Ancient Aliens Debunked?

page: 1
132
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+60 more 
posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Few pseudoscientific ideas have captured the imagination like ancient astronaut "theory". The idea has become almost it's own religion as it often uses religious myth as a source of so-called evidence. Assisting its popularity is a host of documentaries including a series called Ancient Aliens specifically dedicated to the ancient alien hypothesis (hereby referred to as AAH).

In this thread I hope to dissect the first episode of the History Channel show Ancient Aliens in an effort to more or less debunk the claims presented. My hope is that this attempt will further discussion and get those who believe in AAH to take a closer look at what they believe and why and what they are prepared to call evidence. I hope that everyone will take the time to watch the video either before or during reading. I am going to describe much of what is talked about in the video in an attempt to make viewing it non-essential however.



This is gonna be a long one folks


After the intro they begin by introducing Erik Von Daniken, author of Chariot of the Gods. He talks about the inception of AAH and how he scoured religious texts from all over the world. Daniken than says that no matter where you go the story is always the same. God's descended from the heavens. The problem is that not all mythologies involve the gods descending from the Heavens. Daniken is taking the myths out of context. And often times gods that do descend do so because they are lightning, sun or moon gods that would naturally be associated with the sky.

It is no doubt that many gods do indeed dwell in the heavens. It is also true that many gods aren't associated with heaven at all. There are underworld gods, sea gods, wind gods, Earth gods, etc. To suggest that the story is always the same Daniken must ignore VAST quantities of mythology and choose only bits and pieces to accept as accurate. He must then rob those of their mythical context and impose aliens upon them to see if they "fit".

Daniken admits that he starts with the presupposition of aliens AND THEN looks for proof. This generally isn't the way science works. Usually you want to collect evidence before coming to a conclusion, not come to a conclusion and then procure the necessary evidence. This section is also filled with lot's of appeals to the popularity of Daniken's book. This is a logical fallacy. It's popularity has no correlation to whether or not it's true.

At 8:29 George Noory is right when he says that people want answers to these ancient mysteries. It's perfectly understandable for people to want answers. But using aliens to explain away mysteries is just an argument from ignorance, it doesn't get us any closer to the truth.

Planting ideas, the insinuation that the Nazca lines "look like airstrips". Considering that many of them are pictographs I fail to see how its possible for them to be airstrips. But of course he's likely referring to the rectangular ones. Why exactly would the aliens land their high-tech interstellar craft on some lines in the dirt? More insinuations soon follow about how it's an airport despite showing images of the so-called "Airstrips" crisscrossing in ways that would undoubtedly cause collisions or confusion of any aircraft attempting to land. They are sure to label the more down-to-Earth explanations as "disputed" while doing no such thing for the airstrip idea.



Dave Childress keeps stressing "WHAT IS THE REASON." But he apparently refuses to leave the mystery. Yes the Nazca lines are a mystery but that doesn't mean we insert aliens into that gap in our knowledge.

Cargo Cults are the next topic. The issue with this is that physical evidence was left behind by those visiting tribes in airplanes. Crates of goods, airstrips, and other material evidence was left behind that could have been created by the tribes there. So where are the alien artifacts? Where are the tricorders and warp drives left behind by ETs? Why are the only so-called "alien" artifacts ones that can be explained as within the capability of the ancients? Stone monuments, pyramids, the Baghdad battery, all point to being manmade, not alien made. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

The Bible

We open with Daniken professing that he still has his faith in God, atmospheric music is added. We open with the Ezekiel account. The issues with this are many but I will focus primarily on the description of the creatures in Ezekiel. They are said to have the face of a man, a lion, an ox and an eagle. These seem very specific, even symbolic, not at all the description of horrific alien beings and certainly NOTHING like any aliens reported by modern abductees. They also had hooves, wings and human hands, these are also specifically described as if to be symbolic, not literal. If it is a literal account than this thing is some genetic monstrosity, not an alien.


10 Their faces looked like this: Each of the four had the face of a human being, and on the right side each had the face of a lion, and on the left the face of an ox; each also had the face of an eagle. 11 Such were their faces.


Source

The next book we go to is Enoch. Daniken is allowed to assert without challenge that the ANGELS described by Enoch were aliens. He calls Enoch an "eye witness" as if that lends the story credibility as an actual event. People see wild things all the time, eye witness reports do not count as evidence. Of course in this case we're not just dealing with an eye-witness, we're dealing with a religious text filled with all sorts of fanciful material such as angels interbreeding with humans to create a race of giants. This is mythology being read as fact and then aliens being added to it for no reason.

Our next two speakers are both skeptics, one a Biblical archeologist, one a Professor of Spirituality studies. They point out several good flaws in AAH interpretation of Ezekiel. They are offered only about a minute of time to voice their opinions before we return to the believers. Giorgio Tsoukalos then asserts that religious stories might be "true after all". What he actually means is the opposite. He's not proposing that these myths are to be taken in their original context or even LITERALLY, he suggesting they be reinterpreted out of context to uphold AAH. He reinforces this only with the assertion that because writing was rare people would write down things that actually happened to them.

Vimana



They open this section with an image that should instantly cast doubt on the claim that Vimana's are UFOs. Notice anything from the photo above? How about the horses and elephants and chariots? Does this look like a depiction of a UFO war in the sky? Or does it look like a fanciful mythological tale being retold in artwork? A man then makes some claims about how being made of metal, appearing in two places at one and having a motion similar to a butterfly is CONSISTENT with modern UFO reports. Flight pattern of a butterfly? Well two out of three ain't bad


David Childress returns at around 29:00 comparing the descriptions of flying machines in Indian mythology to Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon. Funny, I thought he was in favor of AAH not against it. Come to think of it why can't these descriptions simply be a case of science fiction from ancient times? They follow this up with Giorgio making a few appeals to popularity by pointing out repeatedly that these stories are widely accepted in India. Of course he quotes no pole or statistic and shows no evidence of any kind to reinforce this assertion.

Artifacts and Cave Paintings

Ready for some more desperate attempts to reinterpret things and steal them out of any historical or archeological context? Check out this photo that is apparently flashed up on screen as some kind of physical evidence of aliens.



Notice anything about the headdress in the center? Looks like it's made to appear animal to me. Why are they showing this? Do they think that seriously resembles a space helmet? This image betrays the issue with the vast majority of supposed "astronaut" figurines and paintings. Headdresses were common in tribal times, helmets aren't a new technology.



While the photo above is up George Noory plants the idea of astronauts in the audience's head never leaving room for it to be anything else. A helmet, a headdress, a halo, the depiction of someone's head being on fire. The list of plausible possibilities would stretch for miles before aliens would be an option without some other evidence aside from a drawing. What will people who come across superman comic books in 10,000 years say about us, will they claim we could only draw superman because he was real and we must've seen him?



The quite obviously tribal headdress above is labeled as "eerily similar to a modern astronaut". In what world are these people living in? This thing looks nothing like an astronaut. If it is anything out of the ordinary it looks more like a diving helmet (and even that is WAY pushing it).



This has become an iconic artifact amongst AAH proponents. If this is a plane as they suggest where are the engines? Where's the cockpit? Why are there clearly two EYES? And why exactly does ancient foreknowledge of the plane logically lead one to ALIENS? We humans invented the plane, not aliens, why would we credit them with this artifact? A civilization capable of crossing interstellar space wouldn't likely have need for such things and according to AAH proponents themselves ancient mythical accounts describe flying saucers NOT airplanes.

There is an assertion that the upright tail-fin is not intrinsic to nature. That is, of course, only true if you discount ALL FISH, guess those aren't part of nature
. Even if it were not found on any animals it most certainly could have been created with creative license, the sculptors own creative decision. The idea that this is evidence of aliens is insulting to people's intelligence.

Continued in Part 2 Below




posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Continued from above

Mayans

Our one stop is Pacal's Tomb and I'm honestly still curios as to why this one is so popular amongst ancient astronaut believers. Nothing about this carving looks remotely like an alien craft without stretching the imagination. Of course like most of these things we must first rob it of it's widely understood historical/cultural context and RE-interpret it (for no reason). When looking at the image in detail the symbolic and widely accepted meaning makes more sense.


"The widely accepted interpretation of the sarcophagus lid is that Pakal is descending into Xibalba, the Maya underworld. Around the edges of the lid are glyphs representing the Sun, the Moon, Venus, and various constellations, locating this event in the nighttime sky. Below him is the Maya water god, who guards the underworld [4]. Beneath Pakal are the "unfolded" jaws of a dragon or serpent, which Pakal is escaping from, ascending towards the world tree. This is a common iconographic representation of the entrance to the underworld"


Source

Piri Reis Map

This is another one that truly baffles me. What does this have to do with aliens? If aliens were helping out Piri in creating the map or in creating the source maps he used why weren't they flawlessly accurate? Why did they not depict the ENTIRE world? The map clearly shows the tip of South America wrapped around at the bottom often asserted to be Antarctica's coast. If this were true, for sake of argument, why exactly would this logically lead to aliens? Quite simply there is no link that can be built logically other than by STARTING with the conclusion of aliens and just lumping the map in as possible evidence because its mysterious.

Pyramids and Monuments

So it begins. This is going to be aggravating for me as person after person will no doubt belittle the ancients by claiming they were too stupid to devise ingenious ways to put stones on top of other stones. Even within the first few minutes of this section the narrator himself asks how the Egyptians could have possibly done this on their own. Mysteries, ignorance, does not mean you can insert whatever idea you want.

Jason Martell, so called "Alien Investigator" (there's an official title for you) provides a backhanded compliment claiming that the ancients were strong enough to build these monuments but not smart enough and that some kind of "intervention" was necessary. This sort of thing is very frustrating for me - these baseless assertions made without any sort of evidence at all are far too common in the arguments made for AAH. Martell even go so far as to say "they couldn't have just come up with it on their own" ... WHY NOT?

What exactly do the aliens gain from the building of a pyramid? Why spread knowledge about how to build them? Why not spread, oh I don't know, the cure for cancer?

The assertions begin that pyramids are "all over the world" and that means something weird. This is a common and downright stupid claim. It's like asking why so many cultures built rectangular homes. What we're dealing with is a fairly simple shape to build in, a pyramid. And contrary to assertions often made by AAH proponents cultures did not all begin building pyramids at around the same time. In fact some pyramids were built after 1 AD while others such as those at Giza are over 2,000 years older. They talk about Teotihuacan for instance and the pyramid of the sun even comparing it to Giza. The Pyramid of the sun was built around 100 AD. The great pyramid was built well over 2,000 years before that. So aliens paused for 2,000 years before passing on the knowledge to the builders at Teotihuacán?

Most of this monument section can be glanced over. It's mostly comparing ancient sites and making the claim that the stones are too big or well placed for humans to do it. Giorgio even goes so far as to say that the site Puma-Punku is the best evidence of AAH available. If that's the case we can toss out AAH right now. Is Puma-Punku a mystery? YEP. Does that mean we get to call it aliens and walk away? ABSOLUTELY NOT. To do so is just another in a long list of arguments from ignorance. The fallacious logic never seems to cease. A mystery is not evidence of aliens, end of story.

We're about an hour in and we finally get another skeptic, this time an anthropologist named Todd Disotell who correctly points out some of the flaws that I've gone over in the AAH claims.

Mechanisms, Math and Electricity

Next up is the Antikythera Mechanism. Again I find it strange that this is picked out to SUPPORT AAH when it does no such thing. The device is indeed hi-tech for it's time but then it's nowhere near something that would be invented by aliens capable of crossing interstellar space. This is clearly a work of man. The Mechanism was found in Greece, Greece was a well-known scientific center in it's day. Stories of Archimedes and other inventors inventing some pretty crazy stuff exist in that area.

We transition from Antikythera to a well-known Egyptian carving of an plant of some sort misconstrued as a giant light bulb by way of some imaginative Pareidolia. You can even see the quite plant-like stem and leaves just before the "bulb". Giorgio claims that this carving is in an area that no one was allowed into, a secret room, yet he then claims that lightbulbs were a tool used to light the tombs as they carved. Even if, for sake of argument, we accept these as lightbulbs how in the hell does one get from lightbulbs to ALIENS? What sort of jump of logic is that?



The Baghdad Batteryis up next. This, as per usual, has zero to do with aliens. It's an interesting discovery if indeed it is intended as a battery but it's clearly an ancient homegrown design, not something imparted from beyond the stars. Honestly how any of this manages to convince anyone of aliens astounds me. Is there a reason the ancients couldn't have developed this on their own?

Eventually a skeptic comes up and says what all critical thinkers are probably screaming at their TVs "we shouldn't think of the ancient people as dummies!" The narrator soon asks the audience why the ancients were so obsessed with the sky? Well put yourself in their shoes for half a second, strip away all knowledge you have of astronomy. If you were entirely ignorant of what you were looking up at you would marvel at it too. Hell people still marvel at the beauty of the sky today, amateur astronomy is a fairly popular hobby and we know what we're looking at better than the ancients did.

Conclusion

The show wraps up with Giorgio pretending that skeptics have the burden of proof, that we have to prove him wrong in order for him to set aside AAH. The ones making the claim hold the burden of proof. The skeptics do not need to show evidence that you are wrong. AAH doesn't need to be debunked, it certainly helps but it's not necessary. To quote Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The lapses in logic and the fallacious reasoning used by AAH proponents should really say it all. The fact that the vast majority of their so-called evidence is actually explainable better with human ingenuity and mythology also speaks volumes on the subject. In the end ancient aliens are another argument from ignorance like a God used to fill gaps and mysteries in our past. There simply is no reason to believe in ancient aliens. Although we cannot rule out the possibility of alien visitation without conclusive evidence of it there simply is no reason to believe. I say it is better to leave ancient mysteries a mystery until a real answer can be found.


+7 more 
posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Disney's History channel is notorious for "dumbing down" their shows. Mixing truth with lies is no doubt their favorite poison.

I want to see the unedited version, is all I am saying.


As an open minded person I've spent a lot of time researching E.T history and first account visitations - the most prevalent thing I have come across is the massive cover-up on the entire issue, this is what continues to draw my interest.

So when I see the History channel coming out with a show called "Ancient Aliens" I am not surprised when I watch it and I see propaganda.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingCap
 


Thanks for the response ThinkingCap. It really bothers me that History Channel's most popular programming is typically this sort of thing rather than actual history. But between you and me I'll take ancient aliens over another Nostradamus show any day



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   
Looking forward in going through this later. I really enjoyed the series but felt I was being 'sucked in' or lied to on some level.
As much as I want to believe in some theories I would like to see how the same subjects are viewed from a different perspective and what theories they offer.

Thanks for the putting together the thread.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Maybe the MSM is seeing what people will believe most and run with that for disclosure. lol


+36 more 
posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:03 AM
link   
I'd rather watch speculative theories like Ancient Aliens, than their Osama Bin Laden Propaganda.


+11 more 
posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   


When looking at the full picture...

Can you explain to me what the other elements of this "plant" are in the picture, and, are the men holding the scent up with their hands?

Cheers!
edit on 4-6-2011 by TheArchaeologist because: trying to corrent RED X


+58 more 
posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   


I say it is better to leave ancient mysteries a mystery until a real answer can be found.
You expect the answers to plop into our laps? Can't leave mysteries as mysterious. The whole idea is to dig deeper no matter how crazy it seems.

Big post just to give your opinion on the theory of ancient aliens. It's a theory, theories don't need "debunking" because it begins with the premise that everything is false (not exactly a good way to think when seeking the truth). Theories need criticism and application, and yes, a dose of skepticism and faith of any evidence is required as well to prove or disprove the theory.

"Debunking" one episode while ignoring the rest of the series and any other material on the subject (such as books and articles) doesn't exactly disprove the theory. The evidence provided by ep. 1 may be false, but that doesn't mean everything is which you seem to be alluding to. There is still some pretty convincing stuff out there like cave paintings that resemble greys, Pumapunku, etc.

By your logic, we should abandon things like string theory because the idea that the universe consists of tiny strings seems way too absurd.



I'm skeptical of AA but I will keep an open mind.


But not this open:



edit on 4/6/11 by AdamsMurmur because: pic lol



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Does anybody wonder if these Ancient Aliens were actually an ancient "advanced race" from Earth. That fell out with each other and decided to blow each other up and leave in their Aeroplanes ?.

Sound familiar ??

OP excellent layed out work and you´ve got me thinking, alot !

Peace.


+8 more 
posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 
I think debunking ancient astronaut claims is like shouting at the wind to go away. Or destroying an ant nest...one ant at a time. The evidence to support the claims is, without exception, garbage.

In my few years on ATS I've written hundreds of posts against ancient astronaut ideas. One thing I've realised is that it is a hoax and a way to make money by a group of inter-connected and self-supporting people. Not so much a 'conspiracy' but certainly a manipulative and deceitful intention to make money from certain people.

Years ago, I was one of those 'certain people.'

So now we see Bob Temple, Lloyd Pye, Hatcher-Childress and Graham Hancock following in the footsteps of Von Daniken, Sitchen and Charles Berlitz. Frauds to a man because they *know* that a large part of what they are selling isn't the truth or based on evidence. When their evidence has been refuted and drawn to their attention, have they ever offered retractions? Hancock has altered his position, but the others continue to sell what they know is misleading, misidentified or plain hoaxes.

The supporting network that feeds them and feeds off them is primarily outlets like Coast to Coast and the History Channel. The internet allows minor (sleazy) players like the Wayne Herschels and Melchezedeks of the world to subsidise their incomes via the paypal buttons.

Ancient Astronaut ideas won't ever go away as long as a small percentage of people enjoy attributing all of humanity's achievements to ******** aliens! Some are genuinely fascinated by the notions (I was once), but others are amongst the most credulous and idiotic folk in the world.

Fraud couldn't exist without them.


Starred and flagged for being very clear and extensive. It's a dirty job and some folk actually hate those who do it lol



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by AdamsMurmur
 



"Debunking" one episode while ignoring the rest of the series and any other material on the subject (such as books and articles) doesn't exactly disprove the theory. The evidence provided by ep. 1 may be false, but that doesn't mean everything is which you seem to be alluding to.


This is the fallacy at the heart of every AAH defender's argument. 'Okay, they lied about that bit, but it doesn't mean they lied about everything else.' It's the baby and the bathwater defence that keeps the whole shebang going and being recycled.

People lying or hoaxing should fall under greater scrutiny...not less!




By your logic, we should abandon things like string theory because the idea that the universe consists of tiny strings seems way too absurd.


Reductio ad absurdum



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by AdamsMurmur
 




You expect the answers to plop into our laps?


No, I expect scientific inquiry to discover the answer. Until that answer is discovered however that doesn't mean we should begin speculating and putting out ideas that have no explanation power. Using aliens to explain an ancient mystery explains nothing, it's just an argument from ignorance.



"Debunking" one episode while ignoring the rest of the series and any other material on the subject (such as books and articles) doesn't exactly disprove the theory.


First off ancient astronaut "theory" is not a scientific theory, it's a hypothesis at best. Secondly I never set out to debunk AAH entirely. In fact no one has to disprove the idea to begin with since it is making the extraordinary claim and thus has to deliver the evidence.



By your logic, we should abandon things like string theory because the idea that the universe consists of tiny strings seems way too absurd.


Uh, no. Not sure where you're getting that idea from. If the math and evidence bear string theory out than we keep it. Same for ancient astronaut "theory". Unfortunately we don't see evidence of AAH, just fallacies, baseless assertions and re-interpretations of myth. It'd be nice to get some real evidence for a change.

reply to post by TheArchaeologist
 


I haven't the slightest idea what the image is meant to represent. I'm no Egyptologist however I'm pretty sure it's not a giant lightbulb because those folks holding it up would be burning themselves


Even if it was a lightbulb that would just indicate that the Egyptians were very smart indeed, rather than indicating alien influence.


+21 more 
posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   
To be fair - the show is about the Ancient Alien Hypothesis... not a point/counter-point series. It's kind of like bashing a show on the Science Channel aimed at exploring "M-Theory" for not also including an explanation of quantum gravity and what the criticisms of both are by Super String Theory.

For the most part - your posts are well grounded, however.

The one thing I will address, however - is the extensive use of stonework. For starters - modern technology is very frail. It will degrade very rapidly. Our pure steels and aluminum alloys corrode into dust over the course of a thousand years or so. Stone is chemically stable - extremely so - and wear resistant. Not only would it be the "material of choice" for structures and objects you wanted to last a long period of time - it would also be the only type of structure to really survive. Where floods wash away entire cities of timber and thatch - stone structures will remain - even if scattered about like the remains of a Lego castle.

Now - to take a slight leap of faith - let's presume there are aliens. They travel their little section of the universe, and their entire culture is marked by separation at the interstellar scale - communication is a decades-long process, if not centuries. This will likely develop a different perception of time and its relative importance. Large stone monoliths/megaliths are the perfect way to leave 'footprints.' That, and implanting genetic markers in local fauna.

That should not be taken to mean that stone megaliths are evidence of aliens. Just taking the idea that they may have been involved and elaborating on why stone would have been a more ideal medium over materials we consider to be superior construction materials.

There also exists the possibility that their technology regarding structural building materials and techniques is inferior to our own - they may be mystified by our development of skyscrapers while living in stone buildings (laser cut, perhaps - but stone none the less).

Though that's really just getting into wild speculation.

Otherwise - I simply find the idea that aliens may have been rather interactive throughout our history to be an intriguing one. Trying to verify it as fact would be almost impossible - as would demonstrating it false. In such situations - I find it best to simply leave it as an intellectual curiosity rather than treat it as a serious contention to the standard historical interpretation.


+10 more 
posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Fair enough OP.


I am curious what you think of the mountain tops that have seemingly been planed off perfectly flat. All other mountains of their peaks. No debris as such.



How was this done? It doesn't appear to be natural. If man made, what was it's purpose?


Also, do you have an theories on Carnac, or the band of holes?

Thanks!
edit on 4-6-2011 by TheArchaeologist because: added image


+79 more 
posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   
The OP appears as if someone is trying to avert the collapse of a life-long paradigm regarding his or her own heritage and the way things came to be. It appears as if someone has watched a documentary containing information that would confront the mind with a mere two choices:

1) Re-think and re-consider basically all aspects of what you think to know about your own race, and thereby admitting that all of what you thought to know as a given might be wrong. The majority of people can not stand the thought of this, and they deny the information that was just presented to them.

2) Deny the information you have been presented, trying forcefully to press it into your existing paradigm, twisting and turning it until it fits in, while accusing the publishers of the information to do exactly that.

@ OP: You deny the Nazca lines were used for alien craft, yet you fail to provide a logic alternative. You stress that not all gods came from the heavens ( which the documentary never claims btw ) yet you fail to provide specific examples, other than "There were sea gods as well !". You deny that the Vimana depicts a battle of technologically sophisticated machinery, and to make your point you show a single chariot from the mural, saing it does not look like what .. a UFO ? Obviously you have neither read or even studied the Vimana, nor do you possess even a rudimentary knowledge about psychology. If you did you might know that people will always attribute the things they can not comprehend to known things already present in their memory. That means they will see an advanced flying machine and of course later on depict it in a form they know but with the witnessed properties. In this case a chariot that could fly. You're not trying to tell us that flying chariots were a common sighting in India, do you ?

The list goes on but, suffice it to say ..

Your attempt at debunking has failed.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


There's no harm in leaving things on the table. There's plenty of room. Because the notion is so "extraordinary" doesn't mean we should toss it out. I just got that air while reading your post. Your mind seems pretty set that the whole idea is not worth a second thought. I'm just saying a second thought wouldn't hurt, that's all.

Time will only tell, and while I agree much of the "evidence" they bring up is bs or easily explainable, I won't say the entire basket is garbage because of a few bad apples.




reply to post by Kandinsky
 


There's no harm in scrutiny, sure. We should approach just about everything with skepticism. It's just that some ideas that seemed insane at one point were proven true at another point.
edit on 4/6/11 by AdamsMurmur because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by TheArchaeologist
 
Rather than asking Titan for answers...why not look for the answers yourself? Google 'Dendera lightbulb' and you'll find some substantiated explanations that fall short of 'aliens.' If you use Google Scholar and enter Dendera reliefs' or 'Dendera temple' you'll find a variety of scholarly papers and a few informative website links.

Catchpenny are always good to see explanations with academic references and occasional translations of the hieroglyphics surrounding the imagery.

Dendera Reliefs



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by TheArchaeologist
 
Rather than asking Titan for answers...why not look for the answers yourself? Google 'Dendera lightbulb' and you'll find some substantiated explanations that fall short of 'aliens.' If you use Google Scholar and enter Dendera reliefs' or 'Dendera temple' you'll find a variety of scholarly papers and a few informative website links.

Catchpenny are always good to see explanations with academic references and occasional translations of the hieroglyphics surrounding the imagery.

Dendera Reliefs


I am asking him questions because I am interested in his observations. Nothing more.
I don't have to google Archaeology to learn about it. Thank you though.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by TheArchaeologist
 


If you're referring to the Nazca plateaus they show in the video I'm not sure what to make of them. The video quite clearly wants to portray them as artificial yet to me they look like they might well be natural. I'm not a geologist so I can't say for sure one way or the other. If it was done artificially it would have taken a long time but I would still suspect the natives did it on their own. After all why would aliens bother to clear off a mountain top and then just leave it covered in dirt for the Nazca to draw on?

I'm not all that familiar with Carnac although I've seen images of it and heard of a few conflicting theories about why it was constructed. It certainly seems a mystery worth investigating and it'd be a shame to just claim it was aliens and call it a day. As for the band of holes in Pisco valley again it's another mystery left unanswered and to me that's far more exciting than filling in that question mark with visitors from space.





top topics
 
132
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join