What do you think about "ancient aliens debunked"?

Hello everyone.

I recently saw some of the documentary "Ancient Aliens Debunked". I will admit that there were some things that I wish that were not true and after watching parts of the documentary I felt a bit more relieved. However I do not want the theory as a whole to be untrue. I wonder if there are older, possibly neolithic or earlier civilizations that are more advanced than the oldest widely accepted civilizations. I would like to see that as well as unknown writing and other relics that many of us here want to see. So what do you think? Is the theory dead now because of this? Thanks!

Originally posted by sneaglebob12
So what do you think? Is the theory dead now because of this? Thanks!

It was dead right from the start. It was never even alive. Ancient Aliens Debunked is just a reminder for all the people who haven't caught up with reality yet.

It never really got beyond a wishful hypothesis.

reply to post by sneaglebob12

However I do not want the theory as a whole to be untrue. I wonder if there are older, possibly neolithic or earlier civilizations that are more advanced than the oldest widely accepted civilizations

Well we all want that feeling of mystery and wonder.

But if you're talking about the vid that debunks the show "Ancient Aliens", yeah that show is crap.

They contradict themselves constantly and build off a false premise each show then build onto it and then build onto that faulty logic and premise till it is soo damn ridiculous that it's unwatchable, unless you enjoy yelling at your TV.

"Debunked" is very absolute. (Yes, I know "Very absolute" is redundant and unnecessary since absolute is all "boolean".)

In my mind, anyone who considers any topic "debunked" without knowing ABSOLUTELY every piece of evidence and having first-hand knowledge of the concept is debunked in the head.

In fact, I hereby sue for discontinuation (and cessation of all uses of) the term debunked. It is needless and it is rarely, if ever, used correctly.

In order to correctly debunk something, you must first thoroughly discredit every facet of the idea, and render it unusable, even in modified form in conjunction with any other concept, ever, in the entire future of the universe, anywhere, and everywhere, no matter what, double-sealed and stamped, and no returnsies.

So no. It's not debunked. Show me an unbroken fossil record. Show me a family tree traced back to infinity. Show me the lack of any civilization in the universe which is now or ever has been capable of space flight, benevolent intervention, malevolent intervention, genetic manipulation, and the occasional levitation of rocks, and I'll give you your "debunked". However, anything short of outright refuting of all of those points will constitute "not debunked".

You stand to win 8 letters. I demand a universe of knowledge in return. (That's with me not actually believing in the whole Ancient Alien thing either... yet accepting it as a plausibility.)

Originally posted by CrikeyMagnet
In my mind, anyone who considers any topic "debunked" without knowing ABSOLUTELY every piece of evidence and having first-hand knowledge of the concept is debunked in the head.

Then you need a lesson in logic and critical thinking.

In fact, I hereby sue for discontinuation (and cessation of all uses of) the term debunked. It is needless and it is rarely, if ever, used correctly.

OK. Let me know how that works out for you.

In order to correctly debunk something, you must first thoroughly discredit every facet of the idea, and render it unusable, even in modified form in conjunction with any other concept, ever, in the entire future of the universe, anywhere, and everywhere, no matter what, double-sealed and stamped, and no returnsies.

No, in most cases all you need to do is falsify the premise.

So no. It's not debunked. Show me an unbroken fossil record. Show me a family tree traced back to infinity. Show me the lack of any civilization in the universe which is now or ever has been capable of space flight, benevolent intervention, malevolent intervention, genetic manipulation, and the occasional levitation of rocks, and I'll give you your "debunked". However, anything short of outright refuting of all of those points will constitute "not debunked".

Utterly absurd. There is no need whatsoever to meet these criteria in order to debunk the 'ancient aliens' hypothesis.

Originally posted by CrikeyMagnet
In order to correctly debunk something, you must first thoroughly discredit every facet of the idea, and render it unusable, even in modified form in conjunction with any other concept, ever, in the entire future of the universe, anywhere, and everywhere, no matter what, double-sealed and stamped, and no returnsies.

Hmmm.

Makes me wonder if you think that, to make a chair fall over, one must remove every single leg.

Harte

Originally posted by Chamberf=6

 

 

So..............
I was responding to a comment that "they are all idiots".

I take it now that the member I was responding to might have meant all the "experts" on "Ancient Aliens" who start with a very far out idea then take it so far that they start proclaiming it truth and the "only explanation".

If my take of what he was saying is correct, then yeah I agree the show "Ancient Aliens" is nothing but pulp TV with no real factual merit to it.

reply to post by sneaglebob12


There is no compelling evidence to substantially support the paleocontact hypothesis. Take what the so-called "experts," or fringe theorists, on Ancient Aliens say with grain of salt because the show’s premise is simple: have professionals state facts and then call in the notorious AA squad (i.e., Giorgio Tsoukalos and Erich von Däniken) to distort these facts with specious arguments.

Just so you know, Giorgio Tsoukalos isn't even an accredited archaeologist. He received his BA in Sports Information Communications lol. I won't even start on the credentials of the other so-called "qualified experts."

reply to post by Nacirema


They ARE experts - in making stuff up - which is actually difficult to do while keeping a straight face.

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by CrikeyMagnet
In order to correctly debunk something, you must first thoroughly discredit every facet of the idea, and render it unusable, even in modified form in conjunction with any other concept, ever, in the entire future of the universe, anywhere, and everywhere, no matter what, double-sealed and stamped, and no returnsies.

Hmmm.

Makes me wonder if you think that, to make a chair fall over, one must remove every single leg.

Harte

You would have to remove every single leg otherwise you may have missed the fact that it was suspended from the ceiling all along.

reply to post by CrikeyMagnet


Oh just asking for an impossible level of evidence eh? Here's a question for you (using their idea above) Can you show - to your level of evidence that those who say they are your parents actually are?

reply to post by Hanslune


Really? You had to throw out a "...and your Mom" insult?

I know you are passionate about these subjects but to assume we know so much as to close down all possibilities is a bit arrogant. Yeah, aliens building the pyramids is a stretch but so is a lot of other conjecture, sans-extraterrestrials, on the subject passed off as "obvious".

reply to post by ABNARTY

This post of yours raises an interesting question. If someone is demonstrably incapable of understanding fairly simple language correctly, do they have a right to an opinion at all?

It made a lot more sense then aliens creating random buildings/structures throughout the world..

C'mon ..what kind of people believe this crap. Aliens were here and helped us build this pyramid so that we could bury our dead in it... Kind of a waste of resources if you ask me..early humans I could understand doing this type of stupid stuff...but a highly advance race doing this...uhh...I don't think so.

Originally posted by ABNARTY
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Really? You had to throw out a "...and your Mom" insult?

I know you are passionate about these subjects but to assume we know so much as to close down all possibilities is a bit arrogant. Yeah, aliens building the pyramids is a stretch but so is a lot of other conjecture, sans-extraterrestrials, on the subject passed off as "obvious".

No that wasn't my point. My point was that his desired level of evidence would cause it to be impossible to prove his parents were his parents as any documentation or test could be considered suspect.

Originally posted by Hanslune
No that wasn't my point. My point was that his desired level of evidence would cause it to be impossible to prove his parents were his parents as any documentation or test could be considered suspect.

Right. Exactly. Also, scratch that. Reverse it.

I will similarly call into question carbon dating, use of orbital wobble and colour shift to detect the presence and composition of extrasolar planets, and leprechauns. So you see the crux of the issue? Despite the fact that we have 100's of planets being "found" with such far out descriptions as "gas giant 15 feet from its star, spinning at 300,000 RPM"... That does not give 100 % proof of anything beyond "we can see stars wobble".

Originally posted by Harte
Hmmm.

Makes me wonder if you think that, to make a chair fall over, one must remove every single leg.

Harte

It is a different matter to prove the concept of a chair is unsound, despite all the evidence that it is patently so.