To many, ancient astronaut theory is a leap..

[Occam Razor]

Pons Asinorum... you are right. 3,5 billion year old cyanobacteria are the last thing in the fossil record. However, and this is very important, there are three realms of known life, namely archaea, bacteria and eukaryota. Cyanobacteria are bacteria, whilst all complex organisms belong to eukaryota (including humans). Now, if you take a look at the evolutionary tree you will find these are three branches. The branches (at least supposed to, they share to much DNA) have an common ancestry. That would be the so called LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) wich is supposed to have evolved from something called "protobionts". The problem is that no where in the fossil record LUCA nor the protobionts are found. And guess why: because they were never here to begin with. Additionally the first fossils in the record being cyanobacteria the thought occurs the three branches sepperated BEFORE arrival on Earth.

If anything this solidifies my theory.

In addition to that three other issues arise:

1) At the time protobionts are supposed to have formed, conditions on the young Earth seem to contradict that possibility.
2) It happened far to quickly, as nobel prize winner (genetics) Francis Crick pointed out.
3) Even the simplest organism on Earth (parasitic btw) consists of 500 basepairs that have to be in order. With those kind of odds, as Stephen Hawking pointed out, you'd expect biogenesis happens very late in the lifecycle of a planet. However, quite the opposite is true. Life was present as soon as it was possible on a very young Earth. This could be an incredible stroke of luck, however that is just another way of saying its very improbable and THAT is another way of saying chances are it never happened in the first place with a high degree of reliability.

Now i dare you to read up on Hoovers recent paper about cyanobacteria in CI1 meteorites. Now, usually its explained away as terrestial contamination, but i doubt it for two reasons: The catch is some of those meteorites (example: Orgueil meteorite) are 4.0-4.5 galactic years old. Coincidentally (after my theory quite expectable) thats exactly the time life is supposed to have formed on Earth. Too old for a genesis event on Earth i might add. Secondly nitrogen levels are severely different from Earth fossils, giving a strong signature for an off Earth origin.

Ironically Hoover is not the only scientist to come up with such results. McKay and his research on ALH84001 produced comperable results. In his case its explained away by an alternative geological origin, but that doesn't add up either because of magnetides found in the fossils (also explained away by geologic reasons, but what are the odds for such a strange combination? And yes, at that time Mars had a magnetic field as we found out recently, wich is a damm good reason for bacteria to grow magnetides and the meteorite age fits also seamlessly into this and the magnetides are even in the right shape for microbe produced magnetides used for orientation, as they do here on Earth) and proving the "biosignatures" formed in a low temperature environment, wich practically smashes any attempt at geological formation. Hoover circumvented this by presenting filament mats and if somebody knows of a process forming filament mats from rock by heat i'd like to hear about it.

The evidence, if peer reviewed is quite crushing and i haven't even started on Viking's Labeled Release experiment and Levin's conclusions. Lets just say the superoxydant explaination falls flat on its ass when comparing LR with the GEx (Gas Exchange) experiment, because in one instance (LR) the oxidant activity was removed by heating and in the other it wasn't (GEx) you need TWO kinds of superoxydants for a chemical explaination wich is quite puzzling and unrealistic. Add to that the findings of water and lately the seasonably changing levels of released methane and you will have a hard time finding a geologic explaination on such an inactive planet as Mars. Something has to produce the methane because it dissipates rapidly and can't stick around in the atmosphere for long.

All three of those scientists went their own way, coming up with the same conclusions and they are totally convinced they found extratrrestial life.
For none of those findings are even remotely acceptable alternative explainations present.

Carl Sagan said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I turn the tables. With an estimated sextillon earthlike planets in the habitable zone in the visible universe (estimate based on recent Kepler data) i feel i have the right to ask what exactly is your evidence for life starting here? I figure the odds are less than probable for that coincidence.

Quite recently the Cassini probe made a swingby near Saturn's moon Encladeus to sample material from one of its plumes. It was frozen saltwater. There is a saltwater ocean beneath its crust and its heated and liquid being released in plumes forming one of Saturn's rings. And thats not the only suspect for an liquid extraterrestial ocean, the difference is its confirmed now.

I'd suggest adjusting the compass for a living universe, the evidence is really crushing, coming from multiple sources and i got the feeling thats just the beginning.

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.

Of course we can speculate, but speculation without a solid basis is not a very good way to produce usable results. That aside i think there might be a way to build a dark energy feeded gravimetric drive wich draws its energy from the very fabric of the cosmos itself. Such a drive could, accelerating for six years with a constant 1g acceleration (to make humans feel comfortable at earthlike gravity) accelerate a ship to 99,99% of lightspeed, with all the relativistic implementations that has (basically being a fast-forwarding time machine). That is of course highly hypotetical.

[Pons Asinorum]

If anything this solidifies my theory.

Or at least makes it stronger, and to that extent, I agree OR. So you can imagine my surprise at your initial responding post.

[Occam Razor]

Well, it was no mistake on your side. 3,5 billion year old cyanobacteria are the first thing in our fossil record.

But all of that isn't the weird part. The weird part follows. Aside of a big interest in biology (especially marine) my education revolved to a huge degree around IT, including programming such things as microprocessors. If i read cells operate on code that even gets rewritten on the fly including error correction mechanisms, i can't help myself to think about file copy from floppy material (as on floppy disks or non solid state harddrives). There is code wich is read and written in a physical way, matter is manipulated. Now read into what? In the case of computers you need a pretty stable virtual environment in wich the data gets processed. The only conclusion i can make is that even the most basic cell also ultilizes a stable virtual environment, or you could say is able to process data from DNA as reliable as a microprocessor. It doesn't work without a processing unit with memory were information is held until being written. And i can't help myself, i feel i am looking at technology rather than biology - at a very low scale. Nanotechnology. And more than that: self-replicating nanotechnology. There is a name for this hypotetical technology; a watch wich sprouts little watches. And that is Van Neumann technology. Its the same thing by definition. And whilst thats pretty hypothetical and at best based on empyrical reasoning my intuition also tells me that this is not natural but an artificial process. I feel it was constructed. Maybe a race wich reached the end of the lifetime of its planet sought a way to carry their genetic repository across the universe and they came up with this solution. Pretty much what Francis Crick hypotesized when he talked about directed Panspermia (or Sir Fred Hoyle). I think he is right, wich is no big surprise - winning the nobel prize in genetics reassures you are doing something right.

[Scottos Maximos]

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 Majority of the world believe in a religion of some sort or another. To reframe their beliefs as aliens is more of a gentle step than a big leap!

[Pons Asinorum]

And i can't help myself, i feel i am looking at technology rather than biology - at a very low scale. Nanotechnology.

Actually me too OR (I have a similar IT background to you) and for precisely the same reasons -- and more. There are all kinds of molecular...devices (I have no better word) inside the cell that perform all kinds of amazing functions. The ATP cycle is stunning (how a cell derives energy). Even the death of a cell is pre-programmed: it dies on schedule. Depending on the type, each cell will self-terminate in accordance to its instruction set stored in its DNA.

Maybe a race wich reached the end of the lifetime of its planet sought a way to carry their genetic repository across the universe and they came up with this solution. Pretty much what Francis Crick hypotesized when he talked about directed Panspermia (or Sir Fred Hoyle). I think he is right, wich is no big surprise - winning the nobel prize in genetics reassures you are doing something right.

Yes, you summed up well what the late Dr. Crick beleived.

Now, about needing almost one-fourth of the lifetime of the universe for life to appear on Earth from this process,...and where did that first cell come from?...



I wish an episode of AAT could be devoted to this -- eliminate all the non-scientist commenters, bring in the actual scientists and start presenting the latest findings. Heck, i would devote a full season to this.

Say, OR where are you from? Just curious, please do not feel obligated to answer if you are uncomfortable. For the record, I am living in San Jose, CA but am originally from Montana, both of which are in the USA.

[Occam Razor]

Well, i am not against a genesis event. It has to had happened somewhere. Some people claim this would invalidate Panspermia, because without explaining the origin of life there is no need for a concept like Panspermia. I disagree. Its like claiming all life has to be stationary because you do not need legs for trees. I am pretty sure we are looking at technology here. We are "second generation" life, wich is purely artificial, albeit so old and modified through evolution that its very hard to recognize the technology as such. Maybe i am vein, but i think i recognize a computer when i see one, even if its driven chemically or mechanically.

Deinococcus radiodurans:

Survives radiation up to 11.000 Gy.
First question, WHY on Earth should a organism develope such an ability? If it adjusted to environmental factors it can't come from Earth. Here Radiation isn't that lethal. It just makes no sense to develope such an ability on Earth. In space however, thats a very handy ability.

Now to the mechanism. This THING uses an ultra fast DNA repair comparing multiple copies of its DNA and constantly checking for errors. It can even fix a total rupture of a DNA strain. Stationary it runs four copies of its DNA, but it adjusts to up to eight to ten during growth. That is a damm sopisticated error checking routine, and thats in a bacteria!

Secondly, if you think about it... how can such a thing ever evolve through mutation? It erases each mutation through ist correction routine, right? What the hell is happening here?

I qoute her Dr. Levin from his own website at http://www.gillevin.com/Mars/Mars_The_Living_Planet_-_II_2011.pdf
"Shortly before he died Sir Fred Hoyle visited me for the purpose of warning me that there was a deep political motivation behind government effords to surpress information about life on Mars. He said the matter ran so deep i should take personal precautions. In our discussions he raised the possibility that, not only had the VLR detected life on Mars, but that, in a clandestine return sample mission to mars, the U.S. Government had obtained living microorganisms wich were now under cultivation for potential applications mandated secret for now."

If you think about it... WHY were, after Viking, no more life detection experiment probes launched?
Maybe they already have the answer, eh?

To answer your last question: i am from Germany.

[Pons Asinorum]

Heh, I wish our computers were that good

Now to the mechanism. This THING uses an ultra fast DNA repair comparing multiple copies of its DNA and constantly checking for errors. It can even fix a total rupture of a DNA strain. Stationary it runs four copies of its DNA, but it adjusts to up to eight to ten during growth. That is a damm sopisticated error checking routine, and thats in a bacteria!

Although not a 100% perfect (mutations happen and are expressed in the DNA, indeed that is the engine of evolution), the error-checking machinery is almost beyond description. Here is a tiny, summed sliver of that process (apologies for any mistakes, the subject is unbelievably complex and incredible):

There are several error-checking mechanisms in the cell that repair damage to the DNA:

* Direct chemical reversal -- simplest and most noninvasive.
* Base Excision Repair (BER) -- cuts into the strand and removes/repairs specific damage.
* Nucleotide Excision Repair (NER) -- cuts into the strand and removes/repairs whole sections.
* Mismatch Repair (MMR) -- uses several of the processes above (unbelievably complex!)
* physical structure problems like strand breakages (single and double)

All of these methods use various enzymes. In some cases the enzymes act as scouring agents in that they find certain containments and remove them. In other instances, a complex sequence of events involving many of the same enzymes and other "custom" enzymes detect and remove damage, and then replace it with the proper nucleotide (or sometimes nucleotides). There are different sites that store the proper sequence coding, most notably the sister chromatids.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/D/DNArepair.html

--

Secondly, if you think about it... how can such a thing ever evolve through mutation? It erases each mutation through ist correction routine, right? What the hell is happening here?

It is not a 100% perfect. I read somewhere that for our species there is a ONE in TEN chance of being born with a mutation (will check for source). Most are benign. Some are detrimental but may not cause disease, some are harmful, and every now-and-again one might be beneficial.

If I were designing a machine to not just replicate, but adapt and survive in an environment with many factors, and ultimately derive a more advanced machine, I would not want error-correction perfection anyway. Rather I would try to use the very mechanisms of error to drive the process. Besides, given the nature of radiation, it is not possible for a chemical reaction to consistently yield the same results indefinitely (countless trillions of times over billions of years, or ask any high school student who has taken a chemistry lab ). Physics tells us that perfection in this context is not really an option as randomness is fundamentally built into the fabric of reality. To craft machinery that takes it into account, and yet provides more than enough stability...

But still, the larger point about mutation leading to this process...

When examining all of this complexity in a single cell, and noting that many distinguished scientists still beleive (without proof of any kind) that in just a few hundred-million years after the formation of the Earth, the first life appeared; single-celled organisms with nearly all of their complexity intact and functioning(!) -- it extinguishes the bounds of incredulity.

(Oh, btw, there are even more complex processes in the cell, like the ATP cycle.)

The fact that just about every public school teacher in the US is effectively forbidden from even raising this question pretty much sums up the problems here.

Someone who studied and knew more about DNA than just about anyone on our planet was the late Dr. Crick. His work is still taught today and serves as a foundation for genetic studies. He was a deserved winner of the Nobel Prize, co-discoverer of DNA.

With his knowledge, he concluded that the spontaneous development of life-molecules (much less the cell itself) just was not possible given random mechanisms and the short time required. He remarked:

"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle..."

His contemporary, the late Dr. (Sir) Hoyle, an astronomer and mathematician, commented:

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein. .. I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious."

There are many more such scientists who are skeptical and even critical of the standard evolutionary theory regarding the origin of life (something even Charles Darwin never claimed).

Indeed, Crick, Hoyle, and other such distinguished scientists are routinely ridiculed here in the US for such statements.

--

Deinococcus radiodurans:

Survives radiation up to 11.000 Gy.
First question, WHY on Earth should a organism develope such an ability?

Some other possibilities:

* It may not have evolved that characteristic for the purpose of radiation, but rather it may have evolved a more robust error-checking mechanism.
* Maybe its ability to absorb free radicals is exceptional, that would enable it to survive higher radiation environments.
* Maybe it thrives near uranium deposits or perhpas radon minerals.
* Earth's early atmosphere would have been exposed to radiation that is lethal today, maybe D. radiodurans is from that epoch.

Of course, D. radiodurans may have come from space .


--

I qoute her Dr. Levin from his own website at http://www.gillevin.com/Mars/Mars_The_Living_Planet_-_II_2011.pdf
"Shortly before he died Sir Fred Hoyle visited me for the purpose of warning me that there was a deep political motivation behind government effords to surpress information about life on Mars. He said the matter ran so deep i should take personal precautions. In our discussions he raised the possibility that, not only had the VLR detected life on Mars, but that, in a clandestine return sample mission to mars, the U.S. Government had obtained living microorganisms wich were now under cultivation for potential applications mandated secret for now."

If you think about it... WHY were, after Viking, no more life detection experiment probes launched?
Maybe they already have the answer, eh?

I doubt all of that OR. Kept secret by an entire organization; for decades? Not sure if that is even possible. In any event, it is without any supporting evidence (for me, hearsay does not count).

Here is a list of FIVE NASA probes sent to Mars, to find life since after the Viking Lander probes:

The Viking program of the 1970's was the first to return data that there is currently no evidence of life on Mars.

As part of a more thorough search, the Mars Surveyor Program was put in place. Five spacecraft in all were to be sent to Mars between 1996 and 2005. Those spacecraft were to include the Mars Global Surveyor, and the Mars Climate Orbiter and Polar Lander. Unfortunately, the Mars Climate Orbiter and Polar Lander have been lost. Scientists still hope that after all the information is gathered, they might know more about the evolution of Mars and its potential to harbor life.

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary/features/mars_life_feature_1015.html

Life may yet be found there, but so far nothing conclusive (unsupported conspiracy theories aside, of course).

[Occam Razor]

Okay, not 100% perfect, but it makes evolution through mutation a very slow process. I mean for the mutation to take place the same mutation has to show up simultaneously at least on four strands on the exact same basepairs AND, playing by the rules of evolution, it has to be an advantage. Lets say its *very* improbable. But its not zero, i give you that. The "tornado through a junkjard chance to build a plane" example seems fitting here, as well.

Certainly the mechanism developed because of the need for a more robust error-checking routine. But what might that be? Or why has only this species developed such a mechanism, if the enviroment demmanded such traits for survival? Even natural uranium deposits are not enought to explain such a magnitude of resistance. They have been found in nuclear waste sites. Nothing should live there nor being ADAPTED to such an environment, especially not a species with a very low mutation rate.

And weigting in the other evidence from "biosignatures" in meteorites "from space" seems, as unlikely as it sounds, to me the most probable explaination.

Back to probes: yes, probes have been sent to Mars. But none was carrying any equipment for direct tests for organisms. Even the new Curiosty rover doesn't. Hearsay aside i think its a very good question to ask: WHY NOT? This is no proof for anything of course, but it is odd, isn't it?

[Pons Asinorum]

Okay, not 100% perfect, but it makes evolution through mutation a very slow process.

Yeah, that is it in a nutshell. That is one of two Big Problems for Darwinian Evolutionists. The theory completely fails to explain the Origin of Life and, secondly, it does not explain the (pre) Cambrian Explosion from about half a billion years ago.

Charles Darwin never proposed a theory on the Origin of Life (and that was back in the 1800's when a cell was thought to be quite simple: a nucleus, cytoplasm, and a membrane). He simply started with the cell -- and wisely so, for all the reasons we have been discussing. Subsequent attempts by scientists to extend Darwin's theory to the Origin of Life have failed completely (the famous Miller experiment is perhpas the most spectacular failure). Indeed, this is what led more knowledgeable scientists, like Crick, to propose such theories as Panspermia.

The Cambrian Explosion is the second failure. From the advent of life on our planet, Darwinian Evolution appears to have occurred exactly as the theory claims -- small, discrete changes over time (which we now know are changes to genetic molecules due to radiation); where the beneficial changes are naturally selected (survival of the fittest); and from a common descent from a precursor species (ancestor species, all the way back to the cyanobacteria). And for the first few billions of years that appears to have happened: slow, few changes of microscopic single-celled organisms -- in other words, nothing much. Then about half a billion years ago, there was a sudden "explosion" of life that resulted in the creation of every body plan (phylum) known; all in the space of maybe a hundred million years. This would lead to the dinosaurs and to us.

Now, directed evolution would perhpas explain the second problem, but the first -- that is where things get quite interesting.

--

Certainly the mechanism developed because of the need for a more robust error-checking routine. But what might that be? Or why has only this species developed such a mechanism, if the environs demanded such traits for survival? Even natural uranium deposits are not enough to explain such a magnitude of resistance. They have been found in nuclear waste sites. Nothing should live there nor being ADAPTED to such an environment, especially not a species with a very low mutation rate.

Great questions and points OR; I am not sure. One possibility might be that the species recently adapted.

Say some microbes of Deinococcus radiodurans were floating around somewhere (say in a uranium deposit where it had a small resistance to radiation), minding their own business, when suddenly they found themselves in a fuel core for a nuclear reactor.

Let us say 99.9% of them died, but a few managed to survive because of a "defective" gene. That gene is now beneficial because it effectively increases radiation immunity, and it is now in the entire population of surviving microbes (probably at the expense of something "normal" -- which is why it is defective outside of a high radioactive environment. This is akin to the way diabetes works: in a low sugar environment, diabetes is not a disease but a survival advantage. If our sugar civilization ever failed, those with the genes for diabetes would find themselves at an advantage).

Over time, their descendants might be selected for this gene. Given the natural pressure to select for this gene and given the almost overnight propagation of it throughout the original surviving generation, it seems in short order such a change could occur.

With microbial agents, there are high numbers of individuals, quick reproduction rates, fast generations -- if any living creature on Earth was to adapt to such environments, my bet would be on microbial agents.

Of course, this is all speculation on my part, but no more so than thinking they might be an alien species (which they might).

--

Back to probes: yes, probes have been sent to Mars. But none was carrying any equipment for direct tests for organisms. Even the new Curiosty rover doesn't. Hearsay aside i think its a very good question to ask: WHY NOT? This is no proof for anything of course, but it is odd, isn't it?

Agree that it is an excellent question, and it is odd. Not sure of the reason, but maybe will send an email asking why.

NASA explicitly states that Curiosity is not a "life detection mission" but will check for organics and geological clues for anything relevant to life:

MSL [Mars Science Laboratory, aka: Curiosity]is not a life detection mission and is not designed to detect extant vital processes that would betray present-day microbial metabolism. Nor does it have the ability to image microorganisms or their fossil equivalents. MSL does have, however, the capability to detect complex organic molecules in rocks and soils. If present, these might be of biological origin, but could also reflect the influx of carbonaceous meteorites. More indirectly, MSL will have the analytical capability to probe other less unique biosignatures, specifically, the isotopic composition of inorganic and organic carbon in rocks and soils, particular elemental and mineralogical concentrations and abundances, and the attributes of unusual rock textures. The main challenge in establishment of a biosignature is finding patterns, either chemical or textural, that are not easily explained by physical processes.

http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/ScienceGoals/

...which is odd, becasue why not just put a microscope on board and answer the question directly. Not sure what was aboard the other probes, but will take your word for it.

Will let you know if I send an email to NASA and if I receive any replies.

--

FYI: NASA is not anywhere near their peak skills back in the Apollo Program days.

This whole thing about Curiosity could easily be a case of incompetence. In 1998, NASA lost the Mars Climate Orbiter becasue it mismatched metric units with english units:

The MCO MIB has determined that the root cause for the loss of the MCO spacecraft was the failure to use metric units in the coding of a ground software file, “Small Forces,” used in trajectory models. Specifically, thruster performance data in English units instead of metric units was used in the software application code titled SM_FORCES (small forces). A file called Angular Momentum Desaturation (AMD) contained the output data from the SM_FORCES software. The data in the AMD file was required to be in metric units per existing software interface documentation, and the trajectory modelers assumed the data was provided in metric units per the requirements.

http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/ScienceGoals/

Nobody was fired or held accountable in any manner.

[Occam Razor]

The Cambrian Explosion is the second failure. From the advent of life on our planet, Darwinian Evolution appears to have occurred exactly as the theory claims -- small, discrete changes over time (which we now know are changes to genetic molecules due to radiation); where the beneficial changes are naturally selected (survival of the fittest); and from a common descent from a precursor species (ancestor species, all the way back to the cyanobacteria). And for the first few billions of years that appears to have happened: slow, few changes of microscopic single-celled organisms -- in other words, nothing much. Then about half a billion years ago, there was a sudden "explosion" of life that resulted in the creation of every body plan (phylum) known; all in the space of maybe a hundred million years. This would lead to the dinosaurs and to us.

Glass pebbels on the moon. Its possible to draw conclusions on the cratering rate on earth by looking for those on the moon. If you do a graph for the cratering rate and one for the ammount of different species you'll have a pretty good answer. I wan't to stress this won't invalidate darwinian evolution, but in some cases evolution seems to do enormous leaps not explainable by darwin's theory. It just means there is a secondary mechanism in place, basically more an extention than an alternate explaination. You might want to cross-reference horizontal gene transfer as well. I belive that is the answer. Wich means genetic material arrived (and arrives) steadily from... elsewhere.

[cRush]

Just a quick thought on the original post:

The issue with modern day UFO sightings is not whether UFOs exist, or are being witnessed. The issue is forming the conclusion that those UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrial beings. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that UFOs exist, but no modern evidence to suggest that they are unearthly.

What should be noted is that the existence, or lack thereof, of modern UFOs is not necessary to substantiate the AAT. In fact, it doesn't really even strengthen the argument. If it could be proven that extraterrestrial beings are visiting the Earth today in UFOs, that does not prove that they visited the Earth thousands, and even millions of years ago.

Therefore, in my opinion, UFOs have no real bearing on the AAT, and the study of ufology should be excluded from the focal point of the AAT enthusiast.

[Occam Razor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xag3oOzvU68

[Moon]

Just a quick thought on the original post:

The issue with modern day UFO sightings is not whether UFOs exist, or are being witnessed. The issue is forming the conclusion that those UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrial beings. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that UFOs exist, but no modern evidence to suggest that they are unearthly.

What should be noted is that the existence, or lack thereof, of modern UFOs is not necessary to substantiate the AAT. In fact, it doesn't really even strengthen the argument. If it could be proven that extraterrestrial beings are visiting the Earth today in UFOs, that does not prove that they visited the Earth thousands, and even millions of years ago.

Therefore, in my opinion, UFOs have no real bearing on the AAT, and the study of ufology should be excluded from the focal point of the AAT enthusiast.

Col Gordon Cooper was an astronaut who witnessed a formation of metallic disks flying next to him and a few other pilots during the 1950s. They did maneuvers and flew at speeds which none of our craft could do. He saw them up close and saw they were artificially made craft. Since they were not ours and definitely not the Soviets, they had to come from somewhere.

[cRush]

Just a quick thought on the original post:

The issue with modern day UFO sightings is not whether UFOs exist, or are being witnessed. The issue is forming the conclusion that those UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrial beings. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that UFOs exist, but no modern evidence to suggest that they are unearthly.

What should be noted is that the existence, or lack thereof, of modern UFOs is not necessary to substantiate the AAT. In fact, it doesn't really even strengthen the argument. If it could be proven that extraterrestrial beings are visiting the Earth today in UFOs, that does not prove that they visited the Earth thousands, and even millions of years ago.

Therefore, in my opinion, UFOs have no real bearing on the AAT, and the study of ufology should be excluded from the focal point of the AAT enthusiast.

Col Gordon Cooper was an astronaut who witnessed a formation of metallic disks flying next to him and a few other pilots during the 1950s. They did maneuvers and flew at speeds which none of our craft could do. He saw them up close and saw they were artificially made craft. Since they were not ours and definitely not the Soviets, they had to come from somewhere.

How do we know they definitely weren't the Soviet's, though? I mean, the Soviet's would of course disavow any knowledge of any top secret aircraft they were working on. Gordon Cooper describes the craft and their movement, but he fails to quantify it, which leads to speculation about just what the craft were capable of doing. There are also plenty of conspiracy theories that suggest there are secret world orders, governments, and organizations all capable of creating such craft; not that I subscribe to such theories, but I can't dismiss them completely.