# Ancient Aliens



## BudBrownies

Millions of people around the world believe that we have been visited in the past by extraterrestrial beings. What if it were true? Did ancient aliens really help to shape our history? And if so, might there be evidence here on earth, hidden in the mysterious Monoliths?​


----------



## TheFather

I believe in Ancient aliens. 

There is no way that pre Roman civilizations could have done what they did. It's almost impossible to do today.


----------



## BudBrownies

TheFather said:


> I believe in Ancient aliens.
> 
> There is no way that pre Roman civilizations could have done what they did. It's almost impossible to do today.


Exactly, our history books say that our ancestors used primitive tools, that it beginning to be proven false, the technolgy was far more advanced and they used power tools and had the understand how to make and use electricity.

The question is where would these people gain the understand of such technolgy? An other worldly influence.


----------



## tehuti88

I wouldn't rule out ancient aliens, I find the concept fascinating.

But I also believe we don't give ancient human civilizations nearly enough credit.


----------



## M0rbid

I was expecting that meme LOL


----------



## Steinerz

M0rbid said:


> I was expecting that meme LOL


----------



## M0rbid

SteinerOfThule said:


>


Classic


----------



## Xenos

I think it's pseudoscientific nonsense.

No alien race is going to waste a hundred thousand years and an unbelievable amount of fuel just to come here, teach some pre-industrial human beings how to stack granite blocks on top of each other, and then leave.


----------



## arao6

Half-naked cave dwellers who had little understanding of the natural world drew odd pictures that they could not possibly conceive of:

http://www.in5d.com/ufos-in-art-history.html
http://www.ancestryofman.com/art.html


----------



## Dylan2

Xenos said:


> I think it's pseudoscientific nonsense.
> 
> No alien race is going to waste a hundred thousand years and an unbelievable amount of fuel just to come here, teach some pre-industrial human beings how to stack granite blocks on top of each other, and then leave.


This.

Also, there is no convincing evidence of ancient aliens. Most of the so-called evidence seems to consist of myth-related artwork containing something that is supposedly out of place. As psychologists know, the human mind gives meaning to meaningless patterns. Like this "face" on Mars:










If 2 dots and a line appear to make a face )), so will a bunch of random rocks and shadows on Mars. Same idea with ancient aliens; we see what we want to see.


----------



## BudBrownies

Xenos said:


> I think it's pseudoscientific nonsense.
> 
> No alien race is going to waste a hundred thousand years and an unbelievable amount of fuel just to come here, teach some pre-industrial human beings how to stack granite blocks on top of each other, and then leave.


Explain how stone henge was built.


----------



## BudBrownies

Man made impossible unless technology was modern.


----------



## BudBrownies

Even modern technolgy would find it difficult or impossible to travel 5-8 ton blocks across lakes and rivers, over hills and down hills of thr english landscape from Wells to stone henge

Not just pushing them but picking up 4 and 5 ton blocks and laying them in seemly impossible ways.

It's impossible unless
Technolgy they had advanced technolgy, and all I'm say is where did they get the knowledge?


----------



## Xenos

BudBrownies said:


> Explain how stone henge was built.


That's not really my responsibility.

But consider this: because you can't imagine how neolithic people might be able to move heavy stones really far, you're insisting on a solution that involves an extraterrestrial race crossing the vast expanses of space between stars, which - unless they can violate the principle of relativity, which we understand to be impossible - would require them to have started the journey when we were still living in trees, and that's assuming they started out in our own stellar neighborhood. The journey would require more resources than they could find on this planet in a thousand years.

As explanations go, the ancient aliens premise is much, much more unlikely and problematic than the mystery it tries to explain, which is how people dragged rocks a couple hundred kilometers. I think people just found a way to move the rocks. I don't know exactly how they did it, but _you_ don't know how your hypothetical aliens could manage such an absurdly long journey or why they would possibly want to, and I'll take my unknown over yours any day.


----------



## Dylan2

Xenos said:


> As explanations go, the ancient aliens premise is much, much more unlikely and problematic than the mystery it tries to explain, which is how people dragged rocks a couple hundred kilometers.


Hey Occam, your razor is showing :yay


----------



## Sacrieur

Yeah stupid Romans, not like they were good at math or anything.


----------



## BudBrownies

Xenos said:


> That's not really my responsibility.
> 
> But consider this: because you can't imagine how neolithic people might be able to move heavy stones really far, you're insisting on a solution that involves an extraterrestrial race crossing the vast expanses of space between stars, which - unless they can violate the principle of relativity, which we understand to be impossible - would require them to have started the journey when we were still living in trees, and that's assuming they started out in our own stellar neighborhood. The journey would require more resources than they could find on this planet in a thousand years.
> 
> As explanations go, the ancient aliens premise is much, much more unlikely and problematic than the mystery it tries to explain, which is how people dragged rocks a couple hundred kilometers. I think people just found a way to move the rocks. I don't know exactly how they did it, but _you_ don't know how your hypothetical aliens could manage such an absurdly long journey or why they would possibly want to, and I'll take my unknown over yours any day.


To think we're the only intelligent beings in the universe with its infident galaxies, planetary bodies and star systems is going out on a bigger limb than other than earth beings visting with advanced technolgy.

Reason I say prove Stonehenge is because what they achieved was beyond human capability, unless they had a more advanced technolgy than we have too day.

No way humans moved mega ton rocks around like they where a child's box toys.


----------



## Dylan2

BudBrownies said:


> To think we're the only intelligent beings in the universe with its infident galaxies, planetary bodies and star systems is going out on a bigger limb than other than earth beings visting with advanced technolgy.
> 
> Reason I say prove Stonehenge is because what they achieved was beyond human capability, unless they had a more advanced technolgy than we have too day.
> 
> No way humans moved mega ton rocks around like they where a child's box toys.


As has been said, it could take thousands of years for aliens to reach Earth given our knowledge of the cosmic speed limit (the speed of light.) *We haven't asserted that aliens do not exist*, this is a strawman. But it seems ridiculous that they would travel thousands of years to our planet to help us with some stones.

Maybe we don't clearly understand how something was built, but that doesn't mean aliens is the explanation.


----------



## Vuldoc

You seem to think that people back in the day were just cave men saying 'me hungry' and tossing rocks at animals or that they just bashed rocks together like morons for fun. you don't give human ingenuity in engineering enough credit.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding

I believe that aliens have visited us.

I don't believe that it was all aliens, because there _is_ something to be said about the power of mankind. But I do believe that there are things which simply cannot be explained.


----------



## monotonous

i just dont get it if aliens were real why did they leave after we invented camera


----------



## tennislover84

While I don't subscribe to the idea that ancient astronauts have guided humanity, built the pyramids, etc... it's worth pointing out that most of what we consider historical truth is not based on scientific standards of proof anyway.

Much of what we consider historical truth is instead a result of counting up how many times one account of an event appears in the written records, compared to different accounts of the same thing. Despite it being quite likely that some historians simply cited other historians, who cited previous historians, who may have cited one person's unprovable account. So you could say that the study of written history is founded upon the "argumentum ad populum" fallacy, that was mentioned in another thread recently.

It sounds crazy when you put it in those terms, but there are some things that are important enough to try to discover the "truth" about, but it's not possible to apply the scientific method. Like in the legal system, for example. Witness testimony still has its uses. 

Also, Occam's razor is not proof that the simpler theory is true, or even that it's more likely to be true. It's just a guide to avoid making unnecessary assumptions.

On a side note, the TV programme "Ancient Aliens" is appallingly bad. :lol I wish I wasn't a teetotaller, so that I could play the drinking game. Everytime the voiceover guy says "some ancient astronaut theorists suggest", or a variation thereof, you take another drink. :b It's really amusing how the people on that programme are desperate to believe that everything is the work of aliens.

That said, I lean towards the idea of some UFOs being alien spacecraft. At the very least, I believe that the "flying saucer" phenomenon is a real thing. Many sightings can be easily explained, but a smaller number are genuinely unexplainable by modern science. It's always possible that there is another explanation that doesn't involve advanced aliens, but I consider it a reasonable possibility that shouldn't be scoffed at. Events like the Belgian UFO wave of the 1990s, the Phoenix lights, the Rendlesham Forest incident and even the Roswell incident involve large numbers of credible witnesses. In the case of the Belgian UFO wave, you have credible witnesses on the ground and in the air, and also objects tracked on radar, behaving as if under intelligent control, and maneuvering at speeds which are not possible with any aircraft that we know of.

We can draw varying conclusions about what these events represent. Without physical evidence to examine, it's not possible to definitively prove that aliens are visiting. But when you've got radar evidence and multiple witnesses, you can prove that the object was there, and that the event really occurred. It would be a good enough standard of proof for the courtroom, for example. Perhaps the best position to take is acknowledgement of the event in question, but with no conclusion drawn as to the identity of the object encountered.

However, I do still lean towards the idea that aliens are visiting the earth. That's why I don't completely discount the idea that aliens have been visiting us for a long time. But I'm not on board with the whole "aliens built the pyramids" thing, because the evidence seems flimsy from what I've read.


----------



## turtle boogie

Spies are capable of achieving objectives without detection, and they're only human. What if a much more intelligent creature wanted to do something with people while avoiding detection? If this creature was smarter than people and somehow even sneakier through some other traits (natural camouflage, etc) then wouldn't it be possible for them to do whatever without being detected, at least for the most part?

Maybe the reason we noticed them before but not anymore is because they had a sneakiness learning curve. Maybe they didn't care about detection until we became more violent and better at messing them up. Or they assumed we would forget about them until they learned more about us and found that we have systems of recording and stuff, sort of like how people thought monkeys/dolphins/pigs were stupid as hell for the longest time and are slowly learning of their intellect.

If a creature is smarter than us, afraid of us finding them, and sneaky as hell otherwise then maybe this creature isn't even an alien. Maybe we're dealing with locals that are smart enough to know not to get found by us, lest we fear them or disagree with them and wipe them out.

Occams razor would hack this to shreds and for the record I don't believe all this, but who really knows?


----------



## Zyriel

LOL I love that guy. So funny he just agrees with himself lol.

I do like the show though. I have thought of many different theories since I was a child lol. First time I saw pyramids I was like I BET ALIENS MADE THOSE at like 4. Exactly with his levitation idea too haha, except the difference is I thought they would have used a tractor beam. I am leaning to the thought of humanity being genetically modified apes with alien DNA to be used as a work force in ancient times. It is rather odd how negative blood types are so rare  Or this world just being a science experiment to understand the process of civilization.

If a species could travel beyond the stars, their technology would be so immensely far ahead of humanity. Genetic modification is probably common, as would be the preservation of consciousness beyond physical death through implanting a memory signature of electrical current into a storage device (like a hard drive) which could then be uploaded into another biological brain. Through developing biotechnology like cloning, one would never run out of organs. With cybernetic implants as well (like pace makers today) the physical wear on the body could be reduced.

Once that has been achieved all that would be required for sustenance is food. Light itself has enough energy to supply food like in photosynthesis. So the most efficient way would be to harness that energy through utilizing plant cells without producing waste. (Probability wise, plants would exist, as UV radiation exists and water exists.)

Or just creating robots like we do with drones today, that are capable of interstellar travel. In order to travel through space at such a velocity, one must in a sense, bend space-time. By doing so, all events whether past, present, or future, would exist simultaneously. The right coordinates would be needed and different galaxies mapped so destinations could be targeted 

The next step is more knowledge, and "godhood" to create your own race, and to understand your own origins. But like in any situation, it is often more complex. I doubt there is one race that has visited earth (if any). Probably various factions, with various different goals, who knows, maybe the solar system where earth resides is considered a "protected zone". Like humans set up wild life sanctuaries lol. Humans tag animals to study them, so why wouldn't aliens tag humans in the same manner lol.


----------



## LydeaCharlotteGirl

There are lots of (very dubious?) sites that claim ancient Atlantis existed alongside one or two other technological civilizations, and had many technologies well beyond our own, such as genetic modification, used on people with criminal impulses. Also universal wireless electricity from mysterious crystal power stations, the so-called 'night-side forces' or zero point energy was said to be understood and used for many purposes. All this is supposed to have been about 10,000 years ago. Not sure I believe it though. It was an era of ice ages in much of the world and unless perhaps the ancient aliens theory really is true, surely just like us they would first have needed vast amounts of oil, gas etc in order to develop such advanced technology. If so, then why is (relatively) so much of the fuel left over today?


----------



## cricklewood

I love daydreaming about alien visitations in ancient times but this is slowly turning into a religion. Why not just listen rather than "believing"?


----------



## cricklewood

mark101 said:


> What if we are the aliens and we had to ship out from our dying planet millions of years ago, would explain my confusion at the world i'm living in


Then we should be feeling guilty for making quite a mess on this planet.


----------



## jasiony

The whole theory just doesn't make sense. Why travel all that way to help a primitive culture build some monuments? I mean if we as humans eventually traveled to the stars and came upon a similarly primitive culture, do you think we would just help them build some pyramids then leave?


----------



## HopeinLife

jasiony said:


> The whole theory just doesn't make sense. Why travel all that way to help a primitive culture build some monuments? I mean if we as humans eventually traveled to the stars and came upon a similarly primitive culture, do you think we would just help them build some pyramids then leave?


They are talking about space travelers (or time travelers) basically explorator of space. If we were able to travel in space, that's what we would do, visiting solar systems seeking life forms and charting galaxies. Just like our ancestors have done here on earth with all the continents and seas.

If Aliens did visited us, it's possible they've passed on some knowledges to mankind or that their influences gave the humanity confidence and motivation to impress and evolve. Some say that we might even come from somewhere else and that we're genetic experiment. There is a lot of speculation in all this and many debates.

That's all hypothetical of course but the thought of it is somewhat charming or intriguing.


----------



## Pierre1

This is stupid the universe is HUGE aliens may exist (I personally think they do exist 100%) but why would aliens come all the way to Earth to teach primitive humans??


----------



## TicklemeRingo

There is no evidence whatsoever that an alien species has visited earth.

Saying _"we don't yet know quite how something was built"_ is not evidence.



Dylan2 said:


>


^I've always thought that looks kind of like Tom Petty.


----------



## dal user

I dont believe in all that crap about aliens built the pyramids.


----------



## Pierre1

Rich91 said:


> I dont believe in all that crap about aliens built the pyramids.


Yep


----------



## zstandig

There is a crap load of history that has been lost to time due to burned libraries, lack of language, lack of anyone left that can understand a lost language, etc....not to mention misplaced artifacts and other unexplained phenomenon.

Not saying aliens...but something that we don't know of now happened then.


----------



## Stoneface

Great guy, love the hair. Love the show. All those guys : Philip Coppens, Robert Bauval, David Childress etc and those great sites around the world. I want to believe !


----------



## Stoneface

David Childress is the man. He is so cool it is unbelievable.


----------



## Idontgetit

It's like instinct to discredit people of the past (civilizations/society.) Why do you think most people listen to new music and disregard everything else. Anyway I don't believe that aliens have been to earth although they probably do exist elsewhere.. There was a study done that showed how they moved huge rocks with ropes, which were later used to construct differen't structures and the pyramids.


----------



## inerameia

I think it's possible (although the show is based on apalling misconstruing). It definitely shouldn't be assumed out of credulity. People were just as smart as we are, minus the technology and overall knowledge. They knew mathematics pretty well.


----------



## AshleyAnn

SteinerOfThule said:


>


haha I can't help but start cracking up whenever he comes on.


----------



## Alas Babylon

TheFather said:


> I believe in Ancient aliens.
> 
> *There is no way that pre Roman civilizations could have done what they did. It's almost impossible to do today.*


Such as what?


----------



## ThatGuy11200

The arguments seem to revolve around ancient technology not be up to the task, this is reubbish. Ancient people knew how to use their technology properly because they used it day-in, day-out. We don't know how to use their technology because, for the most part, we are just recreating it from drawings that were never meant to be used as a guide to making it, and they might not have recorded everything they used anyway.

The fact is, ancient building techniques mostly involved putting one thing on top of another. That does not require hyperadvanced technology, and we already know they could do the necessary maths.

Also, why do the pictures of the so-called 'aliens' look like us? That's sci-fi nonsense that is.


----------



## Amorphousanomaly

This show tries way too hard with very little to back anything up. It's amusing to watch, but definitely science fiction.


----------



## fredbloggs02

In principle, when I hear an American whose monotone voice chords sound like they have been gratifyingly wound into a tuning fork, I make a point to switch it off. 

I have no idea what to think of these sensational monuments to the pinnacle of the human speculative capacity. No doubt their thoroughly researched, enduring works are flying off bookshelves everywhere.


----------



## Unnecessary

I think humanity underestimates itself.
We're capable of great things and all the ancient buildings are proof of it.


But the show is pretty funny.


----------



## jagmusic

The reason you all beleive in aliens is because humans are a social species. Kind of funny though, I don't know I can't explain it...Aliens did it. It's right along the lines of I don't know what the universe is...God did it. Are aliens your god? (kidding by the way)


----------



## ugh1979

Unnecessary said:


> I think humanity underestimates itself.
> We're capable of great things and all the ancient buildings are proof of it.


Indeed. I actually find it offensive that people are trying to credit the wonders that our species has created to a third party.

Some people can't accept that because mankind has forgotten how to do certain things we can't have ever done them. The only reason we don't still do them is that after they were forgotten, we invented new technologies and found new materials to make even more complicated and magnificent buildings etc.

If we hadn't found new ways we'd inevitably with enough time and effort rediscover the old techniques used by our ancient ancestors.

They probably took thousands of years to develop the impressive building techniques we now have no or little knowledge of, so we shouldn't expect to be able to easily work it out just because we have far more advanced but different building techniques.


----------



## ugh1979

jagmusic said:


> The reason you all beleive in aliens is because humans are a social species. Kind of funny though, I don't know I can't explain it...Aliens did it. It's right along the lines of I don't know what the universe is...God did it. Are aliens your god? (kidding by the way)


Indeed the substitution of god with aliens now permeates several parts of developed society.

It's the same fallacious old thinking but with a modern twist.


----------



## Ntln

arao6 said:


> Half-naked cave dwellers who had little understanding of the natural world drew odd pictures that they could not possibly conceive of:
> 
> http://www.in5d.com/ufos-in-art-history.html
> http://www.ancestryofman.com/art.html


And why do you say they couldn't conceive of them? Think of the things artist of today can come up with. Or even think of the most fantastical things you've thought up of or the things you've seen in your dreams. The human mind is an incredible thing and 10 000 years ago, humans weren't, biologically at least, any different.

I've heard a theory that many cave paintings were done by shamans or something equivalent, who used hallucinogenic drugs. And I'm not even much of a sceptic, I'm open to the idea of aliens existing and I would even be open to the idea of them visiting Earth, if only there was compelling evidence to support that claim. But trippy cave paintings aren't compelling evidence.


----------



## ugh1979

Ntln said:


> And why do you say they couldn't conceive of them? Think of the things artist of today can come up with. Or even think of the most fantastical things you've thought up of or the things you've seen in your dreams. The human mind is an incredible thing and 10 000 years ago, humans weren't, biologically at least, any different.
> 
> I've heard a theory that many cave paintings were done by shamans or something equivalent, who used hallucinogenic drugs. And I'm not even much of a sceptic, I'm open to the idea of aliens existing and I would even be open to the idea of them visiting Earth, if only there was compelling evidence to support that claim. But trippy cave paintings aren't compelling evidence.


Exactly. Those examples arao6 posted are based on nothing more than the cherry picked matching of some basic shapes and humanlike forms out of hundreds of thousands of of ancient pieces of art against modern ideas of ufology imagery.

In the same respect, throw a plate of alphabetti spaghetti against a wall and you are bound to see a word somewhere in the mess.

It's fallacious pattern recognition.

As you say, the human mind is capable of creating all sorts of weird and wonderful art with no need for alien inspiration.


----------



## Zeeshan

Xenos said:


> I think it's pseudoscientific nonsense.
> 
> No alien race is going to waste a hundred thousand years and an unbelievable amount of fuel just to come here, teach some pre-industrial human beings how to stack granite blocks on top of each other, and then leave.


Lol!!

This


----------



## ugh1979

Zeeshan said:


> Lol!!
> 
> This


+1

I think this may be the first time we have agreed Zeeshan. :lol


----------



## Zeeshan

ugh1979 said:


> +1
> 
> I think this may be the first time we have agreed Zeeshan. :lol


These ancient mysteries are more likely to be time travelers


----------



## ugh1979

Zeeshan said:


> These ancient mysteries are more likely to be time travelers


Back to business as usual. :lol


----------



## Zeeshan

ugh1979 said:


> Back to business as usual. :lol


It stands to reason that at some point in the future man will travel through time.


----------



## ugh1979

Zeeshan said:


> It stands to reason that at some point in the future man will travel through time.


Technically we are already travelling through time. The faster someone travels the further into a relative future they can go.

However going back in time currently breaks the laws of physics. The ability tor circumvent them to enable us to travel back in time is highly speculative, so it doesn't stand to reason that we ever will.

It's been proposed that if we ever do invent a way to do it it could be the case that if we could only travel to times _after _the point the time machine was invented. Another idea is that nobody ever would travel back in time since changing the time line would mean they didn't exist in the future which would mean they died when they tried it so attempted time travel to the past would be a suicide machine.

There's many interesting ideas on why time travel to the past can't exist.


----------



## arao6

Ntln said:


> And why do you say they couldn't conceive of them? Think of the things artist of today can come up with. Or even think of the most fantastical things you've thought up of or the things you've seen in your dreams. The human mind is an incredible thing and 10 000 years ago, humans weren't, biologically at least, any different.


You misunderstand. I am _not_ saying that aliens exist; that would be ridiculous to assume. I am saying that the nature of the drawn flying craft is inexplicable for that day and age. Drawing a spacecraft with multiple evenly spaced windows radiating light is not something people conceived of until the modern scifi age (with the advent of science). The probability of a caveman hallucinating that is pretty slim. I've taken an art history course and analyzed the art of modernity and antiquity, but those cave paintings still surprise me to this day. I am sure that there may be some rational explanation, but that particular spacecraft is not something they could possibly conceive of without a little inspiration.


----------



## Unnecessary

arao6 said:


> You misunderstand. I am _not_ saying that aliens exist; that would be ridiculous to assume. I am saying that the nature of the drawn flying craft is inexplicable for that day and age. Drawing a spacecraft with multiple evenly spaced windows radiating light is not something people conceived of until the modern scifi age (with the advent of science). The probability of a caveman hallucinating that is pretty slim. I've taken an art history course and analyzed the art of modernity and antiquity, but those cave paintings still surprise me to this day. I am sure that there may be some rational explanation, but that particular spacecraft is not something they could possibly conceive of without a little inspiration.


Those drawings are incredibly old, and phenomenons such as erosion and abrasion have deteriorated them and thus the original drawings are distorted and aren't exactly the same as when they were drawn.
So what we see as UFO's are just shapeless things that nature carved, and our brain tries to relate it with something we know about (because one of the brain's most important functions is to interpret the outside world so we can survive in it), it's an psychological phenomenon known as pareidolia.


----------



## DeniseAfterAll




----------



## arao6

Unnecessary said:


> Those drawings are incredibly old, and phenomenons such as erosion and abrasion have deteriorated them and thus the original drawings are distorted and aren't exactly the same as when they were drawn.
> So what we see as UFO's are just shapeless things that nature carved, and our brain tries to relate it with something we know about (because one of the brain's most important functions is to interpret the outside world so we can survive in it), it's an psychological phenomenon known as pareidolia.


Indeed, that's always a possibility.


----------



## ugh1979

Unnecessary said:


> So what we see as UFO's are just shapeless things that nature carved, and our brain tries to relate it with something we know about (because one of the brain's most important functions is to interpret the outside world so we can survive in it), it's an psychological phenomenon known as pareidolia.


Ah yes that's word I was looking for but couldn't remember for my earlier post.


----------



## Johnsonmandis

I believe in Ancient aliens.


----------



## Micronian

Wow! those art history pictures are very interesting...

I don't really believe in Aliens, mostly because why would anybody go out of their way to visit some insignificant planet out in the "boonies" of the galaxy? (Certainly there must be better things to waste light-years over)

Nevertheless...

In one of my university classes I wrote a paper positing this argument, and I will make it here (though much shorter): Taken that Earth and Earthlings are an insignificant footnote in the wide scope of the galaxy, any "alien" that comes and visits us would need to have a vested reason to do so. And so, who better to come visit us than *ourselves*?

I made the argument that if human technology keeps advancing the way it is, it may be possible that the humans of the future have indeed discovered the means of traveling through time and space. In this case, time. And so, they have gone back in time to visit their ancestors (our ancestors) deliberately to time periods where "2nd kind" evidence would be minimal. The "aliens" are actually us.

So, we're pretty much watching ourselves--which would explain the interest in earthlings, as it's perfectly natural to be interested in our own kind.

I never saw many of those art history pictures until today, but it certainly strengthens my own weird hypothesis. (and btw, my professor didn't give me a good mark when I submitted my essay)


----------



## arao6

Micronian said:


> In one of my university classes I wrote a paper positing this argument, and I will make it here (though much shorter): Taken that Earth and Earthlings are an insignificant footnote in the wide scope of the galaxy, any "alien" that comes and visits us would need to have a vested reason to do so. And so, who better to come visit us than *ourselves*?
> 
> I made the argument that if human technology keeps advancing the way it is, it may be possible that the humans of the future have indeed discovered the means of traveling through time and space. In this case, time. And so, they have gone back in time to visit their ancestors (our ancestors) deliberately to time periods where "2nd kind" evidence would be minimal. The "aliens" are actually us.


That is a very interesting hypothesis! Your professor probably gave you a bad grade because it can't be proven, but nevertheless it makes sense.


----------



## PoppinSmoke

DeniseAfterAll said:


>


 :lol


----------



## LydeaCharlotteGirl

The supposedly ancient plug embedded in rock described in this article http://www.consumertronics.net/petradox.htm looks just like an old-fashioned British round-pin plug yet if not a hoax it may be at least 55,000 years old. Surely the many such odd artifacts and out-of-place findings should be overwhelming proof of very ancient advanced civilisations if not alien visitation. Perhaps as the article says, for whatever reason, we just don't really want to know the truth?


----------



## tennislover84

Quite a while ago now, I posted in another thread about Project Condign (a UK Ministry of Defence study into "unidentified aerial phenomena", during the 1990s). I suggested that anyone interested in UFOs should read it, but unfortunately I wasn't able to find the direct link to the study, from the MoD website. However, I found it again recently. It seems to have been moved to the National Archives, but you can still access the multiple PDF files. I wanted to be able to provide an official link, rather than telling people to go to some UFO site mirror, which they might not trust as being genuine.

Now, this isn't strictly relating to "ancient" aliens, or necessarily aliens at all. It is really interesting, though, because if you can stomach reading through the entire thing, it ought to become clear that the so-called "black triangle" UFOs are a real thing. I.e. the objects (or whatever you want to call them), which were sighted over Belgium and Phoenix Arizona, which I mentioned earlier in this thread.

The people involved in Project Condign put an awful lot of effort put into providing an explanation for the black triangles. They suggest a "buoyant plasma phenomenon", with a strong electromagnetic field of some kind, that refracts light in such a way to create the appearance of a black triangle. I think one of the suggestions is that meteors could generate these theoretical phenomena, during atmospheric entry. There's a lot of complicated maths, and I have no idea whether it makes sense, but it's probably telling that the methods of buoyancy and generation of the electromagnetic field are described as "not understood" (or words to that effect).

Sorry if this seems very off-topic, but some people in these kinds of threads tend to say there aren't any genuinely unexplained phenomena, of the kind that is associated with "alien theories". You get people saying that everything can be attributed to mis-identification of stuff that we already know about, and that there aren't great big, unknown things flying around in our skies, like many pilots, radar operators, military personnel and large groups of ordinary people are alleged to have seen. The truth seems to be that these things did happen, and they do exist, even if that makes people uneasy. It doesn't have to be aliens though, although that's my guess.

The actual report tries really hard to avoid anything to do with aliens, but it's a good read, so here it is:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....aerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm

BTW Micronian, a retired US Air Force Sergeant called Jim Penniston thinks that he was contacted by time travelling humans, from our future. He was involved in the Rendlesham Forest incident, which is like the UK's Roswell. However, he underwent hypnotic regression to "remember" that particular detail, so it's more likely to be a false memory, in my opinion. I just thought you might find that interesting, since it fits with your own idea.


----------



## Tokztero

Saunterer said:


>


"And the answer is YES."


----------



## Pierre1

tennislover84 said:


> Quite a while ago now, I posted in another thread about Project Condign (a UK Ministry of Defence study into "unidentified aerial phenomena", during the 1990s). I suggested that anyone interested in UFOs should read it, but unfortunately I wasn't able to find the direct link to the study, from the MoD website. However, I found it again recently. It seems to have been moved to the National Archives, but you can still access the multiple PDF files. I wanted to be able to provide an official link, rather than telling people to go to some UFO site mirror, which they might not trust as being genuine.
> 
> Now, this isn't strictly relating to "ancient" aliens, or necessarily aliens at all. It is really interesting, though, because if you can stomach reading through the entire thing, it ought to become clear that the so-called "black triangle" UFOs are a real thing. I.e. the objects (or whatever you want to call them), which were sighted over Belgium and Phoenix Arizona, which I mentioned earlier in this thread.
> 
> The people involved in Project Condign put an awful lot of effort put into providing an explanation for the black triangles. They suggest a "buoyant plasma phenomenon", with a strong electromagnetic field of some kind, that refracts light in such a way to create the appearance of a black triangle. I think one of the suggestions is that meteors could generate these theoretical phenomena, during atmospheric entry. There's a lot of complicated maths, and I have no idea whether it makes sense, but it's probably telling that the methods of buoyancy and generation of the electromagnetic field are described as "not understood" (or words to that effect).
> 
> Sorry if this seems very off-topic, but some people in these kinds of threads tend to say there aren't any genuinely unexplained phenomena, of the kind that is associated with "alien theories". You get people saying that everything can be attributed to mis-identification of stuff that we already know about, and that there aren't great big, unknown things flying around in our skies, like many pilots, radar operators, military personnel and large groups of ordinary people are alleged to have seen. The truth seems to be that these things did happen, and they do exist, even if that makes people uneasy. It doesn't have to be aliens though, although that's my guess.
> 
> The actual report tries really hard to avoid anything to do with aliens, but it's a good read, so here it is:
> 
> http://webarchive.nationalarchives....aerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm
> 
> BTW Micronian, a retired US Air Force Sergeant called Jim Penniston thinks that he was contacted by time travelling humans, from our future. He was involved in the Rendlesham Forest incident, which is like the UK's Roswell. However, he underwent hypnotic regression to "remember" that particular detail, so it's more likely to be a false memory, in my opinion. I just thought you might find that interesting, since it fits with your own idea.


Interesting my judgment is that these UFO's people apparently see are alien probes here to just study us not actually containing aliens or any living thing, I think an alien invasion scenerio is only likely in the very far future when we start to explore our galaxy and neighboring galaxies.


----------



## arnie

I WANT to BELIEVE:


----------



## InDeathIsLife

Alright then who can explain area 51 with a non treapassing zone saying clearly "TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT" and the government denying anything about the whole thing. This year they changed their location and all of sudden the government started to stop denying about it... Dulce base in new mexico. The rosewell crash, the Zeta Reticuli incident...

Ancient civilisations had indirectly proven it thru their arts and mythologies. I mean everything is descredited because of how society is conditionned... Roman catholic church's Constantin back then had reformed the word "mythology" to fairytales when it simply meaned "that which represented the social culture and beliefs"... I know i'm being vague a bit but the thing is if you get to study objectively mythologies from ancient civilisations, then you'd see there's much correlation intertwining them.

Don't get me wrong but there is actually alot of disinfo on the subjects and we're being constantly conditionned about rejecting anything that isn't "tangible"...

I'm not gullible, i just feel that with the amount of time i've spent on the subject and everything i've observed from yesterday to today... There's quite a bunch of things that makes absolute sense.

Why don't they show up if they do really exist? Well i couldn't say the absolute truth about it but consider this: the universe is so wide, has so much galaxies, solar systems and what eff not. I find it plausible to believe that as our own solar system and everything surrounding our evolution as a species, there might be a crapload of other species throughout the universe under every stage of evolution.

People back in the days used to think that the earth was flat and the center of the universe...

THANKS to ****ing Copernicus and Galileo, from which their theories have been scoffed at for years until accepted and part of our daily lives...

Everybody has a bit of narcissism in them and competition sure doesn't help our evolution quite well. Look at Nikola Tesla and everything he's done and what he has suffered due to jealousy of other stuck up negative asswipes. Think about the Wardenclyffe tower for a minute and think how much we would be SO MUCH MORE AHEAD of our time.

I think that sometimes humanity is doomed to the head up deep into *** syndrome.

I ain't no goddamn scientist but for **** sake, everything is a question of image. People are far too afraid of the unknown and lack a great degree of objectivism. It's all about status, you would be world's most omnipotent and omniscient person and still would have a HUGE hoard of haters.

Up yours


----------



## InDeathIsLife

//i.imgflip.com/5nou1.jpgvia Imgflip Meme Maker

P.s: for those who don't get it, go listen to Ice Cube's Gangsta rap made me do it.


----------



## markwalters2

Aliens do indeed exist. They just know better than to visit a planet that Chuck Norris is on.


----------



## ugh1979

InDeathIsLife said:


> Alright then who can explain area 51 with a non treapassing zone saying clearly "TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT" and the government denying anything about the whole thing. This year they changed their location and all of sudden the government started to stop denying about it... Dulce base in new mexico. The rosewell crash, the Zeta Reticuli incident...


You really don't see a reason why the US military would have bases that were secret/classified _unless _they were harbouring aliens? :?

Ever heard of the Cold War?



> Ancient civilisations had indirectly proven it thru their arts and mythologies.


Myths of the supernatural and strange shapes in ancient art don't indirectly prove aliens were visiting ancient civilisations.

That's just wishful thinking.

I find the likes of claims that aliens visited and helped our ancestors offensive as it discredits our ancestors great abilities.

Saying "aliens did it" is a secular equivalent to saying "god did it". Both are based on ignorance of how events actually happened and applying some fantastical answer.



> I mean everything is descredited because of how society is conditionned... Roman catholic church's Constantin back then had reformed the word "mythology" to fairytales when it simply meaned "that which represented the social culture and beliefs"... I know i'm being vague a bit but the thing is if you get to study objectively mythologies from ancient civilisations, then you'd see there's much correlation intertwining them.
> 
> Don't get me wrong but there is actually alot of disinfo on the subjects and we're being constantly conditionned about rejecting anything that isn't "tangible"...
> 
> I'm not gullible, i just feel that with the amount of time i've spent on the subject and everything i've observed from yesterday to today... There's quite a bunch of things that makes absolute sense.


I think you are probably applying too much cognitive bias and seeing correlation which wouldn't be there if the scientific method of assessing evidence was applied.

It's not that we have been conditioned to refuse to accept ancient aliens, it's that credible assessments of the evidence don't point to any compelling evidence of them.

Follow the evidence, not personal desires, when establishing the credibility of beliefs.

There are very good rational explainable reasons why papers which posit ancient aliens don't get published in peer reviewed journals.



> Why don't they show up if they do really exist? Well i couldn't say the absolute truth about it but consider this: the universe is so wide, has so much galaxies, solar systems and what eff not. I find it plausible to believe that as our own solar system and everything surrounding our evolution as a species, there might be a crapload of other species throughout the universe under every stage of evolution.


The question of "why don't they show up if they do really exist?", is often asked by people who are thinking with "anthro" bias, who are grossly over estimating their importance to alien life.

I think something along the lines of Star Trek's Prime Objective could be in practice.

Our species could be wholly inappropriate for advanced mature alien species to visit and let themselves be known.

On the other hand, if any alien species which had the technology to visit our plant could and wanted to, I don't think it would have any problem not being detected. I doubt they would physically come either, as gathering knowledge via technological means is surely far more effective.

Considering our own governments can spy on us without our knowledge I have little doubt advanced aliens could "spy" on us without our knowledge.



> Everybody has a bit of narcissism in them and competition sure doesn't help our evolution quite well.


To the contrary, competition is what drives evolution.



> I ain't no goddamn scientist but for **** sake, everything is a question of image. People are far too afraid of the unknown and lack a great degree of objectivism. It's all about status, you would be world's most omnipotent and omniscient person and still would have a HUGE hoard of haters.
> 
> Up yours


Scientists thrive on the unknown as if there was no study and publishing of the unknown there would be no need for scientists.

The competition to publish papers on what is currently unknown is healthy and very effective, as long as quality control methods such as peer review are in place and robust.


----------



## WillYouStopDave

No. This is the stupidest thing ever. The History Channel should be ashamed of themselves for pushing this idiotic idea.


----------



## Hermiter

CRAZY strange the video i was looking for was deleted. I wonder why

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/search.php?q=Cern


----------



## ugh1979

WillYouStopDave said:


> No. This is the stupidest thing ever. The History Channel should be ashamed of themselves for pushing this idiotic idea.


Indeed. The History Channel went downhill when it started trying to provide entertainment to cater to the lower intelligence market. Unfortunately, their numbers mean they are there to stay, and they've taken down the quality of Discovery and Nat Geo with it.


----------



## ugh1979

Hermiter said:


> CRAZY strange the video i was looking for was deleted. I wonder why
> 
> http://www.godlikeproductions.com/search.php?q=Cern


Haha are you really looking for credible evidence on this site? :lol


----------



## WillYouStopDave

ugh1979 said:


> Indeed. The History Channel went downhill when it started trying to provide entertainment to cater to the lower intelligence market. Unfortunately, their numbers mean they are there to stay, and they've taken down the quality of Discovery and Nat Geo with it.


 Pawn Stars and Pickers aren't bad shows. They're a little silly at times but I enjoy them and they're not completely stupid like that aliens show. That swamp people show is just awful. I don't like that logging show either.


----------



## ugh1979

WillYouStopDave said:


> Pawn Stars and Pickers aren't bad shows. They're a little silly at times but I enjoy them and they're not completely stupid like that aliens show. That swamp people show is just awful. I don't like that logging show either.


Yeah I watch Pawn Stars all the time and used to watch Pickers (not sure why I stopped). I don't mind Storage Wars too much for the same reasons, but it gets even sillier than those two at times. It's just easy watching I guess when i'm half paying attention to the TV.

Crap like Duck Dynasty is just awful.

I see one of their cast just got slammed for homophobic comments. Hopefully that leads to it getting dropped.


----------



## WillYouStopDave

ugh1979 said:


> Yeah I watch Pawn Stars all the time and used to watch Pickers (not sure why I stopped). I don't mind Storage Wars too much for the same reasons, but it gets even sillier than those two at times. It's just easy watching I guess when i'm half paying attention to the TV.


 Pickers is pretty good. I actually like it better than Pawn Stars but you have to pay closer attention or you might as well not even watch. The material is a lot more detailed and wordy. I notice that I don't really get much out of it if I turn on the TV while I'm surfing. Whereas Pawn Stars, you can only barely pay attention and you still pretty much know what's going on. Sometimes Pickers annoys me because they tend to do themes and if you don't like the theme, the whole show is worthless. Like the time when they did the NASCAR thing. I guess it was great for racing fans but I'm just not into it. I was bored all the way through. The star chemistry alone just wasn't enough to carry it.

I've seen Storage Wars a few times. It's not bad either. I think I could get into it but I think it comes on A&E and I rarely watch that channel.

It just bothers me they do shows like Aliens because they have such a great opportunity to do real history.


----------



## ugh1979

WillYouStopDave said:


> Pickers is pretty good. I actually like it better than Pawn Stars but you have to pay closer attention or you might as well not even watch. The material is a lot more detailed and wordy. I notice that I don't really get much out of it if I turn on the TV while I'm surfing. Whereas Pawn Stars, you can only barely pay attention and you still pretty much know what's going on. Sometimes Pickers annoys me because they tend to do themes and if you don't like the theme, the whole show is worthless. Like the time when they did the NASCAR thing. I guess it was great for racing fans but I'm just not into it. I was bored all the way through. The star chemistry alone just wasn't enough to carry it.


Yeah I agree it does need a bit more attention than Pawn Stars.



> I've seen Storage Wars a few times. It's not bad either. I think I could get into it but I think it comes on A&E and I rarely watch that channel.


A&E don't have a named channel in the UK where i'm from so they are shown on their History channel.



> It just bothers me they do shows like Aliens because they have such a great opportunity to do real history.


Yeah they effectively sold out to attract the lowest common denominator audience. I remember when History used to have a lot more quality programmes.

I don't think i've ever actually watched H2, at that seems to be even worse.

Have you ever watched Auction Hunters on Discovery? It's quite like Pickers in the way that there is just the 2 of them so no personal drama crap, they are pro's, and the focus is on the finds.


----------



## Hermiter

Aliens are real theyre just way off of what people think


----------



## eukz

If they existed and made us the way we are now, then they were really scumbag for getting just half of the job done >:/


----------



## ugh1979

Hermiter said:


> Aliens are real theyre just way off of what people think


How do you know they are real and how do you they aren't what people think they are?

Have they visited you?


----------



## InDeathIsLife

eukz said:


> If they existed and made us the way we are now, then they were really scumbag for getting just half of the job done >:/


This


----------



## Zyriel

eukz said:


> If they existed and made us the way we are now, then they were really scumbag for getting just half of the job done >:/


Lol if they did make humanity or at least genetically modify primitive humanoids, it was for slaves nothing more. Or maybe a science experiment gone wrong lol. If an advanced species would want to understand their own origins better, they would probably create one and monitor it's progress through the evolution of civilization from a meta-perspective.

There's actually a few games like that, Black and White, Majesty, and to an extent Spore, where the player takes on the role of a pseudo "god" and has to implement objectives for the AI to accomplish lol. Pretty much being a Dungeon Master to study the psychological behavior of a primitive species. Humans do it to lesser intellectually developed animals, so why wouldn't a higher intelligent race do it to humans?


----------



## purechaos

Riddle me this; 

why is it when something isn't currently explainable or "seems" unfathomable for a human, do people automatically point to aliens or god? There are so many possibilities, yet people would rather shove thier head in a box and think in one dimension? Why?


----------



## WillYouStopDave

purechaos said:


> Riddle me this;
> 
> why is it when something isn't currently explainable or "seems" unfathomable for a human, do people automatically point to aliens or god? There are so many possibilities, yet people would rather shove thier head in a box and think in one dimension? Why?


 Well, that actually isn't a hard question. People like easy answers. But the problem I have with the aliens thing is more than just the fact that they're answering hard questions with stupid answers that they obviously just made up.

It's the History Channel. If they can't answer some of these unfathomable questions, why do they try? They have all of known human history to cover with factual information that they don't have to guess at and they feel the need to speculate on aliens instead? A brand new documentary on Napoleon (or any other historical figure) would be infinitely more valuable than the entire series about aliens.


----------



## Arthur Dent

Meet Wally Wallington, a a retired construction worker from Lapeer County, Michigan who has revived forgotten technology and demonstrated a method for a person to construct a Stonehenge-like structure using only materials and techniques that do not rely on any modern technology:








The blocks are made of concrete, but he lifted them with simple lever techniques and only with the help of his son, no cranes, no engines, no aliens involved, just ingeniousness and a REAL open mind.






http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/newpage1


----------



## Hermiter

ugh1979 said:


> How do you know they are real and how do you they aren't what people think they are?
> 
> Have they visited you?


Aliens are invisible beings that can inhabit living bodies. They are plentiful there are good and bad ones.


----------



## Jcgrey

Oh someone move this garbage to the' just for fun forum' I mean really? people take this seriously?


----------



## ugh1979

Hermiter said:


> Aliens are invisible beings that can inhabit living bodies. They are plentiful there are good and bad ones.


Oh really?

How do you know this?


----------



## ugh1979

Jcgrey said:


> Oh someone move this garbage to the' just for fun forum' I mean really? people take this seriously?


Unfortunately yes.

It's just another fantasy that people like to believe rather than applying rational intelligent thought.

I can understand why people choose to believe in fantasies like this ancient alien crap and the supernatural, as it's often easier to be satisfied by simple fantastical stories rather rational reasons. (Just as children prefer Harry Potter stories as opposed to deep scientific theories about reality) However as you and I both know, the wonder of reality when viewed using intellectually honest credible evidence is far more wonderful.


----------



## Jcgrey

I didn't mean to be so harsh with my wording. I was drinking, angry, and really had no business posting.


----------



## purechaos

Jcgrey said:


> I didn't mean to be so harsh with my wording. I was drinking, angry, and really had no business posting.


 Well, I commend you for the ability to construct such a coherent post while drinking.


----------



## Jcgrey

ugh1979 said:


> However as you and I both know, the wonder of reality when viewed using intellectually honest credible evidence is far more wonderful.


Indeed.


----------



## Jcgrey

purechaos said:


> Well, I commend you for the ability to construct such a coherent post while drinking.


Coherent yes, But maybe a bit disrespectful. I don't know, not common of me. My apologies.


----------



## Zack

"Ancient Aliens Season 5 ... This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by BBTV_AETN.

Sorry about that."


----------



## LeeMann

WillYouStopDave said:


> No. This is the stupidest thing ever. The History Channel should be ashamed of themselves for pushing this idiotic idea.


Well it might be shameful and mean to push such an idea, but never stupid and idiotic. Don't make the mistake of assuming that they haven't got any agenda.



Hermiter said:


> Aliens are real they're just way off of what people think


I agree with this. It is funny that when a religious stuff is mentioned everyone says 'eeek!' But a not-so-different thing such as 'Ancient Aliens' suddenly becomes an interesting and a fascinating subject. :no

Anyways, I think aliens are *extra-dimensional* beings who can come in contact with us, humans, through the works of magic. There are extremely many types of species up there just like we have here on earth. Some are very intelligent and some are animal-like. Some are very far that they can't come in contact with us while some are close enough to visit us.

The media (including the movie industries) would like you to believe that there is a possibility of aliens existing far away and that they may contact us any day. They also want you to believe that they are definitely hostile and we should be prepared to respond to such type of attacks. They fed us with conspiracy theories like A-51 and movies like X-Files/Alien/Avatar/StarTrek/... (in fact the list is so long) so that we would believe that extraterrestrials are real and governments are hiding something. One thing would lead to another and finally when it would be announced that an Alien is discovered, no one with the current mindset would doubt the discovery.

The thing is they are preparing such type of '*Alien invasion*' in collaboration with the extra-dimensional beings and it would be the *grand finale* in the theater of the world war to come. At that point people must unite under one ruler, that is powerful enough to fight that fake invasion, resulting in the total submission of all humanity for a single authority.


----------



## ugh1979

LeeMann said:


> Well it might be shameful and mean to push such an idea, but never stupid and idiotic. Don't make the mistake of assuming that they haven't got any agenda.


What do you think the History Channel's agenda is?



> I agree with this. It is funny that when a religious stuff is mentioned everyone says 'eeek!' But a not-so-different thing such as 'Ancient Aliens' suddenly becomes an interesting and a fascinating subject. :no


The comparison between religious belief and belief in ancient aliens has been mentioned several times in this thread.



> Anyways, I think aliens are *extra-dimensional* beings who can come in contact with us, humans, through the works of magic. There are extremely many types of species up there just like we have here on earth. Some are very intelligent and some are animal-like. Some are very far that they can't come in contact with us while some are close enough to visit us.
> 
> The media (including the movie industries) would like you to believe that there is a possibility of aliens existing far away and that they may contact us any day. They also want you to believe that they are definitely hostile and we should be prepared to respond to such type of attacks. They fed us with conspiracy theories like A-51 and movies like X-Files/Alien/Avatar/StarTrek/... (in fact the list is so long) so that we would believe that extraterrestrials are real and governments are hiding something. One thing would lead to another and finally when it would be announced that an Alien is discovered, no one with the current mindset would doubt the discovery.
> 
> The thing is they are preparing such type of '*Alien invasion*' in collaboration with the extra-dimensional beings and it would be the *grand finale* in the theater of the world war to come. At that point people must unite under one ruler, that is powerful enough to fight that fake invasion, resulting in the total submission of all humanity for a single authority.


You should be banned from the science forum for the same reasons they are banning people like you on Reddit's science forum.


----------



## LeeMann

ugh1979 said:


> You should be banned from the science forum for the same reasons they are banning banning people like you on Reddit's science forum.


I commented in that thread you created about it.

But why should I be banned? For expressing my version of the truth? :um Are you against anyone who tries to disagree with what is an 'established truth'? In fact, I think I should be *promoted* and *honored *for bringing up contradictory points of views for discussion ... you could benefit yourself and others by disproving and demonstrating what you think should be said here. Can't you see I am helping you in a way?


----------



## ugh1979

LeeMann said:


> I commented in that thread you created about it.
> 
> But why should I be banned? For expressing my version of the truth? :um Are you against anyone who tries to disagree with what is an 'established truth'? In fact, I think I should be *promoted* and *honored *for bringing up contradictory points of views for discussion ... you could benefit yourself and others by disproving and demonstrating what you think should be said here. Can't you see I am helping you in a way?


If you read the article in the other thread you will learn of the reasoning why your continuous troll like unsubstantiated conspiracy theories are worthy of a ban.

If you could provide evidence for your claims i'd welcome them, but you can't.


----------



## WillYouStopDave

ugh1979 said:


> You should be banned from the science forum for the same reasons they are banning banning people like you on Reddit's science forum.


 With due respect, nobody needs to be banned. But it's a fairly good point that this kind of stuff is really better suited for the S&C area since there's no way it's not going to be controversial.


----------



## purechaos

max4225 said:


> I get the feeling much of our history has been forgotten or rewritten several times.


 Yea and......do you ever pay attention to how current events are treated, or just how much mis information is out there, or how twist and bias seems to be added to just about anything? It makes you wonder just how much there is you actually don't know and how much of what you do know is a lie or a misinterpretation. Sometimes it really pisses me off.


----------



## MrKappa

Personally this is one of my favorite theories as it first and foremost addresses similarities between ancient cultures, and arrives at a conclusion that it "must" have been Aliens.

Hilarious, and no doubt a slap in the face to modern orthodox historians and archeologists who refuse to accept the idea that human history is tens of thousands of years old and ancient trade networks via sea and horse connected civilizations much much earlier than we currently accept.

Absolute Brilliance!

Don't get me wrong, not every historian or archaeologist is a blind defender of the orthodoxy.

I don't like it so much when they dip into thoeries about BigFoot or Crystal Skulls. I mean some of it is bang on hilarious and educational at the same time, but other times it drifts off into the absolutely ridiculous.

Anyways... now I am starting to accept that hey, maybe there was alien contact in the past, no matter how implausible. However, the best part about it is the similarities across ancient civilizations, religions, architecture, technologies, and so forth.

Here you go guys... I wish they would do a segment on artificial cranial deformation. Have they yet? Anyways... some believe it is a practice as old as +50,000 years. can you imagine? Royal lineages stretching back the civilization of man, +50,000 years? More psuedo science, but the imagination runs wild...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation#History


----------



## Lokis Whispers

I like the show itself in that it's interesting, but it seems to stretch things waaaay too much. I think people wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the idea of aliens visiting us in the past if they didn't draw such absurd conclusions in the show.

I remember in one of the episodes, they talked about how bigfoot was genetically engineered by aliens to mine gold for them, or something like that, and he traveled around in underground tunnels. Then there was the whole thing about how the Sphinx was proof aliens made human-animal hybrids. I nope'd right on out of there.

Some things really make you think though. The whole idea that what we consider gods were just aliens with technology that humans in the distant past couldn't understand, it's a very interesting concept.


----------



## ugh1979

MrKappa said:


> Personally this is one of my favorite theories as it first and foremost addresses similarities between ancient cultures, and arrives at a conclusion that it "must" have been Aliens.


Saying aliens are responsible for the similarities found between cultures around the world is synonymous with a "god of the gaps" argument.

It's making a fantastical claim to fill a gap in knowledge, that no historian or archaeologist can take seriously as there is no evidence for it.



> Hilarious, and no doubt a slap in the face to modern orthodox historians and archeologists who refuse to accept the idea that human history is tens of thousands of years old and ancient trade networks via sea and horse connected civilizations much much earlier than we currently accept.
> 
> Absolute Brilliance!
> 
> Don't get me wrong, not every historian or archaeologist is a blind defender of the orthodoxy.


The only "historians" and "archeologists" who refuse to accept the idea that human history is less than tens of thousands of years old are creationists.

All respectable historians and archeologists accept human history is hundreds of thousands of years old.

The question of the extent of ancient trade and communication is on a case by case basis, but always needs evidence to support it before they can accept it. It would be unprofessional to accept a claim without any reason other than wishful thinking.

There is a multitude of similar cultural practices that are found around the world that date to times before mass communication and trade, but that doesn't mean they had to share the same source.

Mankind is very innovative/creative, and there is no reason why an invention/custom on one side of the world can't have emerged independently on the other side, at any time pre-communication.

The classic example is pyramids. I hear some people saying the fact that there are pyramids found all around the world means that there must have been one "inventor" and everyone learned from that source. With a little bit of applied thought about structures, it's simple to realise that a pyramid is the easiest large tall structure that could be built at the time, and inspiration for it was in front of their faces in the forms of natural pyramid like structures such as hills and mountains.

Therefore, it's clear pyramid structures emerged entirely independently multiple times around the world over millennia.



> Here you go guys... I wish they would do a segment on artificial cranial deformation. Have they yet? Anyways... some believe it is a practice as old as +50,000 years. can you imagine? Royal lineages stretching back the civilization of man, +50,000 years? More psuedo science, but the imagination runs wild...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation#History


What does artificial cranial deformation have to do with royal lineages? There are examples of it from all over the world across time, and it wasn't reserved for the ruling "class".


----------



## ugh1979

Haha. Good on someone at History for showing _Your Bleeped Up Brain_ right after _Ancients Aliens_ on their H2 schedule today in the UK. :clap

Problem, meet solution.


----------



## BAH

It is a secret


----------



## pazuzuinxs

LeeMann said:


> Well it might be shameful and mean to push such an idea, but never stupid and idiotic. Don't make the mistake of assuming that they haven't got any agenda.
> 
> I agree with this. It is funny that when a religious stuff is mentioned everyone says 'eeek!' But a not-so-different thing such as 'Ancient Aliens' suddenly becomes an interesting and a fascinating subject. :no
> 
> Anyways, I think aliens are *extra-dimensional* beings who can come in contact with us, humans, through the works of magic. There are extremely many types of species up there just like we have here on earth. Some are very intelligent and some are animal-like. Some are very far that they can't come in contact with us while some are close enough to visit us.
> 
> The media (including the movie industries) would like you to believe that there is a possibility of aliens existing far away and that they may contact us any day. They also want you to believe that they are definitely hostile and we should be prepared to respond to such type of attacks. They fed us with conspiracy theories like A-51 and movies like X-Files/Alien/Avatar/StarTrek/... (in fact the list is so long) so that we would believe that extraterrestrials are real and governments are hiding something. One thing would lead to another and finally when it would be announced that an Alien is discovered, no one with the current mindset would doubt the discovery.
> 
> The thing is they are preparing such type of '*Alien invasion*' in collaboration with the extra-dimensional beings and it would be the *grand finale* in the theater of the world war to come. At that point people must unite under one ruler, that is powerful enough to fight that fake invasion, resulting in the total submission of all humanity for a single authority.


You know, your theory, as ridiculous as it sounds, is absolutely foolproof logically. Good to see you having fun


----------



## LeeMann

pazuzuinxs said:


> You know, your theory, as ridiculous as it sounds, is absolutely foolproof logically. Good to see you having fun


:lol Yeah. Good to see you respecting anyone's way of thinking no matter how ridiculous they are. And I, too, can see how they can look like that. It is just that I've seen many spiritual beings and other super-natural phenomena. And the place I came from, there is a lot of that kind of stuff.


----------



## ugh1979

LeeMann said:


> :lol Yeah. Good to see you respecting anyone's way of thinking no matter how ridiculous they are. And I, too, can see how they can look like that. It is just that I've seen many spiritual beings and other super-natural phenomena. And the place I came from, there is a lot of that kind of stuff.


You should really watch your Your Bleeped Up Brain.


----------



## sirbey

either ancient aliens theory is accurate OR the earth and more specifically humanity is A LOT older than we think


----------



## ugh1979

sirbey said:


> either ancient aliens theory is accurate OR the earth and more specifically humanity is A LOT older than we think


What age do you think 'we' think the earth and humanity is?


----------



## sirbey

ugh1979 said:


> What age do you think 'we' think the earth and humanity is?


well if im correct popular science would say the earth is 4 billionish years old and modern human emerged around 200,000 years ago


----------



## ugh1979

sirbey said:


> well if im correct popular science would say the earth is 4 billionish years old and modern human emerged around 200,000 years ago


So what is it about those timescales you have an issue with?


----------



## sirbey

ugh1979 said:


> So what is it about those timescales you have an issue with?


i dont have an issue with those timescales the issue is we went from being caveman to out of seemingly nowhere having civilized cultured societies with knowledge of the solar system and astrological bodies not to mention ancient people were building things that are still not fully understood in terms of how and for what purpose with alignments to astrological bodies outside of the solar system AND had understanding of math with better and more sophisticated number systems than many cultures today. why would we have evolved so fast? complex lifeforms existed for a BILLION years yet no highly intelligent life of any kind evolved before we did? were not even sure where we really came from. in science we just sort of appeared and have dna similar to primates and then took over the planet. humans are the enigma of this planet and stand out from all other things that exist here we arent even suited to live in most of earths environments without help from clothing heating cooling sanitation fire etc. we can only live on this planet due to our ability to craft.

so what is it about cave dwelling primates becoming masters of nearly all things on this planet in only 200,000 that you apparently dont have a problem with?


----------



## ugh1979

sirbey said:


> i dont have an issue with those timescales the issue is we went from being caveman to out of seemingly nowhere having civilized cultured societies with knowledge of the solar system and astrological bodies


Maybe you should go and read up on history, archeology, anthropology, cosmology (just to start) before claiming that our development seemingly came out of nowhere. The move from the stone age to now was a slow process that took tens of thousands of years. What about such a slow process (on anthropic time scales) indicates extra-terrestrials being responsible for human development?



> not to mention ancient people were building things that are still not fully understood in terms of how and for what purpose with alignments to astrological bodies outside of the solar system


Of course we don't know exactly what everything was used for or how it was made without it being documented. We can't exactly ask them can we? Knowledge is easily lost without good documentation. What we do know is that technological progress from the physical evidence we have was on a timescale that makes sense. There were no unexplained huge jumps in the space of a few years that would indicate non-human aliens introducing said technology. (The jumps in areas we know of are in line with human colonisation spreading technology, such as European's to the America's, and many many other more ancient examples.)

Also, it's hardly a surprise civilizations of star gazers aligned their monuments with the stars.



> AND had understanding of math with better and more sophisticated number systems than many cultures today.


Can you give examples?



> why would we have evolved so fast?


OK so now you are talking about biological evolution rather than technological/cultural etc, so you have a problem with both. Interesting.



> complex lifeforms existed for a BILLION years yet no highly intelligent life of any kind evolved before we did?


I assume you aren't aware of other now extinct hominid species for example, some which had bigger brains than us, and if born today could probably live among us? (Neanderthals for example, but there is a lineage spanning millions of years of species which appear to be our ancestors)



> were not even sure where we really came from. in science we just sort of appeared and have dna similar to primates and then took over the planet. humans are the enigma of this planet and stand out from all other things that exist here we arent even suited to live in most of earths environments without help from clothing heating cooling sanitation fire etc. we can only live on this planet due to our ability to craft.


You really need to read up on natural history, evolutionary biology and anthropology to get a better understanding of how humans evolved. We don't just have DNA similar to primates for example. We _are _primates.

Our ancestors developed technologies over millions of years to allow us to live as we do now. There is no evidence for it happening suddenly on small timescales which would indicate what you are proposing.



> so what is it about cave dwelling primates becoming masters of nearly all things on this planet in only 200,000 that you apparently dont have a problem with?


The peer reviewed evidence provided and expert opinions of the vast majority of the worlds relevant scientists, along with the lack of any credible evidence that indicates intelligent extra-terrestrials being responsible for human development.

What are you basing your decision on? Gut instinct and lay opinion?

Are you a religious creationist as well? Even if you aren't, you seem to making the same fallacious arguments they typically do.


----------



## sirbey

ugh1979 said:


> Maybe you should go and read up on history, archeology, anthropology, cosmology (just to start) before claiming that our development seemingly came out of nowhere. The move from the stone age to now was a slow process that took tens of thousands of years. What about such a slow process (on anthropic time scales) indicates extra-terrestrials being responsible for human development?
> 
> Of course we don't know exactly what everything was used for or how it was made without it being documented. We can't exactly ask them can we? Knowledge is easily lost without good documentation. What we do know is that technological progress from the physical evidence we have was on a timescale that makes sense. There were no unexplained huge jumps in the space of a few years that would indicate non-human aliens introducing said technology. (The jumps in areas we know of are in line with human colonisation spreading technology, such as European's to the America's, and many many other more ancient examples.)
> 
> Also, it's hardly a surprise civilizations of star gazers aligned their monuments with the stars.
> 
> Can you give examples?
> 
> OK so now you are talking about biological evolution rather than technological/cultural etc, so you have a problem with both. Interesting.
> 
> I assume you aren't aware of other now extinct hominid species for example, some which had bigger brains than us, and if born today could probably live among us? (Neanderthals for example, but there is a lineage spanning millions of years of species which appear to be our ancestors)
> 
> You really need to read up on natural history, evolutionary biology and anthropology to get a better understanding of how humans evolved. We don't just have DNA similar to primates for example. We _are _primates.
> 
> Our ancestors developed technologies over millions of years to allow us to live as we do now. There is no evidence for it happening suddenly on small timescales which would indicate what you are proposing.
> 
> The peer reviewed evidence provided and expert opinions of the vast majority of the worlds relevant scientists, along with the lack of any credible evidence that indicates intelligent extra-terrestrials being responsible for human development.
> 
> What are you basing your decision on? Gut instinct and lay opinion?
> 
> Are you a religious creationist as well? Even if you aren't, you seem to making the same fallacious arguments they typically do.


to make this easy ill simply going to reply in order of top to bottom to your comments...

i was actually indirectly referring to the fact that humans went from hunter gatherers living as nomads to then out of the blue having culture, cities, math, writing, etc. and specifically im talking about the Sumerians. their culture came out of nowhere and suddenly sophisticated modern civilization had arrived.

refer to above.
and yes but that doesn't explain why ancient culture would want to build their monuments to those specific celestial bodies. those one were chosen for a reason they had some form of importance to the peoples at the time so what was it?

examples: mayans, sumerians, egyptians

i dont have a problem with either forms of evolution.

i am aware and im not even trying to say evolution didnt happen or isnt real im just saying humans sprang up relatively fast for whatever reason.

well your missing the point of that whole paragraph. im not proposing that aliens gave us iphones or fire or any other tech. im simply trying to elaborate the fact that humans cant easily survive on this planet naturally or really fit into the natural cycle of the planet. we need tech to survive when all other species can exist without it as part of the planet. humans are seemingly not part of the planet they just live here and consume the resources.

id prefer if you dont even reply. you take what people say and change the meaning of their words and i cant stand the way you seemingly belittle everyones ideas and then accuse them of being creationists. i see you do it to almost every single person who slightly differs in opinion from you.


----------



## knightofdespair

Xenos said:


> I think it's pseudoscientific nonsense.
> 
> No alien race is going to waste a hundred thousand years and an unbelievable amount of fuel just to come here, teach some pre-industrial human beings how to stack granite blocks on top of each other, and then leave.


Assuming it costs them the same as it would us... which is not really likely.


----------



## ugh1979

sirbey said:


> to make this easy ill simply going to reply in order of top to bottom to your comments...


Or you could learn how to use quote tags.



> i was actually indirectly referring to the fact that humans went from hunter gatherers living as nomads to then out of the blue having culture, cities, math, writing, etc. and specifically im talking about the Sumerians. their culture came out of nowhere and suddenly sophisticated modern civilization had arrived.


But it wasn't out of the blue. Saying that just shows your lack of knowledge of ancient history and numerous related fields.

Go and read up on how civilisation emerged. Start with the transition from nomadic to agrarian societies. That's arguably a key change which gave rise to the means to becoming what we call civilisation.



> refer to above.


Likewise.



> and yes but that doesn't explain why ancient culture would want to build their monuments to those specific celestial bodies. those one were chosen for a reason they had some form of importance to the peoples at the time so what was it?


It's as obvious as sun worship. Surely you can understand why celestial bodies are an attractive choice?



> examples: mayans, sumerians, egyptians


So what is it that you are trying to say? That civilisations can't have advanced mathematics without extra-terrestrial help?



> i dont have a problem with either forms of evolution.
> 
> i am aware and im not even trying to say evolution didnt happen or isnt real im just saying humans sprang up relatively fast for whatever reason.


Reasons you should go and learn about. I know when I was 19 like you are now I was only just properly beginning to learn about many subjects, so i'll not hold your lack of knowledge on the subjects against you.



> well your missing the point of that whole paragraph. im not proposing that aliens gave us iphones or fire or any other tech. im simply trying to elaborate the fact that humans cant easily survive on this planet naturally or really fit into the natural cycle of the planet. we need tech to survive when all other species can exist without it as part of the planet. humans are seemingly not part of the planet they just live here and consume the resources.


Our tech evolved with us over the last 200,000 years. Our species started with tech that amounted to little more than fire and stone tools in Africa. We were perfectly suited to our ecological niche and were very successful hunters, so it's untrue to say that humans can't survive naturally. There are _still _remote tribes of humans who live as our ancient nomadic ancestors lived.

We only need tech to survive because we have evolved to need it, and the vast majority of it we could do away with and still survive.



> id prefer if you dont even reply.


I'm sure you would. 



> you take what people say and change the meaning of their words and i cant stand the way you seemingly belittle everyones ideas and then accuse them of being creationists. i see you do it to almost every single person who slightly differs in opinion from you.


What incorrect/exaggerated nonsense. You are clearly ignoring all the people I agree with on here (which I understand the psychological reasons for), and the many discussions that have nothing to do with creationism so it isn't mentioned. In fact, I don't remember ever calling someone a creationist when there wasn't a direct reason. Most creationists are happy to admit they are creationists. I didn't accuse you of being a creationist though, so it's ironic you are saying i'm changing the meaning of peoples words. I simply asked if you were. You have confirmed you aren't and I accept that.


----------



## sirbey

ugh1979 said:


> What incorrect/exaggerated nonsense. You are clearly ignoring all the people I agree with on here and the many discussions that have nothing to do with creationism so it isn't mentioned. In fact, I don't remember ever calling someone a creationist when there wasn't a direct reason. I didn't accuse you of being a creationist either, so it's ironic you are saying i'm changing the meaning of peoples words. I simply asked if you were.


its just that you come off as extremely condescending in every response (at least with me in this post and previous encounters and the majority of other posts ive seen you make) and ive never seen you agree with anyone accept for when your bashing religious ideas. yeah you didnt call me a creationist but you always come back to that even when nothing i said had to do with creationism at all. and eluding to me being on par with creationists given your opinion on them isnt much better, and certainly uncalled for. you dont always have to prove people wrong about the most insignificant comments. i understand its nice to feel like your more intelligent and grounded than others but i wasn't even trying to have a drawn out debate i was just indulging in a pseudo-scientific theory and reiterating evidence from it to respond to you. but i guess you got me this time with your great logic and reasoning skills oh mighty science man....congrats


----------



## ugh1979

sirbey said:


> its just that you come off as extremely condescending in every response (at least with me in this post and previous encounters and the majority of other posts ive seen you make) and ive never seen you agree with anyone accept for when your bashing religious ideas.


It's often hard not to be condescending when speaking to complete strangers about these kind of subjects.

Most of my posts are criticisms of facets of religion so it's no wonder you only remember me agreeing with people who are doing the same. You have clearly not read or forgotten many others though, especially on this science forum.



> yeah you didnt call me a creationist but you always come back to that even when nothing i said had to do with creationism at all. and eluding to me being on par with creationists given your opinion on them isnt much better, and certainly uncalled for. you dont always have to prove people wrong about the most insignificant comments.


I always come back to that? You mean I asked you on the one occasion i've spoken to you if were a creationist?

You're claims that humanity/civilisation has some unknown source has obvious parallels with creationism.



> i understand its nice to feel like your more intelligent and grounded than others but i wasn't even trying to have a drawn out debate


Well I am looking for a debate, and if you make certain claims you will get one. If you choose not to further respond so be it.

There are many intelligent people on this forum and I enjoy debating with them and learning from them. 



> i was just indulging in a pseudo-scientific theory and reiterating evidence from it to respond to you. but i guess you got me this time with your great logic and reasoning skills oh mighty science man....congrats


So you know it's pseudoscientific but you think there is credible evidence to support it?


----------



## sirbey

ugh1979 said:


> It's often hard not to be condescending when speaking to complete strangers about these kind of subjects.
> 
> Most of my posts are criticisms of facets of religion so it's no wonder you only remember me agreeing with people who are doing the same. You have clearly not read or forgotten many others though, especially on this science forum.
> 
> I always come back to that? You mean I asked you on the one occasion i've spoken to you if were a creationist?
> 
> You're claims that humanity/civilisation has some unknown source has obvious parallels with creationism.
> 
> Well I am looking for a debate, and if you make certain claims you will get one. If you choose not to further respond so be it.
> 
> There are
> many intelligent people on this forum and I enjoy debating with them and learning from them.
> 
> So you know it's pseudoscientific but you think there is credible evidence to support it?


I said what I wanted to say so for the sake of this thread I think we shouldnt continue since were no longer on topic 
Btw we have met before under different username


----------



## ugh1979

sirbey said:


> I said what I wanted to say so for the sake of this thread I think we shouldnt continue since were no longer on topic


We're bang on topic. I've been asking you to defend your claim that ancient aliens theory is accurate.



> Btw we have met before under different username


How convenient. :roll


----------



## sirbey

ugh1979 said:


> We're bang on topic. I've been asking you to defend your claim that ancient aliens theory is accurate.


I already did that and you gave me your rebutle what more is there?

Its just not fun to speak with you because its not like your ever just exchanging ideas and knowledge in an approachable way your attitude is always "nah your wrong. Im right." I respect your intellect but I dont respect how you express it. To me you come off as pompous arrogant and condesending.


----------



## ugh1979

sirbey said:


> I already did that and you gave me your rebutle what more is there?


You only gave me one reply on topic then said you didn't want me to respond. I want to hear more of your answers to the on topic questions I asked you. Instead, you started complaining about my debating style.



> Its just not fun to speak with you because its not like your ever just exchanging ideas and knowledge in an approachable way your attitude is always "nah your wrong. Im right."


Again you are only focusing on the cases where I completely or largely disagree with people (like you in this case), so of course my premise is that i'm right and your wrong.

Every discussion is on a spectrum of agreeability. It's easier for people to forget about the agreeable ones. If _we've_ never had an agreeable discussion then it doesn't surprise me you have the warped view that I disagree with _everyone_.



> I respect your intellect but I dont respect how you express it. To me you come off as pompous arrogant and condesending.


When people makes statements like this:



> either ancient aliens theory is accurate OR the earth and more specifically humanity is A LOT older than we think




> i was just indulging in a pseudo-scientific theory and reiterating evidence from it to respond to you.



...i'm not going to give respectful replies.


----------



## sirbey

ugh1979 said:


> ...i'm not going to give respectful replies.


why?


----------



## ugh1979

sirbey said:


> why?


Because they aren't statements worthy of respect. Not every statement is worthy of respect.

I've already explained why I don't respect them in earlier posts which you are free to respond to.


----------



## sirbey

ugh1979 said:


> Because they aren't statements worthy of respect. Not every statement is worthy of respect.
> 
> I've already explained why I don't respect them in earlier posts which you are free to respond to.


i read what you said and absorbed the information what difference does a response make? i already said you won the debate.

see your objective isnt to spread knowledge or to inform people when they have incorrect facts. youre just trying to prove people wrong to satisfy your own narcissism.


----------



## ugh1979

sirbey said:


> i read what you said and absorbed the information what difference does a response make? i already said you won the debate.


No you said I _thought _I won the debate, which infers _you _didn't think I had. If you are actually admitting I have won the debate then that's fine and the debate is over.



> see your objective isnt to spread knowledge or to inform people when they have incorrect facts. youre just trying to prove people wrong to satisfy your own narcissism.


I have various objectives. Sharing knowledge often also corrects misconceptions and highlight fallacies. Why would/should I only have one objective?


----------



## sirbey

ugh1979 said:


> No you said I _thought _I won the debate, which infers _you _didn't think I had. If you are actually admitting I have won the debate then that's fine and the debate is over.
> 
> *I have various objectives. Sharing knowledge often also corrects misconceptions and highlight fallacies.Why would/should I only have one objective?*


*

i dont know how to quote multiple things but this is copy and paste

"but i guess you got me this time with your great logic and reasoning skills oh mighty science man....congrats"

no see thats just the means to an end of satisfying the narcissism.

either way debate over

the fact that i had to have this conversation with you is silly*


----------



## ugh1979

sirbey said:


> i dont know how to quote multiple things but this is copy and paste
> 
> "but i guess you got me this time with your great logic and reasoning skills oh mighty science man....congrats"
> 
> *no see thats just the means to an end of satisfying the narcissism.*
> 
> either way debate over
> 
> the fact that i had to have this conversation with you is silly


Your quoted comment came across as highly sarcastic, so I had no reason to think you had genuinely admitted defeat.


----------



## duckie

tehuti88 said:


> we don't give ancient human civilizations nearly enough credit.


+1

history books don't tell the whole story.


----------



## Ladymalis

Of course there's ancient beings out there. It be illogical to think otherwise. Now just imagine the magnitude of knowledge, "powers" they must possess. Crazy to think about but no doubt about it.


----------



## Sindelle

I don't think its beyond the realm of possibility that an advanced alien civilization visited the earth, but I don't think they built the pyramids or anything.


----------



## Darktower776

I would just like to know how all those ancient peoples moves and LIFTED those gigantic stones to create all the megalithic structures like Stonehenge and the trilithon at Baalbek.

What techniques or technology did they have back then that we can't figure out today?


----------



## ugh1979

Darktower776 said:


> I would just like to know how all those ancient peoples moves and LIFTED those gigantic stones to create all the megalithic structures like Stonehenge and the trilithon at Baalbek.
> 
> What techniques or technology did they have back then that we can't figure out today?


There are numerous plausible hypotheses on the web for this kind of ancient engineering, many which have been demonstrated to work. We'll probably never know exactly how they were built as there are obvious various ways it could have been done.

Transporting the Trilithon Stones of Baalbek: It's About Applied Physics, Not Ancient Aliens

Our ancestors were as inventive as us, and it's a discredit to them to suggest they were incapable of such engineering so must have had the help of some external 'superpower'.


----------



## duckie

Darktower776 said:


> I would just like to know how all those ancient peoples moves and LIFTED those gigantic stones to create all the megalithic structures like Stonehenge and the trilithon at Baalbek.
> 
> What techniques or technology did they have back then that we can't figure out today?


you and me both. egyptologist are the only people who seem to dismiss alternative views which makes me suspicious that the real facts have been covered up. any real scientist would be open to all possibilities.

have you seen any of the documentary's claiming the pyramids were power plants? if those docs. are on to something then i suspect ancient technology has been hidden/suppressed for any number of reasons by the people that run this world today.


----------



## ugh1979

duckie said:


> you and me both. egyptologist are the only people who seem to dismiss alternative views which makes me suspicious that the real facts have been covered up. any real scientist would be open to all possibilities.


You are sorely mistaken if you don't think the vast majority of the professional community in relevant fields think there is a conspiracy.

Scientists have no reason to give answers which have poor/no evidence any merit when there are other answers which are better substantiated.



> have you seen any of the documentary's claiming the pyramids were power plants? if those docs. are on to something then i suspect ancient technology has been hidden/suppressed for any number of reasons by the people that run this world today.


Once any of the claims in those type of docs starts getting published in credible journals, then it may be time to say they may be on to something.

Until then, it's really just fantastical conspiracy crap.


----------



## duckie

ugh1979 said:


> Scientists have no reason to give answers which have poor/no evidence any merit when there are other answers which are better substantiated.


umm, actually some do when their paycheck is signed by special interest groups. just take a look at the whole global warming debate.


----------



## ugh1979

duckie said:


> umm, actually some do when their paycheck is signed by special interest groups. just take a look at the whole global warming debate.


So you've went to all non-Egyptologists to 'some'. That 'some' is in fact a fringe group who aren't taken seriously by the vast majority of relevant professionals.


----------



## Darktower776

ugh1979 said:


> There are numerous plausible hypotheses on the web for this kind of ancient engineering, many which have been demonstrated to work. We'll probably never know exactly how they were built as there are obvious various ways it could have been done.
> 
> Transporting the Trilithon Stones of Baalbek: It's About Applied Physics, Not Ancient Aliens
> 
> Our ancestors were as inventive as us, and it's a discredit to them to suggest they were incapable of such engineering so must have had the help of some external 'superpower'.


Well I'm not really suggesting it was AA's or not. This subject of building megalithic structures has always been fascinating to me. Just the knowledge and ingenuity that ancient people's appeared to have possessed but that has been lost or muddled by time is very interesting.

The fact that so many different cultures all over the planet were able to do this at different times in the ancient past, but then later "forgot" how is a nice mystery.

Some of the moving the stone theories I've seen make some sense but the lifting of the stones like at Stonehenge seem more mysterious.


----------



## ugh1979

Darktower776 said:


> Well I'm not really suggesting it was AA's or not.


Fair enough. 



> This subject of building megalithic structures has always been fascinating to me. Just the knowledge and ingenuity that ancient people's appeared to have possessed but that has been lost or muddled by time is very interesting.
> 
> The fact that so many different cultures all over the planet were able to do this at different times in the ancient past, but then later "forgot" how is a nice mystery.


I don't really find it that mysterious. The civilisations you are talking about that built mega-structures simply didn't really have a way to document the engineering knowledge. When the engineers died off with the demise of the civilisations the knowledge died with them.



> Some of the moving the stone theories I've seen make some sense but the lifting of the stones like at Stonehenge seem more mysterious.


Indeed some answers are more enigmatic than others.


----------



## Darktower776

ugh1979 said:


> Indeed some answers are more enigmatic than others.


Do you think that those ancient peoples that built such amazing things were smarter than modern people give them credit for or that they had more advanced tools and techniques than most people today think they had? Some of the things that were built seem unlikely to be accomplished with the tools that they supposedly had.

It is hard to know what to believe from so many "expert" opinions. Like some of the carved stone objects like ancient Egyptian obelisks. Some have said that the precision is too great for a human with a chisel and hammer to make. I don't know if that is true or not? Other things that they say would take a human mason almost a lifetime to carve by hand and would be illogical to do so.


----------



## Sacrieur

Darktower776 said:


> I would just like to know how all those ancient peoples moves and LIFTED those gigantic stones to create all the megalithic structures like Stonehenge and the trilithon at Baalbek.
> 
> What techniques or technology did they have back then that we can't figure out today?


Slaves. And a knowledge of basic machines.


----------



## sirbey




----------



## ugh1979

Darktower776 said:


> Do you think that those ancient peoples that built such amazing things were smarter than modern people give them credit for or that they had more advanced tools and techniques than most people today think they had? Some of the things that were built seem unlikely to be accomplished with the tools that they supposedly had.


I think that they were smarter than modern people typically give them credit for, and that they had techniques that are unknown to us now. I don't think they had particularly advanced tools.



> It is hard to know what to believe from so many "expert" opinions. Like some of the carved stone objects like ancient Egyptian obelisks. Some have said that the precision is too great for a human with a chisel and hammer to make. I don't know if that is true or not? Other things that they say would take a human mason almost a lifetime to carve by hand and would be illogical to do so.


It may have been possible for thousands of very highly skilled masons working on the projects. I guess we'll never know for sure.


----------



## ugh1979

Sacrieur said:


> Slaves. And a knowledge of basic machines.


No one knows for sure of course, but there is evidence on the sites of various ancient mega-structures that indicate it was probably built by people who wanted to build it.

It would surely have been a great honour and desire for many to contribute to these projects, and whole communities would have been involved.


----------



## pazuzuinxs

ugh1979 said:


> No one knows for sure of course, but there is evidence on the sites of various ancient mega-structures that indicate it was probably built by people who wanted to build it.
> 
> It would surely have been a great honour and desire for many to contribute to these projects, and whole communities would have been involved.


And stonehenge always does come to mind. Not sure whether you have seen it, but it is one of the few things which actually makes me wonder about aliens.


----------



## ugh1979

pazuzuinxs said:


> And stonehenge always does come to mind. Not sure whether you have seen it, but it is one of the few things which actually makes me wonder about aliens.


Really? I wouldn't call it as impressive as various other ancient structures.


----------



## pazuzuinxs

ugh1979 said:


> Really? I wouldn't call it as impressive as various other ancient structures.


Sure, there are and can be loads of others. The Bali temples come to mind as well, which of course many might not consider impressive at all.


----------



## DPRK

"Ancient alien" propaganda and the TV show with the same title are among the most embarrassing things to EVER plague humanity.


----------



## Zyriel

DPRK said:


> "Ancient alien" propaganda and the TV show with the same title are among the most embarrassing things to EVER plague humanity.


And why would that be? I have read the various comments in this thread already arguing against it. However it is entertainment, not fact. It is speculation, and I for one enjoy thinking about, "what if's" and discussing possibilities. Same goes for any religion or philosophy. There is no way to prove, nor disprove anything either way and it goes on "faith" or "belief" pretty much for anyone who "believes" in anything of that nature. Discussing an idea, is just that, you don't have to necessarily "believe" in anything to find it interesting, and discuss it. That is how various schools of thought and cultural exchanges take place. Something which horribly lacks in the modern world thanks to social media, political correctness, and a cultural hegemony of western, dare I say, christian ethos that encompasses the world in terms of morality and thought.


----------



## pazuzuinxs

Zyriel said:


> And why would that be? I have read the various comments in this thread already arguing against it. However it is entertainment, not fact. It is speculation, and I for one enjoy thinking about, "what if's" and discussing possibilities. Same goes for any religion or philosophy. There is no way to prove, nor disprove anything either way and it goes on "faith" or "belief" pretty much for anyone who "believes" in anything of that nature. Discussing an idea, is just that, you don't have to necessarily "believe" in anything to find it interesting, and discuss it. That is how various schools of thought and cultural exchanges take place. Something which horribly lacks in the modern world thanks to social media, political correctness, and a cultural hegemony of western, dare I say, christian ethos that encompasses the world in terms of morality and thought.


It's cool as long as it is entertainment. Some people like to take it for 'scientific facts' and others profess an implicit belief in aliens. That's when it sometimes shapes a turn from the innocuous to the malignant.


----------



## Zyriel

pazuzuinxs said:


> It's cool as long as it is entertainment. Some people like to take it for 'scientific facts' and others profess an implicit belief in aliens. That's when it sometimes shapes a turn from the innocuous to the malignant.


That just shows ignorance then lol. The existence of extraterrestrials is pretty much a given through sheer logic, thanks to scientific evidence of habitable planets, etc. The arrogance of humanity is astounding, to think it is the "only" species to have evolved in the cosmos, is quite inane given the probability of galaxies, stars, and planets in the known universe. Whether or not those species are intelligent on the level of humanity however, in terms of what "intelligent" is another question, one unprovable. Now if aliens traversed this planet? Again another question with no proof at all, which is why there is the "ancient aliens" theory lol. It is just that though a theory of various sources, etc. Honestly though many things which are theories are taken as facts across multiple frameworks and fields of thought.

Like you said it is entertainment, it gives people something to think about and keep their mind occupied. I think it's good to have people thinking, not enough use the organ between their ears these days, but seriously it's no different than any other show like River Monsters, Jackass, any anime, X-files, Game of Thrones etc.


----------



## RelinquishedHell

Watching this show when you're high will absolutely blow your mind.


----------



## ugh1979

RelinquishedHell said:


> Watching this show when you're high will absolutely blow your mind.


Maybe for those that don't know much about ancient anthropology, history etc.

Ancient alien stories are a modern substitute for religious/mythical stories.

I find credible evidence based theories far more mind blowing.


----------



## ugh1979

Zyriel said:


> Like you said it is entertainment, it gives people something to think about and keep their mind occupied. I think it's good to have people thinking, not enough use the organ between their ears these days, but seriously it's no different than any other show like River Monsters, Jackass, any anime, X-files, Game of Thrones etc.


Filling people's heads up with crap portrayed as truth is immoral and dishonest IMO. Nobody is watching anime, X-files or Game of Thrones thinking they are factual.


----------



## Zyriel

ugh1979 said:


> Filling people's heads up with crap portrayed as truth is immoral and dishonest IMO. Nobody is watching anime, X-files or Game of Thrones thinking they are factual.


It isn't portrayed as "truth". But truth itself is perception. The presenters pose questions to the audience most of the time. "Could this be?" If people want to take it as "truth" as you deem, then let them lol it's no different than any religion doing the same and taking people's money or any infomercial for that matter. "Buy this, you'll get so much money!", "Eat this, lose weight!" Etc lol.

Morality is subjective. What is wrong with thinking about things? Everything that once was, and is, was created in the mind from ideas which are turned into theories. Science comes out of a reason, and reason comes from philosophical questions, which comes out of creative thought.

I'm not saying anything is real or not, but one must ask, what defines "reality"? One the other hand, there are some people who believe X-files is real lol. If you were too research things such as project Bluebook, etc, some of the stories in the show were based on real accounts. Anime is cartoons, often based on a mixture of Japanese and Western mythology, which at one point was believed to be "real" lol. Game of Thrones again, is a rehash of historical events, and literature in different contexts, mixed together into a fantasy world. It inspires people to think creatively and come up with new ideas as all things are based on older ones. Again, I don't see the problem lol. What I see is various people who have a contempt for creative thought in general.


----------



## ugh1979

Zyriel said:


> It isn't portrayed as "truth". But truth itself is perception. The presenters pose questions to the audience most of the time. "Could this be?"




It's produced in a way that omits rational explanations in favour of fantastical ones. The truth of those fantastical claims is highly inferred.



> If people want to take it as "truth" as you deem, then let them lol it's no different than any religion doing the same and taking people's money or any infomercial for that matter. "Buy this, you'll get so much money!", "Eat this, lose weight!" Etc lol.


I'm not saying it should be banned, but it's as immoral as false advertising/parts of religion.



> Morality is subjective.


Of course. Being dishonest and underhand with things like this is immoral IMO, but obviously some people don't mind it.



> What is wrong with thinking about things? Everything that once was, and is, was created in the mind from ideas which are turned into theories. Science comes out of a reason, and reason comes from philosophical questions, which comes out of creative thought.


The trouble is crap like this ignores the science and offers fantastical alternative theories. It often makes people reject credible science/history in favour of unsubstantiated or poorly substantiated answers they prefer the sound of.

It's part of the ongoing war on intellectualism.



> I'm not saying anything is real or not, but one must ask, what defines "reality"?


Well there's a 10 page question. :lol



> One the other hand, there are some people who believe X-files is real lol.


...as there are people who believe Harry Potter is real. More fool them.



> If you were too research things such as project Bluebook, etc, some of the stories in the show were based on real accounts. Anime is cartoons, often based on a mixture of Japanese and Western mythology, which at one point was believed to be "real" lol. Game of Thrones again, is a rehash of historical events, and literature in different contexts, mixed together into a fantasy world. It inspires people to think creatively and come up with new ideas as all things are based on older ones. Again, I don't see the problem lol. What I see is various people who have a contempt for creative thought in general.


Yes they are sometimes based on what amount to myths, or very patchy "evidence", but that doesn't mean they should be portrayed as being true.

You can be creative _and _honest at the same time you know.


----------



## Zyriel

I do love my debates with you sir xD Only problem is the quoting, ughhh~ and not in terms of your username lol.



ugh1979 said:


> It's produced in a way that omits rational explanations in favour of fantastical ones. The truth of those fantastical claims is highly inferred.



That's because it wants people to "believe" it like any theory really. It is entertainment though, no different from the Onion or some mockumentary. Many people believe those are real too lol. Again it is produced to gather viewers, so getting highly charismatic and zealous people to the front would do just that for viewer ratings. Here's a quite funny one:






I'm sure that had a lot of people believing it to be true, like War of the Worlds being read over the radio xD



ugh1979 said:


> I'm not saying it should be banned, but it's as immoral as false advertising/parts of religion.
> 
> Of course. Being dishonest and underhand with things like this is immoral IMO, but obviously some people don't mind it.


Honestly, morality doesn't exist. It's a human conception based on Judeo-Christian ethics. Which that statement itself is a conundrum by using honestly haha. Frankly maybe instead. However, if people cannot discriminate fact from fiction then there are larger problems than "ancient aliens" lol. If someone believes a $39.99 book will make them a millionaire, then I'm sure ancient aliens would gladly have a new convert. If it wasn't that it would be something else anyway lol. 



ugh1979 said:


> The trouble is crap like this ignores the science and offers fantastical alternative theories. It often makes people reject credible science/history in favour of unsubstantiated or poorly substantiated answers they prefer the sound of.
> 
> It's part of the ongoing war on intellectualism.



Intellectualism in itself is thought or rather what provokes it. There is no war on it, it hardly exists. Most people throw facts at each other, without arguments, or logic behind such. Science is seeking a problem, providing a hypothesis, observing results, and coming to a conclusion. These things cannot be done on many of the claims or ideas proposed as there is no evidence. When it comes down to modern "science" many "theories" in the first place are a result of consensus of "educated" scientists. All with the same standard of schooling, and similar ideas, thus it is a cultural hegemony and not really science. Yet it is provided as "fact". I am in no way supporting the ancient aliens theory however, I do keep an open mind on the subject, as it cannot be proven without sufficient evidence to claims. 



ugh1979 said:


> Well there's a 10 page question.



Indeed lol something for a different time. xD



ugh1979 said:


> ...as there are people who believe Harry Potter is real. More fool them.


Haha that is true as well! There are people who believe many things, thanks to oral tradition and an overall ignorance, or lack of questioning to established patterns of thought. 



ugh1979 said:


> Yes they are sometimes based on what amount to myths, or very patchy "evidence", but that doesn't mean they should be portrayed as being true.
> 
> You can be creative _and _honest at the same time you know.


Most things are that, myths lol which were once based on history most likely, blown out of proportion. It is what gives humanity culture though. Patchy evidence too is no reason for people to jump to conclusions, especially without a method or means to test. But once again, truth is perception. Take for example 3 blind men trying to describe something they have never seen, all they could do is guess or rely on "facts" provided by people who have sight. However, how do they know these facts are real if they cannot be experienced. If you told someone blind all elephants were pink, and everyone they ever met agreed, that would be "truth" to them lol. Only reason we all agree on the same ideas is because we are not exposed to other ideas or "facts". The human eye can only view a limited spectrum of light, and within it, certain colors stand out more than others for the basis of survival as our neural pathways have all evolved the same way. But if someone really did see a "pink" elephant, as everyone else saw grey, they wouldn't necessarily be "lieing" or "wrong" their brain would have just evolved differently, with different neural connections. That is something that happens in a rare condition called 'synthesia':

http://www.livescience.com/169-rare-real-people-feel-taste-hear-color.html


----------



## ugh1979

Zyriel said:


> I do love my debates with you sir xD Only problem is the quoting, ughhh~ and not in terms of your username lol.


What's the problem with them? It's more efficient and clearer than trying to respond to a multitude of points at once.



> That's because it wants people to "believe" it like any theory really. It is entertainment though, no different from the Onion or some mockumentary. Many people believe those are real too lol. Again it is produced to gather viewers, so getting highly charismatic and zealous people to the front would do just that for viewer ratings. Here's a quite funny one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that had a lot of people believing it to be true, like War of the Worlds being read over the radio xD


It's fine if it's just being viewed as entertainment, but it's telling typically gullible people what they want to hear which reinforces their fantastical beliefs, which as I say, is part of the war on intellectualism.

Its far clearer the Onion for example is satire.



> Honestly, morality doesn't exist.


Morality certainly does exist. Subjective morality that is. We can clearly observe it. True objective morality on the other hand has no evidence for it's existence.



> It's a human conception based on Judeo-Christian ethics.


Morality long pre-dates Judeo-Christian ethics. Judeo-Christian ethics are based on pre-existing morality.



> However, if people cannot discriminate fact from fiction then there are larger problems than "ancient aliens" lol. If someone believes a $39.99 book will make them a millionaire, then I'm sure ancient aliens would gladly have a new convert. If it wasn't that it would be something else anyway lol.


People in general are terrible at discriminating fact from fiction, so ideally we shouldn't make it even harder for them do so.



> Intellectualism in itself is thought or rather what provokes it. There is no war on it, it hardly exists.


There is a war on it, that's why it hardly exists, as it's oppressed.

Anti-intellectualism is taking over the US



> Most things are that, myths lol which were once based on history most likely, blown out of proportion. It is what gives humanity culture though.




I wouldn't say "most" things are myths. Some are, but only a small part of the sum of human culture.



> Patchy evidence too is no reason for people to jump to conclusions, especially without a method or means to test.


If the claim is unfalsifiable and has poor/no supporting evidence then a conclusion can be made that it's implausible.



> But once again, truth is perception. Take for example 3 blind men trying to describe something they have never seen, all they could do is guess or rely on "facts" provided by people who have sight. However, how do they know these facts are real if they cannot be experienced. If you told someone blind all elephants were pink, and everyone they ever met agreed, that would be "truth" to them lol. Only reason we all agree on the same ideas is because we are not exposed to other ideas or "facts". The human eye can only view a limited spectrum of light, and within it, certain colors stand out more than others for the basis of survival as our neural pathways have all evolved the same way. But if someone really did see a "pink" elephant, as everyone else saw grey, they wouldn't necessarily be "lieing" or "wrong" their brain would have just evolved differently, with different neural connections. That is something that happens in a rare condition called 'synthesia':





> http://www.livescience.com/169-rare-real-people-feel-taste-hear-color.html


There is subjective truth/reality, such as in the case of the experience of colour, and there is objective truth/reality, which is how things are when you aren't personally experiencing them. The latter is contentious depending on what interpretation of quantum mechanics you follow. Some people claim the moon doesn't exist when you aren't looking at it for example. I believe it does, and that it has objective properties that don't rely on my experience of them.

Personal experiences are highly prone to fallacy, which is why we use scientific methods to achieve approximations of objective truth/reality. All we can do is keep refining these approximations so as to be as accurate as we possibly can in what we believe to be the objective truth/reality.


----------



## pazuzuinxs

Zyriel said:


> That just shows ignorance then lol. The existence of extraterrestrials is pretty much a given through sheer logic, thanks to scientific evidence of habitable planets, etc. The arrogance of humanity is astounding, to think it is the "only" species to have evolved in the cosmos, is quite inane given the probability of galaxies, stars, and planets in the known universe. Whether or not those species are intelligent on the level of humanity however, in terms of what "intelligent" is another question, one unprovable. Now if aliens traversed this planet? Again another question with no proof at all, which is why there is the "ancient aliens" theory lol. It is just that though a theory of various sources, etc. Honestly though many things which are theories are taken as facts across multiple frameworks and fields of thought.
> 
> Like you said it is entertainment, it gives people something to think about and keep their mind occupied. I think it's good to have people thinking, not enough use the organ between their ears these days, but seriously it's no different than any other show like River Monsters, Jackass, any anime, X-files, Game of Thrones etc.


You presented some interesting arguments to ugh, so thought I will give a quick response. We have an inherent need for closure, for a resolution, so we see patterns where there might not be any, or logic when there is none to be found. We categorize things, label them and be satisfied with it. So people fall into camps of whether there are aliens or not, rather than agreeing that a satisfactory answer may never be found. You will try using probabilities and bayesian statistics and build a hypothetical set of atmospheres where aliens might stay---all good intellectual exercises but we may be abrking up the wrong tree. Alchemy anyone?


----------



## Zyriel

ugh1979 said:


> What's the problem with them? It's more efficient and clearer than trying to respond to a multitude of points at once.


Ohhh haha didn't mean in like that. Sorry^^ it's not a problem in that regard, I don't dispute it, it is efficient. The problem is I'm lazy  You ante though, so the stakes are raised, as is the bar for a proper quoted response xD 




ugh1979 said:


> It's fine if it's just being viewed as entertainment, but it's telling typically gullible people what they want to hear which reinforces their fantastical beliefs, which as I say, is part of the war on intellectualism.
> 
> Its far clearer the Onion for example is satire.


And what's wrong with that? Lol throughout history there have been people who believed in all sorts of fantastical things. Honestly it makes life interesting, I wouldn't want to be around people throwing facts at each other all day nodding like robots lol. Life itself is a game, and we are pieces, all in play, all in motion, but most never amount to more than a pawn. So why not make that game more fun by adding in a variety of variables xD 



ugh1979 said:


> Morality certainly does exist. Subjective morality that is. We can clearly observe it. True objective morality on the other hand has no evidence for it's existence.
> 
> Morality long pre-dates Judeo-Christian ethics. Judeo-Christian ethics are based on pre-existing morality.


In a sense yes. But ethics themselves are subjective in nature. Even prior to Judeo-Christian version of the Abrahamic variety. We see no Buddhist, Hindu, Pagan etc. ethics in modern times unless they were adopted by Christianity. I for one don't believe in Christian beliefs, their god, or laws, therefore I am not subject to their ethics, nor do I like them enforced. 



ugh1979 said:


> People in general are terrible at discriminating fact from fiction, so ideally we shouldn't make it even harder for them do so.
> 
> There is a war on it, that's why it hardly exists, as it's oppressed.
> 
> Anti-intellectualism is taking over the US


Oh well, that my friend, that would be natural selection xD If people cannot discriminate they're not worthy of understanding anything. One has to be ready to think for oneself, to free oneself from the path of the trodden. All that takes is asking the right questions and seeking answers. Intellect is something that is naturally inherent. People can gain knowledge, but not usually intellect and only a very few actually obtain wisdom.

Thank you, that was an interesting read. It isn't really a war though, it isn't new. I have experienced such in the past with a few of the teachers that lost their jobs due to similar situations. 

You or other people may find this interesting:





Not using it to support anything, just linking it as it somewhat pertains to the topic. A huge problem is what is taught, or rather what isn't taught. For example, asking penetrating questions, coming to conclusions based on logic. Instead of learning to use Psychology, people are taught the history of it, same with Philosophy and various other fields. People don't think, they just acquire random knowledge, but not the how or why of most things across multiple frameworks to see how events happen, history unfolds, and things begin in terms of causality. 




ugh1979 said:


> I wouldn't say "most" things are myths. Some are, but only a small part of the sum of human culture.


Mythology is a large part of human history, and founded religions, cultures, ideologies, etc. Many historical events such as battles and even people were immortalized in mythology which gives a foundation to the very morals we were speaking of earlier. Their personal traits and achievements gave way to whole ways of acting, thinking. I think that is quite a large part of history when so many empires rose and fell, and knowledge along with it. Most of what is "history" however cannot be proven either. It is written accounts and interpretations of what we "think" happened based on "experts" who interpret with a modern mentality, not one of the time period. 



ugh1979 said:


> If the claim is unfalsifiable and has poor/no supporting evidence then a conclusion can be made that it's implausible.
> 
> There is subjective truth/reality, such as in the case of the experience of colour, and there is objective truth/reality, which is how things are when you aren't personally experiencing them. The latter is contentious depending on what interpretation of quantum mechanics you follow. Some people claim the moon doesn't exist when you aren't looking at it for example. I believe it does, and that it has objective properties that don't rely on my experience of them.
> 
> Personal experiences are highly prone to fallacy, which is why we use scientific methods to achieve approximations of objective truth/reality. All we can do is keep refining these approximations so as to be as accurate as we possibly can in what we believe to be the objective truth/reality.


I won't debate you there. In order to understand an interpretation of objectivity, one must then understand consciousness and what constitutes it. How can one accurately observe something it is part of? We are all made of subatomic particles at the lowest level, but if matter itself is energy, and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. So in that sense, all energy itself is sound. However sound, matter, objectivity are all words, just that, variables for our minds to interpret as ideas. Again, ideas which are forged in what we call "consciousness" which is not objective at all, nor can it be measured, tested or even verified as what it is.

Here's something else people may find interesting (great show called Closer to Truth) lol:


----------



## Zyriel

pazuzuinxs said:


> You presented some interesting arguments to ugh, so thought I will give a quick response. We have an inherent need for closure, for a resolution, so we see patterns where there might not be any, or logic when there is none to be found. We categorize things, label them and be satisfied with it. So people fall into camps of whether there are aliens or not, rather than agreeing that a satisfactory answer may never be found. You will try using probabilities and bayesian statistics and build a hypothetical set of atmospheres where aliens might stay---all good intellectual exercises but we may be abrking up the wrong tree. Alchemy anyone?


That is just the modern world, since everything is on a time for time(money) basis now. Many people never take the time to think and have had years of social conditioning in public or private schooling, as well as pre-conceived beliefs which constitute their "reality". Many fear anything outside those ideas, and the instability it provides psychologically.

In that sense of probabilities in regards to aliens, you or others may find this interesting. Alien Planet, a docufiction of a hypothetical atmosphere for a whole ecosystem, based on actual science:






Yes I would like that renaissance world very much, with occult alchemic practices xD World now is so boring and people just accept everything without the fun experimentation and discovery lol. What is even more ironic is most of the people now who accept and support scientific facts in the contemporary world, would most likely have scoffed at them, if they would have been raised in a world where it was seen as "occult" lol being raised on "traditional" values, which again focus on stability.


----------



## ugh1979

Zyriel said:


> Ohhh haha didn't mean in like that. Sorry^^ it's not a problem in that regard, I don't dispute it, it is efficient. The problem is I'm lazy  You ante though, so the stakes are raised, as is the bar for a proper quoted response xD


Fair enough. 



> And what's wrong with that? Lol throughout history there have been people who believed in all sorts of fantastical things. Honestly it makes life interesting, I wouldn't want to be around people throwing facts at each other all day nodding like robots lol. Life itself is a game, and we are pieces, all in play, all in motion, but most never amount to more than a pawn. So why not make that game more fun by adding in a variety of variables xD


It's a balance. If we lived in a society which promoted the fantastical and unsubstantiated over the rational and substantiated we'd still be living in the dark ages.

The shift in thinking from the former to the latter in key areas was what ushered in the Enlightenment and the modern world.

My issue is that the more people that think it's OK to reject science/evidence in favour of fantastical ideas the worse society will become. Just look at global warming for example. Rejection of it dangerous to our future prosperity, safety and standard of living.



> In a sense yes. But ethics themselves are subjective in nature. Even prior to Judeo-Christian version of the Abrahamic variety. We see no Buddhist, Hindu, Pagan etc. ethics in modern times unless they were adopted by Christianity. I for one don't believe in Christian beliefs, their god, or laws, therefore I am not subject to their ethics, nor do I like them enforced.


Many core ethics are found across cultures, religious or secular. Of course there are many others which are rejected.

However I'm not clear about what point you were trying to make that hadn't already been made.



> Oh well, that my friend, that would be natural selection xD If people cannot discriminate they're not worthy of understanding anything. One has to be ready to think for oneself, to free oneself from the path of the trodden. All that takes is asking the right questions and seeking answers. Intellect is something that is naturally inherent. People can gain knowledge, but not usually intellect and only a very few actually obtain wisdom.


Unfortunately those of lower intellect are more likely to breed so natural selection may result in lower average intelligence in our species.

It's easier to be ignorant than it is to be informed, and many people like to take the easy route.



> Thank you, that was an interesting read. It isn't really a war though, it isn't new. I have experienced such in the past with a few of the teachers that lost their jobs due to similar situations.


It's a war in the sense that 'battles', sometimes in court, occur between groups which promote intellectual agendas and those who promote religious/supernatural etc agendas.



> You or other people may find this interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not using it to support anything, just linking it as it somewhat pertains to the topic. A huge problem is what is taught, or rather what isn't taught. For example, asking penetrating questions, coming to conclusions based on logic. Instead of learning to use Psychology, people are taught the history of it, same with Philosophy and various other fields. People don't think, they just acquire random knowledge, but not the how or why of most things across multiple frameworks to see how events happen, history unfolds, and things begin in terms of causality.


I'll pass on watching a 2+hr doc on US education as I'm going out soon. Thanks anyway though. 



> Mythology is a large part of human history, and founded religions, cultures, ideologies, etc. Many historical events such as battles and even people were immortalized in mythology which gives a foundation to the very morals we were speaking of earlier. Their personal traits and achievements gave way to whole ways of acting, thinking. I think that is quite a large part of history when so many empires rose and fell, and knowledge along with it. Most of what is "history" however cannot be proven either. It is written accounts and interpretations of what we "think" happened based on "experts" who interpret with a modern mentality, not one of the time period.


I don't disagree with what you are saying other than how big a part it played. Yes it played a significant part, but I'd say "most" of human culture being based on myths an overstatement.



> I won't debate you there. In order to understand an interpretation of objectivity, one must then understand consciousness and what constitutes it. How can one accurately observe something it is part of? We are all made of subatomic particles at the lowest level, but if matter itself is energy, and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. So in that sense, all energy itself is sound. However sound, matter, objectivity are all words, just that, variables for our minds to interpret as ideas. Again, ideas which are forged in what we call "consciousness" which is not objective at all, nor can it be measured, tested or even verified as what it is.




We need to understand a multitude of properties of the universe in order to make accurate approximations of truth about it.

You say energy is sound, but in fact sound is energy. On a related note (no pun intended), I love the elegance of string theory which posits that fundamental particles are superstrings vibrating at different frequencies, which is akin to how stringed instruments create sound. In that sense, we are all part of a cosmic orchestra.


----------



## RelinquishedHell

ugh1979 said:


> Maybe for those that don't know much about ancient anthropology, history etc.
> 
> Ancient alien stories are a modern substitute for religious/mythical stories.
> 
> I find credible evidence based theories far more mind blowing.


You've obviously never been baked.


----------



## DanCan

just watched a ufo Docu on netflix called Out of the Blue. I thought it was pretty good. They interviewed lots of 'credible' people who have seen ufos. Mostly military people. Got some presidents on there too. :O


----------



## DPRK

Zyriel said:


> And why would that be? I have read the various comments in this thread already arguing against it. However it is entertainment, not fact. It is speculation, and I for one enjoy thinking about, "what if's" and discussing possibilities. Same goes for any religion or philosophy. There is no way to prove, nor disprove anything either way and it goes on "faith" or "belief" pretty much for anyone who "believes" in anything of that nature. Discussing an idea, is just that, you don't have to necessarily "believe" in anything to find it interesting, and discuss it. That is how various schools of thought and cultural exchanges take place. Something which horribly lacks in the modern world thanks to social media, political correctness, and a cultural hegemony of western, dare I say, christian ethos that encompasses the world in terms of morality and thought.


I'm all for open-minded discussion, but my beef with "ancient aliens" is that it is propagated way too seriously for its own good, especially on a channel like the History channel. Just seems like they are trying too hard to make it seem legitimate and make it look like fact as opposed to fiction. I've seen the show, I've researched the topic extensively, and it is creative science fiction and nothing more. If ANYONE can uncover some solid evidence about it, I will change my tone. But too many people I know seem to believe in this nonsense, which is stupid.


----------



## ugh1979

RelinquishedHell said:


> You've obviously never been baked.


To the contrary, I'm an experienced psychonaut.

I can assure you the combination of that in conjunction with evidence-based knowledge is far more mind-blowing than getting baked and falling for ancient alien theories and such like.

I remember getting baked as a kid and believing some pseudo-science, but in time I gained a level of eduction to know it is pseudo-science, and that actual science is often far more awesome as it is intellectually honest.


----------



## ugh1979

DPRK said:


> I'm all for open-minded discussion, but my beef with "ancient aliens" is that it is propagated way too seriously for its own good, especially on a channel like the History channel. Just seems like they are trying too hard to make it seem legitimate and make it look like fact as opposed to fiction. I've seen the show, I've researched the topic extensively, and it is creative science fiction and nothing more. If ANYONE can uncover some solid evidence about it, I will change my tone. But too many people I know seem to believe in this nonsense, which is stupid.


Indeed.

I've not watched this all the way through but from what i've seen it's effective at debunking these ancient aliens claims:


----------



## Zyriel

ugh1979 said:


> We need to understand a multitude of properties of the universe in order to make accurate approximations of truth about it.
> 
> You say energy is sound, but in fact sound is energy. On a related note (no pun intended), I love the elegance of string theory which posits that fundamental particles are superstrings vibrating at different frequencies, which is akin to how stringed instruments create sound. In that sense, we are all part of a cosmic orchestra.


We just pretty much agreed on everything though at the end haha. Besides cultural overstates of mythology, I tend to generalize everything and sometimes oversimplify but aside from that, the same points being made or expounded on. The only difference is our philosophies on life, and the direction of the human species.

The problem is with lower intellect people breeding more (Lol Idiocracy), no matter how much they "learn" there will always be something to take that void. It is the socio-economic structure of society that creates such a class, and the media/entertainment industry as a whole that needs reworking. But the focus in itself is money, and whatever sells is whatever will be promoted, regardless of ethics. I agree some morality is needed for society to function, however I don't think it is inherent in the species, however humanity has evolved what could be deemed, 'compassion' over the years for survival sake.

Haha that was great, with the pun xD As well as the analogy of string theory being a cosmic orchestra! Very elegant sir^^


----------



## Zyriel

DPRK said:


> I'm all for open-minded discussion, but my beef with "ancient aliens" is that it is propagated way too seriously for its own good, especially on a channel like the History channel. Just seems like they are trying too hard to make it seem legitimate and make it look like fact as opposed to fiction. I've seen the show, I've researched the topic extensively, and it is creative science fiction and nothing more. If ANYONE can uncover some solid evidence about it, I will change my tone. But too many people I know seem to believe in this nonsense, which is stupid.


As I discussed prior with Ugh, it is something that is made for the purpose of entertainment, but also what "sells". That is the way the economy works, and especially the media industry. Honestly, if it wasn't "Ancient Aliens" it would be Christianity, Scientology, something lol. Word of mouth is a popular and often chosen means of support for ideas, which is why propaganda has worked so well in the past for various wars, ideologies, regimes, smear campaigns, etc. Subliminal messaging and social conditioning are present in all facets of modern society. As well as Religions, still being widely accepted around the world without any proof or reasoning behind such. So a new "Religion" if you want to call it, of Ancient Aliens is really no different if people think that same way in almost every part of their lives to make decisions.


----------



## ugh1979

Zyriel said:


> I agree some morality is needed for society to function, however I don't think it is inherent in the species, however humanity has evolved what could be deemed, 'compassion' over the years for survival sake.


I think we have evolved a tendency to behave in certain ways, but it's not just being empathic. In general we also seem to have an inherent inclination for justice and not to abuse or kill each other.

These amount to a core sense of morality that is found the world over, which suggests it evolved as a means to live harmoniously in social groups which is beneficial to the survival of our species.

Of course the less connected genetically/socially someone is with another person the less likely these apply, which makes sense from an evolutionary perspective where we are geared to further our genetic line.

Anyway, we're getting off topic there. There is a big thread about this on the religious debate forum at the moment.


----------



## Umpalumpa

Zyriel said:


> As I discussed prior with Ugh, it is something that is made for the purpose of entertainment, but also what "sells". That is the way the economy works, and especially the media industry. Honestly, if it wasn't "Ancient Aliens" it would be Christianity, Scientology, something lol. Word of mouth is a popular and often chosen means of support for ideas, which is why propaganda has worked so well in the past for various wars, ideologies, regimes, smear campaigns, etc. Subliminal messaging and social conditioning are present in all facets of modern society. As well as Religions, still being widely accepted around the world without any proof or reasoning behind such. So a new "Religion" if you want to call it, of Ancient Aliens is really no different if people think that same way in almost every part of their lives to make decisions.


Don't underestimate the difference between things (The existence of one thing and not of other, the given name of that thing...everything changes patterns and variables, although we can say that us humans are quite similiarity in our behavior patterns (or just patterns overall) the existence of something given changes the whole 'game', or to say it better the existence itself is all that there is to it.


----------



## MobiusX

Rhymes penetrate the mind through deep meditation
so focus what I'm sayin' as I remain concentrated
for the last past days I prayed in a cave isolated
same place during the Ice Age the Natives migrated 
witness strange observations of alien invasions
from early civilizations and today's greatest nations
it's not speculations, study facts, documentations
stories corroborated by Nasa's airspace stations


----------



## ugh1979

MobiusX said:


> Rhymes penetrate the mind through deep meditation
> so focus what I'm sayin' as I remain concentrated
> for the last past days I prayed in a cave isolated
> same place during the Ice Age Natives migrated
> witness strange observations of alien invasions
> from early civilizations and today's greatest nations
> it's not speculations, study facts, documentations
> stories corroborated by Nasa's airspace stations


Are those hip-hop lyrics? :?


----------



## Zyriel

ugh1979 said:


> Of course the less connected genetically/socially someone is with another person the less likely these apply, which makes sense from an evolutionary perspective where we are geared to further our genetic line.
> 
> Anyway, we're getting off topic there. There is a big thread about this on the religious debate forum at the moment.


That really make me think sir lol thank you!

And yes you're right, sorry for the inconvenience to anyone else^^;; Also thanks for the heads up, I may go check it out lol. 



Umpalumpa said:


> Don't underestimate the difference between things (The existence of one thing and not of other, the given name of that thing...everything changes patterns and variables, although we can say that us humans are quite similiarity in our behavior patterns (or just patterns overall) the existence of something given changes the whole 'game', or to say it better the existence itself is all that there is to it.


Ohh I do not sir, I take each "thing" indepedently, but for the sake of convenience, and exploring ideas, I use words that are understood, such as "religion" to denote a broad spectrum of similar ideas. What I am stating, is that "beliefs" are a driving force in human existence. They make a vast part of human society and the underlying patterns which people perceive as normality or to an extent, morality. We call this, culture, philosophy, religion, depending on the context and the amount of "belief" in the subject, or geographical location, demographic group, etc. Existence itself is something humans can probably, never truly understand, by existing lol. The "how" is studied in science to see what occurs, and how it can be quantified. However, the "why" on the other case, is a perplexing, never ending question, that minds since the beginning of civilization have been questioning.

On a different note to get back to the "theory" of ancient aliens lol or rather the show. As this pertains to the topic somewhat, here are two videos from actual physicists and their opinions on the existence of extra-terrestrials. Both are diametrically opposed in their views lol which takes a large psychological question into play based on their own distinct patterns of thinking. As well as the psychology present in the human species (all we can use as a gauge into evolution and intelligent life), is the known history of humanity, and the philosophies behind such actions:

Stephen Hawking:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/...iens_n_551035.html#s84595&title=Charlie_Rose_

"To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational," Hawking says in a new Discovery Channel series called Stephen Hawking's Universe. "The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like."

"He suggests that aliens might simply raid Earth for its resources and then move on: "We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet. I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonise whatever planets they can reach."

"He concludes that trying to make contact with alien races is "a little too risky". He said: "If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn't turn out very well for the Native Americans."

Michio Kaku:


----------



## ugh1979

Zyriel said:


> On a different note to get back to the "theory" of ancient aliens lol or rather the show. As this pertains to the topic somewhat, here are two videos from actual physicists and their opinions on the existence of extra terrestrials. Both are diametrically opposed in their views lol which takes a large psychological question into play based on their own distinct patterns of thinking. As well as the psychology present in the human species (all we can use as a gauge into evolution and intelligent life), is the known history of humanity, and the philosophies behind such actions:
> 
> Stephen Hawking:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/...iens_n_551035.html#s84595&title=Charlie_Rose_
> 
> "To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational," Hawking says in a new Discovery Channel series called Stephen Hawking's Universe. "The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like."
> 
> "He suggests that aliens might simply raid Earth for its resources and then move on: "We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet. I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonise whatever planets they can reach."
> 
> "He concludes that trying to make contact with alien races is "a little too risky". He said: "If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn't turn out very well for the Native Americans."
> 
> Michio Kaku:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/COLOR]


How are their views diametrically opposed? They are very similar on the topic in several respects.

What's Kaku saying in that video? I can't hear it at the moment as I'm at work, but I'm familiar with his many of his views on the subject, as I am with Hawking's.


----------



## Zyriel

ugh1979 said:


> How are their views diametrically opposed? They are very similar on the topic in several respects.
> 
> What's Kaku saying in that video? I can't hear it at the moment as I'm at work, but I'm familiar with his many of his views on the subject, as I am with Hawking's.


Opposed in terms of exploration and seeking of extra-terrestrial life. Stephen Hawking suggest's it's a bad idea to "broadcast" ourselves, being a potential target. Michio Kaku on the other hand, supports space exploration and seeking to make contact. In an interview in support of SETI, he said, "We could be in the middle of an intergalactic conversation...and we wouldn't even know", is used in the third Symphony of Science installment "Our Place in the Cosmos".


----------



## ugh1979

Zyriel said:


> Opposed in terms of exploration and seeking of extra-terrestrial life. Stephen Hawking suggest's it's a bad idea to "broadcast" ourselves, being a potential target. Michio Kaku on the other hand, supports space exploration and making contact. In an interview in support of SETI, he said, "We could be in the middle of an intergalactic conversation...and we wouldn't even know", is used in the third Symphony of Science installment "Our Place in the Cosmos".


I see. Opposed in respect to if we should or shouldn't try and make contact.

It's a tricky one, and I've still not made my mind up if we should or shouldn't as there are good arguments for both.


----------



## Umpalumpa

Zyriel said:


> That really make me think sir lol thank you!
> 
> And yes you're right, sorry for the inconvenience to anyone else^^;; Also thanks for the heads up, I may go check it out lol.
> 
> Ohh I do not sir, I take each "thing" indepedently, but for the sake of convenience, and exploring ideas, I use words that are understood, such as "religion" to denote a broad spectrum of similar ideas. What I am stating, is that "beliefs" are a driving force in human existence. They make a vast part of human society and the underlying patterns which people perceive as normality or to an extent, morality. We call this, culture, philosophy, religion, depending on the context and the amount of "belief" in the subject, or geographical location, demographic group, etc. Existence itself is something humans can probably, never truly understand, by existing lol. The "how" is studied in science to see what occurs, and how it can be quantified. However, the "why" on the other case, is a perplexing, never ending question, that minds since the beginning of civilization have been questioning.
> 
> On a different note to get back to the "theory" of ancient aliens lol or rather the show. As this pertains to the topic somewhat, here are two videos from actual physicists and their opinions on the existence of extra-terrestrials. Both are diametrically opposed in their views lol which takes a large psychological question into play based on their own distinct patterns of thinking. As well as the psychology present in the human species (all we can use as a gauge into evolution and intelligent life), is the known history of humanity, and the philosophies behind such actions:
> 
> Stephen Hawking:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/...iens_n_551035.html#s84595&title=Charlie_Rose_
> 
> "To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational," Hawking says in a new Discovery Channel series called Stephen Hawking's Universe. "The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like."
> 
> "He suggests that aliens might simply raid Earth for its resources and then move on: "We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet. I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonise whatever planets they can reach."
> 
> "He concludes that trying to make contact with alien races is "a little too risky". He said: "If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn't turn out very well for the Native Americans."
> 
> Michio Kaku:


I don't think that existence by exiting couldn't be understood, I don't think that we need a negative in order to understand something, because there is no such thing as pure negative at all.

I don't think that there is such thing as 'why' as well, that's the beauty of this question, it's lack of meaning gives it a meaning. 'Why' can not be understood subconsciously, our subconscious thinks in a very simple way, and the question 'why' is too much out there in between of things for us to grasp.
You ask why, why, why? And you get '42' as an answer like in the hitchhiker guide to the galaxy (not relevant but sounds cool - and that's what important, but why did I say it? In order to sound cool? I don't know... which is the wisest answer of them all. You could say that what I am + all my past experiences + the cause and effect that influences me and that I'm causing made me to say it...but.....I don't know, hell, you could say that, maybe one day someone could prove that, but what that has to do with 'why'? A word that isn't understood by our subconscious couldn't be understood at all, and now I wonder if any word could be understood.

Leonardo Da Vinci said that water is the driving force in humans, I tend to agree with him, maybe because I'm hopeless romantic, I don't know.


----------



## MobiusX

ugh1979 said:


> Are those hip-hop lyrics? :?


something I wrote that rhymes


----------



## ugh1979

MobiusX said:


> something I wrote that rhymes


Nice.


----------



## Zyriel

Umpalumpa said:


> I don't think that existence by exiting couldn't be understood, I don't think that we need a negative in order to understand something, because there is no such thing as pure negative at all.
> 
> I don't think that there is such thing as 'why' as well, that's the beauty of this question, it's lack of meaning gives it a meaning. 'Why' can not be understood subconsciously, our subconscious thinks in a very simple way, and the question 'why' is too much out there in between of things for us to grasp.
> You ask why, why, why? And you get '42' as an answer like in the hitchhiker guide to the galaxy (not relevant but sounds cool - and that's what important, but why did I say it? In order to sound cool? I don't know... which is the wisest answer of them all. You could say that what I am + all my past experiences + the cause and effect that influences me and that I'm causing made me to say it...but.....I don't know, hell, you could say that, maybe one day someone could prove that, but what that has to do with 'why'? A word that isn't understood by our subconscious couldn't be understood at all, and now I wonder if any word could be understood.
> 
> Leonardo Da Vinci said that water is the driving force in humans, I tend to agree with him, maybe because I'm hopeless romantic, I don't know.


I agree with you sir, and I think you captured that very well in the second paragraph. Non-existing wouldn't necessarily be negative though, it's nothingness, zero. People often attach positives and negatives to words though lol, at least in how one would interpret it. For example the word, ignorance pretty much means "not knowing" something, how most use it, or take it in a negative connotation, when it isn't necessarily so. On the other hand, the word innocence is usually seen as positive and originally meant "blameless, guiltless" pretty much is often used as "not knowing" at least in modern contexts. So therefore innocence, would be ignorance and vice-versa in many of the same situations, but each derives negative or positive connotations in use for similar meanings.

That is exactly what I mean by why? It is an answer than can probably never be understood, and specifically so by existing in the first place. In order to study something, one must have a detached perspective to make impartial judgements. Any argument already has a bias and is trying to prove a point, and in terms of science, is trying to prove or disprove something, based on quantifying it in terms of classifications, observations. However, that which cannot be quantified, or studied from a perspective outside the self cannot be studied, such as why, as we all are part of that same universe, and platform for study. Yet it is still a paradox, and one that boggles the mind lol. Meaning itself, may be a human conception, or a conception for intelligent thought. However, everything in nature seems to have a purpose, as does the laws that govern it all, such as gravity, etc. provides a system for functioning, that everything else falls into.

Haha nice Da Vinci quote too xD He's so right too in that regard, at least in terms of literalness of water being crucial to human civilization, the composition of the human body, and as well as metaphorically in terms of spiritual symbolism^^ Being a romantic isn't a bad thing, it gives personal meaning! And again sorry to go off topic, here's another Leonardo Da Vinci quote about that though  "Realize that everything connects to everything else."


----------



## CheezusCrust

I can't stand Ancient Aliens and other Daniken bull****. I know someone who laps it all up.


----------



## Umpalumpa

Zyriel said:


> I agree with you sir, and I think you captured that very well in the second paragraph. Non-existing wouldn't necessarily be negative though, it's nothingness, zero. People often attach positives and negatives to words though lol, at least in how one would interpret it. For example the word, ignorance pretty much means "not knowing" something, how most use it, or take it in a negative connotation, when it isn't necessarily so. On the other hand, the word innocence is usually seen as positive and originally meant "blameless, guiltless" pretty much is often used as "not knowing" at least in modern contexts. So therefore innocence, would be ignorance and vice-versa in many of the same situations, but each derives negative or positive connotations in use for similar meanings.
> 
> That is exactly what I mean by why? It is an answer than can probably never be understood, and specifically so by existing in the first place. In order to study something, one must have a detached perspective to make impartial judgements. Any argument already has a bias and is trying to prove a point, and in terms of science, is trying to prove or disprove something, based on quantifying it in terms of classifications, observations. However, that which cannot be quantified, or studied from a perspective outside the self cannot be studied, such as why, as we all are part of that same universe, and platform for study. Yet it is still a paradox, and one that boggles the mind lol. Meaning itself, may be a human conception, or a conception for intelligent thought. However, everything in nature seems to have a purpose, as does the laws that govern it all, such as gravity, etc. provides a system for functioning, that everything else falls into.
> 
> Haha nice Da Vinci quote too xD He's so right too in that regard, at least in terms of literalness of water being crucial to human civilization, the composition of the human body, and as well as metaphorically in terms of spiritual symbolism^^ Being a romantic isn't a bad thing, it gives personal meaning! And again sorry to go off topic, here's another Leonardo Da Vinci quote about that though  "Realize that everything connects to everything else."


Ha! I didn't mean negative as bad, I meant it as an opposite, but both can be correct because neither exist .
I think that the 'nothingness' is kind of related to our 'why' discussion, if we named something as 'nothingness' or 'zero', how can it be pure zero? I think that both of them are quite existent and are part of the cause and effect 'game'.

About the detach perspective, it made me think, since everything has a perspective, and it all works by the logic of this world, sort of 'hmm I like this' or 'I don't like this!' Than why detach perspective? You can call water biased and fire biased based on their behavior, in order to understand those we have to be biased as well. Ha! Maybe I took this one too far. So I will add a quote just in order to sound wiser "one may know the world without going out of doors, one may see the way of heaven without looking through windows, the further one goes the less one knows" Lao Tzu.
Now after quoting a wise Chinese man my day is fulfilled :lol


----------



## Zyriel

Umpalumpa said:


> Ha! I didn't mean negative as bad, I meant it as an opposite, but both can be correct because neither exist .
> I think that the 'nothingness' is kind of related to our 'why' discussion, if we named something as 'nothingness' or 'zero', how can it be pure zero? I think that both of them are quite existent and are part of the cause and effect 'game'.
> 
> About the detach perspective, it made me think, since everything has a perspective, and it all works by the logic of this world, sort of 'hmm I like this' or 'I don't like this!' Than why detach perspective? You can call water biased and fire biased based on their behavior, in order to understand those we have to be biased as well. Ha! Maybe I took this one too far. So I will add a quote just in order to sound wiser "one may know the world without going out of doors, one may see the way of heaven without looking through windows, the further one goes the less one knows" Lao Tzu.
> Now after quoting a wise Chinese man my day is fulfilled :lol


Mmm pure zero is zero, it's nothingness. It stands as a variable for empty space lol.

You have to have a detached perspective to observe results properly within the questions science asks, "how does this work?", "how can this happen?", by looking for only an answer. If it is true/false based on those claims and results it is proven as a "fact". The classifications used, are also just variables, but most are time tested throughout history as what constitutes the traits within those quantifiable means. But it has to be observable, exactly what I mean by a lot of "Ancient Alien" theory or other theories that are not testable through observation. They are hypothetical and thus not truly facts, just that, theories. That is also why science can only answer the "how" question, and not the "why".

Lao Tzu was a very wise man^^ and that is very true too the farther one goes, the less one does know. The more we learn about our own existence, the less we actually know about ourselves and what causes us to even exist on a universal level. Consciousness, is truly a bless and a curse, or maybe intelligence that the human race possess. The only species on this planet capable of understanding it's own mortality, and ability to question it's own existence.


----------



## Sagacious

Ancient Aliens and the way they speculate about it is the reason no one takes it seriously.
As entertaining as Giorgio Tsoukalos is, him and his speculation are part of the reason no one takes it serious. Erich von Däniken also speculates too much.

However, if people were to look at the evidence they give and not listen to the speculations they make, it starts to seem like real evidence. If you've read any ancient religious texts, or seen their religious drawings/pictures, it raises serious questions about where they got these ideas/stories from.









'Sky People' Sculpture
I won't speculate about why an ancient sculpture looks like that, or why they claimed these 'sky people' came from the sky, or the many other religious stories relating to them, because that would just be my opinion.


----------



## ugh1979

Sagacious said:


> Ancient Aliens and the way they speculate about it is the reason no one takes it seriously.
> As entertaining as Giorgio Tsoukalos is, him and his speculation are part of the reason no one takes it serious. Erich von Däniken also speculates too much.
> 
> However, if people were to look at the evidence they give and not listen to the speculations they make, it starts to seem like real evidence. If you've read any ancient religious texts, or seen their religious drawings/pictures, it raises serious questions about where they got these ideas/stories from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Sky People' Sculpture
> I won't speculate about why an ancient sculpture looks like that, or why they claimed these 'sky people' came from the sky, or the many other religious stories relating to them, because that would just be my opinion.


You should watch this: http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/

The 'evidence' that is being presented is cherry picked, and ignores the context that it was found it and the vast amount of evidence which shows nothing that could be misconstrued as being from "Ancient Aliens".

The people who contrive these stories basically look through thousands of ancient artifacts until they find something which vaguely looks like it could have ET influence, then they just show that and claim it's evidence of ancient aliens. They are no stranger to simply making up stories to suit artifacts as well. It's easy to tell amateurs that there are stories of sky people or whatever that coincide with the artifact, but when you fact check you often find out it's false.

It's just bad science/deceit, and why it's not taken seriously at any professional level. It's only amateurs who lap it up, as they are often so used to cherry picking so called evidence to suit their biases and don't typically fact check from credible sources.

I think someone who suggests that the photo you posted indicates an astronauts helmet or the like is really grasping at straws. Elaborate designs around portrayals of human faces can be found the world over, as the face is such an important feature. When I look at that photo I see something more animal than ET, as it has big ears on top. It looks more like an animal-human combo, which of course is perfectly normal in pagan art.

People have wild imaginations, and the ancients were often no stranger to psychedelic drugs, so it's not that much of a mystery that they came up with abstract art.


----------



## Sagacious

ugh1979 said:


> You should watch this: http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/
> 
> The 'evidence' that is being presented is cherry picked, and ignores the context that it was found it and the vast amount of evidence which shows nothing that could be misconstrued as being from "Ancient Aliens".
> 
> The people who contrive these stories basically look through thousands of ancient artifacts until they find something which vaguely looks like it could have ET influence, then they just show that and claim it's evidence of ancient aliens. They are no stranger to simply making up stories to suit artifacts as well. It's easy to tell amateurs that there are stories of sky people or whatever that coincide with the artifact, but when you fact check you often find out it's false.
> 
> It's just bad science/deceit, and why it's not taken seriously at any professional level. It's only amateurs who lap it up, as they are often so used to cherry picking so called evidence to suit their biases and don't typically fact check from credible sources.
> 
> I think someone who suggests that the photo you posted indicates an astronauts helmet or the like is really grasping at straws. Elaborate designs around portrayals of human faces can be found the world over, as the face is such an important feature. When I look at that photo I see something more animal than ET, as it has big ears on top. It looks more like an animal-human combo, which of course is perfectly normal in pagan art.
> 
> People have wild imaginations, and the ancients were often no stranger to psychedelic drugs, so it's not that much of a mystery that they came up with abstract art.


Actually the evidence I was talking about was more from religious texts I've read. It was just a coincidence that the picture I posted was also on Ancient Aliens. The show is pretty ridiculous at times that's why no one would use it was a real source for evidence.


----------



## Umpalumpa

Zyriel said:


> Mmm pure zero is zero, it's nothingness. It stands as a variable for empty space lol.
> 
> You have to have a detached perspective to observe results properly within the questions science asks, "how does this work?", "how can this happen?", by looking for only an answer. If it is true/false based on those claims and results it is proven as a "fact". The classifications used, are also just variables, but most are time tested throughout history as what constitutes the traits within those quantifiable means. But it has to be observable, exactly what I mean by a lot of "Ancient Alien" theory or other theories that are not testable through observation. They are hypothetical and thus not truly facts, just that, theories. That is also why science can only answer the "how" question, and not the "why".
> 
> Lao Tzu was a very wise man^^ and that is very true too the farther one goes, the less one does know. The more we learn about our own existence, the less we actually know about ourselves and what causes us to even exist on a universal level. Consciousness, is truly a bless and a curse, or maybe intelligence that the human race possess. The only species on this planet capable of understanding it's own mortality, and ability to question it's own existence.


What is nothingness then? How would you define nothingness? Is there really nothing there? Is it truly 'empty space' if so, then...why?

Can we really detach our perspective? Isn't doing something 'for the love of science' or 'making' science is a perspective as well? isn't many of our theories comes from either the love of nature and sort of copying it or just for the love of creating theories? Isn't love subjective and a matter of having a perspective?
Isn't perspective a driving force? Or at least a muse for a driving force?

My take on Lao Tzu's quote is that he didn't mean it as 'the more you learn, you understand that it's unlimited and thus you know nothing' but I think that he meant it as getting far away from nature, growing up and forgetting to dream, forgetting about fantasy-imagination, forgetting about our instincts.
Maybe true wisdom, is not knowing, and just doing?
Who knows.


----------



## laysiaj

I really dig the orange guy on that show.


----------



## Zyriel

Umpalumpa said:


> What is nothingness then? How would you define nothingness? Is there really nothing there? Is it truly 'empty space' if so, then...why?
> 
> Can we really detach our perspective? Isn't doing something 'for the love of science' or 'making' science is a perspective as well? isn't many of our theories comes from either the love of nature and sort of copying it or just for the love of creating theories? Isn't love subjective and a matter of having a perspective?
> Isn't perspective a driving force? Or at least a muse for a driving force?
> 
> My take on Lao Tzu's quote is that he didn't mean it as 'the more you learn, you understand that it's unlimited and thus you know nothing' but I think that he meant it as getting far away from nature, growing up and forgetting to dream, forgetting about fantasy-imagination, forgetting about our instincts.
> Maybe true wisdom, is not knowing, and just doing?
> Who knows.


That is something that cosmology deals with. A lot of "empty space" is filled with dark energy and dark matter (at least in theory): http://www.space.com/20929-dark-energy.html

"Calculating the energy needed to overcome gravity, scientists determined that dark energy makes up roughly 68 percent of the universe. Dark matter makes up another 27 percent, leaving the "normal" matter that we are familiar with to make up less than 5 percent of the cosmos around us."

Why anything exists can only be speculated and hypothesized. Unless one day, a universe can be created within certain confines, and all natural laws emulated so that one has an environment for observation.

Most science isn't a perspective, it is established fact at least in terms of objective fact, that which is part of the physical world and can be quantified, which is most of the world around us.

Indeed, love is subjective in terms of individual emotion and reciprocated feelings between two or more individuals. However, it can also be objectified through chemical reaction and neural connections in the human brain. Until we as a species can understand how memories work, or what constitutes a "person" and personality, one can only "hope" or "believe" in something such as "true love". It is honestly probably just a part of a persons experiences, and underlying psychological elements, that one attributes pleasurable sensations towards that which constitute the emotion known as "love". Whatever nurtures the individual mentally, from birth through adulthood, which imprints in the subconsciousness of a person as attraction towards individuals, aesthetics, etc. Over time, social conditioning then would establish certain qualities of "beauty" which gets absorbed into the mind through mass media, and other subliminal messaging to stimulate certain evolutionary instincts, which humans find "attractive" that is hard wired into the psyche of the species.

Perspective can be a driving force, and various perspectives have different outlooks on life. Each perspective is often times forged through years of cultural conditioning through perceived ideas such as "good and evil" based on the societal context of the individual and their social group. I would assume a muse or any source of inspiration could spark deep feelings in person and thus awaken dormant creativity that has been repressed.

Wisdom I would say comes from experience, integrated with knowledge, challenged by intellect, and tempered by compassion. I believe creativity is a core facet to human nature, one of the few things that humanity can distinguish itself by, on the inter-species level. Imagination is at the center of creativity and to quote Albert Einstein, "Creativity is intelligence having fun."^^


----------



## jc22

What - so there are people don't believe in ancient aliens? You actually buy what the illuminati lizard leaders are saying? Wow..


----------



## Umpalumpa

Zyriel said:


> That is something that cosmology deals with. A lot of "empty space" is filled with dark energy and dark matter (at least in theory): http://www.space.com/20929-dark-energy.html
> 
> "Calculating the energy needed to overcome gravity, scientists determined that dark energy makes up roughly 68 percent of the universe. Dark matter makes up another 27 percent, leaving the "normal" matter that we are familiar with to make up less than 5 percent of the cosmos around us."
> 
> Why anything exists can only be speculated and hypothesized. Unless one day, a universe can be created within certain confines, and all natural laws emulated so that one has an environment for observation.
> 
> Most science isn't a perspective, it is established fact at least in terms of objective fact, that which is part of the physical world and can be quantified, which is most of the world around us.
> 
> Indeed, love is subjective in terms of individual emotion and reciprocated feelings between two or more individuals. However, it can also be objectified through chemical reaction and neural connections in the human brain. Until we as a species can understand how memories work, or what constitutes a "person" and personality, one can only "hope" or "believe" in something such as "true love". It is honestly probably just a part of a persons experiences, and underlying psychological elements, that one attributes pleasurable sensations towards that which constitute the emotion known as "love". Whatever nurtures the individual mentally, from birth through adulthood, which imprints in the subconsciousness of a person as attraction towards individuals, aesthetics, etc. Over time, social conditioning then would establish certain qualities of "beauty" which gets absorbed into the mind through mass media, and other subliminal messaging to stimulate certain evolutionary instincts, which humans find "attractive" that is hard wired into the psyche of the species.
> 
> Perspective can be a driving force, and various perspectives have different outlooks on life. Each perspective is often times forged through years of cultural conditioning through perceived ideas such as "good and evil" based on the societal context of the individual and their social group. I would assume a muse or any source of inspiration could spark deep feelings in person and thus awaken dormant creativity that has been repressed.
> 
> Wisdom I would say comes from experience, integrated with knowledge, challenged by intellect, and tempered by compassion. I believe creativity is a core facet to human nature, one of the few things that humanity can distinguish itself by, on the inter-species level. Imagination is at the center of creativity and to quote Albert Einstein, "Creativity is intelligence having fun."^^


Interesting!

Hmmm, intrested in hearing what you would say about that - let's say we put an object where nothingness exists, or in this case dark energy, will it effect the object? If it effects it, how come its 'nothing'? It's own existence proves me that it can not be nothingness.

What is a fact?

I love how you break everything to little pieces and establish the whole on it 
What would heppen if one piece isn't right, or not Enough right for that matter? (Obviously I'm not saying you are wrong, just enjoying the conversation )

What about the chemical reactions themselves? Aren't they subjective as well?
Since there is no such thing which is 100% the same with others, isn't it the essence of a subjective thing?

Depends on what's your definition or perception of wisdom, experience, knowledge, intellect and so on,

My take on imagination is that it is our main mechanism to release stress.


----------



## Zyriel

Umpalumpa said:


> Interesting!
> 
> Hmmm, intrested in hearing what you would say about that - let's say we put an object where nothingness exists, or in this case dark energy, will it effect the object? If it effects it, how come its 'nothing'? It's own existence proves me that it can not be nothingness.
> 
> What is a fact?
> 
> I love how you break everything to little pieces and establish the whole on it
> What would heppen if one piece isn't right, or not Enough right for that matter? (Obviously I'm not saying you are wrong, just enjoying the conversation )
> 
> What about the chemical reactions themselves? Aren't they subjective as well?
> Since there is no such thing which is 100% the same with others, isn't it the essence of a subjective thing?
> 
> Depends on what's your definition or perception of wisdom, experience, knowledge, intellect and so on,
> 
> My take on imagination is that it is our main mechanism to release stress.


Mmm I don't know much about it beyond general information. Someone who is good at physics might have a better answer lol. I think it It does effect everything somewhat, as it is all around us and permeates all matter. There is large concentrated amounts of it in space though. It is hypothetically what causes the universe to expand and objects to move apart. That might explain better:










http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

Fact would be what is established through methods of observation. Time tested, "truths" which are measurable and classified. I understand what you're saying though, those measurements and classifications can be subjective and are in a sense, but are what science uses to understand anything.

If something isn't "right" then the whole thing is incorrect and it's back to the drawing board lol. That is how science is conducted though, a question which leads to a hypothesis, then it is tested through observation, trial and error, and a conclusion is formed. Which is passed down as "fact" and later becomes general knowledge.

Haha, I haven't thought through a lot of what you're asking before, but pieces in different independent segments of a mental framework. So it allows me to connect the dots and synthesize an explanation through inductive reasoning by expounding on proposed premises.

Honestly, we could all be wrong about everything lol, or not everything, but there could be many different variables we as a species have never thought of, for what "works". The science makes sense, as does the reasoning behind it, however we have nothing to compare it to. Imagine if an alien race that was capable of interstellar travel came to our planet and just said, "Oh you're doing it all wrong" lol or different species with vastly different methods of transportation and ways of interacting, morality, explanations etc. Which is what I mean by a cultural hegemony, most modern science is conducted through measurements and theories from a one-sided perspective. Even with peer reviews, of the same education and cultural, moral, "factual" critic, it is still only viewed through one filter of observation, since it is all built on a similar knowledge base of reviewed and accepted "facts".

Chemical reactions, at least when studied would give the same sensation at least on an evolutionary scale. Since most people share similar ancestry to a common ancestor at least in the human species, say compared to birds lol. A crows logic for example and how it solves problems, is quite different from a human, yet is still able to. It is because the species has evolved differently. But human chemical reactions would most likely be similar, especially within the same cultural background and social group. Take for example someone from New York city, compared to Africa, or Tibet, cultures would be extremely different as would evolution in the species. What is passed down as "attractive" for example like giant lip disks, neck rings, etc. culturally in social groups or even in time periods such as small feet in ancient China.

That is true, it isn't 100% the same, and thus would be subjective in that context. However, it is the same reaction happening within each person, different "ideas" or end results as to what is attractive for example, but the same parts of the brain lighting up for pleasurable sensations. Then you have things that seem to be universal, like symmetry which is considered "beautiful" that seem timeless and appreciated throughout the timeline of human history.

Well I would pretty much go by the dictionary definition for each. Maybe not wisdom that is something that is quite elusive and in a sense mystical as to what constitutes it. Experience would be one's life events, and each person has different experiences, some never learn from theirs though. Then knowledge is the factual information one would possess from various sources. And intelligence, that one is tricky lol since there are different types of intelligence like spacial, emotional, grammatical, numerical, etc. But over all, the capacity of problem solving, which takes critical thinking.

Imagination could be seen as that. But some people possess vast imaginations and no stress intake. It is what separates humanity from other species, and allows societies to build civilizations, cultures to form, religions, art, music, etc. It is honestly one of the basic building blocks of evolution, without it humanity would have had no innovation or ability to make a spear, learn to use fire, build structures, communal societal rules, hierarchies, beliefs, technology, etc.

.


----------



## Umpalumpa

Zyriel said:


> Mmm I don't know much about it beyond general information. Someone who is good at physics might have a better answer lol. I think it It does effect everything somewhat, as it is all around us and permeates all matter. There is large concentrated amounts of it in space though. It is hypothetically what causes the universe to expand and objects to move apart. That might explain better:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/
> 
> Fact would be what is established through methods of observation. Time tested, "truths" which are measurable and classified. I understand what you're saying though, those measurements and classifications can be subjective and are in a sense, but are what science uses to understand anything.
> 
> If something isn't "right" then the whole thing is incorrect and it's back to the drawing board lol. That is how science is conducted though, a question which leads to a hypothesis, then it is tested through observation, trial and error, and a conclusion is formed. Which is passed down as "fact" and later becomes general knowledge.
> 
> Haha, I haven't thought through a lot of what you're asking before, but pieces in different independent segments of a mental framework. So it allows me to connect the dots and synthesize an explanation through inductive reasoning by expounding on proposed premises.
> 
> Honestly, we could all be wrong about everything lol, or not everything, but there could be many different variables we as a species have never thought of, for what "works". The science makes sense, as does the reasoning behind it, however we have nothing to compare it to. Imagine if an alien race that was capable of interstellar travel came to our planet and just said, "Oh you're doing it all wrong" lol or different species with vastly different methods of transportation and ways of interacting, morality, explanations etc. Which is what I mean by a cultural hegemony, most modern science is conducted through measurements and theories from a one-sided perspective. Even with peer reviews, of the same education and cultural, moral, "factual" critic, it is still only viewed through one filter of observation, since it is all built on a similar knowledge base of reviewed and accepted "facts".
> 
> Chemical reactions, at least when studied would give the same sensation at least on an evolutionary scale. Since most people share similar ancestry to a common ancestor at least in the human species, say compared to birds lol. A crows logic for example and how it solves problems, is quite different from a human, yet is still able to. It is because the species has evolved differently. But human chemical reactions would most likely be similar, especially within the same cultural background and social group. Take for example someone from New York city, compared to Africa, or Tibet, cultures would be extremely different as would evolution in the species. What is passed down as "attractive" for example like giant lip disks, neck rings, etc. culturally in social groups or even in time periods such as small feet in ancient China.
> 
> That is true, it isn't 100% the same, and thus would be subjective in that context. However, it is the same reaction happening within each person, different "ideas" or end results as to what is attractive for example, but the same parts of the brain lighting up for pleasurable sensations. Then you have things that seem to be universal, like symmetry which is considered "beautiful" that seem timeless and appreciated throughout the timeline of human history.
> 
> Well I would pretty much go by the dictionary definition for each. Maybe not wisdom that is something that is quite elusive and in a sense mystical as to what constitutes it. Experience would be one's life events, and each person has different experiences, some never learn from theirs though. Then knowledge is the factual information one would possess from various sources. And intelligence, that one is tricky lol since there are different types of intelligence like spacial, emotional, grammatical, numerical, etc. But over all, the capacity of problem solving, which takes critical thinking.
> 
> Imagination could be seen as that. But some people possess vast imaginations and no stress intake. It is what separates humanity from other species, and allows societies to build civilizations, cultures to form, religions, art, music, etc. It is honestly one of the basic building blocks of evolution, without it humanity would have had no innovation or ability to make a spear, learn to use fire, build structures, communal societal rules, hierarchies, beliefs, technology, etc.
> 
> .


If a person believes that he is a shoe, wouldn't it be a fact? If a person believes that there is such a thing as god/ancient aliens wouldn't this belief make it true? It might not be the universal truth, or the collective truth but if a person believes it, it becomes reality to some degree, why? Only because it has an effect, his thought process exists, and creates existence.

Chemical reactions wouldn't give the same sensation, but similar sensation, at least in my opinion!
It's awesome how our brain is changing constantly.

Symmetry...instead of words, this time I will give you a name of a painting by Picasso - 'woman with cockerel', notice how the ear is similar to the shape of the right leg, and how the mouth is the same shape with the left leg, the position of those four are synchronized, the knife similar to the left leg above the shoe and more and more and more.

Stress is everywhere, it's movement in a sense, stress can even be harmonically energy movement...


----------



## Zyriel

Umpalumpa said:


> If a person believes that he is a shoe, wouldn't it be a fact? If a person believes that there is such a thing as god/ancient aliens wouldn't this belief make it true? It might not be the universal truth, or the collective truth but if a person believes it, it becomes reality to some degree, why? Only because it has an effect, his thought process exists, and creates existence.


I had to think about that for a bit lol. That would depend on if it was a literal or metaphorical belief. If one authentically believed themselves to be a physical shoe, it would most likely be psychosis in the form of schizophrenia lol. On the other hand, if it was metaphorical, the person could be right in the regard to their station of life. Like the common phrase of being a "rug" someone who gets stepped on a lot, or a "tool" someone who is always being used. Someone who is a shoe, would feel like they're worn out and stepped on, or always in the dirt, never catching a break, etc.

That belief would be true in terms of belief. But just that, belief, as there is no proof. A belief and a fact are two different things. True they are both words, but in that regard, a belief is on a matter of faith, something that which cannot be explained. All religions fall into this category, and thus are disregarded by scientific explanation. As their theories cannot be tested, they are stories passed down through oral tradition or written context, has been edited and altered over time to convey the message of the time, to gather/support the largest amount of followers.

It becomes reality in a sense of idea. Things from Star Wars, to LOTR, and their older sources of inspiration, such as various mythologies all are "real" in that sense of being ideas. Often times they were believed as universal truths as well, and passed morals down to succeeding generations. The Abrahamic religions simplified those traditions into monotheism and books for a "guide" to follow. In truth they are just as real as any other mythology, and will fall out of favor in time just as the Egyptian Gods (or any other in history) did, and were re-written, re-designed, and incorporated into succeeding religions of various other cultures.

Thought process does exist and to an extent much gets accepted by a wider audience. The most popular and easily accessible ideas are often the ones more prevalent throughout history. Confucism, Taosim, Buddhism in the Eastern world, Judaism, Christianity, Islam in the Western-Middle Eastern sphere of influence. Up to the later, Socialism, Fascism, Communism to Capitalism and Democracy. Whatever idea usually affects the most amount of people, and promises "heaven", "equality", "freedom", "riches", "eternal life", "immortality" or whatever else becomes popular by preying on the "hope" people possess. It is easier for one to live with an illusion and by accepting that which others do, as they see it as "acceptable", "reasonable", or even "real" since other people are doing it. Just look how successful lottos, casinos, and other forms of gambling are. In terms of probability, a person will lose more money than gained over all, and chances they will lol, yet people are still attracted by that false sense of hope. 



Umpalumpa said:


> Chemical reactions wouldn't give the same sensation, but similar sensation, at least in my opinion!
> It's awesome how our brain is changing constantly.


That's true it would be similar sensations since everyone has a different perspective of what is "good taste", "beauty", in a subjective sense based on prior experience, familiarity, or "exotic", unknown lol. Yes it is, the one thing we possess that is superior to all over life on this planet, the one thing that allowed us to come this far as a species, and the one thing so many people don't use or waste lol. 



Umpalumpa said:


> Symmetry...instead of words, this time I will give you a name of a painting by Picasso - 'woman with cockerel', notice how the ear is similar to the shape of the right leg, and how the mouth is the same shape with the left leg, the position of those four are synchronized, the knife similar to the left leg above the shoe and more and more and more.


That painting would be a sense of "beauty" in the subjective sense lol. Artistic expression through discord. Synchronized indeed, yet not symmetrical in the fact that say, natural geometry is, something humans are starting to learn to reproduce with technology like 3D printing. From canyons, to forests, rivers, down to the very fabric of how things are constructed. Forms such as shells, exoskeletons, and the proteins that make such things to the human body. The things throughout history that have been emulated and appreciated as "divine". 



Umpalumpa said:


> Stress is everywhere, it's movement in a sense, stress can even be harmonically energy movement...


Interesting, stress could be seen as that, motion! I never thought of it like that xD So in that sense, stress would be thought, and taking in new information would cause the brain to try and decode it, thus creating stress, which in turn creates creativity, by having the mind try to make sense of something based on previous knowledge o_o!


----------



## Umpalumpa

Zyriel said:


> I had to think about that for a bit lol. That would depend on if it was a literal or metaphorical belief. If one authentically believed themselves to be a physical shoe, it would most likely be psychosis in the form of schizophrenia lol. On the other hand, if it was metaphorical, the person could be right in the regard to their station of life. Like the common phrase of being a "rug" someone who gets stepped on a lot, or a "tool" someone who is always being used. Someone who is a shoe, would feel like they're worn out and stepped on, or always in the dirt, never catching a break, etc.
> 
> That belief would be true in terms of belief. But just that, belief, as there is no proof. A belief and a fact are two different things. True they are both words, but in that regard, a belief is on a matter of faith, something that which cannot be explained. All religions fall into this category, and thus are disregarded by scientific explanation. As their theories cannot be tested, they are stories passed down through oral tradition or written context, has been edited and altered over time to convey the message of the time, to gather/support the largest amount of followers.
> 
> It becomes reality in a sense of idea. Things from Star Wars, to LOTR, and their older sources of inspiration, such as various mythologies all are "real" in that sense of being ideas. Often times they were believed as universal truths as well, and passed morals down to succeeding generations. The Abrahamic religions simplified those traditions into monotheism and books for a "guide" to follow. In truth they are just as real as any other mythology, and will fall out of favor in time just as the Egyptian Gods (or any other in history) did, and were re-written, re-designed, and incorporated into succeeding religions of various other cultures.
> 
> Thought process does exist and to an extent much gets accepted by a wider audience. The most popular and easily accessible ideas are often the ones more prevalent throughout history. Confucism, Taosim, Buddhism in the Eastern world, Judaism, Christianity, Islam in the Western-Middle Eastern sphere of influence. Up to the later, Socialism, Fascism, Communism to Capitalism and Democracy. Whatever idea usually affects the most amount of people, and promises "heaven", "equality", "freedom", "riches", "eternal life", "immortality" or whatever else becomes popular by preying on the "hope" people possess. It is easier for one to live with an illusion and by accepting that which others do, as they see it as "acceptable", "reasonable", or even "real" since other people are doing it. Just look how successful lottos, casinos, and other forms of gambling are. In terms of probability, a person will lose more money than gained over all, and chances they will lol, yet people are still attracted by that false sense of hope.
> 
> That's true it would be similar sensations since everyone has a different perspective of what is "good taste", "beauty", in a subjective sense based on prior experience, familiarity, or "exotic", unknown lol. Yes it is, the one thing we possess that is superior to all over life on this planet, the one thing that allowed us to come this far as a species, and the one thing so many people don't use or waste lol.
> 
> That painting would be a sense of "beauty" in the subjective sense lol. Artistic expression through discord. Synchronized indeed, yet not symmetrical in the fact that say, natural geometry is, something humans are starting to learn to reproduce with technology like 3D printing. From canyons, to forests, rivers, down to the very fabric of how things are constructed. Forms such as shells, exoskeletons, and the proteins that make such things to the human body. The things throughout history that have been emulated and appreciated as "divine".
> 
> Interesting, stress could be seen as that, motion! I never thought of it like that xD So in that sense, stress would be thought, and taking in new information would cause the brain to try and decode it, thus creating stress, which in turn creates creativity, by having the mind try to make sense of something based on previous knowledge o_o!


What I meant, that in a sense, there is no difference between literally and metaphorically, take your last paragraph here for a second ,
A thought creates 'stress', that stress "dictates" our never resting brain of ours,
It creates an essence of creativity, it creates a 'spark' in us which effects our surroundings, the thought manifest itself, existence is all that there is about it, which reminds me of why pure zero isn't nothingness 

A belief in a way is a proof for a fact, the question is which 
If it exists - it exists.

Something that really saddens me about English, is that the word faith is automatically related to religion, even though that lately it seems nobody understands neither of them.
Every word has a different effect on our brain, depends on our perception of it (which again is subjective, because of difference between people *we are all different* and because of our experiences which some believe starts when we are in our mother's womb and some believe before)
We don't/can't know what our babies understand when we teach them any word, and based on this unknown they/we build a map of words that each and every one of them Effects each and every one of us differently, and thus shifting our brain.
Edit: referring to words, but obviously everything shifts our brain.

Ha, just wanted to share a painting that I like, if I would have wanted to show you a painting that contains symmetry 'wisdom' then I would have chosen probably Leonardo da Vinci / michaelangelo / ...or mine :lol

Stress is bad motion as well/lack of motion, but if something reaches lack of motion it would Feel less, and usually pain is the sensation of restoring motion healthiness.


----------



## Zyriel

Umpalumpa said:


> What I meant, that in a sense, there is no difference between literally and metaphorically, take your last paragraph here for a second ,
> A thought creates 'stress', that stress "dictates" our never resting brain of ours,
> It creates an essence of creativity, it creates a 'spark' in us which effects our surroundings, the thought manifest itself, existence is all that there is about it, which reminds me of why pure zero isn't nothingness
> 
> A belief in a way is a proof for a fact, the question is which
> If it exists - it exists.


Haha that is true how the thought manifests itself over time into physical reality.

Fascinating sir, a belief being self-evident to define existence. By that logic we could in a sense "believe" ourselves into existence, and thus anything around us, as the world is malleable. Which to an extent is true, as everything had to be created in the mind first as an idea ! So, what would happen if one stopped believing in anything? If that is even possible lol, since everyone has a concrete version of reality, being sensitized to their society, history, scientific explanations, etc. 




Umpalumpa said:


> Something that really saddens me about English, is that the word faith is automatically related to religion, even though that lately it seems nobody understands neither of them.
> Every word has a different effect on our brain, depends on our perception of it (which again is subjective, because of difference between people *we are all different* and because of our experiences which some believe starts when we are in our mother's womb and some believe before)
> We don't/can't know what our babies understand when we teach them any word, and based on this unknown they/we build a map of words that each and every one of them Effects each and every one of us differently, and thus shifting our brain.
> Edit: referring to words, but obviously everything shifts our brain.


I agree, that is true in so many regards lol. Faith being attributed to religion, even words such as liberty and freedom being attributed to democracy lol. Synonyms almost, it is more than just the English language though, it is social engineering to create such an effect lol.

Here's something you may find interesting of Individualism vs Collectivism and their effects on societies:

http://www.studentpulse.com/article...ion-inflation-in-eastern-and-western-cultures

"Other research also showing how the socio-linguistic environment in which children grow shapes their autobiographical memories has focused on memory specificity and the amount of detail found in young children's memory reports. When American children (4 and 6 year old) were interviewed about a story presented to them a day before, they gave more voluminous and elaborate accounts for both their own experiences and for the story than did Korean children ( Han, Leichtman & Wang, 1998 ) In addition, American children were more specific and descriptive about specific past events than both Korean and Chinese children, and the American children referred to emotions more and categorized negative emotions, whereas Asian children tried to emphasize the positive aspect of an event and talked more about other people than American children did. This suggests that the content of memory differs with the cultural background of the individual ( Han et al., 1998 ). Research involving preschoolers describing autobiographical events shows that American children's memories are generally focused on specific events, individual experiences, and feelings (Wang, 2004). In addition, American children's memories tend to be expressive, detailed and lengthy, and they focus on the child as being the protagonist in the narrative and present the child in a positive light. In contrast, Chinese children's memories were found to be general, skeletal, less emotional, more neutral in their expression, and focused on routine events, on collective activities, on social interactions, on others or relations with others. These patterns are seen because Western cultures promote autonomy and put an emphasis on the individual's qualities, and children in these cultures are encouraged to stand out and talk about themselves, whereas Eastern cultures promote cohesiveness and put an emphasis on the group, and children in these cultures are discouraged to talk about themselves and the past and focus more on those around them ( Han et al., 1998 )."

English in terms of linguistics, has many adjectives to describe feelings, ideas, objects which expound on an imaginative detailed experiences compared to other languages lol. Since language originates as metaphor for description, either for the way something looks, or is used, making most languages extremely utilitarian in contrast. Often times tones are used as well to differentiate between meanings, instead of different words. Just in modern times a lot of people tend to not use a larger vocabulary to paint a mental picture in communication, the way the people in the past did to convey ideas. 



Umpalumpa said:


> Ha, just wanted to share a painting that I like, if I would have wanted to show you a painting that contains symmetry 'wisdom' then I would have chosen probably Leonardo da Vinci / michaelangelo / ...or mine :lol


Ahh lol sorry, different tastes in art I suppose @[email protected] I do appreciate it and understand what you mean though. I do like some forms of surrealism^^



Umpalumpa said:


> Stress is bad motion as well/lack of motion, but if something reaches lack of motion it would Feel less, and usually pain is the sensation of restoring motion healthiness.


I tend to not see things as good or bad in general context. Too much tension I guess could be seen as bad though, straining the muscle, rope/cable, workforce, etc. which in the long run would cause hindrance or delay in production/effects. I don't know about feeling lol I feel nothing most of the time. Sometimes pain can be a good motivator though ~


----------



## Umpalumpa

Zyriel said:


> Haha that is true how the thought manifests itself over time into physical reality.
> 
> Fascinating sir, a belief being self-evident to define existence. By that logic we could in a sense "believe" ourselves into existence, and thus anything around us, as the world is malleable. Which to an extent is true, as everything had to be created in the mind first as an idea ! So, what would happen if one stopped believing in anything? If that is even possible lol, since everyone has a concrete version of reality, being sensitized to their society, history, scientific explanations, etc.
> 
> 
> I agree, that is true in so many regards lol. Faith being attributed to religion, even words such as liberty and freedom being attributed to democracy lol. Synonyms almost, it is more than just the English language though, it is social engineering to create such an effect lol.
> 
> Here's something you may find interesting of Individualism vs Collectivism and their effects on societies:
> 
> http://www.studentpulse.com/article...ion-inflation-in-eastern-and-western-cultures
> 
> "Other research also showing how the socio-linguistic environment in which children grow shapes their autobiographical memories has focused on memory specificity and the amount of detail found in young children's memory reports. When American children (4 and 6 year old) were interviewed about a story presented to them a day before, they gave more voluminous and elaborate accounts for both their own experiences and for the story than did Korean children ( Han, Leichtman & Wang, 1998 ) In addition, American children were more specific and descriptive about specific past events than both Korean and Chinese children, and the American children referred to emotions more and categorized negative emotions, whereas Asian children tried to emphasize the positive aspect of an event and talked more about other people than American children did. This suggests that the content of memory differs with the cultural background of the individual ( Han et al., 1998 ). Research involving preschoolers describing autobiographical events shows that American children's memories are generally focused on specific events, individual experiences, and feelings (Wang, 2004). In addition, American children's memories tend to be expressive, detailed and lengthy, and they focus on the child as being the protagonist in the narrative and present the child in a positive light. In contrast, Chinese children's memories were found to be general, skeletal, less emotional, more neutral in their expression, and focused on routine events, on collective activities, on social interactions, on others or relations with others. These patterns are seen because Western cultures promote autonomy and put an emphasis on the individual's qualities, and children in these cultures are encouraged to stand out and talk about themselves, whereas Eastern cultures promote cohesiveness and put an emphasis on the group, and children in these cultures are discouraged to talk about themselves and the past and focus more on those around them ( Han et al., 1998 )."
> 
> English in terms of linguistics, has many adjectives to describe feelings, ideas, objects which expound on an imaginative detailed experiences compared to other languages lol. Since language originates as metaphor for description, either for the way something looks, or is used, making most languages extremely utilitarian in contrast. Often times tones are used as well to differentiate between meanings, instead of different words. Just in modern times a lot of people tend to not use a larger vocabulary to paint a mental picture in communication, the way the people in the past did to convey ideas.
> 
> Ahh lol sorry, different tastes in art I suppose @[email protected] I do appreciate it and understand what you mean though. I do like some forms of surrealism^^
> 
> 
> I tend to not see things as good or bad in general context. Too much tension I guess could be seen as bad though, straining the muscle, rope/cable, workforce, etc. which in the long run would cause hindrance or delay in production/effects. I don't know about feeling lol I feel nothing most of the time. Sometimes pain can be a good motivator though ~


That's kind of my take about 'good' and 'bad', on the whole there is really no such thing, but if you 'recieve' more stress then you 'release' then that's temporarily a "bad" thing, when there is good motion and minimal stress for an 'object' to work then it works best, for example when your eyes are relaxed you can use your whole vision, or if you fall and maintain a relaxed body then the fall would cause less damage and so on, even though its "bad" right now, it can cause "good" later.

No feelings is usually the cause of feeling too much and not releasing it.
For example you watch the screen for too long and your eyes start to hurt, the pain feeling doesn't hold you back and you keep on watching the screen, eventually the pain stops and you feel nothing, but later on that night, when you try to go to sleep, your eyes and head feel like they are going to explode.
Not being able to release the tension, is usually related to trauma that heppend to that place, muscles can forget how to relax, and how to release tension (I think it goes beyond just muscles IMO) and results in not feeling at all, basically a defense mechanism for the body.

Pain as motivator? Sounds like 'chicken or egg' question for me, and I would change the words 'pain' and 'motivator' to something different.

Just a guess, your taste in art is more torwards Caravaggio? :b


----------



## Selenium

Absolutely ridiculous. There are so many other explanations. If you automatically go to aliens then you have a problem and need to learn about critical thinking.


----------



## Zyriel

Umpalumpa said:


> That's kind of my take about 'good' and 'bad', on the whole there is really no such thing, but if you 'recieve' more stress then you 'release' then that's temporarily a "bad" thing, when there is good motion and minimal stress for an 'object' to work then it works best, for example when your eyes are relaxed you can use your whole vision, or if you fall and maintain a relaxed body then the fall would cause less damage and so on, even though its "bad" right now, it can cause "good" later.
> 
> No feelings is usually the cause of feeling too much and not releasing it.
> For example you watch the screen for too long and your eyes start to hurt, the pain feeling doesn't hold you back and you keep on watching the screen, eventually the pain stops and you feel nothing, but later on that night, when you try to go to sleep, your eyes and head feel like they are going to explode.
> Not being able to release the tension, is usually related to trauma that heppend to that place, muscles can forget how to relax, and how to release tension (I think it goes beyond just muscles IMO) and results in not feeling at all, basically a defense mechanism for the body.
> 
> Pain as motivator? Sounds like 'chicken or egg' question for me, and I would change the words 'pain' and 'motivator' to something different.
> 
> Just a guess, your taste in art is more torwards Caravaggio? :b


Ahh that is like kinetic damage for "pressure" at the point of impact. Tension moving through the air causes friction, to release energy outward instead of reverberated. That is taught in kenjutsu, well not those exact words or method of explaining but pretty much what is happening when you slice something lol.

Mmm didn't mean physical feeling lol but that makes sense. I think there are a lot of people who are always tense lol they over tighten things and use too much force, which probably wears out the muscle and they seem to get strains so much more.

That's true in that regard. I meant pain as in causing someone to work towards a goal to alleviate that pain, or motivation through fear. It's so interesting how different people can get different perspectives from the same statement o_o!

Answered the next part in PM so we don't keep going off topic lol. Sorry just have to do this, Georgio Tsukalos xD


----------



## HollaFlower

BudBrownies said:


> Explain how stone henge was built.


i'm late, but here's a guy that makes his own stonehenge in his backyard with no tools.


----------

