Ancient Aliens Debunked Trailer

Isn't this the guy that made Zeitgeist Refuted?
He has some podcasts here and one of them is about his research into Ancient Aliens. Haven't listened to much of it yet.

reply to post by BeforeTheHangmansNoose


Christianity doesn't have significant evidence? Really? I think you will find that it does, but that the secular world tries to shut it down before it leaves Israel.

The tombs of Simon Peter, Apostle of Yeshua the Christ, Mary, Martha and Lazarus discovered by archeaologists.




The real Mt. Sinai discovered, with archeaological evidence supporting the exodus

Inscription bearing the name of Pontius Pilate, the man who had Yeshua executed at the request of the Sanhedrin discovered buried under the ancient city of Caesarea, where Yeshua preached the most.


There's actually quite a bit of evidence being turned up to support christianity, science is only just beginning to catch up and discover things. In the archeaology world there is a saying "absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence". If we haven't found it yet, we will given time with the development of technologies like ground penetrating radar and satellite imaging.

When it comes to ancient man and where modern man came from, and given the fact that mythology, religion, and in many cases, history, has been corrupted BY MAN for MAN'S AGENDAS, you'd have to be a fool to believe ANYTHING about said topics. Which brings me to the point at hand: why is it so hard for people to just say "I DON'T KNOW?" Because that is the absolute truth. No one knows whether man came from ancient aliens, a supernatural god that created the universe, a race of telletubbies living inside deep Earth, or from nothing etc.

The fact that mankind conducts genocides over mythology, religion, and the unknown is about all I need to know that it's all garbage and no one knows anything about anything. Like someone else said, if humans actually knew "the truth" about everything, there'd be a revolution that would last about a day on Earth and every institution mankind has ever produced would be declared null and void.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Even if those tombs are real, does it mean the bible is the truth? There are tombs with "gods" all over Earth, worshiped by dozens of ancient people's who likely didn't know of other people's "gods", and LONG before Christianity. Like 10s of thousands of years. Archeologists are uncovering ancient cities all over Earth they are dating thousands of years older than when the bible was written. So who's god is the real god? Will the real god please stand up!

MODERATOR:

This thread violates the T&C of this board:

19) Advertising: You will not advertise or promote other discussion boards, chat systems, online communities or other websites on the Websites within posts, private messages, avatars and/or signatures without prior written permission from TAN. You will not choose a username that is the same as a website domain, subdomain, URL, organization, or business for which you are associated. Doing so will result in removal of your Post(s) and immediate termination of your account.


20a) Unauthorized Marketing: ATTENTION MARKETERS: You will not engage in efforts of viral or "stealth marketing" on these discussion boards without prior approval of TAN. If marketing activity for the promotion of any other commercial entity outside of these boards is discovered you agree that you are responsible for paying TAN $2.00 US for each "thread view" of the thread(s) in which your marketing messages are contained. Your acceptance of these Terms and Conditions of Membership for joining these discussion boards signifies your approval of these payment terms.

It is obvious that the OP has posted a trailer / video for marketing and advertising purposes, so that he at some point in the future (september 2012) will have some economic gain from his post.

His OP is nothing more than an advertisement, and expresses nothing regarding the subject of the post.

reply to post by phantomjack


Well I suppose that is one way of getting past a topic you don't like...just call foul and hope the umpire's remove the offending player from the field....won't work though...I'll happily address this fantasy in a new thread without the offense of which you cry about....

AA theory is just another religion...based on "faith" and "Belief"...every bit of "evidence" it spews has already been addressed by "real" science....and they choose to ignore it to support their "faith....

Sounds like religion to me....

Originally posted by Damrod
reply to post by phantomjack

 

Well I suppose that is one way of getting past a topic you don't like...just call foul and hope the umpire's remove the offending player from the field....won't work though...I'll happily address this fantasy in a new thread without the offense of which you cry about....

AA theory is just another religion...based on "faith" and "Belief"...every bit of "evidence" it spews has already been addressed by "real" science....and they choose to ignore it to support their "faith....

Sounds like religion to me....

I have absolutely NO problem with the thread content or discussion. I just don't like how the OP slipped this in as an advertisement for an upcoming movie, instead of an actual discussion thread.

Its a shame it got this far, but, the conversation to date is energetic.

Nothing to do with the topic. Everything to do with the intent and delivery.

Originally posted by phantomjack

Originally posted by Damrod
reply to post by phantomjack

 

Well I suppose that is one way of getting past a topic you don't like...just call foul and hope the umpire's remove the offending player from the field....won't work though...I'll happily address this fantasy in a new thread without the offense of which you cry about....

AA theory is just another religion...based on "faith" and "Belief"...every bit of "evidence" it spews has already been addressed by "real" science....and they choose to ignore it to support their "faith....

Sounds like religion to me....

I have absolutely NO problem with the thread content or discussion. I just don't like how the OP slipped this in as an advertisement for an upcoming movie, instead of an actual discussion thread.

Its a shame it got this far, but, the conversation to date is energetic.

Nothing to do with the topic. Everything to do with the intent and delivery.

Well that is fair and thank you for your polite rebuttal.

You might be correct on that. The OP openly confessed their overall views which I personally found disappointing....this is one time "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" does not apply...

There are those that seek facts....and this is science....
there are those that seek truth....this is philosophy and religion....

I seek both fact and truth....to the limits of my comprehension anyway....

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard
reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun

 

I would love to see debunkers and shills debunking 6,000 years of evidences spread all over the planet, ancient scriptures depicting "star-gods", megalithic buildings cut with laser precision and assembled in blocks that modern cranes can't handle, Hindu texts depicting aerial machines, types of fuel used, flight range, nuclear weapons and above all thousands of Sumerian clay tablets describing an entire alien colonization on Earth.

I would love to see fringies such as yourself actually provide evidence for the bolded so-called "facts" you proclaim above, rather than making up crap as you go along.

Harte

reply to post by Damrod


I wasn't talking to you specifically to talk about ad hominem, when saying the part about how come you cannot even accept a possibility; you = you all who so eagrly dismiss the idea

As for how did exactly humans become from dinosaurs to mammals and exactly one type of these early apes became so smart. Where is the proof? Science is all about proof afterall. Science does not explain that, so there is more to search for the answer of our 'evolution'?! that I can say for sure. Case not closed.

I am a person of science, that means open for ideas about unexplained or not completely explained things, there is nothing unscientific about making theories for the missing things that science has not explained, whenever these theories also use some sort of evidence, not too strong to be a fact though.

That means something found in the desert artifact, drawing whatever can be a work of art, can be notm especially if claimed to retell an event, making a guess it was done by an artsy boy is the same rush conclusion as saying it was describing aliens. The fact is - you cannot know for some of the cases, (excluding those that can be proven human-capable)

I however think the evidence is a lot of something non human, foo fighters in WW2 and the tons of info and sightings all over the centuries and this one, yes it's just to entertain public. Nice thinking. I've done such 'debates' before to know they lead to nowhere.

reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun


I can't grasp why anyone would feel the need to produce a "Debunking Ancient Aliens" film; beyond having spare time that they can't work out what to do with?

If someone who watches "Ancient Aliens" is so mentally feeble that they take everything said as being the truth, and are incapable of drawing their own conclusions, then they are essentially beyond help. That's assuming the motives for this debunking film are altruistic.

Originally posted by Imtor
reply to post by Damrod

 

I wasn't talking to you specifically to talk about ad hominem, when saying the part about how come you cannot even accept a possibility; you = you all who so eagrly dismiss the idea

As for how did exactly humans become from dinosaurs to mammals and exactly one type of these early apes became so smart. Where is the proof? Science is all about proof afterall. Science does not explain that, so there is more to search for the answer of our 'evolution'?! that I can say for sure. Case not closed.

I am a person of science, that means open for ideas about unexplained or not completely explained things, there is nothing unscientific about making theories for the missing things that science has not explained, whenever these theories also use some sort of evidence, not too strong to be a fact though.

That means something found in the desert artifact, drawing whatever can be a work of art, can be notm especially if claimed to retell an event, making a guess it was done by an artsy boy is the same rush conclusion as saying it was describing aliens. The fact is - you cannot know for some of the cases, (excluding those that can be proven human-capable)

I however think the evidence is a lot of something non human, foo fighters in WW2 and the tons of info and sightings all over the centuries and this one, yes it's just to entertain public. Nice thinking. I've done such 'debates' before to know they lead to nowhere.

edit on 27-4-2012 by Imtor because: (no reason given)

Thank you for the kind response. I too appreciate science over most other things. I completely appreciate that science has not answered all questions to some people's likings...yet. I however....do believe it eventually will...

I think there is a rational and logical explanation to everything that we are yet to address. It might be found in sciences we have not even opened yet...but I just have a hunch the answers do not lie in ET intervention or "mythological beings".

All things being considered....I like to believe I am a person that lives with "the madness of infinite possibility"....but...that does not mean I dismiss a magical word called "probability". While...given the idea of a "multi-verse 'and within such anything and everything has happened....despite the laws of physics....there is still an underlying rule that while "anything is possible....some things are more "'probable' than others"....it is in a sense an odd verification of.... 'occam's razor"....the simplest explanation is generally the correct one" (paraphrased)

reply to post by HotblackDesiato


Bah!...you don't get it!

The problem is...here is a show that pretends to follow science and portrays itself as such...you have a huge audience of idiots that don't know the difference...some so stupid as to say "They are saying it on TV so it must be true"....

It is twisting the minds of the innocent and uneducated...it needs to occasionally be tempered with clearly defined counterpoints...just so the weak minded know it is not science fact....

reply to post by phantomjack


except for the fact that I'm not the film maker, and I have been part of the discussion all along throughout the thread...so if you want to nit pick and shut it down, that's up the mods. But if you want to actually talk about the topic, then let's go.

Originally posted by Drew99GT
When it comes to ancient man and where modern man came from, and given the fact that mythology, religion, and in many cases, history, has been corrupted BY MAN for MAN'S AGENDAS, you'd have to be a fool to believe ANYTHING about said topics. Which brings me to the point at hand: why is it so hard for people to just say "I DON'T KNOW?" Because that is the absolute truth. No one knows whether man came from ancient aliens, a supernatural god that created the universe, a race of telletubbies living inside deep Earth, or from nothing etc.

The fact that mankind conducts genocides over mythology, religion, and the unknown is about all I need to know that it's all garbage and no one knows anything about anything. Like someone else said, if humans actually knew "the truth" about everything, there'd be a revolution that would last about a day on Earth and every institution mankind has ever produced would be declared null and void.

1. Once again, this posits a logical fallacy. The claims of truth have no bearing on the behavior of the ones who did anything in the name of any religion or god. Stalin killed millions of his own people. Does that mean atheism is wrong? No.

2. This is the ardent lingo of the post modernists. "the only truth is that we can't know truth." So that means even your statement according to you is not true, or at least cannot know it's true. Do you think we have the capability, cognitively, rationally, spiritually, to know absolute truth? There are many categories to truth as well, so are you positing that those truths don't exist or are inaccessible either?

Originally posted by BlackManINC

Originally posted by Climax
The reason AA covers so many subject areas is because you can disprove 99 out of 100 instances of AA, but if they can prove that even 1 occurance happend, then they are right about their theory.

This reminds me of the saying that two wrongs don't make a right.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If thats what you think then you're trying to fit a square through a circle hole, I hope you dont go through life using this method often.

I didnt say anything like 2 wrongs make a right, did I? What I said is exactly correct, some call it trial and error, intelligent creatures use it throughout their entire lives to great effect.

Example:
The Wright bros tested many different methods of achieving flight that failed, they only disproved those methods of flight achievment. They, in effect, narrowed down what works and what doesnt until they singled out a solution that provided positive proof of their thoery.
Would anyone here say to the Wright bros, "Looks like you're trying to make two wrongs a right"?

What I was trying to get across is that when trying to solve a mystery, isnt it best to hit it from every angle? There are many who, for good reason, are not satisfied with the story that has been given us. Because the story we have been given is a managed tale, information has been cherry picked throughout history and within the establishment there are those who decide which information is taken and which is left.
There was a story made long ago that is being propped up by an establishment that does not want the story to change, no matter what evidence surfaces over centuries.

Based on the information we have been given about our species history, having megaliths around that were constructed before we were supposed to have civilization doesnt make sense. The logistics alone are herculean, and that would have been the easy part. There is a big piece of missing information.

Now pay attention, this is very important.
If it were humans alone who achieved these colossal feats all over the world, where is the information on how they did it? If there were all these great builders all over the world, with civilization for necessary support, and they were making stuff and drawing pictures and writtings and passing down their oral traditions, you'd think that there would be one or two writtings, pictures, graphs, cave drawings, or oral traditions past down so that these techniques would not be lost.
We have the Rosetta Stone, which translates the languages from some of the very cultures who were supposed to have built some of these gargantuan structures, on it the likes of Cleopatra and Ptolemy are listed but (after doing a quick search, as far as I can tell, feel free to prove me wrong) it doesnt say who how or why the pyramids were built.
Where is information about these megaliths from the people who built them? We need to know how huge shaped stone was crafted with such precision on such an inhuman scale all over the world, often with material from rediculous distances away. Its not enough to see a youtube vid of a guy who can move a stone from here to here, its impressive but we need to know how the entire process was done, as in the shaping and precision.
If so much human life went into building megaliths there should be stories or artwork describing the Before, During, and After period of at least 1% of these mysteries, so where is this very basic evidence for the human hypothesis?

(See what I did just there?)

So you say, "Well, surley there is evidence that at least 1 of these megaliths were built by human hands!"
Of course there is, there's more than 1 actually, and I dont think that anyone is really saying that, we never have nor could we ever have built giant stone structures. But one doesnt disqualify the other. Aliens building megaliths and humans building megaliths are not mutualy exclusive. They could both have happend, not all megaliths were made with equal skill, there are those with obviously more advanced intellect behind them.

Just a follow up on my previous post on Page 5 of this thread.
I just noticed that the program that Mike Heiser was interviewed for was a completely different show by the history channel and was about 8-9 years ago. It was called ‘UFO’s in the Bible’ and not the recent ‘Ancient Aliens’.

He was interviewed for that show but didn’t make it past the cutting room floor before it was aired so it’s not directly linked to this thread. It is however still relevant in a way and maybe even more so in the fact that it shows that the history channel isn’t currently in the business of reporting two sides of a story and hasn’t been for the best part of a decade.

Sorry about that. I do get mixed up with the current year as I flit through time and space as I’m sure you can all understand.

I don't get why so many people are creating so much drama over something they don't even understand/comprehend, and that goes for both sides. Whatever happened to plausible? I've watched through every single AA episode, and I enjoyed most of them. The sceptic in me finds alot of stretches and "out there" claims in the series, but the spiritualist in me loves to believe.

I mean, is it so hard for the believers to admit the AA theory could be just a work of fiction, using mysterious (read: not yet explained) out-of-place objects and places around the world as evidence, similar to Hollywood movies trying to provide validity by incoorporating real-life events caused by the fictional element? (For example the recent Transformers Dark of the Moon movie)

Vice versa, is it that hard for the sceptics to admit that the AA theory could be true?

I think blind-scepticism is the poison in current day conspiracy theories. When you no longer want to listen to the arguements they're trying to make, you're not longer a sceptic, but rather a believer of the currently established belief, no different than christianity in the Middle Ages.

I think the only issue to discuss here is not wether or not the AA theory is plausible, rather than factual mistakes AA made in their shows. Since this debunked video hasn't been released yet, there's nothing to discuss.

Originally posted by Damrod
reply to post by HotblackDesiato

 

Bah!...you don't get it!

The problem is...here is a show that pretends to follow science and portrays itself as such...you have a huge audience of idiots that don't know the difference...some so stupid as to say "They are saying it on TV so it must be true"....

It is twisting the minds of the innocent and uneducated...it needs to occasionally be tempered with clearly defined counterpoints...just so the weak minded know it is not science fact....

If we're going to start doing this it must be done across the board, not just on selected topics, this is the problem with acedemia, the bias.

Do you apply the same reasoning to everything that may twist the innocent, uneducated and weak minded? These labels can be applied liberally based on personal opinion.
If your quest is to end all phonies who present themselves as something for the naive to follow, surely there are larger concerns that could use your attention, like organized religion or gangsta rap.

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
reply to post by JeepGal

 

You look like your from Ohio...go look for the Giants discovered in your own backyard...

www.burlingtonnews.net...

that's just one link and many more have been documented.

BUT, I will say it's still a theory and so I couldn't tell you if that is for a fact. But it's more plausible given the archeological evidence.

I don't necessarily think the documentary is going to posit that theory...it's my thought process, not the film makers. In any case, I'm glad you were so provoked that you had to post...welcome back to ATS

I read the link you attached. I'm no more convinced that giants built the mounds in Ohio and elsewhere or any monolithic structures than I was before. Of course, gigantism is an affliction of the pituitary gland that is well documented, but I am not sure this is what you are referring to.

en.wikipedia.org...

I guess I would have to understand your definition of "giant" to be able to discuss the possibilities, but in terms of the mounds and other monolithic structures, I'd need to see the skeletal remains to believe giants is an even plausible theory. As Notquiteright "rightly" posted regarding the original topic, if you are trying to debunk the show, no problem. If you are trying to debunk the AA theory, I'd say you have a difficult task ahead of you and again, its just a theory. Personally, I watched the show when I'm having difficulty sleeping. The narrator's voice is soothing and always puts me to sleep. If you dislike the show, why not just turn it off? Seems like a lot of energy wasted on something that many people don't even take seriously.