Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Dumb Old Lady vs. Ancient Aliens Debunked

page: 6
67
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
reply to post by Harte
 


Then why are you wasting your time in this forum?


I usually only post in threads here involving ancient history, which is the section you'll most often find me in.

I don't comment much on modern ufo/alien beliefs, I know more about ancient history than I do about Roswell.

Why? You saying I'm not welcome?

Your description of a better forum sounds like Godlike Productions to me. So, what are you doing wasting your time in this forum which allows dissenters such as myself?

Harte




posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


I'm wasting my time hoping something good will turn up. What do you think about Atlantis?
Possible or Impossible?



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
reply to post by Harte
 


I'm wasting my time hoping something good will turn up. What do you think about Atlantis?
Possible or Impossible?

No such thing as Plato's Atlantis. It was an allegorical fable - there's just not any question about it.

Were there some early, fairly advanced (Plato's description of Atlantis was a Bronze-Age society,) civilizations we don't know about? Absolutely possible.

Harte



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   
harte

you said:




Absolutely possible


alert the press, harte has actually theorized the possibilities of something. not to throw the thread off course, but i have to interject this: theoretically, mr. harte, do you think it possible that at any point prior to the ice age, there was a different civilization that was wiped out? let's start with the premise that given sufficient advancements and understanding of the planet's ecology, that constructs built by such a civilization might mimic nature rather than "enhance" it artificially. as a result it would be rather difficult to find examples of our concept of modern technology because we would be looking for examples of artificiality.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   
spiritualarchitect


Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
reply to post by undo
 


Is this Mr. White a Jesus freak trying to save Christianity from the Ancient Aliens taking away their Yahweh?


Well he's definitely a christian (so am I) and so is Dr. Heiser. The issue at hand is, researchers and scholars of all stripes have witnessed the spate of questionable material coming out of ufology, such as Sitchin's contention that the star chart in the now infamous "nibiru" cylinder seal, depicted our solar system with an additional planet (nibiru). This is easily proven to be untrue. It's more than likely depicting the Pleaides, with one star in particular being showcased, as the glyph for the sun was different than the glyph for a star and the central glyph on the cylinder seal is the glyph for a star not for the sun (even though we know the sun is a star, the sumerians used different glyphs for them). therefore, the cylinder seal is not depicting the solar system, but rather a group of stars with one star being prominent from the others. (although the dots are not glyphs for stars, i'm assuming here that the artist wanted to call attention to a particular star in a cluster of stars, such as the pleaides).
www.sitchiniswrong.com...

HOWEVER, people have begun to over-react to the data, taking extreme positions, pro or con, of anything sumerian, as a result. This is just as evident in the christian scholarly community as it is in any other group of scholars. My position in the thread is, if you're gonna debunk it, your debunking has to be better than the original thing you debunked, otherwise you're wasting people's brainspace.

for example, Mr. White used a photograph of a stone that had mortar applied to a surface, to suggest it was evidence of having been drug to the site. That's not what the photo shows at all. I even prove it using the same resource he was using, which I got from Dr. Heiser's website. All I had to do was read it to learn why the stone looked as it did. I have no idea why White decided to use it in the section of the video where he proclaims that there's evidence of drag marks on the stones, other than he appears to be an example of reverse-Sitchin/reverse-Ancient Aliens. Why does there have to be a reverse? Can we not just look at what the material actually says and what the evidence suggests and draw reasoned conclusions? Do we have to throw out everything Sitchin/Ancient Aliens said, because he (or they) wasn't completely right? If science operated in such a manner, we'd still be in the dark ages.
Who taught the Inca ...

in the pdf linked above, the archaeologist describes the inca (who were not the tiahuancans) as having drug their stones to their building site. then he goes on to describe large surfaces on the stones showing evidence of drag marks at tiwanaku as well. the issue i have with that is, it doesn't stipulate what part of tiwanaku. as i've already mentioned, puma punku is a mile away and very different from the main buildings at tiwanaku. also, the inset picture that supposedly shows drag marks, according to White's suggestion, would then have to be suggested to have been drug to the site on the upper edge, which is not a large surface face but an edge. why would they do that? the white appearance of the surface, is the mortar, not wearing of the stone. i don't think the archaeologist would've used that picture to suggest it was evidence of drag marks on large surface faces of stones at puma punku, since that's not a large surface area and if it were evidence of a drag mark, would be even more ludicrous as dragging a heavy stone on its edge, would cause it to make a deep groove in the soil, eventually making it impossible to move. simple physics. (not to mention, the balancing act that would be necessary to keep it on its edge thru the whole dragging process). it's worn, yes, or smoothed, perhaps, but the white appearance is mortar, not evidence of wear and tear from dragging.

lack of clarification is what keeps the whole topic less than revealing

edit on 29-3-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   
i'd like to add to my post above, that if it were dragged on its top surface, and the edge were worn from being in constant friction with the soil as the stone was dragged, this i could agree with, but not that the stone's white appearance is evidence of dragging. and wouldn't the center of the edge show just as much wear and tear as the corners?

edit: nevermind, i see one section is jutting out on the end surface, so that the wear isn't even across the entire edge.
edit on 29-3-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
here's the stone in question. notice also in the data given, it doesn't say it's from puma punku, only that puma punku shares some grooves in common with the rest of tiwanaku. that's what i mean about the generalization of data, potentially causing all kinds of problems in determining what happened at puma punku



that is the image in White's video, when he proclaims there's evidence of stones being dragged to puma punku. i don't know how he can say that. where's the evidence that its even a puma punku stone? all it says for further data on the image, is that it was a tiahuanaco stone as you can read for yourself, when it references figure 33.

furthermore, it goes on to say that puma punku stones had additional grooves, the function of which is "not obvious and requires further investigation". so it's suggesting the inset image (figure 33) is not a puma punku example and that puma punku contains additional and different grooves, the function of which they didn't know the meaning of, at the time the archaeologist wrote the investigative paper.

that proves my point! tiwanaku generally, is not applicable generally, to puma punku! and any attempt to generalize the information, only muddies the water even further. the subterranean temple area and puma punku are separated in distance by a mile. puma punku stones have additional grooves the archaeologist couldn't explain at the time he wrote about it, andesite is used at puma punku, whereas i see no evidence that andesite was used at the subterranean temple. etc etc ETC

these are 2 different sites and should be treated like they are 2 different sites.
edit on 29-3-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   
read my edits above as they contain some useful debate on the subject, which supports my original hypothesis, that the Ancient Aliens Debunked video is only getting away with its criticism of some subjects on Ancient Aliens regarding Puma Punku, because information on the subject of Puma Punku is being tossed in generally,with information about the subterranean temple, over a mile away, and vice-a-versa.. and since the Ancient Aliens Debunked video is attempting to debate information given on the show about Puma Punku, that means the debunker (Mr. White) should include information about Puma Punku specifically, not generalized information that doesn't even appear to apply in the case of the image, to Puma Punku.
edit on 29-3-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   


watch this (again) if you haven't already and even if you have.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 

Thanks for your thoughts, undo...
There are a lot of great resources buried in this thread...and I'm marking it for later reference.
Aside from that - I don't know that any of us can address such topics without some kind of bias.
Even your attempt at being reasonable assumed the veracity of information that had been passed on to you...and, as you say - without going there to actually verify every little piece of data (yourself)...you are at the mercy of others who might have their own agendas.
If ANY of it (being "history") was so easily determined...something as recent as the Civil War of the United States of America...should only have 1 book/source written. ...but...those books keep coming out -- and All of them, with different conclusions & slants.
Again - good thread!
edit on 3/29/2013 by WanDash because: piece of



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
harte

you said:


Absolutely possible


alert the press, harte has actually theorized the possibilities of something.

Now, Undo, you know I'm perfectly reasonable.

There is always a possibility that something existed that we haven't found out about. But let's not forget that impossible is an accurate description of many things as well, right?


Originally posted by undonot to throw the thread off course, but i have to interject this: theoretically, mr. harte, do you think it possible that at any point prior to the ice age, there was a different civilization that was wiped out? let's start with the premise that given sufficient advancements and understanding of the planet's ecology, that constructs built by such a civilization might mimic nature rather than "enhance" it artificially. as a result it would be rather difficult to find examples of our concept of modern technology because we would be looking for examples of artificiality.

As I've noted before, we have found remains of grass huts on sandy beaches that predate the end of the last Ice Age.

The scenario you lay out above is unlikely in the extreme, but nothing you said can be categorized as impossible.

I rarely call anything impossible, by the way. Usually, I just provide the reasons that a claim can be considered to be untrue.

Harte



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
for example, Mr. White used a photograph of a stone that had mortar applied to a surface, to suggest it was evidence of having been drug to the site. That's not what the photo shows at all. I even prove it using the same resource he was using, which I got from Dr. Heiser's website. All I had to do was read it to learn why the stone looked as it did. I have no idea why White decided to use it in the section of the video where he proclaims that there's evidence of drag marks on the stones, other than he appears to be an example of reverse-Sitchin/reverse-Ancient Aliens. Why does there have to be a reverse? Can we not just look at what the material actually says and what the evidence suggests and draw reasoned conclusions? Do we have to throw out everything Sitchin/Ancient Aliens said, because he (or they) wasn't completely right? If science operated in such a manner, we'd still be in the dark ages.


White makes mistakes, some of them glaring.

In his response to criticism of his video, he actually states in writing that the Great Pyramid is made up of carved sandstone.

White's motivation might well be his pique at the AA folk's claims about his religion. Motivation is not an issue, though.

White's not relying on his own (mis) understandings of the past in his debunking video, as you know. He primarily relies on Heiser.

I'd like to see more experts in it, but most aren't even willing to address the claims made by that stupid TV show. It's simply not worth their time. Heiser has a real job working for a real company. Maybe he has more money and therefore more time.

Then again, maybe he's just obsessed...

Harte



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by WanDash
reply to post by undo
 

Aside from that - I don't know that any of us can address such topics without some kind of bias.
Even your attempt at being reasonable assumed the veracity of information that had been passed on to you...and, as you say - without going there to actually verify every little piece of data (yourself)...you are at the mercy of others who might have their own agendas.


here's another good video on the subject.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   
and another good video series. this one is interesting because it incorporates other examples from the bolivia, as well, and shows that the farther back in time it goes, the more advanced it is.




edit on 30-3-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   
This is a quick question. In the ancient aliens debunk video by Christian sources?
Just curious.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix267
This is a quick question. In the ancient aliens debunk video by Christian sources?
Just curious.


yes. i'm also a christian, btw. did you read the thread? you should.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I read a little. I'm cooking so all I can is glance. What I was wondering in that do you dislike the ancient alien series because it conflicts with Christian beliefs? Like in their view this cannot be true because of what the bible says?



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   
it's my theory, that modern day abrahamic religions as well as enlightenment period scientific thought (before modern science had developed into a search for the truth) that has influenced modern day science, are all basing their beliefs about the ancient world on the teachings of the vatican, some of which are completely opposite of what it says in the ancient texts, including the bible. to convince a christian, devout jew or muslim of this, is like trying to pull out your own eyebrows with your teeth.
edit on 30-3-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by undo
 


I read a little. I'm cooking so all I can is glance. What I was wondering in that do you dislike the ancient alien series because it conflicts with Christian beliefs? Like in their view this cannot be true because of what the bible says?


you need to read the thread cause you apparently don't understand the topic. i don't dislike the ancient alien series, although i occassionally disagree with its findings. i am actually defending von daniken and giorgios, in this thread, primarily because i think the makers of the ancient aliens debunked video, are reacting out of an inability to come to grips with everything the text of the bible says.

for example, in the opening passages regarding the creation of humans, it describes the creation of males and females, all of which are called adam. and they are all made in the image of the gods. if you think about that for a bit, and realize the story of eve is not the story of the first female, things will begin to sink in. eve is just the first sexually reproductive female. prior females were copied/cloned from the gods.

is it a coincedence, do you think, that the egyptian god of creation is called atum?
edit on 30-3-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


thank you for the great thread undo.

I have a question to add to the list of questions about this subject.

is it possible that they (the puma punku natives) melted the stone and created the monoliths there onsite? I don't know anything about geology but when I see the perfect circles/tubes in the stone work, I am thinking the rock was formed around something. the exact lines in the cuts could be done with a form and the molten rock poured into it. if the rocks could be melted, then workers could bring tons upon tons of material to the building site one sack at a time.

just a thought.






top topics



 
67
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join