Why is the Ancient Alien Theory difficult to accept?

page: 9
27
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
For one, there is no "theory." There is just a bunch of "what if's" mashed together into a purported belief system. Most people only believe specific parts of what is considered to be the actual theory. The best reason I can give to show that this theory is bunk comes from logic...There are logical, terrestrial explanations for every single aspect of the theory, and Occam's razor tells me to go with whatever idea makes the fewest assumptions and relies on the least conjecture.

The things that still seem unexplainable truly are not understood in their entirety. What I mean is that we do not have enough information to know if it was true, such as individual accounts, etc...Physical evidence is different, and it can all be explained terrestrially, and credit can be given to the humans who completed the tasks, and not to aliens from some other world. People underestimate how smart and resourceful our ancestors were..




posted on May, 18 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 


This is true with any theory...intelligent design, evolution, Ancient Astronaut....

its just that the AAT is the most plausible. The evidence and time line in the evolution theory do not add up. Intelligent design does not give enough reasonable evidence.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
you mean to tell me that is merely coincidence if ALL the children say they imagined the same thing???

It's not the same thing. Ask them all to come up with a fictional story about where lightning comes from, and you'll get similar stories. Gods and monsters. The same kind of people trying to come up with explanations for the same things they observe in nature. That's what I'm talking about.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


Actually I posted about the evolutionary timeline, both the hominid timeline and the Homo sapiens sapiens timeline, and I never received a response. So why is human evolution so hard to believe when there is a clear progression of technology starting before the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens?



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
I have a theory. We are here and somehow there are a bunch of really old buildings around that were built by who knows who and nobody knows when. We really don't know crap about things that long ago, only what was recorded by the elite. There may have been beings referred to as gods/angels/etc back then.

Well, technically those are facts not a theory. I guess I don't really got a guess at all.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by ButterCookie
you mean to tell me that is merely coincidence if ALL the children say they imagined the same thing???

It's not the same thing. Ask them all to come up with a fictional story about where lightning comes from, and you'll get similar stories. Gods and monsters. The same kind of people trying to come up with explanations for the same things they observe in nature. That's what I'm talking about.


No. Did you read the example I gave about the teacher and the assignment?

How likely is it for each civilization to have the same characters and events in all of their ancient doctrines? These people were not delusional.

I don't see how anti- AAT's say that we should never underestimate the ingenuity of mankind- that they had the knowledge of geometry and architecture to build the megaliths and pyramids.....

but

mankind understood so little that they created imaginary stories to explain them.

Which is it?



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


Where are the stories regarding these megaliths? As far as I know these civilizations always took credit for these structures when they mentioned them. It's natural phenomena that they attributed to gods.
edit on 5/18/2012 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Conquering nations always destroyed the old records of things and killed the men and took posession of the women and children training them in their new way of life. The conditioning we still see today is not a new thing. Suppression of knowledge and history manipulation is also very old. Why do you think they didn't write anything down? They did, it's just been destroyed. History passed down in stories by the regular people could not be destroyed because it's not physical. These things were made into bedtime stories to hide the knowledge from the governing bodies.
edit on 18-5-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


That has nothing to do with what was being discussed. Butters said that the ancients created stories to explain megaliths. So clearly he has seen these stories. I am simply asking for him to provide them since he seems to have proof of their existence.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by rickymouse
 


That has nothing to do with what was being discussed. Butters said that the ancients created stories to explain megaliths. So clearly he has seen these stories. I am simply asking for him to provide them since he seems to have proof of their existence.


Wait Xcalibur, I think there is at least one example where the culture stated they didn't build one of their places but that their "Gods" did, or something like that.

I want to say it was in South America when the Spanish got there and asked......but the name of the place (or the reliability of what I'm remembering) slips my mind.

Not that I buy into the whole AAT thing myself, but I do seem to remember that there is(was) one culture that did proclaim that they did not make their city (temple?) themselves.

But again, I might be incorrect. It's almost midnight here and I'm headed to bed.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by rickymouse
 


That has nothing to do with what was being discussed. Butters said that the ancients created stories to explain megaliths. So clearly he has seen these stories. I am simply asking for him to provide them since he seems to have proof of their existence.


No...incorrect. I never stated that the ancients created stories to explain the megaliths...I was saying that people who refute the AAT say that the ancients were only creating stories from their imagination to explain things in nature that they didn't understand.

My presumption is that the humans had the aides of the gods (ET's) to create the megaliths and pyramids.

And I will have your response regarding the evolution timeline....I want to make sure that I have gathered all facts and evidences so that I can make an very valid statement.




posted on May, 19 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 



No...incorrect. I never stated that the ancients created stories to explain the megaliths...I was saying that people who refute the AAT say that the ancients were only creating stories from their imagination to explain things in nature that they didn't understand.


For most of Britain's recorded history, there has been a belief that Stonehenge was built by Merlin. They wouldn't just make that story up, would they?



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
When studying ancient text it is important to remember that much of the text was derived from verbally passed down songs, sayings, and rhymes/parables from long before. If the language remained constant than each interpretation stayed more accurate. If the people memorizing the words passed on everything accurately to the right people than things remained accurate. The original meaning for many of these things may have been lost to interpretation also. There was a reason they passed on these things, they didn't create myths. They all have a reason for being. It's not like now adays where things are written down and replaced by newer versions as the need occurs. I do not believe something just because it is in writing, especially now adays where all the sites are locked together and automatically adopt new words to replace past misconceptions. Within a day of a discovery a lot of sites have the corrected information and their flawed information has disappeared. I sometimes print things out and compare them to new writings from the same sites. I don't trust the integrety of anything that can change content so fast.

If you want to understand the old text you have to put yourself into the shoes of the ancient people. Know their wants and needs, understand that what we hold high didn't exist back then. Living in a world full of turmoil back there occured in many places. Many common people used rocks as tools up until a couple hundred years ago in many areas because the cost of metal tools was out of their reach. People did spend money on guns and ammo then because they were more necessary. Spices were necessary and seeds were invaluable. It's not too easy for us to put ourselves into the ancients lives, if we pick the texts of the Romans, we only know what the elite and upper class perceived.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ButterCookie
 



No...incorrect. I never stated that the ancients created stories to explain the megaliths...I was saying that people who refute the AAT say that the ancients were only creating stories from their imagination to explain things in nature that they didn't understand.


For most of Britain's recorded history, there has been a belief that Stonehenge was built by Merlin. They wouldn't just make that story up, would they?


Lets get the proper perspective for this myth as recorded ....

www.stonehengenews.co.uk...


Stonehenge is also mentioned within Arthurian legend. Geoffrey of Monmouth said that Merlin the wizard directed its removal from Ireland, where it had been constructed on Mount Killaraus by Giants, who brought the stones from Africa. After it had been rebuilt near Amesbury, Geoffrey further narrates how first Ambrosius Aurelianus, then Uther Pendragon, and finally Constantine III, were buried inside the ring of stones. In many places in his Historia Regum Britanniae Geoffrey mixes British legend and his own imagination; it is intriguing that he connects Ambrosius Aurelianus with this prehistoric monument, seeing how there is place-name evidence to connect Ambrosius with nearby Amesbury. A giant helps Merlin build Stonehenge. From a manuscript of the Roman de Brut by Wace in the British Library (Egerton 3028). This is the oldest known depiction of Stonehenge. According to Geoffrey of Monmouth, the rocks of Stonehenge were healing rocks which Giants brought from Africa to Ireland for their healing properties. These rocks were called The Giant’s Dance. Aurelius Ambrosias (5th century), wishing to erect a memorial to the nobles (3000) who had died in battle with the Saxons and were buried at Salisbury, chose (at Merlin’s advice) Stonehenge to be their monument. So the King sent Merlin, Uther Pendragon (Arthur’s father), and 15,000 knights to Ireland to retrieve the rocks. They slew 7,000 Irish. As the knights tried to move the rocks with ropes and force, they failed. Then Merlin, using “gear” and skill, easily dismantled the stones and sent them over to Britain, where Stonehenge was dedicated. Shortly after, Aurelius died and was buried within the Stonehenge monument, or “The Giants’ Ring of Stonehenge”. Please Tell Us What You Think!




That sure sounds like some kind of advanced technology was being employed to me ..

thx DJ

.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by R0CR13
 


At the 15:42-Mark: www.youtube.com...=942s

edit on 19-5-2012 by Nightchild because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
For most of Britain's recorded history, there has been a belief that Stonehenge was built by Merlin. They wouldn't just make that story up, would they?


Sure they would.

Besides, Stonehenge was built thousands of years before Britain's recorded history and the supposed lifetime of Merlin.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


The natives don't take credit in Pumpunko(sp). As a matter of fact, a few other civilizations admit that those are the ruins of the empire before them, another souther american culture admitted it, can't remember the name.

I don't hear anybody in China or Mongolia taking credit for all those damn chinese pyramids. There's a thread, there are quite alot of them. And the chinese aren't saying.. "Yea, those are ours". You know why, because the chinese are meticulous bastards (in a good way) and emperors or kings would have document themselves (they would have made damn sure it was in there) tossing those up. Now.. not all of them are tombs either.

ATS has some great threads on those



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


The Ancient Alien theory is indeed a great theory when observed but there are too many flaws. I myself halfway bought into the claims and such but the things did not add up. It is a deeply flawed theory and it only makes sense on the outside. Many of the topics have been proved wrong such as the Nazca Lines 'space ship' airlines (The most evidential and most accepted theory of the Lines' is that they were ritual spots). The 'Manna Machine' consisted of the Israelites' manna was obtained by a machine given to them by aliens and was powered by the Ark of the Covenant (which housed a 'power source') There was a big flaw that I sought out in the few minutes I looked into it; the Ark of the Covenant was constructed after they received the manna. It's a good interesting fight but in the end it can be proved wrong easily through Divine assistance. Still it's one of my favorite things to look into.
edit on 31-5-2012 by PunkNerd5 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by cenpuppie
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


The natives don't take credit in Pumpunko(sp). As a matter of fact, a few other civilizations admit that those are the ruins of the empire before them, another souther american culture admitted it, can't remember the name.

The natives you're talking about here are the Inca.

We know today that the Inca didn't build Tiwanaku/Pumapunku, so the evidence we have corroborates what they told the Spaniards.

Of course, the Inca had only been around a couple hundred years or so when the Spanish arrived, so it's no big surprise that they didn't claim to have built Pumapunku.

Harte



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
I belive that the aat could very well be true. All over the planet there are signs that the anicent people were far more advancd than what we give them credit for. Alot of their sctrues point toward the stars, They knew alot about space. They drew aleins on walls, and ufos,

but, that being said, also in our modren times we draw things that we have never seen before. We draw aliens,ufos,unicorns,vampires,I could go on and on. in 10,000 years if they just found pieces of what we have left behind Just think of what they will think we were trying to say!

what I do know is the universe is far to vast to rule anything out how can we be so niave to think we are the only beings in the whole universe. If we are here many others could be as well. It makes me sick in a way that people think that there isnt life outside of our own planet. The universe is just too big to think like that.

sorry for typos im on my netbook and th eeyss are small!





new topics
top topics
 
27
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join