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
. 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.