In my previous submissions I stated that my opponent had failed to put forward any sources for the “countless flight reports” that he repeatedly
He now claims that I’m wrong, but refers only to a source that he had previously mentioned solely in relation to “vimana aircraft”.
Fine. I’ll deal with that source (and the topic of “vimana aircraft”) briefly below, but first I’ll deal with the main points made by my
opponent in his latest submissions.
Separating Fact from Fiction
As a general point, my opponent claims that it is clear that “our ancestors were able to discern between fact and fiction”. He implies that I have
failed to give our ancestors sufficient credit.
However, even today many writers and film-makers deliberately try to blur the line between fact and fiction.
Writers try to help their audience suspend disbelief by claiming that the story is true (or based on the truth) or by claiming that the story
incorporates information found by the police or provided by some mysterious individual.
This is merely a story-telling device.
Yet, it can be very successful.
For example, many readers familiar with modern UFO movies will be familiar with “The McPherson Tape” video, which pops up on the ATS forums every
month or two (for example, here
Separating fact from fiction remains a rather difficult exercise, requiring a critical evaluation of all the evidence rather than simply taking tales
and stories at face value (even when presented by the story-telling as the honest truth).
In short, we cannot simply take stories at face value.
Out of place artifacts
My opponent now suggests that “Out of place artifacts” are “one of the main pillars on which AAT stands”. Ok, well it would have been nice
for these alleged “main pillars” to be identified earlier so that they could have been addressed. Even now, my opponent only refers to “one of
the main pillars”, leaving us (even in the final round of the debate) unclear as to the nature of the other “main pillars”.
How many other “main pillars” are there?
It seems that however many “pillars” supporting the Ancient Astronaut Theory are knocked down (or simply collapse), there always remain other
“main pillars” which the Theory’s supporters can rely upon.
So, now that the “out of place artifact” pillar has been identified, what exactly are we talking about? What artifacts? What is the single “out
of place artifact” provides the best support for the Ancient Astronaut Theory?
I don’t know.
I’ve read my opponent’s latest submissions in relation to this supposed “main pillar” for the Ancient Astronaut Theory several times and I
fail to see any specific artifacts identified in those recent submissions.
Not one specific artifact.
While we are faced with a lengthy complaint that there are “some things we are not allowed to talk about”, in this debate my opponent has been
given such an opportunity.
If we go back to his opening submissions, he began his list of the “main evidence” for the Ancient Astronaut Theory by referring to “out of
place” artifacts, but again no specific artifacts were identified. We are merely confronted with an assertion that there are “archaeological
findings” that contradict the “conventional doctrine of ancient history and/or hint at more superior knowledge of the ancients”.
However, my opponent has provided one link to one article entitled “Pieces Out of
. Within that article, finally we find a few specific examples of the artifacts relied upon.
Unfortunately, none of those specific examples contains any compelling evidence.
Many of the examples merely repeat short and unsupported stories from local American newspapers during the 19th Century. As noted by various sources,
it was not uncommon for such stories to be included merely to entertain readers (see, for example, several relevant articles on the “Bad
Archaeology” website, including this article
The same website also contains more detailed rebuttals of some of the other relevant stories (e.g.
about the large numbers of incised stones collected by Dr Javier Cabrera
Moreover, several of the examples given in the article relied upon by my friend are down-right misleading. For example, in relation to the famous
Piri Reis map, that article states that the map “astonishingly … depicts the coastal outlines of North and South America - and Antarctica”.
However, many sources (including en.wikipedia.org...
" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">the relevant concise entry on Wikipedia, not to the mention
the book “Space Gods Revealed” by Ronald Story) deal with various problems with such claims. For example:
(1) the map of South America includes duplication of rivers and various other signficant errors; and
(2) The claims made in relation to Antarctica have various alternative (and more compelling
, particularly since the coastline supposedly of the "Antarctic" on the map has in fact got various features in common with the
eastern coastline of South America, skewed to align east-west due to the inaccurate measurement of longtitude or to fit it on the page.
In short, there are plenty of entertaining stories about “out of place artifacts”, but those stories do not provide any compelling evidence for
the Ancient Astronaut Theory.
A considerable number of articles have been written which seek to link ancient Sanskrit stories of “vimanas”, i.e. mythological celestial
chariots, to UFOs/aliens (see, for example, these articles
Several of the quotations from relevant myths have been faked, or their translations massaged to make the celestial chariots appear more like machines
(see, e.g. this article
I’ve found the particular book mentioned by my opponent online here
Interestingly, among various criticisms of claims made about that book, I’ve found a
detailed thread on ATS about this book
, including a debunking by the moderator of this
forum – The Vagabond.
Our esteemed moderator notes that:
(1) “We have it even on the authority of Shastry himself that the VS was channelled and the notebooks produced between 1903 and 1923. There is no
dispute for chemical analysis to resolve. The VS as we know it today began to be assembled after the Wright brothers flew”,
(2) “A man wrote a book about advanced aircraft, then dictated a drawing of the advanced aircraft, and the result was [a] ridiculous contraption
currently … which resembles a winged steam ship”
Supporters of the Ancient Astronaut Theory?
My opponent claims that his views are “actually endorsed by many Indian scholars and not only the uneducated”. He claims that “Opponents love
to make it look like only the dumb and uneducated defend AAT”.
By this point, it is probably unnecessary for me to point out that (once again) my opponent does not provide specifics in support of his assertions.
Which “Indian scholars” support which of his claims? Where? For that matters, where have opponents sought to “make it look like only the dumb
and uneducated defend AAT”?
The fact of the matter is that, even among ufologists that are inclined to accept that extraterrestrials may be visiting the Earth, the evidence
relied upon by supporters of the Ancient Astronaut Theory is regarded as extremely weak. For example, Jerome Clark (author of the massive “UFO
Encyclopedia”) has written that Von Daniken, in common with other writers about ancient astronauts, “can only be called a peddler of
Even within a fringe topic such as ufology, the ancient astronaut theory is regarded as rather extreme and incredible.