What do guys think about UFOs and their connection with human origins?

[Mr.want2know]

Has anyone heard of Zachariah Sitchin, Lloyd Pye, or Eric Von Danniken?

 

Their explanations seemed plausible.

[Sisyphus]

I haven't heard of those people particularly, but every "alien origin" story I have heard has been more than a little nutty. Without specifics, I can't say whether it's "plausible" or not, but since the traditional narrative of human origins seems entirely plausible already, and there's no real evidence of aliens, I would wonder why anyone would go down that road at all.

[iNow]

Where did the aliens come from, then? It just displaces the question, it doesn't answer it.

 

On another note, if aliens dropped humans here via UFOs, one would not expect human DNA to have so many similarities to the DNA of other life on Earth. We have so much in common with other organisms so far back in geologic history (simple organisms and organisms of other species, too, not just primates or mammals)... that a "cut/paste" job placing us here from a flying saucer doesn't seem to be the best descriptive hypothesis available to us.

 

Also, since UFOs are speculative at best, that doesn't exactly lend to the evidence in favor of such an approach.

 

Since you asked for opinions on the matter, I'll just come right out and say that (while it is, of course, a possiblility that I cannot rule out) I find this human origins by UFO hypothesis completely bankrupt on a number of different levels. I'll stick with abiogenesis and evolution which have a lot more going for them in terms of plausibility.

Edited October 11, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[ydoaPs]

UFOs are speculative at best

 

UFOs are real; alien spacecraft, however, are speculative at best.

[iNow]

So, you presume that Mr.want2know and the authors he/she referenced were referring to earth-based flying crafts not yet identified by the onlooker?

[mooeypoo]

I love Erik Von Danniken, I think his stories are imaginative and interesting, and the move "Stargate" (as well as the show, even more) is one of my favourites. But to go from that to stating it's realistic.... not so much.

 

There are a few problems with Von Danniken's theories, the least of which is that he has no proof. If you research what he is writing online, you will see that some of what he wrote is not only baseless but misleading (that means that the 'evidence' he saw weren't.. really.. there...), or with high possibility to be fake. Regardless, he never offered any of the more tangible evidence (little statues, artifacts, etc) for outside examination which is another suspicious point as to their validity.

 

Another point is that everything he describes -- from the structures that have huge stones that "fit perfectly to one another" to huge temples at the edge of cliffs that seemingly "couldn't have been built there without transporting the stones by flying" (or something of this sort) can be - and are, usually - completely explainable through a simpler, more realistic theories.

 

Also, he seems to slightly ignore facts that don't suit him. For example, he claims that the huge drawings on the ground, made by the Maya I think, in Peru and other places, could not have been made by people on the ground - there must be someone watching from above to make sure the drawing comes out right, because it's so big.

 

But that's *proven* to be false -- there was a group of researchers that created such a drawing on the ground without "looking" from above, within a few days, and succeeded greatly, and they've used only equipment that was available 2000 years ago...

 

The stories are very interesting and they do offer an imaginative explanation to the way things look in the world -- but so does "Buffy, Vampire Slayer", and so do "Charmed" and so does "Firefly". That's the point of good stories -- that they SOUND realistic. They sound as if they actually explain everything. That's the beauty of a good author.

But if we want to actually see if they're realistic, we need to critically examine the proofs and see if they fit reality and can explain things.

 

And frankly, they don't.

 

~moo

[YT2095]

 

On another note, if aliens dropped humans here via UFOs, one would not expect human DNA to have so many similarities to the DNA of other life on Earth. We have so much in common with other organisms so far back in geologic history (simple organisms and organisms of other species, too, not just primates or mammals)... that a "cut/paste" job placing us here from a flying saucer doesn't seem to be the best descriptive hypothesis available to us.

 

but if the Aliens weren`t directly compatible with Earths environment why not DNA splice into something that was, an Ape for instance. thereby propagating your kind (or saving it) or merely just experimenting to see what would happen

[SkepticLance]

I have read a lot of stuff about UFO's and the like. Almost inevitably, there is a better explanation than 'little green men'.

 

It is really easy to come up with faked photographic evidence for all sorts of phenomena of this type. I have seen photos of UFO's that look really convincing that were made by throwing a dustpan lid into the air and shooting it against the sky.

 

As far as Van Daniken is concerned, most of his 'logic' comes from assuming that our ancestors were idiots. They were not. They had the same percentage of high powered geniuses as we do. They had highly competent engineers. They had techniques for construction that were clever and effective.

 

For example, Daniken claims that the statues of Easter Island could not have been moved into place by the 'primitive' natives of the time. Modern experimenters have shown that a bunch of men with ropes tied to the tops of those statues can move them anywhere you like, given enough time and patience. It is done by rocking and twisting them.

 

If UFO's were real, why do we not have solid evidence? Why do we rely on wide eyed credulous people, and blurry photos?

 

It is also interesting to note that stories like UFO's are hundreds, if not thousands of years old. However, the way they are described depends on the myths of the time. 200 years ago, it was all about witches. 2000 years ago, it was angels and demons.

 

For example : there is a phenomenon of paralysis which happens often to people who are half asleep. Harmless and normal. However, in that state of half sleep, the mind is half dreaming and experiences strange things. 200 years ago, those were interpreted as witches attacking. Today it is alien abductions and aliens experimenting on us.

 

There is no need to believe in aliens. Belief in the weirdness of the human mind is fully sufficient!

[JohnB]

As far as Van Daniken is concerned, most of his 'logic' comes from assuming that our ancestors were idiots. They were not. They had the same percentage of high powered geniuses as we do. They had highly competent engineers. They had techniques for construction that were clever and effective.

I wish I'd said that. Well put.

[bombus]

As a Fortean, I regard myself as open-minded but skeptical. UFO's certainly exist, but they may be many things - military craft, natural phenomena, misidentification and maybe, just maybe, little green men or time travellers. However, the people you mention seem to take ideas and run with them before looking at other possibilities at the outset. I have never seen any evidence to convince me that aliens visit earth, but I have seen enough to keep me open minded.

Edited October 12, 2008 by bombus

[Tsadi]

UFO's are real.

 

Alien Aircraft though, maybe not.

 

+ Eric is a good author, but perpetuates the truth to his control of the audience. He hs no proof whatsoever, but shakey evidence at best.

[MrGamma]

Has anyone heard of Zachariah Sitchin, Lloyd Pye, or Eric Von Danniken?

 

Their explanations seemed plausible.

 

I think they have drawn the conclusion from ancient petroglyph's and stories about the Anunnaki.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anunnaki

 

The ancient artifacts certainly seem real. However the interpretations are fairly wild.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zecharia_Sitchin

 

He has been met with a great deal of skepticism. Skepticism does not make something inaccurate. Nor does it lend creedence to it.

 

 

 

How exactly would you prove this concept? I guess your going to have to wait for more evidence. Otherwise you will trade your scientific beliefs for religious ones. ( It's not like everybody is playing on facts alone these days anyways )

 

 

 

IN other words... I humored the concept. And I was turned off of it when they began to relate double helix trimmings on ancient stonework to DNA. That alone is a very very big leap of faith to draw a conclusion from. Too far of a leap for my liking. ( and I am willing to take leaps )

[JohnB]

If UFO's were real, why do we not have solid evidence? Why do we rely on wide eyed credulous people

Police officers, military and civillian pilots and other trained observers are now "wide eyed credulous people"? You must love being on a jury.

and blurry photos?

Catch 22. A good photo will be instantly dismissed as "fake", and a blurry one as "no evidence". Just commenting.

If UFO's were real, why do we not have solid evidence?

Assuming you mean aliens, why should they supply any?

 

The "reported" action of the alledged visitors make very little sense from the human perspective. However, we have a hard enough time coming to grips with the way other humans think, how can we attempt to understand how an alien might think?

 

However, concerning the OP, I'll quote SL again.

As far as Van Daniken is concerned, most of his 'logic' comes from assuming that our ancestors were idiots. They were not. They had the same percentage of high powered geniuses as we do. They had highly competent engineers. They had techniques for construction that were clever and effective.

Our ancestors were clever and competent, they required no help from any extraterrestrial "Outreach" program to do the things they did.

 

This is not to say that that they did not leave us with some perplexing mysteries along the way.

[swansont]

Police officers, military and civillian pilots and other trained observers are now "wide eyed credulous people"? You must love being on a jury.

 

Saying you saw something unusual is different from saying you saw a flying saucer. Trained observer or not, it is easy to trick the eye.

[SkepticLance]

I have twice seen UFO's myself.

 

The first occasion was in Fiji, during day time. I was looking over the sea and saw a bright red light in the sky. It seemed to rise very slowly, and then began to descend, while moving slowly to the side. After it sank a distance, it slowly faded and disappeared. It was visible for a good 30 seconds.

 

The second occasion was at night, here in New Zealand. I saw two bright white lights in the sky, moving quite rapidly till they descended and disappeared. The lights kept exactly the same distance from each other, but were too bright and too far apart to be aircraft lights. They also moved in a way unlike aircraft, including sharp turns, and diving downwards as aircraft do not.

 

Both incidents were not space craft, and both had mundane explanations. Anyone care to guess?

[mooeypoo]

I have twice seen UFO's myself.

 

The first occasion was in Fiji, during day time. I was looking over the sea and saw a bright red light in the sky. It seemed to rise very slowly, and then began to descend, while moving slowly to the side. After it sank a distance, it slowly faded and disappeared. It was visible for a good 30 seconds.

Was this close to sundown? most UFO-related sightings that are next the horizon at these times are related to sightings of Venus.

 

The red color can be the light breaking at an angle in the atmosphere...

 

The second occasion was at night, here in New Zealand. I saw two bright white lights in the sky, moving quite rapidly till they descended and disappeared. The lights kept exactly the same distance from each other, but were too bright and too far apart to be aircraft lights. They also moved in a way unlike aircraft, including sharp turns, and diving downwards as aircraft do not.

 

I am not sure, but it's hard to gage distances at night -- very big but very far airplane might look the same as a very small but rather close aircraft.

 

I did hear about such incident, where they found out that lights from a nearby road reflected in the damp atmosphere and looked like they're weird UFOs.

 

Could that be it?

 

I am guessing here without much info..

[iNow]

How much peyote had you eaten?

[Tsadi]

I have twice seen UFO's myself.

 

The first occasion was in Fiji, during day time. I was looking over the sea and saw a bright red light in the sky. It seemed to rise very slowly, and then began to descend, while moving slowly to the side. After it sank a distance, it slowly faded and disappeared. It was visible for a good 30 seconds.

 

The second occasion was at night, here in New Zealand. I saw two bright white lights in the sky, moving quite rapidly till they descended and disappeared. The lights kept exactly the same distance from each other, but were too bright and too far apart to be aircraft lights. They also moved in a way unlike aircraft, including sharp turns, and diving downwards as aircraft do not.

 

Both incidents were not space craft, and both had mundane explanations. Anyone care to guess?

 

I've seen a UFO once, and that was enough for me to personally accept they are real. I now am in tumbles whether to believe man made it, or whether it os extraterrestrial origin... which the latter, i am not so sure.

[mooeypoo]

UFOs are "Unidentified Flying Objects".

 

If you see a plane but you can't identify the fact it's a plane because it's dark outside, or whatever other circumstances, that's also a UFO.

 

In that sense, UFOs exist. As to concluding that they're visitations from aliens or an elaborate government conspiracy, well.. that requires much much more proof, to say the least.

[Tsadi]

I should have said, a UFO with aerodynamical capabilities years ahead of us.

[mooeypoo]

I should have said, a UFO with aerodynamical capabilities years ahead of us.

 

Yes, well, proofs are required for this statement, was my point.

[SkepticLance]

To mooeypoo

 

Thanks for accepting my challenge. The first, Fiji, incident was in broad daylight. The light was red, which is a significant clue. Think also of the fact that it was out over the sea.

 

The second incident. Extra clue. NZ is hilly. At night you cannot see the hills, and may not know they are there.

 

As has been mentioned, UFO's exist in that objects are seen in the air and may not be immediately identified. Once so identified, they are no longer UFO's. Venus is commonly mistaken, as are aircraft lights. I remember once, when I was living on Great Barrier Island, a military exercise was held with helicopters etc., in which locals were able to view it readily. Nevertheless an article appeared in a newspaper about UFO's in that place at that time, shown as bright lights over the sea. No doubt, to at least one observer, the lights were unidentified, and hence UFO's.

 

However, do I believe in flying objects of advanced design buzzing around the Earth piloted by 'Little Green Men' or "bug Eyed Monster'? The answer is no.

Edited October 13, 2008 by SkepticLance

[Mr.want2know]

Originally Posted by mooeypoo

I love Erik Von Danniken, I think his stories are imaginative and interesting, and the move "Stargate" (as well as the show, even more) is one of my favourites. But to go from that to stating it's realistic.... not so much.

 

There are a few problems with Von Danniken's theories, the least of which is that he has no proof. If you research what he is writing online, you will see that some of what he wrote is not only baseless but misleading (that means that the 'evidence' he saw weren't.. really.. there...), or with high possibility to be fake. Regardless, he never offered any of the more tangible evidence (little statues, artifacts, etc) for outside examination which is another suspicious point as to their validity.

 

Another point is that everything he describes -- from the structures that have huge stones that "fit perfectly to one another" to huge temples at the edge of cliffs that seemingly "couldn't have been built there without transporting the stones by flying" (or something of this sort) can be - and are, usually - completely explainable through a simpler, more realistic theories.

 

Also, he seems to slightly ignore facts that don't suit him. For example, he claims that the huge drawings on the ground, made by the Maya I think, in Peru and other places, could not have been made by people on the ground - there must be someone watching from above to make sure the drawing comes out right, because it's so big.

 

But that's *proven* to be false -- there was a group of researchers that created such a drawing on the ground without "looking" from above, within a few days, and succeeded greatly, and they've used only equipment that was available 2000 years ago...

 

The stories are very interesting and they do offer an imaginative explanation to the way things look in the world -- but so does "Buffy, Vampire Slayer", and so do "Charmed" and so does "Firefly". That's the point of good stories -- that they SOUND realistic. They sound as if they actually explain everything. That's the beauty of a good author.

But if we want to actually see if they're realistic, we need to critically examine the proofs and see if they fit reality and can explain things.

 

And frankly, they don't.

 

~moo

 

So how do you explain the stone slabs weighing at least 5-10 tons placed above 2 stone slab pillars at least a height of 20-30 feet above the ground at stonehenge. There were no cranes back then, I absolutely don't doubt that our ancestors were great engineers and thinkers, but this seems too complicated for their time. Also this HEAVY stone blocks are perfectly placed so that the would mirror the heavens, like summer and winter solstice and star maps and constellations. How could they have achieved this feat?

 

How about Zecharia Sitchin's explanation why we kill each other for GOLD.

Basically gold is much like any other metal, from its extraction to its production, the only good it does is for decorations, good electrical conductor and as a good shield from harmful radiation. Or did I miss anything?

Why do we put so much value on such a piece of dirt for as far as history can remember? No other culture in the world gives light on this subject except for the sumerians.

 

Why did we lose 2 chromosomes apart from primates when we should've been more evolved than them? It should be the other way around.

How did we evolve so advanced in such a short time? According to scientific calculations it should have been another 10 million years or so before we could reach this level of civilization.

Why is it that the first advanced civilization is THE MOST ADVANCED than all the other civilizations that followed it?(Sumeria)

 

Don't you think this is quite perplexing? There are more questions than answers, I should give these authors recognition for their work done on this subject.

[SkepticLance]

To Want2know

 

It is never necessary to assume ancient astronauts helping our ancestors. Take Stonehenge. The old Romans had cranes. They built them from timber, ropes, and pulleys, and powered them with human muscle power to lift staggeringly massive loads, including multi-tonne stones. There is no reason to believe that the Stonehenge builders could not do the same, since they had access to all the same materials that the Romans used. Just takes a smart engineering mind.

 

If the stone is hanging from a crane, then twisting its position to align with whatever we choose is easy.

 

Why do we value gold? Easy to explain. Gold is beautiful, does not tarnish (incorruptable) and very rare. Perfect for jewellery.

 

And humans did not evolve rapidly. It took many millions of years to become human, after leaving the ancestral ape line. Civilisation began with the ending of the last glacial period, about 12,000 years ago. For 100,000 years before that, those living in what we now call temperate regions could not have used agriculture, and agriculture was crucial to civilisation. Thus, we see human tribes eeking out an existence until the glaciers retreated, and then developing a better way of life once the climate permitted.

 

After that point, development was steady. We tend to measure it according to major break-throughs such as the discovery of bronze and iron - but in reality it continued at a steady slow pace throughout.

 

And Sumeria was not the greatest civilisation. it was the first to develop writing, but that was of limited value since no paper existed then. After papyrus, development increased, and the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans created more advanced civilisations, as did the Chinese and the Indians.

[JohnB]

The second occasion was at night, here in New Zealand. I saw two bright white lights in the sky, moving quite rapidly till they descended and disappeared. The lights kept exactly the same distance from each other, but were too bright and too far apart to be aircraft lights. They also moved in a way unlike aircraft, including sharp turns, and diving downwards as aircraft do not.

Given your extra hint, I'd venture a car on a distant road, but I would have expected the lights to be too close together for an aircraft.

Saying you saw something unusual is different from saying you saw a flying saucer. Trained observer or not, it is easy to trick the eye.

So, would PC Smiths eyes be generally easily tricked, or only in certain cases?

 

The vast majority of sightings (at least 99% IMO) are explainable by mundane things seen in perhaps unusual circumstances. It is the other 1% that make the topic interesting. What have you seen if the object is observed from the air, filmed and registered on ground radar? Do you have proof of ET? No, but you do have proof of something extremely unusual that would benefit from further study. When you work out what it is, you know something you didn't before. This can only be a plus.

It is also interesting to note that stories like UFO's are hundreds, if not thousands of years old. However, the way they are described depends on the myths of the time. 200 years ago, it was all about witches. 2000 years ago, it was angels and demons.

(I'm not picking on you SL, you're very quotable ATM.)

 

While it is easy to dismiss accounts for the above reasons, it is worthwhile to remember that a story can only be told using the words and images available at the time. If the only fast moving thing in your society is a chariot, then any fast moving object will be described as a "chariot". Transport an ancient Babylonian to Cape Kennedy and he would call the shuttle a "firey chariot" because these are the only terms he has to describe what he sees.

 

Does this mean that the accounts of "firey chariots" describe ET rockets? It might. The downside to this (to some) attractive idea is that if ET came here, they did not come from elsewhere in the system, but crossed interstellar distances. This means that to do the trip in a reasonable time they have FTL drives. So if they have FTL drives, why are they mucking about with inefficient, noisy, messy things like bloody rockets?

 

This is why the Von Danikens of the world irritate me. They are so bloody illogical. The ETs use their amazing anti gravity tech to build great big piles of rock for the egyptians, yet use rockets to fly their ships. How bloody silly is that?

So how do you explain the stone slabs weighing at least 5-10 tons placed above 2 stone slab pillars at least a height of 20-30 feet above the ground at stonehenge. There were no cranes back then, I absolutely don't doubt that our ancestors were great engineers and thinkers, but this seems too complicated for their time.

You are correct, there were no cranes used at Stonehenge, at the time it was built the wheel, let alone the pulley had not been invented. They did however have manpower and dirt.

 

As to method.

1. Place standing stones in footings and secure.

2. Fill the area between the stones with rock, wood and dirt until level with the top of the stones.

3. Make earth ramp up to the top of the fill.

4. Drag the lintel stones up the ramp and place in correct position.

5. Remove the dirt.

 

*No wheels or pulleys were injured (or invented) for the construction of this theoretical Stonehenge.*

 

Or you could do it using the rather inventive method of this gentleman.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=-K7q20VzwVs

 

Personally, I think it's brilliant.

Basically gold is much like any other metal, from its extraction to its production, the only good it does is for decorations, good electrical conductor and as a good shield from harmful radiation. Or did I miss anything?

As SL said, it doesn't tarnish. It's also easily worked. In the case of jewellery, it is the easiest for "rubover" type settings as oposed to the "claw" settings that we generally use today. Claw settings require a high degree of metal casting skills at high temperature, rubovers do not.

Also this HEAVY stone blocks are perfectly placed so that the would mirror the heavens, like summer and winter solstice and star maps and constellations.

Why do you think they could not do this?

Why is it that the first advanced civilization is THE MOST ADVANCED than all the other civilizations that followed it?(Sumeria)

Why do you think this? How are you measuring advancement?

Don't you think this is quite perplexing? There are more questions than answers, I should give these authors recognition for their work done on this subject.

There are always more questions than answers, always. The gentlemen you've been reading however are not actually asking intelligent questions. Their basic assumption is wrong. They are assuming that our ancestors were too stupid to do these things without help and are asking "Who helped them?" Once you realise that our ancestors could actually do these things without help, then the question becomes meaningless and useless.