# Alien Skull? Read, discuss, and run...



## USMarine75 (Nov 19, 2011)

Mysterious, triangle-shaped

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Q...ideshow/e142248f660bdc78586b8849ba46345c.jpeg


----------



## AySay (Nov 19, 2011)

I wonder why every time we find something supposedly "alien", it looks like a small human, with big eyes, and a big head. Which is conveniently exactly the description mankind associates with the word "alien"...


----------



## Atomshipped (Nov 19, 2011)

For some reason I doubt it's actually alien. I recall reading that Mayans and others in South America used to squish their children's heads to make them longer and taller as apparently that was a sign of status. Don't remember the exact details but you get the general idea.

EDIT - one of the comments:


> That ancient culture was known to re-shape the skull form from young children's skull bone tissue which was softer at an early age... wrapping material around the skull and forming an elongation of the shape! pretty extreme..but it is what it is...also some tribes did the same for their necks with metal rings.....elongating their necks. The question about this practice is where did these early tribes get the idea to mimic these shapes and that is where the real mystery is....? What experience or story caused them to act in this manner?


I disagree with the idea that they were attempting to mimic any shape. The idea of aliens having that shaped head was developed relatively recently as far as I know and therefore they couldn't be trying to mimic it as it was a shape they'd never seen.


> There was already a documentation about this in Discovery Channel, I think. The ancient people thought that elongated skulls were attractive, therefore they deformed the skulls of their babies so they would grow up with oval-shaped skulls. This body is probably one of those ancient races.





> Many cultures all over the world practiced cranial elongation. That is all this is. There is nothing mysterious here. This is just a case of people all over the planet shaping their heads in the same way for no reason in particular. So yea, I will give it to ya, it's a human, but why did so many cultures do this to their kids?


----------



## Necris (Nov 19, 2011)

There have been skulls like this found before. None were of "Alien" origin and I'm confident this one isn't either.


----------



## theo (Nov 19, 2011)

A slightly more interesting one was labelled starchild. Do a quick search. I dismiss it as an alien though, I have never met a scientific expert who types in capitals and over uses exclamation marks.


----------



## CapinCripes (Nov 19, 2011)

probably not an alien. i would put money on a deformed child.


----------



## Ill-Gotten James (Nov 20, 2011)

A child's skull could be potentially deformed from birth since the bones of the skull have not yet fused together. Something that big though must have been a wicked combo of hydrocephalus, a gnarly brain tumor, camel wide smokes, and massive alcohol consumption by the mother during the kids gestation. Or.. maybe it's an alien.


----------



## MikeH (Nov 20, 2011)

As stated above, ancient cultures used to practice skull "forming" of sorts. Elongation, pointing, and other things were done to make the child more attractive. So unfortunately, not an alien.


----------



## M3CHK1LLA (Nov 20, 2011)

its either disease, birth deformity or human manipulation...

...they find skulls all the time and label them "missing links" or "aliens"


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 20, 2011)

Of course, aliens have skeletons 99.9% the same as ours. It makes sense, as there's nothing that would lead one to think that alien lifeforms didn't have an evolutionary history exactly like ours, including the same mass extinctions that resulted in us even getting this far. 



And to answer the questions some of the comments on the article said, is it really that surprising when disparate cultures share things? We are, after all, human. It's not strange to me at all that given our rather static psychological natures we come up with roughly the same ideas, be it heavenly beings, or what we define as pleasing to the eye.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Nov 20, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> And to answer the questions some of the comments on the article said, is it really that surprising when disparate cultures share things? We are, after all, human. It's not strange to me at all that given our rather static psychological natures we come up with roughly the same ideas, be it heavenly beings, or what we define as pleasing to the eye.



Reminds me of the "Then why do the Egyptians and the Aztecs both have pyramids?" argument. Because, you know, we needed the intervention of hyperadvanced floating super-beings to figure out how to put a small thing on top of a large thing.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 20, 2011)

See, though this has been debunked as a weird cultural practice, it does raise some cool questions.

That whole alien design it's referring to brings up the idea of how similar alien races might be to us. On earth, we've seen animals in completely different locations evolve similar methods to deal with similar problems. Just look at dinosaurs. Ceratopsians and sauropods are similar to the rhinos and giraffes of today. Despite being so different they involved similar traits.

Now, how might this translate into alien life and most importantly intelligent alien life? Maybe we are a blue print for what is the best form for intelligent life to take, and aliens could look very similar to us. They're going to most likely have eyes, a mouth, and all the regular things we look for in advanced life, but they could also stand upright, have thumbs and large brains. I don't think the whole idea of science fiction films showing very human-like aliens is too out of the question. We don't know how nature works beyond our own planet, we're simply applying the same rules and that's the best start. 

It's interesting stuff to think about.


----------



## USMarine75 (Nov 20, 2011)

Imagine finding the Elephant Man's skull 1000 years from now...

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/rocks/merrick.jpg

http://health.discovery.com/convergence/elephantman/slideshow/gallery/skull_h_zoom.jpg


----------



## AySay (Nov 20, 2011)

I always like to imagine people in the future finding Harry Potter books everywhere, and believing in it like a religion.


----------



## SirMyghin (Nov 20, 2011)

SchecterWhore said:


> Reminds me of the "Then why do the Egyptians and the Aztecs both have pyramids?" argument. Because, you know, we needed the intervention of hyperadvanced floating super-beings to figure out how to put a small thing on top of a large thing.



Meanwhile it was actually just a series of failed attempts to kill the rock with a rock. Unfortunately the rocks were already at the cusp of movable rock sizes. They left in defeat and their monuments remain a 'mystery' to this very day.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 20, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> See, though this has been debunked as a weird cultural practice, it does raise some cool questions.
> 
> That whole alien design it's referring to brings up the idea of how similar alien races might be to us. On earth, we've seen animals in completely different locations evolve similar methods to deal with similar problems. Just look at dinosaurs. Ceratopsians and sauropods are similar to the rhinos and giraffes of today. Despite being so different they involved similar traits.
> 
> ...




You are definitely on the right path with this one.


----------



## Aaron (Nov 20, 2011)

AySay said:


> I always like to imagine people in the future finding Harry Potter books everywhere, and believing in it like a religion.



Dont people already do that anyways


----------



## TimmaethBoy (Nov 20, 2011)

"The remains are most likely those of a child, though one with an unusually shaped head and frame. But that hasn't stopped local site RPP from interviewing several anonymous Spanish and Russian "scientists" claiming that the remains are actually those of an alien:"


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 20, 2011)

Now, honestly, I don't think it's impossible that all of these ancient cultures elongated their skulls in order to mimic their "gods" from the stars.. I do think there's a lot of evidence laying around the planet that at least gives credence to the idea that the ancients were frequented by extra-terrestrial visitors. However, I wasn't there. I'm not going to defend that notion to the death, but I think its very silly to dismiss it, as if it's completely asinine. 

With that said, I don't think that's an alien skull. Probably just an ugly little girl or something.

...and, to my understanding, extra-terrestrial visitors would be more or less human. As vampiregeneocide pointed out, there is SO much evidence at our disposal that illustrates the way nature seems to use blue-prints and patterns in a variety of places over space and time... if you believe that humans, along with all other life forms, are the result of random mutations, you're ignoring these patterns. I'm not a creationist, but I'm also not foolish enough to say that I understand enough about nature to call it a chaotic, random, purely 3D reality in which everything is easily explained with an incomplete model of physics.


----------



## troyguitar (Nov 20, 2011)

I'm pretty sure there are humans on other planets, taken over from Earth as slaves by Ra.


----------



## shanejohnson02 (Nov 20, 2011)

I think the whole ancient aliens thing is intriguing, but the evidence just doesn't add up to me. Humans have proven ourselves as a whole to be capable of some pretty incredible things when our minds are made up. Usually it's a religious or social ideal that makes us do great things (sometimes terrible/horrific things as well).

What I'm saying is I don't believe we needed aliens to teach us how to build pyramids, or stonehenge, or chichen itza.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 20, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Now, honestly, I don't think it's impossible that all of these ancient cultures elongated their skulls in order to mimic their "gods" from the stars.. I do think there's a lot of evidence laying around the planet that at least gives credence to the idea that the ancients were frequented by extra-terrestrial visitors. However, I wasn't there. I'm not going to defend that notion to the death, but I think its very silly to dismiss it, as if it's completely asinine.
> 
> With that said, I don't think that's an alien skull. Probably just an ugly little girl or something.
> 
> ...and, to my understanding, extra-terrestrial visitors would be more or less human. As vampiregeneocide pointed out, there is SO much evidence at our disposal that illustrates the way nature seems to use blue-prints and patterns in a variety of places over space and time... if you believe that humans, along with all other life forms, are the result of random mutations, you're ignoring these patterns. I'm not a creationist, but I'm also not foolish enough to say that I understand enough about nature to call it a chaotic, random, purely 3D reality in which everything is easily explained with an incomplete model of physics.



Exactly. It's all a possibility.

Think of it this way, say you're an explorer from an incredibly advanced alien race. You've been through the same stages of social and technological evolution that humans have or close enough (Most likely, advanced alien races will evolve similar to us in the sense they'll have a bronze age, and iron age, nuclear age etc.), so you'll be able to relate to where another race is within their evolutionary path.

So as a member of this advanced race capable of FTL travel, you discover a planet of intelligent organisms who are still in a primitive technological stage. You could integrate yourselves into their society, but the cultural and technological gap between you would be so extreme it would be like trying to explain nuclear physics to a chimpanzee. Instead, you decide to give humanity a helping hand here and there, while not disrupting their own evolution too much. You have to allow humanity to make mistakes and learn from them in order to become strong and smart enough to one day be on a more equal level to your own race, so that you could integrate. You give the primitive humans some technology, help them build and educate them. They are of course thankful for this, however being so primitive they can only understand you in a way that makes sense to them, and that is to make you into some form of God. They may have little or no sense of the wider universe, and so to explain that you come from another planet in a spaceship would not make sense.

This relationship could continue for a while, with an alien race influencing and studying the evolution of mankind from the shadows. Obviously you can only be so subtle, and so sightings or records of these aliens go down in history as unusual events, referenced in the cultural records of man. 

As the human race grows more advanced and it's understanding of the wider universe grows, aliens have to distance themselves. The humans would be able to understand them better, but don't have the moral capacity overall to be able to effectively deal with another species. Human kind is still hung up on religion, race and homosexuality, it can't even understand it's own species let alone another alien race. Not to mention their more advanced technology means they're more dangerous than ever. So aliens would have to be less of an influence, while still maintaining their study of humans with probes and small scouting parties. 

This is what I believe is going on. Aliens have been studying our evolution for thousands of years, taking a more active influence when we were primitive and didn't understand what was happening, and distancing themselves once mankind got advanced enough that it could start clocking onto things. They are still studying us with probes and small scouting parties that some individuals see, but they don't come down and share their knowledge like before. Instead they're learning what they can about us while we advance to a level where they can officially introduce themselves. Chances are they know everything about us, and can speak our language. We just have to wait till we're ready.

That's my theory anyway. I'm not one of those guys who exclaims 'aliens' every time something odd is seen or found, I just think there's a lot of evidence to show that we are not alone, and they're closer to us than we think. And when the day comes when we do meet, I think we'll find so many similarities it will be frightening.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 20, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> See, though this has been debunked as a weird cultural practice, it does raise some cool questions.
> 
> That whole alien design it's referring to brings up the idea of how similar alien races might be to us. On earth, we've seen animals in completely different locations evolve similar methods to deal with similar problems. Just look at dinosaurs. Ceratopsians and sauropods are similar to the rhinos and giraffes of today. Despite being so different they involved similar traits.



Those creatures in different places might have evolved similar methods, but they also had similar mophologies to begin with. They also all started with life forms which have been on this planet since the beginning. 

Herbivore, chambered stomach, regurgitation, chewing a cud... we know what that's going to look like, right? 

Or do we?

We assume it will look like all the other herbivores in our area, because that's all we really are familiar with. The animal I'm describing looks like this:







Hmm. Not the same starting framework, and so it defies the expecations of most who live on most continents of the Earth.

Similarly, starting with a dinosaur or a mammal gets you a few basic morphologic details which are similar (large lifting surfaces, hollow bones), but that's it. 









An intelligent species capable of building a craft only needs intelligence, and a way of manipulating the environment to get here. You could argue that any aliens who get here might need manipulators, like human hands, a crow's beak or an octopus' tentacles, but looking at the evidence of the Mars rock which landed with what appeared to be fossil microbes, one could even rule out intelligence and a manipulator as a precondition for getting here.

----

As always, I'm a huge fan of the idea that humans are too dumb to figure stuff out, and therefore... aliens. Modern humans took a while to build in basic knowledge, but that's a matter of culture. Early modern humans were jsut as capable of learning things empirically, and of figuring things out. Even the pyramids (discussed here in the context of ancient aliens, started by Adam of Angels, and here in the context of humans using concrete) don't give any evidence of aliens, but only of a steady evolution of design in the various locations thanks to people learning as they went. 

----

Regarding the assertion that all cultures recognize the same things as aliens, I'd say that's only true when those cultures have contact with the same media. There was a guy who wrote a lot of tripe under the title _Chariots of the Gods?_, containing a lot of things which even his first-hand informants told subsequent researchers had been fabrications attributed to them. The alien astronauts in those books looked nothing like the current "greys" fad. 

H.G. Wells was the first to come up with the "greys" trope, first in _The Time Machine_, then later in _The First Men in the Moon_, and even as a food source for the other aliens in _War of the Worlds_. It's occurred several times since, although its popularity really jumped up with the claims of alien abduction from Barney and Betty Hill. Having read of Betty Hill's faith in her husband, and that she was unaware that what she claimed was evidence of alien procedures on Barney, the sores and ulcers at the base of his penis, is recognized by medical science as a symptom of syphillis. (This last part came out when Betty Hill was at a UFO convention talking with a panel, and her presentation definitely shook a lot of people's faith in it being factual, as opposed to a confused but unintended untruth.)

BTW, you know how every so often "The Great Conspiracy" is brought up here, where things happen due to someone having a money motive? This story runs counter to that idea, as none of the "scientists" wanted to be quote in relation to one of the greatest scientific discoveries of our day. An alien skull, validated by "scientists" who want to remain anonymous?

Sounds like a clash of "consipiracy theory" ideas....


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 20, 2011)

There are always going to be creatures that evolve different ways of dealing with issues, some more unusual than others. However, nature as a whole seems to evolve certain traits generally depending on the niche that animal fills. I'm not saying alien races couldn't be completely different from what we would expect, I'm simply saying it isn't unlikely that they could be similar to us. I'm not saying they're going to look like people, just humanoid possibly. They could have six legs and wings for all we know, it's just a guess based on the fact nature tends to have it's way of dealing with things. The bat and the bird are a basic but valid example of that, though they share little other traits. 

Not quite sure what you're trying to say with your second point though.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 20, 2011)

My second point being that an intelligent race needs only a way of manipulating the environment, or my talking about Adam's point, previously put forth in this topic?



Adam Of Angels said:


> Now, honestly, I don't think it's impossible that all of these ancient cultures elongated their skulls in order to mimic their "gods" from the stars.. I do think *there's a lot of evidence laying around the planet* that at least gives credence to the idea that *the ancients were frequented by extra-terrestrial visitors*. However, I wasn't there. I'm not going to defend that notion to the death, but *I think its very silly to dismiss it*, as if it's completely asinine.



Adam was previously not able to bring any actual evidence to the discussion, but only speculation which ran along these lines:

This process is not completely proven. Therefore, aliens are likely. 

Anyway, I wanted to respond to that assertion, that there is a lot of evidence, and to the assertion that it would be silly to dismiss the wildest speculation, as opposed to using wild speculation to dismiss the likelier explanation which already fits all the available evidence. 

As that old Irish philosopher Willie o'Ccam said, entities should not be multiplied needlessly.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 20, 2011)

Nah, you're just suggesting that your assumption is more likely than mine. That's all.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 20, 2011)

I actually missed that point, I was referring to what you said after. 



Explorer said:


> An intelligent species capable of building a craft only needs intelligence, and a way of manipulating the environment to get here. You could argue that any aliens who get here might need manipulators, like human hands, a crow's beak or an octopus' tentacles, but looking at the evidence of the Mars rock which landed with what appeared to be fossil microbes, one could even rule out intelligence and a manipulator as a precondition for getting here.



I think that's a weak point. Microbes are not intelligent or complex life, which is what we're talking about here. And as for being able to manipulate your environment, yeah there are many ways animals do that, which is why I'm not saying that it isn't possible an alien race could evolve other ways of doing so. However, I'm simply saying that based on the fact nature seems to work from 'blueprints' in terms of solving environmental issues, it is possible that an advanced alien race might evolve similar traits as us in order to progress beyond regular sentient life. Hands enable us to have fine motor skills which is vital for an advanced race, so a beak isn't obviously going to do. An alien race would need something the equivalent of our hands.


----------



## metalheadblues (Nov 20, 2011)

This is all that came to mind


----------



## SirMyghin (Nov 20, 2011)

Man I love the alien theory stuff, but the problem is, all of those in support of aliens beg the question. They have a hypothesis, and they would like it to be true, so they choose 'evidence' to support it. I tend towards empyricism, logical falacies (see begging the question), are wasted time. 

This is just another sorely afflicted human, or deformed (willing or not) by some variety of shaping. As mentioned numerously, stuff like this was popular in central America and such.


----------



## leandroab (Nov 20, 2011)




----------



## Stealthtastic (Nov 20, 2011)

Alot of primitive mayan cultures and what not would squish their childrens heads to show status in society.


----------



## soliloquy (Nov 20, 2011)

i'm not reading the whole thread, but in several parts of the world, long heads are/were considered beautiful. as a result, parents used to tie strings around a babys head at birth, and kept adding more strings or weights that slowly stretched/squeezed the head. however, unlike the women in laos (at least i think its in laos) who put rings around their necks to shrink their bodies, making their neck look really long, these stretched heads wont really harm the baby.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 20, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> I think that's a weak point. Microbes are not intelligent or complex life, which is what we're talking about here. And as for being able to manipulate your environment, yeah there are many ways animals do that, which is why I'm not saying that it isn't possible an alien race could evolve other ways of doing so.



I was just trying to be open to, and to anticipate the suggestion of, the different possibilities of methods for alien life arriving on earth. 

I didn't get into this, but as I was writing that, I was speculating about the virus which travels between cats and rats, and which causes changes in their behavior. (It's also suspected that the virus, or a similar vector, is the cause of schizophrenia in humans.) There's a similar virus which alters behavior in one species of fish and a species of bird which eats those fish. I also thought about _Invasion of the Body Snatchers_, for what it's worth. *laugh*

I kind of like this idea. An ant by itself doesn't demonstrate the intelligence of an ant colony/hill, but an entire colony works together and demonstrates intelligence at that higher level. Imagine a virus which, when it infects enough members of a species (perhaps even humans), then gains both intelligence and the ability to manipulate the environment. The individual virus germs wouldn't need intelligence at their level of scale. 

----

Regarding whether a being could manipulate things the equivalent of fingers, I agree that some manipulators would be helpful for working with the environment and so on. I don't think they need to take the form of fingers, however. I went for examples of what other tool-using species here on Earth already use... including a beak. I omitted crustacean claws in all that, incidentally.


----------



## Demiurge (Nov 20, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> Man I love the alien theory stuff, but the problem is, all of those in support of aliens beg the question. They have a hypothesis, and they would like it to be true, so they choose 'evidence' to support it. I tend towards empyricism, logical falacies (see begging the question), are wasted time.



Indeed, and the theories themselves just seem to sneak-in some enormous assumptions in the first place- that aliens exist and a general menu of their supernatural capabilities. Let's prove the existence of aliens first, then if real look into what they're capable of, and then try to determine instances in history (and remote antiquity apparently) in which they may have participated and the technologies they have shared.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 21, 2011)

Demiurge, great observation. This is similar to the assumption that if a deity/creator exists, it's in the form that that particular believer pictures.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 21, 2011)

So, these topics aren't even worth talking about? We shouldn't speculate at all? 

What if, like has been suggested, it's not possible to prove the existence of these aliens? What if they know what they're doing, intend to go undetected in any real, definite, obvious and tangible way, and are intelligent enough to successfully do so?
Does that mean we shouldn't even have a discussion about it?

Regarding the OP, I don't think we're looking at an alien skull... but why not talk about extra-terrestrial life anyway? From it may come observations that somebody hasn't considered before, and that may inspire them somehow. The cynicism coupled with elitism that shoots down these sorts of ideas is disgusting. It almost comes off as insecure - what's so threatening about these discussions? That an advanced race might have come here and in some way aided our ancestors is not at all impossible, and is both hard to prove and disprove, since we can't go back to those times, so why not have a discussion about it without the "reasonably minded" shooting down "the crack pot, tin-foil hat wearing, uneducated" crowd? If all of our minds only sought to disprove wild but harmless theories and ideas, I'm afraid we'd advance much slower as a race.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 21, 2011)

Explorer said:


> I was just trying to be open to, and to anticipate the suggestion of, the different possibilities of methods for alien life arriving on earth.
> 
> I didn't get into this, but as I was writing that, I was speculating about the virus which travels between cats and rats, and which causes changes in their behavior. (It's also suspected that the virus, or a similar vector, is the cause of schizophrenia in humans.) There's a similar virus which alters behavior in one species of fish and a species of bird which eats those fish. I also thought about _Invasion of the Body Snatchers_, for what it's worth. *laugh*
> 
> ...



It's an interesting thought, not sure.

I'm not saying would definitely be fingers, but they would likely be very similar. There are many tool creating creatures on earth this is true, and some of them are extremely intelligent, however they don't have the dexterity that we have, and that limitation in turn limits their intelligence and their capacity to interact with and change their environment.

It is theorised that if squid and octopuses were able to come on land for extended period of time, they could eventually evolve into the dominant species on earth. They are immensely intelligent and their tentacles give them impressive motor skills. So I accept there are other alternatives to what we consider hands, like I said it's just a theory. I wouldn't be surprised if aliens have hands like ours, and I wouldn't be surprised if they had something different. 



Demiurge said:


> Indeed, and the theories themselves just seem to sneak-in some enormous assumptions in the first place- that aliens exist and a general menu of their supernatural capabilities. Let's prove the existence of aliens first, then if real look into what they're capable of, and then try to determine instances in history (and remote antiquity apparently) in which they may have participated and the technologies they have shared.



What we seem to be assuming here is that we're claiming we can prove these things. We're not saying that, I'm simply saying that it is a possibility that shouldn't be excluded. Of course, exhaust all earthly options before you start jumping to conclusions, but don't necessarily rule something out that is possible. I'm not one of those guys who is all like 'you can't explain that. People couldn't do that. ALIENS.'. I'm realistic. I accept that we're capable of a lot and some things are just lost to time. I just have a feeling that there's more going on than we know.


----------



## BigBaldIan (Nov 22, 2011)

Explorer said:


> I kind of like this idea. An ant by itself doesn't demonstrate the intelligence of an ant colony/hill, but an entire colony works together and demonstrates intelligence at that higher level. Imagine a virus which, when it infects enough members of a species (perhaps even humans), then gains both intelligence and the ability to manipulate the environment. The individual virus germs wouldn't need intelligence at their level of scale.


 
If you haven't done so already I would suggest reading Steven Johnson's Emergence where he discusses such things as hive intelligence and how ideas propogate.


----------



## Varcolac (Nov 22, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Regarding the assertion that all cultures recognize the same things as aliens, I'd say that's only true when those cultures have contact with the same media. There was a guy who wrote a lot of tripe under the title _Chariots of the Gods?_, containing a lot of things which even his first-hand informants told subsequent researchers had been fabrications attributed to them. The alien astronauts in those books looked nothing like the current "greys" fad.



Erich von Daniken. Mad bloke. However, if you strip away all the "and therefore... aliens" stuff, the main thing to come out of his books is that our ancestors were pretty damn smart. And that pyramids are magic.

I intensely dislike the idea of bringing up the supernatural to explain phenomena. All it does is bring up more questions. A wizard did it? Okay, why'd he do it? How's he a wizard? Who regulates wizardry? Can I be a wizard? If I can't, then why not? Midichlorians? Aliens are wizards: any sufficiently advanced technology...

I think the assertion that any alien intelligences would be similar to ourselves is a little flawed and immensely anthropocentric. Look up into the sky at night. Light from some of those stars is billions of years old. They're trillions of miles away. The universe is as near to infinite as makes no difference. In all that time and space, to assume that we are the blueprint for success smacks of hubris. We're just one successful species on a pale blue dot.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 22, 2011)

I don't think that the human blueprint is the only one that's found the entire way across the universe, but I think that at least locally it is in abundance (basically, I think it makes sense that at least most of those visiting us would be more or less human).


----------



## Necris (Nov 22, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I do think there's a lot of evidence laying around the planet that at least gives credence to the idea that the ancients were frequented by extra-terrestrial visitors. However, I wasn't there. I'm not going to defend that notion to the death, but I think its very silly to dismiss it, as if it's completely asinine.


Strictly to keep the conversation going, since these threads can be interesting.
Assuming they exist they clearly have no problem getting back and forth quickly. It would be no different than us crossing the oceans to get to another continent, likely even easier. So why then would such an advanced race of beings not simply colonize the earth on their first visit?


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 22, 2011)

Because they don't need to? I don't think there's strong logic behind the notion that if they haven't colonized Earth, then they aren't visiting, so I think their motive would be beyond the survivalist/greedy motives of Earthlings. Not saying that its not possible, but I think its less likely - I think it would be quite different than us crossing the ocean, as I suspect that their means of travel would almost certainly have to be anti-gravity or similar. For that reason, amongst others, I assume they'd be advanced enough that they wouldn't be as needy as Earthlings. I'm of the conviction that free energy systems, or something effectively the same, can be had, and would probably be found in a society where interstellar travel was the norm.. Therefore, traveling to Earth and other resource-rich planets for the sake of capitalizing on said resources wouldn't be necessary. 

I know that probably seems like a stretch to some - I'm just saying that in a for-all-intents-and-purposes-infinite universe, that scenario would likely be the case for a lot of interstellar travelers, given that anti-gravity would be a much more efficient means of travel.

/prettyofftopic


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 22, 2011)

Double post


----------



## Necris (Nov 22, 2011)

So by that logic why would they continue to come back after the first time? Continuous visitation seems illogical if there is nothing to be gained from coming here. Additionally if they are advanced enough to get here they are likely also advanced enough to do it without being noticed and if you're to go by certain interpretations of religious texts and the like clearly they made themselves known. Where is the definitive evidence they were here?


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 22, 2011)

Well, actually, if you use that logic, they'd never come here to begin with. Your assumption is based on them having the same motives of Earthlings (or in other words, men corrupted by fear, greed, need for survival, etc.). They could be thousands or millions of years more advanced than us. Imagine how a society would change over a very long period of time after having free energy devices. Greed would, conceivably, be a thing of old. That's not to say that a malevolent group/race wouldn't have some selfish use for us or our planet, but, I think that there's a benevolent reason for most visitations, and it's one that we wouldn't readily/easily understand with a simple answer.


----------



## Necris (Nov 22, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Well, actually, if you use that logic, they'd never come here to begin with.


Which is exactly my point. While they may or may not exist if they did exist and were advanced to that point it is extremely unlikely they would have any reason to visit. So it seems likely that, supposing aliens do exist, they haven't visited us and likely never will.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 22, 2011)

...if you use the logic that they are a fear based, greed and survival driven society like us, that is.

A point I'm vaguely implying, is that learning their motives for visiting would likely be as paradigm-shifting as having the ability to travel like them, if not more so.


----------



## Necris (Nov 22, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> ...if you use the logic that they are a fear based, greed and survival driven society like us, that is.
> 
> A point I'm vaguely implying, is that learning their motives for visiting would likely be as paradigm-shifting as having the ability to travel like them, if not more so.


Yes it would be, however you would need to first prove that they had visited. Otherwise you're just speculating and that's largely all ufology and the like is, speculation.

If I've never been to X state wouldn't it seem a bit odd to speculate as to why I'd went there?


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 22, 2011)

This is hardly a fruitful investigation, or an effort to have one.


----------



## Necris (Nov 22, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I don't think that the human blueprint is the only one that's found the entire way across the universe, but I think that at least locally it is in abundance (basically, I think it makes sense that at least most of those visiting us would be more or less human).



Just one last thing I wanted to comment on and then I'm done. I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with any evidence that the "human blueprint" as you call it can be found anywhere _other than_ Earth.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 22, 2011)

Well, I won't be presenting you with a human from another planet, if that's what you're saying.


----------



## Necris (Nov 22, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Well, I won't be presenting you with a human from another planet, if that's what you're saying.



Well I think we both know that's not what I'm asking for. I apologize if you think I'm trolling you. What I would like to hear is what you believe to be evidence supporting your claim and I would like to see references that substantiate it.  If you want to take it to PMs that's fine.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 22, 2011)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you won't very much appreciate my reasons for drawing those conclusions, and a simple explanation wouldn't do 

As a side point, in this sort of discussion, exactly what sort of reference could ever substantiate these kinds of claims?


----------



## USMarine75 (Nov 22, 2011)

I think the human blueprint possibility comes down to statistical modeling... similar to the Drake/Brin/Zaitsev equations for the probabilities of life occurring on other planets. Although the metrics are made up and thus the result is a fallacy... the point is that the end result is theoretically quantifiable and thus probable if we had the values of the required premises.

So, there is a chance that alien "humans" exist...likely? Probably not. But not null. And if you believe in the alien hypothesis of life (e.g. panspermia, exogenesis, garbage theory lol, etc...) then that would greatly increase the chances that similar (or convergent) evolution could occur over time.


----------



## Necris (Nov 22, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you won't very much appreciate my reasons for drawing those conclusions, and a simple explanation wouldn't do


 Well feel free to try me sometime. 

Just to be clear, I believe there is certainly alien life in the universe. I just see no reason to believe that it is humanoid in form or has ever visited the earth, much less interacted with it's inhabitants.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 22, 2011)

Trust me.

..and as for the second part, that's fine. Having no reason to believe something doesn't mean it's not true. Certainly doesn't mean it is true either. Not believing something that doesn't phase you much either way is fine.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 22, 2011)

The chemistry of the planet can be radically different, the organisms would not have to be based on carbon even. Silicon works pretty much in the same way carbon does in an organic system, the cunundrum is, silicon is heavier than carbon, more than twice as heavy as a matter of fact. 
About 18,5 percent of the human body is carbon, add the same amount (and a little more, but for the discussion, the same amount) and you have about the weight you would have if bio-chemistry worked the same on a silicon-based planet. 

That would also mean, that with a higher mass, gravity would have a higher pull, and on a larger planet, the difference could be quite radical. So they could need to have more massive bones to avoid being crushed by the gravitational force, but that only works to a certain degree before they would be too massive (if they even build bones the same way we do). I would say that more than two legs would be more suitable for such an environment, as they divide the force on more than two, if they have four, the force employed is halved on each limb.

Not to mention that even with carbon based life, the atmosphere could be thinner, thus favoring a radically smaller frame. If it is thicker, they might have developed to a much larger size. 
A lot of compounds is toxic to a carbon based organism, maybe their atmosphere consists of that compound?
Are their planet smaller than ours? Then maybe flight is more favoured among the creatures of it's surface...
Is it bigger? Then it would have a larger gravitational pull, and then, as I wrote before, they would have to be more massive and/or have more limbs.
What sort of distance do they have to their sun? If it is closer, then maybe a cold-blooded arrangement would be better?
Have they even progressed from the one-cellular stage?

All we can say for sure, or what is highly probable at least, is that their chemistry involves water.

I love hypothezising in this stuff, and I would love to one find out. But right now, they are of course only fruitless speculations, there are far too many variables, and if there is one thing we have found out, it is that nature always finds a way.
I do think though that saying that humanoids is the best shape is a bit unfounded. If we would go for mechanical stability, then a sphere would be more sustainable for example.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 22, 2011)

Necris said:


> Strictly to keep the conversation going, since these threads can be interesting.
> Assuming they exist they clearly have no problem getting back and forth quickly. It would be no different than us crossing the oceans to get to another continent, likely even easier. So why then would such an advanced race of beings not simply colonize the earth on their first visit?



As I mentioned earlier, the cultural and technological gap would be so immense that I think aliens would be smart and keep their distance until we had evolved enough to be on a more level playing field, and better equipped to dealing with their introduction.

There have been horrible stories of explorers reaching foreign lands in the past and meeting the indigenous people, only for it to end up in conflict due to cultural misunderstandings. 

I think that an evolving intelligent race is a delicate process to disrupt. You have to learn all these lessons, such as dealing with war, famine, religion, race, resources etc. An alien race is probably so far ahead of us they have learnt all these lessons, and will be infinitely wiser than us. They would know we're too primitive and still have a way to go, and therefore just study us from the shadows until the time is right. 

Simply introducing themselves would create all sorts of technological, political and social issues. It would be a process that would need to be done with a lot of care. You wouldn't just walk into the middle of a tribe in the Amazon that had never met outsiders before. You'd study them from a distance, learn their ways and wait for the right time.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 22, 2011)

Jakke said:


> The chemistry of the planet can be radically different, the organisms would not have to be based on carbon even. Silicon works pretty much in the same way carbon does in an organic system, the cunundrum is, silicon is heavier than carbon, more than twice as heavy as a matter of fact.
> About 18,5 percent of the human body is carbon, add the same amount (and a little more, but for the discussion, the same amount) and you have about the weight you would have if bio-chemistry worked the same on a silicon-based planet.
> 
> That would also mean, that with a higher mass, gravity would have a higher pull, and on a larger planet, the difference could be quite radical. So they could need to have more massive bones to avoid being crushed by the gravitational force, but that only works to a certain degree before they would be too massive (if they even build bones the same way we do). I would say that more than two legs would be more suitable for such an environment, as they divide the force on more than two, if they have four, the force employed is halved on each limb.
> ...





Nothing you said is unreasonable. Expand on the sphere bit though - how would a species advance in the ways us humans have in a spherical form?


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 22, 2011)

Jakke said:


> T
> That would also mean, that with a higher mass, gravity would have a higher pull, and on a larger planet, the difference could be quite radical. So they could need to have more massive bones to avoid being crushed by the gravitational force, but that only works to a certain degree before they would be too massive (if they even build bones the same way we do). I would say that more than two legs would be more suitable for such an environment, as they divide the force on more than two, if they have four, the force employed is halved on each limb.
> 
> Not to mention that even with carbon based life, the atmosphere could be thinner, thus favoring a radically smaller frame. If it is thicker, they might have developed to a much larger size.
> ...



I would think that a higher gravity would mean the opposite: animals would be very thin and light. Animals in the ocean like whales are able to grow so large because upthrust offsets the effects of gravity on the body of an organism, allowing them to grow larger. On land gravity has a greater effect, so the size of an animal is limited. High-gravity organisms would probably be comparable to the deep sea animals we have today.


----------



## Necris (Nov 22, 2011)

Assuming they had bones their bones and bodies would need to be thicker to withstand the high gravitational pull. A spherical species would do well in a high gravity situation I believe as spheres are known to be very strong shapes.


Edit: Because I'm easily amused...:


----------



## -42- (Nov 22, 2011)

Members of a highly developed race cross the virtually unfathomable depths of space to scare farmers, mess with crops and dissect livestock. Maybe it's like cow tipping.


----------



## Randy (Nov 22, 2011)




----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 22, 2011)

Love Michio Kaku <3


----------



## Necris (Nov 22, 2011)

-42- said:


> Members of a highly developed race cross the virtually unfathomable depths of space to scare farmers, mess with crops and dissect livestock. Maybe it's like cow tipping.




My new goal in life is to travel to California once every few years to mess with an ant hill. They will write of my coming for ages. "Who was that strange visitor, why did they come?"

Too bad ants don't have a written language...


----------



## Jakke (Nov 22, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Nothing you said is unreasonable. Expand on the sphere bit though - how would a species advance in the ways us humans have in a spherical form?



But then you are assuming their world works the same as ours do. In nature, the strongest shape is the sphere, so it is not unresonable to find some sort of life of a spherical persuasion.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 22, 2011)

Necris said:


> Too bad ants don't have a written language...



That we know off...


*Criss-cross!*


----------



## Jakke (Nov 22, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> I would think that a higher gravity would mean the opposite: animals would be very thin and light. Animals in the ocean like whales are able to grow so large because upthrust offsets the effects of gravity on the body of an organism, allowing them to grow larger. On land gravity has a greater effect, so the size of an animal is limited. High-gravity organisms would probably be comparable to the deep sea animals we have today.



Nah, the wales can be that large because the lifting power from the water is higher than the pull of gravity.

See it like this: what would happen in a high grav environment if a creature was thin? 

Well, they would not have enough strenght to get out of bed in the morning, they would never be able to get upright. If they were able to do so though, the weight of them would crush their thin bones, think it of as a building collapsing from the top, towards the bottom.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 22, 2011)

Jakke said:


> But then you are assuming their world works the same as ours do. In nature, the strongest shape is the sphere, so it is not unresonable to find some sort of life of a spherical persuasion.




What I'm asking, is, how would a spherical being become advanced, self-aware, and intelligent in a way comparable to humans? Or maybe you're not suggesting that, in which case, never mind. I was saying that a highly advanced race that would use highly advanced technology to visit us would most likely be more or less human.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 22, 2011)

Necris said:


> I believe as spheres are known to be very strong shapes.



And a sphere also has a high contact area, distributing the force more evenly over the body.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 22, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> What I'm asking, is, how would a spherical being become advanced, self-aware, and intelligent in a way comparable to humans? Or maybe you're not suggesting that, in which case, never mind. I was saying that a highly advanced race that would use highly advanced technology to visit us would most likely be more or less human.



I don't know, all we know is that a sphere is a very beneficial shape to be in (physically speaking of course). Nature on our planet strives towards a spherical shape, and the same physical laws would apply to an alien, so it's not an unresonable suggestion.


----------



## USMarine75 (Nov 22, 2011)

^ Good point except with evolutionary conservation you sometimes just end up with the shit that works as opposed to the best design (looking forward).... basically bottom up design instead of top down. (e.g. the "human eye is backwards" argument and that if there was intelligent design then this was an epic fail, etc...)

So it's not "if I could design the perfect alien what would I design argument"... it's more like what works better than my contemporaries to get more of my genes into the next generation... and we end up with some seriously weird but lovable shit:


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 22, 2011)

Jakke said:


> Nah, the wales can be that large because the lifting power from the water is higher than the pull of gravity.
> 
> See it like this: what would happen in a high grav environment if a creature was thin?
> 
> Well, they would not have enough strenght to get out of bed in the morning, they would never be able to get upright. If they were able to do so though, the weight of them would crush their thin bones, think it of as a building collapsing from the top, towards the bottom.



That's what I said.  (Regarding whales)

But yeah I think you're right after thinking about it more.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 22, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> That's what I said.  (Regarding whales)
> 
> But yeah I think you're right after thinking about it more.



BY GOD! I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT!

That is, I saw now that you wrote the exact thing, so I apologize.

Size does not really matter, just you have enough contact with the ground to distribute the force evenly. But then of course, if you are more massive, you weigh more, so it's a fine line to walk.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 22, 2011)

Necris said:


> My new goal in life is to travel to California once every few years to mess with an ant hill. They will write of my coming for ages. "Who was that strange visitor, why did they come?"
> 
> Too bad ants don't have a written language...


 
They will if you mess with them _by teaching them how to write_.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 23, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> ...*if you use the logic that they are a* fear based, *greed and survival driven society like us*, that is.



If a species is to be successful, it has to be motivated by trying to grab resources, and by survival. 

If it weren't, it would be overwhelmed by other species which *were* motivated by such things, and it would go extinct. 

And, if it wasn't in a competitive environment, there'd be no reason for it to evolve intelligence. 

The dodo is a great example of what happens when there are no competitive pressures, and of what happens when a competitive pressure arrives on the scene when there previously was none. 

I would think these biological principles would be obvious, but maybe not....


----------



## Nonservium (Nov 23, 2011)

To quote the gents from Mysterious Universe, "I don't know so therefore, aliens!"


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 23, 2011)

Explorer said:


> If a species is to be successful, it has to be motivated by trying to grab resources, and by survival.
> 
> If it weren't, it would be overwhelmed by other species which *were* motivated by such things, and it would go extinct.
> 
> ...



Unless that society evolved technologically to a point where competition is no longer a big factor. We know competition well because we're open to it from a young age, right up through school and then in a job.

But what if a race evolved where they no longer needed money? What if knowledge is downloadable and therefore universally available to all? Equality would be more prominent and therefore competition less so. They may have been competitive just like us one time, but evolved beyond that. Perhaps that is one of the traits of an advanced race.

Just a possibility.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 23, 2011)

Explorer said:


> If a species is to be successful, it has to be motivated by trying to grab resources, and by survival.
> 
> If it weren't, it would be overwhelmed by other species which *were* motivated by such things, and it would go extinct.
> 
> ...



You misunderstood. My point is that beyond a certain evolutionary point, a particular species/society could possibly develop free-energy technology, doing away with greed and fear for the sake of survival. Scarcity would be a non-issue. Eventually, anyway. You might assume that no evolutionary advancement would be made beyond that point, but that's mere speculation.

It may not seem very scientific to humans at this point in time, but there is possibly a greater purpose for/function of life and consciousness than survival.


----------



## Necris (Nov 23, 2011)

Explorers point would still stand. A society so advanced that it's basic ability to compete to survive had all but disappeared out of lack of necessity would be extremely vulnerable to any outside competition, like say another race of beings that happened to cross their path. A less advanced survival driven society would likely eradicate it. The technology is a moot point in that scenario isn't it?


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 23, 2011)

Necris said:


> Explorers point would still stand. A society so advanced that it's basic ability to compete to survive had disappeared out of lack of necessity would be extremely vulnerable to any outside competition, like say another race of beings that happened to cross their path.



Why? Why would they be vulnerable?


----------



## Necris (Nov 23, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> Why? Why would they be vulnerable?


Their inability to compete with a more survival-driven/competition-based society would likely lead to their extinction.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 23, 2011)

Necris said:


> Their inability to compete with a more survival-driven/competition-based society would likely lead to their extinction.



Debatable. A highly-evolved society with no need for inner conflict could likely still have more than advanced enough technology to defend itself from a more primitive, competitive society. It's doubtful they would abandon all defensive/offensive capabilities. If they know about us and they found us, they will most likely see we are a violent species and know to be prepared just in case. They would realise while they are peaceful and advanced, some other races might not be and so the biggest threat would not be from their own people, but others.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 23, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> Debatable. A highly-evolved society with no need for inner conflict could likely still have more than advanced enough technology to defend itself from a more primitive, competitive society. It's doubtful they would abandon all defensive/offensive capabilities. If they know about us and they found us, they will most likely see we are a violent species and know to be prepared just in case. They would realise while they are peaceful and advanced, some other races might not be and so the biggest threat would not be from their own people, but others.


 
Here's three possibilities each for two scenarios:



A species with no drive to survive and to grab resources, yet with some miraculous power source which doesn't use resources to power defensive weapons, meets a race with that drive which:

Has better technology.
Has equal technology.
Has lesser technology.
So, in three out of four cases, they will either be wiped out by superior technology, wiped out by equal technology and a civilization which doesn't care about ethical niceties, or will develop that drive to survive... leaving us us with three out of four cases where Terra is faced with superior technology and a drive to survive.

----

And that's making another big assumption, which has a few possibilities behind it.

The species which is supposedly technologically superior and which has no predators on its home planet either lost all drive after it had managed to establish its dominance... or lost it after it had killed off every threat, meaning that the drive might still be there, although dormant after killing everything else off. 

----

One more thought - A species which managed to evolve with no competitive pressures to force intelligence, and which still manages to evolve intelligence and to get to interstellar travel, would be at a huge disadvantage when facing a species which thinks like a predator. A lion or a honey badger can take on most creatures because they know how to take care of business. A vegetarian aquatic iguana... not so much. 

*I like that some of you are going on and on about the possibilities, but are always reaching for the least likely scenarios among all those possibilities. What's up with that? *

----

vampiregenocide, you're correct in that they might not have abandoned offense and defense... in which case, they're not peaceful if threatened. I don't see many scenarios where an evolutionary advantage lies in a species which just avoids areas where there are resources coupled with danger. Those are some of the factors which drive evolutionary change. Why does everyone want to uncouple the intelligence and the drive from the proposed aliens?


----------



## Jakke (Nov 23, 2011)

Guys, guys. Have you learned nothing? There is no-one that can beat us, we are the Tau'ri!
My evangelium of SG-1 clearly states that we are unbeatable, yet many have tried, and failed. 
I don't see why we are even discussing this when the answer is blatantly obvious


----------



## themike (Nov 23, 2011)

Alien? OooooOooOoOoo


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Nov 24, 2011)

Now as much as i LOOOVEEE Ancient Aliens (sarcasm), i don't believe this. But i really want one...because i have idiot friends that would believe it's an alien, and it'd look Thall as hell to hang one on my wall... (also sarcasm)


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 24, 2011)

Explorer said:


> *words*



I don't think they're avoiding us because of danger. We don't present much of a threat to any race capable of FTL travel. That said, we are still young as a civilisation and do have powerful weapons, so I'm saying perhaps they're staying away until we're more stable, socially evolved and the introduction can be a smoother process. We have enough problems as a race now that we have to overcome without adding the political, social and technological revolution that first contact would bring.

In terms of resources, we probably don't have anything that a race with FTL travel couldn't find elsewhere in the universe. Plus, it is likely they if they're evolved enough to the point I was implying, then they would have the ability to manipulate the elements into creating whatever they wanted from an atomic level. So they wouldn't really need to go anywhere if they can create and manipulate elements at will.

My point was that a race that advanced, would have a completely different social structure compared to us. As all knowledge would be downloadable, there would be no skill-divide. Everyone would know everything. This would mean there would be little point of education, the job industry would be redundant as people would know everything needed to do any job, and so they probably wouldn't have any sort of financial system. They'd be able to manipulate the universe around them to such a degree that they would be completely self-sufficient. They'd essentially be as close to Gods as you could imagine. Therefore, the drive to survive is irrelevant, as you have such extreme power that nothing can be a threat. But that doesn't mean they've always been that way. Their society will have had wars and famine just like ours, however they would have survived and manage to reach a technological point where survival isn't an issue. 

But that's like...thousands and thousands of years of technological evolution, way beyond us. It's like the ultimate goal for an intelligent race: synthetic Godhood. There is no other stage of civilisation which can beat that.

I'm not sure if I've replied to your post properly, I hope I have. Sometimes your way of writing goes over my head.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 24, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> My point was that a race that advanced, would have a completely different social structure compared to us. As all knowledge would be downloadable, there would be no skill-divide. Everyone would know everything. This would mean there would be little point of education, the job industry would be redundant as people would know everything needed to do any job, and so they probably wouldn't have any sort of financial system. They'd be able to manipulate the universe around them to such a degree that they would be completely self-sufficient. They'd essentially be as close to Gods as you could imagine. Therefore, the drive to survive is irrelevant, as you have such extreme power that nothing can be a threat. But that doesn't mean they've always been that way. Their society will have had wars and famine just like ours, however they would have survived and manage to reach a technological point where survival isn't an issue.
> 
> But that's like...thousands and thousands of years of technological evolution, way beyond us. It's like the ultimate goal for an intelligent race: synthetic Godhood. There is no other stage of civilisation which can beat that.
> 
> I'm not sure if I've replied to your post properly, I hope I have. Sometimes your way of writing goes over my head.



That's a huge amount of assertions about what an alien race would be like if it was capable of reaching earth. Downloadable knowledge. Universe manipulation. No need to fight for survival, and no need for resources.

I can speculate for just a moment and find all kinds of things aliens might want. Iron, which is used for alien fusion needs to power their civilization. Meat, which they may have hunted to extinction and for which they still long... including the sweet tang of fear left in that meat after a painful hunt and death. Cheaper brain tissue to use in timers in their equivalent of washing machine and dryers. 

Or... they see us as grubby little scroungers and killers, and they know they're doing the best thing for the universe by exterminating us. 

You went for this godhood thing for the aliens. However, it's really interesting that the gods which most people cook up, behave in ways which are considered godly by current western civilization. 

I remember when I was growing up, and learning that the older Aztec and Mayan gods couldn't be understood, only sacrificed to. (No, I'm not kidding.) Even the royalty had to sacrifice their blood to the gods to receive visions of the best ways to lead the people, because ruling was an obligation and not a right. So, if you had to feed hearts and blood to the gods, that's what you did. 

You're ascribing benevolence to gods... ignoring even the history of the current gods who are still worshipped on Earth. Yahweh wasn't a nice guy, for example. 

I understand when Christians try to insist that Yahweh is a being of only love, but he was pretty bloodthirsty. Even so, I don't get why aliens are also supposed to be that way as well.

Anyway, it's interesting to read some of the posts on this thread and to see the ariticles of faith which direct how open the speculation actually is, or isn't....


----------



## Explorer (Nov 24, 2011)

Oh, one more thought:

If any of you are insisting that pyramids are signs of alien visitors, then those alien visitors definitely want human sacrifice. There is no question of "noble, evolved aliens" in the way being presented if you look at the bloodthirst of the deities for whom the pyramids were constructed.

And I'm speaking as someone who's stood at the top of a pyramid, running his hands over the sacrifice table, and then looking down the side of the pyramid where the bodies would have been tossed afterwards. The deaths involved with pyramids should tell anyone that if aliens were involved, then we should fear those aliens....


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 24, 2011)

All pyramids were used for sacrifice, eh? And that was definitely, always the purpose for them?


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Nov 24, 2011)

If super advanced aliens were to come to Earth and they wanted to hurt us, i'd say we'd pretty much just have to take it. Any race that can travel through space must be pretty fucking advanced. haha This isn't related to your guy's posts. ^^^^


----------



## Jakke (Nov 24, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> All pyramids were used for sacrifice, eh? And that was definitely, always the purpose for them?



Yeah, pretty much. Not always the main purpose, but it has been there.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 24, 2011)

Oh yeah? Wow. We have solid proof of this too? Like.. The great pyramid at Giza was built for the sake of sacrifice? We don't know how it was built, but I guess it makes sense that we know WHY it was built. So then, the same is also true about every other pyramid? Like, there's ancient literature informing us of this fact?


----------



## Jakke (Nov 24, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Oh yeah? Wow. We have solid proof of this too? Like.. The great pyramid at Giza was built for the sake of sacrifice? We don't know how it was built, but I guess it makes sense that we know WHY it was built. So then, the same is also true about every other pyramid? Like, there's ancient literature informing us of this fact?



As I said, not their primary purpose. Their primary purpose was to help pharao up to the heavens. But when a pharao was buried, his servants and slaves were often killed to be with him in the afterlife. That is human sacrifice.
I have no data that the Giza-pyramid were used for that purpose, but I can say that other could have been used for that. Frankly, there is a lot of ancient Egypt that we dont' know, but indications seems to suggest this.
Also, the architects (even sometimes lower priests) has been known to be sacrificed to the pyramids, just to minimize the risk of anyone breeching it and taking the riches.

Just because some pyramids were used for that purpose doesn't make all of them being used for that. That is a sweeping generalization, and I think you know that.

We do however know pretty well how the pyramids were built, so I don't know were you are taking that statement from...


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 24, 2011)

We don't know how the Great Pyramid was built, that's all I said.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 24, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> We don't know how the Great Pyramid was built, that's all I said.



Is that so?

The interesting question is then what makes it so different from other pyramids (apart from its size), that archeologists say that it must have been a much more different build-process.. I'll have to look it up


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 24, 2011)

Jakke said:


> Is that so?



Yes.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 24, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Yes.



It was more of a rethorical question, but thank you for clarifying.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 24, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Oh yeah? Wow. We have solid proof of this too? Like.. The great pyramid at Giza was built for the sake of sacrifice? We don't know how it was built, but I guess it makes sense that we know WHY it was built. So then, the same is also true about every other pyramid? Like, there's ancient literature informing us of this fact?



Actually, it's more likely that the pyramids comsumed lives, even the Egyptian ones, than that aliens visited. 

You didn't specify only the Egyptian pyramids when you've previously talked about the pyramids being evidence of alien intervention. To remove the Mayan and Aztec pyramids from intervention from bloodthirsty aliens would be to say that the humans who built them were capable of building them without aliens... which means that either the Egyptians were stupid, or that they also built them without alien intervention. 

But, if we're going to cherry pick evidence, then the fact that the humans who were left behind, after the Egyptian group of aliens left, had the culture of an all powerful God-King who had the power of life and death over everyone. That means that the aliens gave them that cultural structure.

I like that you're doubting something which is astronomically more likely (intentional human death associated with the pyramids) than your original premise (aliens intervened to have them built). 

Oh, and regarding the how...

First off, I recall Adam completely rejecting the "This Old Pyramid" episode of Nova as being a great demonstration of how people with only simple tools could construct a pyramid. It was in Adam's "Alien Astronauts" thread from before, found here:

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/movies-books-tv-media/136203-ancient-aliens.html

It was awesome, and less far-fetched than a lot of what Adam rejected it for... which is weird, because it was a demonstration. *laugh*

I posted this around the same time Adam last posted that topic about alien astronaut visitation:

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/of...cast-limestone-cool-idea-evidence-behind.html

It's amazing how strong the proof was in terms of observable data. I was a little surprised Adam didn't post in that thread at the time, since I thought he'd get a kick out of something testable emerging about pyramid construction. Perhaps he didn't see it... or just ignored it if it didn't support his views....


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 24, 2011)

Well, you just ranted based on a few assumptions. I didn't say anything about which pyramids were built with the help of aliens. I actually didn't say that aliens built any pyramids. So... Right. I guess we'll just dismiss that part of your rant.

As a side note, the Mayan and Aztec pyramids aren't the same as the Great Pyramid.

The "this old pyramid" demonstration didn't demonstrate how the Great Pyramid at Giza was built. Funny, because you practically admitted that in the post that immediately preceeded this post: http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/2285096-post45.html

...which you seemingly "ignored", as you put it. For the record, you've made the assumption that I ignore things that aren't in line with my views, because that is a notion that supports your views. It was a false assumption. 

I'll say it again - we don't know how The Great Pyramid was built. If by mentioning that, somebody becomes enraged and has to make accusations of quackery that are baseless, whatever.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 24, 2011)

Explorer said:


> But, if we're going to cherry pick evidence, then the fact that the humans who were left behind, after the Egyptian group of aliens left, had the culture of an all powerful God-King who had the power of life and death over everyone. That means that the aliens gave them that cultural structure.



...and I had to comment on this: it means that? If aliens came, left, and after they left, the humans that were left behind had a culture ruled by a God-King, then it means the aliens taught it to them? That's fine, if you want to claim that as opinion, but it's definitely not a logically sound conclusion. What if the aliens came here with great teachings and the rulers of the time selfishly kept them and used them for nefarious, or greed based causes? Likewise, what if the same became of the pyramids?

Again, I'm not saying I think aliens built the pyramid or any other thing here with absolute certainty.. I'm just checking your logic.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 25, 2011)

Theories on how the great pyramid was built .


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 25, 2011)

Explorer said:


> That's a huge amount of assertions about what an alien race would be like if it was capable of reaching earth. Downloadable knowledge. Universe manipulation. No need to fight for survival, and no need for resources.
> 
> I can speculate for just a moment and find all kinds of things aliens might want. Iron, which is used for alien fusion needs to power their civilization. Meat, which they may have hunted to extinction and for which they still long... including the sweet tang of fear left in that meat after a painful hunt and death. Cheaper brain tissue to use in timers in their equivalent of washing machine and dryers.
> 
> ...



Most of what you're saying is speculation too. We're talking about a topic that there is no solid proof for, so it's also personal belief and speculation. These are just ideas of mine that I believe are possible, nothing more.

Iron is very common throughout the universe, so aliens would probably mine meteorites for it. As for meat, there could be many options in terms of how they get it. Cloning for instance. Hell, we are already capable of creating synthetic meat. Another option though requiring a lot more powerful technology, might be that they terraform entire planets to use as farms. This would create more than enough space to sustain significant populations. 

And I agree, they could very well decide we're too dangerous to keep alive. We have a wonderful planet that sustains life, something that could be the rarest resource in the known universe. An alien race might decide it's best to remove the occupants and move in. 

Alien races are not religious deities. You could argue that Gods in human religion are violent because it scares people into believing them. 'Do this or go to hell' etc. Gods are made to be violent in order to manipulate people into believing them. 

Now, an alien race might very well be violent and order us around with their superior technology, but I don't think so. I think to get to the stage of technological and social evolution they'd undoubtedly be at, you'd have to overcome a lot of hurdles. World wars, poverty, sustainable resources, sexuality, race etc. Overcoming all those things would in my opinion make a race wise and ultimately non-violent for the most part. They'd have learnt from their mistakes and have more consistent logic and reason as a race than we do (Which leads back into my reasons as to why they're leaving us alone).

I know an alien race capable of reaching earth may not have these qualities, but I think that's what they're like.




Also, I don't believe the pyramids were built by aliens.


----------



## USMarine75 (Nov 25, 2011)

Jakke said:


> Theories on how the great pyramid was built .


 
duh... there's already a best selling book that covered this...









[... And the first thing that came up in a search for who built the pyramids was a "Slavery - Gets Shit Done" pic lol]


----------



## USMarine75 (Nov 25, 2011)

And when I searched for "Are Jews really aliens" I got this!






Score. I love you google.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 25, 2011)

USMarine75 said:


> duh... there's already a best selling book that covered this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



_Love it_!






But I have to mention that most of the pyramids were not built by slaves, they were farmers that did extra work on the off season, they got payed.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 26, 2011)

Jakke said:


> Theories on how the great pyramid was built .



This is alright, but still doesn't leave us with an answer as to how The Great Pyramid was built - just a bunch of theories that don't work.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 26, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> This is alright, but still doesn't leave us with an answer as to how The Great Pyramid was built - just a bunch of theories that don't work.



How is every single one of them inaccurate?


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 26, 2011)

The other pyramids in Egypt aren't as much of a marvel as The Great Pyramid. This link you shared is, for the most part, explaining how the Egyptian pyramids could have been built. The few explanations on how The Great Pyramid was built don't answer very much. How were 50-ton blocks placed with artistic perfection so high above the ground? It's one thing to get them there, but then to move them perfectly into place with great care is another thing entirely.

Regardless, the world's most knowledegeable experts on this subject still call The Great Pyramid a wonder and a mystery.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 26, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> The other pyramids in Egypt aren't as much of a marvel as The Great Pyramid. This link you shared is, for the most part, explaining how the Egyptian pyramids could have been built. The few explanations on how The Great Pyramid was built don't answer very much. How were 50-ton blocks placed with artistic perfection so high above the ground? It's one thing to get them there, but then to move them perfectly into place with great care is another thing entirely.
> 
> Regardless, the world's most knowledegeable experts on this subject still call The Great Pyramid a wonder and a mystery.



Yeah, we don't know for sure, but we have some theories. 

So your argument is basically an argument from ignorance? You can't see how they ever built them, so no-one knows?
The egyptians had a pretty sound understanding of mechanics, so I don't see any real difficulties. They for example had the block and tackle, and knew how to reduce the weight of an object with them. Give a man enough time, and he can accomplish most things.

But again, we don't know for sure, but the experts are not completely in the dark about this.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 26, 2011)

Jakke said:


> Yeah, we don't know for sure, but we have some theories.
> 
> So your argument is basically an argument from ignorance? You can't see how they ever built them, so no-one knows?
> The egyptians had a pretty sound understanding of mechanics, so I don't see any real difficulties. They for example had the block and tackle, and knew how to reduce the weight of an object with them. Give a man enough time, and he can accomplish most things.
> ...




I'm saying that we don't know how they built them - it is unexplained. That's all. Explorer was trying to make me look like an ass or something, but was just all around off the mark. I'm not implying that aliens built it, or that a magician built it, or that they had some crazy technology to build it.. I'm saying we don't know how men were able to build something so complex and massive, and that's awesome.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 26, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I'm saying that we don't know how they built them - it is unexplained. That's all. Explorer was trying to make me look like an ass or something, but was just all around off the mark. I'm not implying that aliens built it, or that a magician built it, or that they had some crazy technology to build it.. I'm saying we don't know how men were able to build something so complex and massive, and that's awesome.



It's awesome, I totally agree. And argument from ignorance is not in any way directed at mental capabilities, it's just the term. Although, the most common thing that comes after one is "goddunnit"

I believe that the egyptians had the abilities to build it, they could lift ships and all sorts of things, so they could lift heavy objects and put them down gently. But as you said, we don't know for sure yet, so it's all speculation. And that is exciting, since it leaves something for future archeologists to discover


----------



## Explorer (Nov 26, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I'm saying that we don't know how they built them - it is unexplained. That's all. ...I'm not implying that aliens built it, or that a magician built it, or that they had some crazy technology to build it.. I'm saying we don't know how men were able to build something so complex and massive, and that's awesome.



Ah, that is *vastly* different from claiming that the pyramids had to have been built using some kind of alien and/or magical technology beyond what was known to be available. Thanks for clarifying!

Er... you mean that, right? You won't ever bring up the pyramids as proof of alien astronauts?

I'm happy to take you as a man of your word. People who can hold to their pledges are to be admired.

----

As hopefully my last word on this subject (barring someone again claiming that aliens had something to do with the pyramids), I have an observation.

There are many in the anti-evolution camp who mistake disputes about specific mechanisms with disputes about the fact of evolution, the underpinning of all current biological science. They then mistakenly claim that such disputes open the door for a Creator as a likely explanation.

In the same way, there are those who believe that disputes about the specifics of pyramid construction are disputes about whether people could have built them. Then, like the previous case, they mistakenly claim that such disputes open the door for aliens as a likely explanation.

For those who are interested in this subject, here's a page with a collection of the scientific consensus.

Egyptian pyramid construction techniques - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Happy reading!


----------



## Jakke (Nov 26, 2011)

Explorer said:


> There are many in the anti-evolution camp who mistake disputes about specific mechanisms with disputes about the fact of evolution, the underpinning of all current biological science. They then mistakenly claim that such disputes open the door for a Creator as a likely explanation.



Yeah, that intellectual dishonesty is called "god of the gaps". If there is a hole somewhere in a theory, something that has yet not been discovered, they take it as proof of goddunnit.

As if the bible weren't full of holes and contradictions as it is


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 26, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Ah, that is *vastly* different from claiming that the pyramids had to have been built using some kind of alien and/or magical technology beyond what was known to be available. Thanks for clarifying!
> 
> Er... you mean that, right? You won't ever bring up the pyramids as proof of alien astronauts?
> 
> I'm happy to take you as a man of your word. People who can hold to their pledges are to be admired.



.

So what you're saying is, you want me to pledge to never bring up aliens as a possible explanation for The Great Pyramid, so that you can admire me for my dedication to said pledge? 

Like, you want me to completely disregard a possibility in a mystery, for.... What reason, again? Because you'll like it? It's one thing for me to not have supported the aforementioned theory, and entirely another thing for you to ask me to not suggest it in the future.

 You're kind of silly

Anyway, let's move along.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 27, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> It's one thing for me to not have supported the aforementioned theory, and entirely another thing for you to ask me to not suggest it in the future.



You have supported it, and repeatedly at that. Your first premise is inaccurate.

Does that mean that it's just business as usual? That's what I expected, but your words gave me hope... for a very short period of time.

*laugh*


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 27, 2011)

I supported it? By mentioning that we haven't been able to explain how The Great Pyramid got there? I've not actually shared an opinion or anything that serves as actual "support" for the alient astronaut theory that you've determined to be my number one agenda in any of these discussions about the Giza Plan. I have not repeatedly supported the idea that aliens helped build the pyramid. That is a completely baseless statement. In your mind, I've supported that theory, but it's a fabrication that is perhaps necessary in order for you to take a condescending position (aka - comfort zone). Or at least that's what I'd have to assume... Sad.

"Business as usual"? So, I point out the absurdity in you requesting that I stay away from one particular explanation for a mystery yet to be solved, even though that particular theory is not impossible, and by doing so, you assume that I'm admitting my support for that theory? You're plainly full of assumptions and expectations. 

As far as the bit about "hope" goes - in case you didn't know it, this forum isn't used by all of us to please you. If you for some reason think I care about whether or not you approve of the ideas I bring up for discussion, I'll have to break the bad news and tell you that I do not.


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 27, 2011)

Possibility.

That word is soaked in more blood than all the Crusades and underground alien autopsy bunkers combined.

I'm an atheist. No big deal in InternetLand, and truthfully shouldn't be a big deal anywhere else. My point, however, is that I subscribe to what Richard Dawkins defined as "weak atheism". I don't say "I know there is no God" because that statement both removes all possibilities of being true, and means that I do not need faith to say with any sort of integrity that I find the statement to be true.

Mathematically, or I think more appropriately, quantum physically, everything CAN be true. If multiverses are a thing, then in some universe, 2 + 2 = 5. That doesn't make for a stable universe under our rules, but who knows? It's not like my frame of reference contains interdimensional travel. So, to relate this to the ongoing discussion, *could aliens have helped build the Great Pyramid*? The answer *must* be yes. Now think about this: *Could aliens have helped build the Empire State building*? Again, the answer *must* be yes. Shit, for all we know, they're still up there keeping the thing standing with their intangible, invisible ships. We don't know. 

Now, we can throw around possibilities all we want. Admitting something *is a possibility* does not mean we are saying it exists. I don't know the term, but I think there is a fancy Latin phrase for deriving facts from theories, instead of the other way around. I don't think Egyptians building a huge-ass pyramid is proof of aliens, in fact I'd view it as proof of human ingenuity. There is a possibility that there was at some point an Egyptian engineer who developed a steam engine or hydraulics of some sort, who knows. All we can know with certainty is that one of these possibilities is more likely than the other.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 27, 2011)

Right, and.... none of us have said that we think Aiens helped build the pyramid. That's the funny thing. I think it would be stupid to completely dismiss the idea, just as I think it would be stupid to completely dismiss any other possibility, since we don't know the answer. But... again, none of us (or at least, I'll speak for myself) have said that we believe aliens built the pyramids. If, at a later date, I have good reason to believe that aliens built the pyramid, I'll go there. If, at a later date, I have good reason to believe that a giant gingerbread man built the pyramid, I'll go there. If, at a later date, I have good reason to believe a theory that explains how men built the pyramid, I'll go there. As of now, I don't know how it came to be. It's just goofy to attempt to pressure somebody into forevermore abandoning a possibility for your own amusement.


----------



## Necris (Nov 27, 2011)

I'll go with the gingerbread man theory. It has a nice mental image.


----------

