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
*** 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
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
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
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.