ancient aliens debunked

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by Sir Bustalot, Nov 24, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,612

    Boomshakalaka
    • Hot Thread Hot Thread x 1
    test
  2. Geedorah

    Geedorah King

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    11,872
    Puma punku :funny:
    test
  3. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,612
    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...
    test
  4. Twamp

    Twamp proper weaponry

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    13,856
    this is just as credible as those documentaries where ancient aliens were proven to be real.


    therefore, thread title is incorrect.
    test
  5. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    it systematically destroys each claim that was made on the show.

    therefore, thread title is correct.
    test
  6. Twamp

    Twamp proper weaponry

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    13,856
    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.
    test
  7. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    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.
    test
  8. Twamp

    Twamp proper weaponry

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    13,856
    vice verse.
    test
  9. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    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

    ?
    test
  10. Twamp

    Twamp proper weaponry

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    13,856
    there was more than "little or no direct evidence". the initial Ancient Alien's show was extremely detailed. there's rebuttal's for everything.
    test
  11. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    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.
    test
  12. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,612
    This^^

    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.
    test
  13. Twamp

    Twamp proper weaponry

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    13,856
    misinformation is the magic word here.
    test
  14. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,612
    haha man

    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/
    test
  15. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    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
    test
  16. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,612
    this is why im sure son is just trollin
    test
  17. Twamp

    Twamp proper weaponry

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    13,856

    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.
    test
  18. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    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.
    test
  19. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,612
    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.
    test
  20. Geedorah

    Geedorah King

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    11,872
    Depends how you look at 1+1,for some it really is 3,two numbers and one +.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)