Why is the Ancient Alien Theory difficult to accept?

AAT is the most plausible out of the choices but still pretty unlikely, I think us migrating from a dying mars is more plausible then aliens, since if mars was still habitable we would have the technology right now to go move some people there.

My problem with all the theories is that they have the same pitfall of the human superiority complex and jumping to conclusions. Why doubt our abilities? People feel like we need to be a part of something more important then we are, gods, aliens, whatever.

its not that hard to think we came from primates, we act enough like them still, and just as today most of us arent that smart, the few geniuses of the time pave the way for the future. the Einsteins and Teslas of the stone age created fire and farming instead of nuclear weapons.

The evidence for ancient alien contact is voluminous and irrefutable, in my view. From all around the world, there are figurines, rock sketchings, and carved art pieces showing beings in what are unmistakeably space suits. There are many ancient texts that specifically address the appearance strange flying vehicles.

Lots of people swear by the bible, but refuse to address the information revealed in Genesis 6, pertaining to the "sons of god" mating with the "daughters of man", and their offspring being giants. And there's so much more. Alien visitation is clearly not a myth. Of course, exactly who they were, what exactly was done on the Earth, and whether contact has been maintained are all matters of conjecture -- for the general population, that is.

I find the Alien Aliens show itself to be showcase for raising all sorts of interesting, unexplainable topics, while at the same time making the subjects less than credible by the slap-stick way in which they are addressed. The dude with the hair is hilarious, and has probably been given a prominent role in the series to make it seem like serious to viewers.

Its a shame that serious researchers, like Graham Hancock and Christopher Dunn have been pulled into this web, but I guess the money was good.

reply to post by shepseskaf

The evidence for ancient alien contact is voluminous and irrefutable, in my view. From all around the world, there are figurines, rock sketchings, and carved art pieces showing beings in what are unmistakeably space suits. There are many ancient texts that specifically address the appearance strange flying vehicles.

Just because you call something "irrefutable" does not mean it cannot be refuted. From all over the world there are images of mythological beings, ancestral ghosts, animal spirits, shamans in ritualistic garb that some people mistakenly think are spacesuits.

Lots of people swear by the bible, but refuse to address the information revealed in Genesis 6, pertaining to the "sons of god" mating with the "daughters of man", and their offspring being giants. And there's so much more. Alien visitation is clearly not a myth. Of course, exactly who they were, what exactly was done on the Earth, and whether contact has been maintained are all matters of conjecture -- for the general population, that is.

Then there are people who regard the Bible as a literary development out of earlier Babylonian mythology, with no relation to history as it is now understood. Taking it literally is naïve.

I find the Alien Aliens show itself to be showcase for raising all sorts of interesting, unexplainable topics, while at the same time making the subjects less than credible by the slap-stick way in which they are addressed. The dude with the hair is hilarious, and has probably been given a prominent role in the series to make it seem like serious to viewers.

The purpose of the Ancient Aliens series is to attract young, impressionable viewers with disposable income. The History Channel can then provide advertisers with a guaranteed market, and sell them air time. The commercials aired tell you what the expected market's tastes and level of education are.

Its a shame that serious researchers, like Graham Hancock and Christopher Dunn have been pulled into this web, but I guess the money was good.

Probably better than being a journeyman machinist, anyway.

Hi buttercookie!!!!

Great thinking..... Although I have to admit while I read the entire OP I did not read any replies... Why? I know without a shadow of a doubt people get offended when you speak on behalf of their belief. Lol even atheists I am sure will be offended.... Its a belief they hold dear too.

For me..... I believe in all possibilities. The more fantasy like... The more I love it.

The very last paragraph of your OP demonstrates why people can believe in an ancient alien theory, I totally agree...... They( we) are open to all possibilities because in my opinion we realize the Universe we inhabit is constantly changing therefore everything changes. Nothing is " set" .....

For the " out of box" thinker we hold no belief, meaning the attachment is simply not there. I call myself spiritual, or seeker because being a free thinker I cant help but wonder about the certainties and the un-- certainties. To think of all the possibilites that exist leaves some of us in the state of awe and appreciation.

To say there is no proof of aliens is simply a way to say I do not believe in the proof.

To say there is no proof of God is simply a way to say I do not believe in the proof.

I can go on and on but quite frankly experience from each human should matter to the rest of us. When thousands upon millions experience something the rest of us can discount said experience in a heart beat.... Why? They are attached to their belief and it does not matter to them unless they experience it.

How many millions have said they have either seen an alien or been upducted? Is it just thousands?

What about the many that have seen......? Is it really just a figment of the imagination of thousands?

What do we REALLY know as fact that will NEVER change?

reply to post by ButterCookie


It is your opinion that GOD is interchangeable with alien , to ancient cultures , and that opinion is shared with other Ancient aliens . But not all ancient cultures say that their gods came from the sky

There are the ancient cultures that say their gods came from the sea . So no , the word GOD isnt the word the ancients used for Aliens.

its only hard if your not open minded ,Ancient Alien Theory is a lot better thought than the whole almighty god theory,we havent had one war wth aliens yet but many wars are started in the name of gods

reply to post by ButterCookie

The claim that there are beings more advanced than humans is intimidating to them. Not only do they have to consider the bible as a true document, they have to acknowledge that humans are most intelligent or the most advanced. They cringe at the term 'god', because it shows humanity's inferiority. The Ancient Alien theory forces these atheists to accept their true perspective place in the universe.

Wow, how nice of you to just make that up without any input, obviously, from anyone considered an athiest.

I don't believe in the current incarnation of the ancient astronaut theory because:

Everything that has ever happened in the history of civilization and before, was the work of aliens because us lowly stupid humans couldn't place bricks on top of each other.

The pyramids HAVE to have been built by aliens. Of course, lets ignore the fact that the building of the pyramids were well documented, and many groups after the fact, have shown various methods they could have used, without aliens.

So, maybe you should clarify what you believe.

Do you believe that some ancient cultures appear to have recorded alien encounters in paintings and such? Cause some of that evidence is compelling.

Or, like most here, do you believe that ancient aliens formed our civilization, all the great works of the ancients were made with alien technology, and that without alien intervention we'd be in trees throwing feces at each other?

Cause not believing in an unfounded, and unprovable, theory, in no way has anything to do with god, or humanities place in the universe, to me. It's difficult to accept because it's based on questionable information, or lack there of.

Good luck with this, you've OP'd a thread that is condescending towards religious types and athiests alike.

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

Any evidence for that? We have a clear, uninterrupted, fossil record going from Homo sapiens sapiens back millions of years to at least Australopithecus africanus. Then once humans come onto the scene we have a clear progression of technology and society.

Australopithecus did indeed exist in Africa some 2 million years ago. It took another million years to produce 'homo erectus'. Then after another 900,000 years, the first primitive man appeared- aka Neanderthal...

Then inexplicably, some 35,000 years ago, homo sapiens arrive on the scene- aka Cro Magnon man.

The appearance of modern man a mere 700,000 years after homo erectus and some 200,000 years before Neanderthal is absolutely implausible.

- (Sitchin, 1976)

This is what ignorance does for you - it yeilds embarrassing evidence that one is unaware of the topic about which one is pontificating.

The earliest human arose 2.33 million years ago. link

"Homo" anything is considered human (Neanderthal is "Homo Neanderthalensis")

Cro Magnon (not even a classification, but the name of a specific human culture) were not even the first Homo Sapiens. link Even your Sitchin quote is more correct than your erroneous belief.

I trust that you'll endeavor to improve in the future. Especially on your "unexplicable" belief about the rise of H. Sapiens.

Harte

reply to post by DJW001


Obviously, everyone has their own interpretation on just about any topic, but to attempt to strike down someone's points without putting forth any of your own is just lazy. Let's see your explanation for figurines that are clearly meant to portray figures in spacesuits, complete with helmets and sometimes breathing gear. Are we to believe that all these things were just figments of the artists' imaginations?

I believe that the bible was derived almost entirely from more ancient sources. It is a hodge-podge of allusion, figurative statements, and literal truths. There is no one way to characterize all of its content under one umbrella.

Ancient Aliens raises some very interesting points. I'm sorry you view it as little more than a commercial funnel, but for a close-minded person, that's an understandable conclusion.

Christopher Dunn has accomplished some very good results while examining ancient structures. You should do some reading.

Originally posted by MamaJ


To say there is no proof of aliens is simply a way to say I do not believe in the proof.

To say there is no proof of God is simply a way to say I do not believe in the proof.

How does that work? Proof is proof. Its not open to interpretation. What you wrote here makes no sense whatsoever . 200 year old scratchings and rambling writings are not proof. Do you also believe in mermaids and sea monsters? Because they have also been written about quite a lot.

Guys/girls, let me make it very clear: Proof is non negotiable. It is NOT open to interpretation. There is only ONE definition.Everything else is just made up by you because you desperately want to believe something to be true.

Originally posted by MamaJ

To say there is no proof of aliens is simply a way to say I do not believe in the proof.

To say there is no proof of God is simply a way to say I do not believe in the proof.

And to say either of the above is simply a way to say I do not know what this word "proof" actually means.

Harte

reply to post by shepseskaf

Are we to believe that all these things were just figments of the artists' imaginations?

Why not? Look at all the alien races that George Lucas and Gene Rodenberry have come up with; or all the fantastic creations that sprang from the mind of H.G. Welles; or the indescribably horrors concocted by H.P. Lovecraft; or the fantasy creatures of J.R.R. Tolkien. None of these people ever saw the things they created. They came from their imaginations. Homo sapiens sapiens reached behavioral modernity 50,000 years ago. So what makes you think that artists a mere 6,000 years ago are going to be any different from modern artists?

reply to post by shepseskaf

Obviously, everyone has their own interpretation on just about any topic, but to attempt to strike down someone's points without putting forth any of your own is just lazy. Let's see your explanation for figurines that are clearly meant to portray figures in spacesuits, complete with helmets and sometimes breathing gear. Are we to believe that all these things were just figments of the artists' imaginations?

I gave a short and incomplete list in the post you are responding to: mythological figures, ancestor spirits, shamans in ritual garb... Why shouldn't they be figments of the artists' imaginations? Or even unusual items of clothing that have not survived? Feathered head-dresses, leather war helmets, ritual masks? Why do you jump to the conclusion that they are meant to portray figures in spacesuits? That is, in fact, one of the laughable sides of the Ancient Astronaut theorists: the fetishization of outdated technology. Why would the ancient astronauts need spacesuits? They supposedly mated with Earth women; their biology must have been compatible with ours. Modern astronauts only wear spacesuits in the vacuum of space, alien astronauts might have personalized forcefields or be able to adapt their physiognomy using nanotechnology and temporary genetic engineering. They wouldn't look like a bubbleheaded astronaut from a 1950s science fiction film. Please make proper use of your imagination.

I believe that the bible was derived almost entirely from more ancient sources. It is a hodge-podge of allusion, figurative statements, and literal truths. There is no one way to characterize all of its content under one umbrella.

Yes there is: Mythology & Lore.

Ancient Aliens raises some very interesting points. I'm sorry you view it as little more than a commercial funnel, but for a close-minded person, that's an understandable conclusion.

You need to open your mind to the possibility that you are being exploited.

Christopher Dunn has accomplished some very good results while examining ancient structures. You should do some reading.

And you should stop watching TV shows made for gullible teenagers and get out and examine some real ancient structures yourself. No matter where on Earth you live, I can guarantee you there are some within walking distance. You might not even be aware of them because most of them tend to blend in with the landscape. Actually, that's one of the striking things about our ancestor's constructions: wherever they are,they seem to be an organic part of the Earth. Compare this to the strip malls and McMansions that sprout up randomly all over the place with no rhyme or reason. They look like the work of aliens.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


On that list im surprised you didnt mention HR Geiger !

far more interesting aliens that any of the other artists , well save for lovecraft.

With regards to the statues looking like astronauts with space suits , well why do we assume that the aliens would be wearing space suits that look like suits made by humans , they would be wearing things we have never seen before. The only reason we say aww look they look just like our spacesuits is because we have seen them and relate them to that ! As mentioned by DJWoo , aliens travelling to earth would most likely have advanced technology and wouldnt require breathing apparatus !

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by shepseskaf

 

Are we to believe that all these things were just figments of the artists' imaginations?

Why not? Look at all the alien races that George Lucas and Gene Rodenberry have come up with; or all the fantastic creations that sprang from the mind of H.G. Welles; or the indescribably horrors concocted by H.P. Lovecraft; or the fantasy creatures of J.R.R. Tolkien. None of these people ever saw the things they created. They came from their imaginations. Homo sapiens sapiens reached behavioral modernity 50,000 years ago. So what makes you think that artists a mere 6,000 years ago are going to be any different from modern artists?

What you say is true. However, when there is a common artistic theme -- the space suits, for example -- that exists across far-flung cultures, then one begins to suspect that there's more to it than simply various individuals' imaginations.

I don't remember the URL to access a set of images, but someone posted a thread here a while ago that dealt specifically with the similarity of the designs from around the world, which all pertained to beings wearing heavy outer garments and helmets. Just looking at the showcase of images passed my "eye test", but different people interpret things in different ways.

Its also my theory that the widespread use of fiction, as expressed by the authors you mentioned, was much less prevalent in previous eras than today. In short, I think that the ancient drawings and figurines are much more likely to be something that the creators actually saw.

reply to post by DJW001


I think its entirely possible that the 'ancient aliens' were anatomically similar, but not identical to mankind. Indeed, we might have been "made in their image". Therefore, they might not have been able to breathe Earth's air because it was slightly different from the atmosphere they were used to.

The reason I'm certain of the visitations is because of the evidence that it actually occurred. Take a look at "The Cydonia Codex" by George Haas and William Saunders. The book tracks the parallel structures which are located on Mars and Earth. Very interesting reading.

Peruse Christopher Dunn's "Giza Power Plant" in which he postulates that the Great Pyramid is a precisely calibrated machine. Also, Joseph Farrell.put together a series of books on the "Giza Death Star", also filled with evidence that the structures on the plateau are far more than just ancient tombs.

You were stating that I should use my imagination. I'd say the same to you. Read some books based on solid evidence and science that postulate visitations actually occurred and where, and it might expand your viewpoint a bit.

reply to post by shepseskaf

Its also my theory that the widespread use of fiction, as expressed by the authors you mentioned, was much less prevalent in previous eras than today. In short, I think that the ancient drawings and figurines are much more likely to be something that the creators actually saw.

There is no reason to think this though. We have humanity deifying natural phenomena long before the Sumerians. For example some of the oldest sculptures we have are of an earth goddess. Pretty much since the beginning Man has been anthropomorphizing those things we don't understand to bring order to the chaos.

AA theorists constantly say that evidence ancient people were talking about aliens is that their gods would come from the sky. Let's ignore for a moment that many gods also come from the sea and other places. What comes from the sky other than aliens? Things like The Sun, rain, wind, and lightning. In other words natural phenomena that played a key role in these people's lives that they didn't understand. So in an attempt to understand them they gave them human thought and form. It's as simple as that. We do the same thing today. For example, if a piece of technology acts up you may get mad at it and say it hates you.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


I guess we can agree to disagree. It isn't logical to dismiss all of the evidence of earlier visitations as attempts to "deify" the environment. Much more was involved than just fanciful notions of reality by both writers and artists from bygone eras.

Originally posted by Harte
reply to post by autowrench

 

You pic shows red sandstone blocks, not andesite.

Some andesite was carved at Tiwanaku/PumaPunku, but the large stones are sandstone.

Harte

Yes, there is sandstone in the area. Ever been to Tiwanaku/PumaPunku, or any other Ancient Megalith site? How do you explain the construction?
All you really did it attempt to derail the thread, Harte. Let's hear your take on the matter?

Originally posted by MamaJ
Hi buttercookie!!!!

To say there is no proof of aliens is simply a way to say I do not believe in the proof.

To say there is no proof of God is simply a way to say I do not believe in the proof.

What do we REALLY know as fact that will NEVER change?

WoW...

Very interesting statement, and thanks for your response!!!