Humanity's True History - Ancient Aliens

[Arthros]

You may have heard of the ancient astronaut/aliens theory.
What are your thoughts on this subject, have any questions related to it?, or we can discuss anything you like about this subject with respect.
For basic info:
http://www.crystalinks.com/ancientastronauts.html
Quick Videos for the first part: http://www.world-mysteries.com/aa.htm

UPDATED: (Sorry for the last post, I was not clear, and I post it fast.)

[PetersCreek]

Welcome to the BAUT forums, Arthros.

Soliciting opinions on such a broad topic isn't really what this forum is about. If you have a CT claim to make, you are welcome to make your case here, in this forum. Before doing so, you should read our rules, linked in my signature line below.

You may not place any conditions on other members' participation. They do not have to comply with your instructions before posting. And after all, you don't have "ALL the evidence" either.

[R.A.F.]

You may have heard of the ancient astronaut/aliens theory.

Too much so...it is the worst kind of bunk.

I hope you understand that The History Channel is not considered a reliable source of information.

[Gillianren]

I hope you understand that The History Channel is not considered a reliable source of information.

Depending on what you're watching, of course. But if it's about anything even a hint out of the mainstream, there are a lot better sources.

[R.A.F.]

Depending on what you're watching, of course. But if it's about anything even a hint out of the mainstream, there are a lot better sources.

Seems that lately, they go way past "a hint out of the mainstream". Heck, their "on demand" selection looks like an advertisement for some sort of paranormal magazine.

There are good shows, but they are becoming more and more fewer and farther between.

[Arthros]

Ok, your saying to post the evidence and no more links.
The thing is that you cant see all the evidence in just some simple definition words.

[Garrison]

Ok, your saying to post the evidence and no more links.
The thing is that you cant see all the evidence in just some simple definition words.

Well here's what you could do in some simple words:

Provide the names of some of those professionals you mentioned in an earlier post.
State which human achievements required alien intervention to accomplish.

[Gillianren]

Seems that lately, they go way past "a hint out of the mainstream". Heck, their "on demand" selection looks like an advertisement for some sort of paranormal magazine.

I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying that, once that small step is taken, they seem to go running as far into the realm of "sensationalized and badly researched" as they can get.

There are good shows, but they are becoming more and more fewer and farther between.

Alas yes. Anyone else miss This Week in History?

[Garrison]

You may have heard of the ancient astronaut/aliens theory.
Post your opinion on the subject, only after you saw ALL the evidence.
Evidence are being discovered everyday, so you cant make a full decision until you see EVERYTHING.
For BASIC info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Aliens
http://www.history.com/shows/ancient-aliens

Please DO NOT argue until you have seen ALL the evidence until the day you posted.

Best Regards,
The Universe.

Does that include all the evidence that shows the ancient aliens 'proof' offered to date is either the product of misinterpretation or outright hoax? You seem to assume that not believing in ancient aliens is the product of not reviewing the evidence, I would suggest that if you take the program in your link seriously you have failed to review the evidence that shows Von Daniken is a charlatan.

[Van Rijn]

You may have heard of the ancient astronaut/aliens theory.

I used to read a lot about it back when Erich von Däniken was popular. Then I learned about how he did his research (badly, often ignoring well known historical context and sometimes just making stuff up). I haven't heard of anyone that has made a successful argument. If you have arguments you think are convincing, please present them.

For BASIC info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Aliens

The information at that link is about a TV show called "Ancient Aliens." Among other things, it says the pilot episode was about Erich von Däniken. If you watched it, could you tell me how they presented Däniken? Did they discuss some of his more famous errors? If they did, I might be interested in seeing the show. If they let all his nonsense pass, then it should be all anyone needs to know about the show.

[eburacum45]

This subject interests me; my wife is an archaeology graduate, and she has some very interesting insights into the ancient alien mythos.
Arthros; rather than simply pointing as a very general Wiki page, I recommend you chose one or more particularly interesting examples which convince you, and we can discuss them.

[Arthros]

Sorry for the last post. Updated it.

As for the theory, please take a look at the link in the above thread.
As for a quick video evidence, second link.

And is not mainly Eric Von Daniken proposing this theory; many professionals in different fields from archaeology to physics are considering this theory in being somewhat possibly true.
And yes, I agree that the History channel is not always a good information source, and that Eric is somewhat fictional, but as I said, Eric has done little in the true evidence found. But the thing is that, the evidence is there; you may look at the evidence from another point of view, but you still do not have an answer for so many questions that this theory might answer (possibly the right way with the obvious evidence), but again, we have to think a different way to understand this theory which might answer so many questions.
And again, look back in history, so many theories were though to be impossible and unimaginable, yet, we are living them today.

[R.A.F.]

Sorry for the last post. Updated it.

Word to the wise...you don't want to make a "habit" of changing your posts in such a manner...

As for the theory, please take a look at the link in the above thread.
As for a quick video evidence, second link.

No...we're not here to debunk links. If you have an argument, then present that argument.

And is not mainly Eric Von Daniken proposing this theory

This is why you shouldn't have changed your first post...now you are back tracking from what you originally posted without admitting error.

...many professionals in different fields from archaeology to physics are considering this theory in being somewhat possibly true.

Name those "professionals".

And yes, I agree that the History channel is not always a good information source...

Then why link to it in your first post?

...the thing is that, the evidence is there...

Then resent that evidence...not more links.

...look back in history, so many theories were though to be impossible and unimaginable, yet, we are living them today.

Completely irrelevant. We're not talking about "other theories".

[PetersCreek]

Sorry for the last post. Updated it.

Arthros,

Please do not go back and edit posts for content like that. We take revisionism very seriously here. Please, you really should read our rules.

Word to the wise...you don't want to make a "habit" of changing your posts in such a manner...

Please leave such corrections to the moderators.

[slang]

Then resent that evidence...

Present? Let's not resent it before we see it.

[Strange]

As for the theory, please take a look at the link in the above thread.

OK. Have you any evidence for these ideas?

But the thing is that, the evidence is there

Where? What evidence?

but you still do not have an answer for so many questions that this theory might answer

What questions? And what is wrong with the existing answers?

[Swift]

And is not mainly Eric Von Daniken proposing this theory; many professionals in different fields from archaeology to physics are considering this theory in being somewhat possibly true.

Name one. Name a single professional from a relevant field who thinks this is possibly true.

[NEOWatcher]

But the thing is that, the evidence is there; you may look at the evidence from another point of view, but you still do not have an answer for so many questions that this theory might answer (possibly the right way with the obvious evidence), but again, we have to think a different way to understand this theory which might answer so many questions.

Evidence is there, but evidence of what. There are plenty of terrestrial explainations of that evidence.
No we don't have answers for "this theory", we have answers for other more plausible theories.

And again, look back in history, so many theories were though to be impossible and unimaginable, yet, we are living them today.

"Thought" is the keyword. Those thoughts were based on lack of evidence. Also based on lack of directly opposing evidence.
For the items in those links, we already have opposing evidence.

[A.DIM]

And is not mainly Eric Von Daniken proposing this theory; many professionals in different fields from archaeology to physics are considering this theory in being somewhat possibly true. And yes, I agree that the History channel is not always a good information source, and that Eric is somewhat fictional, but as I said, Eric has done little in the true evidence found. But the thing is that, the evidence is there; you may look at the evidence from another point of view, but you still do not have an answer for so many questions that this theory might answer (possibly the right way with the obvious evidence), but again, we have to think a different way to understand this theory which might answer so many questions. And again, look back in history, so many theories were though to be impossible and unimaginable, yet, we are living them today.

I'm interested in the questions "that this theory might answer," and what you think accepting it as "true history" portends for humanity's future.

[Starfury]

many professionals in different fields from archaeology to physics are considering this theory in being somewhat possibly true.

If you're planning to list Giorgio Tsoukoulas as one of these "professionals", don't waste your time. He is as much of a crackpot as Von Daniken, believes that aliens built all the massive monuments of the ancient world (complete with indoor plumbing and lighting), and basically posits that ancient humans were dumber than the offspring of Jenny McCarthy and Johnny Knoxville.

[Van Rijn]

If you're planning to list Giorgio Tsoukoulas as one of these "professionals", don't waste your time.

I googled his name and found this comment:

http://www.disinfo.com/tag/david-h-childress/

Disinformation friend Giorgio Tsoukalos just emailed us to let us know that the “Ancient Aliens” special starring Giorgio and Erich von Daniken (among others) is becoming a full-blown TV series. The special was the rare History Channel show that avoided the usual skeptical treatment afforded by that channel’s producers and was well worth watching, so I have high hopes for the series:

We did it. This time, we REALLY did it!

I don’t even know where to begin, so I’ll just make it very short and VERY sweet:

Due to the success of ANCIENT ALIENS (2009), the show was picked up by the History Channel for a series!

Wow. The key reason I stopped watching the history channel is because there were too many cases where they presented extraordinary claims without a "skeptical treatment," yet this guy seems to think skepticism is the standard for the channel, and that this show is a rare exception. I expect that means this show is massively biased, with no hint of counterarguments at all.

[Garrison]

I googled his name and found this comment:

http://www.disinfo.com/tag/david-h-childress/




Wow. The key reason I stopped watching the history channel is because there were too many cases where they presented extraordinary claims without a "skeptical treatment," yet this guy seems to think skepticism is the standard for the channel, and that this show is a rare exception. I expect that means this show is massively biased, with no hint of counterarguments at all.

And he appears to believe skepticism is somehow a bad thing, that we should simply take the works of Von Daniken and co. at face value.

[Ronald Brak]

In Australia there are cave paintings of figures that have been interpreted as being of ancient astronauts wearing space helmets floating in space. However, the figures are obviously not wearing any pants. Now this may seem odd, but at various times I've recieved emails offerring to sell me vacuum pump devices that are supposedly good for the lower regions, so perhaps going pantless in space can have benefits. I'm calling this the Von Daniken Spam Filter Conjecture and I will investigate it further every time I delete my junk folder.

[ravens_cry]

Ancient astronauts makes for interesting fiction. Stargate SG-1 was one of my favourite Science Fiction series and considering how long it lasted, for others too. But if you think about it, a lot of the base assumptions are more then a little racist and demeaning of humanity and general. The idea that ancient cultures couldn't do some pretty cool things in their own right, without aid from help from the sky is rather insulting to human ingenuity.
Often,it is a complete failure of imagination on the theorists part.

Stonehenge seems to be one of the classic 'examples' in these theories, and one man has shown that with a little preparation, great stones can be raised and moved literally single handedly. For moving the stones across the landscape to the site, stone rowing has been proposed. I have seen video of this in action, and while slow it works without roads. This is definitely a plus in Neolithic Briton. Were these the methods used? We don't know. But what they do show is that the work could be done by our ancestors without invoking Deus ex machina like aliens.

Another frequent subject of claims of alien intervention and assistance is the great pyramids. One relativity new answer, completely within the means available to the ancient Egyptians, was a rolling stone carrier, described here. There is more then just theory to this one, models of these devices have been found in tombs, but until recently we didn't identify them for what they were.
No need for the fictional Atlantean Orb our friend in the Youtube comments posits, just human ingenuity and muscle.

To quote Cassius from Julius Caesar, though hardly in the way the Bard intended, "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves."

[gzhpcu]

I never understood why advanced races coming to earth, could possibily be responsible for technologically primitive structures....

[captain swoop]

Can we keep off the side discussion of the History Channel and its merits please?

[Buttercup]

Well since it's been asked, I've read most of Zecharia Sitchin's books and I think he's onto something. Seriously.

My right/opinion.

[captain swoop]

Buttercup, you need to keep that for a thread of your own. This is for Arthros to defend his own ideas.

[gzhpcu]

The site mentioned in the first post shows Easter Island, Pyramids, the lines seen from the air in South America .Why would advanced aliens need a landing strip?? Why the primitive stones of Stonehenge? Why should they even remotely resemble us? No, these stories I find just too silly....

[gunchetan]

The site mentioned in the first post shows Easter Island, Pyramids, the lines seen from the air in South America .Why would advanced aliens need a landing strip?? Why the primitive stones of Stonehenge? Why should they even remotely resemble us? No, these stories I find just too silly....

i have never found posts like the one above to be a good way to present an argument.
this really a very narrow minded view to disprove a theory that has been put forward - to simply call it "silly"...
if we entertain all these ancient phenomenn and how tech. advanced the old civilization were...if we rationally entertain the idea of why all old manuscripts seem to have this common theme of beings from space ruling over humans and ook at all the unexplained phenomenon and questions from our past...
i believe the ancient astonaut theory comes out real good at explaining all this...