Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
kmt_sesh

Ancient Aliens: Facts and Fiction

670 posts in this topic

Yes, I know, yet another discussion about the television show Ancient Aliens. But all of you who know me here should at least be somewhat surprised that I am launching this discussion. I spend a lot of time arguing against this television show, as do numerous other posters, but I've never started a thread on this subject or on anything related to fringe arguments about alien visitation.

I am doing so because of the nature of numerous existing threads dealing with Ancient Aliens, Erich von Däniken, Zecharia Sitchin, the Anunnaki, and related subjects. Several posters as of late have stepped forward to argue fervently not just in favor of alien intervention but in support of von Däniken and other proponents of the scenario. I have tried many times now to try to get these posters to cite specific examples instead of mere generalities of things von Däniken and his kind use as "evidence" for alien intervention. I've been hoping to avoid the generalities because they serve no useful purpose to productive debate. It's not that I'm trying to shout down these posters. I know they have every right to be here as much as I do, given the purpose of Unexplained-Mysteries. But I desire more out of a debate than the idle pom-pom waving for von Däniken et al, so I'm hoping this new thread might serve some purpose.

I hope everyone will take part, from my fellow skeptics to the fans of alien intervention. I'd like to see specific examples of alien-intervention objects of the sort seen on Ancient Aliens, but really any media will do: from the books written by von Däniken or Zecharia Sitchin to websites popularly viewed by the alien-intervention crowd. I would like to see how the believers defend and support the alien-intervention argument, and I would like to see us skeptics evaluate such examples from the perspective of orthodox history and science.

Along the way I hope unhelpful generalities will be avoided. I know they will pop up anyway--it's inevitable--but there have been too many of them already. My intent is for this to be a discussion of substance, from both sides of the aisle.

And for all I know this discussion will flop. I don't have a good track record with discussions I've initiated, but a guy can hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll start with one example. Given my propensity for tediously long posts, I'll try to keep this as brief as I can.

Not long ago I was forcing myself to watch a rerun of Ancient Aliens. Yes, I have and do watch episodes of this program. Occasionally. It behooves me to do so. In my museum work I am coming across a growing number of people who watch this program and want to solicit my opinion on it, so I need to stay informed. In this particular episode von Däniken talked about how ancient aliens manipulated our DNA so that Homo sapiens sapiens could emerge on planet Earth. In the next sentence Giorgio Tsoukalos spoke on how, from the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens, all of a sudden Egyptians were making pyramids. Bam! Just like that.

In my mind von Däniken's comment reveals a decidedly insufficient familiarity with the fields of genetics and evolutionary biology. Now, I am not terribly well versed on either of these subjects, but more than enough to have caused me to laugh at the comment. Still, there are posters here much more familiar with the subjects than I, so I'll leave it to them to comment. And I hope they do. It's Tsoukalos's comment about the pyramids to which I'd like to respond. (Incidentally, I was just Googling Tsoukalos and found this page. Right there is evidence that at one time he had normal hair. Not a bad-looking guy, really. He should return to that look.)

The intent of Tsoukalos's comment is simple to understand. He implies that mankind in the third millennium BCE was simply not advanced enough to build something like the Great Pyramid. Man at that time lacked the intellect and building capabilities--so, therefore, aliens must have taught the Egyptians how to build those pyramids. Why, I don't know. The idea that super-advanced aliens would travel the cosmos to come here and teach man how to build with stone is, well, fairly ridiculous on the face of it. But there you have it.

Tsoukalos is the sort of fringe proponent who is not well informed on the history and progress of civilizations. Let's stick to the Great Pyramid alone. It was built around 2500 BCE, for a Dynasty 4 king named Khufu. Tsoukalos would have us believe that Dynasty 4 was a point of time during which Egypt was just emerging as a civilization and only then discovering the finer points of culture, administration, logistics, and engineering. In point of fact Tsoukalos reveals only how incomplete his education is: or if he actually knows the truth, then he is demonstrating how deceitful he is in delivering pseudo-facts.

Egypt became a kingdom in around 3100 BCE, following on a rather long stretch of late-prehistoric events through which the socio-politics of the regional polities in the Nile Valley had already experienced sophisticated developments and refinements, culminating in state formation. In other words, Tsoukalos is flat out ignoring 600 years of history and social evolution the kingdom had experienced even before Khufu was born. Tsoukalos ignores the many examples of stone masonry extending back to the earliest dynastic periods, not to mention the mastery of stone usage the Egyptians were developing even in prehistory. Tsoukalos ignores the evolution of the royal tomb from Dynasty 1 to the first pyramid erected by Djoser in Dynasty 3. Tsoukalos ignores the refinement of pyramid building during the reign of Sneferu, who built three pyramids during his time on the throne and in fact perfected the form of the true pyramid.

This is the sort of thing that leaves me alternately chuckling and pulling out my hair when I watch an episode of Ancient Aliens. The information von Däniken and Tsoukalos and others present on that show are at best fragmentary as far as real evidence is concerned, and at worst flatly dishonest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the claims made to support the "God is an alien" argument is Medieval worshipful artwork that often showed the beatified with a holy light shining on them from the sky.

The AA brigade say "this means they're receiving communion with extaterrestials". Christians will say "Heaven artistically is "up there", where else would someone who's had God's light shone on them be shone on from?". Obviously where you stand on this is whether or not you accept artistic interpretations from people who have gone looking for proof of their theory or from people who study the art and theology.

Now, sometimes these "illuminating rays" aren't just coming from the sky, they're apparently coming from an object in the sky. "ahHA!" says our AA friends "this is a clear sign that these people are in contact with an extaterrestial vehicle". Well the theological rebuttal is on less firm ground this time, instead of being "self evidently from Heaven" instead it's "obviously from a Heavenly messenger". Which rather reinforces the AA theorist's argument. However, not wanting to get into Ezekiel's Wheel territory (more on that later I'm sure) Biblically, not all Heavenly Messengers are of the damask and wings variety (in fact, very few are). A great big "thing" beaming God's Holiness into a mortal (even a saintly one) fits with the description of the Heavenly host in the Bible as much as it does an extraterrestrial vessel, moreso IMO because it requires one less leap of faith to believe - it was God is one leap - it was an alien pretending to be God is two leaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we have ever talked, but I have read MANY of your responses to

certain threads. I appreciate the way you present your opinion and knowledge

of topics in a logical and calm way. It's easy to tell when you think some

opinions are off the wall, but you always stay level headed and polite. I

should take notes. :)

As far as the topic, it sometimes pains me to watch that show, but I admit I do.

I will also say that while I do believe that life elsewhere is almost a certainty

and that I do personally believe that there has been technology or information that

has been lost along the way that this show is one of the things that is crippling

REAL information and hard work that is being done. It's a great way to get people

interested in things that are ancient. Maybe even something bigger than themselves,

but at the same time it is like watching the movie JFK and trying to convince people

that it is a history lesson or full of facts.

It's hard not to watch a show about something that you are interested in, however, it is

painful to see it all twisted. People will always BELIEVE what they want. What causes them

to believe it can sometimes be sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my mind von Däniken's comment reveals a decidedly insufficient familiarity with the fields of genetics and evolutionary biology. Now, I am not terribly well versed on either of these subjects, but more than enough to have caused me to laugh at the comment. Still, there are posters here much more familiar with the subjects than I, so I'll leave it to them to comment. And I hope they do. It's Tsoukalos's comment about the pyramids to which I'd like to respond. (Incidentally, I was just Googling Tsoukalos and found this page. Right there is evidence that at one time he had normal hair. Not a bad-looking guy, really. He should return to that look.)

If they bring it, we will come. :yes::tu:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The intent of Tsoukalos's comment is simple to understand. He implies that mankind in the third millennium BCE was simply not advanced enough to build something like the Great Pyramid. Man at that time lacked the intellect and building capabilities--so, therefore, aliens must have taught the Egyptians how to build those pyramids. Why, I don't know. The idea that super-advanced aliens would travel the cosmos to come here and teach man how to build with stone is, well, fairly ridiculous on the face of it. But there you have it.

Tsoukalos is the sort of fringe proponent who is not well informed on the history and progress of civilizations. Let's stick to the Great Pyramid alone. It was built around 2500 BCE, for a Dynasty 4 king named Khufu. Tsoukalos would have us believe that Dynasty 4 was a point of time during which Egypt was just emerging as a civilization and only then discovering the finer points of culture, administration, logistics, and engineering. In point of fact Tsoukalos reveals only how incomplete his education is: or if he actually knows the truth, then he is demonstrating how deceitful he is in delivering pseudo-facts.

I often wonder how anyone can't believe in aliens.

I suppose they can look at the impossible and say "they mustta used ramps" easier then

they can admit that these required a sophistication well beyond primitive people who

had to be told to tiptoe through the corpse drippings of gods. But the builders pretty

much said how they built them. Seker flew a spaceship named Wepwawet to heaven daily.

Wepwawet means "opener of the way" and it was Seker who moved the earth. Almost every

word that survives from the great pyramnid building age virtually borders on proof that

aliens were involved. Here's just what I'm reading right now.

494a. bring this (boat) to N. Which boat shall I bring to thee, O N.?

494b. Bring to N. that which flies up and alights.

852d. the apertures of the (heavenly) windows are open for thee;

852e. the steps of light are revealed for thee.

859a. Raise thyself up for this thy bread, which cannot mould,

859b. for thy beer, which cannot become sour,

They flat out state that Wepwawet opens the way using a device called the eye of horus.

We can't make a walkway out of light to get to a flying boat but this was child's play

for aliens. We can't make bread that won't mould even today but we're supposed to be

lieve the ancient Egyptians had some magical chemical that would allow bread to last for-

ever!!! I don't think so.

How can you know that the aliens didn't have a very small craft that couldn't carry lots

of building equipment and supplies. They might not have TARDIS technology. This is a fic-

tional work so there's no reason to believe the aliens who were here had any tools other

than maybe levitation guns and maybe a power source to cut stones. There's a big differ-

ence between fact and fantasy. It's not reasonable to suppose every single alien ship

that ever landed on earth had what they needed to build a 480' pyramid that had transpar-

ent aluminum sides and four dimensional titanium supports. The pyramid is what it is so

it is necessary to make deductions about how the aliens might have built it from what ac-

tually exists.

If everyone is so smart about the ancients then why doesn't anyone even know the most basic

things about them like how they built things or what even a single one of their 27 differ-

ent sceptres were. If we know there weren't aliens then why don't we know what the djed

or the ankh are. Why don't we know how they served ceremonial skittles.

Some might think I'm joking but at least the concept of aliens hangs true. We don't have a

million mysteries to solve. The only thing we need to solve is who the specific aliens were

and where they came from. This is the simplest explanation at this point and there are some

who think the simplest explanation must be the correct one.

Some people might forget there's a very very long thread around here with hundreds of pieces

of evidence to support the concept that aliens were here. Yet the only thing that really

denies aliens is the incredulity of skeptics. The fact that none of the evidence is strong

is irrelevant when it's up against assumptions and interpretations.

I'm not going to judge Tsoukalos too harshly so long as he can avoid making sweeping assump-

tions about the paucity of facts. It's a little like religion; maybe nobody knows the details

of alien assistance but that doesn't mean there's no such thing as aliens. Just because there

are a hundred different alien "religions" doesn't mean there can't be a real alien. Maybe all

the religions are wrong but aliens are very very real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dislike of the "aliens built the pyramids" argument hinges on the fact that it rather denigrates the intellect and capability of the mind of man to envision and create something. Something exists that we can't explain or repeat aliens must have done it. Well stun me, I have no idea how they built Saint Peter's Basilica so aliens must have done that as well. Noone know who built the Colosseum so that must have been aliens as well. Same argument. You want to point to texts as "aliens did it", well I'm fairly sure that there's texts about Solomon's Temple about him using daemons to build it, so there you go, aliens built the pyramids in Egypt and daemons built a temple in Jerusalem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the claims made to support the "God is an alien" argument is Medieval worshipful artwork that often showed the beatified with a holy light shining on them from the sky.

The AA brigade say "this means they're receiving communion with extaterrestials". Christians will say "Heaven artistically is "up there", where else would someone who's had God's light shone on them be shone on from?". Obviously where you stand on this is whether or not you accept artistic interpretations from people who have gone looking for proof of their theory or from people who study the art and theology.

Now, sometimes these "illuminating rays" aren't just coming from the sky, they're apparently coming from an object in the sky. "ahHA!" says our AA friends "this is a clear sign that these people are in contact with an extaterrestial vehicle". Well the theological rebuttal is on less firm ground this time, instead of being "self evidently from Heaven" instead it's "obviously from a Heavenly messenger". Which rather reinforces the AA theorist's argument. However, not wanting to get into Ezekiel's Wheel territory (more on that later I'm sure) Biblically, not all Heavenly Messengers are of the damask and wings variety (in fact, very few are). A great big "thing" beaming God's Holiness into a mortal (even a saintly one) fits with the description of the Heavenly host in the Bible as much as it does an extraterrestrial vessel, moreso IMO because it requires one less leap of faith to believe - it was God is one leap - it was an alien pretending to be God is two leaps.

Good examples, Wearer of Hats. Nothing is safe from the antics of alien interventionists, including Judeo-Christian symbolism and iconography. Folks like von Däniken basically argue that man at any point in the past was just too simple minded to process what he was seeing, so everyone from Sumerians to early Christians used their artwork to depict alien contacts. This is argued in medieval artwork, too. I've seen this page provided by well-grounded skeptics in various discussions. It's an excellent source for divorcing the fringe from reality when it comes to medieval artwork.

Above many crucifixion scenes are two little objects that do, I admit, look like some kind of little flying vessels piloted by humanoid figures. Now, we can either accept that these are aliens which medieval artists tossed into religious paintings, or take the time to dig deeper and find the facts. I hope the link works correctly but it's explained well on this page (I've had problems with the link on occasion in the past, so if it happens to anyone else, it's available from the home page via the Crocifissione link under Part 2 toward the bottom of the page). The author states of such crucifixion scenes:

But those who are familiar with symbolism in medieval art understand that there are no mysterious elements in this holy painting. In fact in the [sic] most of the crucifixions done in the Byzantine style show the same “objects” on either side of the cross. They are the Sun and the Moon, often represented with a human face or figure.

In fact, if you notice in some of the examples on the page, the sun and moon icons are even named. But alien interventionists seem to think it's permissible to ignore the obvious and go with the fantastical. :rolleyes:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my opening example I also wanted to discuss the misinterpretations alien interventionists commonly have with the Maya ruler named Pacal. I might come back to that topic in a later post because my original example constituted a post that was long enough as it was. But what struck me as amusing is the timeline alien interventionists wish us to consider. Writers like von Däniken and Sitchin would have us believe aliens were there at the birth of the Sumerian civilization, which emerged in southern Mesopotamia at the end of the fourth millennium BCE. What amused me with Pacal is that he lived in the seventh century CE.

For all of this alien intervention to be true, we would have to believe that these aliens were coming to our world and influencing and affecting mankind for some four thousand years. Goodness, those were some damn busy aliens. We must be awfully special! Four thousand years. Of course, this doesn't even include the very ancient prehistoric artwork alien interventionists like to use, going back into the Paleolithic. I mean, didn't these aliens have anything better to do? Are we humans that interesting? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we have ever talked, but I have read MANY of your responses to

certain threads. I appreciate the way you present your opinion and knowledge

of topics in a logical and calm way. It's easy to tell when you think some

opinions are off the wall, but you always stay level headed and polite. I

should take notes. :)

As far as the topic, it sometimes pains me to watch that show, but I admit I do.

I will also say that while I do believe that life elsewhere is almost a certainty

and that I do personally believe that there has been technology or information that

has been lost along the way that this show is one of the things that is crippling

REAL information and hard work that is being done. It's a great way to get people

interested in things that are ancient. Maybe even something bigger than themselves,

but at the same time it is like watching the movie JFK and trying to convince people

that it is a history lesson or full of facts.

It's hard not to watch a show about something that you are interested in, however, it is

painful to see it all twisted. People will always BELIEVE what they want. What causes them

to believe it can sometimes be sad.

Thanks for the kind words, thatRobGuy. I'm almost positive I've seen you around these parts but, no, I don't think you and I have talked before. I thank you for joining the discussion, too.

I'm always open to admitting the possibility of other life in our universe. In fact, I should think it's a certainty. The question revolves around whether alien life is microbial or sentient, and I've seen some very interesting scientific programs arguing both sides of the issue. At the same time I make it no secret that I, personally, do not believe advanced aliens have ever visited this planet. I do not believe aliens have affected or influenced the development of any ancient civilization. I do not say this to be disrespectful to anyone, mind you. I say this only because in my own experience, I am not aware of any evidence definitively proving otherwise. In shows like Ancient Aliens, every last object or artifact presented as proof of alien intervention, to my awareness, already has a logical and terrestrial explanation. Do we have all of the answers? Certainly not. But like Wearer of Hats just said, just because there's a mystery about some object or some historical site does not give us cause to fill the blanks with aliens.

That's where I'm coming from.

I also fully understand your frustration with Ancient Aliens. To people who are genuinely interested in finding scientific evidence for life elsewhere, such as the folks at SETI, a show like Ancient Aliens has to be profoundly annoying. If not insulting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dislike of the "aliens built the pyramids" argument hinges on the fact that it rather denigrates the intellect and capability of the mind of man to envision and create something. Something exists that we can't explain or repeat aliens must have done it. Well stun me, I have no idea how they built Saint Peter's Basilica so aliens must have done that as well. Noone know who built the Colosseum so that must have been aliens as well. Same argument. You want to point to texts as "aliens did it", well I'm fairly sure that there's texts about Solomon's Temple about him using daemons to build it, so there you go, aliens built the pyramids in Egypt and daemons built a temple in Jerusalem.

Your point is well taken but I believe it is far more denigrating to the

ancients to believe that they had no means of doing anything they did other

than brute strenght. With the assumption that they had to use brute strenght

comes the interpretation of their words that they had to be told to tiptoe

through corpse drippings. In my opinion it's impossible to paint an uglier

picture of anyone than to suggest that they needed to be told to tiptoe through

corpse drippings. This is the ultimate denigration. This suggests they were

barefoot bumpkins who knew nothing but wasting their lives dragging stones up

ramps when they weren't tiptoeing through the rotten material dripping from

corpses. Their words are interpreted to mean they were religious zealots who

couldn't function in reality. Their building belies this belief in my opinion.

I believe the ancients are spinning in their graves and would far prefer their

descendants believed in UFO's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your point is well taken but I believe it is far more denigrating to the

ancients to believe that they had no means of doing anything they did other

than brute strenght.

FWIW I've never actually held that opinion, I just don't like adding aliens to things that don't actually need them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all I would like to say, yes I do watch Ancient Aliens and find it rather amusing, though I personally don't believe ancient aliens came down to earth and taught our ancestors, it is interesting to see other peoples thoughts and theory's on the subject. Personally I think the pyramids were built by humans, but with a technology that has yet to be found. Good example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_Castle were the creator made coral castle through what is thought to be believed as a magnetic machine. I could have sworn that I saw somewhere that he originally said that he "found the key to the ancient Egyptians building techniques" and made this device, yet I can't prove that at the moment. Yet it seems there is a far more likely explanation in a simple yet unknown tool such as using magnetic properties, then aliens popping down on us and saying " hey need some help there?". Also humans were quite more intelligent then we give them credit for back then, take Aeolipile for example, who created a device on steam technology. Although he never made a train out of it, it is rather interesting that steam power was not just invented recently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile I do however believe that there is many other life forms as well as E.T.s in the Universe, I just don't see any direct proof that they made contact back in ancient times B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The intent of Tsoukalos's comment is simple to understand. He implies that mankind in the third millennium BCE was simply not advanced enough to build something like the Great Pyramid. Man at that time lacked the intellect and building capabilities--so, therefore, aliens must have taught the Egyptians how to build those pyramids. Why, I don't know. The idea that super-advanced aliens would travel the cosmos to come here and teach man how to build with stone is, well, fairly ridiculous on the face of it. But there you have it.

I pulled this paragraph out of your post Kmt_sesh, specifically your words in bold, because I've been analyzing that ideology from a psychological point of view for a very long time now. Mainly, how the ancient aliens mentality came into the thinking of fringe authors like V.D. and Sitchin, of which others eventually followed in their footsteps because to them, it was apparently the only way they could make sense of the ancient's ingenious capabilities when the main stream academia didn't have all the answers to some of the mysterious that couldn't yet be explained.

For a long time in the beginning of and there after, with archaeology and anthropology as well as historians, there was this impression given off to the public or student, that ancient man was a lowly primative in his way of thinking, than what we now know about ancient man or civilizations today. But specifically, it had been impressed upon us, that ancient man was a slave or slaves to at least one higher thinking primative man, that had a little more brains in dominanting the rest of the poor lowly humans or subjects. If you read the old history books in today's libraries or the older history books that were used to teach in schools back then, you probably got the same impression when you read them; I always did.

Now, since ancient man wasn't capabable of figuring out simple ways to accomplish grand projects with easier methods, like the pyramids, because there again - his primative intellect was limited as we get that impression from the old academic writer's back then, then he must have had help from someone else extraterrestrial or something far more intellectually advance and out of this world than primative man, in order to accomplish those engineering tasks on a grandiose scale like they did.

Of course somewhere down the road, over the years, the main stream academia switched their viewpoint on the intellectual capabilities about the ancients in a subtle timeframe without the public realizing it; or at least to a minority of the public to this very day, well anyway, it seems that way to me because that is what i'm able to analyze from some of these posts and what I hear with certain individuals on Ancient Aliens. Yet they were obiviously a lot more intellectually capable of doing the unimaginable, with higher skilled techniques, than what the old academics previously gave them credit for; or at least that's what the latter academic professionals determined through more archaelogical digging and reasearching.

So if your looking for someone to blame on the ancient alien subject, you should look at our old academic predecessors who prematurely began their expert anaylsis of ancient man and his primitive intellect, from their point of view back then, instead of waiting for more info with a lot of archaelogical digging and reasearching, to give a better analysis of ancient man and ancient civilization. If they had given ancient man a lot more credit intellectually and examplified his ingenious methods and accomplishments, then we probably wouldn't be dealing with the so-called ancient alien hypothesis today.

Furthermore, getting back to VD and Sitchin, I believe they wanted to explore the "unanswered questions" as they call it, in a scientific fashion ( LOL, I know that this may be hard to conceive in a psychological point of view, but just try anyway). Because they themselves hold a strong firm belief in science than religion, so they wanted to attempt to explain those "unanswered questions" with what we call today pseudoscientific methods. Because probably from their perspective, religion is out the door these days with a majority of people wanting nondivine explainations for unexplained subjects. In other words, angels won't do, so it has to be aliens or it will never makes sense, otherwise, since primative man and civilizations were...well were intellectually primative than what the academics know today.

Now I know what your thinking Kmt_sesh: "no, they just wanted to sell more books and get more than their fifteen minutes of fame". Yes, I agree, that is obviously the case nowdays with as many books they've put out in their name and the show Ancient Aliens is pretty much the icing on the cake, as far as that is concerned.

But I believe at first that was their intention, trying to explain the unexplained or "unanswered questions" they had at the beginning of it all. Then other like-minded individuals came along and said: Hey, that makes sense. Why not? I never understood why the teachers/professors didn't have all the answers. Maybe these guys are on to something - and so on. And mainly because the public has had this fascination with aliens, ever since the 40's or 50's. So the alien fad was already there, waiting to be exploited for: Hey, why not ancient aliens too?

Anyway, that's my analysis of how this came to be.

P.S. Just for the record to the rest of the posters here, I don't believe in the Ancient Alien hypothesis either. I think I made that statement before in another post discussion with Kmt_sesh a while back, but just in case...there you go, now you know.

Edited by Purifier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what would you consider to be evidence of visiting aliens?

Art, History record, artifact, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if your looking for someone to blame on the ancient alien subject, you should look at our old academic predecessors who prematurely began their expert anaylsis of ancient man and his primitive intellect, from their point of view back then, instead of waiting for more info with a lot of archaelogical digging and reasearching, to give a better analysis of ancient man and ancient civilization. If they had given ancient man a lot more credit intellectually and examplified his ingenious methods and accomplishments, then we probably wouldn't be dealing with the so-called ancient alien hypothesis today.

I don't think this excuse is valid. Because while the knowledgebase of whatever is being discussed has increased greatly over the years and science has changed its understanding because of that, the average person, unless going into a related science field will only know what he or she was taught at the time. It's their (meaning the layman's) knowledgebase which ISN'T changing, so quite often what is currently known comes as an intellectual shock to what they thought they knew. No, one can't blame academia for that.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what would you consider to be evidence of visiting aliens?

Art, History record, artifact, etc...

Yes to all of them with the caveat of "can I apply Giles of Occam's razor to this successfully?". So we get "extaterrestial vessels" in worshipful artwork that can also be explained within the theological environment in which the art exists being explained better by the later rather then the former. I can, on the whole, think of perhaps only a handful of things that make me question whether or not there was some extraterrestrial element - most famously the "battle of Nuremberg" and the oft-mentioned, never directly referenced "dead little men" in Buddhist temples (both of which IIRC Harte or someone like him have offered a counter-argument for).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what would you consider to be evidence of visiting aliens?

Art, History record, artifact, etc...

Probably none of the currently above mentioned for me, because so much of it can be misinterpreted by the proponents for ancient aliens. But then again, that goes for the otherside as well, dosen't it? Who's to say the academic professionals interpret anything they examine100% correctly. Because they are highly educated? No, even they make mistakes from time to time, but probably not as much as the proponents for ancient aliens.

I don't think this excuse is valid. Because while the knowledgebase of whatever is being discussed has increased greatly over the years and science has changed its understanding because of that, the average person, unless going into a related science field will only know what he or she was taught at the time. It's their (meaning the layman's) knowledgebase which ISN'T changing, so quite often what is currently known comes as an intellectual shock to what they thought they knew. No, one can't blame academia for that.

cormac

If you mean today's generation of academics, well no I'm not blaming them, but I was referring to the academic predecessors who wrote our history books up until the traditional thought about primitive man's intellect, begin to gradually change overall. Because today's history books, even in public schools, are beginning to examplify ancient man's ingenious methods and accomplishments and how much more intellectually advanced he was. And If you mean the proponents for ancient aliens are stuck in old academic knowledge (in other words, they are behind the times) about what the main stream academia has written in history books, credited magazines or articles lately, then I'd say yes, their knowledgebase hasn't changed much. Probably because there is so much distrust these days between the academia and the "average person" as you call them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes to all of them with the caveat of "can I apply Giles of Occam's razor to this successfully?". So we get "extaterrestial vessels" in worshipful artwork that can also be explained within the theological environment in which the art exists being explained better by the later rather then the former. I can, on the whole, think of perhaps only a handful of things that make me question whether or not there was some extraterrestrial element - most famously the "battle of Nuremberg" and the oft-mentioned, never directly referenced "dead little men" in Buddhist temples (both of which IIRC Harte or someone like him have offered a counter-argument for).

I know story about battle of Nunberg but I dont know source of it, do we have histroical records,art etc.

I mean no one cant put photograph or video of anicent aliens. Even if we can I saw numerous time how in UFO an ET subforum people easily discredit videos. There is whole section on this forum and I ask question there too and usually sceptics want to hold in their hand something extraterrestial.

If you put debateful art on the table one could always tell thats artists expression and style.

If you put historical record one could always tell that he spoke about myth, or tell fiction story, or that he was using mushrooms ( as its popular to tell on this site). So until we dont have solid artifact any further speculation with sceptics is unusefull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably none of the currently above mentioned for me, because so much of it can be misinterpreted by the proponents for ancient aliens. But then again, that goes for the otherside as well, dosen't it? Who's to say the academic professionals interpret anything they examine100% correctly. Because they are highly educated? No, even they make mistakes from time to time, but probably not as much as the proponents for ancient aliens.

You see my point. There is no winners in this debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to aliens I do not understand why we do not see the sorts of things that would be advanced technologies left here on Earth. Does anyone think that UFOs were powered by the Baghdad battery? Where are pieces of metal, ceramics, cloth, plastic, etc. that come from alien ships? We find all sorts of materials made by ancient man yet not a speck of material has been found that is not from this Earth. Rocks have been found that are pieces of Mars. Why can't anyone find a food wrapper dropped by an alien or find a dropped or discarded beverage container or a personal entertainment system or a communication device or whatever from an alien?

I simply don't believe in ancient aliens because the best evidence seems to be misrepresenting artwork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO the media (Internet, Television and Movies) have had an ever increasing impact on those who believe. While it is true that authors like Von Daniken have created their fair share of the faithful, each generation reads less than those before them, relying more and more on the media for the information they know to be evidence and proof of ancient aliens and other fringe views. By way of example, though I have no links to sources, I remember not long after the Star Gate TV series came out I began to see posts and writings on the internet about how we actually have star gates and the world wide conspiracy was keeping it under wraps.

It is sad that some will be bound in the fantasy world of the highly improbable to the nearly impossible and never actually check the validity of what is proposed, remaining oblivious to the reality that even a scant amount of research could show. It makes me wonder if it should not be a required course in schools to teach children to think objectively. I shudder to ponder that at some time in the future a serial killer, sex offender or murderer will be found not guilty by a jury that believes in the fringe views simply because the accused says voices told him to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what would you consider to be evidence of visiting aliens?

Art, History record, artifact, etc...

For artefacts there'd have to be something that suddenly appears with no precedent in the civilisation or nearby civilisations.

The problem with much of the buildings and artefacts people bring up is, they often fit well inside of the culture,or nearby culture, to the area that it was found in.

Sometimes you can find in the historical or prehistorical record where building methods, art styles or tool are brought over from other cultures. You don't see where one culture suddenly started producing, say television sets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to aliens I do not understand why we do not see the sorts of things that would be advanced technologies left here on Earth. Does anyone think that UFOs were powered by the Baghdad battery? Where are pieces of metal, ceramics, cloth, plastic, etc. that come from alien ships? We find all sorts of materials made by ancient man yet not a speck of material has been found that is not from this Earth. Rocks have been found that are pieces of Mars. Why can't anyone find a food wrapper dropped by an alien or find a dropped or discarded beverage container or a personal entertainment system or a communication device or whatever from an alien?

I simply don't believe in ancient aliens because the best evidence seems to be misrepresenting artwork.

I agree. Misrepresenting artwork is not evidence. A good example would be the little sculptures from South American. Ancient Alien believers say they are airplanes, but after a little research it is clearly a fish. Whether an armored catfish or a flying fish (both of which are native the the area), it is silly to say it is an airplane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see my point. There is no winners in this debate.

There are when the evidence runs contrary to whatever fringe 'theory' is being discussed at the time. Or to put it another way: If it looks like crap, smells like crap and has every indication of originating from the southern end of a northbound jackass, IT AIN'T STEAK! :tu:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you mean today's generation of academics, well no I'm not blaming them, but I was referring to the academic predecessors

But the academic predecessors are where todays academicians knowledgebase came from. And it's been modified over time with ever more current findings, while the fringe has basically sat on their thumbs yelling "Nuh uh!" the whole time.

And If you mean the proponents for ancient aliens are stuck in old academic knowledge

It's not just Ancient Alien proponents, but anyone whose knowledgebase ends at what they may have learned while in school.

Probably because there is so much distrust these days between the academia and the "average person" as you call them.

I think that your wrong here, as it's entirely more likely IMO that the average person couldn't care less, one way or the other, about anything of an advanced scientific nature beyond a "That's interesting" mentality. As opposed to fringe proponents who quite often are just too damn lazy to do proper, in-depth research into a given subject, but instead tend to make it up as they go along.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.