• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Ancient Aliens debunked..


Forums New posts
Goggs Mackay

Goggs Mackay

Administrator
Staff member
Check out 'AncientAliensdebunked' - a film by Chris White.

It goes through ancient astronaut theories one by one and shows how they are fundamentally flawed with either mistakes or actual factual inaccuracies.
Most interesting is the inclusion of the first decent explanation I've seen for the construction of the great pyramid and sound reasons for the existence of the grand gallery etc.

While I am not at all against a theory of visitation by ET's to Earth back in the day, explaining every ancient wonder by ET's has always been a simplification at best and at worst, robs ancient mankind of the credit for achievements.

So whereas I agree on first looks with pretty much all this debunking, it doesn't address (in fairness, doesn't seek to) my main interest in megalithic structures etc - and that is that there seems to be compelling evidence the a culture or several were worldwide in nature, long, long before modern historians agree that men were crossing the oceans for trade and exploration.

My main gripe with historians is that I think there is often a reluctance to revise long-held theories and if there is any 'cover-up' it's not knowledge of ET's or whatever, in the past. The cover-up is not accepting we need new timelines for when certain technical practices and advances in mathematics and geometry happened.

In short, today, we seem reluctant to explain anything ancient that mucks up long-accepted timelines.

Good documentary - don't have a link but I'm sure it's easy to find.

Goggs
 
The notion of a much older and richer history of mankind has more appeal for me than ancient aliens leaking selected tidbits of info to our ancestors and moving heavy rocks to boot. But--it also seems unlikely (not impossible) that whatever-the-heck-ufos-are has been here only recently.

Most of what stokes our mystic fascination with the ancients is mute but persistently puzzling stonework. I for one, still think it defies conventional explanation. The challenge to mainstream archaeology remains: Build us a "small" precision pyramid--say 100 feet high--with crude tools.
 
It's a very good home-built doc. The guy did his homework and poked a lot of holes in a great many AA "suggestions." ;)

I was very pleased to see that very early on he's a strong supporter of Houdin's explanation for the construction of the Great Pyramid. I am pretty impressed with it too but note the Egyptology mainstream has not exactly jumped to embrace it.

AA is a show that shouldn't be taken too seriously but they do get film crews to these ancient locations and the sites are marvelous. I've only been to one in my life, and you should get to at least one yourself. No one can deny the impact the stars and the sky show had on these people all over the world. It's fun to speculate.
 
goggsmackay said:
Check out 'AncientAliensdebunked' - a film by Chris White.

It goes through ancient astronaut theories one by one and shows how they are fundamentally flawed with either mistakes or actual factual inaccuracies.
Most interesting is the inclusion of the first decent explanation I've seen for the construction of the great pyramid and sound reasons for the existence of the grand gallery etc.

While I am not at all against a theory of visitation by ET's to Earth back in the day, explaining every ancient wonder by ET's has always been a simplification at best and at worst, robs ancient mankind of the credit for achievements.

So whereas I agree on first looks with pretty much all this debunking, it doesn't address (in fairness, doesn't seek to) my main interest in megalithic structures etc - and that is that there seems to be compelling evidence the a culture or several were worldwide in nature, long, long before modern historians agree that men were crossing the oceans for trade and exploration.

My main gripe with historians is that I think there is often a reluctance to revise long-held theories and if there is any 'cover-up' it's not knowledge of ET's or whatever, in the past. The cover-up is not accepting we need new timelines for when certain technical practices and advances in mathematics and geometry happened.

In short, today, we seem reluctant to explain anything ancient that mucks up long-accepted timelines.

Good documentary - don't have a link but I'm sure it's easy to find.

Goggs
Click to expand...


I consider the ET hypothesis a little far fetched.
More likely, I think the ancients had a different kind of engineering than we moderns do, ...something that a primitive society would be more likely to discover if they had to start out from scratch at cutting, moving and placing extremely heavy blocks of stone.
Something we have forgotten or missed.
It seems to me the ancients were considerably more advanced, and for a longer period, than we give them credit for.
Maybe not in electricity, or nuclear physics, or aerodynamics. But advanced in transportation, stone cutting without steel, and mathematically planning such things as the Great Pyramid with such fantastic precision.

But Goggs, you are right about historians. They seem to only pick and choose things that already confirm thier view of history and disregard, ignore or purposely mis-interpret evidence to the contrary. Of course, some things are just to blatant for even them to ignore...like Golbekli Tepe, the Antikythera device, the Egyptian mummies that have nicotine in their bodies, and the Baghdad batteries.....which of course they mostly ignore and call them anomalies.
And I really think the king of revisionist history is Zahi Hawass....talk about a closed mind. I think his head is nothing but a black hole.
 
Christopher O'Brien said:
Some good stuff there, but a lot of inaccuracies, i.e, Pumapunku is only made of sandstone. NOT true -- there is granite and lots of it...
Sure, the Von Daniken crowd loves its alien theory but the debunkers love their selective reasoning and evidence as well.
Click to expand...

I think White has a real passion for the subject and was pretty clear that he thinks there may be something to the general AA concept even though he made a 3 hour doc that was highly critical of some of the content of the Ancient Aliens TV show. He may very well have leaned too hard on some debunker material without independently researching himself, if practically possible. He still put a ton of work into what he does have and it's worth a look. In fact, you should have him as a guest.

Having said all that, it doesn't diminish my enjoyment of the TV show one little bit. It's no Through The Wormhole With Morgan Freeman, but it's absolutely great. The tone of the show is so exuberant and positive it really sets it apart from anything else I've ever seen on the UFO subject and makes it endlessly enjoyable.
 
Christopher O'Brien said:
Some good stuff there, but a lot of inaccuracies, i.e, Pumapunku is only made of sandstone. NOT true -- there is granite and lots of it...
Sure, the Von Daniken crowd loves its alien theory but the debunkers love their selective reasoning and evidence as well.
Click to expand...

Actually I don't think the video says Pumapunku was "only made of sandstone". I think it says a combination of red sandstone and andesite. I've found several independent references that back that up. I've found none that back up claims of carved granite, let alone "lots of it". I've found one reference that likens andesite to diorite by composition, but andesite is about half the hardness. Also, I found that on the hardness scale, there are several other rocks harder than diorite, so there's another myth exposed. I've found several references that describe granite and andesite being similar in composition, but the two types of rock are not the same. However they do appear to be confused with each other fairly often. Do you have any independent references for the claims that a lot of carved granite was used?

Ignrxclass.gif
 
I saw the documentary and it was well done. While I am Intrigued by the idea of Ancient Aliens, the show is clearly for entertainment and pushes well beyond the bounds of believability at times. However; Mr Whites documentary has its own issues.

It cherry picks the topics it wishes to debunk and goes all out. Other topics (I assume because they can't be debunked so easily) it totally avoids and fails to mention.

Moreover, some of his debunking raised more questions for me then it answered.

For example he discusses Renaissance art where paintings of religious topics like the birth of Christ show objects in the sky that look like your classic disc shaped UFO. He goes the great length explaining that this was a common occurrence. that this was how the "glory of the lord" was depicted at the time. He even zooms in on one painting to show, that close up what seems like a flying disc at a casual look is actually two circles of angels, one flying over another.

Fine. But doesn't that beg the questions...

Why did they decide to depict "the glory of the lord" as a disc shape object?

Why would the painter require the viewer to press his nose against the painting to see, "ah its actually a circle of angels"

Seems to me you could argue that the people of the time saw disc shaped craft in the sky and came to the conclusion that it must actually be a choir of angels and thats why "the glory of the lord" came to be represented as such.

In Addition; i think Mr. White misleads his viewer. He says he has no problem with the Idea of ancient aliens were it true, and that he does believe something strange went on in the past. In his documentary he offers no explanation for what that is; but I've heard him in radio interviews. Its pretty clear (in fact he states) he believes these occurrence were due to supernatural being such as angels. :) I think the viewer has a right to know where he stands and what motivates him.

Instead of selectively attacking a different theory as expressed in an entertainment show, I'd like to see him present some evidence for his own belief that amount to more then interpretation.

as for me I'll keep questioning...But I hold out hope the ancient alien theory turns out to be true...that they return someday and show themselves, and that they have some really realistic dinosaur documentaries:)
 
"Its pretty clear (in fact he states) he believes these occurrence were due to supernatural being such as angels"

I don't think I could keep a straight face pretending to debunk AAH while believing in angels.
 
goggsmackay said:
Check out 'AncientAliensdebunked' - a film by Chris White.

It goes through ancient astronaut theories one by one and shows how they are fundamentally flawed with either mistakes or actual factual inaccuracies.
Most interesting is the inclusion of the first decent explanation I've seen for the construction of the great pyramid and sound reasons for the existence of the grand gallery etc.

While I am not at all against a theory of visitation by ET's to Earth back in the day, explaining every ancient wonder by ET's has always been a simplification at best and at worst, robs ancient mankind of the credit for achievements.

So whereas I agree on first looks with pretty much all this debunking, it doesn't address (in fairness, doesn't seek to) my main interest in megalithic structures etc - and that is that there seems to be compelling evidence the a culture or several were worldwide in nature, long, long before modern historians agree that men were crossing the oceans for trade and exploration.

My main gripe with historians is that I think there is often a reluctance to revise long-held theories and if there is any 'cover-up' it's not knowledge of ET's or whatever, in the past. The cover-up is not accepting we need new timelines for when certain technical practices and advances in mathematics and geometry happened.

In short, today, we seem reluctant to explain anything ancient that mucks up long-accepted timelines.

Good documentary - don't have a link but I'm sure it's easy to find.

Goggs
Click to expand...

Nice post Goggs.

Just a side note worth thinking about.
When looking at ancient settlement there are two places that stand out for the construction of these

1. River plains
2.Coastal

Now given that the sea level today is on the order of a few hundred feet deeper than it was ten thousand years ago I am of the opinion that there is much that we are missing due to it being under water as these places would have flooded.

Anyway just a side note as it is an area that archeology is now only just starting to take seriously other than the obvious places like Alexandria.

As for the ancient alien theory I am 50/50 at best on the subject for the same reasons you have stated.
 
Very interesting doc mind you no one really knows unless you were around at that time in history. More plausible a mix of both is a possibility of man made hidden technology given to by past civilisations technology which blew its self to bits due to greed, famine , Earth changes and maybe little help from contacts from other worlds seems they are finding more Earth types planets everyday ?
 
Michael Allen said:
Do we even have an idea of the period of time where plate tectonics would completely erase some or all traces (plate subduction) of a former civilization (if it existed)?
Click to expand...
my guess would be several million years. but maybe a carbon tax would slow that down. ;)
 
Michael Allen said:
Do we even have an idea of the period of time where plate tectonics would completely erase some or all traces (plate subduction) of a former civilization (if it existed)?
Click to expand...

Depending on where such a civilization was located, it may never be subducted. Pangea, the supercontinent from which most of the land masses today separated from, existed 300 million years ago. Current thinking is that continents drift around and over immense periods of time collide and bounce off each other, but the vast majority of the same land is still above water. There have been eroding factors on land as well though, including ice sheets miles thick that have scraped across the surface. Over time ash, dust, sediment and other particulate also settle and build up. After millions of years it can become thousands of feet deep. Collisions also push up mountain ranges and some land does sink while other rises.
 
Some of the oldest fossils discovered are about 3.5 billion (World's Oldest Fossils Found in Australia : Discovery News) also where they are found gives some indication of areas that were not subducted at all throughout most of the earth's history. I would think that if there was a civilization much like ours is right now we'd have some evidence. Considering 3.5 billion is only a billion shy of the age of the earth (approximately), and as a lower bound to the total tectonic erasure figure, we could ask the question of what %-age of the earth's surface has emerged from a rift in the last billion years. Might prove to be a foundation for a solid estimate on the probability of finding remnants of a high-tech civilization if it existed--that probability will be inversely proportional to a figure like the total surface area subducted over a 500 million period. Take the ratio of that total to the existing surface area exposed (a constant) and you get an idea of how difficult (or easy!) it would be to find these remnants.
 
We need something like the Drake Equation for estimating the probability that an ancient civilization with our "level" of technology once existed on this planet. Or we could assume that at least one civilization has come and gone (with a level of technology greater than or equal to the nuclear age) in the whole of the earth's history (about 4-5 billion yrs) and then compute the probability that a recoverable artifact exists.

My guess is that probability would be pretty low even if one such civilization did exist at some period of Earth's history. Would be an interesting question to answer.

I think the ancient alien hypothesis is pretty weak in explaining such things as the pyramids or other megalithic structures found on Earth. More likely, any alien intervention would be more subtle, in the form of stories, purposeful mythological constructs, or even a certain 13-14 line document known as the "Emerald Tablet." Eric von Daniken took a shot-gun approach to fit observations into the AAH, assaulting the reader with the brilliant, the mildly plausible...and the absurd.

Ironically the attempts by religious individuals to discredit AAH are dubious, when the alien-mistaken-identity-god explanation is--by leaps and bounds--a much better hypothesis for the biblical than any supernatural existent bearded omnipotent deity concerned over the affairs of a speck of dust (around some dim yellow star in a distant galaxy).
 
Some good stuff there, but a lot of inaccuracies, i.e, Pumapunku is only made of sandstone. NOT true -- there is granite and lots of it.
Click to expand...

Are you sure, Chris? I'm trying to find academic verification of this, but I'm having trouble. Do you know of a site with some good cited, academic sources that talks about true granite at Pumapunku? That would be interesting. Everything I find, or have ever seen, says it's all sandstone and clay/rubble.

If anyone knows of such a site, send it my way.
 
From reading this thread thus far I think this video is relevant for us all to watch if you have not seen it already.

Gives a basic idea of how long the remains of our civilization would last if we were to vanish.


But as an aside we are digging up artifacts from our prehistory that date to many tens of thousands of years ago.

So has there been a previously advanced civilization here on earth like us?

probably not in my opinion, however are we missing areas of our own advancement that are lost to the sands of time? Yes I think we have.
 
I think I've mentioned this before, but my art history professor once commented that stainless steel and plastic can take so long to break down that in some future millennia, archaeologists might dig up all these large stainless steel and yellow plastic arches all over the world and wonder if at one time in the distant past if there had been a global super-civilization that had worshiped cows.
 
Back
Top