To many, ancient astronaut theory is a leap..

[pragmatist]

If the individual does not believe in UFO's, then he certainly has difficulty in accepting that the Earth was visited by extra-terrestrials in the past. If we want to promote our cause, we must first focus on the present as a step towards making a mental bridge to the past. Ancient astronaut theory leaps over the present UFO stigma, which makes it more difficult to support the argument. Because of this, I feel it is critical that we AA Theorists join forces with Ufologists and support their cause too. One group that appears to be well organized in the cause is the Disclosure Project. I am a member of the AASRA and I will also join Dr. Greer's group in promoting ufo and ET awareness. I urge others to do the same and hope that AASRA will evventually seek a joint venture with the Disclosure Project as well.

[Moon]

First of all I think many who adhere to the AAT idea do think we are still being visited during the present. This theory looks at the possibility extraterrestrials not only had contact with the ancients, but left clues to such contact in monuments and other structures. There are others who think extraterrestrial goes beyond that aspect as having to have had a hand in creation of humans themselves.

The best way to promote the idea that we are being visited is through presenting the evidence of such visits. It also helps to get prominent people of science and other fields to get on board too. While some may want to join these groups, I think they are a waste of money. Most of them (Dr Greer among them) are only interested in money and have members who have been to a seminar sign disclosure agreements. Does that sound like they are distributing the truth to anyone who will listen?

[skyeye]

I know that AA doesn't focus on current UFO footage like many shows do, that is what sets it apart to me. Ancient and modern sitings are related so i do agree with the teamwork thing because there are a lot of people who after witnessing a UFO sighting have become very interested in AAT>

[pragmatist]

Lloyd:

To me, any legitimate ally is better than no ally - strength in numbers. Even if you say Dr Greer looks at this as a source of income, who on the Legendary Times staff does not? The fact that Greer is making money off the issue does not diminish the effect he could have. Do you discount EVD's work because he made money on all the books? Of course not. They have to make a living somehow. The point is we need as much support as we can get, and Dr. Greer's effort and the AA Theory shares a common thread that is an obstacle towards our longterm world vision.

Paul.

[Moon]

Lloyd:

To me, any legitimate ally is better than no ally - strength in numbers. Even if you say Dr Greer looks at this as a source of income, who on the Legendary Times staff does not? The fact that Greer is making money off the issue does not diminish the effect he could have. Do you discount EVD's work because he made money on all the books? Of course not. They have to make a living somehow. The point is we need as much support as we can get, and Dr. Greer's effort and the AA Theory shares a common thread that is an obstacle towards our longterm world vision.

Paul.

This is my opinion and does not reflect the opinions of any other moderator, administrator or the site in general

I would let this pass if Dr Greer did not require all who attained his seminars to sign a non-disclosure agreement. That to me reeks of not only irony, but that he has something to hide himself (no real evidence to actually show).

I actually have no problem with people writing books or doing this as a living. But what Dr Greer does makes a mockery of ufology as he claims to have spoken to members of high ranking offices only to have had a few cordial exchanges at a dinner.

Erich von Daniken made some errors in judgment early on and has owned up to them and given his side of what happened. He also has collected much more data than many of the others have. Also, Stanton Friedman gave up his well paid position to work full time on this subject. I am sure he would of had a much better benefits and retirement package had he stayed at his old career. I am not making a judgment of people who make a living in general, just at how Dr Greer does his. This is my thoughts on the subject and do not reflect any others on this board.

I do think anyone who has written a book or makes a living on this subject should disclose it so as to not cause any conflicts.

Lloyd

[upperworld]

I may be a bit of an odd bird in so much as that i have a deep interest in AAT and alternative history...however i am not so big on UFO's and modern encounters with aliens. I'm very skeptical myself and although there is a huge benefit to finding correlations between ancient ET visits and modern UFO sightings, i just find too many current encounters to be phoney. Not that i have an explanation for most of them, but to me the fact that we currently have technology to fly, and have machines in our skies on a daily basis makes the whole thing a bit fuzzy. I'm sure a small percentage of them are legit, i'm not doubting that, but it's hard to lump all the UFO sightings in a big pile and say this is evidence for alien visitation when too many of them are small aircraft caught on a shaky cell phone camera.

Ancient visitations, however, lend themselves to a much higher level of credibility because we (according to mainstream history) did not have the technology of flight several thousand years ago. This means any relief, painting, or story of flying machines HAS to be interpreted as otherworldly visitation. That is, unless you are one to believe they are all just folklore and fairytales.

[Moon]

Well said, Upperworld. I do look at modern sightings as a separate thing as the cases all vary in both credibility and evidence. The AAT is separate as it looks at the past and history in general. This would be like merging both current affairs and history.

It is true that a lot can be learned from both parts of the spectrum. But it is better to have specialists focusing on one part of the puzzle.

[Sagittarii]

AAT, UFO's, Aliens.....all this is not the BIG picture. You're living in a virtual reality world. Everything around you is not what it seems. Only when we die will we understand.

[FiresOfHistory]

If the individual does not believe in UFO's, then he certainly has difficulty in accepting that the Earth was visited by extra-terrestrials in the past.

In my experience, this is THE issue when speaking with others about AAT. I always find it funny how sure some people are that 'god' is sitting up there, but there is NO WAY aliens could possibly exist. It seems regardless of how much one debates the size of the universe, its age, the sheer mathematical probability of life truly being out there...nope, there's no way. But for some reason a 'god' seems so very reasonable.

That said, I break it down this way when talking about AAT and/or ETs. If AAT is true, then ETs obviously exist. If ETs exist, then they could be visiting as we speak. I think to be a true proponent of AAT but to deny any current ET/UFO activity is a bit of a contradiction, to me anyway. I agree that far too many sightings and current UFO investigation seems very sideshow, but there must be something to it. If ETs dealt with our ancient leaders and sages, I'm sure the same pattern endured and they are just currently dealing with our modern leaders and sages; the bulk of us simply are not as yet invited to the party, or for some reason not to know. Personally, I would say something is definitely happening in our time as well.

I do agree AAT and current UFO studies should be kept seperate, but do have the potential to be a tremendous force if they could somehow be credibly and openly threaded together.

[pragmatist]

Fires:

Are you familiar with Project Camelot? The Disclosure Project? The truth is much stranger than your wildest imagination. I firmly expect a revolutionary event reslated to ET and UFO disclosure either around the end of this year or the beginning of next year. Some people call the event 'the second coming'.

Einstein described the religion of the future as a combination of science and religion where the two find a common thread to reveal the truth about our existence and our fate. Recently, a man from Japan has established a religion called Happy Science. It is a fascinating thing and curiously echoes concepts brought out in this forum by one of the more 'out-of-this-world' posters:
Athena. They both state that our souls go through 9 dimensions, and she, athena states that she is of one of the higher life forms.

Check out the stuff I wrote about and get back to me.

[coomba98]

Humans have always had the imagination that we have today from the begining. This has not changed.

I can agee that the strange paintings, carvings, drawings, constructions etc. etc may appear to be technological things,
we could have done this from imagination. Like artists do today.

The only thing that convinces me of the AAT is the abundance of sait paintings, carvins,.........
Coupled with the ancient texts. No way could primative man come up with some of the things
spoken of in the ancient texts! No way can imagination leap that much. Einstin or not!

Not only that, but the constructions!! The constructions!!! The... Give me a minute... Constructions!!

IMPOSSIBLE FOR PRIMATIVE MAN!!!! IMPOSSIBLE!!

Coomba out

[dreaddy]

Hey Guys,

I have a different take on this whole alien race thing. Let's look at the facts first. Whether it be carvings, paintings or artifacts, evidence exists that ancient Man was somehow aware of, or came into contact with what appears to be modern technology. Many seem to think the only way this can be explained is a visit from aliens who had this technology. I'm proposing a different, simpler and older explanation for these evidences.

MANKIND WAS TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED BEFORE. Something happened that wiped out this entire civilization of technologically advanced people and leave but a handful of them who did not possess the know-how of how to continue building on what was acquired in terms of scientific knowledge at that time. It's nothing new. It's right in front of us. Problem is we refuse to look at it. Let me lay it out briefly and I dare you to punch holes in this explanation.

Let's for a moment suppose Mankind was created and the earth was not millions of years old. We'll also have to suppose what the bible says is true. Here's the skinny. Mankind was taller, stronger, smarter and lived longer than we do today. Look at how far we've come in terms of technology in the last 200 years from basic mechanical parts to computers and microchips that can virtually do anything. Now imagine if the people like Newton, Madame Curie, Einstein etc lived for hundreds of years instead of 70 and were still with us today. imagine how much more advanced we'd be. Such was the case in the pre-flood world. They were as advanced as we are today or even better (given there are things they did that we still cannot do today eg. moving such large stone blocks). There are so many Ooparts (out of place artifacts) buried in rocks formed as a result of the world wide flood that they are, for the most part, ignored by scientists since this technology does not fit into the "millions of years old earth" with cavemen theory being spun as fact today. The world wide flood wiped out this civilization and left but the six people on the Ark. These six people knew of the technology but could not duplicate it. They and their descendants could draw and carve it, but could not continue the technology. It's similar to if there was a world wide flood today and only the people on this forum survived. Sure we know about computers and cell phones. But would we be able to make 'em? We could draw it and carve it since we know about it. But we don't know how to make it. In effect we'd be resetting the technology clock even though we could draw and carve the technology existing today.
I dare say this explanation covers all and any of the finds without resorting to a visiting alien race. What do you think?

[coomba98]

Dreaddy,
I think the same, im open to alot of logical thinking of 'humanities missing past'.

This is an abbreviated version of the same line of thinking i have.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2720&p=30229#p30229

[Felix]

Even I don't get anything for grounded Dreaddy's theory it looks plausible to me. Ocean's already existed on Earth 4,280,000,000 years ago, why life should take so long time to develop?

[Pons Asinorum]

Ocean's already existed on Earth 4,280,000,000 years ago, why life should take so long time to develop?

It didn't.

The earliest fossils found are Stromatolites, about 3.5 billion years ago. They were ocean-living organisms.

The oceans of the Earth may have formed about 4.2 billion years ago.

So 0.7 billion years between the first evidence of life and the first indication of the formation of the oceans.

Of course, more interestingly, nothing but a few significant changes would happen for the next 3.6 billion years, and then, about 0.6 billion years ago -- an explosion...weird.

The problem really is not the short length of time it takes life to evolve in accordance to a Darwinian model, but rather there is not enough time for those changes to have produced life in all its forms here on Earth. Especially given that the vast majority of those changes occurred in just 0.6 billion years (really tens of millions of years, because ALL the phylum body plans known today -- extinct or otherwise -- were formed just prior to the Cambrian period).

(Mathematicians have demonstrated how long a Darwinian model would need by calculating the number of changes needed in the DNA molecule versus time -- an ungodly number of universe lifespans -- but they were ignored; mathematicians, what'da they know?.

Not sure if this helps or hurts any given theory, but if the fossil record is to be believed, that is what the history of life shows.


--


Life originally came from the sea (where have I heard that before?).

[Felix]

Thanks Pons

I knew about that, I use to watch many of these scientific documentary, which I prefer because I can't nowaday read for too long. I have questioned about "life" in a generic way instead of "complex life".
Nice to talk with you, I noticed reading here and there you are a precise person and well documented which is a very good thing.
I am here to talk with other people interested in these arguments and I don't like to make assertions but I like to raise doubts, propose questions or hypotheses which are not supposed to be the absolute truth.

[TeeLow]

Interesting theory dreaddy but I have one problem with it. There are several cultures that have stories about the floods, therefore, there would have been several different groups of survivors. How do you account for none of them possessing any of the tools needed to be so advanced?

[Pons Asinorum]

Thank you Felix!

I knew about that, I use to watch many of these scientific documentary, which I prefer because I can't nowaday read for too long.

Me too. With the special effects and graphics that producers have nowadays, those documentaries rock!

I have questioned about "life" in a generic way instead of "complex life".

Me too, and you are right-- it is wise to separate life and complex life. Darwin (wisely) never speculated on how life arose, his theory begins with the first cell.

The origin of life is a tough one, and many (if not most) Darwinian Scientists are now banking on the theory of Panspermia (life seeded from space, of which there are some promising leads).

The reason is because the mathematics weighs heavily against all proposed earth-bound models (in broad strokes: the right chemicals in proper sequence, randomly come together to craft the precursor molecule(s) of life -- within the life span of the Earth. The chances against that are remote to the extreme or, roughly, ZERO).

In this, AAT and mainstream may somewhat merge because if ever proven true, then life must exist beyond Earth, which raises the possibility of intelligent life, which raises the possibility of deliberate seeding -- billions of years ago. This is something that a few in the AAT community do beleive -- and the same for the scientific community.

What is odd to me, is that the leading voices in AAT do not seek these scientists out -- potentially their biggest allies. These PhD's are not in esoteric subjects, but in the hard disciplines of physics, chemistry, and biology.

[No, they would not support about 95% of AAT -- stuff like the moon is hollow, or the existence Nibriu, but what they would support lends instant weight and credibility. Just from a pure marketing POV, the AAT researcher that is able to forge such an alliance would hit it big time ($)...hmmm.]

I am here to talk with other people interested in these arguments and I don't like to make assertions but I like to raise doubts, propose questions or hypotheses which are not supposed to be the absolute truth.

Me too


--

Nice to talk with you, I noticed reading here and there you are a precise person and well documented which is a very good thing.

Nice to talk with you, Felix. You are most polite and concise.

My wife tells me that I can BS with the best of them, but I like the way you put it better .

[isitmeorwhat?]

Really there is no question about it you can't have the one without the other. You may really look at it like leaping in a swimming pool with no water in it. (You'll wind up with terrible headache if you to think this way!) Ouch. My advice to those who believe in one but not the other you can think what you want. But please don't go swimming you may hurt yourself!

[Moon]

I also think the peoples of antiquity were much more advanced than we were, but in a spiritual sense. They did not have the tablets and notebooks like we do, but they had psychic and other abilities that attracted the extraterrestrials to make contact with them.

The questions as to what happened and when are many as there is much that remains to be discovered out there. If civilization was booming 13,000 years ago before some type of cataclysmic event, what took them so long to get back on track? Civilization has been dated by mainstream science as being around 6,000 or so years old. But that leaves several thousand years of blanks to be filled.

Finding the pieces of the puzzle is the challenging part.

[isitmeorwhat?]

Yes it seems that they built civilazations on top of older civilizations if they old civilizations buildings survivied through they earth's cycles and not lost under the oceans. But is it me or everytime a new civilzation has emerged on top of the old one it becomes more complicated and more crap and is needed for comunicating, building and just plain living. From buildings with stones that weigh tuns and tuns assembled as if they are welded together, with no hieroglifics or any type of language. To today's cities of made of little bricks and riddled with graffitti. It's like something is making it more complicated every time the earth goes through some type of change.

[Felix]

Back again Pons

The origin of life is a tough one, and many (if not most) Darwinian Scientists are now banking on the theory of Panspermia (life seeded from space, of which there are some promising leads).

Yes Panspermia gives more sense to the Darwin theory, without that word I would have asked if it was not more opportune to place the Darwin theory in a universal contest instead of the Earth contest.

[Pons Asinorum]

The funny thing is, this still does not get the Darwinian Evolutionists off the hook (sort to speak).

Just as the Origin of Life could not have taken place on Earth in any random process because of time constraints, moving such a genisis into space really only gains ten billion years or so. This still is not nearly enough time for a random process to be naturally selected from basic chemicals.

It is not even close: 10^9 vs 10^180 years (!)
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/Evolution.aspx

It does appear that the greatest challenge to this theory is not from Creationists or AAT, but from mathematicians. From a quote presented by Buzi-Blu:

"Nonsense," said the reductionists. "Rubbish," said the materialists. "Completely absurd," said the naïve realists. "Yup," said the mathematicians.

--

Even after life starts, the fossil record does not quite match what Darwinian Evolution predicts. It works well for species-to-species and species-to-sub-species; it is empirical, but beyond that, the model breaks down rapidly. Charles Darwin was quite wise to name his theory the Origin of Species and to warn his readers about the fossil record:

Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures.

To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/index.html

[Polaris]

Hey Guys,

I have a different take on this whole alien race thing. Let's look at the facts first. Whether it be carvings, paintings or artifacts, evidence exists that ancient Man was somehow aware of, or came into contact with what appears to be modern technology. Many seem to think the only way this can be explained is a visit from aliens who had this technology. I'm proposing a different, simpler and older explanation for these evidences.

MANKIND WAS TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED BEFORE. Something happened that wiped out this entire civilization of technologically advanced people and leave but a handful of them who did not possess the know-how of how to continue building on what was acquired in terms of scientific knowledge at that time. It's nothing new. It's right in front of us. Problem is we refuse to look at it. Let me lay it out briefly and I dare you to punch holes in this explanation.

Let's for a moment suppose Mankind was created and the earth was not millions of years old. We'll also have to suppose what the bible says is true. Here's the skinny. Mankind was taller, stronger, smarter and lived longer than we do today. Look at how far we've come in terms of technology in the last 200 years from basic mechanical parts to computers and microchips that can virtually do anything. Now imagine if the people like Newton, Madame Curie, Einstein etc lived for hundreds of years instead of 70 and were still with us today. imagine how much more advanced we'd be. Such was the case in the pre-flood world. They were as advanced as we are today or even better (given there are things they did that we still cannot do today eg. moving such large stone blocks). There are so many Ooparts (out of place artifacts) buried in rocks formed as a result of the world wide flood that they are, for the most part, ignored by scientists since this technology does not fit into the "millions of years old earth" with cavemen theory being spun as fact today. The world wide flood wiped out this civilization and left but the six people on the Ark. These six people knew of the technology but could not duplicate it. They and their descendants could draw and carve it, but could not continue the technology. It's similar to if there was a world wide flood today and only the people on this forum survived. Sure we know about computers and cell phones. But would we be able to make 'em? We could draw it and carve it since we know about it. But we don't know how to make it. In effect we'd be resetting the technology clock even though we could draw and carve the technology existing today.
I dare say this explanation covers all and any of the finds without resorting to a visiting alien race. What do you think?

Your premise is intriguing, especially the 'can we rebuild humankind back to its former glory without alien assistance'.
This I think is the ultimate goal of humanity... and can we get there before we either destroy ourselves, destroy our environment (which can lead to our destruction) or before the next global cataclysm.
Some AAT's, myself included, are of the opinion that this cycle of destruction-rebuild has repeated itself over billennia (especially from global catastrophes)...
Ancient texts (religious text included) make reference to this cycle. The Sumerians (and their descendents) made reference to the last one - Noah's Flood.

[Occam Razor]

If the individual does not believe in UFO's, then he certainly has difficulty in accepting that the Earth was visited by extra-terrestrials in the past. If we want to promote our cause, we must first focus on the present as a step towards making a mental bridge to the past. Ancient astronaut theory leaps over the present UFO stigma, which makes it more difficult to support the argument. Because of this, I feel it is critical that we AA Theorists join forces with Ufologists and support their cause too. One group that appears to be well organized in the cause is the Disclosure Project. I am a member of the AASRA and I will also join Dr. Greer's group in promoting ufo and ET awareness. I urge others to do the same and hope that AASRA will evventually seek a joint venture with the Disclosure Project as well.

The problem is fakes. If you get a picture of an alien spaceship, even if genuine that won't get you anywhere. But find an ancient text describing a "celestrial visit of god", with high context of machines and technology it gets difficult to refute it, because frankly thousands of years ago people should have no clue about these things. Of course there is another problem and that is that descriptions of people not really understanding what they are seeing are a bit sketchy and leave room for interpretaion. It will convince more people, but some still will back out of it, no matter how good the descriptions are as imagination - as unlikely as that may be.

No, the road is scientific hard evidence. And even then people will back out simply stating that even despite not able to come up with an alternate explaination, there must be a more reasonable one, whatever that my be.

Fortunately the matter developed quite a inherent momentum, as more people try to look at the facts seriously, so the naysayers are loosing ground rapidly. And it really frightens them to the bone. So they leash out and attack. But in the end there is nothing that they can do about it. More and more scientists, ecpecially the ones active in the field experience a paradigm shift of philosopy and change sides (like Hoover). The walls are crumbling as the perspectives change. This is a slow process have patience, there is progress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8orh_DOVo9I&feature=mh_lolz&list=FL_0worJfVQDzfkkap2MpTZQ

[Moon]

The best photographic evidence are the pictures taken by film before the advent of the digital age. There are many photographs which have been examined by professionals and deemed to be real. Many can tell when film has been double exposed or other tricks used. Also, the film does make it easier to make a 3D image of what was taken to get an idea of the size of the object.

With all the programs out there now, anyone can make a convincing UFO video or digital picture. I really do think it is an end of an era for any type of photographic evidence in today's society. What is needed now is physical evidence such as landings or actual pieces of an extraterrestrial craft.

[Occam Razor]

Well, you need a lot of luck for that because of special relativity and how time works when approaching lightspeed. I suspect there is a visit once every 10-5000 years by chance. No, my bet would be biology. Especially genetic research and a focus on astrobiology. I have serious doubts starships are all that common. Its a very ineffective way of travelling if you compare it to distributing the genetic code with self-replicating microorganisms wich can survive the trip and colonize entire worlds (Van Neumanns, that is right - i am not that sure if we can really discern biology from technology, not even if there IS such a thing as biology in the first place). I think you only get starships if you have a hightech civilization and the sun is dying or some other world-ending cosmic disaster is forcing them to drastic action. I would suggest prioritizing in this order: astronomy(SETI, if you like), astrobiology, xenoarchaeology.

[Moon]

Well, you need a lot of luck for that because of special relativity and how time works when approaching lightspeed. I suspect there is a visit once every 10-5000 years by chance. No, my bet would be biology. Especially genetic research and a focus on astrobiology. I have serious doubts starships are all that common. Its a very ineffective way of travelling if you compare it to distributing the genetic code with self-replicating microorganisms wich can survive the trip and colonize entire worlds (Van Neumanns, that is right - i am not that sure if we can really discern biology from technology, not even if there IS such a thing as biology in the first place). I think you only get starships if you have a hightech civilization and the sun is dying or some other world-ending cosmic disaster is forcing them to drastic action. I would suggest prioritizing in this order: astronomy(SETI, if you like), astrobiology, xenoarchaeology.

Would they have to travel here by chance? Our current technology allows us to now detect planets within 1000 light years from us. Just think what we will be able to detect 100 years from now.

I do think they detected our planet before they visited it.

[Occam Razor]

Detection is not the issue. There are four main reasons why visitations by starships are unlikely:

1. Kepler detected lots of terran candidates. If they got better technology, wich i would assume, then they got even more targets. Earth is one among many. That makes it not such an obvious and pristine location that the entire milkyway has to come here once they spot us. I guess they'd start with their neightbouring stars first (in our case Gliese 581), if at all.

2. Lets consider they got a few billion years headstart in evolution on us. Would they even care? When did you last try to talk to a flatworm? Have you ever tried? And thats just a few million years evolutionary gap. A chimpanse has 1% difference in DNA to a human. Try to imagine something that is 1% different from human DNA in the direction we are different from the cimpanse. We would be blathering, drooling fools to them. And now try to imagine something that has a genome that has something like ten billion years headstart on evolution. Thats the problem.

3. Special relativity teaches us that whilst you nearing lightspeed time slows down for the traveller. Whilst that allows for seamless travel, the time won't slow down at the destination. And that means: expect lengthy trips of many thousand years for even the neighbouring Stars. It simply takes that much time and there is nothing you can do about it (besides creating a wormehole and accelerating one end to near-lightspeed, creating a time machine - not a very easy exercise btw).

4. They might not use starships. Programming microscopic nanobots for genetic terraforming, replication and adaption and spreading those through the universe as an infection with your race's genetic payload among it (once a planet is developed sufficently), seems much more practical. And ironically i think this is what happens. This mystery we call life and "genesis" may very well be a galactic colonization efford by microscopic "Von Neumann" devices wich we only can't percive as advanced technology for one because we don't understand it at our current evolutionary level and secondly never dream to imagine that we might be a product of technology ourselves. "Any sufficiently high developed technology is indiscriminable from magic." To us the genesis of life or to build something wich does 1:1 copies of itself is magic. That should people give something to think about. They don't. They call them "simplest organisms" without being able to either understand, nor to recreate (even with an example present) such an approach.

Those are the main reasons why it takes so long.

Stephen Hawking argues hightech civilizations nuke each other after they discover E=MC², but i doubt it. I doubt it manily because we haven't and i don't think we are an big exception, i think civilizations like ours are the rule. So you migh add:

5. Because they can't. They havent sufficiently developed at this time.

There is a classification system. Class I is a species wich mastered its planet. Class II mastered its solar system. And class III the galaxy. We are not even a class I civilization at this time, by that standart. We are NOT EVEN PART of the classification table. I show you a class 2 civilization as an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icibPjgZMB8

[pragmatist]

The trouble with all your points is that they work using our primitive laws of physics. Time is construct of our human race because we are trapped in a three dimensional world. There are at least 11 dimensions according to Robert Dean, noted contactee and emissary. 'They' are MILLIONS of years advanced. 'They" have visited this planet many times - in fact 'they' seeded this planet with our species and other living things. That is why they continue to watch over us. One sign of an advanced life form is the ommission of such traits as violence, greed, and lust. These traits keep us from evolving to the next dimension through increased vibration. Love and thought are unique powers that only now are scientists beginning to understand. 'They' have figured out to use both to their advantage.

'They' are more concerned about the Earth than they are about us because Earth is one of the most habitable and beautiful planets in the galaxy according to Mr Dean. Earth is being used by the rest of the galaxy as a 'school' for our spirits. As we suffer, we gain the experience necessary to go on to the next dimension and ascend. If we fail the school, our spirits come back and live through another human body until that spirit advances.

It is no use trying to understand the hows and whys of these higher life forms through our laws on Earth. It is a faulty logic to apply the rules in our dimension to those that are in 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th dimesions. Remember only peace can we ever join with the rest of the galaxy. We must rid ourselves of the culture of violence, greed, and lust. Then we will be able to travel among the stars and enjoy true freedom instead of this mandated quarantine that we have been under.

Detection is not the issue. There are four main reasons why visitations by starships are unlikely:

1. Kepler detected lots of terran candidates. If they got better technology, wich i would assume, then they got even more targets. Earth is one among many. That makes it not such an obvious and pristine location that the entire milkyway has to come here once they spot us. I guess they'd start with their neightbouring stars first (in our case Gliese 581), if at all.

2. Lets consider they got a few billion years headstart in evolution on us. Would they even care? When did you last try to talk to a flatworm? Have you ever tried? And thats just a few million years evolutionary gap. A chimpanse has 1% difference in DNA to a human. Try to imagine something that is 1% different from human DNA in the direction we are different from the cimpanse. We would be blathering, drooling fools to them. And now try to imagine something that has a genome that has something like ten billion years headstart on evolution. Thats the problem.

3. Special relativity teaches us that whilst you nearing lightspeed time slows down for the traveller. Whilst that allows for seamless travel, the time won't slow down at the destination. And that means: expect lengthy trips of many thousand years for even the neighbouring Stars. It simply takes that much time and there is nothing you can do about it (besides creating a wormehole and accelerating one end to near-lightspeed, creating a time machine - not a very easy exercise btw).

4. They might not use starships. Programming microscopic nanobots for genetic terraforming, replication and adaption and spreading those through the universe as an infection with your race's genetic payload among it (once a planet is developed sufficently), seems much more practical. And ironically i think this is what happens. This mystery we call life and "genesis" may very well be a galactic colonization efford by microscopic "Von Neumann" devices wich we only can't percive as advanced technology for one because we don't understand it at our current evolutionary level and secondly never dream to imagine that we might be a product of technology ourselves. "Any sufficiently high developed technology is indiscriminable from magic." To us the genesis of life or to build something wich does 1:1 copies of itself is magic. That should people give something to think about. They don't. They call them "simplest organisms" without being able to either understand, nor to recreate (even with an example present) such an approach.

Those are the main reasons why it takes so long.

Stephen Hawking argues hightech civilizations nuke each other after they discover E=MC², but i doubt it. I doubt it manily because we haven't and i don't think we are an big exception, i think civilizations like ours are the rule. So you migh add:

5. Because they can't. They havent sufficiently developed at this time.

There is a classification system. Class I is a species wich mastered its planet. Class II mastered its solar system. And class III the galaxy. We are not even a class I civilization at this time, by that standart. We are NOT EVEN PART of the classification table. I show you a class 2 civilization as an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icibPjgZMB8

[Occam Razor]

Oh, i agree we were seeded. But i think not the way a species would do it if it had the technology to alter space-time. It seems more like a slow but sure approach wich continues to work without any supervisions or even the use of starship technology. Also i am all for the ommission of such traits as violence and greed, however i deem wars as a neccesary evil. War for freedom or survival to name two. And if freedom is earned you need of course vigilance to protect it. War should always be the last option, but there are reason to justify takig action. I think its depenting on environment factors as much as it depends on the human soul. That being said the human soul is far from being perfect.

And yes, i am applying our limited understanding of physics. If somebody got a better idea i'd like to see proof. I can't help it, even if this would surprise most people, i am not one to jump easily to conclusions without substance, despite all this alien talk. I have good reasons for my belief and can at least forward work of 3 former NASA scientists, one nobel prize winner in genetics and one NASA engineer and two mathematicians to back my claims. Namely: McKay, Hoover, Levin, Crick, Blumrich, Hoyle and Drake.

They can't be all mistaken. Levin formulated it best i think as he stated that evidence is deliberately ignored for reasons unknown. My guess is that after the NASA media disasters of recent time, they want it to be 100% waterproof. Paradigm shifts are never easy and angry mobs are forming quite rapidly on these matters. Its especially difficult if you are dependent on funding from the mob

[Pons Asinorum]

Occam Razor -- wow! Your claims were well thought-out.

If I may:

2. Lets consider they got a few billion years headstart in evolution on us. Would they even care? When did you last try to talk to a flatworm?

Although valid and certainly possible, this claim does perhaps breaks down on two levels: the analogy given and the implied assumption.

The analogy breaks down because there are considerable studies and experts on flatworms (and in general "simple" organisms). The science of biology and medicine are predicated on the study of such creatures with countless people who have dedicated their entire lives to the pursuit and study of these organisms. Money, time, effort, and people have been devoted to all kinds of animal etudes; some studies last decades: from chimpanzee sign language to flatworm evolution.

The assumption is that given any ONE alien intelligent species, they might not have any interest in traveling to the Earth. That is true. The problem with the assumption is that there may be many such alien species and just as it is probable any individual aliens species may not be interested, it is also equally probable that some are.

There is simply no way to conclude that all such advance species would not be interested, especially if we model it after our own behavior.

3. Special relativity teaches us that whilst you nearing lightspeed time slows down for the traveler. Whilst that allows for seamless travel, the time won't slow down at the destination. And that means: expect lengthy trips of many thousand years for even the neighboring Stars. It simply takes that much time and there is nothing you can do about it (besides creating a wormhole and accelerating one end to near-lightspeed, creating a time machine - not a very easy exercise btw).

Given an advanced intelligent species with a head start of millions if not billions of years of evolution there are perhpas (at least) two ways in which to cross the interstellar voids: one you already mentioned is some sort of wormhole technology and the other is more conventional.

With wormhole technology, the speed of light barrier is never violated. Space is folded upon itself (like taking a piece of paper, marking the top "From" and the bottom "To" and then bringing those edges together. Rather than, say, a flea having to travel the length of the paper,it would only need to cross a tiny gap -- at its regular speed.). For us, it is about as possible today as super sonic flight was a thousand years ago. An advanced technology with millions or even billions of years may have found a way to apply those prinicples.

A more conventional way to travel interstellar distances is simply to send a ship at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light (c). Say 10% of c would enable "local" voyages to complete in thousands of years. Then a colony can be formed and a new voyage taken (similar to Von Neumann's ideas, only with actual beings instead of machines and it would take much longer). Given advanced technology, wormholes and "warp drives" are not the only way to explore the galaxy.

...

This mystery we call life and "genesis" may very well be a galactic colonization efford by microscopic "Von Neumann" devices wich we only can't percive as advanced technology for one because we don't understand it at our current evolutionary level and secondly never dream to imagine that we might be a product of technology ourselves.

...

I am not sold on this theory (yet), but it would explain some aspects of what our fossil record shows...

In our own evolutionary history, in the first few billion years nothing really happened. That is: not much happened biologically speaking, however atmospherically...

It seems in the first few billion years of life on Earth, "simple" single-celled organisms evolved to produce cellular animals that exhaled nothing but pure oxygen.

Atom by atom, that would eventually transform our planet's atmosphere into what we have today. Once that happened, there was an explosion of life-forms on this planet. Every single body-plan of every single organism evolved in roughly a hundred million years or so (this occurred about a half billion years ago or so, see Cambrian Explosion from accredited sources).

Darwinian Evolution does not predict this and the mechanism today is largely unexplained.

If the original seeds/machines had some sort of programing in the DNA (that is evolution was directed rather than ambient), then that could explain life on Earth in the terms of your theory. That would allow evolution to match the fossil record, solve the irreducible-complexity arguments, and answer questions like those from the aforementioned late Dr. Crick.

Perhaps like this:

First, arrival of the seeds/machines
Second, terra-formation
Third, directed evolution/construction of living creatures
Fourth, derivation of an intelligent species (us?)
Fifth, this "new" intelligent species casts seeds/machines into space...the cycle begins anew.

Stephen Hawking argues hightech civilizations nuke each other after they discover E=MC², but i doubt it. I doubt it manily because we haven't and i don't think we are an big exception, i think civilizations like ours are the rule.

I take the middle view, some do and some do not. If an intelligent species evolves into a moral species then WMD will not be used. Otherwise such a species would likely destroy itself (sort of like nature's way to weed the garden, of course there may be occasional exceptions).

In our own history, look at gunpowder. When it was first discovered, only few states had such knowledge, but as the centuries went by, that technology proliferated until today, when just about any human being on the planet can get a firearm (legal or otherwise).

Applying that model with, say, a nuclear bomb (nb); a couple centuries from now, that technology will proliferate until it is common knowledge and in the possession of the masses. Individual people will now have access to an nb. If we are not a moral species by then, it is almost inevitable someone will use an nb and perhpas start a nuclear war.

And that is just nuclear weapons. There will almost certainly be more powerful weapons possible in the far future -- and proliferation possible beyond that.

It is true that as a species we are becoming more moral (yes I know that is not a popular notion today, but it is a fact), but we have a long way to go (terrorists, "useful idiots," ignorance, racism,...). IMHO, it is going to be close.

If we make it, then we will be free and [/]able[/i]to explore the stars.

But I would not dismiss Dr. Hawking's hypothesis so easily.



--


Thank you Occam Razor, your ideas are quite interesting and, for me, realistic. Appreciate your sharing.

[Occam Razor]

There is simply no way to conclude that all such advance species would not be interested, especially if we model it after our own behavior.

No, but it slims down chances. It seems like a lot of efford to cataloge lower life in deep space if you are not headed in the general direction anyway.

Given advanced technology, wormholes and "warp drives" are not the only way to explore the galaxy.

Maybe not, but thats highly theoretical and therefore speculative. As it currently looks the only viable way known to us at this time is accelerating close enough to lightspeed and let general realtivity do its job to slow down time for your ship. It might be the only viable solution, and so flights take time. A lot of time, even if it won't effect the starship crew it will effect everything else.

It seems in the first few billion years of life on Earth, "simple" single-celled organisms evolved...

Where on Earth is that in the fossil record? Its not there. Because single celled organisms do not come from Earth. Period. But if you look into McKay's work about ALG84001, Hoovers work about Cyanobacteria in CI1 meteorites, as well as the Labled Release experiment of the Viking probe (Levin) you find plenty of evidence for single celled organisms in space (all three work or worked for NASA and are absolutely convinced about their findings - independant research i might add, confirmed in three instances). Throw in the advances we made in biology with direct space exposure experiments and especially extremophile research you have your answer. It readily explains NASA's recent interest in extremophiles. Be also sure to read up on horizontal gene transfer and red rain of India, as well as upper atmosphere microbe collection experiments with ballon probes. Maybe that "sells" you on the idea.

I take the middle view, some do and some do not. [...] But I would not dismiss Dr. Hawking's hypothesis so easily.

I belive survival instinct is hardcoded. Maybe some do, but its pretty unlikely and therefore neglectable. Humans are not a particulary peaceful or suttle species and we still managed to avoid it wich seems like a miracle, considering the situation should have led to a global nuclear war. Hardcoded safety mechanism is a pretty good explaination for that kind of of outcome, especially considering the Russian submarine captains were allowed to use nuclear weapons on provocation during the Cuba Crisis, and they didn't despite being blasted by depth charges. 3 officers had to agree and one didn't. He knew it was his call and he couln't do it, even if that meant going down with the whole ship.

Thanks for your ideas, it made me think this through again, wich is always good, but i still cling to my orginal assumptions. Don't confuse improbable with impossible. Improbable doesn't mean they don't come here. Actually i am convinced we were visited many times. Its just rare. Once in a few thousand years. Hawking is a great thinker and especially when it comes to spacetime and alien civilizations but i feel on this one occasion he is mistaken. Humans are not special. If humans are not special and can avoid killing themself, i'd assume most others manage to get through it as well.

[Moon]

Many of our scientists here are very interested in geology and other aspects of our planet. Also, there are many who would be interested in the simplest life forms out there. Just be cause they would be way more advanced, does not mean they would not take an interest to our planet or any of the life on it. Curiosity is probably contagious, especially to the scientific minded.

There was a major line of thought that nothing could escape the gravity of our planet making travel to the Moon something that could never happen. Obviously, they were wrong. Also, faster than sound was thought of impossible, and yet we broke the sound barrier. Faster than light, wormhole, stargate technology, etc may not be possible for us, but give it a few hundred years.

You do make some very good points, Occam. But we all have to think outside the box when it comes to extraterrestrials as we simply do not know what their capabilities or reasons are.

It could be the reason they visit is for pure pleasure.

[Pons Asinorum]

OR: I readily accept the likelihood that life began not on Earth. I also accept an equal likelihood that it might have.

The evidence supporting one position over the other is not clear.

Extremophile research has confirmed that organisms can survive extreme environments, but it is far from clear if such lifeforms needed to evolve from non-extreme organisms or if extremophile organisms evolve to non-extreme organisms (ie, the direction of the pathway is unclear, not the existence of extremophile organisms).

The works of Dr. Hoover and Dr. Levin (et al), although promising, are hardly conclusive as they have numerous peers that have refuted their claims. Their interpretations of the meteorite data and the Viking Lander's experimental data (respectively) may be correct, but also, it might not be. Indeed, most of their peers tend toward the latter.

In short, life on Earth might or might not have started in space. There is no conclusive work to date.

--

Where on Earth is that in the fossil record? Its not there.

False, it is there. The species is called cyanobacteria and they existed on Earth at least 3.5 billion years ago. To answer your question, here are a few sources (my emphasis added):

Cyanobacteria are aquatic and photosynthetic, that is, they live in the water, and can manufacture their own food. Because they are bacteria, they are quite small and usually unicellular, though they often grow in colonies large enough to see. They have the distinction of being the oldest known fossils, more than 3.5 billion years old, in fact! It may surprise you then to know that the cyanobacteria are still around; they are one of the largest and most important groups of bacteria on earth.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanointro.html

The cyanobacteria have an extensive fossil record. The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old. This may be somewhat surprising, since the oldest rocks are only a little older: 3.8 billion years old!

Cyanobacteria are among the easiest microfossils to recognize. Morphologies in the group have remained much the same for billions of years, and they may leave chemical fossils behind as well, in the form of breakdown products from pigments. Small fossilized cyanobacteria have been extracted from Precambrian rock, and studied through the use of SEM and TEM (scanning and transmission electron microscopy).

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html

This article discusses cyanobacteria fossils found in deposits from 2.7 billion years ago:

The geologic record offers some clues to the reconstruction of early cyanobacterial history. 2-methylhopanoids, molecular fossils known to be sourced by cyanobacteria, have been identified in 2,700-mega-annum (Ma) shales from Australia (10), although incomplete phylogenetic sampling leaves open the possibility that other bacteria might also produce this biomarker (11). Consistent with the cyanobacterial interpretation of early 2-methylhopanoids, 2,700-Ma lacustrine stromatolites, also from Australia, display features interpreted as products of carbonate accretion by cyanobacterial mats in a setting where electron donors other than water were limited

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1459374/
Note: 2,700 -Ma means 2,700 million years ago, which equals 2.7 billion years ago.

Cyanobacteria live in the water, and can manufacture their own food through "photosynthesis." Although the oldest known fossils, more than 3.5 billion years old, are cyanobacteria, they are still around in large numbers; in fact, they one of the largest and most important groups of bacteria.

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/text/extfirstlife.htm

The evidence is overwhelming that this single-celled organism existed on Earth billions of years ago and it is empirical that such fossils are the oldest.

My apologies as I thought you were aware of such evidence (these fossils have been known for some time and are not in dispute by science).

Because single celled organisms do not come from Earth.

That may be true, but it does not alter the fact that there are indeed fossils on Earth of such organisms that are at least 3.5 billion years old.

It is possible that such an organism came from space, but so too is the converse.

It is not clear why your theory would suffer from this evidence anyway, as it seems to lend even more support to your theory. Think about it, just a few hundred-million years after the formation of liquid water on Earth, a fully functional cellular lifeform existed! Think of all the molecular machinery and structures present in a cell -- of all the biochemistry and complexity, fully formed and functioning within the space of a few hundred million years.

The likelihood that even its DNA could form from random processes is remote to the extreme (much less all the mechanisms of the entire cell); indeed that is why such Nobel Prize winners like the late Dr. Crick turned to space to begin with -- there just was not time for this process to have happened on Earth. (Of course, with a Universe of 13.7 billion years old, that still is not enough time for a random process to work, but perhpas another thread...).


--

Humans are not special. If humans are not special and can avoid killing themself, i'd assume most others manage to get through it as well.

Perhpas it is sentience that is special, regardless of species. Ascertaining the nature of a mechanism that is not even understood as trivial or ordinary is quite premature IMO.

In any event, moral behavior does exist and perhpas it too, is an instinctive mechanism. The larger point is that without this "moral instinct," an intelligent species with access to such advanced weapons may easily destroy itself.

Unlike Dr. Hawking, I do not beleive it is inevitable that all advanced intelligent species will destroy themselves. Neither do I beleive the converse is inevitable. Rather, either is possible and for a given species, occurs.

It is not a miracle that we have not destroyed ourselves, rather it is our reluctance to do so that perhaps appeals to our better nature (that ONE officer in your anecdote is an excellent example).