Over the course of the past year, I closely assisted a colleague in writing a series of ten articles covering diverse aspects of my ancient astronaut theory. All ten of these articles circulated widely round the globe and consider counters on many sites indicated plentiful readership, but feedback to me, or to her, from anywhere, was non-existent. There was neither criticism nor acclaim from anyone. Just silence. i used to be beginning to think that perhaps nobody in world wants to require ancient astronauts seriously.
In an effort to form some progress, i made a decision to pay sixty dollars for a review of my ancient astronaut website. Of course, this was to be a review by skeptics; a review by New Age believers would be worthless. Their blog’s description was “critical reviews of paranormal claims on the web .” The intermediary granted them five days to perform their review but that has long ago come and gone, and not a word from them. My website presents a huge amount of evidence and, in truth, I couldn’t expect anyone to supply an honest review in only five days. No one, including myself, would want to ascertain quickly prepared and frivolous arguments, else i might make them look ridiculous in my counter arguments. Moreover, a number of my evidence comes from Spanish-language sources and, to start, they might need time to verify that none of it’s a hoax. they’re welcome to all or any the time they have .
What to expect from this blog is uncertain. There are skeptics who are as narrow-minded in their thinking as their New Age counterparts, then again, there are skeptics, like me, who objectively evaluate the evidence to reach the reality . Was there a true ancient astronaut? to assist the skeptics answer that question, i will be able to give them some ideas on the way to refute my theories. Here, solely for space considerations, i will be able to consider the archaeological evidence, leaving aside ideas on the way to refute the cryptology and theology evidence for an additional day.
My website reproduces engravings from the Tiwanaku civilization in Bolivia. one among those engravings depicts the alleged ancient astronaut as an aquatic with a three-pronged tail, with each of the three prongs ending during a pod. How do the skeptics refute that? Easy. They simply got to demonstrate that the form of these pods resembles some sort of animal or flowers to be found therein region. In other words, they have to seek out a terrestrial source for those engravings, otherwise my extraterrestrial arguments remain unharmed.
The timing of the Tiwanaku sky-god drawings coincides with the timing of the Nazca Lines in Peru, therefore the ancient astronaut of both places has got to be one and therefore the same. For Nazca, the skeptics will find many ready-made arguments, but I consider all of them weak. The mentality of the people of Nazca can’t be assumed to be unique in human history. it’s to be demonstrated that folks elsewhere also believed that the sun, moon, or sky-spirits had physical eyes that would observe ground drawings. Alternatively, it’s to be demonstrated that the people of Nazca worshipped birds, believing them to possess cognitive intelligence.
The recorded engravings on the cosmological Sun Disk, alleged alien artifact, may convince be the most important challenge for the skeptics. How are we to believe that the Andeans of the first sixteenth century a) knew that the world was round, b) knew that it had been possible to orbit the world , c) knew that sunlight striking the moon could reflect back to strike a spaceship, d) knew that the dark clouds along the Milky Way contained stars within, and e) knew that water formed the idea of plant and animal evolution? Here the skeptics would wish to seek out parallels within the history of Western culture . I anticipate to their response.