Ancient Aliens Debunked?

It was explained simply and I followed his advice: Aliens did it. There's no more simple explanation than that. Use your logic and explain to me how civilization from that time cut a mountain in half? forget about explaining how the lines were made, or how the pyramids were made, just explain how the mountain was cut in half...

Logic doesn't seem logic. If we are talking about probabilities, Aliens' probabilities of existing is higher than Chariots having flying Horses and elephants pulling Vimanas to make them fly.

never heared such a stupid nonsense. How can someone with a bit brains honestley say that.
..and how ignorant..

so the op believes that we didn't have written language in 150k years? really?


and that we wandered around till one night whole tribe fall off cliff.


wake up next morning and say, "where the heckowie"?


150 years took us from gas lights to nuke power.

50yrs took us to the moon.

30yrs took us from 256mbs to trigs.

2000 years is a long time to forget stuff.

x's that by 100 and figure it out.

it ain't legit to make stuff up that WASN'T reported by the "eye-witnesses". If someone says they saw an angel we don't have permission to cross that word out and write alien.

It is perfectly legit to see an eye witness account and imply that the witness, due to lack of knowledge, bias etc...was only able to INTERPRET an event as far as his own knowledge would allow.

How else would an ancient person describe an encounter with an alleged alien - he'd VERY LIKELY use the term "angel"....or call some kind of craft a "fiery chariot" rather than what he might actually have really seen.

No one is "making stuff" up...and to be honest "Alien" would actually be more reasonable than Angel, Demon, Troll etc.

reply to post by flexy123

he'd VERY LIKELY use the term "angel"....or call some kind of craft a "fiery chariot" rather than what he might actually have really seen.

Would he? How do you know that? The fact remains that AAH proponents are merely claiming that the ancients would describe modern UFOs and aliens this way without any evidence. In order to do so they remove the mythical accounts from their context in order to force them into a modern UFO/alien context.

and to be honest "Alien" would actually be more reasonable than Angel, Demon, Troll etc.

None of those explanations are reasonable but two of them, angel and demon, have specific religious context. In order to re-interpret them you have to ignore that context and insert modern reports/ideas of aliens.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by fooks

so the op believes that we didn't have written language in 150k years? really?

And mainstream history and science supports my conclusion. Might want to do a bit of research but last I checked our species has been around for at least 150,000 - 200,000 years. Written language on the other hand doesn't appear until about 5 or 6 thousand years ago (a bit longer if you include cave paintings and pictographs). So for at least 150,000 years human beings had no written language and the evidence seems to support that conclusion.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by fooks

 

so the op believes that we didn't have written language in 150k years? really?

And mainstream history and science supports my conclusion. Might want to do a bit of research but last I checked our species has been around for at least 150,000 - 200,000 years. Written language on the other hand doesn't appear until about 5 or 6 thousand years ago (a bit longer if you include cave paintings and pictographs). So for at least 150,000 years human beings had no written language and the evidence seems to support that conclusion.

I disagree with almost everything the OP has to say on the subject (as evidenced here), but will have to side with him on this (one) point.

(not that this negates AAT in any way, shape or form)

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


A very nicely written thread, I star'd ya.

I think you may want to consider another angle on this. And that is the raw science behind the ability to travel from where they come from to here. Science of such sorts must be used wisely. I think they would be wise to remain hidden and leave no (absolute) truth otherwise it would violate our freewill.

Of course when faced with a dominant power mankind would kneel if they materialize. I think that's exactly the problem. Don't kneel or fear and shoot at them. We are all co-participants in life. It is mankind who has backed himself into a corner with his reasoning that "the universe must be based on dominance-submission" just like we do business on Earth. And I think our invisible pals are trying to nudge us towards the realization that the universe doesn't work that way. Otherwise I doubt we'd be here to talk about it. We'd have already gotten eaten by a bigger fish a long time ago.

It is up to our mass consciousness to decide that it wants to live in peace. And only then will you be worthy of their little galactic club. They have left a lot of evidence that is right on the periphery of our senses. Like "we know something is out of place, but we can't measure it with our platry scientific methods. It's frustrating I know.

reply to post by Scramjet76

Otherwise I doubt we'd be here to talk about it. We'd have already gotten eaten by a bigger fish a long time ago.

Right now, at least to most people on planet Earth, we are the only fish in the cosmic ocean. Many scientists and thinkers have speculated about intelligent life existing beyond our planet but we have yet to make the discovery proving our situation is not unique here on Earth. While I think it highly likely that aliens do exist out there in some form I see no evidence from which to conclude that they have ever visited us. The distances are so vast and even if an alien race could cross them there's no telling what their reaction to us would be.

It can be fun to speculate about what's out there in the inky black of space, but as Sagan once said, we've only 'waded' out a little ways, and the water seems inviting. We've yet to encounter any other fish, be they dominant, submissive, or evolved far beyond that dichotomy.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
The alternative you are suggesting is that historians, scientists and whoever else are either stupid or lying.

Or Ball-less.

And even if they had the testicular fortitude to go forth with their discoveries, why would anyone believe a crazy person?

They probably hoaxed what they claim to have 'discovered' and besides, indulging their fantasy will only make their mental illness worse.

Yeah, if one of your archeological colleagues starts talking about ancient aliens, it is a sure sign that he's lost his goddamn mind. Obviously tenure must be revoked before the school gets sued by one of the students parents. God forbid a class-action lawsuit because of that nut.

*And remember, as soon as they mention it - if not immediately branded crazy - they will be branded as alternative'. And people like me will troll their supporters hard by saying "well he isn't mainstream' no mainstream, archeologists support his idea".

reply to post by Exuberant1
You must be bored to have posted that.

Aliens most likely exist in the Universe, but they are not here on Earth.

The reason that huge companies like History Channel are pushing this myth is because they are prepping the public for a false flag alien event, something that they hope will be able to usher in their New World Order world government.

Don't fall for it when it happens!!

Originally posted by anti72

It was explained simply and I followed his advice: Aliens did it. There's no more simple explanation than that. Use your logic and explain to me how civilization from that time cut a mountain in half? forget about explaining how the lines were made, or how the pyramids were made, just explain how the mountain was cut in half...

Logic doesn't seem logic. If we are talking about probabilities, Aliens' probabilities of existing is higher than Chariots having flying Horses and elephants pulling Vimanas to make them fly.

never heared such a stupid nonsense. How can someone with a bit brains honestley say that.
..and how ignorant..

Never heard such a useless post in my life. Nothing to contribute other than stupidity. Next time reply with some examples of why you don't think as I do and THEN I'm willing to take you seriously, until then, sayonara.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull

But who got the last laugh in the case of Troy? The man who showed the world that it was a real place with EVIDENCE. Ancient astronaut proponents will earn the right to gloat and boast and rub it in my face when they find the actual evidence to support their claims. Instead many already claim to HAVE the evidence and this show is apparently their way of presenting it. It is a classic example of drawing a conclusion first and then picking and choosing things as supposed "evidence" to fit it.

The case of Troy is always used to claim that the "mainstream" might be wrong, (after all, "they all told Schliemann that Troy was a myth," right?)

Wrong. There was no mainstream consensus about the existence of Troy at that time. Many historians of stature occupied both sides of the argument.

Also, Schliemann's find has yet to be verified as the Troy of Homer, regardless of what VonDaniken, Hancock, et al. may say about it.

I'm not saying it ain't Troy. I'm saying this "Troy" story is not what the AA enthusiasts make it out to be.
Titen-Sxull, don't take this as criticism of your post or thread. I very much support what you are saying.

Harte

Oh, yeah. There are no "flattened mountaintops" at Nazca. Nazca is an eroded elevated plain. The flat parts were there, connected, first. Erosion removed the land between the isolated portions of the plain. So, you were right when you said that they could be natural.

H.

reply to post by Harte

Oh, yeah. There are no "flattened mountaintops" at Nazca. Nazca is an eroded elevated plain.

I actually didn't know that but I suspected there was something, well, suspect, about the claim that one of the mountains had been cleared away mysteriously. Either way there'd be numerous natural explanations to go through.

Thanks for the info on Troy as well, I didn't know that discovery was disputed. Even if it is Troy though that only proves that the place existed, it doesn't prove anything beyond that. Reminds me of when Bible believers attempt to say the book is historically accurate because a few of the places in it actually exist. So that MUST mean that the stories are all completely true

Thanks for the assistance

reply to post by Kandinsky


I know... stating the obvious is clearly beneath me.

I'm right though. No mainstream archeologist will ever support AAT, because they instant they do they are no longer 'mainstream' and it so can always be argued that no mainstream archeologists support AAT.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


at the end of the day, these are all just different peoples interpritations of old text (religous texts are used because they are among the oldest and most well known) in further episodes they also use folklore diarys of famous explorers and so on. i think the idea of this series is not to make you believe this as fact but to make you think... could this be possible? and it all depends on your opinion. being an athiest who beleives there is inteligent life elsewere in the universe (like many) i find it interesting, and agree that its possible, more possible than the intervention of an actual god figure, but less possible than mere fairytales.

reply to post by DaveNorris

more possible than the intervention of an actual god figure, but less possible than mere fairytales.

If aliens did intervene we would expect some evidence beyond stories. Certainly its possible and arguably more possible than actual supernatural beings and events but I see no evidence that merits accepting either. It's not just this show but the entirety of ancient aliens claims that don't hold water and many of them rely on the same sort of fallacy, argument from ignorance, that god claims do. The old "here's a mystery, insert aliens as explanation" works about as well as "here's a mystery, insert gods as explanation".

Aliens are about as good an explanation for Nazca, Machu Picchu and the Great Pyramid as Zeus is a good explanation of lightning. In the end you're left with an argument from ignorance that has no real explanation power.

reply to post by Exuberant1


Any archeologist with actual solid evidence wouldn't need to fear their peers. It is true that supporting fringe ideas can be dangerous to one's career. However a scientist with conclusive evidence proving ancient aliens wouldn't need worry because they would become the most famous scientist in the history of the world for proving we are not and were not alone in the Universe. It might take some time for that to sink through the mainstream paradigm but in the end science must follow where the evidence leads.

As such I've seen no evidence, from any source, that leads to the conclusion of aliens visiting us now or in the past.

i am leaning towards the AA theory as well.
i do not agree with everything on the H channel AA but some stuff to me seems unexplainable.

Not going into the specifics as i am not as articulate as most of the ppl in this threads are but here are my thoughts:

For years, there has been UFO sightings and it might not be wrong to say thousands if not millions have witnessed this. Now while most can be debunked, a good proportion is still deemed unexplianable.
Some ancient art/text/buildings etc seemed to point to an AA theory as well and again a good proportion is debunked but many are still a mystery to us.

In recent years, we have declassified doc being released by the govt, news that planets that can support lifeform are released NASA and even the vatican is getting involved. What this shows is the acceptance of a possibility in Alien lifeform, especially in recent times. Not only amongst the masses, but govt and religious grps as well.

Now with that why cant there be a possibility of these visitations in the past then? As long as you believe there is someone else out there in the universe, visitations would not something far fetched since we humans have managed to travel to the moon in the last century as well.

reply to post by dna221277

a good proportion is debunked but many are still a mystery to us.

Okay, in this thread up until now I've been referring to this as an argument from ignorance... but since it doesn't fit the formal definition and is more similar to God of the gaps arguments I'm going to coin the phrase: Aliens of the Gaps Argument (I'm sure someone has used this before though).

You see the fallacy here is you're taking a mystery and using aliens as a filler explanation in the same way the ancients used Zeus as an explanation for lightning. You have no evidence to suggest aliens, just some mysterious objects in the sky and a few paintings that fit your preconception for aliens.

It's not that alien visitation is impossible, it's that it's improbable. From what we understand life is fairly rare, intelligent life probably rarer. The chance that a civilization achieves the ability to travel interstellar space, finds its way to our planet, and then fills all the criteria of AAH from starting civilization to helping build Puma Punku to inspiring artists without leaving behind any conclusive evidence is so small as to be almost negligible as an actual possibility. So it's not impossible but at the same time there's no good evidence for it and thus, in my mind, no reason to believe it.