Ancient Astronaut Theory: The New, Oldest, and Only TRUE Religion

Ancient Astronaut Theory just needs a catchier name so it can really be a religion.
names... names..

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


You bring up some valid points. However, explain the following....

1) The similarieties of events/beliefs/experiences amongst isolated cultures: Practically EVERY religion speaks of planetary cataclysms, horrific human tragedies, beings from the sky carried 'in the bodies of wingless birds' bestowing knowldge/technology upon them, a great flood... the similarities are endless - across cultures that would've had NO interaction with one another.

2) Ancient (and more recent) accounts of arial battles between feuding ETs:
- UFO 'battle' over Nuremberg, Germany in 1561
- Other Cases before 1940 (pre-T.V.)

3) How about the overwhelming evidence that seems to be mounting (accelerating, in fact) with current technological methods of recording and dissemenating the information...

Here are a few examples (and there are many more):

Originally posted by pirhanna
Ancient Astronaut Theory just needs a catchier name so it can really be a religion.
names... names..

I said that in another thread:

People need to understand that UFOlogy is a religion just like anything else.

Think about it. Those of us that believe in advanced civilizations (either visiting the earth, in antiquity, or still among us today) have already acknowledged the possibility (and, probability) that our mere existence on this planet could be attributed to them in some form or fashion, therefor providing alternate/scientific theories for humanity's origins.

This difference is, our 'evidence' is at least debatable and ongoing. Not millenia old and bastardized thru translation over time.

Why does there have to be a religion at all?

Does anybody actually get anything except false belief from religion?

reply to post by SquirrelNutz

beings from the sky carried 'in the bodies of wingless birds'

That fits very very few religions actually and within a given religion most of the gods have various domains. You've got volcano gods, storm gods, gods that live on mountain tops, gods that live deep underground. There are common threads but there are also differences. But then there are lots of common threads in fiction already. Take any genre of fiction, science fiction for instance, there are a great deal of similar movies with similar ideas depicting similar technology.

1) Similarities in myth do not count as evidence for ancient alien visitation. The finding of a clearly alien artifact of technology (something like a warp core in the middle of the remains of a fairly primitive civilization), alien fossil/remains, alien DNA WOULD count.

2) I'm well aware that the human race has a history of seeing weird things in the sky. This does not, however, mean that the UFOs in question were alien craft, or that if they were aliens they landed AND managed to somehow inspire religious myth making by visiting thousands of diverse cultures over the course of several thousands of years and then miraculously vanishing before modern science can be invented.

How about the overwhelming evidence that seems to be mounting (accelerating, in fact) with current technological methods of recording and dissemenating the information...

3) I'm curious as to what you think modern UFO sightings have to do with ancient astronaut theories. The only thing a UFO sighting is evidence of is that someone saw something in the sky they couldn't readily identify - that's all. As far as science is concerned eye-witnesses testimony is not a form of reliable evidence. Human perception is flawed, that's why there is an emphasis on collaboration and peer review in science, if enough scientists independently come to the same conclusion it is more likely to be a sound conclusion.

Aside from eye witness testimony and the occasional blurry image or video there is no evidence of UFOs. There certainly isn't any physical evidence of them that stands up to scientific scrutiny, at least to the best of my knowledge. In any case the existence of unidentified objects doesn't mean they are of alien origin and their unidentified nature should make this fact obvious. Any speculation as to what these objects are is just that, speculation.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A few blurry photos doesn't prove that when the Greeks came up with Zeus they were thinking of aliens. In fact if you actually looked at the myths themselves, instead of arrogantly inserting aliens and ignoring context, you'd see most gods already have an explanation. It is exactly the same problem seen when ancient astronaut proponents find "UFOs" in ancient art. Anything remotely saucer shaped, or anything painted in the sky, can be construed as depicting an alien spacecraft.

Baseless speculation is not "overwhelming evidence" that aliens were in contact with the ancients and neither is blurry footage, anomalous radar blips, or stretching ancient myth out of its cultural and historical context to fit your personal interpretation.

One of the most important pieces of evidence we recieved from the ancients are writings about what took place back then.(was everyone crazy back then and just all happened to make up the same fairytales of beings with powers coming from the sky, riding on flying boats etc?>) All the religions we see around the world is evidence that there must have been something going on and most actually are based on the same concept (beings from the sky). Lets just be honest with ourselves and admit that most people dont want to believe in AAT or aliens because they dont want to be seen as nutcases (which is exactly how the media portrays AATheorists).

I believe in ‘Evolution’ pretty much the way Darwin laid it out - but incorrectly/prematurely for humanity, on this planet - being the reason for intelligent/all life across the Universe. There is no evidence for MACRO-Evolution on this planet in relation to the creation of man: Our fossil records simply do not support this theory. Nevermind trying to explain away the Cambrian Explosion.

An advanced civilization has visited the Earth in our ancient past...responsible for our existence on this planet to begin with.

This is just ridiculous. "no evidence for the evolution of man" excuse me but what you're actually saying, is there is no evidence that you personally would want to accept. There is no debate in the scientific community on whether there is a lack of fossils leading to mans evolution. Otherwise there wouldn't be a scientific theory to explain it.

Also, there is no need to invent an alien origin to explain life - there's just as much reason to put forth a god as there is aliens. A creator makes no sense when educated on how abiogenesis works. Please explain at what stage did aliens intervene?

To educate yourself - watch this video

reply to post by andre18


Actually friend there is no debate in mainstream science community, might want to join the community before you say anything. By mainstream I mean the archaeologists, anthropologists, and geneticists, who get paid by the vatican and the state department to never present the fact that what we all know (we meaning I am one of the scientists who disagree) is that the evidence we have is one step short of being 19th century phrenology (if you don't know what this is it is the belief that blacks are not human because their skull is different, i believe we became better than this over 100 years ago... why not with this human evolution mess) or 18th century paleontology finding bones and saying they were huge owls and bats and such (these would be brachiosaurus bones come to find out)

Find all the youtube videos you want, it does not change the fact that the evidence is not there, and the little bits of evidence the extremists show that proves their theory has been proven to be fakes by us real scientists... We are the ones that don't have a huge 3/4 mil penchant from some foundation and a stipend from a research department in germany thats only ever heard from once every 60 years plus a university paycheck and tenure, I only got one of those. They dont pay me enough to lie and cheat.

Two comments.

First, I want to highlight this:

Originally posted by Aziroth
Oh yeah one last bit of information, Mitochondria, the life source for everything on the planet, well our Mitochondria has only 2% allele matching MAX comparing ours to every other animal on the planet, also every other animal on the planet shares about a 99.56 allele matching the Mito with everything but us.

If this is true, it is absolutely groundbreaking in terms of scientific evidence for the AAT. I don't know why this post isn't receiving more attention.

Second,

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
That's because ancient astronaut theory co-opts things that are not evidence of ancient astronauts AS evidence of ancient astronauts. They take artwork, monuments, myth, megaliths and all sorts of archeological evidence out of context in order to support a preconceived conclusion. That's not how science works. You look at the evidence AND THEN come to a conclusion.

Your view of what it is that science does is very rigid. Science is nothing more than a set of theories which are intended to accurately describe (by modeling) the phenomena that we experience. Acceptable scientific explanations are nothing more than models of the universe whose consequences are tolerably similar to the world that we actually experience. If the consequences of AAT are tolerably similar to the world we experience, then it is a candidate which is supported by "scientific evidence" and harbors within it "scientific explanations". Frankly, I think the consequences of AAT come within a closer margin of error to the actual phenomena than do the consequences of any other theory of human genesis. So, scientifically speaking, this would make AAT the leading candidate among scientific explanations of the genesis of humans based upon observed evidence.

The mere fact that you expect scientific theories to predict things has little bearing on the actual practice of science. Do you think that Big Bang Theory predicts things? It only gathers evidence and chooses the best theory based upon the evidence gathered. Or perhaps you are put off by the fact that archeological data is far more complex and difficult to quantify than the specialized measurement instruments that physical scientists use. Much of this data has existing theories which are built up around explaining their existence (the Pyramids at Giza stand out as a prime example), so I don't really understand why you reject AAT as a contender among such theories.

Every point of contact between the world that a theory models and the world that we experience is a piece of evidence supporting that theory.

When you grasp this, you will understand why the AAT is so compelling.

reply to post by PriamsPride

When you grasp this, you will understand why the AAT is so compelling.

I'm pretty sure professional scientists grasp what science is and how it works and I've never seen a single legitimate scientist claim that ancient astronaut "theory" is credible or compelling on any level. In fact I've seen quite the opposite from the scientific community.

Science is not a set of theories, its a method and that method has very strict guidelines on what is admissible as evidence. None of the things claimed as evidence by ancient astronaut "theorists" are actually evidence of aliens. Pyramids, myths, monuments, etc, they ARE all evidence of human creativity and ingenuity though.

By the way I'd also like to take the time to point out that ancient astronaut "theory" is not a theory at all, it is merely a hypothesis.

Ancient man is perfectly capable of coming up with the concept of gods and to them, as it is today, the sky was likely a source of awe and wonder, the sort of place supernatural beings might descend from. They are also perfectly capable of building monuments and incredible feats of engineering as well. We have no evidence, no alien spacecraft, no alien technology, no alien bodies, no alien languages - nothing suggests ancient aliens except to those who WANT to believe and who will interpret ANYTHING they think can bolster their bias.

reply to post by SquirrelNutz

Explain the following....

1) The similarieties of events/beliefs/experiences amongst isolated cultures: Practically EVERY religion speaks of planetary cataclysms, horrific human tragedies, beings from the sky carried 'in the bodies of wingless birds' bestowing knowldge/technology upon them, a great flood... the similarities are endless - across cultures that would've had NO interaction with one another.

2) Ancient (and more recent) accounts of arial battles between feuding ETs:
- UFO 'battle' over Nuremberg, Germany in 1561
- Other Cases before 1940 (pre-T.V.)

3) How about the overwhelming evidence that seems to be mounting (accelerating, in fact) with current technological methods of recording and dissemenating the information...

1. First, prove that what you say is true. What percentage is 'practically every'? 90 percent? 99? Please cite your sources--and no videos, please, I am too busy to wait for information to be delivered to my brain at the speed of human speech. Give us something we can read.
   
   I know of no stories of flying-machine-borne beings in, for example, Buddhism. Anyway, as Christopher Hitchens once pointed out, it is every peasant's dream that his plough-horse would one day sprout wings and save him the long, weary walk home from the fields. To be able to fly is a universal human desire; many of us have dreams in which the wish is fulfilled. The legends you speak of are far more likely to be human wish-fulfilment than any evidence of extraterrestrial visitations.
   
   Most cultures experience floods because most cultures inhabit river valleys, deltas and coastlines. Cataclysms used to be widespread and still are. In the days before mechanized transport, 'the flood covered all the world' just meant 'the flood extended a number of miles beyond the horizon in every direction.'
   
   As Titen-Sxull pointed out, all these stories have to be reinterpreted very generously before they come to seem like evidence of ancient astronauts. If that level of interpretation is allowed, they could be used as evidence for all kinds of other things, too.
   
   
2. Even if the Renaissance- and modern-era stories you mention are accepted as true, they offer not the slightest evidence that ancient astronauts visited Earth in prehistory. They are circumstantial evidence of the flimsiest kind, and circumstantial evidence, as I hope you're aware, cannot be accepted as proof of anything.
   
   
3. I have no idea what you mean by your third point. Do you mean that evidence of extraterrestrial visitation is increasing? It is not. There is not the faintest smudge of credible evidence that Earth is, or has ever been, visited by intelligent beings from outer space. If you disagree, post the evidence that disproves it here--and be prepared to defend it.

Originally posted by PriamsPride

Originally posted by Aziroth
Oh yeah one last bit of information, Mitochondria, the life source for everything on the planet, well our Mitochondria has only 2% allele matching MAX comparing ours to every other animal on the planet, also every other animal on the planet shares about a 99.56 allele matching the Mito with everything but us.

If this is true, it is absolutely groundbreaking in terms of scientific evidence for the AAT. I don't know why this post isn't receiving more attention.

Because Aziroth has absolutely zero proof of what he's asserting. As he says himself at the end of the post:

Sorry no links, I live this stuff, never found it online.

Your view of what it is that science does is very rigid. Science is nothing more than a set of theories which are intended to accurately describe (by modeling) the phenomena that we experience. Acceptable scientific explanations are nothing more than models of the universe whose consequences are tolerably similar to the world that we actually experience. If the consequences of AAT are tolerably similar to the world we experience, then it is a candidate which is supported by "scientific evidence" and harbors within it "scientific explanations".

I think it's your concept of what science is that's a little bit lacking. Scientific theories are intended to accurately explain and predict features of the natural world. Those theories are drawn from hypotheses which are verified or falsified through the gathering of empirical and measurable evidence. So, for AAT to stand up to the rigors of being a scientific theory, it has to make predictions which can then be tested.

The mere fact that you expect scientific theories to predict things has little bearing on the actual practice of science. Do you think that Big Bang Theory predicts things? It only gathers evidence and chooses the best theory based upon the evidence gathered.

If you really believe that the Big Bang Theory doesn't make predictions, you need to go back and reacquaint yourself with what a theory is in general and the Big Bang Theory specifically. Cosmic microwave background radiation was predicted by the BBT in 1948 by Alpher and Herman. That background radiation was discovered in 1964 by Penzias and Wilson. So please explain how the BBT is not a predictive tool.

I mean the archaeologists, anthropologists, and geneticists, who get paid by the vatican and the state department to never present the fact

And this is where you loose out. It's all a conspiracy, sure. The vatican pay scientists to cover the real evidence....
Man do you know how flipping RETARDED you sound. Realize we have plenty in common with other great apes besides the fact we ourselves are great apes. Yes you are an ape, it's true. Scientifically classified as an ape. If we didn't share the same dna in order to be related we wouldn't be classified as such.

It's simply that logical. There is no two ways about the matter. You're wrong i'm right.

its just amazing but all religion are based on aliens (or something that would be viewed by aliens by us, nowadays)

so, I would agree that ancient astronaut theory is the best out there, simply because all of the others theories are related to it and it could explain everything based on a realistic possibility (better than imagine that there are actually a god, and angels that fly ?? that are not from this "reality" ...)

its just amazing people here trying to fight or "discuss"

there is nothing to discuss really

if you assume that some the religion can be true, it means that some people can say that,based on science and not simply belief, that its more probable that ancient people saw aliens, instead of actually "gods"

thats the truth

if you think all religion and all civilization are lying, and thats all myths, good for you, just move on, there isnt a point to discuss, because

there are no enough evidences to say that there werent aliens, and there are no enough evidences to say that they were here

to this day, nobody really knows for sure whats the truth, but we need to keep studying and keep searching for these ancient artifacts and locations lost in time

reply to post by Aziroth


Once again the claim that all of science is one huge conspiracy. I have done research in the academic setting and I was never told what I could and could not research. So, tell me, when are these limitations on one's research placed? You make all of these claims, yet you don't even have the draft to a research paper you could show us or even your data. Provide these things and maybe people will start taking what you say seriously.

Originally posted by Aziroth
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Oh and to answer you're dilemma:
Youl never know of the artifacts unless you work in the system that will allow it

Evolution is an interesting idea but unprovable in humans

Firstly, what dilemma is it that you claim that I have?

Secondly, despite your claims about genetic differences between modern humans and chimpanzees I find it difficult to believe your assertion that evolution is "unprovable in humans", particularly based on differences discovered in studies conducted two decades apart.

This aside, how does any of this confirm anything in favor of "ancient alien" hypothesis?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

This aside, how does any of this confirm anything in favor of "ancient alien" hypothesis?

None, I don't subscribe to AAT, makes no difference to me how we came about too many bad things in the now to worry about. However I do have a career on scientific thought and every now and again I like to present it to people outside of my professing. There are facts though, what they mean I care less about than presenting the data. Internet data I am not familiar with as I am an old luddite, I have no problem scanning my dissertations or various declassified documents but it will have to wait. I have 24 remaining graduate students left to grade papers for, 3 of them to prepare for their comps, and a slew of bachelors to get them through the end of the semester, in the next three weeks, on top of doing the research that earns my hopeful tenure.

Originally posted by Aziroth
I have no problem scanning my dissertations or various declassified documents but it will have to wait.

No offense, but to me it wouldn't matter if you were the Grand Poobah of the Galactic Federation. Your credentials only serve as an appeal to authority.

To claim a discovery of discrepancies between modern studies and decades old ones is believable. To claim that "evolution is unprovable in humans" is dubious. Still though, I don't see what any of this has to do with alien hypotheses or how this addresses anything I have posted so far in this thread.

Originally posted by SinkingSun
It sure is amazing how much we have forgotten about our past. Do we really know where we came from, as "humans"? No one can answer it for sure, everything's been forgotten, but the ancient alien theory really seems to be the only theory directly connecting some very important dots.

I don't think it's been forgotten so much as it's been purposefully overlooked, because religion as a whole creates a more controllable backdrop from those who have constructed our society to run it to their goals.

We start handing out presents and Christmas and Candy at Easter early on in the life of Children to bribe and indoctrinate them into a system that is all about power and control by teaching people blind faith and the 'virtues' of it at an early age.

I am fairly convinced the people at the top of this system are cognizant of our true history, but prefer the masses not to know it.