bootlegpass wrote:Thanks for the explanation. I guess, after reading so many comments about debunking, I kind of took it personal. I appreciate you sharing your willingness to question the evidence as presented, it reinforces my belief that we should all look at what is presented, examine the facts, and draw our own conclusions based on said facts. That is my definition of free thinking - if everyone proceded this way, the world would have far fewer problems.
bootlegpass wrote:I get the impression that if I believe exactly as you, I am accepted as long as I don't question it; however, if I do have questions or comments about obvious issues that hamper the advancement of AA theory, I am not welcome here.
I have no idea whether AA theory is true or not- I can tell you there is some compelling evidence in its favor. However, it has its flaws just as mainstream theory does. The entire point of my above post was to attempt to explain why EVD isn't considered a credible source- not to discredit him. I thought by posting here I could join an open-minded group willing to debate. Is debate not how advancement is made? However, I feel that there are some people living in glass houses here- by that I mean you throw your rocks at those who you percieve to believe differently than you and claim they don't want to examine the evidence (mainstream science) and engage in debate; yet, when someone who merely points out an obvious issue with EVD, you are no more willing to be open-minded than the mainstream, and label it as debunking.
Third, any theory that requests scientific validation must respond to its critics in a logically rigid and valid manner (indeed that is science). Failure to do so (usually via personal attacks), means rejection from the scientific world. Skeptics, critics, and debunkers ought to be embraced by the AAT community and responded to in a serious manner (peer review is part of the scientific method too), less it becomes a belief system more akin to a religion. For some this is apparently acceptable.
Bob137 wrote:So in regards to questioning the AA Theory. Then explain to me how the mountain tops in Peru were sheered off utilizing conventional methods of the time period when they were done? Also explain to me how the stones of Puma Punku were formed, and fashioned, and moved, and put into place and how was the complex destroyed, without leaving any evidence of how it was destroyed? Also explain to me how the granite in the Great pyramid was cut and formed so precisely utilizing copper tools, or any other tools of that time period, to where they were not only done within 1/100th precision, but also the carvings in granite? Explain the Out of Place Artifacts, that are thousands to millions of years old that are machined during those time periods, that anthropologists say only cave men, and/or ape men existed?
Bob137 wrote:In regards to the granite, if you are referring to Hearte's answers in another post...
bootlegpass wrote: However, to take ones comments that point out some obvious flaws in AA theory an label someone as a "debunker" or nonbeliever is unfair. I get the impression that if I believe exactly as you, I am accepted as long as I don't question it; however, if I do have questions or comments about obvious issues that hamper the advancement of AA theory, I am not welcome here.
bootlegpass wrote:Would you lend creedence to someone who was passing off as fact, something that had been proven false? I know EVD admitted it, but why not remove it and attempt to advanvce the theory of AA on it's plethora of factual evidence?
Gemini wrote:No one has debunked the artificially flattened mountain tops at Nazca.
Gemini wrote:Mainstream explanations regarding Puma Punku are unproven assumptions.
Gemini wrote:Regarding debunking pottery, there are granite vases in the Cairo museum, unless they have been recently stolen, that we can not reproduce today.
Metaluna wrote:Nothing can convince me that this is a naturally eroded mountain top.
maxmercury wrote:So what eroded it? Rain? Wind? That does not look natural to me, but I won't say aliens built it either. It does need to be studied instead of ignored.
upperworld wrote:Any author, scientist, or skeptic that attempts to debunk ancient astronaut theorists, or any theorist for that matter and uses family lineage as ammo is certainly not worth listening to.
Liborio wrote:The questions raised by Mr. E.V.D in the book are just that questions. And in my and many others opinions they are not far fetched. When it was theorized that the world was round was it not ridiculed as ridiculous. They wanted and demanded proof but no one wanted to seek proof for fear of falling off. It seems to me that the debunkers are just that. Its easier to sit back and ridicule the questions raised by some,as wild as they may seem, than to open their minds to the possibility. What are they afraid of?
maxmercury wrote:Liborio wrote:The questions raised by Mr. E.V.D in the book are just that questions. And in my and many others opinions they are not far fetched. When it was theorized that the world was round was it not ridiculed as ridiculous. They wanted and demanded proof but no one wanted to seek proof for fear of falling off. It seems to me that the debunkers are just that. Its easier to sit back and ridicule the questions raised by some,as wild as they may seem, than to open their minds to the possibility. What are they afraid of?
The idea that the ancients and even the during the Dark Ages of people thinking the world was flat is a myth. They knew it was round and it was an ancient Greek mathematician who proved it by measuring shadows in various places of Egypt and Greece. (The name of who it is escapes me now.)
Liborio wrote:Was it a myth then that the men on Christopher Columbus voyage talked about a mutiny when they thought the captain was certainly leading them to their deaths. That they were heading to the edge of the world and would fall to the depths like that of a water fall.
Cydonia wrote:Tired of the BS! I am a huge fan of Herr Von Daniken which caused me to get banned on a UFO forum. Basically the post was to discredit Herr Von Daniken by saying that Herr Von Daniken has finally come out and admitted that his theories of the Ancient Astronaut theory was made up and he really has nothing to back it. I have been following the works and writings of Erich Von Daniken since I was about 5 years old, that was back in 1974.
I wrote a post back stating that I would like to see this video, knowing that this never took place. The response was "are you calling me a liar?" I said no, but I know would really like to see this. I got an email saying that I am now banned from the forum for being hostile to the members who are skeptics. So I was being hostile for asking to see the video?
It seems to me, that the Ancient Astronaut Theory is pretty much debunking mainstream theories, and then they retaliate.
I have to believe that many of the forums out there have members who are part of the government trying to discredit the truth! What do you think?
Bob137 wrote:Cydonia, don't feel alone, I got banned from another site, for citing that Mary was more than likely artificially inseminated, and that Jesus was probably a Hybrid.
Bob137 wrote:In regards to those pictures of space ships by the sun: I was thinking that maybe they have to utilize a sun for a wormhole, utilizing the sun's energy to open up a wormhole from one sun to another. Maybe that is why many appear close to the sun, since they have to utilize the suns power to open up a wormhole, or possibly wormholes only exist close to suns, and even could be both they need the suns power, and wormholes only open next to suns? Anyway it is a thought I had from looking at so many pictures of space craft close to the sun, prior to departing our solar system, r coming into our solar system.
Return to Erich von Däniken
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest