Were the dinosaurs killed off by alien nukes?

I am a long time lurker of this forum. I enjoy the interesting discourse as a result of the FET, but am not a proponent of its beliefs as there is simply not enough evidence. I figured I would post my theory here, since it seems like you all appreciate good ol science and conspiracies. And I've certainly got a conspiracy for you here.

We've all heard the stories about the mass extinction of the dinosaurs, but are we missing something? Recent evidence has come to my attention that points to the idea that advanced ETs killed the dinosaurs to make way for human colonization on Earth. This evidence is almost irrefutable. There is also evidence that dinosaurs and humans may have coexisted at some point in human history, as there are several ancient depictions of dinosaurs in ancient artwork and myths (dragons, for example).

Here is a carving on an ancient Cambodian temple named Ta Prohm, built in the late 1100's and early 1400's:



That is very clearly a stegosaurus. How would our ancient ancestors know what these great creatures looked like? Could it be because they lived with them, and even possibly made them their pets?

But, I'll get on to my main points. The dinosaurs were killed by nuclear weapons. The main piece of evidence that convinces me is the presence of iridium in the soil layers at the great impact site in the Yucatan Peninsula. As many of you should know, iridium is a left over byproduct from nuclear weapons, as nuclear weapons contain iridium-192. In fact, the impact at the Yucatan would have had approximately the energy of 1 x 108 megatons, i.e. about 2 million times as great as the most powerful thermonuclear bomb ever tested. That's some pretty advanced stuff. Most of this evidence can be found here. But there are also several other places across the internet where you can easily find this information. What I am suggesting is that highly advanced ETs dropped a nuclear weapon from orbit on the Yucatan Penisula (at the impact site of the supposed 'meteorite impact') in an attempt to eliminate the dinosaurs. As we all know, this impact caused the eventual downfall of the land-based dinosaurs. Supposedly a black fog covered the Earth, plant life died, leading many dinosaur herbivores to starve, which caused the meat eaters to die from lack of food as well. It was a vicious cycle, and mainstream science describes it very much so like a nuclear winter caused by fallout from a massive nuclear explosion. Coincidence?

Also, iridium has been found in dinosaur fossils from the same period. Some of the dinosaur fossils were reported to glow when taken from the soil... leading to special equipment being used to carry and assemble these fossils. Why would these fossils become so covered in radioactivity? Could it be because they were all killed off by a nuclear weapon?

Iridium is found in abundance relative to terrestial concentrations in meteorites, which is probably one of the reasons why meteorites were hypothesized to have caused the mass-extinction of dinosaurs.

You have not presented any evidence for ETs at all.  Do you have something to look at?

Iridium is found in abundance relative to terrestial concentrations in meteorites, which is probably one of the reasons why meteorites were hypothesized to have caused the mass-extinction of dinosaurs.

But isn't that just speculation? Iridium is also found at nuclear blast sites, this is a proven scientific fact. Claiming that it was a meteorite is just a assumption - speculation. It's no different than saying ETs did it, right? Fact is, we do not know if a meteorite killed off the dinosaurs and it could have easily been a nuclear blast instead, as they both leave the same trace evidence.

There are numerous large blast zones found all around the world. One is in the Sinai Penisula, here's a picture supposedly taken from space:



Here's another found in India, called Lonar Lake:



Both of these areas have been studied, and charred blackened rock and glass (vitrification) has been found in both areas. Vitrification doesn't just happen, and it's been well known that nuclear blasts do indeed cause vitrification. This indicates, to me at least, exposure to sudden immense heat from a nuclear blast. Adding to this, when the soil was examined high traces of uranium-235 was found. This could only come from a nuclear blast.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 11, 2015, 10:52:00 AM

Iridium is found in abundance relative to terrestial concentrations in meteorites, which is probably one of the reasons why meteorites were hypothesized to have caused the mass-extinction of dinosaurs.

But isn't that just speculation?

That is why I used the word hypothesis, but fortunately iridium is not the only evidence in favor of the Alvarez Hypothesis.

Iridium is also found at nuclear blast sites, this is a proven scientific fact.

I am not disputing that, what I am asking is what evidence favors a nuclear explosion over a meteor strike?

Claiming that it was a meteorite is just a assumption - speculation.

Or hypothesis if you will.

It's no different than saying ETs did it, right?

No, because you have presented no evidence favoring ETs.

Fact is, we do not know if a meteorite killed off the dinosaurs and it could have easily been a nuclear blast instead, as they both leave the same trace evidence.

The same?  I doubt that, but I would have to research it more.  I expect that there would be other signs of a thermonuclear explosion than iridium and vitrification.

There are numerous large blast zones found all around the world.

[two pictures]

Both of these areas have been studied, and charred blackened rock and glass (vitrification) has been found in both areas. Vitrification doesn't just happen, and it's been well known that nuclear blasts do indeed cause vitrification.

It could also happen from a large meteor strike.

This indicates, to me at least, exposure to sudden immense heat from a nuclear blast. Adding to this, when the soil was examined high traces of uranium-235 was found. This could only come from a nuclear blast.

Citation required.  Considering it is found in almost every rock[/quote] it seems unlikely that all of the world's uranium-235 was produces in a single thermonuclear explosion since most of the Earth's rock predates the dinosaurs.

A few problems with your hypothesis:

1. Iridium-192 is not naturally occurring, 191 and 193 are.
2. Iridium-191 and -193 have been found in meteorites.
3. The Iridium layer associated with the extinction event contains the 191 and 193 isotopes, and the ratios of the two match that found in meteorites, rather than the crust of the Earth.

That is why I used the word hypothesis, but fortunately iridium is not the only evidence in favor of the Alvarez Hypothesis.

Really? Because that seems to be the most conclusive evidence for the Alvarez Hypothesis. Do you have some other evidence that demonstrates your point here?

since most of the Earth's rock predates the dinosaurs.

I could say the same thing: citation required. Because, that is really impossible to determine. You cannot carbon date rocks. Determining the exact age of a rock is impossible with modern science.

1. Iridium-192 is not naturally occurring, 191 and 193 are.
2. Iridium-191 and -193 have been found in meteorites.
3. The Iridium layer associated with the extinction event contains the 191 and 193 isotopes, and the ratios of the two match that found in meteorites, rather than the crust of the Earth.

Pure speculation. Like I mentioned before in response to Rama Set. Yes, meteorites do contain Iridium-191 and -193... but so does a nuclear blast, and traces of these can be found all over the Earth in all sorts of places... so either a) several meteorites hit the Earth throughout history or b) advanced ETs periodically nuked the Earth for whatever reason (I cannot particularly fathom their motives). Either theory is perfectly valid, it just depends on which one you subscribe to. I, for one, think it was nukes. Why? Because ancient texts across the world talk about nuclear weapons, way before nuclear weapons even existed according to modern science.

Ancient India's religious texts support the nuclear weapon theory. Here is an expert from the Mahabharata:

"The Earth shook, scorched by the terrible heat of this weapon. Elephants burst into flames and ran to and fro in a frenzy, seeking a protection from terror. Over a vast area other animals crumpled to the ground and died. The waters boiled, and the creatures residing therein also died. From all points of the compass the arrows of the flame rained continuously! "

It goes on to state that: "a single projectile charged with all the power of the universe!"

Later in the text, we can read these words:

"An incandescent column of smoke and fire, as brilliant as ten thousand suns rose in all its splendour. It was the unknown weapon, the iron thunderbolt, .....a gigantic messenger of death!"

To me, that sounds like a description of nuclear weapons. Now, how would ancient people from India be able to describe a nuclear blast so accurately? I feel like that is much more than a coincidence. I am also glossing over the numerous other references in ancient books that describe very similar events. The Bible mentions a great famine that Prince Joseph is warned of by 'God'. The famine described sounds very much so like a nuclear winter caused by fallout, as it covered the entire Earth and killed off many species of animal.

And regarding the claim that I have not presented any evidence of ETs... wouldn't the fact that nuclear weapons were you used in past (before they were developed by modern humans) be evidence enough? It could be a time travel conspiracy, but I highly doubt time travel to the past is even possible according to special relativity.

I'd also like to point out that Rama Set's link (http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/isotopes/uranium.asp) to dispute my uranium claim clearly states that uranium is used in nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors. The traces of uranium-235 found in the example I had given in my previous post were much too abundant to simply be "natural deposits found in rocks".

Alien nuke? HAHAHAHA
...oh, you're serious?

If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, the earth would have to have be a lot younger then it actually is. There is, however, overwhelming proof of the age of the earth

Further proof of the Alverez hypothesis is marine sediments found far inland around the blast radius, indicative of a tidal wave. Before you go on about how a nuke could cause a tidal wave http://www.quora.com/Could-detonating-a-nuclear-bomb-on-the-seabed-cause-a-devastating-tsunami

Additionally, your assertion that vitrification coulnd't happen at an asteroid impact site is just baloney. Vitrification requires heat and pressure, which is easily supplied by a 3 mile wide rock hurtling towards earth

As for your bible support, as Bijane said, famines are more than common in primitive societies. The bible also says that bats are birds and rabbits chew cud. DO you believe that too?

... the arrows of the flame rained continuously!....a single projectile charged with all the power of the universe!... An incandescent column of smoke and fire, as brilliant as ten thousand suns rose in all its splendour....

To me, that sounds like a description of nuclear weapons. Now, how would ancient people from India be able to describe a nuclear blast so accurately?

In what book is that 'accurately? A couple of distinctive details (eg: mushroom cloud) are ommitted when surely that would be one of the most striking traits. 'Column' might well contradict that, and I have no idea how 'arrows of flame' could be gotten from it.
Alternatively, they described an explosion. There are more kinds of explosions than nuclear. Ramp it up to mythical proportions for the sake of a story, you'd get exactly this: why assume it's nuclear?

I feel like that is much more than a coincidence. I am also glossing over the numerous other references in ancient books that describe very similar events. The Bible mentions a great famine that Prince Joseph is warned of by 'God'. The famine described sounds very much so like a nuclear winter caused by fallout, as it covered the entire Earth and killed off many species of animal.

Which could be basically anything else. Famines were well known. You're reading way too much into this.

And regarding the claim that I have not presented any evidence of ETs... wouldn't the fact that nuclear weapons were you used in past (before they were developed by modern humans) be evidence enough?

You haven't provided any evidence of this. At all. You've provided dodgy assertions about incredibly vague texts.

A nuclear blast implies iridium: iridium does not imply a nuclear blast. Simple logical principle: A implies B. That does not inherently mean B implies A. We know meteorites could also imply A (that is, iridium).

If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, the earth would have to have be a lot younger then it actually is.

Not necessarily. There is an abundance of evidence that seems to indicate that humans have been around far longer than is believed by modern science. Gobekli Tepe, a recently discovered pyramid supposedly 7,000 years older than Stonehenge, for example, shows that we do not know everything about how old human civilization actually is. It's not a stretch to assume that humans civilization is much older than just 20,000 years. I would go as far to say that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, possibly due to ET intervention by either a) seeding the Earth or b) manipulating the DNA of already living species to create human beings. Religious texts across the world speak of star people interbreeding with humans. This is found in almost every religious text across the world. Don't believe me? Google it.

There are also fossil records that seems to prove my point, although their authenticity has been called into question as of late (but still not disproved).



This clearly shows human and dinosaur tracks together.

Even if that is not the case, some dinosaurs could have survived the nuclear holocaust. Actually, they did.This is already scientific fact (birds are dinosaurs).

In what book is that 'accurately? A couple of distinctive details (eg: mushroom cloud) are ommitted when surely that would be one of the most striking traits. 'Column' might well contradict that, and I have no idea how 'arrows of flame' could be gotten from it.
Alternatively, they described an explosion. There are more kinds of explosions than nuclear. Ramp it up to mythical proportions for the sake of a story, you'd get exactly this: why assume it's nuclear?

How is assuming a meteorite anymore valid than assuming nuclear weapons? We know both things exist and we know that both things cause iridium contamination. Nuclear weapons also cause uranium soil contamination, which is found all across these blast sites.

Like I've explained before, you're saying I'm speculating but you are also speculating as well by assuming these blasts were caused by meteorites. You cannot personally verify that they were caused by meteorites, and the same evidence you claim proves it was meteorites also proves it as nukes.

Additionally, if these blasts were indeed caused by meteorites, then why is it that we are no longer being bombarded by huge meteorites all the time like in the past? Literally, some of these impact craters happened very soon after the other... how is this possible? Did we just magically become immune to meteors all the sudden? I don't think so.


Also, "an incandescent column of smoke and fire, as brilliant as ten thousand suns rose in all its splendour"is a pretty close representation of a nuclear blast. I don't think you can get much clearly than that besides straight up saying "it was a nuclear blast". This is describing a mushroom cloud... and don't say "volcanoes", because they were not in the area being described in the ancient texts. You're reaching if you think that this passage is describing anything other than a nuclear blast.

Gobekli Tepe is not even close to a pyramid. It's literally a circular wall with some large stones. Definitely not advanced building.

Here is a large list of evidence for an old earth. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

The fossil record definitely does not support your claim. Besides heavily disputed claims, not a single common contemporary animals has been found mixed in with dinosaur fossils. No mouse bone has ever been found with a T rex. No sheep bone has ever been found with a trilobite. The fossil record clearly supports the commonly accepted chronology of the earth.

The claim that no recent asteroid impacts disproves the alvarez hypothesis is particularly erroneous. Space is mostly nothingness. Large asteroids are not likely to hit the earth, and do so vary rarely. No scientist will ever tell you that there should have been a large asteroid in the last couple thousend years

The "fossil" in the picture you provided has been pretty clearly debunked here http://paleo.cc/paluxy/delk.htm

Really? Because that seems to be the most conclusive evidence for the Alvarez Hypothesis. Do you have some other evidence that demonstrates your point here?

Slow down, I am saying it is just a hypothesis, I am not saying it is the truth.

I could say the same thing: citation required. Because, that is really impossible to determine. You cannot carbon date rocks. Determining the exact age of a rock is impossible with modern science.

Unless you know of some way for rock to stratify beneath a fossil, then yes, the rock is older than the dinosaurs.

Ancient India's religious texts support the nuclear weapon theory. Here is an expert from the Mahabharata:

Why should we accept the mahabharata as a historical text?

I'd also like to point out that Rama Set's link to dispute my uranium claim clearly states that uranium is used in nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors.

No one said otherwise.  I was saying that to find uranium-235 in every rock, even those predating dinosaurs would be extremely difficult to attribute to a single blast in one location on Earth. 

The traces of uranium-235 found in the example I had given in my previous post were much too abundant to simply be "natural deposits found in rocks".

By what mechanism would uranium-235 be mechanically infused evenly in to virtually every rock on Earth as a result of one event?

Quote from: dephelis on February 11, 2015, 11:34:53 AM

1. Iridium-192 is not naturally occurring, 191 and 193 are.
2. Iridium-191 and -193 have been found in meteorites.
3. The Iridium layer associated with the extinction event contains the 191 and 193 isotopes, and the ratios of the two match that found in meteorites, rather than the crust of the Earth.

Pure speculation.

You seem to have a different definition of "speculation" from the rest of us.

Like I mentioned before in response to Rama Set. Yes, meteorites do contain Iridium-191 and -193... but so does a nuclear blast,

Incorrect, the only Iridium isotopes produced by nuclear fission are Ir-190 and Ir-192 and none of the other fission products decay to the stable isotopes 191 and 193. This has been verified.

and traces of these can be found all over the Earth in all sorts of places...so either a) several meteorites hit the Earth throughout history

There have been many impacts throughout the entire history of the Earth. They happen around us all the time, many are recorded.

http://bolid.es/

or b) advanced ETs periodically nuked the Earth for whatever reason (I cannot particularly fathom their motives). Either theory is perfectly valid, it just depends on which one you subscribe to. I, for one, think it was nukes. Why? Because ancient texts across the world talk about nuclear weapons, way before nuclear weapons even existed according to modern science.

The amount of actual, physical, evidence points the opposite way.

Here is a carving on an ancient Cambodian temple named Ta Prohm, built in the late 1100's and early 1400's:

The carving is refuted here http://paleo.cc/paluxy/stegosaur-claim.htm
One interesting point is that a crane with similar lobes on it's back was found near the "stegosaurus", indicating that the lobes were meant to simply portray a leafy background

Something to note is that the people who found this Dino carving are infamous creationists who have perpetrated known frauds, some so fake that other creationist groups have dismissed them.

How is assuming a meteorite anymore valid than assuming nuclear weapons? We know both things exist and we know that both things cause iridium contamination. Nuclear weapons also cause uranium soil contamination, which is found all across these blast sites.

Uh, because we know meteorites existed at that point in time, whereas you're just guessing that nuclear weapons did?
Sure, we're speculating: neither of us are there. But we know meteorites existed and would have been present in that time. We do not know aliens exist, much less invented nukes and flew to Earth back then. Which puts your speculation as radically less likely.

Additionally, if these blasts were indeed caused by meteorites, then why is it that we are no longer being bombarded by huge meteorites all the time like in the past? Literally, some of these impact craters happened very soon after the other... how is this possible? Did we just magically become immune to meteors all the sudden? I don't think so.

No. We still get hit by meteorites. You know that, right? Sure, none a comparable size: though some have come close. Such sizes would be rare.

Also, "an incandescent column of smoke and fire, as brilliant as ten thousand suns rose in all its splendour"is a pretty close representation of a nuclear blast. I don't think you can get much clearly than that besides straight up saying "it was a nuclear blast". This is describing a mushroom cloud... and don't say "volcanoes", because they were not in the area being described in the ancient texts. You're reaching if you think that this passage is describing anything other than a nuclear blast.

You know explosions can be caused by non-nuclear means, right? If someone was going to write a description of an explosion down, they would describe it like that. if they were to sensationalize it, as often happened in such texts, that is exactly what they would write. You're using the description of a generic boom and deciding "Nope, must be nuclear."
Or, of course, they could just be making something up, extrapolating from lightning or fire or any number of things. Why must it be 100% accurately describing something that actually occurred?
(That's even granting it's even vaguely a description of a mushroom cloud).

BiJane, let me ask you something. How big do you think the universe is? We are just now developing nuclear weapons, but they have existed for a much longer time than that. If you accept the current scientific model of the universe then you have to believe that there is life out there somewhere, not just on Earth.

If you accept this, is it so ridiculous that a civilization on another planet has developed technology equal to or greater than our own? With nukes, space ships, and everything else we have today? Surely you dont believe that our civilization is the paragon of technological excellence, do you? If so, that is quite arrogant on your part.

When you say "meteors have always existed" - well, yeah sure, thats true... but life has always existed too. At least, existed much longer than simply what we observe on Earth. To dismiss the idea that advanced ETs possibly colonizied our planet in the past, or interferred with our history in some way, is preposterous.

Also, adding to your comment about the ancient texts depicting nuclear blasts: what else causes an explosion with the power described in the text I provided? It seems pretty specific to me, and nothing in our ancient past could possibly produce a mushroom cloud of the magnitude described in the Mahabharata.

As for the other points brought up earlier in the thread: I will respond to them in time. I am quite the busy man, and I appreciate all the responses. 

BiJane, let me ask you something. How big do you think the universe is? We are just now developing nuclear weapons, but they have existed for a much longer time than that. If you accept the current scientific model of the universe then you have to believe that there is life out there somewhere, not just on Earth.

Sure, I think there is life on other worlds. There is a hell of a lot between that and 'intelligent life, developing so very very long ago, still surviving all possible threats and disasters, inventing not only weaponry we recognize, but the kind of spacefaring capability that crosses Solar Systems...'
Regardless, you simply cannot base a theory on something you don't even know exists.

When you say "meteors have always existed" - well, yeah sure, thats true... but life has always existed too. At least, existed much longer than simply what we observe on Earth. To dismiss the idea that advanced ETs possibly colonizied our planet in the past, or interferred with our history in some way, is preposterous.

And again, we know meteorites were around. That is a fact. We do not have any reason to suppose that, even should aliens exist (no more than a hypothesis: no one pretends life is a common occurrence), it's even, say, in our galaxy. See: Fermi's Paradox. We don't even know if interstellar travel is feasible, and with the number of potential extinction events, plus the rarity of life... It's a hell of an assumption to say that beings not only developed unimpeded in radically less time than humans, reached a higher degree of intelligence still long before us, survived all possible cataclysms, and engaged in a journey in interstellar travel, and all this happened somewhere vaguely close to us.
It is preposterous to treat that as a remotely comparable possibility to a meteorite. Assumptions do not make an argument, and that is what your case is rooted in.

Also, adding to your comment about the ancient texts depicting nuclear blasts: what else causes an explosion with the power described in the text I provided? It seems pretty specific to me, and nothing in our ancient past could possibly produce a mushroom cloud of the magnitude described in the Mahabharata.

As before, there is no mushroom cloud. Surely that would be a major feature to point out? "And the smoke funnelled outwards at the top, emerging outward from the pillar of flame." No such thing. There's a boom. Booms existed. Stories could be sensationalized: could be made up.
Or are you going to use Harry Potter as proof of dragons? After all, she had to have gotten the idea from somewhere...
Or maybe people have imaginations that they can use. Radical thought. Why are you treating a generic, badly defined bang as a nuclear blast?

BiJane, let me ask you something. How big do you think the universe is? We are just now developing nuclear weapons, but they have existed for a much longer time than that. If you accept the current scientific model of the universe then you have to believe that there is life out there somewhere, not just on Earth.

If you accept this, is it so ridiculous that a civilization on another planet has developed technology equal to or greater than our own? With nukes, space ships, and everything else we have today? Surely you dont believe that our civilization is the paragon of technological excellence, do you? If so, that is quite arrogant on your part.

When you say "meteors have always existed" - well, yeah sure, thats true... but life has always existed too. At least, existed much longer than simply what we observe on Earth. To dismiss the idea that advanced ETs possibly colonizied our planet in the past, or interferred with our history in some way, is preposterous.

Also, adding to your comment about the ancient texts depicting nuclear blasts: what else causes an explosion with the power described in the text I provided? It seems pretty specific to me, and nothing in our ancient past could possibly produce a mushroom cloud of the magnitude described in the Mahabharata.

As for the other points brought up earlier in the thread: I will respond to them in time. I am quite the busy man, and I appreciate all the responses.

All you're you're doing is trying to prove that your alien nuke idea is possible. Anything is possible. The real question that actual science tries to answer is not whether something could have happened, but whether something did happen

And regarding the claim that I have not presented any evidence of ETs... wouldn't the fact that nuclear weapons were you used in past (before they were developed by modern humans) be evidence enough?

This is a classic non sequitur.  And worthless as any sort of "evidence".  Sorry.

1. Advanced aliens killed the dinosaurs to give rise to human civilization.

2. Ancient human civilizations lived together with dinosaurs.

Your theory is not free of contradictions.

I have heard the claim that humans existed with the dinosaurs. I have never accepted it. This falls into one of those very "iffy" categories about Creation, G-d, Genesis, Evolution, etc.

I have never heard that the famine that took place whilst Joseph was Viceroy in Egypt was ever referred to as being caused by anything like that. As for it being "over all the face of the earth", well, that of course is possible, but I suspect, unlikely, since the face of the earth at the time was pretty damned small, as far as Moses knew (as far as anybody knew at the time).

Before we can claim that aliens killed the dinosaurs, we need to find evidence of aliens. And it would be nice to find some evidence of artificial creation of the "thermonuclear bomb" that said aliens created.

I am inclined to believe in extra-terrestrial life. It strikes me that it would be rather weird for our planet to be the only one with life on it. But until we can prove that one of those species actually had the ability to get here, let alone start blowing shit up, making such a claim is an unwarranted gamble.

Back to the subject of "over all the face of the earth". Are we trying to include the Americas also? Because I seriously doubt that Moses even knew they existed, and I doubt they sent representatives to Joseph to get chow for the Natives. The Bible never claimed to be a history of the world. It is a history of the area of which it is a history.

Now that might sound tautologous. What I mean is that it is a history of Southwest Asia, Asia Minor, Northeast Africa, and parts of Europe. It never claimed to be anything else. Making it into something that it is not is a fool's errand. Unwise at best, idiotic at worst.

Before we can claim that aliens killed the dinosaurs, we need to find evidence of aliens.

There is evidence of alien contact with Earth all around us. The most apparent being the depiction of aliens, UFOs, and other mysterious otherworldly imagery in ancient artwork. The picture above is a hodgepodge of several different examples, but you can clearly see the central theme in each piece: advanced ETS have visited Earth and communicated with our ancient ancestors.

We still don't know how the pyramids, Stonehenge, and many other structures were created by ancient humans. Egyptians did not have the technology to create the pyramids, and the druids certainly didn't have the means to move their giant stones for the creation of Stonehenge. There is ample evidence that the pyramids and Stonehenge were both levitated to their locations, possibly from another planet.

Even the Torah contains scripture that seems to imply alien life. For example, scripture speaks of demons penetrating the world physically by interbreeding with humans, Genesis 6:4. Giants were the results of this demon spawn. Demonic interbreeding with humans didn’t end with the floods of Noah, though it characterized that period of time.  I don't believe that these "Demons" were literally the supernatural variant, but actually extraterrestrial. The people living in the time of the Hebrew bible just did not know how to describe these creatures, so they assumed they were demons or spirits. But as we all know, demons have never been cited as mating with humans, and if they have there is no evidence for it. Spirits certainly have not mated with humans either. Why? Because there's no evidence.

But, there is evidence that aliens bred with humans. Take the great pharaoh Akhenaten, for example.  All depictions of him  show him as having an elongated skull. Here's a bust of Akhenaten...



and his remains found in his tomb:



He clearly had an elongated skull, which is not naturally occurring for humans.

There is evidence of alien contact with Earth all around us. The most apparent being the depiction of aliens, UFOs, and other mysterious otherworldly imagery in ancient artwork. The picture above is a hodgepodge of several different examples, but you can clearly see the central theme in each piece...

No you can't.  It's just a combination of wishful thinking on your part, and pareidolia.  It's certainly not "evidence" for aliens LOL.

But, there is evidence that aliens bred with humans. Take the great pharaoh Akhenaten, for example.  All depictions of him  show him as having an elongated skull. Here's a bust of Akhenaten...



and his remains found in his tomb:



He clearly had an elongated skull, which is not naturally occurring for humans.

It's estimated that 2 out of every live births results in a baby born with hydrocephalus—the abnormal enlargement of the brain cavities (ventricles) caused by a build-up of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) as per:




It's estimated that Akhenaten died between 28 to 35 years of age, and his disability would explain his early demise. Today it's relieved by an operation known as a ventriculoperitoneal shunt.

AusGeoff, was that picture really needed? I have children of my own, and that picture is frankly disturbing to look at. I would appreciate it if you removed the picture, but I can't control you.

Besides, I do not think that Akhenaten had that disorder. His skull is far too small compared to modern cases of hydrocephalus. He was a self-proclaimed 'star child', and I believe that is self-explanatory in its implications. The evidence that he was an alien-human hybrid is overwhelming. Once we couple this with the fact that many ancient people deformed their own skulls to make them look more elongated and compare that with their various mythologies which reference star people and other anomalies that can only be attributed to ETs, we get a VERY clear picture. Ancient Mayans and other tribes were trying to emulate their gods, which were actually real advanced ETs who frequently appeared to ancient peoples.

AusGeoff, was that picture really needed? I have children of my own, and that picture is frankly disturbing to look at.

Ahhh... this from a person who posts an image of a human skill LOL.

Besides, I do not think that Akhenaten had that disorder.

Oh well, that considered [sic] opinion settles it then doesn't it?   Or are you claiming to be an bioarchaeologist now?

Quote

Besides, I do not think that Akhenaten had that disorder.

Oh well, that considered [sic] opinion settles it then doesn't it?   Or are you claiming to be an bioarchaeologist now?

I'm not claiming to be anything. Are you?

Since you made the claim, I assume that means you have to back it up. Correct?

But, there is evidence that aliens bred with humans.

Also, everything about this statement is wrong. Even if you could establish the existence of aliens, they're aliens. We can't breed with apes, and they exist on the same planet as us, can have similar numbers of chromosomes... We don't live in Star Trek. Species interbreeding is not going to happen. Plus, from what I can tell with a little research, Akhenaten had children, so it's no mule-type result.
Aliens are not going to breed with humans. Outside of 90s sci-fi, it's not going to happen.

Why do you reject the only possible proposal so far? He had a simple disorder. He has the symptoms of it, why suppose anything else?

Quote from: Art Corvelay on March 09, 2015, 12:45:20 PM

But, there is evidence that aliens bred with humans.

Also, everything about this statement is wrong. Even if you could establish the existence of aliens, they're aliens. We can't breed with apes, and they exist on the same planet as us, can have similar numbers of chromosomes... We don't live in Star Trek. Species interbreeding is not going to happen. Plus, from what I can tell with a little research, Akhenaten had children, so it's no mule-type result.
Aliens are not going to breed with humans. Outside of 90s sci-fi, it's not going to happen.

Why do you reject the only possible proposal so far? He had a simple disorder. He has the symptoms of it, why suppose anything else?

You have missed the entire point of my posts. Aliens seeded Earth with life. We are direct descendants of advanced ETs, and we were possibly genetically engineered from their DNA and that of an ape's. There is direct evidence of this found in your own body: human DNA. It would make sense that our alien ancestors could mate with us. You are ignoring several key possibilities. I will elaborate.

Gods mating with humans is a common motif in almost every mythology on Earth, and I don't think that's a coincidence. These 'gods' were actually ETs. Scientists have found a variety of junk DNA that seems otherworldly (nothing like it has been found in other species, besides apes), so this has scientific evidence backing it. Here's a great article explaining this amazing discovery.

You also need to keep in mind that many species of animal can breed with other species besides their own. It is rare in the wild, but it happens in captivity all the time. It would be wise to research these topics before you post uninformed claims.


Also, I reject the Akhanaten proposal because ancient depictions of him (and his skull) do not match that of someone suffering from hydrocephalus. It's really that simple. If you want to complicate the matter and say that it was some odd form of hydrocephalus that is not seen in our age, then so be it... but at that point you are just straw reaching.


I know it is hard to accept the simple fact that we are descendants of ETs, and that we originated on another planet... but it's completely possible, and it's the truth. The laws of physics do not rule out interstellar travel, and they do not rule out life on other planets.  Don't you think it's odd that DINOSAURS were the creatures of choice on Earth, but then after a convenient extinction event humans just happened to pop up? Evolution dictates that if anything were to pop up after the extinction event, it would have been dinosaurs... again! Not humans. Especially considering several species of dinosaurs survived the extinction event (see: birds, crocs, nessie, etc).

Earth is the planet of the dinosaurs. This was their home. They lived here much much longer than us. Suddenly, they all mysterious died and were replaced by humans. I don't think that's a coincidence at all. Especially when apes and anything resembling a human being were completely absent on Earth before the nuclear holocaust that killed the dinosaurs.

You have missed the entire point of my posts. Aliens seeded Earth with life. We are direct descendants of advanced ETs, and we were possibly genetically engineered from their DNA and that of an ape's. There is direct evidence of this found in your own body: human DNA. It would make sense that our alien ancestors could mate with us. You are ignoring several key possibilities. I will elaborate.

If interbreeding causes that much of a mutation, it's not going to happen. It doesn't matter what seeding you propose.

Also, I reject the Akhanaten proposal because ancient depictions of him (and his skull) do not match that of someone suffering from hydrocephalus. It's really that simple.

Would you care to say why? All you've done is say "He has a mild case." That's not an argument.

I know it is hard to accept the simple fact that we are descendants of ETs, and that we originated on another planet... but it's completely possible, and it's the truth. The laws of physics do not rule out interstellar travel, and they do not rule out life on other planets.  Don't you think it's odd that DINOSAURS were the creatures of choice on Earth, but then after a convenient extinction event humans just happened to pop up? Evolution dictates that if anything were to pop up after the extinction event, it would have been dinosaurs... again! Not humans. Especially considering several species of dinosaurs survived the extinction event (see: birds, crocs, nessie, etc).

Well, our ancestors existed before then, and the rest of this seems only to show you don't understand evolution at all. And I've been to Loch Ness, there's no Nessie, seriously.

Especially when apes and anything resembling a human being were completely absent on Earth before the nuclear holocaust that killed the dinosaurs.

All my claims about evolution and human ancestors not being on Earth during the time of the dinosaurs have been backed by science. It's easy to find this information on the internet, and it's downright dishonest to say that I am simply wrong with no reason given.

Also, in case you missed it, you need to keep in mind that many species of animal can breed with other species besides their own. It is rare in the wild, but it happens in captivity all the time. It would be wise to research these topics before you post uninformed claims, because your understanding of biology is lacking and it is very apparent.

Until you start giving true rebuttals I will no longer respond to you. We have done this before and it is becoming mildly tedious. I'd rather not deal with you at all.

All my claims about evolution and human ancestors not being on Earth during the time of the dinosaurs have been backed by science. It's easy to find this information on the internet, and it's downright dishonest to say that I am simply wrong with no reason given.

I just spent five seconds and found the exact opposite claims. just type 'apes and dinosaurs' into google.
And I didn't say you were wrong: i asked for citation. That is, evidence.

Also, in case you missed it, you need to keep in mind that many species of animal can breed with other species besides their own. It is rare in the wild, but it happens in captivity all the time. It would be wise to research these topics before you post uninformed claims, because your understanding of biology is lacking and it is very apparent.

Um, no. Just no. Other members of the same species, or similar, yes. You know what the definition of 'species' is, right?

Until you start giving true rebuttal, I will no longer responsed to you. We have done this before and it is becoming mildly tedious. I'd rather not deal with you at all.

Likewise, I'm sorry I'm not rolling over to agree with what you've obviously just made up on the spot, but science doesn't work that way.