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: 39
132
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
this is like having a debate with my sisters boy friend about free energy. free energy can mean one thing to one person or something different to another. every one has there own version of truce and no one can ever agree on the whole truce. if there is such a thing? Whether you believe or not its still a fun show!
edit on 16-10-2011 by eroutt because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull






You have to understand. What happened here is that our ancient ancestors of the 1970s saw some auto bots battling it out while on an Apollo mission, and the best way they could interpret this was a giant rabbit shooting laser beams from it's nose. Next case.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Metal Head
I like to sum it up by saying that theorists are constantly looking for answers and explanations. These so called "debunkers" are assuming they know the answers. Once you assume all knowledge of a subject you have sacrificed critical thinking. One poster said critical thinking was completely dismissing a possibility, it's actually the opposite.

Please.

I actually have "all knowledge" pertaining to the subject of addition of the natural numbers.

In what way does this "sacrifice critical thinking?"

Regarding the "helicopter" panel, that panel is part of the titulary of the pharoah. It's called the "five-fold titulary" and that panel is one of the five.

Now, the titulary is well-known and well-attested in temples and tombs that have been discovered and documented in Egypt. If you insist on believing that particular panel is some sort of artistic depiction of some factual occurence, then you'll have to explain not only how Egyptians managed to see a helicopter (and the other so-called "anomalies,") but also why it appears in the middle of the titulary, right where the Nebty name ("two ladies") portion of the titulary should be.

Should you attempt to do this, it just might be that you'll discover that the individual hieroglyphs that make up the Nebty names of both Seti I and Ramses II (Seti I's son) can be seen right there in the panel in question.

Now, the "mainstream" view is that Rameses II plastered over Seti I's titulary (the other panels in the titulary all indicate Ramses II's five royal names) and replaced it with his own. That particular panel has been subjected to some sort of stress (as can be seen to the right of any photo of it you can find - the great big crack and obvious gap where the entire edge of the panel has a chunk missing.) Parts of the plaster have fallen off the panel, revealing some of Seti I's Nebty name underneath.

There's absolutely no question that the glyphs for both Rameses II's and Seti I's Nebty names can be clearly seen in the panel.
But, of course, perhaps their Nebty names included the title "helicopter pilot"!


Harte


edit on 10/17/2011 by Harte because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


moan.
How many times has the dumb "helicopter panel´ HOAX been debunked before??? These people dont even USE the search engine..it MUST be some kind of ..modernistic SCI-FI superstition..



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Metal Head
I like to sum it up by saying that theorists are constantly looking for answers and explanations. These so called "debunkers" are assuming they know the answers. Once you assume all knowledge of a subject you have sacrificed critical thinking.


The ancient astronaut theorists are not constantly looking for answers or explanations nor are they employing critical thinking. Just the opposite. They are only interested in fitting evidence to a theory. If they had any interest in answers or explanations, if they would not ignore the two centuries of work of modern archaeologists and historians. Instead, the ancient astronaut theorists grossly ignore it, in favor of shallow god-in-the-gaps logic and their complete and utter lack of imagination. Tell us, if these people were not completely lacking in critical thinking facilities, why do they insist that aliens capable of crossing the distance between stars would employ such primitive modes of travel such as rockets. It is funny how, according to the ancient astronauts theorists, that the height of alien technology always parallels what the current height of human technology is. Rockets and incandescent light-bulbs? Please.


Originally posted by Metal Head
One poster said critical thinking was completely dismissing a possibility, it's actually the opposite.


Critical thinking is dismissing a possibility, if there is no evidence to fit that possibility.
edit on 17-10-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by anti72
reply to post by Harte
 


moan.
How many times has the dumb "helicopter panel´ HOAX been debunked before???


Apparently, not enough times anti72, not enough times.

Will it ever be enough, or will we have to repost this information until we die, then recruit some young skeptic to take our place on the explaining of the helicopter panel?

It is depressing.

Harte



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Debunking a hypothesis by saying that myths and ancient mythology have no bearing in fact, is a little too easy. In the 1870s, a German amateur archaeologist was ridiculed by basically everybody in the then established scientific community for his claim the he believes that Homer's Iliad and Virgil's Aeneid described actual historical events - long story short, this man was Heinrich Schliemann and were it not for his determination and considerable wealth to fund his excavations, the legendary city of Troy might still lie buried under the sands. So, just saying, sometimes you have to challenge established thinking and question the "facts"....

I'm not a "true believer" and whether or not the evidence presented in AA is legit, let me ask:

Why is it so inconceivable that Earth has been visited by an alien race in ancient times? We are sending probes and people into space, and NASA wants to send people to Mars. And as soon as technology allows, I'm sure we will send people outside our solar system. So why would a much older civilization that could be 100s of thousands of years ahead in terms of technology NOT do this? I think it is much more likely that they would.

Lack of conclusive evidence - Well, again, Schliemann's evidence was his, as you would say "re-interpreted ancient myth" and until he actually dug up Troy and King Priam's treasure, he was the laughing stock of Europe. In other words, just because a material object that proves the "myth" to be actual fact hasn't been found yet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Also, why would they (the Ancient Aliens) leave high tech tools, weapons etc. behind? At least in such quantity that eventually one will be dug up? Yes, we left quite a bit behind on the moon, but only because our low tech space technology didn't allow us to take it with us. So, I wouldn't expect to find a 4000 year old landing module in the Egyptian desert. Oh yes, and if they're even remotely similar to us, then no alien wants to fill out a 10 page form explaining why he left behind his 10phase plasma ray gun on Planet Earth - that will come right out of his paycheck :-) . Next, who says it had to be giant motherships bringing with them unlimited supplies of everything. The less mass the better, so there may have only been a few "people aka aliens" and all their technology was indispensable for them and not "thrown away" or left behind for us to find. NASA is planning for the same on the Mars mission - the Mars crew will have to build their own shelter from basically the rocks they find on Mars and exploit every other local resource, because they can't transport a double wide trailer for them just so they have it cozy. And yes, they want to build an atmosphere on Mars by influencing the weather (basically create clouds and rain by raising the CO2 levels) and maybe, some day they will start a real colony and its own civilization will develop. I wonder what the ancient Mars myths will say 5000 years later - about how their forefathers came from the stars and the stone monuments they left behind... and the Mars scientists that just laugh in the face of the "believers" ... "What, our forefathers came from the 3rd rock from the sun? Haha.. that place was smashed to smithereens by an Asteroid thousands of years ago, and there is no proof whatsoever that there was life on that planet...it's just a creation myth that can't be taken seriously.." Hope there will be a martian Schliemann....

Cheers and thanks for reading.









posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by nv4711
Debunking a hypothesis by saying that myths and ancient mythology have no bearing in fact, is a little too easy. In the 1870s, a German amateur archaeologist was ridiculed by basically everybody in the then established scientific community for his claim the he believes that Homer's Iliad and Virgil's Aeneid described actual historical events - long story short, this man was Heinrich Schliemann and were it not for his determination and considerable wealth to fund his excavations, the legendary city of Troy might still lie buried under the sands. So, just saying, sometimes you have to challenge established thinking and question the "facts"....

That's not even true of Schliemann. He was neither ridiculed nor did he "discover" the site you consider to be Troy (it's never been shown to be Troy.)


Why is it so inconceivable that Earth has been visited by an alien race in ancient times?

It's certainly not inconceivable. There's simply no evidence of it.




Lack of conclusive evidence - Well, again, Schliemann's evidence was his, as you would say "re-interpreted ancient myth" and until he actually dug up Troy and King Priam's treasure, he was the laughing stock of Europe.

Please provide evidence that he was "the laughing stock" of anyone.

BTW, it turned out not to be King Priam's treasure.




In other words, just because a material object that proves the "myth" to be actual fact hasn't been found yet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

This is indisputably true. However, it's exactly as true to say that it doesn't mean that it does exist as well.


Harte



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

That's not even true of Schliemann. He was neither ridiculed nor did he "discover" the site you consider to be Troy (it's never been shown to be Troy.)


Where did I make the claim that he "discovered" the site? I said that he correctly identified it (Hissarlik) as the site to be the ancient "mythical" Troy, based on his belief in the factuality of the Iliad. Also, I don't consider it to be Troy, Historians and Archaeologists do. Schliemanns mistake was that he dug too deep, the site of Troy has 9 layers (dubbed Troy I through Troy IX), Schliemann dug to Troy II and thought this to be the Homerian Troy, while today it is considered certain that Troy VI and/or Troy VII are the homerian Troy. How you can say it's never been established to be Troy is frankly beyond me.

As for ridicule:
"Schliemann's theories were ridiculed by the "authorities" in every country in Europe. He was a "rank outsider".....Comic papers made fun of him as a dreamer of vain dreams."
Myths of Crete and Pre Hellenic Europe, Donald A. McKenzie, pg. 84, 1917

"Schliemann's contribution, however, is greater than careful reading.Even if the scholars of his day had interpreted the text correctly, they would still have dismissed it, because they ridiculed the whole tradition and regarded it as pure myth with no foundation in reality."
Pausanias' Guide to ancient Greece, Christian Habicht, pg. 30, 1985, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

"Ignored or ridiculed by skeptical professionals, Schliemann had the last laugh. His faith paid off when he discovered the buried city of Troy."
Don't Know Much About Mythology, Kenneth C. Davies, 2005, pg. 37, Harper Collins Publishers, NY, NY

If you want more examples, let me know.


Why is it so inconceivable that Earth has been visited by an alien race in ancient times?
It's certainly not inconceivable.

There's simply no evidence of it.


Of course, this depends on what you will accept as evidence. The point (and why I was referring to Schliemann in the first place) is that you have to go and look for it and at least be open to accept the possibility. There is no evidence that the Higgs boson exists, yet CERN is spending millions to find it, despite many physicists that "ridicule" the idea of its existence. Why not investigate the AA hypothesis in the same spirit. Of course, open mindedness goes both ways... sometimes a pyramid is just that - a pyramid. :-)


Lack of conclusive evidence - Well, again, Schliemann's evidence was his, as you would say "re-interpreted ancient myth" and until he actually dug up Troy and King Priam's treasure, he was the laughing stock of Europe.


Please provide evidence that he was "the laughing stock" of anyone.


See above.


BTW, it turned out not to be King Priam's treasure.


Yes, true, or at least highly disputed. However, it is still widely called "King Priam's Treasure" to identify the treasure discovered by Schliemann.


In other words, just because a material object that proves the "myth" to be actual fact hasn't been found yet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


This is indisputably true. However, it's exactly as true to say that it doesn't mean that it does exist as well.


Yes, what can I say...you're correct on that one :-)

Cheers



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 




there is no doubt that is a helicopter...to say otherwise is either sheer ignorance or being purposefully obtuse...


Just like there was "no doubt" that there was a face on Mars, until they imaged it with better technology and found that it's not a face at all. Victims of pareidolia and those who merely want to believe very badly will often use language like yours here, claiming there's no doubt.

Well I didn't see anyone in the cockpit, or any tail numbers or identifying marks. Maybe if there was a sharks mouth chiseled onto the front of it you would have a point, or a silhouette of a beautiful woman. Last I checked the official explanation for that entire site, helicopter included, was that it had been chiseled over with new hieroglyphs. The Egyptians did sometimes chisel over old hieroglyphs, sometimes they chiseled the names of past royalty right off the walls.

Yes it just happens to look a bit like a helicopter. Let's say for sake of argument that that's exactly what it is, as you say, "no doubt". So what can we glean from that fact? What can we deduce from a helicopter chiseled on the walls of an ancient Egyptian site? Here's a few possibilities that spring to my mind

1) The carving is modern and made by hoaxsters

2) The Egyptians built and designed the first helicopter thousands of years ago

3) The Egyptians saw into the future and had visions of helicopters

4) Aliens capable of interstellar travel landed on Earth and brought helicopters with them.

5) A helicopter was inadvertently transported back in time to ancient Egypt.

So you see how absurd some of the explanations are? The down to Earth answers are the official answer, that this is a case of old hieroglyphs carved over with new ones (coincidentally creating a shape that looks like a helicopter), or that this is a hoax carved in modern times. We're about as far from "no doubt" as can be.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Nice post Titen.


Let's assume they are indeed helicopters.........then what happened to the remains......Egyptians were good at preserving things........so why no helicopter parts engines or blades?.......or did ET decide to take them back with them?
If ET did take them all back then.........what an astounding coincidence that thousands of years later man invents..........the helicopter!


As I stated in my other post, if it indeed was truly a depiction of an ancient helicopter then ET isn't likely to have played much part as they wouldn't bother with helicopters.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by nv4711


That's not even true of Schliemann. He was neither ridiculed nor did he "discover" the site you consider to be Troy (it's never been shown to be Troy.)


Where did I make the claim that he "discovered" the site? I said that he correctly identified it (Hissarlik) as the site to be the ancient "mythical" Troy, based on his belief in the factuality of the Iliad. Also, I don't consider it to be Troy, Historians and Archaeologists do. Schliemanns mistake was that he dug too deep, the site of Troy has 9 layers (dubbed Troy I through Troy IX), Schliemann dug to Troy II and thought this to be the Homerian Troy, while today it is considered certain that Troy VI and/or Troy VII are the homerian Troy. How you can say it's never been established to be Troy is frankly beyond me.

As for ridicule:
"Schliemann's theories were ridiculed by the "authorities" in every country in Europe. He was a "rank outsider".....Comic papers made fun of him as a dreamer of vain dreams."
Myths of Crete and Pre Hellenic Europe, Donald A. McKenzie, pg. 84, 1917

"Schliemann's contribution, however, is greater than careful reading.Even if the scholars of his day had interpreted the text correctly, they would still have dismissed it, because they ridiculed the whole tradition and regarded it as pure myth with no foundation in reality."
Pausanias' Guide to ancient Greece, Christian Habicht, pg. 30, 1985, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

"Ignored or ridiculed by skeptical professionals, Schliemann had the last laugh. His faith paid off when he discovered the buried city of Troy."
Don't Know Much About Mythology, Kenneth C. Davies, 2005, pg. 37, Harper Collins Publishers, NY, NY

If you want more examples, let me know.

"More?"

I want one.

Yes, I've read the claims. I want the actual ridiculing though.

What you've provided are people's claims and opinions about it.




Why is it so inconceivable that Earth has been visited by an alien race in ancient times?
It's certainly not inconceivable.

There's simply no evidence of it.


Of course, this depends on what you will accept as evidence. The point (and why I was referring to Schliemann in the first place) is that you have to go and look for it and at least be open to accept the possibility. There is no evidence that the Higgs boson exists, yet CERN is spending millions to find it, despite many physicists that "ridicule" the idea of its existence. Why not investigate the AA hypothesis in the same spirit.

The entire "Ancient Alien Hypothesis" is based on people's ignorance of ancient history, which is a very good reason that it's not investigated with the vigor that the Higgs particle is.

Also, finding the Higgs boson has repercussions for the future of technology. Playing around with ideas based on pure ignorance (AAH) is just a waste of time and resources.

That is, archaeology is ongoing. If there is any evidence, they'll find it. So, in fact, such an investigation is actually occurring.

Harte



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


I appreciate your hard work in dissecting this episode, but it seems that you're calling out von Daniken and others for scientifically unproven claims without laying forth any more legitimate reasoning. In fact, your assertion that the Nazca lines are "lines in dirt" is a gross understatement that you made for effect, the same way the interviewed on the show will make exaggerations to prove a point. Childress and Tsoukalous are two that come to mind, but it's a TV show, if it was that legitimate of a scientific investigation, it wouldn't be on the History channel. The point is that it raises important questions that are basically a minor taboo in our society. That is a great thing.

Secondly, I am speaking from a perspective of someone who has read the Ezekiel book in the Bible, Chariot of the Gods, the Vimana's passages in the Mahabarata and I can say that your assertions that these are not proof is too simplistic. In any kind of investigation, one must dive into the unknown and follow clues before hard, direct, objective evidence is to be found.

I can say that after reading Chariot of the Gods I was satisfied with Daniken being extremely thorough in his investigations and you'll find the research you desire when you read the book, instead of only listening to a clip that the producers choose to keep for the value of this show. Why else would Childress have the same if not more airtime than Graham Hancock and von Danikin?

Speaking of Graham Hancock, reading his books is well worth the time and effort, as he does not lay claims without evidence to back them up.

IMO the shows are extremely entertaining and fulfill a certain purpose, the watered down public has been losing it's imagination very, very fast with some many "reality" shows. At least historic artifacts are still being shown on the History channel, although they could probably use a better forum and more thorough analysis.

They way the show is produced is it's fault, not the arguments of those who are guests to speak on it.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by skylightsintheillions
Speaking of Graham Hancock, reading his books is well worth the time and effort, as he does not lay claims without evidence to back them up.

Oh good Lord.

He most certainly does. Use the search function here.

Hancock himself admitted his "research" for "Fingerprints of the Gods" was sorely lacking - meaning non-existent, IMO.

Harte



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   

"More?"

I want one.

Yes, I've read the claims. I want the actual ridiculing though.

What you've provided are people's claims and opinions about it.


Really? One of the most respected scholars of ancient Greece, Professor Christian Habicht is mentioning this in a book of his, and that's not good enough for you. Habicht, Professor at the U of Marburg, U of Heidelberg, Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, Sather Professor at Berkeley, Member of the Academy of Sciences, The British Academy, the Academy of Athens, Recipient of the Reuchlin Prize, the Moe Prize and the Criticos Prize, co-editor of the American Journal of Ancient History - but he's not good enough for you...
The same goes for McKenzie, a respected scottish Journalist and Author with no dog in the race, writes in 1917 that Schliemann was ridiculed "in all of Europe".. not good enough.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to insert a picture here, since I scanned a few excerpts from contemporary papers such as Der Grenzbote and Kladderadatsch, with caricatures of Schliemann (and his wife) and quite some vitriol spewed against him. Of course, you probably wouldn't trust my translation anyways, and you would have to speak German (which I do) and be able to read old German Fraktur letters (which I can), to verify the facts.

Aren't you exactly doing what you accuse AA proponents of?



The entire "Ancient Alien Hypothesis" is based on people's ignorance of ancient history, which is a very good reason that it's not investigated with the vigor that the Higgs particle is.
Also, finding the Higgs boson has repercussions for the future of technology. Playing around with ideas based on pure ignorance (AAH) is just a waste of time and resources.


This is a specious argument. We (as in humanity) know very little about our ancient history (damn Romans burning down the library of Alexandria) and even established Archaeology uses a good deal of guessing and assumptions to further a theory or in explaining ancient artifacts. Again, you're making the exact same argument as Schliemann's opponents - it didn't further scientific progress then, and it doesn't now.

As far as the Higgs analogy - I'm not sure about the repercussions for the future of technology if they find it, I'm most certainly not an expert on that. However, proof that the (or some or just one) of the ancient/mythical gods were in fact astronauts would have enormous consequences for human society, and that's not even considering the shock wave that would go through the major world religions. Worth investigating? Hell, yes, I say.


That is, archaeology is ongoing. If there is any evidence, they'll find it. So, in fact, such an investigation is actually occurring.


Yes and no. Archaeology is ongoing, but there is no mainstream investigation occurring - and finding evidence is just as important as its interpretation, and this interpretation does not for a second consider any explanation that is not mainstream and of course, in 99.999% of the artifacts, the mainstream explanation is correct or at least the most likely. I do understand the principle of Occam's Razor....

Do I believe that the pyramids were built by Aliens? No. Did the Aliens give the Pharaoh a device to levitate the stones? No, I'm sure this device and such a levitation scene would show up on some relief, instead of people pulling sleds. They had no reason to hide its existence, quite to the contrary would certainly show off such magical power in their hands. I also don't believe in reptilian aliens living beneath Denver airport, government conspiracies, Grays in Area 51 (or anywhere else, for that matter), or that I'll lose 5 lbs in 2 weeks by eating Kellogg's Special K for breakfast.

Do I believe that ancient myths and mythology are more than just fables and fairy tales? Yes
Do they allow for the assumption that there was alien contact in the remote past? Yes.
Is it proven beyond reasonable doubt? No.
Is anyone except the crackpots on History channel trying to prove it? No.
Why? Because then he'll be considered a crackpot on the History channel.

Peace



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by skylightsintheillions
 




if it was that legitimate of a scientific investigation, it wouldn't be on the History channel.


History channel's programming usually has to do with history and the archeological science that establishes our understanding of history plays a part. Is it wrong to expect or at least WANT History channel to be about established HISTORY and not pseudoscience? The least they could do is present both sides but this show spends a tiny percentage dealing with skeptics when it bothers to talk to the skeptics at all.



your assertion that the Nazca lines are "lines in dirt" is a gross understatement


Except that they are lines in the dirt made by uncovering lighter colored stones that are sitting beneath the reddish soil of the plateau. If you want to get technical you can call them geoglyphs.




Speaking of Graham Hancock, reading his books is well worth the time and effort, as he does not lay claims without evidence to back them up.


I've read some of Hancock's work though I think I only ever managed to get through Underworld in it's entirety. His claims are speculative and honestly I find it hard to pin down exactly what he does and doesn't believe happened in antiquity. No one is going to deny that there are mysteries about the past and that we don't yet have all the answers. But a lack of answers is hardly reason to jump to ridiculous conclusions, be they about Atlantean civilizations or aliens or whatever else fills the gap.



IMO the shows are extremely entertaining and fulfill a certain purpose


Well of course it's entertaining and in the right context these sorts of ideas are perfectly fine, my issue is that they are being presented on a channel that should be above presenting this sort of thing as any kind of alternative to real archeology. They are presenting, presumably as fact, ideas for which they have no evidence for aside from a series of fallacies and poor reasoning.



not the arguments of those who are guests to speak on it.


I disagree, their arguments are terribly flawed. The issue is that to people who don't understand the logical fallacies they are employing to uphold AAH the arguments can seem quite compelling as they were to me when I was younger. Years ago this sort of show would have got me hook line and sinker because it's an idea which proves itself merely by casting doubt on prevailing ideas. Much like Creationism most of AAH involves tearing down the established ideas and inserting absurd beliefs for which there is no good evidence.

Creationists will argue that there are no transitional forms with the same fervor that an ancient alien proponent will argue that there's no way the pyramids are man-made and even when shown evidence to the contrary the believer will just dismiss it and go on believing. Tear down the idea that life couldn't occur naturally and insert god. Tear down the idea that mankind couldn't build pyramids or invent myths and insert aliens. Same fallacy at work in both cases.

Arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, and the aliens of the gaps fallacy abound in this show. Sorry but it is the arguments that make the show a failure and if they gave equal air time to the skeptics my guess is that would become painfully obvious.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by nv4711
 


That was a very well constructed post with some very moot points to ponder.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Ancient aliens debunked ay? no way =P XD a small measure of it is plausible at least i think, even if they had the right ideas in the wrong places =P
edit on 20-10-2011 by RazielRabencuuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by nv4711


"More?"

I want one.

Yes, I've read the claims. I want the actual ridiculing though.

What you've provided are people's claims and opinions about it.


Unfortunately, I don't know how to insert a picture here, since I scanned a few excerpts from contemporary papers such as Der Grenzbote and Kladderadatsch, with caricatures of Schliemann (and his wife) and quite some vitriol spewed against him. Of course, you probably wouldn't trust my translation anyways, and you would have to speak German (which I do) and be able to read old German Fraktur letters (which I can), to verify the facts.

Aren't you exactly doing what you accuse AA proponents of?

If you say it's true, I'll take your word for it, I guess.

What I mean is, I've read the same things you've posted, but I've never seen any quotes of people "ridiculing" Schliemann.

I mean, after all, he was digging at a known archaeological site. It's not as if he made a claim that he could "find Troy" using Homer, then went out and did so.


Originally posted by nv4711
This is a specious argument. We (as in humanity) know very little about our ancient history (damn Romans burning down the library of Alexandria) and even established Archaeology uses a good deal of guessing and assumptions to further a theory or in explaining ancient artifacts. Again, you're making the exact same argument as Schliemann's opponents - it didn't further scientific progress then, and it doesn't now.

I would agree that, in general, there is a woeful ignorance of ancient history. You can see that right here on this board.

But the fact that an individual doesn't know that, for example, the Temple of Hathor in Dendera was erected by Greek Rulers of Egypt and is hardly "ancient" says nothing at all about what Archaeology itself "knows" about the ancient past.

The truth is, we today know far more about the ancient past than the ancients themselves knew. If you read Herodotus or Josepus, this becomes abundantly clear.

Regarding Alexandria, it's unlikely that there was very much there that would tell us anything we don't already know about the past. There are older libraries still extant today, and Alexandria, a Greek city, originated after 300BC or so. The books there were confiscated - that's how they were collected - but copies were made and returned to the owners of the originals at the time.

Of course, some books (obviously) were written during the time the library existed. But again, it simply wasn't that long ago.


Originally posted by nv4711
As far as the Higgs analogy - I'm not sure about the repercussions for the future of technology if they find it, I'm most certainly not an expert on that. However, proof that the (or some or just one) of the ancient/mythical gods were in fact astronauts would have enormous consequences for human society, and that's not even considering the shock wave that would go through the major world religions. Worth investigating? Hell, yes, I say.

In what way would you "investigate" this possibility? By finding and digging up ancient sites/artifacts? My assertion is this is currently being done.

Harte



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
i respect your side like anyone elses. but.. this show has kept me coming back out of curiousity. no harm in persuing truth. even if it may not be correct. things like this are what progresses us into knowing whatever that truth may be . im really excited to be in this amazing time where a library of specific yet broad information is at the click and type of some buttons.


you all have to igmit the fact that this "alien " phenomenon is interesting just the fact it exists. then given this through history account. and testimonials from people all over the world now... abductions, sightings, wisdom and word exchanges its amazing! but of course i have skeptical and defensive opinions i dont allow myself to be sucked in a 100% into anything. but this has become an interesting theory. the fact is it is such that... a theory ... and in my opinion a very solid one.

these are my favorite points made by the show...
-why did ppl throught the ancient world all have similar believes, mythology, and architecture.mayan and egymtian pyrimids? for what reason would they build mass temples quite similar with no knowledge of each other. and same styles.

- why did people say they encountered actual beings from the sky ??( sounds rediulous but actually think about it .. what compelled them to "imagine"this.and even if they did imagine it why is it global .)

idk im just a 18 year old girl but im almost sold on this phenomenon =)))and i dont consider myself gullable.



new topics

top topics



 
132
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join