Ancient Aliens Debunked (Full Length Movie)

Originally posted by csa981
reply to post by Harte

 

and you've included my post because???? ummmmmm, i was just pointing out, what is seen as pseudoscience (not necessarily in relation to ancient aliens but generally) can lead to accepted scientific theory. Galileo's theory WAS seen as pseduo-science by the establishment of the day, of that there can be no doubt, the part you underline about not established as a fact kinda makes my point as does the actual full history of the discourse between Galileo and the church which led to him eventually being put on trial.........

Of course there is doubt. Nobody considered Galileo's theory "pseudoscience," not even the Pope, as my quote very clearly indicates.

Galileo was arrested for comments he made that were derogatory to the Pope and his cohorts (or so they were taken,) not because of his heliocentrism, which even the Pope agreed was a good theory.

Your inaccurate statements about Galileo are why I included your post.

Look, I know the "usual story" is that Galileo was imprisoned for his stand on heliocentrism. However, just like many other instances in history and other fields, the "usual story" is incorrect.

Originally posted by csa981
funny thing is, you focus on that yet fail to understand the actual context of the post which was that there are definitely some curiousities related to ancient cultures but by having a load of over-excited people championing a particular aspect, it leads to well......what you are trying to do to me in some misguilded attempt to tell me i'm wrong when i'm not trying to be right or wrong, just merely point out that theories are what change and revolutionise the "accepted" world.

This is true. Theories change.

However with the advent of reasonably accurate technology, the vast majority of theories change through refinement, not through the inane commentary of ignorant scam artists such a Giogio Tsoukalos.

Originally posted by csa981
oh btw, you really do not have to embolden or underline things, I can understand the context of your post perfectly well thanks.

Though it may appear so, this is not merely a one on one conversation. IOW, I didn't do that just for you.

Originally posted by csa981
Funnily enough though, your reponse reminds me of a quote I hold dear (I should probably say now in advance, I do not think of AA theorists when quoting this.....before you get your knickers in a twist!

):

"Here's to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes... the ones who see things differently -- they're not fond of rules... You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can't do is ignore them because they change things... they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.

So, willl you now toast the con men out to skim bucks off the ignorant masses? Or should we continue with the education thereof?

Harte

Well I thought so but was afraid to ask.
Supporters get so hot and heavy over the latest Alien trend they do not want to listen.
Good three hours will cure them.
And I shall enjoy real history.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


In your reply to post by ceetee, you said (edited by me to remove extraneous comments)

Die hard believers are just as closed minded as the skeptics.

Because they can't see any other possibilities that they could be wrong and there could be another explanation other than it can only be an alien space craft.
snip
Open minded people base their conclusions on what the evidence tells them, and do not fit the evidence to what they want to or don't want to believe.

Believing is the opposite of being skeptical. Believers do not require evidence, they accept claims blindly. Skeptics demand evidence because "the proof is in the pudding". An open-minded person is a combination of believer and skeptic. They just aren't sure.

I'm an example of an open-minded skeptic. Since I've never had a belief system I never "believed" UFOs were real but I accepted and kept an open mind to the reports being made by others. Then I had my own solid sightings and I went from open mind to accepter 'cause now I had the evidence. Just because someone makes a claim it doesn't automatically lead to acceptance.

reply to post by The Shrike

Believing is the opposite of being skeptical. Believers do not require evidence, they accept claims blindly. Skeptics demand evidence because "the proof is in the pudding". An open-minded person is a combination of believer and skeptic. They just aren't sure.

Sorry, but I just can not agree.

Skeptics will not believe in aliens if one bit them on the behind.

Their job is to convince people that there is absolutely no possibility of aliens under any circumstances they just don't exist.

They start out with that conclusion, then describe things as swamp gas, then move on.

I'm sorry, but skeptics are full of it.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


Dont you think your generalizing a bit? If the evidence is too circumstantial, inconclusive, explainable by possible means or a complete fabrication you should have no problem with a Skeptic dismissing claims. If it weren't for Skeptics in this field, the Alien/UFO Phenomena would be nothing more than a Religion.

reply to post by Zeer0


No I don't.

Prove to me that Skeptics don't do what they can to fit the evidence to their conclusions, which is it can't be an alien under any circumstances.

And I have come to believe that UFO belief is another kind of religion, because they can't see any other possibility that they could be wrong.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by Zeer0

 

No I don't.

Prove to me that Skeptics don't do what they can to fit the evidence to their conclusions, which is it can't be an alien under any circumstances.

And I have come to believe that UFO belief is another kind of religion, because they can't see any other possibility that they could be wrong.

you sound pretty skeptical.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


I don't call myself a skeptic. I want a different word.

I'm not a believer in UFOs, but I will believe if I have hard evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

What that means I will only believe if I have a body or something like a flying saucer lands on the white House lawn.

Because I have seen a lot of junk reasoning in regards to this subject.

For example, one of my biggest pet peeves is the explanation that humans are too stupid to understand things so it must have been aliens.

I'm sorry, but when you think about that explanation, you'll see it does not hold any water and there are many problems with it.

For example, if we are too stupid then how are we able to do anything and use any tools at all? Why are we not STILL living like we were a hundred thousand years ago in caves? In fact, why didn't we die out a long time ago if we are too stupid to figure anything out?

And if we aren't so smart then how come the aliens are so smart? How were they able to develop intelligence? They evolved? Well, why can't we? Somebody else created their intelligence? Well who did that and why? And in so doing this creates a circular argument all the way back to the big bang.

And when you start looking at things like that, you really do begin to slowly realize that there really is a lot of poor reasoning within the field of UFOs.

Now, I am not going to say something like it's impossible for aliens to exist.

When it comes to science, I can't stand assumptions and want to make my conclusions based on what the evidence tells me, not what on what I want to or don't want to believe.

For example, I really don't like the claim that "The universe is just too big so there must be intelligent life other than out own out there somewhere".

It's an assumption with no real evidence that can be verified or observed.

For it to be true science, we need something that can be verified and observed.

I.E, what we need is a flying sauce to land on the White House lawn. Anything else is just pure assumption and speculation, and when it comes to science I don't like assumptions. I want to see it verified and observed.

I also just don't like out right dismissals of things as a hoax either. A dismissal is poor science. I want something fully examined before I'll call it a hoax. But I will always keep in mind that it could be a hoax.

But that's just me.


Basically all i'm trying to say is I'm trying to be evenhanded, and I really don't see a lot of that on either side of the issue because most people are very emotionally invested in their beliefs.

an extraterrestrial being would just be another of Gods creation, not God

reply to post by randomname


It would be the replacement of the "advanced sky beings" that the ignorant primitives are guesstimating exists, hence it would replace any god. ETs would just be another evolved species, not a creation of something that's non-existent.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What that means I will only believe if I have a body or something like a flying saucer lands on the white House lawn.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


No, just claims require proof.

Oh dear, that's a pejorative summation of sceptical beliefs, you're not meant to take it literally...

Originally posted by Morg234

an extraterrestrial being would just be another of Gods creation, not God

reply to post by randomname

 

It would be the replacement of the "advanced sky beings" that the ignorant primitives are guesstimating exists, hence it would replace any god. ETs would just be another evolved species, not a creation of something that's non-existent.

Exactly, like the non observable, non existent theory of evolution. The difference between belief in creationism or the belief in an omnipotent supernatural god and evolution, the belief that we all evolved from the primordial slime over millions and billions of years ago is that the former is acknowledged as a faith, the latter is a tax funded faith that is pawned off as legitimate science in the schools. Unlike you, this documentary stands on its feet without the author injecting his religious beliefs into it, and its been fun watching the cockroaches scatter, scrambling trying to uphold their faith in Ancient Aliens, as their whole world view comes crashing down on top of them.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

I'm not a believer in UFOs, but I will believe if I have hard evidence.

Your a Skeptic. You pretty much just defined a UFO Skeptic.

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun

Originally posted by blindlyzack
Sum it up, I'm not watching a 3 hour movie.

The summary is in the title.

No, the title is the title. Provide the main points the video makes. THAT is a summary.


That said, as others have said, one can view portions of the film, jumping from topic to topic. The video/documentary is well produced and makes well laid-out arguments. All the Ancient Alien believers should spend some time viewing this before making another post citing ancient alien evidence as proof of ET visits to earth.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


Man/woman up and call yourself a skeptic. The UFO true believers conflate skeptics with the debunkers. A debunker claims there are no ET UFOs and explains every last sighting in terms of more mundane phenomena. A skeptic doubts things that he/she is told are true, but has been shown no compelling evidence.

The UFO true believer crowd here at ATS has maligned the term skeptic. It should not be a pejorative term. Every sensible person with reasoning ability should be a skeptic about matters they haven't been given proof of. It's the wanna-believers who should be embarrassed.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by EvilSadamClone

 

Man/woman up and call yourself a skeptic. The UFO true believers conflate skeptics with the debunkers. A debunker claims there are no ET UFOs and explains every last sighting in terms of more mundane phenomena. A skeptic doubts things that he/she is told are true, but has been shown no compelling evidence.

The UFO true believer crowd here at ATS has maligned the term skeptic. It should not be a pejorative term. Every sensible person with reasoning ability should be a skeptic about matters they haven't been given proof of. It's the wanna-believers who should be embarrassed.

I cringe at the word "proof" in this context.

That is, proof would require actual possesion of an actual live alien that can tell us he's not from here, or something like that.

The idea of "compelling evidence" is more realistic. The problem with that is, one man's compelling evidence is another mans hooey. At least it is here at ATS. I don't know how many times people have posted Youtube vids as "proof," though admittedly sometimes they (properly) just refer to it as evidence.

It should be noted that, due to the nature of the thing, no compelling evidence, nor any "proof," can be posted on a discussion forum. So it's pointless for anyone to complain about skeptics or believers concerning forum posts about UFOs.

Harte.

I took the time to watch it all.

And they did debunk the show Ancient Aliens.

Awesome video, with some things I did not know in it.

The only bad thing about this video, is that it totally ruined the show Ancient Aliens for me. (In a good way)

To anyone who has not watched it, the video debunks the show Ancient Aliens and only the show, they never say anything about UFOs or aliens not being real, they never touch on that, they only show you that the show Ancient Aliens just out right lies and tries to deceive the viewer.

S&F

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne.
And I shall enjoy real history.

History is full of lies and things are told in whatever way is more comfortable for the leading country.

The only thing that I disagree about AAT is the way they present it and the way that they start associatimg everything with aliens. I am sure they are wrong about some things.

BUT: The general idea of AAT away from Tsoualos may hold some truth - I gave already examples of things that from just a myth later became and turned out to exist or be true.

Originally posted by Imtor

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne.
And I shall enjoy real history.

History is full of lies and things are told in whatever way is more comfortable for the leading country.

The only thing that I disagree about AAT is the way they present it and the way that they start associatimg everything with aliens. I am sure they are wrong about some things.

BUT: The general idea of AAT away from Tsoualos may hold some truth - I gave already examples of things that from just a myth later became and turned out to exist or be true.

The thing is, by debunking some of the foundational claims, it really puts to rest the entire theory. You cannot say that some facts are off, but the overall theory still stands true. Once you get through all the facts, you simply cannot say that.

Also, disagreeing with how its presented really does nothing to whether there is anymore credibility within the truth claims made by the AAT.

reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun


How do you test theories of mankind that go back thousands of years, without a time machine, and creating another dimensional reality timeline by going back in time to test such.

Fun out of the way,

You can debunk all you want, doesn't make it true, unless it actually is. Get it? We can say the earth isn't round, but the earth will be round regardless of the debate we have about it. So the fact there is so much bickering over the concept of bickering over this belief of the facts is kinda funny. It's already either fact or not, the problem we have is we don't know, and we fight over that very understanding of it.

Also, it's a 3 hour movie, my god 3 hours is 3 different plot lines in 3 different AA shows, seems they are better at explaining things too.

I just am having a hard time believing other concepts when it's a known fact, there are more than one tree of life in which we evolved from here on earth, meaning one of us species here are not actually from here, maybe all of life isn't from here, with that being said, we are infants even if talking about earth itself, other life is bound to be everywhere we can point at in the night sky, that's just reality, and to think we are the only ones here and we haven't been observed is to walk around with a closed mind and a firm eye on your feet.

Originally posted by Moneyisgodlifeisrented
reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun

 

How do you test theories of mankind that go back thousands of years, without a time machine, and creating another dimensional reality timeline by going back in time to test such.

Fun out of the way,

You can debunk all you want, doesn't make it true, unless it actually is. Get it? We can say the earth isn't round, but the earth will be round regardless of the debate we have about it. So the fact there is so much bickering over the concept of bickering over this belief of the facts is kinda funny. It's already either fact or not, the problem we have is we don't know, and we fight over that very understanding of it.

Also, it's a 3 hour movie, my god 3 hours is 3 different plot lines in 3 different AA shows, seems they are better at explaining things too.

I just am having a hard time believing other concepts when it's a known fact, there are more than one tree of life in which we evolved from here on earth, meaning one of us species here are not actually from here, maybe all of life isn't from here, with that being said, we are infants even if talking about earth itself, other life is bound to be everywhere we can point at in the night sky, that's just reality, and to think we are the only ones here and we haven't been observed is to walk around with a closed mind and a firm eye on your feet.

edit on 3-10-2012 by Moneyisgodlifeisrented because: (no reason given)

I think you are missing the point. The "Debunking" is showing how the AA TV show is filled with misleading and false statements and just outright lies. He doesn't actually debunk what happend in the past, he debunks the Ancient Aliens theory as presented by the HC TV show by a bunch of frauds. maybe watch the video?