Written by Clintagräm on 29.04.2010 at 02:44

Written by Winterthrone on 29.04.2010 at 02:36

Yes but notice the word " Might" just after that! I mean there is some evidences that might lead to this conclusion, but there is not enough evidences to prove those theories. Do not read fragments, but whole posts please.

Oh I read your whole post alright. You could have evidence that might lead to many conclusions; but that doesn't mean we should follow them.

That's funny cause you quoted only the first part of my post. The main goal of my post was to stress the fact that there's no certitude on those theories. I never said one should follow them...I said these theories were raising more questions than they were answering questions! So where do you disagree?

Written by Winterthrone on 29.04.2010 at 04:08

That's funny cause you quoted only the first part of my post. The main goal of my post was to stress the fact that there's no certitude on those theories. I never said one should follow them...I said these theories were raising more questions than they were answering questions! So where do you disagree?

I never accused you personally of believing those theories; you simply acknowledged that they are there. I agree about that. What I disagree about is about what constitutes "evidence." I don't think drawings that resemble something that we created many years later (ie: spaceships or men with astronaut helmets) count as evidence.

Written by Clintagräm on 29.04.2010 at 04:22

I never accused you personally of believing those theories; you simply acknowledged that they are there. I agree about that. What I disagree about is about what constitutes "evidence." I don't think drawings that resemble something that we created many years later (ie: spaceships or men with astronaut helmets) count as evidence.

The weird thing about those drawings, which is what makes people more likely to at least count them as circumstantial evidence, is that they occur at various places in the world, in societies that couldn't have had contact with each other. It raises the very good question of why these isolated societies all imagined similar things. This theory of Extraterrestrial visits really helps put a bridge across a lot of these questions.

Written by Piro on 24.07.2010 at 14:07

Written by Clintagräm on 29.04.2010 at 04:22

I never accused you personally of believing those theories; you simply acknowledged that they are there. I agree about that. What I disagree about is about what constitutes "evidence." I don't think drawings that resemble something that we created many years later (ie: spaceships or men with astronaut helmets) count as evidence.

The weird thing about those drawings, which is what makes people more likely to at least count them as circumstantial evidence, is that they occur at various places in the world, in societies that couldn't have had contact with each other. It raises the very good question of why these isolated societies all imagined similar things. This theory of Extraterrestrial visits really helps put a bridge across a lot of these questions.

Yes, but is such a hypothesis (not a theory!) even sound is the question? I could say a whole slew of other things that would make just a little sense. Just because they bridge the gap doesn't mean there's any really content to them.

Written by Clintagräm on 24.07.2010 at 21:34

Yes, but is such a hypothesis (not a theory!) even sound is the question? I could say a whole slew of other things that would make just a little sense. Just because they bridge the gap doesn't mean there's any really content to them.

Well, the fact that they do bridge the gap in itself makes the hypothesis worth investigating. I'm no expert in this, I've read most of "Chariots of the Gods" and some of "Return to the stars", both which deal with this topic. I've never heard evidence that debunks the possibility of these cultures being inspired by extraterrestrials.

I've also never heard another hypothesis explaining these multicultural, yet parallel developments. It is true that I haven't actively searched either. Personally, I'm not totally convinced either way on this topic, but I certainly don't see a reason for throwing this theory or hypothesis as you put it aside either.

Written by Piro on 24.07.2010 at 21:54

Well, the fact that they do bridge the gap in itself makes the hypothesis worth investigating. I'm no expert in this, I've read most of "Chariots of the Gods" and some of "Return to the stars", both which deal with this topic. I've never heard evidence that debunks the possibility of these cultures being inspired by extraterrestrials.

I've also never heard another hypothesis explaining these multicultural, yet parallel developments. It is true that I haven't actively searched either. Personally, I'm not totally convinced either way on this topic, but I certainly don't see a reason for throwing this theory or hypothesis as you put it aside either.

I believe it's possible to do a quick search and realize that any book by Erich von Däniken is at least a joke and at worst very misleading. Like the old saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What hypotheses like these put forth, beyond food for thought, are claims that are infallible. It's just like the idea of gods. It's a circular argument. Without empirical evidence it's a claim that goes no where.

I like Lovecraft stories and Carpenter's The Thing as much, if not more, than the next guy. But the idea of ancient astronauts is just that, an idea.

I can't even believe this gets to be in this forum ("Serious discussions").
I suggest you read this: Weak/false analogy, argumentum ad ignorantiam naming only two of bad reasoning concerning issues like this.
And a very funny and witty presentation of my favorite physicist Neil Tyson. Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k

And if you still don't get it...


Usually people present them-self's as critical & skeptical thinkers then it comes to "conventional history" mainstream media or the "evil government". When actually they only have vague evidence, bad reasoning and an emotional wish to believe.
But actually what they are are poor thinkers not skeptical one's Woman thinks water ןis toxicant because rainbows appear.

The philosopher and psychologist John Dewey defined skeptical thinking as: "Active, persistent, and careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds which support it and the further conclusions to which it ends" (Dewey, 1909 p.9)

Until proper evidence which support this hypothesis 'come forth', there is no reason to accept such an extraordinary assumptions.

Written by Clintagräm on 24.07.2010 at 22:05


I believe it's possible to do a quick search and realize that any book by Erich von Däniken is at least a joke and at worst very misleading. Like the old saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What hypotheses like these put forth, beyond food for thought, are claims that are infallible. It's just like the idea of gods. It's a circular argument. Without empirical evidence it's a claim that goes no where.

I like Lovecraft stories and Carpenter's The Thing as much, if not more, than the next guy. But the idea of ancient astronauts is just that, an idea.

You both have assumed that I buy into this idea. While it is true that a will to believe will lead to belief, all I said is that there isn't evidence to disprove it, which is why it's foolish to totally disregard this (or any other idea under similar circumstances). This is different from the "circular reasoning" that results from religious discussions, there are scientific discoveries that debunk, or at the very least, make certain tenants of religion unlikely to be factual.

The controversy around Daniken isn't really something I'm concerned about, though I'm aware that plenty exists.

Written by Piro on 25.07.2010 at 02:42

You both have assumed that I buy into this idea. While it is true that a will to believe will lead to belief, all I said is that there isn't evidence to disprove it, which is why it's foolish to totally disregard this (or any other idea under similar circumstances). This is different from the "circular reasoning" that results from religious discussions, there are scientific discoveries that debunk, or at the very least, make certain tenants of religion unlikely to be factual.

The controversy around Daniken isn't really something I'm concerned about, though I'm aware that plenty exists.

I assume that you buy into this idea? Source?

On another note, I do agree that there could be empirical evidence for exobiogenesis via intelligent life forms, that is obvious. But currently all of the "evidence" for these hypotheses is either a joke or nonexistent. Yes, people have some clever ideas, but there really is no empirical evidence to back it up. I'm not even talking about aliens, UFOs, etc. but the idea of ancient astronauts planting life and/or civilization here.

Because there is no evidence, but there is also no evidence against it (except for simply stating there is no evidence) then I would say it is an infallible claim, just like those made by various religions throughout time.

And the "controversy" surrounding Daniken is more like he's a joke to the academic world. There really isn't any debate among mainstream scientists concerning his theories, to my knowledge. Though it's still a cool idea. If we let every interesting idea without evidence to disprove it into our labs and let them receive funding the world would be even worse off than it is.

Finally, I will say this if it makes you happy. In science there is never a certainty of something being true or false, there is only probability. We can put this hypothesis on the back burner and if evidence for it turns up, then obviously we'll want to take a closer look at it. But think of this, you say "there isn't evidence to disprove it [the ancient astronaut theory], which is why it's foolish to totally disregard." So why wouldn't it work both ways? Why would we regard an idea if there was no evidence for it?

Written by Clintagräm on 25.07.2010 at 03:51


I assume that you buy into this idea? Source?

On another note, I do agree that there could be empirical evidence for exobiogenesis via intelligent life forms, that is obvious. But currently all of the "evidence" for these hypotheses is either a joke or nonexistent. Yes, people have some clever ideas, but there really is no empirical evidence to back it up. I'm not even talking about aliens, UFOs, etc. but the idea of ancient astronauts planting life and/or civilization here.

Because there is no evidence, but there is also no evidence against it (except for simply stating there is no evidence) then I would say it is an infallible claim, just like those made by various religions throughout time.

And the "controversy" surrounding Daniken is more like he's a joke to the academic world. There really isn't any debate among mainstream scientists concerning his theories, to my knowledge. Though it's still a cool idea. If we let every interesting idea without evidence to disprove it into our labs and let them receive funding the world would be even worse off than it is.

Finally, I will say this if it makes you happy. In science there is never a certainty of something being true or false, there is only probability. We can put this hypothesis on the back burner and if evidence for it turns up, then obviously we'll want to take a closer look at it. But think of this, you say "there isn't evidence to disprove it [the ancient astronaut theory], which is why it's foolish to totally disregard." So why wouldn't it work both ways? Why would we regard an idea if there was no evidence for it?

I just got the feeling from the tone of your posts that you believed I wholeheartedly bought into the idea. No harm done either way really.

If there is no evidence for something, then I agree, there's no reason to bother investigating. It's also important exactly how we define evidence. Daniken, or anyone else that truly believes in this can claim all the various archeological (coincidences, I'll term them), as being evidence that something sparked human imagination in a similar direction throughout the globe. Since nothing exists on our planet that could have inspired these things, the next step is to claim something extraterrestrial inspired them. With modern knowledge of precautions necessary for space travel, they decided to link them to alien visitors. It's certainly a fantasical idea, but, at the very least, it possesses some circumstantial evidence.

Written by Piro on 25.07.2010 at 04:44

Since nothing exists on our planet that could have inspired these things, the next step is to claim something extraterrestrial inspired them.

First off, are you stating this or them?

Written by Piro on 25.07.2010 at 04:44

It's certainly a fantasical idea, but, at the very least, it possesses some circumstantial evidence.

Second, I don't think the "evidence" used is evidence for exobiogenesis. It is simply information that they use as evidence. It's like calling the apparent order in the world evidence that our world was created by an intelligent designer. I would consider this misused and manipulated information, not real evidence.

I actually got to visit Roswell, New Mexico for the Fourth of July Alien Parade as well as visit the UFO museum. I saw a lot of absurd things there, so I'm actually speaking from experience here.

Written by Clintagräm on 25.07.2010 at 04:52


First off, are you stating this or them?

"They" are. At least from what I understood from the books. But, try as I might, I can't think of any reason why this would occur, unless humans collectively believed something about large heads was sacred. I'm no physiologist, so perhaps there's something else in our (past) nature that would inspire these humans to act in such a similar way, independent of each other.

Written by Clintagräm on 25.07.2010 at 04:52


Second, I don't think the "evidence" used is evidence for exobiogenesis. It is simply information that they use as evidence. It's like calling the apparent order in the world evidence that our world was created by an intelligent designer. I would consider this misused and manipulated information, not real evidence.

I actually got to visit Roswell, New Mexico for the Fourth of July Alien Parade as well as visit the UFO museum. I saw a lot of absurd things there, so I'm actually speaking from experience here.

I have to agree with you, it certainly isn't proof for exobiogenisis. But it is different from calling the order in the world a result of intelligent design. Order in societies can more or less be explained by applying sociology to macro-history. I actually read a book that dealt with this in brief. The book I'm referring to is Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. It attempts to explain human development by applying various fields of science to traditional studies of history. Since this scientific theory exists as a counter to the intelligent design theory (and makes far more sense if you ask me), you can correctly call using the world's "order" as proof for "God" misused and manipulated information.

I haven't read, heard, or seen any convincing theory that explains some of the phenomenon that have occurred. Which is why I hold this theory of possible alien visitors as possible (though, as we have agreed on, far-fetched). It's true they might just be coincidences, but I don't think that's likely.

As for ancient structures that look like "airstrips", this is quite possible, especially if extraterrestrials did visit. I remember reading about indigenous peoples of small Asian islands during WWII. When Allied forces landed there, built airstrips and brought airplanes, the people were amazed. After the war, no one bothered going back there for some time, but when they did, they discovered the local indigenous population had built mock planes out of sticks, and their old radios had become religious artifacts from the "Gods". At the very least, this is proof that less advanced societies might have seen advanced visitors as Gods. Again, I realize this doesn't "prove" anything, but it does add a few more ounces of "possibility" to the hypothesis, and another reason not to throw it out altogether.

As for Roswell, I've watched a documentary or two on it during late-night TV. I don't know what to make of it, but it was nothing but hearsay from what I heard in the interviews. No one seemed to have kept any small "souvenir", as proof, and it just wasn't convincing.

Written by Piro on 25.07.2010 at 15:45

"They" are. At least from what I understood from the books. But, try as I might, I can't think of any reason why this would occur, unless humans collectively believed something about large heads was sacred. I'm no physiologist, so perhaps there's something else in our (past) nature that would inspire these humans to act in such a similar way, independent of each other.

I'd say do some research then. I haven't because I don't feel the need, but if you feel compelled, then I would suggest it. I would imagine it's something close to independent invention. Does this mean Aliens came to earth and taught different cultures how to make spears or monolithic structures? I really don't think so.

Written by Piro on 25.07.2010 at 15:45

I have to agree with you, it certainly isn't proof for exobiogenisis. But it is different from calling the order in the world a result of intelligent design. Order in societies can more or less be explained by applying sociology to macro-history. I actually read a book that dealt with this in brief. The book I'm referring to is Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. It attempts to explain human development by applying various fields of science to traditional studies of history. Since this scientific theory exists as a counter to the intelligent design theory (and makes far more sense if you ask me), you can correctly call using the world's "order" as proof for "God" misused and manipulated information.

I was speaking from the apparent order of the physical universe. Not culture and society.

Written by Piro on 25.07.2010 at 15:45

I haven't read, heard, or seen any convincing theory that explains some of the phenomenon that have occurred. Which is why I hold this theory of possible alien visitors as possible (though, as we have agreed on, far-fetched). It's true they might just be coincidences, but I don't think that's likely.

As for ancient structures that look like "airstrips", this is quite possible, especially if extraterrestrials did visit. I remember reading about indigenous peoples of small Asian islands during WWII. When Allied forces landed there, built airstrips and brought airplanes, the people were amazed. After the war, no one bothered going back there for some time, but when they did, they discovered the local indigenous population had built mock planes out of sticks, and their old radios had become religious artifacts from the "Gods". At the very least, this is proof that less advanced societies might have seen advanced visitors as Gods. Again, I realize this doesn't "prove" anything, but it does add a few more ounces of "possibility" to the hypothesis, and another reason not to throw it out altogether.

As for Roswell, I've watched a documentary or two on it during late-night TV. I don't know what to make of it, but it was nothing but hearsay from what I heard in the interviews. No one seemed to have kept any small "souvenir", as proof, and it just wasn't convincing.

I'm surprised you're so quick to give the idea credibility at all. It in fact baffles me that there is absolutely no empirical evidence in support of this hypothesis beyond a few "alien scholars" interpreting ancient cultures' art and relics (which ironically may have no real, discoverable meaning left behind anyways) and then someone calling this a plausible, workable hypothesis. It's a joke.

Your mentioning of cargo cults is interesting, but obviously there is evidence they were actually visited by people.

And you mentioned no one kept anything from Roswell and that's not convincing. So why would alien astronauts be convincing? There is no physical traces left behind and like I said, the only thing to work from is interpretations of ancient art.

Written by Clintagräm on 26.07.2010 at 01:15

I'd say do some research then. I haven't because I don't feel the need, but if you feel compelled, then I would suggest it. I would imagine it's something close to independent invention. Does this mean Aliens came to earth and taught different cultures how to make spears or monolithic structures? I really don't think so.

Those things are different entirely. Spears and structures are something that help people survive, something that helps people along, and lets them improve the quality of their lives. Drawing weird, unearthly little people on walls doesn't. It reflects something in their culture specifically.

Written by Clintagräm on 26.07.2010 at 01:15

I'm surprised you're so quick to give the idea credibility at all. It in fact baffles me that there is absolutely no empirical evidence in support of this hypothesis beyond a few "alien scholars" interpreting ancient cultures' art and relics (which ironically may have no real, discoverable meaning left behind anyways) and then someone calling this a plausible, workable hypothesis. It's a joke.

Your mentioning of cargo cults is interesting, but obviously there is evidence they were actually visited by people.

And you mentioned no one kept anything from Roswell and that's not convincing. So why would alien astronauts be convincing? There is no physical traces left behind and like I said, the only thing to work from is interpretations of ancient art.

Maybe credibility isn't the correct word, but it's a hypothesis that works without stretching much actual historical work, and doesn't contradict itself. I realize that the cargo cults have been visited by people, which is why they are a perfect example of what might have happened if there were extraterrestrials that visited. The only thing wrong with this hypothesis is that it's just so "out there". It bothers me when people throw away ideas because of this, since there are plenty of times in history when ideas that were "out there" turned out to be true. Copernicus's Sol-Centric solar system for example. I'm not trying to prove this hypothesis, rather, I'm trying to point out that it shouldn't just be tossed aside.

As for Roswell, I didn't find what the people in the documentary were saying credible. They seemed to claim there was a full out Alien crash, with some going as far as saying the Body was discovered, and later dissected. There's a video of this, but with technology the way it is, I'm very doubtful of it. At the same time, Roswell is something that should be investigated as well, but for entirely different reasons. The army clearly lied about something, whether or not it's about alien technology and contact is what's up for discussion.

Written by Piro on 26.07.2010 at 15:13

Those things are different entirely. Spears and structures are something that help people survive, something that helps people along, and lets them improve the quality of their lives. Drawing weird, unearthly little people on walls doesn't. It reflects something in their culture specifically.

I agree, however this doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Think of all the different songs out there, or books, or paintings that are very similar without their creators coming into contact with each other. I would read this. It's a pretty good article. Remember scientifically it's all about probability.

Written by Piro on 26.07.2010 at 15:13

Maybe credibility isn't the correct word, but it's a hypothesis that works without stretching much actual historical work, and doesn't contradict itself. I realize that the cargo cults have been visited by people, which is why they are a perfect example of what might have happened if there were extraterrestrials that visited. The only thing wrong with this hypothesis is that it's just so "out there". It bothers me when people throw away ideas because of this, since there are plenty of times in history when ideas that were "out there" turned out to be true. Copernicus's Sol-Centric solar system for example. I'm not trying to prove this hypothesis, rather, I'm trying to point out that it shouldn't just be tossed aside.

Like I said before, for the sake of science I would agree. We can't throw the hypothesis out. But I could say any number of things that are (currently) just as infallible. About gods, or ancient cultures on Earth becoming so advanced they left and then came back and taught primitive humans or any number of other ideas. That doesn't mean squat though. I guess you should just look at it as there are an infinite number of possible explanations for a lot of things, but those we actually accept are those supported by evidence. This is one that just isn't, even if it seems to fit.

I would say it just comes down to probability. I admit that it could have happened. I really do. I honestly believe there is an extremely high probability that life exists elsewhere in the universe. I also believe there's a probability (yet much lower) that there could be intelligent life. In fact I hope there is. I'd be among the first to change my mind if real, observable, empirical evidence came down on the side of exobiogenesis via intelligent beings or something of that nature. But until then, you have to ask yourself without evidence is it really probable at all? Until the verdict comes in, this hypothesis is playing on the same side as the gods and bigfoot.

Written by Clintagräm on 26.07.2010 at 19:05

I agree, however this doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Think of all the different songs out there, or books, or paintings that are very similar without their creators coming into contact with each other. I would read this. It's a pretty good article. Remember scientifically it's all about probability.

The article raises the same points you have been raising in my opinion. You, as well as the author of that article, are both correct. This isn't a fool-proof hypothesis, and cool looking spiral drawings don't prove anything. However, while he practically says it is scenario as likely as "Getting struck by lightening while holding a winning lottery ticket". I have to disagree with that. It may not be proven to be correct, but, as we've been discussing, there are points which make it certainly more probable than that.

Written by Clintagräm on 26.07.2010 at 19:05

Like I said before, for the sake of science I would agree. We can't throw the hypothesis out. But I could say any number of things that are (currently) just as infallible. About gods, or ancient cultures on Earth becoming so advanced they left and then came back and taught primitive humans or any number of other ideas. That doesn't mean squat though. I guess you should just look at it as there are an infinite number of possible explanations for a lot of things, but those we actually accept are those supported by evidence. This is one that just isn't, even if it seems to fit.

I would say it just comes down to probability. I admit that it could have happened. I really do. I honestly believe there is an extremely high probability that life exists elsewhere in the universe. I also believe there's a probability (yet much lower) that there could be intelligent life. In fact I hope there is. I'd be among the first to change my mind if real, observable, empirical evidence came down on the side of exobiogenesis via intelligent beings or something of that nature. But until then, you have to ask yourself without evidence is it really probable at all? Until the verdict comes in, this hypothesis is playing on the same side as the gods and bigfoot.

I see your point about there being lots of these possibilities which no one can really debunk. In fact, I'd say most conspiracy theories are still around for that very reason. However, as I mentioned earlier in my post, this hypothesis has been around for awhile, and has only ever gained ground, while very little has been done to disprove it.

As for your last statement, waiting for the verdict is all we can really do. However, I at least, would like to place this hypothesis a step or two above "God". Most people who read into a lot of scientific areas which pertain to God, end up not believing in him. The ones that continue to, either want to believe in him, or have a totally different idea of what "God" is. Personally, I believe lots of these "supernatural" things that have occurred are simply scientific mysteries that haven't been solved yet. The fact that "God" (I use quotes for the purpose of identifying it as the sort of traditional all powerful God in most major religions) has plenty of evidence planted against him, is why this theory deserves more respect and contemplation in my opinion.

Written by Piro on 27.07.2010 at 00:02

However, while he practically says it is scenario as likely as "Getting struck by lightening while holding a winning lottery ticket". I have to disagree with that. It may not be proven to be correct, but, as we've been discussing, there are points which make it certainly more probable than that.

I guess that's where our skepticism and ideas of probability diverge. I don't think it's more probable than that. In fact I think it is less so.

Written by Piro on 27.07.2010 at 00:02

I see your point about there being lots of these possibilities which no one can really debunk. In fact, I'd say most conspiracy theories are still around for that very reason. However, as I mentioned earlier in my post, this hypothesis has been around for awhile, and has only ever gained ground, while very little has been done to disprove it.

I'll have to disagree. You say it has gained ground and there is very little to disprove it. What exactly are you looking at as gaining ground? Non-scientific interpretations of ancient art and structures? Is this all that you are thinking of? And how exactly do you find evidence against a hypothesis like this? I'm telling you, this is currently an infallible hypothesis. Scientifically, to my knowledge, there is no empirical evidence against it and there is none for it! Probability.

Written by Piro on 27.07.2010 at 00:02

As for your last statement, waiting for the verdict is all we can really do. However, I at least, would like to place this hypothesis a step or two above "God". Most people who read into a lot of scientific areas which pertain to God, end up not believing in him. The ones that continue to, either want to believe in him, or have a totally different idea of what "God" is. Personally, I believe lots of these "supernatural" things that have occurred are simply scientific mysteries that haven't been solved yet. The fact that "God" (I use quotes for the purpose of identifying it as the sort of traditional all powerful God in most major religions) has plenty of evidence planted against him, is why this theory deserves more respect and contemplation in my opinion.

Again, I disagree. Maybe some scientific theories debunk creation, resurrection, etc. But that vague idea of God will most likely forever be outside the range of science. Infallibility. I'll write it again. Infallibility. There is no difference between the two situations.

Regardless, I understand what you're getting at. This is an idea that sounds good, even cool. There are definitely arguments that are convincing, even if there is no empirical evidence for it. But if you're saying that this is the best hypothesis for said phenomena (which by the way, is there any "big list" of these anywhere because I'm not going to lie I honestly don't know them all) then I'd say you, along with a lot of others, need to do their research.

Written by Clintagräm on 27.07.2010 at 00:33


I'll have to disagree. You say it has gained ground and there is very little to disprove it. What exactly are you looking at as gaining ground? Non-scientific interpretations of ancient art and structures? Is this all that you are thinking of? And how exactly do you find evidence against a hypothesis like this? I'm telling you, this is currently an infallible hypothesis. Scientifically, to my knowledge, there is no empirical evidence against it and there is none for it! Probability.

You say they are non-scientific interpretations. Isn't an interpretation nonscientific by definition? We can all make interpretations, it just comes down to probability, as to which one is more likely to the original purpose. To debunk such a hypothesis, all you have to do is break the links it establishes with ones of your own, which you can prove to be accurate. I'll agree this hypothesis takes a lot of things we can't seem to explain and links them in an unorthodox fashion. However, it is not infallible.

As for gaining ground, I meant it has grown from some totally obscure theory floating around to something that's actually being investigated on a more serious level, rather than just by the tinfoil hat crowd.

Written by Clintagräm on 27.07.2010 at 00:33

Again, I disagree. Maybe some scientific theories debunk creation, resurrection, etc. But that vague idea of God will most likely forever be outside the range of science. Infallibility. I'll write it again. Infallibility. There is no difference between the two situations.

Regardless, I understand what you're getting at. This is an idea that sounds good, even cool. There are definitely arguments that are convincing, even if there is no empirical evidence for it. But if you're saying that this is the best hypothesis for said phenomena (which by the way, is there any "big list" of these anywhere because I'm not going to lie I honestly don't know them all) then I'd say you, along with a lot of others, need to do their research.

Again, I'm not familiar with these phenomena, and wouldn't be at all if it wasn't for this hypothesis. Remember, I was originally trying to prove the theory has some value, I'm no historian. From what I have read though, it seems most of these "phenomena" are usually associated with some sort of religion. In a few cases (the famous south American "airstrips"), they were claimed to be roads, which really makes no sense if you look at them.

The problem here is that we may have no way of figuring out the original intent of some of these structures, short of inventing time travel and seeing for ourselves, which just leaves us to speculation. And just assuming places all over the world developed religions and cultures with similar distinct aspects "just because" is a bit too convenient in my opinion. However, that too is a somewhat plausible conclusion one could draw,

Written by Piro on 27.07.2010 at 01:20

And just assuming places all over the world developed religions and cultures with similar distinct aspects "just because" is a bit too convenient in my opinion. However, that too is a somewhat plausible conclusion one could draw.

Again, I would say do some research. I am sure the academic community has written on the subject, though I can't be certain. And I would imagine they would give a better explanation than "just because." Yes, there is an explanation somewhere out there, I am sure of that. Ancient astronauts may be one of them. But not one I would give credibility. Just my opinion.

I can't stress my opinion enough and honestly won't do it again. It's fun talking to you but we're just going in circles. Cheers.

Written by Clintagräm on 27.07.2010 at 01:25

Again, I would say do some research. I am sure the academic community has written on the subject, though I can't be certain. And I would imagine they would give a better explanation than "just because." Yes, there is an explanation somewhere out there, I am sure of that. Ancient astronauts may be one of them. But not one I would give credibility. Just my opinion.

I can't stress my opinion enough and honestly won't do it again. It's fun talking to you but we're just going in circles. Cheers.

Perhaps there are, but I haven't come into contact with any as of yet. Anyway, you're right, it seems this simply boils down to a difference in opinion. For that matter, thanks for attacking the issue instead of the person, and leading an intelligent debate. Cheers right back at you.

Check out Zecharia Sitchin's work, he's a major proponent of this theory.

Why is this topic in "serious discussions"? Why not "Zombies, a real danger"also then?
Or "Ninjas, how to protect yourself"

Written by Candlemass on 02.11.2010 at 14:01

Why is this topic in "serious discussions"? Why not "Zombies, a real danger"also then?
Or "Ninjas, how to protect yourself"

yup, this is totally fictitious pseudo-science and nothing more than a wild hunch until REAL FACTS become known to the general public. as it is simply a series of hunches based on nothing more than imagination and doubtful reinterpretation of cultural symbols i think this does not deserve a thread in the Serious Discussions forum alongside more REAL and FACTUAL problems and debates.

don't get me wrong, i LOVE stories like these (for example the first Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic game was godly) but people need to draw the line somewhere between what's real and tangible, and what's just a really cool story but nothing more.

i call bullshit until i see an ancient painting with spaceships.

Believe in nothing except that anything is possible, though; some theories may indeed be more probable than others, it still doesn't take away from the mere fact that anything is possible. You must weigh the probability of all things in life and make your best judgement. Remember, everything is of the key term, "interpretation." There are a million and one ways to interpret evidence, it's for that reason alone, you must believe in nothing until you interpret findings in your own way. Then you can have your theory and let no one corrupt your view if you feel it's the truth. There are my words of wisdom. Do with them as you will. :-)

I think the key is that there is massive amount of information we don't know or even will ever get to know. But not knowing about a certain thing or event doesn't mean it doesn't exist or didn't happen. Just look how the technology has evolved with only 20-30 years and then imagine life in 2100 or even 2200. Do you really believe that an ordinary person living in the Middle-Ages could have imagined things that are so daily for us? They would have said you are a heretic and should burn with bright flame. And although a person didn't know about American continent and people living there, it existed nonetheless. I truly believe that there might be planets like Earth, where life is possible and maybe even more evolved than we. Why should we believe that Earth and its genesis and existence are a part of some kind of accident and there haven't been other cases just like it somewhere else. I guess it would be interesting to know what is the theoretical chance of it. But to make things clear, I'm not the person who belives that Earth is regularly wisited by aliens who kidnappe people and animals to experiment with.

Jesus was from tau-Boo b: http://exoplanet.eu/planet.php?p1=tau+Boo&p2=b.

When disucussing topics such as these, I like to take an approach of "If you can't prove I'm wrong, I'm not". Seems pretty obvious, correct, but many, many people win arguments without verifying/proving any of the claims they have made. Intimidation, you may call it.

It is, indeed, a very selfish standing that humans have taken into convincing themselves that they absolutely must be the dominating, dare I saw only (?), intelligent life in this universe. Statistics alone makes it unlikely; we've explored less than 2% of our universe. However, in an argument, using statsitics to prove a point is like a drunk man leaning on a lamp post: more for support than any illumination.

My personal opinion on the matter is, while I don't think the entire human race should suddenly start believing in extraterrestrial life, society should take a more "open-minded" minded and less selfish/arrogant/yougetthegist approach to things we may not want to believe to be true.

http://othieves.com/art_aliens.html#HCB_comment_box

I suspect (not believe, but expect) we may find evidence in the future pointing to further advanced civilizations on Earth further in the past than currently proven to have existed. The basis of ancient astronauts theory is an attempt at explaining why we seem to be so advanced, and so quickly, as compared archaeologically to people only 10-15,000 years ago. How did it happen? Why do pyramids exist on so many different land masses, etc.?

We could look at these mysteries and speculate all we want about ancient astronauts or gods, but what seems most plausible is that we simply have been involved in sailing and trading for a longer period of time than we appear now to have been doing so. Also, consider pi. Several civilizations approximated pi because they found it had a practical purpose of calculating the area of a circle. Were they all in communication or contacted by some alien intelligence, or did they simply realize they could save a few bucks if they figured how much to charge for grain? I would guess the latter.

Economics would be plenty powerful enough to drive technology and trade, even in primitive (by our standards) times. Resources motivate behavior, this includes bacteria. If it makes money and it is possible then it will probably happen.

And what's more plausible, a 40,000 year-old advanced human civilization (now laying far beneath the volcanic ashes of some forgotten calamity), or space-men traveling hundreds of light-years to influence the evolution of a bunch of apes?

If it were us, and we discovered some far-off exotic island filled with strikingly human-like ape creatures we would swiftly destroy them, not by some massive military invasion or systematic extermination, but simply by plowing them over and pushing them aside to get to their resources. This is what we have done the the orangutans, who fit this description quite well.

Any serious investigation into such questions as, "Why does Civilization X have mysterious artifacts similar to Civilization Y, or resembling modern aircraft or even spacecraft?" should begin with the simplest explanations first:

Civ X and Y coexisted and traded somehow, and perhaps only the mode of transportation (wooden boats) have deteriorated beyond detection.
Aircraft resemble birds, which take advantage of basic physics. Anyone building sailing toys would build something similar because they obey the same principles.
Spacecraft have the simplest design of all - a tube. Also rockets have existed for unknown amount of time due to their simplicity in design and effectiveness at traveling in a parabolic trajectory. Even animals and plants launch "rocket-like" projectiles! Certain seeds appear like space capsules because they serve a similar purpose - soft landing on a terrestrial planet (Earth.)

..and so on.

As for myths, the Annunaki or any mythical godlike or angelic-type creature are born of the human brain, which is wired more or less the same regardless of the ethnicity. These are what? Super-humans. The X-Men are super humans. Superman is what? Superhuman.

Giants, gods, angels, demons, mutants (of Marvel), etc., are humanoids with special powers.

We all share common dreams because we share common enemies, resources, environmental habitats, etc. We like it sunny and 72 degrees. We like sweet foods. We are frightened of (yet respect) predators.

All are much better explanations which would make far better starting points for serious research.

Written by Auntie Sahar on 07.08.2016 at 17:53

Written by Bad English on 07.08.2016 at 17:36

AA thing is indeed great and only fools or religion brainwashed people cant see that there was something different going on in the past. That think if annunaki ever weill come back, will destroy every single religion in its principle.

I definitely think there was something "different" going on thousands of years ago than there is now, I mean that's kind of a given. And I do think humans were once at a higher level of consciousness or awareness of the world around them than we are today, one can see that in all the complex astronomical systems, calendars, and metaphysical systems ancient civilizations developed (which in some cases are actually quite on point with modern science). I wouldn't be so quick to say that humans developed all of this with help from extra terrestrials and not of their own ability and willpower though. On the other hand, I do think that there's definitely intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and to say that ETs never visited Earth at any point in its 4 1/2 billion year history seems a bit unlikely. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle

Its thgeorie sand you have no prove or you cant deny whit better arguemt
Only stone last forever, 10000 years after people there will be just stone
Imagine empire 1 vs empire 2 started nuclear war and destroyed whole world, survivers left the eart and came back and start all from new, mix whit those who left ,...