See Text Version of Website


Comments for Dumbass Podcast #2: Ancient Aliens Part 1

Re: Dumbass Randomness.

Thanks for the suggestion! I've tried to mix things up a little more in later episodes, I hope I've succeeded.
posted by Dumbass at Tuesday, 22 January 2013 16:05:44 EST 4:05pm

Dumbass Randomness.

Hi, I'm just listening 2 your 2nd podcast and I think you need more randomness, you said you stumble on your words but on a podcast you can act like your not talking to anyone because there's none in front of you Looking forward to listening to the rest.

posted by Squallzy at Saturday, 12 January 2013 18:21:07 EST 6:21pm

Re:Missing characters

Thanks for pointing that out to me I thought I'd fixed that problem.
posted by Dumbass at Thursday, 6 September 2012 12:57:22 EST 12:57am

Missing characters

Your comment system seems to remove some characters...
www.dumbassguide.infoindex.phpentryblogid137 SLASH index.php SLASH entry SLASH blog UNDERSCORE id EQUALS 137
posted by HalfMad at Thursday, 6 September 2012 07:26:13 EST 7:26am

Re: More episodes!

Hey HalfMad,

I'm very sorry to keep you waiting. There are a few things that have held me up from podcasting, but I promise you another episode is in the works.

In the meantime, perhaps you'd enjoy this video I took of me rambling on and complaining like a crotchety old man about the pseudoscience I come across when I go out shopping:

posted by Dumbass at Saturday, 1 September 2012 13:10:26 EST 1:10pm

More episodes!

One episode every few months is far too few. When will the next episode be released?
posted by HalfMad at Wednesday, 29 August 2012 08:38:05 EST 8:38am

jets or no jets

Mr. Dumbass,
I think you actually make some very good points. The documentary makes very good points as well. Personally, I think the objects such as the golden flier is meant to be a representation of animals that the ancients have seen. If they were really alien in origin, even if we were the ones making them ourselves, we wouldn't be seeing things like jets or vehicles with tails or anything like that. we'd be seeing something completely different from that. Maybe disks or wedges. The golden fliers are merely stylized representations of animals possibly with a little artistic license. Also, it's no coincidence that ancient people all over the world came up with similar designs for flyinggliding objects. Birds and moths live everywhere. It's the same with the pyramids. It's pretty easy to pile blocks on top of each other. I've even done it.
posted by Tony at Monday, 27 August 2012 15:52:21 EST 3:52pm

slow down~

Hi dumbass,

Your article was filled with sarcasm and seemed to follow a rather strange scale of how literal you took the information presented in this video. It's like, you mock the video for it taking the evidences or artefacts for their face value, taking them literally as what they are, but you ignore the fact that that they might have been just, what they were - models of the real thing.

To answer your question on why it couldn't be just a cute toy, just because a large sized object flies doesn't mean that an equivalent small model of exact scaled dimensions would as well. This is because of the Reynolds number effect. The nature of the flow is largely dependent on the Reynolds number, and for two identical but differently scaled objects to have to same flow characteristics, they must share the same Reynolds number. This is why scaling in wind tunnels is sometimes difficult especially with small models, and adjustments to the local velocities have to be made. A smaller model would have to be run at a higher speed. Not to mention their lift/drag/weight ratios would have to be kept similar. A 2x model would often weigh more than twice the original model, and lift/drag are not linearly proportional.

It appears to me that the Saqqara bird wouldn't have flown as a model of that size because it's wings are too small to support the model's weight. For me, the point that nailed it was the vertical fin. There is no way you would realize directional stability would be required, which the vertical fins would serve if you did not build and fly the aircraft. Birds do not have it. If it were a representation of birds, even with the dream to fly, the vertical fin does not make sense. People don't create something out of nothing. The model is as simple as it can get.

Since it was just a model, the actual thing could have working control surfaces, a hollowed fuselage or something along those lines. A glider without control surfaces is rather pointless and would not make sense.

You are right that people have thought about flying and have attempted to fly before the Wright Brothers. Majority of these were gliders, but the concept was often flawed. They featured wings that tried to 'flap' or imitate birds (resulting in many deaths unfortunately, of people running off cliffs). The knowledge of wings that were fixed and structurally arranged like that was nothing like the model.

By questioning that the fact that ancient Egyptians had alien intervention by having these types of gliders, there is a failure to comprehend the amount of knowledge in fluid dynamics and flight theory to create something like that. It's not about copying something and improving on it, it's about creating something from scratch.

For the Columbian models, I don't discount that such a species of fish could have existed and could have been extinct before it was documented. Much of our history and the types of living organisms that have existed is still largely unknown.

You also ignore that the 'faces' and weird patterns could have been paintings or decals of the aircraft, or features such as access covers, refuelling ports or windows which could have resembled as eyes and mouths from a distance. The model with the mouth seems to have more detail on the leading edges of both the wings and horizontal stabilizers, which are today known as slats and slots, although it has a bluff body and seems to be a slow mover. The tapering or streamlining of the other model with delta-shaped wings is remarkably a very aerodynamic design used for high speed flights.

Again, one does not simply create something without in-depth knowledge of fluid and flight dynamics. it is simply impossible.

Also, having an engine and propeller directed to the tail fin is a design used today, along with many other configurations (engines at the back, on the top of fuselages, both in pusher and puller configurations, etc).

Lastly, just because they used propellers and ducted fans for the models doesn't mean that the supposedly aliens would have used that. No where did it say that the aliens came down in propeller planes to greet the Columbians. The Columbians might not have represented the propulsion system in their simple, though detailed model. We cannot imply that just because we have propellers and jets for our planes, that the supposed aliens had to have used the same powerplants.

It seems to me that you have jumped to conclusions quicker than the people in the show jumped to their conclusions on ancient aliens. Perhaps you need to slow down and take a step back to see the bigger picture. Take into consideration of their supposed knowledge of things and the technology used at that time, these models or more specifically the ideas, are simply too accurate and well ahead of their time.
posted by alien at Tuesday, 13 December 2011 12:45:37 EST 12:45am

Re: dumbass

Hi Janarchy, thanks for stopping by.

Sure, a 5 or 6 year old might compare that figure to a jet. A 5 or 6 year old would also compare a maxi pad to a jet. There's an AFV video that illustrates this point, where the mother walks in on her child who has her maxi pads stuck all over the place. When she asks what he's doing, the kid innocently tells her that he's playing with the airplane stickers.

I've gone over these arguments quite thoroughly in my later podcasts, you might particularly want to pay attention to the email segment of episode 5. The jet theory just doesn't have a leg to stand on. I think the biggest sign that it's all just nonsense is when you look at the other supposed jet candidates. They are clearly meant to be mythical animal type figures:

As for the number of fins on sharks, I'm perfectly aware that they have extra fins, but those fins are so small as to be almost vestigial.

If you don't think that those six fins, as large and shaped as they are are unusual, then I don't think you've lost touch with reality. But I've maintained that I'm willing to be proven wrong on this one, and if you can find any picture of a shark or fish with fins anything like these then I will concede the point.

I've seen many people try, and they sometimes come up with fish with four large dorsal fins or things like that. But in the end, none of them look anything like this figurine. It's obviously a work based on the imagination of the craftsman, and not based on direct observations of any real animal.

I don't see any reason why theories of advanced technology in building the pyramids make more sense than what actually happened, that the Egyptians used plain old manpower to move and place these blocks. And I think it's pretty clear that you haven't poked any holes in my arguments or shown that anything I've said is unsound.

I encourage you to listen to more of my podcasts and read more of my articles on ancient aliens. Perhaps you can be brought around to realizing that the ancient alien theory just doesn't have a leg to stand on.
posted by Dumbass at Thursday, 7 July 2011 17:39:46 EST 5:39pm


To say that these ancient artifacts look nothing like modern day fighter jets is absurd. Iím quite sure if you were to show the two artifacts featured on your blog to any 5 or 6 year old kid and asked what they looked like, they would say a plane or a jet. And you have lost me completely when you say no fish has six fins. Really? Have you ever looked at even half of the 457 species of sharks, they have 2 dorsal fins and 2 sets of pectoral fins. The only peculiar thing about the Columbian fish artifact is that it has a horizontal tail fin rather than a vertical one that most fish poses. And the person above that says we do know how the pyramids were built is referring to we have theories of how they were built and those theories do not include magic or extraterrestrials, but the theories that do refer to technologies we donít know about today make much more sense. Iím not saying youíre wrong, Iím just saying your arguments are not sound. I will tune in for more of your posts.
posted by janarchy at Thursday, 7 July 2011 15:23:46 EST 3:23pm

Pyramids, for example

While one careless error doesn't necessarily mean that the error-maker is totally wrong on all counts, here's one major error that might:
"we have no Idea how pyramids were build " Sorry, but WHO has no such idea? In fact, archaeologists have excellent and very practicable ideas about how they were built, none of which require magic, aliens, or woo of any sort but just good old standard math and physics that have been well-understood by humans for millenia. If you yourself don't know, perhaps you could look it up on science-based or scholarly sites, rather than burying your synapses in woo.
posted by Cassandra Was Right at Tuesday, 31 May 2011 08:38:44 EST 8:38am


For you to say that those don't look like jets your smoking something these are ancient times if ancient people saw planes of course they would interpret it as a bird they didn't understand what they saw so they merely used assumption and tried to explain what they saw. There is a gap in human history and evolution isn't the answer obviously considering cro-magnons and Neanderthals and modern man were all living at the same time so we clearly didn't evolve from them and if we had languages and societies how do we not understand what or where we came from our human time on the earth is about one blade of grass on a football field you should do more research on these subjects before you try to disprove scholars that have been to these ancient sites and witnessed the power of the ancient technology you think it's coincidence we have no Idea how pyramids were build when they had the technology of language writing reading and mummification your ignorant and should research more about the annunaki before you get on. The web and try to sound like a genius because you clearly just sound like a dumbass
posted by Kris.z at Saturday, 21 May 2011 01:40:50 EST 1:40am

Re: Untitled

Hey Guest, thanks for stopping by.

I find your observation a little bit puzzling, considering the fact that I never once said during the course of this podcast that I didn't believe in the theory.

Certainly, it's implied that I don't believe in it. But my belief, or lack thereof, in ancient alien intervention plays absolutely no part in any arguments that I've made.

I've only looked at the evidence and and shown that it's inadequate. I'm certainly not refuting anything "merely by saying that I don't believe in it"
posted by Dumbass at Thursday, 16 December 2010 03:06:46 EST 3:06am


i think you're a dumbass yourself. you try to refute the theory by merely saying you don't believe in it.
posted by at Thursday, 16 December 2010 00:44:02 EST 12:44am

Your Comment

:clap: :doh: :hand: :pray: :think: :wall: :D :-/ :cool: :cry: :o :evil: :mad: :| :red: :roll: :( :)
Solve the following simple math problem:



Latest Comments:
On 5/29/2017
at 4:56pm
Anderson wrote:

I enjoy travelling <a href" ">can you buy tinidazole over the counter</a> Attitude is the most important thing...

On 5/29/2017
at 4:02pm
Rudolf wrote:

Stolen credit card <a href" ">purchase chlorpromazine</a> Federal health officials say yes. Studies have clearly established that even...

On 5/29/2017
at 3:19pm
Riley wrote:

Do you know what extension he's on? <a href" ">ofloxacin ear drops buy online</a> Boeing has struggled with...

On 5/29/2017
at 3:06pm
Elton wrote:

I've come to collect a parcel <a href" ">can you buy accutane in uk</a> "Right now, ads on...

On 5/29/2017
at 1:56pm
Darius wrote:

We need someone with qualifications <a href" ">how to use dulcolax suppository video</a> The New Yorkbased show, which...

Blog Entries: