Ancient Aliens, Yes or No?

[Jadzia]

It's not that sitting on the fence is bad. The scientific method would require someone to assume, "no" until proven otherwise. [...] But the null hypothesis is still, "no" until we actually have evidence of a beastie from another world.

The default from me is "don't know".

A default of "no" is biased to how a conjecture is presented:

"Do aliens exist" ... default answer "no"
"Are we alone in the universe" ... default answer "no"
??

First, not all "beliefs" are theologically related, I believe the theory of evolution - see? Not God related at all.

I never mentioned theology, only the fact that a lot of people dislike sitting on the fence, and feel a need to take a side, which is what a belief is.

And you're right, that beliefs apply just as much to secular things as they apply to theological things.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Any technology advanced far beyond our own might seem like magic. (Not going for the exact quote, or who said it, but you get the picture.)

With that in mind, I have often wondered if Earth is being deliberately kept behind a veil, by something like a United Federation of Planets.

When we look outward into space, whether it be with the naked eye or with what we consider to be our most advanced instruments, how do we know that what we are seeing is the way things really are? The reality could be entirely different and we would be none the wiser.

Consider a prison cell with a single window onto the outside world. If those running the prison put up an elaborate 'stage' outside the window, the prisoner would naturally be led into thinking that was reality out there, if he did not know otherwise.

In 'The Mark of Gideon,' did Kirk immediately know that he was on a mock-up of the Enterprise and not on the Enterprise itself? No. Because it was a very elaborate imitation.

I consider myself to be an open-minded skeptic.

In any case, there is a lot to at least think about, without being too quick to reject it.

 

[LitmusDragon]

Mostly no, but I enjoy listening to the arguments of the proponents of these theories. If nothing else they draw attention to some strange archaeological finds I might not have otherwise heard about.

 

[Jenee]

First, not all "beliefs" are theologically related, I believe the theory of evolution - see? Not God related at all.

I never mentioned theology, only the fact that a lot of people dislike sitting on the fence, and feel a need to take a side, which is what a belief is.

And you're right, that beliefs apply just as much to secular things as they apply to theological things.

I know you didn't mention theology, but the post you quoted - that I responded to - that person had mentioned theology. And instead of having 15 multi-quotes (yes, I like to exaggerate), I just quoted yours because I wanted to comment on the fence-sitting, also.

Overall, at least it's been my experience, there are few people here who are willing to say outright "no, it's not possible" or "yes, we have been visited."

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I recall reading somewhere that the variance of mutations between human and chimp DNA is a lot higher in some crucial places than it ought to be by chance. Not sure that I'd want to blame a bloody big, black monolith on that evidence, however. Perhaps it's more likely that the ancestors of modern humans killed off all the ones without the beneficial mutations before they could breed (much). Sort of an accelerated natural selection aided by involuntary eugenics.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

With that in mind, I have often wondered if Earth is being deliberately kept behind a veil, by something like a United Federation of Planets.

When we look outward into space, whether it be with the naked eye or with what we consider to be our most advanced instruments, how do we know that what we are seeing is the way things really are? The reality could be entirely different and we would be none the wiser.

Consider a prison cell with a single window onto the outside world. If those running the prison put up an elaborate 'stage' outside the window, the prisoner would naturally be led into thinking that was reality out there, if he did not know otherwise.

Plato beat you to it.

I think if you think other creatures have the technology to make it so we can't see anything real from our entire planet, plus from the moon, plus from various probes we've sent out, the next question to ask is why bother? I can't think of any reason why they'd do that. Strikes me as inventing a theory to explain an absence of the evidence you want, rather than fitting the theory around the evidence.

 

[TrickyDickie]

With that in mind, I have often wondered if Earth is being deliberately kept behind a veil, by something like a United Federation of Planets.

When we look outward into space, whether it be with the naked eye or with what we consider to be our most advanced instruments, how do we know that what we are seeing is the way things really are? The reality could be entirely different and we would be none the wiser.

Consider a prison cell with a single window onto the outside world. If those running the prison put up an elaborate 'stage' outside the window, the prisoner would naturally be led into thinking that was reality out there, if he did not know otherwise.

Plato beat you to it.

I think if you think other creatures have the technology to make it so we can't see anything real from our entire planet, plus from the moon, plus from various probes we've sent out, the next question to ask is why bother? I can't think of any reason why they'd do that. Strikes me as inventing a theory to explain an absence of the evidence you want, rather than fitting the theory around the evidence.

Just because you can't think of a reason why they'd do that does not negate the idea. No one should make the assumption that extraterrestrial intelligences would think just like humans do.

Why would they bother? Perhaps it would be their means of isolating humans until such time as we can learn to play nice and not act like a bunch of jack wagons....or assbutts....or whatever. Lot of new terms floating around these days.

 

[Franklin]

It's not that sitting on the fence is bad. The scientific method would require someone to assume, "no" until proven otherwise. [...] But the null hypothesis is still, "no" until we actually have evidence of a beastie from another world.

The default from me is "don't know".

A default of "no" is biased to how a conjecture is presented:

"Do aliens exist" ... default answer "no"
"Are we alone in the universe" ... default answer "no"
??

That's fine. "We haven't found any evidence, yet," is a good way of finessing a "no" answer, too. Naturally we don't know, but if one were going to research it, the default assumption at the start does have to be "no," until we're proven wrong. Starting the research off with any other assumption would possibly introduce a bias to it.
It's a heart v. mind thing, really. You want there to be beasties out there, but in your mind you know you can't say there are until you really see some. So, until then, the official party line is that it seems we are alone. It's a heart thing because I think everyone's rooting for them to be out there, somewhere.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

With that in mind, I have often wondered if Earth is being deliberately kept behind a veil, by something like a United Federation of Planets.

When we look outward into space, whether it be with the naked eye or with what we consider to be our most advanced instruments, how do we know that what we are seeing is the way things really are? The reality could be entirely different and we would be none the wiser.

Consider a prison cell with a single window onto the outside world. If those running the prison put up an elaborate 'stage' outside the window, the prisoner would naturally be led into thinking that was reality out there, if he did not know otherwise.

Plato beat you to it.

I think if you think other creatures have the technology to make it so we can't see anything real from our entire planet, plus from the moon, plus from various probes we've sent out, the next question to ask is why bother? I can't think of any reason why they'd do that. Strikes me as inventing a theory to explain an absence of the evidence you want, rather than fitting the theory around the evidence.

Just because you can't think of a reason why they'd do that does not negate the idea. No one should make the assumption that extraterrestrial intelligences would think just like humans do.

No, but theories without explanations fall short as effective theories. Right now, your comments aren't close to scientific because they are incapable of explaining even the most basic questions and there is no proof to support the theory.

Why would they bother? Perhaps it would be their means of isolating humans until such time as we can learn to play nice and not act like a bunch of jack wagons....or assbutts....or whatever. Lot of new terms floating around these days.

If a species has the technology to prevent us from observing outside phenomena not only when we are on the earth, but when we are on other celestial objects and from probes sent in space, I think they would be safe from our behavior since we don't really have the technology to leave our solar system.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Yes. I thought the evidence was clearly detailed in Pakleds and People. They made us go.

In all seriousness though, I will say that, if there really is a so-called "God" gene, it wasn't put there by evolution. But I have my doubts on that one too.

 

[Lookingglassman]

I don't believe in aliens, but I do believe in angels and demons. I believe ancient man got help from the offspring of demons and human women. In the Bible it says the "Sons of God" hooked up with human women and produced offspring who were mighty men of renown. I think they are referred to as "Nephilium".

I think these offspring were far more intelligent and stronger than your average human and helped their "brother man" do the things they did. I also think this is one of the reason God brought about the flood because these half human/half demon folks were messing up God's plan and diluting what He wanted Humans to know and understand.

I just don't buy aliens with technology to span billions of miles of space, plopping down here on earth to help a couple of dumb humans stack stones on top of one another. If an alien race really was going to interfere with the human race it would make more sense to actually give them stuff important like cures for diseases or easier and quicker ways to grow food than to build a pyramid.

 

[Amaris]

Possible. But the information is murky.

Agreed.

Murky? The evidence that we're going to get 3 inches of snow on Sunday is murky.

Maybe a hair of a sliver of a thread of scant--that's the evidence for ancient aliens.

Agreed.

 

[TripTucker2012]

Just have a quick question for you, Jinglebell. You say that Tricky has no proof for his theory. Well, can you give me solid proof right here and now that your theory is the correct one? I think not. At this point in time, the way I see things is this...an opinion is either going to be right or wrong. In my own personal opinion, I think it is arrogant of us to assume we are the only intelligent life there is. Really think about that. Look at how we treat each other. What would we offer to any other form of life at this stage we are in? War? Hate? Anger? Selfishness? I think until we get a grip and start treating each other in a decent way and love can overcome the almighty dollar that we will be waiting for first contact in an absolute undisputed form.

Peace.

 

[BrotherBenny]

I don't believe in aliens, but I do believe in angels and demons. I believe ancient man got help from the offspring of demons and human women. In the Bible it says the "Sons of God" hooked up with human women and produced offspring who were mighty men of renown. I think they are referred to as "Nephilium".

I think these offspring were far more intelligent and stronger than your average human and helped their "brother man" do the things they did. I also think this is one of the reason God brought about the flood because these half human/half demon folks were messing up God's plan and diluting what He wanted Humans to know and understand.

I just don't buy aliens with technology to span billions of miles of space, plopping down here on earth to help a couple of dumb humans stack stones on top of one another. If an alien race really was going to interfere with the human race it would make more sense to actually give them stuff important like cures for diseases or easier and quicker ways to grow food than to build a pyramid.

If an alien race were to find Earth they would do one of three things.

1. Look at what we have done to the planet and move on.
2. Enslave us
3. Help us either overtly or covertly.

Don't you understand that the Bible isn't describing real events? The stories are allegorical and meant for a society that is two millennia out of date.

 

[scotpens]

. . . I've often thought that the best way that life can expand beyond its solar system, is to seed the galaxy with microorganisms, perhaps using comets as delivery vehicles. As a comet approaches a star, its surface evaporates and the material is spread out for collection by that star's planets.

It's possible that the Earth was itself seeded with microorganisms this way, rather than developing life on its own.

Which only calls forth the question: Where did those microorganisms originate, and who or what "seeded" the Earth with them? Life has to start somewhere. If it began on its own "out there," why couldn't the same thing have happened here?

. . . "Beings with boots and helmets - astronauts!" Or soldiers. Doesn't this say "military" rather than "aliens"?

A picture of an ancient artwork showing what looks like a man with his head inside a teddy bear's head - a man in a space helmet! Or, a man in.... a bear mask?

And then there's the "ancient astronauts" interpretation of the first few pages of the Book of Ezekiel. Actually, the Biblical prophet's description is so fanciful that it sounds more like something he hallucinated after eating a loaf of moldy rye bread.

If an alien race were to find Earth they would do one of three things.

1. Look at what we have done to the planet and move on.
2. Enslave us
3. Help us either overtly or covertly.

Don't forget the fourth possibility.

"It's a COOK BOOK!"

 

[Brandonv]

I think it is fun to speculate about aliens influencing ancient Earth civilizations, but I don't think there is any convincing evidence. A ton of the supposed evidence for ancient astronauts can be traced back to Zacharia Sitchin, and most historians consider his conclusions to be dubious at best.

 

[TrickyDickie]

No, but theories without explanations fall short as effective theories. Right now, your comments aren't close to scientific because they are incapable of explaining even the most basic questions and there is no proof to support the theory.

If a species has the technology to prevent us from observing outside phenomena not only when we are on the earth, but when we are on other celestial objects and from probes sent in space, I think they would be safe from our behavior since we don't really have the technology to leave our solar system.

Come now, there are many, many theories that simply offer an idea as an explanation for what is presently observable. It may take a long time to prove the theory right or wrong, but that does not mean that the theory should just be immediately dismissed.

If Captain Caveman had suddenly come out with a theory that water and earth were composed of the same thing on a fundamental level....matter, but we'll call it 'wearth' for purposes of this discussion....at his point in time and level of technology he would have no proof to offer, because the two substances seem to be entirely different on a superficial level. But, on down the timeline we know about matter. So, even though he had not a shred of proof to offer back in the day, as a theory it was at that time as valid as any other. That is the nature of a 'theory.' It does not need proof at the very moment that it is offered.

Safe from our behavior does not mean that they necessarily want us to be able to observe what they are doing.

The 1938 broadcast of 'The War of The Worlds' showed how easily people can be influenced into running amok. Heck, even the Denver Broncos winning the Super Bowl spawned a riot.

Maybe they are concerned how the true picture of things would influence human thinking in a negative way at this point in our development.

Prime Directive, perhaps....?

I don't think the theory is such a giant stretch that is completely unworthy of considering.

 

[Amaris]

Come now, there are many, many theories that simply offer an idea as an explanation for what is presently observable. It may take a long time to prove the theory right or wrong, but that does not mean that the theory should just be immediately dismissed.

If Captain Caveman had suddenly come out with a theory that water and earth were composed of the same thing on a fundamental level....matter, but we'll call it 'wearth' for purposes of this discussion....at his point in time and level of technology he would have no proof to offer, because the two substances seem to be entirely different on a superficial level. But, on down the timeline we know about matter. So, even though he had not a shred of proof to offer back in the day, as a theory it was at that time as valid as any other. That is the nature of a 'theory.' It does not need proof at the very moment that it is offered.

When you're dealing in the area of scientific study and speculation, that is the nature of a hypothesis. There's a big difference.

Safe from our behavior does not mean that they necessarily want us to be able to observe what they are doing.

The 1938 broadcast of 'The War of The Worlds' showed how easily people can be influenced into running amok. Heck, even the Denver Broncos winning the Super Bowl spawned a riot.

Maybe they are concerned how the true picture of things would influence human thinking in a negative way at this point in our development.

Prime Directive, perhaps....?

I don't think the theory is such a giant stretch that is completely unworthy of considering.

It's all hypothetical. There is no proof that ancient aliens existed, or that they seeded the earth. There is already a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation, based on scientific evidence, about how life on earth formed. We don't need aliens or gods to turn it into something mysterious or more than the wonder it already is.

 

[Lonemagpie]

And then there's the "ancient astronauts" interpretation of the first few pages of the Book of Ezekiel. Actually, the Biblical prophet's description is so fanciful that it sounds more like something he hallucinated after eating a loaf of moldy rye bread.

That bit of Ezekiel has such wild descriptions that even the flying saucer interpretation isn't bloody strange *enough* to fit...

 

[TrickyDickie]

Come now, there are many, many theories that simply offer an idea as an explanation for what is presently observable. It may take a long time to prove the theory right or wrong, but that does not mean that the theory should just be immediately dismissed.

If Captain Caveman had suddenly come out with a theory that water and earth were composed of the same thing on a fundamental level....matter, but we'll call it 'wearth' for purposes of this discussion....at his point in time and level of technology he would have no proof to offer, because the two substances seem to be entirely different on a superficial level. But, on down the timeline we know about matter. So, even though he had not a shred of proof to offer back in the day, as a theory it was at that time as valid as any other. That is the nature of a 'theory.' It does not need proof at the very moment that it is offered.

When you're dealing in the area of scientific study and speculation, that is the nature of a hypothesis. There's a big difference.

Safe from our behavior does not mean that they necessarily want us to be able to observe what they are doing.

The 1938 broadcast of 'The War of The Worlds' showed how easily people can be influenced into running amok. Heck, even the Denver Broncos winning the Super Bowl spawned a riot.

Maybe they are concerned how the true picture of things would influence human thinking in a negative way at this point in our development.

Prime Directive, perhaps....?

I don't think the theory is such a giant stretch that is completely unworthy of considering.

It's all hypothetical. There is no proof that ancient aliens existed, or that they seeded the earth. There is already a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation, based on scientific evidence, about how life on earth formed. We don't need aliens or gods to turn it into something mysterious or more than the wonder it already is.

I just checked a dictionary and the second definition of 'theory' was 'abstract thought; speculation.'

However, I'll take this right out of the realm of 'scientific' here and now. I'll just say that it's a theory, but that it's not scientific. I'm no big fan of mainstream science anyway, because there is so much out there that mainstream scientists try to sweep under the rug because it doesn't fit into their 'laws' and their egos just can't take it.