Narrator: "Ancient Aliens" is an American

television series which premiered on April

20th, 2010 on the History Channel.

The program presents the so-called

"ancient astronaut" theory which is

the idea that extraterrestrials

visited the Earth in the ancient past

and that historical texts, archaeological

records, and various legends contain

evidence of this contact. I used to

believe that the ancient astronaut theory

was true. I spent years learning about it

from the popular authors, from video

presentations and radio shows. I was an

enthusiastic promoter of this idea to my

friends and family. Although I no longer

feel that way, I want you to know that I

have no personal reasons to reject

this theory. My current worldview could

easily accommodate the existence

of extraterrestrials. I hope you will come

away from this film, even if you disagree

with it, saying that I fairly reviewed the

claims of "Ancient Aliens" without bias

and with respect. I hope to show you that

this is not a matter of "Ancient Aliens"

getting a few details wrong here and

there, and their main premise remaining

true. That is not an option in my opinion.

I hope to demonstrate to you, that they

are wrong not on some, but on every single

point where they assert an ancient

astronaut theory to explain evidence and

that often, they are using deceptive means

to do this and sometimes even fabricating

evidence to make their points, as we will

see. I would also like the viewer to know

that unlike many skeptics of the ancient

astronaut theory, I actually concede that

something out of the ordinary could have

occurred in the ancient past, and that

there are certain consistent themes in

ancient mythologies and the like that

require good explanations, but I think

that you will quickly see that the ancient

astronaut theories do not explain this

evidence. You will notice a number that

appears periodically on the bottom right-

hand corner of the screen throughout this

film. This number will appear when I am

making a claim that requires a reference

in order to back it up, and it will

correspond to a number on the companion

website, AncientAliensDebunked.com. This

film is divided into three main sections,

and each topic can be viewed independently

at the website, if you choose. I will

occasionally be joined by commentary from

Dr. Michael Heiser, one of the few actual

scholars who has been willing to interact

with the ancient astronaut theory. Dr.

Heiser has been one of the most articulate

proponents of the skeptical viewpoint of

this theory, and has written papers and

books, as well as almost a dozen websites

on the issues we will be covering in this

film. We are happy to have him as part of

this film, and we are happy to have you,

the viewer, here as well. I encourage you

to have an open mind, and enjoy the film.

Brien Foerster: Pumapunku is so unique, in

the way that it was constructed and shaped

and positioned, that it is the most

intriguing ancient site on the planet.

Giorgio Tsoukalos: While the pyramids at

Giza are incredible feat of achievement,

compared to Pumapunku, the pyramids are

childplay. In my opinion, the most

significant piece of evidence that we have

in this entire ancient astronaut puzzle,

is Pumapunku in the highland of Bolivia.

Narrator: Well, if Pumapunku is considered

such good evidence for the ancient

astronaut theory, we should probably

start off by looking at it. After all,

it's the one that they say was built

directly by extraterrestrials.

Tsoukalos: Pumapunku is the only site on

planet Earth that, in my opinion, was

built directly by extraterrestrials.

Narrator: "Ancient Aliens" starts off with

the false dilemma, by making people think

that it was absolutely impossible for

ancient people to construct Pumapunku,

even to the point of making outright false

claims.

Tsoukalos: One of the most intriguing

things there is that the stones that were

used there aren't sandstone. They are

granite and diorite. The only stone that's

harder than diorite is diamond so the only

way that this could have been achieved is

if the tools were tipped with diamonds.

Narrator: This is funny because it's totally

wrong. The stones are not granite or

diorite at Pumapunku. They are red

sandstone and andesite. But this is also

funny because of the way that he says it.

Tsoukalos: The stones that were used there

aren't sandstone. They are granite and

diorite.

Narrator: Well, actually it is sandstone.

You can't blame him, though. It becomes

obvious that throughout the series, he

often just repeats things he's heard in

Erich von Däniken's books. Von Däniken's

books are what the Ancient Aliens series

is based on. Later, we see Erich von

Däniken himself make the exact same

totally wrong claim.

Erich von Däniken: Of course made of

stones found on Earth because you don't

transport granite or diorite from another

solar system.

Narrator: Von Däniken continues building

up this false dilemma.

Däniken: One of these platforms is 800

tons.

Narrator: This is very incorrect. The

heaviest block at Pumapunku is 130 tons

and most of the stones are much smaller

than that so he's off by a whopping 670

tons! Unfortunately, we will come to

expect this kind of thing from von Däniken

as we progress. "Ancient Aliens" spends

quite a lot of time pointing out the

various features in the stonemasonry at

Pumapunku and then declaring it impossible

to do without power tools.

David Hatcher Childress: Each of these

small drill holes are basically evenly

spaced along this routered groove.

To me it's clear power tools have been

used on this unusual block of stone here.

Foerster: Well exactly. This surface is as

smooth as a table top, like in your

kitchen. There's no wave to it or

anything. This was machined.

Narrator: The sandstone and andesite

stones at Pumapunku would have been easily

worked with the most basis stoneworking

tools. The idea that diamond-tipped power

saws were needed is ridiculous. The red

sandstone was relatively soft and easy to

work with and even though andesite is

pretty hard, because of the way it cooled,

it could easily be flaked-off using stones

as soft as 5.5 on the Mohs scale. Such

pounding stones where found all over the

andesite quarries in the area. Contrary to

"Ancient Aliens" claims that

archaeologists are baffled by Pumapunku,

archaeologists know the basics about how

Pumapunku's stones were cut and shaped.

This is partly because there is evidence

for this all over the site itself. They

actually used a method that almost all

ancient stoneworkers used. They used hard

pounding stones to pound-out troughs-like

depressions. Later on, they used flat

stones and sand to grind the stone to make

a polished surface. We will see later on

that this also how the Egyptians thousands

of years before this made their flat

surfaced granite monuments like obelisks.

Sand, as we will see later when we look at

Egypt, has extremely hard particles in it

and if placed between a flat surface and

a rock, can polish even the hardest stones

known to man. In fact, the harder the

stone is, the better it can be polished

using sand. We will also see how sand can

turn a piece of copper into a very

efficient granite saw or granite drill, a

method which the Egyptians utilized quite

well. Some stones as Pumapunku that

"Ancient Aliens" would never show the

cameras are the ones that are in the

middle of this process. They show that at

same time a stone was being pounded with

stone hammers, which created these trough-

like depressions, the grinding and

polishing was taking place on the other

end of the stone. Unfinished stones like

this one clearly show how they were shaped

and it wasn't with lasers. There is also

unmistakable evidence of stone hammers

having been used in places that were never

meant to be visible, like where certain

stones would be connected with one another

And because of that, it's hard for me to

believe Erich von Däniken in this next

clip because it would mean that the alien

toolbox had a laser gun right next to a

stone hammer.

Däniken: Extraterrestrials arrive, the

spaceship stands in orbit. Only a smaller

space vehicle comes down like a space

shuttle. So, just to protect the

instruments, they make overnight, with

their technology, what we call a "base

camp." Of course made out of stones found

on Earth, because you don't transport

granite or diorite from another solar

system. And then they disappeared, but the

wall of their base camp is still there.

Narrator: It is true that stone tools

would not be enough to construct Pumapunku

especially for some of the finer points.

For that, they would need metal chisels

and the equivalent of a carpenter's square

Entire studies have been done detailing

how these cuts were made, and nothing

spectacular is required except some metal

tools like chisels. The arguments against

this are usually either that a particular

culture did not yet know how to cast

metals, or that copper chisels would have

been too weak. On the first point, we know

that the pre-Incan Andean culture was very

skilled at fashioning metals and creating

metal alloys. In fact, the people who

built Pumapunku were even pouring copper

alloys into molds right on site, showing

that they had more than enough capability

to form all kinds of metal tools. But the

question is, what about the tools'

strength? Well, even if they were pouring

pure copper into a mold, it would still

work, but it would need sharpening often.

But because archaeologists actually found

a few of these metal cramps used by them

on site, we now know they were using a

very strong copper-arsenic-nickel alloy,

which made a much stronger final product.

Arsenic acts as a deoxidant, preventing

the metal from becoming too brittle, and

nickel was used in copper alloys,

specifically to make strong chisels.

Once you understand that they had the

ability to make strong metal tools in a

huge variety of shapes, there is no part

of Pumapunku's stonework that would have

been too difficult for them. Well, what

about these 90 degree right angles that

"Ancient Aliens" makes so much about?

Childress: One of the amazing things here

at Pumapunku is the precision of the

blocks. You can see with this block of

granite, that it's really been cut at very

accurate right angles.

Narrator: To make flat surfaces with right

angles, you don't need alien technology.

You only need a square or a simple

equivalent. It's important to keep in mind

that Pumapunku would have been built

thousands of years after the Egyptians,

who had all kinds of squares and

plumb-bobs and levels and so on. It's a

pretty basic stoneworking tool. That being

said, despite what "Ancient Aliens" says,

Pumapunku is not all perfect right angles.

You can even see this, ironically enough,

as the "Ancient Aliens" crew goes around

with carpenter's squares. You can see that

some of them are simply not square. Also,

they make claims like "all the H-blocks

are the same dimensions," which they say

suggests that they were made by a big

machine. But not only would that not be

the only conclusion if it were true. It's

not even true. The dimensions of the

H-blocks are not all the same, though they

are close. It's probably the case that

they were made using the same plans.

Speaking of plans,

Tsoukalos: Mainstream archaeologists say

that Pumapunku was built by the Aymara

Indians, and we would all have to agree

that in order to build something like

Pumapunku, you need writing, you need

planning, and you need some sort of a idea

where which piece goes and how it

ultimately all fits together. But there is

one thing that all the mainstream

archaeologists agree upon, that the Aymara

didn't have any writing. So how is it

possible that they built all of this

without plans?

Narrator: The builders of Pumapunku may

not have had an alphabet, but they did use

the common iconography or artwork of their

culture called "Yaya-Mama." All the icons

on the site are Yaya-Mama, not secret

alien code, and this is but one of the

many indications of the culture and time

that it was built. But my point is, that

like many cultures, they used pictures

instead of an alphabet and most building

plans are done through pictures like

blueprints, for example. So saying that no

alphabet means no planning is pretty

ridiculous in my opinion. Well, what about

moving the stones and lifting them into

place? Surely that would have required

levitation.

Childress: How these massive blocks of

granite were moved from their quarries

and brought here to Pumapunku would have

required some kind of super technology:

levitation and anti-gravity, huge lifting

vehicles, something that ancient aliens

would have had.

Narrator: If they did know how to levitate

these stones, then they put far too much

effort into creating places in the stones

to attach ropes to. Many stones at

Pumapunku have grooves several

centimeters in width and depth on two

adjacent faces for holding ropes. They

even had special places cut into the

stones that Pumapunku scholars call

"hoisting grips," all very strange things

to do if they could simply levitate these

blocks. And to make matters worse for the

ancient astronaut theory here, according

to archaeologist Jean-Pierre Protzen, who

is an expert on Pumapunku, there is almost

no stone at the Pumapunku site that does

not have what he calls "drag marks" on

one of its faces where it has been, well,

dragged to the site. "Ancient Aliens"

throws up another false dilemma here.

Tsoukalos: What nobody talks about here

is the irrefutable fact that we are at an

altitude of 12,800 feet which means we are

above the natural tree line. No trees ever

grew in that area, meaning no trees were

cut down in order to use wooden rollers.

The wooden roller theory falls by the

wayside.

Narrator: This is like saying that there

is not way the Egyptians used wood because

trees didn't grow in Egypt, which is true.

The difference is is that while the

Egyptians had to import wood from places

like Lebanon, it would have been far

easier for those at Pumapunku to solve

this problem. All they would have had to

do is simply walk down the hill a little

bit. OK, well what about this claim:

Tsoukalos: Logic does not exist at

Pumapunku because there, we have

megalithic structures which just lie about

this entire site as if ripped apart by

some sort of a great force.

Narrator: I propose that logic still

exists at Pumapunku and that the scattered

state of the complex can easily be

explained. Quoting from archaeologist

Alexei Vranich "the high quality of the

stones made it attractive building

material for houses, churches, plazas,

bridges, even railways." In other words,

the stones were pulled down and hauled off

by locals for building material. In fact,

we have the 400 year old writings of a

visitor to Pumapunku who said that the

looting was in full swing even back then.

He wrote that if the site was closer to

town, he didn't think that there would

have been any stones left at all.

"Ancient Aliens" says that Pumapunku is

17,000 years old. This is what Vranich

said of this claim: "The idea that

Tiwanaku is 14,000 years old is based on

a rather faulty study done in 1926. Since

then, there has been a huge quantity of

work both on the archaeology and geology

of the area and all data indicates that

Tiwanaku existed from around A.D. 300 to

500." For more information on the faulty

study he is referring to here, I will

quote at length from Jason Colavito,

who has been debunking ancient astronaut

theories for years in his books and blogs.

He said the following about this claim:

"Tiwanaku is not 17,000 years old. This

date derives from the work of Arthur

Posnansky, who tried to apply

archaeolastronomy to the site but did so

in ways that modern scholars do not

recognize as legitimate. Posnansky

proposed a date of 15,000 B.P. (before

present, i.e. 13,000 BCE), which the

geniuses on "Ancient Aliens" misread as

15,000 BCE, adding an extra 2,000 years

onto Posnansky's already flawed dates.

Here's what he did wrong. Posnansky

assumed that the Kalasasaya temple at

Tiwanaku was laid out with perfect

accuracy to align to the equinoxes and

solstices that he felt (but could not

prove) were important to the Tiwanaku

people. Thus, on a certain day the sun was

supposed to rise above one rock at the

temple and set behind another. (Ah, but

which rock should we choose?) Since the

current ruins do not align with these

celestial events accurately, he concluded

that the ruins must have been built at a

time when they would have aligned with

that event. Since the sun and sky change

positions at a predictable rate due to the

gradual changes in the angle of the

Earth's axis, he concluded that the

Kalasasaya temple was built in 13,000 BCE

as a solar observatory, despite no other

evidence of solar astronomy at the site.

The long and the short of it is that

Posnansky assumed celestial alignments and

assumed flawless construction and then

used his assumptions to "prove" that his

assumptions were correct." Colavito also

has this picture of the site with the

caption, "Pick a rock, any rock. One of

them must align with something." This

site has been dated using a huge variety

of methods, things like carbon dating,

the type of metals they used, the debris

found in certain places, the type of

iconography they used. Literally every

kind of dating method applied comes to the

same conclusion. It was constructed in the

early Middle Ages. Before we conclude this

section on Pumapunku, there are two other

claims I wanted to address.

Däniken: The Spanish conqueror asked the

Inca, the people living there, including

the king of the Inca, 'What is this

Pumapunku?' And they all said 'It's not

us. Its not our forefather who make this.

This were made by the gods in one single

night.' Usually a king is proud about

what his people did, about the precision

and so on. In that case, the chief of the

people said 'No, it was not us. It was

the gods who made it.'

Narrator: If you understand a little about

the Incan imperial system and religion,

you will understand why the Incans didn't

claim the site, and even why they claimed

that it had a supernatural origin. Part

of the Incan state religion was that the

Incan empire was the first civilization

and it was created by God Himself. It was

a very convenient idea for bolstering the

Incan case for the right to rule everyone

else. When the Incans arrived at

Pumapunku, the site had already been

abandoned for at least a hundred years.

Admitting that there was a pre-Incan

culture at all, let alone one with more

skill than them, would have been

detrimental to the whole scheme. So they

slightly modified their already existing

mythology to include Pumapunku. So instead

of Viracocha creating the Incan capital,

he also created Pumapunku. And just like

that, the Incans were still the oldest and

greatest civilization, even though

everyone probably knew it wasn't true.

And finally, "Ancient Aliens" says the

following about what the ancient local

people believed regarding who constructed

Pumapunku:

"Ancient Aliens" Narrator: Local legends

suggest that Tiwanaku was built as a site

of religious pilgrimage to celebrate the

arrival of sky gods.

Narrator: But this is a total lie.

Viracocha came from the sea, not from the

sky. This is a very sneaky move by

"Ancient Aliens" in my opinion.

So in conclusion, the stones are not made

of granite and diorite, the stones were

easily workable with the tools available

to the Andean culture, tools which we

know included high-quality metal alloy

chisels. These tools would have been more

than sufficient to make the angles seen at

Pumapunku. The faces of the rocks have

been finished using a polishing technique

after being rough cut using stone hammers

evidenced by the unfinished stones and

hidden areas of the finished stones. The

moving of the stones was not as difficult

as "Ancient Aliens" makes it seem,

especially when you take into account that

they are telling people that the stones

weigh 600 tons more that they actually do.

The stones have telltale drag marks and

hoisting holes for ropes, all showing that

they were not levitated as "Ancient Aliens

would have us believe. We know the culture

which built this monument and all the

iconography and sculptures are consistent

with that culture. And the various methods

of dating that scientists use all point

to the same time period. The idea that

Pumapunku was from Atlantean times we

now know is based on a very transparently

flawed presupposition.

AA Narrator: Perhaps the most familiar

and most mysterious megalithic structure

in all the world is the Great Pyramid of

Giza. The enormous size and weight of the

stones, multiplied by the sheer number of

them, makes one thing certain: the

construction of the Great Pyramid remains

one of the greatest marvels and mysteries

of architectural engineering.

Narrator: The Pyramids at Giza are marvels

of engineering, and there are many

theories about how they were constructed,

from the mundane to the fantastic.

George Noory: There are all kinds of

theories on how the Great Pyramid of Giza

was built. So many theories, you just sit

back and shake your head. And that

includes E.T. visitations, levitating the

blocks with some kind of sound system.

Narrator: One place we can learn a lot

about Egyptian stone cutting methods is

from the so-called "unfinished obelisk."

Here we have a 1,000 ton obelisk made of

granite, which was abandoned midway

through the project because of a crack

that developed. This stone, because it is

unfinished, gives us direct insight into

how they cut and shaped granite, as well

as other stones. On the sides we can see

how these stones were separated from the

quarry. A team of workers would line up

side-by-side and pound their sections

with a diorite pounding stone. Such

pounding stones can be found all over this

and other quarries in Egypt. This pounding

only broke off millimeters of granite at a

time, but eventually these trough-like

sections emerged at each worker's station.

After that, they would do the same thing

on the bottom of the block, until it was

supported only by a thin spine in the

middle. Then it would be snapped off using

levers. The people who created the Moai

statues at Easter Island used very similar

methods for quarrying stone, as did many

other groups around the world, as we will

see. After the stones had been roughly

shaped using pounding stones, they would

then begin to polish them with grinders.

There have been many types of stone

grinders or polishers found in ancient

Egypt. They usually had a handle with a

flat surface, which they would use to rub

against the stone with sand as the

abrasive. They were, well, sanding the

stone. The various mineral particles found

in sand are hard enough not only to polish

hard stones like granite, but also to do

what "Ancient Aliens" tries to make people

think is utterly impossible. That is, to

cut granite. The Egyptians had a variety

of ways to cut granite, mostly involving

copper and sand. There are plenty of saw

marks on granite stones in Egypt. At the

granite quarries, of course, as well as

certain notable ones like the famous

granite sarcophagus in the Great Pyramid.

The person who is doing the sawing on the

sarcophagus sawed for a while at the wrong

angle before realizing his mistake and

going in the right direction, which left

a pretty big mark for us to study. These

copper saws came in three basic styles.

One was a two-person saw, like an old-time

lumber saw. Another type was a small hand-

held saw with a wooden handle. And finally

there was a tubular saw for making holes

in granite and other stones. These saws

are depicted in several Egyptian reliefs.

Interestingly, they didn't require saw

teeth to work. They only required sand to

be placed between the saw and the stones.

The sand was what did the cutting. This

particular method of stone cutting has

been tested by ancient Egyptian tool

experts, and not only was it done, but it

was apparently quite easy to do. However,

sawing granite with copper was expensive

because the copper would wear out somewhat

quickly. Therefore, you mostly see granite

in ancient Egypt being worked with

pounding stones, finished with grinders

and chisels. The saw work was reserved

primarily for royal projects like that of

the sarcophagus. All of this really makes

"Ancient Aliens" lose credibility because

all throughout the series, they make it

sound like working with granite was only

possible using diamond-tipped alien power

tools. But, as all this related to the

Great Pyramid's construction, it's

important to remember that almost none of

the pyramid is made from granite, except

for a few things like the roof supports

for the King's Chamber. Most of the stone

was sandstone and limestone. About 85%

of the stone used in the construction of

the pyramids was relatively soft sandstone

which was quarried right on site. That's

right, the Great Pyramid was built right

in the middle of a massive sandstone

quarry, which was no doubt at least one

factor in choosing the location to build

it. The other 15% of the stones, like that

of limestone and granite, would have to be

brought in from a slightly further away

location. So, this raises another question

What about moving these stones? Surely,

the only way is by levitation, as "Ancient

Aliens" claims.

Childress: In order to really move massive

amounts of stone like that, they would

have had to been levitated. Somehow made

weightless and then just moved through the

air by some kind of device, perhaps even a

hand-held kind of device, like some beam

weapon.

Narrator: If levitation was the way that

the ancient Egyptians moved stones, they

had a funny way of showing it because

there are plenty of depictions of them

using wooden sleds to move everything from

blocks the size and shape of the ones used

for the pyramid, to massive 1,000 ton

monuments and obelisks, all using wooden

sleds. They even had a hieroglyph for the

word "sled," which they used often. In

fact, three such sleds have been found

intact by archaeologists and they have all

kinds of places to attach ropes to.

Speaking of ropes, ropes made out of

papyrus and other materials have been

found in Egypt, some of them with a

massive circumference, suggesting they

were used for extremely heavy objects.

Boats were used for stones that needed

to be imported. In fact, a channel was

dug from the Nile to the construction site

so no stone had to be dragged very far

anyway. So, what about the construction

of the pyramids, how exactly was it done?

Part of the reason the "Ancient Aliens"

perspective is attractive is because some

of the other popular theories concerning

the pyramid's construction have problems,

such as the single ramp theory, which

would have had to extend out more than a

mile and would have had to have more

stones in it than the pyramid itself.

Another one is the spiral ramp theory.

This one is problematic because some of

the ledges only had about 2 feet or less

to work with, certainly not enough to hold

a ledge that would carry workers and

stones the size of the ones used. Also,

a structure like the pyramid would have

had to have been constantly monitored for

geometric accuracy as it progressed

upwards, because being even a few inches

off on a lower level could cause the top

to be off by a huge amount, and a spiral

ramp would have made it impossible to

survey the geometric accuracy of the

pyramid as it progressed. Add to this that

there is no actual evidence for either of

those theories, and you can see why people

are looking for alternative. While doing

research for this documentary, I came

across a new theory about the pyramid's

construction that I had not heard before.

At first I planned to mention it only

briefly, but the more I heard of this

theory, the more convinced I became of

its validity. It was proposed not by an

Egyptologist, but by an eccentric French

architect named Jean-Pierre Houdin, and if

Jean-Pierre is correct, knowing how the

blocks were raised in the pyramid also

happens to explain some of the other

mysteries, like the purpose for the odd

shaped Grand Gallery, as well as the

purpose of the granite blocks above the

King's Chamber, and why there were 3

burial chambers cut at different levels

in the pyramid, 2 of which were unused.

I will very briefly explain this theory

but I highly encourage you to visit the

links at the website on your screen

because the specifics of this theory are

something that any pyramid enthusiast

should be very familiar with, in my

opinion. The basic idea is that there was

an internal ramp in the Great Pyramid and

workers dragged the blocks through it

until they reached the corners, at which

point the the block was repositioned for

another team to pull it up the next ramp.

Also, the exterior limestone blocks with

the polished finish would have been

positioned and aligned first to ensure

geometric accuracy and then the sandstone

blocks would have been positioned behind

them as filler. This would mean that all

the internal chambers like the Queen and

King's Chamber were built as the pyramid

progressed upward in the light of day.

This internal ramp theory, unlike some of

the others, is actually supported quite a

lot of physical evidence. For example,

in the 1980's, a French team looking for

hidden chambers conducted a full-scale

gravimetric survey of the Great Pyramid,

kind of like a giant x-ray map of the

entire pyramid. They actually found

evidence of this internal ramp through

their study, but they had no idea what to

think of the spiral pattern they saw at

the time, so they