Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
Ancient Astronauts Theory
75 Answers
Not a question, but I've just watched a documentary on the History channel entitled 'Ancient Aliens'. For anyone who's interested in finding out more about this theory, this is not a bad place to start. The narrator is a little sensationalist and hence, irritating, but don't let that deter you. I don't when it's on again, but it's extremely interesting and worth looking out for.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
LazyGun, I’ll take your points one by one.
1. Evidence: Whilst I agree that the evidence is unsubstantiated, I disagree entirely that it is poor - and I’m not talking about megalithic buildings. And incidentally, Mr Occam and I are not the best of friends. I firmly believe that he encourages people to form lazy habits.
2. Physical Limitations: Your conclusions are based on our current understanding. From an intelligent mind, I find this the saddest argument of all, because it assumes that man has reached the pinnacle of knowledge, and it produces an unenquiring mind that restricts scope for speculation. Without initial speculation, there would be no progression.
3. Alien Civilisation development: You misunderstand me. I don’t assume there are older, wiser and more technologically advanced civilisations out there - but for the reasons I gave previously, I do seriously consider the possibility.
You say for a society to be interested in ours, there must be a reason. Do we search for extraterrestrial life for the reasons you‘ve outlined? No, we don‘t. Our search for life in space is a natural progression following our first tentative steps into space.
How did they find us in the first place? They probably did exactly as we do - search for planets and moons that are possibly capable of sustaining life - and we do not need those planets to broadcast radio waves in order to do that.
1. Evidence: Whilst I agree that the evidence is unsubstantiated, I disagree entirely that it is poor - and I’m not talking about megalithic buildings. And incidentally, Mr Occam and I are not the best of friends. I firmly believe that he encourages people to form lazy habits.
2. Physical Limitations: Your conclusions are based on our current understanding. From an intelligent mind, I find this the saddest argument of all, because it assumes that man has reached the pinnacle of knowledge, and it produces an unenquiring mind that restricts scope for speculation. Without initial speculation, there would be no progression.
3. Alien Civilisation development: You misunderstand me. I don’t assume there are older, wiser and more technologically advanced civilisations out there - but for the reasons I gave previously, I do seriously consider the possibility.
You say for a society to be interested in ours, there must be a reason. Do we search for extraterrestrial life for the reasons you‘ve outlined? No, we don‘t. Our search for life in space is a natural progression following our first tentative steps into space.
How did they find us in the first place? They probably did exactly as we do - search for planets and moons that are possibly capable of sustaining life - and we do not need those planets to broadcast radio waves in order to do that.
Clanad, I understand what you’re saying, but in the vastness of space, I don’t see why ubiquitousness should be the rule, and neither do I see why the absence of radio signals within a 50 year period is a reasonable argument for discounting the theory.
Thank you for the offer - that‘s very kind - but I’ve read a mound of information about how we think ancient structures were created - including speculations on the stone quarrying, the carving, the transport and the erection of the Easter Island statues. None of them are ‘well documented’ evidence - they are all just theories, and I’ve yet to see one that, in the case of those and some of the more megalithic and precise structures, convinces me.
Sandy, it’s said they did - but I believe the whole story disappeared, so probably not - unless of course they know something we don’t. ;o)
Thank you for the offer - that‘s very kind - but I’ve read a mound of information about how we think ancient structures were created - including speculations on the stone quarrying, the carving, the transport and the erection of the Easter Island statues. None of them are ‘well documented’ evidence - they are all just theories, and I’ve yet to see one that, in the case of those and some of the more megalithic and precise structures, convinces me.
Sandy, it’s said they did - but I believe the whole story disappeared, so probably not - unless of course they know something we don’t. ;o)
-- answer removed --
@Naomi - I am happy to speculate.That is all it is though.Whether or not you think Occams Razor encourages lazy thinking, the principle itself is excellent, and should always be applied.
Absolutely none of my arguments suggests at all that I think that mankind is at the pinnacle of its development - thats just your interpretation. Presenting, as a strong or highly feasible probability the idea that aliens have visited the earth with our current level of knowledge is pure unadulterated speculation.
Yes, we scan the skies to satisfy intellectual curiosity - but what we all want is to find aliens that we can relate to - and that means some sort of congruence be it physically, intellectually, politically or from a trade perspective.
I remain sceptical. I dont think the science nor critical/rational analysis of the premise of alien visitation supports the notion.I dont mind anyone speculating on anything they like - but when people criticize "western science" or the scientific method because it does not support their assertions,that to me is waving the flag of defeat. You are quite correct that we dont know everything there is to know, and that there is much more to be discovered, in all likelihood. The scientific method and scepticism remains the best way of uncovering the hidden.
Absolutely none of my arguments suggests at all that I think that mankind is at the pinnacle of its development - thats just your interpretation. Presenting, as a strong or highly feasible probability the idea that aliens have visited the earth with our current level of knowledge is pure unadulterated speculation.
Yes, we scan the skies to satisfy intellectual curiosity - but what we all want is to find aliens that we can relate to - and that means some sort of congruence be it physically, intellectually, politically or from a trade perspective.
I remain sceptical. I dont think the science nor critical/rational analysis of the premise of alien visitation supports the notion.I dont mind anyone speculating on anything they like - but when people criticize "western science" or the scientific method because it does not support their assertions,that to me is waving the flag of defeat. You are quite correct that we dont know everything there is to know, and that there is much more to be discovered, in all likelihood. The scientific method and scepticism remains the best way of uncovering the hidden.
LazyGun, Mr Occam: Opting for the most likely of two (or more) possible answers does not give you the answer. If you don’t know, say you don’t know. Don’t best guess and offer that as a solution, because it‘s a false solution, and it‘s a cop out.
Despite your denial, your arguments appear to suggest that in your opinion mankind is at the pinnacle of development, because you’re still talking about basing your assumptions upon our current level of knowledge. Yes, of course the idea that aliens have visited earth is speculation (based in my case upon what I consider to be fairly convincing evidence), but in your unwillingness to stretch your mind in order to deliberate upon potential future technological developments and discoveries, you make a pretty firm negative assessment of something you may, in fact, be entirely wrong about. It seems to me that many people of science promote the philosophy ‘If we can’t do it, then no one else can’, but to a layperson like myself, that seems to be a very limited, and I have to say arrogant, viewpoint. If a man like Stephen Hawking says that the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational, and doesn’t discount the possibility of us encountering them, then why is it not feasible that they may have already encountered us?
Your flag waving of defeat is a straw man argument. I don’t criticise western science because it doesn’t support my assertions. I criticise western science for having the arrogance to declare, without thorough investigation, that a theory is false. I am sceptical in most things, but I am not so sceptical that I am blind to seeking answers to mysteries that, in my opinion, demand explanation.
Despite your denial, your arguments appear to suggest that in your opinion mankind is at the pinnacle of development, because you’re still talking about basing your assumptions upon our current level of knowledge. Yes, of course the idea that aliens have visited earth is speculation (based in my case upon what I consider to be fairly convincing evidence), but in your unwillingness to stretch your mind in order to deliberate upon potential future technological developments and discoveries, you make a pretty firm negative assessment of something you may, in fact, be entirely wrong about. It seems to me that many people of science promote the philosophy ‘If we can’t do it, then no one else can’, but to a layperson like myself, that seems to be a very limited, and I have to say arrogant, viewpoint. If a man like Stephen Hawking says that the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational, and doesn’t discount the possibility of us encountering them, then why is it not feasible that they may have already encountered us?
Your flag waving of defeat is a straw man argument. I don’t criticise western science because it doesn’t support my assertions. I criticise western science for having the arrogance to declare, without thorough investigation, that a theory is false. I am sceptical in most things, but I am not so sceptical that I am blind to seeking answers to mysteries that, in my opinion, demand explanation.
LazyGun, Just another thought or two. You say //Indeed it is patronising of humanity to suggest that earlier versions of ourselves could not have built the pyramids, or shaped rock, or built stonehenge.// but surely it's rather more patronising to dismiss their written accounts as figments of their imagination simply because they don't fit into our standard world view.
I wanted to add that it isn't only mainstream science that is at fault here - historians and archaeologists are just as culpable. I have to question why, when so many ancient manuscripts, the bible included, describe flying machines, often on some considerable detail, images like these are classified as stylised birds.
http://www.crystalinks.com/hieroplanes.gif
and this:
http://www.stoptherob...0Airplane%20Model.jpg
Sorry, but they don't look much like birds to me - but then what would I know?
I wanted to add that it isn't only mainstream science that is at fault here - historians and archaeologists are just as culpable. I have to question why, when so many ancient manuscripts, the bible included, describe flying machines, often on some considerable detail, images like these are classified as stylised birds.
http://www.crystalinks.com/hieroplanes.gif
and this:
http://www.stoptherob...0Airplane%20Model.jpg
Sorry, but they don't look much like birds to me - but then what would I know?
I was lucky enough to visit Tiahuanaco in Bolivia some years ago. This is where V. Daniken saw the statue with the 'ray gun'. I have to say that the statue did look very much like an impression of an astronaut and I can't imagine what the object the person is holding is if not a gun of some kind.
I also flew over the Nazca plain in Peru and saw the huge images set out by the ancient people of that area. They can only really be seen from the air...why?
Neither of these things are evidence as such but it certainly makes you think and I wouldn't pooh-pooh any theory until a fact disproves it. Bit of a fence-sitter I'm afraid.
Can anyone remember the story of the extremely ancient lightbulb discovered in India?
I also flew over the Nazca plain in Peru and saw the huge images set out by the ancient people of that area. They can only really be seen from the air...why?
Neither of these things are evidence as such but it certainly makes you think and I wouldn't pooh-pooh any theory until a fact disproves it. Bit of a fence-sitter I'm afraid.
Can anyone remember the story of the extremely ancient lightbulb discovered in India?
I seem to recall someone quoting; "If you can imagine it, you can achieve it....." Creation and imagination are like the yin and yang principle: they are interwoven.
Science relies on facts and many theories but with regards to the subject matter in this thread, sometimes lack the ability to open the mind because the knowledge goes no further than what already is. I am not discrediting pioneers responsible for major turning points in the scientific world but without eureka moments where would we be?
We like to control and be in control of everything around us so when someone comes along and say's, maybe humans on earth are only one miniscule part of the equation belonging to a much larger connection to everything on and beyond the earth, it unsettles and unbalances perceptions of the already known.
I think most of the answers we seek to our origins are still with us but we have either lost the knowledge, it is hidden to stop us knowing the truth or we just don't know where to look, yet!
Science relies on facts and many theories but with regards to the subject matter in this thread, sometimes lack the ability to open the mind because the knowledge goes no further than what already is. I am not discrediting pioneers responsible for major turning points in the scientific world but without eureka moments where would we be?
We like to control and be in control of everything around us so when someone comes along and say's, maybe humans on earth are only one miniscule part of the equation belonging to a much larger connection to everything on and beyond the earth, it unsettles and unbalances perceptions of the already known.
I think most of the answers we seek to our origins are still with us but we have either lost the knowledge, it is hidden to stop us knowing the truth or we just don't know where to look, yet!
Good question but is probably more difficult to answer than the questions raised on your thread.
What do the freemasons really know and why don't they tell?
Why one evening in the middle of the 10:00p.m. news in the 1990's did the reader say, "The craft that allegedly crashed in Roswell was a weather balloon and no aliens were retrieved", when that story was told to many people back in the late 1940's? A strange admission to report such a thing in the middle of the news with no lead story.
There are certain American Indian tribes that say they know what the crystal skulls are for and the temples of Mexico but are not telling because of sacred tradition.
Is it possible that certain clandestine government organisations do their utmost to not tell us the truth about our origins because they could be scared of the reaction or they want to keep certain knowledge for themselves.
Scientists and archaeologists would probably love to tell all to the world about our origins, if they knew but are they allowed?
Why was a German archaeologist and his team suddenly ushered out of the pyramids after finding a small door at the end of one of the tiny shafts. They were told not to come back to Egypt. They were responsible for the discovery and got no credit for it.
I don't really know who is responsible Naomi.
I don't think the freedom of information act has any clout with some people.
I'd love to walk into the Vatican and say, "Excuse me, could you tell me where The Ark of The Covenant is please?" and while I'm here I'm looking for the bones of Jesus".
Do you think they'd show me, if they had them?
What do the freemasons really know and why don't they tell?
Why one evening in the middle of the 10:00p.m. news in the 1990's did the reader say, "The craft that allegedly crashed in Roswell was a weather balloon and no aliens were retrieved", when that story was told to many people back in the late 1940's? A strange admission to report such a thing in the middle of the news with no lead story.
There are certain American Indian tribes that say they know what the crystal skulls are for and the temples of Mexico but are not telling because of sacred tradition.
Is it possible that certain clandestine government organisations do their utmost to not tell us the truth about our origins because they could be scared of the reaction or they want to keep certain knowledge for themselves.
Scientists and archaeologists would probably love to tell all to the world about our origins, if they knew but are they allowed?
Why was a German archaeologist and his team suddenly ushered out of the pyramids after finding a small door at the end of one of the tiny shafts. They were told not to come back to Egypt. They were responsible for the discovery and got no credit for it.
I don't really know who is responsible Naomi.
I don't think the freedom of information act has any clout with some people.
I'd love to walk into the Vatican and say, "Excuse me, could you tell me where The Ark of The Covenant is please?" and while I'm here I'm looking for the bones of Jesus".
Do you think they'd show me, if they had them?
I do apologise Naomi. My theories maybe sensational or wrought with conspiracies but no more than the subjects themselves.
Evidence will only come to light if governing bodies wish it to do so.
We can look at facts (?) and determine our own conclusions as to whether we believe it or not. How do we know a fact is true, just because someone told us or we read it in a book? I'd love to play Indiana Jones but in the real world they'd probably lock him up then torture him for his knowledge.
Evidence will only come to light if governing bodies wish it to do so.
We can look at facts (?) and determine our own conclusions as to whether we believe it or not. How do we know a fact is true, just because someone told us or we read it in a book? I'd love to play Indiana Jones but in the real world they'd probably lock him up then torture him for his knowledge.
Coming in late, as usual, I have little to contribute to the general argument which doesn't interest me. But a few minor things:
LazyGun, you are wasting your time arguing with naomi about Occam. She really does think, astonishing as it seems, that it involves just lazy guessing. I don't think she realises how many times a day she uses the principle without realising it.
SandyRoe, the thing about not believing in God..etc.. is usually attributed to G K Chesterton but is really anonymous. And I must say that if I had said anything quite so fatuous I would want to keep my head down as well. The claim is not just untrue but the reverse of the truth. If you want me to demonstrate that, I'll do it on a separate thread.
The Bermuda Triangle nonsense has been comprehensively and quite convincingly debunked years ago.
Just a sweeping-up operation on minor matters so that you can get on with the main subject....
LazyGun, you are wasting your time arguing with naomi about Occam. She really does think, astonishing as it seems, that it involves just lazy guessing. I don't think she realises how many times a day she uses the principle without realising it.
SandyRoe, the thing about not believing in God..etc.. is usually attributed to G K Chesterton but is really anonymous. And I must say that if I had said anything quite so fatuous I would want to keep my head down as well. The claim is not just untrue but the reverse of the truth. If you want me to demonstrate that, I'll do it on a separate thread.
The Bermuda Triangle nonsense has been comprehensively and quite convincingly debunked years ago.
Just a sweeping-up operation on minor matters so that you can get on with the main subject....
Luna (Nadis), You say your theories are sensational and wrought with conspiracy - and they are - but I believe you’re mistaken in associating them with the subject of this thread. The concept that this theory is linked in some way to the so-called mystical, or to New Age mumbo-jumbo, crystal skulls, or to conspiracy theories about Free Masons, the Illuminati, government cover-ups, crop circles, alien abductions, or to any other weird and wonderful notion, has done nothing to encourage serious research into this subject. In fact it is highly damaging, and it infuriates me. When people like David Icke or the Scientologists start proselytizing about spacemen and lizards, it’s hardly surprising that science refuses to venture into serious research. If I were unfortunate enough to be blind to the light beyond the darkness, neither would I!!
What we actually have at our disposal are ancient documents, artefacts, paintings, carvings, and fascinating structures. These are real - they are tangible - and if we are ever to learn more about our past, this must be the sole focus of our investigations.
What we actually have at our disposal are ancient documents, artefacts, paintings, carvings, and fascinating structures. These are real - they are tangible - and if we are ever to learn more about our past, this must be the sole focus of our investigations.
Chakka, ha ha! And not before time! How did I know the mention of Mr Occam would entice you to add your two-pennyworth? Of course you are right. I do use the principle fairly regularly, especially when I’m deciding what to cook for dinner - in that case the result is always the lesser of the two evils. ;o)
However, in matters of importance where positive proof is vital - such as the subject of this thread - I would not give the principle a moment‘s consideration. I want answers, and nothing less will suffice. And whilst we’re on the subject, may I remind you, dear Chakka, that the last time we discussed Mr Occam and his appallingly lazy principle, the long conversation concluded thus:
Naomi: Whilst a rational person is at liberty to consider possibilities, he doesn't accept any explanation until it's proven. If there is no proven answer, he can only conclude that he doesn't know, because he doesn't.
Chakka: Can't disagree.
Naomi: Great! Have a G&T. Cheers! :o)
Clink! ;o)
However, in matters of importance where positive proof is vital - such as the subject of this thread - I would not give the principle a moment‘s consideration. I want answers, and nothing less will suffice. And whilst we’re on the subject, may I remind you, dear Chakka, that the last time we discussed Mr Occam and his appallingly lazy principle, the long conversation concluded thus:
Naomi: Whilst a rational person is at liberty to consider possibilities, he doesn't accept any explanation until it's proven. If there is no proven answer, he can only conclude that he doesn't know, because he doesn't.
Chakka: Can't disagree.
Naomi: Great! Have a G&T. Cheers! :o)
Clink! ;o)
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles28 mins ago
Food & Drink35 mins ago
Crosswords230 mins ago
Crosswords278 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.