Ancient Aliens, or Why I Hate the History Channel

As some of you may know, the (Pseudo)History Channel runs a series called ‘Ancient Aliens’, a series devoted to examining the historical ‘evidence’ of ancient, extra-terrestrial contact. For a skeptic, this sort of series is exactly the reason why the History Channel has come to be viewed as a veritable clearing house of pseudoscientific and revisionist history programming. Not only is the show presented as a serious discussion of real history, but there is hardly – if ever – a representative from the skeptical (or even from the mainstream historical) side. The claims made during this one-hour cavalcade of failure are so ridiculous that it is difficult to believe that anyone takes them seriously. But there are those poor credulous people amongst us who do, so let’s take a closer look at some of the more foolish claims shall we?

As one ‘expert’ has said on the show (in an episode called ‘Gods & Aliens’), “We feel that extra-terrestrial entities are a more plausible explanation for these stories, because Gods don’t exist“. The stories the commentator was referring to are, of course, the mythologies of ancient civilizations – notably the Greek, Norse, Incan, and Indian – particularly the stories recounting interactions between the Gods and mortals. One of the more important claims made is that all of the ‘magical weapons’ of the Gods are similar to each other, and their descriptions are similar to some modern weaponry. Thor’s hammer and Zeus’ lightning bolts are apparently similar enough in their descriptions to warrant being compared, for example, although how anyone thinks that a hammer and a bolt of lightning are in any way similar is beyond me. I suppose when you’re reaching for connections, you’ll grab onto anything at hand, no matter how tenuous. Apparently, Thor’s hammer, Zeus’ thunderbolt, and other divine weapons might really be ‘directed energy weapons’.

Yep, those TOTALLY look like hammers.

There are a few unstated premises buried in this assumption, including the following:
A) Aliens exist and have visited earth,
B) They wield energy weapons against their foes, and,
C) Human witnesses dutifully recorded accurate accounts of what they saw.

I can certainly understand how these ‘ancient astronaut theorist’ came to their conclusions, given that they are apparently fine with leaving the above assumptions unchallenged and unsupported, but I can’t understand how they are able to convince others, given the incredibly shakey nature of their claims. I might as well argue that mythological deities are actually time travelling reverse vampires, because hey, beings such as they could easily be mistaken for gods.  I’d have just as much proof of my claims as the ‘experts’ on this show, but my theory would also have the added bonus of being both novel and creative.

This argument barely merits a response apart from: “Uh, yeah, translations of ancient texts CAN be interpreted to mean that if you already believe it to be true.” This sort of argument is guilty of begging the question, a logical fallacy in which a person uses as evidence an example of the very thing they are setting out to prove. In other words, interpretations of ancient texts are only proof of the existence of aliens if you have already decided that aliens have visited earth. It’s like saying that you know God exists because the Bible says that it’s the inerrant word of God. You can make ancient texts say pretty much whatever you want them to say, if you already have a narrative that you accept as true; ancient texts say ‘aliens’ to you, because you already believe that alien visitations must have been recorded by ancient people.  Ancient texts such as the Bible or the Koran are routinely used to justify any number of mutually exclusionary beliefs or practices; the Bible for example teaches pacifism and brotherly love, while also offering examples of God’s apparent desire to commit genocide and to have his children commit it for him.


Uh, dude? There is something seriously wrong with your face… you should get that checked out.

This sort of claim is what Steven Novella of the New England Skeptical Society refers to as ‘Anomaly Hunting’. Alien Astronaut ‘theorists’ use examples of bizarre ancient mummies or skeletons as proof of the existence of ancient aliens who bred with primitive humans, but ignore all of the other, more prosaic explanations put forward by mainstream scholars. One of the most famous examples of this is that of the ‘Starchild‘ skull, the owner of which claims that its existence proves that ancient aliens had a thing for human women. Here’s a link showing all of the myriad things that are wrong with that assumption – creepy imagery aside. Folks that engage in this kind of pseudo-archaeology will essentially disregard the simplest explanations in favour of the more elaborate assumptions that fit their narrative. They will cherry-pick data such that only the confirming evidence – no matter how tenuous – is accepted, while all disconfirming evidence is ignored or explained away as ignorance on the part of researchers, or fear of the ‘truth’, or some other conspiracy (usually involving Men in Black or the Government).

Or they were drawn as offerings or tributes to gods that were believed to live high above the earth, like just about every major god in history. The Greek Gods dwelt high above their mortal playthings, living at the summit of mount Olympus; the Abrahamic God is said to dwell in the Heavens above, as are most of the gods of the Sumerians and Babylonians. If you believed that the gods lived far above you, and you believed that they would appreciate a lovely drawing or portrait, you’d probably also feel that ‘bigger is better’. If the gods want art, it had better be big enough for them to see it; you wouldn’t want them coming down there to chastise you for honouring them incorrectly, would you? It’s often quite frustrating that people will go to such strange lengths (such as positing alien visitation) to explain the activities of early humans, when there are far more satisfactory – if prosaic – explanations available.  There is absolutely zero evidence that connects ancient mega-art with aliens, but there are good psychological and sociological reasons for thinking that such ancient pieces of art were made for the gods.

The same general principles hold true for structures like Stonehenge; there is no reason to link them to ‘aliens’, but there are perfectly mundane explanations which we can accept. One of the biggest complaints I have about ‘alien astronaut’ theorists is that they seem to prefer to believe that ancient humans were stupid or incompetent. Pyramids? Nope, humans could never do something like that, therefore aliens. Stonehenge? Aliens. Math? Writing? Art? Aliens. There is absolutely no reason to believe that ancient humans were any less intelligent than we are, and there is no reason to think that ancient builders, priests, and philosophers couldn’t discover, invent, or observe any of the things we can. We know that ancient Egyptian and Muslim astronomers and mathematicians developed highly advanced mathematics and models of the heavens; we know the Greeks could build extremely complex navigation tools. The ancient druids could recite incredibly long and intricate litanies recounting the history of their tribes, and the ancient Chinese had philosophers without peer. It is the height of arrogance and contempt of ancient thinkers to believe that they could not be – and were not – responsible for all of the many wonders of the ancient age.

I get it; thinking about the existence of ancient alien benefactors can be thrilling. There is so much about the ancient world that we know nothing about; in many areas, our understanding of the lives of ancient peoples is hazy at best. What did they see? What did they know? How much ancient experience and knowledge is lost to us forever? Were there civilizations that predated even the oldest of those currently known, and did they vanish from history without ever leaving a trace of themselves behind? Who knows? There are many gaps in our historical knowledge, and some of those gaps are deep; but their existence is not a license for anyone to fill them with whatever fantasy they like. By essentially making up alternate histories that cater to their own pet beliefs, these pseudo-historians and pretenders do a disservice to their ancient ancestors, human ones who rose from the muck and ashes to build a future for themselves and their progeny. And they did it without the help of ET.

EDIT: If any of you are brave enough to read through the comments at the end of this blog, you’ll notice that many of the objections raised to my post fall into a number of rather predictable categories. In order to spare anyone else the mental health risks associated with wading through pages of tortured logic, I’ve complied a few generic responses to some of the more popular arguments levelled against me. Enjoy.

427 responses to “Ancient Aliens, or Why I Hate the History Channel

  1. Explain the pyramids. The preciseness of their construction and their exact line up to the compass directions could hardly be done even with modern technology. Have an open mind. A hundred years ago, the concept of a cellular phone would indeed be magic. But voila! We have cellphones! And they aren’t magic! And the thing about the hammer and guns, the pictures you have are a Marvel comics representation of Thor’s hammer and Fallout weapons. Human imagination. What do guns sound like? Some could be interpreted as the sounds of a hammer striking. Please do research. Ill-prepared arguments are terrible things.

    • I don’t need to ‘explain the pyramids’; we have whole battalions of archaeologists who are able to discuss any number of the features of the pyramids of Egypt (which is what I assume you are talking about). If there is some other, hidden purpose to their existence, the onus is on the person who believes that they’ve found it to provide evidence that their beliefs are justified. Until such time, the logical – and rational – course of action is to accept the evidence presented by archaeologists – who are the experts in the field. As new evidence comes to light, and existing theories are refined or modified, we can adjust our beliefs accordingly.

      With regards to the point you made about guns and hammers, I fail to see that you’ve proven anything, or even provided me with an argument to work with. Guns could sound like hammers, I suppose. They could sounds like rocks falling or thunder or really loud clapping. That humans are imaginative isn’t in question; the assertion that legends about divine weapons being anything other than fanciful stories, is. As with claims about the pyramids, there must be evidence to support any claims made, otherwise such claims are merely speculation and can be disregarded.

      You say in your second comment that you’ve researched these things extensively, and I believe you. But if the sources that you’ve based your research on are wrong, or lack any solid evidence to support their claims, then the chances of any resulting conclusions being right are slim.

      • When Copernicus said the earth was round, you were the guy saying it’s flat…
        And the sources you base your research on may be lacking some crucial information also…

      • “When Copernicus said the earth was round, you were the guy saying it’s flat…”

        Actually, “we” were the folks saying ‘well, that’s certainly interesting, let’s go find evidence!’ And when the evidence lined up with Copernicus’ already compelling theoretical models, “we” were convinced that he was right. You’ll notice that it’s folks like me who demand that people provide proof of their claims. The people who buy into this ‘ancient alien’ nonsense seem disinclined to do the same.

        “And the sources you base your research on may be lacking some crucial information also…”

        Really? What ‘crucial information’ might my sources be lacking? What ‘crucial information’ is being overlooked by the consensus view of reputable historians and scientists?

      • OpenMinded

        How do you explain all the sculptures of astronaut-like suits, like the one you have as first picture, from thousands of years before our modern society first made space suits? How do you explain moving a 1,500 ton, perfectly rectangular rock, 90 km from the quarry to Baalbek thousands of years before the first roman constructions, when just recently we have moving cranes that can lift that weight? How do you explain the fact that the granite “sarcophagus” of the pyramid of Giza is made in one piece of granite, emptied with a rotating tool capable of perforating 3-4 times faster than todays most advanced tools? How do you explain the presence of high radiation levels (the type from nuclear explosions) in Mohenjo-daro, a prehistoric Indian city, and ground level vitrification of the soil, only found with extremely high temperatures caused by nuclear explosions? All this facts are from engineers, and qualified scientists by the way. Don’t be such an ignorant, bro. Open your eyes. We, humans, are not the center of the universe.

      • How do you explain all the sculptures of astronaut-like suits, like the one you have as first picture, from thousands of years before our modern society first made space suits?

        The same way I explain how people often see shapes in clouds; when we see something we don’t quite understand, our brains try to “interpret” the images in a way that makes sense to us. It’s called Pareidolia. Or it could be even more simple than that. What you see as an ‘astronaut’ suit, I interpret as the representation of a head-dress or helmet, or possibly an ‘aura’ or ‘halo’ or some other symbol to denote power or divinity.

        How do you explain moving a 1,500 ton, perfectly rectangular rock, 90 km from the quarry to Baalbek thousands of years before the first roman constructions, when just recently we have moving cranes that can lift that weight?

        Stones that massive do seem impossible to move, but with a bit of grease, some ropes, a team of people or oxen, and a ‘road’ constructed of logs, the job becomes much more manageable. Also, I went looking for some references about the size and location of the stone you mentioned, and the closest reference I could find was of a single stone, 1,200 tons, found in a quarry about 1 mile from the main ruins. It had never been completed and had never been lifted from the quarry. I don’t know where you got the distance of 90km from, but is it possible that your source is incorrect?

        How do you explain the fact that the granite “sarcophagus” of the pyramid of Giza is made in one piece of granite, emptied with a rotating tool capable of perforating 3-4 times faster than todays most advanced tools?

        Source please? Specifically, where did you learn that this sarcophagus was carved by a rotating tool capable of speeds in excess of 30,000-40,000 rpm?

        How do you explain the presence of high radiation levels (the type from nuclear explosions) in Mohenjo-daro, a prehistoric Indian city, and ground level vitrification of the soil, only found with extremely high temperatures caused by nuclear explosions?

        I have a better question for you: If Mohenjo-daro really was the site of a massive nuclear explosion, then how are the buildings found there still standing? Even the tamest atomic blast would have levelled any city of the size of Mohenjo-daro within its blast radius, and nuclear detonations are orders of magnitude larger still. The buildings at the dig site are all mud and brick; how did they survive? I could find no reputable sources that discussed the so-called ‘radioactive mummies’, so perhaps you could provide me with some? Finally, re: vitrification of the soil. The sort of ‘vitrification’ described on the sites that I went to could more easily be explained by the presence of several large kilns unearthed by archaeologists. The high temperatures found in kilns also vitrify sand.

        All this facts are from engineers, and qualified scientists by the way.

        Which is interesting, because that’s not what I found at all. I did find out that ‘Ancient Aliens’ did a segment on this site and, as usual, they ladled the pseudoscience on thick and heavy.

        We, humans, are not the center of the universe.

        And what does that prove about anything? “Humans aren’t the center of the universe, therefore aliens built ancient cities or nuked them or something.” I don’t think so.

      • What do guns sound like?

        Not like hammers. As someone who has spent a lot of time in smithies, and driving nails into wood/knocking mortise and tenon joints together with mallets and large hammers; as well as a career in the Army (some of it spent as a unit Armorer), they sound nothing alike.

        They might be thought to sound something like thunder, but that’s not what a hammer sounds like.

        Again, ill-prepared arguments are terrible things.

      • How do you explain all the sculptures of astronaut-like suits, like the one you have as first picture, from thousands of years before our modern society first made space suits?

        I call it confirmation bias. It also looks like quilted armor.

        Source please? Specifically, where did you learn that this sarcophagus was carved by a rotating tool capable of speeds in excess of 30,000-40,000 rpm?

        I was a machinist (busy life). The present speeds for vertial mills is about 15,000 so the range being projected is 45-60,000. More to the point, how is this speed being measured? What I know is that one can tell how many cuts per inch were made, one can’t tell how quickly they were made. A slower moving rate would imply a faster rotation.

      • I must disagree with you cubefarmer. Don’t you think that giving people comfort with “unprovable crap that comes out the mouths of conspiracy lunatics” is a good thing.

        Whats wrong with promoting “Nostradamus Predicted 9-11” on your “History Channel?” I certainly thing its informative.(Wink Wink)

        Not to mention the Idea the archeologist team who proved “The Real Face of Jesus” was found in the shroud of turin despite most scientist would suggest that relying on the age of a cloth as proof of the “Face on it” was Jesus is asinine. Because those scientist will all go to hell. “Which the History Channel talks about to”

        See History Channel is like Church and a underground movement fight the secret government agenda all rolled in to one. AN WHATS WRONG WITH THAT SKEPTICAL CUBEFARMER? (PS…I’d rather get my HISTORY from Swamp People anyway)

      • Chrisknipp

        “Myths proven to be true”
        1. alchemy is real and being practiced today at Irvine college was discovered to not be a myth in 1922 by japanese professor Hantaro Nagaoka who changed a mercury isotope into gold after 4 hrs with a nuclear reactor or his Philosopher’s Stone.
        2. Old “myths about sea monsters were real. I.E. Oarfish and Colassal squids big enough to eat sperm whales
        3. Troy was discovered by a group of well to do business men and archaeologist privately funded and armed with a book of Homers Illiad.
        Science is about fringes its about being open minded and looking for the explanantions in all places. Skepticism is close mindedness and fear of the unknown. A truly great man will make the claims to what he has seen and identified and if they are proven wrong or untrue then he moves on to the next thats what science is. Its progress people like you halt progress. All great men were thought to be THE CRAZIES in their lifertime and brilliant geniuses in the time when there “Theories” were proven plausable or even true. What do you care if the pieces dont always fit. The mainstream isnt science its what we think we knwo to be fact at this particular moment. All the while the real men are out on the fringes doing real science, and putting their reputations on the line for it.

      • 1922 by japanese professor Hantaro Nagaoka who changed a mercury isotope into gold after 4 hrs with a nuclear reactor or his Philosopher’s Stone.

        I’m more interested in this professor’s time machine; the first nuclear reactor of any kind was built in 1942 in Chicago. You’re saying that this Japanese professor built one two decades earlier and used it to change mercury isotopes into gold?

        Old “myths about sea monsters were real. I.E. Oarfish and Colassal squids big enough to eat sperm whales

        Squids big enough to ‘eat’ sperm whales? I’m sure you have a link for this. While the existence of the colossal squid has been confirmed, there has never been one found that could ‘eat’ a sperm whale – although it is known that sperm whales eat colossal squid.

        Troy was discovered by a group of well to do business men and archaeologist privately funded and armed with a book of Homers Illiad.

        Sure was, and no one believed they had found Troy until evidence was provided that proved it.

        A truly great man will make the claims to what he has seen and identified and if they are proven wrong or untrue then he moves on to the next thats what science is.

        That’s not how science works. The scientific method does not seek to ‘prove people wrong’; it works to confirm hypotheses as being true. Similarly, skepticism isn’t about having a ‘closed mind’; it’s about looking at claims and saying ‘those are interesting. Do you have evidence to support them? Can you show me this evidence? Will others, after seeing this evidence, be convinced of the same things you are? Does the evidence actually support the claim, or is there another mechanism or explanation at work?’ Skepticism is absolutely about keeping an open mind, but it also recognizes that the burden of proof lies with the people making the claim. I don’t ‘prove you wrong’; I wait to see what evidence you have that proves you’re right.

        All great men were thought to be THE CRAZIES in their lifertime and brilliant geniuses in the time when there “Theories” were proven plausable or even true.

        Gross hyperbole. Einstein was never thought to be ‘crazy’; he was rightly considered to be a genius and an academic of the highest calibre. Similarly, Hawking, Bohr, and Heisenberg were thought to be men of profound insight, not crazy. Your argument does not hold.

        All the while the real men are out on the fringes doing real science, and putting their reputations on the line for it.

        Ah, so the only ‘real men’ you see are the ones engaged in fringe speculations? That’s absurd.

        You apparently understand neither science nor skepticism.

      • James brown

        Well they have found zinc and dilute sulfuric acid to line the tunnels and chambers of the pyramids and the means of turning it into a power source. Evidence enough to support that they were not tombs ……..also battery urns depicted an theorised about ….. now found and proven …… the Egyptians had power is no longer a suggestion

    • Evidence has shown they had a grasp of mathematics and architecture even in ancient Egypt. Take your own advice, have an open mind and give human intelligence the benefit of the doubt.

      • Thank you. *sigh* I’m so sick of these so called scientists and historians leaving to us to prove their theories.

        “Aliens, t’was aliens, everything was the frigging aliens. My wife is pregnant, i was around for 9 months – surely it was those pesky aliens.”

        *yeah right*

      • Yeah and I’m also sick and tired of you and the other people who hate this show and keep complaining. Bottom line is if you don’t like the show DON”T

        P.S. I have the same predicament that you have but I already stopped watching Foax News! Heh-heh

    • They were built. People could have done it. The tricks for doing it were possible (the same general means for leveling rice paddies; all over southeast Asia, work for leveling something like a pyramid).

      Your cellphone example is reversed. We don’t need to imagine unknown means to build the pyramids, we have them in hand. We have accounts of them being built. We have contemporary justifications for building them.

      You are demanding all of that be tossed out in favor of aliens. No more evidence than some people think ancient humans were too stupid to make them.

      As you say, ill-prepared arguments are terrible things.

    • aaron saxton

      I see junk like this all the time “Could hardly be done with modern….” garbage! The Pyramids could easily be done today to a far greater accuracy – we dont because they are expensive and we do not have 200,000 slaves to do the work. People who bark this “The accuracy was so great..” and “impossible for us to do…” actually know nothing of engineering or what it takes to build the pyramids. Uneducated dorks.

      And the pyramids have been explained by qualified people over and over and over – the problem is they speak a sophisticated language you probably would have trouble understanding – and yet here you are trying to understand “advanced aliens” when you can’t even understand “advanced humans”.

      • Kate Chopin

        THIS: “And the pyramids have been explained by qualified people over and over and over – the problem is they speak a sophisticated language you probably would have trouble understanding – and yet here you are trying to understand “advanced aliens” when you can’t even understand “advanced humans”.

        Brilliantly said.

        And really, shame on the History Channel for giving this crap any measure of credibility.

      • James brown

        What were they used for tho ….oops no clue have ya …….. not a single mummy found inside a pyramid. … tunnels and openings that have seemingly no reason for being there ……. religion and science are trying to prove the same thing ……… this could be seen as another religion so to speak, however it’s no more far fetched than any other religion and millions believe those stories ……. even science is having to adapt it’s beliefs …… due to new discoveries. … and the most profound theories on matter and space are completely wrong …… oops I forgot everything in life is best guess ….. and alot of those historic “facts” in the religious text are more likely to be a fantastic story of something a little less fantastic ….. all stories are

    • Rik Tenaglia

      John smith is an idiot and a professional skeptic. He certainly lacks any insight to the truth. Anyone can debunk anything. That is the nature of a skeptic. John, you are obviously full of shit.

      • Rik Tenaglia

        In my comment I said John Smith is an idiot, but I only mean that if he is the one who started this blog “Why I hate the History channel ect. John, if you are not the responsible party, I apologize. Who ever started that blog is a total idiot.

      • Well, John is not responsible for this blog, I am, so I suppose you’re calling me an idiot. I’d be interested in learning exactly what it is about this blog that you feel is so reprehensible.

      • Kate Chopin

        Rik – I think your research skills needs some improvement, so I will help you out. The ‘About’ tab at the top of this blog (and other similar pages on the inter webs) generally will tell you ‘about’ the author of the page.

        There you can find fascinating and useful information like the name of the author and his educational background. It’s always a good idea to do a little research before bandying about words like ‘idiot’ to the wrong person.

      • This opinion, again, shows your lack of appreciation of academic standards. Anyone can’t debunk anything, since “debunking” is all about showing the lack of evidence for one assertion, while showing that there is, indeed, that kind of support for contrary assertions denied by the one being debunked. What you fail to appreciate is what constitutes a good reason. That is precisely why these shows are horrible. They prey on the lay person who has no eye for the theoretical subtleties of a scientific discipline. Correct types of answers are, by your standards, deemed boring, while AA excites you. But you have no insight into evaluation standards deployed in the scientific field AA pretends to fall under. And this is what the pretense of AA amounts to, i.e. its being an alternative theory within the science of archeology. But what determines somethings being archeology or not isn’t just its subject matter, but its standards of evaluation. Science is mainly a matter of procedure for theory evaluation and formulation.

    • I’ve had a similar argument about this with a friend of mine. He said “I’ve done my research!” So, for the first time, I asked about his resources. Fortunately for me and unfortunately for him, my 14 yo brother can tell that these resources are far, way far from being reliable. I guess that people who always argue for the existence of aliens or any other delusional figures should give more accurate and reliable resources. #HistoryChannelWorsensParanoidSchizophrenia

      • James brown

        This is well thought out …. but falls short on something …. even science can be proven wrong …. and adapt it’s beliefs……… it’s not the explanation of all but, the best guess. Matter is not what science claimed it to be …. neither is time or light ….. yet we are taught those things at academic levels and the serious thinkers of science came up with the fundamental theories of science and credit something else for the work ….. we can’t even fully explain the human life force yet science claims The TRUTH all people that don’t listen to every side of an argument will forever hinder human evolution…..while driving himself crazy trying to further it

    • I will explain pyramids. First of all the antediluvian people grew to be much more advanced then us because their lifespan was much greater. That would explain the design. Also similar complex designs were accomplished by many historical people including the chinese. About the building method of the pyramids there are two theories that are much more plausable to me:
      1. Giants existed before the flood. In recent history people up to the hight of 3.5 metters existed so it is not a stretch that under better enverimontal conditions thay may reach 6 meters. A person at that size can easily raise a very heavy block of stone.
      2. Even more plausable is the slaves theory. Many many slaves working sometimes to death to raise the pyramids.

      Just because we are much dumber than people that lives 1000 years ago that had to work with more rudimentary tools does not mean they could not do something better.

      • I will explain pyramids. First of all the antediluvian people grew to be much more advanced then us because their lifespan was much greater.

        Where is the evidence of this? How long were their lifespans? How do you know this? Where is the evidence that they were more advanced? In what ways were they more advanced?

        Giants existed before the flood. In recent history people up to the hight of 3.5 metters existed so it is not a stretch that under better enverimontal conditions thay may reach 6 meters. A person at that size can easily raise a very heavy block of stone.

        And where is the evidence for this? What flood? Where is the evidence for human giants of such vast proportions? Where is the evidence of humans who stood between 11.5ft and 20ft tall? I’ll give you a hint: there is none.

        Even more plausable is the slaves theory. Many many slaves working sometimes to death to raise the pyramids.

        Actually, the best evidence we have right now is that is was not slaves who built the pyramids but contract – or perhaps conscripted – labour. Archaeologists have unearthed records, bones, and tools that seemed to indicate the presence of a well-fed, well-cared for population of workers who worked on the pyramids in shifts and over a long period of time. No slaves needed.

        Your explanations haven’t helped in any way; they’ve simply replaced one set of speculations with another.

    • gomi no senei 42

      Actually, it’s been shown that a simple pan of water works wonders keeping even a giant pyramid level.And the huge copper saws, using common sand dumped under them for abrasion, can make straight-line cuts that rival our laser cutting tech. When you have 20+ years to build such a structure, thousands of slaves, and if you mess up then they KILL you, you’d be surprised at how good of work you can do!

    • ryan dillian

      John, my friend you are a complete idiot for even defending this show. I am watching it now and thats what caused me to google “why is acient aliens such a load of shit” to see if anyone else shared my view. I cant believe the line of logic they use and complete mush of random information they try to use to support their theory. Im dissapointed with humanity.

    • James brown

      The main problem is ….some people require proof …….. problem there is even the most solid proof can be found incorrect. And when this happens convincing people otherwise is hard …… the reasons for this is we are taught those things as fact …..just like religion … you will never change the mind of a true Christian or Muslim because they know better than you about all you can tell them and they are taught to never question the text …… the truth is we have no clue about any of it …. bit we will believe the Chinese whispers and we have have faith that our governments will tell us everything …. both are very dangerous as is if it’s proven wrong ……. we will not accept it and will fight to defend it as we do money, another thing humans believe in the need for ….. yeah we are truly free.

  2. I really don’t mean to sound so harsh by the way. I have read into this kind of stuff extensively. I am not an expert by ANY stretch. Human imagination is a POWERFUL thing. But, some things are just so blatantly OBVIOUS, that many people just cast it aside as rubbish.

    • I’ll just leave a quick response here. Part of being skeptical is examining even those things which seem, at first glace, to be blatantly obvious, as there are any number of things which might interfere with us gaining as precise and objective an understanding as possible. To many people, it’s obvious that there exists and omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent deity which requires our worship and praise. To others, it’s blatantly obvious that the President of the United States is a Kenyan-born, secret Muslim Manchurian candidate, but such claims fall apart under scrutiny.

      In skepticism, it’s important to follow the evidence to see where it leads, but it’s arguably more important to scrutinize the evidence itself for errors in data collection, methodology, bias, or simple logical fallacies. By doing so, things that may once have seemed so obvious, might end up being just as obviously wrong.

      … so much for a ‘quick response’…

      • Are you so ignorant and arrogant that we are the only intelligent life form in this univiverse, which we have not yet found the end of yet. I feel for your indoctrinated mind.

      • I never said that I think we’re alone in the universe, only that there is no evidence that Earth has ever been visited. So I suppose that’s a bit of a comprehension fail on your part, but the important thing is that you’ve found a way to feel superior to someone. So I guess, congratulations?

      • @MarkT claiming that we are alone in the universe is not as ignorant as you may think. The more we research outer space and get detailed informations on different locations in space the more we find planets that cannot support biological life. I am not talking here about having life, but to be able to support life. We do not find planets that can support life, let along harbour life. As we research more and more of space the theories of aliens seem to go farther and farther into space. The Orion belt theory is interesting, but as someone said in another documentary, the link is most likely other. In human history there have been events that people wanted to remember. The orion constelation patterns on ancient buildings have the same purpose , to record an impostant date in human history. What did that date mean or what was that date (some speculate to be 10000 bc) is open to speculation, but what is more and more sure is that it had nothing to do with aliens , rather with preserving a date.

    • Rik Tenaglia

      Edwin, the fact that you have no belief in etra terrestrial vistation is just close minded. Ancient civilizations “learned” certain things about astrology, math and building. the early homonid was only knowledgable of survial and reproduction. Or “Animal instincts”. There is so much evidence of extra terrestrial involvement it is baffling to think that humans did not come in contact with these superior races. I have had two legitament UFO sightings in my 44 years and I am quitw convined in the existense of ET’s. The evinced is so compelling that our ansestors were influenced by ET’s it is only logical not to think any different. there are not ancient texts that prove that man was even taught how to use tools, yet they built things, someone or something had to teach them the “how to’s” but the megalithic structures that were built came with some help. No doubt about that.

      • Poor spelling aside, you seem to have completely FAILED to grasp what the author has said repeatedly: he doesn’t not believe in alien life, and the the ancient alien theory is so riddled with flaws, lack of evidence and failings that it is not a credible theory.

        Your personal experiences are unprovable, unless you took a bunch of pictures and have an alien in the freezer or a piece of their technology on the living room table as a conversation piece; in which case you’ve been remiss in getting that stuff to scientists.

        Further, tool use and building can be seen in nature in birds, mammals, primates and even fish. No one taught them. No alien force came to them and instructed them.

        The thing, Rik, is that I’m not close-minded at all – I would love, LOVE if there was proof of alien visitation. The problem is that there isn’t. Anecdotes and inference about the lives of ancient peoples do not constitute evidence that aliens visited the earth and kickstarted civilization.

        You seem pretty dead-set against the idea that humans did what they did on their own; sounds a bit close-minded to me.

      • astrology was developped as a way of worshipping deities that God tells us are demons. Also the UFO sightings seem to indicate demonic activity rather than aliens. I will give you two definitions for alien and demons:
        aliens- being from another planet with ambiguous intentions, most likely biologic in nature
        demons- beings from another dimension , non material in nature and with an obvious destructive intent.

  3. Yeah, because clearly a highly organized workforce using basic tools and mathematics could never possibly achieve anything… Oh wait… Pyramids, ziggurats, stone temples, the awesome underground cities of Cappadocia… all achieved by man. Certainly, they may be inspired by divine myth or aligned with celestial bodies, but that’s because it’s what they had to work with at the time.

    I can never understand why people insist that our ancestors were these thick, unintelligent creatures who were incapable of great works. They were just as observant of the world around them, probably more so because they lacked many of the mechanical and electronic aides we take for granted now, like clocks, printed materials and communications systems. It’s worth pointing out that the British, French, Romans, Mongols and others all administered huge empires and engaged in great feats of construction and endeavour without the benefit of modern technology.

  4. But, WHO WAS THE WORKFORCE???? Those stones, those perfectly cut stones, we have cranes TODAY that would strain to lift even ONE!! Back in a time when tools were made of stone. I used to build pools back during high school, and even with our brand new stone cutting machinery, the preciseness of some of these ANCIENT structures could NOT be matched, at least without even an ounce of efficiency. (It’s a stretch, but that was my experience example. I do know that decorative pools and ancient ziggurats do differ a lot!) Skepticism has the same weaknesses as you pointed out in my statements. Scrutiny makes EVERYTHING fall apart. I could say the sky is blue. No, it isn’t, a person could argue. It is a combination of refraction and reflection of visible light on gas molecules in the atmosphere. In other words, the sky is actually many colors, but blue is the part of the spectrum that is seen mostly. Literally anything I can say could be “proven” wrong. But, I must give you props for your arguments. Yes, errors can be made in research. MANY errors. But, I stick by my results. I take into account any errors I could have made. But please, I would love to hear more feedback!

    • One of the drawbacks of the modern age is a pre-occupation with efficiency. We have tools that work quickly. But a modern cutting tool wears quickly. I know how to make a perfectly flat face on a piece of granite.

      It take another piece of granite, some fine powder and the time to rub the one against the other. One will be almost perfectly flat, and the other will be.

      It’s how surface plates are made. If I am not concerned with getting something, “close enough” in short order, I can make any sized piece of stone flat. It’s not that we can’t do it. It’s that we choose not to, and we have a hard time imagining how they did it.

      Some of it is that people in between then, and the present, didn’t know how to do it, and so said it was “impossible”. So it gets repeated, and accepted as an authoritative fact by people with expertise in other areas.

      • gomi no senei 42

        In a “real” (ie, non-alien lol) documentary they showed two guys using a huge copper saw, one person on either side, and another person who would keep putting sand into the cut…and indeed it did make a perfectly flat, smooth cut. And this is “tech” that did exist then…it’s amazing what humans can do when you have thousands of slaves instead of machines – it just takes longer.

    • aaron saxton

      We dont use huge stones like they did in the Pyramids because they are inefficient and we have technology to make bricks. We can easily make cranes to lift a thousand tons, but why would you want that? Because large brick was your best choice – like the egyptians. The preciseness could not be matched. Really?

      You saying NASA has less precision than a pyramid?

      I think you misunderstand what it takes to build a pyramid we can certainly build them now but why would we want to, and if we did, we could use the old method and force tens of thousands of slaves to do it but we shall not repeat history.

      Go study engineering and physics rather than forums telling you tales.

      No one is discounting aliens, just it seems odd you would want to think they travelled 300 light years to see a bunch of homo sapiens build a rather uncomplicated large mountain of stones.

      Yawn. Go understand engineering. Next thing you will start telling us is that Aliens built the ?Aqua Ducts of Rome too? (Which are just as techologically challenging).

      The truth is the greatest engineers in Rome or Egypt had a superior understanding of physics and math than you do – and back then they had to be born lucky whereas you could have just gone to school for free.

      Or perhaps your just not bright enough to even understand math or physics.

    • I have a qeustion for you then.who told you that cranes today would have stuggled to lift the stones. Have you ever operated a powerful crane and lifted slabs of marble? Have you ever tried to cut the stones your self? I think not. Again, you lack sources. And the history channel isnt a source nor is your NPR fringe minoority. We look for mianstream sciences. And why is it mianstream? becuase its been proven correct. And on your previous comment on how “we” were the ones who siad the earth was flat, no. “WE”, never siad that. The pope did. And the difference between me and the pope is that my evidence was solid and tested and PROVEN, not just some book.

    • With a lever, ramp and wheel, plus some horse-power from humans or animals, and lots of time, it is possible to move anything. The Egyptians had all of these things. No need to invoke aliens to explain the pyramids.

      • Rik Tenaglia

        I don’t agree that something as simple as ramps, slaves and horsepower, could place rocks with that kind of precision. It is ridiculous to think that. I agree with Greig

  5. The answer to your first question is fairly simple; The Egyptians built the pyramids. Contrary to what was once thought, the builders of the pyramids were not slaves, but well paid and well treated workers, some professional and others conscripted from surrounding villages. Numerous archaeological discoveries have shown that the workers were housed on site for the most part, in fairly complex villages that included granaries, bakeries, taverns and other amenities. Examinations of many of the skeletons of these workers showed that they were in good health, and even had some measure of medical care, as several individuals were seen to have limbs that showed signs of healed fractures and other injuries. It is estimated that there were, at any time, between 20,000 to 30,000 workers involved in the construction of the pyramids, from the cutting and shaping of the stones, to their transport (by barge and then by skids, to their placement at the site, all of which was done under the watchful eyes of ‘Astronomer-priests’ and professional stone workers.

    The precision of the cuts used in shaping the stone isn’t that hard to explain either. The pyramids are constructed primarily of limestone, which is a soft substance, easily shaped even by stone implements (although by this time, the Egyptians had access to copper tools such as stone saws, chisels, and rasps). All one needs in order to make a square block of stone is patience, some skill, some charcoal and a straight stick for marking lines, and the right tools to cut it.

    The huge stones might seem immovable, but load them on to a skid, and pull that skid over greased logs and the effort becomes more than manageable for a team of strong-backed workers. There is still a lot of debate about precisely how the stones were finally settled in place within the pyramids. Some suggest that there were a series of large external ramps and pulleys, while others speculate that there may have been internal ramps in addition to some external ones. But not knowing precisely how they were built isn’t a good enough reason to begin wild speculations about aliens or atlanteans or whatever. ‘We don’t know, therefore aliens did it’ is not a valid assertion, unless one can also prove the existence of alien beings who have the technology to travel to Earth – and have – and who have also interfered in our history at some point in the past. Filling up a gap in our current understanding with what essentially amounts to mythology is not a good way to move towards knowledge.

    • gomi no senei 42

      Probably a large chunk of the “pyramid workforce” was slave labor, such as those who did the non-technical grunt work, pushing / pulling stones to the work site, cleaning up the rubble, etc. But I doubt that the actual stone masons working on them where slaves for a few reasons: 1. Slaves don’t own copper tools 2. Stonework like that isn’t something you can learn quickly – most of them where apprenticed at a young age, usually father-son systems. 3. The Egyptians were very superstitious and wouldn’t have allowed “unclean slaves” on sacred ground like that.

      But I’ve seen video of the big copper saws in action…it’s VERY impressive, quite fast, and leaves an amazingly smooth surface.

  6. Sure some cranes would strain, but we have numerous cranes that could easily lift the average 2.5t stones and even the 50t stones. This isn’t a case of “Modern technology couldn’t do it, therefore they couldn’t have.”, it’s a case of modern technology could do it better, faster and with equal precision. But that take some of the romance out of it, so it’s easier to imagine that since it would be a pain in the ass to do now, it must have been impossible then. We CHOOSE to not do things with the precision we’re capable of because it hampers productivity and efficiency in the short and medium terms. If you honestly believe that we, a civilization that has put people into outer space, couldn’t build a pyramid, you’re living in a delusional state of romanticized and alternate history.

  7. Nice

  8. Could you please explain your theory or their theory on the precise placement of some of the shafts, holes, etc, in these structures around the world? I believe the Pyramids are place in alignment with Aryans belt as well as many other structures that are aligned with some other planets or stars and galaxies that are far beyond our reach and far beyond their sight. As I am one of those poor credulous persons please elaborate on this.

    • gomi no senei 42

      The biggest reason for celestial alignments was to predict seasons…the Nile flooded every year and many of these artifacts were created to keep track of it, since the Nile flooding was their main food source for replenishing the crop-growing areas with new, rich sediment.

  9. Do you perhaps mean “Orion’s” belt? I’m unsure what “Aryan’s” belt is. As to the placement of the shafts and rooms within the pyramid, let’s assume that you are correct and that they did, at the time of their construction, align with certain bright points in the sky (say, the stars of Orion’s belt, Sirius, or some other object). Why would they do this? Well, given that archaeologists refer to the priests involved in the construction of the pyramids as ‘astronomer-priests’ (and we’re only talking about the Egyptians here), then it stands to reason that they are referred to in that manner because of their recognized role in both religious ritual and in Egyptian astronomy. If celestial objects were also considered to be religious objects, then there may have been some ritualistic aspect to ensuring that the pyramids and the structures and shafts within were constructed so as to accord with certain religious principles of the Egyptian faith. Archaeologists are unsure about much of the religious beliefs of the ancient Egyptians – the precise role of astronomy in the day to day life and ritual of the Egyptian people, for instance. But we’re talking about this in the context of the ‘Ancient Aliens’ show, and in that context, it becomes fair to note that just because there is some uncertainty around the exact nature of ancient Egyptian beliefs and practices, that doesn’t mean that people can begin to fill gaps in knowledge with whatever wild claims they like.

    I could claim that they pyramids were actually landing pads for the Gau’uld, but without some pretty extraordinary positive evidence, why should anyone in their right mind believe me? I can’t just simply make up a story, then go looking for evidence to support it, because by doing things that way, I could just as easily begin to ‘cherry pick’ the evidence, including that which strengthens my claim while ignoring evidence which contradicts it, and that is not how one goes about discovering the truth. It’s this sort of storytelling that seems to be what the folks on Ancient Aliens love to do. But it’s not scientific; it’s nothing more than idle speculation – and baseless to boot.

    Just because archaeologists are unsure as to why they pyramids might, say, align with Orion’s belt doesn’t mean that someone else is correct in saying, ‘because aliens’. Without substantial and verifiable evidence to shed light on the subject, many of the mysteries of the pyramids will remain just that, mysterious.

  10. Dear Cubefarmer,

    I am always glad to find people like you going to the effort to debunk rubbish and stand up for reason. I know it can be tedious, and at times may even seem pointless when there are so many people who passionately cling to irrational beliefs. Your efforts needed and are appreciated.

    On the subject of aliens, I recently discovered a friend believed in the ancient astronaut theory. He’s a fairly bright guy, so I thought I’d try and keep an open mind and look into the idea. It is a very fun and entertaining theory! If it were true it would most certainly put a new spin on everything we know and force us to re-evaluate who we are and what we believe. Sadly, I haven’t found any convincing evidence to support any claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and aside from some interesting speculation, there is no tangible support. Perhaps I shall reconsider when archeologists dig up a 20000 year old space ship.

    Keep up the good work.

  11. Thanks for the vote of confidence, Smoth! I have been rather tardy with writing new posts lately, but that will soon change! If you have any topics you’d like me to take a look at, please don’t hesitate to suggest them to me!

  12. Jimbo pie eater

    If there were no aliens how was everything built :P

  13. Ancient Aliens is actually a really good theory compared to a god that rules all. I do believe the ancients did experience something that was not of this world. But the way they describe it seems so far fetch to us these days. In our universe people believe us to be the only life here. Yeah right. If we exsits other intelligent life does. We are special but not that special. It was not god that we met but E.T.

  14. “Ancient Aliens is actually a really good theory compared to a god that rules all.”
    Actually it’s not. There is precisely zero evidence that aliens have ever visited the earth, which is exactly the same amount of evidence that a God or gods had anything to do with the origin of humanity. It may sound more plausible because it seems distinctly more likely that aliens exist than gods do, it still suffers from exactly the same problems as the gods hypothesis. Just because it’s more likely that aliens exist, does not mean that aliens have necessarily visited earth, let alone meddled in the affairs of humans.

    “I do believe the ancients did experience something that was not of this world. But the way they describe it seems so far fetch to us these days.”
    Just because you believe that something is the case does not make it so. You can believe whatever you’d like, but if you wish to convince anyone else of the truth of your beliefs, you had better be able to present some evidence – in this case some pretty damned impressive evidence. Ancient peoples told a great number of stories about their origins or the involvement of supernatural agents in their day to day affairs, but there is no more reason to believe that such beings were aliens than it is to assume that they were gods.

    “In our universe people believe us to be the only life here. Yeah right.”
    Actually, I do think that there are other forms of intelligent life in the universe; I simply have no evidence that they have ever been here to visit us.

    “If we exsits other intelligent life does.”
    While I tend to agree with you here, it is not self-evident that this is the case. Evolution does not select for intelligence; it selects only for those traits that increase a population’s chances to survive. In the history of life on this planet, we are the only beings (out of literally millions of species) to have achieved a high degree of sentience. If there were others, they left absolutely no trace of themselves anywhere on earth.

    “It was not god that we met but E.T.”
    That is an interesting claim. Can you prove it? Remember; the onus is on you – the person making the positive assertion – to provide evidence in support of your claim. If you can, I would love to see it.

    • well. Buzz Alderman was in space and you weren’t. He says there are aliens. Im going to go with Buzz on this one. Life is not unique to this earth. There are over 200 billion stars in our galaxy and billions of galaxies. Why argue about nothing. Enjoy the moment and enjoy the fact that some people would rather imagine than debunk. you are unhappy about something in your life. Except that there is much we will never know and much more to what we think we know.

      • If you want to ‘go with Buzz’ on this one, then feel free. It usually takes a bit more to convince me of a claim than ‘well, person X says Y, so I’ll believe it too’, but I’m crazy that way.

        ‘Life is not unique to this earth’. Well hot damn! I’m glad you were able to clear that up for me! So where’s your evidence of this? Do you have a body somewhere? What about a spacecraft? Oh, you mean you don’t have those things, but you just ‘have a feeling’ or ‘just know’ that it’s true? Sorry, not good enough. By the way, I happen to believe that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe too, only I don’t claim that I know it for certain. I have no evidence to support my belief, and hunches don’t make for convincing arguments.

        I’m not bashing people who ‘like to imagine’, Jan. I’m asking people who claim with certainty that they KNOW aliens/angels/faeries exist and then make money by selling that crap to others to back up their claims. Is it so unreasonable to ask for proof when someone says something incredible? If a spelunker popped out of some cave somewhere and yelled ‘there be leprachauns down here!’ would you just take him at his word, or would you ask him why you should believe him?

        Oh, and by the way, I’m not ‘unhappy about something in my life’, but thanks for using your internet psychic powers to divine that. I simply ask people to support their claims with evidence. The fact that you don’t doesn’t mean much except that you’re probably more gullible than me.

      • Sorry, who’s Buzz Alderman?

      • I totally missed that! Meh, I figured they were talking about Buzz Aldrin.

      • Alec Smith

        Jan, your argument is very typical of the shallow and unreaserched. Just becuase Mr. Buzz Buzzy Freakin Alderman was in space deos not mean that thier are Aliens. Hell ive been inside of a cave but, hot damn, there are no cave people I know of. Once agian, people like are just to damn gullible. Do you know how many people have been in space? 500 somewhat men and women. Do you know how many of those people sya thiers aliens. 1. That is NOT a valid argument.

    • It’s really refreshing to hear someone argue against the awful mess that the history channel has become! I was beginning to think I was the only one who didn’t buy into all this sh*t!
      But I just wanted to correct one thing you said. You were talking about the millions of species that have lived on this planet, I just wanted to point out that its probably closer to countless BILLIONS. Not trying to argue against you or nitpick, just saying.
      Also wanted to say that when talking about the Bible or ancient aliens people act like our ancestors had no imagination and wrote down only exactly what they saw. It’s insulting to those who came before us! Man has always had an imagination that’s what got us here! Imagination leads to innovation so to think our ancestors were dumb cavemen is ridiculous!
      Keep up the good work! I really hope to read more of your stuff!

      • Hey thanks for the compliments! I do my best to turn a critical eye on to a lot of this garbage and lately the History Channel has been one of the largest targets in my sights. I can certainly understand the company directors wanting to increase ratings and viewership of their channel, but it frustrates me that they’d so quickly sell out. They trade on their past branding as a legitimate ‘History’ channel, even though these days all you’re likely to see there are M.A.S.H. reruns and shows about pawn shops and swamp people. In a way it’s really too bad; they have a chance to hook younger viewers by showing fascinating – and entertaining – programs, but instead they pander to the ‘HURR DURR NOSTRADAMUS WAS TOTES LEGIT’ crowd who apparently couldn’t tell the difference between fact and fable if their lives depended on it. It’s a sad state of affairs, I’m afraid.

  15. “It was not god that we met but E.T.”

    IT WASN’T ANYBODY THAT WE MET! Gods were made up to explain the natural world abround us. Period. Our ancestors didn’t understand atmospheric phenomona so it was gods in chariots above the clouds cause lightning and rain. They were not in contact with Alien Odin or Darth Loki. They didn’t understand earthquakes and volcanos so it was angry gods deep beneath the earth. It was not tunneling UFOs they were worshipping. They were finding fossils and since they didnt understand evolution, extinction and earth ages, one dead animal over here meant a possible living monster just over the next hill. So they made up storys about monsters hiding out in the woods. Protoceratops became the griffin, a tyrannosaur footprint became the giant bird Roc, mastodon skulls became cyclops. THIS WAS NOT AN ALIEN HYBRIDIZATION PROGRAM TO CREATE A SOLDIER CLASS. This show not only makes uneducated people dumber, it spits in the face of YEARS of honest historical, cultural, archeological and even paleontological research. As well as disrespecting the ancients who DESIGNED and BUILT these monuments.

    Yes, there is most definately life beyond this planet. Yes, there is most likely inteligent life beyond this planet. I’ll even concede that we may have been visited in this planets 4 billion years. But I can’t prove any of that. What is more likely, that aliens invested major time and resources in our civilizations history and then mysteriously left this planet to the “slaves” with no continuing return on their investment and no real evidence of their presence or that humans made up storys about gods and monsters to explain the natural world around them. It’s called Occams razor people, learn it. “All things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one.”

  16. Well it was a rather well written report and I like how you people here are enjoying arguing about this topic. There really is no evidence whatsoever of Aliens or Gods ever existing or roaming the Earth and I don’t think you all should take the words from the Bible so literally.

    For instance they say “God made man in His image” yet everyone has different, distinctive features which separates us from one another, compounded by different races and etc. Would this mean that God takes no form but only in one who believes in Him?

    Aliens are also just as vague. How did the existence of these creatures come to light to pollute the minds of (sadly) or future generations I wonder. If it was by crop circles, then people should know it is a hoax as said
    “The crop circle hoax of 1978-1991 was started by Doug Bower and Dave Chorley”.
    The mystery has come to light yet people refuse to believe as such. They are using Aliens and Gods as an explanation of things beyond human comprehension, and they find comfort in that. Nothing so wrong there until you get idiots preaching about the their religion and Doomsayers running around the street cursing about foreign visitors apporaching.

    And yes we are definitely looking down on our ancestors. The pyramids were created using Pythagoras’ Theorem and they sure as hell had nothing to do back then. Shaping all those tools to perfection is no surprise with their amount of time and abundant resources back in their time. Hell, they even managed to create an electrical current using citrus. I would post a link here but it is hard to find the picture.

    • Doug Bower and Dave Chorley have already been debunked as NOT being the creators of cropcircles in the English countryside. After their claim, they were challenged to re-create one of the more elaborate and beautiful circles and failed to recreate both the accuracy of the circles, or the scale of the original work. Don’t lean on Doug or Dave to put an answer to the crop-circle mystery, water pours through all the wholes in their story. Skeptics should appreciate that :)

      • Really? That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that they had been so soundly ‘debunked’. Could you please point me to some of the better articles that show this to be the case? Thanks!

  17. HopingforContact

    I love watching this show; it excites my imagination. That being said, it is pure speculation. It is obvious that the theorists believe what they are saying, but I find much of it offensive. For instance, why is it that we assume that those living before us were not intelligent enough to develop a long-count calender or to engineer a precisely constructed pyramid? How incredibly arrogant to make such assumptions. Ancient Alien commentators often state on the show that it is arrogant to think we are the only intelligence in the universe; I agree. It is also irresponsible to consider our ancestors idiots, especially knowing that the evolutionary process of earth places Mayans and Egyptians more like cousins born within an hour of us.

    We should keep on dreaming; that is what inspires us and drives innovation–but also be a realist!

  18. Joseph Fitzgerald

    you haven’t got a leg to stand on. you’re just mocking the idea.. as far fetched and.. ‘if you believe these ‘wakkos’ you’re a wakko’ people like you stifle the human race. you stubborn moron.

    • Wait, so I am a ‘moron’, because I don’t entertain every random ‘theory’ about ancient history that pops into someone’s head? I’m ‘stifling’ the human race – the ENTIRE human race – because I demand that people like these ‘ancient aliens theorists’ provide something more than speculation before I accept their assertions?

      This is how I operate, Joseph: when a person makes a claim such as ‘Aliens are real, they have visited Earth in our ancient past, and they were worshiped by our ancient ancestors as Gods’, I say ‘wow, that’s an incredible claim: can you prove it?’ If they can provide actual, physical, solid evidence that can be independently verified by outside researchers, then I’ll take their assertions seriously. If they can’t, then I simply say ‘So you have this belief, but absolutely zero evidence. Why should I believe you? Why should anyone take you seriously?’

      You are correct about one thing, Joseph: I am mocking the idea as far fetched. Because it is. The ‘ancient aliens’ hypothesis makes so many assumptions, rests on so many unsupported premises that there is virtually no way that it can even be considered rational any longer. I’ve considered the possibility that it is correct, and rejected it because there is absolutely no reason to see it as credible.

    • Do you have an argument? Or is the petulant claim that we are all meanies meant to be seen as reasoned response?

      • Onus of proof is on the person making claims.

      • Right… which is why it is the responsibility of the ‘Ancient Alien’ people to provide evidence to support their claims. If they can’t (or won’t), then there is absolutely no reason to take what they say seriously.

    • Maybe he is, but he’s not the only one. I’m mocking it as well. In fact, I’m mocking it with extreme prejudice and rancor with a cruel, piercing, evil laugh, all while I’m pointing at you and people like you.

      Wanna know something else, Joseph? It’s been almost five months since you wrote that comment and…I’m mocking you right now.

      People who believe in this stuff are idiots, deluded, liars, or all three.

      If you’re going to claim that “ancient astronauts” visited the earth (a really intriguing hypothesis), then please provide the bloody evidence. If not, you are no different than people who think that the alignment of the planets affects a person’s life choices and circumstances.

  19. Joseph Fitzgerald

    I beg your pardon. it is good to here a sceptics view, obviously..

  20. Edward Salter

    Nothing wrong with being skeptical, but the show asks, repeatedly, what if? We don’t know. What makes you think you know? Is it OK to ask? Unfortunately, mainstream history starts with conclusions and then spins evidence to fit the religious paradigm. What is far-fetched it to believe that every continent has remarkable megaliths whose construction cannot be explain by retro-extrapolating the progression of man to any of this stuff, let alone all of it. If you truly had one thread of honesty you would realize there is a lot more to the story of life on earth.

    • “What makes you think you know?”

      Actually, I’m not a historian, so I can’t say that I have an expert knowledge of any specific span of history. Since I can’t claim this knowledge, I instead rely on the expertise of those with the relevant training and experience – namely historians. To date: the overwhelming majority of said historians disagree with the assertions and innuendo put forward by so-called ‘alternative historians’.

      “Unfortunately, mainstream history starts with conclusions and then spins evidence to fit the religious paradigm.” Actually it’s the folks you’re defending who most often do this. Baseless assertions and unsupported innuendo are their stock-in-trade and they’re not very good at it. Asking ‘what if’ is all well and good, but if the ‘what if’ being asked is so profoundly far-fetched as to be virtually unsupportable by the evidence, then there is really no need to take it seriously.

      “What is far-fetched it to believe that every continent has remarkable megaliths whose construction cannot be explain by retro-extrapolating the progression of man to any of this stuff, let alone all of it.”

      This literally makes no sense.

      “If you truly had one thread of honesty you would realize there is a lot more to the story of life on earth.”

      One of the most common tactics used by so-called ‘alternative historians’ and their followers is to immediately accuse their perceived opponents of dishonesty, rather than suggest they’ve made a mistake. I’m not being dishonest here Edward, I am simply pointing out the extreme improbability of ‘ancient alien’ theories. I’ll tell you what; if you can provide me with some evidence that what these folks are saying is in any way plausible, I’ll look into it. As it stands, these folks are just throwing idle speculations at the wall of public discussion and hoping that enough of something will stick to let them sell a book about it.

    • Exactly which megaliths cannot be explained? Please provide links to peer reviewed journals in which the overwhelming consensus is that these structures cannot be “explained”.

  21. All I can add is remembering when I was a wee little rugrat of 4 or 5, looking at the sky on a summer day and thinking along the lines of “Wow! Amazing, it seems so much greater than me, etc, etc.

    Now, how much of a leap would it be to say some great god lives in the sky, I will make some pictures in the sand for him to look to know I am here. Sounds like a plausible answer to why the Nazca lines were created to me.

    And most of these could have similarly plausible explanations, I am sure

    Surely, ancient man had the ability to imagine on the level of my pre-school self.

  22. Unintelligent British Teenager

    I’m going to start by saying I won’t be addressing specific points from either side because 1: I can’t be arsed and 2: the outcome would be the same as using generalization (which is what I plan to do).

    I’ll also say that I liked your article, but like most of the 7 or so billion Humans populating Earth I am pretentious enough to believe that I should voice the stupid words inside my brain.

    Basically, I just watched the entire first series of Ancient Aliens and so far, I neither believe or disbelieve. I try to maintain healthy skepticism; that would be a comfortable double bed, fluffy pillows and a big warm quilt, all stuck up on top of the fence separating two sides of the argument.

    So far, I believe that both your article and the show in question make some interesting points, but while AA (Ancient Aliens | Alcoholics Anonymous) seems to shy away from the views, opinions and interpretations by “mainstream” scientists and historians, you seem to stand by them proudly and accept their deductions as fact.

    I just want to say that not all deductions are accurate and that while at least 70% of AA I myself believe to be quite ridiculous, there’s a good 30% that really made me stop and wonder for a moment.

    If I could, I would happily get in contact with the producers and some of the interviewees featured on the show and ask them to abandon their lines and stand with the enemy for a moment, to truly get a grasp on the situation, just like how I’m about to suggest you do the same.

    Would an open mind really hurt? I am certain that there are faults in the theories and ‘evidence’ of both AA and Mainstream science/history, so if you really examine your own side of things and find what doesn’t make complete sense, then go and re-watch (re-examine) some of the theories and evidences presented by AA and fill in the blanks with what they have to offer, would it be impossible to come to some sort of compromise?

    After all, just because it’s mainstream doesn’t mean it’s correct. You could have a ridiculous amount of cold, hard evidence and what you claim might still turn out to be false. :)


    Unintelligent British Teenager

    • I hear what you’re saying, but it’s important for me to explain that I don’t simply ‘side’ with the mainstream because it’s the mainstream; I tend to agree with the consensus view because it offer the most powerful and cogent explanations with the fewest amount of assumptions. Put another way: the consensus view conforms to the demands of Occam’s Razor while the fanciful speculations of the AA crew do not.

      Keeping an open mind is a great thing to do. In fact, keeping an open mind is precisely what is needed if an historian or archaeologist or scientist is to do well in their job. But keeping a mind so open that one is forced to entertain any wild flight of fancy put forward by any crank or amateur can be detrimental. Why should one keep an open mind about time-travelling alien experimenters who taught ancient humans to build rude stone megaliths before disappearing without a trace into the aether if the person making such a claim has absolutely no evidence to support them? This is the critical (and fatal) problem for the people shown most often on AA and similar shows; their interpretations of historical data are spectacular and intriguing but contain absolutely zero evidence. If folks like von Daniken wish to convince me that their ‘ancient alien starships’ hypothesis is correct, then they absolutely, positively must be able to present evidence (not supposition or speculation or estimation) that supports their claims. It’s not enough for them to say ‘hey, this MIGHT have happened’, they must also be able to show that it COULD have happened at all.

  23. Skeptical Cubefarm,
    While I have enjoyed this discussion, I do believe (yes, I believe) that you have missed one mighty reason for the rise of “Ancient Alien” belief, or its ilk.
    You have given very insightful analysis concerning this trope and, while I certainly find it reasoned and sound, I ain’t gonna give you any money for your work. I won’t buy your book, your DVD or just give a donation to your cause. You don’t expose your works as a “magic pill” and therefore I but read and enjoy.
    Mysteries sell. Ask Stephen King. You present a great case but you don’t pose a mystery with a possible, nay an “outer-worldly” solution. Not a money maker.
    To postulate that the pyramids were built by alien civilizations does a disservice to ancient Egyptians, who had the manpower and tools to build a pyramid. Ahmed the guy who greased the tracks on the sleds that carried the weight of one stone (that’s his full name. I just call him A-Dude) would be appalled at the lack of reverence for his achievement. The ancients may have been technologically challenged, but they weren’t dumb. Putting one rock on top of another is easy; proving aliens requires more.
    It all boils down to making a buck. As the great humanitarian Don Vito Corleone said, “I don’t care what a man does to make a living”, so if you want to make a buck of a mystery that doesn’t exist, more power to ya’! Just try not to do it around schools and churches (Godfather reference)
    I would also suggest for those looking to the sky for visitors by all means do so and let me know when they arrive. Just please leave the ground alone. It’s done quite well all these years below.

    • So, Ross I feel I have to ask: did you actually read my post? The impression I get from your comment is that you think that I endorse the ‘ancient aliens’ crap (even though the title of my post clearly indicates the opposite).

      Also, I’m not making any money from writing these blogs. I also don’t produce DVDs. I am working on a book at the moment, but it has nothing to do with aliens, ancient or otherwise.

  24. Skeptical Cubefarmer,
    Yes, I read your missive. Did you read mine and not see the inherent sarcasm? I totally agree with your message about Ancient Aliens being just absurd. My whole argument was that Ancient Alien words make bucks and get on television and websites selling T-shirts and the like, while the reticent and well-thought out reasoning you propose gets pushed out of the mainstream because serious revelations are not a revenue stream.
    This. This is why I feel this small, short lasting Ancient Alien, Bigfoot, Monster Quest and assorted ilk will continue for a while, yet well reasoned thoughts will win out in the end. Please, don’t stop your excellent premises and conclusions. Your arguments are well thought out and understandable to even the smallest mind.
    Concluding, I did not mean in any way to diminish your work. I recognize and applaud your words and ideas. The truth is out there, but while some may not like the truth, truth is truth. Sorry, Socrates, for the bad paraphrasing.
    PS- SC, I would suggest one thing. Kinda lighten up. Your writing is quite witty, but while brevity is the soul of wit, levity is the grease of kindness. Be a little nicer to a fellow soul that is more kindred than apostate.

  25. My husband watches Ancient Aliens “looking for the grain of truth”, I feel like you have to swim through piles of bs to find a grain of sand. Today I looked up the credentials of the “experts”. All quotes are from Wikipedia, which I know isn’t always accurate but I feel these are interesting at the very least. Wild haired guy Giorgio “Tsoukalos is a 1998 graduate of Ithaca College in Ithaca, New York, with a degree in sports information and communication.” David Hatcher “Childress claims no academic credentials as a professional archaeologist nor in any other scientific field of study, having left the University of Montana after one year to travel the world to personally research the subjects about which he would later write.” And Wikipedia says of Erich Von Daniken, “At the age of 19, von Däniken was caught stealing money, both from an innkeeper and from a camp where he was employed as a youth leader, and was given a four-month suspended sentence. The psychiatrist who examined von Däniken at the time described him as displaying a “tendency to lie”.[6] Von Däniken was withdrawn from his school, and became apprenticed to a Swiss hotelier for a time,[7] before moving to Egypt. While in Egypt, he was involved in a jewelry deal which resulted in a nine-month conviction for fraud and embezzlement upon his return to Switzerland.[6]” In addition, “In November 1968 von Däniken was arrested for fraud, after being caught falsifying hotel records and credit references in order to take out loans[8] to the value of $130,000 over the course of the previous twelve years. He had been using this money to fund foreign travel to research his book.[6] Two years later,[8] von Däniken was convicted for “repeated and sustained” embezzlement, fraud and forgery, with the court ruling that the writer had been living a “playboy” lifestyle.[10] Von Däniken entered a plea for nullity on the grounds that his intentions were not malicious and the credit institutions were at fault for failing to adequately research his references,[8] but a court-appointed psychiatrist considered the defendant to be fully accountable for his actions, and described him as a criminal psychopath.[10][6]” The article goes on to cite the many times he faked “evidence.” And these are the people that are “experts” in what ancient texts mean and how to interpret archeoligical findings?! Really?!

    • Without excusing E.V.D.’s alleged behaviour for a moment -can you honestly say that it renders any and all of his thoughts/theories merit-less? If not then we must examine them on their own individual merits -with comparison to the facts -as they have been established. That would be a scientific response -would it not? The other two gentlemen’s lack of academic credentials do not eliminate their contributions. Einstein, I am reluctant to recall -was a “high school drop out” -modern archaeology would have us believe that earth’s only relevant history is less than 14,000 years old -if that is your belief then we should part company -as obviously -we both have better things to do with out time.

      • Calling Einstein a “High-school drop-out” ignores the fact that he later completed high-school and went on to obtain a PhD and became a lecturer at a number of different universities. In other words, he experienced a slight speedbump in an otherwise academic career; I rather think that the sum of his career is more important to look at than the fact that he dropped out of school for a year when he was a young man. Also, he is Albert freakin’ Einstein; his contributions to science are foundational. Erik von Danniken and his ilk aren’t in the same category as Einstein. Hell, they’re not even in the same galaxy.

        The lack of credentials on the parts of the other so-called ‘experts’ must absolutely be considered when examining their claims, as academic credentials are an indicator – indeed the very first indicator – that they have achieved a minimum standard of education in the relevant fields. If you and I were talking about Biology, for example, would you give equal weight to the claims of a biologist and an historian? I would imagine that you would listen more seriously to the arguments of a biologist; after all, they are the experts, are they not? Archaeology, paleontology, history, and anthropology are no different in this regard; we should look rather more skeptically at the claims made by non-experts in the field than we should at the claims made by those who have devoted many long years of formal learning and independent research.

        As your other comment states, this is the age of instantaneous information, and one of the most important tools one needs in order to safely navigate it all is the ability to discern ‘good’ sources from ‘bad’. The Ancient Aliens thesis is built entirely from bad sources – poor or unskilled scholars making wild claims with limited information. Speculation is fine, but speculations based on evidence are better.

        Finally, science is not based on ‘speculation’; science is based on a slow accretion of independently verifiable and empirical facts from which one constructs testable hypotheses. Saying, “Hmm, I wonder if the Gods of our ancestors were actually ancient alien visitors who told us all how to build pyramids and then disappeared with no evidence that they were ever here except for these ambiguous ‘clues’ that only I seem able to interpret?” isn’t science; it’s fairytale.

        PS: The whole ‘archaeology only cares about the last 14,000 years’ assertion you made isn’t even true – especially considering that archaeologists routinely examine artefacts of human culture from much, much earlier in our species’ history on a regular basis.

  26. so you don’t like the show and you disagree with the theory, so what? You go on a write a mile long blog about it, nobody really cares about your opinion, I only read the first couple paragraphs and I realized you just don’t like the show and that’s it.

    • Judging by your comment I’d say that the only thing you really read was the title of my post. Which tells me that you don’t actually know what it’s about. But thanks for your opinion, I’ll file it with similar ones I keep under the heading ‘Scumbag Commenter: Doesn’t read blog post, posts a comment stating their dislike of it.’

  27. There was a time that believers in Alien visitations were thought to be a little looney. Back in those days, you could earn real interest on savings, you could purchase a house on a few years wages, unions were thought to be a force of good, teachers were respected, trains were thought to be a good form of transport, congress had to vote on weather or not to go to war, people believed in hard work and productivity, church was separate from state etc etc. I don’t think it’s coincidence that ALL of these beliefs have been turned upside down. And It’s no coincidence that because all these beliefs have been turned upside down, our civilization is on the brink of collapse.

    But do you want to know the ultimate and final proof that we are not being visited by Aliens? Where the hell are they now? If they possess such great technology, why don’t they help us fix Fukushima? Why do they behave exactly like GOD, i.e. remaining distant and obscure so that their existence is a matter of faith. And lastly, why is there not a single scrap of real evidence of them? Our courts of law and our scientific method require evidence, so why are people so eager to dismiss the processes that have created our modern world in order to believe in the modern day equivalent of elves?

    There may be Aliens out there somewhere, but they obviously are grappling with the same physical laws that we are, which disallow the speed of light to be exceeded, thus making interstellar travel impossible.

  28. I, personally, believe the Ancient Alien theory and am enjoying the speculation of the show. It’s not something I saw on TV one day and thought, “Hey, that’s a neat idea”, I’ve always believed it. Saying that, your arguements are, despite what the other theorists say on this page (and embarrass the rest of us theorists with), well made and logical. I, for one, enjoyed reading the other side of the coin.
    I do believe, but I’m not so arrogant that I’m going to say “You don’t believe and you say something I don’t believe, so you’re wrong”. Everyone needs SOMETHING to believe in and just because I believe in the Ancient Alien theory, that doesn’t mean that I’m right. Just as believing in an all-powerful, cosmic, Jewish-zombie who was his own father that can make you live forever by symbolically eating his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree doesn’t mean you’re right

    • Incidentally, I didn’t mean you as in YOU, I don’t know if you’re Christian, Catholic, whatever or not. (By the arguement you made on here about the theorists, I’m guessing you’re not religious as you seem be an intelligent guy). I meant it as a general observation

    • I think I see where you’re coming from, but please correct me if I’m wrong: You seem to be saying that your belief in the ‘ancient aliens’ theory stems from your belief that people need to believe in something. If a person does not believe in Zombie-Jesus or Xenu, then they might instead choose to believe that ancient aliens visited Earth and influenced human history. It almost seems to me that what you’re describing is a belief in a ‘higher power’ of some sort – like a god but with starships. If this is the case, then what you appear to be talking about is a form of faith, rather than a belief in a form of ‘alternative’ history. I’m not religious myself, nor do I claim to hold any ‘spiritual’ beliefs but I recognize that many people do feel that they need to believe in ‘something’ greater than themselves. For me, I do my best to ensure that my beliefs accord with the available evidence, so until someone is able to provide me with concrete evidence (a starship, a body, etc.), that we have been visited, I will continue to accept the null-hypothesis: that we are alone, and scrabbled our way from the mud unaided.

      But I would absolutely love it if someday aliens showed up with proof that they taught humans how to build pyramids.

      • Reading through the multitude of posts people have posted here in the “defence” of what I believe, please don’t tar us all with the same brush. Quite alot of us are absolutely fine with people who don’t believe and we don’t all react the way they did and completely understand the need for some sort of evidence, which we haven’t had.
        I suppose it is a “faith” of sorts, as without the solid evidence, it is basically faith of what we believe. Of course, I would also like it if someone did appear with The Smoking Gun but until then, I do see your point and accept your argument on behalf of the (albeit questionable) logical thinkers of Theorists

      • As a lawyer, watching the show drives me crazy. I’d like to get any of those guys in a courtroom. I could tear them to shreds. They typically declare that X could not be caused by A, so it must be aliens. Then, they use that as a factual base to do the same. They are building innuendo on top of assumptions they declare to be true. But none of it holds water, even if you take the alien out of it. Anyway, my take on the ancient alien theory is it is just a great hobby for some people in which they take religious beliefs and replace god(s) with aliens. Then pick a single drawing here and there from the many to support it. When packaged neatly, just like other religions, it seems plausible, but it will not stand up to scrutiny and relies on faith. That makes it a religion in my book (except they do not seem to pray to the aliens — though I seem to recall in one episode some saying the aliens will come back and take the believers to space with them).

      • That makes it a religion in my book (except they do not seem to pray to the aliens — though I seem to recall in one episode some saying the aliens will come back and take the believers to space with them).

        There are in fact, a number of UFO or alien NRMs (New Religious Movements) kicking around, many of which posit that aliens are either literal gods, or ultra-advanced progenitor/creator beings who are directly responsible for the creation of humans. The largest of these groups is the Raelians, although there are dozens, if not hundreds of other, smaller groups. What I find interesting is that some folks who buy into the idea of ‘alien gods’ will also reject the concept of a monotheistic or human-invented deity as illogical (see some of the comments on this very blog post). Interesting stuff…

  29. i just have a question that seems obvious but often is completely ignored, why do you care? Why watch the channel, why expend any energy what so ever on a topic that those who believe will still believe regardless of what you write and those who don’t believe or see evidence for will still go on their merry way. Was the point of you writing this page simply to argue or debate afterward in the comment section (though judging by some of the sarcastic comments I say the former)? Debates like this remind me of andre 3000 ya know the guy who did hey ya, in a older song he says “if you focus on the past, your ass will be a has”…. Have fun with your comment section. Oh and that was a rhetorical question meant to ponder on

    • I’m sorry, which question was the rhetorical one? That’s a rhetorical question, by the way.

    • I’d like to say why I care, for any ancient alien believers out there who might stumble on this:

      There are precious few humans on the planet who work passionately and diligently on anything. The vast majority of humanity goes about their work like it’s common drudgery, just watching the clock for the end of the day. When their lives come to an end, they have accomplished absolutely nothing, and they have provided absolutely no lasting benefit to society. I can’t claim that I’m much different–I go about my standard workday, then I go entertain myself through sports or TV or drinks with friends or whatever. I truly wish I was a passionate artist, or a passionate scientist, or that I simply had a passionate personality like all of these ancient aliens “experts.” I just don’t, and I will leave absolutely no positive benefit on society when I die.

      The world desperately needs more passionate, diligent workers, in fields of study that would really, really help humanity! Since people who have a predisposition toward intense, passionate work are so incredibly rare, we need every single one of them to actually work on something helpful. Like curing cancer. Like splitting atoms. Like feeding starving people. Like engineering efficient desalination machines. There are so many things that passionate people could do.

      So this is why I care. Tsoukalos, Childress, et. al., represent the types of personalities that are predisposed to passionate, diligent work. They are the rarest of the rare. And yet, they waste their talents on something that does not help humanity in any way. Even if this preposterous theory is someday proven correct in every way, Tsoukalos and his buddies will not have helped humanity in the meantime. Imagine that in the year 2500 aliens come to Earth and explain all the little “mysteries” that intrigue ancient alien theorists. That will be an intensely interesting experience for the people of Earth in 2500!!! But tell me, how does it help in any way that Tsoukalos can say “I told you so” from his grave? Even if Tsoukalos manages to convince the entire global population of his theories in the time leading up to 2500, how will Earthlings actually experience a concrete benefit from that belief?

      That’s why I care. All I’ve said here is that their theories can’t possibly help anybody, even if they are true. Since I also happen to believe that their theories are wrong, there is a whole separate argument that their passionate work is actually harming people. To me, the logic above should be compelling enough on its own. Wouldn’t it be awesome if aliens came to Earth in 2500 and read in our history books how Giorgio Tsoukalos cured cancer in 2023?

  30. don't use fallout images

    ok here’s something. 16th age in German newspaper that had a picture of blue dots and black dots and crosses in space. crosses = explosions dots = space crafts
    and here’s another example.
    THE missing link:
    there’s evolution but 500.000 years after the evolution the human develops a brain three times bigger than the last one and specifically there cant be an evolution and not that big within 500.000 cuz the last evolution took over millions of years to develop the next genre but the human made it in 500.000 years which is scientifically impossible that has been confirmed.
    in the bible said:
    so i believe god was a alien probably a scientists because we are close to that kind of teleology. we have cloned sheep’s and other animals.
    also imagine if u where a primitive and there came a flying thing and a metal man that had so much teleology and helped us with like the pyramids you would call it a god if it did evil its a demon because they didn’t have the intelligence we have today and they didn’t know the word “alien” so they where gods that where on flying clouds and held lighting in they’r hand whatso ever! but today they would been called aliens which refares to a life from other planet.and the pyramids were not made by men cause there are stones that are so heavy in it that they need 21 heavy lifters don’t tell me that millions of people lifted dragged the stones on the top of the pyramids just to make a structure that don’t do anything GIZA is a pyramid that haven’t been found a single tomb in and also there are lines all around the desert linking to the pyramid.
    A tribe that u my refare to primitives the tiki people found out about some solar system. Sirius a Sirius b Sirius c. which cant be seen with bare eyes and the strange part was they discovers it before any star expert or any scope! also comparing a figurative fallout plasma and lazer rifles to some alien teleology cause humans haven’t made that kinda guns and also its ignorance saying aliens haven’t been here cause high ranking generals and high ranking NASA officials have told the truth also there have been EMPed nuke-clear bases making the nuke-clears ruined but computers say that they are fine there physicality nothing wrong with them still they cant be used lunched etc.
    SO DON’T BE A CATHOLIC IGNORANT MAN think outside ur little box cause there are structures leading to 35.000 years old in the sea like in the dragons triangle.
    and mostly all ALL scientists or whatever the name of the people who is finding out when we started say that we where the famous cave man who used the wooden clubs etc.
    and the city that lies in the triangle is 35.000 fact because they didn’t know how to make a scuba diving gear and the world flooded 9-10.000 years ago.

    start think outside of the box and if u don’t believe that aliens have visited earth helped humans then go enlist for a rapers job at the Vatican and stop these thoughts slow down the human race in discovery cause they did that few hundreds yes ago.

    We are just beginning to study aliens trying to solve mysteries and we will find out the truth what ever u like it or not.
    humanity hungers for the truth.
    except financials truth.

    u can think what ever u want cause u wont even read this and if u will u will laugh of ignorance. while u get fat in Ur chair or get anorexia

    • *slow clap* That was brilliant! I especially like the ‘DON’T BE A CATHOLIC IGNORANT MAN’ bit, although I think the ‘rapers job’ bit was unnecessary. I also like that you call me both fat and anorexic in the same sentence; I guess when you are insulting someone it helps to cover your bases. So let’s see what else we have here:
      [x] Ancient Aliens
      [x] References to Biblical Scripture
      [x] Ancient people couldn’t build large structures on their own
      [x] Sunken Continents
      [x] Aliens are Gods and Humans are clones?
      [x] Horrible misunderstanding of how evolution works
      [x] Conspiracies about aliens being covered up by NASA
      [x] Atrocious spelling and grammar. PS: You keep saying ‘teleology‘ when I think you mean ‘technology‘. I’ll just assume that English isn’t your first language.

      This post is most excellent. You should be an ‘expert’ for the History Channel!

    • This was the funniest thing I’ve read all week!!!

    • Have you ever actually read a peer-reviewed journal in Archaeology?

      Also, until you start to spell and use words correctly, I don’t see why anyone should read your lengthy and idiotic screeds. “U” is a letter, not a pronoun. “Where” is not the equivalent of “were”. Try using a capital letter in the first letter of the first word of a sentence. Writing all in capital letters is completely idiotic and denotes an unhinged personality.

      You also might want to look up actual evidence researched outside of the stupid TV show in which you might be surprised to discover that not only can we build whatever megalithic monument the ancient people built, we can do it with even greater precision and size. We also know, for the most part, the building techniques involved in building these things.

      I say “we” of course, excluding you. You, apparently, don’t know anything outside of stupid dramatization TV shows full of “psychics” and other insane kooks who talk about crystal magic and “intelligent design” – providing the “new age” religious fodder for the moronic; the uneducated; the well meaning idiot who, for all the advances we have made with our own blood and sweat in the history of the world, still wishes for something greater out there to explain it all…simply because the explanation granted to him with hard work doesn’t satisfy his tiny little peanut brain.

      You make me both weep and laugh at the same time. But I am pointing at you, and I am mocking you. And regardless of whether you depress or entertain me, I hold you in the most base derision possible.

    • Wow, is that your base of thinking? Good job. You should be proud. Everyone who has read that is now stupider. Clap Clap Clap. I am impressed. Ive only come across one person who is as slow as you and thats Giorgio Tsoukalos. May god have mery on your soul (sarcasm).

      • Alec Smith

        Im kidding of course, I respect your opinion. But thats all that it is, opinion.

      • Alec Smith

        also the bible does not say WE SHALL CREATE MAN IN OUR OWN IMAGE. It says “God created man in his own image.”

  31. LOL!!… I came upon your page after typing “ancient aliens”, because I´m trying to solve the puzzles from the recent viral marketing of the upcoming film “Prometheus” which is the prequel to 1979´s ALIEN, (I was sad when I found out at the beginning that Ridley Scott fell for von Däniken´s craporama. I don´t think HE believes any of this pseudo-scientific garbage, but clearly went the commercial way (and Dan O´Bannon must be turning in his grave), but hey! it´s still Ridley Scott and ALIEN! Although I´m sure is going to be dissapointing: the most original and beautiful Space Jockey being nothing more than a humanoid “suit”, and aliens seeded the earth, MEH!. But I digress… Stand by for more deluded dudes workshipping Zeta-2-Reticuli, Pleiades and ancient aliens visiting earth, beginning June 8 2012… (sigh). Keep up the good work…

  32. This person is obviously a confirmed member of “the flat earth society”. Personally I’m sufficiently assured that with respect to “ancient alien theorists”, I am in good company. In this age of instantaneously accessible information, -not withstanding the undeniably dubious nature of some of it -we should feel free to speculate upon it’s meaning and import -therein lies the promise of science -which is -after all, built inevitably upon speculation rather than superstition. I thoroughly enjoy History Channels “Ancient Aliens” series and regard it as one of the few islands of genuine intellectual enquiry in the sea of stupidity that is “mass entertainment”. Imagination is the key to understanding our universe.

    • So, what you’re saying is that because the author doesn’t subscribe to an unsubstantiated and highly unlikely fringe theory, specifically because it lacks concrete or credible evidence and rests on suppositions and discredited theories that are more than a little inherently racist at their core, that they are a “flat earth” supporter? That is to say, devoid of imagination and against scientific progress and development? I think you need to check your head space and timing.

      Ancient Alien Theory is not “genuine intellectual enquiry”, it’s the bastard descendent of Blavatsky’s theosophy with a liberal dollop of L. Ron Hubbard style science fiction and an intentional “cut-n-paste” theory of mythological study. Together it creates an incoherent and often contradictory tale of gold mining genetic engineers that improbably made/modified all/some humans, a bunch of anthropomorphic creatures and monsters, waged some wars against each other, somehow didn’t finish mining for gold and missed the massive deposits of it in north america, and then left never to return. It’s tied together with carefully selected bits of mythology and folklore, often if not always used out of context or order. Atlantis/Mu/Lemuria theory uses the same toolbox, but for a different effect.

      So, now that we’ve established that. The author is clearly, in the article and in the comments, in favour of intellectual enquiry; but unlike you apparently, demands some level of academic rigour and logic in the evidence presented to support the theory.

    • Nice

    • Whoops I meant nice here Julian.

  33. I am a sceptic but I don’t think you have done us any justice – mount a credible argument – don’t give me polemic

  34. I am a believer of the Ancient Aliens theory. I think it’s a very sound logical one. It explains the missing link in brain function and evolution between Homo-erectus and Homo-sapiens. (Gene tampering. As mentioned by a number of theorists). It also provides the basis for Genesis.
    However, that is MY opinion and MY beliefs.

    I’ve been interested in Egypt and ancient history since i was 5. What 5 year old kid wanted to go to the British Museum, that’s how obsessed i was. Now the problem i have with orthodox archeology is this. It’s changing. They find something and it changes everything. If they found stern proof, that Khafre commissioned the building then great. The Egyptians were even more brilliantly minded than they already are.

    You dismiss the “historians” that appear on the show. But you must realise that there are a number of them who have never openly suggests, bluntly, that it’s aliens. Much like Georgio Tsoukalous. Read Keeper of the Genesis by Graham Hancock, or read Robert Bouval’s work on alignment. In their books they never once state bluntly “aliens did it”. In fact they openly say; “look, i’m not saying it is, i’m not saying it isn’t. But there was a society, a civilization, even more ingenious than the Egyptians that settled around the area in 15,000BC.”
    I don’t think orthodox archeology is wrong. I suggest that, if it’s not extra-terrestrials, then maybe the date is wrong, and that in 5000BC when then the Sumerians first appear in written history, that they weren’t the first. Then there is NO missing link, but rather a missing gap of time that has either not been recorded, or lost to history, or buried, or hidden. Whatever. Robert Bouval and Hancock make a very good, scientific, and archeological claim that the pyramids were created around 12,000BC (not 3000) and the Sphynx was built around 15,000BC.

    Everybody is entitled to their opinion. Not all ancient alien research is “irrational” or “unfound” in science and history. We just turn around and go, okay well let think about this for a moment.

    • I can understand your position, but I cannot accept it for a number of reasons. You state that your problem with orthodox archaeology is that it is always changing; but to me that suggests that the theories that are being put forward by archaeologists are being refined and altered as new data emerges. That is not a weakness, or a problem with the field, but rather a strength. It shows that these theories responds to testing and verification, and can (and are) amended as new evidence emerges. All to often, I find that advocates of the ‘Ancient Aliens’ theory employ a sort of ‘God of the Gaps’ argument to support their beliefs so that any time new evidence emerges that addresses some ‘mystery’ of archaeology (a mystery happily filled with aliens by some), AA theorists simply shift their focus to a different ‘mystery’ – each time asserting that the ‘only’ possible explanation is aliens.

      I dismiss the ‘historians’ on the show because they appear to be dishonest. They make claims about historical events that have long been debunked (Hancock is one of the worst for this), and none of them possess the requisite credentials for me to take them seriously. There is no verifiable evidence – anywhere – to support the claims of hyperdiffusionists and yet they continue to assert that the ‘theory’ ought to be taken seriously. Hancock’s claims about the age of the pyramids have been refuted on more than one occasion, but even if they weren’t, the onus is still on Hancock to prove what he says about their age. It is up to him to present actual evidence – not speculation – to support his claims, otherwise there is no good reason to believe him.

      While it is almost certainly true that there exist large swaths of human history from which we have little data, that does not give these people license to fill those gaps with whatever fanciful tales they wish; If Hancock or Bouval want to be taken seriously by Egyptologists, Historians, and archaeologists, then they’d better start ponying up some evidence. As it stands, they might as well be claiming that the Egyptians were taught to build things by Stargate-travelling Gua’uld for all the evidence they possess.

      You are right; everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. These pseudohistorians must contend with the known facts about the ancient world, just like everyone else. They can’t simply ignore evidence in order to preserve their own pet hunches.

      • Alec Smith

        Id like to throw out a qeustion here. If the aliens were so uber smart and taught us, who taught them? If they could becime smart on thier own, why cant we?

  35. Personal opinions and beliefs ≠ valid opinions and beliefs. The only good thing AA theory has brought us are a variety of awesomely cheesy movies from SyFy.

  36. While watching the show myself, I found it wonderful and the idea captivating. Knowing our ancestors weren’t thick, and they were quite intelligent, their art work seems that it can correlate with the AA argument. However, our ancestors could not depict exactly what they saw or what they thought they saw, so they drew or sculpted to the best of their abilities. I’m just curious what our ancestors really saw that caused them to draw things half bird, half man characters(Egyptian hieroglyphics). The most likely answer is, we’ll never know, so it’s easy to fill in blanks with an answer that can seem correct due to a lack of info. But, with stuff found at the Mayan ruins in Tikal, Guatemala, the sculpture of “Sky-People” can definitely made to look like modern day people in space suits.

    • Once agian, the space siut argument. The modern day spacesiut was desinged by nasa ans nasa only, NASA didnt get inspiration from the ancients. Its merely a conincidence.

  37. This show highlights alot of reasons why I have a difficult time taking “believers” seriously. As long as its on tv they seem to latch onto it without any questioning of the content whatsoever. I honestly think most “believers” choose to buy into this because its an escape. A fantasy far from a hum drum average kind of life. Deep down they know its bunk, but that would break the fantasy.

  38. I personally believe that the ancient alien theory is a possible answer to questions. I don’t believe in it absolutely though.
    I do love your way of picking stuff apart in a logical way. If more people were like you, I think the world would run a lot better.
    Don’t forget however, that we need imagination and crazy ideas sometimes.
    If 1000 years ago someone said the tiny dots in the sky were billions of suns very far away you would say they were wrong. Just because some dude hasn’t been able to prove something yet doesn’t make it not true. Unfortunately, the way we operate, stars aren’t really stars until some guy with a white jacket and a lab that went to Harvard says that a star is a star. Until then, they are little pinholes in the sky.

  39. masteroforion2

    I wanted to watch entire AA series, but first I wanted to do some research before embarking into 20+(more?) hours of watching it.. Episode descriptions in wikipedia made me think twice, this blog of yours made me decide not to watch it, tnx, keep on fighting, and get a job/life also, for this is nolife-ish

  40. Samantha Beneke

    Hey Dude,stop being a damb sceptic and look at the facts!Its so obvious stop denying yourself.

    • masteroforion2

      WHAT facts? There are no facts, its bunch of speculations mixed with high tension music, if thats enough to convince you of anything, then you are just retarded, sry but its true.

      regards, dolan

    • Rik Tenaglia

      There is tons ofevidence that other life forms exist, but skeptics just find ways to debunk things. Let them believe in what they want. the truth will surface soon.

      • michael90212


        Are you suggesting that skeptics don’t believe other life forms exist??? Most of them do. Most cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers agree that, given the vastness of the cosmos, it is a virtual statistical certainty that other life forms exist. Even intelligent ones! Even highly intelligent ones!

        That’s what you wrote, but I’m pretty sure you meant to say “there’s tons of evidence that other life forms exist AND that they’ve visited this planet.” That’s where scientists start disagreeing with you!

        Skeptics & scientists don’t find creative ways to debunk things, they simple apply ONE STANDARD for evidence. Science and the scientific method cannot function without applying a high standard for evidence. Accepting any and all kinds of evidence creates far too great of a risk that scientific experiments will yield flawed results. For example, when Jonas Salk was developing the polio vaccine, if he accepted into his hypotheses that garden gnomes purposefully planted magic plants in “high energy” locations around the world, we either would not have the polio vaccine today or it would have taken much, much, much longer to get there. Science doesn’t exclude bad evidence just because science is snobby and wants to “debunk” things. It excludes bad evidence because every single path of human advancement absolutely WILL grind to a screeching halt when bad evidence is accepted into the equation.

        None of the above means that the ancient alien theory is incorrect! It only means that trained experts in the fields represented by the show, primarily archeologists, cannot accept the “evidence” that ancient alien theorists put forward. If just one single scrap of evidence among your tons of evidence turns out to be false, archeologists could find themselves on a wild goose chase for decades, and that can only harm humanity as a whole, because we trying our hardest to drill down to the truth! But here’s the real beauty of the scientific method: as archeologists build hypotheses and theories based on quality evidence and quality premises, they ARE inevitably pushed toward the truth. So, if ancient alien theory is correct, scientists WILL get there sooner or later.

        Personally, I sincerely hope you are right that the “truth will surface soon.” What I don’t understand is why you and people like you are upset that scientists apply standards to their method. Without those standards, you wouldn’t have a TV, your cel phone, your car, most of the appliances in your house, medicine, vaccines, etc. We wouldn’t have been to the moon. And we sure as hell won’t ever conquer interstellar travel without strictly applying the scientific method. So, try to look at it that way: if aliens visited Earth, they MUST have applied rigorous standards and the scientific method during their own development process, or else they wouldn’t have gotten here. So let’s all act like ancient aliens and accept only good evidence!

    • Hey dude learn how to spell damn. Stop denying yourself spelling knowledge.

  41. I’m one of those gullible morons who watch AA just for the fun of it. Can’t believe I actually read all of the posts here, thanks to you, SC for making it quite interesting. I have one question, though. Do you know if those “reports” about animal/human mutilation are accurate (if they’re true at all)?

    • You know something? I’m not too sure, to be honest… I’ll definitely have to take a look at the evidence presented in cases of these mutilations – I’m assuming that you’re talking about the famous cattle mutilations supposedly caused by aliens? Yay! A project!

      Also, there’s nothing gullible or moronic about watching this show for the fun of it… it’s when people starting believing it that they begin their slide into crazytown.

      • ” I’m assuming that you’re talking about the famous cattle mutilations supposedly caused by aliens?”

        Yes, and some other animals and particularly humans.

        “it’s when people starting believing it that they begin their slide into crazytown.”

        Haha I totally agree! We might as well believe in Battleship or the Avengers too!

      • “Also, there’s nothing gullible or moronic about watching this show for the fun of it… it’s when people starting believing it that they begin their slide into crazytown”

        I could just fathom the look of worry on you’re face because
        people are actually starting to believe these crazy ideas.
        People are actually starting to question the “veggies” that
        have been pushed down their throat just because the
        “authority” deems it healthy for them to do so.

        Case in point is the pyramids. They the “authorities”
        would lead is to believe that these structures was
        created by tens of thousands of slaves laboring away
        decades for the sole purpose of creating a “Tomb”
        for one man. Notwithstanding the logistics involved
        in the process, food, water (very scarce in the desert)
        manpower, thousands of slaves (that worked as zombies
        and did not even think to revolt their years of enslavement).
        Yah! Really!??.

      • “Case in point is the pyramids. They the “authorities”
        would lead is to believe that these structures was
        created by tens of thousands of slaves laboring away
        decades for the sole purpose of creating a “Tomb”
        for one man. Notwithstanding the logistics involved
        in the process, food, water (very scarce in the desert)
        manpower, thousands of slaves (that worked as zombies
        and did not even think to revolt their years of enslavement).
        Yah! Really!??.”
        If you are going to try and present reasoned arguments you should research your facts first…or are you a researcher for AA? (LOL). You are referring to well outdated theories regarding the construction of the pyramids. There is now plenty of archaeological evidence to support an updated theory…. have a look at this: probably the most credible and backed up by evidence… although not conclusive.

  42. Wait… Battleship isn’t a drama-documentary of naval forces fighting aliens? What next? Battle Los Angeles isn’t real either?

  43. Thank you for saying what I was thinking, in regards to the History Channel’s programming.

  44. I think some of these people would be genuinely talented fiction writers, if they ever got the hang of separating fiction from fact

    • I agree. The fact that they are able to make up this kind of crap shows that they possess an active and creative imagination; now they just need to harness it for something productive, rather than for something as weak as cult archaeology.

  45. Things that live have came into being at least once. In our solar system. There may be 200 billion stars -that we can count, but probably the number is closer to infinity than any number that we can conceive of. The likelyhood of extraterrestrial life approaches 100% as the number of stars approaches infinity. Not saying whether they visited here or not. Just saying that if we were at a casino, I know what I’d put my money on.

    • Hey, for what it’s worth, I tend to agree – it is highly probable that there is other intelligent life in the universe. But I have no evidence of it, and so I won’t use that belief to try and explain unusual or wonderful phenomena on earth. The point of my post wasn’t to say that ‘there are no aliens and we are alone’, but rather to say that ‘even if there are aliens, there is absolutely zero evidence of any kind anywhere that supports the idea that they had anything to do with the evolution of the human species or of human culture.’

  46. Just to chime in about moving huge stones without cranes here’s an example from India of a 81 tonne stone crown at the top of the 70m high temple tower – pushed up along a 7 kilometers long ramp by elephants and men. So basically it was just applied basic physics. Here’s the actual marvellous temple.

  47. The ancient aliens theorists’ innumerable claims can be categorized under a few very basic headings. One of those headings is: “Ancient Alien Theory is Likely Because Humans Could Not Have Done What They Did Without Alien Instruction, or Would Not Have Done What They Did Without Alien Inspiration.” I’ve watched most of the AA episodes because of the great laugh I get from it, and I’d categorize at least 60% of their arguments under this heading.

    For any claim that falls under this heading, I would offer believers the following argument: if this is true, then surely the alien species who gave us instruction or inspiration must also have experienced a stage in its own early evolution where it required the instruction or inspiration of a whole different alien species. And if that’s true, then that other alien species must have had an early stage in its evolution where it also required instruction or inspiration from yet another alien species.

    By the way, you have to repeat that sentence infinitely. Exhausting!

    Ultimately, the only way to break this chain is to say that one of those alien species was instructed or inspired by “God.” If that’s the case, then why don’t ancient alien theorists simply bypass the intermediate links in the chain and just argue why God must exist? Why couldn’t OUR species be the first one in the chain of events that was instructed/inspired by God? That solves the “we couldn’t/we wouldn’t do it” problem just as well as aliens!

    (Because there are so many dense folks out there, I have to add the disclaimer that I’m not arguing for God’s existence. Just showing one glaring logical error in the ancient alien theory.)

    • Well think out of the box: What if we will be “The Gods”? It’s becoming more and more possible as The Voyager probes are soon to leave the solar system. With endless galaxies (and more being made as we speak) it’s basicly inevitable that we are not alone. Isn’t it possible that another life form may discover a probe and learn about us (the probes contain a “Golden Record” ). Something to think about for the day! ;)

      • michael90212

        Tigerboy, I completely agree that it’s virtually inevitable that we are not alone. I even accept the idea that, given an incomprehensible span of time, it is statistically likely that both of the Voyager probes will eventually come across another species. By the way, when I say incomprehensible, I mean exactly that: incomprehensible! Do you have any idea how long it will take for either of those probes to get near another solar system? Do you expect that the very first solar systems they approach will have life at all, and if so, that the life will be at “just the right stage” for the probes to have an impact on their development? It is staggeringly unlikely, first of all, that life is so prevalent that we’ll stumble upon it right next door. Second of all, it’s beyond staggeringly unlikely that the Voyager probes could serve as a boost to a less intelligent species. How would a less intelligent species find the probe as it zips through space near their planet? In the unlikely event that it crashed into a planet, with an atmosphere, it would burn up.

        All that said, I don’t necessarily take issue with anything you are saying, except for your implication that my argument was unsound. Your statement doesn’t address my argument at all. Sure, we could be the Gods for another species, but that doesn’t require that a different species was the Gods for us. We could have sent out the Voyager probes without any help from ancient aliens! We can think outside the box all day long, but thinking outside the box will NEVER make ancient alien visitation more likely!

      • michael90212-
        Of course the odds of the probes coming across any life at all are very, very slim! Let alone this life form is smarter than a cow! Most life in the universe is estimated to be nothing more than some bacteria. And when (or if) the probes encounter life humans will probably be long gone.

        Will the probes increase intelligence, obviously not. The golden record was strictly meant to make other intelligent life aware of our peresence. Were aliens ever gods for us…. We will truly never know. (Unless time travel becomes possible) Did we truly need ever need gods… In my opinion not really, all important advances like lightbulbs, computers, etc. were made by hard working humans. (I hope)

        As for alien visitations, I think I can live without a real life Prometheus, Battle: LA or Falling Skies. If aliens do visit let’s hope there Optimus Prime and ET.

    • Evolution and ancient aliens is what I searched for and took a long time to find evolution in this thread. This is one of the AA arguments; we couldn’t have evolved without help from ET.

      DNA research scientists know that there was only type-O prior to about 40,000 years ago. Type-A evolved through a mutation about 20,000 years ago and type-B about 14,000 years ago and AB around 2,500 years ago.

      Now, the most common source of mutation is radiation and one common source of intense radiation is from a supernova. Being type-A makes me “blood brother” to a supernova not an alien. I also tend to go along with the Fermi paradox “where is everybody”.

      Why was there a sudden burst of creativity and technological resourcefulness? Could it have been by genetic mutations or new genes caused by a supernova, solar flare or asteroid?

      Nice thread, by the way!

      • Thanks, I’m not sure why a search for ‘evolution’ would have led you here, as the subject wasn’t one I really talked about in this post. I didn’t even tag it with ‘evolution’. Glad you stopped by nonetheless!

      • michael90212

        @Tom: I think your supernova –> mutuation –> creativity & technological advancement theory is interesting. I have to admit, I lack facts and proper educational background, so I can’t really judge its plausibility, but I do think it’s a neat idea. However, I’ve never personally felt the need to seek an explanation for technological explosions of the past. One of the most revolutionary technological explosions of Earth’s history happened just within a few generations of our own lifetime–yet none of us find this interesting because we can see in history books the tiny yet necessary advances that led up to that explosion. I could certainly be wrong, but I tend to think the explosions of the past were equally humdrum if we could really see them in their proper context. For example, I can’t even imagine the difference that “THE WHEEL” would make in hundreds of possible applications where it wasn’t used before. On one hand, this would make one generation look incredibly more advanced than the generation before… but on the other hand, it would not be shocking to any of us.

        Come to think of it, I seem to remember a theory that humanity’s real advancement started when people figured out how to be really successful hunters and protein became the predominant nutritional source.

      • @Edwin: Was probably the “ancient alien” part of the search.
        And thanks.

        @michael90212: “Come to think of it, I seem to remember a theory that humanity’s real advancement started when people figured out how to be really successful hunters and protein became the predominant nutritional source.”
        That was one of the arguments for an event (supernova, solar flare or impact). That is, the resourcefulness made humans better at finding food in every way, and consequently populations expanded rapidly, which led to a constant technological boom in almost all fields.
        Oh, and it’s not my theory, but one I’m studying.

  48. I wonder why some people are so emotionally invested in this being true that they react so defensively to skepticism

  49. I wish I knew the answer to that. I don’t get it either.

  50. Kate and AM: The reason is that it’s religion to them. In fact, if you watch the AA series (of which I’ve seen a few, actually), they even “speculate” about alien “intelligent design” of our species. Many of them appear to reject the theory of evolution.

    Basically, the entire hypothesis is something of an updated new age religion with modern day terminology instead of ancient terms and world views. But it’s the same “faith based” crap with absolutely no evidence, telling people to “keep an open mind”, saying things such as “nobody can prove that aliens don’t exist”, and all the other trappings of religious bullshit.

    Look at the promises it gives people as well, in a sense: the idea that we’re not alone, that somebody is there looking out for us, that there are better places to go to in a space ship if only we’re at the right time and place, and a whole lot of other crap.

    BTW, I actually do accept that there is most certainly an incredible amount of intelligent life in the universe – I just am not buying into the whole “alien astronauts in the bible or other myths” BS, or any of the “alien abduction” or “eyewitness” stories either. In the same way that just because I accept that dinosaurs existed, it doesn’t mean that I have to believe that dragons did as well.

  51. Some interesting archaeological finds have been made by individuals who were not even archaeologists to begin with. Their approach is not hampered by academic restrictions, and yes, there is a hefty dose of passion and conviction involved as well. I recently read about the discovery of an underground cave system running the length of the Giza Plateau. Needless to say, the Egyptian authorities closed it off and I doubt any information about their exploration will surface soon. Academics seem to like doing things while wearing blinders. It’s like asking only astronomers if life is possible in other worlds without asking an exobiologist. An archaeological find should be approached with a multidisciplinary team. Strangely so, theories that belonged in “crazy camp” are now being revisited and talked about in series. Things that no serious academic would even dare mention 30 years ago, are mainstream today. Strange finds that do not conform to the established parameters and rock the existing status quo are immediately ridiculed and summarily silenced. Nobody can claim their version is the only true one, especially when other interesting bits of data and evidence are whisked aside.

    • Academics seem to like doing things while wearing blinders. It’s like asking only astronomers if life is possible in other worlds without asking an exobiologist.

      It’s not like that at all; both astronomers and exobiologists are trained scientists – cult archaeologists, amateur archaeologists, and ancient alien theorists are not.

      The rest of your argument can be summed up as “don’t trust academics because they are methodical and they only let people know what they want us to know.” That’s a bit conspiratorial, don’t you think? Academics do things in a certain way, because they’ve been trained to be methodical, cautious, and rigorous in their approach. This means that their research is more careful and less prone to wild speculation than non-academics. You’re right though; their theories are far more prosaic than those of the wackaloons who populate the fringes of archaeology, but that’s okay: their theories are also tempered by empirical evidence. So there’s that.

    • J. L. Marquez

      As a college history professor, I try to explain to those students fascinated by AA that, like zoology and crypto-zoology, there is history and crypto-history. As for the “ancient aliens built the pyramids” fantasy, here’s my response: so, this highly advanced civilization capable of building a spacecraft that can navigate the space-time continuum across millions of light years came to ancient Egypt and built a pyramid for the Pharaoh Sneferu, only they miscalculated the angle and had to readjust it so that it is now known as “the bent pyramid”? Really? Either the AA’s sent here were the retarded ones, or real Egyptian humans built the pyramids through trial and error (Occam’s Razor).

  52. Lujack Skylark

    Ancient history from 753-586 B.C. seems to be in order.

    Ancient Assyrian,Babylonian,Biblical,Cushite,Egyptian and Elamite historical confirmations
    Historical connections are solidly made when we correlate Assyrian, Babylonian, Biblical, Cushite,Egyptian and Elamite cross references together getting the mystery history coming to life under Biblical chronology guidelines in the Judah kings list ending in 586 B.C.

    Assyrian kings: Tiglath-Pilesar III 753-735 B.C. Shalmaneser V 734-729 B.C. Sargon II 728-712 B.C. Sennacherib 711-688 B.C. Esarhaddon 687-676 B.C. Ashur-Banipal 675-633 B.C. Ashur-Etil-ilani 632-629 B.C. & his brother Sin-Shum-Ishkun fight against general Sin-Shum-Lishir in a bloody civil war. Ashur-Eitil-ilani is slain by his brother Sin-Shum-Ishkun only having one year of peace 628-627 B.C. Sin-Shum-Ishkun then reigns over Assyria 627-612 B.C. Ashur-Uballit II 611-605 B.C.

    (Sennacherib’s reign actually began in Judah’s king Hezekiah’s 14th year 711 B.C. Jerusalem was his first priority. Merodach-Baladan wrote Hezekiah letters (Isaiah 39:1) hoping the Hebrews might form a military alliance with him some historians believe to fight the Assyrians. From Sennacherib’s reign backwards and forward Assyrian chronology is formulated.)

    Babylonian kings: Merodach-Baladan 728-716 B.C. Sargon has control over Babylon 716-712 B.C. Merodach-Baladan fights Assyrian king Sennacherib 711-709 B.C. The Assyrians win victory and Sennacherib appoints Bel-Ibni to govern north Babylon 709-706 B.C. Ashur-Nadin-Shum 706-700 B.C. Sennacherib’s son taken prisoner by Elamite king Hallutush-Inshushinak 707-700 B.C. who appoints Nergal-Ushezib as Babylonian king in 700 B.C. Nergal-Ushezib is taken captive by the Assyrians.Babylonian king Mushezib-Marduk 700-695 B.C. unites forces with Elamite king Humban-Nimena 700-694B.C. against Assyrian king Sennacherib who destroys their army, yet the Babylonian chronicles state Humban-Nimena won the war stating Humban-Nimena died a natural death. Sennacherib completely destroys Babylon 695-687 B.C. Its inhabitants return when the city is rebuilt. Esarhaddon reigns over both Assyria and Babylon 687-675 B.C. Esarhaddon rebuilds Babylon. Shamash-Shum-Ukin 675-653 B.C. Kandalanu 653-632 B.C. Sin-Shum-Ishkun 632-626 B.C. has control over Babylon. Came to power in Assyria in 627 B.C. Loses Babylon to Nabopolassar in 626 B.C. Nabopolassar 626-605 B.C. reigns over Babylon. Nebuchadnezzer 605-562 B.C. reigns over Babylon. Nebuchadnezzer’s 8th year 597 B.C. Jehoichin is captured. (2 Kings 24:12) Nebuchadnezzer captures Jerusalem in 586 B.C. Zedekiah’s 11th year. (2 Kings 25:1-2)

    Biblical Judean kings: Ahaz 741-725 B.C.(2 Kings 16:2) Hezekiah 725-696 B.C. (2 Kings 18:2) Manasseh 696-641 B.C. (2 Kings 21:1) Amon 641-639 B.C. (2 Kings 21:19) Josiah 639-608 B.C. (2 Kings 22:1) Jehoahaz 608 B.C. (2 Kings 23:31) Jehoiakim 608-597 B.C. (2 Kings 23:36) Jehoichin 597 B.C. (2 Kings 24:8) Zedekiah 597-586 B.C. (2 Kings 24:18) Israel kings: Pekah 758-738 B.C. (2 Kings 15:27) Hoshea 738-729 B.C.

    Cushite kings: Piankhi 759-728 B.C. Shabaka 728-714 B.C. Shebitku 714-698 B.C. reigns over Egypt. Tirhakah 714-698 B.C. reigns over Ethiopia. (2 Kings 19:9) Tirhakah reigns over both Ethiopia and Egypt 698-672 B.C. Tirhakah flees Egypt when Assyrian king Ashur-Banipal’s army arrives. Egyptian king Necho I 672-664 B.C. slain by Tanutamun who flees when the Assyrians again invade Egypt, he resides in Ethiopia reigning there 664-656 B.C.

    Egyptian kings: Necho I 672-664 B.C. Psamtik I 664-610 B.C. Necho II 610-595 B.C. Psamtik II 595-589 B.C. Apries (Hophra) 589-570 B.C.

    Elamite kings: Humban-Nikash 750-725 B.C. Shutruk-Nahhunte II 725-707 B.C. Hallutush-Inshushinak 707-700 B.C. Kudur-Nahunte 700 B.C. Humban-Nimena 700-694 B.C. Humban-Haltash I 694-687 B.C. Humban-Haltash II 687-681 B.C. Urtaki 681-669 B.C. Tempt-Humban-Inshushinak 669-659 B.C. Atta-Hamti-Inshushinak 659-654 B.C. Humban-Haltash III 654-650 B.C.

    Cushite king Piankhi 759-728 B.C. 21st year invades Egypt in 738 B.C. at the same time Israel’s king Hoshea in 738 B.C. assassinated Pekah. (2 Kings 15:30) Judah’s king Ahaz 741-725 B.C. had joined a military alliance with Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III. (2 Kings 16:7) Assyrian historians recorded Tiglath-Pileser III 753-735 B.C. had witnessed Hoshea 738-729 B.C. becoming the Israel king. Assyrian king Shalmaneser V 734-729 B.C. then came up against Hoshea. (2 Kings 17:3-4) Cushite king Piankhi controlled Egypt and Osorkon IV (So) 740-725 B.C. was his vassal reigning in Egypt’s delta. Hoshea wanted So to help him wage a war against Shalmaneser V. (2 Kings 17:3-4) Hoshea’s plot is discovered and the Assyrians put an end to Hoshea’s kingdom as most of the population is carried off to Assyria. Judah’s king Hezekiah 725-696 B.C. invites those who escaped out of Assyria’s hands to turn to the Lord. (2 Chronicles 30:6) Osorkon IV later brings Sargon II 728-712 B.C. horses as tribute.

    Assyrian king Sargon II 728-712 B.C. goes to war against Elamite king Humban-Nikash 750-725 B.C. and Babylon’s king Merodach-Baladan at Der. The Elamites and Babylonians win victory. Sargon II then wars against the Egyptians and Ethiopians lead by Egyptian Cushite king Shabaka 728-714 B.C. Sargon II wins victory against Shabaka. (Isaiah 20:1-5) Sargon II had skirmishes with Babylon’s king Merodach-Baladan 728-716 B.C. Merodach-Baladan becomes friends with Elamite king Shutruk-Nahunte 725-707 B.C. Sargon invades Babylon in 716 B.C. and Merodach-Baladan flees to Elam. Merodach-Baladan later in Assyrian king Sennacherib’s reign sent letters to Judah’s king Hezekiah 725-696 B.C. around 711 B.C. (2 Kings 20:12)

    Assyrian king Sennacherib 711-688 B.C. 1st year 711 B.C. he attacks Israel in Hezekiah 725-696 B.C. in Hezekiah’s 14th year in 711 B.C. (2 Kings 18:13) ETHIOPIAN king Tirhakah did not do much to help Judah’s king Hezekiah.(2 Kings 19:9-10)It was the Lord who slew 185,000 Assyrians. (2 Kings 19:35) Elamite king Shutruk-Nahunte II 725-707 B.C. generals and staff officers are killed by Sennacherib’s army trying to place Merodach-Baladan back on the Babylonian throne 711-709 B.C. Merodach-Baladan flees again to Elam. Elamite king Hallutush-Inshushinak 707-700 B.C. makes poor judgement taking Sennacherib’s son Ashur-Nadin-Shum 706-700 B.C. as prisoner. Elamite kings: Hallutush-Inshushinak had fled his throne when he saw the Assyrian army coming. Kudur-Nahhunte briefly reigns over Elam in 700 B.C. Humban-Nimeana 700-694 B.C. army drove their chariots over dead soldiers to get away from the Assyrians. Humban-Nimeana suffers a stroke and the Assyrians win victory against the Elamites in Babylon. Elamite king Humban-Haltash I 694-687 B.C. tries restoring diplomatic relations with Assyria but he fails.

    Assyrian king Esarhaddon 687-676 B.C. goes to war against EGYPTIAN king Tirhakah 698-672 B.C. and the Assyrians win victory. Esarhaddon takes Judah king Manasseh 696-641 B.C. as prisoner. (2 Chronicles 33:11) Elamite king Humban-Haltash II 687-681 B.C. goes about robbing, raping and pillaging while on his way to attack Sippar while Esarhaddon was fighting other enemies. Tirhakah rebels when Assyrian troops leave Egypt. Esarhaddon and Elamite king Urtaki 681-669 B.C. live in peace. Esarhaddon dies enroute to do battle again against Tirhakah.

    Assyrian king Ashur-Banipal 675-633 B.C. defeats Tirhakah and places Necho I 672-664 B.C. on the Egyptian throne. Elamite king Urtaki 681-669 B.C. receives grain from Ashur-Banipal during a famine striking Elam.Urtaki is ungrateful. Urtaki sees the Assyrians are having trouble with Egypt. Urtaki attacks Babylon. The Assyrian army chases Urtaki and the Elamite king collapsed and died. Cushite king Tanutamun rebels against Assyria by invading Egypt’s delta slaying Necho I and Ashur-Banipal places Psamtik I 664-610 B.C. on the Egyptian throne as Tanutamun flees to Ethiopia reigning there 664-656 B.C.

    Elamite king Tempt-Humban-Inshushinak 669-659 B.C. relatives do not want war. They flee to Ashur-Banipal’s royal court. Tempt-Humban-Inshushinak suffers a stroke in the 10th year he reigns. War erupts. An Assyrian soldier cuts off his head. Elamite king Atta-Hamti-Inshushinak 659-654 B.C. prays to his god Ruhurater that some nation would come along to defeat the Assyrians.

    Assyrian king Ashur-Banipal’s brother Shamash-Shum-Ukin reigning over Babylon since 675 B.C. betrays him. Elamite prince’s join his army. The Assyrians take over Babylon in 653 B.C. too late for Ashur-Banipal to retaliate against Atta-Hamti-Inshushinak. Ashur-Banipal appoints Kandalanu as governor who reigns over Babylon 653-632 B.C.

    Assyrian king Ashur-Banipal defeats Elamite king Humban-Haltash III 654-650 B.C. The Assyrians destroy the Elamite nation. Ashur-Banipal is the Biblical Asnapper. He set the Elamite natives to colonize the cities of Samaria. (Ezra 4:9-10) Ashur-Banipal also let Judah’s king Manasseh return to Israel. Ashur-Banipal goes to war against the Arabs 649-646 B.C. The years 645-633 B.C. Ashur-Banipal’s records are silent.

    Assyrian kings Ashur-Etil-ilani and Sin-Shum-Ishkun 632-629 B.C. fight a bloody civil war against Assyrian general Sin-Shum-Lishir which weakens Assyria. Ashur-Etil-ilani wins victory.Ashur-Etil-ilani is slain by his brother Sin-Shum-Ishkun having only one year of peace 628-627 B.C. Sin-Shum-Ishkun 627-612 B.C. fights Babylonian king Nabopolassar and the Babylonians and Cyaxares win victory. Sin-Shum-Ishkun dies in his burning palace. Assyrian general Ashur-Ballit II 611-605 B.C. army is saved at Charchemish when Egyptian troops lead by Necho II 610-595 B.C. join forces together and defeat Babylonian king Nabopolassar.

    Necho II was on his way to help the Assyrians when Judah’s king Josiah 639-608 B.C. tried stopping him and Josiah was slain. (2 Chronicles 35:20-26) Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzer 605-562 B.C. destroys the Assyrian nation in 605 B.C. Egyptian king Psamtik II 595-589 B.C. fights the Nubians at the fourth cataract. Egyptian king Apries (Hophra) 589-570 B.C. sends troops to help Israel’s king Zedekiah 597-586 B.C. but Hophra’s troops flee Nebuchadnezzer’s forces. (Jeremiah 44:30) Hophra later is killed by one of his generals.

  53. I have read most of this thread but not all and apologise if all this has been said already.
    I recently watched aliens and dinosaurs episode of this series and I agree completely with op. I have no issues with imaginative thinking and far fetched ideas, but the way this series is presented leads people to believe they are discussing legitimate scientific facts. They give you a brief snippit from an actual scientist and follow it up with a bewildering barrage of disconnected facts accompanied by outright falsehoods. Using things like ica stones as ‘evidence’ for instance, when these were shown to be made relatively recently. Use of The “Burdick Print” to show that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, dispite knowing these have been shown to be false.
    The whole driving force behind the series seems to be very closely tied to young earth creationism, in fact two of thier ‘experts’ ( Michael Cremo and Willie E Dye) are well know supporters of the idea. Both the burdick print and ica stones have been favorite topics for them in thier search for evidence for these beliefs. They are Merely replacing god with aliens.
    Interesting ideas and sci fi are great, but this series strikes me as mildy insideous. I do hope it is all just to make easy money.. rather than wanting to fill peoples heads with obvious disinformation for whatever reason.

  54. Sorry, Michael Cremo isn’t a young earth creationist, but he is a creationist.

  55. I honestly cannot believe that no serious action has been taking to remedy the problem of people believing stupid obvious things like this. There are multiple ways that the pyramids could’ve been built but unfortunately no one has made it as entertaining as the fictional theories when presented to the mass on TV. If there were other intelligent beings in this universe, then I’m pretty sure that they would’ve made an attempt to explore us like we’ve been doing.. or annihilate us, sadly.

  56. Ralph Smith

    I have talked to may people on this topic that I know personaly that believe most things on the show and are very convinced to the point of arguing. People want beleive because for most it gets rid of God. Subconciously they fear that if there is a God what does that mean. And am I in trouble with God? Am I safe? They prefer to think God is just an Alien.

  57. Mr Davenport

    So aliens traversed millions of light years, came to earth, to build massive stone structures then all buggered off? to what end?

    In no way could hundreds of thousands of slaves over decades if not hundreads of years have built these things?

    Dont forget that necessity is the mother of invention, steam over horse, internal combustion engine over steam and now electric motors the list of human inventions and tools goes on and on, this is FACT.

    Aliens visiting earth and gods are still only a myth and rely on belief not facts

    • “So aliens traversed millions of light years, came to earth, to build massive stone structures then all buggered off? to what end?”

      Typically, the argument is that AA gave knowledge on how to construct “massive stone structures”, not actually just doing it for them.

      If you’re going to debunk the nonsense, you cant stray even a tiny bit from their point.

  58. are you joking?

    This is a TV show… Nothing other than entertainment for the purpose of ratings and popularity to a mass audience. Pull the Great Dildo of Scepticism out of your ass and get over yourselves.

    • Yaa sounds good. Has anyone considered our own future. I mean in the far future coming back and manipulating the past to suit their needs. Time travel could be possible at some point.

      After all some of these artifacts in supposedly space suits do look of earthly origin.

    • That’s it? That’s the best you’ve got? Dildos and anal-sex jokes? If you’re going to take the time to make an account to troll me with, at least spend a bit of time thinking up something more insulting to say than ‘hurr durr u r skeptikal so u liek anal’.

      • Mr Davenport

        I believe that insults are the last refuge of a feeble mind.

      • Edwin,
        1. you don’t need an account to make comments
        2. no one was talking to you, but good to see you think you are the centre of the universe… lighten up buddy

      • laughing,

        1. You’re right; you only need to take the time to fill out your email address and choose a username in order to comment. That’s totally not like making an account at all.

        2. Actually, since the response was a top-level comment to a blog post that I wrote, the OP was in fact, talking to me – in addition to talking to other people. I’m not the centre of the universe, but a response to a blog post written by me is sort of talking to me, don’t you think? But thanks for your deep insights, laughing. I’m sure we’re all the better for them.

  59. Reblogged this on Nina's Garden and commented:
    what I want to know is why is it always aliens for non-european cultures

    honestly, motivation for beleifs are not that hard to figure out

    the real problem with many science documentaries is the catering that they do to coddle religion sensibilities

    to have lines like “when Jesus walked the earth” when the documentary is about South American or North American contents or anyplace not in the middle east – why are they even bringing christianity into it? it has nothing to do about the culture being looked at

    and it’s historically inaccurate as well, given what all we do know – and we know a lot. beacuse Romans and Eygpt were sophisticated civil service driven societies that documented everything.

    so we know free citizens built the pyramids – so no Jewish slaves there

    we know Nazareth was a Roman Spa village in the 3rd century

    and we know that the Romans never conducted a census of any population because the math wasn’t invented yet, it wasn’t until the 17th century that there was a population census, so King James had that added to the bible stories so his populution would submit to it.

    remember, before Guttenberg, no one could read the bible but priests and really even they were barely literate.

    • You. I like you.

      • thank you kindly.

      • It is sad that when someone spouts a string of obvious ignorance (There wasn’t enough math invented for the Romans to do censuses, No one could read the bible before Guttenberg but priests and even they were barely literate, etc., King John added the bit about the census to Luke) you rush to compliment it because it fluffs your anti-religious bigotry. This is stuff that wouldn’t be acceptable in a first-term freshman history quiz at a decent community college.

        In a context where you are doing good work debunking ancient alien nonsense and bizarre accounts of Old Testament giants building the pyramids, how about trying to turn the same scientifically critical eye on historical bs being spread on your site? Or is that it is fine for people to spread historically ignorant garbage if it sprays in a direction that you like?

        If the problem is that you also do not know any history (other than ancient archaeology, I assume since you have this blog), then at least as an intellectually honest blogger, your response should have been to ask Nina to provide evidence for her claims.

    • “The math wasn’t invented yet” — you have no idea what you are talking about. What kind of math do you deludedly think is required for a census?

      “Romans never conducted a census of any population” pure ahistorical nonsense. We know for a fact that they did conduct censuses.

      Your view about literacy is also grossly inaccurate. Diplomats, scholars, many merchants, some artisans, lawyers, government officials, military officers, university teachers, monks, many members of the nobility, secretaries, and various others could read in the late middle ages. It is true that most peasants couldn’t read at all, but your view of history seems to be based on nothing but what you wish were true.

  60. i hate modern day t’v i miss the cool show’s of the 80.s and 90.s man i miss those day’s i watch three show’s adult swim hell on wheel’s and into the west bye and oh the walking dead and current so yeah more than three but this shit i avoid bye

  61. I give you props skeptical cubefarmer, but no matter how long you argue with people, you will end up in the same place. The reason for this is you havent been able to distinguish all the information you have gathered to support your claims from your own opinion. You can’t prove an opinion right. That why they called it the ancient astronaut THEORY. I don’t know where im at in all this. Its possible that you’re right, or wrong. Questions are the reason so many things have been created, so stop arguing with people and discover something else.

    • The reason we end up in the same place, is because people who buy into the ancient aliens fantasy (theories require confirming evidence to support them, and ‘ancient aliens’ has precisely zero), do so with willful ignorance. I say this because while there is zero evidence to support the hypothesis, there’s a ton of evidence that disconfirms it. In order to continue to believe in ancient aliens, a person must ignore all of that evidence, which is evidence itself of that person being both irrational and gullible.

  62. Which pope ever said the world was flat? This is pure BS. Aristotle knew the world was round and that knowledge was not lost. You people have swallowed old wives tales and false propaganda used to denigrate imagined enemies of science. Copernicus remained on excellent terms with the church throughout his entire life and had the church’s blessing on his work.

    Ferdinand and Isabella were also well aware of the globe shape of the earth, as virtually every educated person had been for centuries. Look at any medieval painting of the creation of the Earth. It is a *sphere*– a *globe* — over and over.

    Galileo was another story, but not because the church was anti-science. The pope happened to be an amateur astronomer of some note himself. And Galileo published a book in which the pope’s view on the solar system was put in the mouth of a character named Simplicio — Simpleton. The pope’s public humiliation led to Galileo’s being put under house arrest for the rest of his life.

    So, all the commenters here should stop spreading the nonsense about medieval and renaissance educated people thinking the world was flat, and try to update their understanding about the history of science to reflect 20th century research, rather than the crass religion vs. science model of 19th century propaganda. You might even get to the point that you realize that most scientific advances in the West after the fall of Rome until the 18th century should be credited to the church to a substantial extent.

  63. Interesting discussion, I’ve read most of it. To the point made above: I’d like to say we most likely shouldn’t be looking at the picture in a black and white manner. As far as I am aware, there is a great deal of truth that medieval scholars (mostly monks) helped revive the ancient texts and they were to a great extent the starting point for the Renaissance, which was essentially a reaction towards admiring (or beginning to..) ancient culture (especially Greek and Roman). However there is also a deal of truth that any idea that was threatening the power of the church, mainly by diminishing people’s belief, was treated as hostile. In this sense, Christian Church and especially Roman-Catholic Church had a mixed influence over scientific development in particular. So, that 19th century propaganda is not totally crap. Even today we can imagine that if someone managed to make an android and therefore put serious trouble on the ones believing we need a soul to be able to have consciousness, Church would not be that happy about it and would most likely do its best to search for any contrary evidence (pointing for instance that this is not really equivalent to human consciousness etc). Let’s not forget that Vatican has a small ‘troop’ of researchers (accredited scientists), which would be a proof to some extent they are taking science seriously, but would also show they are not doing it just for the sake of taking it seriously, they are also doing this as they are aware of the power scientific endeavor potentially has for undermining the power of the church via people faith. Which would be in itself a mixed attitude towards science in general.

    The reason I’ve posted this comment is however mainly to address an earlier point made here. Myself being a non believer in this pretty crap documentary, I mainly put this forward for the ones in the same category. Regarding that idea someone shared here that people believing such stories treat them as a sort of religion, I remember what some philosopher stated on the advocates of various unsupported conspiracy theories. He said they had a crippled epistemology. I think in some cases this is also true here, because I noticed (and it would be better if I was wrong) some folks feel or suggest that mainstream scientific opinions are unfair and dismissive; they are not really able to provide fully logical arguments why they feel it should be like that (like alternate theories purport) but insist they should be taken seriously. Isn’t there a bit of ‘alternate’ list of personal values, where their own let’s say zero (in some cases) accomplishments need a justification? In a world where essentially great achievements are recognized and mainstream is right this cannot be justified. A question only, as it might account for all these believers, many, I argue, in fact fairly intelligent (but superficial). Plus there would be of course our passion for enigmas and occult, an escape from prosaic too.
    Kind regards

  64. scott chrzanowski

    You have said absolutely nothing in your rambling rebuttal. Everything you said about proving the aliens actually visited can be used to debunk mainstream assumptions. This is all there is assumptions of what our ancient relative were doing, drawing, writing,and praying to. We dont know beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is all guess work. So if the ancient alien theories are nt and not possible , didnt happen. Then all the mainstream evidence is not true. We were not there, we are only speculating how did the pyramids built, show me the tools used, you cant. They dont exist so we guess at how they built them. Open your mind to new possiblities. Scientist once preached the earth was flat, black people were non equal to white people, the earth was only 4000 years old. Lots of wrong assesment thru time from mainstream science

    • Scott, I can’t begin to tell you how tired I get to responding to the same basic accusations over and over again. Had you taken even a minute or two to read a few of the replies to this post, you’d see that others before you have made the same exact points you’ve tried to, and have been rebutted.
      To briefly summarize:
      1. The burden of proof is on the person making the claims. If someone believes that aliens built the pyramids – or had some sort of involvement in building them, then the onus is on that person to prove that it happened. To date, not a single shred of evidence – of any kind, and at any reasonable standard – has been forthcoming to support the claims. There is zero – none, nadda, zilch – to show that aliens or magic or extradimensional beings or whatever had anything at all to do with the construction of the pyramids. The null hypothesis in this case is that the number of aliens involved in building the pyramids was ‘0’. There is no reason to reject this hypothesis.

      show me the tools used, you cant. They dont exist so we guess at how they built them.

      Actually, I can. Here. Those aren’t reproductions or facsimiles; they’re the actual tools used to build the pyramids, preserved and recovered from tombs found in the area. We don’t need to guess how they built them, Scott, because we have their records and their tools that describe to us in great detail exactly how they were built. Just because you don’t know that, doesn’t mean that no one knows that.

      And then there’s this little gem:

      We dont know beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is all guess work. So if the ancient alien theories are nt and not possible, didnt happen. Then all the mainstream evidence is not true. We were not there…

      So because we don’t possess the perfect knowledge that would come from having a time machine willing to take back anyone who wanted first-hand accounts of the construction, we have to throw out the consensus of archaeologists, paleontologists, historians, and anyone else who’s made it their life’s work to study the pyramids or other historical sites/events? Remember what I said about unreasonable standards of evidence? This is a great example. “Beyond a shadow of a doubt” is a pretty subjective thing: I think that the evidence presented by the experts does prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that ancient Egyptians built the pyramids. Clearly you don’t (although I suspect it’s because you haven’t actually bothered to look at the evidence, rather than because it failed to convince you. And anyway, we don’t need perfect-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt knowledge in order to have a pretty accurate understanding of something; I barely understand how my car operates, yet that doesn’t stop me from understanding (accurately, as it turns out) that putting gasoline into it will make it go.

      3. No scientist has ever – anywhere – ‘preached’ that the world was flat. If you’re going to assert something, aim for something that isn’t so patently absurd.

      4. “Open your mind” I do. All the time. How about you try opening yours to some common sense?

      5. Science has been wrong before. Yep. And? Just because science has been wrong before doesn’t mean that whatever bullshit theory you might entertain must be true. Are you also a creationist? Science has been wrong before, after all! Do you believe that the Earth orbits the sun? Why? Science has been wrong before!

      Well, this has been fun, hasn’t it? Please, stop by again soon, k? Maybe tell me I’m being dogmatic, or that there is more than one way to know about history, or that we are arrogant to think that we know everything or some other bullshit assertion that others have said a thousand times before you.

  65. Silence Dogood

    So, “Edwin,” or is it “Skeptical Cubefarmer”? Explain to me how there are two people who appear to be the website creator, but we don’t have the technology to clone a human being. There is only one explanation….

    P.S. I realize we actually can clone a human, but it did not serve my purposes for this post.

  66. Silence Dogood


  67. Silence Dogood

    Is the title of this article a reference to “The Hobbit, or There and Back Again,” or am I seeing patterns in white noise again?

    • Definitely patterns in white noise, although I can certainly see where you’d draw that from. On a somewhat related note: love that book.

  68. Hmmm I understand the need to take any claim with a grain of salt, That before jumping to conclusions one must look at the situation logically. Many weird things have happened to me in my lifetime, almost all ive proven to be logical incidents. But sometimes there are a few things I can’t explain…no matter how much I try to find the logical reasoning for them, I’m obviously not going to reveal them here for I can’t prove those incidents happened, nonetheless I believe in the paranormal. Many of you would like to jump on me for believing such “nonsense” but in all honesty you can go suck on limestone, I won’t preach to about ghosts, Sasquatch, Aliens and chupacabra because I know I’d get ridiculed. That’s what I don’t like about alot of skeptics, they love to think they are all knowing, now im not accusing any of you with that here, but that’s the reason so many people hate skeptics, the arrogance and self proclaiming holders of the truth. Bringing down many how try to give a theory but get laughed at. Maybe it’s the young who do this, like the whole Asshole atheist VS Christian sheep’s ” HAHA GOD DOESN’T EXIST SO IM GOING TO LAUGH LIKE AN ASSHOLE IN THEIR FACE, IM SO SMART!” Now don’t get me wrong, I despise religion with a passion, but I despise those arrogant smartasses the same. I honestly don’t know where im going with this so I’ll put end this here…BELIEVER’S: Don’t trust everything you see on tv, those aren’t facts until proven, instead of getting in a pissing match here, go prove them wrong with evidence. SKEPTICS: I understand you probably hold more reasoning then alot people, but that doesn’t mean you should some uptight arrogant person about it, I know alot of you aren’t like this but if you like arguing with “idiots” alot might I suggest removing your head out your ass for a second? People look for some kind of explanations for things, they don’t need an asshole trying to make them look stupid.

    • I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here; you believe in the paranormal (even though there’s never been any evidence, anywhere, at any time that has ever proven any of it), but don’t want to be mocked for that belief when you try to talk about it; oh and people who demand that you prove your claims, or don’t take your beliefs seriously are meanies who need to leave you alone?

      You also seem to be putting forward some sort of ‘Both sides are bad so believe what you want’ argument which is itself a bad argument to make; ‘both sides’ are not equally bad, as one side makes extraordinary claims, while the other side demands to see evidence first before believing said claims. Also, just because a person is – in your view – an asshole, doesn’t make them wrong.

      I get that you don’t like feeling as though other people are laughing at you, but here’s the thing: if you’re going to go on skeptical websites and assert that you believe in the supernatural or aliens or the Mayan prophesies, then guess what? You’re going to be made fun of. If you wish to go through life without ever being challenged on any of your more questionable beliefs, then may I suggest you avoid places where you are expected to defend them?

  69. What about that crystal skull that Indy found, and then the temple turned into a flying saucer? What additional proof is necessary?

    • Touche, my friend. Touche.

      • Aaron Pitman

        Edwin, when you continuously spread the hypothesis that there is no evidence at all to support possible extra terrestrials, i think you need to make this quite clear what you have actually researched on this topic,other than bloody Ancient Aliens.

        There is insurmountable evidence to support that ufo’s in itself are most definitely a reality. Therefore if one wishes to associate these with possible Extra terrestrials, that in itself would not be an unreasonable belief to associate with it. The simple fact is we have anecdotal evidence going as far back as 1886 reporting the same type of metallic looking objects. These have all been witnessed by military personal, captains, generals, cosmonauts heck we even have a handful of astronauts who have seen these same type of objects, are you telling me everyone is hallucinating? .Now if we had this technology in the 1940’s why on earth didn’t we just finish world war 2 and be done with it, my goodness if a nation had this propulsion technology even now they would be the ultimate superpower. The truth is it would be absent minded to think we have this kind of technology, not in the 1940’s, not in reports from 1921, bloody hell i don’t think we have anything even marginally comparable to that performance today which are verified from radar recordings, speeds often averaging at 9,000 mph. These speeds are interesting enough if you analyse the radar reports. They consistently reach a similar burst of speed on the majority of radar recordings i have looked into, and all whilst being reported to be hovering, doing sharp right & left angle turns and on many occasions simply disappearing out of site. These accounts are also reported by military, police, you name it. Prufos ~(Police Reporting Ufo Sightings) last year had over 2000 reports solely from Police officers, all reporting these incredible objects.

        Ray Bowyer for example on a flight off the channel islands a few years ago witnessed two cigar shaped objects of a monstrous size glowing bright yellow in the middle of the day just stationary. He did an emergency landing out of safety concern, 43 passengers all saw these objects. We also had physical (Evidence) as they were both recorded on radar, there was another airliner crossing on the opposite trajectory quite some distance below which also recorded this on radar. That in itself is evidence of something unknown, which could not be an atmospheric error tracked as we have two separate aircraft both confirming two objects together!

        We also have the O’Haire airport scenario, i believe the event took place in 2006 which all revolved around an open runway on gate c-17. We have the full recordings of Air traffic control explaining that they can see a metallic disc blocking the runway, which at the time was an enormous concern for the safety of inbound aircraft coming in to land ( Let alone national security as this was restricted airspace). The object witnessed is found to be simply hovering in one spot then fly’s at a straight trajectory out of site. Moments later the operators see a perfect circle created in the clouds. What’s so interesting about this is that a few days later, because so many people saw this object and wanted answers the government was pressured to respond. They said it was a hole punch cloud. Now when you listen to the operators reports, they clearly said it was an object of a metallic looking quality, not a weather phenomenon. More interesting, it was later found that on that day the temperature was too warm to create a hole punch cloud, it was simply impossible that a hole punch cloud happened that day. The government completely fabricated the story, it was no longer speculation it was a scientific impossibility.

        Now you could argue that these are secret aircraft from the government etc. But if you look at the big picture with a rational mind it would not make any sense. As we have multiple witness sightings reporting the same type of objects in over 133 countries over the world, and these also are on the vast amount of occasions giving us PHYSICAL evidence of traces left on the vegetation. Markings on the ground are found which once scientifically tested always support the same outcome, enormous amounts of radiation recorded which are normally at least 10x higher than the surrounding area. More importantly it’s commonly reported after individual scientific analysis of the soil, that it’s been produced by some sort of electromagnetic energy. Now what i find the most mind blowing part of the physical evidence on the ufo phenomena, amino acids in plant vegetation has been completely scrambled, causing the plant life on the landing site to age quicker. That is again EVIDENCE that something unusual landed there, and a electromagnetic energy is the only thing we know of to our knowledge which could scramble the amino acids in plant life.

        You can go on and on and on, and to be fair i don’t honestly know why i am responding. As i don’t expect you to change your view. But maybe just maybe you will look further into this phenomena and act like a skeptic you portray yourself to be next time.

        I would like to finish and say, no we cannot categorically prove that this is extra terrestrial, inter dimensional or something of another planet. As we would need PROOF for that, a crashed craft, or a dead body of the entity would do just fine. But when you argue there is no evidence to support that this is a possibility you are simply talking complete bollocks.

      • Edwin, when you continuously spread the hypothesis that there is no evidence at all to support possible extra terrestrials, i think you need to make this quite clear what you have actually researched on this topic,other than bloody Ancient Aliens.

        I’m not spreading the hypothesis that there is no evidence to warrant a belief in extraterrestrials; I’m stating the null hypothesis that the number of extraterrestrials involved in the unfolding of human history is ‘Zero’.

        There is insurmountable evidence to support that ufo’s in itself are most definitely a reality.

        There is evidence that unidentified objects have been seen in the sky? Absolutely.

        Therefore if one wishes to associate these with possible Extra terrestrials, that in itself would not be an unreasonable belief to associate with it.

        Why is there a ‘therefore’ in this, you haven’t presented an argument. If your assertion is that, P1: People have seen objects in the sky they cannot identify, then C1: It is not unreasonable to conclude they might be aliens, I’m sorry, but that’s absolutely bonkers. Your conclusion does not follow from your (only) premise.

        I would like to finish and say, no we cannot categorically prove that this is extra terrestrial, inter dimensional or something of another planet. As we would need PROOF for that, a crashed craft, or a dead body of the entity would do just fine. But when you argue there is no evidence to support that this is a possibility you are simply talking complete bollocks.

        Wait, so you rattle off a half-dozen random anecdotes, bereft of any citations at all in order to support your assertions that believing in aliens is not unreasonable, but my reiteration of a null hypothesis, and my demands for evidence before entertaining such a wonderfully extraordinary claim is ‘complete bollocks’? What the hell are you on?

        Look, it’s really simple: Until such time as positive evidence confirming the existence of aliens is revealed – until we have a collection of evidence that points to nothing other than the existence of aliens – then we have absolutely zero logical or empirical reason to entertain the idea that unidentified flying objects are alien vehicles. You might want to believe that UFOs are aliens; you might desperately wish that they could be, but that’s all it is, wishful thinking. Provide me with evidence in the form of machined parts that were not made on earth, or even a collection of organic material that bears no relationship to any currently known species of creature on earth, and then we’ll talk. If the best evidence, hell if the best ‘hints’ that point to the existence of aliens is that someone saw something sometime and thought that it was too fast/shiny/strange/loud/quiet to be man-made, then I’m sorry but I have no reason to amend my position.

        Maybe it’s you that needs to reassess your beliefs.

      • Aaron Pitman

        “I’m not spreading the hypothesis that there is no evidence to warrant a belief in extraterrestrials; I’m stating the null hypothesis that the number of extraterrestrials involved in the unfolding of human history is ‘Zero’.”

        Make yourself clear without all the fluff in your statements Erwin. So your trying to say you accept that there is evidence to warrant the belief in et, but yet the hypothesis that et was involved in our human history is incorrect? …..

        “Why is there a ‘therefore’ in this, you haven’t presented an argument.”

        Really? you honestly feel that’s a weighty contribution to this argument? Don’t be a prat you come across as a condescending human being as it is, don’t make it worse for yourself.

        “If your assertion is that, P1: People have seen objects in the sky they cannot identify, then C1: It is not unreasonable to conclude they might be aliens, I’m sorry, but that’s absolutely bonkers. Your conclusion does not follow from your (only) premise.”

        Why on earth is that bonkers, elaborate please. Because your just making proclamations. How can you have the audacity to say that, when you don’t even respond and counter the evidence examples i have provided you? That’s a typical debunking response, your not looking at the evidence. You are just simply ignoring the fact that this is one possible explanation for these unknown craft.

        “Look, it’s really simple: Until such time as positive evidence confirming the existence of aliens is revealed – until we have a collection of evidence that points to nothing other than the existence of aliens – then we have absolutely zero logical or empirical reason to entertain the idea that unidentified flying objects are alien vehicles.”

        You my friend are amongst the primary contributors to the rejection of this subject by science. When so many people have seen these objects for the last 100 years, you can’t make out that everybody is stupid, or it must have been the planet Venus or even a mirage. Science won’t take this subject seriously, therefore it’s left to the ufologists who continually edge forward with the physical and anecdotal evidence, attempting to prove what this phenomena is. Science doesn’t do that, you don’t do that, that’s why it’s so frustrating. You just argue on a subject you know absolutely nothing about.

        “Healthy scepticism is good, but this kind of scepticism is ridiculous. Non-awareness is NOT synonymous with non-existence, and disbelief in something does not in any way detract from its reality. No one can create a fact by making a statement, and no one can get rid of a fact by denying it.”
        (Wilbert Smith)

      • Here, let me make myself clearer for you, without the ‘fluff’: There is zero empirical evidence, circumstantial or otherwise to indicate that a) aliens exist and b) that they had anything to do with any element of human history. The burden of proof is on you, the claimant, to show otherwise.

        Even more simply, because you seem to have difficulty grasping this:
        Null hypothesis (my position) There is no evidence to support a belief in the existence of aliens
        Alternate hypothesis (the thing you, the claimant holds): There is evidence to support a belief in the existence of aliens

        Now that we’ve established our relative positions, you’ll see that I don’t have to ‘prove’ that aliens don’t exist; nor do I have to ‘debunk’ any so-called sighting of ET. All I have to do is examine the quality of evidence presented by the claimant, and determine if it is of sufficient quality to warrant the rejection of my null hypothesis.

        You then present your ‘evidence’. Thus far, your evidence has consisted of anecdotes – literally “One time this person saw something in the sky that they couldn’t identify, but then decided to identify it anyways as some sort of alien vehicle. I believe them because lots of people have seen other strange things in the sky, and some of them have jobs that I consider to be relevant.”

        This is not evidence – of any kind. It’s merely an assertion predicated on the trustworthiness of the source. You say that you’re a huge supporter of science; well this isn’t science. This, right here, is hearsay.

        Really? you honestly feel that’s a weighty contribution to this argument? Don’t be a prat you come across as a condescending human being as it is, don’t make it worse for yourself.

        Your inability to understand a basic point of logic and your passive-aggressive whinging about the ‘tone’ of my response is not my problem. So you think I’m a prat? So what?

        Why on earth is that bonkers, elaborate please. Because your just making proclamations. How can you have the audacity to say that, when you don’t even respond and counter the evidence examples i have provided you? That’s a typical debunking response, your not looking at the evidence. You are just simply ignoring the fact that this is one possible explanation for these unknown craft.

        This is why it’s bonkers: An argument consists of a conclusion that is derived from multiple premises, and the conclusion must follow from the premises. Your only premise was ‘people have seen things in the sky they can’t identify’. You concluded that ‘since they’ve seen things in the sky they can’t identify, it is not unreasonable for them to identify them as aliens’. That’s illogical in the extreme. If something is unidentified, then you don’t know what it is. It can’t both be ‘unidentified’, and ‘evidence of aliens’. An alien starship hanging in orbit over the earth and directly visible through telescopes, satellite imagery or some other direct observation is evidence of aliens. An unidentified object cannot be evidence of anything other than perhaps that people sometimes see things they don’t recognize in the sky.

        If you truly and completely believe that aliens are real and that they are visiting the earth, but can provide no actual, concrete evidence to support your beliefs, then you – not me – are rejecting science and scientific inquiry.

        Again, put simply for you: If you believe something to be true without evidence, then you’re not being scientific – at all. If the ‘evidence’ that you claim to have amounts to nothing more than anecdotes, then you don’t have evidence in any scientific sense at all.

        You are rejecting scientific analysis; hell, you’re rejecting the scientific method, then lamenting that ‘science’ won’t take you seriously.

        Science won’t take this subject seriously, therefore it’s left to the ufologists who continually edge forward with the physical and anecdotal evidence, attempting to prove what this phenomena is.

        Will you listen to yourself? “Science won’t take us seriously, so we will instead place our faith in the un-scientific methods of UFOlogists who equate anecdotes with data. Why won’t you take us seriously!?”

        I also think it’s hilarious that you’d quote Wilbert Smith as some sort of authority on anything. Here’s the next line of that quote: “Statistically many more people have seen flying saucers than have seen atomic bombs, but the bomb information comes gilded with authority while the flying saucer information comes draped in scepticism.” This right here shows just how foolish Smith is. Why do people believe in the existence of the atomic bomb and not UFOs, despite more people having ‘seen’ UFOs? I’ll give you a hint: it’s not because people are bewitched by authority, as Smith seems to think. It’s because we have actual, hard, irrefutable evidence that atomic bombs exist – governments all over the world build and test them all the time! It’s not about Authority; it’s about evidence.

      • Aaron Pitman

        The only way i can comprehend your blindness of thought is that you simply must be brainwashed. You call your self a scientist, you say you are a skeptic, but throughout your clever babbling you have ignored each element of evidence i have provided you. If it simply isn’t evidence then argue against it and provide a real argument other than your mis-guided opinion. I

        Obviously everyone here is a tin foil hat nut job!

        “It is time for the truth to be brought out in
        open Congressional hearings … through official secrecy and ridicule, many
        citizens are led to believe the unknown flying objects are nonsense.”
        Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter, former
        CIA Director, USA

        “I happen to be in on the fact that we have
        been visited on this planet and [that] the UFO phenomenon is real.”

        Edgar D. Mitchell, Apollo 14
        astronaut, USA

        “Some of the things I know I’m not supposed to
        say, because they will never tell me anything anymore, but I am certain that
        contact has been made.”

        Ervin László (1932-), philosopher
        of science, systems theorist, integral theorist, Hungary

        “I personally believe that [President]
        Eisenhower did indeed meet with … extraterrestrial, off-world astronauts.”

        Henry W. McElroy Jr., former
        New Hampshire State Representative, USA

        “They could have done a lot more damage,
        permanent damage, to our weapons systems, and they didn’t … so I personally
        don’t think this was a hostile intent.”

        Robert Salas, former US Air
        Force missile launch officer, USA

        “They are men, and certainly better than us
        because of their tolerance and patience demonstrated in the face of our atomic

        Alberto Perego (1903-1981),
        Consul, Italy

        “The sons of God are everywhere. Sometimes we
        have difficulties in recognizing our own brothers.”

        Pope John XXIII (1881-1963),
        Pontiff, Roman Catholic Church

        “They are people like us. … I talked with them.
        I understand that we are not alone…”

        Kirsan Ilyumzhinov (1962-), former
        President Republic of Kalmykia, Russia; FIDE President

        “Man throughout the Universe resembles us… The
        experience I have had of them permits me to affirm that in them the good
        sentiments are enormously strong, while the bad sentiments are almost entirely

        Bruno Ghibaudi, science and
        aviation journalist, Italy

        “They were incapable of causing harm to anyone.
        Even their devices would refuse to harm anyone… Spirituality to them is the
        basis of everything. They see God even in the smallest insect.”

        Bruno Sammaciccia (d.2003), theologian
        and psychologist, Italy

        “There is no doubt in my mind that the star
        visitors would give us the technology necessary to save the planet if we asked
        them to.”

        Paul T. Hellyer (1923-),
        former Defense Minister, former Vice Prime Minister, Canada

      • As Michael has already pointed out, Aaron, a list of quotes by random people that you found on the internet do not constitute evidence of anything. Why in the world would I be impressed by a series of quotes? Also, did you seriously link to a quote by Pope John? That quote, devoid of the context in which it was written, could mean literally anything; I feel that a more credible interpretation is that the pontiff was speaking about people of other faiths and ethnicities. Why the hell would anyone who isn’t already committed to the belief in aliens look at that quote and think “oh yeah, the pope’s totally talking about aliens”.

      • Since comments to this thread appear in my email, I’ve been enjoying reading this back-and-forth between you two. Maybe I can help in a small non-confrontational way: Aaron, the quotes you provided range from impressive to not at all impressive. I fully grant you the impressiveness of some of them. But the disconnect between you and Edwin lies here: no matter how impressive a quote may be, it CANNOT be evidence. It cannot be tested, verified, or evaluated. It does not further our understanding of the “mystery.” I can’t think of a single scientist who wouldn’t collapse with joy if it were revealed that contact has been made or aliens are visiting us. They simply adhere to the scientific method, because it is is the most efficient way to achieve truth. Being an adherent of the scientific method does not diminish the impressiveness of your anecdotal evidence, it simply means that the anecdotal evidence does not help. Scientists are not your enemy. As soon as you can convince your “insiders” to reveal actual evidence, scientists will step in and be the best friend you ever had.

      • Aaron Pitman

        Hi Michael, thank you for your input. I agree and maybe it was misleading in my response to forward these anecdotes, as i do not at all feel it is solid evidence in itself. But my biggest gripe has been with Edwin and what he says, there is “no” evidence to support this phenomena.

        There are hundreds of radar reports and thousands of physical traces. Here are some of the most significant:

        1941-The Missouri UFO Crash Retrieval
        1957-Ubatuba UFO Fragments
        1965-UFO Landing in Pretoria, South Africa
        1966-The Tully Saucer Nest
        1971-The Delphos, Kansas Glowing Ring
        1980-The Rendlesham Forest Landings

        There is no discussion that ufo’s are not real, it’s a fact that they are a reality. So why can’t science identify where these metallic vehicles come from? They have had almost a hundred years to work it out. Swamp gas, misidentification, hallucinations and the planet Venus cannot be attributed to explain the simple “flying saucer”.

        Now if we simply discuss the “ufo” which is “saucer” shaped. This has been recorded since the very late 1800’s. I simply find it illogical to state that this cannot be out of this world, we have no evidence to prove what they are. I understand we have not got a crashed craft, or the body of an alien as proof, so do we simply decide this isn’t a reality and ignore it?

        All i want to know is, where this incredible technology is coming from. I will be completely satisfied then. Until then, to say that these objects are possibly from out of space is a possible answer. We can’t say it’s fact, but to say it is a possibility is not unreasonable no matter whatever you say.

        Out of curiosity Michael, do you share an opinion on the subject of ufo’s?

      • Again, because I feel that you are simply refusing to listen to what I’m saying: Are UFOs a real thing? YES. They are UNIDENTIFIED; they can’t both by Unidentified AND identifiable as alien craft. Then you say something that’s emblematic of the deep problems with your argument. Here is is,

        There is no discussion that ufo’s are not real, it’s a fact that they are a reality.

        Okay, so UFOs are a fact. Fine, I’m with you. People see things in the sky all the time that they cannot identify. They are seeing unidentified flying objects.

        So why can’t science identify where these metallic vehicles come from?

        Wait, what? How have we jumped from ‘unidentified’ to ‘metallic vehicles’? I’ll answer for you: we jumped from one to the other, because you desperately want the one to be synonymous with the other.

        I simply find it illogical to state that this cannot be out of this world, we have no evidence to prove what they are.

        Holy crap, you have absolutely no idea what the word ‘logical’ means. No one – no, not even me – is saying that the things people are seeing ‘cannot be from out of this world’; I am saying that we have no evidence WHATSOEVER to incline anyone concerned with evidence to think that they might be. Could they be from out of this world? Yes; they’re unidentified, so they might be extraterrestrial in origin. Do we have any evidence to support the assertion that they are alien in origin? No, and there is therefore no reason to assume or speculate or believe that they might be.

        Finally, your line of ‘reasoning’ is disingenuous. You start by talking about unidentified flying objects, then end up discussing ‘saucer-shaped’ objects and ‘metallic vehicles’. But since you haven’t even shown that any of the anecdotes or ‘eye-witness testimonies’ are anything other than some people’s recollections, you have absolutely no reason to move beyond the position that ‘some people have seen things that they can’t explain’.

        I’m not discounting any evidence here; you simply refuse to provide anything that qualifies as evidence. RADAR blips? Recollections? Vague assertions of ‘physical traces’? Sorry, but that level of ‘evidence’ – even in aggregate – wouldn’t cut it for any other topic of discussion, so why should it get special treatment here?

      • I am an amateur science fiction writer. I love the idea of aliens, interstellar travel, etc. There is literally nothing in the world that would make me happier before I die than to have earth contacted by extraterrestrials. World peace and harmony? Forget it, not interested. Just give me an alien and I’ll die with a smile on my face. But all that said, to answer your question–I do not believe we have been visited. The universe is too big and we are both too young and too uninteresting.

      • And this is my position exactly. I’d love it – LOVE IT – if aliens rolled up one day and showed us all that we’re not alone. That would be pretty much the crowning moment of my life. I’m just not so desperate to believe that it’s happened that I’ll take any scrap of testimony or circumstantial ‘evidence’ to base my beliefs on.

  70. Ladies and Gentlemen: Let’s go back to Columbus. He was trying to prove or rely on the theory that the Earth was round and not flat. Well he sailed with 4 ships: the Nina, the Pinta, the Santa Maria and ship number 4. Why no name? Because it fell off the edge of the Earth.
    So where does all the exotic, to the Mediterranian world, stuff come from? It is all made up in mobilized buildings in Timbuktu. They are moved every time someone goes looking for them. Where do you think Albert Speer, Hitler’s armament minister, got the idea from.
    I could go on with more examples but you non believers have no imagination.

  71. Paul Hanley

    I would like to take the position that I disagree with many of Edwin’s points.

    – Paul Hanley

    • Uh, thanks for the input?

      • Paul, I agree with you, but aruging with Edwin, a skeptic, will get you nowhere.

      • Damn straight it won’t – at least not until the people who keep ‘arguing’ with me start to a) make rational arguments instead of vague assertions, and b) support those arguments with evidence that meets a minimum standard of quality and reliability. Preferably something from an academic, peer-reviewed source, please.

      • Aaron Pitman

        “Damn straight it won’t – at least not until the people who keep ‘arguing’ with me start to a) make rational arguments instead of vague assertions, and b) support those arguments with evidence that meets a minimum standard of quality and reliability. Preferably something from an academic, peer-reviewed source, please.”

        What on earth are you talking about, rational arguments. For christ sake you have not once combated any of the evidence provided, you make assumptions that it’s all false. The evidence provided by the French scientific forensics society has analysed over a 100 of these physical traces where allegedly a metal disc has landed. We have amino acids scrambled in the plants causing premature ageing of the plants, and radiation readings way off the scale for the normal environment. You either assume everything and start your response with an opinion, or you are ignorant.

      • You haven’t provided any evidence Aaron, and when I took the time to look at a single example of what you call ‘evidence’ (the Westnall UFO), I find that you seem to have ‘tweaked’ the material a bit to make your argument seem stronger. What reason do I have to take you seriously, if you can’t even let the evidence that you seem so sure about speak for itself?

        QUICK EDIT: “French scientific forensics society has analysed over a 100 of these physical traces where allegedly a metal disc has landed.”

        Really? Who are these people? Where did they publish their findings? How was their evidence reviewed and received? Do you have a link?

      • Paul Hanley

        You are welcome.

  72. Aaron Pitman

    “And this is my position exactly. I’d love it – LOVE IT – if aliens rolled up one day and showed us all that we’re not alone. That would be pretty much the crowning moment of my life. I’m just not so desperate to believe that it’s happened that I’ll take any scrap of testimony or circumstantial ‘evidence’ to base my beliefs on.”

    Again this is why i get so frustrated with your comments. You do not address and give an argument towards to the evidence provided. When a whole suburb (Westnall Australia-documentary can be found on youtube) of people, literally thousands of people, farmers, shopkeepers, fire fighters, police men two schools with pupils, teachers and headmasters all witness metallic flying discs which were seen to land, lift off at unbelievable speeds and disappear, then appear miles to another area of Westnall where multiple of other credible people see it. There is categorically no dispute that these craft were there and are physical. As it is an impossibility that thousands of people hallucinated. Edwin please, please, please, stop arguing on a topic which you know absolutely nothing about! Do your research!

    • The Westnall UFO? Well, let’s take a look at that shall we? Do you happen to have any evidence that you could provide to support your assertions about the numbers of people who saw it and a description of the thing they saw? I’ve been digging around, looking for newspaper articles from around the date of the sighting, and thus far, I haven’t found much. I have found a ton of UFOlogy sites and paranormal sites that tout Westnall as ‘definitive proof’ of the existence of aliens, but, as is almost always the case, their evidence is remarkably shaky.

      When I read about Westnall, I didn’t find a story about a ‘whole suburb of people – literally thousands – who saw this strange thing’. Instead, I found a story about a few schoolchildren who claimed to have seen something, along with a few others who also thought they saw something in the sky – perhaps a couple of hundred witnesses at most. But as with just about any urban legend, the tale grew in the retelling, and your claim of ‘literally thousands’ is the largest number I’ve seen so far.

      Also, none of the witnesses at the time of the event, claimed to have witnessed ‘multiple flying metallic discs’, so I’d like to know where you are getting that from, since it doesn’t appear in the original reports. The witnesses mentioned a large object moving soundlessly, and some witnesses reported seeing aircraft in the area. But multiple metallic discs? Sorry, but no.

      There is categorically no dispute that these craft were there and are physical.

      Yes there is dispute! Just because you keep asserting that there is no dispute doesn’t mean that you’re right, and repeating the claim doesn’t make it any stronger. There is absolutely dispute, you’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

      As it is an impossibility that thousands of people hallucinated.

      Except thousands of people didn’t witness the event! a few hundred people – including a large number of children – witnessed it, and their tale has grown with each retelling. You’re frustrated that I won’t address your evidence? I’m frustrated that you can’t seem to be able to present any without feeling the need to embellish it to suit your own purposes.

      Do my research indeed. Try doing some yourself. Difficulty: without resorting to visiting ‘AboveTopSecret’ or any other such website.

  73. Paul Hanley

    Wow Aaron, you have attempted (perhaps with success) to “serve” Edwin. Points taken.

    I think you have a lot of hostility and anger built up from these discussions. How can this blog be more friendly?

    I think if everyone begins every sentence with “You have a good point”, it will work out.

    For example, Aaron: “You have a good point Edwin…even though you may make none”. See? It comes off friendly.

    Another example. Edwin: “You have a good point Aaron, even though you are a rationaless human being.” I have acknowledged the contributions of everyone!

    And always remember, arguing over the Internet is just that…just that

    – Paul Hanley

  74. Aaron Pitman

    “At approximately 11.00 am on Wednesday, 6 April 1966, a class of students and a teacher from Westall High School were just completing sports on the main oval when an object, described as being a grey saucer shaped craft, with a slight purple hue and being about twice the size of a family car, was sighted.

    Witness descriptions were mixed: Andrew Greenwood, a science teacher, told “The Dandenong Journal” at the time that he saw a silvery-green disc. According to witnesses the object was descending and then crossed and overflew the high school’s south-west corner, going in a south-easterly direction, before disappearing from sight as it descended behind a stand of trees and into a paddock at The Grange in front of the Westall State School.

    After a short period (approximately 20 minutes) the object – with witnesses now numbering over 400 – then climbed at speed and departed towards the north-west. As the object gained altitude some accounts describe it as having been pursued from the scene by five unidentified aircraft which circled the object. ”

    When you watch the new documentary made it explains that they have hit over a thousand reports after years later of constant search into the investigation. The variety of other been who saw the object were farmers, shopkeepers, and firefighters.

    “On the UFO, everyone seems to agree, Mr Ryan says. It was a low-flying, silver/grey shining object, either of classical flying saucer shape or close to it, “a cup turned upside down on a saucer”. The students were familiar with light aircraft because the schools were close to Moorabbin Airport. Although the UFO was of similar size, “everyone said straight away that they knew it was not a plane”, Mr Ryan said, nor a weather balloon.

    The object was in view for up to 20 minutes, and many saw it descend. Most agree it landed behind pine trees at the Grange Reserve. Dozens of students ran across what was then an open paddock to the reserve to investigate, but the object had lifted off and vanished.”

    • Okay, great, you’ve provided another collection of anecdotes and recollections by people talking about an event that occurred almost a half-century ago. We will place this form of ‘evidence’ into the ‘circumstantial/personal testimony’ column. If that’s the strongest evidence you have to present, I still have no reason to take it any more seriously than I do any other personal recollections.

      Now, do you have anything stronger? Perhaps a link to a peer-reviewed journal article or study that discusses physical, material evidence? If you do, then we can assess the quality of that evidence, and place it into the ‘physical evidence’ category. Then we go on the hunt for more physical evidence, cataloguing it if we find any. If we do find more, we catalogue it; we might want to order our evidence hierarchically into different levels, according to its quality. We could construct a 5-point scale (or 10, if you’d like): ‘1’ being ‘weak’ or ‘unreliable’ physical evidence, such as a patch of burned ground somewhere near the vicinity of a purported UFO sighting. A ‘5’ would be ‘powerful’ or ‘exceptional quality’ evidence, like the presence of a body or body part (like an appendage or eyeball) or the wreckage of an unknown craft currently in the hands of a reputable group of scientists – like, say, the CDC or JPL. This evidence would have to be independently verifiable and accessible to independent observers.

      We could then test the physical data and determine the likelihood that it is in fact evidence of an advanced alien species and not, say evidence of a previously unknown geophysical or astronomical phenomena, or if it was simply a hoax or a case of mistaken identity. We can then make our conclusions known either at a scientific conference or through an academic, peer-reviewed journal of our peers. We could then make available all of our data and our physical specimens, to allow other, independent organizations to conduct their own tests in order to attempt to falsify our findings.

      If we fail to release our data, or if we are found to have ‘massaged’ it, or falsified any part of it in order to make it appear to be stronger or of a higher quality, are results are nullified, and the testing must begin again, this time with another group of researchers.

      In other words, we could do science.

      This is the standard of evidence I require in order to be convinced of the existence of aliens. Well, that or the sudden appearance of aliens into a populated area (preferably along with their starship), who then provide us with undeniable proof of their alien origin, through either a gift of technology or scientific knowledge – think District 9 or Alien Nation.

      Yes, my standards are high. The existence of an advanced, extraterrestrial species is an extraordinary claim; I demand extraordinary evidence.

      • Aaron Pitman

        Edwin, if you look at the evidence of the last ten years it is simply mind blowing. We have dna evidence to support an unearthly anomalie.

        This analysis was done by APEG (Australasian Paediatric Endocrine Group) an extremely credible scientific research centre.

        A male allegedly had a unusual entity in his bedroom, which was allegedly humanoid. I know this sounds far out but please bear with me. There was a dna trace of hair embedded in his foreskin. The hair was extracted and this is what the dna analysis carried out by APEG discovered:

        The Results Of Alien DNA Testing

        The DNA analysis confirmed that the hair came from someone who was biologically similar to standard human genetics but of an unusual racial type – rare Chinese Mongoloid which is one of the rarest human lineages known to man that lies even further away from the human mainstream than any other, apart from African pygmies and aboriginals.

        The study concluded:

        “The most probable donor of the hair must therefore be as (Khoury) claims: a tall blonde female who does not need much color in her hair or skin, as a form of protection against the sun, perhaps because she does not require it.”

        The original DNA work was done on the shaft of the hair. Fascinating further anomalies were found in the root of the hair.

        Two types of DNA were found depending on where the mitochondrial DNA testing occurred, namely confirming the rare Chinese type DNA in the hair shaft and indicating a rare possible Basque/Gaelic type DNA in the root section. In addition the hair sample showed that it contained 2 deleted genes for the CCR5 protein and no intact gene for normal un-deleted CCR5 – this CCR5 deletion factor has been implicated in AIDS resistance.

        Perhaps even more controversial is the fact that we have findings suggestive of nuclear DNA indicating possible viral resistance. The nature of the findings suggest that there may be a very real connection with archeological findings, ancient cultures and myths such as Taklamakan mummies in China and the Gaelic Irish tales of the Tuatha da Dannan.

        Also i know this is ground breaking to announce but it adds that extra punch to the case, the guy passed two polygraph test also. This is actually quite a deeply disturbing case

      • Finally! An actual, empirical claim to examine. Well done. Let’s dive right in, shall we?

        Well, here’s the first problem I see: The ‘study’ wasn’t conducted by the Australasia Paediatric Endocrine Group (APEG), it was conducted by the Anomaly Physical Evidence Group (APEG) an ‘organization’ run by one Bill Chalker, a well known UFOlogist. The findings of the group’s ‘scientific study’ was published in a UFOlogy journal, hardly a reputable location. Interestingly, I can’t seem to find a copy of the report anywhere, and the website only seems to allow for hardcopy orders to be made. We’re not really off to a good start here.

        Further attempts to locate the actual research just leads me in circles around websites of dubious quality that ceaselessly cross-link to one another, instead of providing a link to the actual research. Some of these websites quote the ‘Canadian National Newspaper’ as a source for information, but such a newspaper does not exist. Instead, we find a blog site claiming to be ‘Canada’s progressive and cross-cultural national newspaper’. Okay, so far, so bad. We have no access to the physical data, raw or coded, and my web searches lead me to one dubious UFOlogy website after another. Thus far, all I seem to have is a bizarre tale that reads like an adolescent attempt to pen a piece of sci-fi erotica, and a claim that ‘stunning’ research had been published in a journal operated by the same group that allegedly conducted the research. Not good.

        The articles mention that the ‘alien DNA’ was tested in order to determine its origin. Mitochondrial DNA something that is present in many forms of life on earth, including pretty much every single human being. If you are running mDNA tests, then you’re examining something with mDNA which can only mean that it is native to this planet. You could make the assertion that maybe mDNA evolved on other planets, I suppose, but since we have absolutely no evidence of life on other worlds, that assertion wouldn’t stand up to much scrutiny. And no, mDNA from an ‘unusual’ source is not, in itself evidence of ET; some form of molecule or biological building block that doesn’t look like anything known to exist on earth might be, but it could also be from a species of terrestrial life currently unknown to science.

        The findings of this ‘study’ seem to indicate that the DNA examined belonged to a human of asian descent, and another of possibly European descent. How is this proof of aliens?

        Alleged links to the Tuatha da Dannan is purely speculative; there is literally nothing to indicate that any such link to a mythological race of beings exists, so why even bring it up?

        Here’s a possible alternative scenario: Man decides to step out on his wife, goes and visits a ‘massage parlour’ or ‘gentlemen’s club’ for a little fun and excitement. Man gets freaky with a couple of the ladies working there, goes home, and after a day or so, experiences a pain on his penis that, upon examination, reveals that one of the ladies left some hair under the foreskin. The pain requires that he visit a doctor, and in a fit of panic over the thought of his wife discovering his infidelity, conjures up this bizarro tale involving his almost being raped at the hands of two ‘well proportioned’ humanoid aliens who were on the prowl for human semen.

        Sound far fetched? Not when compared to the tale spun in this article.

        Remember our hierarchy of quality for physical evidence? This might – might – rate a ‘1’: the evidence is apparently unavailable, published only through an exceptionally biased and rather shoddy ‘journal’, and the findings of the investigation seem to directly contradict the assertions of the authors.

      • LOL!

        A B&E that leaves a rare but known type of human DNA is not “proof” of extraterrestrial visitation, it’s actually the opposite. Do a basic biology course or biological anthropology course to learn about how genetics work.

      • APEG is a credible source, but unfortunately, the APEG you’re talking about is the Anomaly Physical Evidence Group. They aren’t a scientifically accredited source, they are in fact an UFO-ologist operation; so anything they produce is going to be tainted by a bias favouring extraterrestrial interference.

      • Edwin, I know the extraordinary claims line is a favorite rhetorical move in skeptical circles, and that it has a distinguished provenance, since the root idea goes back to David Hume and its usual current forms are paraphrased from Carl Sagan. It also sounds like a plausible epistemic principle or standard of judgment.

        However, it suffers from at least two major defects severe enough that it ought to be retired. First, it is highly ambiguous. What is an “extraordinary claim”? This is neither a scientific nor a philosophical category, and defining it in a useful, non-arbitrary way is likely to be *very* difficult (if not impossible). (Similar points apply to “extraordinary evidence.”) Further, what is extraordinary is obviously a function of what is ordinary, and this depends (in the relevant case) on one’s intellectual, social, and cultural background. What claims are extraordinary changes greatly over time, from place to place, and even from sub-cultural group to group, perhaps from individual to individual.

        So, the assertion that a claim P is extraordinary is problematic unless the person making the assertion just means to say by it, “I (and presumably others like me in relevant ways) find this claim extraordinary (in some sense that makes me think that I would require (some / substantially / vastly?) more evidence in order to become justified in believing P that it would take for me to become justified in believing an average claim of a broadly similar but ordinary nature.”

        But this claim is merely a piece of autobiography by the person asserting it and places no obligation or burden on the person it is aimed at, unless the person receiving the challenger happens to want to fulfill the heightened expectations of the one issuing the call for stronger evidence.

        The fact that *you* or *I* or *people like us* or whatever group is in question do not ordinarily make or entertain a particular claim or group of claims doesn’t change the fact that one is epistemically rational insofar as she accepts those claims favored by the evidence, rejects those that the evidence is against, and withholds judgment in the absence of evidence or when the evidence is too close to call (obviously oversimplifying things a good deal.

        There is a response available to my critique, namely to say that “extraordinary” in the slogan is short-hand or code for something less ambiguous and not so enormously variable by time, place, education, culture, etc. The most plausible candidate for this, if we want to salvage the demand for additional evidence, is that “extraordinary claims” means “claims against whose truth we already seem to have considerable evidence.”

        If this is what is meant, then it becomes immediately clear why the person making such a claim needs to produce “extra” evidence: they must not only provide evidence in favor of their claim, but they must do so in a way that defeats or explains away an already existing body of apparent counter-evidence.

        But this is where the second major problem with the Sagan slogan appears: those who use it act as if labeling the opponent’s claim “extraordinary” is sufficient to produce the additional burden. But it isn’t. That isn’t how rational justification works. There are no alchemical incantations that we of a skeptical bent can use to turn a base claim needing evidence into a golden one needing super-evidence.

        If there is a substantial case to be made against the “extraordinary” claim and the slogan-invoker is able to lay it out, then the person being challenged has a tough job ahead. If the slogan-invoker can’t present the counter-evidence either due to a lack of relevant knowledge (etc.) or because there isn’t substantial counter-evidence, then the use of the slogan was a piece of sophistry — an act of intellectual fraud — or at best a case of pretension and humbuggery if the sophistry was not intended.

        So, in the best case, the user of the “extraordinary claims” slogan (which is fraught with ambiguities) attempts to assert an extra burden of proof without showing that there is one or making clear what that burden is. In the worst case, it is a sophistical attempt to gain a dishonest and undeserved advantage over a discussion partner. Either way, it is an impediment to rational discourse.

        (By the way, Edwin, while your use of the principle was the occasion for my discussion, the criticism is aimed at the slogan itself, not at you.)

      • It seems that there are a couple of counter-arguments that can be levied against your criticisms Henri, though I will admit that there is certainly a bit of mocking implicit in the use of the phrase.

        My first counter is aimed at the first ‘defect’ you’ve laid out, namely that the phrase itself is ambiguous and its meaning could change from culture to culture, or even person to person, and that counter is this: the phrase is only ambiguous or prone to shifting if we remove it from the context in which it was first formulated. “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence” is a heuristic deeply rooted, not in Sagan or Hume, but in the traditions of modern science – traditions that already prominently feature the hierarchies and categories of acceptable evidence. The term is most often deployed in discussions that are primarily scientific – in discussions already rooted in a specific intellectual context. The ‘rules of the game’, the types, qualities, and amounts of evidence required in order to disconfirm or confirm a set of hypothesis are already well-established.

        This is important – especially when we’re talking about claims pertaining to the paranormal, aliens, or alt-medicine – because by engaging in debate about these subjects, most people are already admitting, tacitly or otherwise, that they are accepting the parameters by which evidence is collected, analysed, and judged. If you and I are going to debate the existence of extra-dimensional entities who take on the appearance of spectres, and you are alleging to have scientific proof of their existence, then you’ve already decided that you wish for any examination of your claims and your evidence to take place within the context of a scientific paradigm. You’ve agreed to the rules of the game.

        There is no demand for ‘extra’ evidence or ‘super-evidence’ here; just a demand for a level of evidence that shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the claims being made are true. The existence of the Higgs-boson for example, was an extraordinary claim – so extraordinary in fact, that its proposer was ridiculed by many of his peers, including Professor Hawking. In order for the claim to be proven, humanity had to first build one of the single largest engineering projects ever conceived in order to test the theory. And it was tested; literally billions of particle collisions were generated and analysed, before scientists cautiously admitted that they might have found something that matched the proposed particle. They waited until they had confirmation of at least 5-Sigma (the chance that they were wrong was 1 in 35 million) before announcing their findings. This was the extraordinary evidence required.

        Your second ‘defect’ is also problematic, because contained within it appears to be the assertion that it is the responsibility of the slogan-invoker to lay out some sort of counter-evidence to the claim made by their debate opponent. Why? Suppose we are debating the existence of alien pyramid builders: You claim that the number of aliens who were involved in the construction of the pyramids is =/= (not ‘0’). I other the other hand, claim that there were zero aliens involved. Put simply, you have put forward a hypothesis, and I have adopted the null hypothesis.

        Null-hypothesis: aliens = 0
        Alternative Hypothesis: Aliens =/= 0

        I don’t need to present any evidence to support my assertion, as my assertion is merely the assumption of the null hypothesis. You however, have hypothesized the presence of a non-zero number of aliens; it’s up to you to prove it. I’m not adding any ‘extra’ burden to you by labeling your claim ‘extraordinary’, nor am I taking an ‘easy way out’ by assuming the null hypothesis, after all, someone has to. Now all you have to do is provide evidence of aliens at the pyramids that cannot be evidence for any other hypothesis. The evidence you present cannot be used as both proof of aliens AND proof of something unrelated, depending on how you interpret it, for example. It must be proof of aliens, and aliens alone. At worst, I’m rather snidely pointing out the incredibly challenging nature of the task ahead of you.

        The greatest problem that I can see with the use of the ‘extraordinary claims’ phrase, is that it assumes that both parties in a debate or discussion understand the paradigm under which the discussion is taking place. If I were to tell you that ‘I believe in aliens’, then there’s no real place to invoke the phrase, because I haven’t actually presented you with an empirical claim. If, on the other hand, I tell you that ‘I know that aliens are real, because there’s tons of evidence that supports me’, then we’ve begun down the road of evidence sharing. This problem isn’t really one for the invoker, but rather for the person who is making empirical claims. If they do not, cannot or will not understand that by attempting to support their beliefs empirically, they’ve admitted that they wish to discuss their beliefs scientifically, then that’s their problem, and I am under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to take the time to teach them.

      • A clarification: In the 3rd paragraph, line 6, “that” should be “than” (“justified in believing P than”)

        I should also add that my attempt to make some kind of sense out of the Sagan slogan about extraordinary claims may not be acceptable to many of those who use it. But without some interpretation that reduces the ambiguity and removes the threat of utter subjectivity from the principle, it can serve no useful purpose in rational discourse or inquiry. If I could see a different gloss on it that reduced the ambiguity and made the notion of a claim’s being extraordinary relevant to issues of evidence and left it as a worthwhile principle, that would be all to the good.

        The problem remains that even when the person challenging someone with Sagan’s slogan is aware of and able to cogently present the apparent counter-evidence that makes P “extraordinary,” labeling P as “extraordinary” does not seem to serve any further purpose. It seems as though its effect would likely be merely to introduce ambiguity and confusion. Similarly, once the opponent of P has presented the apparent evidence against P, saying “Now you need to offer extraordinary evidence for P” would be misleading and confusing at best.

        “Extraordinary evidence” just isn’t a concept that plays any role in our epistemic lives as we form, examine, reject, communicate, defend, etc., our beliefs. Technical or artificial terms can be useful in examining philosophical or scientific issues about knowledge, but their value comes from their precision and their connectedness to other technical jargon. Sagan’s slogan, I suggest, fails both as a piece of natural language for talking about epistemic issues informally and as a piece of jargon.

      • Henri,

        You’re playing at semantics, and badly. You’re also trying to redefine ‘ordinary’ into some junk post modernist ‘all claims are equally valid because people believe/think they’re good claims’ concept.

        Just because a fringe concept can amplify its voice in the vast echo chamber that is the internet does not make their beliefs or ideas valid in any way shape or form. Extraterrestrials visiting earth is not accepted as ‘ordinary’. If you were to claim that you’d spotted a Tasmanian Tiger, that would fall into the ‘ordinary’ claims category, reasonable and easy to verify. Claiming extraterrestrials visit the planet and/or that they’ve influenced human evolution and culture is ‘extraordinary’, because you’re claiming something that flies in the face not just of established studies, but flies in the face of all known research. Darwin faced the same issue, and was proven correct by science. Aaron over here, as well as the rest of the pro-ancient alien crew, are trying to skip the science part (what with all the reviews and need to empirically prove things), and simply have their view accepted as a part of the norm.

        Further, the theory that Aaron and his compatriots espouse is reliant on a widespread and all pervasive conspiracy to keep it out of the mainstream, and only references itself and its own remarkably shaky body of publishing. When ‘mainstream’ scientists or skeptics examine it and find it wanting, the community lashes out (as we see here), accusing them of being ‘unimaginative’, trapped in the box, or part of the conspiracy. Trying to apply the post modernist view to it does not make it a valid concept.

      • Sirs:

        First, after some wandering through the internet, I find that this debate about UFO = Aliens, instead of UFO = Mystery, is not uncommon. Paul Kimball over at The Other Side of the Truth has much the same discussion and disagreement with Stan Friedman. Like Kimball, Edwin isn’t saying that aliens might not exist, or that unexplained UFO’s might not be aliens – rather he’s stating the simple fact that no evidence (physical, testable) exists to prove that UFO’s are aliens. Testimony just isn’t a good enough source, and testimony in bulk doesn’t make it any better. If myself and the other two million Pastafarians told you that all unexplained UFO’s were manifestations of His Noodly Appendage, well, you’d want something more than our detailed word on it, wouldn’t you? Belief doesn’t equal fact.

        That’s not to discount the experiences of all UFO encounters, but rather to point out that whether one sees lights, or objects, or things defying the laws of physics, they’re still unknown things. Lots of people seeing something outside of their knowledge doesn’t automatically make that thing an alien/spaceship/noodle – it makes it unknown/unidentified. It could be aliens, but by at the same time it could be all kinds of other things too (and often have been). For you or I to definitely say that X cases = aliens requires that we (those of us making the claim) provide the proof (and again, an objective scientific standard of proof). Even in those cases where science has not been able to explain the phenomena, our conclusion should not leap from Unexplained! to Aliens!, but rather from Unexplained! to Unknown! U.F.O.’s, if taken as a literal acronym, are unidentified aerial phenomena (I’ll skip the ‘flying object’ part because it’s not always an object). What they are after science fails to explain them is anyone’s guess (I’m still rooting for His Noodly Appendage or Elder Gods).

        Second, the burden of proof business is an important one. Edwin’s original conclusion – that there is no evidence to support the idea that ancient civilizations were built with the help of extra-terrestrials – is just a null hypothesis. If we want to claim that ancient aliens did help out the Egyptians (or any of the other civilizations), we have to present solid proof of that claim, which amounts to testable and verifiable evidence, not interpretation, conjecture, or faith.

        As a Christian, I’m all in favour of holding irrational beliefs about the universe, beliefs which require faith and cannot be verified by others. God might exist, but I can’t prove that. I choose to believe it and I accept that there’s nothing inherently wrong with knowing it’s an illogical or irrational belief. But if I go to Edwin and say “God helped the Egyptians build the pyramids through divine miracles”, I’d better bring something to the table other than wishful thinking or en masse belief. What evidence I do bring has to withstand scrutiny and has to be more scientifically convincing than other explanations. If it’s not, then I’ll have to accept that it’s flawed. Thus, while I hope that aliens probably exist, and at some point we’ve probably been ‘buzzed’ (the Douglas Adams definition of visitation) by aliens, I can’t say for certain that aliens exist, that we’ve definitely been buzzed, or that some unidentified aerial phenomena must defacto be aliens.

        If I do bring some form of evidence to the table, I also can’t hold it up and then say to Edwin, “You explain it”. It’s my proof, and the duty lies with me to resist falsification. I should be the one poking holes in my own evidence – even to the point of producing and refuting counter-evidence. Logical fallacies and appeals to poor argumentation are evasions, not honest scrutiny. If testimony falls flat (as being unreliable and unprovable), and Edwin requires a higher standard, I have to go find it. I shouldn’t cling to bad evidence as sacred or unquestionable gospel. I don’t have to like that Edwin wants to see an object of unearthly origin or technology (ray gun, flying saucer, Tyranid breeding colony), but I should have something substantial to make an absolute claim with. If I don’t, it’s back to the status of a theory to explain phenomena.

        You could easily put forth the claim that UFO’s might be aliens – the Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis, but without proof you can’t get upset that such a claim isn’t fact. I’d love it if the phenomena in question were aliens (well, up to the point where they turn into something from a Lovecraft story), or if ancient civilizations were built with or for aliens, crypto-terrestrials, or pan-dimensional beings (excepting the mice business). However, until the phenomena is identified or proof of ancient aliens comes to light, we don’t know. Until that evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible, the null hypothesis stands as the best explanation.

        If you still think I’m off my rocker, I’d recommend a perusal of “The UFO Evidence: Burdens of Proof” by Jim Giglio and Scott Snell, or Kimball’s eloquent response to Friedman on the issue of proof (via the ‘Dear Stan’ posts).

        As to Paul, well – Om nom nom.

      • BCDiver, You have no idea what you are talking about. I have not claimed and do not think for a moment that truth is relative or subjective. That would make your charge that I was offering some kind of post-modernist spin plausible. Instead, I made the (obviously true) claim that what counts as an “ordinary” claim depends on the context in which one makes it. This is why the ordinary / extraordinary dichotomy is such a bad way to try to drive rational discourse. Because unlike true / false or evidentially justified / not evidentially justified, which are far less ambiguous and have clear uses in ordinary epistemic conduct, as well as in technical jargon in both science and philosophy, these terms simply don’t.

        The “extraordinary claims” line is a pop skeptical slogan, not a piece of legitimate scientific principle or scientific method or philosophy of science. It is a blunt instrument used by those too lazy or ignorant to make a case against a particular claim when they want their personal preferences to do the work of rational inquiry for them.

      • I notice that you have offered no evidence for your silly claim that the Sagan slogan is a heuristic of modern scientific methodology, Edwin. If it isn’t from Shermer, it is from some other pop skepticism source, because if you tried to use it in an actual scientific context, people would laugh at you.

        You have no scientific or epistemological credentials, and yet you opine as if your unevidenced word were sacred writ on the nature of evidence and rationality. You have a sixth-grader’s understanding of the scientific method, no training in any of the sciences, no knowledge of the history of science, and a laughable and patently obvious misunderstanding of the nature of scientific method and evidence. You desperately need an introductory course in the philosophy of science since Popper. There has been a bit of progress.

        I’m not sure whether you are better classified as a sophist or a troll, but you are an embarrassment to anyone who argues against fringe nonsense from a legitimate position of scientific and epistemic understanding. You are intellectually an infant, scientifically and philosophically a dilettante of the most superficial sort. You do your own cause far more harm than good.

        You are, in short, either so foolish and naive about epistemology and scientific method that you have fooled yourself with a handful of grossly inaccurate and ignorant platitudes or so dishonest that you are hoping to fool others with your meager and pathetic handful of pseudo-scientific canards. It may make you feel like a big boy to be the big defender of Science, but you aren’t defending Science, you are spreading a child’s misconception of science. Any serious engagement with skepticism (which is obviously far beyond your very meager philosophical capacities) would lead to your taking down this little humor site and going off to sit quietly in the corner of about a hundred graduate science and epistemology graduate courses until you began to learn enough to deserve to participate in the serious conversation about skepticism and the scientific method.

        You are an utter joke, and not an amusing one.

      • I read your screed and all I see is a hodge-podge collection of polysyllabic words strung together in a desperate attempt to sound intellectual. Reading back through your comments on this blog gives me a bit of a chuckle, and I think I’ll keep laughing for a while yet. What appeared at first to be an honest attempt to engage in a civil discussion rapidly turned into what I can only describe as a hissy-fit on your part that someone on the internets would dare to question the garbage you spew.

        You wandered on to my blogspace and have shit it up long enough; time to wander the fuck back out again.

    • Edwin, Your response is riddled with errors about the nature of scientific reasoning. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the standard for conviction in a criminal court in the US (and some other countries). Very few scientific principles ever become established to that standard, as any working scientist or philosopher of science or historian of science would tell you. Your humorous abuse of statistics in the case of the Higgs Boson shows how far you are from understanding what the degree of epistemic justification of a belief is.

      For you to tell someone that you demand “extraordinary evidence” from them but that this doesn’t mean that they need any “extra evidence” is a pretty conclusive demonstration that the Sagan slogan (which is *not* a fundamental heuristic of the scientific method; how about some evidence for that whopper?) as *you* employ it is a piece of sophistry after all.

      I don’t believe that there is *any* evidence that we’ve ever been visited by extraterrestrial space travelers. But if I adopt the position that no aliens helped build the pyramids (as indeed I do), the only rational stance for me to take is that I will continue to believe that until the evidence in favor of aliens having been involved in building the pyramids is better than whatever reasons I have for believing any alternative theories. Scientific inquiry doesn’t proceed by weighing each proposal versus a null hypothesis. It proceeds by weighing competing hypotheses against each other (though this is of course always complicated by the necessary concession that our knowledge is incomplete).

      The model that you propose we engage in — someone makes any claim and it has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt versus a null hypothesis — is a bizarre parody of the scientific method. No doubt it would produce the result we want against nutty claims, but it isn’t how actual scientific inquiry proceeds and most of our scientific knowledge would be sacrificed if subjected to the same kind of piecemeal inquisition by someone who applies a foolishly misplaced standard of evidence while exempting himself from any evidential requirements.

      You really should try engaging with the actual literature on scientific method, the history of science, the role of evidence in justifying belief, etc., and not just rely on what Michael Shermer says science is. He doesn’t know either.

      • Face it Edwin, Henri is schooling you. Sightings ARE a form of evidence. In a court of law, an eye witness goes a long way..

      • 1. Courts recognize that eye witnesses are often the most unreliable form of evidence.

        2. Science demands a greater level of certainty than a court of law.

        why do you even try to prove your beliefs scientifically, when you appear to be completely ignorant of what science requires of you? just accept that you take your beliefs in aliens on faith and go with it.

        [EDIT] added links showing the unreliable nature of eye-witness testimony. From the article: “It seems, therefore, that each of us ‘reconstructs’ our memories to conform to our personal beliefs about the world.

        This clearly indicates that our memories are anything but reliable, ‘photographic’ records of events. They are individual recollections which have been shaped & constructed according to our stereotypes, beliefs, expectations etc.”

        TL;DR The more time that has passed between an event and the recounting of the event, the more the details of what happened are likely to shift and reconfigure in order to fall in line with our already-established beliefs about the world.

        If you already believe in aliens, the chances are good that you are more likely to interpret something you remember seeing as a child or when you were young as being extraterrestrial, because interpreting it that way conforms to your already-existent set of beliefs about their reality.

      • Really, Henri? Science doesn’t work by testing claims against a null hypothesis? Science doesn’t demand that evidence reach a certain level of certainty (say, 5-Sigma – the level I described in my post, that you seemed to have glossed over entirely) before it is accepted? Well, this is news to me! Also, your statement: “I don’t believe that there is *any* evidence that we’ve ever been visited by extraterrestrial space travelers. But if I adopt the position that no aliens helped build the pyramids (as indeed I do), the only rational stance for me to take is that I will continue to believe that until the evidence in favor of aliens having been involved in building the pyramids is better than whatever reasons I have for believing any alternative theories” shows that you really don’t understand how science works. Your disbelief in alien pyramid builders is the null hypothesis – that’s what ancient alien claims are being tested against! It’s not an ‘alternative theory’ that is being tested; it’s the rejection of a positive claim, ie: that aliens did build the pyramids. The second half of that statement is also seriously problematic; you’ll continue to believe what you do until the evidence against those beliefs outweighs your reasons for holding them? That’s not how science works! That right there is an example of clinging to a belief until it is too ridiculous to do so. That’s not a reasoned or scientific position; that’s faith. What if your reasons for holding a belief are so strong (to you) that they outweigh any evidence to the contrary? That’s how creationists think. “I will continue to believe that God created the earth 6000 years ago, until the evidence you can bring me outweighs the reasons I have for holding on”. Hardly scientific.

        The model that you propose we engage in — someone makes any claim and it has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt versus a null hypothesis — is a bizarre parody of the scientific method.

        It’s also not what I said. in order to reject the null-hypothesis, all one needs to do is present a single piece of evidence strong enough to warrant that rejection. If you say that some types of wood sink in water, and I say that no types of wood sink in water, then all you need to do is find me a single piece of sinking wood to convince me to reject the null hypothesis. This is one of the central components of the scientific method; falsifiability. If you think that science works in some other way, then I’m sorry to say, but you are the one who has absolutely no clue how it works.

        Also, this: “You really should try engaging with the actual literature on scientific method, the history of science, the role of evidence in justifying belief, etc., and not just rely on what Michael Shermer says science is. He doesn’t know either.”, is just plain stupid. I don’t believe that I’ve ever mentioned Shermer anywhere on this entire blog. “Waahhhh your arguments are stupid because I hate Michael Shermer… wwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh”. Grow up.

  75. Paul Hanley

    “The existence of an advanced, extraterrestrial species is an extraordinary claim; I demand extraordinary evidence”

    If witty arguments on blogs turned me on, I would be turned on right now.

    – Paul Hanley

  76. Henri:

    While you’ve obviously retreated to the last pillar of idiocy by resorting to insults and belittling, I’d like to call you on your expertise. Who are you, behind the mask of anonymity? What “scientific or epistemological credentials” do you hold that we should regard as proof of your own expertise on the subject? Where have you published, what conferences have you presented at, and which qualified experts or institutions would vouch for your ability to comment? We know who Edwin is, but you’re demeaning him without exposing yourself to the same standard.

    If you were interested in having a civil discussion and presenting a counter-argument, you have now quite failed to do so. Instead of belittling him, perhaps you’d care to actually refute what he says? Please demonstrate to those us who read this blog that you yourself have an understanding of logic, argument, science, and epistemology that does not resort to childish whining and ad hominem retorts. Surely you know better, or can we now pass you off as a troll? Do you have the courage to genuinely face the audience, or is defamation the only trick remaining to you?

  77. Edwin, I don’t like it when you post comments on your homepage to highlight what one of your bloggers has said, and then you post your rebuttal right after – there’s an implicit rhetorical effect in doing so, and for someone whose got a hard-on for objectivity/hard evidence like yourself – this is problematic.

    You run the site, the last word can always be yours…but sometimes it need not be.

    People like to believe in aliens…does it matter if there’s any “hard” evidence or not (and yes, I realize there are 1000 posts trying to define what ‘hard’ is)? For you it matters, but for others, they’re just waiting for the day when 1,000,000 people storm Area 51 and show the whole world what they are/are not hiding (please don’t copy and paste this quote, and then argue me about Area 51).

    I read these arguments phenomenologically…is it so much about whether or not we can prove aliens exist? That will always be contentious, even if 1,000 aliens stormed earth right now with laser guns and ships, we would see it, and then the narrative of what happened would get distorted, falsified, and lost after several generations of skeptics refused to believe what we supposedly saw.

    In Enema of the State, Tom Delonge writes and sings “Aliens Exist”. The ONLY thing that I’m saying is this:

    That’s a good fucking song, for what it is.

    – Paul Hanley

    • Edwin, I don’t like it when you post comments on your homepage to highlight what one of your bloggers has said, and then you post your rebuttal right after – there’s an implicit rhetorical effect in doing so, and for someone whose got a hard-on for objectivity/hard evidence like yourself – this is problematic.

      You run the site, the last word can always be yours…but sometimes it need not be.

      Thanks for your concern, but I think I’ll just go ahead and keep doing what I’m doing.

      That will always be contentious, even if 1,000 aliens stormed earth right now with laser guns and ships, we would see it, and then the narrative of what happened would get distorted, falsified, and lost after several generations of skeptics refused to believe what we supposedly saw.

      You seem to have a rather bizarre understanding of skepticism. Also, I don’t think you know what the word ‘falsified’ means.

      • Paul Hanley

        I was expecting a little better than that….

        Why didn’t you pick on my interpretation of “phenomenology” instead of a few nouns I used? That has way more roads for you to go down to draw others away from my “general” point which is that you are a narcissistic, smug individual who like many others can’t seem to “lose”. But what’s funny is that the way you present your comments, you are the one who makes it about winning and losing (others, it seems, reproduce that as well).

        What is this now, wordsmithing? (Uh oh…didn’t check Webster’s dictionary, I’m in shit….WAIT, Webster’s isn’t “peer-reviewed either shit, or wait, IS IT?…..What do I use Edwin, what do I use? No sorry, what do YOU use…please, give us the ‘true’ dictionary…)

        I don’t what falsified means? It means “making something false”. Does that definition not meet the standards for this blog here…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

        – Paul Hanley

      • Why should I try to discuss your interpretation of phenomenology? Why should I feel bound or obligated to discuss anything at all that you feel I should? Reading your comments thus far leaves me feeling that you’re not here to ‘discuss’ anything; you’ve done nothing so far but leave snide, ‘tone trolling’ comments or comments that appear to be in bad faith. You don’t seem inclined to discuss anything with anyone. Just because you want me to respond to something, or just because you don’t like how I do something does not, in itself, demand that I change anything or address anything you’ve said.

        So thanks for coming out, I hope you’ve been enjoying yourself, but if it isn’t obvious already, no one here seems to have the slightest interest in anything you’ve got to say. Run along now.

  78. Paul Hanley

    I just think it’s hilarious online…when someone gets pissed off or they think they’re put in a corner, what do you do?

    Attack language.
    Attack language.
    Attack language.

    Fair enough, but for me…………ZZZZzzzzZZZZZZzzzzz

  79. Wow. This is a veritable shit-storm of stupid.

    @ Rik:
    Yes, if by schooled you mean “Texas Science Class Home Schooled”, in which case, yes, Henri is leading the way to the bottom and beating Edwin every step of the way.

    @ Paul Hanley:
    You apparently don’t understand how skepticism, or historical record for that matter, work. Were 1000 aliens with lasers attack the earth in a dramatic manner befitting a hollywood film, Skeptics would be the first to ask: “Are we sure it was aliens?”, followed by ” Alright then, so, these are really extraterrestrials, what can we find out about them?” It’s precisely this sort of thing that skeptics want; cold, hard, and in the case of your example, dead, aliens and UFO bits. Also, regardless, an attack of that style and magnitude would become part of the historical record; unless it happened in backwoods Russia or China, then we might never hear about it.

    Past that, if you’ve actually read anything Edwin has posted in this never ending wall of crazy, you’d see that at no point does he deny that extraterrestrials might exist. He does however, require you to present hard, tangible proof that they’ve :
    1.: been on the planet
    2.: influenced humanity

    Absolutely nothing presented here, or in the numerous references to UFOlogist sites, provides that proof. Lots of speculation, lots of wishful thinking, lots of personal delusion, metric tonnes of conspiracy theory, plenty of anecdotal stories, but no hard evidence.

    I have to ask, are you mentally disabled or brain damaged? I’m actually being serious here. You tried to rebrand “ordinary” and then you attacked ECREE as being a feature of popular culture, relied on by the intellectually lazy. Then you come out swinging with personal attacks and a series of incomprehensible jumbles of lay science and misunderstood concepts.

    For starters, the standards of the US justice system are no where near as high as those for something to accepted as a scientific theory, with theory being used in its scientific meaning. In fact, your whole statement reeks of a profound ignorance of what the scientific method is and how it is applied. “Beyond a reasonable doubt.” might be enough to send a man to death row, but it is no where near enough for a concept or idea to become a scientific theory. I strongly recommend you check out some college or university level scientific texts from the 1st or 2nd year level courses, they will explain it all.

    ECREE is not a feature of popular culture, it is the culmination of centuries of scientific development. Darwin and Wallace put forward the extraordinary claims of natural selection and evolution; and it took extraordinary evidence to vindicate their beliefs. The same goes for Hutton and Lyell, when they said the earth was more than about 6000 years old. Again, an extraordinary claim that flew in the face of established thought. ECREE has been a feature of scientific thought and development since the middle ages, but is was never annunciated as a short sound byte. It simply always has been. Sagan just put it into words.

  80. @BCDIVER:

    Revision: Change skeptic to “human beings”


    However anyone would like to identify themselves, I think you all have one thing in common. You pick out “one” word, and much like a Bi-Polar person (I inserted this on purpose to create another tangent), you run off on that tangent as though it at all responded to my general point, which I will emphasize once AGAIN:

    Edwin is smug and narcissistic.

    Let’s try to flush out THIS thesis instead…

    – Paul Hanley

  81. @ Edwin:

    Yes, this has been an amusing exercise for myself, thank you. No intentions to amuse others, if that happens along the way, even better :)

    – Paul Hanley

  82. Edwin: “if it isn’t obvious already, no one here seems to have the slightest interest in anything you’ve got to say”.


    Rik T says:
    January 27, 2013 at 2:43 am
    Paul [that is me], I agree with you [by you, he means me], but aruging with Edwin [that is you, Edwin], a skeptic [you again], will get you nowhere.

    I have disproven, with hard, written, accurate, objective, empirical evidence, your argument that “no one” (which would refer to no more than 0 persons), has the “slightest interest in anything [I’ve] go to say”. See, I infer that by Rik T agreeing with the position I articulated demonstrates at least the “slightest” interest in what I have to say, which I will repeat here:

    “I would like to take the position that I disagree with many of Edwin’s points.”

    – Paul Hanley

    That felt pretty good.

    – Paul Hanley

    • You’re just being a prat at this point, immature and frankly, more than a bit pathetic. Instead of adding to the discusion (such as it is), you seem to be getting your tiny, tiny, intellectual rocks off with flippant commentary.

  83. Paul Hanley


    You’d see that that is EXACTLY what everyone else, Edwin in particular, is doing. Just listen to the tone it all…it’s as though you’re all right (and there is a ‘right’) and you put down other people in the longest rants known to human history.

    He writes on the homepage:

    “Every so often, a commenter on my blog presents me with a comment or question that is profound/insightful/novel/awful enough to give me pause and force me to think a bit.”

    That isn’t pretentious, passive aggressive, and talking down to everyone? He’s insulting everyone who writes a comment, and then he has to balls to gloat over how many people click on and read this shit?

    What an accomplishment, 72,000 people who tell you everyday how wrong and ridiculous you are. I don’t know, I guess it makes me smile (and frown) a bit :)

    – Paul Hanley

    • I’ve wasted enough time and blogspace on you. You’ve offered nothing substantive in any way, shape or form, and by and large your comments have amounted to little more than “Hurrrrrrr you r a poopyhead… durrrrr’ It’s time we parted ways. For the second time in the history of this blog, I’ve opted to deploy the banhammer. Good riddance to a sad, sad little troll.

  84. Believers based in faith rather than evidence tend to end up in the ad hominen fallacy when they have been challenged. It’s a way to identify close-mindness, zeal, arrogance and inmaturity. It’s also something used a lot by politicians by the way.

      • Thank you. I’m glad you think so, because as a matter of fact, I was planning on writing an article critizicing ancient aliens, and I stumbled upon this article. After reading it and getting caught up on reading all the comments (which I enjoyably did), I just felt the need to contribute with something. Thank you

        And as a side note, about the “astronaut” sculpture at the begining:

        When I first saw it, I immedatly thought of this: Now, I don’t know if that sculpture was made by aztecs or any of their vassal states, could’ve been made in China for all I know, but even so, I think it just goes to show that coincidences and similarities are bound to happen. Besides, I don’t know when it was unerthed, but erosion smoothens up just about anything given enough time. That sculpture could’ve been very colorfull and sharper in its early days.

        And as a second side note, on the pyramids:
        as an architect I find it very logical that the first great constructions of pre-classic civilization were pyramids. Especially when stepped pyramids are seen as a precursor. Mountains are also basically pyramids, and many different cultures around the world admired mountains for religious uses. In pre-colombian sites in Mexico stepped pyramids are even aligned directly at mountains. Humanity knew very little about physics and engineering at that time, but they certainly figured out that a triangular shape is the most stable structure you can build. We don’t build pyramids today because we can build much more complicated (and less wastefull) structures.

  85. The .jpg wasn’t included in the link. Interesting though.

  86. according to the show aliens created us , and we’re an experience. So if alien created us who created aliens ? I just dont understand how people believe in God that supposedly have this magical powers and controls everything and dont believe in aliens i mean if God have powers then it’s not human , if it’s not human then what is it ? Something that is also confusing me it’s the fact that things wrote it thousands of years ago are happening now , I’m talking about bible , was “predicted” and it’s happening. (sorry if i made some mistakes on my writing , english it’s not my first language)

    • funny you should say that because the pope (I forget which one) came out and said that believing god is an ET isn’t a sin because extraterrestrial mean not of earth and seeing as (according to the bible) god existed before earth he is not of earth and thus an extraterrestrial.

  87. Question; Are you a ‘God Botherer’ confronted by a more plausible explanation than the one that the Human Race has been peddled by the various iterations of a man-created religion?

  88. The show actually never makes claims as fact, but ask questions. I have actually seen some of these artifacts and find the questions they ask very honest.

    • The show never actually claims their assertions as fact largely, I suspect, because the people on the show know that what they’re saying is not supported by the evidence. The reason I tend to disagree with the notion that they’re asking their questions ‘honestly’, is because I think that an honest questioner would first be asking if there’s any reason to believe their foundational premises. Rather than asking us ‘is it possible that these things were made by aliens/angels/extra-dimensional beings?’, shouldn’t they first be asking ‘is there evidence to support the claims that aliens/angels/extra-dimensional beings’ exist? If they haven’t yet answered the second question, then perhaps they shouldn’t be asking the first.

  89. I dont feel your argunent is very strong jere, you tell us what the ancient alien theorists say and.then you say no thats not true but offer no other explanation. I think you are quickly dismissing an interesting theory that could really use some scientific and anthropologic study.

    • Asking the question “Were aliens involved in helping human civilizations grow?” isn’t a theory, and it’s not a question that could use anything other than critical examination. Scientists of all stripes, archaeologists, anthropologists, and a host of scholars from other disciplines have already asked the more basic question of “How did human civilizations emerge and grow?”, and the work they’ve done has thus far failed to unearth any evidence at all of aliens. If the folks who are usually featured on this show believe that they have evidence to support their assertion that aliens were involved in our history, then they’d best show it to the rest of us.

      • “Scientists and the work they’ve done has thus far failed to unearth any evidence at all of aliens”. Well for one thing they took out that supposition of alien evidence that was staring them in the face in the first place. For example archeologists 1 unearths those figures which looks like birds and maybe fishes and right away they would hypothesize that these were sculpture or art that ancient people made depicting birds or fishes even the shapes of the tail or fins looks like that of an airplane. The supposition that these were depictions of aircraft they would just cross out because we all know that flying aircraft must not have existed thousands of years ago. It’s impossible and implausible they would say. So crossing it out as a hypotheses would be very convenient. Well my view is these bird-like or fish-like figures are actually the alien-evidence yo are quik to dismiss. My view.

      • It’s your view, and you’re welcome to it.

        So let’s say that Archaeologist One unearths a strange clay pot covered with intricate carvings and shows the artefact to Archaeologist Two. A1 looks at the carvings as says “These appear to be carvings of birds on this pot. Interesting!” A2 looks at the carvings and says “I disagree. Those appear to be carvings of aircraft.” Now supposing Archaeologist Three wanders up and, after hearing both interpretations says “Interesting. What reasons do you have for interpreting the artefact the way you have?”

        A1: “Well, these pictograms here look like many of the other ones we’ve found at this site; we’ve also unearthed more than a few similar artefacts, and in a few of them we found bird bones. Further, we have found similar artefacts with similar pictograms at other sites in the surrounding area, along with fragments of stone tablets that we’ve been able to translate that seem to be referencing these and other clay artefacts. I feel that my interpretation of these pictograms as birds is a reasonable one.”

        A2: These pictograms appear to be of objects that look similar to modern aircraft – look, you can see wings, a tail, even the cockpit up front here. I suppose that it’s possible that they are birds, but isn’t it also possible that the artisan who made this pictogram was in fact drawing their own interpretation of an aircraft?”

        A3: “Do we have any evidence of aircraft from this period of time?”

        A2: “Just because we haven’t found any evidence doesn’t mean that there weren’t aircraft here.”

        A3: “Right, I hear what you are saying, but by that same logic, there isn’t any evidence of reverse time-travelling vampires either; does that mean that we can interpret these pictograms as representations of such beings?”

        What I’m trying to illustrate here is that the two interpretations of archaeological evidence are not, in fact, equal. One – the consensus archaeological interpretation – is backed by multiple lines of mutually reinforcing evidence. Sure the picture they paint is incomplete, but then so is the available evidence from that time. But the assertion that our hypothetical pictograms are in fact evidence of airplanes is backed by nothing at all except the convictions of the second archaeologist.

      • Wow. In addition to terrible spelling and grammar, that’s a load of appalling uneducated nonsense. Literally, it makes no sense. In archaeology, the provenance of an artefact is determined using a variety of methods and information sources. Leaping immediately to “Aliens!” ignores most, if not all of them.

        Your “view” is in line with the concept that a vast conspiracy exists that influences and muzzles the hundreds of thousands if not millions of scientists, archaeologists, and historians studying world prehistory and early civilizations. An artistically stylized artefact is not proof of aliens, it’s proof that someone had imagination back in the dim mists of time.

        Were an archaeologist actually to uncover proof of extraterrestrial visitations in the the distant past, they would be immediately famous; and under a tonne of pressure to back up their claims in a peer reviewed report.

      • Right, and if it were found to be true, the status quo would simply change and our knowledge would grow. Saying “I told you so,” as has been already stated, doesn’t help getting us there. Evidence and reasoning does.

  90. @Edwin. Well put.

    But, let me give you story about the Nazca Lines. Ok, skeptics think that it is so silly to think that these were just alien-made and not man-made by very resourceful and smart ancient peoples, no doubt. Really!?

    Anyways, the story goes like this:

    Azkul, a Nazcan native suddenly came up with a brilliant idea of creating a very huge scorpion figure that would encompass the lay of the land. So he calls his friends and with some ingenious navigation tools that were already invented then they proceeded to carve out the figure from their sketches combined with a little bit of math and astronomical knowledge that was already known then. Nevertheless, after several months or years or so, they finally completed it and they were confident that they have created a very nice huge figure of a scorpion even though they are not able to view from the sky. Azkul was so giddy that he went back to his tribe and boasted of his accomplishment and led his tribe through the maze of the scorpion figure, after which some of the members blurted out “Wow, that was a really nice figure of a scorpion you have made. I bet thousands of years from now they will marvel at your accomplishment. You’re the Man! (Clapping all around)”


    Thousands of years later, up in the sky from an airplane there were two observers. Observer 1 blurted out “Must be alien-made or inspired!. Observer 2 immediately hollered “Why that’s so silly. It’s just an ingenious creation of a Nazcan Native, what with all that time in his hands (instead of jerkking off, I guess)!.”

    Really! That’s so silly! LOL.

    P.S. Sorry for the sarcasm.

    • Just so we’re all clear, the Nazca lines can be seen from the “surrounding foothills,” according to wikipedia. Flight not required.

    • I really have no idea what point you’re trying to make here; are you implying that the idea of some guy and his friends making the nazca lines is less likely than the idea that they were somehow inspired by aliens? Are you also asserting that the reason said guy would make these designs in the first place was because he was anticipating some sort of recognition from people living long after his death?

      Are you being serious, or are you trolling me? Is this some kind of Poe that I’m just not seeing?

  91. Just trying to lighten up the conversation. Being so serious about these things is a drab. My point being is that I’m speculatiing that future recognition could have inspired them to create al these marvelous figures, that is if I subscribe to the idea that it is so silly for some people (especially those AAT’s) to think these were probably alien-made or alien-inspired. But I don’t think that it is silly to think that these figures were made or inspired by aliens. I am so open-minded to every single hypothesis that I am open to the idea that these figures could have been carved out when this area was underneath water a few million years ago by nonetheless intelligent marine life, however outrageous this may seem. You betcha!

    Sure you could argue that there are no hard evidence e.g. fish bones, calcium deposits, salt deposits etc to back up my claim. But let me tell you a story about Allen, Skeep, and the little mouse, and please bear with me for a few minutes:

    Skeep always makes his Ham & Cheese sandwich for kunch to eat the next day in school. He keeps ihese in the refrigerator every night and wraps them in the morning.

    This particular day Allen was up all night and has been toiling all day at a book report he has to submit the next day in school. At about midnight he felt hunger pains and decided to take a break and go down to the kitchen for some snack. With paper in hand, the book outline he wanted to review while snacking, he sauntered downstairs and went straight to refrigerator, carefully putting his outline in the kitchen countertop. As soon as he opens the fridge he saw this delicious ham & cheese sandwich, grabbed it and was about to gobble it when he remembered that this was Skeep’s lunch. So he reluctantly put it down next to his outline on the kitchen countertop and proceeded to look for his snack inside the fridge. Suddenly his cellphone rang and his girlfriend wanted him to go up to his computer because she has a surprise for him in her webcam. Excited and thrilled he immediately ran upstairs, forgetting about his outline and Skeep’s sandwich still sitting on the kitchen countertop.

    Now there is this little mouse that lives underneath the fridge, unbeknownst to Allen, Skeep, and their family. This little mouse is so sneaky that he does not leave any evidence of his/her existence underneath the fridge. No mouse droppings, no gnawed cereal boxes, not even an audible squeek. In this particular night he/she was also hungry, and with a heightened sense of smell he knows there is food waiting for him in the countertop. As always he/she was very careful not to get compromised. seeing the coast was clear he proceeded quickly to the countertop and proceeded to nibble at the sandwich. He had nibbled about 1/50th of the sandwich when suddenly he heard footsteps going down the stairs and as always he was smart enough to scamper off and hide in his lair before anybody found out.

    A few minutes ago, Skeep, who was half asleep, was woken up by all the commotion of Allen running up the stairs proceeded to investigate the situation. He went downstairs and saw the kitchen light open and was aghast to see his ham and cheese sandwich at the countertop with little bites on it and beside it he sees Allen’s report outline. He immediately hypothesized that Allen for some reason was taking little bites of his sandwich and was the culprit. He immediately confronted Allen who admitted that he was hungry and he went down to the kitchen for a bite but denied having anything to do with those little bites in Skeep’s sandwich. But Skeep would have none of it and showed Allen the report outline that was beside his sandwich at the countertop. Case closed. There is enough evidence to convict Allen of his misdeeds. Really!?

    1. Just like an archeological evidence, Allen’s report outline that was found at the site beside Skeep’s sandwich. It is Allen’s report therefore there is a 99% chance that he had something to do with it.
    2. His statements to the fact that he was downstairs in the kitchen looking for a bite to eat. This is much like oral or written archeological evidence, were ancient peoples handed down orally or by writing that they were responsible for such and such.
    3. He was heard by Skeep running up the stairs to his room and Skeep was an eyewitness at the scene of the crime or event. First hand historical accounts of witnesses to an historical event.
    4. There are no other evidence present like maybe a sneaky little mouse?
    There are no mouse droppings, cereal boxes that seemed to have been gnawed by a rodent, and nobody has heard of mouse-like squeeks the past few months.

    And the little mouse hiding under the fridge. Well they are just like those sneaky little Aliens that don’t leave any hard evidence around and even if they do it is comparable to those little bites that blend in with the environment that it would be silly to think that they would have anything to do with it. It is also so much like the rudder-like shape of the tails or fins of the supposedly depicted bird-like and fish-like figurines that archeologists found. No they could not be aircraft of some sort. Those things were not yet invented back then. Don’t be so silly!

    Thank you for your patience!

    • WTF?

      I don’t even know how to start. Your analogies are junk. I can only assume that you are intentionally misunderstanding the process of investigation and how evidence works. I see no reason to be patient with you. All you have done is display ‘barrack room lawyer’ levels of understanding the topic at hand (archaeology and how it works), that have only succeeded in embarrassing you when confronted by actual, educated discussion or knowledge of the topic at hand. While I’m sure your mates think you’re quite clever and logical, I can assure you that you are not. Additionally, you’re using a modified version of the god-in-the-gaps fallacy.

      Go pick up a first year book on archaeology, then one on middle theory, read them, think about them, and then try again.

    • “I am so open-minded to every single hypothesis that I am open to the idea that these figures could have been carved out when this area was underneath water a few million years ago by nonetheless intelligent marine life, however outrageous this may seem. You betcha!”

      It seems to me you are saying: Being open minded is good, so if I’m just open-minded for the sake of it I can just rub it in people’s faces and get a sense of superiority.

      Besides, being open-minded is not about believing in outrageous hypothesis. It’s about coming up with new and original hypothesis (being creative) and being open to critical examination of said hypothesis. An open-minded person may come up with the alien story, but after no evidence has been presented, only a closed-minded person would hold on to it. In contrast, a closed-minded person may initially refute it, but after evidence has been presented, only an open-minded person would accept it as a new paradigm.

      To reiterate, being open-minded is good and leads to progress, but you have to be open minded within reason: Einstein’s open mindedness towards how light works game him the revolutionary ideas of relativity, but he didn’t ignore what was already known. Even if he ended up refuting Newton’s understanding of gravity, he started from a point of reference already established by multiple experts over a long period of observation, expermientation and pondering.

      I (personally) would not categorize someone who believes that the more you dilute a solution in water the more powerfull it becomes as “open-minded”.

  92. Ancient Aliens just rehashes the same dreary crap I read way back in the 70’s. And like the 70’s “evidence” it still relies on hearsay without a single shred of certifiable evidence. Credibility? We don’t need no credibility. Credulity, that’s a different matter.

  93. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being a “skeptic”. Comfort zones are a funny thing. Make someone step outside of theirs and watch them squirm like a worm. Many get bent out of shape over opposing views. They overlook the fact that they’re getting so upset because of the underlying attitude that is present througout a series of another’s statements. I wonder how much progress the world’s people have lost from our incessant need to twist a knife into any open crevice that we can. It’s there and just another item on our ever growing list of denials. Silly emotions… A never ending curse… Another funny thing is the Internet. I wish I could harness all the energy used on it. What super powers I could have! Sorry guys, I should just keep my thoughts inside my head and off of here. I’m not saying you all our being mean to each other, it’s just something that I thought about and probably didn’t need to write. I like everyone’s points that they are making. Have a good day people, I failed to look at the date of this entry and it’s probably super old. Oh well.

    • Yep, this entry is an old one, but it’s still one of the most popular; I get new comments on here every now and again – usually after History Channel runs an AA marathon.

  94. I tried, I really tried, watching the episode about the Vikings and the aliens and gave up after twelve minutes. This show is complete and utter tripe and still lacks any empirical evidence apart from anecdotal and plain made up nonsense. I’d rather watch Warehouse 13, at least they use pseudo science and tongue in cheek humour. Plus the cast is better looking than the fright wig that walks.

  95. I don’t get how so many people argue for aliens and annoy this blogger with inane questions instead of putting their time into something more useful. “I’ll go to war with you over you not thinking aliens are real but fuck trying to help sentient creatures.” Good blog post btw. I wish god was real, so even tho I would go to hell, at least everyone else would as well, heaven would be empty, assuming the bible is true about god at least.

  96. “I’ll go to war with you over you not thinking aliens are real but fuck trying to help sentient creatures.” @Sean

    I’m with you on this one, the only difference between you and me is that I believe there is a God, a universal ultra-intelligent force and energy, albeit not the type that Fundamentalists Christians know and believe. And yes like you I’ll probably see you in hell for believing in a so-called false god. LOL!. On a side note the blogger and others like him seem to be annoyed, better yet angry, how these “Ancient Astronaut Theorists” are using the sacred science of archeology for their seemingly pseudo-scientific purposes. It’s much like the Fundamentalists Christians who are so angry with Muslims for believing that Allah is the “one true God” just because theirs is the “one true God” and not Allah. And yes these “Ancient Astronaut Theorists” did not claim to be archeologists or scientists, as a matter of fact,it is right there in big letters “Theorists”.
    They are asking “What If” not “We know what we are saying is true”.
    So like you I’m kinda puzzled by these bloggers and their all-out attack on these “Ancient Astronaut Theorists”. They say that the AAT’s do no have any hard evidence that ancient aliens assisted mankind throughout the ages, and that all those anomalies can be explained away. As an example, the Great Pyramid must have taken 10-20 years to build with tens of thousands of slaves laboring away 24/7 to get it built. Just imagine the logistics of this feat, food water, manpower, is staggering. And all this gigantic effort just to build one pyramid and for what purpose, a tomb for one man?????????????? Go figure.

    • On a side note the blogger and others like him seem to be annoyed, better yet angry, how these “Ancient Astronaut Theorists” are using the sacred science of archeology for their seemingly pseudo-scientific purposes. It’s much like the Fundamentalists Christians who are so angry with Muslims for believing that Allah is the “one true God” just because theirs is the “one true God” and not Allah. And yes these “Ancient Astronaut Theorists” did not claim to be archeologists or scientists, as a matter of fact,it is right there in big letters “Theorists”.

      That’s actually not why bloggers like me are ‘angry’ about shows like this. Also, your analogy to religion doesn’t really work here either.

  97. Some of the theories might be far fetching. It’s a commercially driven television series and it has to go on that ways sometimes. What is undeniable is the fact that it links a old school of knowledge, to be a guiding light in the new set of innovations we have accomplished. It presents some really curious introductions to various cultures and provides some relative similarities in the way they think, even in the absence of clearer ways of communications. Ancient alien theory, is an assumption that, in the light of continues quest of mankind can provide some backward linking directives. It’s an interesting show, Not believable in entire sense but fun to see and science can totally reject it at the moment or call it a fallacy but some stories and discussions suggested in the series would get more light if science gets deeper and more passionate in re-opening those chapters. We have too many questions unanswered and not all of them should be left with – partial conclusions offered by both theorists and science assertions made so far (which in many cases are incomplete – u would agree). We should suggest ways of improvement of something. Calling them or other idiotic would be a sad and arrogant way of seeing things.

    • I think the show is interesting in that it provides insight into the minds of the “experts” on the show. That is the most fascinating part. It looks to me like the ancient alien theorists see themselves as too smart to accept religion, but still yearning for it, so they are attempting to “prove” a religious belief — which is the second most fascinating thing about the show: It has opened my eyes to how similar modern religious beliefs are to those of ancient civilizations. And the ancient alien theorists are simply taking those beliefs, replacing god with aliens, and attempting to prove it is true. But, religion requires faith, just as ancient alien theory does. So, if they want to believe on faith that aliens created humans, more power to em. It is no more implausible than any other religious belief. But, don’t try to tell me it is scientifically proven.

      Though fascinating, it does annoy me how they manipulate the data to “prove” their point of view, and then I see comments from viewers that believe the show as the truth (i.e. “if it wasn’t true, why hasn’t mainstream science debunked it.” ACTUAL COMMENT I HAVE SEEN). For example, AAT line of logic on Nazca lines goes like this: The lines can only be seen from above. There is no evidence they knew how to fly. Therefore, they must have been aliens. REALLY?!?!? Why not: The lines can only be seen from above. There is no evidence of aliens. Therefore, they must have known how to fly/jump really high/float giant mirrors in the sky/shrink the earth/levitate/go on to top of nearby hill and look down/or anything else you want. The absence of evidence as to one option IS NOT proof of another option that also has no evidence. It infuriates me, while also making me think that these guys must surely be chuckling in the back of their minds. Surely they cannot truly believe this stuff?

      I know this blog is old and nobody will see this, but I still feel better typing it.

      • Don’t worry about the age of the post: I still get comments on here fairly frequently. Who knows, maybe you’ll even get a debate or two from some AA adherent?

  98. WatchingYou

    “I think the show is interesting in that it provides insight into the minds of the “experts” on the show.”

    Yes, I agree with that. I am a people watcher and am interested in how people reach certain conclusions, no matter how out of the mainstream it may seem Yet another of example how weird and emotion driven we humans can be. I for one would not blame any intelligent lifeforms out in the universe for avoiding us!

    I also think this show does not belong on the history channel along with most of the other new shows since 2003. The History Channel used to be a informative channel. But this is what TV has turned into since the advent of Survivor. Entertainment over information to increase viewership just to sell more DVD box sets. Even the Weather Channel is starting to change. Now I can only get serious historical shows on PBS and the Military Channel. It is a shame.

  99. WatchingYou

    “I believe there is a God, a universal ultra-intelligent force and energy, albeit not the type that Fundamentalists Christians know and believe.”

    I believe in the same concept but have not been able to put it so eloquently.

  100. WatchingYou

    I should of put all this in one post. I just wanted to add that this blog contains some funny satire.

  101. @Mike “But, don’t try to tell me it is scientifically proven”. They’re not because they did not say that they are scientists and/or archaeologists.but they call themselves Ancient Astronaut THEORISTS, and I’m surprised why you think that somehow, some way they are being persuasive enough to make you think that their premises are true. Are they using some alien device perhaps! LOL.

    I know, somehow this TV phenomena of Ancient Aliens is much like Fox News. For me, most the crap that Fox News puts out is plain propaganda and misdirection, but, some people actually believe it. Also like me, you enjoy watching Ancient Aliens even though you think that they are putting out crap is because you can’t help but see what kind of crap or new crap they will be putting out weekly. That is the same Fox News fascination for me is that it is entertaining to see how they, the fox news people really believe the crap they put out and somehow persuade people that their crap is true. LOL.

    Now your take on the Nazca lines, and your view that there is no evidence of aliens (my take is that it is staring you in the face, the lines themselves) that the ancient people that went through the trouble to build these and they have no trouble doing it because somehow some of them went up hill nearby and directed the people on the ground where to go. Ok seems plausible enough, but, why would they do such a thing anyway?

    I’ll apply your view to the Great Pyramids. Your view that there is no evidence of ancient aliens therefore the most logical route would be several thousands of slaves working 24/7 for 10-20 years to build these pyramids. I just can’t describe you the enormity of these effort. The logistic’s is staggering to say the least. Where and how to get that food, water, and supplies and all that manpower to control the slaves. Now wonder the whole area is a desert today. They must’ve drained all the water back then! LOL. Not to mention shelter, and how come all these slaves did not revolt at least once all during that time they were being slavered away? Were they zombified and turned into non-thinking, non-feeling human machines?
    Also why was these pyramids built in the first place. Well the scientific community and the archaeologists say that it was a tomb for the Pharaoh. Wow all that enormity just to build a tomb for one man??? Go figure.

  102. P.S. Re: building the Great Pyramids…
    @Mike Like your comment on the Nazca Lines ” There is no evidence they knew how to fly. Therefore, they must have been aliens. REALLY?!?!? Why not”, I would embellish my comment on the Pyramids this way:
    ” WOW, REALLY!!? all that enormity just to build a tomb for one man??? Go figure!”. LOL.Sorry can’t help it.

  103. WatchingYou

    . The man with the silly haircut, Giorgio A. Tsoukalos. He only has a bachelor’s degree in sports information and communication. He knows nothing about the scientific method. I’m guessing all his observation skills come from watching football.

  104. WatchingYou

    Giorgio is yet more proof that if you have a crazy haircut you can sell crap to stupid Americans and have a successful TV show. The first was Donald Trump.

  105. The show Ancient Aliens is based around the book Chariots of the Gods, which is comprised of questions if you are familiar with it. Even the show just poses questions. If you see the opening of the show it clearly says “what if?” “where did they go?” etc.. The premise of the show is just to stimulate thought. There is really nothing wrong with the show, they DO NOT make claims that aliens actually exist, they just say “what if?”, “could have?” etc.. . Please leave it alone all ready. I like the show and it does exactly what it is intended to do. Stimulate thought.

    • So these folks get a pass on grossly distorting historical facts, misrepresenting the historical accounts compiled by legit historians and archaeologists, and on spinning farcical yarns about how we should ask ourselves if Moses was really an alien-human hybrid messenger sent to save the genetic heritage of the Earth from asteriods/alien wars, because they’re “just asking questions”? This isn’t about ‘stimulating thought’; it’s about “JAQing off

      Even the briefest of glimpses into the other works of the people most commonly featured on that series reveals the overwhelming majority of them to be either a) true believers (like von Daaniken and Philip Collins) or b)bullshit-artists cashing in on the gullibility of others (into this category I’d put Tsoukalos and his crazy gimmick hair).

      I’d completely understand if even one of these folks said something like “Look, I don’t have any evidence to support this speculation I’m engaged in, but it’s a fascinating thought experiment, isn’t it?” But that’s not what they say. I’ve watched the show, and I’ve read a few of their books (including Chariots) and in just about every case, they may start by saying “I’m just asking questions here…”, but they inevitably end with “And the answer is ‘aliens'”.

  106. I just tried to watch the latest episode, The Satan Conspiracy, and after twenty agonising minutes realised that this series is sinking to new lows of desperation. Once again there is NOTHING that can be construed as evidence to back the nonsensical claims made by Horror Hair and the others involved. It is becoming harder to watch this rubbish and not get annoyed by the crap they peddle. Anecdotes and inference is not evidence that can be verified, it’s closer to religious belief in which faith is all you need.

    • I agree. I have stuck with the show for pure entertainment value — as in wat can they come up with next — but I am reaching my limit. They have gotten so far from the truth and taken so many liberties that I can no longer even enjoy it as silly entertainment. It gets my blood pressure up because I know there are people watching that think it must be true because it is on History. I am glad it has now gone back to H2 (which I don’t get) because it was like watching a train wreck. I felt guilty for watching but couldn’t turn away.

      • That’s exactly how I feel. I would have no problem if the folks on the show would say “here’s what we believe, or speculate about what might have happened, but we have no evidence to support it. Isn’t it fun to think about though? ”

        But they don’t, because then who’d buy their books?

  107. @Graeme
    I know. Somehow this TV phenomena of Ancient Aliens is much like Fox News. Most of the crap that fox News puts out is plain propaganda and misdirection, but, some people actually believe it. You enjoy watching Ancient Aliens even though you think that they are putting out crap! The reason is that you can’t help but see what kind of crap or new crap they will be putting out weekly. That is why, although I hate Fox News, I somehow find myself watching it because of the fascination and the entertainment. I just can’t wait to see how they, the fox news people, put out new crap day in and day out, and to think that they really believe, in their heart, the crap they put out. For all intents and purposes they somehow succeed in persuading people (at least half of America) that their crap is true. LOL.

    • While I agree that the Ancient Aliens is nothing but poorly-researched opinion, you’re bashing of FOX News completely renders your own opinion nothing but a bunch of idiotic drivel. And the fact that you would use this line of posts to prop up your own political misinformation shows that you have not only a small mind, but a desperate one at that. You should probably not post anything anymore on the internet ever before you embarrass yourself once again.

      • LOL! Luv it when I hit a nerve… Well I’m really sorry for you if you got upset when I used your much beloved Foax news as an analogy of why most posters here hate the show Ancient Aliens but they seem to watch every episode and try to debunked each and every supposition that was put out. Which brought me to the point of stating the obvious that “if you don’t like it don’t watch it” but then it occurred to me that I was doing the same thing with Foax news. LOL! Get a life, Jeff.

  108. lidiahristova

    Reblogged this on devils and black sheep. and commented:
    My family constantly tries to disprove evolution, saying that we couldn’t have been this smart without help from aliens. Honestly, I believe that we are severally underestimating our ancestors. But then again, who knows?

    No one knows the true answer on how life really began. We can only speculate and make theories.

  109. South Park’s demolition of the pseudohistorical nonsense that dominates the History Channel and it’s bastard offspring H2 stands. There is no credible evidence for the ancient alien position that withstands withering skeptical fire. The typical argument goes like this: X is to precise, heavy, sophisticated et cetera for ancient humans therefore aliens did it. This is now known as the Von Daniken fallacy. It doesn’t require formal logic training to see how silly this is. Here’s the deal ancient alienphilles: put up or shut up! There are millions of ways your thesis can be affirmed but you poor delusional twits have yet to make and repeatedly verify your case.

  110. @John Baker, Thank you very much for your clarification. THANK GOD,
    that there is no credible evidence that God exists either. LOL! twit

  111. Actually j.One there is no credible evidence that God exists. When credible, repeatedly verfied and rigorously tested evidence becomes available I will revise my default atheist position. Skeptics do not believe we know or we don’t know. I know I don’t know and I know that you don’t either regardless of your LOL beliefs.

  112. Ho-ho-ho @John. I know that you know that I was being facetious when commented that “THANK GOD, there is no credible evidence that God exists either”. LOL! What you don’t know is that I know that God exists even though there is supposedly no “your type” of credible evidence that He exists. To put it simply, I see God in the mathematical and geometric complexity of nature, a perceivable pattern of a seemingly chaotic and probably infinite universe that we live in, etc. Speaking of the universe with its billions of galaxies, star systems, that may contain planets in a habitable zone like our own. Which brings us to the point where I say that I assume that what you are really stating is that “there is no credible evidence that aliens assisted in mankind’s evolution” and not that “aliens don’t really exist, ever, because there is no credible evidence that they do”. Because if you do and I will be facetious again in saying that “I am so glad that we are the only living being beings on this planet with a civilization in the entire universe, and that we are the “special ones”, the “center” of the universe no doubt. There are no other beings in the universe other than us. We are it. We are… ” LOL! Merry Jesus Christ Mass! @John

  113. We should have a history channel strike because its not just the show labeled anchient aliens that implies aliens all thier shows do why can’t they just do it right with Morgan freeman and the friendly logical team at the science channel that is actually doing real science and another metaphore skepesism is defiantly not closed mindedness because the myth busters use the scientific method and you can not argue that myth busters is at the slightest closed minded so if anyone can disagree with me I would love to hear it and provided with real evidince therefore no ” it was just aliens because I don’t know anything ” answers

  114. @ Edwin.
    I have only recently seen a couple of episodes of AA. Haven’t laughed so much since spending a couple of hours reading this blog (yes I read the entire blog). Keep up with the sound of reason.
    It’s a travesty that these type of shows are allowed. This particular show does more harm then good to those that truly believe AAs have visited earth in the past. If and when some real evidence is discovered it may be tarnished as part of the same tripe that this show spews out.

  115. I hate the History Channel for related reasons. I genuinely want to learn about history, but the channel dedicated to “history” keeps citing aliens.

  116. Adam A Aguirre

    This is the poorest review ive ever read. I admit the show (ancient aliens) is silly but you my friend should not be telling other ppl about it. I honestly feel stupider after reading this. 👎👎👎

  117. Thank you for a wonderful article .. . Why is it people so often want to grasp at the intangible .. aliens dropping In a Diy sessions with the pyrmids or quick paint job at a cave in the middle of no where .. since the wheel man has constantly shown his ingenuity .. his agility to visualise .. create and achieve .. GOD .. ALIENS !!! Why believe in something you cant see ?? Look at all that man has achieved and give HIM the credit ♡♡♡

    • Alien Theorists are not saying that MAN did not do the pyramids.
      They’re saying that they may have had help or been inspired by
      ETs because the evidence of the mathematical precision with
      which these structures i.e. the Pyramids, Nazca lines have created
      is somehow out-of-this-world! LOL.

      • So humans cannot build structures with precise angles without help from aliens? Couldn’t we have figured out how to build the pyramids through trial and error? Aren’t all of the earlier, crappier pyramids built in and around ancient Egypt evidence of this kind of trial and error?

      • Humans from this era were able to mimic these Alien structures
        from the remnants of the ancient Alien writings and mathematics.

      • I get the feeling that the people who created the Nazca lines used incredibly powerful trampolines so they could see how the line markings were going.

      • Makes sense to me!

      • “Humans from this era were able to mimic these Alien structures
        from the remnants of the ancient Alien writings and mathematics.”

        That’s a pretty bold asseveration, You know this how?

      • More than likely it would been an elaborate series of wooden levers and pulleys that was needed to hoist up the artist 100-200 feet high. and he made sure the drawings were accurate by communicating with workers/excavators by means of mirrors that reflect light. They would have had to invent a sophisticated “light signal” language. As far as if there was any hard archaeological evidence of this contraptions and a written proof of the light-signal language, I would leave up to the archaeological experts here to enlighten us on this matter.

  118. I have been reading all these debates. And phewew! You guys are taking these too seriously. AA theory is still a theory in fact this type of theory is pretty much like the ones people have been debating on all these centuries, about which is the most correct philosophy so called as religion. I might have to say that some of the case brought up by this show seemed kinda suggestive, but then again at least these theorist undergo great research suggesting the theories, not just some random thoughts about something. Iand i really think that if you guys keep on saying things like this channel or this show is stupid, dont it sound like saying one religion is?open ur mind

    • AA isn’t a theory. At most it would be a hypothesis. Theories are based on evidence, laws and philosophical accounts that suggest how these phenomena interact with each other. Theories are developed through rationalization. Theories never become laws, that goes against scientific thought.

      “at least these theorist undergo great research suggesting the theories”

      Do the research yourself, these “theorists” distort the facts and constantly lie in the show. And I mean constantly: they change the types of rocks, they change the dates, the talk about an “ancient” Hindu book which was actually written in the 20th century; they change the weight of the rocks; they ignore basic engineering mechanisms; they ignore climate change, deforestation, etc.; they talk about perfect cuts, perfect right angles and perfect drill hole separations which are not at all perfect; they ignore mythology as poetic expressions and dumb down the human race. Don’t glorify them by saying they are theorists, because there actually exist plently of real theorists with wacky ideas which do fit the methods of scientific inquiry and that do deserve to be taken seriously.

      A theory isn’t simply an idea that I could propose, there has to be a good solid basis for said idea to qualify as a theory. And believe me sir, I am extremely open minded, but I find it insulting that lies can be disseminated for the sake of entertainment when these are important issues to discuss, and more importantly, one of my passions (history). More im

      • The Fuente Magna bowl. Found in South America and has cuneiform text on it. Cuneiform Text is the writing of Mesopotamia in what is now the Middle East. By the time cuneiform text was created the land bridge no longer existed. According to mainstream archaeology there was no travel between Eurasia and the Americas in the ancient world after the land bridge flooded. How did it get there? no matter how you answer it it means mainstream archaeology and history is wrong.

  119. Ocums razor guys .. science is the beautiful truth .. read a book go to a museum but open your eyes to all that man has achieved .. or instead believe in god the devil ufo’s boogymen and father Christmas !!!!

  120. The fact is no one of knows for sure about why or how lost civilizations did what they did. All I am sure of is we are not the first inteligent Advanced Civilization to live on this planet. Odds are there is additional inteligent life in the universe and most things don’t happen by accident.

    • How can you be sure that we are not the first intelligent advanced civilization on earth? Where is your evidence for this? Where are these ancient beings’ cities or infrastructure? Where are their mines, factories, or roadways? Where is the evidence of any of the extractive infrastructure required to develop and sustain a civilization as advanced as our own? Even long-dead stone age civilizations left behind their midden piles, their roads, and their aqueducts. take a look around you; look at the edifices of our civilization; these things will exist for tens of thousands of years after we are gone, while the metallurgical traces of our civilization – not to mention the radioactive debris – will exist for millions of years after. If there really were advanced civilizations before ours, where are their traces? Their existence would have rearranged the topography of our entire world!

      • Nice answer. Have you seen “Life After People”? It would seem from this program that most evidence that an intelligent species ever inhabited the earth could be reclaimed by nature in a mere few thousand years.
        I think a lot of people believe a lot of different things. Believing in something doesn’t make it fact, only empirical evidence born of scientific method does.

      • ” If there really were advanced civilizations before ours, where are their traces?”

        The pyramids for one, Nazca lines, Stonehenge, Thousand year old cave drawings of the solar system… etc..

      • Ah, I see. So we’ve operating with two different definitions of “advanced”. My definition was meant to reflect things like industrialization, mass production, etc.

        It appears that the definition of advanced you are using includes some pretty common stone age feats, and one (cave drawings of the solar system) that’s a bit baffling. What are you talking about here?

      • Yes they were much more advanced civilizations, but since they
        probably perished or moved away millions of years ago or maybe
        even billions of years ago, the remnants of their advanced civilizations
        would only be like those structures and cave drawings. The pyramids
        were the first structures that we try to mimic from our ancestors, the
        Aliens, from the remnants of their writings and mathematics…

  121. All corners of the earth have ancient civilizations that tell stories that beings descended from the sky & taught them technologies & methods. They also have large pyramid/temple structures very similar in design. What a coincidence! Either all these cultures came in contact with one another, shared “alien” stories, & shared knowledge, or were taught by these beings. Either possibility completely destroys the brainwashed history that we have all been taught. Remember, history has always been writing by the victors, & the FACTUAL HISTORY was destroyed or changed because it hindered control!

    • Many areas of the world do, in fact have examples of pyramid or pyramidal structures, just as many cultures have mythologies about Gods bringing knowledge to their worshipers, but to make the leap from these coincidences to a conclusion that “therefore either these ancient cultures all somehow were in communication with each other or aliens taught them things” is beyond illogical. Sure, the Egyptians and the Mayans both built pyramidal structures, but the Maya did so thousands of years after the Egyptians did! These groups also developed different technologies, at different points during their histories. The only way that anyone can conclude that aliens were responsible for teaching anything to ancient humans is by ignoring mountains of historical, anthropological, and archaeological evidence. Further alleging that the “true” history of the world has been buried because unnamed others want to control us is beyond conspiratorial. I’d suggest that you enroll yourself in a few college-level anthropology or history courses. Hell, take an hour or two to talk to an actual historian! Take the time and expend the effort to engage in some honest historical inquiry, instead of wandering from crank archaeologist to crank archaeologist looking for material to further cement your biases.

      PS: If the Egyptians and the Mayans were both taught the foundations of their technology by aliens, why would said aliens teach the Mayans one form of mathematics, and a completely different form to the Egyptians? What possible reason would there be for that? Also, why wouldn’t these alien benefactors teach the Egyptians or Mayans more than simply how to build large pyramids out of stone? Why not teach them to build engines or provide them with medical or metallurgical knowledge of a sophistication equal to – or better – than what we have today? I mean, the aliens had already changed the course of human history, why not change it further? Do they aliens have some sort of Prime Directive?

      • “… why would said aliens teach the Mayans one form of mathematics, and a completely different form to the Egyptians?”

        Whatever you’re smoking, give me some of it! LOL
        Mathematics is universal and is the same even with
        different cultures. If you use different culture use
        different ways or forms of mathematics to come up
        with a solution or calculate a problem, the result will
        always be the same.

      • Except that Mayan math is based on groups of 20, while the ancient Egyptian math was not. Why not teach both groups the same type of math? Why not teach them both a common form of mathematics? If the math is from a common, Allen source, why isn’t it articulated in the same way?

        My point is that there’s no similarity between them, so there’s no evidence of common cultural ancestry

      • “Why not teach them both a common form of mathematics? If the math is from a common Alien source, why isn’t it articulated in the same way?”

        Hey Cube you can’t have your cake and eat it too! You see the
        if the Aliens left some mathematics before they were annihilated
        millions of years ago, the remnants of these mathematics would
        be interpreted differently by the different cultures that spawned
        after them. But the result is always the same, Pyramids.

    • 1) Pyramids are the most stable structure you can build. Ancient civilizations learned this; and besides most of the ancient civilizations viewed mountains as holy places, they built pyramids (which are similar in shape to mountains) and in various occasions they even aligned their pyramids directly at holy mountains.

      2) Spirituality and Religions usually place the human being at the center of everything, we think we are so special that we must have been created with purpose, on that same note, most religions and pantheons tell stories about the gods themselves creating our species and helping us become what we are.

      3) True, history is written by the victors, but that only means (for example) that we will most probably never know the exact details of the fall of the Roman Empire; whose really to blame and how it actually happened, but the fact that it fell is indisputable.

      • S. W. Sted

        @Mauricio Porte Santos Alonso

        1.) Pyramids are stable structures. All Pyramids for the most part. The pyramids in Egypt and the mayan pyramids were built using sacred geometry.

        Make a square. Find its perimeter. Make a circle that has an equal perimeter to the square. Find the diameter. Make the diameter of the circle the height of the pyramid whose foundation is the square.
        (or mayans diameter/2)

        The point is there is no structural engineering reason to use these dimensions. To do so is not easy since the angles involved are irrationonal. So:

        1.) They chose to build pyramids and came up with this sacrad geometric relations on their own.
        2.) They had the sacrad geometry, and decided to make a pyramid.

        Either of those choices involves a purpose greater than pyramids being strong structures. Within the Pyramid itself they left information in terms of the geometry (or position if you consider the surrounding pyramids, or relative size, or direction it faced, or what guarded it)

        Just wanted to clear that up. A pyramid is not a building design of convenience.

        2.) All near east religions and pantheons, including Greek, Hebrew, Egyptian, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist and eventually Christianity (and many more) can trace their lineage back to a single religion that most likely originated in the Mesopotamian area atleast 3600 BC but possibly as far back as 7200 BC. The similarity in all those “religious myths” is due to the fact that they ALL owe their origin to a single original religion. Remember the tower of Babel, God didn’t just mix the tongues of men, but the religion they spoke with it. I am not going to go through the vast evidence to show the 3000 year progression from Babylon to Ancient Greece, but its there, and if you asked an ancient Greek philosopher, they would tell you that many of their stories are not their own.

        That has nothing to do with aliens, just a fact about religion and a comment on the possibly irony that we discriminate now based on religion, when no one (no one who would be on the internet anyway) is a follower of the true Ancient Wisdom Tradition.

        3.) “History is written by the victors”… period period period

        Not that I disagree with this concept in general, but I would modify it to be more accurate “The history that is taught by the victors may have been modified by the victors” Not a very good replacement I know.

        To think that losers did not write the accounts of history is way to contrary to the human condition of needing to record everything. History exists on both sides. Who’s history the upcoming generations here may be the victors, but when it comes to digging up 2000 year old artifacts, tablets, papyrus, scrolls, it doesn’t matter who the victor was. All that matters is that the written record is there. We know everything that lead up to the cause of the collapse of Rome. Leaders, decisions, wars, disease. This stuff is well documented.

        To stop at the fact that it fell is indisputable is missing the whole point of BEING ABLE TO KNOW! Dig up some courts records, translate some Greek, read the records of neighboring civilizations. All the evidence is there, you just need to find it (that’s allegorical, because in terms of Rome, they did.)

        In conclusion, Ancient Aliens real or not? I dunno but if you are going to dispute it, wouldn’t it make more sense to not look like the people you claim to be criticizing, and then doing the exact same thing?… Saying comments and calling them facts (when they are opinions) and without proof of your words you think you’ve defeated the question mark? Do ancient Aliens exist? No one knows enough to say conclusively no.

        I dunno if anyone realizes that the kind of possibility haters like many here are the reason mainstream archeologists don’t touch the subject of ancient aliens. It would mean the death of their career. NOT BECAUSE it’s wrong, but because haters and bullies in the scientific community to stuck in 20th century to be a pioneer. PROVE THERE WEREN’t ANCIENCT ALIENS! Build a Megalithic structure, find out how pyramids got under water and who used them before hand, Debate a native American out of their ancestrial folklore and stories, do ANYTHING massive the way it was claimed the ancients did it.

  122. assume ancients aliens are true. What the hell an advance civilization who think really
    smart and a racist one (not to mention if they think the same as a scientist)

  123. valentin munteanu

    One of the most poor show I ever seen…forget about all “theories”, this show really harm the History standings as a real science TV.
    I agree, we can speculate about many things, we’re all free to do it, but till proved, we better shot it . H2 keeps covering in shame by broadcasting “Ancient Aliens” for so long and , by doing this, it’s harming even more its standings.

  124. valentin munteanu

    I’m a big fan of “Universe” series, but ” Ancient aliens” is just a big, big circus!!…what’s next?!!…they already covered any action of our planet as by made by aliens…well, sorry, if I have a j..k off right now, they’ll tell me I have to thanks the “aliens”, right?!!

  125. valentin munteanu

    …and that greek guy with funny hair and all his friends will keep milking “the cow” dry….same like all those 2012 ” end of the world” missing prophets( and very fat bank accounts)!!!

  126. valentin munteanu

    well, it’s a shame!
    They can’t handle a tool and they think nobody can’t…
    just go to the countryside, everywhere, and you’ll find some “alien” tools , just proper to build up a marvel!!!

  127. valentin munteanu

    sorry to say, but they seem to try to show that all of us, past , present and future, we are and we were some kind of “retards” who couldn’t make a step or even breath without an “alien” help….and, I’ m saying:” all right, but give us at least a smallest prove you got”…
    well, they got nothing!!!…and , open-minded i’m ready to wait for their prove…

  128. valentin munteanu

    well, “Ancient Aliens” is a shit that it keeps dragging along…
    and I’ll keep laughing.
    …sorry about my strong language, anyway
    I’m done here!

  129. If you want good evidence for aliens you will have to look somewhere other than a mainstream TV channel. I know, shocking. Read a book like “UFOs and Government”. Look at all the accounts of military sightings and the perpetual cover up and harrassment of individuals to stay quiet. Just look at some of the major cases and you will find it silly to discount the idea of aliens and at the very least UFOs.

  130. “its not about Alien do exist” — “its about the people shiting the history of our kind, the human races timeline. i won’t except someone keep spouting nonsense about our ancestor if in the first place he/she didn’t even know what she/he’s talking about us, beside it obvious he give little credit about human since i listen in every shit Ancient Alien(the program) to say.”
    those guy basically want to tell us: how did Ancients human done that, done this, than there? human are stupid, incompetent how’s that even possible?…its really piss me off.

  131. I think my favorite part of this show is when they draw lines in stars or Mars or what not and try to compare it to shapes on earth. In particular, in the first season they took an image of Mars and took a group of rocks and drew a weird shape and compared it with a landmark on Earth. Amazing! It’s an exact replica, as long as you ignore the other rocks on Mars that they conveniently ignored.

    I’m amazed that they tried to form an argument with that. Apparently I could take a few rocks, draw a shape (whatever shape I wanted) and try to find something that corresponds in the Earth, and then I would have proof that Aliens built our ancient civilization. Absolutely stunning.

    Another pet peeve is when they suggest that everything in ancient civilizations were built by aliens, because why else would it possibly be there? In ancient times they were still human, just like us today. They still had the same emotions. Just like we today want to create art, they did too. We cannot assume to know the purpose of their actions, but please stop trying to convince everyone that during those times the people there were unintelligent. They were the same humans as we are today.

    Also, a pyramid isn’t that complex a design! Its logical that the base of a pyramid has to be bigger than the top. Just like if I were to design a building today (without the help of advanced Aliens!) I would know to have the base bigger or at least the same size at the ceiling….

    • Yeah this sort of stuff always makes me laugh. I remember once I was debating the merits of the various “2012 Apocalypse” theories with a conspiracist who happened to believe in them (several of them, at the same time, ignoring that many of them are mutually exclusive!), and he was walking me through the one where the earth gets destroyed/shifted to a high level of existence/whatever due to an alignment between the center of the galaxy and the earth. His argument was that on the day in question, the earth and the center of the galaxy would enter into a perfect astrophysical alignment – something, he claimed, that hadn’t happened in a millennium or so. He was pretty serious about it too. So I drew an imaginary circle on the table and said, “here’s the center of the galaxy…” and then I drew a rough circle around it and said “and here’s the path of the earth. So we can see that the earth revolves – slowly – around the center of the galaxy. And at some point, according to your theory, the earth and the center of the galaxy will align, is this what you’re saying?” He agreed that that was the core of the theory. “Neat, I said. Earth and the Center of the galaxy will align with what?”

      “What?” He said,

      “Well two points in space cannot ‘come into alignment’, because two points in space are always in alignment. one can always draw a straight line between them, right? So this theory requires a third astronomical body in order for it to make any sense. So I ask again: what will the earth and the center of the galaxy align with. Also, why is this third point or object significant?”

      The point is that often these so-called ‘alternative theories’ about aliens or doomsdays or whatever only sound plausible when you skip across them really fast. They have no depth to them, and because they’re so vague or abstract, the conspiracist can find a way to jam almost anything into it and call it ‘evidence’. They can’t answer ‘what aliens’, or ‘where did they come from’, ‘how do you think they got here, considering that such a journey would need to take millennia’; instead they hand-wave all the really hard-to-answer parts away by saying “hey man, I don’t have all the answers, but I know for a fact that the ‘orthodox’ view is wrong.” It’s not even a theory at that point, it’s pure, pig-headed contrarianism.

  132. How can you explain a sudden immense rate of technological growth over just past 50 years and just less to no growth in such a long existing human past? It has to be (you have to have the brains to understand this) technology that we received and reverse engineered to arrive at the technology we have now!

    • There is absolutely no reason to believe this is the case. There are any number of other, more parsimonious explanations, including but not limited to: increased industrialization, the mobilization of millions of new workers, thanks to women’s rights and labour movements, the birth of the middle-class during post-war reconstruction in Europe and North America, mass public education, the development of a number of new technologies that paved the way for the development of others, etc. What possible evidence is there that convinced you that “reverse-engineered alien technology” is more plausible than human-made and human-driven technological revolutions?

  133. Unless you were there, I suppose all your comments are just as relevent as the comments and ideas presented on Ancient Aliens. Everything is open to interpretation. At least they have an open mind and DARE to expose a possibility. While you assume that your informantion is absolute. I’m sorry you have a closed mind, jusst like so many scientists. Many were sure the earth was flat, or that the earth was the centre of the universe, we would never fly. The universe still has much to tell us. Some of us may be quite surprised.

    • As an avid fan of history and anthropolgy from way back I can say I don’t have a closed mind. What happens is that some guys that know nothing about what they talk about propose a hypothesis that contradicts all we have learned before. I’m happy to be open mindend to intersting ideas, but not if they have no basis. Please don’t tell me I’m closed minded, lets have a full discussion on why I refuse to believe this. Let’s have a point by point discussion and I am confident I can persuade you to why we think is bullshit. Open minded doens’t mean you accept anything, open minded only means you’re willing to change your mind, and yes when I first saw Ancient Aliens the first thing I did was to investigate their claims, and found them to be mostly falsehoods.

      Especially that they open episode 1 referencing a book that they say was written about 300 years ago but was in fact written about 100 years ago. So they open up with a big lie. Also a lot of their claims don’t make sense to me when I extrapolate the economic, social, cultural and technological ramifications of them.

    • I read your comment and interpreted it to mean “I have no idea how history – or science – works, and so instead of recognizing that the current historical models are based on decades of painstaking work that appear to have accurately laid out the broad strokes of human history, I’m going to ignore all of it and instead entertain whatever poorly articulated ideas I see voiced by strangely-coiffed men on shows based almost entirely on pseudohistory. That’s cool right? Oh, and you’re a close-minded asshole if you think what I’m doing is irrational.”

      I’m not saying that you don’t have the right to believe whatever the hell you want. You want to believe in aliens? Cool. You want to believe that the pyramids were built by Atlanteans with help from Lemuria and the beings of the 12th dimension? Go for it. If you’re entertaining these ideas because it’s a fun thing to do – like reading fantasy or science fiction – then fine. But if you’re considering these flights of fancy as though they were valid interpretations of the story of human history, then all you’re doing is showing me and everyone who reads your comment that you lack even the most basic skills required to understand the world around you.

    • LOL! That old chestnut, the eye witness fallacy mixed with the “keep an open mind” idea. Here’s a heads up, there’s an awesome thing called the “archaeological record”, an ever expanding, and unsurprisingly alien free resource that used by actual archaeologists, in concert with historical records when available, to figure out how people did things in the past. Like build pyramids, erect and move the statues on Easter Island, and so on.

      Possibilities are not all of equal value. Ancient Aliens is probably the least likely, least plausible set of explanations for anything, narrowly beating out the idea that things are wished into existence or similar nonsense.

  134. Not to prove or disprove anything, I do find the program Ancient Aliens to be entertaining, but they often stretch the facts beyond the truth.

    Reading through the comments I noticed the blurb about Hantaro. After some searching, I found this:

    Pretty good list of references so I will assume it was true. From the description of the experiment, it looks like he inadvertently bombarded the mercury with slow neutrons and knocked a proton out of the nucleus of mercury to produce gold.

  135. I Believe in the possibility of advanced alien civilizations, just do the math… Billions of stars in the milky way alone, in an universe with billions of galaxies, with each star possibly filled with dozens of planets and even gas giant planets can have life on its many moons (Jupiter and Saturn have more than 100 moons combined) kepler found more than 1000 planets on others stars already..that being said the possibility to visit another star is limited to current technology and Einstein theory that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, It would take more than 4 years just to get to alpha centauri and we would have to travel at the speed of light. The funny thing is I’ve learned this on the History Channel! So… when you see a program like ancient aliens with no scientific background based on fact you realize is pure entertainment that well.. sells. The only 2 things i found some curiosity were the jet aircraft ancient artifact and the helicopter on the Egyptian wall, but exploring those 2 curiosities could’t of course make 7 seasons on ancient alien, so those guys explore everything from the ancient mysteries from the pyramids to earthquakes and blame it on the aliens. That Giorgio guy conclusions are total speculative, like that one when there some writing on top of a door saying “this place is awesome” and he just goes to the conclusion that is must be a portal to a alien world, why else would that writing be there… WTF??? Cant believe History Channel is doing this load of crap this days… sorry about my English..

  136. So much of what you have said echoes so much of what I’ve thought. Our ancestors weren’t stupid, but inventive and creative, not just in their art but in all of life.

    One of the things that I never see AAT confront is if our ancestors, or for that matter any natural creature, is so lacking in intellience that we need aliens to boost our intelligence, then how did the aliens reach their level of intelligence. If humans couldn’t reach the intelligence needed alone, then there is no way aliens could have done the same themselves. So who taught the aliens to not be stupid, and who taught their teachers to not be stupid, and so on. It’s here that the theory fails, apparantly that intelliegence came out of nowhere…for everyone except humans. Apparently something CAN come from something.

    Also, I saw Giorgio Tsoukalos going on about circles on his show recently and it had me rolling my eyes. As a trained graphic artist one of the first things I learned early on was that the circle is one of the most common arrangements in nature. You see it everywhere, from the trunk of a tree to the sun and moon, to the smallest amoeba. It is only natural for man to first recreate what he sees all around him in nature.

    One of the most compelling comparisons I’ve ever seen of AAT though, was when I saw someone point out just how much alien abduction tales mirror tales from long ago, except back then it was fairies and demons stealing people and children, changelings left in their place. As our world grew more and more modern however, fairies and demons became less real and believable, so we had to replace them with something. And so many did just this, not even realizing they’re repeating ancient tales. Only the names have changed, the stories however remain the same.

    Being part Irish, I am terribly fond of the old Celtic myths, and am always amused at just how much the tales of fairy abduction mirror the tales of alien abduction. So much so that instead of blaming aliens, I instead blame our subconscious fears and imaginations. And in the end, that is what this all comes down to, fear and overactive imaginations.

  137. Hi guys, I have no great knowledge of the huge stones used to build the Egyptian pyramids and I’m not here to argue with anyone but I’m genuinely intrigued about why they wouldn’t have cut the stone blocks into smaller, more manageable blocks.

  138. Your a fool believe what u want but don’t let that mislead belief blind you from the truth and fact DO SOME FUCKING RESEARCH INTO BOTH AREAS NOT JUST YOUR SIDE, FUCKING HALFWIT.

  139. Re: Rez’s comment. Truth? What truth? How about providing some evidence or, at the very least, links to sites that purportedly have verifiable SCIENTIFIC proof.
    It’s been a while since I looked at and episode of Annoying Anecdotes…sorry Ancient Aliens… and after reading the title and blurb for series 6, episode 19 “Aliens and Superheroes” I can see why I’m glad I gave up watching this crap on a regular basis (last show I tried to watch was about Satan). I am, however, going to attempt to watch the episode about how they attempt explain away the great flood.
    Oh yes. Rez, any credibility you had went out the door when you started using swear words and personal attack to try and bolster your point. One can almost picture you sitting at your computer foaming at the mouth that someone dares to take a contrary viewpoint to what you believe.

  140. Oh for Dog’s sake! Noah might have been an alien? I haven’t even made it through the opening credits and laugh meter is already heading into overdrive. This show has now gone through the bottom of the barrel. Sigh, I shall struggle on.

  141. I’m about halfway through the “The Great Flood” and my bullshit meter has burst through the top of the tube.

    According to AA the stone pillars in Gobekli Tepe weighed up to 50 tons each. That sounds so much more impressive than the estimated 7 tons listed in the Smithsonian article ( The other thing is that there is no mention of any catastrophic event, let alone a flood. Sigh, now on with the rest of the show.

  142. I now have a headache. Noah may have been an alien and the ark was really a DNA bank. GAH! Only about 6 – 10 more minutes to struggle through. Thank goodness for ice-cream.

  143. There is zero evidence to support the existence of aliens or their visitation of this planet. Zero. yet those unwilling to do even cursory research continue to believe in this pseudoscience and cable networks like The History Channel prey on such uncritical minds–they’ve discovered that pseudoscience makes for decent ratings and ratings mean advertising dollars.

    • WE are the proof aliens exist. Earth can’t be the only rock in the universe with life on it.

  144. ” One of the biggest complaints I have about ‘alien astronaut’ theorists is that they seem to prefer to believe that ancient humans were stupid or incompetent.”
    That’s definitely one of my big complaints, as well. The whole time I was watching “Ancient Aliens” I kept thinking, “Oh, the arrogance!” These ancient people are doing something that we can’t ourselves do today and (for some reason) we are infinitely smarter than they were, so it was obviously aliens. ??? If we are able to come up with complex equations, why wouldn’t someone else be able to as well, regardless of when they lived. Why is the idea of Aliens so much easier to believe than the fact that people thousands and thousands of years ago had machines. Historians need to rethink when the wheel was invented, because they are obviously wrong. “Look at these wheel tracks! Wheels weren’t invented yet, scientist said so! ALIENS!”

  145. First I would like to say that I believe that ancient humans did have the potential and capability to do all the incredible things they did that we today would have trouble doing. But I also believe ancient aliens were involved. I believe it was the presence of these alien gods that jump-started humanity and inspired us to build all the ancient structures. You can’t ignore the gap in humanity’s history. One day we were cowering around a fire in a cave, the next we were building walled cities and temples to the gods. Every day we are uncovering more and more ancient structures that date back to times when humanity should have been cowering in a cave.

    You want proof that the ancient alien theory true?

    First we are proof there is life on other planets. Our planet can’t be the only one with life in the universe.

    Second for the most compelling evidence all you have to do is go to the Philippines. Down there, there are many native trips that prier to WW2 never had contact with the outside world. Then during the war both the Allies and the Axis powers had bases on the islands where those tribes lived and the soldiers would bring medicine and food. When the war ended all those bases where abandoned and entire religions popped up that saw the soldiers as god/spirits of their ancestors and they now tell stories of the gods arriving and riding on giant birds and they build wooden air planes in an attempt to appease them so that they may come back. the old bases are now sacred temples to them. Hundreds of years from now when those bases are all but forgotten and you go to talk to those tribes and ask them how they built there temples they will tell you they were built by the gods.

    Thousands of years ago our ancestors saw something. If it wasn’t a god then what was it?

  146. This might be proof, in a way, for ancient aliens. I’ve heard/read accounts of ufos hiding in clouds. So I searched the Bible for the word cloud in an online searchable Bible. Try it, then copy all the verses into a word document. Replace cloud with flying saucer and see if more than half of the verses make sense as the cloud hiding a UFO!! Explain what’s really happening, if the cloud is really JUST a cloud.

  147. if aliens have ever visited earth.with there far advanced tec.and knowlege why the fk would they leave instructions to us etched in stone do they think were are stupid.,history channel my ass.

    • You’re right they should have given our ancestors a flash drive. Oh wait they didn’t have computers and the aliens took their tech with them. so a flash drive wouldn’t work. so what could they put the the info on. it would have to be something that our ancestors have and would have intent access to. Hmmm. What do you think they could use?

    • You should get your head out of your azz once in awhile to clear your mind and get a breath of fresh air. LOL. The aliens were not the ones that etched in stone, it’s the ancient and prehistoric peoples or humans they communicated with that did that. The reason being id to let the people after them (which is us) know that they had communicated with this alien beings.

  148. I’m sad to see just how brainwashed people are… I’m 14 and I can see that Ancient Aliens has no educational or historical value. You can’t say that a load of speculation is anywhere near fact, and, therefore, it isn’t history. I haven’t seen a single program I regard as educational on the history channel for over 2 years. Ancient Aliens profit off the public’s stupidity. Sure, its good to be open minded. I’m not saying that aliens don’t exist. Ask yourself quickly: why does the history channel broadcast sensationalist and reality programs, instead of historical documentaries (IE: WW2, 1776 etc..)? The profit motive. Judging by many of the comments given here, I doubt many of you even know what that is.

    • So talking about ancient cultures and their belife systems isn’t history?

      • It would only be “history” if the events discussed actually happened. Talking about the Egyptian pyramids, or the inscriptions found therein, while using the most current and accurate archaeological data we have is history. Talking about the possibility that hyper-advanced aliens, or trans-dimensional explorers, or “nephilim” or Atlanteans were the true architects of the Pyramids is fundamentally not historical, in the same way that talking about God’s angels raining fire down on Sodom and Gomorrah as retribution for their moral failings isn’t talking history; it’s mythology.

        I’d have absolutely no problem with a program like Ancient Aliens if at the beginning of each episode, a disclaimer read “This program is entertainment. The people depicted are not experts. This is a work of speculative fiction, not to be confused with history.” I love good science fiction as much as the next person, but I don’t try to conflate the mythos of the Stargate: SG-1 series with actual historical events.

      • How do you know that the events discussed actually happened? where you there thousands of years ago? If you where to look at the trascripts of the show then you would see a lot of question marks because the show is all about asking the question; if it wasn’t a god then what was it that our ancient ancestors saw? For those ancent cultuers it wasn’t mythology it was fact. And the fact remains that they saw something that they did understand so tryed to realate it to what they knew. Never seen or heard of an airplane before? then the first time you see one you’re going to call it a bird or a dragon. Never seen a gun before? then it’s a magic staff that kills people. Never seen a TV or a computer before? then it’s a magic black mirror that can show you diffent places and people.

      • yeah, they actually made those kinds of errors before, mainly with stars, comets, supernovas etc. But they always equated those kinds of stuff to dieties and magic, not actual things they knew about. They wouldn’t describe a plane as a bird since they know what birds are. They would most likely talk about a strange contraption which flew like a bird. They didn’t know much about the world but they were not stupid, which is what AA always tries to persuades it’s viewers to think: “Since they are primitive they must be stupid”

        I hate the “were you there?” argument, it’s just so empty of content, especially since it’s extremely hipocrite to use it to accredit one view over the other. We learn about ancients from what they left behind, not from what they didn’t or could’ve leave behind. Remember Occam’s Razor. And in that regard we see complex civilizations with writing and mathematics; politics and technology; languages, mythologies which served to explain phenomena they didn’t understand too well etc. We have found no trace of their mythologies being accurate, so even if they meant to write alien instead of god, or phoenix instead of plane or whatever, it would be meaningless.

        How about this? instead of dedicating an hour or so on AA to talk about supposed aliens that helped these poor stupid and primitive people, why not talk about the city of Mohenjo Daro, which had a built in sewage system which was not rivaled for more than 4000 years, That is an impressive feat, and it’s our achievement as well. Ancient people were not stupid, they were just young. Our brains are basically the same, but nowadays we go to school from about 18 years of our lives, and all the information we learn there has been accumulating since. Besides maybe it’s because of modernity, but you wouldn’t imagine how much a simple mechanism as a pulley or lever could greatly enhance your life back then.

      • That’s a whole lot of you imposing your own beliefs on to a group of people you’ve never met. Where you there? Did you see what happened all those thousands of years ago? No? Oh, well I guess that’s a bit of a problem… I guess all we can do is take a look at the evidence left behind by ancient people and from them construct a composite image of the past that makes the fewest assumptions. That would be the rational thing to do, wouldn’t it?

        So hey, you stay over there “just asking questions” about whatever you’d like; I won’t stop you. But when I’m presented with two competing views, one which says “this is what I believe happened, based on this evidence here…” and another that says “I have no idea what happened, but wouldn’t it be cool if it was aliens?” Guess which one I’m going to pick?

  149. mauporte The Philippines. During WW2 both the Allies and the Axis powers had bases on the islands where tribes that never had contact with the outside world and the soldiers would bring medicine and food. War ends, all the bases are abandoned. Within those tribs religions popped up that saw the soldiers as god/spirits of their ancestors and now tell stories of the gods arriving and riding on giant birds. those people now build wooden air planes in an attempt to appease the “gods” so that they may come back. The old bases are now sacred temples. Hundreds of years from now when those bases are all but forgotten people will talk to those tribes and ask them how they built there temples and they will tell them they were built by the gods.

    Thousands of years ago our ancestors saw something. If it wasn’t a god then what was it?

    Cubefarmer you are awear that the “history” that’s taught in schools is not the full story and was picked a part and rewriten by those with power to benifet them. the chathlic church is famus for destroying knolage that contodicts what they believe and want people to know. their are things found all the time that could prove the ancient astronot theory or even that our ancestors were more advast then we are right now but those with power look at these item, say no, and dismmisthem as somthing else or have them put to the side saying “We’ll get to the later” and never touch them again becaue they controdict what we know to be history, such as the. for the longest time we thought that ancient europeains never knew about or used acupuncture until an ice mummy was found in the allps with acupuncture tattoos.

    “I guess all we can do is take a look at the evidence left behind by ancient people and from them construct a composite image of the past that makes the fewest assumptions.” That’s what AA is doing. But instead of looking at their stories, troditions and art seportly and their stories as a pure fiction they are looking at them as a whole and from the prospective of the ancient people who viewed their stories as fact. some south american tribs have stories of giant flying turtules. Their’s no such thing as giant flying turtals so what did they see? where did that story come from?

    The Fuente Magna bowl. Found in South America and has cuneiform text on it. Cuneiform Text is the writing of Mesopotamia in what is now the Middle East. By the time cuneiform text was created the land bridge no longer existed. According to mainstream archaeology there was no travel between Eurasia and the Americas in the ancient world after the land bridge flooded. How did it get there? I’m not saying aliens but no matter how you answer it it means mainstream archaeology and history is wrong. And before you say anything it has been authenticated and is not fake.

    I do believe that ancient humans did have the potential and capability to do all the incredible things they did that we today would have trouble doing. But I also believe ancient aliens were involved. I believe it was the presence of these alien gods that jump-started humanity and inspired us to build all the ancient structures. You can’t ignore the gap in humanity’s history. One day we were cowering around a fire in a cave, the next we were building walled cities and temples to the gods. Every day we are uncovering more and more ancient structures that date back to times when humanity should have been cowering in a cave.

    • *Such as The Fuente Magna bowl. Found in South America and has cuneiform text on it. Cuneiform Text is the writing of Mesopotamia in what is now the Middle East. By the time cuneiform text was created the land bridge no longer existed. According to mainstream archaeology there was no travel between Eurasia and the Americas in the ancient world after the land bridge flooded. How did it get there? I’m not saying aliens but no matter how you answer it it means mainstream archaeology and history is wrong. And before you say anything it has been authenticated and is not fake.

      • Really? who authenticated it? Because from what I’ve read, neither of the supposed experts on this bowl were able to agree on an interpretation; each of the investigators arrived at wildly different conclusions, while more skeptical third parties seemed to feel that the bowl itself more closely resembled an amateur attempt to recreate some sort of proto-Sumerian Cuneiform writing.

      • The Magna Fuente Bowl is a highly problematic artefact, it lacks proper provenience, has no associated documentation or investigation, and has yet to be examined by an actual expert in Sumerian or Near Eastern archaeology. It is most likely a hoax, or if real, an illegally acquired artefact that the owners of attempted to create an acceptable back story to. It has also been known of since 1979, so the conspiracy aspect is junk as well.

      • the fact that it has also been known of since 1979 and has yet to be properly studied proves that anything that controdicts what we know to be history is shoved to the side.

    • “Their’s no such thing as giant flying turtals so what did they see? where did that story come from?”

      Why assume they saw anything at all? We use our imaginations all the time to tell stories to each other, so why couldn’t our ancestors? They were smart folk, after all. Why do you – and so many others – feel that we need to take the stories told by our ancient ancestors as literal fact? Is it impossible to conceive of ancient peoples making use of allegory, hyperbole or fantasy in their stories?

      Did the Biblical Flood literally happen – just because someone said it did? Were Adam and Eve literally a) real people, and b) made from clay, just because someone, somewhere said they were?

      While we’re on the subject, how about those creation myths that contradict each other? Which is the “real” origin story of earth: that God divided the heavens and earth, raised the land and populated it with life, or that the world is formed from the body of a dead frost giant, slain by Odin and his brothers? After all, both of these were stories told by ancient peoples; should we accept them both as fact? What makes one ancient story more important to believe than another?

      Speaking of being literal… This: “One day we were cowering around a fire in a cave, the next we were building walled cities and temples to the gods.” is literally not true. Where on earth did you get this idea from?

      • “Did the Biblical Flood literally happen – just because someone said it did?”
        It’s not just the bible/torah that says it happend. You can find the flood myth all over the world and the mesopotamians, greeks and israelites have the same flood myth. Three people say it happend, in texas that’s enough to get a man executed.

        Also about creation myths, Behold the great turtal of native creation myth:

      • *turtle

    • 1) I’m researching what you said about the Philippines and can’t find anything, give me some keywords or something to facilitate this.

      2) if gods didn’t do it who did it? I don’t know is the answer any honest person would give, not make up something. It’s also what makes studying this topics fascinating, the fact that not everything fits perfectly. And it doens’t mean it’s wrong, it means it’s incomplete. The thing is we humans keep adding and correcting our knowledge, that’s how this works. And sure a lot of things get distorted, but the main keystones don’t get so much distorted. You seem to think it’s “either them or us” That’s how AA views it, because they are dogmatic. Historians, anthropologists, archeologists, geneticists, geologists they experiment, research and then share their finds and conclusions with the world. After 100 years or so, mainstream views may have changed, and I certainly hope they will, but it’s always building upon what you have, sometimes you have to rethink some part sure, but you don’t discard what you’v learned just because something doesn’t fit, you make a new idea which makes both things fit.

      3) about the Fuente Magna bowl: that’s just one of many example of weird things that have no explanation yet, like the deluge story being found everywhere in the world (I find that fascinating). the correct thing to do is to research and investigate, not to pull out conjectures just cause it’s weird. If said research eventually leads to aliens that would be one thing, but after hours and hours of reserach I’ve made into Zacharis Sitchin’s writings, as well as history, anthropology, arqueology, genetics, economics, ecology, geology and others I don’t see much credibility or scientific basis on Zacharis and the other ancient aliens dudes because they do not follow the scientific method. Those guys just see something weird and equate it to aliens, It reminds me of something Lawrence Krauss once said: “they’re asking the question after they decide which is the answer.” It’s pretty simple to debunk a lot of what AA proposes if you know enough about those ancient cultures. On most cases, AA shows you one thing and tells you: doesnit it seem like a UFO? The answer a lot of times is yes it does seem like a plane or astronaut etc. But after you see THE REST of the columnades, or the figurines or the textiles in the collection they got it from you realize that they often mislead you. I’ll give an example with Pacal’s astronaut thing: The sarcofagus of Pacal is loaded with mayan symbolism that any mexican architecture student would recognize immediatly. Also, most of the symbolism used in Pacal’s sarcofagus is present in other mayan burial chambers. So what’s more logical? that mayans used their very broad and common symbolism with Pacal just as with everyone else, or that with him they made one exception and instead depicted him on a spaceship. And also they never EVER mention spaceships again in the reminder of their existance? And that’s what happens with AA, when you start comparing what they show you with THE REST of the collections, you realize these are just “exceptions”. Remember that people are artists, and artists they all bring something unique (and sometimes abstract) to their compositions.

      4) You mention a gap on human history, I don’t know what you mean, I’ve been researching for about 4 years now about human evolution, technology, language etc. Because I’m writing a book, and there are gaps in the fossil record, but from austrolopithecines forward it seems very consistent, Stone tools seem to have a very simple progression, complex tools as well, fire and laguages is a little more difficult, but it also seems pretty consistent . We don’t know much about Denisovans, I’ll grant you that, but H. habilis, H. ergaster, H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis, H. sapiens idaltu, H sapiens sapiens are all very well studied and we can conclude amazing things from looking at their sites, their genetics, their tools, etc.

      5) I still believe that if aliens visited us we would have remnants of their telecomunications, If your TV can pick up noise left from the big bang, it could surely pick up signals from an alien nearby, even if he left thousands of years ago. Remember that space is HUGE and stars are really far away one from the other. Aliens are probably too far away.

      PS I usually don’t write in caps, but I couldn’t find an underline button.

      • “1) I’m researching what you said about the Philippines and can’t find anything, give me some keywords or something to facilitate this.”

        I think they’re trying to describe the phenomenon known as the “cargo cult” – a controversial hypothesis in anthropology to be sure.

      • “I’ll give an example with Pacal’s astronaut thing: The sarcofagus of Pacal is loaded with mayan symbolism that any mexican architecture student would recognize immediatly. Also, most of the symbolism used in Pacal’s sarcofagus is present in other mayan burial chambers. So what’s more logical? that mayans used their very broad and common symbolism with Pacal just as with everyone else, or that with him they made one exception and instead depicted him on a spaceship. And also they never EVER mention spaceships again in the reminder of their existance?”

        That’s true, but like you said there are still tones of other things that have yet to be explained and I never said that I belive everything on the show. I also said that I believe it’s posable that the ancient world could have been more advased then we originaly belived, the fact remains that history is writen by those with power and pick it a part and when somthing that threatens what we know about history the go out to either disprove it or push it to the side.

  150. The fact remains that we were not there to see exactly what was used or not used that allowed these people to accomplish such amazing things that baffle us today and we may never know. So, an open mind is key. We could find that what we believe is complete wrong or exactly right. We just don’t know.

  151. Tim mcmahon

    Thank you for validating my outrage with the History Channel. I officially don’t believe anything from H and their new scientific method – if anything is an historic uncertainty, always assume the least plausible, most profitable explanation.
    I really enjoy the funny haired guy whom has expressed certainty in the existence of hundreds of different alien cultures, ignoring scientific consensus that even one form making the journey to our planet is very unlikely. He reminds me of some nineteenth century snake oil salesman, haha. He’s raking in a lot of money though.

    • “ignoring scientific consensus that even one form making the journey to our planet is very unlikely.”

      >Assuming that intergalatic travle is 100% imposable now and forever even for a race that evolved on a far off panet when our soler system was still just a bunch of lifeless chuncks of rocks floating around a baby star.

      Science says it’s imposable because they say you can’t go fater then the speed of light and for some stupide reason they say time and light are conected when they’re because time doesn’t exist. Also, riddle me this batman, hypothetically if light never could you go faster than it?

      The answer is yes because there are galaxies that are travleing faster then light right now because they’ve existed befoer light came into being. Thus because they are already travleing faster then the speed of light, any life that evolves in those galixies can, and most likely already has, inveted faster then light travel.

      Science is always evolving and changing to except things it once thought imposable. at one point science said that it was imposable for life to exist in the deepist parts of the ocean yet we have found life there. Science once said that you couldn’t split the atom yet the people of the manhattan project did it (and immediately regretted it). the only scientific truth is that we don’t know every thing about the univers. We only know the laws of physics that operate in our own little corner of the univers. For all we know the laws of phisics are compleatly diffrent in other parts of it. And we will never know until we go out there and see for our selves. But we will never get there if we cling to the so called “Laws of Physics”. During the age of discovery scientists didn’t have the laws of physics they had Ideas for things and they went out and tried to do them no mater what others said and by doing so expaned our knowlage of the univers. When one ecespts that the univers isn’t all what people tell you it is a whole new world of discovery and wounder opens before you were anything is posable.

      • You’re right of course in that “Science is always evolving and changing” and certain things we think are impossible will not be in the future and so forth.

        But it’s not galaxies that are moving faster than the speed of light. Space itself is expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light, and of course space itself doesn’t move, it gets distorted.

  152. If it were discovered that something moved faster than the speed o light it would be an instant international news, and it would open up a huge can of worms. We might discover that someday, but then again any other concept might be the one to revolutionize, we’ll just have to wait and see.

    • We already have. I saw it on a show on the discovery channal about it. I forget what it was called but they were talking about the speed of light and they said that there were far off galaxies that are travaling faster then light because they formed moments after the big bang and existed before light. In other words they got a head start.

      • Either they misspoke or you misunderstood because it’s not that those galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light, it’s that space itself around those galaxies is expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light. There is a huge difference between both.

        It means that relative to our position, space around every object that’s more than 4.5 gigaparsecs (14.7 billion light-years) apart from us is expanding at that rate. But if you were to position yourself in that space, only things that are 4.5 gigaparsecs (14.7 billion light-years) apart from that point would be expanding at that rate. You can think about space as if it were a ballon with dots on its surface, as you inflate the ballon dots expand a little bit but the empty space between the dots expands much more. The dots aren’t moving, space is expanding.

      • Maybe. but the thing remans that under the known lays of physics the only way for something to travle faster then light is to have it exist before light and get a head start. but to travle vast distences you don’t nessasarly need to travle faster then light. if you could temeraraly move yourself slightly out of phase with the universe then you could have it move around you then you bring your self back into phase when you reach your destination. or use a teseract where you temperaraly remove a section of space out of the way bring your destination and where you are together cross over then but everything back how it was. these are actual scientific threries.

  153. sabretruthtiger

    Nice page Skepticalcubefarm. The Ancient Aliens programming is obscenely ridiculous and I’m even willing to entertain the idea of ancient aliens provided there’s definitive proof. The show constantly reaches and jumps to silly conclusions.

    There is unfortunately an overarching agenda by the power elite, or central banking/corporate oligarchy to implement a world government. You’ll notice that Governments have actually released statements claiming disclosure is imminent and they’ve been releasing so-called ‘x-files’ in concert.
    This is to distract the populations from their Orwellian machinations, dividing the populations, destroying everyone’s rights, installing more mechanisms of control over the population and spreading poverty, sickness and war in order to offer a world government as a solution to our supposed ‘greed, propensity for war, and destruction of the environment’. It’s also to manufacture a new awareness of our place in a galactic community and thus rationalise a world government as necessary to unite humanity. It’s a powerful tool as people are fascinated by the possibility of life elsewhere and if convinced of alien life it would create a religious euphoric state whereby the power elite could do anything.

    It also serves the purpose of destroying religion, religion is a barrier to tyrannical state control if it involves a deity with absolute morality, human individual rights, family values and helping others. They cannot tolerate devotion to something other than the state that they cannot control.
    They can control the man-made global warming religion (which is scientifically baseless and a mechanism for economic global governance over every aspect of our lives) because the state are stewards via carbon trading schemes, bio-preserves and taxation and corporate regulation, but Christianity is a problem for them.

    There is also the aspect of an intergalactic boogeyman like a space bin Laden. Al Qaeda, ISIS and the mujahadin were created by the CIA in order to create an enemy to justify raiding the middle east and removing citizen’s rights at home. 911 is scientifically proven to be a controlled demolition by basic Newtonian physics and other evidence and thus due to logistics must be an inside job, partly or fully). The ultimate threat would be an alien invasion and if the public thought that might happen they’d let the power elite pass any laws they wish.

    • “It also serves the purpose of destroying religion, religion is a barrier to tyrannical state control if it involves a deity with absolute morality, human individual rights, family values and helping others.”

      Yeah because no one has ever used religion to gain political power before. *Cough*Divine right of kings*Cough* *Cough*George W. Bush*Cough* *Cough*Emperor Theodosius*Cough* *Cough*The Chatholic Church*Cough*

  154. sabretruthtiger

    Correct 1337Fox religion is often used to control the populace, but the power elite prefer a religion in step with the principles of their agenda, not the antithesis (individual human rights vs their collectivist, anti-human, communist agenda) Nowadays we have the liberal religion which ties in nicely with their environmental and communist planned system of economic governance.

  155. ryan dillian

    Anyone who takes this show seriouse has to be on the slow side. What a load of shit they threw together and made an “educational” program with.

  156. Mark Richards

    The programmes ideas are interesting, as they do touch on subejects and ideas that are thought provoking, although if you read opposing views and opinions then you get a more balanced view. Some of the ideas are a bit mad, and others appear to be plausible. The characters involved are somewhat colourful and do not appear to be particularly qualified. In the search for answers to life’s many questions they do pose some interesting questions, although not particularly sound.

  157. OK, here’s what the real reason behind the alien nonsense is.

    The central banking oligarchy are in the endgame of implementing a world government, they’re achieving this via financial collapse, destabilisation worldwide, securing key resources in the middle east and Africa and social engineering via feminism and other divide and conquer strategies like setting the races, religions, political extremes and genders against each other.
    They own the western governments and the mainstream media. The alien rubbish is meant to change the world’ perspective of humanity and make them far more likely to welcome a world government as it would seem logical with an external community for us to take our place in. They’re using a Star Trek utopia concept as psychological manipulation. They may even go so far as to create a space ‘Bin Laden’. They’ve already created and run Al Qaeda and ISIS and yes 911 is scientifically proven to be a controlled demolition and is an inside job. An extraterrestrial threat would be the ultimate trick to get the world to accept a world government.

  158. the series is not saying it is historical fact…it is a theory, all it is doing is encouraging another form of thinking instead of settling for what someone else tells you. the books and scientific “fact” that all these experts and specialists and all their research that you rely on has been re-written and proved wrong over and over again through out history…at one time the earth was the center of the universe (its not) the earth is the center of the solar system (its not) the sun revolves around the earth (it doesnt) the earth is flat (it isnt) black holes are science fiction (they arent) light is the fastest thing in the universe (it isnt)…etc etc…see my point? open your mind form your own opinion stop relying on a scientist or specialist or expert to tell you what is “fact” and the only plausible “truth” stooge.

    • Paul, it’s a common misconception that a theory is just any idea that’s plausible. It’s not: that would be a hypothesis. A theory has to be backed up by evidence, theorems and laws before it is considered as one. A theory has to stipulate (in its construction) how to disprove it, and more importantly, it has to make predictions about what the theory means in a broader context. These predictions as well serve as a basis to disprove a theory. i.e. if evolution were true there would be to exist some kind of mechanism or code that organizes mutations (DNA was discovered much after) but the prediction of something like it was stipulated.

      Yes science changes and people have been wrong, we’ve said this once and again in this forum, but science changes with the accumulation of new knowledge, not the discarding of it. And besides (as has been stated before) that is the beauty of science, that it is self correcting because it relies on the accumulation of more and more knowledge.

      AA lies a lot, which is what angers me the most. They change the weights of things; they change the materials and structure of things; the change the age of things (and yes dating isn’t a very exact science, but everything is constantly re-dated with loads of different processes, results are then cross-referenced. Think of statistics, if 12 results give a similar output and another one gives an extreme output, which is more likely to be true? AA also shows extreme ignorance when it comes to symbolism in art, especially when they address the medieval paintings. Research all of this yourself and you’ll see they lie all the time.

      It’s not about opening one’s mind, it’s about identifying charlatans when you see one, and charlatans should be exposed because they are detrimental to our further exploration and understanding of the universe. To be open minded is not the same as being gullible. And respect to experts doesn’t mean to blindly believe them. To be humble is to stop talking and listen to someone who might know more than you in any given subject before making up your own mind on a subject.

      Occam’s razor would suggest that if AA has to lie in order for their hypothesis to be true, and that said hypothesis contradicts not just some things, but all we know about everything it addresses, then my open mind would suggest that they are not to be trusted. If AA were a real theory we wouldn’t be having this discussion, rather we would be talking (and disagreeing maybe) on the implications of said theory.

      PS: Research more on how theories are formulated, what laws are, why theories never become laws etc. It’s all about being open minded actually but from your comments it seems you think otherwise. Remember even though atoms have been discovered, the atomic theory is still “just a theory”. Even though we know gravity exists, its still “gravitational theory”. You know why theories are the highest level in science and never become laws? Because scientists are the first to admit that they don’t know everything, and that things might change in the future, no matter how sure we are of them. It’s because they are the first to be open minded. But they are also strict, and not every idea is worthy of being in the same level. AA started about 40 years ago and they still use basically the same arguments, their rhetoric hasn’t expanded and their research is null. They really don’t deserve to be taken that seriously. The more time passes, a hypothesis and/or theory that is true should become more and more robust, This has been the case with evolution, when Darwin first postulated it, it didn’t seem as true as it does today, 100+ years after it has grown so much, and changes and revisions have been made as they have been needed. How about astrology? In about 15,000 years it hasn’t changed a bit. maybe in another 40 years AA will be more solid, but the tendency points otherwise.

      • May I suggest a new theory or hypothesis? I call it the advanced ancients theory. It’s the theory that at least some of the ancient people where more advanced than we originally believed. Now lets say that there is some kind of energy that flows along the earth and they did have access to it. It would give a more earthly explanation for the stuff AA claims to be from aliens.

  159. BTW: about light not being the fastest thing in the universe. That I didn’t know, was it a recent discovery? I’d like to know more on the subject

  160. How are you people so convinced that aliens would meddle at all in human events? Do you see us hanging out with monkeys and fighting wars? Forget for a second that space is so incredibly large that the idea of any civilization actually making it to us is statistically negligible, if they did make it here by bending the fabric of spacetime itself why would they even think for a second that our ancestors are intelligent beings worth interacting with?

    • “space is so incredibly large that the idea of any civilization actually making it to us is statistically negligible”

      You are assuming that just because it’s cerently impossable for us to achive intersteller travel that the same goes for the entire universe. what you fail to realize is that when compaired to the rest of the universe earth is only two mouths old. Now lets say there’s distent planet where life formed and evilution took place trillions of years before the hunk of molten rock that would become earth even came into existence. Are you saying that a civilization from that planet, that’s had a trillion year head start, couldn’t find away for intersteller travle to be a thing? For all we know there could be an element not found in our solor system that could make intersteller travel possable somewhere out there.

      As for why they would come to earth? well earth is a planet abundent with resorses. they could come here to restock. Or maybe after passing by a bunch of lifeless planets they see ours and go “HEY LOOK! A chance for social activity!”

      Also you are popetuating the stariotype that our ancesters where retards. Who’s to say that our ancesters weren’t extreamy advanced but some form a cataclisum caused almost all trases of their advancedment to disapear and became legends like that of Atlantis, Hy-Brasil and Shangri-La?

  161. Well, I came across this blog while I was searching for most viewed documentary. After this long kind comment debate I have just one thing to say why don’t you guys explain your claims on the basis of appropriate links and sources. Explain every facts you used to make us convinced…

  162. James brown

    Firstly, I like that it’s a strong enough topic to warrant a discussion.

    The program however never states that the things talked about are actually fact ….. more a suggestion of the more likely.

    Within your own text you make a vital comparison between all or most gods ….. they come from the sky …… then take into account that all gods have different names throughout the world and across religions. They can not all be right so they must all be wrong? Or is it more likely that they are all primitive descriptions of things that happened and explained in a way that sounds just as fantastic as any suggestion by antiant alien theorists?

    My thoughts are along the lines of,

    All that time ago, we were told something happened and it turns out that a similarly fantastic thing happened thousands of miles away before man had conquered the sea or travelled very far ….. so those stories are separate. We find things as massive as pyramids that outdated even those stories and a sphinx that we now know outdates even the pyramids and has also definitely been altered around the time the pyramids were built ….. all we have been taught as fact, is no more fact that anything in a science fiction movie. Mankind is much older than religious text tells us as we have found proof of this all over the world … technology harnessing power is as old as man. BUT something happened that left man alone to fend for himself. The claims in this program can sound as ridiculous as any religious text ….. so I say listen to the point not the content ……. something happened that man is trying to explain …….. weapons like a lightening bolt can be likened to a gun …. a flash and then destruction. .. Thor’s hammer another weapon capable of doing more damage than it looked like it should to a man holding a stick with a rock lashed on the end. Religeous text offers so much. But speaks nothing of the things we now know…. example …..the stars are actually suns more powerfull than our own sun ….. the moon does not light up anything, the reflection of the sun does …… however ancient people seemed to know enough to create a calender that acurately mapped out the time we still use today ……the only way that is possible is to know what is happening in our sky the shape of our world and our position in it all …… to talk about stars as places that the gods come from like the indigenous American Indians. is not an assumption but a suggestion that the gods are ET …… sounds ridiculous because of our human notion of ET in movies and stories ….. however take that silly notion away and you are left with a story as believable as any religious text . Forgive angry grammar or spelling, my understanding of things out ways my vocabulary

  163. can people just give the human race some credit….. We are amazing, intelligent and above all curious, why is it so hard to believe that early humans looked a problem and figured out a way to solve it. Imagine you have no knowledge of what a natural disaster is or does and then one destroys your village it’s not implausible to think early humans will have looked at that and thought oh I should try and please that powerful thing so it won’t hurt me again so they started making offerings and as time went on those offerings got bigger and more spectacular they would have had to think of ways to say cut stone straighter or carve things better and the way they did this is by human engineering not alien intervention if you were stuck in a forest and you needed to dig a hole would you use your hands, use a stick or throw your hands in the air crying for help from aliens, we use tools and that is why we have become what we have. I’m not saying that aliens don’t exist I hold out hope that all the magical things in this world aren’t fantasy but like the belief in God I refuse to be believe something that is based on basically hearsay bring me proof and I will believe.

    Oh and for the people who say don’t watch the show if it annoys you, personally i enjoy picking apart something that masquerades as a factual history show and presenting what it actually is…. A modern day fairy tale

  164. How do I set up a website where I can claim things, and then with no evidence to support my argument or evidence to support the lack of evidence from the other party, be able to just argue with what people about my writing.

    There is no evidence to show that the majority of well founded claims (not all) could not be ET related. That says something. Whether or not there’s aliens or whether or not we simply don’t know s*** about the past is open for debate.

    Its been shown that the knowledge people of Ancient Sumeria had about astronomy (heliocentric, knowledge of outer planets) was much more accurate then that of the Chaldeans astronomical records 1000 years later circa 2000 BC. And it only got worse from there. Strong evidence points to the source of much of the Chaldean culture and knowledge of sciences was Sumeria.

    My point, just because you consider yourself advanced, does not mean you are not more ignorant and less knowledgeable than the people who came before you.

    We know we live in a heliocentric solar system, but many people still think they live in a Human centric universe.

    • There is no evidence to show that the majority of well founded claims (not all) could not be ET related.

      That’s not how things work. There’s also no evidence to show that the majority of well-founded claims are not Unicorn or Elvis related either. The whole point of my issue with these charlatans is that in order for a claim to become well-founded, it needs to be, well, well-founded; it needs to have a preponderance of evidence in its favour, which is exactly what the E.T. hypothesis absolutely does not have.

      The accuracy of ancient cultures’ understandings of the order of the universe was better in some places than others, but none of it holds a candle to what we know now, and what we know now pretty much conclusively shows that hundreds of human civilizations, from all over the world, independently or through trade developed different models of the heavens; some models worked better than others, all were flawed – badly – and none of them gave an accurate picture of how the cosmos worked. And all of that is irrelevant to the central complaint of this (ancient) blog post: people who claim (or “speculate”) that aliens were somehow involved in Earth’s ancient history are literally making shit up, because unless one of them has a frozen alien head sitting in their freezer at home that they’re not sharing, none of them has any evidence that aliens exist, let alone have visited us. Ever.

      That’s not “human centric”; it’s a simple acknowledgement of facts.

      • The facts as you understand them doesn’t hold relevance to actual truth.

        You provide no source for your anti alien theories or a comprehensive explanation on why it all fits as it needs to for you to be right. Ancient astronauts or not, your personal style of arguments is just as weak if not weaker, and the only truth you have is that a majority of professionals dismiss the theory.

        Same thing was true with the existance of the atom when Boltzmann first proposed his theory. No on accepted it.

        Just because your on the majority doesn’t make you wrong. Personally in your reply to my comment, several things you stated encompassing all cultures, poor understanding of cosmos, we know more now then the ancients, and the evolution of separate cultures happened independently to come to similar ideas are ALL your opinions and no evidence exists to suggest starting at 3600 BC, but counting long before that that we have a better understanding now.

        Unicorns and absurdities and being extreme for the sake of argument is a poor way to counter argue if that is your only method.

        Your simply wrong because you aren’t completely correct, and that’s enough for me to dismiss you as an actual intellectual contributor. Not because of that fact , but your mentality in spite of thar fact.

      • If you believe the only evidence for proof of ancient aliens is a frozen alien head, it is obvious that you are not a scientific person capable of scientific reasoning, regardless of your blog post.

        That being true, how can you stand on the “shoulders” of people of reason and use their arguments to contort your own written conclusion, when you clearly lack the ability to do so.

        By the way, there is no proof that unicorns didn’t do it either, but still the conclusion that it was honored sapien is a leap of faith, although some think it’s the only plausible conclusion, but it’s still only an assumption.

  165. Pingback: Travel through a wormhole

  166. I hate Ancient Aliens to but for different reasons. I believe that this show is part of a government effort to discredit evidence of alien visitation. If you take the subjects of many of these shows and fact check them you’ll find that at the core there is often clear evidence of alien technology, governments don’t spend millions of dollars and man hours to cover up something that isn’t real and they don’t want to hide for themselves so as part of their disinformation campaign they have this show where they have these guys who are really repressed science fiction writers who mix real credible evidence with all kinds of crazy ideas from science fiction like time travel, wormholes, shape shifters crazy people who want attention saying they were abducted in the night etc just ridiculous things. I mean there are real scientists who know the difference between science and science fiction who can demonstrate with real facts that at the least there must have beenEarth ent technologically advanced civilizations on Earth so along with seizing any hard evidence that would prove it to the public they need shows like this to give the public the impression that anyone who believes in there existence are the kind of kooks and nuts who believe in Vampires and Werewolves. I like to make jokes out people on and I’ve found that you can always get a laugh by including Aliens in your jokes. People are nervous about it because they suspect an underlying truth so they try to laugh it away.

    • Where is the proof to support your statements? Saying something without evidence only makes it hearsay. All you have done is give us is a personal opinion and telling others to do the fact checking shows a lack of research with which you could have bolstered your argument.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s