Ancient Aliens Debunked (Full Length Movie)

It is absolutely stupid and crazy is to assume we are the only intelligent species in the universe.

As a species we are extremely disfunctional. We are lacking in many skills, moral ,and intellectual qualities. When I think of how this planet's peoples treat each other, the other creatures, and our planet I feel frustrated, sad, and depressed. We could be so much more. However evil, selfish, greedy, and insensitive people make this an impossible future.

reply to post by frugal


I'll believe there is other intelligent life in the universe....

When we actually find some other intelligent life in the universe.

To claim there is is just an assumption, one of which there is absolutely no evidence to support. It is also sheer speculation.

Nothing more.

People will believe only what they want to believe, and absolutely nothing else.


Until that happens I believe we are the only intelligent life in the universe.

To assume otherwise is guano crazy.

Originally posted by frugal
It is absolutely stupid and crazy is to assume we are the only intelligent species in the universe.

As a species we are extremely disfunctional. We are lacking in many skills, moral ,and intellectual qualities. When I think of how this planet's peoples treat each other, the other creatures, and our planet I feel frustrated, sad, and depressed. We could be so much more. However evil, selfish, greedy, and insensitive people make this an impossible future.

The film never says there aren't other intelligent species in the universe. The point is to show the inaccurate and irresponsible scholarship of the AAT.

Where are you gaining your basis for moral objectivity when you mention how dysfunctional we are etc etc?

Originally posted by Hardstepah
i'm not watching a 3 hr video of a bunch of anti-theories that shows about as much proof of the AA theory being ridiculous as the "aliens" guy has that it is fact. heard it all before and yet, there is no proof that we weren't helped or visited by alien life

"No proof we weren't visited?

How would such a thing be "proven?"

Please realize (at the very least) that the "proof" you demand not only cannot possibly exist, it cannot logically exist.

Hence, you have set up impossible requirements which you demand be satisfied before you will deign to consider a factual argument.

Originally posted by Liquesence

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
Like many of the other posters, presenting a video with no summary or views of your own makes me less likely to watch it.

I think ancient archaeology is all about interpretation. Anything found that is not readily explainable can have a myriad of interpretations as to what it is and how it got there.

I'm betting, without wasting even 15 minutes of my time, that the video is 3 hours of somebody's interpretation of archaeological findings that they say is more true than the Ancient Aliens theory.

When you as a poster bother to spend the time to explain your stance and the featured video, I will take the time to watch your video.

This is a key point to the video. The AAT people don't give all te facts or twist the facts to make te assumption for AAT sound more plausible than it really is.

My goodness, can you give *ONE* example of this????

Over the years, I've given hundreds of examples of lies told by the fringe, lies which have been repeated on that inane show.
The search function here is the pits.

Use a site-specific google search on the topic. For example, here's one concerning the "light bulbs" shown in reliefs on the walls in the Temple of Hathor in Dendera.

Originally posted by DJW001
Let's do a quick survey: How many ATS members who have watched three seasons of "Ancient Aliens," clocking in at 60+ hours think that three hours watching a video that debunks the AAT is a waste of precious time?

Is it surprising that it takes only three hours to demolish 60 hours worth of false claims then?

If you ask me, they're both wastes of time, though the three hour vid wastes less time and actually provides some education for those that lack it.

Originally posted by csa981
reply to post by Druscilla

 

Not sure that's strictly true re science and pseudo-science. Galleo just 500 years ago is a good example, we now know the earth isn't the centre of the universe yet he was treated as a heretic by those "scientists" of the day.

Straw man argument:

Galileo's championing of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system.[9] He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax.[9] The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, and they concluded that it could be supported as only a possibility, not an established fact.[9][10] Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point.[9] He was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.[11][12]

Source: Wiki

Harte

Originally posted by ABNARTY
OK, before anybody has a coronary about not checking the companion site...I checked the companion site. Specifically the references on Puma Punko as it was mentioned in this thread earlier. Specifically the stones used in the construction.

AA calls it granite AAD calls it sand stone or andesite. Of the three references in AAD, one was Wikipedia. While good for some stuff, I am not going to hang my hat on it. So we are down to two. A second had no link and is in Bolivia. So if some motivated AAD fan wants to go check it out of the library there, be my guest. The third I found and down loaded. A PDF file. It is over 400 pages so I used the search function as I want to go to bed tonight.

'Sandstone' yielded no results.

'Andesite' yielded no results.

'Granite' yielded results. An example: "The buildings in this complex are also set apart from the others by the care with which the white granite was selected for the walls, the superior quality of their fitted stonework, and the massive size of the stone lintels"

BTW, the Wikipedia page claims sandstone while the very reference it footnotes never says sandstone. Funny that.

So.....with that totally in depth scrutiny of the 'facts', I am not convinced AAD is above board. Rather it seems rather zealous to discount the AA T-H-E-O-R-Y.

Well, you, at least, have looked for this so thank you.
Here's a short collection of references I found for you in a single search of Google Scholar (figuring you had the sense to suspend belief in regards to ordinary websites that can contain anyone's opinion):
books.google.com... bpj9GlbchM#v=onepage&q&f=false

www.precolumbia.com...

books.google.com... C3I&sig=bVECdgZNY0MroCjA95pldKWQKjw#v=onepage&q=puma%20punku%20sandstone&f=false

www.ingentaconnect.com... 00002/art00001

books.google.com... YU2HaQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

dialnet.unirioja.es...

That last one is in Spanish.

These texts were written by people on site and studying the archaeological and geological context. Every reference mentions the red sandstone that makes up most of the site, as well as the other stone types, I believe.

Rest assured, the site is mainly sandstone. Not that it matters. Andesite, which is similar to diorite (both are practically the same as granite) can be worked very well, though not as easily as sandstone. Egyptians were making vases and bowls from diorite in Pre-Dynastic times. In Sumer, diorite was often worked as well.

In fact, Hammurabi's code is engraved in a perfectly flat and polished surface created on a shaped diorite boulder.

Harte

Because i don't want to watch a 3 hr movie, i just did a random sampling on their site about their "debunking".

They are claiming this mountain in the Nazca region has been artificially sheared off. But what they are referring to is a plateau[2]. Plateau’s and mesa’s are naturally flat on top. They occur all over the world, geologist know exactly how they form.[3]

and

AA: “The crazy thing is the rumble [and] the remains of that summit or that mountain top [are] gone. It’s nowhere. It’s not in the valley below. It’s not in the region. What happened to it?”

Ok moving on to the lines.

Funny...a simple Google search, a few pics and doing some research about Nazca would show there is no way, EVER, that those big, flattened areas are "natural plateaus". They simple ARE NOT. Period.

I think its funny (and sad) how according to the transcript they basically attempt to "debunk" the entire Nazca thing in a few sentences..and then quickly "ok moving to the lines" in a belief having debunked this once and for all. Didn't laugh that hard in a while.

Pathetic.

If the entire 3hr mocku-debunkery is made like this it's well safe to say there is no reason to watch this.[

Originally posted by flexy123
Because i don't want to watch a 3 hr movie, i just did a random sampling on their site about their "debunking".

They are claiming this mountain in the Nazca region has been artificially sheared off. But what they are referring to is a plateau[2]. Plateau’s and mesa’s are naturally flat on top. They occur all over the world, geologist know exactly how they form.[3]

and

AA: “The crazy thing is the rumble [and] the remains of that summit or that mountain top [are] gone. It’s nowhere. It’s not in the valley below. It’s not in the region. What happened to it?”

Ok moving on to the lines.

Funny...a simple Google search, a few pics and doing some research about Nazca would show there is no way, EVER, that those big, flattened areas are "natural plateaus". They simple ARE NOT. Period.

Technically correct. They are remains of an eroded elevated plain and not technically a plateau in the usual sense.

Fringers use camera angles to make it look like these flat areas are lower than their surroundings when they are at exactly the same level as the rest of the flat areas.

Sure, parts of the area have a higher elevation. Next to a plain, hills can exist.

But no, sorry, the flat areas are not where the "tops of mountains have been removed," no matter the vapid claims of the chronically astonished.

Harte

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
no, really the only way to explain stories of gods is that they are some koind of extraterestrial? These were written by humans, right? The same koind of humans that are around today. It's like saying Spiderman is some koind of ...?...? extraterstrial? Humans tell stories. Thats what they do.

No.. not ancient people. They gain nothing from that and they were not with the idea to control the masses. This happened later with the Church. The New Testament overall is a bit like fabricated for control, the old texts from Sumer - hardly..

Also what makes you think some things in the Sumerian texts didn't happen? (I quote Sumeria because we all know the Bible is nothing but a copy of Sumerian texts)

Great Flood - after the last Ice Age 10,000 years BC, a sudden warming up cannot cause it and make the already bigger percentage of Oceans even bigger than the continents flooind even more? Have in mind that those people around Sumer, did not know the WORLD, so ONLY THE SURROUNDINGS THEY KNEW may have been flooded, as a counter argument of 'The flood can\t have been that large'.

Also the battle of Goliath - some evidence of the place and I think a sling or some weapon were found.

The red hair giants from Nevada - their skeletons were found in a cave.

Troy was just a myth - well guess - it was not,.

People weren't making up stories the way they do now...

Originally posted by Imtor

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
no, really the only way to explain stories of gods is that they are some koind of extraterestrial? These were written by humans, right? The same koind of humans that are around today. It's like saying Spiderman is some koind of ...?...? extraterstrial? Humans tell stories. Thats what they do.

No.. not ancient people. They gain nothing from that and they were not with the idea to control the masses.

This is as far as I got. So ancient people didn't tell stories? Ancient people didn't take hallucinogens and have visions? Ancient people didn't have mental illness and believed wild things? ancient people didn't have imaginations? Ancient people didn't have dreams? ancient people were visited by aliens. That makes sense.

Troy was just a myth - well guess - it was not,.

Spiderman lives in NYC...so he's real?

People weren't making up stories the way they do now...

How do you know this? No, wait, Please don't answer...I don't want my mind blown

Okay, I'm watching the shorter vids cut down to three one hour parts and so far I've seen part one about megalithic structures and am looking at part two. I have to say this guy has done an excellent job at showing the falsehoods of the Ancient Aliens show. I've always know that a lot of the stuff they claim on that show was junk, but I just didn't know how. This documentary does go to good distance in showing me how. I am enjoying the video.

However, you should have done a better job at giving a summary of what it's contents are. For example:

>
Part one deals with megalithic structures. It starts with the most common claims about sites such as Puma Punku and shows how the Ancient Astronauts theorists lie and mislead you about the evidence that the show does not show you at all.

This evidence includes stones that were intermediate and had not been finished and all along the site there have been stone hammers and other tools found that were used to hammer the stones into shape and used sand to do so. Plus, stones have been found with rope grooves in them and even holes to put rope hoists in them.

The big lie that ancient astronaut tell you is that the h shape stones and other stones you find are made from granite and diorite. and so the only thing that is hard enough to cut them is diamond so they must of had diamond tipped tools to cut them. That is not true at all. The entire site is of red sandstone, and can be shaped with using simple saws and sand. Sand has the hard materials that can cut through the stones, and this is the methods they use at other sites, such as sites in Egypt.

He also backs his explanations up with links to the actual scholarly works that go into great details on how this is accomplished.
>


You should have included summaries like that instead of just telling people that this is a great show and is a must see. When you have a better summary more people will give it a shot.

Usually I never click on any threads that includes phrases such as "Must see!" because that is a very misleading and hyperbolic phrase.

But the other problem too is if you put a summary on it, people are just going to make comments on the summaries and some will attempt to derail the thread with a strawman of other crap just for the lolz.

And even at that, three hours is a very long movie and people will have a hard time watching something that long.

The other big problem is no matter what the real evidence there is to show, some people are going to believe what they want to believe anyway and will never change their mind that ancient aliens landed on earth. So you're going to get a lot of hostility from them.

So, basically I enjoyed the vids and did have many of my questions answered, and you should have used a better summary.

I wasn't gonna join the debacle but, what the hell, my two cents are just as shiny as the next guy's.

The god-awful TV show "Ancient Aliens" doesn't need to debunked and definitely not a boring 3-hour video, every show does that on its own. Only fools and believers (actually, they are the same!) see any worth in what is presented. The various hosts and invited commentators are all full of it and I don't think for one second that they believe their own bs. They do it because it's controversial, they earn an easy buck, they get fame, they are sought out to spew more bs. I'll be that in the privacy of their homes they would tell you that they consider it a huge joke on the gullible, which is the majority of humans.

I have never heard so much stupidity spewed in the space of 45 minutes (15 for commercials) and the worst part is that it's on the History Channel the biggest farce in TVdom.

Mysteries abound on this planet but you can bet that none of the mysteries can be explained by the motley crew one sees on "Ancient Aliens".

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by frugal

 

I'll believe there is other intelligent life in the universe....

When we actually find some other intelligent life in the universe.

To claim there is is just an assumption, one of which there is absolutely no evidence to support. It is also sheer speculation.

Nothing more.

People will believe only what they want to believe, and absolutely nothing else.


Until that happens I believe we are the only intelligent life in the universe.

To assume otherwise is guano crazy.

There is nothing more dangerous than a closed mind. A closed mind is not ready to receive to new ideas, someone that does not try to view in opposite way or positive way. When you believe in something or in someone and your mind will stay closed to that believe and will not even try to acknowledge it.

so, by trying to be clever and sensible in your response, you are telling us you only believe what you are told. Given that most people on ATS (with justification) don't believe a word that TPTB tell us, you are essentially alienating yourself. Good move.

Yeaaaah now watch Gorgio come back n debunk this movie...

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
This is as far as I got. So ancient people didn't tell stories? Ancient people didn't take hallucinogens and have visions? Ancient people didn't have mental illness and believed wild things? ancient people didn't have imaginations? Ancient people didn't have dreams? ancient people were visited by aliens. That makes sense.

You are generalizing too much? While they did tell stories, there were crazy people, etc, there certainly wasn\t this thing called 'CAPITALISM' as in earn money even while you're sleeping...

Spiderman lives in NYC...so he's real?

Great comparison... is Troy staged like Spiderman??... so irrelevant.

Also major flooding cannot happen? Tell me, what makes YOU think ALL is just stories when a lot of things from myths actually turn out true? Why did you ignore the rest exampels?

Of course I am not saying all is true, but one shouldn't exclude some things, and I don't know which ones or we would all know it for a fact.

reply to post by Imtor


I Think the basic, as a theory still stands as credible, but I've seen it debunked numerous times.
I love the idea, and it felt like it changed my views on everything.
But alas it was too good to be true. unfortunately pretty much everything on nibiru, the annunaki, basically all the sumerian texts which make up the basic foundations for the theory are sitchens mistranslations.

The evidence people present doesn't stand, they're led to nitpicking because the actual evidence is everywhere, right in front of our eyes.
And of course that's why its considered such a far out theory, it goes against everything we've ever been taught (since the 18th century)

A while Before that it seemed common knowledge that we'd received help from people from the stars.

reply to post by ceetee


The problem is, we have all the evidence. People just refuse to look at it in that way

Originally posted by Imtor

You are generalizing too much? While they did tell stories, there were crazy people, etc, there certainly wasnt this thing called 'CAPITALISM' as in earn money even while you're sleeping...

Where did I mention capitalism? People tell stories, that is what they do. some are based on truth some are just pure stories. We do it today. people don't make money from dreaming or hallucinating. There are still cultures around today that tell stories and have visions and all that.

Great comparison... is Troy staged like Spiderman??... so irrelevant.

how so? Troy was part of the Odyssey which seems to me like the equivalent of a modern day comic book. Spiderman being a good example of a fictional hero living in a real city. I am certain the Hommer made a living from writing his epic poems.

Also major flooding cannot happen? Tell me, what makes YOU think ALL is just stories when a lot of things from myths actually turn out true? Why did you ignore the rest exampels?

Never mentioned "ALL" or "flooding".

Of course I am not saying all is true, but one shouldn't exclude some things, and I don't know which ones or we would all know it for a fact.

You said ancient people didn't tell stories because they had nothing to gain from it. So I am confused with what you are saying now.

Originally posted by dayve
Yeaaaah now watch Gorgio come back n debunk this movie...

The thing is the guys in this video give you all the links and methods on how to checkup on what they are saying and actively invite anyone to try to see for themselves.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD

Originally posted by dayve
Yeaaaah now watch Gorgio come back n debunk this movie...

The thing is the guys in this video give you all the links and methods on how to checkup on what they are saying and actively invite anyone to try to see for themselves.

Right! Isn't that what is missing from the TV show? One has citations and one does not.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by PhoenixOD

Originally posted by dayve
Yeaaaah now watch Gorgio come back n debunk this movie...

The thing is the guys in this video give you all the links and methods on how to checkup on what they are saying and actively invite anyone to try to see for themselves.

Right! Isn't that what is missing from the TV show? One has citations and one does not.

Yeah, thats the difference between academic experts and people who just want to make money from books and videos.