American tribes. He also noted linguistic similarities between not only distant tribes but also with some old (not modern) European languages.

Anyway, according to the myth, these tribes came from the heavens, but they also quite clearly name the location of Sirius in the night sky.

Yet other tribes claim to have come from beneath the earth, which is of note given the cave dwelling tribes which mysteriously disappeared before the arrival of Europeans.

The vast majority of indigenous tribes do not have any migration myths that might even remotely correspond to the accepted belief of a land bridge to Asia.

I have long wanted to read a translations of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana because these two texts seem to hold clues about ancient civilizations dating back to Sumeria (4th millenia BC).

The Mahabharata "gives a description of the various continents of the Earth, the other planets, and focuses on the Indian Subcontinent and gives an elaborate list of hundreds of kingdoms, tribes, provinces, cities, towns, villages, rivers, mountains, forests, etc. of the (ancient) Indian Subcontinent (Bhārata Varsha)." It also gives a detailed description, day by day, of a cataclysmic war which heavily impacted the entire Indian subcontinent.

Ramayana provides a glimpse at the culture, a window into ancient Hindu thought. Its stories provide a context for better understanding the Mahabharata. Whenever dealing with myths and legends, a cultural context is essential to understanding the thought processes of ancient peoples. Without that, we cannot find the historical truth hidden within the stories.

I have read of descriptions within the Mahabharata, but I found the sources (such as David Hatcher Childress) to be somewhat biased. Still, it piqued my curiosity enough to want to read the text myself so I could draw my own conclusions. If, based on my own historical knowledge, what I read provides enough clues to hint that ancient Hindus had at least some accurate knowledge of planets and continents prior to 1000 BC, this would raise a red flag that they possessed unusual knowledge for the time period. Then the question becomes, "how did they acquire such knowledge?" Alien theorists have already tackled this same topic, but I am hesitant to accept their interpretations without reading the Mahabharata for myself.
The Inuit claim they arrived in Alaska on board of Big Iron Birds,poohpoohing the accepted notion that they used a land-Bridge over the Bering-Straits!



Nobody Poo poos that theory that I know of. It does not debunk native claims of Iron Birds and "Ant people."

Scientists think that any lame alternative theory of a mystery will convince the masses that aliens don't exist and never did.

Like two drunks with sticks running around all over the world making crop circles. Why would they do that?

My sister worked on a sod farm, mowing. She found crop circles often. They were never even reported. She was told just to mow over them and ignore them.




scientists cannot have the same wild theories you have and still be called scientists... they look for the most logical way and look for ways to prove it, like the land bridge theory, which makes the most sense to all people. sometimes your fantasies get a little fantastic, to say the least. do you have any evidence to show that they came in "iron birds", or two men didn't make the crop circles?

also, a tribe in africa that said they came from the "dog star", and had homemade maps and charts to show that sirus( also called the dog star) which showed it was a binary system, something that wasn't proven till 100's years later with telescopes.

http://www.timestar.org/dog.htm




scientists cannot have the same wild theories you have and still be called scientists...


I don't have any "wild theories."

But there are plenty of scientists who have wild theories.

A so-called "scientists" that chooses to ignore evidence but rather spends his time trying to concoct something that sounds more reasonable within the scope of what they want to believe is not a real scientist.


i would say your wrong there... a scientist has to start somewhere, and starting by what they believe is the way to go... some things just cannot be proven right now, no matter what they believe, so they look at what is the easiest to prove. sure, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that supports aliens helped man evolve, but absolutely nothing concrete. this also goes with bigfoots, ghosts, demons, god, and angels. the evidence that supports they are all man-made is way greater than the evidence that shows they exist. i'm not sure if "ignore" is the right word there, maybe "overlooking temporarily" would be better.

mightymoe's photo
Fri 12/02/11 01:11 PM

Some of my ideas are very wild.

Its called brainstorming.

They are not actually official "theories" in scientific terms.

I do a lot of speculating.

I don't just accept a lame explanation when there are too many questions to be answered.




there is nothing wrong with that, but the scientific community needs proof, and there just really isn't anything real or substantial to show...

no photo
Fri 12/02/11 01:12 PM


Some of my ideas are very wild.

Its called brainstorming.

They are not actually official "theories" in scientific terms.

I do a lot of speculating.

I don't just accept a lame explanation when there are too many questions to be answered.




there is nothing wrong with that, but the scientific community needs proof, and there just really isn't anything real or substantial to show...


I don't answer to the scientific community. I am free to speculate if I want.


mightymoe's photo
Fri 12/02/11 01:15 PM



Some of my ideas are very wild.

Its called brainstorming.

They are not actually official "theories" in scientific terms.

I do a lot of speculating.

I don't just accept a lame explanation when there are too many questions to be answered.




there is nothing wrong with that, but the scientific community needs proof, and there just really isn't anything real or substantial to show...


I don't answer to the scientific community. I am free to speculate if I want.




agreed, but it cannot be accepted as fact without being proven... i would like to find proof also, but i feel a lot of it is in different government warehouses, hidden from the public...

no photo
Fri 12/02/11 01:34 PM




Some of my ideas are very wild.

Its called brainstorming.

They are not actually official "theories" in scientific terms.

I do a lot of speculating.

I don't just accept a lame explanation when there are too many questions to be answered.




there is nothing wrong with that, but the scientific community needs proof, and there just really isn't anything real or substantial to show...


I don't answer to the scientific community. I am free to speculate if I want.




agreed, but it cannot be accepted as fact without being proven... i would like to find proof also, but i feel a lot of it is in different government warehouses, hidden from the public...


yeh, I agree. Freaking a holes. :angry:

jrbogie's photo
Fri 12/02/11 02:34 PM


i would say your wrong there... a scientist has to start somewhere, and starting by what they believe is the way to go.



not so in the least. a scientist begins with a postulate and after thinking about it will develope a hypothesis. then he searches for evidence that can be tested using the very strict scrutiny of the scientific method and if the testing produces predictable and repeatable results he finally has a valid theory. belief has no place whatsoever in science.

jrbogie's photo
Fri 12/02/11 02:45 PM

Well humans eat cows but they have never been caught doing the mutilating.


nor has an alien been caught doing the mutilating. an alleged sighting is not a catch.

Humans also abduct people but I've never heard of any human caught dressed up like an alien in any abduction case.


nor has an alien been caught in any abduction case.

So what long history are you talking about?


the long history of human abductions and cow mutilations, obviously. there's no denying that they've happened but there's nothing but unfounded testimony that anything other than humans did the deeds. just as with the god fearing folks; testimony but no evidence whatsoever.

The Military actually has an abbreviation for a confirmed alien space craft but I forgot what it was. It is not "UFO."


understandable as the military has never confirmed an alien space craft. but that's besides the point; why do ordinary people call them "ufo's" if they identify these flying objects as alien space craft?

jrbogie's photo
Fri 12/02/11 02:47 PM



Some of my ideas are very wild.

Its called brainstorming.

They are not actually official "theories" in scientific terms.

I do a lot of speculating.

I don't just accept a lame explanation when there are too many questions to be answered.




there is nothing wrong with that, but the scientific community needs proof, and there just really isn't anything real or substantial to show...


I don't answer to the scientific community. I am free to speculate if I want.




indeed you are but your original post was concern about ridicule which such speculation invites.

mightymoe's photo
Fri 12/02/11 02:55 PM



i would say your wrong there... a scientist has to start somewhere, and starting by what they believe is the way to go.



not so in the least. a scientist begins with a postulate and after thinking about it will develope a hypothesis. then he searches for evidence that can be tested using the very strict scrutiny of the scientific method and if the testing produces predictable and repeatable results he finally has a valid theory. belief has no place whatsoever in science.


if they didn't believe it, they would never try to prove it... unless they are trying to disprove it...

jrbogie's photo
Fri 12/02/11 03:18 PM




i would say your wrong there... a scientist has to start somewhere, and starting by what they believe is the way to go.



not so in the least. a scientist begins with a postulate and after thinking about it will develope a hypothesis. then he searches for evidence that can be tested using the very strict scrutiny of the scientific method and if the testing produces predictable and repeatable results he finally has a valid theory. belief has no place whatsoever in science.


if they didn't believe it, they would never try to prove it... unless they are trying to disprove it...


acutally the scientific method is all about disproving. that's precisely why it's called testing. can the theory meet the challenge of the latest test? that's the question. scientists live to one up each other. evidence is tested primarily to see if the theory will hold up. if it does, the theory stands as valid. if not, the theory must be modified or abandoned. a theory can never be proved absolutely. we never know what the next test will entail.


no photo
Fri 12/02/11 06:08 PM
Edited by Jeanniebean on Fri 12/02/11 06:09 PM



The Military actually has an abbreviation for a confirmed alien space craft but I forgot what it was. It is not "UFO."


understandable as the military has never confirmed an alien space craft.


You would have no way of knowing that.

I believe they have, or they would not have an abbreviation for it.

but that's besides the point; why do ordinary people call them "ufo's" if they identify these flying objects as alien space craft?


Because if they say they saw an alien spacecraft, they are labeled nut cases.

laugh laugh

jrbogie's photo
Sat 12/03/11 04:42 AM




The Military actually has an abbreviation for a confirmed alien space craft but I forgot what it was. It is not "UFO."


understandable as the military has never confirmed an alien space craft.


You would have no way of knowing that.

I believe they have, or they would not have an abbreviation for it.



seems you've no way of knowing that either or you'd be able to come up with the abreviation. when you do i'll stand corrected.

1 3 Next