History Channel: Ancient Aliens

[xionking]

Has anyone seen this doco?

Wtf, eh?? What is up with the world we live in???

 

[tickmankyle1]

Has anyone seen this doco?

Wtf, eh?? What is up with the world we live in???

i have seen some about that before and they are neat and open your eye's. there is evdince of things we think are new inventions. In fact there is proof that people made devices very similar to that many many years ago.
just neat to watch. plus there are 2 egyptian painting one looks like a plane and one like a helicopter. makes you think. If you showed it to someone the paintings they would say it was a helicopter and a plane. They would be shock if you told them it was found in an egyptian tomb. thousands of years old.

 

[venray]

I have been too busy watching the new Doctor Who..

 

[xionking]

I have been too busy watching the new Doctor Who..

Please, Venray, do yourself the justice by watching this.

They have artifacts of carved little planes dating back tens and thousands of years.

They found a map that dates back 1000s of years and at the bottom of this map is the outline of Northern Antarctica. But this is impossible, because nobody had discovered Antarctica yet.

They put this map to the world globe to compare, andto the tee this map is geographically correct. But how? When planes hadn't even been invented so people could catch a Bird's Eye View of the Earth.

You have cave paintings drawn by ancient people of weird looking people with Astronaut Helmets around their heads, and these paintings are similar all over the world. Even my people, the Indigenous peoples of Australia in the Kimberleys have cave paintings of people wearing weird ass suits with buttons and devices on them. And then the same people are being drawn on the otherside of the world in Mexico!

This is scary, eye opening shit.

 

[Filthyweasel]

I've seen it. It's very interesting. However listening to that Von Daniken guy say that all he does is ask questions and not make claims, then 20 mins later he's saying 'this is absolute proof!' No it still poses questions.

We've been around for 200,000 years as we are - homo sapiens, with the same brains, same bodies, same ability to problem solve... as hunter gatherers for 195,000 years? We've only got recorded history for about 5-6 thousand. And ruins from that time period, apart from a couple are already fading to dust. Who's not to say we used to be more advanced, and the hunter gatherer thing was a dark age? By this time, it's hard to see anything even from the hunter gatherer period, much less anything before it. The idea that the Sphinx has an undersized head because it could have been a giant lion statue from a lost age long gone that the Egypians recut. You just never know, but until I see a spaceship I won't think it's aliens.

 

[venray]

Part 1 of 9

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iH66LramO8U&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iH66LramO8U&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

 

[texastickler]

It was a great show. I am a HISTORY Channel addict. Well most of the stuff. It was very interesting indeed.

 

[Redmage]

Has anyone seen this doco?

Wtf, eh?? What is up with the world we live in???

Do you mean that as in, "How could anyone take this nonsense seriously?"

They have artifacts of carved little planes dating back tens and thousands of years.

Isn't it odd that "carved little planes" survived that long, but something strong enough to get off the ground didn't even leave rivets behind?

They found a map that dates back 1000s of years and at the bottom of this map is the outline of Northern Antarctica. But this is impossible, because nobody had discovered Antarctica yet.

The Piri Reis map. Take another look.

The map was drawn on a single gazelle skin. That means that the map-maker had only that area to work with. When he drew South America he just continued it around that bottom of the map, which is why there is no break between "South America" and "Antarctica." That's also why a supposedly super-accurate map of Antarctica somehow missed the Straits of Magellan that lie between those two continents.

By the way, if that WERE a map of Antarctica without the ice, then it wouldn't look like that. If the south polar ice cap were gone, then all that ice would be in the oceans, making sea levels far higher. So the coastline of that land wouldn't look like it does when you take radar images through the ice. Nor would the coastline of South America look like it does today.

The people who make these documentaries want ratings. So they don't show you this other evidence. They don't ask tricky questions like "If we have carvings of planes, why don't we have pieces of planes?" or "Why would a map of an ice-free Antarctic land mass not account for higher sea levels?"

But a reasonably thoughtful viewer should ask those questions.

 

[Redmage]

We've been around for 200,000 years as we are - homo sapiens, with the same brains, same bodies, same ability to problem solve... as hunter gatherers for 195,000 years? We've only got recorded history for about 5-6 thousand. And ruins from that time period, apart from a couple are already fading to dust. Who's not to say we used to be more advanced, and the hunter gatherer thing was a dark age?

Well, think of it this way: Ancient ruins are not all that decomposed, in fact, and even those that are can be reconstructed from the clues they leave behind. For example, Jericho has archaeological deposits going back 10,000 years.

We don't have recorded history of the Stone Age, but we do have archaeological evidence. We have graves, stone tools, hunting sites, pottery, and so on going back much further than 5,000 years.

What we don't have is any evidence, anywhere, of an advanced pre-stone-age civilization that suddenly collapsed into barbarism. No graves, no artifacts, no mines, no ruined refineries, no highways... not a single thing.

This is especially odd since one of the signs of an advanced civilization is a much greater population density. Advanced civilizations can feed more people, so they have more people. So somehow billions of people just disappeared without leaving even bones behind. Yet meanwhile we do have evidence of primitive societies going way, way back.

No, just doesn't make sense, aliens or not.

 

[cabalist]

Von Daniken's books were thoroughly debunked decades ago. And yet apparently people still take that sort of crap seriously. Perhaps not surprising, though, since people seem to take all kinds of silly crap seriously. Nonsense always sells big, it seems. Just look at the huge popularity of religion, for example.

 

[rhiannon]

Erich von Daeniken gives a good show, that's it! He falls for the stupidest fakes. He himself starts his speeches saying "Don't believe a word I am saying" and then throws around his wild theories. He even has an amusement park in Switzerland, how many scientists have that!?

 

[cabalist]

He even has an amusement park in Switzerland, how many scientists have that!?

Indeed. Perhaps most scientists are too well-grounded in reality for their own (financial) good.

 

[Bugman]

P. T. Barnum would be proud of Erich von Daeniken. 😉

 

[Sanhael]

Well, think of it this way: Ancient ruins are not all that decomposed, in fact, and even those that are can be reconstructed from the clues they leave behind. For example, Jericho has archaeological deposits going back 10,000 years.

We don't have recorded history of the Stone Age, but we do have archaeological evidence. We have graves, stone tools, hunting sites, pottery, and so on going back much further than 5,000 years.

What we don't have is any evidence, anywhere, of an advanced pre-stone-age civilization that suddenly collapsed into barbarism. No graves, no artifacts, no mines, no ruined refineries, no highways... not a single thing.

This is especially odd since one of the signs of an advanced civilization is a much greater population density. Advanced civilizations can feed more people, so they have more people. So somehow billions of people just disappeared without leaving even bones behind. Yet meanwhile we do have evidence of primitive societies going way, way back.

No, just doesn't make sense, aliens or not.

This isn't entirely true. There are a number of examples of what might be ancient construction on a monumental scale that is either not examined particularly closely, or has supposedly "been debunked" (but nobody seems to know when, or how, or what the structures really are, only that they "were debunked").

An example which comes readily to mind is the supposed "legacy of Atlantis" roadways found on the bottom of the Atlantic ocean. Now, I don't know that they're actually legacies of Atlantis, nor have I ever heard an estimate of their age, but I have seen two serious documentaries done on them. They stopped short of anything radical, like aliens or 75,000-year-old "lost civilizations," but they did make the observation that--while the supposed highway could be a completely natural phenomenon, a fact that they made no effort to downplay--the geometrical precision of their apparent construction is remarkable, and the paths on which these supposed highways are laid do seem quite a bit like roads. They aren't random, or meandering.

Others have suggested that there are ruins and such in Antarctica. I know little to nothing about this, even about what's been claimed regarding this, but I've never seen so much as a single, serious documentary done concerning the observation. At the very least, it should make an interesting study. The ice in Antarctica can descend for over a mile, but at one point in time--not so long ago, geologically speaking--there wasn't any. Antarctica was once tropical; this is an accepted fact of geological history. Who knows what is down there below all of that ice?

There are ruined cities in northern India that have been reliably dated to as far back as 24,000 years; that's from a National Geographic magazine now over a decade old. The writing has yet to be translated (or had yet to be, at that time) but there were things that appeared to be highways, commercial billboards, and public forums, as well as... hey. It's a city-level construction, and it's more than 20,000 years old.

I'm not one to say "for sure, there were aliens, ancient high-tech civilizations, and the like, and all of you so-called 'normal' people are nuts for not seeing it," I simply think that a lot of these so-called "fringe" theories deserve a lot more serious consideration and study than they tend to receive. The fact that a few people go nuts for the lack of it and behave completely irrationally (and un-scientifically) with regards to the evidence at hand... that, in and of itself, shouldn't serve to have the world-wide scientific community at large sweep said evidence under the carpet. Some of the greatest scientific revelations, throughout history, have come into common acceptance after years, sometimes centuries of persecution because they were wildly different from what had been accepted as dogma for all that time. Scientists have become far too inclined to go with what is *known* in recent decades, a negative side-effect of a lapse in general persecution (not that the latter is a good thing, mind). One could argue (arguably? 😉) that the sudden revelation of "hey, there were ancient civilizations 170,000 years ago that vanished 163,000 years ago" is no more Earth-shattering, relative to our current understanding of things, than "Hey, the world is round, and it orbits the Sun" was a few hundred years ago.

To my mind, ancient imagery and carvings resembling something we have now, which nobody should have had then, are significant, as are legends in ancient (10,000+ year old) Hindu (proto-Hindu? I've no idea when what is now considered Hinduism first arose) scrolls which describe the gods which supposedly brought mankind to Earth battling other invaders from 'elsewhere' in craft which are described as flying metallic discs firing beams of light and strange, exploding metal cannisters that spat fire and smoke behind them as they flew through the sky. Such could certainly be a forgery, but it's not as if it's something newly discovered; remarks about such curiosities go back further than modern rocket and missile technology does, although I'm unaware of such as far back as, say, the Chinese development of things such as firecrackers and the like.

Additionally, on a scale of hundreds of thousands of years, a great deal can change; ice ages, geological activity, acid rain (if they had advanced tech, they certainly had the consequences) and regular old erosion could wear away a great deal... who knows how long an ancient "dark age" might have lasted, and who's to say that more recent, well-known ancient civilizations weren't built on the bones of those which came before, as it were?

Things can disappear; things can go away. Dinosaurs lived, according to science, for hundreds of millions of years, an almost unfathomable amount of time. Relative to the amount of dinosaur fossils we have found from all of that time, if long periods of time were meaningless, we ought to have found literally no trace of ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, or early China at this point in time... maybe a single heiroglyph (sp), to make us wonder.

 

[Redmage]

An example which comes readily to mind is the supposed "legacy of Atlantis" roadways found on the bottom of the Atlantic ocean.

You're referring to the Bimini Road. And this brings up one of the trends that we often see in discussions of these "mysteries." You refer to the Bimini Road as residing "on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean." And that's technically true, but the "bottom" there is only about 20 feet down. Radiocarbon dating of the "cement" (it's called "beachrock," and occurs naturally all around that region) between the "blocks" gives the "road" an age of about 2000 years, give or take. Definitely not Atlantis.

Now, I don't know that they're actually legacies of Atlantis, nor have I ever heard an estimate of their age, but I have seen two serious documentaries done on them. They stopped short of anything radical, like aliens or 75,000-year-old "lost civilizations," but they did make the observation that--while the supposed highway could be a completely natural phenomenon, a fact that they made no effort to downplay--the geometrical precision of their apparent construction is remarkable, and the paths on which these supposed highways are laid do seem quite a bit like roads. They aren't random, or meandering.

Look at a map sometime. If you remove the cities (that is, the destinations), roads do appear to meander randomly. So unless there are cities on the Bimini Road (and there are not) then what is the evidence that the half-mile or so of it that exists was laid out deliberately, with a destination in mind?

Which brings us to the second set of issues: Roads don't exist without cities. Cities imply a whole civilization. How is it that a "road" only 2000 years old is the sole surviving fragment of a civilization that could have built it? There's lots of archaeological evidence of native cultures in that region and nearby regions going back that far. So why would we suppose that this "road" is artificial when there are no other signs of of the culture that supposedly made it?

Also, when you dig into it, you discover that the "geometric precision" of the Bimini Road isn't really all that. It's certainly no greater than the geometric precision of naturally occurring minerals. Think quartz crystals.

Others have suggested that there are ruins and such in Antarctica.

I've seen only one person make that suggestion seriously. Graham Hancock wrote the book "Fingerprints of the Gods," which contains the usual mix of misleading and misquoted information supposedly demonstrating the existence of an ancient civilization. Hancock mentions in the book that there really is no true hard evidence for the civilization he's pointing to: no cities, roads, or other ruins that would say "Highly advanced technological culture once lived here." So since he couldn't give up the idea that such a culture must have existed, he concluded that they must have lived in the one place that no one has ever looked: Beneath the thousands of feet of ice that covers Antarctica.

That really was the sum of his argument: "I believe this culture must have existed, but there are no ruins anywhere that anyone can find. Therefore they must be where no one has looked, and where we really couldn't find them if we did look." He might as well have said they were on Mars; there's just as much evidence.

There are ruined cities in northern India that have been reliably dated to as far back as 24,000 years; that's from a National Geographic magazine now over a decade old.

Dig it up for me, if you don't mind. The oldest walled city that I know of is Jericho, dating back about 9000 years. There are neolithic "cities" like Catalhoyuk in Turkey that go back 10,000 years, but they weren't doing monumental architecture or carved inscriptions. 24,000 years? I'd have to see some hard evidence.

I'm not one to say "for sure, there were aliens, ancient high-tech civilizations, and the like, and all of you so-called 'normal' people are nuts for not seeing it," I simply think that a lot of these so-called "fringe" theories deserve a lot more serious consideration and study than they tend to receive. The fact that a few people go nuts for the lack of it and behave completely irrationally (and un-scientifically) with regards to the evidence at hand... that, in and of itself, shouldn't serve to have the world-wide scientific community at large sweep said evidence under the carpet.

The scientific community doesn't really do that (scientist here, BTW). Things like the Bimini Road are examined, found to be interesting but really unremarkable, and then set aside by everyone except people who can't accept that, and insist that they must be remarkable. And then you get things like "ruins at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean" and civilizations that just must be under the Antarctic Ice Cap, because people have to believe they existed and they can't be found anywhere else.

To my mind, ancient imagery and carvings resembling something we have now, which nobody should have had then, are significant

Humans can see bears in the night sky. It's not surprising that we can see "helicopters" in ancient paintings. Seeing patterns is what our brains do. But you have to ask yourself why metal aircraft - which logically ought to be a lot more durable than paintings of them - haven't survived even in fragments, while their "paintings" did. Likewise, aircraft and advanced electronics don't grow from seeds. Where are the factories, the mines - all the industrial infrastructure that you need to support such things?

The support structures needed to build even one airplane are orders of magnitude larger than the plane itself. If these images and carvings are really what people like to believe they are, then all the rest of that should be there too. It isn't.

as are legends in ancient (10,000+ year old) Hindu (proto-Hindu? I've no idea when what is now considered Hinduism first arose) scrolls which describe the gods which supposedly brought mankind to Earth battling other invaders from 'elsewhere' in craft which are described as flying metallic discs firing beams of light and strange, exploding metal cannisters that spat fire and smoke behind them as they flew through the sky.

Additionally, on a scale of hundreds of thousands of years, a great deal can change; ice ages, geological activity, acid rain (if they had advanced tech, they certainly had the consequences) and regular old erosion could wear away a great deal... who knows how long an ancient "dark age" might have lasted, and who's to say that more recent, well-known ancient civilizations weren't built on the bones of those which came before, as it were?

Because we have those bones.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, we have a continuous archaeological record of human bones and artifacts going back to before there even were humans. We have stone tools, ancient campfires and garbage dumps from as far back as 400,000 years, and bones going all the way to pre-humanity. How does it seem rational that these things would have survived, but that a huge industrial civilization would leave no traces?

An ancient and powerful super-civilization would have left more than ruins. Advanced civilizations have lots of people. People leave remains. There is nothing - not a scrap of evidence - to indicate that the human population shot up to the levels that an industrial civilization could support, and then suddenly collaped. As I said, we have the bones - and there aren't that many of them.

Addendum: I'd really like to see these "10,000 year old scrolls," or indeed any written record older than than the Vinca Signs (which are usually considered "proto-writing").

 

[U.N.Owen]

Excellent posts, Redmage. You're a brave man to wade through all that pseudoscience crap in order to debunk it.

(As for "ruined cities" in Northern India, there's just the Indus Valley sites, which are less than 5,000 years old.)

 

[Filthyweasel]

Come on, we all know that Shamballah exists under the Himalayas, is guarded by yetis, and holds the Ark of the Convenant, which in turn contains the Holy Grail, locked in a secret compartment that can only be opened by a key that looks suspiciously like a little golden airplane yet was made by the Mayans, who were eaten by the yetis, but the map to their lost city is printed on the back of President Washington's Masonic laundry list, and in this lost city there is a pyramid that could only have been built by levitating rocks from a quarry now at the bottom of the ocean off the coast of Japan, which a scientist from that country believes to be a pyramid in itself, but of course he is WRONG!!!!!!