Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Toby Cooper on December 27, 2010 at 6:55pm

Here are a couple of good videos that deal with some of the material mentioned by the ancient astronaut theorists.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tommy H. Yeargin, Jr. on December 27, 2010 at 8:55pm

I avoid History Channel nowadays, since it's become Sasquatch Central.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Janelle Campbell on December 28, 2010 at 9:31am

I actually *blushing* love that show.  It's humorous, I saw one where they talked about aliens underground and almost peed myself.  Hey it's better than that Jesse James conspiracy show.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shine on December 28, 2010 at 12:58pm

Hey it's better than that Jesse James conspiracy show.

I LOVE that show! Watching him fly around the country to have deliberately constructed "covert" meetings where supposed informants call him "Governor" and deliver random pictures and scraps of paper as "evidence" = pure comedy gold.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Janelle Campbell on December 29, 2010 at 4:50pm

A coworker of mine loves that show and I had to vommit in my mouth through two episodes, he went on and on and on after the one about global warming being a money making fraud. I was literally biting my tongue.  I think it's funny too, but aliens in caves is freaking hilarious!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shine on December 28, 2010 at 1:09pm

I've watched one or two episodes of this show for amusement.  Personally, I never saw any compelling argument.  The show seems to be based upon a mix of circumstantial evidence and argumentum ad ignorantia.

 

Basically, the show seems to cherry-pick similar events "x, y, and z" and then suggest that "Theory A" is a plausible explanation for these supposedly similar events. The show then relies upon the lack of an evidenced theory for "x, y, and z" to illogically support the plausibility of "Theory A."  

 

Furthermore, I never saw any "expert" on the show with reliable credentials.  Perhaps I just missed it, but I did not see a testimonial from anyone bearing any title beyond "researcher" or "author."  I want to see scientists who have published peer-reviewed papers on the subject matter, not self-published authors who have spent countless hours trolling the internet for "evidence."

 

In the end, I think that the show is primarily useful for spotting logical fallacies.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ethan Levy on March 12, 2011 at 3:14pm

Maybe they are trying to lead on those who have gods to watch then later question & search for more information on history & religion or they are just trying to get more ratings 

pawn stars FTW!

& am i the only one that finds that very, very tan faced dude hilarious to look at?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 12, 2011 at 3:50pm

I absolutely LOVE this series!  The point to some interesting gaps in scientific knowledge, which often gets me looking into these gaps.  Usually I find that these gaps are just conveniently omissions by the writers of the show, but sometimes there are real gems to be found.  Scientific knowledge, but its very nature, is full of all sorts of gaps because scientists refuse to fill those gaps with fairy tales.  Investigating the real gaps often leads to some really interesting articles about research being done in that area.

 

Sometimes I feel that science is a little too stringent in its requirements of evidence.  For one, I keep hearing that ancient Egyptians (the pyramid builders) didn't even know what a pulley was.  You don't need to make a wheel to get the same mechanical advantage, however.  Simply running a rope around a an anchored, greased pole provides you with a pulley.  Archeology is very good at showing us the tools that people used, but it isn't very good at showing us how they used them.

 

I would like to see a project that would simulate the development of ancient building techniques.  If you hired rather uneducated people to work at quarrying rock and stacking it up, providing them with only very simple tools, you could observe the rate at which the efficiency of their work increased.  At first they would really struggle, but given enough time, say a few years, they would develop their own skills and probably come up with some really creative ways of moving those rocks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ButterCookie on March 13, 2011 at 2:20am

Very much agree!!  I love this series as well!!

 

Please see my earlier (first post) and its good to see others who are able to look at this with an open mind...this theory makes more sense since than god with the magic wand AND evolution from fish, to monkeys to us,

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Josh Mercer on March 13, 2011 at 12:36pm

That was one of the biggest strawmen I've ever seen. It pains me to see that nowhere are we safe from them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tex in the City on March 12, 2011 at 5:37pm

I don't see any reason to assume that the ancient Egyptians could not have built the pyramids.  What is the basis for this claim?  We accept that the ancient Greeks built the Parthenon and other masterpieces of architecture and engineering, right?  Sure, it's difficult to move large blocks of stone.  It remains difficult.  It is also not impossible.  Why do people find it so mind boggling?  Throughout history people have been building memorials to the dead.  In Egypt's case they built pyramids.  Why is this so hard to accept?  I just see no reason at all to conclude that there was some extra-terrestrial help.

 

We don't know why the Nazca lines were built.  However I find no need to ascribe supernatual or alien involvement.  People have been making art for time immemorial.  Much of it I don't understand, to this day, like Christo's orange gates or a shark encased in formaldehyde.  I also don't know why my parents thought it would look good to put wood paneling and shag carpeting throughout their house in the 70's, and frankly when you ask them now they don't know either.  Maybe aliens made them do it?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 12, 2011 at 6:19pm

I think the reason people have so much trouble understanding the pyramids is that we are generally presented with a very primitive picture of the ancients. This is mostly a socially propagated view, but science tends to reinforce it by using the word 'primitive' rather than 'ancient' or even 'early' when referring to the writing, ideas, and tools of ancient/early/primitive cultures. The dictionary definition of primitive doesn't suggest the negative connotations that this word has taken on in modern usage.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page