View Full Version : Ancient Alien Theory?
In a nutshell it goes like this:
Approx 200, 000 years ago aliens came to Earth to mine gold which they needed for some reason. To assist them in this operation they took some of the semi-intelligent apes who were knocking about and spliced their own genes in with them to create an intelligent worker who would also, conveniently, be self replicating. This is us, Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Once the aliens had the gold they required most of them left, leaving us to it. The remainder divided the place up amongst them and ruled as gods until about 10,000 years ago when there was a decision made to wipe us all out ('The Flood', although 'flood' may be a euphemism for some sort of biological attack). A few humans survived this, scattered everywhere,, and a few aliens did their best to help them re-build some civilisation from the ashes. They too then left, after appointing 'kings' from amongst the humans, and passing on the 'divine right to rule.'
I like this theory because it explains so many mysteries quite neatly (including why gold is so valued even today even though it has few practical uses, the concept of 'god' or 'gods', the idea of divine rule, some odd aspects of our own physiology, how we appear to have evolved so quickly, how some of the 'impossible' constructions of antiquity were built (alien technology), and about a hundred other things.
The only problem is that to accept it as a very real possibility you have to agree on two things:
1) intelligent and advanced aliens do/did exist.
2) They were able to get here from wherever they are.
What say you?
Stratmangler
05-10-2016, 20:50
Started early on the vino tonight, have we?
I think is was a bad move descending from the trees, some say that leaving the oceans was the biggest mistake.
Spectral Morn
05-10-2016, 20:55
A real can of worms in that.... you are I think referring to the Anunnaki, the Sumerian name for them.
These beings, are linked to Nibiru... and that way lies madness and destruction....
According to some they are coming back, as is their home world.
My alien overlords have instructed me to debunk this theory ;) . they dont want the publicity, as they have made a new life for themselves as the British Royal Family
Spectral Morn
05-10-2016, 21:01
My alien overlords have instructed me to debunk this theory ;) . they dont want the publicity, as they have made a new life for themselves as the British Royal Family
Who according to a failed messiah, former sports presenter are reptilians.... who are - according to some - the Anunnaki.
Anyway as everyone knows the Daleks are the only Masters of Earth..... :eyebrows:
walpurgis
05-10-2016, 21:05
Politeness won't let me express my view on this topic, but it would have ended in 'ocks. :D
I used to watch it on discovery a few years ago... First season was interesting but then took a dive towards some really bizarre theories..
The Sumerian empire is what is thought to be built by these aliens who were giants and we were like worker monkeys till they decided to leave.
On the subject of aliens have you heard of the black Knight satellite?
A real can of worms in that.... you are I think referring to the Anunnaki, the Sumerian name for them.
These beings, are linked to Nibiru... and that way lies madness and destruction....
According to some they are coming back, as is their home world.
Yes the Sumerian records (or a controversial translation of them) is the main source for the theory, but there is quite a lot of corroborating evidence around the world, when looked at with an open mind and this theory in mind. the idea that we started out in trees, graduated to caves and then slowly invented agriculture and advanced society all in a nice smooth timeline is already long discredited.
The Sumerians had a modern set up, law, schools, medicine, taxes, and so on. They were just as advanced as the Romans and pre-date them by three thousand years. And they don't take credit for it, they state openly that it was all given to them by the gods.
Whatever the truth of the OP's post , I content myself in knowing there are as many stars in the universe as grains of sand on a beach , and I believe that over time some must have visited this Earth
I used to watch it on discovery a few years ago... First season was interesting but then took a dive towards some really bizarre theories..
The Sumerian empire is what is thought to be built by these aliens who were giants and we were like worker monkeys till they decided to leave.
On the subject of aliens have you heard of the black Knight satellite?
The Sumerian empire is later, the gold mining was all done in Southern Africa.
Not heard of the black knight, just looked it up. Interesting. Not as good as the alien structures on the moon though.
Anyway this isn't a conspiracy theory, as I said in the o/p there are only 2 reasons why this could not be perfectly credible, and neither, for me, is convincing enough to make it 'impossible' or 'bollocks'. If you re-read (or possibly read for some of you ;)) the Book Of Genesis with this theory in mind, it makes a lot more sense than the Christian interpretation.
Eve eats the apple from the serpent, achieves self-consciousness, as does Adam, they become aware that they are naked (is you dog aware he is naked? No, because he is not capable of self-observation). Really no different a tale to Prometheus stealing fire from the gods. Once you are self aware you can go off on your own - or out of the Eden, as it were.
Spectral Morn
05-10-2016, 21:18
Yes the Sumerian records (or a controversial translation of them) is the main source for the theory, but there is quite a lot of corroborating evidence around the world, when looked at with an open mind and this theory in mind. the idea that we started out in trees, graduated to caves and then slowly invented agriculture and advanced society all in a nice smooth timeline is already long discredited.
The Sumerians had a modern set up, law, schools, medicine, taxes, and so on. They were just as advanced as the Romans and pre-date them by three thousand years. And they don't take credit for it, they state openly that it was all given to them by the gods.
If I recall right some of whom came out of the sea, Dagon being one.
I saw a program recently where an ancient temple complex in northern Turkey (Gobekli Tepe)- fairly sophisticated - predated the generally held belief that architecture, sophisticated religion and building temples only came around after agriculture replaced hunting. This temple throws that theory on its head as the builders are thought to be hunters and at its oldest it dates back to the end of the last ice age - a working theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
I think humanity being sophisticated goes back much further than currently accepted but I don't believe in ancient aliens in the sense you are presenting.
if you dress a dog, he becomes aware he is dressed as its not his normal state. I have not read much on the subject, but nothing is impossible. Who knows whats at the bottom of the seas, or in the far flung galaxies
In a nutshell it goes like this:
Approx 200, 000 years ago aliens came to Earth to mine gold which they needed for some reason. To assist them in this operation they took some of the semi-intelligent apes who were knocking about and spliced their own genes in with them to create an intelligent worker who would also, conveniently, be self replicating. This is us, Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Once the aliens had the gold they required most of them left, leaving us to it. The remainder divided the place up amongst them and ruled as gods until about 10,000 years ago when there was a decision made to wipe us all out ('The Flood', although 'flood' may be a euphemism for some sort of biological attack). A few humans survived this, scattered everywhere,, and a few aliens did their best to help them re-build some civilisation from the ashes. They too then left, after appointing 'kings' from amongst the humans, and passing on the 'divine right to rule.'
I like this theory because it explains so many mysteries quite neatly (including why gold is so valued even today even though it has few practical uses, the concept of 'god' or 'gods', the idea of divine rule, some odd aspects of our own physiology, how we appear to have evolved so quickly, how some of the 'impossible' constructions of antiquity were built (alien technology), and about a hundred other things.
The only problem is that to accept it as a very real possibility you have to agree on two things:
1) intelligent and advanced aliens do/did exist.
2) They were able to get here from wherever they are.
What say you?
All my arse. HTH.
I think humanity being sophisticated goes back much further than currently accepted but I don't believe in ancient aliens in the sense you are presenting.
I don't 'believe' in them either. It is just an interesting and at least partially credible theory. Although some here don't seem to think so. I don't understand why. We know very little about our history pre 1000BC, a lot of what is presented in schools and on television documentaries as fact about that period is in reality complete conjecture.
trouble is there is, at least at moment, not 1 iota of evidence for it either. Although the various religeons all forming ith similar goals, but with differences, could be construed as as much proof as the way they have been interpreted currently.
I don't 'believe' in them either. It is just an interesting and at least partially credible theory. Although some here don't seem to think so. I don't understand why. We know very little about our history pre 1000BC, a lot of what is presented in schools and on television documentaries as fact about that period is in reality complete conjecture.
So is conjecture about ancient aliens 'better' conjecture, and if so, why?
trouble is there is, at least at moment, not 1 iota of evidence for it either. Although the various religeons all forming ith similar goals, but with differences, could be construed as as much proof as the way they have been interpreted currently.
Not strictly true. There are megalithic structures all over the world and we have no idea how primitive cultures could possibly have built them. Same applies to the pyramids at Giza.
In Lebanon there is a quarry with a 1000 ton stone block almost completely cut out. How did these pre-Roman people plan to move that with the tech level that conventional history gives them? (They had already cut out and moved blocks weighing hundreds of tons, including a 500 ton block several miles over rough country).
In Peru they got them down one mountainside and up another. No-one can explain this, clearly there are huge gaps in our knowledge and any of us can go and visit the evidence in person (although Lebanon a bit dodgy at the moment).
Spectral Morn
05-10-2016, 21:59
I don't 'believe' in them either. It is just an interesting and at least partially credible theory. Although some here don't seem to think so. I don't understand why. We know very little about our history pre 1000BC, a lot of what is presented in schools and on television documentaries as fact about that period is in reality complete conjecture.
I agree. In particular the map fairly accurately showing Antarctica free of ice is intriguing.
Not strictly true. There are megalithic structures all over the world and we have no idea how primitive cultures could possibly have built them.
Yes we do. There have been many documentaries showing exactly how these structures could have been built; I remember one was shown last year about how the massive sculptures on Easter Island were moved and erected. The key is slave labour, and lots of it. The trouble is people make hand-waving statements about 'ancient mysteries' to the effect that 'this can't possibly be explained', then come up with some bizarre theory involving aliens or Gods. On investigation, the mystery turns out to not be very mysterious after all. It's a shame, in some ways, as ancient aliens are far more interesting, but they do the exact opposite of Occam's Razor; i.e.they involve an explanation that is massively more complex and conjectural than the slightly more boring but much simpler explanation that is also more likely to be true.
I think we don't give the ancients enough credit for their ingenuity and intelligence.
So is conjecture about ancient aliens 'better' conjecture, and if so, why?
Because it explains things that the conventional theory has no explanation for. I accept it is still conjecture, but I think we should at least accept there is no rational reason why it could not be true, at least in part.
Yes we do. There have been many documentaries showing exactly how these structures could have been built; I remember one was shown last year about how the massive sculptures on Easter Island were moved and erected. The key is slave labour, and lots of it.
Seen them all and never seen one that was credible in terms of actually replicating the reality. Like that Stonehenge experiment where they mange to drop a block into a hole. No attempt to move it hundreds of miles from the quarry, though. There is only so much you can do with ropes, logs and lots of people. You can't knock up a Great Pyramid that way, or move a 1000 ton stone block.
Seen them all and never seen one that was credible in terms of actually replicating the reality. Like that Stonehenge experiment where they mange to drop a block into a hole. No attempt to move it hundreds of miles from the quarry, though. There is only so much you can do with ropes, logs and lots of people. You can't knock up a Great Pyramid that way, or move a 1000 ton stone block.
So aliens came from billions of miles away to Earth, and showed us, what, how to move big stones around? Seems a lot of trouble to go to for not much return.
walpurgis
05-10-2016, 22:32
We know very little about our history pre 1000BC
"We" didn't really exist (much). As north Europeans that is. The ice age was just about ending and northern Europe was to all intents unpopulated and had been for rather a long time.
at 2000bc there were an estimate of quarter of million in what is mainland Britain. at 1000bc there would probably have been at least twice that
walpurgis
05-10-2016, 22:41
at 2000bc there were an estimate of quarter of million in what is mainland Britain. at 1000bc there would probably have been at least twice that
Ah. Quite right. I misread. Thought it was 10,000 BC. Serves me right, rushing again. :)
(Actually, population growth is exponential, so it would be greater than half a million)
Ah. Quite right. I misread. Thought it was 10,000 BC. Serves me right, rushing again. :)
had to double read it myself tbh, as he had mentioned 10,000 a while back :)
So aliens came from billions of miles away to Earth, and showed us, what, how to move big stones around? Seems a lot of trouble to go to for not much return.
No. They came to mine gold as I already explained. 'We' didn't exist at that point, although our hominid ancestors did. As for the big stones, it is a bit like Ray Mears making a camp. He uses what is available in the immediate vicinity, branches, bracken etc. The Aliens used stone because it is durable, easily available and with their technology it was no more difficult for them than Mears cutting a few saplings down.
The Sumerian empire is later, the gold mining was all done in Southern Africa.
Not heard of the black knight, just looked it up. Interesting. Not as good as the alien structures on the moon though.
Anyway this isn't a conspiracy theory, as I said in the o/p there are only 2 reasons why this could not be perfectly credible, and neither, for me, is convincing enough to make it 'impossible' or 'bollocks'. If you re-read (or possibly read for some of you ;)) the Book Of Genesis with this theory in mind, it makes a lot more sense than the Christian interpretation.
Eve eats the apple from the serpent, achieves self-consciousness, as does Adam, they become aware that they are naked (is you dog aware he is naked? No, because he is not capable of self-observation). Really no different a tale to Prometheus stealing fire from the gods. Once you are self aware you can go off on your own - or out of the Eden, as it were.
You might be interested in reading this:
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41ZHEAAJ8TL.jpg
An equally plausable conjecture.
The Black Adder
06-10-2016, 08:35
8fI7zm7RXHs
:)
No. They came to mine gold as I already explained. '
Which they needed 'for some reason'. So, from billions of miles away, they somehow knew that Earth had gold? How? Did they try a few thousand other planets first, or was it just a lucky guess?
It's all too far-fetched for me. It's equally 'plausible' that there were actually Gods who existed in a different dimension but were able to nip into 'our' dimension from time to time and build big monuments, or that some thousands of years in the future, man will invent a time machine and travel back to ancient times to teach people how to dig for gold and move big stones around.
8fI7zm7RXHs
:)
Gee, the magic roundabout has gone downhill :ner:
Spectral Morn
06-10-2016, 10:39
You might be interested in reading this:
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41ZHEAAJ8TL.jpg
An equally plausable conjecture.
:mental: Just read a synopsis of this idea.... way off base in my view.
Now David Rohl's books are very interesting. Start with A Test Of Time - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Test-Time-One--Bible--History/dp/0099365618/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1475749839&sr=1-7
Then try - Legend The Genesis of Civilisation. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Legend-Civilisation-David-M-Rohl/dp/071267747X/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1475749839&sr=1-5
Rohl works from a very interesting standpoint of a revised chronology. His view is the basis for Archaeology in this part of the world is deeply flawed because the time line based on Egyptian carvings (the foundation of modern archaeology chronology in that part of the world) is seriously out. In a Test of Time he proposes a new time line and in doing so all the things secular archaeology says isn't there regarding biblical history is there. The finds in the strata using the new time line then match the biblical story.
The first book was a TV series on Channel 4 and sadly no others followed but the books are an interesting read and I think fit well. No aliens.
Even disregarding the aliens the whole Egyptian chronology is massively out of whack. Problem is that they worked it all out over 100 years ago and a lot of big names in the field have based their work on it and don't want to admit it is all wrong.
The Sphinx and its enclosure are a good example. Both show extreme weathering from water, meaning that they must date from at least 6000 BC (and probably a few thousand years before that) when the Giza plateau last recieved heavy rainfall.
Quite possibly the Sphinx was originally a representation of the god Anubis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anubis and built around 8000 to 10,000 BC. At some point the muzzle was damaged and the statue re-carved during dynastic times into the face of a pharoah.
The 3 pyramids themselves are also more than likely from this date, and not 2500 BC as claimed by Eygyptology. Although the more recent date is presented as fact on tv and in the literature there is no proof whatsover for it. You can't carbon date stone, and dynastic Egypt simply didn't have the tech to build them.
The conventional view is that they started off with mud brick step pyramids, then progressed to shallow sloped stone pyramids (the bent and red pyramids), after 100 years knocked up the 3 perfect pyramids at Giza, then almost immediatley forgot how to do it and went back to crappy mud-brick again.
More likely is that that the inferior pyramids were much later attempts to copy the Giza pyramid by the dynastic Egyptians, the Giza pyramids having been there for thousands of years already before dynastic Egypt began.
Nor is there any evidence that they were used as tombs or intended as tombs. We really are fed a total crock of shit about this stuff, it is quite revealtory when you do a bit of extended reading and logical thinking.
:mental: Just read a synopsis of this idea.... way off base in my view.
Now David Rohl's books are very interesting. Start with A Test Of Time - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Test-Time-One--Bible--History/dp/0099365618/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1475749839&sr=1-7
Then try - Legend The Genesis of Civilisation. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Legend-Civilisation-David-M-Rohl/dp/071267747X/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1475749839&sr=1-5
Rohl works from a very interesting standpoint of a revised chronology. His view is the basis for Archaeology in this part of the world is deeply flawed because the time line based on Egyptian carvings (the foundation of modern archaeology chronology in that part of the world) is seriously out. In a Test of Time he proposes a new time line and in doing so all the things secular archaeology says isn't there regarding biblical history is there. The finds in the strata using the new time line then match the biblical story.
The first book was a TV series on Channel 4 and sadly no others followed but the books are an interesting read and I think fit well. No aliens.
I'm familiar with Rohl's books and have his 'A Test of Time'. His discussion of a dislocation of the time lines and the orthodox 'king lists' are interesting.
Apropos Ellis's book, certainly it is widly aknowledged that Arkehaten formulated a montheistic religion in Egypt, and the worship of the soar disc or Aten. To do this the ceremonies held at his new capital of Tel em Armanah were held outside in the blazing sun. Because of this, Arkenhaten (equated to be Adam) and his wife Neferttiti (equated to be Eve), officiated in the proceedings wearing very little clothing; not exactly naked but a simple robe - something gauzy and diaphanous.
When the priests of the old polytheistic religion rebelled, Arkenahten was obliged to abandon Tel em Armarnah ('Eden') along with his monotheistic religion. Since worshipers of the old religion worshiped the various gods inside the temples, they were clothed as normal, thus 'Adam' and 'Eve' were expelled from 'Eden' and "realised they were naked". Arkenaten's son was originally called Tutankaten, but after the return to the old religion he was known as Tutankamun.
It is also thought by some that Moses was a high priest of the cult of the Aten, and he brought the ideas of monotheistic religion with him when the Jews were expelled from Egypt.
I found it an interesting alternative, and no more ":mental:" to what is simply written in the Old Testament.
Even disregarding the aliens the whole Egyptian chronology is massively out of whack. Problem is that they worked it all out over 100 years ago and a lot of big names in the field have based their work on it and don't want to admit it is all wrong.
The Sphinx and its enclosure are a good example. Both show extreme weathering from water, meaning that they must date from at least 6000 BC (and probably a few thousand years before that) when the Giza plateau last recieved heavy rainfall.
Quite possibly the Sphinx was originally a representation of the god Anubis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anubis and built around 8000 to 10,000 BC. At some point the muzzle was damaged and the statue re-carved during dynastic times into the face of a pharoah.
The 3 pyramids themselves are also more than likely from this date, and not 2500 BC as claimed by Eygyptology. Although the more recent date is presented as fact on tv and in the literature there is no proof whatsover for it. You can't carbon date stone, and dynastic Egypt simply didn't have the tech to build them.
The conventional view is that they started off with mud brick step pyramids, then progressed to shallow sloped stone pyramids (the bent and red pyramids), after 100 years knocked up the 3 perfect pyramids at Giza, then almost immediatley forgot how to do it and went back to crappy mud-brick again.
More likely is that that the inferior pyramids were much later attempts to copy the Giza pyramid by the dynastic Egyptians, the Giza pyramids having been there for thousands of years already before dynastic Egypt began.
Nor is there any evidence that they were used as tombs or intended as tombs. We really are fed a total crock of shit about this stuff, it is quite revealtory when you do a bit of extended reading and logical thinking.
The head of the Sphinx has been remodelled at least once, if not several times, due to the features being worn away by wind-bourne sand. No doubt the current pharaoh would have it modelled in his likeness.
The head of the Sphinx has been remodelled at least once, if not several times, due to the features being worn away by wind-bourne sand. No doubt the current pharaoh would have it modelled in his likeness.
Indeed but even this is denied by Egyptologists. The small size of the head compared to the body is indicative that it is not original, and the body is indicative of a dog, not a lion as generaly proposed. (The back is flat, whereas a lion seated like that would have a humped back).
The conundrum I find with any argument for other 'intelligent' life in the universe is that the odds in favour of it being possible are also the odds against it.
The same series of apparently random occurrences which led to the evolution of our planet and species are as unlikely to occur again in a scenario of infinite possibility as they are to occur.
The conundrum I find with any argument for other 'intelligent' life in the universe is that the odds in favour of it being possible are also the odds against it.
The same series of apparently random occurrences which led to the evolution of our planet and species are as unlikely to occur again in a scenario of infinite possibility as they are to occur.
Oh I don't know. Plugging in the best estimates for the various variables into the Drake equation comes up with a figure for the likelyhood of extra-terrestial life to be in double figures. Now the Universe is big ('mindbogglingly big' to paraphrase The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy), so the chance any extra-terrestial life coming to visit us, either in the past or in the future, is vanishingly small.
Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space
Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy
Fact is either you decide that man is the product of deliberate divine creation, or you accept that the chance evolution of intelligent life on earth has already been replicated literaly trillions of times across the Universe. It's a numbers game and life can't lose.
Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space
Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy
Fact is either you decide that man is the product of deliberate divine creation, or you accept that the chance evolution of intelligent life on earth has already been replicated literaly trillions of times across the Universe. It's a numbers game and life can't lose.
Yes - and the numbers of Earth-like planets with a near 'Goldilocks' environment being discovered is increasing all the time.
Still think its a long shot that such extra-terrestials would have developed the necessary technology to be able to come and visit us. What would attract them? We had yet to develop radio transmission.
Unless our concept of ability to travel at multiples of light speed are wrong, then it probably impossible tbh. Although our concepts on this are new and we could be just stupid, and not grasped it yet, which is much more likely. Then there are parallel universes etc where its not distance but phase and time.
As i said, its all possible with an open mind, although improbable.
The Black Adder
06-10-2016, 13:30
Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space
Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy
Fact is either you decide that man is the product of deliberate divine creation, or you accept that the chance evolution of intelligent life on earth has already been replicated literaly trillions of times across the Universe. It's a numbers game and life can't lose.
IMO... too big...improbably big. That's my problem with any alien theory. The amount of energy needed to travel such vast distances for a day out on good ol planet earth is simply outrageous. Not only that but there will be planets out there much more rich in certain materials, so if they can travel so far then, why us? We are not even a microscopic mote of dust in the grand scheme of the universe.
We dont even understand the universe. Big bang is getting a beating, etc.. it kinda always was a dodgy idea and kinda just forgot about the conservation of energy principle.
We dont even understand the universe. Big bang is getting a beating, etc.. it kinda always was a dodgy idea and kinda just forgot about the conservation of energy principle.
Or that we seem to have an effect without a cause.
IMO... too big...improbably big. That's my problem with any alien theory. The amount of energy needed to travel such vast distances for a day out on good ol planet earth is simply outrageous. Not only that but there will be planets out there much more rich in certain materials, so if they can travel so far then, why us? We are not even a microscopic mote of dust in the grand scheme of the universe.
Not really. Once in space you don't need much energy to keep accelerating. If we had the capability, what planets would we visit first? The closest planets to us that stood a chance of having life on them. Hardly a reach to think the aliens might do the same thing. Exploring for the sake of it is not an unusual practice.
Also bear in mind that according to the Ancient Alien theory, they needed large amounts of gold to repair their planet's atmosphere. Assuming they did not have enough (or none) on their world, they would need to find a habitable planet that did have some, preferably one that did not have any intelligent species on it already who might object to them helping themselves. Earth 200,000 years ago fits that description.
Why did they need gold to repair the atmosphere Macca?? :scratch:
Haselsh1
06-10-2016, 16:45
I kind of go with the latest thinking that we are entirely alone and are trapped within a computer simulation. None of this is real and the entire universe is virtual.
Why did they need gold to repair the atmosphere Macca?? :scratch:
To my knowledge that isn't explained in the Sumerian texts. Presumably they either needed to 'seed' the atmosphere with it or it was an essential component of the machines they were building to do the job. What's important to the story is that they badly needed it, there was no option. They start off mining it themselves but then go on strike when too many of them are being killed or injured. That's why human beings were created, to do the dangerous stuff for them.
Excellent thread ... mad ideas and made-up stuff to explain things we can't agree on and may not even exist anyway :thumbsup:
Hang on! How does that differ from the rest of this forum? :eek:
Oh now I get it, this is just another version of a cable thread, isn't it? :rofl:
Excellent thread ... mad ideas and made-up stuff to explain things we can't agree on and may not even exist anyway :thumbsup:
Hang on! How does that differ from the rest of this forum? :eek:
Oh now I get it, this is just another version of a cable thread, isn't it? :rofl:
Perspicacious as ever Peter.
Not really. Once in space you don't need much energy to keep accelerating. If we had the capability, what planets would we visit first? The closest planets to us that stood a chance of having life on them. Hardly a reach to think the aliens might do the same thing. Exploring for the sake of it is not an unusual practice.
Also bear in mind that according to the Ancient Alien theory, they needed large amounts of gold to repair their planet's atmosphere. Assuming they did not have enough (or none) on their world, they would need to find a habitable planet that did have some, preferably one that did not have any intelligent species on it already who might object to them helping themselves. Earth 200,000 years ago fits that description.
And I repeat: how would they know that a) Earth had 'enough' gold for the mysterious atmosphere repairs and b) that Earth was home to creatures sufficiently advanced to dig it out? If they had craft capable of travelling billions of miles, surely they had the capability of synthesising gold-like substances for atmosphere repairs?
As someone said in another context, the alien theory is not just nonsense, it's nonsense upon stilts.
Pieoftheday
06-10-2016, 18:38
In a nutshell it goes like this:
Approx 200, 000 years ago aliens came to Earth to mine gold which they needed for some reason. To assist them in this operation they took some of the semi-intelligent apes who were knocking about and spliced their own genes in with them to create an intelligent worker who would also, conveniently, be self replicating. This is us, Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Once the aliens had the gold they required most of them left, leaving us to it. The remainder divided the place up amongst them and ruled as gods until about 10,000 years ago when there was a decision made to wipe us all out ('The Flood', although 'flood' may be a euphemism for some sort of biological attack). A few humans survived this, scattered everywhere,, and a few aliens did their best to help them re-build some civilisation from the ashes. They too then left, after appointing 'kings' from amongst the humans, and passing on the 'divine right to rule.'
I like this theory because it explains so many mysteries quite neatly (including why gold is so valued even today even though it has few practical uses, the concept of 'god' or 'gods', the idea of divine rule, some odd aspects of our own physiology, how we appear to have evolved so quickly, how some of the 'impossible' constructions of antiquity were built (alien technology), and about a hundred other things.
The only problem is that to accept it as a very real possibility you have to agree on two things:
1) intelligent and advanced aliens do/did exist.
2) They were able to get here from wherever they are.
What say you?
Well it's no worse than any other religious/ theory bollox:)
Pieoftheday
06-10-2016, 18:40
I kind of go with the latest thinking that we are entirely alone and are trapped within a computer simulation. None of this is real and the entire universe is virtual.
Who's computer simulation?!!!
And I repeat: how would they know that a) Earth had 'enough' gold for the mysterious atmosphere repairs and b) that Earth was home to creatures sufficiently advanced to dig it out? If they had craft capable of travelling billions of miles, surely they had the capability of synthesising gold-like substances for atmosphere repairs?
As someone said in another context, the alien theory is not just nonsense, it's nonsense upon stilts.
I thought I answered those questions. They had the capacity to explore other planets, in the same way as we do, they could have sent a probe to earth just like we send them out to other planets. They would have information about Earth long before they went there in person, same with us and Mars.
As to the gold I think we have to assume they could not synthesising it, or not in sufficient quantities. Just because they have tech in one area doesn't mean they have it everywhere. We have space travel and hydrogen bombs but we can't cure the common cold, for example.
The creatures on Earth were irrelevant to begin with, as I said above the story is that they only decided to create a hybrid worker due to there being too many casualties amongst their own.
I'm not saying I am convinced about this theory, it is fun to kick it about a bit though. As I said I see no rational reason why it could not be true. No question that there is a lot of intelligent life out there, the law of averages says there must be civilisations tens of thousands of years old.
We got from the first heavier than air flight to putting man on the moon in six decades, how far will we have got 10,000 years from now? Really, it is more likely that if none of the alien civilisations have ever visited here it is only because they don't want to, not because they can't. Law of big numbers.
walpurgis
06-10-2016, 18:58
In my opinion.
People attach too much significance to their existence and have fanciful ideas. Life on Earth is a fluke. We don't have extra-terrestrial visitors. There are no 'little green men' or any kind of alien life anywhere else, not even plants or similar. Never has been or ever will be. God (whatever) has no part in any of it, 'cos there ain't one. Humans will never colonise another planet or anything else. Humans will remain on Earth and eventually fizzle out, with all other life. Nobody will care 'cos there won't be anybody to care and nothing else including the universe will care. 'Cos it doesn't matter at all!!!
Pieoftheday
06-10-2016, 19:08
In my opinion. People attach too much significance to their existence and have fanciful ideas. Life on Earth is a fluke. We don't have extra-terrestrial visitors. There are no 'little green men' or any kind of alien life anywhere else, not even plants or similar. Never has been or ever will be. God (whatever) has no part in any of it, 'cos there ain't one. Humans will never colonise another planet or anything else. Humans will remain on Earth and eventually fizzle out, with all other life. Nobody will care 'cos there won't be anybody to care and nothing else including the universe will care. 'Cos it doesn't matter at all!!!
I kind of agree, but what if....................
walpurgis
06-10-2016, 19:12
I kind of agree, but what if....................
Now what did I just say about fanciful ideas James? :D
Pieoftheday
06-10-2016, 19:20
Now what did I just say about fanciful ideas James? :D
Sorry:rolleyes:
No independent thought. Obey, conform, consume.
:)
I thought I answered those questions. They had the capacity to explore other planets, in the same way as we do, they could have sent a probe to earth just like we send them out to other planets. They would have information about Earth long before they went there in person, same with us and Mars.
Interplanetary travel is, relatively speaking, no big deal. Interstellar travel would involve travelling faster than the speed of light, or journeys lasting thousands of years.
Pieoftheday
06-10-2016, 19:30
No independent thought. Obey, conform, consume.
:)
Josh rouse ,1972 and I'm back in the room:cool:
And I repeat: how would they know that a) Earth had 'enough' gold for the mysterious atmosphere repairs and b) that Earth was home to creatures sufficiently advanced to dig it out? If they had craft capable of travelling billions of miles, surely they had the capability of synthesising gold-like substances for atmosphere repairs?
As someone said in another context, the alien theory is not just nonsense, it's nonsense upon stilts.
They sent a probe, to do some probing; you know, anus's an such. jeez, your so far behind current and raisin theory:doh:
jandl100
08-10-2016, 06:52
I kind of go with the latest thinking that we are entirely alone and are trapped within a computer simulation. None of this is real and the entire universe is virtual.
Yep, me, too.
Well, we are not 'trapped' - we are part of the simulation.
And a lot of other folks think so as well! .... http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/computer-simulation-world-matrix-scientists-elon-musk-artificial-intelligence-ai-a7347526.html
Just looking at the numbers .... 1 real uni/multiverse - and perhaps billions of simulations of one from high tech civilisations. The chances of us being in the original are miniscule. And of course you can have simulated universes within simulated universes, and so on ad infinitum.
They are computer geeks so they look at everything from the point of view of a computer geek. Just like a Doctor views everything from a health perspective or a soldier from a military perspective.
“These phones already control us,” he said. “The merge has begun – and a merge is our best scenario. Any version without a merge will have conflict: we enslave the A.I. or it enslaves us.'
Your 'phone controls you? Yeah, not in my world mate. Maybe for some saddo tech geek in silicon valley, it does. You're not going to be Neo no matter how big a set of boots you wear, so get over it.
jandl100
08-10-2016, 08:39
Haha!
Yes, well. I think the idea is a little broader than what was covered in that article . ;)
I wonder if Macca could be generated from a software algorithm? Anyone care to define boundary conditions and a heuristic rule set? :lol:
I'm impossible to emulate. The chips I use are obsolete and contain substances banned under international treaty :)
jandl100
08-10-2016, 09:30
Actually, I figured a random number generator would be pretty close. :D
A random bollocks generator would get closer, but still no cigar.
I take it you see no mileage in the Ancient Alien theory, then Jerry? It's interesting that despite you older, highly educated folk dismissing it out of hand, amongst the general populace people are far more open to this idea. Whether that is because they are a bit dim, or have simply not had their minds closed by years of academic rigour, is a moot point.
One should not over think these things lol
jandl100
08-10-2016, 09:54
The ancient alien thing, well I haven't commented so far.
I have no problem with alien visitation in principle. We've only been a technological civilisation for a few decades and got down to sending interplanetary probes as soon as we could. So it would be a strange thing to assume that a more advanced society would not go avisiting on an interstellar scale. We already have plans to send nano-probes to nearby stars, travel time 20 years or so for the journey to alpha centauri.
As for "uplifting" early primates to full sentience like in Clarke's 2001 or David Brin novels (he had us do it to dolphins), once again, why not? Although I would need to be aware of genetic or dna evidence to take that seriously.
.
As for "uplifting" early primates to full sentience like in 2001 or David Brin novels (he had us do it to dolphins), once again, why not? Although I would need to be aware of genetic or dna evidence to take that seriously.
As regards genetic evidence I have seen a presentation that argued that compared to the closest primates we have some odd physical features, notably we are not designed to walk as well as they are - something to do with the structure of the pelvis and the way our feet make contact with the ground IIRC, which is why our hip joints tend to wear out before they should. Also the large size of the cranium which can cause major issues during birth. The lack in the fossil evidence of a 'missing link' in the evolutionary trail. There are more, but I forget.
As regards time taken for interstellar space travel it should be borne in mind that the Sumerians attributed their 'gods' with extremely long life spans (although they were mortal).
Check out the length of the reigns on the Sumerian Kings List. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List - we are talking tens of thousands of years per king, pre 'flood'.
Also note that even establishment scholars accept that there is hard evidence that some of the post-flood kings were actual historical figures, which in my opinion adds credibility to the earlier part of the list. However they conveniently dismiss the earlier kings as 'fictional' in sadly typical fashion.
Spectral Morn
08-10-2016, 10:33
As regards time taken for interstellar space travel it should be borne in mind that the Sumerians attributed their 'gods' with extremely long life spans (although they were mortal).
Check out the length of the reigns on the Sumerian Kings List. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List - we are talking tens of thousands of years per king, pre 'flood'.
Also note that even establishment scholars accept that there is hard evidence that some of the post-flood kings were actual historical figures, which in my opinion adds credibility to the earlier part of the list. However they conveniently dismiss the earlier kings as 'fictional' in sadly typical fashion.
The great men of old, Nimrod, Gilgamesh etc.
jandl100
08-10-2016, 10:38
As regards genetic evidence I have seen a presentation that argued that compared to the closest primates we have some odd physical features, notably we are not designed to walk as well as they are - something to do with the structure of the pelvis and the way our feet make contact with the ground IIRC, which is why our hip joints tend to wear out before they should. Also the large size of the cranium which can cause major issues during birth. The lack in the fossil evidence of a 'missing link' in the evolutionary trail. There are more, but I forget.
Fair enough, that seems a plausible start, although a long way short of proof, of course.
Interstellar travel time.... Well, it's way too early to be able to say what is needed. There's the Alcubiere Drive hypothesis for a genuine warp drive that is entirely consistent with Einstein's theory of relativity, although advances in exotic matter science are needed to confirm if it is plausible. Alpha centauri in 2 weeks with a full sized crew carrying spacecraft.
So.. . At least some of us geriatric educated types aren't entirely closed minded. ;)
walpurgis
08-10-2016, 10:52
At least some of us geriatric educated types aren't entirely closed minded. ;)
But some of us are :).
It's a load of silly nonsense dreamed up by people with too much time on their hands. If the Sumerian texts are 'true', then what about all the other creation myths from around the world; the Bible for example? Are they 'less true', and if so, why?
But some of us are :).
Keep an open mind, but don't let your brains fall out.
Keep an open mind, but don't let your brains fall out.
Do brains do that? :eek: i,m gonna start rubbishing everything. Mind you it may be way too late.
Always liked the computer simulation theory too, but its too pat, as it conveniently explains everything bar, why someone would keep it going with such cruelty.
Are we alone? Well, perhaps, in our timeline. ...But cross a timeline barrier and who knows
jandl100
08-10-2016, 11:23
It's a load of silly nonsense dreamed up by people with too much time on their hands. If the Sumerian texts are 'true', then what about all the other creation myths from around the world; the Bible for example? Are they 'less true', and if so, why?
Personally I wouldn't be so dismissive.
Science must be evidence based.
A hypothesis has been put forward with some circumstantial evidence.
To be turned into a fully fledged theory then archaeological, biological and other scientific evidence needs to be formed into a self consistent whole with predictions that will allow future research to support or refute the theory.
At the moment it seems to be well short of that, imo.
Personally I wouldn't be so dismissive.
Science must be evidence based.
A hypothesis has been put forward with some circumstantial evidence.
To be turned into a fully fledged theory then archaeological, biological and other scientific evidence needs to be formed into a self consistent whole with predictions that future research can support or refute the theory.
At the moment it seems to be well short of that, imo.
I'd just apply Occam's Razor. We have some ancient texts, selected out of many and some (possibly) unexplained phenomena. 'Ancient aliens' seems to me to be an unnecessarily complicated explanation. When the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain, they thought that structures built by the Romans must have been constructed by giants, because they themselves lacked anything remotely approaching the necessary knowledge and skills to build them. It's not unlikely that the same thing happened in other areas; one civilisation is conquered by another with less knowledge but greater numbers, and the earlier civilisation is mythologised as 'Gods' or giants, or other supernatural beings; the area enters a Dark Age and knowledge is lost for centuries. There's also the almost universal tendency to believe that our ancestors were better than ourselves and lived in a so-called 'Golden Age', and that the world is headed for decline and ultimately destruction. These factors seem to me far more likely than any explanation involving extra-terrestrials.
jandl100
08-10-2016, 11:41
Occam's Razor is a guideline not a rule.
Follow the evidence, if things turn out to be more complicated than you expect you just have to put up with it!
Quantum mechanics, for example, is horrendously complicated and very counter intuitive, but nonetheless seems to be true.
It's a load of silly nonsense dreamed up by people with too much time on their hands. If the Sumerian texts are 'true', then what about all the other creation myths from around the world; the Bible for example? Are they 'less true', and if so, why?
If you mean The Old Testament of the Bible, as it is necessary to be specific when talking about 'The Bible' since it is a compilation of many works from different times and places, then in fact there are some remarkable parallels. For example Genesis describes how god made the Earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th. The Sumerian creation story is outlined on 6 tablets, with a 7th being a summary. When you consider that the Hebrews were held in captivity in Babylon (Sumer) the idea that there was some cross-pollination there is interesting.
There are many parallels between the myths of ancient cultures all across the planet. The Flood features in the myths of hundreds of them, for example. It isn't really a case of one source contradicting the other. If anything the opposite is true.
If you mean The Old Testament of the Bible, as it is necessary to be specific when talking about 'The Bible' since it is a compilation of many works from different times and places, then in fact there are some remarkable parallels. For example Genesis describes how god made the Earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th.
Yes, God (note the singular) made the Earth and everything in it, including fully sentient human beings, in six days. Now, if the OT monotheistic version of the creation is the correct one, then any others are by definition incorrect if they involve multiple Gods.
Also, these super-intelligent aliens who visited Earth; did the evolution on their home planet require a 'kick-start' such as the one they gave to humanoids on Earth, or did their intelligence develop via an unaided evolutionary process? If it required a kick-start, who provided that? If it didn't, why would us Earth-dwellers require one?
Yes, God (note the singular) made the Earth and everything in it, including fully sentient human beings, in six days. Now, if the OT monotheistic version of the creation is the correct one, then any others are by definition incorrect if they involve multiple Gods.
Also, these super-intelligent aliens who visited Earth; did the evolution on their home planet require a 'kick-start' such as the one they gave to humanoids on Earth, or did their intelligence develop via an unaided evolutionary process? If it required a kick-start, who provided that? If it didn't, why would us Earth-dwellers require one?
Actually 'god or 'gods' is an interesting one. In the oldest surviving texts of Genesis it is in fact 'gods' plural. On the move to monotheistic Christianity over 2000 years later (Council of Nicea 525AD when 'The Bible' was first assembled as a 'holy book)' it was amended to God, singular in the opening verses. Although they neglected to change it later on in Genesis when Noah, having survived the flood, makes a feast and the 'gods' smell it and come down. Maybe they have changed that now too. Not read a bible in years.
As to the evolution question who knows? It isn't relevant in terms of the feasibility of the theory.
jandl100
08-10-2016, 18:41
:king:
Macca, you stand alone. None can compare. The 8th Wonder of the World. The hanging gardens of Babylon, the colossus of Rhodes, they have nothing on you.
How do you know this stuff? :scratch:
Actually 'god or 'gods' is an interesting one. In the oldest surviving texts of Genesis it is in fact 'gods' plural. On the move to monotheistic Christianity over 2000 years later (Council of Nicea 525AD when 'The Bible' was first assembled as a 'holy book)' it was amended to God, singular in the opening verses. Although they neglected to change it later on in Genesis when Noah, having survived the flood, makes a feast and the 'gods' smell it and come down. Maybe they have changed that now too. Not read a bible in years.
Surely Judaism was a monotheistic religion long before Christianity?
a
Surely Judaism was a monotheistic religion long before Christianity?
Indeed, the god who led Moses and his crew out of Israel. To get his help they had to agree to follow him alone. In itself implying there were other 'gods'. The Jews don't have 'The Bible' as a holy book like the Christians do. They have the Torah and The Scriptures. Different ballgame. The Torah is based on ancient Egyptian magical rites and rituals (as is the Catholic Communion service, but that is another story). The Bible is a cut and paste, Genesis, Exodus and Moses are histories, not some random religious bollocks. It was appropriated by the Christian Church along with many other Jewish scriptures to make the Old Testament, put that together with the New Testament you get a Bible.
The idea that the Bible is the direct word of God, the sort of thing you hear from these fundamentalists, is nonsense of course. It isn't even the a dictation from God, as the Book of Mormon and the Koran are supposed to be. The Old Testament is a collection of history, morality stories, rules and regs and songs, the New Testament is a collection of biographies of Jesus written 30 to 50 years after he dies/ascends to heaven (delete as appropriate) ,letters, and of course the craziness that is Revelations.
Always funny when you see these radical atheists claiming it is all nonsense when it is clear they not only have not read it but have no idea what it actually is.
I've met a fair few very committed Catholics who have no idea about this stuff. Obviously part of the whole faith/religion deal is that you don't question, you take for granted. Priests know of course but won't discuss it usually. Some of the Catholic rituals pre-date Jesus by at least 4000 years, probably (IMO) a lot more since they date from early dynastic and pre-dynastic Egypt.
sq225917
09-10-2016, 10:09
"Indeed, the god who led Moses and his crew out of Israel. To get his help they had to agree to follow him alone."
Anyone who's ever sat in my car and been given directions by my daughter and my wife simultaneously know all too well that there is only one true god who should be followed- the sat nav.
"Indeed, the god who led Moses and his crew out of Israel. To get his help they had to agree to follow him alone."
Anyone who's ever sat in my car and been given directions by my daughter and my wife simultaneously know all too well that there is only one true god who should be followed- the sat nav.
Lol.
Gordon Steadman
09-10-2016, 10:22
a
Indeed, the god who led Moses and his crew out of Israel. To get his help they had to agree to follow him alone. In itself implying there were other 'gods'. The Jews don't have 'The Bible' as a holy book like the Christians do. They have the Torah and The Scriptures. Different ballgame. The Torah is based on ancient Egyptian magical rites and rituals (as is the Catholic Communion service, but that is another story). The Bible is a cut and paste, Genesis, Exodus and Moses are histories, not some random religious bollocks. It was appropriated by the Christian Church along with many other Jewish scriptures to make the Old Testament, put that together with the New Testament you get a Bible.
The idea that the Bible is the direct word of God, the sort of thing you hear from these fundamentalists, is nonsense of course. It isn't even the a dictation from God, as the Book of Mormon and the Koran are supposed to be. The Old Testament is a collection of history, morality stories, rules and regs and songs, the New Testament is a collection of biographies of Jesus written 30 to 50 years after he dies/ascends to heaven (delete as appropriate) ,letters, and of course the craziness that is Revelations.
Always funny when you see these radical atheists claiming it is all nonsense when it is clear they not only have not read it but have no idea what it actually is.
I've met a fair few very committed Catholics who have no idea about this stuff. Obviously part of the whole faith/religion deal is that you don't question, you take for granted. Priests know of course but won't discuss it usually. Some of the Catholic rituals pre-date Jesus by at least 4000 years, probably (IMO) a lot more since they date from early dynastic and pre-dynastic Egypt.
I'm a radical atheist and please don't generalise. Yes I think it's all boll...sorry nonsense but based on too many hours bible studies - old and new testament - from the age of 5 to 15 when I told my parents to leave me alone and stop trying to indoctrinate me. You are claiming to know that it's history when even the old testament is just scribes trying to make sense of heresay, the same as the new testament. The fact that so many other 'histories' say similar or the same things means only that there was a common source.
I didn't intend joining in what I considered a nonsense thread but I'm in a good mood this morning:ner:
jandl100
09-10-2016, 10:22
"Indeed, the god who led Moses and his crew out of Israel. To get his help they had to agree to follow him alone."
Anyone who's ever sat in my car and been given directions by my daughter and my wife simultaneously know all too well that there is only one true god who should be followed- the sat nav.
Never put your trust in a god :nono:
http://www.guy-sports.com/fun_pictures/sat_nav_narrow.jpghttp://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01482/SATNAV_ERROR_1482926c.jpg
These tractor buggies are always getting stuck;) its God,s way of saying buy German
I'm a radical atheist and please don't generalise. Yes I think it's all boll...sorry nonsense but based on too many hours bible studies - old and new testament - from the age of 5 to 15 when I told my parents to leave me alone and stop trying to indoctrinate me. You are claiming to know that it's history when even the old testament is just scribes trying to make sense of heresay, the same as the new testament. The fact that so many other 'histories' say similar or the same things means only that there was a common source.
I didn't intend joining in what I considered a nonsense thread but I'm in a good mood this morning:ner:
And we are honoured by your joining ;)
Yes, the bit in bold is actually the point I was making, that the history elements have a common source. Although suggesting that the entire Old Testament is just 'scribes trying to make sense of heresy' is a generalisation in itself.
Stratmangler
09-10-2016, 10:48
Although suggesting that the entire Old Testament is just 'scribes trying to make sense of heresy' is a generalisation in itself.
Hearsay and heresy are but one letter apart.
I believe Gordon used the former.
Gordon Steadman
09-10-2016, 10:51
And we are honoured by your joining ;)
Yes, the bit in bold is actually the point I was making, that the history elements have a common source. Although suggesting that the entire Old Testament is just 'scribes trying to make sense of heresy' is a generalisation in itself.
Nope. I didn't say that the common source contained history, merely that there was a common source. You are claiming it contains history. If it does, I suspect it's a very thin slice indeed although I can't claim my opinion as fact as some do.
Back to the music. Good solid factual enjoyment:)
Nope. I didn't say that the common source contained history, merely that there was a common source. You are claiming it contains history. If it does, I suspect it's a very thin slice indeed although I can't claim my opinion as fact as some do.
Back to the music. Good solid factual enjoyment:)
I agree. I'm merely suggesting that some elements may be genuine history. I don't know it for a fact, obviously.
Hearsay and heresy are but one letter apart.
I believe Gordon used the former.
Good point - I wrongly assumed it was a typo. It makes sense either way.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/aliens-proof-evidence-facts-stars-scientists-extraterrestrial-life-et-intelligence-a7377716.html
(Although please note it's scientists saying it so it's probably a load of made up bollocks.)
Audio Al
25-10-2016, 15:30
Come on lads be serious , `
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
we all know its Marco in the hills with a dodgy mobile signal :)
jandl100
25-10-2016, 15:35
Oh dear.
The discovery of pulsars (a totally un-alien type of star) was at first seen as an alien signal - rapid series of pulses. Well, it has to be a signal from an alien civilisation, doesn't it.
It took a while to figure out the truth and there was not an alien to be seen.
The same will probably happen with this.
It'll be cool if it really is aliens.
But that is very far indeed from being proven.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/aliens-proof-evidence-facts-stars-scientists-extraterrestrial-life-et-intelligence-a7377716.html
(Although please note it's scientists saying it so it's probably a load of made up bollocks.)
Glad to see that you are becoming more healthily sceptical with regard to science and scientists ;)
walpurgis
25-10-2016, 15:43
it has to be a signal from an alien civilisation.
I don't believe in alien lifeforms in any case. But why should aliens be civilised? Developed maybe, but just as likely to be savage or too totally alien to be described. Going on the assumption there were any (which there aren't :)).
Spectral Morn
25-10-2016, 15:51
Tabby's Star is more interesting I think. Astronomers still can't explain what is happening with it, best theory so far is its part of a Dyson's sphere. Basically it is surrounded by an artificial structure used to collect its energy.
http://www.space.com/33813-alien-megastructure-mystery-tabbys-star.html
Tabby's Star is more interesting I think. Astronomers still can't explain what is happening with it, best theory so far is its part of a Dyson's sphere. Basically it is surrounded by an artificial structure used to collect its energy.
http://www.space.com/33813-alien-megastructure-mystery-tabbys-star.html
'But Wright and others have always stressed that the "E.T. did it" scenario is very unlikely, and that a more prosaic explanation will probably rise to the top eventually. And indeed, other recent observations throw some cold water on the alien-megastructure idea — and any other hypothesis that invokes some object or phenomenon near Tabby's star.'
Arkless Electronics
25-10-2016, 16:10
I'd love to join in this debate but I'm clean out of tinfoil and felt :D
jandl100
25-10-2016, 16:12
'But Wright and others have always stressed that the "E.T. did it" scenario is very unlikely, and that a more prosaic explanation will probably rise to the top eventually. And indeed, other recent observations throw some cold water on the alien-megastructure idea — and any other hypothesis that invokes some object or phenomenon near Tabby's star.'
Ah, but you are making the error of assuming that any sort of logic or factual understanding is required to post in this thread. :lol:
To paraphrase Michael Gove "AOS has had enough of experts" :doh:
walpurgis
25-10-2016, 16:19
I'm clean out of tinfoil and felt :D
Ah. You've been making your own capacitors again. :D
Arkless Electronics
25-10-2016, 16:23
Ah. You've been making your own capacitors again. :D
Damn sussed! And I was going to write "Audionote" on them and flog 'em for gazillions:lol:
Damn sussed! And I was going to write "Audionote" on them and flog 'em for gazillions:lol:
Can I have eight please?
Arkless Electronics
25-10-2016, 16:54
Ah you're lucky! I put eight aside as I saw you coming:eyebrows:
Ah, but you are making the error of assuming that any sort of logic or factual understanding is required to post in this thread. :lol:
To paraphrase Michael Gove "AOS has had enough of experts" :doh:
Logically = Intelligent life evolved on Earth - fact. There are estimated to be billions of Earth-type planets in the Universe. Conclusion: there must be other intelligent life in the Universe, probably lots of it. Or, for some reason we don't understand, Earth is the only place it has ever happened. I propose that the latter is less likely to be true by several orders of magnitude.
If they exist, which is the most likely proposition, then it is possible that they have visited/still are visiting Earth. The only counter arguments to this are 'They can't', 'they don't want to' or they are simply not aware of Earth's existence.
So to believe it is a complete impossibility is not only illogical, but tantamount to religous blind faith.
jandl100
25-10-2016, 17:18
Logically = Intelligent life evolved on Earth - fact. There are estimated to be billions of Earth-type planets in the Universe. Conclusion: there must be other intelligent life in the Universe, probably lots of it. Or, for some reason we don't understand, Earth is the only place it has ever happened. I propose that the latter is less likely to be true by several orders of magnitude.
If they exist, which is the most likely proposition, then it is possible that they have visited/still are visiting Earth. The only counter arguments to this are 'They can't', 'they don't want to' or they are simply not aware of Earth's existence.
So to believe it is a complete impossibility is not only illogical, but tantamount to religous blind faith.
Yes, I agree.
Although the overlapping timeline issue in a 13 billion year old galaxy might argue against recent alien visitation (i.e. within the span of human history which is miniscule in comparison).
So where does Geoff get his belief that life doesn't exist elsewhere from?
Gordon Steadman
25-10-2016, 17:24
Given that there are all these planets that could support life, why on earth would they choose to visit such a small, insignificant, out of the way dot on the edge of a small galaxy? The numbers for life out there might add up but it's not guaranteed. The numbers of places to see before this little pebble make it likely to be an infinite time before we get spotted. There is only just so much time for advanced life to have developed.
Did all the other places have to be seeded by aliens in order to develop intelligent life? Maybe the first one was this god chappy then!
Whilst I believe 'intellegent' life exists somewhere in the Universe, for reasons Martin has outlined, I don't believe aliens have ever visited this planet. That is because, in the words of the 'Hitch-hiker's guide to the Galaxy': space is "unimaginably big". These aliens would have had to have developed the necessary technology to receive signals from Earth, and to build inter-stellar spacecraft. I doubt even if they have/had developed such technology, they visited Earth; even out of curiosity - much less to exploit the planet for its mineral resources.
Although the overlapping timeline issue in a 13 billion year old galaxy might argue against recent alien visitation
There are also quite a lot of galaxies and the entire expanse of the universe is I believe rather large.
We do of course know that Sun Ra came from Saturn on his space ship which was powered by music (his Arkestra).
It has always struck me as odd that there is this great fascination with extraterrestrial life, and yet we can't even properly communicate with any of the myriad other life forms on our own planet. Our knowledge of the sea bed is practically zero. We all know that Earth is the only planet in the solar system able to support human life, but even here its a pretty narrow area that we can survive in, limited basically by temperature, altitude and depth of water.
WE TRAVEL THE SPACEWAYS! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPuK7hfWCfA)
jandl100
25-10-2016, 17:44
There are also quite a lot of galaxies and the entire expanse of the universe is I believe rather large.
Yes, I believe it is a bit on the spacious side of things.
Perhaps it comes down to technology - local interstellar travel seems feasible. But going further out in the galaxy, let alone the far vaster inter-galactic distances, does seem a tad trickier.
But it is just down to technology - and improved understanding of physics by (spit) scientists. Star Trek type warp drive can't be ruled out yet within our current understanding of physics.
walpurgis
25-10-2016, 22:16
Star Trek type warp drive can't be ruled out yet within our current understanding of physics.
With the current state of play. That's about as likely as magic.
jandl100
26-10-2016, 05:39
With the current state of play. That's about as likely as magic.
:lol: You haven't got a clue what you are talking about!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
... "The Alcubierre metric defines the warp-drive spacetime. It is a Lorentzian manifold that, if interpreted in the context of general relativity, allows a warp bubble to appear in previously flat spacetime and move away effectively faster than lightspeed. The interior of the bubble is an inertial reference frame and inhabitants suffer no proper acceleration ..... The Alcubierre drive, however, remains a hypothetical concept with seemingly difficult problems, though the amount of energy required is no longer thought to be unobtainably large"
It is far from proven, but is entirely consistent with Einstein's theory of relativity.
It requires further advances by (spit) physicists to confirm or refute the possibility.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zPOxm6r__A
jandl100
26-10-2016, 07:48
I've a strong suspicion that as our technology is increasingly able to enter the weirder ends of quantum mechanics and relativity that truth being stranger than fiction will quite rapidly come to be an understatement!
Our notion of 'common sense' is built around experience in a very limited band of perception. Things are gonna get seriously weird. :facepull:
Gordon Steadman
26-10-2016, 07:54
Things are gonna get seriously weird. :facepull:
You mean you don't think they are already:scratch:
Once we've cracked interstellar travel, we need to fly off to some remote planetary system and get them to build us some pyramids.
jandl100
26-10-2016, 07:58
You mean you don't think they are already:scratch:
You haven't seen anything yet! :lol:
-- which of course kind of leads back to the OP.
Aliens a little ahead of our technical understanding and capability will be able to do things we might view as unbelievable or even "magic".
jandl100
26-10-2016, 08:07
... impossible accelerations reportedly seen performed by UFOs?
Stick them in an Alcubierre space-warp bubble and almost any acceleration is possible without it being felt by the UFO or its occupants.
walpurgis
26-10-2016, 08:10
The Alcubierre drive, however, remains a hypothetical concept
Says it all really.
'Beam me up Scottie'
Ali Tait
26-10-2016, 15:32
LOL, that was never said in any episode of the original series..
Says it all really.
'Beam me up Scottie'
Not so long ago that supersonic travel was a hypothetical concept. Or the electric light. Or recording sound. Or nuclear power. It's a long list. Take a smart phone back in time to 1950 and show it to people, tell them in 60 years almost everyone in the UK will have one, even children, see what they say.
Arkless Electronics
26-10-2016, 18:11
I've a strong suspicion that as our technology is increasingly able to enter the weirder ends of quantum mechanics and relativity that truth being stranger than fiction will quite rapidly come to be an understatement!
Our notion of 'common sense' is built around experience in a very limited band of perception. Things are gonna get seriously weird. :facepull:
Both are used in some specialised valves so nowt new there!
Arkless Electronics
26-10-2016, 18:13
Not so long ago that supersonic travel was a hypothetical concept. Or the electric light. Or recording sound. Or nuclear power. It's a long list. Take a smart phone back in time to 1950 and show it to people, tell them in 60 years almost everyone in the UK will have one, even children, see what they say.
A smidgen of difference in that non of them break the laws of physics... other than that yeah:D
Not so long ago that supersonic travel was a hypothetical concept. Or the electric light. Or recording sound. Or nuclear power. It's a long list. Take a smart phone back in time to 1950 and show it to people, tell them in 60 years almost everyone in the UK will have one, even children, see what they say.
'Ah, I see you've invented a time machine'.
A smidgen of difference in that non of them break the laws of physics... other than that yeah:D
We are still not entirely sure of what the laws of physics are though.
Something for scientific absolutists to cling onto as a comfort blanket! :ner::D
;)
Marco.
We are still not entirely sure of what the laws of physics are though.
I'm pretty certain that we know some of them.
Take a smart phone back in time to 1950 and show it to people, tell them in 60 years almost everyone in the UK will have one, even children, see what they say.
They would burn you as a witch.
Once we've cracked interstellar travel, we need to fly off to some remote planetary system and get them to build us some pyramids.
This is the best comment I have seen on the internet so far.
[emoji216] [emoji209] [emoji201] [emoji200] [emoji207] [emoji206]
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.