What to do with the Ancient Aliens ?

I agree. We are but fish in a pond in a park in a town in a city in a country in a world in a solar system in a galaxy in a universe in an atom in the eye of a fish in a pond. a reply to: Zanti Misfit

a reply to: Archonic

Just press cc... it will autotranslate to english.

originally posted by: frenchfries

while proposing 80% certainty, then your comments concerning this are use.. .

So why do you assume there is a small chance (5%) that the ancient alien hypothesis is true ?

Because there exists no evidence for it.

Harte

originally posted by: frenchfries

What a good lecture! Thank you so much for sharing!

a reply to: Harte

So why do you assume there is a small chance (5%) that the ancient alien hypothesis is true ?

Not much evidence Harte ? I beg to differ... Maybe the ancient alien theory is even more than 5% pausible. you're probably like most western/american archeologists not familiar with his findings...




just press the CC button and it will autotranslate.

originally posted by: frenchfries
a reply to: Harte

So why do you assume there is a small chance (5%) that the ancient alien hypothesis is true ?

Not much evidence Harte ? I beg to differ... Maybe the ancient alien theory is even more than 5% pausible. you're probably like most western/american archeologists not familiar with his findings...

just press the CC button and it will autotranslate.

How does "there is no evidence" becomes "not much evidence"?

There is no evidence. None. Nada. Zilch.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

.... becomes "not much evidence"?

Repeating your opinion over and over again doesn't explain a thing or does make it an proven fact.
Fact is that there are many questions regarding the Existance of Alien visitations that have to be answered. Even well known scientists accept the possibility of Alien visitations in the past. So I regard you statements not as fact but as a subjective opinion as I regard my own.

If It's just your own subjective opinion can you please enlighten us more.

originally posted by: frenchfries
a reply to: Harte

.... becomes "not much evidence"?

Repeating your opinion over and over again doesn't explain a thing or does make it an proven fact.

And you "editing" my opinion does what?

originally posted by: frenchfries
Fact is that there are many questions regarding the Existance of Alien visitations that have to be answered. Even well known scientists accept the possibility of Alien visitations in the past. So I regard you statements not as fact but as a subjective opinion as I regard my own.

I already stated it was a possibility, didn't I?

originally posted by: frenchfries
If It's just your own subjective opinion can you please enlighten us more.

Gladly. So, show me some evidence and I will show you why it is bogus. And please, leave off with the Russian YouTube videos. Tell us yourself what you find so compelling in your video "research."

Harte

a reply to: Harte

And please, leave off with the Russian YouTube video.

So why not showing the russian video ? Isn't ATS on sharing information dening ignorance ?
You just assume you know everything ,well you dont ?

As a math teacher you deny the existance of a superset without knowing the subset.

My point in this thread is it to discern between Ancient Alien Hypothesis and Ancient aliens the show. And ask people what they think about the Ancient Alien Hypothesis.

I showed previous russian clip because it's very very interesting. It's processed wolframe found at a archelogical site by people that do the digging. It's a piece of evidence.




Aliens can build a dyson sphere but cannot visit earth ?

o, show me some evidence and I will show you why ....

...you're a bit too sure to be real... How do you know something is not evidence before you have even seen the evidence ?

personally i think the theory might still be right, but since they've made it so easy to sound like a joke no mainstream scientist would dare to spend his career looking at something like that. if we don't have a major finding, there's probably no way we're gonna get into that anytime soon.

originally posted by: LockedUp2Morrow
personally i think the theory might still be right, but since they've made it so easy to sound like a joke no mainstream scientist would dare to spend his career looking at something like that. if we don't have a major finding, there's probably no way we're gonna get into that anytime soon.

...and it's also because scientists follow like most of us the money ,a question of funding...

Today, researchers are likely to be funded by a mix of grants from various government agencies, institutions, and foundations. For example, a 2007 study of the movement of carbon in the ocean was funded by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Australian Cooperative Research Centre, and the Australian Antarctic Division.1 Other research is funded by private companies — such as the pharmaceutical company that financed a recent study comparing different drugs administered after heart failure. Such corporate sponsorship is widespread in some fields. Almost 75% of U.S. clinical trials in medicine are paid for by private companies.

Source

So to do 'something big' research has to fall in line with various government agencies, institutions, and foundations to get funding. This means that most Scientists fall in line with the general consensus or else it's bad for their career. I doubt that even a major 'big find' will change that consensus.

a reply to: Harte


There is evidence for it, but still the theory cannot be proved to the satisfaction of skeptics. Mountains of circumstantial evidence, probably direct evidence, but a man with a closed mind sees only what he wants to see.

I only have problems with thinking that there are e.t's that where around when fire was discovered still hanging about today like a God. Would be much more impressive then a 6000 year old god.

Mytholgy could have some actual accuracy about accounts or descriptions but it could be very lossely
based with little to nothing about what it really could be.

The problem with mytholgy explanation though is the pov of them, where two cultures could have seen the same thing but have completely different views about them, and their jealous attempts at explanations for the sake of superiority leads them no where.

For example, the Western Seraphim, could be synonymous with middle eastern Jinn, where both could be symbolized with the Naga. But no, they can't be the samething because of religion trying to compensate for something.

Even though all get labeled as serpents, dragons to even something close to a common believe of a hell hound.

Suck my Serpent, in my bush cause ifrite. ..hope.it.burns like gonherra does and gehenna was supposed to.

originally posted by: frenchfries
a reply to: Harte

And please, leave off with the Russian YouTube video.

So why not showing the russian video ? Isn't ATS on sharing information dening ignorance ?
You just assume you know everything ,well you dont ?

Why? Because it was you that stated an 80% probability for ancient alien intervention, so I asked you why you thought so.
Are you saying your 80% is just a quote from that Russian Video? I don't speak Russian, and most here do not.
Apparently, you are unable to actually type the claims you consider noteworthy from your video.
Why is this?
I mean, if the video is all you have, you ought to be able to state the claims it makes that you consider to be this "evidence."

originally posted by: frenchfriesAs a math teacher you deny the existance of a superset without knowing the subset.

And you continue to refuse to divulge exactly what this "subset" is that you claim I don't know about.

originally posted by: frenchfriesMy point in this thread is it to discern between Ancient Alien Hypothesis and Ancient aliens the show. And ask people what they think about the Ancient Alien Hypothesis.

I know the point of the thread. However, you made a separate point. It is YOUR point I asked about, and have yet to receive any answer for.

originally posted by: frenchfriesI showed previous russian clip because it's very very interesting. It's processed wolframe found at a archelogical site by people that do the digging. It's a piece of evidence.

I have to assume (because you refuse to tell me) that you are referring to the "carved stone disks" found near Volgograd?
You realize this find (a stone disk but also made of tungsten?) dates to at least 7 years ago? And that, seven years ago, they were supposedly "under study" by the Zhirnovsky museum in Russia?

So, how long does it take to "study" a stone?
There are only written (and verbal) claims regarding these stones. There has been no analysis that has come forward. In other words, as far as you know, they are styrofoam.

originally posted by: frenchfries

Show me some evidence and I will show you why ....

...you're a bit too sure to be real... How do you know something is not evidence before you have even seen the evidence ?

The quote you mangled was me asking for this evidence that you claim I've never seen. You cannot claim I've not seen the evidence, when you won't even begin to provide what it is that you consider to be evidence.

I have no other alternative than to declare that you believe an 80% probability for ancient alien intervention based SOLELY on your own need for some mystery in your life, since you can't (or refuse to) provide even a crumb of a reason for your belief.

Harte

originally posted by: LockedUp2Morrow
personally i think the theory might still be right, but since they've made it so easy to sound like a joke no mainstream scientist would dare to spend his career looking at something like that. if we don't have a major finding, there's probably no way we're gonna get into that anytime soon.

You can't blame that on this (relatively recent) TV show, though.
Blame lies squarely on the shoulders of Erich Von Daniken and the other shysters following him (the ones that smelled the dollars) who, like EVD, started out with false claims and proceeded to elaborate on them.

Harte

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Harte


There is evidence for it, but still the theory cannot be proved to the satisfaction of skeptics. Mountains of circumstantial evidence, probably direct evidence, but a man with a closed mind sees only what he wants to see.

Same question to you, then.
Where is this stuff you consider to be evidence?

Before (or if) you answer, I'd suggest a search of ATS. The search function here might work well enough for you, but if not use a site-specific Google search like this one:
ATS-specific Google search on ancient alien evidence

If you don't know how to do that, all you have to do is add site:abovetopsecret.com to the end of your search term(s).

Harte

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: frenchfries

Back in the days van Däniken was diagnosed with mental illness and hospitalised, because of his theories.

No he wasnt

He was arrested for theft and later for fraud. Nothing to do with aliens ....

And he has made a lot of money by scamming the AA idea to gulible people.

originally posted by: frenchfries

So why do you assume there is a small chance (5%) that the ancient alien hypothesis is true ?

I missed the post where Harte said this. If he said it he is wrong,

Whilst we shouldnt exclude any possibilities, as far as I am aware, there is exactly zero evidence for the "ancient alien hypothesis" (sic)

a reply to: Harte

Just out of curiosity: what's your take on the elongated skulls? Both in Egypt and Mayans?
And plus also the list of the gods and halfgods prior to the Pharaohs?
And how did they transport the stones, which modern cranes can't lift on SAND?
And why the hell are they going around the corners? On which planet does that make sense? How did they plan every single stone to match? And how did they place them?
Who built the sphinx? It's obviously much older! And why can't I find anything about the results from the Mataha expedition?
Would you at least admit that some important parts of Egypts history go back further than the official narrative tells us?

Whenever there's a discussion over aliens, I get the sense it is very much a matter of wishful thinking.

You WANT someone to be out there, watching over us, helping us and coming to our rescue. You believe in ETs.

You WANT your boat to be unrocked. You don't want any of this. You don't believe in ETs.

Whatever it is that we observe, I don't think our well-being is high on their agenda. They're in it for themselves.

My personal belief is that they haven't taken their celestial motorhome for a ride over to our neighbourhood.

THIS is their neighbourhood. They share it with us because it's beneficial to them, or they can't stop us.

For all we know, most of the technical wizardry may be just for show - staged to hide their true identity and capabilities.

If they exist, or it's all just a massive figment of the human imagination, the number of presents we can expect from them is probably the same: zero.