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: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by n1000
aliens r the new gods n people like the aa ones use it as a religion,they use the same tactics
as ancient religion guys did.

they know ignorant people will believe them,that people r their target.
they know its impossible to prove theres no aliens,same as religion guys know its impossible to prove theres no god.

they can go on n on as much time as they want.

propaganda is the best weapon in this world.egypcians knew it very well.



Uhmmm...can't trally understand your post.

But if its saying what I think it is saying, then no, you are wrong.

Ancient Alien Theorists are like anyone else: based on facts gathered, we have come to the conclusion that ancient civilizations witnessed an invasion , of extraterrestrial scientists.There is no one that we 'worship', so this is NOT a religion.




posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I'll be glad to read anything you might have/know of on Dunn's research. I always try to hear both sides before making up my mind. So far i havent read anything that made me think hes either wrong or not doin it with good intentions.

I agree, when talkin about sunken cities/structures, we need to be cautious. Yunaguni (or however its spelled
) is a prime example, cause as much as it would be amazing if it was completley man made, and as much as there seem to be evidence of human intervention, unfortunatley there also seem to be strong evidence that most of it is a natural feat.
Still, there are enuff ''real sites'' to justify some serious research into the subject..



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   
post by bon3z
 


Link

Go to power plant it gives a general overview of why Dunn is ignored in the scientific world

edit on 31/7/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Oh well, the good old RationalWiki. Im sorry but some overly biased opinions are not exactley proof of anything, plus they also downtalk Kolosimo, that in his later years toally reviewd his early "cosmonaut" theories in favour of more plausible scenarios and even debunked some of his own early theories.
His books were colorful no doubt, but being Italian i feel the need to defend him.

As for Dunn's site im very familiar with it, and i dont see what you mean. Its an old site, toally unappealing, aestetically speaking. His articles on the other hand, are well written and documented, which being the most important content of the site i say is the most relevant aspect of it.

The only thing that ruins it is the association with Childress and few other questionable characters, but as long as the more credible slice of research wont aknowledge his work as legitimate he is relegated to the pseudo science circles where one out of ten writers have something intresting/intelligent to say.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bon3z
Oh well, the good old RationalWiki. Im sorry but some overly biased opinions are not exactley proof of anything...

bon3z,
That RationalWiki article isn't trying to "prove" anything.

Hans is right (as usual.) It's a reasonable (if short and incomplete) overview of why Dunn's "theory" fails, which is why it is never considered by anyone serious.

The fact that you dismiss it offhand because of the website it's written on is evidence of far worse bias than you accuse Rationalwiki of. Have you considered that?

At any rate, it's only a handful of paragraphs, with only four short bullet points concerning the failure of the idea. It's linked at the top of the article (as wikis are wont to do.) Here's the direct link to that section: link

You should read it, if you haven't.

Harte



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 07:46 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.



hmmmm, I guess that would depend on what you believed. You assume it's easy to have a belief, I say speak for yourself.

I'll agree science is hard since I'm am not a scientist, but a normal person on a CT forum.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   


TSo what do you think? Is the theory dead now because of this? Thanks! ext
reply to post by sneaglebob12
 

It is one thing to "debunk" A SPECIFIC fact. However, it is virtually impossible to prove that in the 4.5 billion years of Earth's existence, that some alien race never visited Earth at some time in the past. On the other hand, all that is needed to prove aliens visited at some time in the past, is to find one verifiable piece of evidence.
I'll put my money on that, before I ever believe theory like that has been debunked. Furthermore, remember that the MSM is in bed with the government, in denying all reports of aliens. I trust the Disclosure people much more than I would EVER trust the government or the MSM and Hollywood.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bon3z
Oh well, the good old RationalWiki. Im sorry but some overly biased opinions are not exactley proof of anything, plus they also downtalk Kolosimo, that in his later years toally reviewd his early "cosmonaut" theories in favour of more plausible scenarios and even debunked some of his own early theories.
His books were colorful no doubt, but being Italian i feel the need to defend him.

As for Dunn's site im very familiar with it, and i dont see what you mean. Its an old site, toally unappealing, aestetically speaking. His articles on the other hand, are well written and documented, which being the most important content of the site i say is the most relevant aspect of it.

The only thing that ruins it is the association with Childress and few other questionable characters, but as long as the more credible slice of research wont aknowledge his work as legitimate he is relegated to the pseudo science circles where one out of ten writers have something intresting/intelligent to say.


See Hartes comments above and here is something for you to ponder how many hundreds or thousands of people with Dunn's technical background support him?

Where is the archaeological evidence of this technology?

Childress isn't 'questionable' he's a certifable believer in all that is possible while ignoring plausible and probable



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Yes yes, i have read it. I still dont see it as anything more than an opinion, except the note that Dunn called the Serapeum pre-historic while its not, but it hardly proves anything, althou i admit its the kind of error people in Academia are waitin for to shove a load of crap over people like Dunn.
Those boxes btw are still an incredible feat un-achievable by bashing granite with dolerite a hand polishing.
As good as an artisan can get, and i agree human hand can become rather accurate,he can never get to be as precise as a machine, furthermore, there must have been quite a few of them since its unconcivable that a single master craftsman did them all alone, unless he could have spent a couple 100 years bashing at them.
And then again, wasnt stone work in decline in that period? Pretty nice work for a dying art.
What you people are missing as a view point, after years upon books, is the actual feasibility of actual hard work, and thats were craftsmen and engineers can. But who are they, and im not defending Dunn but talkin in general, to try deny the word of Academia..

And that Nova doc. Please..i have read separate accounts of the frustration of the team while bashing the granite with dolerite balls, and the overall effort never achieved anything close to AE perfection.
I know Hopkins at some point thought alternative theories were debunked but i also know he had to re think his conclusions.
And what about that 26" large pit next to the 1200ton unfinishe obelisk? How do you suppose they bashed that? How did they move? And how di they move their arms applying enuff force to dig granite with a stoneball. These are simple physics. Slide yourself on a 30" diameter conduit and see how well you can move. Imagine bashing at it...
What are you quoting next as evidence, This Old Pyramid?



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by bon3z
Yes yes, i have read it. I still dont see it as anything more than an opinion, except the note that Dunn called the Serapeum pre-historic while its not, but it hardly proves anything, althou i admit its the kind of error people in Academia are waitin for to shove a load of crap over people like Dunn.

The point of that information about Dunn's "prehistoric" claim:


The Serapeum was constructed in the 19th Dynasty, and used though much of the Late Period, a time with ample textual and archaeological sources

is not that Dunn is stupid. It is that we have textual and archaeological evidence - and lots of it - from that period.

Dunn's claim is that the AE's had power tools that they cut and trimmed stone with.

With the "ample textual and archaeological evidence" we have from the period, why is there no hint of such technology?

Because they didn't have it.

Harte



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by bon3z
Yeah, Childress is a fraud, but he doesnt know. Hes too deep into figuring it all out.
I was pretty pissed after watchin the 3rd episode of AA (i think it was seaon 3) because it was obvious that the producers were aiming at the same target that jersey shore gathers, and its a shame.
The show is filled with stupidity, but the theory is still intresting, althou it has very few strong points, and the show sorta dug a nice ditch for those too, as probably very few would want to be associated to such theory after it ''self ridiculed'' .
People like grayer dont do much good either btw.
For those like me that have always been intrested in the subject, being ancient mysteries, not necessarely alines, there is still some good work to be found out there, but be weary of over enthusiastic chracters, like the above mentioned DHC.

Lemuria: it aint relevant how you call it, the fact that sunken cities are present all over the world, some datable to many thousands bc, is enuff to consider it a more than plausable theory. The morphology of the Micronesia alone should be enuff actually, then we have sites like Nan Madol, for which Academia gives no real explaination if not proof of use in ''recent'' times, but would be bette explained if put in a pre-flood context. Yeah, the flood, sure it wasnt a deluge, but the ice that that covered most of the northern emisphere that melted...

Many myths have been proven to be hystorical fact in the past, i dont see a problem into considering it a possibility for it to happen again.

To be fair, i fully support Chriss Dunn's work, but only cause he does real research, as opposed to many he's seen with, and i found his presence in the AA show completley out of context, but i suppose he has to eat too.


Could you go into detail with this? I have never heard of this place before.
edit on 3-8-2013 by sneaglebob12 because: N/A



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by sneaglebob12
 


Heres a quick run trough Nan Madol. There is a lot to say about the site, but it rareley makes it into the discussion, which is a shame.
en.wikipedia.org...
As for Micronesia:
en.wikipedia.org...

But its not only that tidy bit of land hich is intresting, this is the best seabed map i could find in a hurry googleing. Its "easy to see" what would have been above sea level before the last iceage.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by bon3z
Heres a quick run trough Nan Madol. There is a lot to say about the site, but it rareley makes it into the discussion, which is a shame.

I see you've not been here all that long.

As you can see from this site-specific google search, Nan Madol makes it into the discussion quite often here.

More often that it probably deserves ("Ancient Weather Manipulation Technology"???!!)

Harte



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Here is report from one of the key archaeologists who worked at Nan Madol

Link



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Yes i meant in general, not on ATS, but yeah, have registered like last week, but been readin the site a few years.

As for the PDF, i knew that data, i did some superficial research. As i mentioned before, thats only proof of occupation, no proof on who, or how they built the site, pretty much like most of the megalitic sites world wide.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by sneaglebob12
 




What do you think about "ancient aliens debunked"?


I think it takes about as much ability to buy into any debunking as it does whatever is being debunked.

One thing the internet age has done is take the word 'expert' and reduce it to a point of bloated insignificance Today, one can be an expert (or maybe desk'pert is a better term) in anything simply buying hanging that word out next to a name.

In the end... we will believe what we choose and my personal choice is not to believe much of anything I read... especially when there are 'experts' behind the curtains.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 


I understand what youre saying, and have to agree, but to an extent.
As much as i like to consider many of the so called fringe theories plausible, the AA show did little good for the more educated audience, as it basically can be summed up with one sentence: ''aliens did it all' including puppetin Einstein and DaVinci, which perse is enuff to be a self debunkin series.
Also, they lacked explaination on the more inportant subjects were the theory could be seen as having some fundation, all in favour of sensationalism and shock value.
The debunkin effort was an easy slap on their face, althou on some subject it gets as ridicolous, wantin to pass as fact what is actually just another theory, and at times being skeptik just for the sake of it.
From where i stand i liked the debunkin less than the AA series, which at least was entertainin in its madness.
Ill say it again, the main point that ruined AA wasnt the nonsense, but the faliure to make a good thorough work on the theory's strong points, or if one wants to totally deny the alien ipotesis at least on the more inportant subjects, like for example the Quimbaya ''planes'' and other ooparts that are far more of an anomaly than the black plague or the suicides under mount Fuji for #s sake



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by bon3z
 


No not correct, the report clearly points to a cultural occupation before they built Nan Madol, with a continuance of that culture during and after it was built.

Here is the part of the report you missed - they are talking abou the site of Nan Madol inself


edit on 6/8/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bon3z
like for example the Quimbaya ''planes'' and other ooparts that are far more of an anomaly than


What may I ask do you find compelling about jewelry made about a thousand years ago?

Do you believe jet powered aircraft that looked kinda like F-4 Phantoms were roaring around Northwestern South America then?



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by bon3z
 




... the main point that ruined AA wasnt the nonsense, but the faliure to make a good thorough work on the theory's strong points, or if one wants to totally deny the alien ipotesis at least on the more inportant subjects, like for example the Quimbaya ''planes'' and other ooparts that are far more of an anomaly than the black plague or the suicides under mount Fuji for #s sake


Thanks for the thoughtful and well written reply.

It is true... subjects like UFOs (ancient or otherwise) are often fished upon by the entertainment media/industry, for whatever they can get and, in the process, give the entire field of interest in the subject a black eye.

This is why I noted that buying into either the debunking OR that which was/is being debunked, requires the same degree of naive gullibility.

Open mindedness gets a bad name from both far-flung ends of this topic.

Best



edit on 6-8-2013 by redoubt because: correct



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join