The flashes fell upon them; some lay down

And hid their eyes and wept; and some did rest

Their chins upon their clenched hands, and smil'd;

And others hurried to and fro, and fed

Their funeral piles with fuel, and look'd up

With mad disquietude on the dull sky, The pall of a past world [1]

That is a cherry picked qoute from Byron's Darkness, it would be very easy given a few centuries, the fact that it is a poem, the loss of historical context, several changes to linguistics followed by selective editing to interpret Byron was talking about the ancient astronaut nuke of 1816 and not the eruption of Mount Tambora. [2]

In fact there is only a single instance of the word volcano in the entire poem, drop that and it reads like fallout because basically it was.

[1] https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43825/darkness-56d222...

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkness_(poem)

Edit: formatting & typo, duplicate link

I found it interesting to see how (mis)translation and biased researchers were able to put forth a false narrative, and for decades thereafter many took it at face value and continued to share the faulty information. It wasn’t a topic I was expecting to encounter today, and that’s why I’m sharing it!

I just watch the show for fun. It’s crazy how they make up shit and then “given that we’ve proven this”, build theories on top of it.

I guess the appeal of the show is that is raises more questions than it answers. I’m sure there are scientific explanations about most stuff they attribute to aliens, but just asking “how did they build those pyramids?” or “what really happened in that part of the world?” are interesting to think about.

Ok, I've studied Sanskrit (and the Egyptian Hieroglyphs for that matter, but far less so), and trust me when I say I am neither a physicist, a hindu nationalist, or a conspiracy theorist (check my comment history). I don't think the evidence being debunked in this article is very good however, there is such a vast quantity of highly destructive weapons described in ancient Indian and even ancient near-eastern texts (like the Epic of Gilgamesh) that we are really left with only two possibilities: either bronze-age people were very imaginative, or there really was this sort of ancient city of Atlantis type technologically advanced civilizations that collapsed during the bronze age and the peoples who came after them struggled to describe the scale of destruction in the stories that were passed down (there is a play based on this premise, Mr. Burns, a Post-Electric Play[0]). There's a lot we don't know about the ancient world but fortunately since we have such a wealth of Egyptian texts and evidence of material cultures, its far easier for us to separate the myths from their place in social life. But there is still a lot we don't know, and even if they are (very) fanciful I don't think it's fair to criticize people for coming to these far reaching conclusions unless, as argued in the article, the material they are working off of is partially or entirely fabricated. Even if its kind of crazy it does question established narratives of history, and I think there is some value there.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Burns,_a_Post-Electric_Pla...

Needs "2013" in title.

So what did the original writings state? I love that this person has taken the time to criticize AAT, but it's more about showing how AAT writers are frauds than asserting more direct facts that would provide more illumination of the fascinating original sources the AAT people use.

These artifacts exist. The academic experts have unanswered questions and cannot rule anything out. Could it be that our theory explains it? Ancient astronaut theorists say, yes.

It's propaganda for a sci-fi ideology, and it's one of my favourite shows to watch because it's so calming and stupid. I think what bothers people is that as a critical theory of archeology, it's just as rigorous and consistent as every other critical theory people use to explain history, and some people find that a bit close to home. You can apply AAT logic to anything, and the relief it brings is that it's like watching a satire of how some critical academics actually reason. Next on "Ancient Struggles..."