It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ancient Aliens Debunked?

page: 18
132
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ObvTruth
 

The pyramids are not made of millions of stones that weigh hundreds of tons.

The Great Pyramid consists of an estimated 2.3 million limestone blocks with most believed to have been transported from nearby quarries. The Tura limestone used for the casing was quarried across the river. The largest granite stones in the pyramid, found in the "King's" chamber, weigh 25 to 80 tonnes and were transported from Aswan, more than 500 miles away.

en.wikipedia.org...

But it seems that the number of stones may be in error.

The exact number of stones was orginally estimated at 2,300,000 stone blocks weighing from 2-30 tons each with some weighing as much as 70 tons. Computer calculations indicate 590,712 stone blocks were used in its construction. It area covers 13.6 acres with each side greater than 5 acres in area.

www.crystalinks.com...




posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ObvTruth
 

The pyramids are not made of millions of stones that weigh hundreds of tons.

The Great Pyramid consists of an estimated 2.3 million limestone blocks with most believed to have been transported from nearby quarries. The Tura limestone used for the casing was quarried across the river. The largest granite stones in the pyramid, found in the "King's" chamber, weigh 25 to 80 tonnes and were transported from Aswan, more than 500 miles away.

en.wikipedia.org...

But it seems that the number of stones may be in error.

The exact number of stones was orginally estimated at 2,300,000 stone blocks weighing from 2-30 tons each with some weighing as much as 70 tons. Computer calculations indicate 590,712 stone blocks were used in its construction. It area covers 13.6 acres with each side greater than 5 acres in area.

www.crystalinks.com...


Its not 100% fact though. Unless you can go back in time and count the stones we dont know



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Why is the point to prove that they are beyond what we know today?

The point is they were beyond what they should've known then, IN CONTEXT - out of context sure, they could've had our technology and then some.

Like I said 5 pages ago - if "giants" were stranded here, they did not have the resources available to them to recreate their own technology - they could only teach some new techniques.

What I exactly said was if I was stranded somewhere, I could not possibly recreate a halogen lightbulb - but I might be able to create a battery using a coconut if I can recall my 8th grade science lessons - though odds are pretty good I wouldn't remember them cause I fail
do not invite me on any survival type missions, for real.

If you continue to argue against the AAT, your only absolute argument is "prove it". Providing example after example of theory based on popular interpretation of evidence just plays into the hands of those who feel like the "Question itself" is proof that AAT existed. For items that have been proven, it still does not explain away the unusual ingenuity.

Humans are fallible. So are aliens. And I use the term aliens as anything not from egypt in this case (so yes, I agree there could've been advanced HUMAN civilisations that brought this information to them when the Minnow was stranded there, and we have yet to find it because its buried under thousands upon thousands of tons of water).

Meanwhile this is a never ending debate. It has become a whole new religion in itself. If we found a book underneath the Great Pyramid tomorrow explaining everything with absolutely no mention of aliens whatsoever, the AAT people will say its a hoax, or misinterpreted, or even put there by aliens to put us off their trail.

I personally believe they had help. Who helped them? debate away I guess... odds are you're doing it for the same reason I bothered to comment - pure boredom.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by demetriandlucy
Haha, ancient astronaut theory is "DUH" to me. It seems pretty damn obvious that we were visited and helped. Just wait until they get here and remind you.


I hope you are wrong...I dont want to be reminded



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by GhostLancer
 


Since you're claiming mainstream science is lying I would like to point out the irony in using Cremo as a source. If you look through the works he cites you'll find that many of them don't corroborate what he says or outright contradict his conclusions.
edit on 5-6-2011 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)

See, this is EXACTLY the sort of tactic people fall into. They make attacks on character, effectively conducting a *character assassination* by making grand claims about people who delve outside of the established BARRIERS of curiosity. Here we have Xcalibur254 stating that Cremo's findings don't corroborate or is contradictory. ---WITHOUT providing any specific examples and evidence. Not a single shred of evidence to support his attack on Cremo. Yet, someone casually reading it might think, "Oh, Cremo's a hack. I won't even read his books." You can tell when "skeptics" and "debunkers" (not the healthy kind, for people do need to be somewhat skeptical and demand evidence) are on the defensive, on the run, when they start ATTACKING THE PERSON, NOT THE IDEA.
edit on 5-6-2011 by GhostLancer because: Typo



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


You cannot debunk ancient civilizations doing things comparable to now and things that make our society look like a tiny civilization living in a locker.

If anything anger's me more about our current time it is the amount of egotistical ignorance that cover's our mass potential. We will not be remembered in the history books.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MindfulReason
 




yet we find it impossible to recreate these ancient structures.


Who does? How many people have tried? What function exactly would recreating these ancient structures serve other than to prove its possible. Obviously its possible if it's been done. I'm pretty sure mainstream historians don't think its impossible and they would be the experts on these matters wouldn't they?



So I don't see how you can simply debunk all of this.


Because jumping from "I don't think humans could move these stones" to "alien technology did it" is a logically fallacious argument from ignorance. Now admittedly I'm no expert on how these monolithic sites were built (obviously) but I just don't see any good reason to speculate up aliens or super high-technology.



and by "advanced" I mean more advanced than ours.


But we'd hope to have some evidence otherwise this explanation isn't much better than the alien one, it's just a filler argument. The fact is that we don't have any evidence of the ancients having the advanced technology you speak of. If they were more advanced than us where did it go? Why can we find bone flutes tens of thousands of years old but no evidence of super high-tech stone movers?

reply to post by PositivelyDetermined
 




You cannot debunk ancient civilizations doing things comparable to now and things that make our society look like a tiny civilization living in a locker.


Our civilization looks like it's living in a locker? Have you seen a skyscraper? You think those aren't at all impressive? I think that both modern and ancient humans show incredible ingenuity.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhostLancer
See, this is EXACTLY the sort of tactic people fall into. They make attacks on character, effectively conducting a *character assassination* by making grand claims about people who delve outside of the established BARRIERS of curiosity.


Saying someone has conducted sloppy research, such as citing sources that don't support their claims, is not attacking someone's character, even if they don't show specific examples. It is the research being attacked and critiqued, not the person's character. In fact, you are doing the very thing you accuse skeptics and debunkers of; instead of telling us why the allegation that Cremo conducts sloppy research is wrong, you focus on attacking the person who made the claim, misrepresenting their claim, making broad-general statements about all skeptics, in order to change the subject.

So, tell us why the allegation that Cremo conducts sloppy research is wrong.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 

I tend to agree with you that simply jumping to theories that aliens built these structures and/or visited ancient people can be silly. However, the problem of how these monolithic structures were cut and moved/lifted without advanced technology still remains. We don't need to try and replicate these monolithic structures to know that they are nearly if not absolutely impossible to recreate (even with our technology), since we are well aware of our own capabilities in regards to architecture, design, and construction. We know highly advanced mathematics and have supercomputers that are able to show us that this is incredibly difficult to achieve. Nobody has actually attempted to travel at the speed of light, yet through mathematics we know that this is currently impossible to do. The argument: "Well since these structures have been built then obviously it is possible..." falls short because you still need to physically explain how it was done without the use of highly advanced technology. Aliens? Perhaps not. "Super high-technology"? Yes.
That point coupled with plenty of ancient references throughout the world, independent of each other, of visitors from space makes a good case for ancient aliens.

edit on 6-6-2011 by MindfulReason because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ObvTruth
 

The pyramids are not made of millions of stones that weigh hundreds of tons.

The Great Pyramid consists of an estimated 2.3 million limestone blocks with most believed to have been transported from nearby quarries. The Tura limestone used for the casing was quarried across the river. The largest granite stones in the pyramid, found in the "King's" chamber, weigh 25 to 80 tonnes and were transported from Aswan, more than 500 miles away.

en.wikipedia.org...

But it seems that the number of stones may be in error.

The exact number of stones was orginally estimated at 2,300,000 stone blocks weighing from 2-30 tons each with some weighing as much as 70 tons. Computer calculations indicate 590,712 stone blocks were used in its construction. It area covers 13.6 acres with each side greater than 5 acres in area.

www.crystalinks.com...


ERROR? by about 2million?!! close enough. that doesn't bother you?

isn't this the whole problem?

everyone is more or less working off the OS but too much evidence points to something else.

like the amount of stones used. that is not a small discrepancy!

might as well say, someone don't know the value of 2mil blocks.

2 million blocks(i'm counting the broken, non-usable ones too)



so has anyone figured out how to undercut a 900ton block from the ground? forget that, i just did but still can't figure out how to move it out of it's hole.

not going at you personally phage, just this is really hard to swallow. outside help sounds just as plausible as as these

guys knocking out multi-multi ton blocks of rock and using them like a child with lego's.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by ObvTruth
*Attempts to make this thread interesting again*

Well since the AAH is such utter BS how come Ancient man knew so much about the stars and builded structures that aligned with the stars?

Because their lives depended on knowing when to plant their crops?


That would explain the calendar for the year.. but the mayans had calendar cycles that take thousands of year to complete what expailns that. Why would they put so much effort in to making theses cycles, it's deff not so they knew when to plant their crop. I'm not sure but I think they also had cycles that took longer to start and finish than what is excepted by the mainstream as the amount of time that the Mayan civilization existed.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by GhostLancer
 


Here is a review of Forbidden Archaeology that points out many of the flaws contained within it. It also provides a multitude of legitimate sources that can be referenced. Alo, I was not attacking Cremo, I was attacking his research methods, which are inherently flawed.

Forbidden Archaeology: Antievolutionism Outside the Christian Arena



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by mb2591
 


How exactly would aliens help explain the Mayan calendar? If agriculture isn't the answer in the case of the long count calendar I fail to see why aliens would be. No one doubts that the Mayans were good at math for an ancient culture and that they had a precise calendar but in no way does that indicate alien influence or prophetic ability on their part.

Mesoamerican Long Count Calendar



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
How could they have such knowledge though? If we are just now regaining all this information that means the Ancients knew something, possibly from other beings.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by mb2591
 


How exactly would aliens help explain the Mayan calendar? If agriculture isn't the answer in the case of the long count calendar I fail to see why aliens would be. No one doubts that the Mayans were good at math for an ancient culture and that they had a precise calendar but in no way does that indicate alien influence or prophetic ability on their part.

Mesoamerican Long Count Calendar


You think they developed this calendar on their own using their math skillz?
www.onenesshealingandmeditation.com...



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mb2591
 


Well there's the fact that what you just posted is not from the Mayans, but the creation of Calleman. If you actually learned about the Mayan culture from true experts and not New Age writers. In fact the monument Calleman uses as the basis for his timeline extends much farther back than he claims. The calendar on Coba Stela I places the beginning of time at several trillion years ago, which is far off from even the most liberal estimates. I could go on more about how Calleman is wrong, but I and others have covered it in numerous other topics on here.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ObvTruth
 


What knowledge are we regaining? We didn't learn kidney transplants and how to cure polio from the ancients. Were they smarter than most people give them credit for? Absolutely. Were they going around with anti-gravity rays and airplanes? Nope.
edit on 6-6-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by mb2591
 


Well there's the fact that what you just posted is not from the Mayans, but the creation of Calleman. If you actually learned about the Mayan culture from true experts and not New Age writers. In fact the monument Calleman uses as the basis for his timeline extends much farther back than he claims. The calendar on Coba Stela I places the beginning of time at several trillion years ago, which is far off from even the most liberal estimates. I could go on more about how Calleman is wrong, but I and others have covered it in numerous other topics on here.


I'm interested. Could you go on or maybe provide your source?



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by GhostLancer
See, this is EXACTLY the sort of tactic people fall into. They make attacks on character, effectively conducting a *character assassination* by making grand claims about people who delve outside of the established BARRIERS of curiosity.


Saying someone has conducted sloppy research, such as citing sources that don't support their claims, is not attacking someone's character, even if they don't show specific examples. It is the research being attacked and critiqued, not the person's character. In fact, you are doing the very thing you accuse skeptics and debunkers of; instead of telling us why the allegation that Cremo conducts sloppy research is wrong, you focus on attacking the person who made the claim, misrepresenting their claim, making broad-general statements about all skeptics, in order to change the subject.

So, tell us why the allegation that Cremo conducts sloppy research is wrong.

Winged Bull, there is an old saying: "He who asserts must prove." Well, someone attacked Cremo's character/credibility by stating that he conducted sloppy research --without providing any examples of that sloppy research. That person asserted that Cremo is a sloppy researcher: that person must prove the allegation in order for it to be truly valid and not attacking someone's character. Yes CHARACTER. When you say someone conducts sloppy research, you are attacking that person's character in that he is "sloppy" which is a CHARACTERIZATION of that person. I was not attacking Cremo's attacker. I was merely pointing out that person's usage of character assassination without evidence. And, I provided proof of that by quoting that person's post, which is proof enough to any sensible-minded person who reads it.

edit on 6-6-2011 by GhostLancer because: typo



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by GhostLancer
 


Here is a review of Forbidden Archaeology that points out many of the flaws contained within it. It also provides a multitude of legitimate sources that can be referenced. Alo, I was not attacking Cremo, I was attacking his research methods, which are inherently flawed.

Forbidden Archaeology: Antievolutionism Outside the Christian Arena

Saying that someone has sloppy research methods is an attack on the person who conducted the research. Especially if you don't provide proof. Further, a review is not proof. It is one person's opinion that Cremo has conducted sloppy research. People have also attacked Richard Hoagland and Stanton Freidman (and others) in such ways. Just because a reviewer (who probably isn't schooled-up in the subject) denounces Cremo's efforts does not mean that Cremo does sloppy work. Again, people are discredited all the time by others who are not experts in the field of discussion. It is their way to discredit the person instead of exploring the evidence properly. They employ attacks on character, credibility; they exaggerate and create STRAW MAN arguments which oversimplify the situations and evidence, and then debunk their own self-generated version of it, making the entirety seem ridiculous and the researchers seem like snake-oil salesmen.

I would recommend getting a copy of his book and reading it for yourself instead of the slanted opinions of an arm-chair quarterback reviewer. It's like the movies: reviewers who have never written/directed/acted in any movies slam them mercilessly ---yet have never done any of their own work. It is easier to sit back and be an armchair quarterback than it is to do it for themselves. That is why I highly recommend ACTUALLY READING these books instead of BLINDLY FOLLOWING THE **BELIEFS** of reviewers and debunkers. You may actually develop a different mindset after taking in the exploring the evidence for yourselves.

I am not here to convert anyone. I am the kind of person who makes my own decisions. I actually read the books and look over the research. Many people take a short-cut and use a review. Ever see a movie you really loved? I'm sure it was slammed by at least one reviewer. You can find a bad review of anyONE and anyTHING.



new topics

top topics



 
132
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join