It is currently Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:50 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




 Page 1 of 2 [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2002 6:48 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2002 6:42 pm
Posts: 1
Hi! I am new to this forum. I wish more people were on it. Anyway, I would like to know if anyone would like to talk about the flying machines of the Anunnaki? I have read all of Sitchins books even the new TLBOE as well as Childress Vimana Aircraft of ancient India. There is reference to flying machine throught Mr. Sitchins writtings. Has eveynone seen any additional depictions of these aircraft? It seems they were used to transport gold and other Anunnaki as well as for flying pleasure. I heard about and have seen pictures of these small golden jewels that were fould in some tomb in South America on a few websites (Ancient Skies??). They look like small MIG jets or something. Perhaps these were the flying machines of the Anunnaki. They do look much like todays aircraft with with horizontal and vertical stablizers as well as fusalage and wings. Has anyone ever explored this area of aviation before Kitty Hawk?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2002 5:46 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 6:10 am
Posts: 80
Location: East Coast
small golden jewels?

What was the url?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:38 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 5:16 pm
Posts: 46
Location: New York
I think what I saw as strange those many years ago when I first read sitchin was how could they mastered space travel using only rocket ships then of course nibiru became that answer. But alan alford struck a cord by saying it was more like a way station, especially since the UFOs if we believe them to be the present day anunnaki obviously had technology to traverse great distances in such a short time. Any one who has went to the web page of Sitchins interviews may or may not have seen the vide by David Sereda. If you haven't go to http://tinyurl.com/oxm2q, there are two parts and it is about 3 hours long however if you have dial up you may have a problem, so do what I did get a pair of head phones and go to the public library.

Eyajwhynsos


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 5:16 pm
Posts: 46
Location: New York
I am not sure what it is you are getting at. But I do believe that the anunnaki did start out using shuttles, but this was not only long ago but so long ago in fact that it became a symbolic symbol and eventually worked it way into a written language or was put there. But if you read what I wrote in when Nibiru was coming around again, I belive the anunnaki were here long before just 432000 years ago. In fact the last age according to hindu belief last just that long and is the shortest period. I believe sitchins core thesis but it is very rare for one individual to come up with all the answers, you have to look about, I think.

Eyajwhynsos


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 2:46 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 5:16 pm
Posts: 46
Location: New York
I hope I didn't offend you but if going beyong the limits of imagination leads one to a possible truth then me personally, I need to try to understand it to make it logical to grasp. You can not can not, pick and choose evidence, all of it must be considered. But I thank you for the disscusion, I been here at this board well over three years and only occassionally "come down" so to speak and share my thoughts.

Eyajwhynsos


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:29 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:48 pm
Posts: 143
Location: Piney Woods of East Texas
i hope ya'll didn't scare him/her/them/it off... ;)
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_7.htm
link to little gold flying thingy found in S.Am. tomb


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:42 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:48 pm
Posts: 143
Location: Piney Woods of East Texas
the platform idea is reflected in the Sci-Fi Channel show "Stargate"...the show is a little disturbing after digesting sitchin's book(s) AND learning about the start of archaelogy (re: nazis searching desert becuase "hitler" had some little girls channeling sumerian gods who told him of items of great power left there....hmmmmm?). until the nazis got there, establishment academia believed that all the old cities in the bible were myths! interesting that rocketry and saucers were part of the nazi legacy.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 1:13 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 5:16 pm
Posts: 46
Location: New York
...not for nothing, well for much of nothing but,

Mr.PP says: EYAJ: While Hindu records of the last 4,000 years or so can provide important facts, I don't think that Hindu BELIEFS (OR THOSE OF ANY OTHER ORGANIZED RELIGION) are a valid basis for any theories or conclusions... emphasis mine

then,

In addition to all the "flying thingies", The O.T/ TORAH HAS SEVERAL CLEAR REFERENCES to someone flying about in some sort of personal craft.

"Eyaj scratching his head," huh?

Eyajwhynsos


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:05 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:48 pm
Posts: 143
Location: Piney Woods of East Texas
re: OT/TORAH FLYING

He rode upon a cherub, and did fly: yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind. 7
Psalm xviii. 10.

Chapter 31 Isaiah
031:005 As birds flying, so will the LORD of hosts defend Jerusalem; defending also he will deliver it; and passing over he will preserve it.

maybe i'll find more later. now i should work!


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:33 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 5:16 pm
Posts: 46
Location: New York
...how does one distinquish between what is a belief in a religious or ancient writting and what represent something that can be logically assumed as being worth further investigation?

This is the crux that alot of mainstreams have with any one who is alternative especially in their approach with interpreting ancient writing. Stanton Friedman made an important point when he says the further one goes back in history the harder it becomes to relate to what the individuals of such a period actually meant. If you are going to perpetuate propoganda, then why not go so far to say the gods are so powerful they can fly?

While the description of what has been described in many cases show that indeed they may have been referring to something they actually saw, this is also the case when one looks at what sitchin claims to be the time when the anunnaki came here and the hindu belief that corresponds exactly with the last age of man, 432,000 years ago. It also corroborates that half of a planet that when removed of all its water would resemble that of a tortois shell also what the hindu myths say when they claim that once the earth exhausted its resources, and after a world wide famine set in, the incarnation of vishnu would come down remove any creatures left then remove all the water, scorch the earth with fire, return the water and began again. Is it a wonder that biology when dealing with how life on earth began is akin to that of someone terraforming a planet (or starting over) by seeding the right type of life at key points.

You can't distinguish, pick and choose, one has to make sense of it all simply because what has been said we can't relate to doesn't mean it is the part of the story that is myth or a self propagating idea. Yes this does occur, but the question still remains how does one distinquish between the two? And in attempting to distinquish between the two, how does one prevent oneself from propagating their own agenda and or belief, for instance that the gods of ancient religions where ET's with technology?

Eyajwhynsos


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:43 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:48 pm
Posts: 143
Location: Piney Woods of East Texas
good point, eyaj...
seems to me your hitting on the subjectivity of it all. my opine is that you make a choice and go with it. the worst that can happen is that you are in error. ...and the universe could care less if you are in error...so why do we care so much about being "right"? NOT making a choice is...well, i suppose that's it's own choice, but you can't get to Truth by not choosing to believe something. the beauty of letting yourself just believe something without the atachment of having to be right is that it allows you the simplicity of just shifting away from a belief when you find it to be in error without the trauma such a shift carries when your decision making is predicated on a NEED to be not wrong. that same need is what makes people doggedly defend beliefs or thought proceses that are clearly destructive (at worst) and/or counter-productive (at best).


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:42 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:48 pm
Posts: 143
Location: Piney Woods of East Texas
i suppose that works then, PP! so far, i choose to believe that we'll see some physical crafts comming in from outer-space sometime around 2012-2013...until they don't show and i choose to believe in some global conspiracy hiding their presence or maybe i'll subscribe to the next date offered as the start of a new era. myeh. no hurry.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 1:57 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 5:16 pm
Posts: 46
Location: New York
Interesting and I might add it is good that the few whom do comment do so enough to keep this board flowing every few days rather then weeks or even months, now lets continue that shall we...

First MrPP, every one holds a belief, the notion that you don't hold any beliefs is a belief in itself because it can't be proven other wise, but enough technical, because I see where you are coming from.

MrPP says: First, I seek multiple, independent sources which seem to be dealing with the same human experiences in widespread locations around the globe.

That seems standard especially when dealing in this type of work, and it has to be use with all aspects. The idea that man goes through ages, and not just ages but repeated ages comes from many different sources. One can not logically say that for instance mankind is going through x amount of ages with any certainty if mankind had not done so OR was being geared toward such an outcome (the best way to predict the future is to make it the way you predicted..).

MrPP says: Third, I ignore all info that is taken "on faith", a religious belief, spirituality, a cultural superstition, a prediction or prophecy. This does not, howerver, reflect upon any "hard" data that is surrounded by such "soft" stuff.

Again how exactly do you determine if these elements are or are not useful, and by rejecting them how are you sure it doesn't reflect upon supposed hard data. What I am getting at is that we are suggesting if I may that a alien force in our past has interacted with humans. We know next to nothing but speculation, and upon all this we have the slightest idea about their preception verses our own. We question reality, that is using intelligents, suppose they see reality and instinctively know how to act, that is awareness. So what we see as say made up religious stories or "soft stuff" and we say to our selves it is some sort of propoganda gear to get people to fall in "their" line, that notion isn't sustainable because you can't demonstrate how they actually preceive the world. In other words that is how we would think, how do we know that is how they think or if they primarily think and not use primarily awareness. If we credit them with being more advanced, isn't being contradicting to say or even suggest in which way and how far more advanced?

My thoughts are evident because I placed them upon this board so that none "question" where I am coming from, can we say the same for them. We are being bias in our intial approach at this topic when consciously or for many subconsciously assume these beings are no different then us other then being more advanced (and to some this means on technologically more advaced) but I beg to differ. Physically I beg to differ, mentally I beg to differ, and spiritually and or belief wise I beg to differ simply because they most likely (but not definitely) are anthromorphic doesn't mean we are the same or even similar.

Let me ask a question and if in your response or responses briefly respond if you could, what is the difference between someone who is reactive and someone who is proactive and which one applies to life here on earth and if some life here on earth is pro and other re, which ones and why.

Eyajwhynsos

(Edited by Eyajwhynsos at 10:03 am on Dec. 8, 2006)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:05 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 5:16 pm
Posts: 46
Location: New York
Your post Mr PP and the Rev to me are a mixure of confusion and sensiblity, interesting to follow though I find my self getting lost in it at times and this isn't a bad or good thing just my observation, but I gather over time perhaps that I will better comprehend and appreciate them.

Interesting your definition on reactive and proactive, though I didn't specifically just mean humans. I did however like what you said, "In a few senses, they appear to have been even more "human" than we are."

More human then we are....

...while the picture you paint of reactive life, in this case humans from your perspective seems grim to say the least almost like idiots, to play devils advocate I must, but then if I must I really can't play-James P. Carse.

The word Reactive is self explanatory, without specifics REACTIVE IS AN ORGANISM THAT 'ACTS' WHEN IT'S CONSTANT STATE OF BEING IS DISRUPTED. Proactive then would thus logically be the opposite or it would seem but in fact well in my humble SPECULATION that is an organism that is PROACTIVE IS AN ORGANISM THAT REACTS TO A CONSTANT STATE OF BEING. Do you follow, because I want to get this out there so that anyone who may read this can see where I am going or perhaps be interested to follow more closely. Because there are 666 members and only a few who comment, we have a large audience indeed!

What this means in every day terms is that a reactive organism lives life based on what it needs while a proactive organism lives life based on what it wants. MrPP you said that 'they' seem to be more human then we, it is when an individual lives a life based on what it wants that one often does and acts in irrational behaviors and is more often then not emotionally driven...just so one gets what one WANTS.
It is thus that in no case does a reactive organism will ever choose to create a structured society. There is nothing within such a society that from a re's perspecitve that it can or WILL see as beneficial. This alone is ground for one to question our society very existence.

I can go on with this for some time but I would first like feedback, however one last thing, that which you said before MrPP about 'them' being more human then we...

In prior post I made a comment in which I said I believe that 'they' were generally more aware based and humans more intelligent based, 'they' see reality for what it is, via awareness, we question reality because we know not what it is (the very act of questioning something illustrates one lack of understanding or knowledge), via intelligence. These are my specific definitions for these words and my SPECULATION. Why is it that then humans maintain a structured society and thus have not reverted back to a simplistic way of living? One whom perceives life via awareness needs not to think but react, one whom perceives life via intelligence thinks in order to reacts and so one with awareness wants their servant and or slave to be able to comprehend and execute 'their' command, not become aware of it. For example, I am intelligent because I know how to build for and serve for my lord but if I were truly aware I would see this situation for what it really is, my lord for whom he really is and I would not be in such a situation. And while my later generation will question and comprehend eventually A C T I N G as if they are proactive, my lord has already seen this and where it will eventually lead and has already made his move, positioning his pawn to protect and simultaneously attack(that is my lord has long ago reacted to what is now taking place). This isn't religious propaganda, this is AWARNESS!

It is this reason we maintain our society, again I believe we weren't created from some hairy beast, at least not the last time we were "upgraded", I believe a less intelligent (thinking man literally)human being was upgraded to better comprehend 'their' vast awareness. Our mental tools are so advanced our need to think in order for us to react is such over compensated that our society is the end result.



Eyajwhynsos

(Edited by Eyajwhynsos at 8:17 am on Dec. 9, 2006)


(Edited by Eyajwhynsos at 8:20 am on Dec. 9, 2006)


(Edited by Eyajwhynsos at 8:23 am on Dec. 9, 2006)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:50 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 5:16 pm
Posts: 46
Location: New York
...the understanding of other post isn't the case though as I have said i do find my self lost in not others but MrPP and the Theo Rev., but this isn't all the time and only at moments.

If I present speculation and am trying to relate something as best I can then would it not be wise for me to give a definition as to what I mean? We all tend to use similar words for different meanings and if I want to be specific I make that known. Being that you are the only one saying you do not understand I can't say that this is a general problem, though if not through specifically defining words then how else will you understand what it is I am saying?

now...
1. What I actually am doing is making a general statement about LIVING ORGANISMS and how they function either as a Reactive organism as I have defined, or a Proactive organism as I have defined.

2.I define all action as life acting based on internal stimuli, and if it is continuous or not. CONTINUOUS IS THE KEY WORD Proactive life forms experience a CONTINUOUS internal Stimuli regardless of any other stimuli.
Reactive life forms experience a range of different internal stimuli none being consistent.
The ability to have a continuously dominant internal stimuli allows a life form to remain in a constant state of awareness, hence it's primary drive isn't reacting to the many different inconsistent stimuli of a Reactive organism. In other words such a life form can actually focus on what it wants.
The inability to focus on a single want due to numerous internal stimuli none being dominant prevents most life forms (with the slight exception of humans which I address in my last post) from doing anything else other then what it needs.

I hope this definition better suits you.

3. It is important to me for whomever reads this that it is not that I am setting awareness and intelligents as opponents but as two different means of perceiving reality. But lets see how far off I am or dead on to what these two words actually mean.

Eyaj says awareness is: "'they' see reality for what it is,"
or to see reality for what it is.

The American Heritage College dictionary 4th edition says:1.Having knowledge or cognizance:aware of a sound

...it goes on to give synonyms and states that Aware implies knowledge gained through one's own perceptions or by means of information.

Eyaj says intelligents means:"we question reality because we know not what it is" or to question reality and or a situation or thing because of lack of knowledge.

the AHC dictionary says:1aThe compacity to acquire and apply knowledge b. The faculty of thought and reason.

...so exactly where did I create a false division of the two words? Someone who is aware of something doesn't question it they come to know it as in the example being aware of a sound, where as intelligence is the ability to aquire or gather and use information because of a perceived unknown (because if it is known you wouldn't need to gather information about it).

Now you said or I should say asked MrPP that: Can there be such a things as a being that has awareness but no intelligence and another which has intelligence but no awareness?

My answer to this is of course not, but then I never said that to be the case, lets take another look shall we:"In prior post I made a comment in which I said I believe that 'they' were generally MORE aware based and humans MORE intelligent based..." If I ever stated an absolute please point it out but I try my hardest not to do so. By putting the MORE in there it thus gives the statement a slightly different meaning then what you are asking, it says that for example I can ride a bike and drive a car using no hands, but I am More acustom to riding a bike then I am at driving a car with no hands, this does not in no way mean I am in capable of driving a car with no hands.

Like wise the gods are capable of thinking, and humans are capable of becoming aware the difference again lies in gaining information via your own perception(the ability to focus on ONE thing over time)awareness or gathering information and coming to a conclusion(focusing on many things each thing for a short period of time) using intelligence.

Consciousness is a necessity of awareness in that consciousness is a state of being fully awake in which case one could not become aware. Yet we humans being REactive organisms are either in the process of waking literally, or falling asleep, litterally, hence we are never conscious for long hence only gain a little bit of awareness over time. Yet a Proactive organism exist in a constant state and hence would always be and remain conscious hence be in the state of gaining awareness.

I am not sure what happen between you and the Rev, and as far as getting back on track, well this speaks about ancient space travel in which I gave a link on my first post on this thread and postulated that even in ancient times the same vehicles(or at least the same technology) seen in this video were and have been used in ancient times. Threads don't always follow the same path, though that only illustrates a point I made that no reactive organism will ever choose to live and or work in a structured society, organisms meaning humans ants animals, none will choose structure it only appears as such.

Eyajwhynsos

(Edited by Eyajwhynsos at 10:52 am on Dec. 10, 2006)


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 2 [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron