Ancient Aliens Debunked?

I think the show probably makes good entertainment. To me, it just got repetitive and kind of wandered off-topic. It was a mistake to make it a weekly series--there's not enough evidence. I suspect strongly that we may have been visited in the past by extraterrestrials, but I don't think this whole "aliens were teaching shop classes to cro-magnon" thing is really what was going on. There are a few large and strange monuments that I fully believe don't have a totally explained background, but aliens didn't treat us as their children and spell everything out for thousands of years. If that were the case, I don't think they'd have let us drive the whole planet into #.

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by ObvTruth

The Ancients must of saw something. If the Ancients are drawing animals that they see why would they be hallucinating about seeing something like a UFO?

So where are the drawings of the ET spaceships......after all they must have got a pretty close up look at them?

I noticed that no one was able to come up with any definitive ancient depictions of UFOs for Logical One, so I thought I'd add a couple. (Sorry, but that Tanzanian cave UFO looks more like a uterus.)
These, of course, aren't ancient but they're at least pre-Photoshop.


Carlo Crivelli, 1486


School of Filippo Lippi, 15th Century


Aert De Gelder, 1710


Just Kidding, 2011

AA theory is one of my favorite topics. It gets a bit tedious to scroll through pages of people arguing over what's been debunked or proved. Granted, there's a lot of sloppy thinking out there. But isn't it more fun to talk about why something is or is not true, rather than continually trying to demand that someone believe or disbelieve?

Note to rookies: read more than one book.
Most of the rockstars like Daniken, Sitchin, Temple (Dogon theory), etc have been debunked by all sorts of people. But it's not all black and white. For instance, Graham Hancock's and Robert Temple's crank theories are of a higher quality than Daniken's. And Sitchin's earlier books seem scholarly.

Right now next to me is copy of Hamlet's Mill with a paperback God Drives A Flying Saucer
on top of it.

I get all pouty when it seems the only choice I get is to be crazy or boring.
Believer or debunker? Neither. I enjoy straddling duality.

Can't we bask in the glow of aliens without blindly believing in them?
Can't we be intelligent without stomping the fun out of everything?

I started reading this whole thread, but 29 pages of comments is just way to much for my noggen to handle lol

From what I did read, there seem to be a lot of really good points that people have made and people have obviously given it a lot of thought. I guess the thing with Ancient Alien theory is that there is plenty of arguments on either side of the debate that utimately the evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Some look at the Nazca lines as landing strips and reference glyphs to visiting extraterrestrials, whilst others see indigenous peoples artwork or spiritual walks.

I guess having not been around in those ancient times, we will never 100% have all the answers, and any theory of interpretation of these works and art is just that - a theory. 100 years down the track from now further archeological progression may yeild amazing new theories that contradict any theories currently held In the feild.

The show Ancient Aliens is put forward as one possible theory to explain anomalies and mysteries in History. That being said, as a believer in the possibility of Ancient civilisations being guided and visited by Extraterrestrial civilisations, I feel that the show - in particular the 2nd season- is clutching at straws to push its theory. Some of the opinions put forward are borderline ludicrous and seems to appeal to the overly gullible. When they say "proponents of ancient astronaught theory believe..." I get really irked, because it suggests that ALL believers in Ancient Alien theory believe what the writers of this show believe. I don't subscribe to half the theories proposed on this show, and i'm a believer in Ancient Alien Theory. I think in a lot of ways, the show does more harm than good in proposing the Ancient Alien hypothesis, with some of the ridiculous claims it makes- it would be more inclined to turn people away from the theory than it is to draw people in to give it serious consideration.

Oh and OP (and all anti-Ancient Astronaut theory) explain why these pictures exist please:

www.crystalinks.com...

All the works drawing such things is on the link above. How did people frm centuries ago know about these? photoshop again? LoL! So in London, also in Italian museums and catherdrals they are putting photoshopped what... pieces of art? Oh now you're saying they aren't fake ok good, so then how would you explain it huh?

reply to post by Imtor


Here you go, sport.

Art and UFOs

I see in the link a Skeptic magazine? Is this community here of even rational researches or just skeptics, ignorant who are on the other pole and is a waste of time to convince anything? Because the many threads so far I see are either trolls or this place has few researchers - notice I say researchers, not believers this is NOT a religion and if there are believers at least they aren't harming the research. Anyway let's debunk the debunkers:

I call the explanation on the above link complete BS: So according to the link, these are just expressions of something else!? The Nurnberg picture too? Does this silly skeptical site deal with the fact that those pictures a re a pictorial description of what people saw and not some ART! In a Church someone would put a UFO? What would that mean for the Church ? Oh wait that's right this site talks about Art and doesn't even take the fact these are historical pictures and not some Art for the sake of art...

Then again what do you expect from:

- religiously obssessed people who are ready to think of ridiculous stories to defend the truth of their beliefs
- debunkers who are nothing more than a cancer to research. They do not contribute to anything, they have not reached or discovered anything from saying how a questioned thing is otherwise, all they do is say something is wrong without reaching the actual truth.

reply to post by Imtor


The point is that these images are centuries old. We have no idea what is being portrayed in these images so it is silly to think they are displaying "alien" spacecraft when it is far more likely that they are showing religious imagery of various kinds.

By labeling skeptics as "trolls" you are only proving that you realize your own evidence is weak and you need to shift the argument onto fictional "trolls" to justify your misguided beliefs.

Originally posted by Imtor
Oh and OP (and all anti-Ancient Astronaut theory) explain why these pictures exist please. ... Oh now you're saying they aren't fake ok good, so then how would you explain it huh?

These are artistic representations of things like the power of God rippling down through the clouds (like they would in water), or of flying boats out of somebody's imagination. They're not photos of real things that happened, any more than St. George really fighting a huge reptile that breathes fire.

Repeat until you get it: "Artistic Imagination." "Not Photo Realism." "Symbolic Representation."

Originally posted by Turiddu
reply to post by Imtor

 

The point is that these images are centuries old. We have no idea what is being portrayed in these images so it is silly to think they are displaying "alien" spacecraft when it is far more likely that they are showing religious imagery of various kinds.

By labeling skeptics as "trolls" you are only proving that you realize your own evidence is weak and you need to shift the argument onto fictional "trolls" to justify your misguided beliefs.

edit on 20-6-2011 by Turiddu because: (no reason given)

No one is saying 'Aliens' it is clearly UFOs, the same kind of disc shaped object seen today and hey - the US Military didn't exist centuries ago. How can you call objects looking the same as today's descriptions expressions of art? Reports of cylindrical objects, discs, the Nurnberg texts talk about these cylinders releasing small orbs from them, again if you have made any research on UFOs as it seems you haven't you would know that matches today's descriptions.

Excuse me? My weak evidence is not my theory at all, Im merely on the side of AAT who I believe have a lot more depth research than all posted here by shallow 'skeptics'.

Originally posted by Blue Shift
These are artistic representations of things like the power of God rippling down through the clouds (like they would in water), or of flying boats out of somebody's imagination. They're not photos of real things that happened, any more than St. George really fighting a huge reptile that breathes fire.

Repeat until you get it: "Artistic Imagination." "Not Photo Realism." "Symbolic Representation."

Artistic representations? Maybe you need to repeat word by word. Did you not read? Nurnberg picture is what people SAW that time, it was depiction of an event that happened. Christopher Columbus also there is a picture of an object on his way to America, again is it art? And I didn't go in details some of these cases like the King on a horse pointing to an object also is art?

Some of the pictures represent real events and you are telling me, they draw a disk, cylinders with properties of today's reports just as symbolism? You fail, sorry.

reply to post by Imtor


Let's go ahead and say these pictures are representing real events, or at least inspired by them. That still doesn't prove AAH. We have thousands of people taking images of so-called UFOs today, and in large portion of the cases what is seen has a very mundane explanation. Who's to say whether these depictions are of a craft or something like a bolide or sun dog? Then let's go ahead and say that not only are these pictures inspired by real events, but they also depict actual crafts of some form. That too doesn't prove AAH. All it proves is that these same objects that are seen today were also seen throughout all of history. It doesn't prove that these craft landed, the occupants genetically modified apes to create modern humans, and then we worshiped them as gods. Especially considering that all of these pictures are from after 1000 AD. How can we expect these artists to be accurately depicting events that took place over a thousand years before they were born?

reply to post by Imtor

Nurnberg picture is what people SAW that time, it was depiction of an event that happened

The Nuremberg woodcut was made five years after the event. It is not at all certain that the artist, Hans Glaser, was even a witness.

…the dreadful apparition filled the morning sky with cylindrical shapes from which emerged black, red, orange and blue-white spheres that darted about. Between the spheres, there were crosses with the color of blood. This frightful spectacle was witnessed by “numerous men and women.” Afterwards, a black, spear-like object appeared.

Sounds kind of like a fireworks display.

reply to post by Phage


I love fireworks that make a cross and look blood red but my favorite are the happy faces.


Have a nice day!

Originally posted by Imtor
Oh and OP (and all anti-Ancient Astronaut theory) explain why these pictures exist please:

www.crystalinks.com...

All the works drawing such things is on the link above. How did people frm centuries ago know about these? photoshop again? LoL! So in London, also in Italian museums and catherdrals they are putting photoshopped what... pieces of art? Oh now you're saying they aren't fake ok good, so then how would you explain it huh?

Its so obvious that these pics display advanced technology....these folks are pretty just in denial at this point...I'd love to hear their explanation of how they think mankind came into existence, or explain the ' supernatural' activities in the bible if its not describing ET.'s or advanced technology....

oh, that's right

They said that everyone, across the world, across the seas and across the times were under some 'Project Bue Beam stuff'/ mass hallucination

or

they ALL of their wildest imaginations were on the same accord

and

Humans evolved from primates (alone), even though archaelogical fact states that mankind's existence doesn't fit into the evolution theory....we had a quantum leap in evolution

Originally posted by Imtor

Originally posted by Turiddu
reply to post by Imtor

 

The point is that these images are centuries old. We have no idea what is being portrayed in these images so it is silly to think they are displaying "alien" spacecraft when it is far more likely that they are showing religious imagery of various kinds.

By labeling skeptics as "trolls" you are only proving that you realize your own evidence is weak and you need to shift the argument onto fictional "trolls" to justify your misguided beliefs.

edit on 20-6-2011 by Turiddu because: (no reason given)

No one is saying 'Aliens' it is clearly UFOs, the same kind of disc shaped object seen today and hey - the US Military didn't exist centuries ago. How can you call objects looking the same as today's descriptions expressions of art? Reports of cylindrical objects, discs, the Nurnberg texts talk about these cylinders releasing small orbs from them, again if you have made any research on UFOs as it seems you haven't you would know that matches today's descriptions.

Excuse me? My weak evidence is not my theory at all, Im merely on the side of AAT who I believe have a lot more depth research than all posted here by shallow 'skeptics'.

Originally posted by Blue Shift
These are artistic representations of things like the power of God rippling down through the clouds (like they would in water), or of flying boats out of somebody's imagination. They're not photos of real things that happened, any more than St. George really fighting a huge reptile that breathes fire.

Repeat until you get it: "Artistic Imagination." "Not Photo Realism." "Symbolic Representation."

Artistic representations? Maybe you need to repeat word by word. Did you not read? Nurnberg picture is what people SAW that time, it was depiction of an event that happened. Christopher Columbus also there is a picture of an object on his way to America, again is it art? And I didn't go in details some of these cases like the King on a horse pointing to an object also is art?

Some of the pictures represent real events and you are telling me, they draw a disk, cylinders with properties of today's reports just as symbolism? You fail, sorry.

edit on 20-6-2011 by Imtor because: (no reason given)

Right on!

The disks drawn in the air from that time period are not just disks to add in the picture out of boredom....

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
It doesn't prove that these craft landed, the occupants genetically modified apes to create modern humans, and then we worshiped them as gods. Especially considering that all of these pictures are from after 1000 AD. How can we expect these artists to be accurately depicting events that took place over a thousand years before they were born?

These specifically depict something in the sky, for meeting occupants with different features, such event is described in Chinese culture and also talks about an entity coming frm a spherical or round machine or something, and is not the only one. You would call legend - maybe but how do ancient people describe the same things? There are many cases where unknown things are depicted as known objects like boats, chariots. Also the first picture here is showing a man looking at this clearly the same type of dark oval shaped craft covered in flames or plasma or whatever it uses. Actually this theory is what shows that these things aren't coming all frm today's military.

Originally posted by Phage
Sounds kind of like a fireworks display.

When I read it again, it doesn't sound like fireworks at all. Cylinders, crosses, falling objects, too far frm fireworks. Also this is morning or either way is seen during the day. If it were the only case it could be easily dismissed but no on the background of all such depictions and comparing with today's UFOs.

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

Try this.
www.sitchiniswrong.com...

That doesn't prove anything other than some people would LOVE for Sitchin to be wrong.

I ask again, list me ONE thing that he has been proven to be wrong about?

He hasn't been proven right by anyone using any source other than his own writings - not once. Would be curious if you have credible sources otherwise.

Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by Phage

 

OMG.....

Anyways


To you dear Phage, the OP and anyone else who wished for the AAT to be wrong,

if ET's did not travel to our planet in our very distant past (AND CREATE US), how then do you suppose that humans were created?

Oh I stress the emphasis on the word CREATED because that is what the very bible ( or any other biblical text) states when describing human origin.

Anxiously awaiting........

ROFL, and every other species on this planet I assume? Did they bring along EVERYTHING on Earth, or is humankind somehow different? LOL

Sheesh, I'm sad I joined this thread so late as I can't believe such blatent blinkered attitudes.