Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Discussion Of The Anunnaki And Jehova/Yahweh

Expand Messages
  • Light Eye
    Dear Friends, Long, but worth the read. http://ivan.harhan.org/documents/2003-05-briefing-doc.txt Love and Light. David
    Message 1 of 50 , Oct 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Friends,
       
      Long, but worth the read.
       
       
      Love and Light.
       
      David
    • Regan Power
      R (Old): ..........I am not interested in discussing the truth with anyone who is going to believe whatever they like anyway, regardless of whatever I may say
      Message 50 of 50 , Oct 20, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        R (Old):  ..........I am not interested in discussing the truth with anyone who is going to believe whatever they like anyway, regardless of whatever I may say and regardless of how much trouble I may be put to in trying to show them the truthfulness of my arguments."
         
        J: I think the problem lies in what is objective evidence to me and others isn't to you and your reality.
         
        R:  I do not see how you can imply that I have rejected your view of what constitutes "objective evidence" when you have not troubled yourself to propose it for me to reject.
         
        J:  That seems to be the whole problem with UFO's and aliens and anything to do with them. To admit that we have evidence in fact gives our argument more power  and this is something TPTB can not allow.
         
        R:  I do not see how merely admitting one has evidence gives one's argument any more power by itself, because merely admitting it does not mean that you necessarily have it.  I believe you must actually show it and allow others to test it and criticise it before you can expect them to accept that the evidence is real and supports your argument.  Only then could it empower your argument.
         
                I also wish to say that, in my view, fear of TPTB provides no excuse for refusing to back-up one's public arguments honestly with real evidence.  If one is not willing to do that, then I think one should not present one's argument to the public in the first place, because to do so would be to stir up a hue and cry to no purpose (other than, perhaps, the selfish entertainment which it may give to the stirrer).  And I think that would be socially irresponsible, to say the least.
         
        J: That last sentence Regan is how I feel as I don't think there is any objective evidence you would accept even if it stared you in the face... So I won't waste your time further. It is enough that I don't agree with you and your line of reasoning from my own  RATIONAL AND TRUTH-CENTRED VIEWPOINT.
         
        R: Has the heat of my kitchen got too much for you, Jahnets?  Ah well, perhaps you are wise to withdraw, as it could have got a lot hotter than this, rest assured.  But I am sorry to see you retire with such bad grace.  How catty it seems of you to take that unwarranted paw-swipe at my face by saying that you think I would not accept any objective evidence that stared me in it.  What is the matter then, has your leonine pride been injured?  Has the Big Cat's nose been put out of joint by her failure to win?  If so, I'm afraid you only have yourself to blame for it.  I did not ask you to take issue with my views on these subjects.  You did that of your own volition and on your own initiative.
         
                However, since you are evidently unwilling to let go of your own rigidly-held viewpoint for long enough to comprehend mine properly and since you are apparently electing to place yourself in the category of people who are "going to believe whatever they like anyway, regardless of whatever I may say", then I must say I am glad that I will not have to waste any more of my time on your egregiously disputatious and insulting nonsense than I have wasted already.
         
                Regan 
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Jahnets
        Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 4:04 AM
        Subject: RE: [ufodiscussion] Discussion Of The Anunnaki And Jehova/Yahweh

        "
        R: I believe what you say is essentially true.  However, it misses my point, which I now see I should have worded slightly differently.  I should have said, ".....without having the corroboration of 'objective' evidence, one's interpretation of the myth as an accurate statement of history is eternally open to REASONABLE doubt and to alternative interpretations which are equally valid FROM A RATIONAL AND TRUTH-CENTRED VIEWPOINT."  I was assuming, you see, that the other people at this forum are, like myself, only wanting to believe what reflects reason and truth to them and are not intent upon believing merely whatever happens to take their fancy.  As I understand them, objective reason and truth are not matters of personal opinion, but are suprapersonal and apply to the whole of reality, right across the entire spectrum that ranges from the lowest physical level to the highest metaphysical one.  True, nobody has to believe this and you can believe it is just my personal opinion about reality if you want to.  But that is my opinion about reality and that is what I have come to this forum to share with anyone who wants it.  I am not interested in discussing the truth with anyone who is going to believe whatever they like anyway, regardless of whatever I may say and regardless of how much trouble I may be put to in trying to show them the truthfulness of my arguments."
         

         J: I think the problem lies in what is objective evidence to me and others isn't to you and your reality. That seems to be the whole problem with UFO's and aliens and anything to do with them. To admit that we have evidence in fact gives our argument more power  and this is something TPTB can not allow. That last sentence Regan is how I feel as I don't think there is any objective evidence you would accept even if it stared you in the face... So I won't waste your time further. It is enough that I don't agree with you and your line of reasoning from my own  RATIONAL AND TRUTH-CENTRED VIEWPOINT.

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Regan Power [mailto:soulsearcher_22@...]
        Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 6:52 PM
        To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Discussion Of The Anunnaki And Jehova/Yahweh

                Jahnets,
         
        R (Old): ......But surely, this fact only serves to confirm my argument that without having the corroboration of "objective" evidence, one's interpretation of the myth as an accurate statement of history is eternally open to doubt and to alternative interpretations which are equally valid.
         
        J: It always will be Regan. Since everyone has a different opinion of the ways and withalls of the myths. We may agree with some things that I say and then some that you say, and others may agree with more of what Don says. It's individual and I submit it makes no difference what "objective" evidence you have because for some it will never be objective enough and for others it will be the end all of objectivity... ha ha
         
        R: I believe what you say is essentially true.  However, it misses my point, which I now see I should have worded slightly differently.  I should have said, ".....without having the corroboration of 'objective' evidence, one's interpretation of the myth as an accurate statement of history is eternally open to REASONABLE doubt and to alternative interpretations which are equally valid FROM A RATIONAL AND TRUTH-CENTRED VIEWPOINT."  I was assuming, you see, that the other people at this forum are, like myself, only wanting to believe what reflects reason and truth to them and are not intent upon believing merely whatever happens to take their fancy.  As I understand them, objective reason and truth are not matters of personal opinion, but are suprapersonal and apply to the whole of reality, right across the entire spectrum that ranges from the lowest physical level to the highest metaphysical one.  True, nobody has to believe this and you can believe it is just my personal opinion about reality if you want to.  But that is my opinion about reality and that is what I have come to this forum to share with anyone who wants it.  I am not interested in discussing the truth with anyone who is going to believe whatever they like anyway, regardless of whatever I may say and regardless of how much trouble I may be put to in trying to show them the truthfulness of my arguments.
         
         
        R (Old):  ........At no time does he cite any real evidence which derives from outside the world's system of mythical symbolism.
         
        J:Outside the world's system of mythical symbolism??? Outside??? hmmm exactly where would you go outside the worlds system???
         
        R:  I was not talking about going outside the world's entire system!  I was talking about looking outside the world's system of mythical symbolism - for independent evidence which might confirm or deny the imaginative notion that the myths represent actual history.  I have already described what I believe that domain of information to be in my earlier post of 18th October.  It is what is commonly known, rightly or wrongly, as the "objective, physical world".  That conception may, itself, be something of a myth, it's true, but I was referring to it as a domain of potential knowledge which is generally considered, by humanity at large, to be unconditioned and unconstrained by differing personal interpretations of myths.  Actual historical events are supposed to lie within that domain of imagined objectivity and not in the domain of myths.
         
         
        R (Old):  The spiritual kundalini-principle is an extremely general concept,........ could be regarded as a manifestation of the spiritual kundalini-principle, just like everything else is supposed to be....
         
        J: Regan who cares about the physicist's concept???..........
         
        R:  Apparently Harvey does.  That is why I referred to his article entitled "2012: Stargate of the Gods", in which he declares that a Mayan prophesy of a "serpent-rope" coming to earth from the centre of the galaxy in the year 2012 should be interpreted specifically as a physical wormhole.
         
        J:  .........If the Annunaki wrote this for beings who weren't as evolved as them at that time a physicist's concept doesn't even come into it...  They would be discribing a worm hole for peasants basically and the clarity of the explanation would only be how much they wanted them to know or needed them to know.
         
        R:  I understand your argument.  However, the fact remains that no objective reasons and no objective evidence have been put forward (by Harvey or anyone else, as far as I can see) to justify interpreting the serpent-rope image specifically as a symbol for a physical wormhole.
         
        J:  How can you say that the spiritual kundalini principle is general??? I think of it as being very specific to a type of energy.
         
        R:  I don't know what specific type of energy you are calling kundalini, nor why you consider it to be specific rather than general, but please consider the following descriptive, but succinct definitions by a couple of authorities on the subject which are typical.
         
                1. "Kundalini is.... symbolic of the primordial essence of nature," (p.318, Enlightenment - the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, by MSI, SFA Publications, 1995, 1996);
         
                2. "Individual kundalini sakti (sakti means cosmic energy... R.P.) is the manifestation of universal kundalini sakti,"  (p.129, Fundamentals of Yoga, by Rammurti Mishra, M.D., The Julian Press, Inc, 1959).
         
                As you can see, both definitions portray the kundalini principle as being universal.  Surely it would be impossible for anything to be more general than that.
         
         
        J (Old):  In fact to do so would mean having to have the Annunaki say it was so, which would mean producing one of them or one of the fallen ones. Since they don't seem to be on our time schedule and move when they seem to think it works in their best interests it doesn't appear that will be happening soon.
         
        R (Old):  I do not see how it would mean this.  Even if we had one of the Anunnaki, or one of the fallen ones here to tell us what they did in our distant past, people might doubt their word.  Their evidence could only be of the hearsay variety anyway, unless they were also able to provide us with physical-type evidence of the sorts that I have already described.  Surely, it is the physical-type evidence which would be the clincher here, not the presence of the Anunnaki or whoever. 
         
        J: Hearsay??? How would having those that wrote the material be hearsay??? If one years orbit of the Sun is one year of life to us, then one orbit of the sun by niburu would be one of their years. If their planet takes what Bill say 10000 years to swing around, then that makes for a very long life... Almost immortal to our way of looking at it since that would mean they lived what 100,000 years at least... and that without transfering their consciousness into another body... ha ha Hearsay???
         
        R:  You are scoffing at your own ignorance, Jahnets.  If you had one of the Anunnaki available for questioning, how would you know whether he/she/it was even a witness to the supposed prehistoric genetic engineering about which you are questioning him/her/it?  You would only have his/her/its verbal report to go by.  What else is such unauthenticatable evidence but "hearsay"?
         
         
        J (Old): But this sounds to me like you're saying why even look as we can't possibly prove it to the world at large. Well if we don't continue to look certainly we never will prove it to the world.
         
        R (Old): Actually, that is the opposite of what I am saying.  I am saying that we do need to look - at both the content of the myths and at the worldly, "physical" evidence which will either confirm or deny our beliefs about the myths as representations of worldly history.  I am saying that such looking at both sides of the problem may lead eventually to proof, but that only looking at one side, as you appear to be saying is all that is necessary, can not lead to any proof but only to more arguments.
         
        J: I don't recall saying only to look at one side, but I do think it is important not to wallow in dogma...
           To be open to other possibilities.
         
        R: Sorry, Jahnets, I thought you were arguing that we don't need to consider what objective evidence is needed to prove that the interpretation of myths as history is valid.  Did you not say, in fact,
                ".........I submit it makes no difference what 'objective' evidence you have because for some it will never be objective enough and for others it will be the end all of objectivity... ha ha"  (cf. your previous post to which I am replying).
         
                Open to other possibilities?  Of course!  But that state of mind is different, surely, to having decided that a given possibility is, in fact, an actuality.  The latter is a closed mental state, I think, from which all the alternative possibilities have been eliminated.  The consideration of objective evidence is required in the process of conveying the mind from the former state to the latter.  It is an information-process in which the mind's uncertainty is eliminated.  As an information-process, it requires an input of information from some source.  That is all that the "evidence" needs to be - a source of information.  But without it, one is left in eternal uncertainty about the matter in question.  In this case, the "matter in question" is the validity of the myths as history and the required source of information is a relevant set of independently verified historical events.  Since no-one has yet presented these to us, we do not have the crucial information-source available to us which we require and our minds cannot be moved from their current position of uncertainty to a position of certainty over the question of whether, in fact, the myths do, or do not represent actual history.
         
         
        R (Old):  .........But I think that these space-age proponents of the "galactic rope" and "prehistoric ET genetic engineers" ideas are trying to pull a fast one, in that they are pretending that the myths provide real evidence for these theories when they patently do not.
         
        J: How can you state that as if it was fact when I don't agree with you and do agree that genetic engineers created us. In fact I believe that many have been on this planet changing us. Look at RH- blood and prove it is just a freak of nature... Have you ever read The Greatest Story Never Told??? I believe you would enjoy it as it is right up your alley on this...
         
        R: You appear to have misunderstood what I said.  I did not say that their interpretations of these myths are necessarily wrong.  I am saying that they have not presented any objective evidence (in public) to prove that they are right!  But they are pretending that the "evidence" which they do cite in support of their claims - ie. certain myths - is valid evidence, when it cannot be by virtue of the unattributable, unauthenticatable, anecdotal nature of myths.  This is intellectually dishonest in my view, because no trustworthy researcher in the modern world would dare to offer the public his personal interpretation of a myth as a statement of historical fact without also offering them objective evidence that his contention is correct.  Accepting such personal interprations on blind trust and without expecting to see the objective evidence for them first, can turn out to be very costly in ways which are unforeseen, as the Western Allies are currently discovering over the vexed question of George Bush's and Tony Blair's peculiar personal interpretations of the intelligence reports on Iraq's alleged WMDs and support of terrorism.  Of course, we are all free to believe whatever we want to believe about everything.  But whatever we do choose to believe, it will have consequences and we are rarely free to evade those, as far as I can see.
         
                Regards,
                  Regan
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Jahnets
        Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 7:00 AM
        Subject: RE: [ufodiscussion] Discussion Of The Anunnaki And Jehova/Yahweh

         
         

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Regan Power [mailto:soulsearcher_22@...]
        Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 9:11 AM
        To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Discussion Of The Anunnaki And Jehova/Yahweh

                Jahnets,
         
        R(Old): .....If one wants to interpret a given myth as a record of actual historical events, then one needs to have independent evidence that such events occurred in the way that the myth depicts them, so as to establish a definite, one-to-one correlation between the myth and the historical sequence that it is supposed to represent.  In the case of the Sumerian myths, this corroboration by independent sources of evidence has so far not even been seriously sought, let alone found and established.
         
        J: Yet when asked why the church would not allow women in the Pope said, "Jesus did not have women diciples". Sounds like they have indeed interpreted that the women who were around Jesus were not his disciples... I wonder how and what their independent evidence was...
         
        R: Good question, Jahnets.  Perhaps you should ask them.  The church holds many myths about Jesus and his relationships with other people, few of which, if any, have been corroborated by any hard evidence.  But surely, this fact only serves to confirm my argument that without having the corroboration of "objective" evidence, one's interpretation of the myth as an accurate statement of history is eternally open to doubt and to alternative interpretations which are equally valid.
         
        J: It always will be Regan. Since everyone has a different opinion of the ways and withalls of the myths. We may agree with some things that I say and then some that you say, and others may agree with more of what Don says. It's individual and I submit it makes no difference what "objective" evidence you have because for some it will never be objective enough and for others it will be the end all of objectivity... ha ha
         
        R(Old):  This point appears to be passing unnoticed by the legions of space-age myth-enthusiasts who are now loading the Internet with their voluminous speculative hypotheses about what specific space-time events the ancient myths portray.  They do not seem to have grasped that one cannot corroborate the supposed "historical meaning" of the myths by just studying the myths, any more than one can corroborate the supposed "historical meaning" of one's dreams by just examining one's dreams.  The recent offering from David (Light Eye) entitled, "2012: Stargate of the Gods", is a good example of this purely speculative hypothesis-spinning, in which no independent evidence deriving from outside of the myths themselves, is offered by way of corroboration.  Why should we take the ancient, universal symbol of the serpent-dragon to represent a modern physicist's wormhole specifically?  Surely, to proclaim this to be so is to invent a new myth, with which we are asked to replace the old one.  The original meaning of the serpent-dragon symbol is well-known to this day, all over the world, as the spiritual kundalini-principle, yet the author ignores this and simply presents his "wormhole" interpretation flatly, as though it was a fact, and then seeks to support it with evidence drawn from more myths from around the world.  At no time does he cite any real evidence which derives from outside the world's system of mythical symbolism.
         
        J:Outside the world's system of mythical symbolism??? Outside??? hmmm exactly where would you go outside the worlds system???
         
        J: So who is to say it can't be both??? How was the spiritual kundalini-principle come up with?
         
        R: The spiritual kundalini-principle is an extremely general concept, which the ancients conceived as underlying all the workings of nature, on every level of everything's existence and throughout every naturally-occuring creature, system and structure in the universe.  So of course, any actual wormhole (if such things really exist) could be regarded as a manifestation of the spiritual kundalini-principle, just like everything else is supposed to be.  But the physicist's concept of a wormhole is highly specific, not general like the spiritual kundalini-principle, and it is defined as a direct connection between two locations in physical space-time.  If one interprets the myth of the serpent-dragon specifically as a physical wormhole, instead of universally as the spiritual kundalini-principle, one is giving the myth a radically novel interpretation which is fundamentally incompatible with its established, traditional one.  I am not saying that one cannot do this.  I am just saying that one cannot do it rationally without also providing sound, objective reasons for doing it.  And those reasons have not been provided.
         
        J: Regan who cares about the physicist's concept??? If the Annunaki wrote this for beings who weren't as evolved as them at that time a physicist's concept doesn't even come into it...  They would be discribing a worm hole for peasants basically and the clarity of the explanation would only be how much they wanted them to know or needed them to know. 
         
        How can you say that the spiritual kundalini principle is general??? I think of it as being very specific to a type of energy.
         
        R(Old):  Another, related point which also seems, to me, to be getting lost in all this wild speculating, is that if one needs independent evidence to establish a link between a myth and actual history, then that is all one needs anyway to establish the hypothesised historical events in the first place.  It seems ironic, but the myths are actually irrelevant to this process and constitute a complete red herring so far as establishing the truth or untruth of the hypothesised historical facts is concerned. True, the myths can suggest hypothetical possibilities, but they cannot prove that anything actually happened, any more than a historical novel, likewise, could prove that anything actually happened.  To get such proof, we must step outside the mythical system altogether and gather information from the only sources which can provide it, ie. "objective", "external", "physical" traces, records and other commonly observable phenomena.  The myths do not qualify as that kind of evidence.
         
        J:  First I have to say that having independent evidence to establish a link between myth and actual history is your idea and not necessarily accepted by others...
         
        R:  Not just my idea, Jahnets.  It is the standard method of historical research in the modern world.
         
        J:  In fact to do so would mean having to have the Annunaki say it was so, which would mean producing one of them or one of the fallen ones. Since they don't seem to be on our time schedule and move when they seem to think it works in their best interests it doesn't appear that will be happening soon.
         
        R:  I do not see how it would mean this.  Even if we had one of the Anunnaki, or one of the fallen ones here to tell us what they did in our distant past, people might doubt their word.  Their evidence could only be of the hearsay variety anyway, unless they were also able to provide us with physical-type evidence of the sorts that I have already described.  Surely, it is the physical-type evidence which would be the clincher here, not the presence of the Anunnaki or whoever. 
         
        J: Hearsay??? How would having those that wrote the material be hearsay??? If one years orbit of the Sun is one year of life to us, then one orbit of the sun by niburu would be one of their years. If their planet takes what Bill say 10000 years to swing around, then that makes for a very long life... Almost immortal to our way of looking at it since that would mean they lived what 100,000 years at least... and that without transfering their consciousness into another body... ha ha Hearsay???
         
        J: I'm surprized Regan, as this seems more in the churchs line of reasoning than I would think was yours as then no one stands a chance of changing the view of this, history would be stuck forever if there was a history in the first place as I highly doubt there was independent evidense to begin with.
         
        R: In so far as the church also regards it as important to test one's beliefs about history by checking them critically against independant, objective evidence, then it is true that our "lines of reasoning" concur.  But I don't think this implies that performing such objective checks necessarily makes our view of history unchangeable.  It just makes our view of history clear and definite, while still being changeable according to commonly agreed rules of scientific enquiry.  If anyone wants to change those rules, they are at liberty to do so by persuading everyone else that they need to be changed.  It is only a process of public inter-communication that we are concerned with here, not an authoritarian imposition of one person, or group's ideology onto everyone else.
         
        J: But this sounds to me like you're saying why even look as we can't possibly prove it to the world at large. Well if we don't continue to look certainly we never will prove it to the world.
         
        R: Actually, that is the opposite of what I am saying.  I am saying that we do need to look - at both the content of the myths and at the worldly, "physical" evidence which will either confirm or deny our beliefs about the myths as representations of worldly history.  I am saying that such looking at both sides of the problem may lead eventually to proof, but that only looking at one side, as you appear to be saying is all that is necessary, can not lead to any proof but only to more arguments.
         
        J: I don't recall saying only to look at one side, but I do think it is important not to wallow in dogma...
           To be open to other possibilities.
         
        J:  What's more I have found that by the very act of continuing in the face of such obsticles sometimes they help point me in the right direction.  Then I've found the answer for myself which is all anyone can do anyway. Whether you believe or not will be up to you and others. Discussing the possiblities is all we can do till the truth rings loud and clear.
         
        R: I believe we can do more than that, Jahnets.  As I tried to show in my previous post, we can at least consider what kinds of independent evidence would be required in order prove to one's fellow human beings that one's own radically novel and unconventional interpretation of the myths is the correct one.  I have no objection to anyone merely "discussing possibilities", as you say, so long as they are being honest over it.  But I think that these space-age proponents of the "galactic rope" and "prehistoric ET genetic engineers" ideas are trying to pull a fast one, in that they are pretending that the myths provide real evidence for these theories when they patently do not.
         
        J: How can you state that as if it was fact when I don't agree with you and do agree that genetic engineers created us. In fact I believe that many have been on this planet changing us. Look at RH- blood and prove it is just a freak of nature... Have you ever read The Greatest Story Never Told??? I believe you would enjoy it as it is right up your alley on this...
         
        J:  As for Henry I think he is on to something.
         
        R:  I think he might well be "onto something" too.  But surely the questions are, "Is he really?" and "If so, what?".  Neither of these questions seem to have been answered in his article.
         
        J:  Another point he failed to make but that I noticed about his work is that the gate or eye always had eight points, which would refer to continuing or everlasting energy as it has no end, a spiral like DNA or a worm hole, or like Binah weaving the life force...
         
        R: You are proving my argument again.  Amongst all these alternative interpretations of the eight-pointed serpent-dragon symbol, why does he pick on the wormhole-interpretion as the one that is uniquely relevant here?  And how does he make the logical leap from saying that the serpent-dragon motif appears in countless variations in diverse ancient cultures of the world, to saying that the Mayan prophesy about the appearance of the Serpent-Rope from the centre of the galaxy refers specifically to the manifestation of a wormhole and not to any of the other interpretations of that symbol which are possible?  He is merely dream-spinning, as far as I can see.
         
        J: I think the real question here is why are you so against the worm hole theory and how has anyone's explanation of (not any dragon symbols but the same ones he used) serpent dragon symbols  been proven in the same manner that you suggest his need to be???
         
         
                 Regards,
                  Regan
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Jahnets
        Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 7:21 AM
        Subject: RE: [ufodiscussion] Discussion Of The Anunnaki And Jehova/Yahweh

         
         

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Regan Power [mailto:soulsearcher_22@...]
        Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 5:26 PM
        To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Discussion Of The Anunnaki And Jehova/Yahweh

                Don, Keith, Janet and All,
         
                I am enjoying this thoughtful exchange of views.
         
                I see that Don's and my viewpoints on this subject are very close.  I am thinking, though, that the dream-like nature of the myths makes it impossible in practice to pinpoint the specific historical events which are supposed to have evoked them from people's imaginations.  Interpreting myths seems just like interpreting dreams to me.  Whatever interpretation you make of them, there is always the possibility of another interpretation which fits equally well.  The modern-day attempt to re-interpret ancient myths (which the ancients knew were myths) as mythologised history, seems comparable, to me, to trying to determine what happened in our ancestors' lives by reading their dream-diaries.  Now, the attempt to do this might be sincere and well-intentioned, but it would still be misguided for all that, because our dream-experiences do not reflect our waking, physical experiences in any clear and definite one-to-one manner.  Dreams are highly symbolic mental constructions and to interpret them as literal history would be foolish, to say the least.  The same applies to myths, I believe, because they are just stories, which do not have to account for history.
         
                Of course, this does not rule out the possibility that some myths may reflect actual historical events accurately, in the same way that some dreams (especially repetitive ones) can be memories of specific events that actually happened in the life of the dreamer.  But in interpreting a dream as a recalled life-event, one needs to have independent evidence of some kind, that the event actually happened in the way that it was dreamt.  Otherwise, you are still left with a vague "maybe" that the dream could have represented an actual event, but equally, it might really have been about something else entirely.  I think it is the same with the myths.  If one wants to interpret a given myth as a record of actual historical events, then one needs to have independent evidence that such events occurred in the way that the myth depicts them, so as to establish a definite, one-to-one correlation between the myth and the historical sequence that it is supposed to represent.  In the case of the Sumerian myths, this corroboration by independent sources of evidence has so far not even been seriously sought, let alone found and established.
        Jahnets
        Yet when asked why the church would not allow women in the Pope said, "Jesus did not have women diciples". Sounds like they have indeed interpreted that the women who were around Jesus were not his disciples... I wonder how and what their independent evidence was...
         
                This point appears to be passing unnoticed by the legions of space-age myth-enthusiasts who are now loading the Internet with their voluminous speculative hypotheses about what specific space-time events the ancient myths portray.  They do not seem to have grasped that one cannot corroborate the supposed "historical meaning" of the myths by just studying the myths, any more than one can corroborate the supposed "historical meaning" of one's dreams by just examining one's dreams.  The recent offering from David (Light Eye) entitled, "2012: Stargate of the Gods", is a good example of this purely speculative hypothesis-spinning, in which no independent evidence deriving from outside of the myths themselves, is offered by way of corroboration.  Why should we take the ancient, universal symbol of the serpent-dragon to represent a modern physicist's wormhole specifically?  Surely, to proclaim this to be so is to invent a new myth, with which we are asked to replace the old one.  The original meaning of the serpent-dragon symbol is well-known to this day, all over the world, as the spiritual kundalini-principle, yet the author ignores this and simply presents his "wormhole" interpretation flatly, as though it was a fact, and then seeks to support it with evidence drawn from more myths from around the world.  At no time does he cite any real evidence which derives from outside the world's system of mythical symbolism.
         
        So who is to say it can't be both??? How was the spiritual kundalini-principle come up with?
         
                Another, related point which also seems, to me, to be getting lost in all this wild speculating, is that if one needs independent evidence to establish a link between a myth and actual history, then that is all one needs anyway to establish the hypothesised historical events in the first place.  It seems ironic, but the myths are actually irrelevant to this process and constitute a complete red herring so far as establishing the truth or untruth of the hypothesised historical facts is concerned. True, the myths can suggest hypothetical possibilities, but they cannot prove that anything actually happened, any more than a historical novel, likewise, could prove that anything actually happened.  To get such proof, we must step outside the mythical system altogether and gather information from the only sources which can provide it, ie. "objective", "external", "physical" traces, records and other commonly observable phenomena.  The myths do not qualify as that kind of evidence.
         
        First I have to say that having independent evidence to establish a link between myth and actual history is your idea and not necessarily accepted by others... In fact to do so would mean having to have the Annunaki say it was so, which would mean producing one of them or one of the fallen ones. Since they don't seem to be on our time schedule and move when they seem to think it works in their best interests it doesn't appear that will be happening soon. I'm surprized Regan, as this seems more in the churchs line of reasoning than I would think was yours as then no one stands a chance of changing the view of this, history would be stuck forever if there was a history in the first place as I highly doubt there was independent evidense to begin with. But this sounds to me like you're saying why even look as we can't possibly prove it to the world at large. Well if we don't continue to look certainly we never will prove it to the world. What's more I have found that by the very act of continuing in the face of such obsticles sometimes they help point me in the right direction.  Then I've found the answer for myself which is all anyone can do anyway. Whether you believe or not will be up to you and others. Discussing the possiblities is all we can do till the truth rings loud and clear. As for Henry I think he is on to something. Another point he failed to make but that I noticed about his work is that the gate or eye always had eight points, which would refer to continuing or everlasting energy as it has no end, a spiral like DNA or a worm hole, or like Binah weaving the life force...
         
                We may see that anyone who seriously sets out to find decisive physical-type evidence for or against the "prehistoric ET genetic engineers" hypothesis would have a mighty task ahead of him.  Part of the problem here is the great antiquity of the events in question.  Conventional archaeology has already established that the modern species of man, homo sapiens, is at least 100,000 years old.  So if modern man has been genetically engineered from pre-existing hominid stock, then that event must have occurred at least 100,000 years ago.  Hardly any human traces or artefacts have survived from so long ago and those which have are all of a disappointingly prosaic nature, such as fossilised bones and shaped stone tools.  But any artefacts which recorded such an extraordinary event as we are considering, would have to be of a sophisticated nature, such as an inscribed plaque or tablet.  We can forget about any such inscribed tablets that are already known to exist, because the Sumerian clay tablets are the oldest known examples of writing in the entire world and they go back only about 6,000 years - nowhere near o

        (Message over 64 KB, truncated)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.