Ancient Aliens Debunked?

page: 7
132
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I come to this thread, amused.
I am a historian. An academic historian, not an alternative historian.
And even I can see that the Ancient Alien theory is far from debunked.
In fact, the more I learned and saw for myself, the more I was convinced.
However, if you're going to use sources like Daniken et al, then it's quite easy to make fun of it.

Another problem here is that you are drawing a clear line between "alien" and "supernatural being."
Why?
There is no reason to differentiate.

Open your mind and open your eyes.
Using critical thought and hunting for evidence will lead you in a completely different direction, trust me.




posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


i have to disagree with most of this. if you actual look into the interbreeding of species you get whats known as hybrid vigor. if you've ever looked at a picture of a real liger youd see it. there huge. to me, this could be aplied to people as well. as for the so called "plane" artifacts, its not so much that people are saying they were made by aliens but the idea of flight would have been taught to them. But by who? thats where aliens come in. the amazing ability that acient people had to pinpoint such exact measurements, wether it be actual measurement (length,width,height,ect.) or astronomical measurements is the biggest mystery to me. i could keep going on about this but i all i really want to get across is that i dont agree with this. i really feel like the poster of this topic doesnt know what he or she is talking about, to a degree. AND if aliens had nothing to do with ANY of this then why did 90% of these cultures leave writings saying that FRICKEN ALIENS CAME DOWN AND TUAGHT THEM AND THAT THEY WILL RETURN. Sorry for yelling but that real facts are out there.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SavedOne

That's because he's not attempting to prove what they are, only contest that they are airstrips for spaceships. Do you think that spaceships that could travel from other star systems would need the same type of landing strip that an earth-bound aircraft needs? It makes no sense. Surely an advanced spaceship would have VTOL capabilities and would have no need of landing strips. Besides, why would there be landing strips without structures? As large as they are and considering how many of the "strips" cross over each other, surely a control tower of some kind would be required. Not to mention hangars for repairing craft, refueling stations, etc. Seems unlikely that the strips would remain while all other "evidence" has somehow disappeared.



i love it when people say things like "well an alien vessel wouldn't...." or "an alien craft sounds like...." or "clearly they wouldn't need..."

you guys obviously hold the true knowledge of alien space craft. just tell us everything you know! you would be one of the most important people in history!


oh and where do you guys get your time machines that "proove" or "debunk" ANY ancient mysteries at all? i'm pretty neutral on all of this but to come in and give your THEORY does not disproove the ancient astronaut THEORY

very good post though OP well articulated argument and i enjoyed the read



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Like another posted stated, you can't really debunk Ancient Alien theories, it will persist until these mysteries are solved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It depends upon your perspective. Since I do not think ancient aliens arrived in Egypt, I don't think anyone can debunk mankind as the sole source for this phenomenon. Both sides have a legit claim to this issue, but we currently do not have evidence either way. If we go by historical annotation and observation, we know for a fact that Egypt was a civilization of humans. When it comes to 'foreign' intervention, we do know that Egypt was visited by other 'human' civilizations.

What we know is:
(1) Humanity was slowly becoming the dominate species in the known world.
(2) Other civilizations on Earth existed around the same time.
(3) One civilization (Atlantis) was rumored to be a location, which both Egyptians and Romans went for trade.
(4) Atlantis is also rumored to be a very-very advanced civilization.
(5) Civilizations only need three hundred years to evolve technologically. One example of such a civilization is the United States.
(6) Rome has visited Egypt on a few occasions. Although they were not extremely advanced, Romans did have more military prowess and weaponry than Egyptians.
(7) Egyptians and Romes were a very-very religious people; thus, their belief systems were based upon paranoia, fear, and phenomena.
(8) Egyptians and Mayans were interested in explaining physical environmental and physiological changes through metaphysical means.

Did another human civilization reach the same technological as the United States?

Egypt was around for a good 10,000 years, and the United States has only been around for 300ish years. During the 10,000 years of Egyptian's existence, did another human civilization beat everyone to technology?
edit on 6/4/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
The "Ancient Aliens" theory is based on how things appear to us today, without considering how these ancient artifacts are supposed to function. Sure, to our modern eyes the Nazca lines appear to be runways, in that some of them are long and straight, but ignoring the crazy-quilt patterns most of them make or the fact that some of them run straight over hills and valleys. But how could they function as a landing strip when they're literally just scratches in the dirt? Try landing a multi-ton winged air- or spacecraft on them and I think you'll find out very quickly they're are decidedly not landing strips.



Honestly, who builds a runway right over a mountain?

Exactly! I think this is the best post in the topic.

I will admit that I find Ancient Astronauts (the History channel series, I mean) really entertaining, but I also have to admit that I roll my eyes quite frequently while watching the show. Some of the jumps they take to get to conclusions are laughable.

But I think what Blackmarketeer said really droves home in important point: so many of the comparisons they make are based on how things look today. That's kind of silly.
"Oh, look, this 200 BC figurine looks like one of our 20th-century astronaut suits." So? what's your point? Why would we assume that if two things were developed independently that they're going to look extremely similar?

"Oh, look, this little metallic thing looks like one of our present-day F-15's." Again, if these things are developed completely independently, why would they look so similar? That's a huge leap for me. (Granted, planes looking similar or more believable, because of the constraints from the laws of physics and such, but still...)


Here are some specific points that I think are absurd:

- the Nazca Lines. They look like aircraft strips!? Seriously? Almost every supposed UFO I've seen has been circular and/or wingless. The aircraft strips would imply that these ancient UFO's took off and landed very similarly to the way our present-day aircrafts do. Doesn't make sense to me.

- the worst segment of any of the episodes is easily the one with those German scientists talking about the "Mana Machine" they devised in real life. They supposedly interpreted the Bible and constructed this thing. I think that was possibly the biggest leap in logic I've seen in my entire lifetime. Just absolute rubbish.

- actually, I take that back; the worst theory presented on that show was easily when they reasoned that the Great Pyramid was capable of generating some sort of energy/laser beam to re-power a spaceship up in space.


I think the biggest problem with that show is that too often it feels like they're taking the "throw crap against the wall and see what sticks" approach. Sometimes they make sense, sometimes they don't. It's not the fact that they're clearly wrong about some of this that hurts their credibility, it's the fact that they far-too-often are using an imaginative approach instead of a scientific one.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Nicely done. You seem to be quite emotional about this topic as if you felt robbed by the time you spent watching the episode. I like how you brought things down to Earth a little. Many things bug me about that program...Jason Martel being one.

What are your thoughts about Gobekli Tepe?



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by QuantumDisciple
 


to me the greatest evidence of acient aliens is the ruins at puma puncu. how could such strong rocks be cut so perfectly?



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Greetings!
I popped into this thread cause I was oh-so-excited about the History Channels 'Ancient Aliens'. I like it. A lot. I find some things hard to grasp, but not impossible. I'm about to start episode 13 (there are only 15) which means I'm almost an expert

With that said, I'd like to say I'm pretty happy with this series. Most series in the last, oh, however long we've had series, all content has been one-sided (even history has two sides ya'all). I think it's great that the History Channel is showing the 'other' side to things. I was so darned excited that they covered inner earth!! Like whoa. I mean, obviously there are people out there that believe these things. Why hide one person's idea over another? Afraid to let someone make their own decision?

To the OP: Awesome job at putting all that down, but others are correct 'debunk' isn't quite the word you're looking for here.
I think we are at the point where the only way to 'debunk' this would be a visitation from some E.T.'s, in a space ship, that can be seen from ground, that is somehow broadcasting to the ENTIRE world (who, no matter what time it is, is now paying attention) "We are the beings that came down from the skies to help your ancestors. Their cute little picture markings on the cave wall are what they seem- spaceships." Oh, then they would have to exit their space vehicle (now that the news stations have had a chance to set up), and allow themselves, in all their grotesque-human-like glory, to be filmed and seen by many. Unfortunately, SOMEONE would no doubt be asleep and upon waking will not believe a word of it. Even the recorded evidence, for of course, that was staged during his slumber.




On a brighter note to all those vehemently against the possibility of things outside your realm of thought, you guys should check out National Geographic's 'Is It Real?' series. **Spoiler alert: There are 27 episodes and NONE of them are real. So you can sleep better at night- cause National Geographic said so.



Enjoy the sunshine!



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
All I can say is that the question mark in the thread title is the most accurate part.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I've always had this concept we traveled back in time and they saw us.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by metalmana
 


For me, it is the kind of stone cutting at Puma Punko that is most mysterious.

Cuts that are inset!
i92.photobucket.com...

I believe diamonds are harder than this rock. Diamonds are found in every continent but Europe and Antarctica. I would tend to believe that there was once an advanced HUMAN civilization before going off on an alien tangent.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


This is pointless... The counter-claims have the same weight as the AA Theory.

Example, one proposed the gods decended from the sky cuz they were aliens. The other proposes that the entire world worshipped the sun moon and stars as gods.

They both suffer the same logical fallacy... and that is no proof to back the claim.

Sure one could say "Which is more likely" but the answer to that question totally lies within your belief of Aliens in the first place. To further elaborate, it's still applying "Occam's Razor." Someone who believes in Aliens is likely to believe that the simplest solution is that "Aliens" did it. Some one who doesn't believe in Aliens believes the simplest solution is that they use metaphors to explain the properties of astronomy. The simplest solution is 100% subjective in an instance like this, since it's backed by a fringe belief because we as humans have no solid factual structure to gauge what the simplest solution should be.

So, since I seen a UFO at such a distance that I could see all the detail on it -- I don't question the existence of aliens. This makes Ancient Astronaut Theory more factual and easy to believe as I have first hand experience in the subject. Anybody who questions the existence of Aliens is obviously going to come to the conclusion that AAT is wrong. This should come as no surprise.
Thanks for spending so much time explaining to everybody what they already knew.

This is akin to a thread saying "Bible Debunked" and then proposing alternate theories and claiming these are actually "debunking" anything at all.

The word "Debunk" means to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to the level of fact, that the proposed theory is a farce. Nothing you did here achieves such a goal, so I cannot support this thread.

This is the exact reason AAT is self proclaimed as a theory. Everyone who believes in it, knows it's a just a theory. Not claiming to be 100% accurate, but it presents circumstancial evidence that supports the theory. Until 100% empirical evidence exists, for either side of the argument, it will always remain a plausible theory.
edit on 4-6-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
What we are really talking about here is both history and archaeology. Though the artifacts of ancient civilizations are real, the main point of controversy is how we interpret them. Interpretation is not an exact science, even for history that is widely accepted.

The basic questions are; do the artifacts represent a purely imaginary vision of what ancient peoples thought of as god, are they based on actual encounters with ET's, or something else? Without recourse to a time machine it may be difficult to answer these questions.

We can ask an even bigger question, are religions that claim that certain people in the past where divine simply an imaginary vision of what ancient people thought god would be like, are they based on actual encounters with ET's, or something else? ----- > This is the bigger question.

Though if ET's are proven to exist, and if it is shown that they have been here since the beginning of recorded human history, then it would be possible that they may have had recording devices, if they had recording devices they may have recordings of these ancient cultures, if they have recordings of these ancient cultures and we can authenticate the recordings then we can verify or falsify the ancient alien theory.

These recordings may be the most shocking recordings in human history, for they may verify or falsify some of the most influential religions on earth. Imagine if they had recordings of Jesus Christ, or of Moses, or of Muhammad, though at first we may be excited, it may turn to sadness, for we may see that there is no divine content in any of these religions - or we may see the opposite there IS divine content in the religions!!



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by deloprator20000
What we are really talking about here is both history and archaeology. Though the artifacts of ancient civilizations are real, the main point of controversy is how we interpret them. Interpretation is not an exact science, even for history that is widely accepted.

The basic questions are; do the artifacts represent a purely imaginary vision of what ancient peoples thought of as god, are they based on actual encounters with ET's, or something else? Without recourse to a time machine it may be difficult to answer these questions.

We can ask an even bigger question, are religions that claim that certain people in the past where divine simply an imaginary vision of what ancient people thought god would be like, are they based on actual encounters with ET's, or something else? ----- > This is the bigger question.

Though if ET's are proven to exist, and if it is shown that they have been here since the beginning of recorded human history, then it would be possible that they may have had recording devices, if they had recording devices they may have recordings of these ancient cultures, if they have recordings of these ancient cultures and we can authenticate the recordings then we can verify or falsify the ancient alien theory.

These recordings may be the most shocking recordings in human history, for they may verify or falsify some of the most influential religions on earth. Imagine if they had recordings of Jesus Christ, or of Moses, or of Muhammad, though at first we may be excited, it may turn to sadness, for we may see that there is no divine content in any of these religions - or we may see the opposite there IS divine content in the religions!!


If Aliens landed and said they did it... sorry, that would be all the proof required. The only problem with AAT is that Aliens aren't even proven to exist. The second they land and stake the claim that they were here that long ago... Occam's Razor does the rest.

We wouldn't need to authenticate recordings to prove this to be the case. We would just have to learn some of their history and investigate their capability... which would far exceed what is required by the nature of them being at our planet at all.

What your post proves, is that even in the face of undeniable truth, there will always be non believers.

Another way to put it, is, if aliens are proven to be true, the argument over AAT will become one of semantics... As it wouldn't even matter anymore for the simple fact that AAT now has more evidence than any other belief on the planet. If some one were to say Aliens exist and I know so because of X, at the time Aliens remain a "fringe" belief, then aliens are factually proven to exist, his argument now userps any argument counter to his claim.

He had no foreknowledge, made his claim based off of evidence, then was proven to be accurate.... This is the very definition of fact.
edit on 4-6-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I see a lot of arguments for "If they were so advanced, why bring such primitive technology that we obviously could've figured out on our own" or something like that.....

well..... have you considered that they were castoffs of their own societies? or stranded here accidentally for whatever reason?

Think Gilligan's island here...

If I was sent to another planet (for whatever reason) and they had absolutely ZERO technology - I sure as hell wouldn't know how to make a hallogen lightbulb - but I would know how to make a battery (we learned that stuff in 8th grade science).

Just an idea - but NO ONE can deny that we DON'T KNOW and that there truly is a big chunk of history missing from any and every scenario

I also saw someone mention how far the US has come.... well.... we got most of our technology in the 40s from the Nazi's didn't we? a more advanced civilisation... so the real question is where did the Nazi's get it. (period cause its really rhetorical, the main point is that even the most advanced societies can be thrown into the stone ages and we won't know why until it happens to us)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
I think that the main theory that the ancient alien theory dismisses is that it could very well be a human civilization that is building all these advanced things. That means our ancestors were more intelligent than we think them to be, but not because of aliens, just because that's how society is. Why they would try to ignore this is the next big question. Are they trying to cover up the fact that civilization can deteriorate and fall? Just like it is doing now?



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


You are resorting to Bulverism; you cannot tell us why they are wrong, but instead telling us they are wrong based on who they are. Who they are is irrelevant; it does not matter if someone is a hard-core atheist, arrogant scientist or a religious fundamentalist; those alone do not make them wrong. All that matters is facts and evidence; once again, the ancient alien apologist show the paucity of substance to their argument.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
I think that the main theory that the ancient alien theory dismisses is that it could very well be a human civilization that is building all these advanced things. That means our ancestors were more intelligent than we think them to be...


"We"? What is this "we" stuff? It is the ancient alien apologists that do not give our ancestors their deserved credit, grossly underestimating their intelligence.


Originally posted by filosophia
. Why they would try to ignore this is the next big question. Are they trying to cover up the fact that civilization can deteriorate and fall? Just like it is doing now?


The collapse of civilizations is no secret and it certainly is not being covered up. If anything it is one of the few constants of humanity; civilizations rise and fall. The Western Roman Empire, for instance. Funny enough, Medieval scholars, seeing Roman ruins, thought them to be built by giants, believing it impossible humans built such works.
edit on 4-6-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by WingedBull
 


I see it as 50-50, just because they have airplane technology does not mean aliens visited them. But the size of their monuments could mean they had more advanced technology than we do now (you don't like when I use we but I just can't help myself). So if they are more advanced then we (ha ha) are now and this is not even a mainstream idea then something is really wrong. What is the official explanation for the stone cutting? Or the ability to move stones weighing thousands of tons? The official reason is slaves, basically, which is a component but they needed technology. Sticks and rope? Err...don't believe it. Even if that were the case some sophisticated geometry must have been at stake. Not necessarily alien, but intelligent.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
I am not sure about the whole ancient astronauts thing, but there is one theory about aliens genetically engineering us to have a lust for gold so we collect it, waiting a couple thousand years, and then returning to collect all the gold we accumulated is kinda neat. Wouldnt that be funny if some saucers show up and hoover up all the gold all the wall street banksters have hoarded? Puts a smile on my face. We could literally be someones ant farm.





top topics
 
132
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join