It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 03:26 PM

Originally posted by redoubt

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.

The media does the same thing to science on a regular basis too

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.

So you're solution is?

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

So....correct me if I'm wrong but you're suggesting we just believe everything or just don't believe everything, not quite sure what your point is?

Please clarify

posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 04:26 PM

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.

As i already said i only did a superficial research, cause as much as i find this subject intriguing and fascinating, its not my main intrest, but from what i have read i couldnt find any real proof/explaination as to why they claim those are considered the build dates, except for human occupation.

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?

I believe nothing, but considering the way the other dozens of miniatures depict their subjets, making them all recognizable into varoius insects, men etc...its sure strange how those are made to look that way, and all things considered they are way more intresting and deserving of a good feat than many other subject they treated to nausea.
Those and many more ooparts anyway, i just made a ''recognizable for all'' example.

reply to post by redoubt

Yeah, it seems like we agree :thumbsup:

reply to post by Hanslune

It looks to me like what he says is take everything from mainstream with a grain of salt, do your own research but dont take anything as the final undeniable truth. As i said above, i agree, if for no other reason simply cause everyone has his own agenda/idea/bias etc...

new topics
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in