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: 50
132
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by MRuss
I flew over the Nazca Lines two years ago. It was really quite exhilierating. Incidentally, I flew over the lines with an archaeologist. It was pretty hard for both of us to debunk the fact that those lines were meant to be seen from the air.


Or say, from the nearby mountains...




posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by WingedBull
 

Why do you keep on quoting Hatre as if he is someone worth listening know-it-all arcehologist-astronomer-biologist-chemist-and-whatever-else? Just some random mebmber ... Or are you a multi-account of his?

Well, if AAT claim it is scientific, it is not yet science, but I told you just like many undiscovered previously things were speculation and the same 'Theory' until proven, AAT is at the same early stage of yet-to-be-proven.


Although there is speculation that what the people saw was a firework display, which was distorted in retelling.


Where do you get that info that it is fireworks? No you're just speculating... and without backup, the reason why cylinders and orbs are more worthy than your fireworks is the real video of at least 1 cylinder shaped UFO and the many orbs some of which clearly are aircraft,


There is a big difference between what mainstream, real science does and what the ancient alien proponents do. Real science seeks to explain reality, while the ancient alien proponents ignore reality to further their beliefs.


Please... before I joined these forums I even doubted the little I knew about UFO cases and was fully into 'Mainstream science' don't teach me what it means and does.. However just like history - a lot of things in history aren't exactly so, I can give with the first person to discover America and older maps of Antarctica.. so yes YOU SHOULD DOUBT some of the things in history - only serving the politics of someone.

Yes I told you, Im aware that AAT do speculate on some things but you say it ignores facts. So what is a fact? That the Bible was bullcrap and nothing in it was true? Got any evidence? Your evidence is that you can't prove it so it doesn't exist. Yet a lot of things in it talk about Flood (hey not just the Bible many do - how do you explain people getting the same stories of cataclysms without visiting each other and knowing each other to SHARE stories?)

Yes these books are not certain, but definitely cannot be dismissed as lies and made up stories, seeing Jesus was a real person and so were many other things


I didn't know the scientific fact of gigantism (or similar diseases) were contrary to popular belief.


You follow the doctrine 'If something is out of the ordinary, it doesn't exist' it always has to be explainable.. hey let me ask you, do you not believe in science fiction's becoming reality? Teleportation tries been started, lots of sci fi stuff, are you saying it always has to be explainable? How about things you don't understand are not automatically non existent?

Yes there is gigantism, does that mean this was the case? Did you check the skull shapes - more like pre-humans but you say giant people doing smth in the Indian prairies? For you if it is strange, it is a lie.. Wow nice logic.

So what comes out of it? You are absolutely biased and are not willing to accept that strange means we have yet to discover, not must be absoutely explainable or else it is a lie..



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imtor
reply to post by WingedBull
 

Why do you keep on quoting Hatre as if he is someone worth listening know-it-all arcehologist-astronomer-biologist-chemist-and-whatever-else? Just some random mebmber ... Or are you a multi-account of his?


Yes. You should listen to Winged Bull.

As my alter-ego, he knows what he's talking about.



Originally posted by Imtor
Well, if AAT claim it is scientific, it is not yet science, but I told you just like many undiscovered previously things were speculation and the same 'Theory' until proven, AAT is at the same early stage of yet-to-be-proven.

This is a semantics argument.

You're using a different definition for the term "theory" that the Winged One is.

We all see what you mean. It's just wrong to pretend it's a scientific theory when in fact it is nothing but opinion (on your part) and flat-out lies (on the part of the fringe authors you cite.)


There is a big difference between what mainstream, real science does and what the ancient alien proponents do. Real science seeks to explain reality, while the ancient alien proponents ignore reality to further their beliefs.



Originally posted by Imtor
Please... before I joined these forums I even doubted the little I knew about UFO cases and was fully into 'Mainstream science' don't teach me what it means and does.. However just like history - a lot of things in history aren't exactly so, I can give with the first person to discover America and older maps of Antarctica.. so yes YOU SHOULD DOUBT some of the things in history - only serving the politics of someone.

"Older maps of Antarctica" represent the unknown southern continent that the Greeks assumed was there.

Why did they assume it?

Because the Earth would be top heavy and flip over without it. Since the Earth was not flipping over, went their logic, then the continent must be there.

You might disbelieve this, but I didn't make it up and you can find it in ancient Greek writings.


Originally posted by Imtor
Yes I told you, Im aware that AAT do speculate on some things but you say it ignores facts. So what is a fact?

Well, how about the fact I pointed out about how you were lied to about Pacal's sarcophagus and the lid thereon? There are facts about that lid that are completely ignored by the fringe.

Do you need other examples, or what? Why do you even bring this up? I've already made it obvious that they lie and ignore facts. Or, do you think it's me that's lying about Pacal's tomb?

Harte



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imtor
Why do you keep on quoting Hatre as if he is someone worth listening know-it-all arcehologist-astronomer-biologist-chemist-and-whatever-else? Just some random mebmber ... Or are you a multi-account of his?


Yawn.

Because he makes good points, as well as actual facts you should consider, instead of ignoring as the ancient alien proponents so often do when the facts do not fit their beliefs.


Originally posted by Imtor
Well, if AAT claim it is scientific, it is not yet science


Can't be scientific and not-yet scientific at the same time.



Although there is speculation that what the people saw was a firework display, which was distorted in retelling.



Originally posted by Imtor
Where do you get that info that it is fireworks? No you're just speculating...


Yup, I said as much Look at the line you quoted of mine, above. Even bolded it for you so you can't miss it.


Originally posted by Imtor
and without backup


Nuremburg was one of the gunpower capitals of Europe at the time. And the famous Nuremberg Gazette woodcarving by Hans Glaser was not published until five years after the event. Plenty of time for the good folk of Nuremberg to witness something they didn't quite understand, then for it to be twisted and exaggerated over the intervening five years.

A reading of the article raises suspicions. In particular, it is said that some of the objects were seen to crash and smoke (this is seen in the carving). Yet their is no account of anyone investigating this wreckage. Strange, isn't it?


Originally posted by Imtor
the reason why cylinders and orbs are more worthy than your fireworks is the real video of at least 1 cylinder shaped UFO and the many orbs some of which clearly are aircraft


What in the world are you talking about? There's a real video of the Nuremberg "UFO battle"?



Originally posted by ImtorThat the Bible was bullcrap and nothing in it was true? Got any evidence?


The evidence is on the claimant. If you want to claim the Bible is true, then produce evidence supporting it. The simple claim that "because the Bible says so" is not evidence.


Originally posted by Imtor
Yet a lot of things in it talk about Flood (hey not just the Bible many do - how do you explain people getting the same stories of cataclysms without visiting each other and knowing each other to SHARE stories?


There are many explanations, none of which rely on the Bible or a flood sent by the gods. For instance, floods are a universal problem, any major river will flood and ancient humans tended to live along rivers. Also, flood myths may have been a way to explain for the ancients to explain finding marine fossils inland.



Originally posted by Imtor]
You follow the doctrine 'If something is out of the ordinary, it doesn't exist' it always has to be explainable.. hey let me ask you, do you not believe in science fiction's becoming reality? Teleportation tries been started, lots of sci fi stuff, are you saying it always has to be explainable? How about things you don't understand are not automatically non existent?


How about you debate the points and evidence, instead ad hominems or arguing things I never claimed? I know it is a lot easier for you to focus on the latter, but it shows the weakness of your argument.


Originally posted by Imtor For you if it is strange, it is a lie.. Wow nice logic.


I certainly never said that. Again, try argue my points instead of inventing things I never said.

But to the earlier point, gigantism is a known condition. A variety of diseases causes it. Simply because someone's body-size may be outside the human norm, does not mean they are aliens.


Originally posted by Imtor You are absolutely biased


Absolutely. I am biased towards evidence and facts.


Originally posted by Imtor
and are not willing to accept that strange means we have yet to discover, not must be absoutely explainable or else it is a lie..
[/quote

Notice, once again, how you spent the last half of your post not answering my points but attacking me, inventing claims I never said. You are demonstrating the weakness of your argument, that it relies on ad hominems, straw-men and red-herrings. What you fail to understand is, even if I am biased and unwilling to "accept the strange" it means only that and nothing else. It does not mean I am wrong.
edit on 23-2-2012 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
i think he has a point, but u r right about some of his assumptions, i didnt ever hear him claim it was a fact, but a theroy, and the good thing about theroys is they r the steeping stones to finding facts



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Oh look two pretenders to know everything argue for the sake of arguing. I told millionth time already... I'm aware some of the things are probably not true and others however, could be. Nothing can be certain, it remains UNKNOWN, do you know the meaning of that word? I do not take the time to see exactly which things have been distorted and I know a lot of the things have earthly explanations but im absolutely disagreeing with your 'Everything is explainable or else it is not true if I don;t knwo what it is'

I'm not saying they are aliens, I'm just saying they could bem based on similarity with today's UFOs and what all exists about this subject.


What in the world are you talking about? There's a real video of the Nuremberg "UFO battle"?


No, there is at least one video of a cylindrical UFO + the many descriptions of such sightings and comparing to Nuremberg ,. it makes sense and it could be that. It's not certain but LOL@saying fireworks... so people wrote a historical event about Fireworks lawl,,


The evidence is on the claimant. If you want to claim the Bible is true, then produce evidence supporting it. The simple claim that "because the Bible says so" is not evidence.


Was Jesus real in his lifetime? Yes he was. Was there flooding? Why so many parts of the world talk about it? It's not like they've met? I can state many other things that did happen, you like denying as it suits your opinion, right?

So will you quit acting like you know everything on things that you're not very familiar with? I'm not the ignorant here, cause I don't know what to make of some of the cases but I absolutely would think before posting when something remains unknown. If you too like kissing your a$ses, go ahead.


There are many explanations, none of which rely on the Bible or a flood sent by the gods. For instance, floods are a universal problem, any major river will flood and ancient humans tended to live along rivers. Also, flood myths may have been a way to explain for the ancients to explain finding marine fossils inland.


All points there has been a major flood, not because 'God got angry' - if that's what it says, I do not support it either, but simply because Earth was in its process of it. Are you denying it didn't happen because you don't believe what the Bible says about it ir anythiung for that matter?

Just don't claim to know things that you only think you know.. Like I said im going in details which exactly are distorted, I know that this theory has a going on and only silly people would miss the point to state again their pre-defined and biased opinon


Originally posted by Harte
We all see what you mean. It's just wrong to pretend it's a scientific theory when in fact it is nothing but opinion (on your part) and flat-out lies (on the part of the fringe authors you cite.)


Didn't I allready said several times, it is in early stage, just like many things in science were pure speculation, it hes yet to become science, whatever of it is true, so yes it is not scientific, it is just a theory atm.


Do you need other examples, or what? Why do you even bring this up? I've already made it obvious that they lie and ignore facts. Or, do you think it's me that's lying about Pacal's tomb?
p


While AAT is not accurate about all, it does state some true things, you will see because it all makes the logical connection LOGIC, get it? Just don't suicide if it kills your 'I don't believe anything that isn't physics 101' ok?

Basically you say, they are wrong about some things, therefore they are wrong about all. Evidence? NO, evidence just for some things, for the rest it's just how you like it to be to fit the way you think. I've said it many times - just because someone is not speaking ONLY true things, doesn't mean he's wrong about all. Hell, he could even decide to hide the truth by lying in public, then he's called a Liar but he is safe as he hasn't revealed any secret things.

And ultimately what are you two doing here? Join Skepticon Skepticmagazine or whatever, it is full of the same garbage as those believers who believe everything on the net but from the opposite side.
edit on 24-2-2012 by Imtor because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imtor
Oh look two pretenders to know everything argue for the sake of arguing.


More ad hominems.



Originally posted by ImtorNothing can be certain, it remains UNKNOWN, do you know the meaning of that word?


And more...


Originally posted by Imtor
I do not take the time to see exactly which things have been distorted


Why not?

If you don't take the time to figure out what is being distorted, you will continue to be duped by charlatans.


Originally posted by Imtor
and I know a lot of the things have earthly explanations but im absolutely disagreeing with your 'Everything is explainable or else it is not true if I don;t knwo what it is'


Show me where any skeptic here has said that.

You can't. Because you are putting words in our mouths in order to argue to straw men instead of our points. Argue our points, instead of making things up.

I'm not saying they are aliens, I'm just saying they could bem based on similarity with today's UFOs and what all exists about this subject.


Originally posted by Imtor
No, there is at least one video of a cylindrical UFO + the many descriptions of such sightings and comparing to Nuremberg


So? There are a lot of videos of fireworks too.


Originally posted by ImtorIt's not certain but LOL@saying fireworks


Yeah, saying it was aliens is perfectly rational. But fireworks, yeah, that's absurd.

By the way, that was sarcasm.


Originally posted by Imtor
so people wrote a historical event about Fireworks lawl,,


Firework displays were relatively unknown to the people


Originally posted by Imtor
So will you quit acting like you know everything on things that you're not very familiar with?


More ad hominems. Your frustration over the weakness of your argument is showing.


Originally posted by Imtor
. If you too like kissing your a$ses, go ahead.






Originally posted by Imtor Are you denying it didn't happen because you don't believe what the Bible says about it ir anythiung for that matter?


If there was a world-wide deluge there would be evidence beyond myth. It would leave geological evidence. But that evidence is not there. If it were to be found, we could re-evaluate. But you don't need a world-wide deluge to explain by various cultures around the world share flood myths.


Originally posted by Imtor
Just don't claim to know things that you only think you know...


Right. Who is claiming that again?


Originally posted by Imtor only silly people would miss the point to state again their pre-defined and biased opinon


More ad hominems.

Once again you fail to understand that even if we are biased, it doesn't mean we are wrong.

Notice what we are telling us, repeatedly, that we are not allowed to disagree with you.


Originally posted by Imtor
Didn't I allready said several times, it is in early stage, just like many things in science were pure speculation, it hes yet to become science, whatever of it is true, so yes it is not scientific, it is just a theory atm.


You say you understand, yet you repeat the same mistake, showing you have no understanding.


Originally posted by Imtor
While AAT is not accurate about all, it does state some true things, you will see because it all makes the logical connection LOGIC, get it?


If some things are not accurate, how can it all make logical sense?


Originally posted by Imtor
Just don't suicide if it kills your 'I don't believe anything that isn't physics 101' ok?


More ad hominems.


Originally posted by Imtor
Basically you say, they are wrong about some things, therefore they are wrong about all.


No, we are not saying they are wrong about some things. We are saying they are wrong about everything. In some cases, such as in Harte's Pacaal example, they are lying about or ignoring evidence. In other cases, they are misinterpreting evidence. In others, they are simply ignorant of recent historical and archaeological findings.


Originally posted by Imtor
And ultimately what are you two doing here? Join Skepticon Skepticmagazine or whatever, it is full of the same garbage as those believers who believe everything on the net but from the opposite side.


Funny...throughout your rants, you keep telling us we don't like having our beliefs challenged, all the while engaging in ad hominems, foul-language, and telling us to leave these forums. Someone is projecting.
edit on 24-2-2012 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
While it may be possible to debunk some of the evidence used to support the theory, there is really no way to debunk the Ancient Astronaut Theory entirely. I think the first step would be to debunk all religions across the globe to prove that gods and angels never descended from the sky. Otherwise, for as long as we accept those mythical stories as truth, Ancient Astronaut Theory will always be there to help make sense of it.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
While it may be possible to debunk some of the evidence used to support the theory, there is really no way to debunk the Ancient Astronaut Theory entirely.


I think it is. While one cannot prove 100% that our ancestors did not have contact with aliens, one can debunk the ancient astronaut theory as currently constituted, in that one can debunk their claims and evidence.


Originally posted by spiritualzombie
I think the first step would be to debunk all religions across the globe to prove that gods and angels never descended from the sky.


You don't have to debunk anything. As they stand, they are myths. Null hypothesis. It is up to the proponents that believe such stories are true to prove they are more than stories.

What proponents of the ancient alien belief do not understand is that their beliefs are not considered true until otherwise debunked, but just the opposite. The burden of proof is on them.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imtor
That's your problem, you don't know what part of it is true and what not


In so far as the ancient alien theory, as it is currently constituted, yes, we do know what parts are true and which aren't.


Originally posted by Imtorcause you know NOTHING of that.


What is it I know nothing about again?


Originally posted by Imtor
So saying 'they are wrong about everything' is arrogant and idiotic.


More ad hominems.

And it is not arrogant and idiotic if they are wrong about everything.


Originally posted by Imtor
problem for YOU (not for me) is you don't know about the rest how true and untrue it is.


So, you know what is true and untrue? And you're calling me arrogant?

And again, I do know how much is true and untrue, because I do not take the ancient alien proponents word for anything. I do my own reading.


Originally posted by Imtor
So again I think it's a waste of time explaining, writing another long post to someone who has no knowledge of the subject yet claims it didnt happen because will you look at that 'we didnt find it'


I have no knowledge of the subject? Who is the one arguing points and evidence, and who is the one making ad hominem attacks and straw-men?


Originally posted by Imtor
I will give this example again, maybe with another creature. Some time in the future some unique creature is found deep in the ocean. Today however it is not known, someone has seen it but doesnt have a video if it. Your reaction


Not at all. In fact, we discussed this earlier. But you ignored what I said in favor of a straw-man argument, quoting me out of context regarding a completely different situation. In your example, you make it about finding a creature but the discoverer having no evidence for it. In what you quoted, it is about ancient alien proponents lying or ignoring evidence in order to make their case.


Originally posted by Imtor
Haha!


Yeah, you really got me there. Had to quote me out of context and invent a straw-man to attack.

Sarcasm, by the way.


Originally posted by ImtorON some things they are RIGHT


For example?


Originally posted by Imtor
ARROGANCE - I bash it, you are the pure expression of it.


How is that arrogance? Floods leave marks on the land. A world-wide flood would leave physical, geologic evidence How is it arrogant to say that?


Originally posted by Imtor
I understand AAT is not certain and maybe I need to repeat to like retarded for a millionth time so to say


And now calling me retarded. More ad hominems.


Originally posted by Imtor
What makes you so certain you are not wrong on some things?


I could be, and often am. But show me the evidence I am wrong, which is the point you fail to understand. Bias does not equate to being wrong. A person can be biased and be right.


Originally posted by ImtorYou are not even a scientist you are just some nobody.


More ad hominems.

So what if I am not a scientist. That doesn't mean I am wrong either.


Originally posted by Imtor
Calling me nobody?


No one said that. The only person resorting to name-calling and personal attacks has been you.


Originally posted by Imtor
Look, you are some nobody really


More ad hominems. You continue to show how weak your argument is.


Originally posted by Imtor
Welcome to my world thats what you'd get in return for your arrogance.


Arrogance meaning disagreement, right?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Please Stop the Personal Sniping and address the Topic, NOT each other.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imtor

Originally posted by Harte
We all see what you mean. It's just wrong to pretend it's a scientific theory when in fact it is nothing but opinion (on your part) and flat-out lies (on the part of the fringe authors you cite.)


Didn't I allready said several times, it is in early stage, just like many things in science were pure speculation, it hes yet to become science, whatever of it is true, so yes it is not scientific, it is just a theory atm.

The part of your text above that I bolded is the correct language.

Like I said, you are arguing semantics.

Originally posted by Harte

Do you need other examples, or what? Why do you even bring this up? I've already made it obvious that they lie and ignore facts. Or, do you think it's me that's lying about Pacal's tomb?
p


While AAT is not accurate about all, it does state some true things, you will see because it all makes the logical connection LOGIC, get it? Just don't suicide if it kills your 'I don't believe anything that isn't physics 101' ok?

Basically you say, they are wrong about some things, therefore they are wrong about all. Evidence? NO, evidence just for some things, for the rest it's just how you like it to be to fit the way you think.


Please note: I didn't say they are "wrong," I said (and proved) that they lie.

The fact that this difference went unnoticed by you says more about your ego than it does about your reading skills.

There are at least fifty different verbal claims made on each episode of that ridiculous show.

You are expecting me to provide evidence for you that disputes each one?

The show provides exactly zero evidence for their claims, yet I have to provide evidence against each?

How about maybe looking for yourself? That's how I did it.

I'm telling you some of the things I know. I know these things because of effort made on my part and my part alone. I didn't simply take Childress' (for example) word that this or that "couldn't possibly have been done by humans," though it appears that you have.

Why?


And ultimately what are you two doing here? Join Skepticon Skepticmagazine or whatever, it is full of the same garbage as those believers who believe everything on the net but from the opposite side.
edit on 24-2-2012 by Imtor because: (no reason given)


I am a member at two different skeptic forums already - one of them at Skeptic mag. as you suggest.

Your other suggestion, that I leave here so you can be comfortable in your ignorance, that's not gonna happen.

Perhaps you should post exclusively at Godlike Productions.

You might be one of the more grounded persons there. They'd probably consider you a "disinfo agent."

You'd fit right in.

Harte
edit on 2/25/2012 by Harte because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Me and Ignorance haha? You really look like a duplicate account of the other above since you sound exactly the same. And to him I already said - I'm not certain in AAT but I do make the same connections on some of the things they say and they are pretty much in the right direction.

Ignorance really means accepting either possibility of things that are not certain and not proven in a way to be a lie or hoax. For you two, the Bible, all sorts of petroglyphs, writings, texts and whatever is all Fairy Tales because you cannot prove they are not and

I don't know, therefore it isn't - the motto of every wannabe who wants to call himself 'skeptic'. I do not care if you leave or not, the way you two sound are pure example of ignorance.

My motto isn't I don't know, therefore it is - I know this is the way Tsoukalos thinks but hey I've shown many times I stay right in the middle, right into objectivity and whatever remains unknown, remains unknown, saying it is NOT because you don't know is as equally bad as saying it is because you don't know.

What are they lying about?? They are suggesting, giving the absolutely logical explanation of what happens in these ancient books, I have reached the same conclusions although until now I am not certain there has been other alien beings here on Earth, it still sounds very possible.

So do not try to force your ignorance on anybody else, im not trying to force you to believe in what I DO NOT BELIEVE either - because i see what happens and make a statemenet out of it - how true it is has yet to be seen - but don't come and act like you know anything. Lying? They are suggesting.. and they are not right about all the things they say, that's it?

What more to discuss? Pointless..



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
You will know one day, just don't let it go through where 'sun doesn't shine' when it happens. It's too early to talk about it, your common sense could tell you alone that such wide coverup wouldn't exist for just some alleged Aurora, and that USAF is flying in everyone;s country that's why people see such aircraft everywhere., and make the connection with what happens in the past, the Nuremberg cases, the idea that those could be UFO is possible, you cannot know, only ignorants will say for sure when knowing nothing.

You probably haven't seen thee skulls of the so called Redhair
ironlight.wordpress.com...

Why not pay a visit, call it gigantism desease. please. that also turns a person into a yeti-looking tall beings...

The evidence of other beings is right there at least to make you think again if not make you certain, just like it is not enough to make ME certain about it, yet you claim you know it 'for sure it is not'..

Exactly such kind of people will not get any good of me, I absolutely understand being uncertain, doubting, but acting like 'for sure' about things that are mystery even being arrogant in your claim and with insults - get out
edit on 26-2-2012 by Imtor because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
unbelievable what crap people believe to be real. ´AAT´ has become one of the biggest superstition believe system on the net.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Second and Final Warning, folks...


The sniping and personal commentary stops right now. If the conversation you are having can't be civil, perhaps you need to not post.

Actions will follow if this continues.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imtor
Ignorance really means accepting either possibility of things that are not certain and not proven in a way to be a lie or hoax.


That is a pretty good definition of ignorance, though an accident on your part.


Originally posted by Imtor
For you two, the Bible, all sorts of petroglyphs, writings, texts and whatever is all Fairy Tales because you cannot prove they are


Not exactly. They could be right, but there is no enough evidence (or any) to support that notion. It is the null hypothesis.

And you are making another logical fallacy...something is not true simply because there is an arbitrary amount of writing about it.


Originally posted by Imtor
I don't know, therefore it isn't - the motto of every wannabe who wants to call himself 'skeptic'.


What you are saying, then claiming about us are two different things. You are making specific claims, and we are finding counter-evidence. That is a far-cry from "I don't know, therefore it isn't." Again, you are inventing straw-men because that is much easier to argue than our points.


Originally posted by Imtor
What are they lying about?


Harte provided a very specific example. You should re-read this thread and actually read our points, instead of ignoring them, then attacking us for things we never said.

But if you want another example, I'll give you one. Ancient Aliens states that Tiwanaku is the oldest city in the world, "beyond modern dating techniques" and "perhaps 17,000 years old". This is not true at all. Earliest archaeological evidence points to the area being inhabited as early as 1500 BC. Now, I'm not great at math, but 1500 BC is not 17,000 years ago. Pumapunku, the focus of the particular episode, is even younger. Initial construction began 400 AD.

Ancient Aliens claims statues at Tiwanaku are carved in the same style and expression as the faces at Easter Island, even while showing you the statues, allowing you to see this is not true.

Von Daniken, in the episode, tells us the construction would have been impossible with stone-age tools. Except, the stone-age was long gone by the time Pumapunku was being built.

Tsoukalos claims the builders of Tiwanaku and Pumapunku did not have a written language. This is patently untrue. They used a highly complex system called Quipu.

Tsoukalos (and many ancient astronaut proponents) claim the stones at Pumapunku are diorite. This is, again, untrue. The masonry of Pumapunku is a mixture of andestie, red sandstone and clay. The Inca did use diorite, but diorite, despite being hard and difficult to work with, has been used since very early antiquity around the globe.

Here's a good jumping off point for Pumapunku

Here is the segment referenced...




Originally posted by Imtor
They are suggesting, giving the absolutely logical explanation of what happens in these ancient books


It is not "logical" if it is contrary to the evidence.

I have reached the same conclusions although until now I am not certain there has been other alien beings here on Earth, it still sounds very possible.


Originally posted by Imtor
im not trying to force you to believe in what I DO NOT BELIEVE either


You contradict yourself.


Originally posted by Imtor
I have reached the same conclusions although until now I am not certain there has been other alien beings here on Earth, it still sounds very possible.


No one is forcing anyone to believe anything. Someone is making a claim that is supposedly fact; we are debating that. Disagreement is not "forcing" anyone to believe anything.


Originally posted by ImtorLying? They are suggesting..


If the facts are known, and you outright ignore, or distort them in order to make a claim, yes, that is a lie.
edit on 26-2-2012 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I think Sagan said it best.

"A open mind is a good thing. Just no so open that your brain falls out."

Seriously Ancient aliens has claimed that the samurai sword and the colt revolver were both alien influenced inventions. seriously...really!...wow.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by WingedBull
 


Using Wikipedia as a source make your claims weak. It is typical for it to be in style 'According to this 'mystery' but there is nothing strange about it'.

Pumapunku is an example of how ancient civs may have had precise methods of cutting or shaping, better even than today's tools. AAT does mention about 'lost technologies' or many things people could do in the past were lost forever.

If they jump instantly to aliens, I may disagree but I also disagree that they are not right about everything. You forget that AAT doesn't mean everything they say has to be true, some of the things however are. Even if you take out all the things that are not true and exactly as AAT proponents say, the remaining is still too much to be ignored.

I just don't have the time to quote you on many things that show there has been or still is other presence. An example I can give is WW2 and Hitler's closest men who were in some cult about contacting aliens. Away from such telepathic things, according to A. Greenfield who met Werner Von Braun, Braun told him that they had help from Them.

This does not make me believe it fully but I cannot deny it either, I know you will say 'Oh he's just a liar, both are'... you know convicting people without a base?

About von Braun - Greenfield conversation

Actually a lot of the top secret military aircraft are definitely coming from more advanced technology, most likely developed by former-Nazi scientists but they also didn't get a lightning strike on their heads one day? They may have received help, Rosewell - blah bla bla, things happen way before Rosewell's several crash sites..

The Germans suddenly started looking for some ancient artifacts, did you know that? What for? Archeology as hobby? And then similar object like Die Glocke falls in Kecksburg, Pensylvania.

I just don't have the time to argue with every single thing that you cannot deny and they are still too many, even if you exclude those that most likely are man-made and I do not deny some of the things, structures were man made, it is still too much to say - 'Oh everything is a lie, I have ear taps'. How can someone even ignore all that exists, so much that I do not have time to show and look for every single thing.. I'm not fully believing but the more I hear, the more I evaluate it myself, the more I think alien presence is real. And that said from absolute objectivity.

But hey I know happens - I'd post things here, let's say I had the time for it, you would come with your predefnied opinions from some skeptic forum, none of all that exists as research here, many members did a lot of good gather of information (so why do I need to link anything?) - it still won't be enough for you, you will not stop thinking otherwise, I will not stop thinking otherwise, so why bother? Why do I need to even continue this 'discussion'? And that's why since I value my time, I do not bother making much links, people did that well enough just use the search button.

By linking these things or all that exists on ATS, like for a hundreth time I say, I am not absolutely certain in all that, but this is enough to hold your horses and not jump fast to conclusions without knowing. Don't let your mind be so open, so your brain falls out of it, is also right, but since I don't even trust the majorty of what's on the net, that's not the case for me.




top topics



 
132
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join