Ancient Aliens Debunked?

reply to post by Phage

Sounds kind of like a fireworks display.

Come on, now, Phage.

Whatever it was those people saw - it was most likely not a fireworks display. It was morning, for starters. While fireworks are visible in the morning/daylight hours - it's not going to be all that impressive. Crosses the color of blood also don't quite fit with that explanation (though I'm not quite sure what would fit). Nor does the black spear-like object.

That said - exactly what these people saw is difficult to say, really. Presuming it did actually happen - it was some kind of natural or technological phenomena (as there aren't many other types of phenomena to fall into). Working from the premise that it was a technological phenomena - we can only presume that such technology was not representative of the cultures known to exist at the time - and therefor would be of unknown origin. If it's a natural phenomena - we've not seen a recurrence or anything all that similar - so it would also be unknown in origin.

That doesn't necessarily mean aliens... but it kind of rules out known human civilizations.

As for the artistic representations - I have to ask a slightly deeper question: where did the symbols we use come from? If some disk flying around in the sky, radiating light, is a symbol for heaven's power/influence.... why? Why not light shining through clouds - a quite common but impressive visual display?

Now - again, this is not meant to be "dirka dur - I have proof" - this is meant to simply be a thought-provoking question. ... Why is it that a disk/cylinder radiating light is a religious symbol representing some kind of heavenly/divine influence?

I mean... at the end of the day... if a "UFO" is the symbol for heaven's influence... it kind of makes the argument over whether or not there was a UFO in some religious painting pretty moot, doesn't it? The point, then, would be that the association is made between religion, origins, and crazy flying objects in the sky. Which is pretty much the argument being made by the ancient alien/astronaut/whatever proponents.

I will just be repeating what a lot of people have already said here but in a nutshell:

Ancient Aliens is a T.V show so no matter what you have to take it with a grain of salt. A lot of what they say starts with "what if" and "maybe then", so even they are acknowledging that it is all unproven, although the guise of it being on the "History Channel" could throw some people off and will no doubt make some people perceive it as fact.

However, there are a lot of interesting points involved, many of which you deliberately ignore to justify your view of the show.

Originally posted by theshepherd92
I will just be repeating what a lot of people have already said here but in a nutshell:

Ancient Aliens is a T.V show so no matter what you have to take it with a grain of salt.

I think the book came first: Chariots of the Gods - published in 1968 - Erich von Däniken.

Its not just a TV show.

Originally posted by something wicked

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.

Quite possible. Its called 'Terraforming'.

While most plant and animal life more than likely evolved her eon Earth, we humans certainly did not. One of our ancestors did, and one didn't.

We are actually alien to this planet.

How about this, since some say - 'did they bring everything to Erath?' How about from simpler bacteria evolved plants and animals. Animals involved apes or their ancestors. So far natural right? Then you would say from apes we became intelligent humans for such period of time, How about impossible this to happen? Here is where ETs could fit in - they came they saw plants and animals, decided to either make us compltely their look as the Bible says, or they took apes and made hybrids of apes and their kind, there it is.

I remember there was a book called 'The Missing Link in Human Evolution'm what is the link? I think the idea and the picture that from a monkey we turn into more and more walking on 2 feet creature is nothing more than an ASSUMPTION just like the assumption that impact with a large object caused extinction of dinosaurs - what if it were ETs battle indeed? The Bible talks about such epic battle between good and evil so either 1) The Bible is completely never happening stories, 2) It retells ETs story in a way understandable to human.

According to Lacerta (and maybe other sources that I cant quote at the moment), we are the 7th civilization, Who were the Atlanteans? Several books on that topic talk about us being a new civilization out of what was before. What of the before/first civilizations was some FAILED EXPERIMENTS, then they decided to make the Atlanteans, then they decided we humans shouldn't have that much power and remove some abilities or GENES that these ETs have to not have special abilities and be normal - so that we are not threat to our creators.

The bottom line, regardless of whether you are a Yayer or Nayer to the whole idea of AA visitation, is we don't know. And it is more than likely that we will never know. All of the hypothesising with argument and counter-argument and much beating of chests, is based on nothing but belief. There are no facts to prove the truth of it one way or the other. Yes, there are structures that defy our understanding of how they came to be and it is great to think that, possibly, beings from another world either built them or helped us to build them. But we don't know. Some artifacts found at some sights are able to cast doubt upon accepted timescales in relation to when 'we' became civilised enough to build and live in cities but there remain more questions than answers.

We don't want to be alone. We don't want to think, in the vastness that is out there, we are the only ones. Isn't it arrogance to believe that we are? If we have reached this point in our evolution isn't it a fair and logical conclusion to believe that there are others? Some less developed and some significantly more so. And why should any individual be castigated for either believing or disbelieving the theory. Unfortunately the only people who could answer these questions are long gone........

It's a frkn t.v show. They never come to conclusions :/

I'm not sure that aliens visited Egypt and aided in the construction of the pyramids, but I strongly believe something bizarre was going on. Human beings cannot lift [let alone carry] a a gargantuan slab of stone that would take twelve cranes to lift into the air.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


This can be a VERY long reply, but i just woke up so i am not ready yet and will (probably) keep it shorter.

AT FIRST, i want to point out that the AA theory is far more than those recent H channel shows, the AA theory was not "invented" by the History channel starting this show but it is around far, far longer. The AA theory is therefore not a fad, or a "new branch" of UFOlogy or archeology - it's around since the mid 60s actually with EvD the first one (i think) writing down his theories in his book "chariots of the Goods".

I noticed also that many opponents of this theory start off with a remark as if the AA theory would be "religion like" with "using its own religion" statements, as you do.

Fact is that mainstream science and especially HISTORY/historians are way, way more bound to their own dogmas and "religious" beliefs, way more extreme than the AA theory supporters. If you look around, MAJOR parts of what makes mainstream theory is ALSO only based on theories and the strong belief in them with a BIG in-ability to be able to see things from another point of view.

Evolution, man's history, etc..etc.. is nothing else than theories and the AA theory actually does a good job pointing out that those established theories very often have huge gaps and holes - but the mainstream science just doesn't seem to care.

A good example would be the "missing link" from the Apes to humans which is still not found. Another good example is if you simply go on Google and look for "oldest city" or "oldest civilization" where it becomes clear that mainstream science has NOTHING whatsoever to show to make even a simple statement as how old we are...how old our civilization is etc.

The opposite is the case, there are COUNTLESS discoveries made which constantly contradict what mainstream science says or question dates and numbers given by mainstream science and historians - as a whole and seeing the number of findings/speculations/theories we have MANY reasons to doubt conventional explanations since there are simply too many things "which dont add up".

As far as i remember, AA (the show!) in its first season really only re-iterates some very CLASSIC examples and findings of the AA theory - i dont know how often i already read about the Enoch story, the palenc plate, Nazca lines etc..and whatever other classic elements they show in there.

Have some of them disproven and debunked? YES! The funny thing is that people like EvD dont even deny that, yes they shown many oddities and some of them might have another, more "wordly" explanation - but who cares? Mainstream science has the freedom to err in some aspects - so has a theory like the AA theory, this does not mean that the whole theory as such is "debunked".

So..i personally saw countless videos, read countless books by various authors concerning the AA theory, and sorry..there is TOO MUCH as a whole which does not go confirm with established science and there is clearly a pattern there and amazing similarities in findings which simply makes it impossible to ignore the AA theory respective blindly accept what mainstream science/history's stance is.

*) There is clearly a pattern that the longer we go back in time and examine "legends" and stories about the origin of man we get to a point where MANY cultures around the globe talk of "people from the stars" and similar indicating that they somehow origin from "extraterrestrials", "gods from the heaven" etc..etc.. and we can see that pattern ALL OVER THE GLOBE. Some cultures are very clear in their stories, why not simply read them? Is it ALL made up..or is something to it? Why does a random tribe say things like that their ancestors "come from the stars" coming down with some craft....they were taught this and that by those "Gods" (Aliens whatever you want to call it)...and more or less clearly describe what sounds like advanced technology which reads more like science fiction than anything else.

And why do we have such amazing similarities all over the globe?

*) The longer we go back in time...say 4000+ years, 6000+ years...the more advanced it looks those forgotten cultures were in terms of technological achievements.

*** Debunking ***

You did a god job in pointing out inconsistencies and you listed some classic examples like the Piri Reis map, the Baghdad battery, Antikythera mechanism etc.

Here is the deal: Do i KNOW that Aliens visited us XXXXXXX years ago? No. Does Erich von Däniken "know"? I don't think so. Nevertheless, the main "benefit" of the AA theory is actually that it questions MAINSTREAM EXPLANATIONS and is certainly able to show that the current "scientific" explanations we learn in school simple CAN NOT be true - therefore very well legitimate an alternative point of view or possibly dismissing them altogether!

Primarily, it does not matter to try to "prove" that the Piri Reis map was made with the help of Aliens, that's not the point. The point is that it shows clearly something which 100% contradicts modern science explanation, it shows a map indicating that someone mapped (parts of) the earth a long time ago while such maps (according to science) would first appear many hundreds of years later. The fact that it POSSIBLY shows antarctica without the ice not even mentioned.

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.

No, eye-witness accounts are no "evidence" nevertheless its legit to look at them and try to interpret them and also use them to support a theory.
Since we are dealing with history many thousands of years ago...sadly we only have to go with eye-witness accounts or legends - but this does not make them less interesting. It's interesting that what is supposed to be "mythology" is written down in the Bible which (as far as i understand) is indeed understood as a "fact" by many religious people...respective at least so important that it was written down and copied and preserved throughout the centuries. It was/is actually considered so important that whole religions and cultures have been founded BASED on those "stories"...whether its the Bible, Quaran etc. or whatever other similar texts.

Do YOU know whether this is based on some real "eye-witness" accounts and then written down...or all is simple based on fantasies with no equivalent in something which really happened? How foolish would it be to simply ignore such texts? Or why should it be foolish to at least *assume* there could be something to it...as opposed to do it all off as "symbolic" as you do? The irony is that you will have the same problem "proving" its "all only symbolic" as the AA theorist will have problems to show that it has some real background based on real events.
With the difference that saying "its all symbolic" is a rather simple way to get out of this...if not to say it's a little ignorant - in a literal sense, because you are IGNORING something for the sake of your mainstream science belief.



I

reply to post by flexy123

Fact is that mainstream science and especially HISTORY/historians are way, way more bound to their own dogmas and "religious" beliefs, way more extreme than the AA theory supporters. If you look around, MAJOR parts of what makes mainstream theory is ALSO only based on theories and the strong belief in them with a BIG in-ability to be able to see things from another point of view.

The job of an AA supporter is to point at something (usually big) and scratch their heads in wonder. Scratching complete...'Wow! Only aliens could have built that bad boy!'

The history guys (archaeologists, anthropologists, geologists and chemists etc), look at the surrounding context and ask questions.

* Who lived here?
* What customs did they have?
* What was their society like?
* Did they have agriculture?
* Who did they trade with?
* At what level was their technology?
* Etc etc
* Where can I buy a cheap trowel?

Rather than arriving at a 'dogma,' a bunch of people with differing specialisations and opinions will bicker and dispute each other until some common ground is found. This common ground then becomes the basis of our history. They could have stood next to AA-man and scratched the heck out of their heads, but chose to ask questions *and* enjoy the 'Wow Factor.'

Evolution, man's history, etc..etc.. is nothing else than theories and the AA theory actually does a good job pointing out that those established theories very often have huge gaps and holes - but the mainstream science just doesn't seem to care.

AA theory does no such thing. Also, the guys arguing AA have poached many of the 'holes' from New Earth Creationists. Mainstream science doesn't care, you're right. It doesn't care because what can they do with some guys pointing at big rocks and saying aliens did it?

*) The longer we go back in time...say 4000+ years, 6000+ years...the more advanced it looks those forgotten cultures were in terms of technological achievements.

It's beginning to look like you haven't read much history at all. 4000 years ago we had the Egyptians, Harrapans Mohenjo-Daro and Ur fell. They were pretty fancy for the period, but had basic ideas of medicine and bronze was like the Internet is to us. 2000 years before that and we were traipsing around with cattle that hadn't really been domesticated. We had settlements and traded with each other, money hadn't been invented (I wish!). If you browse some history sites (no UFOs or PayPal buttons), it's pretty clear that from 6000 years ago, we have undoubtedly gotten more advanced. This is why they were tapping blood from scrawny cattle and we're importing blueberry juice by airplane from countries 1000s of miles away.

For the record, EVD has admitted being a liar. He's also been convicted of fraud and embezzling. Chariots was written whilst in prison for embezzlement. As historical sources go...there are better go-to guys than he. He's plundered a rich vein of interest in all his books and is a millionaire. A graduate trowel-monkey on some Egyptian dig-site has far less at stake than EVD. He doesn't care at all for AA or history...that's fair enough, but let's not give his mercenary ass any more credit than it's due.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
For the record, EVD has admitted being a liar. He's also been convicted of fraud and embezzling. Chariots was written whilst in prison for embezzlement. As historical sources go...there are better go-to guys than he. He's plundered a rich vein of interest in all his books and is a millionaire. A graduate trowel-monkey on some Egyptian dig-site has far less at stake than EVD. He doesn't care at all for AA or history...that's fair enough, but let's not give his mercenary ass any more credit than it's due.

It's funny how someone can say "has admitted that he made errors"...while the other interprets is as "admitted being a liar". See the difference there?

Yes, he wrote his first book in prison due to tax-evasion (AFAIK)..and *of course* he had to face criticism by the holy "mainstream science" that his thesis must be flawed...since mainstream science couldn't do anything else than "counter" him by attacking/question his persona and make the fact he was in prison IN SOME BIZARRE WAY relevant to his theses. (Needless to say, its not relevant FOR ME in any way )

He didnt become a millionaire from some "evil doing" but simply because his books had a huge impact and sold like hot cakes. So what? Maybe it's because his books "somewhat" shook up mainstream historians and science because otherwise no one would have bought them - let alone created the stir as they did still do. What's your point?

He (along with other AA theorists) allegedly is in no position to ask questions since he was/is not an accredited member of "established" science circles - so HOW DARE he questions common established beliefs (yes, they ARE beliefs!) and interprets them from a different angle? Sorry...there is nothing wrong with this, in the slightest.

The OP did give a pretty good example of what mainstream science did and still does....he made it himself very easy simply dismissing texts etc. as "mythology". Oh..let's call it "mythology"....see how easy this is. There is nothing to it..it's all fantasy and mythology...

The same they said to Schliemann when he was searching for Troy because they told him its only mythology without anything real to stand on...so better do NOT do any research and do NOT dare to question something what science (allegedly) already answered...since stagnation and insisting on the current status quo in science would be the best thing to do? (Except then it wouldn't be science, it would simply be blindly accepting what someone wrote down at some time as being "the truth")

So...whether you like it or not....alternative angles and interpretations are a crucial aspect OF SCIENCE too.

reply to post by flexy123

So...whether you like it or not....alternative angles and interpretations are a crucial aspect OF SCIENCE too.

Of course they are and I made that clear earlier. The alternative you are suggesting is that historians, scientists and whoever else are either stupid or lying. That's the only way they could be mistaken or overlooking how aliens built the big stuff out of stone.

So...you're general view is that science be tossed aside for AA and the musings of Erik Von Daniken? Way to go there.

On balance, is this science library really outweighed by EVD?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2549944de010.jpg[/atsimg]

...Really?!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/02e82e3bf8c4.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
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....

....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?

Assuming "Aliens" (if they made them), had no reason to build the lines is absurd! How the heck would we know they didn't? Not knowing the reason why Aliens would do such a thing doesn't mean they didn't made them or cut a mountain in half and leave it. They are trying to find how such a Mountain was cut off or who did it, not the reason behind it. The way skeptics like to jump into that kind of conclusion makes me believe in AAH even more. One has to think, when does the "impossible", such as Aliens visiting us in the past, outweighs the "logic" reasoning. Sometimes, especially in the AA theory, "logic" theories seem more improbable than Aliens existing and having visiting us.

reply to post by flexy123

so HOW DARE he questions common established beliefs (yes, they ARE beliefs!) and interprets them from a different angle? Sorry...there is nothing wrong with this, in the slightest.

Few of the ancient astronaut proponents I've come across merely ask questions. Instead they insert aliens into ancient myth and ancient history to support their own interpretational bias. The reason the ideas are scoffed as is not because they contradict belief, but because they contradict both the evidence and simple logic. While I have no problem with people being intrigued by ancient mysteries, even speculating about them, I do see an issue with wild assertions and re-interpretations that cannot logically be drawn from the evidence. A big stone monument aligned with the stars, a depiction of a plant that looks like a light bulb on an Egyptian wall, and a story of a wheel within a wheel appearing before a prophet... none of this logically leads to the idea that alien beings have visited Earth and none of it can be used as evidence for that idea.

In my OP I attempted to show the numerous leaps in logic taken by the spokesmen of AAH. The number of arguments from ignorance alone is astounding.

There is nothing to it..it's all fantasy and mythology...

When did I say there was nothing to it?

If people are going to claim there's something to the supernatural claims contained within mythology I'd prefer they stick to believing those stories were LITERALLY true rather than stealing them from any historical and religious context in order to hoist aliens upon them.

No in fact it is my RESPECT for mythology that leads me to reject ancient astronaut re-interpretations.

AAH believers tend to cherry pick mythological stories that they can make fit with aliens while ignoring those supernatural events that make no sense in the modern UFO belief context they've decided to interpret ancient myths within. You'll hear them mention Ezekiel a thousand times but they never touch stories of talking animals or a man managing to survive in the belly of a whale (if they did they'd have to make absurd claims about some kind of USO that Jonah merely mistook for a whale). This is because mythology on the whole doesn't support their ideas, they're merely co-opting the creativity of the ancients to sway the gullible.

since stagnation and insisting on the current status quo in science would be the best thing to do?

But who got the last laugh in the case of Troy? The man who showed the world that it was a real place with EVIDENCE. Ancient astronaut proponents will earn the right to gloat and boast and rub it in my face when they find the actual evidence to support their claims. Instead many already claim to HAVE the evidence and this show is apparently their way of presenting it. It is a classic example of drawing a conclusion first and then picking and choosing things as supposed "evidence" to fit it.

I've got no issue with folks who want to overturn the status quo, but what they bring to the table had better be more than "I'm not sure how they moved this block therefore aliens" or "What's with all these pyramids all over the place, therefore aliens" or "In this Hindu epic poem there's a flying machine, therefore aliens".

I would love to be proven unequivocally wrong and see someone show conclusive evidence that we're not alone in this Universe but thus far there isn't any such evidence.

alternative angles and interpretations are a crucial aspect OF SCIENCE too.

I agree fully, only those interpretations should be drawn logically and reasonably from the evidence at hand. New ideas and interpretations are good only if they can be backed up by more than baseless assertions and arguments from ignorance.




reply to post by Enter Ruin


I think you ought to heed Einstein's advice in your signature. The explanation that the mountain was cut by aliens is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy designed to fill a gap in our knowledge. As Einstein explains in your signature, rather than jumping to conclusions its best to gain a better understanding. Upon further study you might find a simpler, better explanation, such as natural erosion, volcanic or tectonic activity or it being cleared by human beings. A little skepticism and logic go a long way.

And no, there's no motive I can think of for any vastly technologically advanced aliens to make the Nazca lines, there are numerous plausible explanations for why the people living in Nazca at the time might have made them though.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by flexy123

 

reply to post by Enter Ruin

 

I think you ought to heed Einstein's advice in your signature. The explanation that the mountain was cut by aliens is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy designed to fill a gap in our knowledge. As Einstein explains in your signature, rather than jumping to conclusions its best to gain a better understanding. Upon further study you might find a simpler, better explanation, such as natural erosion, volcanic or tectonic activity or it being cleared by human beings. A little skepticism and logic go a long way.

And no, there's no motive I can think of for any vastly technologically advanced aliens to make the Nazca lines, there are numerous plausible explanations for why the people living in Nazca at the time might have made them though.

edit on 14-7-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)

It was explained simply and I followed his advice: Aliens did it. There's no more simple explanation than that. Use your logic and explain to me how civilization from that time cut a mountain in half? forget about explaining how the lines were made, or how the pyramids were made, just explain how the mountain was cut in half...

Logic doesn't seem logic. If we are talking about probabilities, Aliens' probabilities of existing is higher than Chariots having flying Horses and elephants pulling Vimanas to make them fly.

Its all easy and simple, Aliens did it. There is no simpler explanation than that.

reply to post by flexy123

it's around since the mid 60s actually with EvD the first one (i think) writing down his theories in his book "chariots of the Goods".

Thank you but I'm aware of what the ancient astronaut hypothesis (AAH) is and fairly well versed on its origins. I'm aware that the History channel have nothing to do with its creation. The reason I created this thread was to show that this show could be debunked, however as you've no doubt noticed the scope has widened a bit to include other aspects of AAH.

way more bound to their own dogmas and "religious" beliefs, way more extreme than the AA theory supporters.

Perhaps this is because most scientists have standards they have to meet. Their work is peer-reviewed, open to criticism and critique from others in the scientific community and must have actual evidence to back it up. AAH on the other hand has no such standards to meet and thus the conclusions it reaches are tenuous at best and often backed by little more than arguments from ignorance.

Evolution, man's history, etc..etc.. is nothing else than theories and the AA theory actually does a good job pointing out that those established theories very often have huge gaps and holes

The scientific definition of theory is different from the layman's definition of the word. In science the claims of ancient astronaut proponents would not qualify as a theory, it would be likely labeled as a hypothesis. For that reason I refer to is as ancient astronaut or ancient alien hypothesis (AAH). Man's history does have plenty of gaps but then that's to be expected when we spent more than 150,000 years without written language. Evolution on the other hand has fewer gaps. You seem to be suggesting that AAH helps fill the gaps in our knowledge, but that is my issue with it, it's an argument from ignorance. It's inserting aliens into nearly every ancient mystery we've yet to solve.

A good example would be the "missing link" from the Apes to humans which is still not found.

Might want to do a little research. Numerous links between ape and man have been found. The issue is that each time a new missing link is found creationists and pseudoscience fans pretend that the insertion of this link creates two new GAPS. I'd prefer not to turn this into an Evolution debate but here is a crude visual reconstruction of the idea I'm trying to explain:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d31dc2a27db4.jpg[/atsimg]

If you'd like to discuss evolution by itself further you can send me a U2U

there are COUNTLESS discoveries made which constantly contradict what mainstream science says or question dates and numbers given by mainstream science and historians -

We have a lot to learn about our own past, however there is plenty that we do know and understand quite well about our development. Science will always be changing and refining itself as new evidence comes in, that's one of the best and strongest aspects of science. Unlike dogma it changes, BUT that change can only come from evidence, experimentation, observation and logical conclusions.

but who cares?

All who are interested in the truth should care because despite being shown to be wrong numerous times AAH proponents STILL reiterate the same disproved ideas and employ the same logical fallacies.

there is TOO MUCH as a whole which does not go confirm with established science

It is a massive leap in logic to go from the conclusion that mainstream science has some things wrong to the conclusion that baseless assertions about aliens are correct. It doesn't matter how categorically wrong science is on a given subject that does not mean we leap to conclusions that do not logically follow from the evidence at hand.

There is clearly a pattern that the longer we go back in time and examine "legends" and stories about the origin of man we get to a point where MANY cultures around the globe talk of "people from the stars"

Accepting this claim for the sake of argument... So what? Stories about people from the stars could just as easily be that, stories. There's no reason to assume that they weren't merely telling epic tales, embellished over time and filled with fantasy. Many cultures tell of a world wide flood yet geology has fully disproved the idea, however it is easy to see how, since most ancient cultures needed to stay nearby their sources of water (rivers, oceans, lakes, etc) flooding would eventually occur. Over time stories of those floods could easily build into legends. Furthermore even if taken as true these stories do not necessarily speak of aliens, many speak of gods. Many gods and deities do not come from the sky.

or is something to it? Why does a random tribe say things like that their ancestors "come from the stars" coming down with some craft...

I would be interested to know how many tribes and ancient cultures actually possessed such stories versus how many cultures ancient astronaut proponents claim had such stories.

more or less clearly describe what sounds like advanced technology

A talking snake, a burning bush, a flaming chariot. These sound like pretty fantastical depictions of supernatural things (perhaps even to be taken figuratively in some cases) not depictions of technology. To re-interpret this as technology you must first strip away cultural and religious context.

the more advanced it looks those forgotten cultures were in terms of technological achievements.

I don't think so. This is the George Lucas theory of technology.

This is that whole thing about how the Egyptians actually got worse at building pyramids and such right? How is that evidence for alien influence? Couldn't they have simply lost some knowledge? Forsaken or forgotten the ways of their ancestors? What about the Pyramid of the sun in Teotihuacan, often sited as evidence for alien influence, built around 100 AD, a pretty technological feat taking place relatively LATE, yet supposedly inspired by the same alien race that helped assemble the Giza pyramids over 2,000 years before. Aliens are not a good explanation for the ebb and flow of human technological development.

the main "benefit" of the AA theory is actually that it questions MAINSTREAM EXPLANATIONS

Ideas that question the mainstream should also be based on something more than just re-interpretations, empty assertions and logical fallacies. There is no benefit in AAH.

The point is that it shows clearly something which 100% contradicts modern science explanation,

The map has a well accepted scientific explanation that makes perfect sense. The coast at the bottom of the map is that of South America, merely wrapped around the bottom, NOT that of Antarctica. The map does not contradict mainstream history in the slightest. The conclusion that it shows Antarctica without ice is one that flies in the face of logic and evidence.

its legit to look at them and try to interpret them and also use them to support a theory.

Good, from now on I'm going to re-interpret Bigfoot sightings as Elvis sightings, after all its perfectly plausible the King faked his death to become a roving nudist and let his body hair grow to protect him from the cold forest nights. I'm also going to be re-interpreting sightings of aliens below four feet tall as sightings of elves. Point is - it ain't legit to make stuff up that WASN'T reported by the "eye-witnesses". If someone says they saw an angel we don't have permission to cross that word out and write alien.

as opposed to do it all off as "symbolic" as you do?

If we're going to say there's something to it than let's claim that that something is supernatural instead of ripping the stories out of their historical religious context to paste modern ideas of aliens and UFOs over them. While I'm not religious myself I'd prefer to take the myth's word for it before being arrogant enough to re-interpret the text in the context of modern claims of alien visitation.

reply to post by Enter Ruin


But in order to come to that conclusion you're employing a logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance. It is no different than claiming that a God cut that mountain in half. You have no evidence of either conclusion, just a big question mark over what happened to that mountain. The reason the conclusion is simple is because you've turned your brained off and decided to do no investigation into what really might have happened. You've picked a wild, but easy, answer that explains nothing and raises a hundred more questions than it answers.

I think you ought to heed Einstein's advice in your signature. The explanation that the mountain was cut by aliens is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy designed to fill a gap in our knowledge. As Einstein explains in your signature, rather than jumping to conclusions its best to gain a better understanding. Upon further study you might find a simpler, better explanation, such as natural erosion, volcanic or tectonic activity or it being cleared by human beings. A little skepticism and logic go a long way.

You make the mistake to assume that ALL arguments brought by the AA supporters are far fetched and defy any logic.

It is correct that there are biased people not capable to follow any logic, and not ANYONE who has something to say or to show in regards to AA theory, UFOs or Aliens etc. should be taken seriously. If you are into a subject like that for many years, this becomes very evident.

But there are also the smarter people, and not all they say is supposed to lack any logic. There might be reasons WHY someone asks such questions and he might give a reason or two why conventional explanations might not always work.

In the case of that "cut mountain"...as far as i remember one argument given was that there is no trace of the removed stone anywhere near that mountain and there is also reports of "crystallized stone" on the Nazca plateau leading to speculations that "something" must have molten the stone(s) surfaces which (AS FAR AS I KNOW) has not been explained yet.

But the most known and classic argument in regards to the Nazca lines and figures, how they WOULD fit into the AA theory is actually that they can only be spotted from high above.

I am puzzled that you mention "natural erosion, volcanic or tectonic activity". They don't produce giant figures like spiders or a waving "Alien" or the geometric "landing strips" or a straight cut off mountain top. Whether "Aliens" *created* Nazca...i dont know...but as far as i remember this was NEVER even the question..the question was HOW, WHY it was created and what purpose it served.