It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by raifordko
I haven't noticed very many people around here using them as references, other than those who haven't been around long enough to get "schooled". From all of my readings on these boards people who use any of the three are often attacked quickly and methodically, just as if they were using Sorscha Faal or Steven Greer as a reference- and rightfully so. It equates to using The Onion as a news source.
Good question. There's a certain amount of weirdness going on around us and the charlatans you mention provide easy, sexy answers, while earning themselves a pile of dough. What I will happily concede, though, is that many...myself included...become inspired by the topics raised and start to investigate them on a more intellectual basis. Discovery and innovation are fueled by imagination, but imagination all by itself doesn't get you very far.
Originally posted by raifordko
Why do people continue to use the people as source material? Do they think that these people are right and the vast majority is wrong?
Originally posted by raifordko
...Why do people continue to use the people as source material? Do they think that these people are right and the vast majority is wrong? Are they not familiar with the information they use in the claims? (For example claiming that the stones of Pumapunku are granite and diorite, when in actuality they are Sandstone)
I know...they tend to require proof and awkward stuff like that.
Originally posted by Sandalphon
Scientific conformists are the hardest people to reason with.
Originally posted by rickymouse
I don't pay much attention to the Ancient Alien theory. I have never even watched a show about it. That doesn't mean that I automatically believe every theory that was created by archeologists either. I think there were some advanced societies long ago,societies that had very good ways of building these structures. It is possible that Humans only remodeled these structures also, having been built by a different Humanoid race.
Originally posted by MDDoxs
I currently am unable to watch the youtube video, but I hope I could ask a question with respect to its content.
Does the video address Puma Punku at all? As i believe this to be a very mysterious site and Georgio is all over that one.
Originally posted by terriblyvexed
I like ancient aliens, it's fun to see the things that really don't have an explanation.
Plus I'm a believer that ancient man has had very advanced civilizations, more than once through out the world.
And I take certified archeologists with a grain of salt (I give them a lot more credit than the above mentioned)
As far as I know they're still telling us the pyramids are tombs. There wasn't a way in until they blasted in, then when no body was found they said, tomb robbers got there first.
Tomb robbers? And then what they felt bad about destroying the pyramids, and fixed them back?
Originally posted by terriblyvexed
I like ancient aliens, it's fun to see the things that really don't have an explanation.
Originally posted by terriblyvexed
As far as I know they're still telling us the pyramids are tombs. There wasn't a way in until they blasted in, then when no body was found they said, tomb robbers got there first.
Shortly before his death, during a visit to Egypt in 832, the caliph ordered the breaching of the Great Pyramid of Giza looking for knowledge and treasure. He entered the pyramid by tunneling into the Great Pyramid near where tradition located the original entrance.
Originally posted by WanDash
Originally posted by raifordko
...Why do people continue to use the people as source material? Do they think that these people are right and the vast majority is wrong? Are they not familiar with the information they use in the claims? (For example claiming that the stones of Pumapunku are granite and diorite, when in actuality they are Sandstone)
To begin - some people have considered both sides of said arguments, and were not as easily convinced of the "debunking/s" as you appear to be.
Some people look at "what's at stake" when one group sets out to "debunk" another group's claim or explanation, and temper said arguments accordingly.
In my opinion, someone who claims they have higher knowledge than anyone who disagrees with them, is simply someone with a lot to learn.
Unless you have proven something for yourself - you're just "picking sides" (just like those you're belittling in this Rant).
So - a simple answer to your question is - People who continue to use the arguments of those that You do not care for...have chosen to discount the arguments of those You do care for (right or wrong - and just like you).
Originally posted by MDDoxs
I currently am unable to watch the youtube video, but I hope I could ask a question with respect to its content.
Does the video address Puma Punku at all? As i believe this to be a very mysterious site and Georgio is all over that one.
Originally posted by Sandalphon
I'm skeptical of debunkers. With the right data and enough perseverance, anything could be debunked on any amount of people; people could accept it just on the grounds that they want señor buzzkill to go away. Just because you may have a serial debunker doesn't mean he or she is right all the time based on reputation for debunking alone.
A debunker often relies on the most popular lean of the land to assert his truth superiority over the smaller facts -- actually a debunker is just a spin doctor. There is science that happens to be and then science that gets pushed because a debunker wants it that way. Sounds like a personal problem.
I see the argument about the root of the whole chain of thought. On what grounds? Who said it was erroneous? Who claims authority over people who don't want to believe a certain way? Who has authority to enforce these details upon the minds of others? These questions can go on for decades between groups of authorities on the subject, and then decisions are made on other factors, like budgets and regional judges...and juries and peers.
Let people do what they do. Scientific conformists are the hardest people to reason with. Remember science is a model and reality just doesn't care about what is being written about it.
I like Sitchin's arguments and it's interesting to see what people make of it. Not erroneous. Your claim of erroneousness is erroneous. Now what?