Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by Sir Bustalot, Nov 24, 2012.
they debunk a ton of shit, not just puma punku or whatever...
I never knew the show was based on that one old dudes books though...
this is just as credible as those documentaries where ancient aliens were proven to be real.
therefore, thread title is incorrect.
it systematically destroys each claim that was made on the show.
therefore, thread title is correct.
no it doesn't. i just watched the first half an hour only so far and now you attempt to use "systematically", "destroy", and "claim" yet when the show itself presented systematic documentation of destroying previous thought history and claims you were all against it.
i used the words i thought were accurate.
ancient aliens was always based on half truths and fuzzy thinking. if you walked away from viewing that show thinking they had proven or even reasonably demonstrated anything about aliens or history, then you were fooled. shit happens.
so you don't see a difference between:
a) being convinced by wild claims with little or no direct evidence
b) being convinced by a detailed rebuttal to those claims
there was more than "little or no direct evidence". the initial Ancient Alien's show was extremely detailed. there's rebuttal's for everything.
of course there's rebuttals for everything, but depending on how strong your argument is, an honest rebuttal can only be so strong.
the fact that these ancient aliens claims were based on little to no direct evidence should be apparent from just watching the puma punku portion: they consistently either get things blatantly wrong (i.e. lie) or they simple portray the facts in a highly selective manner so that anything which would cast doubt on their proposals are conveniently left out of the discussion.
yes... i understand what youre saying Sun', but the theories theyve debunked have been based on misinformation, and they seem to give proper explanations.... how could you not come to that conclusion after watching the first half hour? they clearly correct a dozen pieces of misinformation stated by the Ancient Aliens show. For example, when the old guy has said that the stones were made from shit they werent even made from? what about that? half his ideas rely on the stones being made from what he said, and they are not even made from that kind of rock. Misinformation. The show makes assumptions that align with their theories as demonstrated in this video.
sure the debunkers could be lying, but i dont think its the case, doesnt make sense. Until i see the ancient aliens guys debunk the debunkers, then the debunkers have clearly won this round.
and as far as the title of this thread being incorrect, it is not. When i say Ancient ALiens debunked im referring to the show. Not Ancient Aliens in general.
misinformation is the magic word here.
they use historical/geological/archeological facts
so do you think that the geologists are wrong and the stone is actually made from what the old bugger says?
are you saying the archeologists and historians are incorrect in their evidence that the people of the time had sufficient tools to do the job? when theres direct evidence the tools were around for many-many years before hand?
all theyve done is give the correct info on some claims of the ancient aliens dudes.... i dont see how you could not notice the corrections.
cmon quit trollin/
but here's the beautiful part: the maker of this vid actually cites his references for the claims he makes. if you look in the info under the vid you can click on the link to any section of the vid where it will take you to the website that has all of the claims and citations listed.
for example, puma punku:
Puma Punku | Ancient Aliens Debunked
this is why im sure son is just trollin
a lot of things don't make sense and everybody lies. this also isn't a boxing match. it's another view and opinion about what was initially stated and rounds have been won depending on who you're rooting for because facts and evidence obviously means one thing to one person and another thing to the other person.
of course you can always try to interpret evidence to support (or at least not contradict) your view, but really it's not supposed to be as open to interpretation as you would suggest. this is essentially a perversion of critical thinking.
ok i see what youre saying...
but when a guy who has a tv show says 1+1=3 and then bases the rest of his theorys on that equation and then a scientist comes and proves 1+1=2 not 3, how could you come to the conclusion theyre both probably fibbing?
1 was based on misinfo, the other based on facts.... there are many layers to facts, but the base layer is truth. 1+1=2 is truth. 1+1=3 is false, plus everything else based on the 1+1=3 theory is also most likely false because its based on false info.... you cant tell me that the geologists are lying when they said that buddy is completely wrong on what the rock is made from... Of course unless i personally do the test myself, i could say i dont believe any of them. But there would be no reason for them to completely make up the fact about what the rocks were actually made from....
that old fucker that the show is based off of, im not saying he willfully lied about what the stones were made from, and im not saying he willfully ignored the historical facts about the time in history, i just think this old bugger had his facts wrong.
Depends how you look at 1+1,for some it really is 3,two numbers and one +.
Separate names with a comma.