# Ancient Aliens Debunked



## widows son

YouTube this 3 hours documentary on the farce that is Ancient Aliens. How the history channel is allowed to display this as history I will never know. But this movie doesn't refute the existence of other life, just the ridiculousness of the conclusions these "Ancient Astronaut Theorist" make. Check it put you won't be disappointed


----------



## BryanMaloney

The History Channel is allowed to display something "as history" because the History Channel isn't located in a totalitarian police state where the government dictates every little thing that's on TV, that's how. Liberty includes "freedumb 2 b stupit".


----------



## widows son

Correct, however they dont have the right to warp facts.  They are misinforming people with this information. They do not interpret the mainstream ideas correctly, they don't have their facts and dates right, nobody on the show is an actual scientist even though it says they are, and when looking up their credentials they have none. If the history channel wants to display history, then they are responsible to display ideas with accurate information. If they stated that this only theory and compared to mainstream ideas then i would have mo problem.  I think its ignorant to say we are
alone in the universe considering what we know about it but they aren't even on the right track. You are right, liberty does give you the right to be stupid.  However Liberty doesn't mean the right to display false stupid, or speculative or pseudo ideas, especially when they've been proven wrong.  A simple peer review of the subject will prove that the show is ridiculous.


----------



## widows son

Also of history channel is telling you that is history, how isn't that totalitarianism? If they stated that this is ONLY theory based on...then it wouldn't be totalitarian, but since there is no other theories to counter, they are enforcing and telling you that is truth when it's far from it. To me enforcing an idea that's false is totalitarianism


----------



## JJones

You mean this guy isn't a scientist?!




That being said, there's only so many facts a show like this can report before they have to start getting creative with their information.

Bringing up twisted facts is really opening a big can of worms though, because no argument about that can be complete without talking about the MSM.


----------



## widows son

Msm?


----------



## CajunTinMan

BryanMaloney said:


> The History Channel is allowed to display something "as history" because the History Channel isn't located in a totalitarian police state where the government dictates every little thing that's on TV, that's how. Liberty includes "freedumb 2 b stupit".


I hope you can still say that in 10 years....


----------



## Pscyclepath

The History Channel has come a long, long way when their primary programming is "Pawn Stars," "American Pickers," "Axe Men," and "Ice Road Truckers..."

'nuff said ;-)


----------



## widows son

Fact is that entire series and everyone on it bases everything they've researched off of pseudo science. If you watch this show I seriously suggest watching this documentary. Every bit of info in it is cited and you can see for yourself on the website ancientaliensdebunked.com


----------



## widows son

Pawn stars is the one thing you mentioned that's close to history out all of them.


----------



## JJones

widows son said:


> Msm?



Sorry, it's what I get for being lazy.  MSM is main stream media.


----------



## widows son

Lol ya I replied before I attempted at it. Have you watched the doc?


----------



## JJones

The Doc?  I guess I haven't. :huh:


----------



## jwhoff

Wonder how many folks misread the title PAWN STARS ...  and tuned in?   :lol:


----------



## Bill Lins

You mean, besides you?  :lol:  :wink:


----------



## widows son

Hehe.


----------



## JustinScott

Pscyclepath said:


> The History Channel has come a long, long way when their primary programming is "Pawn Stars," "American Pickers," "Axe Men," and "Ice Road Truckers..."
> 
> 'nuff said ;-)




Hey! I like pawn stars! ;p


----------



## BryanMaloney

widows son said:


> Also of history channel is telling you that is history, how isn't that totalitarianism? If they stated that this is ONLY theory based on...then it wouldn't be totalitarian, but since there is no other theories to counter, they are enforcing and telling you that is truth when it's far from it. To me enforcing an idea that's false is totalitarianism



Totalitarianism is a form of government. They do not have government power. You are free to disagree with them and claim they are lying. It is not the proper place of government to enforce "truth" unless one is talking about the specifics of "fraud" (which is not the same as lying).


----------



## CajunTinMan

You mean it's not real?  Aw man. Guess I picked a hell of a day to stop drinking.  Lol


----------



## Brent Heilman

I see that show as entertaining. Whenever I need someone to listen to someone that can prove I am not crazy I can always count on Ancient Aliens. Some of the theories they use and some of their evidence is far-fetched at best. It is one more reason why History Channel should change their name.

As far as Pawn Stars goes though, I love that show. They do some history related stuff on there all the time. Some guy brings a gun into the shop, gun expert shows up, gives a background history of the gun, and then says it may or may not be worth something. See history lesson done.


----------



## jvarnell

I see all ideas from everyone as good and the show has pointed me to look at other civilization and there beliefs.  I always find it funny when people don't look at all things as a place to start cognitive thoughts about most of the time I don't come to the same conclusions most of the time but there has to be some fact or they could not have jumped to the conclusions they have.


 I love Ancient Aliens but dislike all the others and am glad they put it on H2. 

This therad is like the aint-mason thread in away people saying bad things without all the evedince others have.  I am not saying they are right but they have some data that suports there hypothesis.


----------



## jvarnell

I hope that y'all think that it is good that I always take the other side of the discussion.


----------



## jvarnell

JJones said:


> You mean this guy isn't a scientist?!
> 
> View attachment 2616
> 
> That being said, there's only so many facts a show like this can report before they have to start getting creative with their information.
> 
> Bringing up twisted facts is really opening a big can of worms though, because no argument about that can be complete without talking about the MSM.




This is another thing are you looking at the external or the internal.  I know I look goofie but I do that to be deferent and not the same as all you there ya'whos out there.  I agree about the MSM coments because it is there internal view point I disagree with.


----------



## widows son

Exactly, I agree with you Brent. Brian Maloney, you are right that totalitarianism is a government, but your comment was that the reason the show is on tv is because the "scientists" have an opinion and have the freedom to express it, due to it being created in a country where they have that freedom. Very true.  However monopolizing an idea, not bringing forth any other opinions that are much more valid, and bending the truth, even flipping the truth 360 to conform it to your own "hypothesis", to me that's intellectual totalitarianism. Kinda has a Kim Jong Il feel to it. Something tells me you like the show, which is fine but at least look at the counter theories by real scientists who do real research and have their work peer reviewed. The people in the show have ZERO credentials, and dont even cite their work. Brian I'm not here to offend you or to get into another skip heated argument, I presented information worthy of viewing, if youve watched the movie, and still don't agree I will debate you. I  am aware of the politics involved in allowing it to be on tv, but unfortunately that is not the topic in question. I only made the comment of not believing its allowed on tv because of the stated points i have mentioned.  Watch the movie then formulate an opinion to counter.  Brian, just because something has the freedom to exist even if its "freedumb 2 b stupit" doesn't make it right to distort facts. By your logic, you would be ok with skip and his comments. Just seems like a double standard


----------



## jvarnell

I am sorry that I am posting somuch in a row here but when I saw this thread it seamed ..... Well I can't seem to put it into words.  To me knowedge can me gleamed from any source sometimes it can be as much as 1% and others as much as 99%.  I will never say anything is 100% right not even me.  I would have never looked for information on "Gobeki Tepe" if it was not for AA or even the caves it india.  I would not have read the mahabharata or looked at Ahura Mazda and the list gets biger ever day.........


----------



## Brent Heilman

I don't look at him and say that his ideas are crap. I listen to him and say almost all of his ideas are crap. They take things on that show and say that ancient man could not have done this or that. Yet in the past people have proved that you can do some of those things with their technology. Take, for instance, Stonehenge, they say repeatedly that there was no possible way they could have built it. I mean huge multi-ton stones sitting on top of others? You need a crane yet some farmer in Minnesota or Michigan can do it by himself in his back yard without a crane. It's Occam's Razor not the theory of since I can't conceive how they did it it has to be aliens. Nobody really knows how the guy in Florida built the Coral Castle and how some of the things there work, does that mean aliens helped him?


----------



## BryanMaloney

widows son said:


> Exactly, I agree with you Brent. Brian Maloney, you are right that totalitarianism is a government, but your comment was that the reason the show is on tv is because the "scientists" have an opinion and have the freedom to express it, due to it being created in a country where they have that freedom. Very true.  However monopolizing an idea, not bringing forth any other opinions that are much more valid, and bending the truth, even flipping the truth 360 to conform it to your own "hypothesis", to me that's intellectual totalitarianism.


 
So, should the government fine them, imprison them, or just kill them for doing this?



> Something tells me you like the show



You are, of course, wrong. I find the show to be stupid and boring. It's a re-hash of 1970s von Daniken stuff. I read that all when I was a kid and found it silly then.


----------



## BryanMaloney

Brent Heilman said:


> I don't look at him and say that his ideas are crap. I listen to him and say almost all of his ideas are crap. They take things on that show and say that ancient man could not have done this or that. Yet in the past people have proved that you can do some of those things with their technology. Take, for instance, Stonehenge, they say repeatedly that there was no possible way they could have built it. I mean huge multi-ton stones sitting on top of others? You need a crane yet some farmer in Minnesota or Michigan can do it by himself in his back yard without a crane. It's Occam's Razor not the theory of since I can't conceive how they did it it has to be aliens. Nobody really knows how the guy in Florida built the Coral Castle and how some of the things there work, does that mean aliens helped him?



There is a great deal of racism behind the "ancient astronauts" theory. The concept is that the "inferior races" could never have done what they did. Thus, it must have been done by "ancient astronauts", who somehow keep getting depicted as looking very much like modern white men...


----------



## widows son

Jvarnell have you watch the movie? Most likely not. These people are deceiving you and everyone who watches them. If you interested in ancient civilizations, don't start looking at people who have never went to university, have never worked in any of the sciences relating to the field of ancient archeology, have no credentials in physics, astronomy, language studies, ancient art, architecture, and the principles of flight.  Before you defend a show that is comprised of pseudo scientists consider this. If this information is so blatant, and obvious, why isn't it accepted by the rest of the real world? Why has many scientist refuted the works of these people? The fact is they are not refuting the possibility of life existing, but what they are refuting is their logic, their method of obtaining their observations, and their inability to understand the facts that have been found with detailed scientific observation. Again jvarnell you are defending something and haven't even heard then other side.  You aren't giving yourself or your ancestors enough credit for the feats and challenges they overcame in the past.  Like I said to Brian Maloney, watch the video and if you still believe the "ancient astronaut theorists" then I will gladly debate you on the subject.


----------



## BryanMaloney

I watched the video. I did not believe the ancient astronaut stuff beforehand. I do not believe it now. Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that History Channel is allowed to call their crap "history" because we do not live in a police state. You might want to live in a police state, where government uses its power to dictate what is and is not true, but I do not.


----------



## Brent Heilman

BryanMaloney said:


> There is a great deal of racism behind the "ancient astronauts" theory. The concept is that the "inferior races" could never have done what they did. Thus, it must have been done by "ancient astronauts", who somehow keep getting depicted as looking very much like modern white men...



I have never thought of it that way. Now that you mention it though, I can see that.


----------



## jvarnell

Brent Heilman said:


> I don't look at him and say that his ideas are crap. I listen to him and say almost all of his ideas are crap. They take things on that show and say that ancient man could not have done this or that. Yet in the past people have proved that you can do some of those things with their technology. Take, for instance, Stonehenge, they say repeatedly that there was no possible way they could have built it. I mean huge multi-ton stones sitting on top of others? You need a crane yet some farmer in Minnesota or Michigan can do it by himself in his back yard without a crane. It's Occam's Razor not the theory of since I can't conceive how they did it it has to be aliens. Nobody really knows how the guy in Florida built the Coral Castle and how some of the things there work, does that mean aliens helped him?



Well I look past it when they say it could not have been done without Alien help and look at what the ancient texts say and try to figure out why they said the thing they did.  

The scientific method steps are:


Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
 
And this show is doing this eveyone here is disupting the shows out come and calling names without doing there own peer review of the facts.  I have found no one place with all the data they use for there Hypothesis so I will not say anything about the word stupid in the statment "freedumb 2 b stupid"

Stupid is lacking intelagents; but it takes intelagents to know you are ignorant wich is the lack of knowledge. 

*Being ignorant is not so much a shame as being unwilling to learn. — Benjamin Franklin 

*


----------



## jvarnell

Brent Heilman said:


> Originally Posted by *BryanMaloney*
> 
> 
> There is a great deal of racism behind the "ancient astronauts" theory. The concept is that the "inferior races" could never have done what they did. Thus, it must have been done by "ancient astronauts", who somehow keep getting depicted as looking very much like modern white men...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never thought of it that way. Now that you mention it though, I can see that.



I think y'all are reading to much into this!


----------



## widows son

No Brian they shouldn't kill them. Obviously. But  the powers that be should have a tighter grip on what's allowed to be put on tv, just like they do when it come to R and X rated material.  Wean through the BS and maybe put something on that's actually history oriented.  I don't understand why you defend it of you dont agree with it. The only thing that can come out of watching that show is leading you further from the truth. If America prides itself as a country with intellectualism, why show something that has been repeatedly proven wrong? It's only compromising its image.  If aliens really did come to earth I hardly think they would interfere with a species that is still evolving. The fact that they have the power to travel here means they are at the climax of their, personal, social, scientific, and possibly religious aspects of their society. They would know the repercussions of their interference


----------



## Brent Heilman

I know what the scientific method is and yet I fail to ever see those on the Ancient Aliens show using it, thus rendering any of their results or conclusions invalid. I hear and see nothing more than a hypothesis and with out reliable, repeatable experimentation to back their claims it is nothing more than their opinion. 

“The Scientific Method is a wonderful tool as long as you don't care which way the outcome turns; however, this process fails the second one's perception interferes with the interpretation of data. This is why I don’t take anything in life as an absolute…even if someone can “prove” it “scientifically.” 
― Cristina Marrero


----------



## widows son

Wow Brian. The shit that history channel puts on is not history. People have worked their entire lives in their field of science to show the world the truth. I cant believe you just accept what's on tv because freedom says its allowed to be shown. That's is the biggest load of BS I've heard. As for you police state comment, how is the current situation now in which history channel displays information that's false not conform to a police state? They are lying to you, isn't that what police states do? Not accepting information because it's false isn't a violation of freedom, it's realizing it's BS.


----------



## jvarnell

Brent Heilman said:


> I know what the scientific method is and yet I fail to ever see those on the Ancient Aliens show using it, thus rendering any of their results or conclusions invalid. I hear and see nothing more than a hypothesis and with out reliable, repeatable experimentation to back there claims it is nothing more than their opinion.
> 
> “The Scientific Method is a wonderful tool as long as you don't care which way the outcome turns; however, this process fails the second one's perception interferes with the interpretation of data. This is why I don’t take anything in life as an absolute…even if someone can “prove” it “scientifically.”
> ― Cristina Marrero



Do you beleive that a paper published in NASA tech breifs, JAMA or any other publication has a conclustion that is 100% right?  All the TV show is or anyother publication is someone publishing their work so as others can do a peer review and I for one want all information so I can draw my own conclustions.  You don't have to beleive it to like it.   And by saying this show is stupid you have done what you quoted by "perception interferes with the interpretation of data" and say it should not be on the history channel.


----------



## widows son

Actually, the show isn't there as a peer review, mr. Varnell, it's there because they have "discovered something " which they haven't. Mr. Varnell like I said watch the movie, then come up with your conclusions, but only after you've seen both sides. You can't formulate an opinion of your biased to one side


----------



## Brent Heilman

This show is hardly what you could call peer reviewed. It is producer reviewed for ratings nothing more. 



jvarnell said:


> And by saying this show is stupid you have done what you quoted by "perception interferes with the interpretation of data" and say it should not be on the history channel.



I guess I am not sure what you are saying here. Please explain.

That particular part of the quote is relevant to the fact that these people believe so much in the AA theory that even when proof elsewhere exists that is contrary to their view it is summarily dismissed. Hence "perception interferes with the interpretation of data".


----------



## Brent Heilman

Some of these people on this show also remind me of the moon hoax believers. It doesn't matter how many times you prove what they say is impossible they will not change their mind. Hmm, you know that sounds kind of like a certain someone who used to post here.


----------



## widows son

Well put brent


----------



## jvarnell

Ok you guys you are looking at my finger again and not what I am pointing at.

Nothing is 100%. When ever someone wants to sell you something they will point out the parts of the other product that they can find to "Debunk" what you have said.  even though neather are 100% right.  (This is peer review for sales)

An example theroy (Standard transmissions are beter because they have no slip to waste energy)  but the other side of it is (Automatic transmissions have less loses due to friction that waste energy)  which is right.  Both of these statments made me look at the data and evdince.  I came out of this as they both can still say what they were saying and be right or wrong, but it made me learn about slip and friction. 

For history we can not be definitive we can look at stuff and come up with theroies we can publish those theroies and people can do there peer review of them but if people are only looking at what we first published it will be debuncked.  That is why a scientific process is called a process as it is debuncked you have to futher your research to fix the problem your peer's have found.

This so-called debucking is changing a multi-pass process in to a once through and then stop thinking.


When this type of thing is done I always wonder people try to shutdown a learning process.  I think Chris White and Dr. Michael Hesier should be saying what about this in stade of calling it a debuncking as a way to stop the TV show.


----------



## widows son

Your comparing apple and oranges my friend. What about that movie is wrong? For most of the " ancient astronaut theories" they have been disproven. I think the learning process is shutdown when you agree with people like those on AA. THEY HAVE NO CREDENTIALS AND THEIR THEORIES FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS. So my question to you Mr. Varnell is what specifically in the debunking video isn't true? Or what don't you agree with?


----------



## JJones

jvarnell said:


> This is another thing are you looking at the external or the internal.  I know I look goofie but I do that to be deferent and not the same as all you there ya'whos out there.  I agree about the MSM coments because it is there internal view point I disagree with.



I guess you got me there.  The guy could be a scientist for all I know, I just thought it was funny. 



> Take, for instance, Stonehenge, they say repeatedly that there was no possible way they could have built it. I mean huge multi-ton stones sitting on top of others? You need a crane yet some farmer in Minnesota or Michigan can do it by himself in his back yard without a crane.



This is true.  It doesn't explain the pyramids though.  For example, to build something the size of the Great Pyramid in the timespan it was supposed to have been built it would have required a stone to have been placed every second...and just cutting, squaring, and moving the stones would have taken a labor force greater than all the slaves in Egypt.  At least that's what I think I read somewhere.

Also, a mummy has never been found in a pyramid, so what were they built for?

Not saying aliens had to be involved but there must have been some building technique that we aren't aware of today that was somewhat common knowledge on a worldwide scale at one point because there are huge megalithic structures we can't explain all around the world.

Also too long, didn't watch the video.


----------



## JJones

widows son said:


> THEY HAVE NO CREDENTIALS AND THEIR THEORIES FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS.



Do you have to have credentials for your theory to be right?

In addition, what kind of credentials would make someone an 'expert' on the subject?

You realize that any respectable scientist or historian that starts going on about ancient aliens will loose all his/her credibility in the scientific community?  That'd be like me, as a biologist, telling people all about bigfoot and the chupocabra on television.  (I'd be glad to tell you all about bigfoot via PM though. )


----------



## widows son

Mr. Jones. While you are right that we still don't know the pyramids were built, we have a lot of  evidence to propose some good theories on how they were. In the documentary a French architect explains his theory using counter weights to lift the giant blocks, and is why he thinks the grand gallery is there. But ill leave those details for the documentary. As far as the reason for the pyramid, who knows. Not only was there no mummy but no inscription other than graffiti supposedly from the builders and from the many eras of conquest and travel in Egyptian history. I personally believe it was a initiation chamber for the mysteries of egypt, in which a neophyte is figuratively reborn in thr kings chamber, and emerges at the top as the capstone. But then again I could be wrong. One thing we need to remember is that these people who lived in that era were, smart, sophisticated,  religious, superstitious and scientific at the same time and had nothing but time and man power, especially when we know that these people were constantly at war and could rely on war booty and slaves. Their building techniques were meticulously perfected over generations and was ancient to them. The fossil record can prove that. Also there are many examples of people in modern times recreating methods possibly used to created these monuments with surprising accuracy.  Bro. Jones I am not a scientist, nor have I ever claimed to be. These are not my theories either, nor I have I ever claimed them to be. But it doesn't take a scientist to see through the thin veil nonsense. The many people in the fields of astronomy, rocket science, ancient languages, architecture, biology, chemistry, physics, metallurgy, geology, mathematics, physics, and nuclear sciences would constitute experts. These people devote their lives to careful examination and observation of these fields.  Not one person on AA is in any of those fields or can be considered an expert. My question is what makes them experts? I don't believe that studying these myths to see if there is any truth in them is wrong, but do so with the facts that we already know. All I'm saying is see what This documentary had to say.


----------



## CajunTinMan

“The Scientific Method is a wonderful tool as long as you don't care which way the outcome turns; however, this process fails the second one's perception interferes with the interpretation of data. This is why I don’t take anything in life as an absolute…even if someone can “prove” it “scientifically.” 
― Cristina Marrero

Out of all the arguements. I believe that this one is most correct. Everything else is just speculation.


----------



## widows son

Very true. I don't necessarily believe that with all things but you have to open to change of It comes, other wise the world will continue on with or without you


----------



## widows son

But all I say I watch the movie and then formulate an opinion so as to have unbiased points of reference


----------



## CajunTinMan

Those big-head guys scare me. I wouldn't want to bump into one. I hear they perform anal probes. How primitive is that technology? "We came 6 trillion miles to study your ass. We're proctologists from space."

_*What planet are you from?*_


----------



## jvarnell

widows son said:


> But all I say I watch the movie and then formulate an opinion so as to have unbiased points of reference



I watched before my first post on this and to me it is still just pointing to we need to look at all the claims.  And no I  am just compairing fruit.     This is because I try to look at the big picture before getting down to the details is it a Apple or Orange.

Ithe inside conners of those stones in the first section are the part that intreg me.  I bought a Mill and decide to build a falling block rifle action with it.  In the end I still did not have square inside conners and this debunck movie still did not use how to do that. One of the ways to do it is with a lazer. Rounded conners are better for stingth I have learned but I still don't see how they made those inside conners. 

This is the type of things that go through my mind when I watch this show.  There is a lot of good info in these show look for it.


----------



## widows son

Well bro. Varnell, the facts have been put forth. If you still believe the show then that's your choice.   Not sure what you mean by a falling block rife action, but what specifically don't you agree with?


----------



## widows son

I think the theories put forth in the documentary make more sense and are a bit more logical than the "ancient astronaut theories"


----------



## RHS

There was a south park episode that poked fun at this with saying that the first thanksgiving was actually an alien encounter... its on netflix. I really don't know how they can call themselves history either. More like fiction based on history


----------



## jvarnell

widows son said:


> Well bro. Varnell, the facts have been put forth. If you still believe the show then that's your choice. Not sure what you mean by a falling block rife action, but what specifically don't you agree with?



The series and the debunck both have facts and both have to be analized and I beleive parts of both.  I am trying to get you to think about something without  just saying it.  but here I go....The anti-masons use the same types of facts you are for this argument.  They find some some truths and exploit them but don't look at the truths from the other side.  I beleive a lot of things and they don't always go togther in neat little boxes.  Some things that AA shows are fact and some things that the debunck are fact we as humans need to look at them and put them togther in our own minds to come up with a new hypothis to test and refine.  If we as humans had stoped investagating things when we found something we believed.   This is what the anti-masons have done is stoped thinking when they something to latch on to.




widows son said:


> I think the theories put forth in the documentary make more sense and are a bit more logical than the "ancient astronaut theories"



I like to look at all theroies and and not make a judgment utill I am forced to.  The AA is just the SAOTU to the guys on this show. so they could be a Mason.


----------



## widows son

Bro. Varnell, while you are right on some points you have mentioned, keep in mind that nothing in ancient aliens is proven to be fact. Now it is hard to determine if aliens have visited us in the past or in the present, but what we do know is that the ancients we extremely smart and sophisticated, their building techniques are only now being discovered. I think the movie says it all, and i believe the show ancient aliens to be completely based on speculation and pseudo science. The " scientists" in the show aren't scientists. They think they are because the have wrote a book or two.  I do not think like the anti mason at all bro. Varnell. When I get a piece of information i look at it with skeptical mind. I look at it at all angles and try to get both sides, so as to be unbiased. I am perfectly fine with accepting conclusions, even if they go against my beliefs. Truth and fact are two different things. Facts are concrete, and don't change, whereas truths can differentiate between different people. What one person believes to be truth another might think otherwise


----------



## jvarnell

widows son said:


> Bro. Varnell, while you are right on some points you have mentioned, keep in mind that nothing in ancient aliens is proven to be fact. Now it is hard to determine if aliens have visited us in the past or in the present, but what we do know is that the ancients we extremely smart and sophisticated, their building techniques are only now being discovered. I think the movie says it all, and i believe the show ancient aliens to be completely based on speculation and pseudo science. The " scientists" in the show aren't scientists. They think they are because the have wrote a book or two. I do not think like the anti mason at all bro. Varnell. When I get a piece of information i look at it with skeptical mind. I look at it at all angles and try to get both sides, so as to be unbiased. I am perfectly fine with accepting conclusions, even if they go against my beliefs. Truth and fact are two different things. Facts are concrete, and don't change, whereas truths can differentiate between different people. What one person believes to be truth another might think otherwise




There is also nothing in the debunking video that can be proved as fact.  These are agnostic statments and you can not prove faith but it is just as real as anything else to the beholder and someone else can tell me what I have faith in.  As a Mason you have to beleive in a SAOTU and it is only your faith that proves that to you.  I am not saying you have to beleive these guys but the data that they persent and the faith they have in that data proves it to them.  You have to beleive in what ever you beleive in but I beleive this thread is saying that there beleifs are not vaild because you say they have no proff but do they have faith. 

I just like the show because it show me more evedince of what formed us to research even if Ailains did or did not do it.  

That show is their dogma, the bible is my dogma and the Quran is your's so I would not just dismiss everything in that show because it is not with in your belif system.


----------



## Brent Heilman

I still say it all comes down to Occam's Razor. Which seems the more likely of the two. Did the ancient people of Earth have an ingenuity and problem solving set that we know nothing of and were capable of achieving great feats and may have not been recorded or written down as to how they did it, or did little grey or green men travel across the universe and do it for them? I know which sounds more plausible to me. There are great many things that the AA theorists don't account for either. Like one being that if someone came here from another planet why just show up build some buildings and then leave? If they were so advanced that they could circumvent physics as we know it it seems more likely that instead of building some stuff they would more than likely enslave. Just like today with all the UFO sightings, it is like you travelling to Hawaii by a boat and just sail on by and never stopping. Would take the time and energy to make a trip like that? I just don't see it happening.


----------



## widows son

Bro. Varnell I dont believe in the Quran first off. Second, you can believe or have faith in whatever you want, it does not effect me one bit. But what specifically is wrong in the movie? Your statement was general and didn't really answer the question.  I don't believe that ancient aliens is any kind of religious show, in fact it's saying that all the gods in ancient times were aliens. The main stream theory say that gods were abstract ideas relating to creation, morality, politics and day today life; for example mercury was the god of commerce and prosperity, and even the statue of
Liberty is a goddess. Believing in the GAOTU and AA are two different things, although I believe that the GAOTU is their creator as well, so I don't have faith in AA, I have faith the GATOU that is it, nothing else. But that is another topic. These men who find the data in the debunking movie don't have faith in their data, the believe it to be fact, through scientific method, and don't apply religious aspects to their work. Faith is not proof of anything, and is not valid when trying to prove something.


----------



## jvarnell

Religion is what someone maks it.     look at this and see where they say finding your religion.

http://www.popisms.com/TelevisionCommercial/60042/Expedia-Commercial-2012.aspx

faith is enough proof, it is just a defined verable that can be solved for with philosophy and reasion.  You seam to think if you make a statement that is is it proof "Believing in the GAOTU and AA are two different things" why and who said.  It is obveous to me the AA guy don't think that because that is the primus of the show.

In my world no `one` is right execpt in their own mind, we just surround our selfs with otheres that beleive at least 90% the way we do.


----------



## jvarnell

One quick question has anyone watched all 4 seasions?  This question is because the debunck of the debunck that should go like this "Why did the ancient aliens debuncked show say that it started in 2010 when it clearly started in 2009 are they hiding something by leaving the first year out?"


The last was just a joke if y'all did not get it I was Laughing alot when I typed it.  I crack my self up sometimes.


----------



## widows son

Well my friend we are two very different people. Faith is not proof which is way it's called faith, proof is proof. AA didn't create the universe the GAOTU did, which is why they are different. AA cast believe the gods are the aliens, not God. If your belief is nobody is right that is fine, but may i say that eventually a right answer comes up, sometimes contradictory to ones own belief, and sometimes whether people like it or not, the truth won't go away. In my world, objectivity and skepticism, and acceptance to change are what I thinks allows humans to advance, from ancient times to now, and in the future.


----------



## BryanMaloney

jvarnell said:


> There is also nothing in the debunking video that can be proved as fact.  These are agnostic statments and you can not prove faith but it is just as real as anything else to the beholder and someone else can tell me what I have faith in.


 

Therefore, since it is a matter of "faith", the ancient alien thing is a religion for you. Are all religions true?


----------



## widows son

Faith doesn't hold up when trying prove facts, faith is not fact.


----------



## widows son

AA isn't a religion nor can it be


----------



## jvarnell

BryanMaloney said:


> Therefore, since it is a matter of "faith", the ancient alien thing is a religion for you. Are all religions true?



No it is a religion to them and truth is where you find it.


----------



## widows son

But it's not a religion they are using the AA theory to explain away ancient religion, they are using it scientifically, yes they have faith in their ideas but they don't consider them religious, they are claiming them to be scientific.


----------



## jvarnell

widows son said:


> AA isn't a religion nor can it be



Who says? As I say Religion is a term of art. We all know what is and we all belveive it different.

Religion
noun
 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.


----------



## jvarnell

BryanMaloney said:


> Therefore, since it is a matter of "faith", the ancient alien thing is a religion for you. Are all religions true?



I also would be starting a fight if I told you what I beleive about all except one and I will not tell you that one on the web site.


----------



## widows son

Bro. Varnell I see what your saying, I apologize for any misunderstanding.


----------



## jvarnell

widows son said:


> Bro. Varnell I see what your saying, I apologize for any misunderstanding.



No apology ever need to me I just keep refining my point untill I think everyone understands my where I am comming form.  You the main one here that has the opinions I am seeking so I can see the other side of the coin.  Sometimes I have trouble with that.


----------



## widows son

I'm always keeping my eye out for new info


----------



## widows son

Ok I'm watchin AA right now and they're talking about a Mayan complex where the legend says it was built over night, and of course the AA are believing it to be literal. This is why I say watch the documentary.


----------



## jwhoff

AA?

Alcoholics anonymous?  

Just a thought.  I've known several good ole boys back in the day who could swear they saw ...

:sneaky2:


----------



## widows son

Perhaps UFOs are experimental aircraft by the US gov?


----------



## jwhoff

That sounds reasonable.

Let's see:

experimental ... unidentified.   Hmm


----------



## CajunTinMan

The US hide something.  Nooo


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

JJones said:


> Do you have to have credentials for your theory to be right?
> 
> In addition, what kind of credentials would make someone an 'expert' on the subject?



I'm not of the opinion that a wall full of diplomas is necessarily an indication of wisdom (nor am I saying it isn't - like everything else, it depends).  The old saw, "a Ph.D is the result of learning more and more about less and less", is often a truism.  I know of a course-for-credit in "wine-tasting".  I am familiar with a philosophy prof who taught a course in "The Philosophy of Rock-And-Roll".  Back in the day, when I was asked about my own major, I would respond, "I'm majoring in female anatomy, with a minor in discotechnology".  Nowadays, you can actually graduate with degrees for it.

Giorgio Tsoukalos has a BA in "communication", and I believe that makes him an expert at what he does.  He is a self-promoter and he has found his niche.  Prior to making it big in the ancient alien business, he was a professional bodybuilding promoter.  I would have guessed the WWF, but close enough.

He is part owner and major contributor of a magazine, and is "available for interviews, lectures, TV appearances or any other promotional work . . . "  Giorgio recognizes that this is his moment, and he's going to milk it for all it's worth.  His success is evidenced by the fact that we are discussing his show.   You go, Giorgio.  Play that guitar on the MTV. 

Sadly, in a world of "reality" TV programming, it really doesn't take much to become an expert.  The smaller the pond, the larger the fish can grow, especially if the audience is uneducated.  The solution, if indeed a solution is called for, is fairly simple:  don't feed the fish.  _Caveat emptor_.


----------



## widows son

The fact that he is a self promoter should be enough for people, and the same goes for all of them on that show. To make claims that flower of life patterns are burned into rock by lasers, or that it would have been impossible for humans to precisely cut stone, among other things is just ludicrous. The history channel has the responsibility to put on shows that are history, not pseudo history, and if putting on shows such as this one it should make it very clear that the people who are coming up with these theories aren't scientists, just people who write books and speculate, and that the show is just THEORY. If the showed other theories other than the Ancient Aliens presented then I think the show would be more credible


----------



## widows son

Ps I love the Dire Straits.


----------



## jvarnell

widows son said:


> Ok I'm watchin AA right now and they're talking about a Mayan complex where the legend says it was built over night, and of course the AA are believing it to be literal. This is why I say watch the documentary.




I just got back from a vacation with not commuiacations devices and saw this.  Belief is up to everyone's own inturpation.  The word debunk should be only applyed to the data used, but using a small amout of data to give a blinket statment anceint alieans beleivers have been debunked is like saying skip the anti-mason has debuncked masonery.  I don't understand  why someone feels the need to say that what one person beleives is totally wrong.  You may think that but they don't they just think you have pointed out some parts of there theroy they need to work on.

As a Mason I need to not dwell on telling some one there beleifs are wrong but look at the one comman theme is that they beleive there is a SAOTU and then show them Masnary can make them better men.  The documentary is debuncking information you should do with all subjects not the beleif or theory.

Also is this subject in the right place should it be under Polictics and Religion or did I tie it to Genral Masonary with the last sentance.


----------



## jvarnell

widows son said:


> The fact that he is a self promoter should be enough for people, and the same goes for all of them on that show. To make claims that flower of life patterns are burned into rock by lasers, or that it would have been impossible for humans to precisely cut stone, among other things is just ludicrous. The history channel has the responsibility to put on shows that are history, not pseudo history, and if putting on shows such as this one it should make it very clear that the people who are coming up with these theories aren't scientists, just people who write books and speculate, and that the show is just THEORY. If the showed other theories other than the Ancient Aliens presented then I think the show would be more credible



The history is a independant business and can put what ever they want on and call there channel what ever they want.  AA points out peaces of history the mainstream science skip over because it dosen't fit their theory.  All theory's have flaws and the flaws  are what make us think and come to our own conclution.


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

widows son said:


> The fact that he is a self promoter should be enough for people, and the same goes for all of them on that show. To make claims that flower of life patterns are burned into rock by lasers, or that it would have been impossible for humans to precisely cut stone, among other things is just ludicrous. The history channel has the responsibility to put on shows that are history, not pseudo history, and if putting on shows such as this one it should make it very clear that the people who are coming up with these theories aren't scientists, just people who write books and speculate, and that the show is just THEORY. If the showed other theories other than the Ancient Aliens presented then I think the show would be more credible



"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Brother, the largest demographic that watches the show also watches "Survivor" and the like.  Giorgio is laughing all the way to the bank and Von Daniken can't believe his luck at getting a second chance.  There are charlatans everywhere.

Unexplained mysteries are fair game.  I figure the pyramid stones were cut with a shamir and placed by levitation.  Where's my proof?  Proof?  Where we're going, we won't need proof.


----------



## widows son

Exactly. These guys are charlatans, don get me wrong I believe there is other intelligent life in the universe, there are trillions of galaxies, with trillions of stars and possibly trillions of planets. To say we are alone I think is an ignorant statement, but these guys aren't giving humanity enough credit. Some civilizations were more advanced than others, and could achieve more than others could. If the history channel is going to called it self that, then it should display accurate information. Real scientists have labored for years to prove their work, only to have some pseudo author come in and undo all the hard years of labor and love they have put into their field of work. Bro. Varnell you are right that theories have flaws, but when closely examined, the AA theory falls through the cracks. You "feel" or believe that to be true but you said you hate the word feel because you believe you are the only one that is right, which in my mind is ludicrous.


----------



## jvarnell

Godfrey Daniel said:


> "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
> Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
> 
> Brother, the largest demographic that watches the show also watches "Survivor" and the like. Giorgio is laughing all the way to the bank and Von Daniken can't believe his luck at getting a second chance. There are charlatans everywhere.
> 
> Unexplained mysteries are fair game. I figure the pyramid stones were cut with a shamir and placed by levitation. Where's my proof? Proof? Where we're going, we won't need proof.



In that other thread "Astronomy or Astrology" I stated how that Ancient Alien crew helps.  Also I don't watch Survivor.  It is the word Debuncked that is used here that should be talked about.  When some on say the word debuncked they are saying "Expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief)." which is ment to stop convertions.  I hear this every once and a while, That fact is fiction until it is proven not to be.  So you are debuncking what they say but is "Skip" saying he is debunking Freemasoary also.  Every myth, idea or beleif has some trouth we just need to research what is said and descide for our selfs.  If it was not for the AA story about the walls of jericho and sounding of the horns I would not have started researching how sounds may be the missing link for several ancient devices.

No one group of people have the answers so why are people putting down these guys for bring there theorys forth.


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

jvarnell said:


> In that other thread "Astronomy or Astrology" I stated how that Ancient Alien crew helps.  Also I don't watch Survivor.  It is the word Debuncked that is used here that should be talked about.  When some on say the word debuncked they are saying "Expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief)." which is ment to stop convertions.  I hear this every once and a while, That fact is fiction until it is proven not to be.  So you are debuncking what they say but is "Skip" saying he is debunking Freemasoary also.  Every myth, idea or beleif has some trouth we just need to research what is said and descide for our selfs.  If it was not for the AA story about the walls of jericho and sounding of the horns I would not have started researching how sounds may be the missing link for several ancient devices.
> 
> No one group of people have the answers so why are people putting down these guys for bring there theorys forth.



Thus the admonition that we study Rhetoric and Logic.  And in this case, I can't deny your logic.  Nonetheless, I believe Giorgio is a huckster.


----------



## jvarnell

Godfrey Daniel said:


> Thus the admonition that we study Rhetoric and Logic. And in this case, I can't deny your logic. Nonetheless, I believe Giorgio is a huckster.



Ya that hair dosen't help his case.   I just always try to pick what littel truth there is out of any thing I am exposed too.  Like trying to finding that needle in the hay stack of life.


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

jvarnell said:


> Ya that hair dosen't help his case.   I just always try to pick what littel truth there is out of any thing I am exposed too.  Like trying to finding that needle in the hay stack of life.



Sure it does.  You have to get all that hay out of the way if you are going to find that needle (even if you use a crystal-driven electro-magnet brought here from Alpha Centuari).  

Isn't that what thinking logically does?  Solving a problem is oftentimes a matter of subtraction (wheat from chaff), and in many cases, what you're left with is Occam's Razor.


----------



## jvarnell

Godfrey Daniel said:


> Sure it does. You have to get all that hay out of the way if you are going to find that needle (even if you use a crystal-driven electro-magnet brought here from Alpha Centuari).
> 
> Isn't that what thinking logically does? Solving a problem is oftentimes a matter of subtraction (wheat from chaff), and in many cases, what you're left with is Occam's Razor.




Ya but I think I am going to use a tuned yagi antena the wave length of the needle and a oscillator built from a LM555HC to induce a voltage into the needle and then use a EMF meter to find it.


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

"Trying to Find That Needle in the Haystack of Life."  I may be wrong, but there could be a chart-topping single there.

And I believe Ry Cooder started with "a oscillator built from a LM55HC", but wound up with "I'm itchin' like a man on a fuzzy tree."


----------



## widows son

You guys. Lol


----------



## widows son

Bro. Varnell please know that I'm not knocking down anything you believe in, I truly am not that kind of person. My whole thing with the ancient aliens is the credibility of the people who are displaying this info. Like Godfrey said, Giorgio and Von Daniken are laughing all the way to the bank. The show weird or what with bill shatner talks about outrageous mysteries,but always say that there's a good chance that the non mainstream theories are possibly false. Nowhere in AA is this said. I believe you are right with the fact there there ate shreds of truths in myths but this myth still needs to be scrutinized. Every possibility for these ancient structures are still theories. But some make more logical sense than others. Who knows, maybe mankind was pointed in the right direction a long time ago, by some unknown force. Or maybe we were just a lot more smart than we think we were, and had a lot of time, money and man power.


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

widows son said:


> Bro. Varnell please know that I'm not knocking down anything you believe in, I truly am not that kind of person. My whole thing with the ancient aliens is the credibility of the people who are displaying this info. Like Godfrey said, Giorgio and Von Daniken are laughing all the way to the bank. The show weird or what with bill shatner talks about outrageous mysteries,but always say that there's a good chance that the non mainstream theories are possibly false. Nowhere in AA is this said. I believe you are right with the fact there there ate shreds of truths in myths but this myth still needs to be scrutinized. Every possibility for these ancient structures are still theories. But some make more logical sense than others. Who knows, maybe mankind was pointed in the right direction a long time ago, by some unknown force. Or maybe we were just a lot more smart than we think we were, and had a lot of time, money and man power.



Actually, I am of the opinion that Von Daniken is a true-believer.  I read _Chariots of the Gods_ years ago - he introduced me to the Maya and the Nazca Lines.  Concerning the latter, I'm inclined to believe that those responsible for their creation were trying to communicate with their god(s), but I have no proof they weren't landing strips.  With respect to the former, I guess we'll see at least some indication of the credibility of some theories 3 weeks from today.


----------



## widows son

I guess so. Whatever happens that day, if something happens, I hope it's in the positive.


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

widows son said:


> I guess so. Whatever happens that day, if something happens, I hope it's in the positive.



Just don't max out your credit cards in anticipation.


----------



## widows son

Lol. Maxing them out on the remaining twinkies


----------



## jwhoff

Be sure you do it before 21-DEC-2012!  

I'd hate to run out of time with Twinkies left on the table.

That would be a real "show stopper!"

:blink:


----------



## widows son

Car wait to see what happens, I think nothing just like in may 2011 it was supposed to happen


----------



## bjdeverell

For every 1 valid argument, there are at least 10 that are total nonsense. But it is a fun show at times. The "aliens and founding fathers" episode was wild. I know that most of the population could care less about history but they are alienating people like me that love it, by taking the history out of History Ch. It's a business and they've gotta do what they've gotta do to keep the station on the air; but I would prefer if more businesses and people still had that "you may take my life but not my integrity" mindset.


----------



## widows son

I agreed that they have no scientific basis for third show. They just wrote books that's it. I can write a book if wanted to. Just because someone writes a book doesn't mean their credible. Many people have written books on masonry and they've been completely wrong.


----------



## bjdeverell

Yeah A LOT of those kind of people. Exposing all the evil secrets. I just want to shake them and be like "if our secrets are so evil, and the world needs to know, then why aren't you giving the book away for free?!" It's just like all the books about doomsday - why sell them? if it is the end what did reading that book accomplish and furthermore, what is the author going to do with that money when he's dead? Lots of idiots in the world.


----------



## CajunTinMan

I have said that same thing so often.
"The word is going to end in two days!!! Send $19.95 now and I'll tell you how!"


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

bjdeverell said:


> For every 1 valid argument, there are at least 10 that are total nonsense. But it is a fun show at times. The "aliens and founding fathers" episode was wild. I know that most of the population could care less about history but they are alienating people like me that love it, by taking the history out of History Ch. It's a business and they've gotta do what they've gotta do to keep the station on the air; but I would prefer if more businesses and people still had that "you may take my life but not my integrity" mindset.



"Son of the Republic, look and learn."
There is an old (19th century) account of "Washington's prophetic vision" at Valley Forge.  A copy of the original article is on file in the Library of Congress - which of course doesn't make it more or less credible, simply available.  This story doesn't suggest the otherworldly entities involved had green skin, though. In this case, Washington was visited by 3 angelic beings.

In _Secret Destiny of America_, Manly P. Hall described a mysterious  incident at the State House in Philadelphia and an "unknown" who "swayed" the signers of the Declaration of Independence.  Could it be, as some esoteric historians believe, that this "unknown" persuader was, in fact, the infamous and (some others would say) immortal Comte de Saint Germaine?  Absolutely !


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

CajunTinMan said:


> I have said that same thing so often.
> "The word is going to end in two days!!! Send $19.95 now and I'll tell you how!"




Twenty.  The world is going to end in twenty days.  I have a DVD that explains it all. It was free with a 3-year magazine subscription.


----------



## CajunTinMan

Lol. Good one.


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

Washington's Vision:

http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/washington/vision.html


----------



## SeeKer.mm

CajunTinMan said:


> I have said that same thing so often.
> "The word is going to end in two days!!! Send $19.95 now and I'll tell you how!"



Where do I send my check?  And can I post dated 3 days out?


----------



## Brother JC

Godfrey Daniel said:


> Could it be, as some esoteric historians believe, that this "unknown" persuader was, in fact, the infamous and (some others would say) immortal Comte de Saint Germaine?  Absolutely !


Have you read _Two Crowns For America_? The author took that legend and wound it nicely into the story.


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

trysquare said:


> Have you read _Two Crowns For America_? The author took that legend and wound it nicely into the story.



I've not, but will check it out.  It appears Ms. Kurtz is quite prolific.  Thanks.


----------



## Brother JC

Godfrey Daniel said:


> It appears Ms. Kurtz is quite prolific.  Thanks.


The _Adept_ series is also quite enjoyable.


----------



## jvarnell

widows son said:


> I agreed that they have no scientific basis for third show. They just wrote books that's it. I can write a book if wanted to. Just because someone writes a book doesn't mean their credible. Many people have written books on masonry and they've been completely wrong.



Yes this is what I have been saying that there is a little truth in most every thing it is up to us to find it.   And I don't nessarly believe them, I just don't disbelieve everything they say because they are wrong on some stuff.  or because the way they look, or there passion of delevering there message. The debucked means the they don't say anything of truth.  The debuncking video should have been call.... we found these thing wrong in ancient aliens how about you.


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

jvarnell said:


> Yes this is what I have been saying that there is a little truth in most every thing it is up to us to find it.   And I don't nessarly believe them, I just don't disbelieve everything they say because they are wrong on some stuff.  or because the way they look, or there passion of delevering there message. The debucked means the they don't say anything of truth.  The debuncking video should have been call.... we found these thing wrong in ancient aliens how about you.



I received an email from a friend yesterday, informing me that he had just watched a program on The History Channel that claimed Plato took LSD.

While that may provide an explanation for _Timaeus_, and in particular the "legend" of Atlantis, the claim isn't really new.  "Evidence" of that allegation is that certain grains were present in Plato's era, and ergot mold grew on those grains, and that moldy wheat was often depicted in Eleusian art.  Therefore, initiates into some of the mysteries were, in fact, tripping their brains out.


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

All that said, I believe there was an Atlantis.  Realist that I am, I think it had more to do with Santorini or Crete, but Plato said it was beyond the Pillars of Hercules.  Assuming that means Gibralter, could it also indicate, as speculative geographers believe, evidence of a polar shift?  Absolutely !

Now, I'm channeling Donovan.  "Atlantis", and "First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is".  There is also allegation that Donovan took LSD.


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

jvarnell said:


> Yes this is what I have been saying that there is a little truth in most every thing it is up to us to find it.   And I don't nessarly believe them, I just don't disbelieve everything they say because they are wrong on some stuff.  or because the way they look, or there passion of delevering there message. The debucked means the they don't say anything of truth.  The debuncking video should have been call.... we found these thing wrong in ancient aliens how about you.



Truth of the matter is, you are preaching to the choir.  A web site I enjoy visiting sometimes is "Above Top Secret", one reason being exactly what you suggest.  Subject matter that they present, to which I may or may not ascribe, can be thought-provoking, new to me, and I might investigate further via what I consider more "credible" sources.

I saw MIB 3 yesterday - pretty good, btw - and there was a character, "Griffen", who was a 5th dimensional being (I'm thinking Mr. Mxyzptlk in Superman), who could see outcomes from any event as they might occur in any one of 5 dimensions depending on particular stimulus/response.  The string-theorists say 10 dimensions, the M-Theory guys are now saying 11.  I've got plenty going on with just 3, and my position is unchanged:  "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

Which begs the question:  was Willie the Shake an extraterrestrial?

This issue appears to be one of semantics, and if thread titles could be edited, perhaps substituting the word "Debunked" with "Disputed" might suffice.


----------



## jvarnell

Godfrey Daniel said:


> Truth of the matter is, you are preaching to the choir.  A web site I enjoy visiting sometimes is "Above Top Secret", one reason being exactly what you suggest.  Subject matter that they present, to which I may or may not ascribe, can be thought-provoking, new to me, and I might investigate further via what I consider more "credible" sources.
> 
> I saw MIB 3 yesterday - pretty good, btw - and there was a character, "Griffen", who was a 5th dimensional being (I'm thinking Mr. Mxyzptlk in Superman), who could see outcomes from any event as they might occur in any one of 5 dimensions depending on particular stimulus/response.  The string-theorists say 10 dimensions, the M-Theory guys are now saying 11.  I've got plenty going on with just 3, and my position is unchanged:  "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy".
> 
> 
> Which begs the question:  was Willie the Shake an extraterrestrial?
> 
> This issue appears to be one of semantics, and if thread titles could be edited, perhaps substituting the word "Debunked" with "Disputed" might suffice.



Disputed sounds good to me but the video name we started talking about was "Ancient Aliens Debuncked" and then statments were made to the fact the the History channel was wrong to have stuff like Ancient Aliens on it because there is no truth in it and all along I have just been saying there has to be a little thing that point to some truth or there will be no theroy.


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

Brother Leroy Gordon Cooper, Jr. (listed as member of Carbondale Lodge #82 in Colorado, but there is no Carbondale Lodge #82 listed on the Grand Lodge of Colorado site), said he saw UFOs in Germany in 1951, and was involved adjacently with a sighting at Edwards AFB several years later.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvPR8T1o3Dc

MWB Harry S. Truman is said to have made comments on the authenticity of UFOs, but there is no similar record, to the best of my knowledge.


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

Whatever became of Carbondale Lodge #82 in Carbondale, CO?  Inquiring minds want to know.  Supposedly, Cooper carried a Masonic flag on his Mercury flight and later presented it to the lodge.  

http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/masonic-temple-building-owner-sentenced-to-two-years-1.350347


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

The plot thickens. Illustrious Bro. Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, Jr., the 2nd man on the moon, Montclair Lodge No. 144, Montclair, NJ.

There is no Montclair Lodge No. 144 listed on the Grand Lodge of NJ web site.

What happened to Montclair No. 144?

Craft . . . as in _space_craft?  Hmm.


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

4 of the 7 Mercury astronauts were Masons.  Cooper, Glenn, Grissom, Schirra.  Why 7?  Mercury.  hmmm 
4 were Masons, 3 were not.  4 & 3.

In total, there have been 13 astronauts who were Masons.  13.

This has the makings of a great episode of A.A.  From the Grigori who fell to Mt. Hermon in the Book of Enoch, to landing on the Moon.


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

And, of course, build up to the big finale with the mysterious "control console" and underground bunker at Denver International Airport.

Conceptualize with facts.  Connect the facts with declarative hyperbole, disavowing yet reinforcing by preceding nonsense claims with "some believe" or "could it be that", etc.

What you are doing, Bro. Varnell, is reverse-engineering the process, and that is why you are able to wind up with facts.  And I'm fairly certain that a thinking man such as yourself is not the History Channel's targeted demographic.


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

Hidden in plain sight?  (I have a really difficult time adding images to posts)

:32:   Forget it.  

It's an image of George Washington in Masonic regalia with a ladder leading up to what "some believe" is a UFO.

Works better if you go with URL.

http://ufoquest.info/ufoquest.info/..._found_in_a_MASONIC_lithograph_from_1866.html


----------



## crono782

I saw that on the AA special too. I dunno, I think it's just how the artist painted his ode to Led Zeppelin personally, not any form of a UFO. If one were to take extremely literally the exact hues that the artist chose for this portion, it could also be said that "ZOMG, WASHINGTON HAD NO WRINKLES IN THE PAINTING!!!1 WASHINGTON WAS IMMORTAL!!" :49:


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

crono782 said:


> I saw that on the AA special too. I dunno, I think it's just how the artist painted his ode to Led Zeppelin personally, not any form of a UFO. If one were to take extremely literally the exact hues that the artist chose for this portion, it could also be said that "ZOMG, WASHINGTON HAD NO WRINKLES IN THE PAINTING!!!1 WASHINGTON WAS IMMORTAL!!" :49:




Thus, the "Apotheosis of Washington" on the ceiling of the rotunda in the Capitol Building.

Did you know Dolly Parton covered "Stairway to Heaven?"


----------



## crono782

Hah really? I like Dolly and all, but I'm not sure about that one. I doubt it would be terrible though.


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

crono782 said:


> Hah really? I like Dolly and all, but I'm not sure about that one. I doubt it would be terrible though.




If I'm lyin', I'm dyin'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw_Codf29Pw


----------



## crono782

I stand corrected, not half bad. I dig the banjo parts!


----------



## Brent Heilman

Godfrey Daniel said:


> View attachment 2682
> 
> Hidden in plain sight?  (I have a really difficult time adding images to posts)
> 
> :32:   Forget it.
> 
> It's an image of George Washington in Masonic regalia with a ladder leading up to what "some believe" is a UFO.
> 
> Works better if you go with URL.
> 
> http://ufoquest.info/ufoquest.info/..._found_in_a_MASONIC_lithograph_from_1866.html



Man, they are really stretching with this one. All I saw was clouds with light emanating from it. Try as I might I still couldn't see any type of flying craft.


----------



## jvarnell

Godfrey Daniel said:


> View attachment 2682
> 
> Hidden in plain sight? (I have a really difficult time adding images to posts)
> 
> :32: Forget it.
> 
> It's an image of George Washington in Masonic regalia with a ladder leading up to what "some believe" is a UFO.
> 
> Works better if you go with URL.
> 
> http://ufoquest.info/ufoquest.info/..._found_in_a_MASONIC_lithograph_from_1866.html



This one also intreged me.


----------



## Brent Heilman

Neil Degrasse Tyson on UFOs:

[video=youtube;NSJElZwEI8o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSJElZwEI8o[/video]

Pretty much sums up how I feel about them also.


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

transmitting an extraterrestrial wavelength


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

"Pretty much sums up how I feel about them also."



Nah.  Post Carl Sagan, Michio is my personal go-to-guy.

[video=youtube;2pw13F7ahjY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pw13F7ahjY[/video]


----------



## jvarnell

Brent Heilman said:


> Neil Degrasse Tyson on UFOs:
> 
> [video=youtube;NSJElZwEI8o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSJElZwEI8o[/video]
> 
> Pretty much sums up how I feel about them also.



Not me,

 The U is for unidentifyed so I think it is a good thing to have/say a theroy, hypostasis and go through the process of research before comming to a conlutions.  If we as humans did not do this we would have never learned anything or descuverd anything.  The people that want you to not say anything or stop talking about it are just discuraging the descuvery of new or old thing.  If he doesn't want to learn or streach his mind that is ok but I need to prove or disprove everything myself or keep it sitting in the back of my mind till I can.  I don't want to discurage or debunk any thought.

When I lookup and see something moving across the sky I say look a UFO because I can't identify it but I know it might be a little known aircraft or metior.  To me it is still unidentiyed and no one should ever it is not unless they can see what it is and show me why it is what they say.


----------



## Brent Heilman

What he is saying that once you say that is such-and-such it is no longer able to be called unidentified. Being in the astrophysics field I highly doubt that he doesn't question anything or accepts things the way they are just because they have been that way for years. It was him after all that started the movement to get Pluto demoted. Why did he do it? Because he had questions about Pluto and it being called one of the major planets in our solar system. Just because he didn't adhere to your view doesn't mean he doesn't question anything and just accepts the status quo. He is by far more qualified than you or I when it come to science matters such as this. Once again extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


----------



## jvarnell

Brent Heilman said:


> What he is saying that once you say that is such-and-such it is no longer able to be called unidentified. Being in the astrophysics field I highly doubt that he doesn't question anything or accepts things the way they are just because they have been that way for years. It was him after all that started the movement to get Pluto demoted. Why did he do it? Because he had questions about Pluto and it being called one of the major planets in our solar system. Just because he didn't adhere to your view doesn't mean he doesn't question anything and just accepts the status quo. He is by far more qualified than you or I when it come to science matters such as this. Once again extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.



So if someone says "oh look a UFO maybe it's aliens"  they have to say instead "Oh look a UFO my theroy is that it may be an alien" or the people listining will be ofinded.  Or should the listner say "I see what you are seeing and I don't see it that way" ..... You say potato and I say patato lets all get along.


----------



## Brent Heilman

No. What I am saying and what he was saying is that the "U" is for unidentified. Once you state it is something, like an alien flying saucer, it can no longer be called unidentified. It turns into a liar's paradox. Such as saying "This statement is false". Like he said in the video if you don't know what it is then your conversation should stop at that moment. This has nothing to do with being offended, it is about calling something one thing when there is no evidence to support that position.


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

Brent Heilman said:


> Like he said in the video if you don't know what it is then your conversation should stop at that moment.



Really?  What effect might such a mindset have had on the course of human development?  Talk about a chilling effect.


----------



## Brent Heilman

If you listen to him what he is trying to say is that once you have said it is unidentified anything more you add after that like it is an alien spaceship makes it no longer unidentified. He isn't saying stop looking for answers, but don't call it one thing and then turn around and call it something else. In this case you see a light in the sky moving across your field of vision. You say, "There is a UFO!" and since I don't know what it is it must be an alien spaceship. Now, with that being said is it still "unidentified"? No, you have now classified it as being something and now cannot be unknown. It cannot be unknown and something else, no matter how far-fetched, at the same time. It is either unknown or it is known. He is using the acronym UFO which is "Unidentified Flying Object". No matter what you say it may be it will either fall into 1 of 2 categories, known or unknown. No matter what it can't be both. 

Once again, the man is an astrophysicist. Questioning things is part of his job description. No where in any interview or book has he ever stated take things at face value and don't question. He isn't saying in the video that since you have seen a light in the sky don't question what it is, but more like before you call it "A" check to make sure it isn't "B". He used the story of the police officer swearing that he was chasing a UFO when it turned out to be Venus. Do some research check to make sure it isn't something else before you call it an alien spaceship. 

I have been an amateur astronomer for years and I have as yet not come across anything that I couldn't identify. I have spent countless hours under the night sky in all seasons and every single time I have seen an inexplicable light in the sky I was able to identify it with relative ease within a few minutes. Usually I can just point a telescope at it and see that is a plane or something. There have been occasions where I have seen a light zip across the sky with unearthly speed, but a quick check through NASA or the internet can usually turn up satellite transits easily.  There is a whole community of people who do nothing but track satellites and things like the secret Air Force plane that had been in space.


----------



## Brent Heilman

He calls upon something called "arguing from ignorance". Here is the wiki for it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


----------



## jvarnell

Brent Heilman said:


> No. What I am saying and what he was saying is that the "U" is for unidentified. Once you state it is something, like an alien flying saucer, it can no longer be called unidentified. It turns into a liar's paradox. Such as saying "This statement is false". Like he said in the video if you don't know what it is then your conversation should stop at that moment. This has nothing to do with being offended, it is about calling something one thing when there is no evidence to support that position.



What I think the problem is, is that the U is still undefined when you make the statment because the statment is just a theroy at that time and untill a conclustions is made it is undefined.  Someone needs to be able to state a theroy without it being called a conclution and bing to they are wrong just because they stated a theroy.


----------



## crono782

Lol, at what point was Superman classed as "identified"? When he was called a bird, when he was called a plane, or when he was correctly called Superman? ^_^

EDIT: or better yet, if you're working on a car and say you've "identified" the problem (the engine won't start), then realized you were previously wrong and now REALLY identified the problem (no key in the ignition), would you still say the problem was identified the first time?

I love talking semantics. hehe

EDIT EDIT: oooh better yet, if you are unable to ever prove the real problem with the car, does the first "identification" stand regardless of validity/truth?


----------



## jvarnell

Brent Heilman said:


> He calls upon something called "arguing from ignorance". Here is the wiki for it:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance



I call it not knowing how and what the words "Must, shall, may and will" mean.  Most UFO/alien shows use the words theroy or unexplaned.  I know this seams petty but in my business people try to shut down the discussion by defining what I say or think instead of me defining what I have said or think.


----------



## Brother JC

When my forebears landed... uhm, moved to Roswell, it was only to get away from the war and work with cattle. Really. :34:


----------



## Brent Heilman

crono782 said:


> Lol, at what point was Superman classed as "identified"? When he was called a bird, when he was called a plane, or when he was correctly called Superman? ^_^
> 
> EDIT: or better yet, if you're working on a car and say you've "identified" the problem (the engine won't start), then realized you were previously wrong and now REALLY identified the problem (no key in the ignition), would you still say the problem was identified the first time?
> 
> I love talking semantics. hehe
> 
> EDIT EDIT: oooh better yet, if you are unable to ever prove the real problem with the car, does the first "identification" stand regardless of validity/truth?



Well Superman was never called an unidentified flying object. They said look in the sky it's a bird, it's a plane, no it's Superman. He was always identified. Maybe when they looked at him from afar he looked like a bird, but as he got closer they were able to distinguish what he really was. None of those people ever said hey look it's a ufo it must be an alien, no wait, never mind , it's just Superman. 

As far as the car thing goes identifying the engine won't start as a problem is really just identifying a symptom of a problem. It is like troubleshooting a TV. You identify a symptom of the problem by figuring out the TV won't turn on. The problem is still unknown (unidentified) but you have a symptom to work off of. You do some looking and find that it is unplugged. Then the problem is identified and now you can definitively say that "A" was caused by "B".


----------



## Brent Heilman

jvarnell said:


> I call it not knowing how and what the words "Must, shall, may and will" mean.  Most UFO/alien shows use the words theroy or unexplaned.  I know this seams petty but in my business people try to shut down the discussion by defining what I say or think instead of me defining what I have said or think.



No one is trying to shut you down. You have your views and want me to see things from your viewpoint. I have my views, yet you refuse to see things from my viewpoint. To you it seems as if you are saying you are right and that I am wrong. They are opinions and when dealing with opinions there is no right and wrong. I will always stand firmly on the premise that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. 

The problem with the whole AA theory and that aliens visit on a regular basis is that those who adhere to those theories always try to shift the burden of proof. Science says that it is impossible for these events to take place. We have years and years of research showing how the physical world works and have proved many, many theories of space, physics, and quantum mechanics to be true. For someone to visit here from another planet at least some of those laws may have to be broken. Until, someone can prove the laws can be broken the burden of proof lies in the hands of those that make the claims regarding the AA theory and alien visitation.


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

Great Caesar's Ghost !


----------



## Brent Heilman

Godfrey Daniel said:


> Great Caesar's Ghost !
> 
> View attachment 2684



Nice!


----------



## crono782

> It is like troubleshooting a TV. You identify a symptom of the problem by figuring out the TV won't turn on. The problem is still unknown (unidentified) but you have a symptom to work off of. You do some looking and find that it is unplugged. Then the problem is identified and now you can definitively say that "A" was caused by "B".


Usually I just kick it. Always seems to help. ^_^


----------



## Brent Heilman

Yeah I spent too much money on mine to do that. Now, the old TVs I don't mind hitting every once in a while.


----------



## crono782

The one in my office is coax only, rabbit ear style. Pretty sure the bootprints add to it's "charm".


----------



## Brent Heilman

Gives it character right? We have a monitor n one of our trainers here that unless you beat the crap out of it it won't display properly. So every time someone turns on the station you will the thunk all over the office.


----------



## Godfrey Daniel

copyright infringement


----------



## jvarnell

Brent Heilman said:


> No one is trying to shut you down. You have your views and want me to see things from your viewpoint. I have my views, yet you refuse to see things from my viewpoint. To you it seems as if you are saying you are right and that I am wrong. They are opinions and when dealing with opinions there is no right and wrong. I will always stand firmly on the premise that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
> 
> The problem with the whole AA theory and that aliens visit on a regular basis is that those who adhere to those theories always try to shift the burden of proof. Science says that it is impossible for these events to take place. We have years and years of research showing how the physical world works and have proved many, many theories of space, physics, and quantum mechanics to be true. For someone to visit here from another planet at least some of those laws may have to be broken. Until, someone can prove the laws can be broken the burden of proof lies in the hands of those that make the claims regarding the AA theory and alien visitation.



I know your not trying to shut me down I am pointing out that those are the type of words used in the real word to shut down free flow of thought and that is what the guy on the video is doing by shaming people.  I also am not saying that the AA people are right and have proof but that they have informations we should look at it may point some people to look at Aliens and it may point people at othere theroys. Since it is a theroy and not a conclustion no one is right and no one is wrong.  The only point to this converstions is not what is right or wrong but is there some informations in there theroy that we should research more.

Thorey's are just that that and don't have to be proven till they become a conclussion.  Thorey's are a tool to cause research.  You can only debunck answers that come as a result of the hypothis which is before the conclution.


And you need to look at the physics as stated by Einstein and Hawking about what is broken or not.  But they are also just thorey's and not at conclustion ether.


----------



## jvarnell

You can not debunck a theroy but you can only prove or disprove data used when comming up with a conclustion.


----------



## Brent Heilman

I have looked at the physics of Einstein and Hawking. Of course Hawking has been dealing more with Black Holes and the physics of them than most others. Einstein put forth the General and Special Relativity. These are not just theories any longer. They were theories then they were tested and found to be laws much like Newton's Laws of Motion. They were theories first and are now Newton's Laws of Motion. You can't say theories don't have to be proven. In the science world if you put forth a theory you had better be able to back it up through experimentation. If it can't be then it is tossed. With a theory the product must reproducible and repeatable by anyone wanting to test your theory. 

Once again I will repeat Dr. Tyson would be one of the last people on Earth to try to shut down free thought, especially when it comes to science. All he said was if you claim something to be "A" then turn around and call it "B" you should never have called "A" in the first place.


----------



## crono782

A theory is just a supposition of something. It inherently can only exist in 3 states, proven, disproven, or remain a theory. It was a theory that the earth was flat until the theory was shown false. Same with the earth being the center of the universe. Theory until proven false. Gravity: theory until proven true.
Proving or disproving the data, that is, the corroborating substructure of the theory, at a certain point reaches a critical mass where the evidence proves or disproves the theory itself.


----------



## jvarnell

Brent Heilman said:


> I have looked at the physics of Einstein and Hawking. Of course Hawking has been dealing more with Black Holes and the physics of them than most others. Einstein put forth the General and Special Relativity. These are not just theories any longer. They were theories then they were tested and found to be laws much like Newton's Laws of Motion. They were theories first and are now Newton's Laws of Motion. You can't say theories don't have to be proven. In the science world if you put forth a theory you had better be able to back it up through experimentation. If it can't be then it is tossed. With a theory the product must reproducible and repeatable by anyone wanting to test your theory.




Einstein and Hawking had theroys that have taken year and years to prove but the process is still being adheared too.  In time every part of the AA theroy will be proven or disproven and untill that has happend it is still just a theroy and not debuncked as a whole.  The product is used to make the conclution and it still doesn't change the theroy.  The debuncking is only of the data use in proving or disproving of the theroy.  I don't know anyone that says a theroy has to be right everytime before it is put forth.  A theroy just need enough thought.

"*Theory* is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works, or even how divine or metaphysical matters are thought to work. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings.
"

Remember I am not saying that the AA guys are right....or wrong I am saying the words in the title of the thread and name of the video is intresting because of the nature of a theroy.  And I don't like it when the convertion about a theroy is stifled in any way about a theroy because that is a part of the information used to prove or disprove the theroy.  The guy in the video you put up trys to stifles the convertion by say once a person says what a person thinks it it replaces the U and not waiting to here what others say what they think it is.

That is why I say they are trying to stop the convetion.  I sit in meeting 6 to 8 hours aday where this is done all the time and the trick is knowing when to stop giving information about the subject.


----------



## jvarnell

crono782 said:


> A theory is just a supposition of something. It inherently can only exist in 3 states, proven, disproven, or remain a theory. It was a theory that the earth was flat until the theory was shown false. Same with the earth being the center of the universe. Theory until proven false. Gravity: theory until proven true.
> Proving or disproving the data, that is, the corroborating substructure of the theory, at a certain point reaches a critical mass where the evidence proves or disproves the theory itself.



Yes


----------



## Brent Heilman

Once again, he was just saying it can't be both. He never was said don't look into, do research into it, or anything else. He never made a position that is to stifle anything. He just said you can't call it unidentified and then say it something. By doing that it can no longer be unidentified. Period nothing more. It is either unidentified or is identified. A strange light in the sky can't be a plane and a UFO at the same time by the definition of a UFO. You can say "Hey, it's a UFO wonder what it is?" then proceed to eliminate possibilities. At some point you will come to the conclusion that is a star, planet, plane, meteor, or something unknown. If it stays unknown then that is all it ever should be, a UFO. Does this mean you need to make the leap to alien origin? No, because once you say it is something it can't be classified as UFO? 

I am not trying to argue against alien spacecraft. I am just saying that the term, UFO, can't be used interchangeably with alien spacecraft.


----------



## crono782

Yeah I always found that kinda puzzling. If you "know" it's a spacecraft, then it's not exactly unidentified.


----------



## jvarnell

Again the way I took it was if we see what we called a UFO and the government says "oh it was just a air craft" the convertion should stop?  I think not.  It can be undefined in my mind but defined in your's.  In my mind I can say it is a UFO but I think it is a meteor.  because I said out loud it is a meteor it did not all the sudon morph in to a meteor it may be a blue ice bomb like in Joe Dirt.

In my mind I don't ever think something is identifyed until it is identifyed by everyone in the same manner.


----------



## Brent Heilman

jvarnell said:


> In my mind I can say it is a UFO but I think it is a meteor.  because I said out loud it is a meteor it did not all the sudon morph in to a meteor it may be a blue ice bomb



You right it wouldn't morph into a meteor. All I am trying to get across is that you can't call it "unidentified" and at the same time say it is a meteor. Call it unidentified and leave it at that. Then later you can come back and say I found out it was meteor after you have done some research. By definition a UFO is an unidentified flying object and calling it _*anything*_ else negates that definition. It doesn't mean you are right, but it does mean that once you assign a value (name) one of the last things you can call it is unidentified. 

Take for instance this photo:




What is it? Upon initial inspection it is an unidentified sea creature. You don't know what it is, but if I then said this is a Lionfish then, right or wrong, I have identified it. It is now no longer unidentified. I cannot say this is an unidentified sea creature and call it anything other than unidentified and be correct. Once it is properly identified then anything other than the correct name is wrong.



> In my mind I don't ever think something is identifyed until it is identifyed by everyone in the same manner.




Not everyone can identify something in the same manner. You have expertise in areas I do not and vice versa so I may see something like the above photo and be able to correctly ID it immediately but you might not be able to. Just like a handwriting expert can ID a signature while not many people would be able to. Because he can do something that everyone can't doesn't mean he isn't right.


PS A quick quiz: What is that thing in the picture?


----------



## crono782

Hmm, i remember seeing this somewhere before. Something like a Frilly Finned Shark or something?


----------



## Brent Heilman

I think it is just frilled shark.

Edit: Deep sea frill shark (as per Nat. Geo.)


----------



## jvarnell

Look what is this.

View attachment AA.bmp


----------



## Brent Heilman

I would call that an advertisement for Ancient Aliens. That is Giorgio or whatever his name is and relates to the impending apocalypse that will probably not happen.


----------

