July 14, 2025 • 19 mins
Could extraterrestrial life have already reached our planet? In this thought-provoking episode, we explore historical sightings, ancient astronaut theories, declassified government files, and scientific speculation around alien contact. Are mysterious ancient structures evidence of visitors from the stars, or do natural explanations prevail? Join us as we separate myth from possibility and examine why so many believe we’ve already had cosmic company.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Have you ever looked up at the night sky and
just felt that that pull, that ancient curiosity? Definitely, Or
maybe you've seen those, you know, those really slick infographics
or documentaries suggesting there's way more to our past than
we think.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Oh yeah, the ones hinting maybe our ancestors weren't entirely
alone in shaping human history exactly.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
That deep fascination with what's out there and what really
happened back then, it's incredibly powerful, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
It really is. It taps into something fundamental.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
So today we're going beyond infographics. We want to really
unpack this whole enduring fascination with ancient aliens and well
unexplained stuff in.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
The sky unidentified aerial phenomena or UAP as they're often
called UAP.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Our mission here is to kind of peel back those layers,
get past the easy narratives, and understand and how these
ideas get presented, what impact they actually.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Have, and crucially, why thinking critically is so so important
when you're navigating all this information.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
Yeah, navigating is the right word.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Absolutely. Think of this deep dive as an investigation. Really,
we're not just here to debunk or you know, confirm things.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
No, it's more about exploring where these popular ideas even come.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
From, exactly looking at their methods, their impact, and maybe
contrasting that with how serious inquiry, you know, with proper methods,
approaches the unknown.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Okay, let's dive in the core idea ancient astronauts, this
belief that intelligent beings from elsewhere visited Earth ages ago,
maybe even in prehistoric times. What are the key claims,
the ones that really hook people?
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Well, At its heart, the hypothesis is that ets had
massive influence on human culture, technology, religion, even our biology.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
Wow. Okay, so pretty fundamental stuff.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Oh yeah. A really common position is that lots of
gods from different religions they were actually extraterrests.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Ah, the gods were astronauts idea.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Precisely, and the advanced tech they supposedly brought was just
you know, interpreted as divine power by early humans who
couldn't possibly understand it otherwise.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
All right, makes a kind of intuitive sense if you
don't dig deeper, and.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
Some proponents go further, arguing humans are descendants or creations
of these ets, or that the ets were like a
mother culture giving us all the basics.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
So where do they point for proof Like specific examples, They.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Often talk about wonders like the Egyptian Pyramids or the
huge Mawaii heads on Easter Island. The claim is ets
built them, or at least.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Helped, because they seem too advanced.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
That's the angle. Their evidence usually involves pointing to gaps
in historical records or finding out of place artifacts, things
that seemed too sophisticated for the time, and of course,
reinterpreting artwork and legends like those petroclyps in bell Camonica, Italy.
They say they look like astronauts and helmets.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
So ancient texts and art are primed targets for this
kind of reinterpretation.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Absolutely. Take the Aana, the ancient Indian epic. Eric Vondanakan,
a key proponent, suggested the vimanas described in its flying
cheriots or palaces were actually spaceships. Or the Bible Genesis
chapter six mentions sons of God and daughters of humans,
leading to the nephelum or giants that gets interpreted as
ets breeding with humans.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
Right.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
I've heard that one or that watchers, these angelic beings
were actually aliens teaching forbidden knowledge like metallurgy or astrology,
and then the Great Flood becomes like a punishment for
this mixing.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
It's quite a narrative they built.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
It is even the book of Ezekiel's vision, the four
living creatures and the wheel intersecting a wheel that's interpreted
as a detailed description of a spaceship. There's even a
whole book on it, the Spaceships of Ezekiel.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
Wow. And what about paintings you mentioned artwork, Yeah, Medieval
and Renaissance art gets pulled into There's an oval shape
in the madonnacn.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
Bambino e Sangiovannino.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
People point too, like a UFO in the background.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
Kinda yeah. Or Carlo Crevelli's Annunciazione from fourteen eighty six,
there's a beam of light some interpret as a craft.
Another painting, Selambini's Santissima Trinita from fifteen ninety five, has
this sphere with.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
Antenna antenna like Sputnik.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
That's exactly what they compare it to. But you know,
art experts have pretty straightforward explanations tied to religious symbolism.
Radiant clouds, vortex's of angels, globes representing God's creation, off
flying saucers.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
It really strips the original meaning away, doesn't it completely?
Speaker 2 (04:28):
It takes the art out of its cultural and historical context.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
Yeah, it really makes you all about pattern recognition. Our
brains are so good at finding patterns, sometimes maybe maybe
too good.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
That's a great point. It's human ingenuity at work. Sometimes
we're finding profound truths and sometimes well for connecting dots
that maybe weren't meant to be connected.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
So let's talk about how these ideas get out there.
For a lot of us, it's through TV shows. Ancient
Aliens is probably the most famous one. How does a
show like that get so popular and well legitimate to
so many people, especially with these really out their theories.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
It's actually a fascinating story about media evolution and branding
the channel itself. History started as the History Channel back
in ninety five.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Right, I remember it used to feel very akitectic.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
We focused on you know, serious documentaries, stuff like modern
marvels about engineering. They built this really strong brand as
an educational channel.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
Okay, so they had that credibility built up.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
They did. But then around the mid two thousands things changed.
Competition from the Internet like Wikipedia meant factual channels needed
to adapt they moved towards what's called factual.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
Entertainment, like reality shows, but with some facts thrown in.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Kind of history had huge hits like Pond Stars. It
was entertaining, but you still got these little nuggets of history, right,
so it kind of preserved that educational feel even as
it shifted.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Okay, I see the transition. So how does ancient aliens
fit into that? How do they push these theories but
keep that veneer of credibility?
Speaker 2 (05:58):
It seems tricky, it is true, and they do it
very cleverly. The scripting is key if you listen really closely,
the main narrator, they never actually state the claims is fact.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
Really, how does that work?
Speaker 2 (06:09):
It's always phrase with questions or attributions like could it
be as ancient astronaut theorists believe? Or they'll pose a
question and then say ancient astronaut theorists.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
Say yes, ah, So the show itself isn't making the
claim directly precisely.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Then they cut to an interviewee one of the ancient
astronaut theorists, and that person states the theory as if
it's fact.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
So the network provides the platform, primes the audience, but
doesn't technically endorse it.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
Exactly plausible deniability, And you have to admit it's a
very well produced show. The pacing, the visuals, the way
it's edited, it's compelling. It makes it entertaining and for
a lot of viewers quite believable. You start thinking, well,
maybe that.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Makes a lot of sense. It's a subtle but effective technique. Okay,
before we dig into the criticisms and the impact of
all this, just a quick pause. If you're finding this
deep dive as interesting as we are, please do take
a second to give us a five star rating wherever
you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
Yeah, it genuinely helps other people find the show, and
let's us keep doing these explorations. We really appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Okay, So these shows are entertaining, cleverly made, but a
lot of academics and scholars argue they're actually pretty harmful.
What are the main criticisms? Why the strong reaction.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
The criticisms are quite serious and they come from several angles.
A major one is that these narratives often delegitimize indigenous
peoples and their achievements by suggesting that incredible ancient sites.
Think of the Nausga lines in Peru or the Egyptian
Pyramids were built with alien help. It subtly implies that
the actual people, the indigenous populations, weren't capable of these
(07:46):
feats on their own right.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
It takes away their agency and ingenuity.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
Exactly. Take the Nosga lines. This show often claims they
can only be seen from mid air, implying alien tech
was needed. But an archaeologist actually discovered them just by
standing on a slightly higher plateau nearby. It wasn't some
impossible mystery. This kind of thinking really belittles the human mind.
It suggests we were too dumb or too lazy to
(08:09):
figure things out without alien intervention. It flips the script
suggesting advanced tech came before sophisticated human understanding, which isn't
usually how innovation works.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
That connects to another criticism I've heard about potential racial bias.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
Yes, that's a very strong point critics make. They noticed
that these shows seemed to disproportionately focus on the accomplishments
of non white cultures Machu Picchu, the Great Wall, Easter Island,
the Pyramids, and attribute those to aliens.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
But not necessarily European achievements.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
Much less often. You don't hear the same theories applied
as frequently to say, Roman aqueducts or Gothic cathedrals. So
it raises uncomfortable questions about why European ingenuity is often
accepted at face value while achievements in other parts of
the world seem to require this extraordinary extraterrestrial explanation.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
That's a really important point to consider.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
What else, well, there's the issue of removing human agency.
More broadly, if you credit aliens with humanity's greatest achievements,
logically you'd also have to hold them responsible for the
terrible things human sacrifice, slavery, war. You can't just pick
the good parts.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
You don't get to cherry pick agency.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
Right, and the shows often ignore actual historical progression. They
present ancient civilizations as these perfect builders who got it
right immediately, but archaeology shows us that wasn't the case.
The Egyptians, for instance, went through stages mastabas, the step pyramid,
the bent Pyramid, lots of trial and error before the
Great Pyramid. Their structures even show patches where mistakes were fixed.
(09:41):
That's normal human learning, yeah.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
Not incident alien perfection.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
And perhaps one of the most worrying impacts is the
erosion of trust in expertise. These programs can make people
suspicious of academics, of universities, of the whole peer review.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Process, fostering a kind of they're hiding something mentality exactly.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
Where so called experts are part of a conspiracy and
people only trust information that confirms what they already believe.
And often the main proponents pushing these theories on the
shows lack actual credentials in archaeology, history, or engineering. They
sometimes use tactics like fire hosing, just overwhelming you with
a mix of facts, half truth and pure fiction, making
(10:21):
it hard.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
To sort out which ultimately just misinforms people. Right, Yeah,
it makes us dumber about actual history, it really does.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
It distracts from the real, often even more amazing stories
of human history and achievement, and it tends to other
these non white civilizations, treating the mystatic, mystical receptacles for
alien wisdom rather than complex evolving cultures with their own agency.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
Okay, so we've thoroughly unpacked the problems with how shows
like Ancient Aliens frame these things, particularly around agency and history.
But let's separate that specific, often flawed narrative from the
much older deeper human experience of well seeing weird stuff
in the sky.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Right, because the ancient alien theory as presented on TV
is one thing. But the phenomenon of reporting unexplained aerial
sightings hmmm, that goes back millennia. It's not a modern invention.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
This underlying fascination, this reporting of the unexplained, it's ancient itself,
isn't it.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Absolutely if you look back, you find reports that sound
like what we'd now call uap throughout history.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
It just shows this ongoing human attempt to make sense
of things they see but can't immediately.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
Explain, Like what, what are some early examples.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Well, you've got things like the Tillu papyrus from ancient
Egypt around fourteen fifty BC, supposedly describing fiery objects in
the sky. Ancient Roman writers like Livy recorded accounts of
phantom ships gleaming in the sky, or round shields parmas flying.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
Overhead shields in the sky.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
Yeah, or sparks falling from stars that grew huge, flame
like jars in the air. They used the language and
concepts of their time.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
Of course, fascinating, and it continued into later periods.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Oh, yes, there's a famous account from medieval Ireland round
seven forty AD, the airship of klonmac Noise, mentioning actual
ships with crews seen sailing in the air.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
Sailing in the air. Wow.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
And then you get events like the fifteen sixty one
Nuremberg celestial phenomenon. People reported seeing hundreds of spheres, cylinders
and crosses having some kind of aerial battle, or a
similar event in Basil, Switzerland in fifteen sixty six. They
were interpreted then as divine warnings or battles.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
Naturally, so the interpretations change, but the reports of strange
aerial things persist. What about more modern times.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
The nineteenth century had waves of mystery airship sightings across
the US. Then during World War Two, Allied pilots consistently
reported Foo fighters, these strange, colorful balls of light that
seemed to follow their planes.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
I have heard of Foo fighters.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
Then post War nineteen forty seven you get the Roswell incident,
huge controversy, inditially announced as a captured flying saucer and
quickly retracted and called a weather balloon. That really kicked
off the modern UFO era in the public mind.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
The classic cover up narrative starts there really.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
Pretty much, and there were major incidents involving the military,
like the nineteen fifty two Washington DC sidings over consecutive weekends,
radar confirmations jets scrambled. It led the CIA to form
the Robertson Panel to study the issue.
Speaker 1 (13:11):
Did they conclude anything.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
They basically advised the government to debunk UFO reports and
strip them of their special status to reduce public interest,
partly out of concern they could clog intelligence channels or
cause mass hysteria.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
Interesting any other significant military or pilot sightings loads.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
The nineteen fifty six Lakenheath bent Waters incident in the
UK involved radar tracking and a pilot reporting visually intercepting
a bright object that performed incredible maneuvers. After Gordon Cooper
reported seeing craft both over Germany in the fifties and
later at Edward's.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
Air Force Base an astronaut YEP, and.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
More recently the Randelschamp Forest incident in nineteen eighty in
the UK, where US Air Force personnel near RIF bases
reported strange lights, saw a metallic triangular object and even
recorded higher radiation levels supposed landing site.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
These military reports seem harder to just dismiss.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
They often are, especially when involving multiple witnesses, radar, or
physical traces. And it's not just Western reports. There's a
really intriguing declassified CIA document from nineteen ninety one.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
Oh what's that?
Speaker 2 (14:16):
It details a top secret KGB intelligence report about an
alleged UFO crash in Ukraine back in nineteen eighty nine.
Speaker 1 (14:23):
A crash like Roswell, but in the Soviet Union.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
According to this KGB report, yes, a saucer shaped object crashed.
Five small humanoids with large heads and big black eyes
supposedly emerged, and get this, two soldiers who approach were
somehow instantly petrified, turned into stone poles.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Petrified, seriously, that's.
Speaker 2 (14:39):
What the alleged KGB report claimed. They concluded it was
an extremely menacing case and that these beings possessed weapons
and technology that go beyond all our assumptions. Now whether
that report itself is genuine or accurate is another question,
but the fact that it exists in intelligence files is well, wow.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
That's quite something. It shows how seriously these things have
been taken behind the scenes, regardless of the public narrative.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
It certainly does, though it's also worth noting that Statistically,
the most common description in UFO or UAP reports is
simply lights or unknown shapes, not necessarily crash saucers or
petrified soldiers.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
Right. So, okay, we have this incredibly long history of
sightings ranging from vague lights to truly bizarre official reports.
How do we even begin to sort through this? How
do we tell genuine unknowns from misinterpretations, hoaxes, or just
mundane stuff? And how do actual experts approach this?
Speaker 2 (15:36):
That really is the million dollar question, isn't it? The
first step is acknowledging that many, probably most reported sightings
do have conventional explanations, like what weather balloons are a
classic military aircraft, especially experimental ones or exercises people aren't
aware of, like the Phoenix lights incident largely coinciding with
Air National Guard training flights, dropping flares, natural phenomena like
(15:58):
marsh gas ball lightning, even flocks of birds or insects
reflecting light can be mistaken for something stranger or just
conventional aircraft flying information looking weird from a distance.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
So rigorous investigation often finds a normal explanation.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
Often yes, And that's how science approaches speculation too. Look
at Uma Mua that interstellar object that passed through our solar.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
System, right, the weird cigar shaped one exactly.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
Some scientists, notably Avi Lobe, speculated it could be an
alien probe because of its unusual acceleration, but the broader
scientific consensus, while admitting it strange, hasn't found compelling evidence
to support the alien tech hypothesis. Most lean towards natural explanations,
even if they are unusual ones. That's the scientific method hypothesis, investigation, evidence,
(16:44):
peer review, refinement.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
So speculation is okay, but it needs to be backed
by evidence precisely.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
And it's really important for people to know that serious
academic study of extraterrestrial intelligence ETI and UAP does exist.
It's not all relicated to fringe theories or sensationalist TV.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
There are actual academics working on this.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Yes, there are philosophers working on the implications of astrobiology,
anthropologists studying the cultural impact of these beliefs, physicists considering
the possibilities. There's even a book called Extraterrestrial Intelligence that
makes a solid case for why ETI and UAP deserves serious,
rigorous study within academia.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
What makes their approach different methodology?
Speaker 2 (17:25):
It all comes down to the methods used. Real scholarly
authority doesn't just come from having a PhD or being
at a university. It comes from the rigor and transparency
of the research methods used to arrive at a conclusion.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
Unlike the fire hosing tactic you mentioned earlier.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
Exactly the contrast is stark. Pseudoscientific approaches often lack credentials
in the relevant fields, rely on cherry pick data, ignore context,
and aim to persuade through rhetoric rather than evidence. Rigorous
inquiry is about careful analysis, considering all evidence, acknowledging uncertainties,
and being open to changing conclusions based on new data.
Speaker 1 (18:03):
This whole journey beyond infographics really does hammer home that difference,
doesn't it The gap between a really compelling story and
actual verifiable information. It does, and it's also, weirdly a
reminder of the incredible things humanity has actually achieved all
on our own, through our own ingenuity and hard work
over millennia.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
That's a fantastic point. Sometimes the truth of human history
and capability is even more amazing than the extraordinary explanations
offered for it.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
So we've covered a lot of ground from ancient astronaut
theories and the problematic aspects to the long history of
unexplained sightings and the difference between rigorous inquiry and pseudoscience.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
We have it's clear that while the unknown will always
fascinate us, understanding the how and the why behind the
information we consume is crucial.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
And maybe appreciating the incredible documented ingenuity of our ancestors
is just as profound, if not more so.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Absolutely, ultimately, the stories we choose to believe about our past,
about our place at the cosmos, they really shape how
we see ourselves and our potential. Critical thinking isn't meant
to kill the wonder.
Speaker 1 (19:06):
No, it's about channeling it right.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Exactly, channeling it towards genuine understanding, genuine discovery, and respecting
the very real, very human journey that got us here.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
Thank you so much for joining us on this deep
dive today.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
It was a pleasure. Always fascinating stuff to unpack. What
really stands out to you from all this?
Speaker 1 (19:24):
Hmm, that's a good question, maybe something for all of
us to ponder as we go about our day. What
is our enduring fascination with these ideas, ancient aliens, UFOs,
the unexplained, What does it really tell us about ourselves,
about our hopes, our fears, and maybe our sense of
place in this vast universe.
Have you ever looked up at the night sky and
just felt that that pull, that ancient curiosity? Definitely, Or
maybe you've seen those, you know, those really slick infographics
or documentaries suggesting there's way more to our past than
we think.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Oh yeah, the ones hinting maybe our ancestors weren't entirely
alone in shaping human history exactly.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
That deep fascination with what's out there and what really
happened back then, it's incredibly powerful, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
It really is. It taps into something fundamental.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
So today we're going beyond infographics. We want to really
unpack this whole enduring fascination with ancient aliens and well
unexplained stuff in.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
The sky unidentified aerial phenomena or UAP as they're often
called UAP.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Our mission here is to kind of peel back those layers,
get past the easy narratives, and understand and how these
ideas get presented, what impact they actually.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Have, and crucially, why thinking critically is so so important
when you're navigating all this information.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
Yeah, navigating is the right word.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Absolutely. Think of this deep dive as an investigation. Really,
we're not just here to debunk or you know, confirm things.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
No, it's more about exploring where these popular ideas even come.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
From, exactly looking at their methods, their impact, and maybe
contrasting that with how serious inquiry, you know, with proper methods,
approaches the unknown.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Okay, let's dive in the core idea ancient astronauts, this
belief that intelligent beings from elsewhere visited Earth ages ago,
maybe even in prehistoric times. What are the key claims,
the ones that really hook people?
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Well, At its heart, the hypothesis is that ets had
massive influence on human culture, technology, religion, even our biology.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
Wow. Okay, so pretty fundamental stuff.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Oh yeah. A really common position is that lots of
gods from different religions they were actually extraterrests.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Ah, the gods were astronauts idea.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Precisely, and the advanced tech they supposedly brought was just
you know, interpreted as divine power by early humans who
couldn't possibly understand it otherwise.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
All right, makes a kind of intuitive sense if you
don't dig deeper, and.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
Some proponents go further, arguing humans are descendants or creations
of these ets, or that the ets were like a
mother culture giving us all the basics.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
So where do they point for proof Like specific examples, They.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Often talk about wonders like the Egyptian Pyramids or the
huge Mawaii heads on Easter Island. The claim is ets
built them, or at least.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Helped, because they seem too advanced.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
That's the angle. Their evidence usually involves pointing to gaps
in historical records or finding out of place artifacts, things
that seemed too sophisticated for the time, and of course,
reinterpreting artwork and legends like those petroclyps in bell Camonica, Italy.
They say they look like astronauts and helmets.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
So ancient texts and art are primed targets for this
kind of reinterpretation.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Absolutely. Take the Aana, the ancient Indian epic. Eric Vondanakan,
a key proponent, suggested the vimanas described in its flying
cheriots or palaces were actually spaceships. Or the Bible Genesis
chapter six mentions sons of God and daughters of humans,
leading to the nephelum or giants that gets interpreted as
ets breeding with humans.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
Right.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
I've heard that one or that watchers, these angelic beings
were actually aliens teaching forbidden knowledge like metallurgy or astrology,
and then the Great Flood becomes like a punishment for
this mixing.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
It's quite a narrative they built.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
It is even the book of Ezekiel's vision, the four
living creatures and the wheel intersecting a wheel that's interpreted
as a detailed description of a spaceship. There's even a
whole book on it, the Spaceships of Ezekiel.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
Wow. And what about paintings you mentioned artwork, Yeah, Medieval
and Renaissance art gets pulled into There's an oval shape
in the madonnacn.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
Bambino e Sangiovannino.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
People point too, like a UFO in the background.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
Kinda yeah. Or Carlo Crevelli's Annunciazione from fourteen eighty six,
there's a beam of light some interpret as a craft.
Another painting, Selambini's Santissima Trinita from fifteen ninety five, has
this sphere with.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
Antenna antenna like Sputnik.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
That's exactly what they compare it to. But you know,
art experts have pretty straightforward explanations tied to religious symbolism.
Radiant clouds, vortex's of angels, globes representing God's creation, off
flying saucers.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
It really strips the original meaning away, doesn't it completely?
Speaker 2 (04:28):
It takes the art out of its cultural and historical context.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
Yeah, it really makes you all about pattern recognition. Our
brains are so good at finding patterns, sometimes maybe maybe
too good.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
That's a great point. It's human ingenuity at work. Sometimes
we're finding profound truths and sometimes well for connecting dots
that maybe weren't meant to be connected.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
So let's talk about how these ideas get out there.
For a lot of us, it's through TV shows. Ancient
Aliens is probably the most famous one. How does a
show like that get so popular and well legitimate to
so many people, especially with these really out their theories.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
It's actually a fascinating story about media evolution and branding
the channel itself. History started as the History Channel back
in ninety five.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Right, I remember it used to feel very akitectic.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
We focused on you know, serious documentaries, stuff like modern
marvels about engineering. They built this really strong brand as
an educational channel.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
Okay, so they had that credibility built up.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
They did. But then around the mid two thousands things changed.
Competition from the Internet like Wikipedia meant factual channels needed
to adapt they moved towards what's called factual.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
Entertainment, like reality shows, but with some facts thrown in.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Kind of history had huge hits like Pond Stars. It
was entertaining, but you still got these little nuggets of history, right,
so it kind of preserved that educational feel even as
it shifted.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Okay, I see the transition. So how does ancient aliens
fit into that? How do they push these theories but
keep that veneer of credibility?
Speaker 2 (05:58):
It seems tricky, it is true, and they do it
very cleverly. The scripting is key if you listen really closely,
the main narrator, they never actually state the claims is fact.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
Really, how does that work?
Speaker 2 (06:09):
It's always phrase with questions or attributions like could it
be as ancient astronaut theorists believe? Or they'll pose a
question and then say ancient astronaut theorists.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
Say yes, ah, So the show itself isn't making the
claim directly precisely.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Then they cut to an interviewee one of the ancient
astronaut theorists, and that person states the theory as if
it's fact.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
So the network provides the platform, primes the audience, but
doesn't technically endorse it.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
Exactly plausible deniability, And you have to admit it's a
very well produced show. The pacing, the visuals, the way
it's edited, it's compelling. It makes it entertaining and for
a lot of viewers quite believable. You start thinking, well,
maybe that.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Makes a lot of sense. It's a subtle but effective technique. Okay,
before we dig into the criticisms and the impact of
all this, just a quick pause. If you're finding this
deep dive as interesting as we are, please do take
a second to give us a five star rating wherever
you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
Yeah, it genuinely helps other people find the show, and
let's us keep doing these explorations. We really appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Okay, So these shows are entertaining, cleverly made, but a
lot of academics and scholars argue they're actually pretty harmful.
What are the main criticisms? Why the strong reaction.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
The criticisms are quite serious and they come from several angles.
A major one is that these narratives often delegitimize indigenous
peoples and their achievements by suggesting that incredible ancient sites.
Think of the Nausga lines in Peru or the Egyptian
Pyramids were built with alien help. It subtly implies that
the actual people, the indigenous populations, weren't capable of these
(07:46):
feats on their own right.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
It takes away their agency and ingenuity.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
Exactly. Take the Nosga lines. This show often claims they
can only be seen from mid air, implying alien tech
was needed. But an archaeologist actually discovered them just by
standing on a slightly higher plateau nearby. It wasn't some
impossible mystery. This kind of thinking really belittles the human mind.
It suggests we were too dumb or too lazy to
(08:09):
figure things out without alien intervention. It flips the script
suggesting advanced tech came before sophisticated human understanding, which isn't
usually how innovation works.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
That connects to another criticism I've heard about potential racial bias.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
Yes, that's a very strong point critics make. They noticed
that these shows seemed to disproportionately focus on the accomplishments
of non white cultures Machu Picchu, the Great Wall, Easter Island,
the Pyramids, and attribute those to aliens.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
But not necessarily European achievements.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
Much less often. You don't hear the same theories applied
as frequently to say, Roman aqueducts or Gothic cathedrals. So
it raises uncomfortable questions about why European ingenuity is often
accepted at face value while achievements in other parts of
the world seem to require this extraordinary extraterrestrial explanation.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
That's a really important point to consider.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
What else, well, there's the issue of removing human agency.
More broadly, if you credit aliens with humanity's greatest achievements,
logically you'd also have to hold them responsible for the
terrible things human sacrifice, slavery, war. You can't just pick
the good parts.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
You don't get to cherry pick agency.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
Right, and the shows often ignore actual historical progression. They
present ancient civilizations as these perfect builders who got it
right immediately, but archaeology shows us that wasn't the case.
The Egyptians, for instance, went through stages mastabas, the step pyramid,
the bent Pyramid, lots of trial and error before the
Great Pyramid. Their structures even show patches where mistakes were fixed.
(09:41):
That's normal human learning, yeah.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
Not incident alien perfection.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
And perhaps one of the most worrying impacts is the
erosion of trust in expertise. These programs can make people
suspicious of academics, of universities, of the whole peer review.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Process, fostering a kind of they're hiding something mentality exactly.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
Where so called experts are part of a conspiracy and
people only trust information that confirms what they already believe.
And often the main proponents pushing these theories on the
shows lack actual credentials in archaeology, history, or engineering. They
sometimes use tactics like fire hosing, just overwhelming you with
a mix of facts, half truth and pure fiction, making
(10:21):
it hard.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
To sort out which ultimately just misinforms people. Right, Yeah,
it makes us dumber about actual history, it really does.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
It distracts from the real, often even more amazing stories
of human history and achievement, and it tends to other
these non white civilizations, treating the mystatic, mystical receptacles for
alien wisdom rather than complex evolving cultures with their own agency.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
Okay, so we've thoroughly unpacked the problems with how shows
like Ancient Aliens frame these things, particularly around agency and history.
But let's separate that specific, often flawed narrative from the
much older deeper human experience of well seeing weird stuff
in the sky.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Right, because the ancient alien theory as presented on TV
is one thing. But the phenomenon of reporting unexplained aerial
sightings hmmm, that goes back millennia. It's not a modern invention.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
This underlying fascination, this reporting of the unexplained, it's ancient itself,
isn't it.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Absolutely if you look back, you find reports that sound
like what we'd now call uap throughout history.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
It just shows this ongoing human attempt to make sense
of things they see but can't immediately.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
Explain, Like what, what are some early examples.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Well, you've got things like the Tillu papyrus from ancient
Egypt around fourteen fifty BC, supposedly describing fiery objects in
the sky. Ancient Roman writers like Livy recorded accounts of
phantom ships gleaming in the sky, or round shields parmas flying.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
Overhead shields in the sky.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
Yeah, or sparks falling from stars that grew huge, flame
like jars in the air. They used the language and
concepts of their time.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
Of course, fascinating, and it continued into later periods.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Oh, yes, there's a famous account from medieval Ireland round
seven forty AD, the airship of klonmac Noise, mentioning actual
ships with crews seen sailing in the air.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
Sailing in the air. Wow.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
And then you get events like the fifteen sixty one
Nuremberg celestial phenomenon. People reported seeing hundreds of spheres, cylinders
and crosses having some kind of aerial battle, or a
similar event in Basil, Switzerland in fifteen sixty six. They
were interpreted then as divine warnings or battles.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
Naturally, so the interpretations change, but the reports of strange
aerial things persist. What about more modern times.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
The nineteenth century had waves of mystery airship sightings across
the US. Then during World War Two, Allied pilots consistently
reported Foo fighters, these strange, colorful balls of light that
seemed to follow their planes.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
I have heard of Foo fighters.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
Then post War nineteen forty seven you get the Roswell incident,
huge controversy, inditially announced as a captured flying saucer and
quickly retracted and called a weather balloon. That really kicked
off the modern UFO era in the public mind.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
The classic cover up narrative starts there really.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
Pretty much, and there were major incidents involving the military,
like the nineteen fifty two Washington DC sidings over consecutive weekends,
radar confirmations jets scrambled. It led the CIA to form
the Robertson Panel to study the issue.
Speaker 1 (13:11):
Did they conclude anything.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
They basically advised the government to debunk UFO reports and
strip them of their special status to reduce public interest,
partly out of concern they could clog intelligence channels or
cause mass hysteria.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
Interesting any other significant military or pilot sightings loads.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
The nineteen fifty six Lakenheath bent Waters incident in the
UK involved radar tracking and a pilot reporting visually intercepting
a bright object that performed incredible maneuvers. After Gordon Cooper
reported seeing craft both over Germany in the fifties and
later at Edward's.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
Air Force Base an astronaut YEP, and.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
More recently the Randelschamp Forest incident in nineteen eighty in
the UK, where US Air Force personnel near RIF bases
reported strange lights, saw a metallic triangular object and even
recorded higher radiation levels supposed landing site.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
These military reports seem harder to just dismiss.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
They often are, especially when involving multiple witnesses, radar, or
physical traces. And it's not just Western reports. There's a
really intriguing declassified CIA document from nineteen ninety one.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
Oh what's that?
Speaker 2 (14:16):
It details a top secret KGB intelligence report about an
alleged UFO crash in Ukraine back in nineteen eighty nine.
Speaker 1 (14:23):
A crash like Roswell, but in the Soviet Union.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
According to this KGB report, yes, a saucer shaped object crashed.
Five small humanoids with large heads and big black eyes
supposedly emerged, and get this, two soldiers who approach were
somehow instantly petrified, turned into stone poles.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Petrified, seriously, that's.
Speaker 2 (14:39):
What the alleged KGB report claimed. They concluded it was
an extremely menacing case and that these beings possessed weapons
and technology that go beyond all our assumptions. Now whether
that report itself is genuine or accurate is another question,
but the fact that it exists in intelligence files is well, wow.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
That's quite something. It shows how seriously these things have
been taken behind the scenes, regardless of the public narrative.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
It certainly does, though it's also worth noting that Statistically,
the most common description in UFO or UAP reports is
simply lights or unknown shapes, not necessarily crash saucers or
petrified soldiers.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
Right. So, okay, we have this incredibly long history of
sightings ranging from vague lights to truly bizarre official reports.
How do we even begin to sort through this? How
do we tell genuine unknowns from misinterpretations, hoaxes, or just
mundane stuff? And how do actual experts approach this?
Speaker 2 (15:36):
That really is the million dollar question, isn't it? The
first step is acknowledging that many, probably most reported sightings
do have conventional explanations, like what weather balloons are a
classic military aircraft, especially experimental ones or exercises people aren't
aware of, like the Phoenix lights incident largely coinciding with
Air National Guard training flights, dropping flares, natural phenomena like
(15:58):
marsh gas ball lightning, even flocks of birds or insects
reflecting light can be mistaken for something stranger or just
conventional aircraft flying information looking weird from a distance.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
So rigorous investigation often finds a normal explanation.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
Often yes, And that's how science approaches speculation too. Look
at Uma Mua that interstellar object that passed through our solar.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
System, right, the weird cigar shaped one exactly.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
Some scientists, notably Avi Lobe, speculated it could be an
alien probe because of its unusual acceleration, but the broader
scientific consensus, while admitting it strange, hasn't found compelling evidence
to support the alien tech hypothesis. Most lean towards natural explanations,
even if they are unusual ones. That's the scientific method hypothesis, investigation, evidence,
(16:44):
peer review, refinement.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
So speculation is okay, but it needs to be backed
by evidence precisely.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
And it's really important for people to know that serious
academic study of extraterrestrial intelligence ETI and UAP does exist.
It's not all relicated to fringe theories or sensationalist TV.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
There are actual academics working on this.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Yes, there are philosophers working on the implications of astrobiology,
anthropologists studying the cultural impact of these beliefs, physicists considering
the possibilities. There's even a book called Extraterrestrial Intelligence that
makes a solid case for why ETI and UAP deserves serious,
rigorous study within academia.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
What makes their approach different methodology?
Speaker 2 (17:25):
It all comes down to the methods used. Real scholarly
authority doesn't just come from having a PhD or being
at a university. It comes from the rigor and transparency
of the research methods used to arrive at a conclusion.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
Unlike the fire hosing tactic you mentioned earlier.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
Exactly the contrast is stark. Pseudoscientific approaches often lack credentials
in the relevant fields, rely on cherry pick data, ignore context,
and aim to persuade through rhetoric rather than evidence. Rigorous
inquiry is about careful analysis, considering all evidence, acknowledging uncertainties,
and being open to changing conclusions based on new data.
Speaker 1 (18:03):
This whole journey beyond infographics really does hammer home that difference,
doesn't it The gap between a really compelling story and
actual verifiable information. It does, and it's also, weirdly a
reminder of the incredible things humanity has actually achieved all
on our own, through our own ingenuity and hard work
over millennia.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
That's a fantastic point. Sometimes the truth of human history
and capability is even more amazing than the extraordinary explanations
offered for it.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
So we've covered a lot of ground from ancient astronaut
theories and the problematic aspects to the long history of
unexplained sightings and the difference between rigorous inquiry and pseudoscience.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
We have it's clear that while the unknown will always
fascinate us, understanding the how and the why behind the
information we consume is crucial.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
And maybe appreciating the incredible documented ingenuity of our ancestors
is just as profound, if not more so.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Absolutely, ultimately, the stories we choose to believe about our past,
about our place at the cosmos, they really shape how
we see ourselves and our potential. Critical thinking isn't meant
to kill the wonder.
Speaker 1 (19:06):
No, it's about channeling it right.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Exactly, channeling it towards genuine understanding, genuine discovery, and respecting
the very real, very human journey that got us here.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
Thank you so much for joining us on this deep
dive today.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
It was a pleasure. Always fascinating stuff to unpack. What
really stands out to you from all this?
Speaker 1 (19:24):
Hmm, that's a good question, maybe something for all of
us to ponder as we go about our day. What
is our enduring fascination with these ideas, ancient aliens, UFOs,
the unexplained, What does it really tell us about ourselves,
about our hopes, our fears, and maybe our sense of
place in this vast universe.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.