Alien Astronaught Theory

[Hunter]

I've been paying attention to this particular subject and it's fairly intriguing irregardless of which side you are on.  For those of you who aren't familiar with it, it's the idea that ETs have influenced human development.

I've noted that the theory runs from DNA manipulation, interbreeding, technological influences, and even the cause of the Black Plague (my personal favorite).

I'm of two minds on this subject myself.  Yeah, it's a convenient way to explain alot of the unknowns but at the same time it really doesn't credit our ancestors with brains much above a rock (I think).

[Oniya]

I think it would be arrogant to assume that we were the only intelligent life in the universe (just because it's big.  It's really big.)  However, the thought that some alien race has been using us as a test-tube is arrogant in its own way.  (Weer speshul!)  I'm pretty sure that the whole aliens are manipulating Earth idea sputtered into life around the same time that people were starting to claim science and religion were incompatible, which makes me think it's an attempt to fill the void.

This is, of course, all conjecture on my part.

Of course, I could always be one of those aliens sent to discredit the theory, because we don't think you're ready for the truth.  :)

[HairyHeretic]

That idea goes WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back. Look at some of the south / central American cultures pictures, and you get a lot of images that could be 'figure in spacesuit'.

You also have odd little stories like this one

http://www.unmuseum.org/siriusb.htm

[MasterMischief]

It was llamas...and we still live among you.   ;D

[Xandria]

It does make for some interesting reading, but to accept this theory, I personally would need to see some serious empirical evidence.  Though I do agree it's highly improbable that we are the only intelligent life in the universe.   :-)

[DarklingAlice]

I would say that it is perhaps possible that other life exists in the universe (although, for the record, the Drake equation is not the way to go about calculating that possibility). However, it is very improbable that other life would A) develop anywhere in reasonable proximity to Earth; B) be anything at all like carbon based life (and it would especially not be anything like us, this is why rubber forehead aliens piss me off so much <_<).

[Oniya]

There are excellent reasons for the evolution of a bipedal form with sense organs concentrated in the head.  I also think that carbon-based molecules are most likely to have the complexity to convey genetic information (If I recall, the corresponding silicon-based molecules have different angles, but it's been a while since I pestered my college biology teacher.)

As for developing anywhere near Earth - I agree that would be mathematically improbable.  The set of 'earthlike' planets in this limited corner of space is still too small.

[Jude]

Given the energy needs of a highly evolved technological society, were they to happen upon a planet in the Goldilocks zone like our own, they would probably conquer it, not spend millions of years tinkering with organisms on it while going through painstaking measures to remain undetectable.

The alien origin theory makes no sense because it provides no motivation.  A race with the technology to travel across the stars and cloak itself from us for all this time would benefit how from observing our development?  We already have computer simulations that model evolution well enough to observe the process, and we can already circumvent it entirely with genetic engineering.

The only plausible answer is that a race of human beings from another planet in the universe seeded earth with the proper life that would eventually evolve into us so that by the time they were ready to subjugate the planet, we'd already have the process started -- which I suppose is something that could happen, but given that there's no evidence... It's pointless speculation.

[DarklingAlice]

There are excellent reasons for the evolution of a bipedal form with sense organs concentrated in the head.  I also think that carbon-based molecules are most likely to have the complexity to convey genetic information (If I recall, the corresponding silicon-based molecules have different angles, but it's been a while since I pestered my college biology teacher.)

As for developing anywhere near Earth - I agree that would be mathematically improbable.  The set of 'earthlike' planets in this limited corner of space is still too small.

Bipedal creatures with an upright posture and not possessed of tails are absurdly rare and structurally a bad idea in most situations. To the best of my knowledge primates are the sole example in the entirety of history. Further, quadrupeds make up the majority (that extra stability is just too tempting). So our form of bipedalism is an absurd minority of a minority. Further, the selective pressures driving bipedalism (and quadrapedalism for that matter) are specific for our environment.

Carbon works here, and more specifically our form of carbon-based life works here, because of the proportion and availability of other elements. Change that ratio (e.g. by limiting available nitrogen) and something else might become more ideal for the basic information storage and catalytic functions necessary. Once again this is specific to our environment.

And here is the fun thing, it is not just specific to our environment now it is specific to the particular path both life and the planet have developed on since the moment of life's advent. This is an extremely path-dependent process. Which is why looking for Earth-like planets as a source of life is a mistake. If they are like to Earth now, there is no guarantee that they went through the specific phase needed in their past. If they did go through that specific phase then there is no guarantee that life was produced. And if by some miracle longshot both of these things were true there is no guarantee that the path from point A to point B was the same. And if the path is the same then there is no guarantee that life evolved in the same way along that path. And at this point I think it should be apparent that we have limited possibility so much as to make this impossible.

In short:
Alien life = possible
Alien life from an earthlike planet = less possible in proportion to the ratio of earthlike planets to total planets
Alien life similar to humans = so improbably as to be fantasy

[Sabby]

Jude, I think your looking at it the wrong way. Instead of thinking what they stand to gain from us, perhaps it's better to ask what we're getting. The bear doesn't understand what the reserve workers are doing or gaining when they tranq it, or that it's for their own good. They can't understand. Unless we go extinct, we'll one day reach a level they have, and so it makes sense to watch and, at times, guide us, keep tabs on us...

And another thing I find confusing is people claiming the 'effort' part of it... like, why would aliens visit when they live so far away? Why make the huge trip? To this... well, I really don't think they are still trapped in that old deadlock that is fuel based energy. Whatever it is we use (electricity, coal, petroleum) requires an obscene amount of energy to use, where as there are (at least, this is what I believe) much more efficient energy sources out there, limitless ones that would allow such travel.

I mean, read the reports of UFO sightings by jet pilots. If they're pulling stuff like that off, without leaving any kind of waste, then it's either we don't know how to detect the crap left behind, or they use an energy source that is not at all like anything we know. 

[Jude]

Why is asking what they would gain from us the wrong question?  If you are claiming that aliens chose to create us, then there had to have been some sort of intent behind that decision.  What could it possibly have been?

Why would they have chosen to seed the planet with life instead of utilizing its resources for their gain when it would've cost them so dearly to make the trip?  Even if they had an alternate energy resource that was incredibly dense, plentiful, and easily utilized, it's impossible for matter to travel at the speed of light.  Considering that we've been unable to locate any habitable planets within a reasonable amount of light years from us, their trip would've taken a very, very long time and would necessitate a place for them to stay nearby -- they can't hover in space indefinitely and how could they have avoid detection?

Assume that they did create us:  then why is there evidence of evolution on this planet that stretches back millions of years when such an advanced creature would be capable of simple genetic engineering that would've produced a result in a tiny fraction of that time?

Is there an answer that avoids all of these problems?  Undoubtedly, but you have to formulate your theory on the alien presence very carefully to sidestep all of these difficulties.  With each dodge it becomes more and more of a religion and less of a theory as you pile on ad hoc hypothesis after ad hoc hypothesis to preserve the conclusion you're working backwards from.  In the end, the aliens you imagine are incredibly advanced, powerful, and cannot be understood logically by our feeble human brains.  That sounds an awful lot like god to me, so I don't think you're speaking of a theory, but a religion.

People forget that UFOs do exist, but that UFO isn't an acronym for "alien craft."  Unidentified flying objects are just that -- unidentified.  There has never been an identified flying object in the history of mankind that was of alien origin -- or even suspected origin of that matter.  Even if a highly advanced craft was observed, there's no reason to believe that it would be otherworldly in design, the most logical conclusion is that it's a highly advanced piece of secret technology, such as the stealth bombers that were manufactured and tested in Area 51 which started one component of the alien craze.

When little green men were the type of extraterrestrial portrayed in films, guess what type of abductors people described?  When ET game out, they became brown creatures with flared fingerprints and a fondness of bike rides (well, maybe not that last part).  And the "gray" stereotype pushed most recently has come into dominance in the last few years.  The bottom line is, these are images created by our imagination that eventually manifest themselves in our dreams.  Even that paralyzed sensation that supposed abductees often experience can easily be explained logically in terms of a biological condition that occurs sometimes during sleep.

Human memory and perception are flawed.  The only real testimony worth anything is something captured digitally.  As such, you would think that with the explosion of digital photography and camera phones there'd be an outpouring of additional documented evidence in this subject matter.  There hasn't been.  Furthermore, every single picture that the alien community has put forth is blurry, out of focus, at nighttime, and generally bad; it's just like supposed bigfoot photography.

Are we alone in the galaxy?  Probably not, but chances are everyone else is just as stranded as we are by the laws of physics which don't promote the transit of matter around the damn-near infinite space of the universe.

[Sabby]

I... didn't say they created us o.o You wasted a wall of text.

[Vekseid]

My favorite is the 'ancient off-ramp' picture that gets compared to modern off-ramps from the space shuttle. It looks so mysterious when you see it on TV...

...and then you find out, years later, that it's actually a tiny piece of an ancient birdcage or something.

What frauds will do to make a sale.

[Oniya]

Bipedal creatures with an upright posture and not possessed of tails are absurdly rare and structurally a bad idea in most situations. To the best of my knowledge primates are the sole example in the entirety of history. Further, quadrupeds make up the majority (that extra stability is just too tempting). So our form of bipedalism is an absurd minority of a minority. Further, the selective pressures driving bipedalism (and quadrapedalism for that matter) are specific for our environment.

Okay - had sleep, and now my recall is stronger.  As far as bipedalism, there are several advantages.  It raises the sense-organs above the other creatures in the environment, thus giving an advantage in threat detection.  Binocular vision, with the eyes situated forward on the head gives an advantage in depth perception.  Binaural hearing provides directional sense.  It frees up the forward limbs, which is essential in the use of complex tools.  Yes, birds can use simple tools, notably corvids, but anything comparable to technology virtually requires two hands in the developing stages.

Carbon works here, and more specifically our form of carbon-based life works here, because of the proportion and availability of other elements. Change that ratio (e.g. by limiting available nitrogen) and something else might become more ideal for the basic information storage and catalytic functions necessary. Once again this is specific to our environment.

Actually, I was able to find a document online that went into the specifics of why another atom wouldn't work.  Short version: I was correct in remembering that the angles are different (case in point, HC≡CH is a straight line, but HSi≡SiH has a more Z-shape), but also, the strength of the atomic bonds in corresponding compounds is a lot weaker.  The resulting molecules (when they can be formed) are more brittle.  You cannot create the equivalent of a benzene ring with Si₆H₆. In addition, corresponding compounds necessary for cellular activity have different forms between the carbon and silicon varieties.  Carbon dioxide is a gas, where silicon dioxide is solid.  While the article talks about specifically terrestrial conditions, such things as molecular bonds are not going to vary much (if at all) within the parameters necessary for life (and I'm figuring in the critters that live near the deep sea vents.)

[mystictiger]

Carbon works here, and more specifically our form of carbon-based life works here, because of the proportion and availability of other elements. Change that ratio (e.g. by limiting available nitrogen) and something else might become more ideal for the basic information storage and catalytic functions necessary. Once again this is specific to our environment.

I strongly disagree for three major reasons:

1) The 'specific to our environment' argument is nonsense given that 'our environment' has changed significantly. The 'primordial soup' is a very significantly different environment to what we have now. The very early Earth would've been molten rock bathed in hydrogen and helium. As the crust cooled, volcanism resulted in the spewing of large amounts of amonia (and hence nitrogen) and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Photochemical decay of the amonia resulted in free nitrogen. Don't ask me how the archae came around, but they did. These things ate sulphur. Then after a long period of time, we get photosynthesis. Photosynethic activity then liberated oxygen and sequestered carbon. Biochemistry has a direct impact on environment, just as environment determines biochemistry.

2) Carbon is simply more 'interesting'. Yes, Silicon can form interesting molecules that could carry biologicaly significant information. But Carbon can react to form 'interesting' combinations with a faaar wider range of atoms. To quote an intresting PNAS paper:

As the structural basis for life, one of carbon’s important features is that unlike silicon it can readily engage in the formation of chemical bonds with many other atoms, thereby allowing for the chemical versatility required to conduct the reactions of biological metabolism and propagation. The various organic functional groups, composed of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, and a host of metals, such as iron, magnesium, and zinc, provide the enormous diversity of chemical reactions necessarily  atalyzed by a living organism. Silicon, in contrast, interacts with only a few other atoms, and the large silicon molecules are monotonous compared with the combinatorial universe of organic macromolecules

Any idea or suggestion that silicon could be the basis of biochemistry is a non-scientific claim, based on personal preference, that disregards every single bit of evidence we have about life, biochemistry, and chemistry. Be it deep sea thermophiles or cryptoendolithic cyanobacteria in antarctica, life irrespective of its environment, is carbon based. This could be because Carbon makes for a real good way of transfering energy (double and triple bonds, which is something that silicon can't do).

The available evidence we have suggests that irrespective of drastically different environments, different metabolic pathways (e.g. sulphur-metabolising bacteria), we end up with carbon at the core of the system.

Yes, I'm aware that the argument that truly alien biology could be based on something else but it would be so alien that we wouldn't recognise it as being alive. We'd probably regard it as a rock, and they'd probably not actually see us as we'd be moving too quickly.

3) Astronomically speaking, carbon is massively more abundant than silicon, phosphorus-nitrogen (for phosphazene-based biology), and so on.

And here is the fun thing, it is not just specific to our environment now it is specific to the particular path both life and the planet have developed on since the moment of life's advent. This is an extremely path-dependent process

That's not necessarily true. This goes back to the Burgess Shale interpretation. Gould would argue that anything is possible (see "Life's Grandeur"), but Conway Morris (see "Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe")would argue that there are systemic constraints on how we could have developed. Gould says that we could have ended up as anything, but Conway Morris says that we could only ever have been human or something like it. I don't know which way I go. Unfortunately, we can really easily falsify either proposition.

... something about the Drake equation...

There is no correct way to caluclate the possibility of alien life. The Drake method is just one way of writing down a long list of imponderable variables.

[Vekseid]

When people trot out Earth's 'unique' environment claiming that silicon based life is possible elsewhere, it's important to point out that Earth has a massive overabundance of silicon compared with the rest of the Universe.

[DarklingAlice]

Okay - had sleep, and now my recall is stronger.  As far as bipedalism, there are several advantages.  It raises the sense-organs above the other creatures in the environment, thus giving an advantage in threat detection.  Binocular vision, with the eyes situated forward on the head gives an advantage in depth perception.  Binaural hearing provide directional sense.  It frees up the forward limbs, which is essential in the use of complex tools.  Yes, birds can use simple tools, notably corvids, but anything comparable to technology virtually requires two hands in the developing stages.

You are describing what is necessary for a life that lives on mostly clear, horizontal planes (e.g. savannah, scrubland, riverfronts, the areas in which these traits developed). Differing biomes have differing requirements. The things you suggest would not be nearly so advantageous in a densely forested environment, which is why mankind deforests areas as it spreads. You also neglect to take into account the things we have given up like speed, stability, and much of our ability to scent. Just because some particular characteristic has advantages does not mean that it will evolve, especially not in environments where those advantages are weak. Technology also is not a requirement for life. It is a requirement for us.

And that is just on our planet. A planet with different salient factors, e.g. a differing day/night cycle, higher or lower percentage of ocean, different heat ranges, different atmosphere, different light color, etc. would produce life suited to that environment.

Actually, I was able to find a document online that went into the specifics of why another atom wouldn't work.  Short version: I was correct in remembering that the angles are different, but also, the strength of the atomic bonds in corresponding compounds is a lot weaker.  The resulting molecules (when they can be formed) are more brittle.  You cannot create the equivalent of a benzene ring with Si₆H₆. In addition, corresponding compounds necessary for cellular activity have different forms between the carbon and silicon varieties.  Carbon dioxide is a gas, where silicon dioxide is solid.  While the article talks about specifically terrestrial conditions, such things as molecular bonds are not going to vary much (if at all) within the parameters necessary for life (and I'm figuring in the critters that live near the deep sea vents.)

Okay, I think this is the point at which silicon mysteriously crops up in this discussion. I at no point posited silicon based life. I merely said that it is possible that another element has the potential for the information storage and catalytic capabilities needed for basic life (e.g. RNA World level), and that things would evolve stepwise from there creating something on a wholly different path. I never denied that carbon is well suited. Carbon based life sprangs up from a discrete event under precise parameters. This world is well suited for carbon based life because of the path it has taken: life has changed the nature of the planet at the same time the planet has altered the nature of that life. A different life or planetary environment would produce something different. A separate event under widely different parameters could give rise to something distinct from it.



However, my original point is: If we were to encounter other life it would be distinctly unlike us having evolved from a discrete event and possibly with a different elemental basis. We may not even recognize it as life without close observation of its chemical properties.

If you limit the field of discussion to saying that alien life must be human-like then alien life is a practical impossiblity. Only if you broaden your definition do you begin to see the possibility. Given that human-like life is thus not very possible it becomes even more absurd to think it exists within a physically feasable proximity to earth for the alien astronaut theory.

[mystictiger]

...but anything comparable to technology virtually requires two hands in the developing stages

Or tentacles!

Okay, I think this is the point at which silicon mysteriously crops up in this discussion. I at no point posited silicon based life. I merely said that it is possible that another element has the potential for the information storage and catalytic capabilities needed for basic life (e.g. RNA World level), and that things would evolve stepwise from there creating something on a wholly different path

If not carbon, then what? Silicion, phosphorus-nitrogen, boron, or certain metal oxides. Silicon is the most 'obvious' or possible one of these. The counter argument immediately is that not-carbon biochemistry lacks the range of interesting reactions that make life possible.

However, my original point is: If we were to encounter other life it would be distinctly unlike us having evolved from a discrete event and possibly with a different elemental basis. We may not even recognize it as life without close observation of its chemical properties

The evolutionary point is entirely valid and is supported by all of the available evidence. The elemental one is pseudoscience / science fiction that belongs in Star Trek

[Oniya]

I realize that you did not posit silicon-based life.  However, as is mentioned in the article, silicon shares enough properties with carbon (valence number, similar chemical properties based on the periodic table, abundance) to be the reasonable 'next best thing'.  Organic chemistry is very complex, requiring large and complicated molecules and reactions.  (I roomed with a bio-chem major, and I am a compulsive reader.  No text book was safe.)  In order to form those complex molecules, the base element needs to be able to connect with as many other atoms as possible, hence, the valence number is a consideration.  On the flip side, you can only go so far up the table before you run into large (comparatively) atomic radii and atomic instability.  It might be fun to consider a polonium or thorium-based life form, but then you'd have to deal with how the compounds disintegrate as the atoms decay.  Silicon, being the closest element to carbon with the necessary reactivity is simply the first go-to as an alternative base for life.

[Serephino]

Is it possible?  I think so.  The possibilities are endless.  I agree that it wouldn't necessarily take an Earth-like planet to produce life.  Thinking that it does makes sense based on what we know now, but to think that we know everything about everything is incredibly arrogant.

There could be some element compound on another planet that doesn't exist here that will, and has, also worked.  How can we possibly know about it if it doesn't exist on Earth?  Or maybe different elements come together in a different way and work differently.  Who in the hell knows...

Why would they study us?  Why do we humans study stuff?  I'm thinking it's to learn about it.  Maybe they planted the seeds of life as some great experiment.  And maybe they've discovered some technology that we haven't.

I don't have any of the answers, but I like to think that anything is possible.  To me, discounting something because it currently cannot be understood with modern technology is boxing yourself in.  Where would we be today if some of our ancestors didn't wonder what if?  Some of the greatest discoveries have been made because someone wondered what if what was widely accepted as truth was wrong.  Hell, people used to think the Earth was flat, and the sun revolved around it, and to believe otherwise was absurd.   

[meikle]

There could be some element compound on another planet that doesn't exist here that will, and has, also worked.  How can we possibly know about it if it doesn't exist on Earth?  Or maybe different elements come together in a different way and work differently.  Who in the hell knows...

I think this is pretty much what the study of chemistry does.

"Anything is possible" is a good, open-minded way to look at things, but it's important not to lose sight of what we do know.

[mystictiger]

The general assumption is the 'principle of mediocrity'. It means that elements, chemicals, and physics is uniform all over the observable universe, and that the Earth and our experiences of it are pretty much average and par for the course. You're not going to travel a few hundred light years and suddenly find that Pi or the speed of light are different. They're called universal constants for that very reason.

It's an unfortunate term for so wonderful a principle. Or at least I think it wonderful. It means that what we find true here is true everywhere. It means that we can 'explore' the surfaces of distant worlds.

[Kate]

Not expecting to sway anyone but it is a very interesting topic.

[if they did exist Why would they.. ]A) develop anywhere in reasonable proximity to Earth; B) be anything at all like carbon based life (and it would especially not be anything like us, this is why rubber forehead aliens piss me off so much <_<).

a) Large distances would mean less to highly advanced species. Faster than light travel is not out of the question. There is some evidence that matter can do so "naturally" under extreme conditions (one fact (not proof but has many scratching their head) is that the universe seems to be wider than 2 times its age in light years accross. So if it was expanding in all directions at the speed of light ... it should be 13 x 2 billion light years across. This isnpt proof of course as calculatiosn for its width and age are still conjecture, but even what we do know has gaping holes in our understanding)

b) carbon vs other stuff - i think talking of carbon vs other elements is a red herring. You all seem intellegent, knowing your views on other points would be more interesting.

Given the energy needs of a highly evolved technological society, were they to happen upon a planet in the Goldilocks zone like our own, they would probably conquer it, not spend millions of years tinkering with organisms on it while going through painstaking measures to remain undetectable.

The alien origin theory makes no sense because it provides no motivation.  A race with the technology to travel across the stars and cloak itself from us for all this time would benefit how from observing our development?  We already have computer simulations that model evolution well enough to observe the process, and we can already circumvent it entirely with genetic engineering.

Why is asking what they would gain from us the wrong question?  If you are claiming that aliens chose to create us, then there had to have been some sort of intent behind that decision.  What could it possibly have been?

Why would they have chosen to seed the planet with life instead of utilizing its resources for their gain when it would've cost them so dearly to make the trip?  Even if they had an alternate energy resource that was incredibly dense, plentiful, and easily utilized, it's impossible for matter to travel at the speed of light.  Considering that we've been unable to locate any habitable planets within a reasonable amount of light years from us, their trip would've taken a very, very long time and would necessitate a place for them to stay nearby -- they can't hover in space indefinitely and how could they have avoid detection?

Probably conquer it ? Why ? It would be more interestign to them watching, refining anthropological simulations etc. No need to enslave people when you have tech that builds things better anyway ... no need for earths materials when you can get them more easily elsewhere without ruining an interesting study, like digging up silver in a reserve which is the only mating place for 100 endangered species... easily to get silver elsewhere.

As tech gets better - freedom from needs becomes more releavent. luxury, artistic or accedemic desires and endevours can be given massive effort. all you would need is a hand ful of quirky
highly capable beings that were inspired to have some project going - and shazam.

People exist in this world would do something a strange as "I wanna try blending my genes with a dolphin or a swan... wanna create a mermaid or an angle thing. Why ? Pff ! Cause I wanna ok ? Need another reason ? Um no ... not really ... weird but ok... good luck tell me how it goes.

[Silverfyre]

Most of the so-called "Evidence" of "alien astronauts" is the product of inkblotting.  You are probably familiar with inkblot tests that were once used by psychologists, yes?  It's the same thing.  One archaeologist (fake or otherwise) will say said ancient picture on an Egyptian (or Mayan, Aztec, etc) wall looks like flying saucers and helmeted space men.  This interpretation will be picked up by other people who will look at it and see the same thing, since it is prominent in their minds and they are looking specifically for it.  It's also called "matrixing" and relates to how we as humans look for faces instinctively in things that normally don't have them.  It helps to explain blob shapes in mirrors that folks think are the faces of ghosts etc. 

It's also called projecting and a few other technical terms.  I am merely saying there is a perfectly human explanation and that I think, with a lack of evidence, that there are no "alien astronauts" who have taken a personal interest in shaping our society.  Sorry, but our ancestors were just as smart and creative as we are today.  Give them a little credit.

[Oniya]

It's also called "matrixing" and relates to how we as humans look for faces instinctively in things that normally don't have them. 

I remember seeing another name for it, but all I could find was a website dedicated to the phenomenon.
http://facesinplaces.blogspot.com/

[Dingo]

And what if there was some catastrophic event on a planet with intelligent life somewhere, which blasted that world apart into a million pieces, away from their star system, drifting along space until in meteor form it crash landed on a different planet with a situation possible to proceed in life.

As in, I recall that some time ago there was some talk about meteorites being found containing fossilized bacteria.

Now assume that they actually survived inside the meteorite, it could be perfectly possible that there is life like the life on Earth without actual alien involvement.

And then it is possible that planets similar to Earth exist.

Then again, speculation about this is moot. Considering we only begin scratching the basics of science. And we have hardly touched the science of life which might actually hold the answers. And we have explored only a very small portion of our own planet. While we're busy destroying it.

[Kate]

Most of the so-called "Evidence" of "alien astronauts" is the product of inkblotting.  You are probably familiar with inkblot tests that were once used by psychologists, yes?  It's the same thing.  One archaeologist (fake or otherwise) will say said ancient picture on an Egyptian (or Mayan, Aztec, etc) wall looks like flying saucers and helmeted space men.  This interpretation will be picked up by other people who will look at it and see the same thing, since it is prominent in their minds and they are looking specifically for it.  It's also called "matrixing" and relates to how we as humans look for faces instinctively in things that normally don't have them.  It helps to explain blob shapes in mirrors that folks think are the faces of ghosts etc. 

Ie we see what we want to see this implies seeing a hoax when there wasn't one but it was real in the same breath. Preprocessing and postprocessing of sensory input is something that doesn't just apply to "believers" but it also "aflicts" skeptics too.

This inst an argument which should make believers less trustworthy than skeptics this is an argument we shouldnt trust what we beleive we are seeing no matter what our beleif set is.

Remember also different dimensions or parallel realities is something that isnt out of the question in our own science.

Winking in an out of existence is also attributed to ghost and paranormal activity.

Until all things can be explained and reproduced, we dont know what we don't know, having faith our current belief set is right is not logical => Its faith.

[Zakharra]

Until all things can be explained and reproduced, we dont know what we don't know, having faith our current belief set is right is not logical => Its faith.

If it's science, then you're wrong. Science is based on provable facts. Faith, isn't for the most part.  Hense why religion seems to run into problems when some of it's followers find themselves facing scientific facts that do not agree with their religious views. 

However that is it's own thread.

[Silverfyre]

Yeah, having faith in aliens influencing our society over the hard scientific evidence that states perfectly mundane yet fascinating human reasons and methods seems a little silly to me. The same goes for ghosts and paranormal events.  Shows like "Ghost Hunters" make it look like they are using science but it is all based on theory.

Faith doesn't need to be blind is all I'm saying. Look at the scientific evidence we have before pointing and yelling the fantastic. Occam's razor and all.

My .02.

[Kate]

"[beliefs are faith ] If it's science, then you're wrong. Science is based on provable facts. Faith, isn't for the most part.  "

Science has laws which can be tested to certain confidence levels ir "99.999" percent accurate.
=> Enough to have faith its objectively true. it could be true for those circumstances=> Its still faith, based on statistics.

[Will]

Faith vs. science should really be in its own thread (although it already is, actually, probably several times over!).

What evidence is there to suggest "alien astronauts" outside of some questionable glyphs/art/etc?  The Dogon, mentioned earlier in this thread, most likely encountered other Westerners, picked up that little tidbit about Sirius B, and incorporated it into their folklore.  At least, that's a heck of a lot more believable than the idea that they were visited by aliens.

There are all kinds of possibilities out there.  We can't prove that "alien astronauts" didn't begin life on earth, but there is no real evidence that they did, either.  We can't prove that there's no Russel's Teapot; that doesn't make it worth believing.  If you make an outrageous claim, then the burden falls on you to prove it (not on everyone else to disprove it).  So, again: what evidence is there for "alien astronauts?"

[Silverfyre]

Faith vs. science should really be in its own thread (although it already is, actually, probably several times over!).

What evidence is there to suggest "alien astronauts" outside of some questionable glyphs/art/etc?  The Dogon, mentioned earlier in this thread, most likely encountered other Westerners, picked up that little tidbit about Sirius B, and incorporated it into their folklore.  At least, that's a heck of a lot more believable than the idea that they were visited by aliens.

There are all kinds of possibilities out there.  We can't prove that "alien astronauts" didn't begin life on earth, but there is no real evidence that they did, either.  We can't prove that there's no Russel's Teapot; that doesn't make it worth believing.  If you make an outrageous claim, then the burden falls on you to prove it (not on everyone else to disprove it).  So, again: what evidence is there for "alien astronauts?"

Well said and I completely agree.  There has been no evidence put forth save for a couple of interpretations of ancient artwork, glyphs, and artifacts.  It's all subjective too, no hard evidence exists or has been put forth. 

[Zakharra]

"[beliefs are faith ] If it's science, then you're wrong. Science is based on provable facts. Faith, isn't for the most part.  "

Science has laws which can be tested to certain confidence levels ir "99.999" percent accurate.
=> Enough to have faith its objectively true. it could be true for those circumstances=> Its still faith, based on statistics.

No, that is fact, not faith. There is a big difference and you seem to be mixing them up.

[Star Safyre]

[H]as been no evidence put forth save for a couple of interpretations of ancient artwork, glyphs, and artifacts.  It's all subjective too, no hard evidence exists or has been put forth.

I must concur.  For as much as I enjoy interpretation of ancient art, we can never truly perceive any ancient piece through its creators' eyes.  Even firsthand accounts of art interpretation can be marred through poor translating or lack of knowledge regarding the symbols' associations within that culture.  As much as I love art, it isn't a science, and thus it cannot solve science's issues.  Trying to prove the origin of life through ancient architecture and art is like trying to create a cure for cancer with interpretative dance.

[Kate]

What evidence is there to suggest "alien astronauts" outside of some questionable glyphs/art/etc?  The Dogon, mentioned earlier in this thread, most likely encountered other Westerners, picked up that little tidbit about Sirius B, and incorporated it into their folklore.  At least, that's a heck of a lot more believable than the idea that they were visited by aliens.

Usually art of primitive cultures depicts what they have seen. Assuming it wasnt the case because we dont beleive it is an assumption.

Psychology is an art as well as a science. we dont "know" the human brain. we dont "know" people, trends yes, some things yes.

Science has its place its highly useful, but what is proposed concerning "what they really were drawing" or what people "Really experiecned but interpreted differently" isnt a science. There are non-paranormal explainations for SOME alien encounters.

Assuming that is the case for all of them - is an assumption. Based on assumed psychology of the witnesses.
That isn't science. Its your faith on what happened and what you beleive their intentions or experience was being applied with the view your objective or more so than they are. Ie they are more subjective than you.

[Kate]

To be a skeptic you dont have to have

a) A degree in anthropology.
and
b) A degree in science
and
c) a degree in behavioural psychology
and
d) Qualified training in investigation techniques.
etc

Why ? Because skeptics dont feel they NEED to.
Why ? Because they think they know enough to assume an sensible stance on a subject.

Now the same argument also can be used against beleivers. Stating they know for a FAct they saw / met / talked to aliens.
I do agree. What my point is - is from the beleivers perspective current stance of mainstream science rules their experience has false.
They beg to differ.

A true scientist would see their behaviour as real => And investigate why they are behaving that way - and the end game would be "what really happened" => Not the first objective.

[Star Safyre]

I do not think the discussion here needs to break down into defining any supposed schism between "skeptics" and "believers".  Either there are facts to prove a theory or there are not.  I would like to think that even those who propose this theory have some evidence which can logically built toward the conclusion; actually, I'd like to see some evidence either way rather than this continued argument of semantics.

Can we please get back on topic with some evidence either for or against the theory in question rather than dancing around whether there can be evidence at all?

[Silverfyre]

Usually art of primitive cultures depicts what they have seen. Assuming it wasnt the case because we dont beleive it is an assumption.

Psychology is an art as well as a science. we dont "know" the human brain. we dont "know" people, trends yes, some things yes.

Science has its place its highly useful, but what is proposed concerning "what they really were drawing" or what people "Really experiecned but interpreted differently" isnt a science. There are non-paranormal explainations for SOME alien encounters.

Assuming that is the case for all of them - is an assumption. Based on assumed psychology of the witnesses.
That isn't science. Its your faith on what happened and what you beleive their intentions or experience was being applied with the view your objective or more so than they are. Ie they are more subjective than you.

Actually, we do know a lot about the human brain and how it works.  Psychology is still a social science, yes, but there are a lot of solid, hard teachings that are based on facts found through the scientific method rather than subjective values.  We have chemical and biological means of measuring the brain's neurological functions and how they play out in the so-called "human experience".  We know what chemicals attract us to each other, we know how certain sections of the brain will react and change when damaged or suppressed... we know so much through science that is not subjective at all.  Maybe you should consider those factors and the reality behind them.

Art of primitive cultures was often created from the artist's own imagination as well, not just on what they saw.  Have you seen the cave paintings of Peche-Merle in France?  There are some wonderful examples of "cave men creativity" there, like the hand outlines of an unknown artist, spiraling geometric shapes, and the fantastical paintings of hunters riding large predatory animals like they would a horse. 

Here's a link for you to explore and educate yourself: http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/prehistoric/pech-merle-cave-paintings.htm

These ancients were just as creative and imaginative as we are today.  Aliens didn't influence these cultures; their own imaginations and minds did.  This has nothing to do with faith when we say there is no evidence that aliens came down and taught us or influenced us in any way.  It's based on science and the facts that these ancients and their wonders grew out of their own ingenuity.  We have the evidence that they create such things like Stonehenge.  There is no evidence that little green men came down and did anything.  Nothing.  In the hundreds if not thousands of years of archaeology that have occurred, we have not found hard fact one that supports the theory of alien life. 

And your definition of skeptics and believers is really muddled, much like your entire argument. A skeptic DOES try to make shape of their world view on cold, hard, testable facts rather than assumptions about reality.  Believers, in my experience, are somewhat gullible people who often accept a fact as truth without looking for evidence or a more mundane reasoning behind it.  Occam's razor continues to hold true.

Produce some links for your assumptions and maybe we can take your subjective attitude towards factual science seriously.

[DarklingAlice]

You know, I ran across an interesting discussion of the 'alien' phenomenon in the modern consciousness just earlier this afternoon in Carl Sagan's 1995 The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. It's a general overview of the science v. pseudo-science conflict partially framed by investigations of the alien astronaut theory, ufo sightings, crop circles, etc. as that was the major front on which Sagan routinely was forced to deal given his speciality of astrophysics and interest in the possibility of alien life.

Well worth checking out for anyone interested in dealing with these purported phenomena on a basis of reason rather than wishes.

[Silverfyre]

You know, I ran across an interesting discussion of the 'alien' phenomenon in the modern consciousness just earlier this afternoon in Carl Sagan's 1995 The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. It's a general overview of the science v. pseudo-science conflict partially framed by investigations of the alien astronaut theory, ufo sightings, crop circles, etc. as that was the major front on which Sagan routinely was forced to deal given his speciality of astrophysics and interest in the possibility of alien life.

Well worth checking out for anyone interested in dealing with these purported phenomena on a basis of reason rather than wishes.

Oh definitely. That book is wonderful. Ever see "Cosmos"? I love Carl Sagan.

[Noelle]

To be a skeptic you dont have to have

a) A degree in anthropology.
and
b) A degree in science
and
c) a degree in behavioural psychology
and
d) Qualified training in investigation techniques.
etc

Why ? Because skeptics dont feel they NEED to.
Why ? Because they think they know enough to assume an sensible stance on a subject.

Now the same argument also can be used against beleivers. Stating they know for a FAct they saw / met / talked to aliens.
I do agree. What my point is - is from the beleivers perspective current stance of mainstream science rules their experience has false.
They beg to differ.

A true scientist would see their behaviour as real => And investigate why they are behaving that way - and the end game would be "what really happened" => Not the first objective.

There's...a lot that's wrong with this post. A lot.

Do you even know what actually happens within the skeptic movement? Your definition is the very antithesis of what most intelligent skeptics work with. It's not even close to being right.

True skeptics pursue knowledge through avenues of education -- looking for good, credible, unbiased research from qualified individuals who often do have advanced knowledge in their field. It's about checking sources, making sure all parties are advancing knowledge as it comes instead of putting it through a filter of bias to twist them to say what they want to say. They're not the average type to get their false information from an e-mail forward or to take the first page they find on Google as fact -- on the contrary, good skeptics do their research and do it thoroughly. Good skeptics hardly assume they know "enough", given that good skeptics tend to constantly check to make sure the information they do have is the best information available, not the most biased or gives the answer they want to see.

Now, some people use "skeptic" to describe the scrutiny they give certain subjects, but it's usually (from what I've observed) grossly misapplied and abused in relation to the definition I've already given you -- Take evolution skeptics, for example. They're often creationists who want to "teach the controversy" even though there is no substantial, credible evidence to point towards creationism -- definitely not enough evidence to show that the two ideas of evolution and creation are equal in standing scientifically. That's not being skeptical, that's ignoring facts that inconvenience you and giving yourself a badge of honor for "challenging" evil old science while trying to assert that your idea is equal to another. It's one thing to have a healthy and questioning mindset, but self-delusion starts to happen at a point, as well.

There's a difference between being a skeptic and being self-assured or just plain contrary; they're practically opposites. In terms of this whole "alien astronaut" thing, sure, maybe we're just pet hamsters to an advanced race of super-intelligent, sentient beings from another galaxy with superior cloaking abilities, but compared to the other theories on the origin of life, it is simply not equal in a rational, scientific setting. Believing strongly in alien astronauts despite this fact isn't being skeptical. You can say that there's no conclusive evidence for or against, you can say that there's still a margin of doubt, but the things, the facts we do know are still there; it is, as of this point in time, not equal to any more popular theories out there.

[Jude]

If it seems to you like skeptics dismiss claims of alien abduction out of hand without the slightest bit of consideration, I have two explanations of this phenomenon for you:

1)  The individual you are arguing with is not thinking skeptically, and is instead parroting information he heard from other resources that merely agrees with the point of view that skeptics argue.  These people do exist, but they are not actually skeptics, because they aren't practicing critical thinking, metacognition, or analyzing evidence.  These 3 things are incredibly important to skepticism, and someone who simply accepts the word of another person as true is never, ever a good skeptic (even if that person is a scientist, even then we check the methods behind the studies that they speak of).

2)  The individual you are arguing with has probably already engaged in a lengthy intellectual endeavor on the plausibility of the existence of aliens, one they don't wish to rehash with you because you've already spouted standard alien abductee talking points.  I'll give you a brief summation, if you're interested you can and should do the research yourself.

- People claim they are abducted in their sleep primarily.  Thus dreams suffice as an explanation for almost all of this.
- The feeling of paralysis that "abductees" often describe is a natural phenomenon associated with a certain stage of sleep/wakefulness.
- Memory reclamation (often called memory implantation by those educated about it) is responsible for a great deal of alien nonsense.
- Memory is far from perfect, so ascribing "white out periods" to abduction is foolish.
- Never has physical evidence of alien probing, device implantation, or anything else ever been found on a supposed abductee.
- There is a trend in that accounts of what the "aliens" looked like varies based on whatever depiction popular media is using in the time.

And that is why skeptics are pretty sure that the presence of aliens is absolute nonsensical bullshit.  Is it still possible?  Yes.  Is it extremely, extraordinarily, ridiculously unlikely to be true?  Absolutely.  In fact I don't think I used enough adjectives to describe how insanely improbable it is.

[Lio]

There are a lot of people more intelligent than me posting in here, but I thought I'd put my thoughts in never the less.

First off there is belief involved in science, it's our way forward. We believe things before we prove them, we believe we'll find a new set of subatomic particles in the LHC at certain energy levels...however we might be wrong (difference with blind faith is that scientists will reassess their veiw and that it's belief based on something...it is still belief though).

Also, study of light is probably universal isn't it? Leading to wave spectrum and radio signal. If there's a civilisation who has advanced this far shouldn't we be picking something up somewhere on the spectrum?

Also, if the aliens came to us...how come we could understand their message?

[Kate]

Ok.

More than a few pockets of resistance here.

Its a theory that's all. It does explain a few things in many minds more aptly.

Evidence to those who "believe" or want to are things like tests done on implants being of materials and nature not seen elsewhere.
Scar-less or near-scar-less surgery / Cattle mutilations with surgical precision beyond what our current medical experts can manage or explain.
Crop circles. Reems of people in high ranking positions testifying UFO being treated as true in the government, footage by military planes on things that accelerate faster that anything known. Radar readings of the same thing ...

Buz Aldrin = his views on UFOS being real could be dismissed as wanting attention through jealousy of Neal Armstrong etc.

Now I understand that these can be dismissed with some other theories on human claims and behaviour => Ie these people want attention / do this for money / or believe it although it isnt true do to wanting to feel special or are understress or not "objective" because of this and that reason.
ra ra ra.

To "beleivers" (please humor me using this loosely, semantics I think none want to get bogged down in)
the accumulated mosaic of explanations that need to be combined to explain away all "cases" of implied alien
visitations is itself harder to believe than ... drum role ... aliens visiting earth.

Now I know this is different to aliens being our creators. But it seems the difference between

Aliens have not visited earth => Aliens have visited earth

Seems to be more the debate than what they have done and when.

Again I do subscribe to people seeing what they believe.- not the other way around so personal accounts cant be assumed objective ( doesnt mean we can dismiss them but stronger evidence would be highly more preferable)

I am not justifying ALL cases of ufo reports, or ALL cases of crop circles. For every found hoax there are others which still defy understanding.

All I am saying the theory is a powerful one of you suspend disbelief and look at "evidence."

Now I know "evidence" is subjective also. Lets talk of implants, Crop circles and animal mutilations for example, lets focus on those
Because we don't have to believe a person when they what they experienced.

If any are interested in implant testing, crop circle investigations, animal mutilation investigations (btw it can be claimed the farmer did it themselves for attention or to get money because his farm was going under => But the level of precision surgery makes this assumption a little strange)

I can start linking ... however if some claim "well they did the test but who is to say the test results and monitor read outs and their findings are not also hoaxed... who is to say that the doctors saying they saw evidence of a procedure that is beyond current medical know-how is also in on it wanting some quick cash or whatever huh ? Oh and Claimed Nasa footage huh ? How are you SURE its from NASA how are you SURE it wasn't messed with ... "

... then we are in a catch 22 concerning belief memes - and nothing i can link you will convince any from their existing mindset.

[Noelle]

Evidence to those who "believe" or want to are things like tests done on implants being of materials and nature not seen elsewhere.
Scar-less or near-scar-less surgery / Cattle mutilations with surgical precision beyond what our current medical experts can manage or explain.
Crop circles. Reems of people in high ranking positions testifying UFO being treated as true in the government, footage by military planes on things that accelerate faster that anything known. Radar readings of the same thing ...

I know you said you could provide links upon request, but I'll save you the trouble because most of the things you mentioned are not, in fact, "beyond what our current medical experts can manage or explain" and do have a lot of plausible explanations that are actually pretty simple for anybody to grasp. For some confusing reason, people find it easier to believe in something they're not actually equipped to identify than things they actually are. It's as absurd as saying that the milk in my fridge curdled -- it could've been common bacteria converting lactic acid...but it could've been a colony of tiny milk-dwelling aliens attempting to study human food consumption through refrigerator-based invasion. How would I even know milk-dwelling aliens if I saw them? Aren't bacteria a little more believable given they've been observed and reported on and studied millions of times over?

Nevertheless, just a few links providing more realistic speculation on all of these so-called 'phenomena' Crop circles, Cattle mutilations, Psychic surgery ("scarless" surgery? This is the closest I could find on the subject without linking to unreliable internet witness reports...did you mean something else?).

Buz Aldrin = his views on UFOS being real could be dismissed as wanting attention through jealousy of Neal Armstrong etc.

Buzz Aldrin = incapable of telling you what a UFO is if it landed on his house and did a tap dance in a top hat and monocle on the remains. He has no credibility whatsoever on the nature of UFOs or aliens any more than anyone else because of the simple fact that nobody actually knows what a "real" UFO is or looks like. How do we know what we've seen if we've never seen for sure what we're claiming it is? There is no irrefutable proof of the existence of UFOs. There is no universal testimony, no constants, no nothing. In fact, as it's been mentioned here before, claims to aliens/extraterrestrial activity here on earth usually follow trends that change based on the time period. It's as absurd as people who claim to be experts on vampires. And for that matter, how would you know a jabberwocky if you saw one?

Now I know this is different to aliens being our creators. But it seems the difference between

Aliens have not visited earth => Aliens have visited earth

Seems to be more the debate than what they have done and when.

Well, no, not exactly. The first line of debate is whether or not there's even intelligent life out there capable of sentience to begin with, nevermind possessing the ability to span light-years of distance just to do the most mundane thing they could possibly think of in their inconceivably advanced minds and...well, mutilate cows and play around in fields just to fuck with us, so to speak. Even believers can't make up their minds -- are these mystical aliens cloaking themselves or are they not? Are they remaining hidden or, for some inexplicable reason, are they choosing to selectively reveal themselves to a lucky few in the most mind-numbingly uninteresting ways possible? I mean, really, you have the power to travel galaxies away, and you choose to mutilate cows and make pretty pictures in some poor farmer's crops? Zzzzz.

At this point, don't you think something more sophisticated than a cheap camera would've picked up on a large, fast-moving, foreign body entering our atmosphere, much less hanging out and playing in farm fields for awhile? We've got an abundance of detection methods for airborne objects and the best we can do is blurry photos and shaky, homegrown videos of stuff that might be a UFO, but might also be a myriad of ordinary, mundane things that are probably more realistic but admittedly far less exciting? It's amazing to me that the most obvious of solutions can be laying right in front of a person, but still it's easier to put all of your belief in the most fantastical, roundabout explanation.

[Silverfyre]

Yeah...Kate, that is quite the jumbled argument for things that have already been explained scientifically as nothing but hoaxes.  Your naive faith in aliens and the power of faith as a catch all for perception is honestly a little out there, even for a conspiracy theorist. Really, do your research on what you are perceiving as unknown and paranormal activities before using them as evidence. Its like arguing in a circle with you. No offense but its hardly productive.

[Kate]

people find it easier to believe in something they're not actually equipped to identify than things they actually are.

Perhaps its easier for some to believe that it must all be hoaxes of misinterpretations ... than the thing it really is.

Alien Astronaught  is a theory.

but I'll save you the trouble because most of the things you mentioned are not, in fact, "beyond what our current medical experts can manage or explain" and do have a lot of plausible explanations that are actually pretty simple for anybody to grasp

Plausible isn't enough for some.

"Most things. are not in fact beyond what current medical experts can do ?"

What if there was one thing ? How many things should be needed to take the matter seriously as a THEORY, not fact THEORY.
And I don't mean taken seriously by EVERYONE... just taken seriously by SOME ?

Alien Astronaught is a theory.

Buzz Aldrin = incapable of telling you what a UFO is if it landed on his house and did a tap dance in a top hat and monocle on the remains.

To you that sentence is true and his views are not trusted to you personally, thus by assuming objectivity => This distrust "should" by adopted by others if they are informed, logical and sane. To you that sentence aids your intention (whatever that may be - even if its just expression.)
You right to choose your intentions, their interpretation, and have right to believe what you do from your mindset, your belief set suits you.
Others are right to choose their intentions , their interpretation and belief sets.

Alien Astronaught is a theory.

".but it could've been a colony of tiny milk-dwelling aliens attempting to study human food consumption through refrigerator-based invasion. How would I even know milk-dwelling aliens if I saw them? Aren't bacteria a little more believable given they've been observed and reported on and studied millions of times over?"

Interesting implications on the mindset you think I am representing. Im not entirely convinced people who are "believers" are ones that would quickly rush to Alien theories for anything they happened or experience during their mundane life. Car missing - stolen ? No abducted. Keys missing ? Lost them forgetful ? No abducted....

Assuming believers are "primed" to insert alien implications before mundane explanations is an insulting assertion, if you wish one to take you seriously you probably should take them seriously also.

Bacteria can explain milk curdling perfectly, there is no need for alien inferring.
Some ufo/paranormal cases are not as easily explained through known science.
Plausible explanations within our current scientific knowledge can be treated as "possible" and because its without need of more theories
it can be treated as more likely than thus "explained"

Some people don't buy what is deemed "plausible" by others to explain what they believe or experience, which to them is something else.

Alien ... theory.

[Kate]

Yeah...Kate, that is quite the jumbled argument for things that have already been explained scientifically as nothing but hoaxes.  Your naive faith in aliens and the power of faith as a catch all for perception is honestly a little out there, even for a conspiracy theorist. Really, do your research on what you are perceiving as unknown and paranormal activities before using them as evidence. Its like arguing in a circle with you. No offense but its hardly productive.

Its not productive for your intentions I'm sure, you seem to be a little ... frustrated or exhausted trying to convince me something, perhaps want to be done trying. Most usually are frustrated trying to convince another how applicable their perspectives are on subjects others wholeheartedly beleive otherwise. This is the same for both sides of the coin.

But we don't need to convince the other, its unlikely any "evidence" would prove the same thing to both camps.

We interpret things based on our beliefs.

Guys.

"Explained" to some is subjective.
"Proof / Evidence" is subjective.
"Truth" is subjective.
Statements I have "Naive faith" => Is implying the speaker is more objective than I am, perhaps more authoritative.

To them they are more objective, more authoritative. More sensible or logical, more informed.

To me they are not.

... I am representing why the theory itself is reasonable to be quiet taken with by SOME (while still being sane) , nothing more.

[Silverfyre]

Its not productive for your intentions I'm sure, you seem to be a little ... frustrated or exhausted trying to convince me something, perhaps want to be done trying. Most usually are frustrated trying to convince another how applicable their perspectives are on subjects others wholeheartedly beleive otherwise. This is the same for both sides of the coin.

But we don't need to convince the other, its unlikely any "evidence" would prove the same thing to both camps.

We interpret things based on our beliefs.

Guys.

"Explained" to some is subjective.
"Proof / Evidence" is subjective.
"Truth" is subjective.
Statements I have "Naive faith" => Is implying the speaker is more objective than I am, perhaps more authoritative.

To them they are more objective, more authoritative. More sensible or logical, more informed.

To me they are not.

... I am representing why the theory itself is reasonable to be quiet taken with by SOME (while still being sane) , nothing more.

To be reasonable means to give reasons for it.  There is causation there.  You are not giving it, hence why your views can be seen as "naive".

Truth is subjective?

Evidence, based in facts, is subjective?

Here's my thought on your whole idea of what is and what isn't "subjective".

You keep using that word.

[Oniya]

"Explained" to some is subjective.
"Proof / Evidence" is subjective.
"Truth" is subjective.
Statements I have "Naive faith" => Is implying the speaker is more objective than I am, perhaps more authoritative.

To them they are more objective, more authoritative. More sensible or logical, more informed.

To me they are not.

... I am representing why the theory itself is reasonable to be quiet taken with by SOME (while still being sane) , nothing more.

You may wish to familiarize yourself with the following two stickies:

Logical Fallacies
Fact, Theory, Hypothesis, Law

These are the basics that people expect when discussing things in P&R (Logical Fallacies in particular) and the more debate-oriented threads in Elliquiy U (Fact, Theory, Hypothesis and Law resides in that forum, but equally applies here, due to the subject matter).

[Noelle]

Perhaps its easier for some to believe that it must all be hoaxes of misinterpretations ... than the thing it really is.

Sorry, no. That's not really how that works. It's not a matter of what's easier, that doesn't even begin to touch on anything I've presented to you. This is the same mistake you've made with the definition of being a skeptic. You're boiling it down to something so simple it's practically condescending, not to mention plainly incorrect. Boiling down a deduction based on research done on things that actually exist isn't just deciding one day that it's easier to deem things a hoax. I've examined the facts on both sides and done the research -- much as skeptics do -- and deduced my position from there.

Plausible isn't enough for some.

Then I wish them a happy existence living in a world full of improbability, where it's just as acceptable to believe in the barely-evidenced than it is in what is heavily supported by fact. I rather enjoy my time living in reality, I'd recommend it to anyone.

What if there was one thing ? How many things should be needed to take the matter seriously as a THEORY, not fact THEORY.
And I don't mean taken seriously by EVERYONE... just taken seriously by SOME ?

What if there was one thing that was beyond our current capability to explain it? Oohh, I don't know, I'd probably say something reasonable. Say, maybe, "This thing is beyond our current capability to explain it," and then follow it up with research using things we can actually observe and measure rather than making the first wild leap I can possibly conceive and then convincing everyone that it MUST BE IT if silly old science can't explain it! But that's just me. Because I'm aware that science does not at any point in time have the answers to every single thing ever, but rather continues to evolve its understanding of particular subjects over a given period of time.

You right to choose your intentions, their interpretation, and have right to believe what you do from your mindset, your belief set suits you.
Others are right to choose their intentions , their interpretation and belief sets.

Yes. At base, this is correct. However, if you are equating all methods of deduction, all forms of logic, and all beliefs/theories/whatnot as equal just because you can make it your opinion, I have to very strongly disagree. Not all opinions are equal in standing even if you still have your right to hold it. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't even be talking about this.

Assuming believers are "primed" to insert alien implications before mundane explanations is an insulting assertion, if you wish one to take you seriously you probably should take them seriously also.

Not really, no. I don't have to take someone's views seriously at all. I can respect them, I can understand that they can hold whatever opinion they want even if it's absolutely ridiculous, but never do I have to actually take it seriously if it's pseudo-science that has very little convincing research done and even less solid evidence. I don't have to take aliens any more seriously than I have to take moon-cats a la Avatar.

Besides, if there are believers here who would like to claim offense to what I'm saying, I'd love to intelligently debate the subject based on the facts that are out there in order to sort out whatever insult I may be inferring, but until then...

But actually, what you're describing is exactly what's happening in this case. People believing in improbable supernatural causes before thinking it could be something much simpler and more realistic. It is what it is.

Bacteria can explain milk curdling perfectly, there is no need for alien inferring.
Some ufo/paranormal cases are not as easily explained through known science.
Plausible explanations within our current scientific knowledge can be treated as "possible" and because its without need of more theories
it can be treated as more likely than thus "explained"

So clearly any gaps we have in knowledge in science is okay to fill in with pseudo-scientific fluff with more holes in it than Swiss cheese. We still don't quite have a complete grasp on how gravity works, so it's probably okay to start feeding people information on how there could be aliens living under the earth's crust that we can't see who are somehow keeping us from floating into space, right? We can't just say "we don't know, but we're working on it" because that's not nearly as exciting as saying that there's some elusive being manipulating our earth. We can't stand the unexplained -- we have to have something to fill that void NOW.

Honestly, your assertion on "alien THEORY" is incredibly tiresome and isn't really serving to make any point except...yes, it's a theory. And a very shoddy one, at that, full of incredibly large gaps -- bigger gaps than the ones that science can't fill. It's a theory in the loosest sense of the word, the layman's term, certainly not the scientific usage of the word (if this confuses you, there is a stickied thread in the Elliquiy U section on the subject). By that definition, I could claim that Amelia Earhart was abducted in midair and shot off to a mystery planet with Tupac Shakur and the Lindbergh baby, rustle up some "unexplained mysteries" that silly old science can't (and therefore probably will never!) explain, and then expect to be taken just as seriously as alternative explanations that have much more solid and tangible and realistic evidence.

None of your definitions thusfar have been particularly accurate starting with your view of what skepticism is and most especially your views on evidence and truth. If we're going to fundamentally argue about "How do we know if what is true is true?! What if everything we know is wrong?!", then that is one seriously large gap of conspiratorial thinking that I cannot even begin to bridge and it's tiresome to even seriously discuss if all you can come to is fluff about objectivity. If someone's truth is that milk curdles from milk-dwelling aliens, that is self-delusion and it does not change the actual, factual truth that it is due to bacteria converting lactic acid. I'm sorry to say there is nothing subjective there.

Edit: Oniya's post basically says it all, but more succinctly. Thank you.

Edit edit: changed objectivity to subjectivity...that's what I get for writing in p&r past midnight...

[Jude]

Perhaps its easier for some to believe that it must all be hoaxes of misinterpretations ... than the thing it really is.

Lets take a step back and actually analyze the lines of evidence behind belief in aliens.  I will, at the same time, give simple explanations for each phenomenon.

Evidence:  Some people have memories of being abducted by aliens.
Explanation:  Human memory is not only fallible, but also subject to tampering as proven by the memory reclamation movement's nonsense.  Furthermore, the vast majority of these abduction memories occur after a person sleeps at night, implying they are dreams.

Evidence:  Crop circles.
Explanation:  ...this has nothing to do with aliens whatsoever.  Why would I need to explain anything?  Aliens are a completely left field cause assigned to this phenomenon.  I won't even bother going into all of the deception at play here.

Evidence:  Bovine Mutilation.
Explanation:  Again, there is not a shred of evidence here that actually points at aliens.  It is absolutely absurd to assume that aliens have anything to do with this.

Evidence:  Implants found with substances that don't exist on earth.
Explanation:  I have heard this story, but I have never seen a shred of evidence to back it up.  If anyone has any links to corroborate this story, please share them.  More than likely this was a story spread by someone who found some biological abnormality that they removed and  brought to a town doctor that served as an "expert" (who was actually unqualified to give any testimony).  Or it could be an outright lie.  Even if a substance was found that does not normally occur on earth inside of a person, there are still a number of possible scientific explanations for this phenomenon that have nothing to do with aliens.

Some ufo/paranormal cases are not as easily explained through known science.

Please provide proof.  Furthermore, even if a situation cannot be explained, that does not mean it was caused by aliens.  It means it cannot be explained.

Some people don't buy what is deemed "plausible" by others to explain what they believe or experience, which to them is something else.

And that's exactly why true believers of UFOs exist.  They either A)  have a very powerful personal experience that ties them to this belief in an emotional way or B)  fail to exercise critical thinking and choose to believe in exotic things because it makes them privy to special truth that grants a false feeling of enlightenment.

I can't fault group A for their belief.  It's difficult to exercise logical principles when emotion is present.  Critical thinking is not the default mode of human behavior, so this is all fighting an uphill battle to begin with.  What makes matters even worse is that a large portion of the UFO community is probably mentally ill thanks to "remembering" psychology pseudo-shrinks.

I'm sympathetic, but please remember it's hard to remain that way when I hear these same points repeated ad naseum without evidence.  These very same talking points, more or less, are used in Cryptozoology as well.  It all kind of blurs together as one anecdotal mess.

The thing is, the reason why it's fundamentally not accurate to consider alien existence a scientific theory is because it has failed every experiment to verify whether the theory is correct or not.  We look in the night sky and see nothing.  The hubble hasn't detected anything.  Although the first modern scientific experiment was performed in 1960, scientists had been looking for alien radiowaves for almost decade prior.  Ever since rigorous test done has failed to corroborate the theory.  Add to the fact that there hasn't been any solid confirming evidence, and the situation is pretty clear.

It is very, very likely that aliens do exist, but it is damn near completely impossible that they have interacted with us in any meaningful way, if at all (certainly not beyond some sort of panspermia situation).  It is more likely that you will be killed the next time you get in a car, than it is that a single human being has been abducted by aliens.

[Kate]

Explanations are candidate causes.

I am not saying that one thing is hands down true or provable, definitively to all belief sets.

I am not trying to convince anyone anything other than the reasoning behind some (including myself) believing it so and being sane and logical in their own belief set ... no more.

This thread isn't titled

"prove to ~me~ Alien Astronaut theory is definitively proven wrong"

Nor

"prove to ~me~ Alien Astronaut theory is definitively true"

Can "we" agree that proof of something to one isn't proof of something to another while the same "facts" are being seen by both ?

While all are logical and sane ? (ie one not "objectively wrong" the other "objectively true")

Remember I don't beleive in objective truth, I beleive objectivity in its literal sense is a myth.

This could be part of the reason some are becoming frustrated arguing their point with me, I have different sets of core beliefs,
assuming we can "meet and agree" on a certain foundation set is hopeless, we all have different sets of foundation beliefs to our current perspective.

We can all have very different ones while being logical, deductive, reasonable, tolerant, diplomatic .. for the subjective world we live in.

[Silverfyre]

We can all have very different ones while being logical, deductive, reasonable, tolerant, diplomatic .. for the subjective world we live in.

You really need to start learning that the world is a hell of a lot more objective than you think it is.  It doesn't matter if you think that something like a bus is subjective if it hit you crossing the street.  That's a pretty real occurrence and most of the things you are mentioning as being "subjective" really aren't.  Living in a great delusion of reality is really hazardous.

[Star Safyre]

I am not trying to convince anyone anything other than the reasoning behind some (including myself) believing it so and being sane and logical in their own belief set ... no more.

Saying that you are explaining the reasoning implies that you are giving reasons for the belief.  From what I'm able understand of your argument, so far you've offered no reasons beyond "that's what they believe and belief is reason enough."  I doubt people who hold this as truth produced it out of thin air.  They have what they believe is evidence.  I'm still waiting to see some.

This thread isn't titled

"prove to ~me~ Alien Astronaut theory is definitively proven wrong"

Nor

"prove to ~me~ Alien Astronaut theory is definitively true"

No, but the board is dedicated to discussing the named topic.  Simply saying one agrees or not is not discussion.  A discussion implies an exchange of facts or ideas regarding the topic.  A simple statement of agreement or disagreement isn't sufficient.

Can "we" agree that proof of something to one isn't proof of something to another while the same "facts" are being seen by both ?

While all are logical and sane ? (ie one not "objectively wrong" the other "objectively true")

Remember I don't beleive in objective truth, I beleive objectivity in its literal sense is a myth.

Obviously we cannot agree to your first statement given that you state that you do not believe in facts or truth.

Regardless, I agree that not everyone understands data and observations in the same way.  There is a great variety in mental capabilities and not everyone is neuronormative.  Though I embrace diversity in cognitive functioning, I accept that those who are neurologically aberrant may not be able to accept the world or observe it beyond their organically defined structures.  Those who are bound to their perspective based on biological limitations should be accepted into discussions such as this, though I do not believe the group can hold them to the same standards of proof and logic as nueronormatives.

This could be part of the reason some are becoming frustrated arguing their point with me, I have different sets of core beliefs,
assuming we can "meet and agree" on a certain foundation set is hopeless, we all have different sets of foundation beliefs to our current perspective.

My frustration at this point is caused by just how far off topic this thread has become.  Rather than debating whether we can debate at all, can we please return to the titled subject instead of this continued digression regarding "Why Kate Can't Debate"?  Honestly, I feel trolled at this point.

[Silverfyre]

To get back on topic:

I'm curious as to the social, educational, and economic level of those who call themselves "believers" in the alien astronaut theory.  I wonder what type of commonality those factors hold when applied to those who believe in the theory itself.  Perhaps there is something they experience that drives them to believe that little green men have had a hand in human evolution (culturally, genetically, and otherwise) from the beginning of time. 

Thoughts?

[Noelle]

I am not saying that one thing is hands down true or provable, definitively to all belief sets.

Then what are you saying, exactly? It's fine if you want to defend the reasons why someone might believe in aliens without actually believing yourself, but then when we discuss it and prove why someone shouldn't believe due to those very reasons, you resort back to "that's just your opinion" or "it's just a THEORY" without actually discussing the points we're bringing up. If you haven't made your point, then I invite you to do so sometime soon.

This thread isn't titled

"prove to ~me~ Alien Astronaut theory is definitively proven wrong"

Nor

"prove to ~me~ Alien Astronaut theory is definitively true"

No, but if you'll notice, it is placed in a forum where people discuss things in this manner. It's not titled that way because it doesn't need to be. The point of a debate is to comb over the points for and against a topic, examine the facts, and try to come to a conclusion that is closer to the truth based on all of the above. If you don't want to discuss it like that, then start a different thread where you can subjectively state your points without anyone's criticism.

Can "we" agree that proof of something to one isn't proof of something to another while the same "facts" are being seen by both ?

We can agree that some people may not be convinced, but the nature of proof isn't changed by self-delusion. If someone refuses to believe that lactic acid-converting bacteria in my milk carton disproves the existence of milk-dwelling aliens, that doesn't change the fact that it's proof, it just means that someone is willfully choosing to ignore it in favor of their own twisted form of logic. Disbelief isn't always good skepticism, especially in the face of solid evidence.

While all are logical and sane ? (ie one not "objectively wrong" the other "objectively true")

I can't agree that all are logical and sane. That's insinuating that all conclusions are equal in standing when they're blatantly not. It's insinuating that everyone has the same "toolkit" of logic when not everyone does. Some people have stronger logical and deductive skills than others -- it's a skill you have to build and exercise. It's not logical to make leaps in reasoning to the supernatural when modern science cannot fully explain something. It is a logical fallacy to accept a lack of evidence as proof, to use it as a strike against something, therefore you cannot logically say that a lack of scientific explanation is "proof" that the supernatural is at play. Truth is not subjective to whim and science is in constant pursuit of that.

This could be part of the reason some are becoming frustrated arguing their point with me, I have different sets of core beliefs,
assuming we can "meet and agree" on a certain foundation set is hopeless, we all have different sets of foundation beliefs to our current perspective.

No, it's frustrating because you don't acknowledge any of the points we make with any degree of counter-point. You revert back to the same defense mechanisms that we've also pointed out to not work and then openly wonder why we're discussing it in a discussion forum. If you don't want to do the research and address the points we're raising when we've taken the time to look at yours, if having your views picked apart and criticized bothers you, then please don't waste our time here. If you're on your own individually made-up set of logical standards that the rest of us aren't on, then you're right, this isn't going to work.

[Noelle]

To get back on topic:

I'm curious as to the social, educational, and economic level of those who call themselves "believers" in the alien astronaut theory.  I wonder what type of commonality those factors hold when applied to those who believe in the theory itself.  Perhaps there is something they experience that drives them to believe that little green men have had a hand in human evolution (culturally, genetically, and otherwise) from the beginning of time. 

Thoughts?

Indeed, to get back on-topic...

It seems to be a large range of demographics in reported believers...From government officials to farmers who think their cows have been blown up by aliens. I think the supernatural tends to transcend certain groups, especially when many accounts of supernatural happenings are personal experiences -- and perceived personal experiences are far more persuasive than "cold" logic, even if they are incredibly flawed. I'd be curious to see if there are any actual commonalities in sightings over time and how those alien reports will change as our own society advances further.

[Star Safyre]

To get back on topic: Perhaps there is something they experience that drives them to believe that little green men have had a hand in human evolution (culturally, genetically, and otherwise) from the beginning of time. 

You assume they believe in evolution.


Regardless, I did a tiny bit of research (if checking wikipedia can be considered research  ::) ), and I was actually surprised to read Carl Sagan's name mentioned in association with those who have scientifically considered the proposal.  That discussion actually did make me consider that, if there are alien cultures coming in contact with Earth, I can concede that the likelihood of them coming in contact with ancient humans is as likely as modern contact.

Still, this creates two issues to me: Have extraterrestrials contacted humans at any point of history?  What affects could such contact have?

I pose these questions not because I already believe I have the answer.  I am honestly seeking evidence of either.

[Silverfyre]

You assume they believe in evolution.


Regardless, I did a tiny bit of research (if checking wikipedia can be considered research  ::) ), and I was actually surprised to read Carl Sagan's name mentioned in association with those who have scientifically considered the proposal.  That discussion actually did make me consider that, if there are alien cultures coming in contact with Earth, I can concede that the likelihood of them coming in contact with ancient humans is as likely as modern contact.

Still, this creates two issues to me: Have extraterrestrials contacted humans at any point of history?  What affects could such contact have?

I pose these questions not because I already believe I have the answer.  I am honestly seeking evidence of either.

No, I use the term "evolution" as defined as "any process of formation or growth; development", not just the theory of human evolution.  This is a broad spectrum I am addressing in regards to what facets people believe our race has been changed and influenced by aliens.  It can cover art, culture, social-economics, beliefs... a plethora of subjects and honestly, it seems that there are people out there that think all parts of our society are being influenced by aliens.

It's rather... sad.

Here's one such "believer":

Ultimatum to Obama and all Hostiles, Surrender or Die!

Just...yeah.  I'm sorry, but I can't take these people seriously.

[Will]

Here's one such "believer":

Ultimatum to Obama and all Hostiles, Surrender or Die!

Oh, that was SO awesome. XD 


I still don't understand where the evidence for aliens comes from.  It's just an assortment of things that are unexplained, and for some reason, it all gets slapped with the "Aliens!" tag.  Why?  It's just unexplained; that's all.  "UFO" doesn't mean "alien spaceship," it means "unidentified flying object."  That could be anything.  So, it seems a little hasty to jump straight to "Aliens!" when there are any number of more mundane explanations.  So again, seriously, where is the evidence?  I would sincerely love to see evidence that points specifically at alien interaction with humans.  Not just open-ended unexplained phenomena. :P

[DarklingAlice]

Regardless, I did a tiny bit of research (if checking wikipedia can be considered research  ::) ), and I was actually surprised to read Carl Sagan's name mentioned in association with those who have scientifically considered the proposal.  That discussion actually did make me consider that, if there are alien cultures coming in contact with Earth, I can concede that the likelihood of them coming in contact with ancient humans is as likely as modern contact.

Which is why I always like Sagan's take on these things. Despite spending most of his career researching the possibility of intelligent alien life, despite having every reason to have just as much hope and faith as the myriad of 'believers', he sticks by a rational analysis of evidence rather than wishful thinking.

  I'm frequently asked, "Do you believe there's extraterrestrial intelligence?" I give the standard arguments - there are a lot of places out there, the molecules of life are everywhere, I use the word billions, and so on. Then I say it would be astonishing to me if there weren't extraterrestrial intelligence, but of course there is as yet no compelling evidence for it.
  Often, I'm asked next, "What do you really think?"
  I say, "I just told you what I really think."
  "Yes, but what's your gut feeling?"
  But I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me in trouble. Really, it's okay to reserve judgement until the evidence is in.
  I would be very happy if flying saucer advocates and alien abduction proponents were right and real evidence of extraterrestrial life were here for us to examine. They do not ask us though, to believe on faith. They ask us to believe on the strength of their evidence. Surely it is our duty to scrutinise the purported evidence at least as closely and skeptically as radio astronomers do who are searching for alien radio signals.
---Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World

[mystictiger]

So essentially he believes that there is alien life. Otherwise, he wouldn't be looking for it. If he knew that there was not, then he wouldn't look for it. If he knew there was, then he wouldn't need to believe.

[Silverfyre]

So essentially he believes that there is alien life. Otherwise, he wouldn't be looking for it. If he knew that there was not, then he wouldn't look for it. If he knew there was, then he wouldn't need to believe.

He believes that in such a vast universe, it is almost numerically impossible for there NOT to be other life out there.  This does not mean that these cultures are any more advanced technologically than we are or have even visited our planet.   They could all be some sort of proto-bacteria or something of that nature.  Life, according to the mathematical possibilities based solely on the size of universe, has to exist out there. 

[Star Safyre]

The Demon Haunted World!  *forehead slaps*  How could I forget Sagan's discussion of that in there?!  I'm thinking that because his tone is so logical, his ideas so logically and factually based, I've mentally divorced him from the "believers" group entirely even in cases where their thoughts overlap.  He espoused so many possibilities the pseudo-scientific community embrace as full truth (alien intelligences, intelligent design, etc.) in a way that still remained true to the scientific method: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

As I recall, I particularly enjoyed his discussion of modern "alien abductions" compared to the "demonic nocturnal visitations" of the pre-industrial era and their mutual resemblance to sleep paralysis.

I think the idea of extraterrestrial influence on human culture falls most certainly under the aforementioned quote: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."  Though certainly an exciting idea and not entirely beyond the realm of (extreme) possibility, I'm failing to see the strong, irrefutable evidence such a claim requires.

[KaiiVii]

I saw an Alien Astro. Show on TV the other day and while they did show a lot of the same old ambiguous arguments one place did stick out. Unfortunately this is about the best article I can find. Me and Crypt would love to visit someday.

http://weeklyworldnews.com/alien-alert/6766/puma-punku/

(Personally I think that it could have been just an advanced civilization of HUMANS or just some lost technique but the only theory I've seen put forth other than aliens is that they are cast from molds.)

Thoughts? Anyone else even know of this before?

[Oniya]

I'm quite familiar with the reliability of the Weekly World News.  If that's the best source you've got... um... yeahh.

[Noelle]

If there can be such thing as an alien/UFO expert, I demand my official status as an accomplished unicornologist finally be recognized and accepted by the world. D:<

[KaiiVii]

Not ONLY, just the first one that actually talks about anything like the show was, how oddly smooth/exact the materials etc are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumapunku
http://www.suite101.com/content/the-mystery-of-puma-punku-a188888
https://www.forbiddenhistory.info/?q=node/41
http://www.infocuts.com/story/article-001552

However it is hard to find anything with a lot of information that isn't biased in some way. I apologize.

[Silverfyre]

You do realize that wikipedia is hardly a creditable source, right?  I... honestly am not going to re-launch into my explanation on how these "symbols of aliens" are nothing more than matrixing and how some ill-informed individual's theory on how little green men are responsible for all the great wonders of humanity is complete and utter trash.  If you want to read my explanation, then please scroll up and search for it.  All I have to offer this time around is please don't believe everything you see on the History channel or read on the internet, especially from sources any one can edit and from a dishrag tabloid. 

[KaiiVii]

If you look at MY original post I did not say I thought it was aliens, I think it is simply INTERESTING, and strange. Should I have posted this somewhere else? I do know not to use Wikipedia but honestly after looking through 6 pages of search results I kinda gave up. I expected thoughts and ideas, not to be attacked because there is nothing that I can find that has any better information. Excuse me. Again I apologize.

[Noelle]

SUDDENLY, BUNNIES

[Silverfyre]

SUDDENLY, BUNNIES

FROM SPACE!

[Silverfyre]

If you look at MY original post I did not say I thought it was aliens, I think it is simply INTERESTING, and strange. Should I have posted this somewhere else? I do know not to use Wikipedia but honestly after looking through 6 pages of search results I kinda gave up. I expected thoughts and ideas, not to be attacked because there is nothing that I can find that has any better information. Excuse me. Again I apologize.

I did not mean what I said as a personal attack, merely as a questioning of the sources you were citing.  It may be interesting, yes, but it is based on ill perceived knowledge and misconstrued facts.  No need to apologize, I am just trying to point out how skewed this theory is, that is all.

[Star Safyre]

SUDDENLY, BUNNIES

[KaiiVii]

SUDDENLY, BUNNIES

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

:D Made my day

Silverfyre: I was just hoping someone had more information then I have been able to find. I am a fairly rational person, I just want to know what the answer is, so to speak. I don't care who's right I just want to see if anyone had heard better information than me. The reason I posted here was because i saw it first on that TV show (as did everyone else posting on the internet in recent times apparently) not because I am for sure backing that theory myself. There's too little information for me to back ANY theory at the moment,

[Silverfyre]

:D Made my day

Silverfyre: I was just hoping someone had more information then I have been able to find. I am a fairly rational person, I just want to know what the answer is, so to speak. I don't care who's right I just want to see if anyone had heard better information than me. The reason I posted here was because i saw it first on that TV show (as did everyone else posting on the internet in recent times apparently) not because I am for sure backing that theory myself. There's too little information for me to back ANY theory at the moment,

I understand where you are coming from.  That's great that you are interested in finding out more information.  Just don't fall into the pit fall of "pseudo science" and other types of sensationalized news.  If you are really interested in exploring "alien theory", I recommend the book, "Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan. 

It can be found here:

http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469

P.S: While it is a good book, it does have a bit of an anti-religious flare to it at points that can gnaw away at those with faith.  Otherwise, a brilliant, rational and documented study that I hope you enjoy.

[KaiiVii]

I will keep the book in mind, unfortunately I have no funds to buy with. And truth it was more that site in particular that interests me than the Alien theory, that debate is being beaten to death and will not be settled for a long time xD.

[Noelle]

Things got really tense there for a moment. Thankfully, there were copious amounts of fluffy bunny to soak up the anger. Like cute, furry sponges.

[Silverfyre]

Things got really tense there for a moment. Thankfully, there were copious amounts of fluffy bunny to soak up the anger. Like cute, furry sponges.

Well, I was saving this... just in case.

[KaiiVii]

I agree. Bunnies solve everything.

[Silverfyre]

I agree. Bunnies solve everything.

And pancakes.  Pancakes could solve wars, if done right.  But, we are getting off topic so I will leave this discussion with a more on topic point.

[Will]

I agree. Bunnies solve everything.

Untrue.  They don't clear up my confusion over why any unexplained set of evidence is immediately attributed to aliens. :(

[Jude]

Puma Punku - http://hw.libsyn.com/p/8/c/b/8cb05142eed12fa9/skeptoid-4202.mp3?sid=284995a70da42972106a892b0b25b411&l_sid=17974&l_eid=&l_mid=1629205

[KaiiVii]

Untrue.  They don't clear up my confusion over why any unexplained set of evidence is immediately attributed to aliens. :(

Well ...almost everything.

Silverfyre: I learn things from Pawn Stars and American Pickers... the others I agree with xD

[Silverfyre]

Well ...almost everything.

Silverfyre: I learn things from Pawn Stars and American Pickers... the others I agree with xD

As much as I hate to admit it, I love Pawn Stars.  Especially their experts.  Such colorful characters.

American Pickers, though... don't get me started on those womanizing swindlers. 

[DudelRok]

Ancient Aliens is such an awesome idea. I don't... I mean, I don't take anything in that instance (right down to big bang and God) as serious but I like the ideas.

[Oniya]

As much as I hate to admit it, I love Pawn Stars.  Especially their experts.  Such colorful characters.

American Pickers, though... don't get me started on those womanizing swindlers.

Pawn Stars actually has some historical content from time to time - although I'm amazed Chumley remembers to breathe.  Head has met desk frequently over that.  So does Auction Kings (Mr. Oniya has a new obsession of 'how much is crap lying around your house worth', even though we don't have anything nearly that interesting).

I much prefer HCI and MIL.  Unfortunately, MHC isn't on our cable package.

[KaiiVii]

American Pickers, though... don't get me started on those womanizing swindlers.

Actually I would like to hear more about why you don't like them. I don't support shows that aren't honest.

On topic:

My thoughts on this theory tends to get colored by the fact that I love Stargate...I have to try and overcome that xD

[Oniya]

Actually I would like to hear more about why you don't like them. I don't support shows that aren't honest.

Having watched them, the entire premise of the show seems to be 'how little can I pay to get this incredibly valuable thing off of this random homeowner'.  Can't speak to the 'womanizing' aspect, as I don't pay that much attention.

As for Stargate and similar shows:  while I fully believe that there is life - and intelligent life - out there in the universe, the science that allows me to hold onto that also makes it unlikely that we are part of some 'alien terrarium', 'failed breeding/uplift project', or 'extraterrestrial tourist destination'.  Maybe if there were more 'Earth-class' systems nearby, but we're out in the sticks, galactically speaking.

[DudelRok]

As for Stargate and similar shows:  while I fully believe that there is life - and intelligent life - out there in the universe, the science that allows me to hold onto that also makes it unlikely that we are part of some 'alien terrarium', 'failed breeding/uplift project', or 'extraterrestrial tourist destination'.  Maybe if there were more 'Earth-class' systems nearby, but we're out in the sticks, galactically speaking.

That all depends on how you measure the universe and make certain assumptions. Just because there are not more "Earth-class" planets doesn't mean there are not more planets that could house similar or even identical life with just a little bit of tweaking. This isn't counting the fact that when it comes to outer space our own galaxy becomes small and even ignorable as an actual unit of scale. And outside of some simple microbials, we really don't know anything in terms of alien life outside of the knowledge of vast expanse simply makes "zero" a logical impossibility.

[Will]

That all depends on how you measure the universe and make certain assumptions. Just because there are not more "Earth-class" planets doesn't mean there are not more planets that could house similar or even identical life with just a little bit of tweaking. This isn't counting the fact that when it comes to outer space our own galaxy becomes small and even ignorable as an actual unit of scale. And outside of some simple microbials, we really don't know anything in terms of alien life outside of the knowledge of vast expanse simply makes "zero" a logical impossibility.

Judging the size of our galaxy on the scale of the universe doesn't change the size of our galaxy in relation to us.  It's still huge in terms of getting from one star to another.  "Looking at it differently" doesn't make that any easier.

[Oniya]

That all depends on how you measure the universe and make certain assumptions. Just because there are not more "Earth-class" planets doesn't mean there are not more planets that could house similar or even identical life with just a little bit of tweaking. This isn't counting the fact that when it comes to outer space our own galaxy becomes small and even ignorable as an actual unit of scale. And outside of some simple microbials, we really don't know anything in terms of alien life outside of the knowledge of vast expanse simply makes "zero" a logical impossibility.

Let's put it this way:  'Space is 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's, but that's just peanuts to space.'  The probability that our planet, being 'far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy', is some kind of happening tourist destination, as the number of UFO conspiracies would seem to indicate, may not be impossible, but it is very, very improbable.

*ahem*

Now that I'm done channeling Douglas Adams, I reiterate that I fully believe that there is intelligent, technologically advanced life out there.  I just think it has better things to do than buzzing by an unremarkable yellow sun.

[Jude]

I personally really enjoy zombie movies.  I find ghost-haunting films fairly exciting.  I love playing video games that have all sorts of elaborate theological and technological impossibilities in them.  And that's fine; just because I enjoy fiction with elements of the impossible or astronomically unlikely doesn't mean I should skew my view of reality so that the fantasy I enjoy creeps in on it.

[DudelRok]

Well like this and all other "creation ideas" and unknown history I stick with a firm "Iunno" and go back to my video games.

In reality, it is all equally as plausible and all equally as nonsense until something firm can be shown as fact. XD

[Silverfyre]

I personally really enjoy zombie movies.  I find ghost-haunting films fairly exciting.  I love playing video games that have all sorts of elaborate theological and technological impossibilities in them.  And that's fine; just because I enjoy fiction with elements of the impossible or astronomically unlikely doesn't mean I should skew my view of reality so that the fantasy I enjoy creeps in on it.

This.

[Noelle]

I think a lot of people project movie-style fantasies about other intelligent life without pausing to consider that said intelligent life is not necessarily even zooming around in UFOs and shooting laser beams at all. They could be knuckle-draggers, they could be tentacled, they could be geniuses, or they could be mind-numbingly stupid, but self-aware. They could be like us, still trying to get off their rock and conjuring ridiculous images of large-headed, bug-eyed, bald green people anally probing them into oblivion. We have no idea if they are more or less advanced than we are, we have no idea if their idea of advanced or intelligent is even comparable to our own. We have no clue period.

[Jude]

A lot of people like to take a crap on modern society for things that occur nowadays that they consider inhumane, but I honestly believe that the governments of today are infinitely more humane and reasonable than what existed 500 years ago.  Humankind has moved away from tyranny, despotism, and incivility to a large degree, because our history is one of freedom universally benefiting our species.  Consider how easily an intelligent species in more dire situations could adopt an antithetical view to our "freedom and democracy are good" concepts, and you begin to see that aliens, though advanced, could still be quite barbaric and frightening.  Two quick video game examples:

Fallout New Vegas, Caeser's Legion

There's some brilliant political commentary on the efficacy of Democracy in survival situations here.  What seems horrible and savage can fulfill a purpose of bringing about order in times of anarchy.  Sometimes the ends do justify the means, thinking that isn't ever true is a luxury of comfortable society.

And two cases from Mass Effect 2

1)  The Quarians

A species that literally exiled itself through slavery of intelligent technology that backfired.  They literally have no home world to call their own now.  They wander the galaxy bent on reclaiming they planet they evolved on through any means necessary since it is the only place they are evolutionary adapted to exist on.  They can't settle somewhere else because their physiology is incapable of surviving there, yet getting what they want means genocide of an artificially intelligent race -- and do they even deserve moral consideration because they are artificial?

2)  Racial superiority

When you encounter different intelligent species, some of them actually will quite literally be genetically superior.  This isn't something humans have actually dealt with because we're all roughly the same genetically, but imagine how a galactic civilization would cope with actual, tangible inequality?  Do inferior beings deserve equal consideration?  Should species genetically modify themselves to be in line with the top-tier species?

My point with these science fiction examples is that aliens, were they to exist, would live in such incredibly different circumstances.  Their perspectives and priorities would be so different from ours and they would represent a million moral and technological quandaries that we've yet to encounter.  All of the speculation about their existence, and the desire for them to exist, misses this point.

[Kate]

What i do agree with (and often i find myself in the minority view of these topics) ... is the suggestion that an alien species would likely have priorities and perspectives, morals and ethics that are "alien" to us.

Intellect itself could be very very different (ie intellegence here is very distributed, some can be socially intelligent but have issues with numbers, or good with logistics but not necessarily good with spacial awareness). and thats just variation within our own species.

I heard dogs "think" in smell maps - which is why the love sniffing everything - they are effectively updating their memory-map.