Ancient Aliens Debunked?, page 2

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 132 times

reply posted on 4-6-2011 @ 05:36 AM by Kandinsky

reply to post by H1ght3chHippie

You shot yourself in the ass by using 'paradigm' so soon in your rebuttal. Those who use it tend to be locked in a box of their creation.

You deny the Nazca lines were used for alien craft, yet you fail to provide a logic alternative.

Go and look for yourself? There are several alternatives provided by people who have spent decades studying the Nazca lines and culture. If you struggle, I'll hit you up with a couple of links.

How can you 'read or study the vimana?' It isn't a text, it's a holy temple described in Sanskrit literature. The vimana you may be thinking of (a spaceship or powered aircraft) was imagined by a man called Shastra in the early 20th Century...he channelled it. Google his name + Vimana and look at the images.

reply posted on 4-6-2011 @ 05:44 AM by Titen-Sxull

reply to post by H1ght3chHippie

If you think this is my first rodeo you are humorously mistaken. I used to believe in this kind of stuff when I was in my teens. I've been watching these sorts of documentaries since my childhood and only in the last few years begun to take a more skeptical approach.

You deny the Nazca lines were used for alien craft, yet you fail to provide a logic alternative.

I don't need to present an alternative, the proponents of the alien runway idea must first show any reason why the idea has merit. Burden of proof is one the one making the positive claim and the more extraordinary the claim the better the evidence must be. The superficial appearance of some of the Nazca lines as "like an airport" is not evidence, its baseless speculation.

yet you fail to provide specific examples, other than "There were sea gods as well !".

You honestly want me to go into the dozens of deities not associated with the heavens? It's common knowledge that many gods had domains, such as underworld gods like Hades/Pluto.

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.

But there's no evidence that that's what's happening here. Instead we have what appears to be some epic poems, mythology of India, being reinterpreted to meld with modern UFO sightings.

depicts a battle of technologically sophisticated machinery

I've not read the text myself and the episode didn't provide any of it. This is a debunking of this episode and the arguments made therein. It wouldn't matter if it did describe war-machines flying through the air, without physical evidence of them the account is just part of a story not tied to reality in any way and only arbitrarily tied to modern UFOs via assumptions that if it's warring in the sky it must be aliens.

Your attempt at debunking has failed.

If by failure you mean success, than yes

reply posted on 4-6-2011 @ 05:50 AM by TheArchaeologist

Helicopter? Spaceship? Intriguing either way.

As far as the Pre Incan "flying machine", the odd thing about them is that their wings are in a spot that you cannot find in nature, not even in flying fish. It intrigues me for sure.

Not saying it's alien, but it certainly would change the world as we know it.

reply posted on 4-6-2011 @ 05:53 AM by Kandinsky

reply to post by TheArchaeologist

Check out Abydos Palimpsest in ATS search or google.

The Catchpenny site is pretty good, but there's also a straightforward paper out there that briefly covers it.

reply posted on 4-6-2011 @ 05:54 AM by MrAndy

Hi Titen-Sxull, thanks for taking your time to write all of that! I'm all for people questioning their beliefs. I love watching "Ancient Aliens", I love wondering "what if". As I watch the program, at least half of the time I am saying to myself, "gee, you guys are really stretching it..." and wondering if they really believe it all so strongly that they think it is fact. I agree with a lot of what you've said, but the rest of which I think is still open to debate, and there's also a lot you didn't get to. People seem to get divided into two sides in ancient astronaut theory - those who are insulted with the notion that mankind needed alien intervention to advance technologically and those who feel that because mankind advanced too quickly technologically, alien intervention was required. One side basically says mankind is smarter than you give credit for and the other insinuates that mankind was made smarter by aliens. Though I suppose one compromising way to look at it is that ancient astronaut theory says that mankind wasn't so delusional to have simply made up all of these stories about gods and angels and accept them as fact!

One thing though. If you were ancient man, how would you describe any spaceship, if mankind were not yet capable of flight? A flying creature with people inside? A flying carriage or chariot? A flying shield? A flying house? I think that those sound like likely descriptions, and if my story were to get into the hands of an artist, I would not be surprised for the artist to paint literally what I described and not understand what I saw.

reply posted on 4-6-2011 @ 06:05 AM by TheArchaeologist

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by TheArchaeologist

Check out Abydos Palimpsest in ATS search or google.

The Catchpenny site is pretty good, but there's also a straightforward paper out there that briefly covers it.

I've seen the catchpenny comments on palimpsests as an explanation for these glyphs. I personally don't see his basis for calling it a palimpsest, and/or attributing it to natural occurances.

I'm not trying to debunk,or gather info ( I have seen most of it through my journeys and studies and colleagues just picking the OP's brain on some of this, as it seems they have put some thought into it.

reply posted on 4-6-2011 @ 06:06 AM by Titen-Sxull

reply to post by MrAndy

Thanks for the response MrAndy. I too like asking "what if" and while the idea of alien intervention is possible there is a lack of evidence for it.

and those who feel that because mankind advanced too quickly technologically, alien intervention was required.

I think those that think this way need to look at in perspective. For instance in the last 200 years of history human beings have excelled remarkably fast, yet no one claims the Industrial Revolution was sparked by alien influence. Many of the civilizations we're dealing with took thousands of years to develop and all developed centuries or more apart. I remember mentioning the temple of the sun being built in 100 AD more than 2,000 years after the pyramid at Giza. So not all civilizations had a meteoric rise to prominence.

I would not be surprised for the artist to paint literally what I described and not understand what I saw.

Actually I think its just as likely ancients would have been fairly accurate to what they saw. There are numerous cave paintings, some dating back over 30,000 years that show remarkable accuracy even for people back then. There's no guarantee they would have had trouble depicting what they saw.

Edit to Add: Just an FYI for everyone in the thread it's late (or early depending on how you look at it) where I am so I'm going to bed. I'll check back in when I wake up. Play nice

edit on 4-6-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-6-2011 @ 06:09 AM by Allred5923

reply to post by linkshot1000

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 ?.

Where did the advanced people come from before self annihilation then? And, "What airplanes are you referring too? The one's the OP's says "Weren't" airplanes? So far OP is one sided on this continuously argued topic.

Sound familiar ??

Yes, yes it does. No real argument here at all, and the posted title is misleading. All speculation, but at least the AAH theory has some rather tangible food for thought and speculation. Most people of these anecdotal implications can't find anything new to fuel their "Personal Belief systems" with other than to keep refuting with same old explanations.
The OP had displayed the "Vimana" art work with use of the animals in the depiction as reason enough for debunk-able proof, guess what I am wondering about when it comes to such evidence is "Why do they show a jet like propulsion of the circular pyramid shapes on the rear of the chariot and why would how would they know about thrust as it is depicted coming out of each of them?" The Mahabharata is a very detailed recorded piece of Indonesian history. And has much, much more recorded evidential placed implications.
The OP is desperately trying to convince others of his so called "AAH Debunked" that he has had the "Ah Ha" moment, which he has not.

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

If the OP has "Really" got you thinking about this just as of right now "Where have you been?" under a rock? No disrespect intended.. This topic is a venue of nothing short for both sides of the argument of the AAH and skeptics. The OP has nothing new here to offer and has mentioned anything as of yet that requires an inkling of merit-able evidential proof of this AAH topic being debunked.
He/she is only repeating what others have already brought to the table as "Debunk-able" proof.

Too the OP:
"Wheres the proof?" You have nothing that brings this issue to fruition of being anything but an "Unexplained topic" at best.
There are so many other evidential thing's out there that lead to the AAH ideology being very feasible and tangible that it actually rocks the boat of every religion, government and secular group out there. They (TPTBS) don't want to back step and change any of the history books, in is not in their interest. But as a societal implication that we were actually descendants from an AAH back round, with what has been found thus far, it becomes more probable and applicable than any other theoretical ideology that is out there thus far, as far as our origins are concerned.

reply posted on 4-6-2011 @ 06:34 AM by Version100

Robert Oppenheimer was a student of Sanskrit and the Vedas, he
believed that an advanced culture existed in the distant past.

When asked if the Trinity detonation was the first atomic explosion
he answered: "In modern times".

If a man of Oppenheimer's genius believed it...

Just sayin'

reply posted on 4-6-2011 @ 06:43 AM by superwurzel666

There are indeed some mysteries in our world that are rather baffling. However, one of the main objections I have to Ancient Aliens is that I think we run the risk of doing an awful injustice to our own creative humanity by belittling the achievements of our distant ancestors, and the blood, sweat and toil that were invested into them, by giving all the credit to ET visitors whose existence is at best a long-shot possibility.

Until we have real proof that aliens did it, I would rather give the credit to our ancestors, and the human spirit of creative endeavour.

reply posted on 4-6-2011 @ 06:56 AM by mnmcandiez

Good post OP. Ancient aliens is one of the most ridiculous things people believe. Almost as bad as religion. All of the "proof" is EASILY explained by other means.

reply posted on 4-6-2011 @ 07:06 AM by Aim64C

reply to post by mnmcandiez

Good post OP. Ancient aliens is one of the most ridiculous things people believe. Almost as bad as religion. All of the "proof" is EASILY explained by other means.

You know... It is posts like this that really irritate me.

"M&Ms are like PS3s, they suck!" - Two completely unrelated concepts being linked together by your personal opinion of the two that others are bound to disagree with.

That's really the difference between subject-creep and downright trolling. Conversations will naturally diverge from the initial topic as the scope of discussion broadens. Trawling (trolling, as it has become known) is stuff like this - "this is like that; both are stupid!"

Great. No one really cared about your views on religion or how they might compare to this topic. Learn to properly use analogies, if that was your goal.

For the record, however, there is a difference between a belief in a topic - and consideration thereof. To believe something implies acceptance of truth/fact. To consider something implies one is analyzing the claims and making a retroactive conclusion.

reply posted on 4-6-2011 @ 07:53 AM by Charizard

I think "debunked" is a rather strong word. Honestly, this just isn't something that you can "debunk" (in the sense of disprove), because really, even the scientist and archaeologists who study this stuff are often just guessing, for the most part. Sure, they can make educated guesses based on logic and interpretation, but in the end, that's really all it is. Just a guess. They weren't there and neither were the AA proponents.

I don't believe all of the AA theories. Some just flat out don't make any sense to me, such as the aliens seeming to have less than stellar technology (airplanes? batteries? stone buildings?). I tend to lean more towards ancient civilizations either A: Being far more advanced than we give them credit for or B: there having been one highly-advanced ancient civilization that died off/was destroyed or collapsed and left behind amazing relics like the Pyramids that were utilized by later cultures.

Though to be fair, the idea of the ancient Egyptians using thousands of people to drag millions of 2-5 ton blocks into place (Given the supposed timescale that the great pyramid was built in, that would have to be one SERIOUS assembly line) to build the great pyramid sounds almost as crazy as the idea that ancient visitors to our planet might have played a role in the creation of various god myths throughout ancient cultures.

reply posted on 4-6-2011 @ 10:59 AM by WingedBull

Originally posted by TheArchaeologist
I've seen the catchpenny comments on palimpsests as an explanation for these glyphs. I personally don't see his basis for calling it a palimpsest, and/or attributing it to natural occurances.

You don't see the basis, meaning you don't see how the glyphs were changed?

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say they are not a palimpsest. What do the hieroglyphs say, then?

reply posted on 4-6-2011 @ 11:03 AM by WingedBull

Originally posted by Version100
If a man of Oppenheimer's genius believed it...

Just sayin'

You are making an appeal-to-authority

reply posted on 4-6-2011 @ 11:31 AM by WingedBull

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

The ancient astronaut theory is built on a severe lack of imagination among its originators. This lack of imagination is best seen in the claims that the aliens' technology would look just like the heights of human technology in the era the writer is living in. Perhaps even worse, later promoters of the theory show their own lack of imagination in their inability to look beyond the originators' claims; despite living in a later era wherein our own scientific knowledge has improved, they continue to insist the aliens used what is to us now outdated technology.

The Dendera "light-bulb" is a perfect example of this. Daniken and company, including later apologists, insist this represents a light-bulb, the snake in the center being the filament. One-hundred years since the invention of the lightbulb, we are now moving away from incandescents (as they claim the light-bulbs to be), to compact fluorescents and LED bulb. Yet Daniken's apologists would expect us to believe the aliens, able to travel across the stars, would still be using the relatively primitive incandescent bulbs.

reply posted on 4-6-2011 @ 12:05 PM by mac420

I am not going to say much on this thread, being as reading through the posts, this is a largely anti-Ancient Alien post.

I will however add that what you have gone over and debunked is your interpretation of these findings, MUCH like it is the interpretation of the Ancient Alien Theorists who first presented them.

I do side with the Ancient Alien theorists, even if they are not right with 100% of the things, if they are right with even 1% that is incontrovertible proof of Alien Life, thus giving more credence to the theory.

With the legends and mythologies of religions, gods and other deities from Stars that we have only recently discovered, in my opinion that is very strong evidence siding with the Ancient Alien theory.

Alas, I know where my people are and they are not in this room. And I don't feel like debating a bunch of different people.

Thanks for your post, it was a good read!

Mac

reply posted on 4-6-2011 @ 12:07 PM by WingedBull

Originally posted by mac420
I do side with the Ancient Alien theorists, even if they are not right with 100% of the things, if they are right with even 1% that is incontrovertible proof of Alien Life, thus giving more credence to the theory.

Show us this one-percent.

Originally posted by mac420
With the legends and mythologies of religions, gods and other deities from Stars that we have only recently discovered, in my opinion that is very strong evidence siding with the Ancient Alien theory.

What stars are these?

Originally posted by mac420
Alas, I know where my people are and they are not in this room.

In other words, you don't want to think.

reply posted on 4-6-2011 @ 12:12 PM by blend57

Wow, I didn't know the show had to be about proof or disproof. I watch it with interest, not because I believe in or don't believe in ancient aliens. But because it throws out interesting ideas. The show is almost like a breakout session at work. "here is the problem, throw out all solutions possible (no matter how implausible you think they are) and come up with a solution. I like to watch people explore possibilities, no matter how strange or impossible they are, because it tends to lead to a plausible explanation/solution.

I don't believe we have come to an understanding as of yet, to what these items were/did (at least one that both sides can agree upon). Until that point, I would assume that speculation and conjecture on both sides of the fence is all we have to work with right now.

I do agree the show is very one sided. But hey, its for for entertainment purposes and that is what entertains people right now.

As with everything, you get out of it what you want to. I find it entertaining with all the what ifs and maybes it throws at you. But I do not take anything stated on there as the holy gospel.

reply posted on 4-6-2011 @ 12:38 PM by mac420

reply to post by WingedBull

First of all I will not be reeled in to a losing battle (not about facts, just sheer number of posts) This is what I will say and I will be done.

The 1% is an unknown factor, one can neither prove nor disprove any theory that we can not test and re test. Religion (can not be disproved, except, for example, by the Ancient Alien Theory)
The Ancient Alien Theory can not be proven without tangible, physical proof of Extraterrestrial Biological Entities.

Nor Can you disprove anything based on your interpretation of data. If we stopped getting so defensive about BELIEFS we would be a better civilization.

Oh you don't believe what I do? Tell me what you believe and we can find a common ground and better ourselves for it.

instead we see:

You don't believe what I believe? HERETIC! BLASPHEMER! EVIL! WRONG!

The burden of proof is on all of us to come to a definitive conclusion, not stomp on any theory that battles against what we think we know is true. That is how progress is halted and we are enslaved.

The star is Sirius B, which is so far from Earth it is invisible to the naked eye. Yet these cultures had detailed knowledge of it.

And its not that I don't want to think, I can see a losing battle, if you were a General, would you take your 5 men into a battle against 5000 enemy soldiers? (not that your my enemy, but its an analogy)

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^