Technologically/Intellectually Superior Aliens: "Unpleasant Visits"?

[Moontanman]

Cranial nudity?

 

No telling where aliens might keep thier brains

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Speed physics.

 

 

You know, if we think about this seriously for a moment, I think that the odds for having a species that is radically different than humans is so much greater than meeting a species that shares some of our traits ~moo

 

There is a school of thought that says that intelligent technological beings would be humanoid at least. Much like tuna sharks, dolphins and Ichthyosaurs shared traits brought about by their environment the ability to use tools the way we do might result in aliens that are much like us, not star trek like us but similar body shapes, limb placement and such.

 

Personally i think centaur like creatures are more likely.

[mooeypoo]

There is a school of thought that says that intelligent technological beings would be humanoid at least. Much like tuna sharks, dolphins and Ichthyosaurs shared traits brought about by their environment the ability to use tools the way we do might result in aliens that are much like us, not star trek like us but similar body shapes, limb placement and such.

 

Personally i think centaur like creatures are more likely.

These creatures (shark/dolphin/etc) all developed in the same environment - the same atmospheric pressure, the same chemical composition more or less, etc. The deviations between environments is EXTREMELY small.

 

The odds of finding a planet that has the same environmental conditions as the earth is ridiculously low. Odds are, there will be more differences than similarities.

 

You can see that when the pressure changes only relatively slightly you have COMPLETELY different animals (you can see that in the oceans - different depths have completely different animals, the 'far' end of that spectrum are totally weird looking creatures at the bottom of the ocean, looking nothing like the creatures at the top layer).

 

So if an environment in another planet has slightly less pressure, and slightly less oxygen, and slightly less water, etc etc etc - the change is likely to be insanely greater, and we would very much more likely to meet aliens that are NOT humanoid. Perhaps bug'oids. Bugs are extremely *more* capable of self preservation and existing in extreme environments than the relatively frail bodies of humans.

 

~moo

[King, North TX]

Screw that, I want to actually have a chance to win something...

 

 

 

 

All we have to do is make genetic modification(s) illegal ...

[Moontanman]

The odds of finding a planet that has the same environmental conditions as the earth is ridiculously low. Odds are, there will be more differences than similarities.

 

 

I think you'll find this is the very reason the idea that aliens would want our planet is unlikely.

 

So if an environment in another planet has slightly less pressure, and slightly less oxygen, and slightly less water, etc etc etc - the change is likely to be insanely greater, and we would very much more likely to meet aliens that are NOT humanoid. Perhaps bug'oids. Bugs are extremely *more* capable of self preservation and existing in extreme environments than the relatively frail bodies of humans.~moo

 

 

For bugs to be big enough to be "us" on another planet would take conditions of less gravity greater pressure and more oxygen. Vertebrates didn't take the land from invertebrates because of chance. Vertebrates are simply better at exploiting dry land in large size than animals with exoskeletons. Vertebrates are better at low oxygen less support or higher gravity environments than invertebrates, the evolutionary record clearly shows that when oxygen levels fell at the end of the Carboniferous age body size of insects fell while vertebrate body size went up.

 

 

But even if you disagree with that why couldn't "bugs" be humanoid? Why wouldn't an alien have a body with the forward appendages free to manipulate objects, a head with two eyes set so they are close to the brain so there is less delay times between them and the senses of the brain. when I say humanoid I am using the term loosely. At least as loosely as taking the idea of streamlining an animal for hi speed water travel.

 

Even deep sea animals are streamlined in a similar way if they expect to swim fast long distances, even birds are streamlined but they more closely resemble rays than fish. If you had an intelligent preying mantis it would technically be humanoid by this definition. Actually centauriod but even insects conform to the rules of head brains and eyes and hands.

 

Only on Star Trek are humanoids sexually atractive... well except for CMDR Riker and Captain Kirk, them boys have no standards

 

They could catch crabs!

 

Edited May 27, 2010 by Moontanman

[JohnB]

I have to agree with Mooeypoo.

 

If you think about it a bit, the physical requirements for a race becoming technological are pretty basic.

 

1. At least two eyes to allow depth perception. You could get away with one if they are significantly different from how ours work.

 

2. Limbs capable of manipulating tools and modifying their environment.

 

3. Brain developed enough for conscious thought.

 

4. A body structure that allows then to operate outside a watery environment.

 

After that, the form and/or number of appendages and where things are placed is an open game. The possibilities are endless.

 

Science fiction books are full of descriptions of very different forms of intelligent life and their biologies. How and why they are like they are.

 

I add that we are like we are simply because our very, very distant ancestors won the survival race. Go back far enough in the fossil records and you see amazing things. Trilateral symmetry, all sorts of things. If they had won instead of our ancestors, life on Earth would look very, very different.

 

A quick search on the "Cambrian Explosion" shows many creatures that are no longer in the evolutionary chain. The Arthropods survived and they did not, but if it had gone differently........

 

Mooeypoo would be attending Miss Universe with stars in all 5 eyes and rings on all 13 appendages. (And we would still vote for her.)

[King, North TX]

Ahhh....you guys are all making the same mistake Professor Hawking did, AGAIN.

 

We have a history with these entities, that suggests 'we' were made in 'their' image.

 

We ARE 'like them'.

[insane_alien]

Ahhh....you guys are all making the same mistake Professor Hawking did, AGAIN.

 

We have a history with these entities, that suggests 'we' were made in 'their' image.

 

We ARE 'like them'.

 

and you are repeating your own mistakes.

 

just because modern people interpret ancient depictions as aliens does not mean that they were aliens.

 

you cannot just keep saying 'we have a history with these entities' and make it true.

 

i mean, if we really did have a history with aliens then why didn't the aliens mention this, are we really going to say that our ancestors were so retarded that they couldn't express the notion that there were beings from another planet in regular contact with them?

[JohnB]

They might be worried that somebody would sue them?

[Edtharan]

For bugs to be big enough to be "us" on another planet would take conditions of less gravity greater pressure and more oxygen. Vertebrates didn't take the land from invertebrates because of chance. Vertebrates are simply better at exploiting dry land in large size than animals with exoskeletons. Vertebrates are better at low oxygen less support or higher gravity environments than invertebrates, the evolutionary record clearly shows that when oxygen levels fell at the end of the Carboniferous age body size of insects fell while vertebrate body size went up.

The reason invertabrates can't grow to our sizes is because the breathing structures they evolved with are not as eficient as ours are in lower oxigen concentrations.

 

Howeer, there is absolutly no reason that an alien inverterbrate would have the same lung structure (or any structure for that matter) in common with Earth based inverterbrates.

 

It could be quite possible for them to have evolved a lung structure similar to ours (or completely different to anyhting found on Earth) and be able to breath as well (or better) as we can. This would then mean that you could get inverterbrates as larger (or larger) than us.

 

But even if you disagree with that why couldn't "bugs" be humanoid? Why wouldn't an alien have a body with the forward appendages free to manipulate objects, a head with two eyes set so they are close to the brain so there is less delay times between them and the senses of the brain.

Our eye placment comes from the fact that we decended from aniamls that needed to have acurate binocular vision.

 

What about aliens with very different sensory aperatus. Might they use electro senses like many organisms do on Earth (sharks, platypus, etc), if they lived in an electricly conductive environemnt (like water) they might have such sense and not need vision. So even the assumption of eyes can't be certain.

 

Even forward pointing limbs can't be taken as necesary. Look at birds. They effectivly use tehir feet and beak to manipulate their environment, and some birds are not just tool users but tool makers as well (that is able to modify an existing tool or found item to better suit their needs).

 

There are tool using octopi that don't have just two limbs, or even specifically forwad pointing limbs, and yet they still manipulate objects in their surounding to extend the function of themselves (they use coconut shells as a mobile shelter - however IIRC they are not tool makers as they don't modify the shells at all).

 

These examples of Earth based life that breaks your requierments for tool use seems to indicate that alien life would not necesarily conform to your constraints.

 

when I say humanoid I am using the term loosely. At least as loosely as taking the idea of streamlining an animal for hi speed water travel.

 

Even deep sea animals are streamlined in a similar way if they expect to swim fast long distances, even birds are streamlined but they more closely resemble rays than fish. If you had an intelligent preying mantis it would technically be humanoid by this definition. Actually centauriod but even insects conform to the rules of head brains and eyes and hands.

No. A Humanoid is something that is similar to a Human (the "human" part of humanoid indicates this). So only by the loosest definition (and this is so loose that the term becomes meaningless) can you apply Humanoid to something like an inteligent preying mantis.

 

Only on Star Trek are humanoids sexually atractive... well except for CMDR Riker and Captain Kirk, them boys have no standards

 

They could catch crabs!

 

Love that picture. Lnad crabs are very cool!.

[mooeypoo]

Ahhh....you guys are all making the same mistake Professor Hawking did, AGAIN.

 

We have a history with these entities, that suggests 'we' were made in 'their' image.

 

We ARE 'like them'.

You know, it's one thing to argue (like it seems Moontanman and myself are, each on opposite side of the fense) that the odds favor or the odds are against UFOs being aliens. It's another to make an unfounded claim in a factual manner.

 

We might have a history with them - but you have no proof of that, and it's not something that's widely accepted as to make a definitive argument for.

 

You *THINK* Hawking was wrong because of what you said above. I also am of the opinion that Hawking was wrong, but I don't go around pretending that my opinion is fact. Hawking, too, made his statement as an opinion, not as fact, as no one really can make any of this factually.

 

Hawking is a brilliant physicist, but he's also human, and his opinions are only opinions. No one in the scientific community takes his opinion as dogma; he made his opinion known, and people argue about it.

 

If it was fact that he'd assert, he would be peer reviewed - as everyone in science is - but we would all have some evidence to examine and analyze.

 

One of the key issues in science is knowing how to separate fact from opinion.

 

~moo

[King, North TX]

and you are repeating your own mistakes.

 

just because modern people interpret ancient depictions as aliens does not mean that they were aliens.

 

you cannot just keep saying 'we have a history with these entities' and make it true.

 

i mean, if we really did have a history with aliens then why didn't the aliens mention this, are we really going to say that our ancestors were so retarded that they couldn't express the notion that there were beings from another planet in regular contact with them?

 

I disagree.

 

First with the use of the term "aliens", second that our ancestors were incapable of recording the events that occurred around them.

 

That said, I'll concede that what they wrote or recorded at their face value. However, what we can do is look at other records from the same period, and then look for consistencies.

 

Tales of 'our beginning', at the hands of heavenly agents IS 'common'.

 

While I'll concede this is not proof or evidence, the consistencies should provide reasonable suspicion that such events likely happened, and that we should follow the trail of breadcrumbs.

[mooeypoo]

I disagree.

You're allowed. But until you give some evidence, it's still an opinion.

 

First with the use of the term "aliens", second that our ancestors were incapable of recording the events that occurred around them.

 

That said, I'll concede that what they wrote or recorded at their face value. However, what we can do is look at other records from the same period, and then look for consistencies.

 

Tales of 'our beginning', at the hands of heavenly agents IS 'common'.

 

While I'll concede this is not proof or evidence, the consistencies should provide reasonable suspicion that such events likely happened, and that we should follow the trail of breadcrumbs.

Excellent reasoning - but it's still not substantiated, is it? There isn't any *proof* or *objective evidence* that stands the rigor of science that transforms your idea from an opinion (well reasoned as it may be) to a scientific fact.

 

I can explain what you bring up here (common 'tales of our beginning' and the similar accounts and drawings) with possibilities that make total sense and have nothing to do with aliens. I won't treat mine as absolute fact, though, or even substantiated theory, since they're not. Neither are yours.

 

You're in a science forum, and we have rigor in scientific claims. You are very much allowed to present your ideas and your opinions - but don't pretend they're fact when they're not, or that they're substantiated when you given us barely some anecdotal evidence that can be interpreted in more than one way.

 

 

 

~moo

[King, North TX]

You know, it's one thing to argue (like it seems Moontanman and myself are, each on opposite side of the fense) that the odds favor or the odds are against UFOs being aliens. It's another to make an unfounded claim in a factual manner.

 

We might have a history with them - but you have no proof of that, and it's not something that's widely accepted as to make a definitive argument for.

 

You *THINK* Hawking was wrong because of what you said above. I also am of the opinion that Hawking was wrong, but I don't go around pretending that my opinion is fact. Hawking, too, made his statement as an opinion, not as fact, as no one really can make any of this factually.

 

Hawking is a brilliant physicist, but he's also human, and his opinions are only opinions. No one in the scientific community takes his opinion as dogma; he made his opinion known, and people argue about it.

 

If it was fact that he'd assert, he would be peer reviewed - as everyone in science is - but we would all have some evidence to examine and analyze.

 

One of the key issues in science is knowing how to separate fact from opinion.

 

~moo

 

Unfounded...?

 

I'm not just pulling stuff out of my sphincter, here. MOST creation stories contain the same tale, "Gods of heaven, created man in their image." While I think it is unlikely that my ancestor was "molded from clay, and then filled with the breathe of life". I utterly refuse to toss out the baby with the bath water.

 

But let's be clear, these aren't 'my' opinions. These are our ancestor's facts...

 

It is now up to our scientists to verify them, or not.

 

Hawking IS wrong, because his stance was created while ignoring our entire history with 'heavenly agents'.

[mooeypoo]

Unfounded...?

 

I'm not just pulling stuff out of my sphincter, here. MOST creation stories contain the same tale, "Gods of heaven, created man in their image." While I think it is unlikely that my ancestor was "molded from clay, and then filled with the breathe of life". I utterly refuse to toss out the baby with the bath water.

 

That's anecdotal, and it's interpreted. As I said above, I can offer an alternative explanation for this that doesn't involve aliens and both explanations will have equal footing - the question that shall remain is which one is more reasonable, which we can argue.

 

That doesn't change the fact that it's *not* founded, and it's *not* a scientific theory, and it does *not* have *EVIDENCE*. It has interpreted anecdotal accounts. You should be careful of that distinction.

 

But let's be clear, these aren't 'my' opinions. These are our ancestor's facts...

 

It is now up to our scientists to verify them, or not.

No, you're making the claim, it's up to you to substantiate them. This isn't fact, it's a claim, and until it's verified, it's not a facct, not one of my ancenstor's fact and not your facts. It's not a fact. It's a claim.

 

You make it. You need to bring the evidence. That's the way it works in science.

 

Hawking IS wrong, because his stance was created while ignoring our entire history with 'heavenly agents'.

Look. You are making no sense whatsoever. We can disagree on subtle details all you want, but you have no scientific evidence. You cannot, therefore, claim this is factual.

 

You are not in a myth or conspiracy-theory forum you are in a science forum. We go by the scientific method, and by the scientific definition of fact, theory, evidence and hypothesis.

 

Your claim fits none of the above, especially not fact, and you should stop making it seem like it's fact. Instead, you should work on substantiating what you say in accordance to the *rigor* of science.

 

Alternatively, you can look for a conspiracy ufo forum where people might be less annoying in their requirement of proper evidence. Pick your audience, eh?

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

But let's be clear, these aren't 'my' opinions. These are our ancestor's facts...

 

Just one question: Who made the earth round when it had previously been flat for such a long time?

[Moontanman]

Just one question: Who made the earth round when it had previously been flat for such a long time?

 

Me, the whole oceans falling off the edge thing got to be a drag, the giant turtles kept drowning!

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The reason invertabrates can't grow to our sizes is because the breathing structures they evolved with are not as eficient as ours are in lower oxigen concentrations.

 

Some arthropod breathing organs are better than others but i can agree with this, I pretty much said it in my post.

 

 

Howeer, there is absolutly no reason that an alien inverterbrate would have the same lung structure (or any structure for that matter) in common with Earth based inverterbrates.

 

Agreed

 

It could be quite possible for them to have evolved a lung structure similar to ours (or completely different to anyhting found on Earth) and be able to breath as well (or better) as we can. This would then mean that you could get inverterbrates as larger (or larger) than us.

 

Nope, you are ignoring the cube square law, land arthropods are not large because an external skeleton gets too heavy to support large animals.

 

Our eye placment comes from the fact that we decended from aniamls that needed to have acurate binocular vision.

 

 

This is true but an intelligent creature capable of doing what we do has to have binocular vision to judge depth, Depth perception is part of the bag of tricks that allow us to effective use our intelligence for technology.

 

 

 

What about aliens with very different sensory aperatus. Might they use electro senses like many organisms do on Earth (sharks, platypus, etc), if they lived in an electricly conductive environemnt (like water) they might have such sense and not need vision. So even the assumption of eyes can't be certain.

 

We are talking about technological aliens here, fire is a prerequisite for technology like ours, aliens must spend at least part of their lives on land, and light is the easiest and best way to see on land.

 

 

 

Even forward pointing limbs can't be taken as necesary. Look at birds. They effectivly use tehir feet and beak to manipulate their environment, and some birds are not just tool users but tool makers as well (that is able to modify an existing tool or found item to better suit their needs).

 

Crows are very smart, they use tools, even make tools out of other less suitable objects but they are severely limited by having to use their feet to grasp limbs and their beak has no opposable thumbs to multiply their grip. Birds as we know them would be at a big disadvantage in the "hands" department. Could a bird use a spear or flake rocks to make a knife? A bow an arrow? I'll have to admit it's a unlikely but still possible scenario.

 

There are tool using octopi that don't have just two limbs, or even specifically forwad pointing limbs, and yet they still manipulate objects in their surounding to extend the function of themselves (they use coconut shells as a mobile shelter - however IIRC they are not tool makers as they don't modify the shells at all).

 

Again, under water, no fire, no space ships. Even if gravity was low enough to allow an octopus to achieve technology the air being thick enough to allow life forms under such low gravity seems unlikely.

 

These examples of Earth based life that breaks your requierments for tool use seems to indicate that alien life would not necesarily conform to your constraints.

 

 

No they are not as I've pointed out.

 

No. A Humanoid is something that is similar to a Human (the "human" part of humanoid indicates this). So only by the loosest definition (and this is so loose that the term becomes meaningless) can you apply Humanoid to something like an inteligent preying mantis.

 

A head on a torso, binocular vision, two arms and two or more legs to support the body is humanoid. Even four arms and four legs would still be in the shape ball park.

 

 

Love that picture. Lnad crabs are very cool!.

 

Yeah, it's one of my favorites but the crab is exaggerated in size quite a bit, the trash can is not a normal 30 gallon can, more like a five gallon bucket. Still a big crab but they are rare and cannot compete with introduced mammals in their environment.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I disagree.

 

First with the use of the term "aliens", second that our ancestors were incapable of recording the events that occurred around them.

 

That said, I'll concede that what they wrote or recorded at their face value. However, what we can do is look at other records from the same period, and then look for consistencies.

 

Tales of 'our beginning', at the hands of heavenly agents IS 'common'.

 

While I'll concede this is not proof or evidence, the consistencies should provide reasonable suspicion that such events likely happened, and that we should follow the trail of breadcrumbs.

 

King, i really have some sympathy for your arguments here but so far as others have said you give no evidence at all and the idea that because we all shared a similar creation story really doesn't hold up. The idea of beings from heaven is not universal nor is the creation story of the bible, even though the bibles story is repeated in other cultures so are many other things in the bible.

 

It might mean human brains are alike enough that we form similar stories when we try to go beyond what we know but some creation stories are simply not even close to what we westerners seem to think is universal. I think it's even possible that the idea of aliens comes from this universal need to appeal to a higher authority. In ancient times they saw gods or demons, now we see aliens.

 

I think some of the evidence does point in the direction of nuts and bolts aliens, ETI, EDI or some other manifestation of some intelligence other than us but I cannot prove it yet. Your idea does dovetail quite nicely with mine but i don't think "they" are super beings we cannot conceive of in any way other than the supernatural and i really see nothing to even suggest "they" created us.

 

 

I hope one day these things will be investegated seriously and maybe some good can come of it but for now we are speculating big time.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

BTW I hate this whole merged posts deal!

Edited May 27, 2010 by Moontanman
Consecutive posts merged.

[JohnB]

MOST creation stories contain the same tale, "Gods of heaven, created man in their image." While I think it is unlikely that my ancestor was "molded from clay, and then filled with the breathe of life".

Actually, most don't. It is a common error to equate Judeo/Christian stories with "most". The Creation myths of our society are a subset of a much larger group. I say this as someone who has read many creation myths from all over the planet.

 

The "clay" or "mud" might be very close to the mark though. It might be a very accurate description of the conditions after the possible flood event of circa 2800BC.

[King, North TX]

Actual truth exists without it, as evident in my Troy argument.

 

That we no longer have the evidence from which to fully study, should NOT keep us from accepting the scribes' of old truthfulness.

 

My initial argument, and the reason I posted under this thread was that Hawking 'completely' ignored every tale, painting, cave wall image, and religious text, is his 'opinion' that mankind's first contact would result in a Christopher Columbus meets North American Natives.

 

I am not suggesting that the sum of all these tales is 'proof' of anything.

 

I am saying however, that to dismiss ALL of them as pure fiction with no basis in reality whatsoever is..."dumb".

 

And to dismiss the consistencies demonstrated in so many History Channel specials, is in a word "IGNORant".

 

There IS something in our heavens it isn't my job to define it or offer it up for study. I am simply not equipped to do so. My shortcomings, or science's inability procure a lab sample doesn't stop said, documented, and witnessed entity from existing.

 

Realty is what it is, even if we can't presently define it. But we ARE witnessing a 'something'.

 

That or EVERY tale, image, text, and video was and has been a fiction...the same one told since man took up a rock and chiseled onto another. EVERY piece of material written about "heavenly agents"...utterly false.

 

Which is more likely, that our entire written history is a complete fabrication OR, that we have simply misinterpreted what "god" truly was...or still is???

 

If this is what science thinks of history, then I'm glad I call myself a historian.

Edited May 28, 2010 by King, North TX

[Moontanman]

Actual truth exists without it, as evident in my Troy argument.

 

That we no longer have the evidence from which to fully study, should NOT keep us from accepting the scribes' of old truthfulness.

 

My initial argument, and the reason I posted under this thread was that Hawking 'completely' ignored every tale, painting, cave wall image, and religious text, is his 'opinion' that mankind's first contact would result in a Christopher Columbus meets North American Natives.

 

I am not suggesting that the sum of all these tales is 'proof' of anything.

 

I am say however, to dismiss ALL of them as pure fiction, with no basis in reality whatsoever is..."dumb".

 

And to dismiss the consistencies demonstrated in so many History Channel specials, is in a word "IGNORant".

 

There IS something in our heavens it isn't my job to define it or offer it up for study. I am simply not equipped to do so. My shortcomings, or science's inability procure a lab sample doesn't stop said, documented, and witnessed entity from existing.

 

Realty is what it is, even if we can't presently define it. But we ARE witnessing a 'something'.

 

That or EVERY tale, image, text, and video was and has been a fiction...the same one told since man took up a rock and chiseled onto another. EVERY piece of material written about "heavenly agents"...utterly false.

 

Which is more likely, that our entire written history is a complete fabrication OR, that we have simply misinterpreted what "god" truly was...or still is???

 

If this is what science thinks of history, then I'm glad I call myself a historian.

 

I have to agree with King here, at least to a small extent. I think it is indeed a mistake to dismiss out of hand the idea that something in the sky or about the sky has indeed inspired us to do lots of things. it could very well be that the ancient writings is inspired by no more than the planets and stars. No one can discount the effect the heavens has on humans.

 

Similarly discounting what modern humans have seen is also in error. Billy Joe Jim Bob the redneck out drinking beer and smoking dope while he seduces his cousin in the back of his pick up truck is not the only person (or type of person) to have have ever seen a UFO that was simply beyond our understanding of what we like to call reality.

 

Many trained observers have witnessed clear sightings of real metallic objects that defy the laws of what we think of as flight. objects that cannot have an earthly origin. men flying nuclear bomb carrying bombers have seen these things both visually and on radar. Verified by other ground radar and similarly trained observers on the ground who saw the UFO hovering over intercontinental ballistic missiles at a hundred feet above the ground and the UFO affected the electronic communication of the bomber, civilian aircraft that also saw the object and the object affected nuclear missiles in their silos. All in the same sighting!

 

Now we can explain away the above sighting the same way the military did, every one saw the planet Jupiter or we can look into the evidence and give at least a realistic possibility and often something beyond our understanding of what we see on the earth is a possibility and not a distant one!

 

On the other hand i cannot see taking the word of ancient scribes at their word because quite frankly they saw these things in the sky as supernatural, everything that occurred in the sky was supernatural.

 

On the other hand Meteors and Comets were supernatural entities as well but they recorded them quite accurately. Why do we dismiss anything else they saw but not all of it? It's because we have been able to pin down meteors and comets as natural phenomena but UFOs remain unclassified.

 

I think this is due to the way UFOs were investigated by the military and the way the military instilled the idea of UFOs being seen by people who were not quite right in the head or were poor observers.

 

Remember that at one time "officially" rocks did not fall from the sky either. To suggest it could bring you into deep shit. It didn't keep rocks from falling from the sky, it just kept people from believing they did unless they saw one drop. Ridicule and dismissal of the idea of rocks falling from the sky kept people from the truth for a long time.

 

I'd rather believe a Yankee professor would lie than believe rocks could fall from the sky!

 

Any one want to debate the three main theories of the orgin of the UFO? ETI theory, EDI theory, and M&M theory (The best candy in the world comes from Mars)

[King, North TX]

...

 

Any one want to debate the three main theories of the orgin of the UFO? ETI theory, EDI theory, and M&M theory (The best candy in the world comes from Mars)

 

Could you briefly define or otherwise explain the terms:

 

ETI theory, EDI theory, and M&M theory...?

[Moontanman]

Could you briefly define or otherwise explain the terms:

 

ETI theory, EDI theory, and M&M theory...?

 

Sure no problemo.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_Hynek

 

 

 

"There is sufficient evidence to defend both the ETI and the EDI hypothesis," Hynek continued. As evidence for the ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence) he mentioned, as examples, the radar cases as good evidence of something solid, and the physical-trace cases. Then he turned to defending the EDI (extradimensional intelligence) hypothesis. Besides the aspect of materialization and dematerialization he cited the "poltergeist" phenomenon experienced by some people after a close encounter; the photographs of UFOs, some times on only one frame, not seen by the witnesses; the changing form right before the witnesses' eyes; the puzzling question of telepathic communication; or that in close encounters of the third kind the creatures seem to be at home in earth's gravity and atmosphere; the sudden stillness in the presence of the craft; levitation of cars or persons; the development by some of psychic abilities after an encounter. "Do we have two aspects of one phenomenon or two different sets of phenomena?" Hynek asked.[14]

 

Finally he introduced a third hypothesis. "I hold it entirely possible," he said, "that a technology exists, which encompasses both the physical and the psychic, the material and the mental. There are stars that are millions of years older than the sun. There may be a civilization that is millions of years more advanced than man's. We have gone from Kitty Hawk to the moon in some seventy years, but it's possible that a million-year-old civilization may know something that we don't ... I hypothesize an 'M&M' technology encompassing the mental and material realms. The psychic realms, so mysterious to us today, may be an ordinary part of an advanced technology."[15]

[King, North TX]

Sure no problemo.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_Hynek

 

Interesting...although I don't believe there's enough information to even begin speculation.

 

I mean it could be one, two, all 3, or none of them. They could be sub-terrain lizard people who learned to fly a million years ago, who exist on geo-thermal fluids and heat- "Hell Dwellers"?

 

What I 'know' is that some intelligence exists in our heavens, but I DON'T know what specifically it is, where they hail from, or what their true motive/purpose is.

 

I don't think they are the benevolent, loving, protective/guardian "God" that is supposed to answer our prayers...

 

I mean, they aren't raining mana down on any or all the hungry folk that I've heard of lately. They haven't warned us about a tsunami with a big loud booming voice, "Move AWAY from the beach!" And it is possible they are merely amused by our inability to plug a hole that 'we' dug into the Earth.

 

Our planet is bleeding a toxic soup, that 'WE' have released...and have "0" ability to stop, as of yet.

 

Yet, no 'elves' have snuck in helped us out and done our work for us.

 

The gods have left us, to our own devices. They stood us up, and now we have to walk... Personally, I'd rather prefer a little hand holding, with this whole environmental balance thing.

 

Observation and study look to be their main objective.