Ancient Aliens Debunked (Full Length Movie)

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by nv4711
Well, besides the simple explanation that he may have just made it up and didn't see anything at all, it is indeed not far fetched to consider use of a hallucinogen.

True.

It's also not exactly far-fetched to hypothesize that Ezekiel never actually existed.

Harte

Very true, and as always, you come up with the simplest explanation of all. Can I borrow your Occam's Razor from time to time? Yours seems to be much sharper than mine ;-)

Originally posted by BlackManINC

Whatever good sir, mushroom eater, "epileptic" condition, I really don't care whatever other label you people may come up with to explain it all away. Quite frankly, I'm done with this particular issue as there is nothing more to say about him, and apparently none of you have anything valuable to say either, just random assumption, often based on the random opinions of other people and popular culture.

You can say the Pope is satan but are offended that Ezekial was either mentally ill or a drug user? Good day to you sir. I have a tiny Martian thread to catch up on.

Originally posted by nv4711

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by nv4711
Well, besides the simple explanation that he may have just made it up and didn't see anything at all, it is indeed not far fetched to consider use of a hallucinogen.

True.

It's also not exactly far-fetched to hypothesize that Ezekiel never actually existed.

Harte

Very true, and as always, you come up with the simplest explanation of all. Can I borrow your Occam's Razor from time to time? Yours seems to be much sharper than mine ;-)

edit on 18-10-2012 by nv4711 because: (no reason given)

agreed....which goes with my point about this debunking. Both AAT an AAD use a literal interpritation of the bible...

Let's move ahead 2000 years into the future.
AAT: Spiderman was an alien cause people describe what they see and he looks like an alien.
AAD: no no no. If you Read the actual comic book it says he was bitten by a radio active spider.
Demon1: Maybe spiderman had epilepsy that caused him to act like a spider.
Demon2: Maybe people hallucinated spiderman ... it was the 60's
SATAN: it was a comic book.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Let's move ahead 2000 years into the future.
AAT: Spiderman was an alien cause people describe what they see and he looks like an alien.
AAD: no no no. If you Read the actual comic book it says he was bitten by a radio active spider.
Demon1: Maybe spiderman had epilepsy that caused him to act like a spider.
Demon2: Maybe people hallucinated spiderman ... it was the 60's
SATAN: it was a comic book.

I've speculated about what in few thousand years from now Archeologists and the then existing equivalents to the AAT proponents and religious fanatics will say when they dig up a Superman and/or Batman comic.

Would love to hear the ramblings over a "mythical city" called Gotham resp. Metropolis. An Alien from a Planet called Krypton who had amazing powers, and used them to help the Earthlings.:

Why would they have just made it up? They certainly just reported what they saw! It is crazy to say that Clark Kent / Kal-El never really existed! Krypton was not really destroyed but is a rogue Planet now and will cross the Earths path every few thousand years (and it was called Nibiru in much older texts, according to the ancient Historian Zecharia Sitchin!).
No, Kal-El was God, coming to Earth to live with his creation and help them to fight the forces of evil!

Future scientist: "Nuh, they're just stories they made up for entertainment".
All others: Heretic! Government coverup! You' re not open minded! Anti Christ! Liar!

I hope the future will be more enlightened than our time.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by nv4711

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by nv4711
Well, besides the simple explanation that he may have just made it up and didn't see anything at all, it is indeed not far fetched to consider use of a hallucinogen.

True.

It's also not exactly far-fetched to hypothesize that Ezekiel never actually existed.

Harte

Very true, and as always, you come up with the simplest explanation of all. Can I borrow your Occam's Razor from time to time? Yours seems to be much sharper than mine ;-)

edit on 18-10-2012 by nv4711 because: (no reason given)

agreed....which goes with my point about this debunking. Both AAT an AAD use a literal interpritation of the bible...

Only when it comes to the Bible.

Obviously, one need not reach for a Bible to debunk the claptrap about Tiahuanaco, Nazca, Balbek, Vedic mythology, alien bigfoots (bigfeet?) etc.

White's personal beliefs lead him to defend the Bible. However, please note that the if Bible is to be a source - as it is used by the AATers - then White is absolutely correct in refuting their claims by using the reference they cite, isn't he? That is, in what way is the AAT debunked, if all one says is "the Bible isn't true?"

Harte

reply to post by Harte


That is a good point.... But he talks about Ezekiel the person, not the text. That's my only gripe. At any rate, my opinion is that he is not a religious nut and this is not religious propaganda despite the one poster.