AcesHigh wrote:do you agree that from an evolutionary point of view, the "greys" are just too much human-like?
Actually, no. Stephen Jay Gould's "Random Walk" evolutionary hypothesis does not hold up. Consider that the eye has evolved independently at least three times, and has ended up essentially identical every time. There is a deep order underlying biological development and all structure - phi derivatives and mathematical attractors IMO, tho both are modern derivatives of the Platonic Forms concept - which limits the possible forms far more than Gould would admit to.
There are 35 phyla in the animal kingdom; 34 of them emerged during the Cambrian explosion in a typical logistic/ "S" curve of hyperbolic rapid development. I would bet good money that those 35 generic bauplans define more or less the totality of the number of animal forms possible in a terrestrial environment.
IOW, its possible sapient trilobites may have inherited the Earth, but not something totally alien.
sapient trilobytes or even an Star Wars Mom Calamari are still much more different from humans than the "greys". Science fiction writers at least are usually more creative than people who claim to have seem greys.
GIThruster wrote:Odds are, there are a small handful of downed craft that have been found around the world. Maybe there was one at Roswell. Maybe one at Kecksburg, PA. The Russians claimed to have one. That's not a lot, especially if there are visitors in our skies daily and have been for millennia.
I wonder what the hell we are doing with the captured alien spaceships we have. Seems pretty pathetic that we haven't figured out their power source and solved the worlds energy problems by now. I guess we are just stupid Earthlings, incapable of understanding their advanced technology but completely capable of keeping the biggest secret in recorded history.
I have little basis for believing that we have captured any such craft.
seedload wrote:
The only thing more pathetic would be if we were to develop interstellar technologies of our own, travel to a distant civilized planet, and then spend millenniums popping in and out, grabbing aliens, taking samples, shoving sticks up their orifices, randomly slaughtering their food, ducking in and out of their volcanoes, making pretty circles in their crops, and randomly getting caught by witnesses who always don't seem to have the least bit of ability to properly document or record the event.
Supposing that there exists alien technology and advanced craft, would it be unreasonable to postulate they have sent drones, as opposed to actual life forms? We send robots to Mars and Venus, perhaps they have sent Robot drones to Earth? Perhaps an actual trip from their origin is to arduous for actual biological entities?
Goofy behavior on the part of drones might make the supposedly witnessed behavior more plausible.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
AcesHigh wrote:do you agree that from an evolutionary point of view, the "greys" are just too much human-like?
Actually, no. Stephen Jay Gould's "Random Walk" evolutionary hypothesis does not hold up. Consider that the eye has evolved independently at least three times, and has ended up essentially identical every time. There is a deep order underlying biological development and all structure - phi derivatives and mathematical attractors IMO, tho both are modern derivatives of the Platonic Forms concept - which limits the possible forms far more than Gould would admit to.
There are 35 phyla in the animal kingdom; 34 of them emerged during the Cambrian explosion in a typical logistic/ "S" curve of hyperbolic rapid development. I would bet good money that those 35 generic bauplans define more or less the totality of the number of animal forms possible in a terrestrial environment.
IOW, its possible sapient trilobites may have inherited the Earth, but not something totally alien.
What I said, but with more esoteric nuance.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
AcesHigh wrote:do you agree that from an evolutionary point of view, the "greys" are just too much human-like?
Actually, no. Stephen Jay Gould's "Random Walk" evolutionary hypothesis does not hold up. Consider that the eye has evolved independently at least three times, and has ended up essentially identical every time. There is a deep order underlying biological development and all structure - phi derivatives and mathematical attractors IMO, tho both are modern derivatives of the Platonic Forms concept - which limits the possible forms far more than Gould would admit to.
There are 35 phyla in the animal kingdom; 34 of them emerged during the Cambrian explosion in a typical logistic/ "S" curve of hyperbolic rapid development. I would bet good money that those 35 generic bauplans define more or less the totality of the number of animal forms possible in a terrestrial environment.
IOW, its possible sapient trilobites may have inherited the Earth, but not something totally alien.
What I said, but with more esoteric nuance.
I like abstraction.
Additionally, bilateral symmetry may be necessary for cephalization (formation of a brain), and there does seem to be a cosmic bias toward the prevalence of CHON constituents (Carbon-Hydrogen-Oxygen-Nitrogen) for biochemistries versus more exotic possibilities such as Silicon biochemistries. I'll bet good money that higher lifeforms are more or less familiar everywhere they form.
seedload wrote:
The only thing more pathetic would be if we were to develop interstellar technologies of our own, travel to a distant civilized planet, and then spend millenniums popping in and out, grabbing aliens, taking samples, shoving sticks up their orifices, randomly slaughtering their food, ducking in and out of their volcanoes, making pretty circles in their crops, and randomly getting caught by witnesses who always don't seem to have the least bit of ability to properly document or record the event.
Apart from the snide manner in which you make these empty allegations, there is the emptiness of the allegations. No one has made an argument here that aliens are abducting people, shoving sticks up their orifices, randomly slaughtering their food, ducking in an out of volcanoes, nor making crop circles. It's simply not true that witnesses don't have the least credibility nor ability to document the account.
What all these charges prove is that you have not availed yourself to the evidence, and that you made a decision about these kinds of events in a near perfect vacuum, separated from the evidence. You hold your position in ignorance, and you are promoting ignorance through caricatures and mischaracterizations of general case types. Again, I recommend Kean's book so you can do away with your mischaracterizations, especially those charges relating to lack of credibility and inability to document. The evidence exists in just the kinds of ways one should expect, with exactly the kinds of eyewitnesses one could hope for.
Last edited by GIThruster on Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Diogenes wrote:
Supposing that there exists alien technology and advanced craft, would it be unreasonable to postulate they have sent drones, as opposed to actual life forms?
I'm not much for supposing. All the arguments about crop circles, bio-genesis, evolution, etc. we're finding here are "supposing" one thing or another and I don't see the value added. Given life formed on another planet there's little reason to suppose it formed here independently. Our planet could have been seeded with life and that's why it bears a resemblance. We don't know and it's not the province of science to answer such questions since the crux of the question is concerns an unobservable phenomenon. If however we can build wormhole generators, then we could do an investigation of where life on Earth really did come from. It's important to note that presuming wormhole generators and warp drives, one ends up with presuming time travel and that grants the ability to seed entire planets with life, all over the universe. There's little reason to assume life evolved the way it did here by pure accident. After all, if we had warp drives and wormhole generators, wouldn't we consider it a noble cause to plant life throughout the universe where it didn't exist? I think we would.
I would say there are some credible stories of objects that act like drones. The obrs described in the book "Hunt for the Skinwalker" sound like drones to me. That is a fascinating read, especially because I know some of the investigators in the National Institute for Discovery Science who were involved in the investigation and I know first hand these are extremely sensible people. It's easy to pass over specific events described in the book as the product of hysteria on the part of the investigators until you know something about the investigators. Skinwalker is a fascinating and entertaining read, totally worth the cost of the paperback.
I would note to you too if you take an interest in this case, that the chief finding of NIDS was that they approached this entire program inappropriately. They now admit they should have used a counterintelligence approach that accepted from the start that the sentient activity on the ranch was informed and malicious, and that they should have used stealth rather than good intentions.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
seedload wrote:
The only thing more pathetic would be if we were to develop interstellar technologies of our own, travel to a distant civilized planet, and then spend millenniums popping in and out, grabbing aliens, taking samples, shoving sticks up their orifices, randomly slaughtering their food, ducking in and out of their volcanoes, making pretty circles in their crops, and randomly getting caught by witnesses who always don't seem to have the least bit of ability to properly document or record the event.
Apart from the snide manner in which you make these empty allegations, there is the emptiness of the allegations. No one has made an argument here that aliens are abducting people, shoving sticks up their orifices, randomly slaughtering their food, ducking in an out of volcanoes, nor making crop circles. It's simply not true that witnesses don't have the least credibility nor ability to document the account.
What all these charges prove is that you have not availed yourself to the evidence, and that you made a decision about these kinds of events in a near perfect vacuum, separated from the evidence. You hold your position in ignorance, and you are promoting ignorance through caricatures and mischaracterizations of general case types. Again, I recommend Kean's book so you can do away with your mischaracterizations, especially those general ones relating to lack of credibility ind inability to document. The evidence exists in just the kinds of ways one should expect, with exactly the kinds of eyewitnesses one could hope for.
Allegations? Sorry, I made no allegations. I stated my opinion with as much seriousness as I feel the topic deserves. I was making comments about odd alien behavior. Who the heck would I be making allegations against? Aliens?
Perfect vacuum? What are you talking about? We are inundated with UFO speculation and "evidence". It doesn't seem like I could be possibly ignorant for living in a vacuum. If you are going to call me ignorant, call me ignorant for being overwhelmed.
Even though you think me an ignorant fool for not having found the correct evidence, I will say that I am always interested in a good UFO story. Unfortunately, I have no desire to buy any more books on UFOs then I already have, so, if you want to point me to the correct evidence, you better do so with an internet link rather than suggested reading.
You certainly did allege that the UFO evidence concerns ONLY things like abduction stories and cattle mutilations. You certainly did allege that witnesses " always don't seem to have the least bit of ability to properly document or record the event". I'm telling you this is nonsense that demonstrates ignorance and now you want to tell me the sources I've suggested aren't good enough and I need to search the web to find you stories I find compelling.
Do your own research and until you do, keep your ignorance to yourself. Why share snarky comments about things you've personally invested no time nor energy to investigate?
This is the most serious part of the trouble on the issue of UFO's--that people put in no time nor energy researching the issue, but think they have a clue. How many other topics in the world are like this? Do people claim to be experts in Egyptian hieroglyphics when they have never looked at them, or suggest how to solve murder mysteries without looking at who died, how, when, or where? Of course not. So why do people share their ignorance about UFO's based upon the popular tripe they get in mass media?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
What is absurd is getting mad at someone for not sharing your belief in alien spacecraft on Earth. Not believing in alien spacecraft is a completely reasonable position regardless of how snarkily you interpret the position to be expressed.
There is no "trouble on the issue of UFOs". I don't believe they are alien spacecraft and am free to express that opinion. You believe that some of them are and are free to express that opinion. See - no trouble.
Finally, I am not telling you that you need to do any research for me. You obviously don't need to do anything. I was just letting you know that I am not going to buy a book on the subject. I even said, "if you want to point me to correct evidence". If you don't want to, fine. I said nothing about you "needing" to do anything.
seedload wrote:What is absurd is getting mad at someone for not sharing your belief in alien spacecraft on Earth.
Don't kid yourself. I'm not angry when people disagree with me. I do however get annoyed when someone who is completely ignorant of an issue decides they need to be all snarky and nasty in their comments right out of the gate. People acting the way you do is the reason professionals are ostracized for reporting their observations as if they were part of some medieval religious sect and dared to observe the world is not flat.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
seedload wrote:What is absurd is getting mad at someone for not sharing your belief in alien spacecraft on Earth.
Don't kid yourself. I'm not angry when people disagree with me. I do however get annoyed when someone who is completely ignorant of an issue decides they need to be all snarky and nasty in their comments right out of the gate. People acting the way you do is the reason professionals are ostracized for reporting their observations as if they were part of some medieval religious sect and dared to observe the world is not flat.
I just reread this entire thread. You have made the following points: the French are more receptive to investigating UFOs than the US is (thus the French character in the movie Close Encounters), odds are that an alien spaceship has been found, and that AcesHigh and I are each ignorant for different reasons.
Sorry, money. I fail to see how you have demonstrated some superior knowledge of UFOs based on this insignificant babble. Say I am snarky? You just called me ignorant without presenting a single cohesive argument of your own.
Basically, you have proclaimed a superior knowledge, gotten annoyed with those inferior to you, and dismissed their opinions without presenting a single bit of support for your argument. Just saying you know more doesn't mean anything without actually expressing what you think you know. Sorry, just being annoyed (annoying) is not enough. Sorry, just saying read Kean is not enough.
Maybe I am just at a disadvantage because this is carried over from another thread that I haven't read. Otherwise, I don't see a single bit of context from which you can possibly be launching your declarations of ignorance from.
You're making ignorant statements about the whole issue of UFO's based upon popular tripe, then putting the onus on others to do your research for you. I'm sorry, but I'm not half enough a fool to think I'm going to convince someone to accept the evidence, who is too lazy to look at it for himself.
Besides, you seem to think I have some emotional need to convince you. I don't. I'm just telling you the obvious--your ignorance is showing. When you characterize all UFO witnesses the way you have, you're obviously ignorant of the facts.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
What facts?
There is very little facts surrounding the whole UFO thing. Most of it can be easily explained without needing to resort to alien technology.
Any explanation that does not use alien technology is much, much more likely than one that uses it.
It is just waaaay to unlikely that an alien species would come to visit us from ligthtyears away, tries not to be discovered, succeeds for the most part but always happens to run into the wrong people. No clear picture has ever been taken.
do you agree that from an evolutionary point of view, the "greys" are just too much human-like?
