The Ancient Astronaut Theory (AAT)
...includes various proposals: That the earth has been visited by extraterrestrial intelligences or technologically superior humans in ancient times
and that these have been recorded as encounters with “Gods”, “Flying Chariots”, “War of Worlds” in ancient texts, mythologies and
religions. Whether we are talking about ETs or humankind that may have evolved twice or more on this planet and used technology that was equal or
superiour to ours and were wiped out by a global disaster is secondary to this discussion. The primary aim is to show that “ancient astronauts” in
the sense of technologically superior beings existed. Many respected and well known scientists have seriously considered this possibility under the
label “paleocontact theory” (among them Carl Sagan, I.S. Shiklovski and Hermann Oberth) but tend to be guarded about it due to the staggering
implications: The necessity to rewrite not only our religions but also our history textbooks. Because AAT would be very painful to organized religion
and contemporary science, its emergence into the mainstream is moving along only very slowly. Some researchers (such as Sitchin) go so far as to claim
that we were actually created by extraterrestrials, but during this debate I will not even go into these more outlandish derivations of AAT. The best
work on AAT today probably originates from the Switzerland based “Ancient Astronaut Society” which unites hundreds of scientists and researchers
(among them Erich von Daniken, one of the original advocates) which publish their newest findings in journals that are often not available in English
or even to the public. As I can read German and Italian, I will be able to include some new material into this debate.
The main evidence for the AAT:
• Out-of-place & Out-of-time Artifacts: These are archaeological findings that contradict the conventional doctrine of ancient history and/or hint
at more superior knowledge of the ancients. Book recommendation: Forbidden Archaeology, which contains tons of evidence proving beyond a shadow of a
doubt: Ancient History was different than we were taught at school.
• Cargo-Cults: Indigenous tribes that had supposedly never been in contract with our civilization were known to mistake sailors and discoverers for
“returning Gods”. This points out that these tribes had probably been visited by such “advanced Gods” at an earlier date.
• Religion, Mythology and ancient reports from all over the world basically all tell a similar story: The tale of ancient “Gods” that flew
around, performed technical “miracles”, taught us, provided skills, fought wars and even destroyed us. In AAT we propose that our ancestors were
describing technical procedures that they didn’t have words for. Only today, having advanced technology ourselves, do we understand what “getting
into a flying chariot that spits lightning and flies around” means.
• De-Evolution. Some cultures display evidence of De-Evolution rather than progress-over-time. Best example is ancient Egypt which is known to have
started at its height and descended from dynasty to dynasty instead of developing. The more mediocre the Pyramids are, the later they were found to be
built! This indicates a higher level of technology in earlier times than we even have records for.
• The Missing Evolutionary Link: AAT can provide the so-called “missing link” in Evolution-Theory. While much of Evolution Theory can be proven
and demonstrated, some things are unexplained, for example just where intelligence suddenly came from. According to AAT evolution could have been
influenced from outside sources, such as extraterrestrials. While this doesn’t solve the problem of where ETs got their intelligence, some
scientists do believe they have found evidence for different types of “interference” within our evolutionary history.
• The Missing Link between Science and Religion: For Science there are no Gods and for Religion the Gods were something unexplainable or almighty.
AAT closes the gap between Science and Religion by saying, yes the Gods existed, but no, they are not what you think. Unfortunately neither Science
nor Religion will welcome the obvious with open arms.
• Knowledge gained by interdisciplinary referencing. When actually comparing different fields that are normally compartmentalized and putting the
linguistics, etymology, anthropology, archaeology side by side, much more knowledge is gained about our past…in this knowledge most often favours
AAT.
When arguing the AAT case, most researches keep relying on the same artefacts. Most readers at ATS will be familiar with the Sumerian tablets that
tell of the Annunaki, Gods that arrived on earth with their spaceships. Most will be familiar with accounts of ancient “Vimana” aircraft as
technically described by the ancient Indians. Most readers will be familiar with how the Pyramids contain mathematical and astronomical knowledge far
beyond what we would expect from stone-age “primitives”. Most know the Dogon-Tribes connection to Sirius as has been proposed and counter-proposed
in a recent ATS-Newsletter. While I might provide links to the best known AAT sources, I don’t want the reader to get bored by this debate and will
therefore provide some less-known and for some certainly new evidence.
May this debate be informative to me, my opponent and all readers.
1. African Mythology
As a little foretaste here are some quotes from the mythology of various african tribes on the subject of "Gods" and "the Heavens" (note: Most
languages originally had the same word for "sky" and "heaven". Many still do use both words interchangebly). According to common doctrine, all of
these stories (which are similar on every continent, not only the African) are all "made up". But if that were the case, they wouldnt all sound
similar! Also note that most ancient myths portray and talk about their "Gods" as having flesh bodies and acting in very human ways (getting angry,
falling in love, etc.).
MASAI: The Gods sent some of their children to earth. The Gods came from above the clouds and brought plants and animals with them.
JA-LUO: Apodho came down to earth accompanied by his wife, bringing with him all cultural assets.
MADI-MORU: The first people lived in the Heavens. Until that connection was cut, there was a lot of traffic from the Heavens to Earth.
GANDA: The primal women came from the Heavens.
NYORO: When God established the Earth, he sent the first human couple down from the Heavens.
KIVU-PYGMIES: Our ancestors fell from the Heavens.
KULUWE: The first humans came from the Heavens, arriving with seed, rake, axe, tools etc.
BENA-LULUA: God sent four of his sons to earth.
ASHANTI: Seven people created by God climbed down to earth. After conceiving other people, they returned to the Heavens.
ZIBA: God Rugaba travels upwards to the heavens and then through the darkness.
NANDI: God Tororut lives in the heavens. He looks like a human but has wings that can cause lightning. (One of their Gods is called Chepkelienskol,
which when translated literally, means “The thing with the 9 ray-beam.legs”
To be continued...
Round 3. Skyfloating v. IsaacKoi: Ancient Astronauts, page 1
privacy
reply posted on 6-11-2007 @ 02:12 AM by IsaacKoi
In this debate I will be arguing against the proposition that "The Ancient Astronaut Theory is True".
The use of the singular in relation to the “Ancient Astronaut Theory” is questionable. The “Ancient Astronaut Theory” is actually a label applied to various different theories involving extraterrestrial visitors to Earth before modern records began. In most of the popular variations of the “Ancient Astronaut Theory”, the astronauts are aliens from other planets. However, some Ancient Astronaut Theories involve lost advanced human civilizations leaving the Earth and coming back to visit. Even more exotic variations on the “Ancient Astronaut Theory” involve non-human civilizations evolving on the Earth (e.g. intelligent dinosaurs) that leave the Earth and come back to visit.
Even more varied than the numerous forms of the “Ancient Astronaut Theory” are the diverse arguments and purported “facts” put forward in support of this theory. The diversity of that evidence is evident from my opponent’s opening submissions. It is notable, however, that little of this “evidence” is actually even relevant to a contention that ancient astronauts visited (or returned to) Earth. It seems that any purported mystery in ancient times is put forward in support of the ancient astronaut theory, without establishing any real connection between the “mystery” and that theory.
A detailed rebuttal of the varied evidence put forward in support of the ancient astronaut theories requires a case by case consideration of the supposed “facts” relied upon. However, the flaws in the material relied upon can generally be grouped into one of the following categories:
(1) Exaggeration of the technology required to produce an ancient artifact or monument, often coupled with a dismissal of ancient human’s abilities and efforts. In short, many of those that support the Ancient Astronaut Theory appear to dismiss humans as stupid.
(2) Misinterpretation of old records and artifacts, often involving taking these items out of context by ignoring the relevant culture.
(3) Outright fraud, fabrication and forgery.
It takes time to identify the flaws in evidence relied upon, particularly since it is often necessary to research completely different cultures or time-periods in relation to each new claim. Unfortunately, as soon as some evidence is debunked then new “evidence” is relied upon.
The goal-posts move.
In the interests of a fair and productive debate, I therefore challenge my opponent to specify in the first round of this debate the single best piece of evidence for the Ancient Astronaut Theory.
If, due to the weakness of that single piece of evidence or for other reasons, my opponent wishes to specify the 3 best (or even the 10 best) pieces of evidence then that would be fine.
I would simply like to know the case I have to address and try to avoid any moving of the goal-posts.
The use of the singular in relation to the “Ancient Astronaut Theory” is questionable. The “Ancient Astronaut Theory” is actually a label applied to various different theories involving extraterrestrial visitors to Earth before modern records began. In most of the popular variations of the “Ancient Astronaut Theory”, the astronauts are aliens from other planets. However, some Ancient Astronaut Theories involve lost advanced human civilizations leaving the Earth and coming back to visit. Even more exotic variations on the “Ancient Astronaut Theory” involve non-human civilizations evolving on the Earth (e.g. intelligent dinosaurs) that leave the Earth and come back to visit.
Even more varied than the numerous forms of the “Ancient Astronaut Theory” are the diverse arguments and purported “facts” put forward in support of this theory. The diversity of that evidence is evident from my opponent’s opening submissions. It is notable, however, that little of this “evidence” is actually even relevant to a contention that ancient astronauts visited (or returned to) Earth. It seems that any purported mystery in ancient times is put forward in support of the ancient astronaut theory, without establishing any real connection between the “mystery” and that theory.
A detailed rebuttal of the varied evidence put forward in support of the ancient astronaut theories requires a case by case consideration of the supposed “facts” relied upon. However, the flaws in the material relied upon can generally be grouped into one of the following categories:
(1) Exaggeration of the technology required to produce an ancient artifact or monument, often coupled with a dismissal of ancient human’s abilities and efforts. In short, many of those that support the Ancient Astronaut Theory appear to dismiss humans as stupid.
(2) Misinterpretation of old records and artifacts, often involving taking these items out of context by ignoring the relevant culture.
(3) Outright fraud, fabrication and forgery.
It takes time to identify the flaws in evidence relied upon, particularly since it is often necessary to research completely different cultures or time-periods in relation to each new claim. Unfortunately, as soon as some evidence is debunked then new “evidence” is relied upon.
The goal-posts move.
In the interests of a fair and productive debate, I therefore challenge my opponent to specify in the first round of this debate the single best piece of evidence for the Ancient Astronaut Theory.
If, due to the weakness of that single piece of evidence or for other reasons, my opponent wishes to specify the 3 best (or even the 10 best) pieces of evidence then that would be fine.
I would simply like to know the case I have to address and try to avoid any moving of the goal-posts.
reply posted on 6-11-2007 @ 03:59 AM by Skyfloating
Ancient Flights
Dear Opponent,
You ask me to provide “the single best piece of evidence” for AAT. As already mentioned though, the AAT is not arrived at by compartmentalizing knowledge and studying it separate from all else, but by interdisciplinary referencing. Another point is that we use the same evidence as conventional archaeology, but with a different, modern day interpretation. One example:
Take a very close look at this picture. It is self-explanatory. Egyptologists have tried to pass this helicopter, tank, submarine and airplane as “hieroglyphs” but up to now they have failed to point out where else these writings can be seen other than in the ancient Egyptian Sethos Temple in Abydos. They have also failed to translate this supposed “language”.
Rather than citing the “single best piece of evidence” it is my job to build a case for the AAT and cite as many good examples as I can. The more examples, the stronger my case.
We are lucky to be able to gather as much evidence as we have. Considering the number of reported disasters and floods and the mass burning of entire libraries and books by political and religious zealots we can only do our best to gather the pieces that are left and form a coherent image of the ancient world. According to the more conservative variations of AAT, primitive man lived alongside advanced man (or extraterrestrials). This is a situation we still have today, with “uncivilized” tribes still inhabiting rainforests and remote areas while we make technological advancements on a daily basis. (On a side-note: I am not a proponent of the idea that these “primitive” tribes are inherently “inferior” to the white race, as my opponent suggests. This would be the misuse of AAT for a racist ideology).
One of the oldest space-flight reports comes from the Etana Epic of Babylonian Mythology. It contains numerous descriptions of ascension and flight above the earth and repeatedly describes how the earth gets smaller the higher you go. The Etana Epic, which is estimated to be more than 2000 years old (though others say more than 5000) can be viewed in the British Museum. In chapter 12/13 Etana addresses the God Samas asking for the “Herb of Immortality”. Samas tells him to go to the “Eagle” and the Eagle asks him what he wants. Etana responds with “Give me the herb of Immortality”. The Eagle takes Etana “on a ride to the Heavens”. During the flight, The Eagle points out how the earth is getting smaller six times, using words like “the sea now looks like a river”, “the country now looks like a mountain”, “the earth is now like a tree planting”, “Behold my friend, how the earth gets smaller! The country now looks like cake!” As the land disappears, etana says “I want to go back! Take me back!” upon which he is taken back by the Eagle and the earth gets bigger and bigger and the land comes closer and closer.
Of course this is not the only description of this sort, only one example. I look forward to how my opponent is going to explain these things outside of the AAT context.
At the Top of Flames
To be precise the meaning of the Assyrian word "God" would have to be translated as "at the top of flames" – Fred Talmini, Former President of the Assyriology Research Foundation, Translater of Assyrian.
This corresponds to biblical descriptions of Gods and Chariots accompanied by flames and lightning as can be found in
Ezekiel 1, 26-28
2. Moses 19-18
Psalm 29, 7-8
Psalm 104, 4
Micha 1, 3-4
2. Kings 2, 11-13
Winged Sun Discs
Depictions of winged sun-discs have been found all over the world but have been especially common in ancient egypt, ancient turkey and ancient iraq & iran.
The winged sundisc mostly features a ball or disc, sometimes resembling a gear-wheel and spread wings. Often they are shown with “stilts” of which archaeologists interpret as a flame-throwing-snake but modern eyes would interpret as nozzles/jets or landing stilts.
Sometimes humans and “Gods” are depicted riding on, sitting in, flying the sundiscs. For example the mesopatamian Godking Ahuramazda was often depicted hovering over the crowds and people in his sun-disc.
The oldest discs can be dated pre-3000 B.C. and are found on many temples of ancient egypt, often accompanied by the words “hut” or “api” which some egyptologists have translated as “Fly-er” or “Flying Device”. This disc is often associated with Horus.
The flying discs are not only reported to have flown and have people inside them, but also to be used as deadly weapons. Here is a translation that dates back to 1870, done by egyptologist H. Brugsch:
"Hor-Hut flew upwards towards the sun in a big, winged disc. He took with him the north- and south snakes, so that their firey breathe would strike down and burn the enemies""
"He flew with his ship and landed in the city of Hor-Throne. Thoth said: The sender-of-rays, made by Ra, as beaten the enemy"
The translation “sender of rays” (raygun) was later re-interpreted by egyptologists to mean “snake that breathes fire”.
According to egyptologists the winged disc is “nothing but a decorative figure symbolising the sun”.
The winged disc was sometimes also referred to as “the flying eye”, used by the “Gods” to look for and observe things, indicating something that we would nowdays call “spy drone”.
Interestingly, when egyptians referred to flying discs and other flying devices, egyptologists have often translated this is “barque” which is an old word for ship. The reason for this is that the dawn of modern egyptology did not know of “flying ships” yet, had no word for “airplane” yet and had to rely on what they knew.
Apart from flying or being used as weapons there are also reports of sun discs crashing, falling, needing to land to be repaired and so forth. The Greek historian Plutarch reports that one age before his own visit to egypt one of the gold-metal wreckage of one of the last remaining sun discs was found on one of the upper islands of the Nile. According to natives these were the remnants of a sun disc with which Osiris had come from the “Nightsea”
In this context it is not too difficult to make out that “Nightsea” refers to Space. For contemporary archaeology the term is supposed to be “a fanciful description of a mythological place”.
Some Egyptologists try to equate the sun-disc to the sun. This is countered by most of the barques and discs being described not AS the sun, but shining LIKE the sun.
The evidence of ancient flying technology and aircraft is overwhelming. If my opponent is looking for "the single best piece of evidence" the countless flight-reports is one of those puzzle pieces.
Dear Opponent,
You ask me to provide “the single best piece of evidence” for AAT. As already mentioned though, the AAT is not arrived at by compartmentalizing knowledge and studying it separate from all else, but by interdisciplinary referencing. Another point is that we use the same evidence as conventional archaeology, but with a different, modern day interpretation. One example:
Take a very close look at this picture. It is self-explanatory. Egyptologists have tried to pass this helicopter, tank, submarine and airplane as “hieroglyphs” but up to now they have failed to point out where else these writings can be seen other than in the ancient Egyptian Sethos Temple in Abydos. They have also failed to translate this supposed “language”.
Rather than citing the “single best piece of evidence” it is my job to build a case for the AAT and cite as many good examples as I can. The more examples, the stronger my case.
We are lucky to be able to gather as much evidence as we have. Considering the number of reported disasters and floods and the mass burning of entire libraries and books by political and religious zealots we can only do our best to gather the pieces that are left and form a coherent image of the ancient world. According to the more conservative variations of AAT, primitive man lived alongside advanced man (or extraterrestrials). This is a situation we still have today, with “uncivilized” tribes still inhabiting rainforests and remote areas while we make technological advancements on a daily basis. (On a side-note: I am not a proponent of the idea that these “primitive” tribes are inherently “inferior” to the white race, as my opponent suggests. This would be the misuse of AAT for a racist ideology).
One of the oldest space-flight reports comes from the Etana Epic of Babylonian Mythology. It contains numerous descriptions of ascension and flight above the earth and repeatedly describes how the earth gets smaller the higher you go. The Etana Epic, which is estimated to be more than 2000 years old (though others say more than 5000) can be viewed in the British Museum. In chapter 12/13 Etana addresses the God Samas asking for the “Herb of Immortality”. Samas tells him to go to the “Eagle” and the Eagle asks him what he wants. Etana responds with “Give me the herb of Immortality”. The Eagle takes Etana “on a ride to the Heavens”. During the flight, The Eagle points out how the earth is getting smaller six times, using words like “the sea now looks like a river”, “the country now looks like a mountain”, “the earth is now like a tree planting”, “Behold my friend, how the earth gets smaller! The country now looks like cake!” As the land disappears, etana says “I want to go back! Take me back!” upon which he is taken back by the Eagle and the earth gets bigger and bigger and the land comes closer and closer.
Of course this is not the only description of this sort, only one example. I look forward to how my opponent is going to explain these things outside of the AAT context.
At the Top of Flames
To be precise the meaning of the Assyrian word "God" would have to be translated as "at the top of flames" – Fred Talmini, Former President of the Assyriology Research Foundation, Translater of Assyrian.
This corresponds to biblical descriptions of Gods and Chariots accompanied by flames and lightning as can be found in
Ezekiel 1, 26-28
2. Moses 19-18
Psalm 29, 7-8
Psalm 104, 4
Micha 1, 3-4
2. Kings 2, 11-13
Winged Sun Discs
Depictions of winged sun-discs have been found all over the world but have been especially common in ancient egypt, ancient turkey and ancient iraq & iran.
The winged sundisc mostly features a ball or disc, sometimes resembling a gear-wheel and spread wings. Often they are shown with “stilts” of which archaeologists interpret as a flame-throwing-snake but modern eyes would interpret as nozzles/jets or landing stilts.
Sometimes humans and “Gods” are depicted riding on, sitting in, flying the sundiscs. For example the mesopatamian Godking Ahuramazda was often depicted hovering over the crowds and people in his sun-disc.
The oldest discs can be dated pre-3000 B.C. and are found on many temples of ancient egypt, often accompanied by the words “hut” or “api” which some egyptologists have translated as “Fly-er” or “Flying Device”. This disc is often associated with Horus.
The flying discs are not only reported to have flown and have people inside them, but also to be used as deadly weapons. Here is a translation that dates back to 1870, done by egyptologist H. Brugsch:
"Hor-Hut flew upwards towards the sun in a big, winged disc. He took with him the north- and south snakes, so that their firey breathe would strike down and burn the enemies""
"He flew with his ship and landed in the city of Hor-Throne. Thoth said: The sender-of-rays, made by Ra, as beaten the enemy"
The translation “sender of rays” (raygun) was later re-interpreted by egyptologists to mean “snake that breathes fire”.
According to egyptologists the winged disc is “nothing but a decorative figure symbolising the sun”.
The winged disc was sometimes also referred to as “the flying eye”, used by the “Gods” to look for and observe things, indicating something that we would nowdays call “spy drone”.
Interestingly, when egyptians referred to flying discs and other flying devices, egyptologists have often translated this is “barque” which is an old word for ship. The reason for this is that the dawn of modern egyptology did not know of “flying ships” yet, had no word for “airplane” yet and had to rely on what they knew.
Apart from flying or being used as weapons there are also reports of sun discs crashing, falling, needing to land to be repaired and so forth. The Greek historian Plutarch reports that one age before his own visit to egypt one of the gold-metal wreckage of one of the last remaining sun discs was found on one of the upper islands of the Nile. According to natives these were the remnants of a sun disc with which Osiris had come from the “Nightsea”
In this context it is not too difficult to make out that “Nightsea” refers to Space. For contemporary archaeology the term is supposed to be “a fanciful description of a mythological place”.
Some Egyptologists try to equate the sun-disc to the sun. This is countered by most of the barques and discs being described not AS the sun, but shining LIKE the sun.
The evidence of ancient flying technology and aircraft is overwhelming. If my opponent is looking for "the single best piece of evidence" the countless flight-reports is one of those puzzle pieces.
reply posted on 7-11-2007 @ 03:46 AM by IsaacKoi
I am disappointed to see that my opponent has declined my challenge to specify in the first round of this debate the single best piece of evidence for
the Ancient Astronaut Theory. Also, he has not even referred to my alternative request that he at least specify the 3 best (or even the 10 best)
pieces of evidence.
My opponent’s reasons for declining this challenge are very weak. He states that it is not possible to arrive at the Ancient Astronaut Theory by “compartmentalizing knowledge” and instead it is necessary to do some “interdisciplinary referencing”.
I have no problem at all with a suggestion that an interdisciplinary approach is necessary.
Some of the claims made by the supporters of the Ancient Astronaut Theory give rise to a need to conduct physical tests (e.g. to determine the date of a particular artifact) as well as considering anthropological evidence (to understand the artifact within the context of the relevant culture) and mathematical issues (to test claims that the artifact is evidence of an advanced understanding of mathematics).
However, this interdisciplinary approach can be adopted in relation to EACH artifact and EACH claim.
Indeed, it is only by taking each artifact and each claim in turn that it possible to properly investigate them.
Surely some of these artifacts and claims are stronger evidence than others? If not, I could give examples of dozens of errors and frauds by proponents of the Ancient Astronaut Theory. I fear, however, that my opponent would simply state that he does not rely upon those particular pieces of evidence.
The approach adopted by my opponent is akin to tying a bundle of different sticks together. It is difficult to snap a bundle of sticks, whereas once the sticks are separated it is quite easy to snap each one. In the same way, once the vague reference to a multitude of artifacts and stories is taken one by one it is possible to see the flaws in the claims made.
So, let’s turn to some of few specific bits of evidence that my opponent has relied upon so far.
In this round of the debate, I’ve concentrate on looking into the two specific images that my opponent puts forward.
The Abydos Helicopter
The first image relied upon by my opponent is this one:
My opponent suggests that this picture is “self-explanatory” and refers to “this helicopter, tank, submarine and airplane”.
As my opponent states, this picture is taken from the Egyptian Temple in Abydos. It is a photograph of genuine glyphs and suggestions that the image is a complete hoax are incorrect. However, many of the numerous copies of this image that appear on the Internet have been enhanced. Dr. Ruth Hover took the relevant photo of a wall panel at the Temple of Abydos in Egypt while on a tour. However, ufologist Bill Hamilton has reported that when Richard Motzer loaded the image onto the internet he “did a little too much cleaning up of the image”. The enhancements to the image make it look like it's bronze or copper. More importantly, they make the image of the “helicopter” look more distinct and separate than is in fact the case.
As my opponent mentions, only this one instance of the glyphs of a “helicopter” and “tank” have been found. He implies that this demonstrates that the glyphs were not part of the set of images used by Egyptians.
However, if the Egyptians really had “helicopters” and “tanks”, or had seen Ancient Astronauts using them, would they really only have made one set of glyphs showing them?
A better explanation has been put forward by various experts (including, contrary to the assertion of my opponent, translations of the relevant glyphs).
The explanation that the images are the result of overlapping of older and newer glyphs (together with some erosion) is also given in some detail on this website, which helpfully includes an illustration of the older and newer glyphs so that their overlapping nature is clearer.
Ms. Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, from the University of Alabama at Birmingham (USA) has provided the following information: “In the photos, we clearly see "Who repulses the Nine Bows," which figures in some of the Two-Ladies names of Seti I, replaced by "Who protects Egypt and overthrows the foreign countries," a Two-Ladies name of Ramesses II. With some of the plaster that once covered Seti I's titulary now fallen away, certain of the superimposed signs do indeed look like a submarine, etc., but it's just a coincidence.”
It is notable that the above information on this image rarely accompanies the photograph on the Internet.
Most websites seem to be content to simply display the photograph with no accompanying text, or merely accompanied by (for example) a few words referring to a “helicopter”.
Winged Sun Discs
The second of the two images relied upon by my opponent is this one:
The explanation for such images is much simpler than the first image relied upon by my opponent.
Simply look at the photograph. Do the relevant wings look like those on rocket ships, airplanes or ufos? No, they look like the wings of birds – complete with numerous feathers.
Feathers tend not to be a standard feature on aircraft (and there is little evidence that they are a standard feature on UFOs).
The wings of birds are a simple explanation, entirely consistent with the Egyptian culture.
Christopher Baker, a Professor in Sydney, has written about such pictures that “much of the prominence of wings is due to the syncretism of the Egyptian relion, which allowed them to combine features of various gods like Amon, Ra, Aten and Horus whose symbol was the Falcon. Other gods like Nekhbet were depicted as a culture, Toth as an ibis, and the godess Ma’at as a feather”.
Conclusion
It is for readers to judge whether I have shown that it is completely unnecessary to resort to “ancient astronauts” as an explanation for these two images. Any such grand claim needs to be supported by much better evidence than these images.
Investigating the numerous issues in relation to each such image is time consuming. This is one of the strengths of proponents of the Ancient Astronaut Theory. They can quickly cut and paste images, or snippets of supposed translations of ancient stories, out of context and throw them at skeptics. This puts the burden upon the skeptics of looking into the image, firstly to determine if they are genuine and secondly to consider their cultural context.
Since most skeptics are inclined to dismiss such evidence as obviously faked or otherwise explainable, few bother to put in the considerable time and effort required to find the actual explanations and write about them. This can (wrongly) create the impression that there is no explanation or that explanations are hard to find. This is not the case. It is simply a matter of relatively few people being bothered to look into such “evidence”.
My opponent’s reasons for declining this challenge are very weak. He states that it is not possible to arrive at the Ancient Astronaut Theory by “compartmentalizing knowledge” and instead it is necessary to do some “interdisciplinary referencing”.
I have no problem at all with a suggestion that an interdisciplinary approach is necessary.
Some of the claims made by the supporters of the Ancient Astronaut Theory give rise to a need to conduct physical tests (e.g. to determine the date of a particular artifact) as well as considering anthropological evidence (to understand the artifact within the context of the relevant culture) and mathematical issues (to test claims that the artifact is evidence of an advanced understanding of mathematics).
However, this interdisciplinary approach can be adopted in relation to EACH artifact and EACH claim.
Indeed, it is only by taking each artifact and each claim in turn that it possible to properly investigate them.
Surely some of these artifacts and claims are stronger evidence than others? If not, I could give examples of dozens of errors and frauds by proponents of the Ancient Astronaut Theory. I fear, however, that my opponent would simply state that he does not rely upon those particular pieces of evidence.
The approach adopted by my opponent is akin to tying a bundle of different sticks together. It is difficult to snap a bundle of sticks, whereas once the sticks are separated it is quite easy to snap each one. In the same way, once the vague reference to a multitude of artifacts and stories is taken one by one it is possible to see the flaws in the claims made.
So, let’s turn to some of few specific bits of evidence that my opponent has relied upon so far.
In this round of the debate, I’ve concentrate on looking into the two specific images that my opponent puts forward.
The Abydos Helicopter
The first image relied upon by my opponent is this one:
My opponent suggests that this picture is “self-explanatory” and refers to “this helicopter, tank, submarine and airplane”.
As my opponent states, this picture is taken from the Egyptian Temple in Abydos. It is a photograph of genuine glyphs and suggestions that the image is a complete hoax are incorrect. However, many of the numerous copies of this image that appear on the Internet have been enhanced. Dr. Ruth Hover took the relevant photo of a wall panel at the Temple of Abydos in Egypt while on a tour. However, ufologist Bill Hamilton has reported that when Richard Motzer loaded the image onto the internet he “did a little too much cleaning up of the image”. The enhancements to the image make it look like it's bronze or copper. More importantly, they make the image of the “helicopter” look more distinct and separate than is in fact the case.
As my opponent mentions, only this one instance of the glyphs of a “helicopter” and “tank” have been found. He implies that this demonstrates that the glyphs were not part of the set of images used by Egyptians.
However, if the Egyptians really had “helicopters” and “tanks”, or had seen Ancient Astronauts using them, would they really only have made one set of glyphs showing them?
A better explanation has been put forward by various experts (including, contrary to the assertion of my opponent, translations of the relevant glyphs).
The explanation that the images are the result of overlapping of older and newer glyphs (together with some erosion) is also given in some detail on this website, which helpfully includes an illustration of the older and newer glyphs so that their overlapping nature is clearer.
Ms. Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, from the University of Alabama at Birmingham (USA) has provided the following information: “In the photos, we clearly see "Who repulses the Nine Bows," which figures in some of the Two-Ladies names of Seti I, replaced by "Who protects Egypt and overthrows the foreign countries," a Two-Ladies name of Ramesses II. With some of the plaster that once covered Seti I's titulary now fallen away, certain of the superimposed signs do indeed look like a submarine, etc., but it's just a coincidence.”
It is notable that the above information on this image rarely accompanies the photograph on the Internet.
Most websites seem to be content to simply display the photograph with no accompanying text, or merely accompanied by (for example) a few words referring to a “helicopter”.
Winged Sun Discs
The second of the two images relied upon by my opponent is this one:
The explanation for such images is much simpler than the first image relied upon by my opponent.
Simply look at the photograph. Do the relevant wings look like those on rocket ships, airplanes or ufos? No, they look like the wings of birds – complete with numerous feathers.
Feathers tend not to be a standard feature on aircraft (and there is little evidence that they are a standard feature on UFOs).
The wings of birds are a simple explanation, entirely consistent with the Egyptian culture.
Christopher Baker, a Professor in Sydney, has written about such pictures that “much of the prominence of wings is due to the syncretism of the Egyptian relion, which allowed them to combine features of various gods like Amon, Ra, Aten and Horus whose symbol was the Falcon. Other gods like Nekhbet were depicted as a culture, Toth as an ibis, and the godess Ma’at as a feather”.
Conclusion
It is for readers to judge whether I have shown that it is completely unnecessary to resort to “ancient astronauts” as an explanation for these two images. Any such grand claim needs to be supported by much better evidence than these images.
Investigating the numerous issues in relation to each such image is time consuming. This is one of the strengths of proponents of the Ancient Astronaut Theory. They can quickly cut and paste images, or snippets of supposed translations of ancient stories, out of context and throw them at skeptics. This puts the burden upon the skeptics of looking into the image, firstly to determine if they are genuine and secondly to consider their cultural context.
Since most skeptics are inclined to dismiss such evidence as obviously faked or otherwise explainable, few bother to put in the considerable time and effort required to find the actual explanations and write about them. This can (wrongly) create the impression that there is no explanation or that explanations are hard to find. This is not the case. It is simply a matter of relatively few people being bothered to look into such “evidence”.
reply posted on 8-11-2007 @ 06:38 AM by IsaacKoi
Skyfloating queries why his opponent “wastes so much writing space requesting evidence, instead of addressing the tons of evidence already
provided”. Well, as I hoped was perfectly clear, I was asking him to identify his BEST evidence and be SPECIFIC about the evidence he
wanted addressed. He continues to fail to do so.
Instead:
Really, this is nonsensical.
The burden is upon anyone advancing a theory to put forward the evidence supporting it.
When the theory is as contentious as the “Ancient Astronaut Theory” then the evidence has to be very compelling indeed. Vague references to “dozens of accounts” and “tons” of material are simply not good enough.
It is important to keep this point in mind when considering the various matters dealt with below.
Flight-reports
My opponent has again referred repeatedly to “flight-reports”.
Writing about flying does not, I submit, involve any great leap of imagination. Still less does it require that some ancients saw, or rode in, flying saucers or aircraft. Ancients would have seen certain objects flying on a daily basis – birds. Consider the mass of poetry and songs in the (relatively) modern age about soaring like an eagle or being as free as a bird high in the sky. Why should we give the ancients less credit when it comes to creating poetry and story-telling?
He suggests that “our ancestors knew nothing of flying”. Does he think that our ancestors were blind or simply stupid? They would have seen birds flying every day. Indeed, they have been several suggestions that the ancients may have been able to build rudimentary hot-air balloons.
There has been little change in the human brain-size in millennia – so the “ancients” would have been just as bright and capable as more “modern” humans.
It is rather telling that the sole example quoted (from the Etana Epic of Babylonian Mythology) by my opponent expressly referring to an eagle taking Etana on a flight.
There is no indication of any machinery having been involved. No hint at all.
Indeed, even in the translation as provided by Von Daniken (in his book “In Search of Ancient Gods”, the relevant passage refers to the Eagle’s “breast” and “wings”
Why is it so difficult to give the ancients credit for the ability to imagine flying with, or on, a bird?
The Akakor Chronicles
Among the few other specific accounts relied upon by my opponent relates to the “The Akakor Chronicles”. My opponent states that “Karl Brugger was shot to death outside of his house shortly after publishing ‘The Chronicles of Akkakorâ’” which purportedly describe the 15 000 year history of a native tribe of the Amazonian Rainforest, the Ugha-Mongulala, including “war between countries and planets, interbreeding of Gods and Humans, etc.”
Karl Brugger’s purported source of information was Tatunca, a member of the Mogulala tribe. Numerous issues and problems have arisen in relation to the credibility of that tale (see, for example, Philip Coppens’ article “As we walked through the tunnels of gold…”).
For example, Tatunca supposedly claimed that his tribe held sacred a chronicle and that the year zero of that chronicle was 10,481 BC. However, (a) the purported existence of a chronicle is difficult to reconcile with the commonly accepted view that the people of the the Amazons do not have a written language, (b) 10,481 BC is long before accepted archaeological dates for human occupation of the Amazon.
Basically, all we have is a tale told by one individual (Karl Brugger) of information supposedly provided by another individual (Tatunca).
That’s it.
Not exactly convincing proof of ancient astronauts and inter-planetary warfare, is it?
The Bible and Ezekiel
My opponent has also casually thrown out a list of references to passages in the Bible, without considering it necessary to include any purportedly significant specific quotations nor any explanation of how the relevant passages of the Bible help his case.
In short, the reliance upon Biblical quotations by Von Daniken and others has tended to:
(1) Be very selective in the bits quoted. For example, how many of the references to the popular extract relating to Ezekiel’s “UFO sighting” point out that he began the relevant account by expressly referring to a “vision” (i.e. not something he claimed to have seen and considered to be a physical occurrence)? Not many.
(2) Ignore the cultural and religious context of the relevant quotations.
(3) Ignore simpler explanations, e.g. (as with the flight reports dealt with above) that the writers were simply using their imagination. Flight has always had a powerful appeal. It doesn’t take much effort to imagine the speed and ease of travel through the sky – such imaginings could simply be prompted by watching birds in flight.
Conclusion
I could keep going pointing out flaws in individual accounts, but I fear Skyfloating has kept the door open to another set of equally questionable material and I am therefore wasting my time.
Perhaps it is more significant to note that many of the varied and diverse myths about ancient astronauts and Gods are conflicting. When did they come? Where did they come from? Who did they have contact with? When did they leave?
Almost each source examined gives conflicting answers to such questions. Yet few Ancient Astronaut Theorists draw the obvious inference – that the details were simply made up by different individuals and not based on an objective reality.
And that is what we are dealing with – a collection of different tales. Some of these tales are only a few years old, being completely modern fabrications. Some of the tales (e.g. of soaring like a bird) may be older, but do not prove that the Earth was visited by ancient astronauts.
Instead:
- we are told to consider “countless flight-reports” – but no sources (reliable or otherwise) for any such accounts are cited.
- I am asked to address “tons of evidence”, as if the mere mass of material relied upon is important.
- I am challenged to address “what the ancients write about” various things, but again no sources are cited for the alleged writings.
Really, this is nonsensical.
The burden is upon anyone advancing a theory to put forward the evidence supporting it.
When the theory is as contentious as the “Ancient Astronaut Theory” then the evidence has to be very compelling indeed. Vague references to “dozens of accounts” and “tons” of material are simply not good enough.
It is important to keep this point in mind when considering the various matters dealt with below.
Flight-reports
My opponent has again referred repeatedly to “flight-reports”.
Writing about flying does not, I submit, involve any great leap of imagination. Still less does it require that some ancients saw, or rode in, flying saucers or aircraft. Ancients would have seen certain objects flying on a daily basis – birds. Consider the mass of poetry and songs in the (relatively) modern age about soaring like an eagle or being as free as a bird high in the sky. Why should we give the ancients less credit when it comes to creating poetry and story-telling?
He suggests that “our ancestors knew nothing of flying”. Does he think that our ancestors were blind or simply stupid? They would have seen birds flying every day. Indeed, they have been several suggestions that the ancients may have been able to build rudimentary hot-air balloons.
There has been little change in the human brain-size in millennia – so the “ancients” would have been just as bright and capable as more “modern” humans.
It is rather telling that the sole example quoted (from the Etana Epic of Babylonian Mythology) by my opponent expressly referring to an eagle taking Etana on a flight.
There is no indication of any machinery having been involved. No hint at all.
Indeed, even in the translation as provided by Von Daniken (in his book “In Search of Ancient Gods”, the relevant passage refers to the Eagle’s “breast” and “wings”
Why is it so difficult to give the ancients credit for the ability to imagine flying with, or on, a bird?
The Akakor Chronicles
Among the few other specific accounts relied upon by my opponent relates to the “The Akakor Chronicles”. My opponent states that “Karl Brugger was shot to death outside of his house shortly after publishing ‘The Chronicles of Akkakorâ’” which purportedly describe the 15 000 year history of a native tribe of the Amazonian Rainforest, the Ugha-Mongulala, including “war between countries and planets, interbreeding of Gods and Humans, etc.”
Karl Brugger’s purported source of information was Tatunca, a member of the Mogulala tribe. Numerous issues and problems have arisen in relation to the credibility of that tale (see, for example, Philip Coppens’ article “As we walked through the tunnels of gold…”).
For example, Tatunca supposedly claimed that his tribe held sacred a chronicle and that the year zero of that chronicle was 10,481 BC. However, (a) the purported existence of a chronicle is difficult to reconcile with the commonly accepted view that the people of the the Amazons do not have a written language, (b) 10,481 BC is long before accepted archaeological dates for human occupation of the Amazon.
Basically, all we have is a tale told by one individual (Karl Brugger) of information supposedly provided by another individual (Tatunca).
That’s it.
Not exactly convincing proof of ancient astronauts and inter-planetary warfare, is it?
The Bible and Ezekiel
My opponent has also casually thrown out a list of references to passages in the Bible, without considering it necessary to include any purportedly significant specific quotations nor any explanation of how the relevant passages of the Bible help his case.
In short, the reliance upon Biblical quotations by Von Daniken and others has tended to:
(1) Be very selective in the bits quoted. For example, how many of the references to the popular extract relating to Ezekiel’s “UFO sighting” point out that he began the relevant account by expressly referring to a “vision” (i.e. not something he claimed to have seen and considered to be a physical occurrence)? Not many.
(2) Ignore the cultural and religious context of the relevant quotations.
(3) Ignore simpler explanations, e.g. (as with the flight reports dealt with above) that the writers were simply using their imagination. Flight has always had a powerful appeal. It doesn’t take much effort to imagine the speed and ease of travel through the sky – such imaginings could simply be prompted by watching birds in flight.
Conclusion
I could keep going pointing out flaws in individual accounts, but I fear Skyfloating has kept the door open to another set of equally questionable material and I am therefore wasting my time.
Perhaps it is more significant to note that many of the varied and diverse myths about ancient astronauts and Gods are conflicting. When did they come? Where did they come from? Who did they have contact with? When did they leave?
Almost each source examined gives conflicting answers to such questions. Yet few Ancient Astronaut Theorists draw the obvious inference – that the details were simply made up by different individuals and not based on an objective reality.
And that is what we are dealing with – a collection of different tales. Some of these tales are only a few years old, being completely modern fabrications. Some of the tales (e.g. of soaring like a bird) may be older, but do not prove that the Earth was visited by ancient astronauts.
reply posted on 8-11-2007 @ 09:30 AM by Skyfloating
Dear reader, dear opponent,
I continue to enjoy being challenged by my opponent, the Barrister, as it helps me to review my data and strengthen my case.
In his last post my opponent said that I cite no sources for flight-reports whatsoever. He also says I cite no writings of the ancients. As any judge in court will see, this is a falsehood. One of the many sources cited was the Vymaanika Shaastra as translated by G.S. Goyser. Im afraid that making false statements will not reflect well on my opponents overall case here
As predicted my opponent explains the ancient reports as works of fiction. This has already been addressed, but I will address it again: As seen in the ancient Indian “Manusa” documents, our ancestors were able to discern between fact and fiction. As seen in the first post on African Mythology, all the “fiction tales” are essentially the same. Why are the all describing some Gods who came down from the sky, flew back up, taught humans lessons, and so forth? Surely poetry and fiction would have a little bit of diversity? Of course, in an 17th Century mindset (the time in which “modern science” formed its opinion), flying machines must certainly be fictitious. The simple answer is that our ancestors tried to describe and depict things they did not have adequate vocabularyfor. Try describing a rocket to an ancient roman. You will have to use words he can understand. “Well, theres an obelisk with flames under it and it goes up like a bird” you might say. People who cannot debunk this most often then go to claiming that the ancients were describing “Lightning and Thunder” as “Gods”. This ignores the fact that almost all ancient languages already had words for Lightning and Thunder.
Debunkers tend to dig up the same stories over and over. These are stories that have clearly been debunked. One of these stories is the “Juan Moricz cave story” as shown by my opponent in his last post. Another such a story is the Dogon-Sirius-Mystery as described by Robert Temple. I`ve actually been waiting for my opponent to bring these up, because they belong to the very small collection of cards that debunkers flash when we are talking about AAT. I intentionally did not use Juan Moricz, nor Robert Temple because I know their information is possibly not credible. Why do the debunkers always use the same cards though? Because all other stuff is not easily debunked…especially the ancient helicopter-tank-submarine-plane and the ancient Indian texts on the Vimana...which is actually endorsed by many Indian scholars and not only the uneducated. (Opponents love to make it look like only the dumb and uneducated defend AAT)
Repeatedly my opponent uses the words “alleged texts”, “complete fabrication”; “fraud”, “forged translations”, “forged documents”. But he hasn’t pointed out which of the evidence I present is “a complete fabrication”. He cant. Because I use the same sources as available in any public library or school textbook…albeit with a modern day interpretation. Accordingly, my opponent makes the second false statement when saying that the translation of the Babylonian Etana Epic was provided by Erich von Daniken. It was in fact provided by Jamie R. Novotny in “The Standard Babylonian Etana Epic”.
As far as the Ezekiel Bible-Passage is concerned, I didn’t even want to bring it up anymore, but my opponent challenges me to. This is actually one of the most convincing pieces of evidence of technology in ancient times, as NASA engineer J.F. Blumrich describes in his excellent article:
Ezekiels "Vision"
I thank my opponent for reminding me of this conclusive piece of information.
Dangerous Information
As hinted at in the opening post, out-of-time and out-of-place artefacts are one of the main pillars on which AAT stands. Of course, according to AAT, these artefacts are not really “out of place” or “out of time”. They merely have to be labelled that way to conform to what our schoolbooks say history "must have been". Claiming to know “THE history” is already in itself a questionable approach. Too many books have been burned by the victors of wars and by rulers who did not tolerate any other view than their own. The Roman Empire would be one of the civilizations most guilty of this. Add to that hints of disastrous floods and even mythological reports of nuclear wars (according to the 6500 B.C. Mahabarata) and we are indeed lucky to still find artefacts such as these:
Out of place artifacts
Presenting results of research in AAT can be dangerous. Even here, I hesitate to present things because of the outrage and suppression that can follow. A personal experience: I recall being a 12 year old in school when we were talking about religion in class. I said to my teacher: “Did you know that the Hebrew word “Elohim” (translated in the Bible as a singular “God”) is actually a plural word?” Obviously I had looked it up and wanted to provoke my teacher with it. His face reddened. “Where did you get that nonsense boy! You better have something sensible to contribute to class or just shut up!” End of story. Some things we are not allowed to talk about.
Turkish-German researcher Erdogan Ercivan is the author of a book called “Forbidden Egyptology” which has not been published in the English Language yet. In bis book he has shown how, of the 500 000 Glyphs translated by Assyriologists, only 20% have been published. He poses the question: Why aren’t the rest published? A probable answer: Its too dangerous.
It is my hope that future generations will not be fooled by "what is supposed to be true" and look at whats really there.
I continue to enjoy being challenged by my opponent, the Barrister, as it helps me to review my data and strengthen my case.
In his last post my opponent said that I cite no sources for flight-reports whatsoever. He also says I cite no writings of the ancients. As any judge in court will see, this is a falsehood. One of the many sources cited was the Vymaanika Shaastra as translated by G.S. Goyser. Im afraid that making false statements will not reflect well on my opponents overall case here
As predicted my opponent explains the ancient reports as works of fiction. This has already been addressed, but I will address it again: As seen in the ancient Indian “Manusa” documents, our ancestors were able to discern between fact and fiction. As seen in the first post on African Mythology, all the “fiction tales” are essentially the same. Why are the all describing some Gods who came down from the sky, flew back up, taught humans lessons, and so forth? Surely poetry and fiction would have a little bit of diversity? Of course, in an 17th Century mindset (the time in which “modern science” formed its opinion), flying machines must certainly be fictitious. The simple answer is that our ancestors tried to describe and depict things they did not have adequate vocabularyfor. Try describing a rocket to an ancient roman. You will have to use words he can understand. “Well, theres an obelisk with flames under it and it goes up like a bird” you might say. People who cannot debunk this most often then go to claiming that the ancients were describing “Lightning and Thunder” as “Gods”. This ignores the fact that almost all ancient languages already had words for Lightning and Thunder.
Debunkers tend to dig up the same stories over and over. These are stories that have clearly been debunked. One of these stories is the “Juan Moricz cave story” as shown by my opponent in his last post. Another such a story is the Dogon-Sirius-Mystery as described by Robert Temple. I`ve actually been waiting for my opponent to bring these up, because they belong to the very small collection of cards that debunkers flash when we are talking about AAT. I intentionally did not use Juan Moricz, nor Robert Temple because I know their information is possibly not credible. Why do the debunkers always use the same cards though? Because all other stuff is not easily debunked…especially the ancient helicopter-tank-submarine-plane and the ancient Indian texts on the Vimana...which is actually endorsed by many Indian scholars and not only the uneducated. (Opponents love to make it look like only the dumb and uneducated defend AAT)
Repeatedly my opponent uses the words “alleged texts”, “complete fabrication”; “fraud”, “forged translations”, “forged documents”. But he hasn’t pointed out which of the evidence I present is “a complete fabrication”. He cant. Because I use the same sources as available in any public library or school textbook…albeit with a modern day interpretation. Accordingly, my opponent makes the second false statement when saying that the translation of the Babylonian Etana Epic was provided by Erich von Daniken. It was in fact provided by Jamie R. Novotny in “The Standard Babylonian Etana Epic”.
As far as the Ezekiel Bible-Passage is concerned, I didn’t even want to bring it up anymore, but my opponent challenges me to. This is actually one of the most convincing pieces of evidence of technology in ancient times, as NASA engineer J.F. Blumrich describes in his excellent article:
Ezekiels "Vision"
I thank my opponent for reminding me of this conclusive piece of information.
Dangerous Information
As hinted at in the opening post, out-of-time and out-of-place artefacts are one of the main pillars on which AAT stands. Of course, according to AAT, these artefacts are not really “out of place” or “out of time”. They merely have to be labelled that way to conform to what our schoolbooks say history "must have been". Claiming to know “THE history” is already in itself a questionable approach. Too many books have been burned by the victors of wars and by rulers who did not tolerate any other view than their own. The Roman Empire would be one of the civilizations most guilty of this. Add to that hints of disastrous floods and even mythological reports of nuclear wars (according to the 6500 B.C. Mahabarata) and we are indeed lucky to still find artefacts such as these:
Out of place artifacts
Presenting results of research in AAT can be dangerous. Even here, I hesitate to present things because of the outrage and suppression that can follow. A personal experience: I recall being a 12 year old in school when we were talking about religion in class. I said to my teacher: “Did you know that the Hebrew word “Elohim” (translated in the Bible as a singular “God”) is actually a plural word?” Obviously I had looked it up and wanted to provoke my teacher with it. His face reddened. “Where did you get that nonsense boy! You better have something sensible to contribute to class or just shut up!” End of story. Some things we are not allowed to talk about.
Turkish-German researcher Erdogan Ercivan is the author of a book called “Forbidden Egyptology” which has not been published in the English Language yet. In bis book he has shown how, of the 500 000 Glyphs translated by Assyriologists, only 20% have been published. He poses the question: Why aren’t the rest published? A probable answer: Its too dangerous.
It is my hope that future generations will not be fooled by "what is supposed to be true" and look at whats really there.
reply posted on 10-11-2007 @ 09:43 AM by IsaacKoi
In my previous submissions I stated that my opponent had failed to put forward any sources for the “countless flight reports” that he repeatedly
mentions.
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, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and 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.
None.
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 Time”. 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 and this one).
The same website also contains more detailed rebuttals of some of the other relevant stories (e.g. this article about the large numbers of incised stones collected by Dr Javier Cabrera Darquea)
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 explanations), 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.
Vimana Aircraft
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 pseudoscience”.
Even within a fringe topic such as ufology, the ancient astronaut theory is regarded as rather extreme and incredible.
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, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and 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.
None.
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 Time”. 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 and this one).
The same website also contains more detailed rebuttals of some of the other relevant stories (e.g. this article about the large numbers of incised stones collected by Dr Javier Cabrera Darquea)
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 explanations), 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.
Vimana Aircraft
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 pseudoscience”.
Even within a fringe topic such as ufology, the ancient astronaut theory is regarded as rather extreme and incredible.
reply posted on 10-11-2007 @ 04:40 PM by Skyfloating
Wake up out there!
After providing the Mahabarata (which ALSO cites flying vimana chariots and is certainly not forged!!!!!!!, the Ramayana, african tribes mythology, the abydos picture (it most certainly cant be called a coincidence that there are FOUR objects looking like modern ones in one picture!) my opponent still claims I have no evidence and provide no sources. He then goes on to describe the McPherson tape...which, with all due respect, has nothing to do with my case. The out-of-place artifacts show that the official version of history is not yet coherent, and this gives credit to alternative versions of history, and are IN THIS SENSE an important pillar of AAT.
Rather than continuing to provide yet more hard and verifiable facts, which anyone can Google-up themselves (for example at www.legendarytimes.com) I would like to use this last post for something I haven’t yet seen done on the Internet: Taking a closer look at the Debunkers of AAT.
Manipulative Speech Patterns & Emotionally Charged Statements: A close look at "Debunkers"
I looked up one of the best internet resources for debunkers: The Skeptics Dictionary to point out the non-objective, unverifiable and plain stupid attacks on AAT. I quote from their page on ancient astronauts.
"(AAT)...is a sweeping attack on the abilities and memories of ancient peoples"
No its not. Most of us see the ancients as much more than mere "stone age idiots"
"Danikens reply was that his deception was justified because some people would only believe if they saw proof"
This outrageous lie has since been debunked, but it is still up on the website. Danikens words taken out of context and twisted in yet another act of desperation.
"The likelihood that these drawings are related to the natives religion or science is not considered"
Many researches, me included, have considered other explanations many times. Another baseless statement.
“But it seems more likely that prehistoric peoples themselves were responsible for their own art, technology and culture.”
Other Debunkers put it this way: . “What? You are saying that Aliens built the Pyramids? You`re crazy!”. That’s an example of the hysterical unobjectivity you will get when presenting yourself as an AAT researcher. I did not say that Aliens built the Pyramids. I am hinting at the possibility that aliens either helped provide information and/or tools to build them, or that the ancient Egyptians used remnants of an advanced human civilization to build them.
“And why restrict one's examples to Egypt, Mexico, and other non-European countries? What about the builders of Newgrange or Stonehenge?“
Daniken and other researchers have published countless books about European sites. Another blatant lie. (One book adressing this: "Die Steinzeit war ganz anders" - German title).
“The ancient astronaut hypothesis is unnecessary”
One of many broad and general statements that try to suppress asking further questions. What they fail to mention is that in the 80s and 90s and 20s Daniken has written more than a dozen further books backing up his theories. Instead, they keep referring to “Chariots of the Gods” from 1968.
Quoted from the same source on Zecharia Sitchin:
“(AAT is) especially attractive to those who are ignorant of biblical and historical scholarship”
Having read the Bible, the Koran and the Talmud, among many other things, I am not going to let a Debunker tell me I am ignorant of the bible or history.
“He has received nothing but ridicule from scientific archaeologists”
“Sitchin's ideas have been appropriated by Raël, another wise man, who has started his own religion”
Many statements made by debunkers do not address the evidence brought forward, but are made to make attack the person, to make the researcher look like a lunatic. No serious AAT researcher considers the Rael cult a serious source of information. Rather than a dreamy-eyed fool, I consider myself a person curious enough to keep asking.
Taken from another typical Debunkers source
“(Daniken) was by no means the first to propose it (AAT)”.
“He was not the first fringe writer to adopt this stance”
Yes, and so what? I wonder why so many debunkers ramble on about him not being the first to propose AAT. There were many before…Charles Fort, Robert Charroux. So what?
“Chariots of the Gods?, published in 1967 after no fewer than twenty-two rejections, became a worldwide bestseller”
And the rejections are supposed to prove what?
“(Daniken was) arrested for fraud”
I found zero evidence for this statement. Even if its true, it does not Debunk AAT as there are plenty of other authors around.
“made him wealthy through the sale of over sixty million copies of his books.”
The AAT authors most attacked are those who actually make some money with their research. As they often make more money than scientists, it is understandable that jealousy would arise.
“The most convincing piece of evidence he has ever produced is the cover slab of the tomb of the Lord Pacal in the Pyramid of the Inscriptions at Palenque, weak stuff though it is.”
Again referring to the 1968 research rather than current books which are superiour to the old ones.
This debate actually mirrors the results you will find when researching AAT on the Internet: Logical and conclusive evidence for AAT and flaky, half-hearted and distorted points countering it. I think I have shown that AAT is very well worth looking into and not “a waste of time” as my opponent would have it. Not at any time during this debate did I get the impression that my opponent is himself firm in his beliefs or even especially keen on debunking the theory. He repeatedly asked for “best evidence”, evidence I delivered. He brushed the evidence off with false claims, absurd distortions and the desperate attempt to point out debunked material I didn’t even refer to.
What makes the AAT a true and valid theory is that it is strong enough to answer a myriad of unanswered questions we have about our past:
• Where did those civilizations that appear to have jumped into existence all of a sudden rather than gradually evolve, come from?
• Why are the accounts of the ancients, which all agree on the basic setup – Gods came from the Heavens, flew around here, instructed humans on certain techniques and skills, and then left again – not simply accepted as they are but instead labelled as “fiction” and put into a shelf of unimportance?
• Why did indigenous tribes most often, upon first contact with whites, describe them as the returning Gods?
• Why do cultures, such as the ancient Egyptian one, appear to have digressed over time and from Dynasty to Dynasty rather than progressed?
• In our evolution, where and when was intelligence suddenly injected?
• Do you all see the difference between descriptions of a Supreme Being (almighty, all-seeing) and lesser “Gods” who are not supreme beings at all but very human?
• Do you see how “out-of-place-artifacts” prove that history as we were taught it was, is inaccurate and needs to be re-written? How long will it take for schoolbooks to catch up…another 50 years?
• Do you see how AAT uses the same evidence but with a modern day and clear minded interpretation rather than distortion to conform to bias? (a tank-helicopter-submarine-plane is just that and not “the bow who rules the nine)
• Do you see how AAT is dangerous to the pillars of society (religion and science) and therefore only progressing very slowly?
• And finally, do you say how the few pieces of hard evidence cited (such as the myth-similarities and the abydos-picture) cannot be debunked?
My opponent has failed to address these issues in any coherent or serious manner. Rather than thinking for himself, he quotes some university professor from Texas and another one from Australia.
Even if I hadn’t been able to provide the evidence, the ancient-astronaut-theory is not really that far of a stretch. Take billions of stars and millions of years and there is a chance that intelligent life from other planets did show up here at some points in history. This points of arrival have been recorded as just that: The arrival of “Gods” from “Space”. What`s the big deal? In following contemporary doctrine I am expected to believe either one of two propositions:
“Intelligence derived from dead matter in a chain of coincidences”
or
“A vengeful God created the world in 7 days”.
None of these explanations are satisfactory explanations for the emergence of human intelligence. AAT offers a third alternative. And while AAT does not explain all mysteries of existence and history, it takes care of the problem of just where religions came from and just how evolution made that sudden jump to intelligence.
I wish I had more space to write. In closing I will say that I thank and respect my opponent for a VERY tough debate and thank the Vagabond for hosting this my favourite feature on ATS. I also thank the readers for their patience.
After providing the Mahabarata (which ALSO cites flying vimana chariots and is certainly not forged!!!!!!!, the Ramayana, african tribes mythology, the abydos picture (it most certainly cant be called a coincidence that there are FOUR objects looking like modern ones in one picture!) my opponent still claims I have no evidence and provide no sources. He then goes on to describe the McPherson tape...which, with all due respect, has nothing to do with my case. The out-of-place artifacts show that the official version of history is not yet coherent, and this gives credit to alternative versions of history, and are IN THIS SENSE an important pillar of AAT.
Rather than continuing to provide yet more hard and verifiable facts, which anyone can Google-up themselves (for example at www.legendarytimes.com) I would like to use this last post for something I haven’t yet seen done on the Internet: Taking a closer look at the Debunkers of AAT.
Manipulative Speech Patterns & Emotionally Charged Statements: A close look at "Debunkers"
I looked up one of the best internet resources for debunkers: The Skeptics Dictionary to point out the non-objective, unverifiable and plain stupid attacks on AAT. I quote from their page on ancient astronauts.
"(AAT)...is a sweeping attack on the abilities and memories of ancient peoples"
No its not. Most of us see the ancients as much more than mere "stone age idiots"
"Danikens reply was that his deception was justified because some people would only believe if they saw proof"
This outrageous lie has since been debunked, but it is still up on the website. Danikens words taken out of context and twisted in yet another act of desperation.
"The likelihood that these drawings are related to the natives religion or science is not considered"
Many researches, me included, have considered other explanations many times. Another baseless statement.
“But it seems more likely that prehistoric peoples themselves were responsible for their own art, technology and culture.”
Other Debunkers put it this way: . “What? You are saying that Aliens built the Pyramids? You`re crazy!”. That’s an example of the hysterical unobjectivity you will get when presenting yourself as an AAT researcher. I did not say that Aliens built the Pyramids. I am hinting at the possibility that aliens either helped provide information and/or tools to build them, or that the ancient Egyptians used remnants of an advanced human civilization to build them.
“And why restrict one's examples to Egypt, Mexico, and other non-European countries? What about the builders of Newgrange or Stonehenge?“
Daniken and other researchers have published countless books about European sites. Another blatant lie. (One book adressing this: "Die Steinzeit war ganz anders" - German title).
“The ancient astronaut hypothesis is unnecessary”
One of many broad and general statements that try to suppress asking further questions. What they fail to mention is that in the 80s and 90s and 20s Daniken has written more than a dozen further books backing up his theories. Instead, they keep referring to “Chariots of the Gods” from 1968.
Quoted from the same source on Zecharia Sitchin:
“(AAT is) especially attractive to those who are ignorant of biblical and historical scholarship”
Having read the Bible, the Koran and the Talmud, among many other things, I am not going to let a Debunker tell me I am ignorant of the bible or history.
“He has received nothing but ridicule from scientific archaeologists”
“Sitchin's ideas have been appropriated by Raël, another wise man, who has started his own religion”
Many statements made by debunkers do not address the evidence brought forward, but are made to make attack the person, to make the researcher look like a lunatic. No serious AAT researcher considers the Rael cult a serious source of information. Rather than a dreamy-eyed fool, I consider myself a person curious enough to keep asking.
Taken from another typical Debunkers source
“(Daniken) was by no means the first to propose it (AAT)”.
“He was not the first fringe writer to adopt this stance”
Yes, and so what? I wonder why so many debunkers ramble on about him not being the first to propose AAT. There were many before…Charles Fort, Robert Charroux. So what?
“Chariots of the Gods?, published in 1967 after no fewer than twenty-two rejections, became a worldwide bestseller”
And the rejections are supposed to prove what?
“(Daniken was) arrested for fraud”
I found zero evidence for this statement. Even if its true, it does not Debunk AAT as there are plenty of other authors around.
“made him wealthy through the sale of over sixty million copies of his books.”
The AAT authors most attacked are those who actually make some money with their research. As they often make more money than scientists, it is understandable that jealousy would arise.
“The most convincing piece of evidence he has ever produced is the cover slab of the tomb of the Lord Pacal in the Pyramid of the Inscriptions at Palenque, weak stuff though it is.”
Again referring to the 1968 research rather than current books which are superiour to the old ones.
This debate actually mirrors the results you will find when researching AAT on the Internet: Logical and conclusive evidence for AAT and flaky, half-hearted and distorted points countering it. I think I have shown that AAT is very well worth looking into and not “a waste of time” as my opponent would have it. Not at any time during this debate did I get the impression that my opponent is himself firm in his beliefs or even especially keen on debunking the theory. He repeatedly asked for “best evidence”, evidence I delivered. He brushed the evidence off with false claims, absurd distortions and the desperate attempt to point out debunked material I didn’t even refer to.
What makes the AAT a true and valid theory is that it is strong enough to answer a myriad of unanswered questions we have about our past:
• Where did those civilizations that appear to have jumped into existence all of a sudden rather than gradually evolve, come from?
• Why are the accounts of the ancients, which all agree on the basic setup – Gods came from the Heavens, flew around here, instructed humans on certain techniques and skills, and then left again – not simply accepted as they are but instead labelled as “fiction” and put into a shelf of unimportance?
• Why did indigenous tribes most often, upon first contact with whites, describe them as the returning Gods?
• Why do cultures, such as the ancient Egyptian one, appear to have digressed over time and from Dynasty to Dynasty rather than progressed?
• In our evolution, where and when was intelligence suddenly injected?
• Do you all see the difference between descriptions of a Supreme Being (almighty, all-seeing) and lesser “Gods” who are not supreme beings at all but very human?
• Do you see how “out-of-place-artifacts” prove that history as we were taught it was, is inaccurate and needs to be re-written? How long will it take for schoolbooks to catch up…another 50 years?
• Do you see how AAT uses the same evidence but with a modern day and clear minded interpretation rather than distortion to conform to bias? (a tank-helicopter-submarine-plane is just that and not “the bow who rules the nine)
• Do you see how AAT is dangerous to the pillars of society (religion and science) and therefore only progressing very slowly?
• And finally, do you say how the few pieces of hard evidence cited (such as the myth-similarities and the abydos-picture) cannot be debunked?
My opponent has failed to address these issues in any coherent or serious manner. Rather than thinking for himself, he quotes some university professor from Texas and another one from Australia.
Even if I hadn’t been able to provide the evidence, the ancient-astronaut-theory is not really that far of a stretch. Take billions of stars and millions of years and there is a chance that intelligent life from other planets did show up here at some points in history. This points of arrival have been recorded as just that: The arrival of “Gods” from “Space”. What`s the big deal? In following contemporary doctrine I am expected to believe either one of two propositions:
“Intelligence derived from dead matter in a chain of coincidences”
or
“A vengeful God created the world in 7 days”.
None of these explanations are satisfactory explanations for the emergence of human intelligence. AAT offers a third alternative. And while AAT does not explain all mysteries of existence and history, it takes care of the problem of just where religions came from and just how evolution made that sudden jump to intelligence.
I wish I had more space to write. In closing I will say that I thank and respect my opponent for a VERY tough debate and thank the Vagabond for hosting this my favourite feature on ATS. I also thank the readers for their patience.
reply posted on 11-11-2007 @ 04:12 PM by IsaacKoi
In closing, I would like to remind readers of a statement popularized by Carl Sagan: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary”.
By any stretch of the imagination, the claim that “the ancient astronaut theory is true” is an extraordinary claim.
Unfortunately, the evidence put forward in support of this extraordinary claim is extremely weak.
Attack on straw-men
In his closing submissions, my opponent has given detailed criticisms of various alleged examples of “Manipulative Speech Patterns & Emotionally Charged Statements” by "debunkers".
However, it is notable that none of his examples are from statements made by me during this debate.
Of course some debunkers have made errors or put forward questionable arguments. I readily accept that this is true. However, this is irrelevant. The question is whether the supporters of the Ancient Astronaut Theory have put forward sufficiently compelling evidence in support of their theory. They have not.
My opponent has selected a few weak points made by (unnamed) “debunkers”. He has merely addressed a few arguments from a few straw-men, rather than addressing the points I have made in this debate (or the various other strong points against the Ancient Astronaut Theory).
I could easily have attacked quite a few weak straw-men that support the Ancient Astronaut Theory.
For example, the best known supporter of that theory is Von Daniken – convicted of fraud. My opponent notes that Von Daniken has been alleged to have been “arrested” but been unable to find evidence in support of that allegation. In fact, Von Daniken’s conviction is referred to in various books (including Ronald Story’s books debunking the Ancient Astronaut Theory) and also www.google.co.uk..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">on numerous websites, as shown by this Google search.
Moving goal-posts
I remain disappointed to see that my opponent did not accept my challenge to specify in the first round of this debate the single best piece of evidence for the Ancient Astronaut Theory.
As I feared, after I’ve addressed the “evidence” relied upon so far, my opponent has simply brought out any (equally flawed) argument based on a different assertion.
This is typical of the debate about ancient astronaut.
When the evidence put forward in one sensational book about alien visitors is addressed by a skeptic (notably by Ronald Story in his books), then either new authors come out of the wood-work or the same authors merely come up with a new sales-pitch.
Summary of fundamental problems
I hope that I’ve made it clear during this debate that the flaws in the material relied upon by supporters of the Ancient Astronaut Theory can generally be grouped into one of the following categories:
(1) Exaggeration of the technology required to produce an ancient artifact or monument, often coupled with a dismissal of ancient human’s abilities and efforts. In short, many of those that support the Ancient Astronaut Theory appear to dismiss humans as stupid.
(2) Misinterpretation of old records and artifacts, often involving taking these items out of context by ignoring the relevant culture.
(3) Outright fraud, fabrication and forgery.
Conclusion
My opponent has shown considerable resourceful and ingenuity in this debate.
I thank him for a stimulating exchange.
It is not his fault that he has been unable to overcome the fundamental weakness of the theory he has been advocating.
By any stretch of the imagination, the claim that “the ancient astronaut theory is true” is an extraordinary claim.
Unfortunately, the evidence put forward in support of this extraordinary claim is extremely weak.
Attack on straw-men
In his closing submissions, my opponent has given detailed criticisms of various alleged examples of “Manipulative Speech Patterns & Emotionally Charged Statements” by "debunkers".
However, it is notable that none of his examples are from statements made by me during this debate.
Of course some debunkers have made errors or put forward questionable arguments. I readily accept that this is true. However, this is irrelevant. The question is whether the supporters of the Ancient Astronaut Theory have put forward sufficiently compelling evidence in support of their theory. They have not.
My opponent has selected a few weak points made by (unnamed) “debunkers”. He has merely addressed a few arguments from a few straw-men, rather than addressing the points I have made in this debate (or the various other strong points against the Ancient Astronaut Theory).
I could easily have attacked quite a few weak straw-men that support the Ancient Astronaut Theory.
For example, the best known supporter of that theory is Von Daniken – convicted of fraud. My opponent notes that Von Daniken has been alleged to have been “arrested” but been unable to find evidence in support of that allegation. In fact, Von Daniken’s conviction is referred to in various books (including Ronald Story’s books debunking the Ancient Astronaut Theory) and also www.google.co.uk..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">on numerous websites, as shown by this Google search.
Moving goal-posts
I remain disappointed to see that my opponent did not accept my challenge to specify in the first round of this debate the single best piece of evidence for the Ancient Astronaut Theory.
As I feared, after I’ve addressed the “evidence” relied upon so far, my opponent has simply brought out any (equally flawed) argument based on a different assertion.
This is typical of the debate about ancient astronaut.
When the evidence put forward in one sensational book about alien visitors is addressed by a skeptic (notably by Ronald Story in his books), then either new authors come out of the wood-work or the same authors merely come up with a new sales-pitch.
Summary of fundamental problems
I hope that I’ve made it clear during this debate that the flaws in the material relied upon by supporters of the Ancient Astronaut Theory can generally be grouped into one of the following categories:
(1) Exaggeration of the technology required to produce an ancient artifact or monument, often coupled with a dismissal of ancient human’s abilities and efforts. In short, many of those that support the Ancient Astronaut Theory appear to dismiss humans as stupid.
(2) Misinterpretation of old records and artifacts, often involving taking these items out of context by ignoring the relevant culture.
(3) Outright fraud, fabrication and forgery.
Conclusion
My opponent has shown considerable resourceful and ingenuity in this debate.
I thank him for a stimulating exchange.
It is not his fault that he has been unable to overcome the fundamental weakness of the theory he has been advocating.
