It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What do you think about "ancient aliens debunked"?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by amazing
I love the people that put those here with interesting theories down saying that there is no hard evidence or proof. They tell you to face reality, that your ideas are highly improbable and unlikely, that you suffer from delusions and that you are gullible and want to believe so hard in something, that you can't see the simple truth.

Keep in mind, that these same people told us that...we can't fly, the earth is flat, the earth is the center of the solar system, the moon is made of cheese, the liver circulates your blood and not your heart, protein is the key to heredity and not that simple DNA stuff, the atom is the smallest thing in existence, the earth is only 6000 years old, and on and on and on...because? Well there was no hard evidence of course! Those scientists and laymen, like us, who said they didn't agree and had better ideas were persecuted, ridiculed, belittled, ruined, laughed at and sometimes jailed and tortured and killed.

Keep an open mind please and...
Carry on!


All of the above is what is referred to as straw man arguments.

The moronic list above not only contains several errors of ignorance (myth of the flat Earth,) but also doesn't list a single thing that has ever been asserted by science.

Such baseless arguments are the meat and potatoes of the AA believers, since thay have no other avenues by which to put forth their inane and unevidenced beliefs.

Harte


No. That's a real list and not a straw man argument. I'm saying that many people are ridiculed for believing things that are not yet proven with hard evidence, such as the ancient aliens theory. Even with so much credibly debunked, there is still a lot there to be discussed and researched. Calling this theory baseless and inane is certainly not denying ignorance.




posted on May, 31 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by OpenMinds83
 


There is often truth buried behind every myth.

Often truth behind every myth? That doesn't make sense.

Either there is often truth buried behind some myths, or there is always truth buried behind every myth. Which do you mean?

If you mean there is always truth behind every myth (material, factual truth, not some kind of spiritual or psychological insight), I say fiddlesticks.

If you mean there is often truth buried behind some myths, I say you'd have a hard time proving it, but you don't have to. Accepted as it stands; let's move on.


Discount the words of our ancestors all you like. Its your right to do so. But closing your mind to every possibility because YOU don't see enough evidence doesn't mean something didn't take place. It doesn't mean you are correct.

>sigh<

What gives you the impression I've closed my mind to this, OpenMinds83? Was there a place somewhere in the thread where I said aliens never visited Earth in ancient times? I say only that it is an unlikely thing to have happened, and that there is no evidence to prove (or even to suggest, really) that it ever did.


I am not saying that it definitely happened I am however saying that the POSSIBILTY exists.

We are in agreement, then. Why are you arguing with me?


Something can only be, and I despise this word, Debunked when every facet of said theory has been thoroughly dismissed which so far has not been satisfactorily done.

I'll let you in on a little secret. You must promise not to tell CrikeyMagnet though, or we shan't get any more fun out of him.


'Something' can be debunked, but not everything can be. Take the hypothesis 'aliens visited Earth in ancient days.' Can you debunk – disprove – this hypothesis? I can't. Nobody can. It's unfalsifiable, as a scientist would say, washing her hands of it. No-one can ever prove, with absolute certainty, that aliens did not visit Earth in ancient days. There is, as you say, always the possibility that they did.

However, when somebody says 'aliens visited Earth in ancient days, and here is the evidence,' we can look at the proffered evidence to determine whether it is factual and actually supports the claim being made. If the evidence is faulty, we can and must show it to be. This we do in the service of truth (you're on the side of truth, I take it; I know I am).

Disproving the evidence doesn't disprove the claim that aliens visited Earth. It needn't stop you from going on believing that they did visit, any more than it need stop me from believing they probably didn't.


So in closing you go right ahead and keep your superiority complex. It fits you nicely. I, however, will keep my mind open to all possibilities until they are completely explained away. Truth is this universe and our history is far more mysterious than people like you care to admit. Its not your fault really, its the materialistic conditioning that has taken place on the majority of the population. And many are too weak to break free of it. Have a nice day.

I must say that sounds very superior indeed – you pin a point of view on me, stereotyping me into a group of 'people like you' of whom you obviously do not approve, pity me for the 'materialistic conditions' from which I have been 'too weak' to break free, and accuse me of having a 'complex' – which, as you will know from having read your Freud, is a kind of mental problem. All this because I happened to disagree – quite courteously – with you.

Someone round here is certainly showing a superior attitude, but I don't think it's me.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Well then accept my apologies. I tend to come off a little harsh when discussing certain things and in this case I seem to have done it again. My bad.

As far as my original statement that "There is often truth behind every myth" I mean what I said. Almost every myth contains truth buried in it somewhere only to be embellished over time.

As far as AA theory goes I am guessing we are in agreement somewhat. Its mostly crap. I just believe that the possibility of ancient contact in one form or another is probable.

Once again apologies on my part, even though I disagree with AA theorists quite often I try to refrain from calling anyones intelligence into question.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
My 2 cents :

The unexplained finds, things and ideas... Are simply all caused by other humans.
As intelligent as we are today, and victims of a global flooding of the worlds cities and destruction of civilization.

Only some ruins are left, found beneath the seas miles from the coastlines. Knowledge that shouldn't be part of the people in our history. Technology that is more advanced then we could imagine with our current understanding...

Mankind walks the Earth for a pretty long time. We can only see a glimpse of human history.
Unfortunately we are to stubborn to open up our narrow minded views of the past, only trust our own eyes and thoughts.
Thoughts that could just as easily be from a man living 150.000 ago.

Aliens however...? That guy with the electrified haircut... He might be one.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by OpenMinds83
 
Hats off to you for apologising. It's not a thing you often see on this site.



Almost every myth contains truth buried in it somewhere only to be embellished over time.

I should like to suggest to you that alien/UFO narratives are genuine myths. Not purely in the sense that they are fictitious, but in the sense that they have been devised to explain and give meaning to aspects of the world that their creators find difficult to understand otherwise.

That is what myths are for, you see; they explain things people find mysterious – things like how the world and its inhabitants originated, why sex and love exist, where lightning and thunder come from, what happens to us after death, and so on. They also help us reconcile ourselves to the unpalatable realities associated with these phenomena.

The specific functions of the alien/UFO myth, like any other, vary according to the needs of the believer. The original Cold War flying-saucer craze was interpreted by Jung as a fantasy of divine salvation (from a nuclear holocaust) engendered by folk for whom conventional religion had lost its potency. Their God had failed, so they sought another in the same sky from which they had earlier hurled Him. This strain of mythmaking remains potent, as the Heaven's Gate tragedy and the ravings of the Galactic Federation of Light have recently reminded us. However, the myth has ramified, growing hydra-headed, since the 1950s, and now appears in a variety of different forms, each offering its own set of explanations and consolations.

Mythology is the oldest of our tools for understanding the world. Not surprisingly, it is also the most primitive and inaccurate. Truth in myths is, at best, 'buried behind' the narrative, as you put it. It may be there, but it has to be ferreted out of the fiction and interpreted correctly. This is usually impossible without the help of science.

Philosophy made myth obsolete by introducing a new and more powerful set of tools for understanding the world: observation, deduction, induction and argument. But philosophy relies, ultimately, on logical deduction from axiomatic principles that may not, in fact, exist.

Science was born from philosophy, but it has no truck with eternal principles. Its 'laws' are mere descriptions of how physical objects interact with one another, and they are derived from observation and experiment. Its conclusions are verifiable and repeatable. Truth in science is not 'buried behind' anything; it reveals itself unblushingly for all the world to see.

Myth is an obsolete way of understanding the world. Essentially, it is a kind of superstition. Still, it can give comfort to people who find reality unpalatable. That is why all of us, even the most rational, have myths we cherish and live by. I'm curious, though, to know what comfort people find in the belief that ancient aliens visited our planet and taught our forefathers everything worth knowing. Care to fill me in on that?


edit on 1/6/13 by Astyanax because: of rambling on.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by sneaglebob12
 


Not debunked, it appears the history channel is saying outlandish things about a lost civilization being grey aliens.

This lost civilization is amazing, who knows where they came from, if they had access to the stars, or if they were just a remnant of uncovered earth history. All around the world they were carving large stone, and lifting large stone.

First of all look at the debunked video saying that there is no granite at Puma Punku, and then this video looking at a granite stone at Puma Punku.






posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by greyer
reply to post by sneaglebob12
 


Not debunked, it appears the history channel is saying outlandish things about a lost civilization being grey aliens.

This lost civilization is amazing, who knows where they came from, if they had access to the stars, or if they were just a remnant of uncovered earth history. All around the world they were carving large stone, and lifting large stone.

First of all look at the debunked video saying that there is no granite at Puma Punku, and then this video looking at a granite stone at Puma Punku.





Hate to break it to you, but the stone in the second vid is andesite, not granite.

Harte



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


So you are suggesting David Hatcher Childress is an exact equivalent to Dr. Steven Greer I didn't know that, he was telling a group of people that paid for his expertise for what the video shows.

But if we are going to start a debate over the lost civilization existing and this being a part of it, there is no question because some of those depictions exist at Gobekli Tepe, the only one of the sites where scientists can't refuse the date of back in the lost civilization - it is all the same civilization.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by greyer
reply to post by Harte
 


So you are suggesting David Hatcher Childress is an exact equivalent to Dr. Steven Greer I didn't know that, he was telling a group of people that paid for his expertise for what the video shows.

Childress is a fraud. You didn't know this?


Originally posted by greyerBut if we are going to start a debate over the lost civilization existing and this being a part of it, there is no question because some of those depictions exist at Gobekli Tepe, the only one of the sites where scientists can't refuse the date of back in the lost civilization - it is all the same civilization.

So, you accept the dates for Gobekli Tepe (radiocarbon - 8800-9130 BC) but refuse to accept the dates for Tiahuanaco/Pumapunku (radiocarbon - sometime after AD 536-600)? Or, are you saying that some ancient civilization existed for over 9,000 years - into the modern era - in at least two places on the globe and yet left no signs other than at two archaeological sites? Does this make sense to you?

Just an FYI, neither culture responsible for either site can rightly be called a "civilization" in the proper scientific use of the term. This has nothing to do with any "backwardness" or primitiveness. It has to do with what we know of the culture and its accomplishments, primarily writing. Especially in the case of Pumapunku, which was surrounded by a complex irrigation system built to support extensive agricultural efforts around the site. Likely writing would be the only hallmark of civilizatuion they lacked.

Incidentally, this would not prevent some Anthropologists from referring to them (at Pumapunku/Tiahuanaco) as a civilization. But it's not the generally accepted definition.

Harte



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by CrikeyMagnet

Originally posted by Hanslune
Let me just for fun....... I would say the evidence for the pantheon being built by the Romans is conclusive but can we dismiss a claim that it was actually built by aliens 10,500 years ago. - based on your criteria?
edit on 30/5/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)


As the Pantheon was built during recorded history, I think the answer is pretty simple. The same could not necessarily be said for the Egyptian pyramids, despite the grade-school explanation we've all seen.


So you believe what you are told huh? lol

Ever hear of Jean Hardouin? Look him up and what he said - that is the loopwhole that hasn't been closed yet (by your theory). In your theory the idea that the Pantheon was built in 10,550 would not be debunked.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Comment on Harte's comment on Childress

Yep a BIG fraud
edit on 2/6/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
So, you accept the dates for Gobekli Tepe (radiocarbon - 8800-9130 BC) but refuse to accept the dates for Tiahuanaco/Pumapunku (radiocarbon - sometime after AD 536-600)? Or, are you saying that some ancient civilization existed for over 9,000 years - into the modern era - in at least two places on the globe and yet left no signs other than at two archaeological sites? Does this make sense to you?


There are simply different dates given by different people, of different expertise. The oldest parts of Gobekli Tepe go back to 12,000 years, to the end of the deluge. Your information on Puma Punku is a complete hoax. They can't date Puma Punku at such a short time when they dated Tiahuanaco so far back. It is totally obvious even to the untrained eye that Puma Punku was made by the same ancient people of Tiahuanaco.

So it is not about what makes sense to a person just looking into this, I am saying there is factual evidence for these stone carvings to be absolutely similar all across the world made by a civilization of giants before the great flood - as the bible states. We know what these giants looked like, we know what kind of carvings they did on rock.


Just an FYI, neither culture responsible for either site can rightly be called a "civilization" in the proper scientific use of the term. This has nothing to do with any "backwardness" or primitiveness. It has to do with what we know of the culture and its accomplishments, primarily writing. Especially in the case of Pumapunku, which was surrounded by a complex irrigation system built to support extensive agricultural efforts around the site. Likely writing would be the only hallmark of civilizatuion they lacked.

Incidentally, this would not prevent some Anthropologists from referring to them (at Pumapunku/Tiahuanaco) as a civilization. But it's not the generally accepted definition.

Harte


The headlines out there say it was a specific landing spot for these giants who could have came from space, or somehow could have got the technology to visit space. There are monuments on mars, and being that there once was water on mars now proven we have to assume these giants could have visited mars because the monuments resemble the Sphinx and Giza pyramids - monuments that were originally built by the giants before the deluge and added onto by the ancient Egyptians, unknown to mainstream history.

Also, I continue to hear more sources saying there Is granite at Puma Punku, so I am not sure your information is reliable. It reminds me of how many credible people have debunked Wikipedia.

edit on 2-6-2013 by greyer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by greyer

There are simply different dates given by different people, of different expertise. The oldest parts of Gobekli Tepe go back to 12,000 years, to the end of the deluge. Your information on Puma Punku is a complete hoax. They can't date Puma Punku at such a short time when they dated Tiahuanaco so far back. It is totally obvious even to the untrained eye that Puma Punku was made by the same ancient people of Tiahuanaco.


Well your scientific credentials just crashed and burned, no deluge, no Noahian flood. Geyser you may wish to investigate how Posnanksy came up with his date. If you would do so you will see he basically made it up. It is unsupported. The sites are well dated now and in association with the people who made them


So it is not about what makes sense to a person just looking into this, I am saying there is factual evidence for these stone carvings to be absolutely similar all across the world made by a civilization of giants before the great flood - as the bible states. We know what these giants looked like, we know what kind of carvings they did on rock.


They are not and many are of different ages, there is no evidence for a world wide civilization, there is plentiful evidence of separate civilizations and cultures rising independently in a number of places in the world. Separated by time, space and culture.




The headlines out there say it was a specific landing spot for these giants who could have came from space, or somehow could have got the technology to visit space. There are monuments on mars, and being that there once was water on mars now proven we have to assume these giants could have visited mars because the monuments resemble the Sphinx and Giza pyramids - monuments that were originally built by the giants before the deluge and added onto by the ancient Egyptians, unknown to mainstream history.

Also, I continue to hear more sources saying there Is granite at Puma Punku, so I am not sure your information is reliable. It reminds me of how many credible people have debunked Wikipedia.


Greyser please go read a site report for Puma Punka it ain't granite its all a fringe attempt to make it more mysterious than it is. This is a common mistake in the fringe world, as no one challenges or does independent research - they just repeat what others tell them and errors replicate.......if you cannot be bothered to know the basics about a site how about emailing one of the archaeologists or geologists who have worked on them?
edit on 2/6/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Wow this thread got turned troll-war fast. I now know who doesn't wanting me believing in aliens.

Yes I watched the docu all the way through, some very valid points from solid logic, but it still doesn't debunk the idea 100% for me (its only several viewpoints on the subject). I don't cling to science and logic, I'm a little grey when it comes to deciding reality. My mind can change on things just like the things I look at change. I simply will not sit in that box for you for more than a moment.

I have had enough unexplainable personal experiences in my life to say I can not answer many things from a logical perspective, so I do not try to force my understanding of these things. I'll research them , yes, but I simply do not make a decision other than I am figuring it out, slowly.

I have noticed many people are not comfortable (maybe an understatement?) with things they cannot explain, and go to great lengths to fight that which they do not understand.

"But I DO understand" yeah, well why are you here, in a forum, arguing about it then?



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aliquandro
Wow this thread got turned troll-war fast. I now know who doesn't wanting me believing in aliens.


One can believe in aliens coming to earth and doing x and y all that you may like to. The problem with this idea is proving that it happened using the scientific method.

Belief is easy, science is hard.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Aliquandro
Wow this thread got turned troll-war fast. I now know who doesn't wanting me believing in aliens.


One can believe in aliens coming to earth and doing x and y all that you may like to. The problem with this idea is proving that it happened using the scientific method.

Belief is easy, science is hard.



But science is supposed to be open to exploring and researching new ideas. It can't be just about debunking and proving things wrong. If all we looked for was the evidence against evolution, for one example, then we wouldn't have a theory of evolution and we'd be teaching creationism in school. lol You have to be open to looking at new ideas and taking them on one thing at a time.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by amazing

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Aliquandro
Wow this thread got turned troll-war fast. I now know who doesn't wanting me believing in aliens.


One can believe in aliens coming to earth and doing x and y all that you may like to. The problem with this idea is proving that it happened using the scientific method.

Belief is easy, science is hard.



But science is supposed to be open to exploring and researching new ideas. It can't be just about debunking and proving things wrong. If all we looked for was the evidence against evolution, for one example, then we wouldn't have a theory of evolution and we'd be teaching creationism in school. lol You have to be open to looking at new ideas and taking them on one thing at a time.


I 've been looking at AA since the mid 1960's, unfortunately at this time there is no evidence to support that contention.

What there is a great deal of manufactured or misinterpreted information by pious believers - if you dig though it all you get down to the real facts and at present there is.............
edit on 2/6/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by amazing

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Aliquandro
Wow this thread got turned troll-war fast. I now know who doesn't wanting me believing in aliens.


One can believe in aliens coming to earth and doing x and y all that you may like to. The problem with this idea is proving that it happened using the scientific method.

Belief is easy, science is hard.



But science is supposed to be open to exploring and researching new ideas. It can't be just about debunking and proving things wrong. If all we looked for was the evidence against evolution, for one example, then we wouldn't have a theory of evolution and we'd be teaching creationism in school. lol You have to be open to looking at new ideas and taking them on one thing at a time.


But that is exactly what scientists are looking for. That is the reason to create a null hypothesis. Scientist don't look for evidence to support their claims. They perform an experiment, the results can be analyzed and reported. It either supports existing models, hypothesis and theories, alters them or in some cases proves them to be false. In the case of the ancient aliens evidence and especially the history channels show, it is all conjecture and narrative. That is why it is so easy to prepare arguments against it



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cypress


But that is exactly what scientists are looking for. That is the reason to create a null hypothesis. Scientist don't look for evidence to support their claims. They perform an experiment, the results can be analyzed and reported. It either supports existing models, hypothesis and theories, alters them or in some cases proves them to be false. In the case of the ancient aliens evidence and especially the history channels show, it is all conjecture and narrative. That is why it is so easy to prepare arguments against it


In archaeology it not so much conducting experiments (some are done) but finding and analyzing finds. But yes I do agree that AA evidence is mostly wishful thinking, a lack of knowledge about ancient civilizations and a failure to understand the scientific process and in some how th burden of proof operates.

An example: lets say there was an alien robotic craft came into this system 750,000 years ago. It orbited our earth sent down five landers, etc. Unless we can find those landers or some trace that they were on the surface that event although real in this scenario will leave no trace for us to find.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by greyer

Originally posted by Harte
So, you accept the dates for Gobekli Tepe (radiocarbon - 8800-9130 BC) but refuse to accept the dates for Tiahuanaco/Pumapunku (radiocarbon - sometime after AD 536-600)? Or, are you saying that some ancient civilization existed for over 9,000 years - into the modern era - in at least two places on the globe and yet left no signs other than at two archaeological sites? Does this make sense to you?


There are simply different dates given by different people, of different expertise. The oldest parts of Gobekli Tepe go back to 12,000 years, to the end of the deluge.

There never was any deluge, and the dates I gave for Gobelki Tepe are correct.

However, it's not all been excavated.


Originally posted by greyerYour information on Puma Punku is a complete hoax. They can't date Puma Punku at such a short time when they dated Tiahuanaco so far back.

The dates given are for Tiahuanaco. Pumapunku is a construction (a platform) that was built at the Tiahuanaco site. Radiocarbon dating shows they were contemporary parts of the same site. Extensive radiocarbon dating, I should say. Archaeology of the site and surrounding areas is quite thorough. The radiocarbon assay at Tiahuanaco included thousands of samples from all over the area, not just from those two sites (which are separated by only a short distance.)


Originally posted by greyer It is totally obvious even to the untrained eye that Puma Punku was made by the same ancient people of Tiahuanaco.

Absolutely. In fact, it cannot be any other way, given the evidence we have.


Originally posted by greyerSo it is not about what makes sense to a person just looking into this, I am saying there is factual evidence for these stone carvings to be absolutely similar all across the world made by a civilization of giants before the great flood - as the bible states. We know what these giants looked like, we know what kind of carvings they did on rock.

Giants stacking stones in South America while cathedrals are being built in Europe?


Originally posted by greyer

Just an FYI, neither culture responsible for either site can rightly be called a "civilization" in the proper scientific use of the term. This has nothing to do with any "backwardness" or primitiveness. It has to do with what we know of the culture and its accomplishments, primarily writing. Especially in the case of Pumapunku, which was surrounded by a complex irrigation system built to support extensive agricultural efforts around the site. Likely writing would be the only hallmark of civilizatuion they lacked.

Incidentally, this would not prevent some Anthropologists from referring to them (at Pumapunku/Tiahuanaco) as a civilization. But it's not the generally accepted definition.

Harte


The headlines out there say it was a specific landing spot for these giants who could have came from space, or somehow could have got the technology to visit space. There are monuments on mars, and being that there once was water on mars now proven we have to assume these giants could have visited mars because the monuments resemble the Sphinx and Giza pyramids - monuments that were originally built by the giants before the deluge and added onto by the ancient Egyptians, unknown to mainstream history.

Sorry, but I see now that I'm wasting my time here completely. Forget I said anything. Have fun with your delusuions.

Harte



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by sneaglebob12
Does Ancient Aliens even represent the AA community as a whole anyways? This kinda came across my mind today.
edit on 29-5-2013 by sneaglebob12 because: Forgot


I agree.

While I definitely believe in Ancient Aliens, I don't necessarily believe that ET explains everything in our past, or everything that has been presented on the show. I for one also don't like that they are pushing 5 seasons because it does appear that they are 'reaching'...

But as far as the Ancient Alien Theory itself, yes. I definitely believe it.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join