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.

 

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

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   

uncommitted
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

Actually it very likely could be a stegosaurus, it doesn't matter though because the carvings are NEW not old.

You apparently are not nearly as well versed on the subject as I am, especially since per YOUR source it does not look a lot like a rhino ...

the sculpture only vaguely looks like a rhino or boar.


There are rumors that it was created recently, perhaps by a visiting movie crew (the temple is a favorite locale for filmmakers), and it is possible that someone created something Stegosaurus-like during the past few years as a joke.

The carving in question was never seen until recently, after renovations were made to the temple in question. It is most likely a NEW carving of a stegosaurus.
edit on 4-11-2013 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

I said personally it looks like a rhino, the link was provided in case anyone had not seen the picture. I looks like something rhino-like standing in front of some type of foliage to my eyes, but of course if the info you provided (which by the way gives an opinion, not fact) is correct and the carving is relatively recent, then of course it could be whatever the person who carved it wanted it to be.

BTW, what makes you think you are well versed? Being arrogant doesn't show anything but arrogance.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   

OccamsRazor04

The carving in question was never seen until recently, after renovations were made to the temple in question. It is most likely a NEW carving of a stegosaurus.
edit on 4-11-2013 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)


And your proof for this conclusion is what exactly?

Oh thats right there isnt any because that is just one assumption.
The other assumption is that its a rhino. Neither assumption has proof, hence they are both valid assumptions.
One may be true but then they both may be false.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Galileo400
 


There are questions that are unanswered, questions that are difficult to speculate reasonable answers without taking the possibility of E.T. visitations into account. Questions such as the origin of highly respected historical and religious documents. Technological and architectural accomplishments.

I wouldn't count out the possibility of E.T. Some of Ancient Aliens is just for show, stimulate minds. The people who created the show probably have a very good idea of when they are incorrect and simply speculating as well as when they are on to something tangible and real. Some pieces of evidence are too incredible and enigmatic to be overlooked.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by On7a7higher7plane
 


Thank you, On7a7higher7plane, for your input and I agree with you, but we need to nail down the facts.

Project Summary:

I still have difficulty with megalithic structures as evidence. The Great Pyramid is a most amazing structure, no doubt. But, just because it’s huge and precise and captures cool numbers like pi and the golden number is not proof of aliens. The Egyptians were building with stone for thousands of years. Their work got better and better with each construction. If the Great Pyramid stood alone, I might have to consider that they got some help, but with the clear evolution of their work I can only see it as man-made.

Humans continue to prove that when they focus on a set of skills they can do amazing things. Such as the martial arts, grand master chess players, professional athletes, etc. So, the Egyptians got very good at math, astronomy, and stone work.

Also, the whole Sumerian thing just seems like a bust. The Dogons might have been something, but with the possible contamination and poor handling of that situation makes the evidence weak, at best.

On the up side, the Hebrew texts (Genesis, Exodus, Ezekiel, Daniel, and others) I think have some value, but historical context must be carefully taken into account. Also, certain ancient cultures (Anasazi), extinct and existing, are a good source to keep searching for evidence. Their artwork, writings, stories and beliefs should be considered together.

In addition to ancient aliens, recent and current events should be considered also. The Roswell event has many unanswered questions. And, there are many other worldwide documented events.

ASSIGNMENT:

What verifiable facts about the Roswell event can we put on a list of “good” evidence?

I have:
  1. The fact that the military had to be informed about the crash indicated that they were not involved.
  2. That first newspaper report on July 8, 1947 is hard to explain away.




posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 




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.


That's rich! I never said the tools were not old or genuine. I never claimed they were planted. My point was finding a tool is a long way from fully understanding how it was used or is that particular tool the extent of the builder's arsenal.



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


Who the heck is 'we'? The holy ancient language guild? Are there not debates among 'experts' in academia about what some old hieroglyphics or ancient writings mean? Obviously this does not exclude other hieroglyphics or ancient writings being interpreted correctly and agreed upon. Does that common occurrence really need a verified footnote with a notarization?



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.


Are you really claiming there is no weak evidence anywhere in support of various mainstream archaeology theories? I simply observed in some cases, some supporting evidence and its interpretation is indeed questionable. At least open to various interpretation, AA or otherwise.

Why the steadfastness with the mainstream-is-rock-solid and AA proponents or anybody else for that matter are only out to burn it all down? No one will ever claim you are not persistent in defense of your opinions regardless of reasonable attempts to demonstrate other possibilities may exist. It sounds like the AA guys defending their cash cow.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Galileo400
reply to post by On7a7higher7plane
 


Thank you, On7a7higher7plane, for your input and I agree with you, but we need to nail down the facts.

Project Summary:

I still have difficulty with megalithic structures as evidence. The Great Pyramid is a most amazing structure, no doubt. But, just because it’s huge and precise and captures cool numbers like pi and the golden number is not proof of aliens.

The fact is, the GP "captures" neither of these numbers, as I have explained at least ten times right here at ATS and a hundred times on several different boards.

Such false statements made offhand as if they were well-established facts instead of outright fabrications, even though by a reasonable person such as yourself (in this particular case,) are the impetus for the frustration that leds many (including myself) to a rather terse type of response to these sorts of claims.


Harte



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


can you direct me to your research on the subject of the gp not capturing pi and the golden ratio?



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 



Galileo400
The Great Pyramid is a most amazing structure, no doubt. But, just because it’s huge and precise and captures cool numbers like pi and the golden number is not proof of aliens.


Harte
The fact is, the GP "captures" neither of these numbers, as I have explained at least ten times right here at ATS and a hundred times on several different boards.

Such false statements made offhand as if they were well-established facts instead of outright fabrications, even though by a reasonable person such as yourself (in this particular case,) are the impetus for the frustration that leads many (including myself) to a rather terse type of response to these sorts of claims.

I'm with you Harte, I don't buy all that number stuff. Kind of reminds me of Bible Code. My list of GP attributes are things that DON'T impress me as "alien".

In the interview that I watched of the architect that designed the glass pyramid in Las Vegas, he claims that he did not copy the ratio of the GP and did not use pi. He said he tried many ratios and found his final choice to look the best. Turns out, his design choice is very, very close to that of the GP.

I'm more inclined to accept that our sense of aesthetics tends towards the golden number and pi without us having to whip out our slide rules and "do the math". Nature seems to like the golden number and we are, well, part of Nature.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   

uncommitted
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

I said personally it looks like a rhino, the link was provided in case anyone had not seen the picture. I looks like something rhino-like standing in front of some type of foliage to my eyes, but of course if the info you provided (which by the way gives an opinion, not fact) is correct and the carving is relatively recent, then of course it could be whatever the person who carved it wanted it to be.

BTW, what makes you think you are well versed? Being arrogant doesn't show anything but arrogance.


Because I knew about the whole story and knew that it was most likely a new carving done during renovations. Also no, you didn't say it looked like a rhino personally, you said it looks a lot like a rhino and gave a source. That is attempting to show fact, not opinion. The source you linked to prove it looked a lot like a rhino said it only vaguely did.

The arrogance did not come until later, when you decided to cop an attitude.

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.

That was my original quote. I stated off the bat the stegosaurus was new. There was no arrogance, YOU were the one who displayed arrogance.

Your quote.

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.


In the same breath you tell me I need to provide sources because you aren't going to do work for me, then you tell me to google stuff and find it myself. So you are too good for Google, but apparently I am not?



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   

OneManArmy

OccamsRazor04

The carving in question was never seen until recently, after renovations were made to the temple in question. It is most likely a NEW carving of a stegosaurus.
edit on 4-11-2013 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)


And your proof for this conclusion is what exactly?

Oh thats right there isnt any because that is just one assumption.
The other assumption is that its a rhino. Neither assumption has proof, hence they are both valid assumptions.
One may be true but then they both may be false.


Yes, and when the locals are asked about the origin and don't remember it ever being there it most likely hasn't been there long. Maybe you do not understand the definition of the word plausible, since I never portrayed it as fact. Saying it is NOT a stegosaurus IS portraying fact.

plau·si·ble
ˈplôzəbəl/
adjective
adjective: plausible

1.
(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.

So now that you understand the definitions of the words I used you can go back and read my post again. Thanks.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 11:33 PM
link   

On7a7higher7plane
reply to post by Galileo400
 


There are questions that are unanswered, questions that are difficult to speculate reasonable answers without taking the possibility of E.T. visitations into account. Questions such as the origin of highly respected historical and religious documents. Technological and architectural accomplishments.

I wouldn't count out the possibility of E.T. Some of Ancient Aliens is just for show, stimulate minds. The people who created the show probably have a very good idea of when they are incorrect and simply speculating as well as when they are on to something tangible and real. Some pieces of evidence are too incredible and enigmatic to be overlooked.


People all over this thread keep saying that, yet not a single one can name a single piece of this so called amazing evidence. How about you name some?



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ABNARTY
 


So I asked you for specifics and all you do is generalize even further. There really is no reason to bother if you will not give specifics. Using general terms is a great way to obfuscate the fact that there is no evidence behind the argument.

It's like me saying there are things out there, and never saying exactly what, thus preventing anyone from proving or disproving what I say is true. If I said trolls are out there then a discussion could be had, but sticking to basic general terms allows a person to keep their beliefs without ever having them be challenged.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 06:21 AM
link   

undo
reply to post by Harte
 


can you direct me to your research on the subject of the gp not capturing pi and the golden ratio?

One I found is in this post:Link

Acknowledging that the search function here is somewhat lacking for these purposes, I suggest you click here: link2

Look at the search box on that page. See the "site:abovetopsecret" part?

Using google to search for terms here works pretty well. I didn't check, but that search should turn up most of the explanations I've provided here and several have links to the same explanation on other websites.

Harte



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
The series is scripted with the style of never making firm truthful assertions, so the show it's self needs no debunking.
All the content presented has being doing the round for years.
In a way, the leaps they make perhaps crowd out more convincing arguments and muddy the waters.

They seem to just beg the/any question season after season.
Be great to have some answers for this passé pursuit.
I'm kind of over it.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I originally said - "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."

I then said "Actually it looks like a rhino to me" and posted a link to where the picture could be seen. Anything else you say is your assumption and nothing more.

If it's a relatively old carving or a new one aiming to deceive, neither you or I know - your 'research' is based off looking on the internet and to be quite honest, so is mine, I care not enough for anything more indepth as I'm fairly comfortable in thinking the human race in its currently evolved format never encountered a live Stegosaurus.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   

uncommitted
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I originally said - "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."

I then said "Actually it looks like a rhino to me" and posted a link to where the picture could be seen. Anything else you say is your assumption and nothing more.

If it's a relatively old carving or a new one aiming to deceive, neither you or I know - your 'research' is based off looking on the internet and to be quite honest, so is mine, I care not enough for anything more indepth as I'm fairly comfortable in thinking the human race in its currently evolved format never encountered a live Stegosaurus.


Listen, I am not interested in getting into a pissing match. You claimed it was some other animal with vegetation. I asked what animal it could possibly be and gave you a more plausible explanation.

You then told me to google and stay away from fringe sites, then tell me you refuse to use google on the topic of the t-rex because you won't do my work for me. If you can't see the problem with that then I can't help you.

You then end up linking a webpage that says it does NOT look like a rhino and also puts forth the idea of it being a recent carving, exactly what I said was the most plausible explanation when all the facts are accounted for.

Your attitude of demanding I provide you with sources, then telling me to go google stuff is where you went off track.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Yupper. You got it dead to rights Champ. Do I feel silly!



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 06:28 AM
link   

OccamsRazor04

uncommitted
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I originally said - "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."

I then said "Actually it looks like a rhino to me" and posted a link to where the picture could be seen. Anything else you say is your assumption and nothing more.

If it's a relatively old carving or a new one aiming to deceive, neither you or I know - your 'research' is based off looking on the internet and to be quite honest, so is mine, I care not enough for anything more indepth as I'm fairly comfortable in thinking the human race in its currently evolved format never encountered a live Stegosaurus.


Listen, I am not interested in getting into a pissing match. You claimed it was some other animal with vegetation. I asked what animal it could possibly be and gave you a more plausible explanation.

If you believe the animal is a stegosaurus, perhaps you could lend us more of your expertise.

What, precisely, is the animal depicted in the carving under the stegosaurus?

I mean, if these carvings are supposed to be realistic enough to identify each critter, as you seem to think, then please, take a look and tell us what some of the other carvings are.

Harte



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   

OccamsRazor04

OneManArmy

OccamsRazor04

The carving in question was never seen until recently, after renovations were made to the temple in question. It is most likely a NEW carving of a stegosaurus.
edit on 4-11-2013 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)


And your proof for this conclusion is what exactly?

Oh thats right there isnt any because that is just one assumption.
The other assumption is that its a rhino. Neither assumption has proof, hence they are both valid assumptions.
One may be true but then they both may be false.


Yes, and when the locals are asked about the origin and don't remember it ever being there it most likely hasn't been there long. Maybe you do not understand the definition of the word plausible, since I never portrayed it as fact. Saying it is NOT a stegosaurus IS portraying fact.

plau·si·ble
ˈplôzəbəl/
adjective
adjective: plausible

1.
(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.

So now that you understand the definitions of the words I used you can go back and read my post again. Thanks.


Its plausible that aliens came to earth and created man by doing genetic experiments with their own DNA and that of primates....doesnt mean its true. Your posting of the definition of plausible is irrelevant.
History has showed the rewriting of history repeatedly, hence the phrase "history is written by the victors".

Have I seen proof that man walked side by side with dinosours? NO.
Have I ever seen proof of a transitional form? No.
That doesnt stop evolutionists claiming evolution as fact. Just plausible.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join