Over the course of the once time, I nearly supported a coworker in writing a series of ten papers covering different aspects of my ancient astronaut proposition. All ten of those papers circulated extensively around the globe and view counters on numerous spots indicated generous readership, but feedback to me, or to her, from anywhere, was missing. There was neither review nor sun from anyone. Just silence. I was starting to suppose that maybe no bone in world wants to take ancient astronauts seriously.
In an attempt to make some progress, I decided to pay sixty bones for a review of my ancient astronaut website. Of course, this was to be a review by disbelievers; a review by New Age religionists would be empty. Their blog’s description was “ critical reviews of metaphysical claims on the Internet.” The central granted them five days to perform their review but that has long since come and gone, and not a word from them. My website presents a vast quantum of substantiation and, in verity, I couldn't anticipate anyone to produce a good critical review in just five days. No bone, including myself, would want to see snappily set and frivolous arguments, differently I would make them look ridiculous in my counter arguments. Also, some of my substantiation comes from Spanish- language sources and, to start, they would need time to corroborate that none of it's a humbug. They're welcome to all the time they need.
What to anticipate from this blog is uncertain. There are disbelievers who are as narrow-inclined in their thinking as their New Age counterparts, and also again, there are disbelievers, like me, who objectively estimate the substantiation to arrive at the verity. Was there a real ancient astronaut? To help the disbelievers answer that question, I'll give them some ideas on how to refute my propositions. Then, solely for space considerations, I'll concentrate on the archaeological substantiation, leaving away ideas on how to refute the cryptology and theology substantiation for another day.
My website reproduces drawings from the Tiwanaku civilization in Bolivia. One of those drawings depicts the alleged ancient astronaut as an submarine with a three-rounded tail, with each of the three prickles ending in a cover. How do the disbelievers refute that? Easy. They simply need to demonstrate that the shape of those capsules resembles some form of beast or factory life to be plant in that region. In other words, they need to find a terrestrial source for those drawings, else my extraterrestrial arguments remain unharmed.
The timing of the Tiwanaku sky- god delineations coincides with the timing of the Nazca Lines in Peru, so the ancient astronaut of both places has to be one and the same. For Nazca, the disbelievers will find numerous ready- made arguments, but I consider all of them weak. The intelligence of the people of Nazca can not be assumed to be unique in mortal history. It has to be demonstrated that people away also believed that the sun, moon, or sky-spirits had physical eyes that could observe ground delineations. Alternately, it has to be demonstrated that the people of Nazca worshipped catcalls, believing them to have cognitive intelligence.
The recorded drawings on the cosmological Sun Disk, contended alien artifact, may prove to be the biggest challenge for the disbelievers. How are we to believe that the Andeans of the early sixteenth century a) knew that the Earth was round, b) knew that it was possible to circumvent the Earth, c) knew that sun striking the moon could reflect back to strike a spaceship, d) knew that the dark shadows along the Milky Way contained stars within, and e) knew that water formed the base of factory and beast elaboration? Then the disbelievers would need to find parallels in the history of western civilization. I look forward to their response.
You must be logged in to post a comment.