The UFO And Alien Disclosure

KotA, I really think you should get some better information regarding the evolution of culture an technology before making any speculation regarding possible alien involvment. Leave the woo pseudoscience behind and take a serious look in to the issue.

A good starting point would be "The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science " by Steven Mithen.

Now, a slightly OT rant.
I am really disgusted by people who can't "see" or believe how our species became what it is today, how it reached all its achievements, all the good and the bad parts, by itself without the help of some "superior beings", be them aliens, gods, angels, whatever. Heck, why should we belive our antecessors were not able, say, to create culture and technology by themselves? Why should we decrease the skills, intelligence and the luck of our antecessors? Why should we appeal to some "higher guidance"?

I'm very proud of my species beating the odds and being the evolutionary product of a blind proccess which started at some pool of goo billions of years ago. I'm very proud of the cultures and technologies built by my species without any halp of aliens, gods, angels, demons, spirits, whatever. Much prouder than I would be if we had been so dumb that we would need help to find out how to make spears, clothes, etc.
 
Last edited:
Correa Neto said:
KotA, I really think you should get some better information regarding the evolution of culture an technology before making any speculation regarding possible alien involvment. Leave the woo pseudoscience behind and take a serious look in to the issue.

A good starting point would be "The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science " by Steven Mithen.

Now, a slightly OT rant.
I am really disgusted by people who can't "see" or believe how our species became what it is today, how it reached all its achievements, all the good and the bad parts, by itself without the help of some "superior beings", be them aliens, gods, angels, whatever. Heck, why should we belive our antecessors were not able, say, to create culture and technology by themselves? Why should we decrease the skills, intelligence and the luck of our antecessors? Why should we appeal to some "higher guidance"?

I'm very proud of my species beating the odds and being the evolutionary product of a blind proccess which started at some pool of goo billions of years ago. I'm very proud of the cultures and technologies built by my species without any halp of aliens, gods, angels, demons, spirits, whatever. Much prouder than I would be if we had been so dumb that we would need help to find out how to make spears, clothes, etc.
Click to expand...


Look, I am NOT saying we couldn't have arrived without help... It is 'possible' that all that you see around you developed from pond scum, a little solar energy, and a lot of time...BUT that isn't what our history suggests.

What appauls ME is people ever so willing to dismiss millenia of written history, artwork, and even mythology that states the same thing the worlds over: "A long time ago, beings came out of the heavens, and interacted with men, to improve him & the way he lived."

While that isn't an exact quote, the very same notion is found in almost every creation story every written or passed down.

Scientists the world over dissmiss ALL such accounts, because they lack sincere testible proof. Personally, I think they'd all benefit from the lesson learned by the man who found Troy. IF you are looking for the truth, then I suggest you look in the direction these historical clues point toward...

There's a difference between "Heaven" and "the heavens".

The problem isn't the evidence, but rather how religious scholars interpreted the texts.

---

Now, as for how adanced Homo Erectus was:

Homo Erectus did NOT wear clothes, of any kind. His tools were little more than simple hammer stones, and possibly sharp scraper rocks they found. From the evidence I have seen and studied, there was little or no 'fashioning' of tools.

Neanderthals on the other hand were the first to shape stones, and even lash them to strong sticks to make the first axes and hammers.

Cro Magnon Man- Homo Sapien, not yet fully 'us', did NOT come from the Neanderthal's line, but rather from the eariler Erectus line, and rather than simply draping animal skins across themselves, they had taylored clothes some of which were even adorned. Some even came up with farming along with irrigation methods.

So, how or why the 'leap' forward...? I mean, putting Neanderthal between us and Erectus, looks correct. We needed the years of draping simple animal skins across us, if only to realize that there was an even better way of dressing. We went from being simple hunters & gathers to, in some case, advanced farming. (*Forgive the huge generalizations.)
 
I am sure I read somewhere that most sightings are deliberately obscure because the aliens are teens out with their parents' space craft playing practical jokes.

Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy I think it was.

That proves it really as the book was all about space travel.
 
King of the Americas said:
I openly admit, that I am not an 'expert' on paleoanthology.

But that is neither a refutation of my point above, nor evidence that I am incorrect.
Click to expand...
Well, if you knew just a bit about paleoanthropology, you would already know about the evidence which refute your idea. Try reading that book I pointed. There are just too many wrong wrong aspects at your whole reasoning. I suggest opening a new thread on it if you want to dig deeper.
 
King of the Americas said:
I openly admit, that I am not an 'expert' on paleoanthology.

But that is neither a refutation of my point above, nor evidence that I am incorrect.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what "paleoanthology" is, KotA, but with all respect, what you have said here suggests you are at least 10-15 years out of touch with current research in palaeoanthropology.
It's a very dynamic field and it can be hard for even specialists to keep up, but I do think you need to catch up with your reading on this before making the sort of statements you have here.

This- "Now, as for how adanced Homo Erectus was:

Homo Erectus did NOT wear clothes, of any kind. His tools were little more than simple hammer stones, and possibly sharp scraper rocks they found. From the evidence I have seen and studied, there was little or no 'fashioning' of tools.

Neanderthals on the other hand were the first to shape stones, and even lash them to strong sticks to make the first axes and hammers.

Cro Magnon Man- Homo Sapien, not yet fully 'us', did NOT come from the Neanderthal's line, but rather from the eariler Erectus line, and rather than simply draping animal skins across themselves, they had taylored clothes some of which were even adorned. Some even came up with farming along with irrigation methods.

So, how or why the 'leap' forward...? I mean, putting Neanderthal between us and Erectus, looks correct. We needed the years of draping simple animal skins across us, if only to realize that there was an even better way of dressing. We went from being simple hunters & gathers to, in some case, advanced farming. (*Forgive the huge generalizations.)"
- is not just a huge generalisation, it is substantially wrong by current understanding.

Seriously, this is not a smart alec put-down. Do more reading on this. A lot is changing in our understanding of human evolution and prehistory. Far more interesting than ET-speculation in most cases.
 
King of the Americas said:
Lots of people have tons to offer... Blurry pictures, degraded video footage, sworn statements from radar operators, pilots, ground crews...and even the occasional wacko abductee.
Click to expand...
Exactly right. Say it KoA!

So long as you consider such evidence 'unscientific', and thus worthless,
Click to expand...
You ARE the MAN! Say it brother!

...the truth of this matter will elude you.
Click to expand...
Huh? I thought you were on our side.
 
CurtC said:
Exactly right. Say it KoA!


You ARE the MAN! Say it brother!


Huh? I thought you were on our side.
Click to expand...

I just think it is foolish to completely disregard evidence that doesn't reach the 'scientific'- testible standard.

Blurry pictures or degraded video are still images of 'something'...

I am on the 'side' interested in more, serious investigation of this phenomia.
 
King of the Americas said:
I just think it is foolish to completely disregard evidence that doesn't reach the 'scientific'- testible standard.
Click to expand...

The only value in that evidence is in suggesting directions for gathering real, scientific evidence. Blurry photos and anecdotes are useless for basing conclusions on them.

The problem is, that we've had 60 years of blurry photos and anecdotes from fantasy-prone individuals, and ZERO real evidence. It's perfectly reasonable (and it's the ONLY reasonable position) to tentatively accept the conclusion that there are no alien visitors. Of course, this can change with real evidence, but without that, we're justified in ignoring these advocates.
 
CurtC said:
The only value in that evidence is in suggesting directions for gathering real, scientific evidence. Blurry photos and anecdotes are useless for basing conclusions on them.

The problem is, that we've had 60 years of blurry photos and anecdotes from fantasy-prone individuals, and ZERO real evidence. It's perfectly reasonable (and it's the ONLY reasonable position) to tentatively accept the conclusion that there are no alien visitors. Of course, this can change with real evidence, but without that, we're justified in ignoring these advocates.
Click to expand...

See...'I' believe that since you have evidence of 'something' that it is IMPOSSIBLE to conclude there is 'nothing' there...

Inconclusive evidence SHOULD lead toward more thorough investigations, not abandoning the notion of study of it/them.

Basically, I couldn't disagree with you more.
 
King of the Americas said:
See...'I' believe that since you have evidence of 'something' that it is IMPOSSIBLE to conclude there is 'nothing' there...

Inconclusive evidence SHOULD lead toward more thorough investigations, not abandoning the notion of study of it/them.

Basically, I couldn't disagree with you more.
Click to expand...

It is difficult to prove a negative. If the evidence came with a bit more credibility, then it would be worth looking into. Again, the energy equation alone makes it very difficult to believe any alien has visited.

glenn
 
King of the Americas said:
I just think it is foolish to completely disregard evidence that doesn't reach the 'scientific'- testible standard.

Blurry pictures or degraded video are still images of 'something'...

I am on the 'side' interested in more, serious investigation of this phenomia.
Click to expand...
UFO proponents quite often demand a more detailed or serious investigation. But two questions must be made.

1. Is the evidence presented or available so far worthy of spending time and money on it?
I think the answer is no, at least when it comes to tax money. There are better research areas needing funding. Of course, private money is another issue. Blurry pictures and pieces of footage, unreliable eyewitnesses reports (quite often manipulated -intentionally or not- by UFOlogists) are not worthy spending my tax money.

2. Assuming there's money, time and personnel available, how would this research be carried out?
- A network of radar stations scanning the sky? We already have a lot of them, civilian and millitary. As far as I know, alien crafts were not detected so far... If alien craft are flying around like UFOlogists claim, where are the good radar tracks?
- A network of optical equipments and observers? Well, we already have lots of them. Astronomers (pro and amateurs), aviation enthusiasts, bird watchers, meteorologists, etc. As far as I know, alien crafts were not detected so far... If alien craft are flying around like UFOlogists claim, where are the good images?
-Checking the archeological and paleontological report for evidence of aliens or some sunken Atlantis-like civilization able to build flying saucers? Geologists, archeologists, paleontologists work very hard and never found evidence for such things. Not a single trace so far.
- Interviews with abductees? C'mon, give me a break...
 
Hindmost said:
It is difficult to prove a negative. If the evidence came with a bit more credibility, then it would be worth looking into. Again, the energy equation alone makes it very difficult to believe any alien has visited.

glenn
Click to expand...

I think I have already mentioned the fact, that they don't HAVE to come from other stars, they have ALWAYS been here, and could very well be from our oceans, the dark side of the moon, from one of Jupiter's moons, or from some other uninvestigated place nearby.
 
King of the Americas said:
I think I have already mentioned the fact, that they don't HAVE to come from other stars, they have ALWAYS been here, and could very well be from our oceans, the dark side of the moon, from one of Jupiter's moons, or from some other uninvestigated place nearby.
Click to expand...

Those places described are more unlikely than the stars. Most of the places "nearby" you mention have been explored to such an extent that any civilization of advanced nature surely would have been found. The further one goes out in the solar system, the less likely one would find advanced life (if any life at all). It makes for great fiction but it is not really likely.
 
King of the Americas said:
I think I have already mentioned the fact, that they don't HAVE to come from other stars, they have ALWAYS been here, and could very well be from our oceans, the dark side of the moon, from one of Jupiter's moons, or from some other uninvestigated place nearby.
Click to expand...

It is reasonable to expect some type of life in the solar system, however, it is not reasonable to assume that life can make space ships and fly around the solar system undetected. There would have to be some type of EM emissions. If we can detect the cosmic backround radiation, we can certainly detect a civilization nearby.

Any civilization from our oceans is not likely to have any technology. It takes the ability to raise the temperature of stuff...very difficult to do under the sea.

glenn
 
Last edited:
Astrophotographer said:
Those places described are more unlikely than the stars. Most of the places "nearby" you mention have been explored to such an extent that any civilization of advanced nature surely would have been found. The further one goes out in the solar system, the less likely one would find advanced life (if any life at all). It makes for great fiction but it is not really likely.
Click to expand...

You are making unfounded assumptions. WHAT IF this civilization's purpose or goal was to BE undetected and remain undetected...or at least 'unproven'?
 
King of the Americas said:
You are making unfounded assumptions. WHAT IF this civilization's purpose or goal was to BE undetected and remain undetected...or at least 'unproven'?
Click to expand...

Hmmm...We might as well be talking about Leprechauns then. They hide or they have to give up their pot of gold. What about real witches? They hide for fear of being burned at the stake. Then there are elves, fairies, bigfoot, and, yes, even Elvis. A very slippery slope you are going down IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom