Post: #26

I find ancient alien theories really interesting, but I actually do not like this show.

They take too many shortcuts breezing over the lines of logic and small supporting details, and the end result is presenting diluted, half-assed cases that deserve a much more thorough analysis.

Given that their primary aim is entertainment, I can understand, but I personally feel they do more harm to the reputation of these ideas than good. It's hard to take the show seriously.

If you think the theories are absurd, I recommend picking up a book on the subject and see how you feel at the end. You still might not buy it after doing so, but you'll have to admit there are some interesting points to consider.

Beyond All Seas

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling

Post: #27

(05-10-2014 04:04 PM)kosko Wrote:  Ancient Aliens is code word for ancient men of color, usually Africans. Any time a Westerner has trouble connecting historical dots they will assume first it was green men from mars rather then looks at plausible facts that it was ancient men from places such as Africa.

The Aztec and the "mystery" of the pyramids is another BS circle jerk by confused westerners. They can't explain how the base of the Aztec pyramids and the Kushte commissioned early pyramids have the EXACT same measurements so instead of linking plausible clues to cross seas travel and trade that existed (Columbus was not the first man abroad), they would rather say blue men from mars came down and measured out the stones. People whom are trusted to be smart believe this shit because it is completely uneasy to believe that anybody other then a white guy did anything of note in the records of history. My own tribe were masters of canoe making and making war ships. It is believed the British borrowed many tricks from us and use their manufacturing might to process materials together to create a legion of Navy ships which helped them conquer half the fuking globe.

The sea currents which Columbus found by mistake were most easily accessible by Africans and Central Americans and it is silly to think they didn't exploit these avenues for trade and exploration if they were literally on their doorsteps. You literally stuck your boat on these currents and you will be taken to the carribean and Central American regions, all you had rondo was manage the intense heat and length of the trip. There are head carvings of negroid men in Aztec ruins and Aztec themed art in places in Western Africa, but again Aliens, of course.

They will always bring up silly fairy tales instead of being honest in given the ancient Aboriginals men of the Americas or Africans there fair dues.

Gotta disagree man. Those Olmec heads you are referencing in Mezo-America were people indigenous to that region. There actually are Native Americans with those features, I've seen photos of people in that region who look like that. They are clearly Native Americans, not Africans. There is not a shred of archeological or DNA evidence that West Africans had ocean going vessels and a presence in the Americas prior to slavery. I'm all for learning my African history, but let's not get carried away with this Afrocentrist stuff.

Post: #28

This show really frustrates me, because the sheer amount of disinformation they spread is damaging in and of itself. With almost every theory they ignore plausible explanations, twisting and manufacturing facts to support their thesis, and given the way the brain works, it's pretty much guaranteed that in five years time at least a few of these "facts" will have taken root in your brain.

Keep in mind, I'm not one of these douchebag skeptics - the sort of idiots who pat themselves on the back for proving the status quo - and there's plenty of weird stuff out there, suggesting an alternate view of pre-history. For example, I'm decently convinced that the story of Noah's Ark (and the various similar iterations throughout other cultures) was actually the story of Atlantis' fall, roughly at the ending of the last ice age in 8000 BC; and furthermore that Atlantis was in the modern Philipines - further backed up by the recent discovery that humans came out of Australia, not out of Africa as previously speculated.

Then you've got this weird thing, the Starchild Skull; I really wish he'd say "Unknown Hominid" instead of "Alien" (even if it is extra-terrestrial in origin, it is clearly some sort of hominid, after all), but regardless of his language, this strikes me as a remarkably significant find that's being ignored...

...probably because he labelled it "Starchild".

But Ancient Aliens? They are to pre-historical speculation what White Nationalism is to a healthy European self-identity; they're so terrible that they undermine the entire field. I've only seen two episodes, but both of them were filled with complete fabrications.

Post: #29

(05-10-2014 07:48 AM)Teedub Wrote:  Some of the claims in that show actually make me laugh out loud. It's good for light entertainment, but don't watch it for serious scientific analysis.

I think the commentators on the show probably get directed to exaggerate their claims and make them sound really "out there" and ridiculous for the purposes of the show. That one guy David Childress always says the most off the wall shit. If you listen to the interview Giorgio Tsoukalos did with Joe Rogan that I linked in the previous thread about the show, he definitely sounds much more level-headed than you would ever think by watching Ancient Aliens alone.

/thread-26579-...#pid504590

Post: #30

[There is not a shred of archeological or DNA evidence that West Africans had ocean going vessels and a presence in the Americas prior to slavery. I'm all for learning my African history, but let's not get carried away with this Afrocentrist stuff.
[/quote]

Don't get me started. Stop making statements of certainty when you clearly haven't done any research on the matter and then try to dismiss it as "Afrocentric" while accepting the watered down biased and incomplete history you learned is school as normal when it is in fact "Eurocentric".

FOR A START: go and read: They Came Before Columbus - Dr. Ivan Van Sertima

This is one of the Olmec heads "they" rarely - show - the one with the Afro...(and they are many many more African like artifacts - and even skeletal evidence). This guy is African.

   

Post: #31

{Anatomically modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years. Recorded history barely goes back 10,000 years, it is entirely plausible an advanced civilization which predates what is accepted by mainstream archeology could have existed. I mean look at the recently discovered Golbelki Tepe in Turkey- it could be almost 12,000 years old. The same about of time separating us from ancient Sumeria separates Sumer from whoever built Golbekli Tepe. Try wrapping your head around that.
[/quote]

Anatomically modern humans have been around for much longer than that.

The first to find such evidence was the Leakeys - finders of Lucy. They found evidence of anatomically modern humans going back close to ONE million years !. But they down played the evidence due to that fact that they were already famous for Lucy and did not want to contradict their own first theory.

Humanity and its civilization may likely be much older than the current Academy wants to admit even though the evidence is near overwhelming and compelling.

Go and read: Forbidden Archaeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race - by Cremo and Thompson

Post: #32

Here's some more on Pre-Colombian African contact with the "New World":

http://stcroixarchaeology.org/files/Hull..._Angel.pdf


Smithsonian Institute: find of African skeletons on the Virgin Islands: dated 950AD to 1250AD

Post: #33

Hmmm... someone needs to make an action movie about this. Aliens vs. Egyptians.

Anyone got a "non-fiction" (I use that term loosely) book that'd make good research for such a story?

Post: #34

Here's some more:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/....html?_r=0

The discovering Archaeologist believes based on similarity to other art in Africa that these too were made by Africans.

(PS: I am using the most "venerable" of sources lest they be attacked as "Afrocentric")

Post: #35

(05-12-2014 06:03 PM)runsonmagic Wrote:  Hmmm... someone needs to make an action movie about this. Aliens vs. Egyptians.

Anyone got a "non-fiction" (I use that term loosely) book that'd make good research for such a story?

too late. Ridley Scott is already doing one. due out in a year or two.

More "Eurocentric" nonsense of course....

Post: #36

(05-12-2014 05:09 PM)kdolo Wrote:  Don't get me started. Stop making statements of certainty when you clearly haven't done any research on the matter and then try to dismiss it as "Afrocentric" while accepting the watered down biased and incomplete history you learned is school as normal when it is in fact "Eurocentric".

FOR A START: go and read: They Came Before Columbus - Dr. Ivan Van Sertima

This is one of the Olmec heads "they" rarely - show - the one with the Afro...(and they are many many more African like artifacts - and even skeletal evidence). This guy is African.

Dude, there are Native Americans STILL living in that region that look like that statue. A wide, flat nose and big lips doesn't mean someone is African, as you can see, there are other non-black groups that have these features as well:



I even know Central Americans who look pure blood indigenous who have these same features.

I don't believe for a second they were made my Africans. And I've read quite a bit about pre-colonial subsaharan empires in West Africa and I'm not at all convinced that they made a journey across the Atlantic. Where are the artifacts of ocean going vessels and shipyards that built them along the coast of West Africa?

Post: #37

The Maiduguri canoe dates back 8000 years.

Ship making was a skill set needed not only for cross sea travel but simple navigation to North Africa and the Mediterranean when the Sahara was lush, green, and a composed of many lakes and basins.

Strains of African Cotton have been found growing in the Americas which pre-date anything Colombus.

Ties in art making as formations can be found in Colombia that again pre-date any Columbus shit. Same tools and methods to create carvings that memic each other (West Africa to Colombian San Augestine)

Blacks were already spotted and present in Central America when the Spanish arrived... The Afro-Darienite people of Panama pre-dated any Spanish shit. The Washitaw people, another Afro-Aboriginal group again use the same carving techniques that was mastered and perfected in Africa.

The script an language used by the Olmecs was the same to a classic language called Mende...
geographytsu.freehomepage.com/AfricanPresenceinEarlyAmerica.htm

... which is still spoken today by millions in regions such a Sierra Leone.

Lastly, simple logic. On boat it was closer in distance to boat to Brazil and the Americas coast then to boat to established ports in the Mediterranean. You had a 2000 mile trip versus 5000, on more forgiving currents which literally did all the work for you.

And let's be real. Just like with Ancient Egyptians you have to use logic. Why would you carve Afro hair into a Olmec head if Aboriginal Americans have long lush hair ? Same thing as to why Ancient Egyptian women wore wigs when Arab women can grow hair down to their asses in their sleep? The most simple of observations which makes things very obvious. Why would the Olmecs have course hair in there head carvings? Long hair was always and still is a status symbol among Aboriginal men. Why was this not depicted in the carvings or paintings?

Post: #38

I don't care to get drawn into a debate about Olmecs. I'll just leave it with this: