Author of the Month :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
Join us at this forum every month for a discussion with famous popular authors from around the world. 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Hi Graham,
Thank you for your reply. Sorry, I am not trying to monopolize your time here but I think it is important this subject be treated soberly and the truth of the matter is that in the alternative genre you are one of the few waning credible sources left. Your written opinion on these matters carries weight, not just for proponents, but its detractors as well so it is important to be thorough and choose the words you write carefully the first time. I am not trying to convince you of paleocontact as fact, as I have no "facts", just as a credible possibility whether one "agrees" or not.

Graham Hancock wrote:

[snip]

> GH RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE:
> The Mars Mystery is about a mystery and I do indeed consider
> the possibility that an alien civilisation left a message for
> us on Mars in the form of the Cydonia structures – “not a radio
> broadcast intended for the entire universe but a very specific
> directional beacon transmitting a message that is intended
> exclusively for humankind.” I emphasise that hypothesis as a
> speculation, but one well worth considering and I do remain
> open to palaeocontact. What I am still waiting for is more good
> evidence (beyond the evidence I myself considered in The Mars
> Mystery 16 years ago) in favour of the palaeocontact
> hypothesis.

[Statement clarification edit of Grahams position before Graham responded though apparently not in time. My bad.] Seems a long way to go to not bother stopping at the main attraction. I know you say you accept the possibility of paleocontact, but if you consider this "good evidence" then how can there be one without the other if a connection between the two is accepted? The erosion of the features and geologic history of Mars dictates these structures well predate human civilization by tens of thousands if not more likely millions of years. Up until the invention of space flight no culture on Earth has possessed the capability to view these structures and even today there is no such telescope that can see them directly. This leaves coincidence, which if true is the least likely, or we went there or they came here. It is impossible we would have went there at any point in human existence up until the modern invention of space flight, therefore the only conclusion is that they made the trip, not us.

To be honest with you, I am skeptical about the artificiality of these structures though there are enough curiosities about them to keep an open mind. I am merely following the flow chart of what you accept which says if X is true then Y, which in this case if "X" is an intelligent connection between Earth and Mars, then "Y" must be that the Martians at some point came to Earth.

> GH RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE:
> I agree with you that palaeocontact is logical and possible and
> even statistically likely, but none of that in itself is
> enough. I would like to see compelling evidence for it.

Like I said:
Quote

So, while no, this is just theory and not evidence in and of itself, yet, it is also an idea that is quite logical, if not a universal inevitability, not just statistically but also as a matter of simple common sense.

What is "compelling evidence" or not is in the eye of the beholder which holds true for much of the alternative ideas we speak of on these forums. I cannot give you "compelling evidence" beyond circumstantial possibility. If I could we would not be having this conversation, but by the same token I believe the circumstantial evidence is enough to warrant serious consideration.

> It is
> statistically likely that an infinite number of monkeys typing
> on an infinite number of typewriters would come up with the
> complete works of Shakespeare but I’d still like to see them do
> it before I turn likelihood into fact.

Quote

Even if every atom in the observable universe were a monkey with a typewriter, typing from the Big Bang until the end of the universe, they would still need a ridiculously longer time - more than three hundred and sixty thousand orders of magnitude longer - to have even a 1 in 10,500 chance of success. To put it another way, for a one in a trillion chance of success, there would need to be 10,360,641 universes full of atomic monkeys. In fact there is less than a one in a trillion chance of success that such a universe full of monkeys could type any particular document a mere 79 characters long. In 2003, lecturers and students from the University of Plymouth MediaLab Arts course used a £2,000 grant from the Arts Council to study the literary output of real monkeys. They left a computer keyboard in the enclosure of six Celebes Crested Macaques in Paignton Zoo in Devon in England for a month, with a radio link to broadcast the results on a website.
Not only did the monkeys produce nothing but five total pages[11] largely consisting of the letter S, but the lead male began by bashing the keyboard with a stone, and the monkeys continued by urinating and defecating on it.
[en.wikipedia.org]

Its actually closer to 100% statistically "impossible" than "likely".
Regardless, it goes without saying there is a big difference between a "likelihood" and a near statistical probability of almost zero which requires multiple factors of infinity to be possible at all so even in jest I'm not sure what the point is. I make note of the statistical possibility of alien visitation not to show that this makes it "fact", but rather that the probability of such a thing being true stands on firm ground, ergo we can safely and confidently segue from nonsense to valid scientific theory.

> GH RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE:
> Sorry but I’m not persuaded that paleocontact is the only
> possible answer to the testimony of the ancient texts. Indeed
> these texts – all of them -- are subject to a completely
> different construal to do with visionary experiences in altered
> states of consciousness and the shamanic “realms” of the sky,
> ground and underworld. Many shamans believe our world is the
> creation of spirits but they do not think spirits are aliens
> from other planets. I addressed all these issues, including the
> likely reality of the spirit realms explored by shamans, in my
> book Supernatural: Meetings with the Ancient Teachers of
> Mankind.

"Spirit Realms"? I assume this is where all our Shakespeare typing monkeys have been hiding.

Not the response I was expecting to be honest with you, though I have not read the hefty tome that is Supernatural collecting dust in my library. I can see, however, if one were to immerse themselves in shamanistic culture going so far as to experiment with psychedelic drugs then try to impose meaning from the works of the Ancient Egyptians, i.e. the Book of the Dead and the like, that one might believe in principle they are speaking of similar experiences by similar means, but this does not make it so. While I cannot deny the AE priesthood and royal culture took drugs, like the Blue Lotus, to achieve altered states of consciousness, to impose this belief on all texts of the ancient world that speak of Gods as flesh and blood beings, not to mention the corpus of related AE works themselves, seems a bit prejudicially obtuse to me to favor ones pet theory in lieu of other possibilities.

Quote

Indeed these texts – all of them -- are subject to a completely different construal to do with visionary experiences in altered states of consciousness and the shamanic “realms” of the sky, ground and underworld.

I'm sorry Graham, but this is only true if someone wishes it to be and is clearly often not the context of such accounts in ancient texts as it should be obvious when they are speaking plainly or esoterically and regardless are more often recollections of events after the fact by we can assume sober individuals who are attempting to report on these events as best they could. While on one hand one could impose the belief that any accounts of interactions with flesh and blood Gods were "just" altered state encounters with "spirit folk" because of the more esoteric ways in which they describe these experiences, on the other, it could also just be that they are merely using the words and descriptions available to them to describe things they don't clearly understand.

From the Epic of Gilgamesh:
Quote

In those days the world teemed, the people multiplied, the world
bellowed like a wild bull, and the great god was aroused by the clamour. Enlil heard the clamour and he said to the gods in
council, "The uproar of mankind is intolerable and sleep is no longer possible by reason of the babel." So the gods agreed
to exterminate mankind. Enlil did this, but Ea because of his oath warned me in a dream. He whispered their words to my
house of reeds, "Reed-house, reed-house! Wall, O wall, hearken reed-house, wall reflect; O man of Shurrupak, son of
Ubara-Tutu; tear down your house and build a boat, abandon possessions and look for life, despise worldly goods and save
your soul alive. Tear down your house, I say, and build a boat. These are the measurements of the barque as you shall
build her: let hex beam equal her length, let her deck be roofed like the vault that covers the abyss; then take up into the
boat the seed of all living creatures."
‘When I had understood I said to my lord,
"Behold, what you have commanded I will honour
and perform, but how shall I answer the people, the
city, the elders?" Then Ea opened his mouth and said
to me, his servant, "Tell them this: I have learnt that
Enlil is wrathful against me, I dare no longer walk in
his land nor live in his city; I will go down to the
Gulf to dwell with Ea my lord. But on you he will
rain down abundance, rare fish and shy wild-fowl, a
rich harvest-tide.
.....

‘When Enlil had come, when he saw the boat, he was wrath and swelled with anger at the gods, the host of heaven,
"Has any of these mortals escaped? Not one was to have survived the destruction." Then the god of the wells and canals
Ninurta opened his mouth and said to the warrior Enlil, "Who is there of the gods that can devise without Ea? It is Ea
alone who knows all things." Then Ea opened his mouth and spoke to warrior Enlil, "Wisest of gods, hero Enlil, how
could you so senselessly bring down the flood?

Lay upon the sinner his sin,
Lay upon the transgressor his transgression,
Punish him a little when he breaks loose,
Do not drive him too hard or he perishes,
Would that a lion had ravaged mankind
Rather than the f loud,
Would that a wolf had ravaged mankind
Rather than the flood,
Would that famine had wasted the world
Rather than the flood,
Would that pestilence had wasted mankind
Rather than the flood.

It was not I that revealed the secret of the gods; the wise man learned it in a dream. Now take your counsel
what shall be done with him."
‘Then Enlil went up into the boat, he took me by the hand and my wife and made us enter the boat and kneel down
on either side, he standing between us. He touched our foreheads to bless us saying, "In time past Utnapishtim was a
mortal man; henceforth he and his wife shall live in the distance at the mouth of the rivers." Thus it was that the gods took
me and placed me here to live in the distance, at the mouth of the rivers.'
[www.aina.org]

I am not offering this text as proof of aliens mind you, but rather to give a simple example of the matter of fact way that ancient texts portray the interaction of Gods and Men which I think Egyptian texts in particular are the exception to the rule, not the standard which you seem to be judging all other by. No drugs, no altered states, no "spirit folk". While yes Utnapishtim claims he is told by Ea in a "dream" to build a "boat" this is but a ruse to not get Ea in trouble and not actually a "dream" as Ea is speaking outside his house so that Utnapishtim may "inadvertently" hear him. Ancient hijinx. Beyond that, I fail to see anywhere in this story that remotely pertains to anything having to do with altered states, spirit folk, and the like which is par for the course with much of Mesopotamia literature regarding the interactions of Gods and Men.

And the more plausible alternative to you is that these Gods are actually all spirit folk conjured by altered states of consciousness?

> GH RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE:
> Shamans (and – eg – the ancient Egyptians and other ancient
> cultures) associate the world of spirits with the sky and
> stars.

True, but they were also astute real-time astronomers and spoke of these things metaphorically, for one, but they also associate the sky and stars with the physical Gods themselves of where they claim they are from.

> The ancient Egyptian Duat is an excellent example of
> such, being associated with a specific region of the sky. But
> we do not have to conclude from this that physical beings like
> us but with higher tech came here in nuts-and-bolts spaceships
> from that sky region.

I would not conclude this from AE writings either, though they are still part of a greater supporting context, but for me I look more towards the testimony of Mesopotamian cultures and their derivatives. You have not explored this in your books, but the crux of my personal research revolves around what is clearly to me a definitive Mesopotamian influence on Egypt dating well before Dynastic times which ultimately culminated in the formation of the Egyptian state and continued governance lasting until sometime towards the beginning of the 3rd Dynasty. To understand the Gods we must go back to the source in which all roads lead through Mesopotamia. To be clear I say
"Mesopotamians" as a point of reference though I side with Walter B Emery in the thinking that this does not necessarily mean "Sumerians" but rather a progenitor of both, which would ultimately be an association with Ubaid culture.

> Indeed Sirius and the stars of Orion
> (which seem close together in the sky as viewed from earth)
> both feature in the ancient Egyptian Duat, but are in fact
> hundreds of light years apart. Since this is so, the case for
> nuts-and-bolts-spaceship-travellers-from-BOTH-Sirius-and-Orion
> seems most unlikely in the physical sense. Is it safer to
> conclude that our ancient teachers came here BOTH from Sirius
> and Orion, despite the gigantic distances between these two
> star systems, or that we are dealing with some kind of symbolic
> representation of a level or reality that is not of this earth
> (a parallel dimension perhaps) and which should not be reduced
> to facile materialistic referents?

You are filtering this through your understanding of Egyptian beliefs thinking they are the end all be all, yet Mesopotamian civilizations which include the Sumerians and Elamites among others predate Dynastic Egypt by several hundred years and this says nothing about the Ubaid who predate them by over 1,000 more. They do not make these associations of the Gods coming from these stars and personally I do not surmise to know where they come from. And what are the AE really trying to say about Sirius and Orion's Belt as they pertain to a home of the Gods anyways? Is that how we would really interpret it that they came from both? And regardless, it is interesting you consider the possibility of a parallel dimension connecting such distances that would allow spirit folk to travel to and fro at will yet not that they might be doing just the same in space ships, something we theorize of doing ourselves someday, which would ultimately render the "impossibility" of such distances potentially meaningless all the same.

But why not reduce it to "facile materialistic referents"? We live in a material universe governed by physics. Whatever these other dimensions, or "spirit realms" if one prefers, they are still ultimately part of our physical universe and the "all that is" of physical reality. There is no such thing as "supernatural", just physics we do not yet understand. Technically, any being that does not inhabit Earth in our 3-dimensional plane is ultimately an "alien" so it seems to me we are both arguing the same thing except you think they get here interdimensionally and I think they flew in space ships. Theoretically both are possible if not likely and given what is said in the ancient texts it would appear both are true. You repeatedly claim to have had contact with "non-human intelligences" or "spirit beings" which by its very definition is "alien" is it not?

> As to flying machines and other technological references in
> ancient texts, and advanced knowledge of the cosmos, these are
> more easily and elegantly explained as recollections of the
> works of lost human civilisations than as the works of
> high-tech aliens.

But this is not what the ancient people are saying. They are the purview of the Gods, not a lost human civilization. If this is what they say and we accept the aircraft are real then who are we to impose their provenance on someone else just because we don't like their answer?

> GH RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE:
> I agree, these look like aircraft not insects (see also the
> Saqqara “bird” which is also obviously an aircraft, not a
> bird). However finding ancient records and images of aircraft
> does not compel us to believe “aliens” made these aircraft.

See comment above.

> Indeed if these aliens had conquered interstellar travel how
> likely is that they would have needed to devolve to fixed wing
> aircraft at all to get round planet earth?

It is unlikely therefore the question is why would they which is what I address in my commentary both regarding the true nature of alien occupation and also my thought experiment with the 50 astronauts. I'm curious-what would our 50 shipwrecked astronauts eventually build-"rockets" or airplanes like what is pictured?

> Isn’t it much more
> likely, again, that we are looking at the fingerprints of a
> lost, advanced human civilisation?

You are imposing "what is likely" which again is not what the ancient peoples are saying.

The problem with imposing this technology on this as yet undetermined lost civilisation is that there is nothing to suggest they could have built flying machines and again they do not claim they did, ergo, if not them then we are left once again with the words of the ancient peoples who attribute such things to the Gods from the heavens.

> GH RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE:
> I agree the Ark looks like a piece of technology, and said so
> extensively in my book The Sign and the Seal. But I see no
> reason to conclude it is alien technology when lost, advanced
> human knowledge will explain all the anomalies of the Ark
> equally well.

Same argument.

> The blueprint was “given” to Moses – who himself
> was reared in the household of the Pharaoh and would have had
> access to ancient Egyptian secret sciences. I can see why Moses
> might have wanted to convince others that “God” gave him the
> blueprint but that doesn’t mean I have to believe his
> propaganda designed to dominate his "stiff-necked" people. I
> suggest he drew on a storehouse of ancient knowledge to create
> the Ark and I’ve seen nothing yet that persuades me it was
> alien rather than human knowledge.

I am not saying the ark was in fact "alien technology" per se', or not, just noting that the people were convinced that it was and did not make the distinction meaning to them it was divine either which way. No doubt Aaron and Moses were pulling a dog and pony show, but the technology itself is otherwise non-existent in Egyptian culture before or since and regardless of whether it was built from schematics or not, they were still convinced it was product of the Gods from the heavens.

> THANOS 5150 CONTINUES:
> Beyond this, and obviously I could go on and on at length, we
> are left with interpretation of evidence, but obviously not
> indisputable evidence itself which is where the AA crowd goes
> astray seeing aliens in just about everything. It is definitely
> possible that some of these artifacts or technologies may be a
> “legacy” of such beings as we are clearly told was the case by
> the ancient peoples themselves, but there is no reason to think
> this the product of a protracted hands on occupation of the
> aliens themselves. If we take the ancients at their word, there
> was a time of Gods and Men that ended with a diluvian
> catastrophe and after that time the Gods slowly fade away. The
> AA crowd imagines an all encompassing alien “presence” going to
> and from their motherships whizzing about in their rockets
> getting all up in human’s business around the world, but I
> suggest the reality would be much different being more akin to
> a small band of shipwreck survivors with barely more than the
> technology on their backs than a global “occupation”. And a
> group of survivors no less whom may have all never made it back
> home being stuck after the flood to live out their remaining
> long lived days shepherding select human populations on Earth
> as living "Gods".
>
> Imagine if a group of 50 modern day astronauts were dropped
> back in time to the Caucasus mountains of Russia, say,
> 10,000yrs ago with nothing more than their escape shuttle. What
> would they do to survive? How many would die in the first 5yrs?
> What would their impact on local cultures be? Would they mate
> with the locals? What kind of technology would they develop
> using ingenuity and "primitive" materials that may seem
> “advanced” for what we ascribe to “primitive” cultures today?
> What would their historical legacy be? Would they be the Gods
> of yore?
>
> GH RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE:
> You make very good points here. But isn’t it more likely those
> survivors were the survivors of a lost human civilisation
> destroyed in a global cataclysm (of which there have been many
> in the last 125,000 years) than aliens who’d crossed
> interstellar space and crashed on earth? I prefer the solution
> of a lost human civilisation until you show me some anomaly
> that can’t be explained any other way except aliens.

Again, I am just going by what the ancient people tell me which in principle they have yet to be proven wrong. What is "more likely" is something debunkers say and is meaningless compared with what is actually the truth.
Quote

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible. When, then, did he come?"

There is no such anomaly and again if so we would not be having the conversation. But by the same token, where are the 13ft circular saws and various mechanical routers and lathes used to cut granite blocks at Giza? Where are even the simple wheels the Giza builders must have had or the millions upon millions of copper chisels and portable smelters Lehner says they must have used? Where are the tools used to cut, lift, and place the stones at Sachsayhuaman by a people who didn't even have metal tools or the wheel? We see the replicas of these aircraft-where are the aircraft themselves? None of it is there Graham so I'm not sure why you think there would be some kind of definitive proof sitting somewhere on the shelf of a museum if it ever lasted the several thousand years to be found. What could be more precious then or now than a verifiable "alien artifact" and if one was found in modern times, I am curious what the odds are it would ever see the light of day if it isn't already sitting in the basement of the Smithsonian or Cairo Museum somewhere? You believe the Ark of the Covenant-advanced technology that would prove this "lost civilization"- is just sitting there in a stronghold in Ethiopia yet we have never seen it- why? The only thing between humanity and the truth is a fence, a poorly secured building, and an old blind man; yet there it sits.

Like you, I have travelled to megalithic ruins and museums all over the world and like you again I have yet to find anything that says to me "this was made by aliens". But what I do see are their fingerprints whether that be in written texts, their depictions in artifacts, or the legacy of their technology unknown to the cultures they are attributed to. There is much curious conjecture I could add to this list, and yet still I would be the first to concede that yes, it may in fact just be the legacy of this "lost civilization" we all know is there. But if only because the ancients were quite insistent the human race had a little help on the way from beings from the stars, until they are proven wrong I am compelled to keep an open mind. If they had told me it was because of a "lost civilization" of humans I guess that would be that.

> GH RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE:
> I agree. I am keeping an open mind. I will re-examine the texts
> and the artefacts and I will give respectable palaeocontact
> thinking like yours a fair hearing in the sequel I am writing
> to Fingerprints of the Gods.

I appreciate that because again I truly believe you are one of the last bastions of fleeting credibility on these subjects and that your word still means something. It's ok you may not agree with it, but I think it is imperative to understand why others might, like Carl Sagan, and acknowledge its possibility for what it is without closing the door entirely in favor of one unproven pet theory or another.

I truly believe all roads lead through Mesopotamia and as much as you have immersed yourself in Egyptian lore cuneiform text would seem to be the next logical progression for your next book.

Anyhoo, thanks Graham. Look forward to it.



Post Edited (02-Apr-14 22:12)

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 710 Graham Hancock 30-Mar-14 20:18
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 264 carolb 30-Mar-14 21:09
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 235 DUNE 31-Mar-14 16:29
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 229 carolb 31-Mar-14 18:26
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 193 randompHactor 30-Mar-14 21:56
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 237 michael seabrook 30-Mar-14 22:23
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 218 carolb 30-Mar-14 22:47
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 229 michael seabrook 30-Mar-14 23:08
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 219 carolb 30-Mar-14 23:14
dzosa stones 258 michael seabrook 30-Mar-14 23:39
Re: dzosa stones 178 carolb 31-Mar-14 00:02
Re: dzosa stones 228 Vanya 31-Mar-14 12:12
Re: dzosa stones 228 michael seabrook 31-Mar-14 20:31
Dropa stones 253 Vanya 31-Mar-14 12:05
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 199 BobbyH 30-Mar-14 22:32
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 202 Brian Patterson 31-Mar-14 01:12
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 224 loveritas 31-Mar-14 02:47
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 207 Jon veitch 31-Mar-14 09:43
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 205 Titus Livius 31-Mar-14 11:25
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 238 Loki74 31-Mar-14 11:40
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 248 carolb 31-Mar-14 14:20
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 220 richarddullum 31-Mar-14 14:04
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 240 Jon veitch 31-Mar-14 15:22
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 205 randompHactor 31-Mar-14 16:14
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 328 Jon veitch 31-Mar-14 17:42
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 230 carolb 31-Mar-14 18:54
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 233 Jon veitch 31-Mar-14 20:00
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 220 carolb 31-Mar-14 20:08
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 194 Xaviant Haze 01-Apr-14 10:58
Moderator note 217 JonnyMcA 01-Apr-14 11:33
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 227 Aine 31-Mar-14 19:11
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 203 Laird Scranton 31-Mar-14 16:54
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 220 Laird Scranton 01-Apr-14 12:48
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 220 Brian Patterson 01-Apr-14 14:07
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 199 Laird Scranton 01-Apr-14 17:05
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 229 Aine 01-Apr-14 17:40
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 292 Laird Scranton 01-Apr-14 17:44
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 213 Aine 01-Apr-14 18:44
Wasn't he discredited? 311 Skatha 03-Apr-14 23:12
Re: Wasn't he discredited? 292 Laird Scranton 04-Apr-14 18:11
Yes, he was discredited, and still is 392 Merrell 07-Apr-14 10:06
Re: Yes, he was discredited, and still is 337 Laird Scranton 07-Apr-14 17:15
Re: Yes, he was discredited, and still is 288 PB Bytes 07-Apr-14 17:53
Re: Yes, he was discredited, and still is 223 Laird Scranton 07-Apr-14 20:33
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 388 Graham Hancock 01-Apr-14 18:58
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 240 Laird Scranton 01-Apr-14 19:18
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 393 Graham Hancock 01-Apr-14 19:39
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 218 Laird Scranton 01-Apr-14 19:52
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 380 Graham Hancock 01-Apr-14 20:11
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 240 Laird Scranton 01-Apr-14 21:19
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 227 carolb 01-Apr-14 20:43
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 207 Laird Scranton 01-Apr-14 21:13
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 190 MJT 02-Apr-14 02:16
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 189 Laird Scranton 02-Apr-14 04:40
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 274 Laird Scranton 03-Apr-14 22:05
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 260 carolb 03-Apr-14 22:23
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 217 Laird Scranton 03-Apr-14 22:40
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 217 carolb 03-Apr-14 22:43
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 226 Laird Scranton 03-Apr-14 22:55
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 219 carolb 03-Apr-14 23:14
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 215 Laird Scranton 03-Apr-14 23:18
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 173 eyeofhorus33 03-Apr-14 23:21
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 233 Laird Scranton 03-Apr-14 23:31
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 223 carolb 03-Apr-14 23:52
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 230 Laird Scranton 04-Apr-14 00:26
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 209 carolb 04-Apr-14 00:59
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 229 Laird Scranton 04-Apr-14 04:13
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 227 Laird Scranton 04-Apr-14 05:28
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 208 michael seabrook 05-Apr-14 17:47
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 181 Laird Scranton 05-Apr-14 18:46
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 203 cladking 06-Apr-14 01:02
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 165 PB Bytes 06-Apr-14 01:23
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 164 cladking 06-Apr-14 03:29
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 205 loveritas 06-Apr-14 01:41
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 209 cladking 06-Apr-14 03:31
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 206 MJT 06-Apr-14 10:45
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 161 loveritas 06-Apr-14 11:51
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 227 MJT 06-Apr-14 14:49
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 199 drrayeye 06-Apr-14 18:47
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 201 MJT 06-Apr-14 21:49
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 213 randompHactor 06-Apr-14 23:54
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 210 cladking 07-Apr-14 01:13
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 171 Brian Patterson 07-Apr-14 13:26
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 188 carolb 07-Apr-14 14:28
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 204 Aine 07-Apr-14 14:47
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 197 loveritas 06-Apr-14 23:13
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 195 michael seabrook 06-Apr-14 07:04
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 181 Aine 31-Mar-14 19:37
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 234 carolb 31-Mar-14 21:15
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 176 Laird Scranton 31-Mar-14 22:05
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 224 carolb 31-Mar-14 22:19
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 217 Aine 01-Apr-14 01:20
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 258 Thanos5150 01-Apr-14 04:13
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 180 Ratcho 01-Apr-14 05:57
I don't speak spanish 170 Ratcho 06-Apr-14 07:24
Bravo! 226 randompHactor 01-Apr-14 07:11
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 206 BobbyH 01-Apr-14 14:09
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 498 Graham Hancock 01-Apr-14 14:51
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 227 Xaviant Haze 01-Apr-14 22:26
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 210 Laird Scranton 01-Apr-14 22:31
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 169 Brian Patterson 02-Apr-14 00:40
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 223 Thanos5150 02-Apr-14 05:02
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 373 Graham Hancock 02-Apr-14 17:28
Kudos 199 randompHactor 02-Apr-14 20:46
The key question: how can we define "alien"? 220 Titus Livius 02-Apr-14 22:20
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 198 Audrey 03-Apr-14 04:44
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 225 Thanos5150 05-Apr-14 02:23
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 206 D-Archer 03-Apr-14 10:28
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 213 Aine 03-Apr-14 13:12
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 177 JonnyMcA 03-Apr-14 16:12
Board going strong 245 Misterx 22-Apr-14 11:32
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 163 MJT 01-Apr-14 19:28
Aliens Not Astronauts 200 loveritas 02-Apr-14 02:00
Re: Aliens Not Astronauts 153 MJT 03-Apr-14 09:23
Re: Aliens Not Astronauts 147 loveritas 03-Apr-14 12:32
Re: Aliens Not Astronauts 197 MJT 04-Apr-14 07:58
Re: Aliens Not Astronauts 199 loveritas 04-Apr-14 21:50
Re: Aliens Not Astronauts 213 MJT 04-Apr-14 22:25
Re: Aliens Not Astronauts 172 loveritas 05-Apr-14 01:04
Re: Aliens Not Astronauts 208 MJT 05-Apr-14 12:26
agreed with Loveritas 155 PB Bytes 05-Apr-14 15:34
Re: agreed with Loveritas 207 MJT 05-Apr-14 21:31
Re: agreed with Loveritas 205 PB Bytes 05-Apr-14 22:34
Re: agreed with Loveritas 205 MJT 06-Apr-14 00:18
Re: agreed with Loveritas 208 PB Bytes 06-Apr-14 00:25
Re: agreed with Loveritas 223 MJT 06-Apr-14 09:43
Re: Aliens Not Astronauts 198 carolb 03-Apr-14 13:10
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 196 michael seabrook 02-Apr-14 21:27
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 206 D-Archer 03-Apr-14 10:08
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 211 shando 01-Apr-14 17:01
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 429 PB Bytes 04-Apr-14 05:42
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 258 buzz 05-Apr-14 05:47
Re: Ancient Alien Hypothesis -- what is your best shot? 199 Xaviant Haze 06-Apr-14 20:47


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.