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: 34
132
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
If the sumerian tablet translation ie real(which is still questionable) than the evidence appears to point to there being an intervention in our past. Some of the religous stories and the tablet stories sound similar and both point to the furthering of an alien agenda of pitting people against each other and keeping them divided rather than helping them.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
well i got up until episode 5, and i have some nitpicks:

the claim that some ancient monoliths are too heavy to be picked up by even the largest of modern cranes, not true.

david childress. this is an excerpt from episode 5, which i suggest you watch again and really scrutinize his performance.

"this involves, mercury being in an enclosed system. like a glass ball, once that mercury becomes spinning in a gyroscopic manner within a closed system that creates a lift. its electrified lift, its also a very bright light. and in fact many ufos are described as exactly that.towards the end of world war two the germans started producing massive amounts of mercury."

he either a. has no idea what hes talking about, so shouldnt be considered an expert on the history channel, or hes deliberately attempting to deceive people. personally i think its the latter, and hes doing a very poor job of it.

lastly giorgio tsoukalos he made some awfully large leaps but at least he wasnt as bad as childress.

if they removed those actors it wouldve been alot more bearable.

anyway i dunno who posted this: www.youtube.com...

but its a 5 minute video thats much more compelling than the 5 episodes of ancient aliens.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
It's frustrating that the show brings up Bramley and his beliefs up only once for an episode and don't let him expand while pedophile Childress and that guy with the mustache get to run their mouths as much as they want. And the guy with the hair really doesn't help the stereotype that all people that believe in aliens are out of their mind.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   


Whats the verdict on this episode? Like all the others I take from it what I want and leave the rest as either b/s or still skeptical! Have fun!



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by DaveNorris
 




more possible than the intervention of an actual god figure, but less possible than mere fairytales.


If aliens did intervene we would expect some evidence beyond stories. Certainly its possible and arguably more possible than actual supernatural beings and events but I see no evidence that merits accepting either. It's not just this show but the entirety of ancient aliens claims that don't hold water and many of them rely on the same sort of fallacy, argument from ignorance, that god claims do. The old "here's a mystery, insert aliens as explanation" works about as well as "here's a mystery, insert gods as explanation".

Aliens are about as good an explanation for Nazca, Machu Picchu and the Great Pyramid as Zeus is a good explanation of lightning. In the end you're left with an argument from ignorance that has no real explanation power.

reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Any archeologist with actual solid evidence wouldn't need to fear their peers. It is true that supporting fringe ideas can be dangerous to one's career. However a scientist with conclusive evidence proving ancient aliens wouldn't need worry because they would become the most famous scientist in the history of the world for proving we are not and were not alone in the Universe. It might take some time for that to sink through the mainstream paradigm but in the end science must follow where the evidence leads.

As such I've seen no evidence, from any source, that leads to the conclusion of aliens visiting us now or in the past.
edit on 17-7-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)
first off I'd like to thank you for making this thread, it does point out flaws with the idea that ancient aliens visited us in the past. But the stories that are brought up in the Sumerian tablets and Adam and Eve are similar. So is a constant denial of the 'gods' of access to spiritual knowledge and constant mistreatment of humans the humans if they disobeyed by spreading plagues and even worse by even encouraging groups of people to embark on genocide campaigns claiming they were wicked even though they killed children and animals too( I will bring up more evidence in another post). This is not the way 'gods" are supposed to behave, the tower of babel story talks about how the 'gods' wanted division among people and this coincides with the current religous believes that an all-seeing god can solve all our problems and that we should fight 'final battles' that will lead to spiritual enlightenment and that an Antichrist who unites the world under one religion and one government basically uniting people should be feared and overthrown. Now that last point might be a bit of a reach but why would gods continue to encourage fighting among people when it seems that the opposite would lead to true spiritual knowledge.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I think they're real because of the Pyramid at Giza vs. Modern Buidings debate.

PaG: 1000's of years old. Modern Buidings: Not even two centuries old.
PaG: Has sunk 1.5 inches into the ground. White House: Has sunk 6 inches into the ground.
PaG: Is straight except for .25 inches. Empire State Buiding: Is straight except for 1.5 inches.

Do you really think that a quasi-stone age civilization could possibly accomplish this?



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Satan was originally a perfect angel who developed feelings of self-importance and craved worship. Satan caused Adam and Eve to disobey God, and humanity subsequently became participants in a challenge involving the competing claims of Jehovah and Satan to universal sovereignty.[153] Other angels who sided with Satan became demons.
I mean serously for real? It should be noted that this was found off Wikipedia but it was so suprising I had to post it.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by KingJames1337
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Satan was originally a perfect angel who developed feelings of self-importance...


Maybe he just developed a sense of self-worth.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
There could be other reasons too the Sumerian tablets are still a source of questioning but if they are true the representation of EA to Jehovah's witnesses is he convinced Adam and Eve to bite the apple of truth and knowledge and told them to disobey what the other 'gods' such as Enlil were saying and trying to impart to them true spiritual knowledge. Jehovah is also known as one of the crueler 'gods' calling for the Hebrews to embark on a genocide campaign to kill the wicked that were in the towns including children and animals.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   
It's very clear you don't like the Ancient Astronauts theory and/or show. You dismiss EVERY piece of evidence that is presented as either fake, lies or wild guesses.

A lot of the evidence are found and dated in very ancient times from the sumarian times to adolf hitler! It almost looks like your looking at this "knowing" aliens don't exist, so there MUST be a earthly reason.

Why do we have HUGE pyramids with building blocks weighing 100's of tons each, yet no evidence is present on how they managed to get it build? There are only theories on how these are build, not facts or evidence. Nothing is found on any construction platform or tools used to cast/bake/build the huge building blocks. In the middle of the desert there isn't much water, mostly sand. How about the fundations of those huge pyramids in LOOSE sand? Do you know what happens to buildings in loose sand? They tend to "sink" into the ground, specially over thousands of years! Yet "there" design was perfect and didn't seem to have any "first timer" errors in the building process (no caved in or half sunken pyramids found).

All the wall paintings, hyrogyphs, carvings, etc are just people's "creativity" you say? Then this can also go for the bible and any other "writen" religion. It's just an old man writing his novell, and stupid people interpeted it as the truth! It's all creativity nothing about aliens or god's are true, all fictional creativity of the human race right?

This is a "theory" and that means everything is based upon idea's, speculations and beliefs of people. One of the best examples i can possible give that every person can relate to is our existance! Did GOD create us? (story, theory, beliefs), Did nothing explode into something and took millions of years to evolve? (story, theory, beliefs).

Only people that believe in aliens, and that they might have visited us in the past can see the evidence presented to have some degree of truth. People that don't believe aliens have visited us in the past, will dismiss anything to that subject als lies or "seeing what you want to see". People seem to forget that ANY tv channel is comercially based, and in order to stay on air they need income and ratings! So do they create dull shows with only truth that is not so exiting? No they mix it up with some "what might have been" flavored idea's to spice up the show. No viewers is no show. And the hand full of people that only want to see boring truth, come online and research themselves!

To debunk a "show" from the "entertainment" sector is a little overkill to begin with, people know that "shows" should not been presented as evidence. It is a great place to find subject to do your own research on and gather the evidence, but never straight out of a show because it's fact mixed with fiction for rating.

Your topic title states that you want to debunk the entire "Ancient Astronauts" theory, yet when people read it it's only about the first episode of a show named the same as the theory.

Everybody has the right to believe what they want, but as a person without ANY background or skills in the subject at hand trying to debunk a show or theory is plain stupid. You claim yourself that you don't have ANY answers to what it might be, but there definitly NOT alien! (at least this is what you state in several replies) You even say you don't have any experience in Egyptology or Geology, yet you claim all of it is man made and has nothing to do with aliens.

If you want to "debunk" something, please present evidence or your theory of what it is, because what your doing is not "debunking" your simply trying to stomp a show/theory into the ground without ANY expanation of what it is. It's the same as saying " that is not a chair! I don't know what it is, but definitly not a chair!"



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Instead of listening to some other that talk what they think and then say 'Oh but he said that...' you could just make up your own minds?

I personally take the things they talk about and make connection and think if the theory makes sense TO ME, not because someone said it. And it does, still some of their arguments are not strong but if you look at the drawings or pictures from past centuries with some disc like black or dark objects they hardly made those for the lolz...

You do realize that if you dont apporve of this theory - you call the Bible bs, the legends bs, the Shumerian or any other culutre's sources bs, right? Ok it's fine, but you'd better not say anywhere you believe any of those books as you would contradict yourself. It's either all is bs, or they tell things that are misinterpreted. I do think the second is the case.

I once asked - why do Indiands (native Americans) call the trains 'iron horses'? (this is my connection no one has associated the primitive thinking with calling it usingyour limited dictionary but tribes would also describe smth unknown with their limited dictionary). Then why can't 'People from the skies, people on a flying boat/chariot', 'Dragons' mean a spaceship releasing fire and steam aka dragon? - What makes you think this is not possible??



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Imtor
 

Really bad comparison.

The Indians (native Americans) have (had) a poetic nature. They knew what a horse was. They knew what iron was even though they hadn't encountered it before the white man arrived. They knew it wasn't an animal. They knew all too well what machines were, they had seen them develop for a few hundred years. It was a colorful description of a machine.

Why don't we see references to "iron dragons" or "titanium dragons"? Sometimes a dragon is just a dragon. Or a myth.

edit on 8/16/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I could also say really bad counter-argument. So if natives were just being 'poetic' but they didn't call them iron horses in just poetry of theirs, were Chinese who talked about flying chariots, others who talk about boats in the air also poetic? Are African or New Guinean tribes who would describe even a contemporary airplane a bird or whatever words from their limited knowledge they will use just poetry? It's like you refuse to say that people used simple words that everyone of their fellows knows of things that they can't otherwise name. I mean read some history you will see how many times people used their everyday language to describe unknown things and I dont mean UFOs but any kind of thing they have not seen before. This is so sad...



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Imtor
 

And winged horses were real?
And half man-half horses were real?
And nine-headed dragons were real?
And fairies were real?
And leprechauns were real?

Nope, no imaginations in those poor primitive humans. Not like us at all.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
The reasoning behind why these people would bother drawing some of these things is what I want to know. Ahura Mazda the god of zoaroastarianism who pushed one of the first end of days theory really looks alot like he's an alien.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paschar0

Originally posted by bigquestions

They present interesting theories that are fun to talk about, but the problem lies in that they present them all as facts with no other explanations


Much like religions of the world do. Make every claim as fact and take credit for things that are in no way provable.

They usually make a point of stating "Some believe" and "Is it possible that" on every single show, and it's not their job to present all the other possibilities that are already widely know or at least easily accessible. But I do agree they're already selling out somewhat. It's like they've already talked about the best content and now have to make new shows from what's left. It would be a shame if the "Jumped the Shark" so soon.


wrong. AAT cant provide ´evidence´, because it is no theory, just speculation, more like modern superstition.
religion is another cup of tea.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by anti72

Originally posted by Paschar0

Originally posted by bigquestions

They present interesting theories that are fun to talk about, but the problem lies in that they present them all as facts with no other explanations


Much like religions of the world do. Make every claim as fact and take credit for things that are in no way provable.

They usually make a point of stating "Some believe" and "Is it possible that" on every single show, and it's not their job to present all the other possibilities that are already widely know or at least easily accessible. But I do agree they're already selling out somewhat. It's like they've already talked about the best content and now have to make new shows from what's left. It would be a shame if the "Jumped the Shark" so soon.


wrong. AAT cant provide ´evidence´, because it is no theory, just speculation, more like modern superstition.
religion is another cup of tea.


True this is speculation as there is no physical evidence to prove the claims besides the tablets(which I'm not sure are completely true) and the depiction of Ahura Mazda which is still only a picture but some of the themes through history still can't be ignored.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by anti72
wrong. AAT cant provide ´evidence´, because it is no theory, just speculation, more like modern superstition.
religion is another cup of tea.


So all the WRITTINGS and DRAWINGS of man/beings coming from the sky, "GODS" from the sky, model aircraft 1.000's of years old, carvings in egyptian times of choppers, planes and subs is not "evidence" of what may have been alien visitation?

By your statement, the Big Bang is also a speculation, how stupid does it sound that NOTHING exploded into SOMETHING and created everything we see now in billions of years? LOL the AAT sounds way more plauseble that the Big Bang sorry.

Religion is another cup of tea? Where did you get this from? The church? It's a very very old BOOK translated over a dozen times. By people who guessed and interpeted the most of a language partially or not known. Not even to mention about the intended manipulation of the translations in order to control the population. Religion as we know it is out-dated. Even the Pope says ALIENS are a possibility.

Definition of Theory:

the·o·ry (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

NOTE: Speculation is a Theory, see definition 3. Abstract reasoning; speculation, So the "experience" of the egyptians, sumarians, mayan's are "documented" in carvings, writtings and drawings, and therefor may serve as "evidence" to support the Anchient Astronauts Theory.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Some things stand out to me the genocide campaign run by Jehovah is unacceptable for a true divine creature that wants to bring good to all people. Jehovah appears to not be a god at all but possibly Enlil himself if one takes what Jehovah's Witnesses say seriously.



new topics

top topics



 
132
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join