Is there any Evidence that the Ancient Alien Theorist have put forth that has not been Debunked?

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 03:45 AM
link   

undo

roncoallstar
If you are referring to that Ancient Aliens debunked video...please....

That guy is a Christian fundamentalist, so basically he believes that the world is 6000 years old. End of story. There is so much evidence that can NEVER be debunked no matter how hard these idiots try, it's actually quite funny.

In my opinion the absolute best example of this are the petroglyphs and pictographs we have left behind from our ancestors. Not only do the myths and legends of the American Indians say EXACTLY what happened, they drew it on rocks everywhere in the southwest. You cannot debunk this evidence. It is your word against theirs, and I will take their word over yours. I have no reason to believe they were lying. That goes for every ancient civilization on this planet. Somehow debunkers think they know everything, and ALL of our ancestors were just making this # up. I will take our ancestors word over a modern human. Modern humans have PROVEN themselves to be liars.


well i'm a bit of a fundie, but i don't believe the earth is 6000 years old, and i like the carl munck video and i don't think the ancient aliens debunked video did a very good job of debunking some of the points in the ancient aliens show. and wrote a thread on the topic . so please don't generalize, thanks


edit on 2-11-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)


Sorry I don't mean to generalize, but in my experience fundamentalists tend to believe that the earth is indeed 6000 years old. May I ask how you can be a fundie and NOT believe that the earth isn't 6000 years old. Isn't that considered blasphemous for you? I mean no offense I am just asking.




posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 04:59 AM
link   

roncoallstar

undo

roncoallstar
If you are referring to that Ancient Aliens debunked video...please....

That guy is a Christian fundamentalist, so basically he believes that the world is 6000 years old. End of story. There is so much evidence that can NEVER be debunked no matter how hard these idiots try, it's actually quite funny.

In my opinion the absolute best example of this are the petroglyphs and pictographs we have left behind from our ancestors. Not only do the myths and legends of the American Indians say EXACTLY what happened, they drew it on rocks everywhere in the southwest. You cannot debunk this evidence. It is your word against theirs, and I will take their word over yours. I have no reason to believe they were lying. That goes for every ancient civilization on this planet. Somehow debunkers think they know everything, and ALL of our ancestors were just making this # up. I will take our ancestors word over a modern human. Modern humans have PROVEN themselves to be liars.


well i'm a bit of a fundie, but i don't believe the earth is 6000 years old, and i like the carl munck video and i don't think the ancient aliens debunked video did a very good job of debunking some of the points in the ancient aliens show. and wrote a thread on the topic . so please don't generalize, thanks


edit on 2-11-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)


Sorry I don't mean to generalize, but in my experience fundamentalists tend to believe that the earth is indeed 6000 years old. May I ask how you can be a fundie and NOT believe that the earth isn't 6000 years old. Isn't that considered blasphemous for you? I mean no offense I am just asking.


ever read anything by finis jennings dake? he wrote a book many years ago now, called god's plan for man. in it, he outlines every verse that completely disproves the 6000 year old earth. some christians know it as the gap theory. but it's far from a theory.

it plainly states the earth was in a state of tohu (chaos) and later,

it plainly states the earth wasn't originally created in a state of tohu.

also, the dry land is already there. the water just draws back to reveal it.

AND, the creation event is a re-plenishing the earth after the tohu state described in the previous verse, which means to re-fill.

this is my own take on it

AND (hehe) the flood account is actually two flood acounts mixed together. one is a bad flood but not global in which noah is instructed to basically take the barnyard ( 7 clean animals in pairs = 14, 7 birds in pairs = 14, and 2 unclean animals in pairs = 4, for a grand total of 32 animals).

that is not the same flood event as the one that required refilling the earth as a result of tohu/chaos (which i view as another way of saying, cataclysm). that cataclysm, marked the end of the advent of the prior life forms on the earth, which he described as the dispensation of the angels. but since the bible is almost exclusively about human beings, most of it is about the human dispensation.

edit on 2-11-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-11-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 07:29 AM
link   

roncoallstar
If you are referring to that Ancient Aliens debunked video...please....

That guy is a Christian fundamentalist, so basically he believes that the world is 6000 years old. End of story. There is so much evidence that can NEVER be debunked no matter how hard these idiots try, it's actually quite funny.


Readers here all note the ease with which you state the above bolded sentence.

Also noted is the peculiar absence of your list of this so-called "evidence."

Harte



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Ultimately without a time machine nobody is going back and prove it one way or the other. So its a safe subject to conjecture about. There is no real proof either way.

As well:

Atlantis (also ancient)
Bermuda Triangle (also underwater and really vast)
North Pole bases (safely remote)
Area 51 (impenetrable)
Orions, Pleadians, Reptilians, etc. (too far away)

These are all safe subjects for speculation on TV. They have been misleading us forever. TV will never lead us to any truth, just away.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Yes there are some episodes of Ancient Aliens that I sometimes wonder what were they thinking

But I do not let this detract from the positive questions that the series asks, some of which I think they have right

Every culture on the planet says that man was created, we are lucky to be at a point in history where we can see how we were created thru dna and to realize it doesnt take magic, mud and water to create. Until our monkey cousins start coming out of the jungle talking and singing, wearing clothes and such.. i'll tip my hat to whoever it was that stumbled upon us so long ago and gave us that little fatherly nudge to being human.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Galileo400
I

Actually, there is one idea they put forth that I think is very good, but it has nothing to with aliens. Did ALL the dinosaurs die 65 MYA? There is some evidence that large dinos may have existed as recent as a few thousand years ago. I think that is very possible and would explain the evidence.




Just curious, what are these evidences?



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 02:06 AM
link   

kanbanozaurus

Galileo400
I

Actually, there is one idea they put forth that I think is very good, but it has nothing to with aliens. Did ALL the dinosaurs die 65 MYA? There is some evidence that large dinos may have existed as recent as a few thousand years ago. I think that is very possible and would explain the evidence.




Just curious, what are these evidences?


Actually, they're correct, but, not in the way they think.
If ALL the dinosaurs had died during the K/T event which we've strong evidence occurred at Chicxulube by the Yucatán Peninsula in Mexico, then, we wouldn't have yummy fried chicken, or turkey, or any kind of bird for that matter.

Thus, there were dinosaur survivors, and over 65 Million years, they adapted to the thinner atmospher and colder climate left behind after the K/T event into what we now know as birds.

We, of course, have data available in the fossil record that supports that some dinos were already well on their way in adapting to flight before the big K/T.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Galileo400
 


I too have watched a lot of alien theory stuff, some of which i believe and some of which i dont, i see these strange pyramids and huge towers and wonder why these things were built and what purpose they served, in my eyes there is nothing more they could have done other then being used for the purpose of these visitors from outer space.

i mean looking at some mayan buildings like Palenque and the theory that the understand such things as Consciousness an the sub - conscious mind, how is it that people who lived without technology of our time can understand something so complex as the human mind with out being told or shown how it all works by some greater being or beings.

i mean have a look at this website and make your own mind up it is all scientific evidence and a couple of theorys but all backed by the proof right there in front of your own eyes...


www.redicecreations.com...

the above is the understanding that nothing the mayans have done is by accident it was all ment to be down that way eg building there pyramids to represent the 9 different stages of "The Underworld", it also says that when we reach the 9th and final stage we are to be enlightened and shown the answers we have all been searching for but only if we are ready to accept the opportunity.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 03:48 AM
link   

ABNARTY
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I would disagree. After AA come T, theory. A guess seeking more evidence in a quest for a higher probability of actually occurring.

In this case X, Y, and Z are multifaceted. They are not necessarily exclusive as portions could run simultaneously. Where as a cooked chicken via ray gun or oven is pretty much A or non-A. Unless of course we assume other possibilities.

The whole AA thing has merit with many simply because the mainstream possibilities are pretty weak. In truth, we never really reach a truth until we have a time machine and can go back and witness firsthand. Or we can claim the mainstream is the unassailable moral high ground and make a career teaching college kids.



No, they are not multifaceted. Either Aliens are involved in building the AE pyramids or they were not. It's one or the other.

Mainstream may not have all the answers, but much of what you claim is weak is not. Megalithic structures are often cited, and the evidence of ancient civilzations building them without alien aid is very strong. What you are doing is trying to say since we can never know for sure the AA theory is valid, and sorry, that's crap. AA theory is never valid when other theories are plausible. Occam's Razor.

If humans could have built it, aliens are no longer required and should be left out.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   

kanbanozaurus
 

Galileo400

Actually, there is one idea they put forth that I think is very good, but it has nothing to with aliens. Did ALL the dinosaurs die 65 MYA? There is some evidence that large dinos may have existed as recent as a few thousand years ago. I think that is very possible and would explain the evidence.



Just curious, what are these evidences?


Cave paintings, carvings, ancient texts, and human/dino tracks together. Also, a T-Rex remains found with un-fossilized soft tissue inside the bones. Things like that.
edit on 2013-11-3 by Galileo400 because: Usual reasons



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   

AliceBleachWhite
 


You're talking about the Melanesian Cargo Cult.

...there's really very little to no evidence for anything similar occurring with ancient prehistoric cultures.


Symbols associated with Christianity and modern Western society tend to be incorporated into their rituals as magical artifacts, for example the use of cross-shaped grave markers. Notable examples of cargo cult activity include the setting up of mock airstrips, airports, offices, and dining rooms, as well as the fetishization and attempted construction of Western goods, such as radios made of coconuts and straw. Believers may stage "drills" and "marches" with sticks for rifles and use military-style insignia and national insignia painted on their bodies to make them look like soldiers, thereby treating the activities of Western military personnel as rituals to be performed for the purpose of attracting the cargo.


My point for bringing up the Cargo Cults is that encounters between advanced people and primitive people can result in the incorporation of rituals and symbolism. This is a tool that the AA Theorist use and I think it's valid. Now, the advanced people don't have to be aliens. The application of this tool must be usd with great care and adult supervision, but I still think it is useful.




posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Some real interesting dynamics at work in this thread. The original question is there any AA evidence that HAS NOT been adequately debunked. The OP did not ask for proof. I stated my short list of four examples on page 1. Then others responded to state:

AA megalithic evidence had been debunked. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE. In truth, many of these cannot be explained. Ancient Peruvian inhabitants did not have any known ability to carve dolomite into perfect 90 degree angles. To perfectly fit massive blocks of some of the hardest stones with no mortar. No, this has not been adequately debunked.

Regarding ancient cave paintings. There are examples of gray aliens, short, same eyes. Those were not animals. Maybe an imagination, but very curious that it matches current alien descriptions.

I absolutely believe the fallen ages from Genesis were off-world and/or hybrid humans. I can't prove that. But, it has not been adequately debunked in any case.

The truth is, we don't know the truth. However, we cannot discount an alien presence in our pre-history either.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   

OccamsRazor04

uncommitted

Galileo400

Panic2k11
reply to post by Galileo400
 




Did ALL the dinosaurs die 65 MYA?
It depends on how you define dinosaur...

You are absolutely correct. I like to kid around with people by referring to chickens as dinosaurs. Also, dinosaur eggs! Seriously though, I was going for the classic stegosaurus (seen in carvings), big theropods, and long necks (seen in paintings).

You know, archeologist found a T-Rex in the western US that had soft tissue inside the bones. They were stunned. How could that survive 65 Million years? I say, maybe it didn't? Maybe it's only a few thousand years old?


The Stegosaurus one is massively misleading as arguably in the carving of which you speak, it shows a four legged animal against a background of some kind of vegetation that makes it look like it has the protrusions that species is known for. That theory is I believe more sound unless it can be proven otherwise.

The T-Rex, are you sure that one is actually substantiated? I seem to remember reading about it in one of those mystery type books that came out in the '70's and '80's that covered everything from the Bermuda Triangle to spontaneous combustion and fairly much everything inbetween. Not sure I've ever seen anything that shows it as verified, but could be wrong. Even if verified, I don't see how that give a dating on when it lived/died?


Then what is the creature if not a stegosaurus? That's actually a pretty bad explanation. A more plausible one is that it was carved recently during renovations.

The T-Rex is substantiated, feel free to google it.


Please google the steg in the carving, and miss out the fringe sites. The T-Rex? Please tell me what you searched on and I will look. Don't ask me to do your work for you.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Just built a long reply and the screen dropped it


Short version:

You are entitled to your beliefs. Claiming those who do not hold those same beliefs as "full of crap" is emotional and polarizing. In this case it feeds fuel to the fire for the 'reptilians built Atlantis' crowd.

Theories, ideas, beliefs, or whatever can be multifaceted. Part of an idea can be dead on while another part is dead wrong. We adjust, tweak, and revise. Keep the good, throw away the bad, and improve. That is the definition of how humans progress in knowing their world.

If you are invested in many mainstream views on the subject, great. If you hold the study of this subject near and dear to your heart, I find no fault with that. I can tell you, there are many on the outside of the academic walls where those views are born who believe those views do not pass the smell test. Too many holes. So much so, the AA theory has traction among them. Just because they reside outside those walls does not necessarily make them Neanderthals either.

The mainstream needs either build a better mouse trap or be prepared to argue why UFO's could not have built the pyramids ad nauseum. Stop ridiculing counter claims and realize the ground in which they sprout has been cast with the fertilizer of weak explanations.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 02:57 AM
link   

ABNARTY
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Just built a long reply and the screen dropped it


Short version:

You are entitled to your beliefs. Claiming those who do not hold those same beliefs as "full of crap" is emotional and polarizing. In this case it feeds fuel to the fire for the 'reptilians built Atlantis' crowd.

Beliefs are not evidence. Have all the beliefs you want, if you claim there is a ton of evidence but I just wont tell you any, I will claim you are full of crap. The thread is about evidence, not beliefs.


Theories, ideas, beliefs, or whatever can be multifaceted. Part of an idea can be dead on while another part is dead wrong. We adjust, tweak, and revise. Keep the good, throw away the bad, and improve. That is the definition of how humans progress in knowing their world.

Exactly my point. We have actual evidence in the form of tools and accounts that show how these structures were made. Yet as progress is made AA theorists prefer the Dark Ages, they persist in making claims that are factually incorrect. If they wish to tweak their theories to match actual evidence they are welcome to do so, the problem is they can't because their theory relies on the fact there is no evidence.


If you are invested in many mainstream views on the subject, great. If you hold the study of this subject near and dear to your heart, I find no fault with that. I can tell you, there are many on the outside of the academic walls where those views are born who believe those views do not pass the smell test. Too many holes. So much so, the AA theory has traction among them. Just because they reside outside those walls does not necessarily make them Neanderthals either.

That's insulting to Neanderthals whom I believe are just as smart as us. I actually have no investment, emotional or professional. I could truly care less which side was right. I do have an investment in truth, and have a deep dislike for those who parrot known, proven, lies. AA theory has traction amoung those who are financially or emtionally invested in it. I have used math and logic to prove some AA theories 100% false, yet the believers simply ignore the facts and pat each other on the back.


The mainstream needs either build a better mouse trap or be prepared to argue why UFO's could not have built the pyramids ad nauseum. Stop ridiculing counter claims and realize the ground in which they sprout has been cast with the fertilizer of weak explanations.

The claim is not UFO's could not have built it, that is the exact crap I refer to. Of course UFO's could have done it, they could also have you on Orion right now pumping drugs through your veins that make you hallucinate being a human on Earth when in reality you are the equivalent of a rat. What COULD be is not relevant.

What is relevant is whether UFO's are NEEDED to explain the pyramids, and they are not, and whether the people at the time could have built them with the tools of the time, and they could have. We have actual evidence of a non UFO explanation. If you wish to violate Occam's Razor and introduce a UFO explanation you need to have some evidence. If you want to create lies to create false doubt on the explanation we have rather than use facts to support the alternative explanation it's very telling of which explanation is the right one.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:08 AM
link   

uncommitted

OccamsRazor04

uncommitted

Galileo400

Panic2k11
reply to post by Galileo400
 




Did ALL the dinosaurs die 65 MYA?
It depends on how you define dinosaur...

You are absolutely correct. I like to kid around with people by referring to chickens as dinosaurs. Also, dinosaur eggs! Seriously though, I was going for the classic stegosaurus (seen in carvings), big theropods, and long necks (seen in paintings).

You know, archeologist found a T-Rex in the western US that had soft tissue inside the bones. They were stunned. How could that survive 65 Million years? I say, maybe it didn't? Maybe it's only a few thousand years old?


The Stegosaurus one is massively misleading as arguably in the carving of which you speak, it shows a four legged animal against a background of some kind of vegetation that makes it look like it has the protrusions that species is known for. That theory is I believe more sound unless it can be proven otherwise.

The T-Rex, are you sure that one is actually substantiated? I seem to remember reading about it in one of those mystery type books that came out in the '70's and '80's that covered everything from the Bermuda Triangle to spontaneous combustion and fairly much everything inbetween. Not sure I've ever seen anything that shows it as verified, but could be wrong. Even if verified, I don't see how that give a dating on when it lived/died?


Then what is the creature if not a stegosaurus? That's actually a pretty bad explanation. A more plausible one is that it was carved recently during renovations.

The T-Rex is substantiated, feel free to google it.


Please google the steg in the carving, and miss out the fringe sites. The T-Rex? Please tell me what you searched on and I will look. Don't ask me to do your work for you.


So you tell ME to google something, and then tell me I have to provide sources because you won't do my work for me (when I never told anyone to google anything). Hilarious. Just because you sound like you need to be dropped down a peg here you go ...



Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive.

www.smithsonianmag.com...


Molecular analysis supports controversial claim for dinosaur cells



Further testing led to the discovery of what was once thought impossible: a fragment of soft tissue left behind when the fossilized bone around it was dissolved in a weak acid.

test after test indicated that the spherical structures were indeed red blood cells from a 67-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex.

In the years that followed, she and her colleagues discovered other apparent soft tissues, including what seem to be blood vessels and feather fibers.

When they exposed the cell-like structures to an antibody that targets a protein called PHEX found only in bird osteocytes* (birds are descended from dinosaurs), the structures reacted, as would be expected of dinosaur osteocytes. And when the team subjected the supposed dinosaur cells to other antibodies that target DNA, the antibodies bound to material in small, specific regions inside the apparent cell membrane.

using a technique called mass spectrometry, the investigators found amino acid sequences of proteins in extracts of the dinosaur bone that matched sequences from proteins called actin, tubulin and histone4 that are present in the cells of all animals.

www.nature.com...



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


"Beliefs are not evidence"

True. But then how do we reconcile:

"We have actual evidence in the form of tools and accounts..."

A tool means nothing other than you can extrapolate a posibility. An account is great but there are many accounts. They require interpretation. How do we pick and choose? Better yet, who chooses? What is their investment?

Some would argue "evidence" would be video documentation of the builders doing their thing back in the day. It's never going to happen. So we are left with tools and accounts and the weaknesses that entails. Yes there are AA supporters who will exploit this and some for monetary gain. Its a free world after all. My point is, if our current main stream "evidence" was more solidly convincing, the opportunity for the AA exploiters would be greatly diminished in the layman's eye.

IMHO, the Nazca lines for example could have easily been built by humans with some string, a few markers, and basic math skills. We will never find the string and how do we prove or disprove math skills? However, why they built them is an another animal. I have little clue. Cue main stream archeology with the religious ceremony BS. Definately not Occam's Razor but it is 'the truth'. So why are we clinging to OR as a litmus test?



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Nuremberg sighting. native American sightings, some drawings and talk of people coming from the sky (which as has been proven by readers of petroglyphs and such - are representing (at least in lots of the cases) what these people saw and not some fairy tale they created',

So UNTIL one is certain they did not see what they may have seen. I would say DEBUNKED can be put in a paper and thrown into the garbage. That is not to say that lots of Ancient Aliens claims are not wrong and highly speculative but the general idea - possibility remains.

I would say there is even slightly possibility to have some kind of beings than not to have. It's like 60% vs 40%.

Many say 'Reptilians, Pleiadeans' all made up on TV, sure but explain all the encounters that exist throughout history - how can one freely think all of t hem are fabricated stories? Why would they even push you with alien disinfo for 60 years if everything were wrong.

I know for a fact that the UFO mystery is highly classified and yes you have to mind what you are saying if you have seen something you are not supposed to. And this is hardly just for 'the latest military craft'



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Yes, I did ask you to provide your evidence, and you did for the T-Rex, which I didn't say I doubted but wasn't sure if it was an urban legend (jury still out for me) thank you. For the Steg, sorry, be as rude and arrogant as you like, but there is no evidence it is portraying a Stegosaurus, you make the claim, not for me to show what it was, merely that it is unlikely to be a dinosaur and people are seeing what they want to see.

I think it's not me that is in need of being on another peg, if you make a claim, source it and show the reference - that is both courtesy and showing you have actually done your homework before making the claim, it's about talking about things in an adult manner, regardless of your age.
edit on 4-11-2013 by uncommitted because: (no reason given)


As it happens, it actually looks an awful lot like a Rhino......

blogs.smithsonianmag.com...
edit on 4-11-2013 by uncommitted because: just to throw a few more things in



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   

ABNARTY
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


"Beliefs are not evidence"

True. But then how do we reconcile:

"We have actual evidence in the form of tools and accounts..."

A tool means nothing other than you can extrapolate a posibility. An account is great but there are many accounts. They require interpretation. How do we pick and choose? Better yet, who chooses? What is their investment?

Sorry, separate issue, that is questioning the evidence. If you want to do so you are welcome to. If you think the tools we find are not old and were planted by "mainstream" to cover up aliens you are welcome to think that. If you think the accounts we have are mistranslated then show evidence. Again, show actual evidence that this is so or I will claim bull.


Some would argue "evidence" would be video documentation of the builders doing their thing back in the day. It's never going to happen. So we are left with tools and accounts and the weaknesses that entails. Yes there are AA supporters who will exploit this and some for monetary gain. Its a free world after all. My point is, if our current main stream "evidence" was more solidly convincing, the opportunity for the AA exploiters would be greatly diminished in the layman's eye.

Yes, morons will claim this. Evidence and "proof" are not the same thing. Evidence is what you use to attempt to prove one position correct. Then again AA proponents would simply say the video was doctored, just like they discount all the other evidence we have. The fact you think there are weaknesses in the evidence we have is interesting, since there isn't. It's also interesting you simply claim there are weaknesses and don't show any.


IMHO, the Nazca lines for example could have easily been built by humans with some string, a few markers, and basic math skills. We will never find the string and how do we prove or disprove math skills? However, why they built them is an another animal. I have little clue. Cue main stream archeology with the religious ceremony BS. Definately not Occam's Razor but it is 'the truth'. So why are we clinging to OR as a litmus test?

Nazca lines are slightly different. Most AA proponents don't claim the lines were built with alien tech, only they were used by aliens. Aliens can't be ruled out, but there are other possibilities that are far more likely, so jumping to aliens as the only explanation is simply stupid.






top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join