What do you think about "ancient aliens debunked"?

Originally posted by Sankari
Then you need a lesson in logic and critical thinking.

Now that is no argument at all. Furthermore, prove it.

Originally posted by CrikeyMagnet

Originally posted by Hanslune
No that wasn't my point. My point was that his desired level of evidence would cause it to be impossible to prove his parents were his parents as any documentation or test could be considered suspect.

Right. Exactly. Also, scratch that. Reverse it.

I will similarly call into question carbon dating, use of orbital wobble and colour shift to detect the presence and composition of extrasolar planets, and leprechauns. So you see the crux of the issue? Despite the fact that we have 100's of planets being "found" with such far out descriptions as "gas giant 15 feet from its star, spinning at 300,000 RPM"... That does not give 100 % proof of anything beyond "we can see stars wobble".

Our sun wobbles. Why does it do that? Because it has celestial bodies tugging at it, because that is how gravitation works.
We don't use "color shift" to find other planets.
We do watch stars and see how they loose light when something pass in front of it (just like our sun), and does so on a regular basis (that indicates an object orbiting it).
When we do see something passing in front of it, the light can be split using spectrum analysis to show what elements are present (something we've done here on earth time and time, and yet time again).

There are no planets only 15 feet from their sun that we know of, and there are no planets that we've found (yet) that have a 300k RPM spin (there a many neutron stars however that do spin quite fast).

Carbon dating and leprechauns have nothing to do with finding extasolar planets.

I do not know about having 100% proof on Ancient Aliens or Debunking Ancient Aliens.

But I would dare say that your post shows 100% proof that you do not understand or know how extrasolar planets are found. Try researching a bit more on a subject before you try and use it to argue against a completely different subject.

I think you guys in all your evidence this, and proof ='s that, have lost touch with the bigger point.

Ancient Aliens was an entertaining and "plausible" explanation to some misunderstood pictures of an incomplete histroy/faith of an ancient people.

There was more than enough conjecture to hypothesize aliens, now that it has become nearly mainstream, alot of people have taken a harder look at the pieces and it has become apparent that alot of the original composite of the picture are misslabeled. Couple that with the fact the show is trying to push 5 seasons....? Then you get thinks like "every ghost story is actually an alien" etc

The point is there was enough original "evidence" to propose the theory and present it as fact if you believed. Since AA came into being as a show it has sparked alot of additional research into this area and most of it showed that it was most likely not aliens. In fact you can tell the show its self thinks it s a joke but with people giving rattings to "monster hunter" and shows of the like its no wonder.

Not everyone wants cold hard facts whether they say they do or not. There is information out there for those of you disheartened at the fact that aliens did not come to earth and build some super cities and play stargate with our ancestors. It does not mean that the human race has never had previous contact and there is still more than enough evidence to suggest they did at one point, in isolated areas for brief a duration.

Originally posted by eriktheawfulOur sun wobbles. Why does it do that? Because it has celestial bodies tugging at it, because that is how gravitation works.

In that case, what we can say is not that "The Kepler-62 system has five planets; 62b, 62c, 62d, 62e and 62f. The Kepler-69 system has two planets; 69b and 69c. Kepler-62e, 62f and 69c are the super-Earth-sized planets." (from here), but that "based upon our current understanding of gravity, and our observations in local space, the complex wobble of Kepler-62 would appear to indicate 5 gravitational masses interacting with its rotation."

Originally posted by eriktheawful
We don't use "color shift" to find other planets.

We do watch stars and see how they loose light when something pass in front of it (just like our sun), and does so on a regular basis (that indicates an object orbiting it).
When we do see something passing in front of it, the light can be split using spectrum analysis to show what elements are present (something we've done here on earth time and time, and yet time again).

First: Never said we did use that to find other planets.

Second: Your description is entirely consistent with mine. So... agreed that that is the method used. However, this continues to be based on localized observance of a phenomenon seen from (in the case of Kepler-62) 1,200 light years away. Now, assuming everything works the same there as here (based on observation, this seems reasonable), and assuming we have a clear view otherwise through the 11,352,634,100,000,000-ish kilometres intervening (which seems to stretch the imagination a little), we are to take for granted, and accept as 100% proof that the tiny speck we can't directly observe, is exactly the way our interferometers and spectrometers say?

You'll have to understand that this is why religions fall out of favour in scientific societies. Not only are you asking to believe that science has provided the end answer, when science provides few if any of those. You are asking me to accept as a given the contemporary theories which led to the current theory of how we can identify what's out there. Go there. Report back. I'll take that as proof.

Originally posted by eriktheawful
There are no planets only 15 feet from their sun that we know of, and there are no planets that we've found (yet) that have a 300k RPM spin (there a many neutron stars however that do spin quite fast).

No, I'm not referring to a specific example, and I should think you would find that obvious by my statement of "15 feet from its star, spinning at 300,000 RPM". (In literary terms, this could be referred to as hyperbole, or exaggeration for effect.)

Originally posted by eriktheawful
Carbon dating and leprechauns have nothing to do with finding extasolar planets.

Never said they did. But they do fit nicely in the category of things that are not yet proven.

Originally posted by eriktheawful
I do not know about having 100% proof on Ancient Aliens or Debunking Ancient Aliens.

But I would dare say that your post shows 100% proof that you do not understand or know how extrasolar planets are found. Try researching a bit more on a subject before you try and use it to argue against a completely different subject.

Now you're being deliberately obtuse. My post shows 100% proof that I'm making up a "typical extrasolar planet" as described every single time they describe one in any news story about such things.

You'll also find that my statement is completely in line with your description of how the colour-shift thingy works for determining composition of extrasolar planets. Try reading that again, but put on your other hat. The one that is not being belligerently contrary for the sake of argument.

Simply daring to say it does not make it so.

(I had to make and shift a lot of tags in this response. Let's see if I got them all in the right places, shall we?)

reply to post by vind21


Yes. Thank you. All I mean to say is that simple absence of concrete proof of existence does not constitute proof of non-existence.

Also, dismissing a basic concept as debunked when all angles have not been explored is the scientific equivalent of jamming your fingers in your ears and shouting "La la la la la!!"

(On a related note, I do apologize for the rabbit hole that just showed up back there. You may note that I get touchy when any concept is dismissed without thorough review.) (And thorough review without direct observation, in my opinion, is not achievable.)

reply to post by CrikeyMagnet


Gravity works there as it does here. Without it working the same there (or other places), stars themselves would not be able to exist.

We really do have a clear view of objects 1,200 lightyears away, further in some cases. The universe is filled with many things, but those things are in a very vast area that is empty. If you chose not to believe it, that's your problem, not mine.

I would say that in your case of a planet being so close and spinning so fast was not really what I would call an "exaggeration". Instead, I would say it was being sarcastic.

Which shows in many of your posts here in this thread.

I would go further about your knowledge based upon the usage of the words "color thingy", but I digress, as this subject is not part of the OP and is very off topic, which is about "Ancient Aliens" and not "Extrasolar Planets".

Feel free to create a thread about this subject over in the Space Exploration forum and we can continue to debate it there if you'd like. That way we are not continuing to derail this thread here.

Originally posted by Harte

Hmmm.

Makes me wonder if you think that, to make a chair fall over, one must remove every single leg.

Harte

Even then, with the chair would still contain a sign proclaiming "working as intended".

My sentiment agrees with most posters on here, Ancient Aliens was a horrible show to begin with and is no more than one giant infomercial for a couple of scam artists promoting their science fiction books as fact. Didn't even need a follow up debunk show because the original series does a pretty good job debunking itself.

Originally posted by CrikeyMagnet

Originally posted by Hanslune
No that wasn't my point. My point was that his desired level of evidence would cause it to be impossible to prove his parents were his parents as any documentation or test could be considered suspect.

Right. Exactly. Also, scratch that. Reverse it.

..and you arrive at exactly the same problem again, excessive demand for 100% evidence of every aspect is simply not possible in complex cases.

Sometimes called the 'endless possibilities' scenario, everything can be called into question. That is why you go with the best information you have, which is also why you call them theories - in case an observation comes up to disprove them.

reply to post by CrikeyMagnet

It seems that, rather than doubting the available facts (such as the cyclic precession and dimming of observed stars), what you mistrust is any kind of deduction from factual premises. You're the Doubting Thomas type; you want to stick your fingers in the holes, then you'll believe.

Very creditable.

On the other hand, you are quite willing to give credence to a hypothesis for which no shred of factual evidence exists. Compared to the ancient-aliens hypothesis, the existence of the exoplanets now proposed to exist by astronomers may be taken as a veritable certainty; and the reliability of radiometric dating far surpasses even that. Yet you would rather believe in ancient aliens than exoplanets or carbon dating.

Curious how the mind works.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by CrikeyMagnet

 

It seems that, rather than doubting the available facts (such as the cyclic precession and dimming of observed stars), what you mistrust is any kind of deduction from factual premises. You're the Doubting Thomas type; you want to stick your fingers in the holes, then you'll believe.

Very creditable.

On the other hand, you are quite willing to give credence to a hypothesis for which no shred of factual evidence exists. Compared to the ancient-aliens hypothesis, the existence of the exoplanets now proposed to exist by astronomers may be taken as a veritable certainty; and the reliability of radiometric dating far surpasses even that. Yet you would rather believe in ancient aliens than exoplanets or carbon dating.

Curious how the mind works.

Curious indeed, I believe we are seeing an example of 'the world revolves around me and how I perceive it - all else is shadow and false'.

Originally posted by Astyanax
On the other hand, you are quite willing to give credence to a hypothesis for which no shred of factual evidence exists. Compared to the ancient-aliens hypothesis, the existence of the exoplanets now proposed to exist by astronomers may be taken as a veritable certainty; and the reliability of radiometric dating far surpasses even that. Yet you would rather believe in ancient aliens than exoplanets or carbon dating.

Curious how the mind works.

Now hold on. Saying not one shred of factual evidence exists, again, is simply a fallacy. The evidence presented may have other explanations, and those explanations may be more "reasonable"... but that does NOT make those correct.

A "veritable certainty" like what? Speed of light? Mr. Tsoukalous' idea that it's all the result of Aliens?

It's not at all about what I believe or don't believe... it's about the process of "debunking", and about what you can PROVE. I suggest what is acceptable as 100% proof to you leaves plenty of loopholes and assumptions. The only way to really debunk something, therefore, is to close all of the loopholes and verify the assumptions. I will accept your opinion that the process for identifying the presence and composition has a good chance of being correct. That doesn't mean that I expect everything to look exactly as we expect when we arrive impossible thousands of years from now.

Originally posted by CrikeyMagnet


It's not at all about what I believe or don't believe... it's about the process of "debunking", and about what you can PROVE. I suggest what is acceptable as 100% proof to you leaves plenty of loopholes and assumptions. The only way to really debunk something, therefore, is to close all of the loopholes and verify the assumptions. I will accept your opinion that the process for identifying the presence and composition has a good chance of being correct. That doesn't mean that I expect everything to look exactly as we expect when we arrive impossible thousands of years from now.

Can you point to an archaeological subject that is proved to the standard you are stating?

Does Ancient Aliens even represent the AA community as a whole anyways? This kinda came across my mind today.

Originally posted by sneaglebob12
Does Ancient Aliens even represent the AA community as a whole anyways? This kinda came across my mind today.

edit on 29-5-2013 by sneaglebob12 because: Forgot

Interesting question - does the AA community have any central focus now? If so who and or what/where is it?

I think we need to get back to topic...



With that being said. Yes it's a TV show. Does it hold truth? Well the bible has "Truth" to it even it was written by man.

So do Alien's exist? NON OF YOU CAN ACTUALLY DISPROVE IT, IF YOU CAN PROVE IT~

Were all clumped here on a Giant Rock Rotating a Ball of FRIGGIN PLASMA for Christ sakes.

End: If there are Alien's with Great Power I wish they would hurry up and end this petty banter.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by CrikeyMagnet


It's not at all about what I believe or don't believe... it's about the process of "debunking", and about what you can PROVE. I suggest what is acceptable as 100% proof to you leaves plenty of loopholes and assumptions. The only way to really debunk something, therefore, is to close all of the loopholes and verify the assumptions. I will accept your opinion that the process for identifying the presence and composition has a good chance of being correct. That doesn't mean that I expect everything to look exactly as we expect when we arrive impossible thousands of years from now.

Can you point to an archaeological subject that is proved to the standard you are stating?

Nope, but that's irrelevant, as I suspect you won't find "debunking" in a list of archeological terminology. I can point to the endless list of theories that we take for granted every day, and the short list of "physical laws" which seem more like challenges.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure why you are arguing this point. My argument is that lack of 100% proof means an idea cannot be dismissed offhand. Yes, you can have diminishing probabilities, but that's not good enough to call something debunked (or its opposite, "bunked") , meaning new evidence would have to be evaluated "without prejudice", and added to the overall knowledge on the subject. Are you arguing that science says "Meh. It's good enough for government work! "? Are there scientific principles indicating that successful (or unsuccessful) experiments close the book forever on that topic?

That's not a science I'd like to be associated with.

I've seen many similar you tube vids making really good points, and really taking down some of the ancient alien points. There is a lot to debunk, and a lot of crap. Some of those guys are brilliant and latch onto a great idea, but they tend to take it too far sometimes and the original idea gets lost. There is however a lot of good stuff there that is still unexplained and could lead to a different hypothesis if one is willing to look. I believe there were ancient Aliens and after discounting...let's say 70 percent of ancient aliens ideas....the general idea is still valid and not taken away. After some thorough skepticism we get focused and get rid of all the crap that is clouding the topic. The 2nd Hypothesis, which could go hand in hand really, or not, is that there were advanced civilizations 10-12 thousand BC. This really needs to be more of a debate/rebuttal. There's more there that's unexplained. Graham Hancock, I believe is one of those proponents and again, he has some great evidence and ideas to back that up. There is a ton of stuff still to look into.

reply to post by Hanslune


I'm tracking. Yes, at some point we have to assume, short of an Almighty coming down to confirm something, a base line of "truth". At some point in a different set of circumstances our "truth" may prove inadequate but science allows for updates and improvements as long as we are not too emotionally invested in the original model.

Just a third party reading that might think a thousand other examples could have said the same thing, why the immediate reference to questionable lineage? Apparently CM didn't though.

reply to post by Astyanax


When you deal with humans, their ain't no such thing as fairly simple language. It's merely a construct and guaranteed to be misconstrued.

A right to an opinion? Do you actually question that or don't you get out much? I do have an opinion. I voiced it, as did many others on here. Who made you The Omnipotent One to oversee who is "entitled" to their own thoughts on the matter?

Originally posted by CrikeyMagnet

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure why you are arguing this point. My argument is that lack of 100% proof means an idea cannot be dismissed offhand. Yes, you can have diminishing probabilities, but that's not good enough to call something debunked (or its opposite, "bunked") , meaning new evidence would have to be evaluated "without prejudice", and added to the overall knowledge on the subject. Are you arguing that science says "Meh. It's good enough for government work! "? Are there scientific principles indicating that successful (or unsuccessful) experiments close the book forever on that topic?

That's not a science I'd like to be associated with.

So you are in favour of a mass of 'grey', everything is possible, nothing proved or disproved?

AA didn't really need to be 'debunked' it never got out of the idea stage for the simple reason of lacking evidence to support it.

Interesting you couldn't come up with a single thing in archaeology that would meet your criteria. Is that the correct reading of your reply?