HC's Ancient Aliens last episode "The Mystery of Puma Punku" DEVASTATED the show haters., page 36

posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 09:04 PM

link

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
Yes they were in fact primitive technologically.

No, they were not technologically primitive. More ancient alien proponent racism. They were every bit as advanced as their contemporaries in Rome, who achieved engineering feats rivaling and surpassing Tiwanaku. Yet, the white Romans are not called "primitive" and their achievements are not questioned as belonging to anyone other than them, not aliens, not advanced white men.

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
Could you explain how we could even do this with today's technology which is thousands of years more advanced?

It has been explained. Ad nauseum. Read a book on archaeology, instead of relying on ancient alien shows and websites that lie about what mainstream archaeology says, that lies about the evidence.

And even if there were not explanation, no explanation does not automatically translate into aliens, despite what the liars among the ancient alien proponents will tell you.

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
This has yet to be adequately explained and I have read the links that people here posted in an attempt to explain but those fail.

Let's call a spade a spade. You do not mean it has "yet to be adequately explained". What you mean is, the evidence supports another explanation instead of your conclusion, therefore the explanation must be discarded and the evidence ignored.

Alien Abduct

posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 10:17 PM

link

Originally posted by WingedBull

No, they were not technologically primitive. More ancient alien proponent racism. They were every bit as advanced as their contemporaries in Rome, who achieved engineering feats rivaling and surpassing Tiwanaku. Yet, the white Romans are not called "primitive" and their achievements are not questioned as belonging to anyone other than them, not aliens, not advanced white men.

Yes they were technologically primitive. I'm not comparing them to some other race or people. I'm comparing their tech to today's tech not "white people's tech" You are making assumptions without basis. I have never thought of the Egyptians of being inferior to the Romans or anyone of their time for that matter. And, the only way you could yourself conclude such a ridiculous notion out of what I have posted is if you yourself is thinking along these terms.

I actually in fact hold the ancient Egyptians to a higher standard than most other cultures of their time regardless of color. I raise two black boys that aren't even my own, race plays no part of my decision making. Period.

It has been explained. Ad nauseum. Read a book on archaeology, instead of relying on ancient alien shows and websites that lie about what mainstream archaeology says, that lies about the evidence.

I have read books and I have watched shows on the mainstream perspective. They all say that they don't know. Its all speculation after a certain point and they all admit it. post just one book or just one website that explains how exactly they excavated, precisely cut to within millimeters and carried those over 2 million blocks all the way to their destination, placed them to the degree of true north to which was impossible until 1700'sAD, all within 20 years etc. etc. etc. it goes on and on. Show me an engineer that has stated that he could do it (and how) with everything at his disposal with even today's tech let alone the available tech. JUST ONE, SHOW ME JUST ONE.

And even if there were not explanation, no explanation does not automatically translate into aliens, despite what the liars among the ancient alien proponents will tell you.

No one says it is automatically aliens, but it does explain it a hell of a lot better then you ever have.

Let's call a spade a spade. You do not mean it has "yet to be adequately explained". What you mean is, the evidence supports another explanation instead of your conclusion, therefore the explanation must be discarded and the evidence ignored.

First of all you have presented no evidence.

Like you said a spade a spade. What I mean is exactly what I said, read the words there is no hidden meaning I can assure you. Its plain text, its not difficult to understand that one little sentence...."yet to be adequately explained".

Show your "evidence that supports another explanation".

-Alien

edit on 3/25/2012 by Alien Abduct because: spelling correction

edit on 3/25/2012 by Alien Abduct because: sentence structure

cripmeister

posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 05:56 AM

link

Originally posted by Alien Abduct

First of all you have presented no evidence.

Like you said a spade a spade. What I mean is exactly what I said, read the words there is no hidden meaning I can assure you. Its plain text, its not difficult to understand that one little sentence...."yet to be adequately explained".

Show your "evidence that supports another explanation".

-Alien

XTTIOTX

posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 07:46 AM

link

Is everyone forgetting that the ancients didn't have access to porn on their laptops? When your hands....hand..isn't so busy its fairly easy to be productive. Seriously though, ancient people were capable of the same reasoning and intelligence that we are today, why is it so hard to believe that people made these places? I would be more inclined to believe we had technology and lost it than believe aliens built it. Take something as simple as concrete. The Romans mastered the proper mix and then used the hell out of it. Then BAM! Rome falls and the dark ages begin. The fall of Rome is around 476 A.D. and wasn't actually rediscovered until 1756 A.D. by John Smeaton, a British engineer. That's approximately 1280 years until it was rediscovered. So if it took us that long to figure out a fairly simple formula/mix to make concrete imagine what would happen if techniques that were far more advanced were lost to time. I happen to be a big fan of the "simplest explanation being the actual explanation" approach because 99% of the time it is.

edit on 3/26/2012 by XTTIOTX because: added info

Alien Abduct

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:36 AM

link

reply to post by XTTIOTX

Well the point you made about....

." I would be more inclined to believe we had technology and lost it than believe aliens built it."

knowledge I can understand to be lost but technology is a different story. Technology would show its "footprints" so to speak. Technology would be present in the dig sites. This is a no-brainer.

But as for the knowledge and I'm sure you meant the knowledge is what was lost at least in part, I do agree that there is a possibility that there is some kind of lost knowledge of how this was done but as you say the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

Most people with half of a brain enough to digest the research they might do (on the existence of extraterrestrials) would conclude that there is in fact extraterrestrials visiting this planet. And it is therefore not so far fetched to conclude that extraterrestrials may have built some of the anomalous structures on this planet.

This is a very simple explanation and I admit it is dangerous in its simplicity.

-Alien

XTTIOTX

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 07:30 AM

link

reply to post by Alien Abduct

I actually do believe in the existence of intelligent extra-terrestrial life, but I just find the arguments they make on Ancient Aliens to be more than a little ridiculous at times. When you mix potentially decent arguments for your cause with absolute absurdity just to be on T.V. or sell books your credibility turns to sh*t. I have watched almost all the episodes and sometimes have to turn them off. Oh and when I said technology I meant technology such as the antikythera mechanism, for example, which proves that they knew about complex mechanical systems before Christ was even on the scene. I just don't think a super advanced culture would fly here from some distant planet to build things out of giant stones just so we could have primitive observatories, which are what most of these sites seem to be. If an extinction level event happened today and 95% of the people died, the ones who were left would probably care more about general survival than trying to maintain our "advanced" technology for future generations. It wouldn't take very long compared to the entire history of everything for our man-made objects to "disappear". I'm not sure how much physics you have studied, but mechanical advantage can turn a daunting task into something relatively easy. I know that no-one is actually certain how these places were built, but I like to give our human ancestors a little more credit. Besides if aliens were so involved in our past why have they "disappeared"? Like I said I actually, for the most part, enjoy the ancient aliens show, but I have far to much faith in human ingenuity to just automatically say, "NOPE! ALIENS FOR SURE!" Ancient folks had the same brain power and potential for complex thought/problem solving that we do today. So I think these places were built by ancient geniuses, not ancient aliens.

edit on 3/27/2012 by XTTIOTX because: grammar

WingedBull

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 11:09 AM

link

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
Yes they were technologically primitive. I'm not comparing them to some other race or people. I'm comparing their tech to today's tech not "white people's tech" You are making assumptions without basis...

Sure, no basis at all, except the constant questioning of how peoples outside of Europe could have achieved the same engineering feats as their contemporaries. And of course, always referring to these cultures "primitive" or "stone-age" cultures when they were nothing of the sort.

Ancient Romans: aqueducts, bridges, hydraulic mining, the Colosseum...no question.

Go outside of Europe...and things like Tiwanaku had to be built by aliens. No way those "primitive" savages could have done such a thing.

But yeah, you're right. There is no racism at all; I have no basis for even suggesting such.

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
They all say that they don't know. Its all speculation after a certain point and they all admit it.

Even if that were true, it does not mean aliens were involved. You are using the God in the Gaps argument. "I don't know, therefore aliens."

Originally posted by Alien Abductcarried those over 2 million blocks all the way to their destination

No need for aliens when we have the Egyptians themselves how they moved such massive stones...the tomb of Djehutihotep depicts workers using a sledge wet with water, used to carry Djehutihotep's 60 ton statue. See Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
Show me an engineer that has stated that he could do it (and how) with everything at his disposal with even today's tech let alone the available tech. JUST ONE, SHOW ME JUST ONE.

Michael Lerner and Roger Hoskins built a pyramid for NOVA in the 1990s. The construction firm Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall think so too. That's just two examples from the entirety[/] of mainstream archaeology. Show us the one mainstream archaeologist who says building the pyramids would have been impossible for the Egyptians.

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
No one says it is automatically aliens, but it does explain it a hell of a lot better then you ever have.

No, it doesn't. Even if it still remains unknown how the Great Pyramid was built exactly, unknown does not mean aliens. Yes, there are competing theories about it's construction, but those have evidence to support them; the ancient alien hypothesis has nothing. Show us one bit of evidence that shows aliens did it. "It's unknown" is not evidence.

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
First of all you have presented no evidence.

I myself do not need to present evidence. We have the whole of Egyptology backing me up. You have nothing. You rely on a God-in-the-Gaps argument.

Originally posted by Alien AbductWhat I mean is exactly what I said, read the words there is no hidden meaning I can assure you. Its plain text, its not difficult to understand that one little sentence...."yet to be adequately explained".

Come on now, we know how you types operate. We know what you mean. Reject the conclusions that are not your own, ignore the evidence. That is standard operating procedure for the ancient alien believers.

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
Show your "evidence that supports another explanation".

Show your evidence it was aliens.

edit on 27-3-2012 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2012 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2012 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2012 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)

Telos

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link

Originally posted by Xtrozero

The problem I have with the show is they do not offer anything BUT the alien connection...hense the name of the show. It is like the Finding Big Foot show...every noise in the woods the hear with their parabolic antenna is a "Quatch".

There is a great thread in ATS about Punku and how it all could be done without aliens, but that show just jumps right into that connection everytime on everyshow.

Why would that surprise you? Not for anything the show is called Ancient Aliens. You want them to talk about other things when the very name makes it specific what the show is all about

XTTIOTX

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link

reply to post by WingedBull

At least I'm not the only one who sees the serious flaws in this method of thinking. Just think if every time something mysterious was discovered people just threw up their hands and said, "Aliens, definitely Aliens." The last time people said screw this science stuff it was a higher being it caused the deaths and imprisonment of individuals who could have brought us closer to where we are today much sooner.. This higher being was of course "God".. Think of how much knowledge was repressed by the old Christian churches! Look at the knowledge that is still repressed by religions! The Catholic Church just very recently acknowledged that evolution is real.. After reading through your other posts I'm glad there are others who think rationally! Plus I just thought of something interesting. I saw what you wrote about the Egyptians using a wet surface to slide a statue, but sand, which egypt has plenty of can also be very "slippery" when a thin enough layer is used on top of another solid surface. Sand can make very heavy objects slide/slip fairly easily, I wonder if this could have been a method of use.

bottleslingguy

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link

reply to post by Alien Abduct

there's no way they could do that many blocks with ropes and tea leaves in twenty years. no way. and anybody telling you we're being racist if we think otherwise has their own issues to deal with. it's a typical diversion tactic and a sign of the argument getting desperate.

bottleslingguy

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link

reply to post by XTTIOTX

it's a simple connection and makes much more rational sense than wet wood chips splitting granite. Are there billions of Earth like planets older than this one? Then there is a high probability that we didn't just transform genetically on our own and why we have this penchant for exploring space. Humanity has to grow up and come to grips with it's origins and stop living in denial. It's why innovation has stagnated and we're still burning oil and coal for energy.

JohnnyCanuck

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Alien Abduct

there's no way they could do that many blocks with ropes and tea leaves in twenty years. no way. and anybody telling you we're being racist if we think otherwise has their own issues to deal with. it's a typical diversion tactic and a sign of the argument getting desperate.

No. There was no desperation whatsoever in my suggestion, and it seems to be emerging as the elephant in the corner.

Quite frankly, the only desperation here is the breathless assertion that only advanced beings from outer space could have come here and built big stuff out of rocks.

Not arguing...just sayin'.

redrezo

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
Yes they were in fact primitive technologically.

No, they were not technologically primitive. More ancient alien proponent racism. They were every bit as advanced as their contemporaries in Rome, who achieved engineering feats rivaling and surpassing Tiwanaku. Yet, the white Romans are not called "primitive" and their achievements are not questioned as belonging to anyone other than them, not aliens, not advanced white men.

Being a minority myself and having done research on the nature of white privilege, dominance, hegemony, and the subtle after effects of racism. I think I know what racism is when I see it, such as singling out Japanese whalers for scrutiny instead of Norwegian whalers in the popular activist media and news, that sort of thing is definitely an example of where racism/white privilege comes in to play.

The Ancient Alien theory in regards to tiwanaku and puma punku? I don't think so! There's alot of compelling evidence in the words of the indigenous population to suggest otherwise. That and proponents for an Ancient Alien theory are for the most part not against theories for indigenous people having advanced technology in the past (ie: Atlanteans).

The difference here is proponents of the AA theory compared to folks like Anti-Whaling Activists are not making relative value judgements on the native folk as inferior. You might as well blame modern archaeology in being complicit as well because alot of the conclusions proponents of AA are following are based off of it.

WingedBull

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
there's no way they could do that many blocks with ropes and tea leaves in twenty years. no way.

Show us the math that it's impossible.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
and anybody telling you we're being racist if we think otherwise has their own issues to deal with. it's a typical diversion tactic and a sign of the argument getting desperate.

Not diversionary at all. The evidence is there. According to the ancient alien proponents, the Europeans were able to accomplish all their achievements on their own. But outside of Europe, they needed the help of aliens or advanced white men from Atlantis.

WingedBull

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link

Originally posted by redrezo
The Ancient Alien theory in regards to tiwanaku and puma punku? I don't think so! There's alot of compelling evidence in the words of the indigenous population to suggest otherwise.

In their own words? That is interesting, considering the people of Tiwanaku had no written language.

So please, tell us how the people of Tiwanaku are telling us in their own words they had help from aliens.

Originally posted by redrezo
You might as well blame modern archaeology in being complicit as well because alot of the conclusions proponents of AA are following are based off of it.

Mainstream archaeologists say the people of Tiwanaku built their city without help from aliens or advanced white men. Ancient alien proponents say it would have been impossible, and dismiss the Tiwanaku as being primitive and a stone-age culture. So, what part of mainstream archaeology are they basing their views on?

WingedBull

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Quite frankly, the only desperation here is the breathless assertion that only advanced beings from outer space could have come here and built big stuff out of rocks.

Not arguing...just sayin'.

Not just aliens. Europeans could do it too. But no one else. They needed the help of aliens.

Nicorette

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link

I did not realize George Noory had an advanced degree in pre-Colombian archaeology and therefore had something worthwhile to contribute in what is presented as a serious discussion. Oh wait, he has a Bachelor's degree in Communications. Hmm, why is he on the show then? A little marketing trade with Giorgio Tsoukalos? A little cross-promotional opportunity?

These people are purveyors of entertainment, not facts and research.

XTTIOTX

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link

Originally posted by Nicorette
I did not realize George Noory had an advanced degree in pre-Colombian archaeology and therefore had something worthwhile to contribute in what is presented as a serious discussion. Oh wait, he has a Bachelor's degree in Communications. Hmm, why is he on the show then? A little marketing trade with Giorgio Tsoukalos? A little cross-promotional opportunity?

These people are purveyors of entertainment, not facts and research.

Your absolutely right. Every person they interview has a book, magazine, DVD, or all three to sell. There is not a legitimate archaeologist on this planet who would put there name on this theory. Although I have to say I could listen to Giorgio Tsoukalos talk all day just for the sheer comedic value alone. He should have been a lawyer that guy can work this Alien case into anything from any angle. He probably makes way more money off of spewing this utter BS though.

babybunnies

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link

This show hardly debunked the "show haters".

I'm not a show hater, but this show completely ignores the scientific process in proving their concept.

Normal scientific procedure is to make observations in nature and the world around you and then try and explain why these are happening and formulate a conclusion based on what is already known, or proove your conclusion with new ideas based on what is happenning.

This show jumps straight to the conclusion that everything they investigate must be contributed by Aliens, and then tries to convince the viewer of this.

Personally, I have a much more open mind.

I certainly believe we have been visited in the past, but the methods employed by this show to "prove" this are questionable at best, and are designed to hook the naive viewer into believing what they are saying.

To paraphrase one of the more common phrases used on this show "could this be true? YES ! "

Harte

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link

Originally posted by babybunnies
This show hardly debunked the "show haters".

I'm not a show hater, but this show completely ignores the scientific process in proving their concept.

Bunnies,

I used to enjoy the show for the cinematography. Then it just got to be too much listening to David Childress' fingernails-on-a-chalkboard whiney claims.

Nowadays, i watch it with the sound off and enjoy the cinematography once again.

If they show someplace I'm not familiar with, I'll unmute it for a minute.

I rarely need the remote.

Still, I do hate the show. Or, rather, what the show represents - idiots preying on uberidiots.

Harte