With that being said, "Ancient Aliens Debunked" is guilty at times of some of the same "deceits by omission" they accuse many of the Ancient Aliens contributors of and should be equally scrutinized.
One thing that was annoying from early on was the repeating over and over again how "easy" it was for stone masons to do these things. The fact it was hard does not mean Ancient Aliens, but it seems a bit insulting to the builders, if not dishonest, to suggest again, and again, and again how easy it was just to make the point Ancient Aliens were not required.
A few randoms things:
1) In response to Ancient Aliens suggesting there was not any wood on the altiplano for rollers White says all the builders of Puma Punku needed to do was "walk down the hill a little ways" to get all the wood they needed. I don't know what the hell he's talking about because there is not a natural tree in sight to make a roller out of for miles and until you get below 7,000ft what "trees" you would find are sporadic scrub trees. Here are pictures of someones driving tour from Cuzco Peru to La Paz Boliva-see any trees let alone a forest? [tripdown.regioncoding.com]
2) In regards to the blocks at Puma Punku being strewn about as having been struck by some ancient catastrophe, White says "there is a 400yr old report that says if the site was closer to town there wouldn't be any blocks left". Vranich, his source, says the blocks were "attractive building materials for houses, churches, plazas, bridges, even railways". Prior to 1612? But this wasn't the case when Pedro Cieza de Léon first discovered the site in 1549. But if we take this at face value, from the time it was first discovered in 1549, despite being over 12,000ft above sea level and in the middle of nowhere, according to White by 1612, 62yrs later, "if the site was closer to town (what town?) there wouldn't be any blocks left". And if I'm not mistaken the other source is referring to Tiwanaku and not necessarily Puma Punku. Even today, most people that go to Tiwanaku don't go to Puma Punku or even know it's there. Regardless, look at these old pictures and drawings from the 1800's and you tell me these were cast about by the Spanish pilfering blocks [www.abovetopsecret.com]. I've been there and it is safe to say these blocks would not be thrown about in this manner from Spanish "block harvesting". Drunken idiots with a fleet of cranes couldn't do this even if they did it on purpose.
3) When talking about quarrying rock for Giza, White says that Giza was built on its own limestone quarry (?) and that "granite was easily brought from a location only slightly farther away". "Slightly farther away"? As in 500miles away from Aswan down the Nile river "slightly farther away"? Wow.
4) Talking about no torch marks at Dendera, White thinks its actually "funny" AA would make this claim of no torch marks as evidence no torches were used to illuminate when painting offering as evidence to the contrary, and how stupid those AA people are, that a ceiling painting was recently discovered at the same temple complex that was covered in " hundreds of years of soot from torches". Hmm. So, if soot from torches is known to cover up your painting, he gives us evidence right there that it would, then wouldn't you not want to use torches? Or is your goal to cover up your painting with soot? And given there is only "hundreds of years" of soot at this one area but none anywhere else then did they only use it for this one painting? And if only "hundreds of years" how does this explain there being no torch marks contemporary with the paintings or in the intervening 2,000+ years at this temple or in dozens of other places in Egypt with no natural light? Apparently it is possible they used a smokeless olive oil and salt lamp. But if not, for good measure he says the soot is "easily wiped off" implying they originally just wiped it off their paintings which is why there are no torch marks-but wouldn't you need torches to see what you were wiping off? Seems like a vicious circle to me. No torch marks at the hypogeum in Malta either.
5) Towards the end it takes a curious turn towards "proving" some aspects of Christian beliefs as if this were somehow more credible than the ancient alien alternative. It should be noted that White and Heiser are both devout evangelical Christians in which according to his employer, Logos Bible Company, Heiser:
"has an active ministry to people whose worldview is molded by occult, paranormal, and esoteric beliefs. He observed that many who have adopted “alternative” worldviews were formerly traditional theists and Christians who left the faith when their questions on difficult passages and topics went unanswered, or when spiritual leaders failed to address experiences they had had. Mike seeks to fill these gaps as a Christian scholar and has become well known in these circles through writing, speaking, and numerous radio appearances".
It seems highly disingenuous if not dishonest that nether of these contributors hold their own beliefs to the same scrutiny and critical thinking as they do the Ancient Alien question. You can't take the red pill and the blue pill at the same time.
It is amazing to me that the idea of other beings visiting Earth in mans past is so preposterous to some and yet those same people believe during this same period that a Creator of the Universe created man in His own image, came to Earth and meddled in his affairs, then left His Son to meaninglessly die for "our" sins some 2,000yrs ago. As little evidence as their may or may not be for Ancient Aliens, there is absolutely zero evidence for Biblical religious beliefs. None. All the makers of this film are doing is trading one perceived "nonsense" at the expense of another.
Hmm. 300,000,000,000 galaxies with 300,000,000,000 stars with an infinite number of planets and yet inexplicably no one has ever come to Earth. Yet the Creator of this universe has the time to smite the enemies of his "choosen" people and chat with them on mountain tops?
'Sigh'. There is not enough time in the day to go through this film point by point, and you would literally have to, but despite the many valid counter arguments, at times rightly making some of the AA contributors just seem foolish, as a whole this "debunkumentary" falls flat under the veneer of a cavalcade of either willful or ignorant omissions and hidden agendas which forces one to doubt not only its good intentions but many of the "facts" it presents on its behalf.
Post Edited (09-Aug-13 17:23)