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.


Forbes vs. Ancient Aliens (Forbes Lies)

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:56 AM
The majority of people in the world are bright enough to realize that mainstream media outlets such as Fox News, CNN, etc. have no objection disregarding objective journalism. (Ba-ZING!) Must of us know of the biases applied to these companies by their corporate owners well, and still most of us know that the slow death of objective journalism began in the 80's.

But just how "dead" can it get?

While I can't speak for the world, I can speak for Americans when I say we have a much greater deal of trust when it comes to more business oriented media outlets, such as "The Economist" or "The Forbes."

My question is.. Why?

The bias planted by these other news sources are just as illegitimate as the next, especially when it comes to citation. For a long time now, people have been reading articles from sites like this and simply taking their word - and I don't blame them... After all, the written word, especially in the form of a small article, was America's most trusted media outlet for many, many years.

In order to make my point, I will be going over one single example article - and pointing out the example article's flaws. If you want to find your own examples, please do so and link it to this thread - let's highlight corporate stupidity, hypocrisy, and misinformation together!

In the spirit of ATS, and my favorite subject on ATS, we'll do an article on Aliens.

Specifically - History Channel's "Ancient Aliens."

Before you get up in arms, I would like to establish that this article is not about the History Channel's "Ancient Aliens," it's simply about how the Forbes lies and cries just for ratings.

I understand that the show on history channel isn't the accepted mainstream archeological history - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take it's information and look at it objectively. Standing in front of a pile of archeological remains and chanting, "Men did this. Men did this. Men did this." Does not only interfere with our ability to look at information objectively, it's plain childish. It's acting like Bill O'Reilly in slightly more subtle manner (No one is -directly- being told to shut up)

So here we go... The example:

An Archaeologist Watches the History Channel and Questions the Part About the Aliens

Open the article, read the few paragraphs, read between the author's intricate Stanley Kubrick-esque lines.. And maybe, just maaaaybe we'll find... A promo for The Deadliest Warrior (which is apparently more legitimate and educational, since it utilizes special flesh-like-gels and made up numbers) and Project Runway. (Which is apparently in a repeatable format that all our educational programming should be following)

Most of it is a rant on how it's all about ratings, and the author is even so open-minded that he goes on to make a strong judgement about all of his readers which, let's face it, is right whether we admit it or not (Yes, that is incredible sarcasm) when he states:

Much as we might pine for more historical documentaries on the History Channel, the fact of the matter is that most historical documentaries are boring: Narrator narrates over photos, paintings and or video. Cut to talking head #1. Cut to talking head #2. Back to narrating over pictures. If the show has the budget, they might do some re-enactments of a battle scene. There – that’s your standard historical documentary. And I’ll bet when the History Channel was running more of those documentaries, you weren’t watching it then, either – were you?

But that's fine, because he understands the layman. He knows our innate drive to educate ourselves, though incredibly weak, can be supplemented by cool CGI graphics and Reenactments which are in all likelihood, fairly inaccurate. No, he doesn't have to wait for you to answer the question of whether or not you actually watch those documentaries with the talking science-man-head.. BORING!!! He knows you'd just be lying to him in order to boost your own ego, anyways.

It doesn’t have to be that way – since I got my Netflix streaming subscription, I’ve watched a lot of documentaries that are both fascinating and entertaining. I think there’s a market for better educational programming. But I can imagine network executives during a recession being leery about experimental documentary programming. TV is a tough business, and it makes more sense to go with reality shows and paranormal crap because that’s what sells.

(Because Sitcoms like "Scrubs" are where the real knowledge is gained.)

So where do we find our real information..? How do we know what programs were started in order to further our knowledge of the Universe around us, and which programs are all about ratings? Don't worry, the author has figured out the solution! We simply wait, and stop watching things he doesn't like. Eventually, the broadcasting companies will take the hint.

When will that change? When a few documentary series that tell true facts and get people to watch come out. There are a few out there – Mythbusters, of course, is the best show about scientific principles out there.

(Mythbusters formed my philosophical outlook on god, and explained to me why the gravity that I'm so accustomed to affects our area of the universe differently than other areas of the Universe. What, you did see those parts? Well you have to buy the DVD to hear the bit about theoretical quantum physics. Yes, this is also sarcasm. The Cosmos? Who's Carl Sagan? )

Alright, alright. I've done enough taring apart his article. While the author may be voicing his opinion a little too much for a legitimate news article, surely his source calls for it. Surely there are some shocking statistics - maybe some graphics or photographs with applied filters, or a red circle pointing out a major flaw. Certainly there was a call for all of this scrutinty, all of this assured denounciation of all the Ph.D.s (such as archeologists) that the show regularly interviews. After all, certainly they couldn't have ALL gone to school with the intention of furthering a hoax. Perhaps these people DO genuinely believe we aren't the only spherical object floating through the billions and billions of others that contains life.

..None of those matters though, as the Forbes always does the research itself. The Forbes always makes sure it's sources are legitimate. The Forbes always contacts the leading professional in h-- Wait, what is this.. A BLOG?

Forbe's Article SOLE CITATION

Yes. A BLOG.

And if you'll kindly scroll to the bottom, you'll find that the Blog's author did not include his name, or for that matter, his credentials. Is he even an archeologist? Probably not, as you'll quickly figure out if you look for the author. The blog writer wasn't even the original archeologist... Yet this false citation warranted a whole article on the Forbes.

Quote from the blog:

A vimana (Sanskrit विमान) is something found in ancient Hindu literature, with a variety of meanings. Its etymology (it can be analysed vi-māna) means ‘measuring out’ or ‘traversing’

edit on 14-4-2012 by thegagefather because: quote

edit on 14-4-2012 by thegagefather because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-4-2012 by thegagefather because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-4-2012 by thegagefather because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-4-2012 by thegagefather because: Title

edit on 14-4-2012 by thegagefather because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:00 PM
He goes on to say

but in literature it refers to a ruler’s palace, the tower above the holy of holies in a Hindu temple, a god’s palace, a flying seat or flying building (from which, some modern dialects use the word to mean ‘aircraft’) and a chariot

SOME dialects of the same exact language used to write the myth? Indeed

In fact...

the quote from Wiki:

The predecessors of the flying vimanas of the Sanskrit epics are the flying chariots employed by various gods in the Vedas: the Sun (see Sun chariot) and Indra and several other Vedic deities are transported by flying wheeled chariots pulled by animals, usually horses (but the Vedic god Pūsan's chariot is pulled by goats, as is that of Norse Thor). The Rigveda does not mention Vimanas, but verses RV 1.164.47-48 have been taken as evidence for the idea of "mechanical birds": 47. kṛṣṇáṃ niyânaṃ hárayaḥ suparṇâ / apó vásānā dívam út patanti tá âvavṛtran sádanād ṛtásyâd / íd ghṛténa pṛthivî vy ùdyate 48. dvâdaśa pradháyaś cakrám ékaṃ / trîṇi nábhyāni ká u tác ciketa tásmin sākáṃ triśatâ ná śaṅkávo / 'rpitâḥ ṣaṣṭír ná calācalâsaḥ "Dark the descent: the birds are golden-coloured; up to the heaven they fly robed in the waters. Again descend they from the seat of Order, and all the earth is moistened with their fatness." "Twelve are the fellies, and the wheel is single; three are the naves. What man hath understood it? Therein are set together spokes three hundred and sixty, which in nowise can be loosened." ("trans." Griffith) In Swami Dayananda Saraswati's "translation", these verses become: "jumping into space speedily with a craft using fire and water ... containing twelve stamghas (pillars), one wheel, three machines, 300 pivots, and 60 instruments."[2] although the 'wheel' is likeliest a metaphorical description of the yearly cycle, and '12' and the '360' are likeliest its months and days.

For the sake of time and space, ATS, I'm done writing for now. I'm sure you can pick this apart for youself if you really wanted to.

My overall point - skepticism is meaningless without objectivism, it merely exists to confuse.

Please feel free to add your own example!
edit on 14-4-2012 by thegagefather because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-4-2012 by thegagefather because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:05 PM
Watch starsuckers the documentary.

It does a good job of explaining how sources get 'credited' throughout all information outlets.

Technically anything written and read is information. The question becomes, is it true?

For example, technically we have a 'free market' in the united states; the truth is that is freedom is solely based on your economic capabilities.

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:26 PM
reply to post by zroth

It's unfortunate that the standards that we as Americans created for ourselves purposely throw away all notion of common sense and replace it with "technically." I'm not arguing with or yelling at you, merely stating that it makes me sad.

And of course it happens everywhere in the world, not just America. And just because it happens less in other countries doesn't mean they should be proud, either.

I think "technically" in this case means "illegitimate"
edit on 14-4-2012 by thegagefather because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:29 PM
reply to post by thegagefather

Agreed. Critical thinking is lost.

No slave owner wants an educated slave.

The technological advancements have really done a disservice to the people on this planet.

The good news is that you cannot prevent the natural cycles from occurring which means we will get through this period at some point.

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:30 PM
reply to post by zroth

Hah, I try to tell that to my roommate, but he's very convinced of otherwise.

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:59 PM

edit on 14-4-2012 by thegagefather because: double post

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 01:39 PM

edit on 14-4-2012 by thegagefather because: triple post

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 03:02 PM
Come on people,
Get up in arms about the MSM!

top topics


log in