What Archaeologists Really Think About Ancient Aliens, Lost Colonies, And Fingerprints Of The Gods

Every single one of these shows is a complete disaster of investigative journalism.

They take the scientific method and stand it on its head.

Basically, they assume that whatever they're investigating had something to do with aliens, then spend the entire show trying to convince you of this. They don't even question that there might be alternative explanations for what they're seeing.

Awful, awful programming that should be watched for entertainment purposes only, nothing more.

Why anything that's discussed in these programs even gets mentioned on what's supposed to be a serious conspiracy forum is beyond me.

It's threads on stuff like this that really stop me from keeping as a continuous, regular user on ATS. These days, I just check in to laugh at the idiocy of 95% of the threads.

a reply to: babybunnies

Again archaeology has no one to blame but itself. Quit throwing out some stupid ancient man with basic tools did all this building when it's obviously not the case. You throw out better theories using your science , these alternates never get going. I gave two examples in my first post where ancient man with basic tools doesn't cut it. If archaeology would quit sticking with stupid and say " ancient man seems to have had long forgotten methods of doing xyz which have been long forgotten and yet refound , but were working to establish. Ok. Nothing to do with ancient aliens or anything else. You stick with stupid you invite alternate theories and no matter how crazy they may sound, some are more plausible than what's being offered.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
Imagine someone in the Middle Ages gazing at the pyramids. They would have to think, "Wow, there is no way we could do that today. Those people were better than us. What happened to them? Something was lost." Today, our ego won't allow us to conceive that ancient humans might have been more advanced than us.

Middle Ages...is that not when the great cathedrals of Europe were being constructed? You know...those things that make the pyramids look like Lego?

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
Imagine someone in the Middle Ages gazing at the pyramids. They would have to think, "Wow, there is no way we could do that today. Those people were better than us. What happened to them? Something was lost." Today, our ego won't allow us to conceive that ancient humans might have been more advanced than us.

Middle Ages...is that not when the great cathedrals of Europe were being constructed? You know...those things that make the pyramids look like Lego?

Our skyscrapers look good, too. But which ones would last 5000 years without maintenance? Constructing a hollow shell with small blocks is one thing. Making a virtually solid pyramid out of multi-ton stones is something else. No European king could have done something like that.

The real question is why? Making a large hollow structure to be occupied by people is understandable. Why make a mountain of stone in a desert with just a few small chambers?

I studied archaeology. I have a degree in anthropology of which archaeology is considered a sub-discipline (physical anthropology, cultural anthropology, and linguistics being the other three.) There is also such a thing as "Classical archaeology" which deals with Roman and Greek ruins, etc. found in Classics departments. I have taken the classes, participated in digs, and read the literature.

The first thing to understand about archaeology is that it is a very small discipline. There are not hundreds of thousands of archaeologists like there are hundreds of thousand of lawyers and doctors and tens of thousand of English professors. You are probably looking at hundreds of archaeologists though perhaps you could push it up in the very low thousands. This means, in essence, that everyone knows or knows of each other, and given the sub-divisions and specialties only a few archaeologists work on any one given topic. This means a very small community, a very small culture of PhD archaeologists whose one desire in life is to a) gain tenure and b) become famous in the field.

The way you do that is to publish (or perish) and the way publishing is handled is just like many other disciplines with peer review. Although ideally all this is anonymous, a paper on a subject gets reviewed by peers in that sub-discipline, who likely have guessed who the authors are. The article is scrutinized for statistical validity and for adherence to archaeological protocols. It is ALSO scrutinized for its adherence to the culture of archaeology much the same way the Church scrutinizes a work on theology for canonical accuracy in reference to the teachings of the church.

Actually "doing" archaeology is a dismal business of back-breaking labor in dusty places often bereft of any civilized existence. Think of camping in the hot desert and digging holes in the dirt looking for the minutest of objects that usually look like rocks. They usually use students for the labor. And it is true that any given archaeologist can become an expert on the different sorts of ancient pig bones found at a site. And you really can make grand leaps of faith over the look of a cusp on a tooth that signifies a new species.

Because of the nature of the work archaeologists tend to suffer from a "can't see the forest for the trees" syndrome. Most theorizing, of course, is done back at the desk at the university. And it is, of course, EXTREMELY conservative. After all, grants and funding are not awarded to mavericks in the field. Any new theory--even of it is correct--is viewed with suspicion. Just look at plate tectonics. The originator of this theory was drummed from the geology field, a broken man. Hugh Everett quit the field of physics in disgust when people made fun of his Many Worlds Theory, but the fact is that mathematically, it's a serious theory.

The actual archaeological publications are as dry as the bones they talk about, as boring a digging a hole. Have you ever read through one of these publications? You would not get through it. So when some upstart from out of the field proposes some seemingly outlandish theory in the popular press and gets millions of dollars for it, this community of archaeologists is pissed off.

They also tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater. "Aliens" does not explain, and was never intended to explain, Graham Hancock's flood theory. Have you actually read the theory? Have you read the supporting evidence? What, exactly, is wrong with it? And how, precisely, do you explain the three pyramids being n alignment with Orion's belt?

But the reaction you get is the exalted, supercilious "I know better than you" attitude of "You can lead a horse to water." as a way to dismiss anything an archaeologist doesn't like. You can lead an archaeologist down the same path and show him the evidence, but the same rule applies. He won't accept it because none of his colleagues have, and if he does, he will be ostracized from that small community he so desperately needs.

a reply to: schuyler

That would explain a lot and nice post. At the same time if they continue to throw out stupid that defies even basic common sense to adhere to this system. Then blame yourselves if some far out theories start generating interest. Something has to give or it will keep going.

originally posted by: schuyler
But the reaction you get is the exalted, supercilious "I know better than you" attitude of "You can lead a horse to water." as a way to dismiss anything an archaeologist doesn't like. You can lead an archaeologist down the same path and show him the evidence, but the same rule applies. He won't accept it because none of his colleagues have, and if he does, he will be ostracized from that small community he so desperately needs.

Since I have been cited (without benefit of reference BTW) I might point out that the water I tried to lead folks to was the article from American Antiquity, in which some of your opinions actually emerge. My point was that there's a lot of commentary on the subject here from people who have not bothered to read the piece. Like I said, deliberate ignorance in this time of uber information availability is...well...stupid.

originally posted by: Flatfish
They used to teach us that Columbus discovered America and that atoms were the smallest things in the universe too, but we now know that neither of things are true.

And how do we know these things?
You guessed it... those evil bastards in mainstream science figured them out.
Oh, they are so evil.

For me it is more believable that an advanced space faring race seeded and/or altered our planets indigenous ape population for reasons known only to them than an omnipotent "God" created us for companionship or whatever...

Ancient aliens explains a lot of bizarre sounding myths and legends much better than religion does IMO. Either every word of every religious book and folk legend is completely made up, which seems pretty unlikely, or they have to admit that ancient aliens is as likely a theory as any other to explain things like talking to Gods in burning bushes, arks electrocuting people, brimstone destroying cities, etc.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Hiya JC, before reading the link I thought of Ken Feder because he's been outspoken on the subject of ancient aliens. He did an interview in July 2011 on Monster Talk (podcast). It's a good talk and he's about the only guy I've heard on there to drop a barrage of f-bombs. You'll probably enjoy the episode.

It was a nice surprise to see him referenced in the article.

In the episode, he recalls how popular his lectures were with new undergrads having a bad case of the Von Danikens. I'm just raising that point to highlight how some of the pseudoarchaeological books and proponents have inspired people to study genuine archaeology.

The authors of the ancient aliens shtick are usually happy to spin their wheels in ever decreasing circles whilst the serious students learn more and put all that BS aside. I say 'usually' because I *think* Hancock changed his mind on a lot of his earlier ideas - not many are able to do that.

Good thread

originally posted by: JohnTheSmith
I wonder if these same Archaeologists have ever wondered what is buried at the Smithsonian, or Vatican?

Must be nice to be willfully ignorant.

How do YOU know what is buried there? Have you looked?

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

So some revelations are just poo poo revolutions?

I thank you!

originally posted by: schuyler
I studied archaeology. I have a degree in anthropology of which archaeology is considered a sub-discipline (physical anthropology, cultural anthropology, and linguistics being the other three.) There is also such a thing as "Classical archaeology" which deals with Roman and Greek ruins, etc. found in Classics departments. I have taken the classes, participated in digs, and read the literature.

The first thing to understand about archaeology is that it is a very small discipline. There are not hundreds of thousands of archaeologists like there are hundreds of thousand of lawyers and doctors and tens of thousand of English professors. You are probably looking at hundreds of archaeologists though perhaps you could push it up in the very low thousands. This means, in essence, that everyone knows or knows of each other, and given the sub-divisions and specialties only a few archaeologists work on any one given topic. This means a very small community, a very small culture of PhD archaeologists whose one desire in life is to a) gain tenure and b) become famous in the field.

The way you do that is to publish (or perish) and the way publishing is handled is just like many other disciplines with peer review. Although ideally all this is anonymous, a paper on a subject gets reviewed by peers in that sub-discipline, who likely have guessed who the authors are. The article is scrutinized for statistical validity and for adherence to archaeological protocols. It is ALSO scrutinized for its adherence to the culture of archaeology much the same way the Church scrutinizes a work on theology for canonical accuracy in reference to the teachings of the church.

Actually "doing" archaeology is a dismal business of back-breaking labor in dusty places often bereft of any civilized existence. Think of camping in the hot desert and digging holes in the dirt looking for the minutest of objects that usually look like rocks. They usually use students for the labor. And it is true that any given archaeologist can become an expert on the different sorts of ancient pig bones found at a site. And you really can make grand leaps of faith over the look of a cusp on a tooth that signifies a new species.

Because of the nature of the work archaeologists tend to suffer from a "can't see the forest for the trees" syndrome. Most theorizing, of course, is done back at the desk at the university. And it is, of course, EXTREMELY conservative. After all, grants and funding are not awarded to mavericks in the field. Any new theory--even of it is correct--is viewed with suspicion. Just look at plate tectonics. The originator of this theory was drummed from the geology field, a broken man. Hugh Everett quit the field of physics in disgust when people made fun of his Many Worlds Theory, but the fact is that mathematically, it's a serious theory.

The actual archaeological publications are as dry as the bones they talk about, as boring a digging a hole. Have you ever read through one of these publications? You would not get through it. So when some upstart from out of the field proposes some seemingly outlandish theory in the popular press and gets millions of dollars for it, this community of archaeologists is pissed off.

They also tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater. "Aliens" does not explain, and was never intended to explain, Graham Hancock's flood theory. Have you actually read the theory? Have you read the supporting evidence? What, exactly, is wrong with it? And how, precisely, do you explain the three pyramids being n alignment with Orion's belt?

But the reaction you get is the exalted, supercilious "I know better than you" attitude of "You can lead a horse to water." as a way to dismiss anything an archaeologist doesn't like. You can lead an archaeologist down the same path and show him the evidence, but the same rule applies. He won't accept it because none of his colleagues have, and if he does, he will be ostracized from that small community he so desperately needs.

put that in your pipe and smoke it! Well said mate!

That was a good article. I read that this morning.

But I think some of you and them miss the point. When making a book or TV show or series, you have to fill it up and go off on a tangent and have multiple theories and angles.

For most of us that read these books or watch that show or look up an article or listen to Coast to Coast or any of that, there's usually a couple of anomalies or weird things that take our interest that are seemingly explainable or haven't been explained very well to us. When watching an ancient aliens show, I might be interested in one artifact or piece of artwork or architecture but the show will have many different examples and of course can't just dwell on that one really interesting thing or it would be a boring show and we would lose interest.

These things are better when you take one thing, and discuss that. It's too big to just discuss the whole series and why archaeologists don't like it. You need to look at each individual item and discuss that. Even individual episodes aren't good because there is usually too much crammed into each one.

a reply to: amazing

It's appeal as an alternative to belief in God is by far the main attraction
IMO.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
I'm just raising that point to highlight how some of the pseudoarchaeological books and proponents have inspired people to study genuine archaeology.

Hey Kandinsky!
Absolutely! Lehner is a great example of that! So am I (but I don't matter...lol) I read Hancock and Von Daeniken, etc, and had a chat with a prof who actually worked in the area. His specialty was Natufian in the Levant, but he was familiar with Egyptology and showed me photos of incomplete stone blocks and tools found in situ. That's kind of a dealbreaker. Dealing with public archaeology as I do, I encounter scads of students that were inspired by the worst archaeologist ever...Indiana Jones. Dandy! That's a great starting point and a perfect way to catch the disease.

I'm just going through some work and was struck by the references that I was encountering, given this conversation on ATS. Each fact declared was accompanied by a reference to the person who had supplied that fact and if one wished, one could search back to see how that conclusion had been arrived at. Pseudo archaeology is rife with opinion, weasel words, 'intuitive leaps' and flat-out bull#.

I have watched the knowledge base change, and the processes that changed it. Sorry it's too slow for some, but that's the price we pay to avoid a societal Idiocracy.

Mankind has lost quite a bit of ancient knowledge example, Greek Fire, we know it was "real" but have no idea what the heck is was made of or from, we have "guesses" but no factual information.

The antikythera device, who made it? why was that knowledge lost, they have Gears, how can one forget how to make gears???

Those are just two examples off the top of my head, was it "aliens"? I have no Idea.


Have any of you ever wondered about domestic dogs, their different from wolves, but are from wolf ancestry.
Science knows how long ago it was (some 27,000-40,000 thousand years ago) what was going on that made them change?

So many questions, very few answers

a reply to: babybunnies

Well, as far as I'm concerned if one doesn't believe in Nagas and timeline manipulations one can't claim to have attained true conspiracy adepthood. All that other mundane stuff about 9/11, clones and golden underground cities is just a distraction. You wanna know who the real enemy is? The deros... they've got a penis like nose and something resembling a mouth that looks like a baboons ass.

Modern archeology has completely ignored the deros.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I snuck in the link to Lehner and didn't think anyone would notice.

If your trowel ever hit an airlock to an ancient spaceship you'd be famous within days. You'd be rich too and front-cover news across the planet. Unless the Smithsonian (always them) employs assassins, there's nothing stopping all ages of archaeos from declaring their finds.

a reply to: thedigirati

Have any of you ever wondered about domestic dogs, their different from wolves, but are from wolf ancestry.
Science knows how long ago it was (some 27,000-40,000 thousand years ago) what was going on that made them change?

I used to think that science had the answers about domesticated dogs and it turns out to be an open question. Nobody knows the answers right now. Apparently there's no definitive genetic evidence to indicate when and how our domestic dogs evolved from wolves. There's agreement that it happened (Sci-Am, July 2015), but research continues to try and nail it.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
Isn't being a public archaeologist a trip? I've spent nearly 30 years at a public site and every time I think I've heard it all---a new one pops up.

However, in all those years I've dealt with a lot of professionals who are just as wacky and obstinate as the non-professionals. This is especially true if the professional has published his/her theory in book form and a subsequent dig overturns his/her theory. I've seen it happen firsthand---more than once. I've even seen them stand and look at the evidence in person and deny the "ground truth" before them. For some it seems that when that PhD was conferred, they got the impression that any words printed will be taken as gospel and anyone who attempts to refute their words will be declared heretic. It sometimes seems that the ability to say "I don't know." or "I was mistaken." has been removed. Lucky for me, I didn't get that far in my education so I'm the first to admit that despite working a site for nearly 30 years, there is a lot yet to be learned.
That's what I attempted to instill in my students---that new scientific breakthroughs will produce new evidence so it's not good to get too much ego invested in any single theory.