Aliens or ex-inhabitants..

It's a good topic to consider when discussing UFO's. One of the big questions is Why are UFO's visiting us? One answer could be that they lived here previously.

Personally I don't see enough evidence to support that Aliens are 'returning' to Earth and that they lived here at some point. Archaeology has been getting better and better over the years. They have put together an amazing base of knowledge about the past that we never knew. However I don't see them uncovering any solid evidence to support an alien species living on Earth previously. If they did live here one would expect little bits of their everyday living to be left behind. Sure they could have been super neat freaks, but so far nothing has turned up.

Of course if you believe the ancient astronaut theory then aliens lived among us and were written about in many different cultures chronicles, sagas or histories. Some of the points raised in that theory are interesting but don't provide hard evidence sitting in your hand type of stuff. I don't dismiss it though and enjoy the odd ancient aliens TV episode. It deserves more attention by scholars I think.

If it were the case that aliens are ex-inhabitants of the Earth, checking up on us; Why wouldn't they have come back after whatever disaster it may have been that caused them to leave the Earth, and re-instated their superiority over us? Why do they just visit instead of takeover?

If this were their home planet, you would think they would want to remain here as long as situations allow it, rather than find a new rock somewhere else in the Cosmos to inhabit.

If it were the case that aliens are ex-inhabitants of the Earth, checking up on us; Why wouldn't they have come back after whatever disaster it may have been that caused them to leave the Earth, and re-instated their superiority over us? Why do they just visit instead of takeover?

If this were their home planet, you would think they would want to remain here as long as situations allow it, rather than find a new rock somewhere else in the Cosmos to inhabit.

I have come across something like this many years ago, something along the lines of this is the fifth great civilisation thats existed on this planet. Supposedly there is plenty of evidence left around including a great seed ship in russia from memory. Would be good to find that info again. Personally i've never seen proof but i'm open to the concept of it.

originally posted by: nosmokinggun
Ok I do not post often I tend to just look and observe and not get involved in a debate.



I wanted to pose this question to everyone on ATS that I have been thinking about and I have not seen much evidence that this theory already exists.



This could be wrong and I apologise if I am treading on anyone’s toes.



I will start by saying mathematics in ufology is our friend..



After a quick Google search in the last 68 years there has been around 70,000 UFO sightings each year.



If you said that only 1:1000000 sightings have to be true then that would be at least four sightings in the last 68 years that are genuine.



68 * 70000 = 4,7000000



That probability in mathematics is acceptable to believe that there is some truth to the UFO phenomenon.



So where do the UFOs come from.. I agree that they are coming from other worlds but are they aliens.. maybe not..



The Earth is 4.5 billion years old.. we are a civilisation that has been on this planet for 6 million years at a rough estimate..



What’s to say that the UFOs are not a civilisation that used to habit this planet and they are back to check on us..



Could there not have been at least one more civilisation in the Earth’s 4.5 billion year history and could they not have had to leave the planet because of a global event that threatened their existence..



Lets look at our existence.. how far have we come in the last 100 years.. Imagine how far we will get in the next 6 million.. then say after that we have only been on this planet for 2/750s of the Earth’s lifespan.. its possible that what we think of as aliens/UFOs are ex-inhabitants of the planet Earth.. back to see how we have come about after their world was devastated by some global event, e.g. a super volcano, meteorite..



We are finding evidence all the time that push back how long we believe we have been on this planet.. When you consider how long the Earth has been around we are mere twinkles in Earth’s eye. I would like to believe that UFOs are actually past civilisations of Earth back to make sure we are going to be ok.. but one day maybe we will have to leave Earth and then we will be the UFOs/ETs..

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: tanka418
In the final analysis; science and Law agree 100% on the definition of evidence.

Yes however standard of evidence in science is higher than in a judicial court.

No, actually, I used to think that too...then while doing a wee bit of research, I found that evidence in a court of law, is about the same as evidence in the scientific community.

In both cases; evidence must relate to the original hypothesis, and must be testable. those ore the only requirements.

After that we may begin to apply what ever we use to determine the "confidence level" of our evidence. And that should be arbitrary enough for anybody.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: Tangerine

Funny how that legal term "evidence" is turned on its head when it comes to UFOs. But I assume in your use of the term that you have investigated every scrap of what normally would be accepted as legitimate evidence in a court of law and have found any number of ways to explain what in most cases would be unexplainable by common means. Of course, that is easy to do if at first you have in mind that ET ships could not possible visit us.

As for the thought in the OP: Given that many contact reports on the surface of the earth and abduction accounts indicate that the ETs can breath earth air and the air on their ships is breathable for the abductees, then we can wonder if perhaps they are returning voyagers. Why not? We really know nothing about anything.

You are confusing law with science. Don't.

I'm sorry man, but, IF you can't accept the legal definition of "evidence" as used and applied in a Court f Law, then your ideas, expectations, understanding of the idea of evidence is wrong, and unrealistic.

Now, before you jump on me, spend a day or two trying t understand just "WHAT" evidence actually is.

In the final analysis; science and Law agree 100% on the definition of evidence.

Are we in a court of law in which the jury weighs that which is presented as evidence and, for any reason or no reason at all decides its merit? No. Outside of a courtroom, fact is the purview of science and science uses the scientific method to determine whether something meets the criteria to be considered a fact. If that is unacceptable to you, take your case to court.

I would say look how fast evidence of us would vanish if it's not stone and gold it won't last long plastic will

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: Tangerine

Funny how that legal term "evidence" is turned on its head when it comes to UFOs. But I assume in your use of the term that you have investigated every scrap of what normally would be accepted as legitimate evidence in a court of law and have found any number of ways to explain what in most cases would be unexplainable by common means. Of course, that is easy to do if at first you have in mind that ET ships could not possible visit us.

As for the thought in the OP: Given that many contact reports on the surface of the earth and abduction accounts indicate that the ETs can breath earth air and the air on their ships is breathable for the abductees, then we can wonder if perhaps they are returning voyagers. Why not? We really know nothing about anything.

You are confusing law with science. Don't.

I'm sorry man, but, IF you can't accept the legal definition of "evidence" as used and applied in a Court f Law, then your ideas, expectations, understanding of the idea of evidence is wrong, and unrealistic.

Now, before you jump on me, spend a day or two trying t understand just "WHAT" evidence actually is.

In the final analysis; science and Law agree 100% on the definition of evidence.

Are we in a court of law in which the jury weighs that which is presented as evidence and, for any reason or no reason at all decides its merit? No. Outside of a courtroom, fact is the purview of science and science uses the scientific method to determine whether something meets the criteria to be considered a fact. If that is unacceptable to you, take your case to court.

It appears you don't quite understand.

first; we are not talking about fact yet, we are talking about evidence. Fact, is determined by evidence, so lets stick with the natural flow of knowledge...

And, yes, just like the scientific peers, and panels, the jury decides the merit, or confidence level of the evidence. The processes are the same.

Fact is never in the "purview" of anything, save, the natural, logical outcome of the evidence. Science, or perhaps more accurately, the scientific method is the protocol for testing.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: Tangerine

Funny how that legal term "evidence" is turned on its head when it comes to UFOs. But I assume in your use of the term that you have investigated every scrap of what normally would be accepted as legitimate evidence in a court of law and have found any number of ways to explain what in most cases would be unexplainable by common means. Of course, that is easy to do if at first you have in mind that ET ships could not possible visit us.

As for the thought in the OP: Given that many contact reports on the surface of the earth and abduction accounts indicate that the ETs can breath earth air and the air on their ships is breathable for the abductees, then we can wonder if perhaps they are returning voyagers. Why not? We really know nothing about anything.

You are confusing law with science. Don't.

I'm sorry man, but, IF you can't accept the legal definition of "evidence" as used and applied in a Court f Law, then your ideas, expectations, understanding of the idea of evidence is wrong, and unrealistic.

Now, before you jump on me, spend a day or two trying t understand just "WHAT" evidence actually is.

In the final analysis; science and Law agree 100% on the definition of evidence.

Are we in a court of law in which the jury weighs that which is presented as evidence and, for any reason or no reason at all decides its merit? No. Outside of a courtroom, fact is the purview of science and science uses the scientific method to determine whether something meets the criteria to be considered a fact. If that is unacceptable to you, take your case to court.

It appears you don't quite understand.

first; we are not talking about fact yet, we are talking about evidence. Fact, is determined by evidence, so lets stick with the natural flow of knowledge...

And, yes, just like the scientific peers, and panels, the jury decides the merit, or confidence level of the evidence. The processes are the same.

Fact is never in the "purview" of anything, save, the natural, logical outcome of the evidence. Science, or perhaps more accurately, the scientific method is the protocol for testing.

No, scientists do not decide the way juries do. Again, I refer you to the scientific method. Scientists perform independent tests on evidence using strict protocols.

Juries can disregard CLAIMED evidence or manipulate it or misinterpret it in their minds. There is no independent testing of evidence by juries nor any strict protocols. Susie can ignore all "evidence" presented at trial and vote to convict because she dislikes the defendant's hair cut. Jim can ignore all "evidence" presented at trial and vote against convicting because he likes the defendant's shoes. Ralph can ignore the testimony of the scientist who presents blood test results because the testimony bored him and he was thinking about the Superbowl.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: Tangerine

Funny how that legal term "evidence" is turned on its head when it comes to UFOs. But I assume in your use of the term that you have investigated every scrap of what normally would be accepted as legitimate evidence in a court of law and have found any number of ways to explain what in most cases would be unexplainable by common means. Of course, that is easy to do if at first you have in mind that ET ships could not possible visit us.

As for the thought in the OP: Given that many contact reports on the surface of the earth and abduction accounts indicate that the ETs can breath earth air and the air on their ships is breathable for the abductees, then we can wonder if perhaps they are returning voyagers. Why not? We really know nothing about anything.

You are confusing law with science. Don't.

I'm sorry man, but, IF you can't accept the legal definition of "evidence" as used and applied in a Court f Law, then your ideas, expectations, understanding of the idea of evidence is wrong, and unrealistic.

Now, before you jump on me, spend a day or two trying t understand just "WHAT" evidence actually is.

In the final analysis; science and Law agree 100% on the definition of evidence.

Are we in a court of law in which the jury weighs that which is presented as evidence and, for any reason or no reason at all decides its merit? No. Outside of a courtroom, fact is the purview of science and science uses the scientific method to determine whether something meets the criteria to be considered a fact. If that is unacceptable to you, take your case to court.

It appears you don't quite understand.

first; we are not talking about fact yet, we are talking about evidence. Fact, is determined by evidence, so lets stick with the natural flow of knowledge...

And, yes, just like the scientific peers, and panels, the jury decides the merit, or confidence level of the evidence. The processes are the same.

Fact is never in the "purview" of anything, save, the natural, logical outcome of the evidence. Science, or perhaps more accurately, the scientific method is the protocol for testing.

No, scientists do not decide the way juries do. Again, I refer you to the scientific method. Scientists perform independent tests on evidence using strict protocols.

Really!!!!

And here I thought Scientists were just people with an education. Now I find out that they are magically transformed into something else. So...tell us; just what a Scientist is.

When I evaluate data, with the exception of my advanced education, the methods, and more importantly, by feelings, emotions, etc. color my results...just like any other scientist. it really is rather unavoidable...even after a life time of practice.

Scientists perform independent tests on evidence using strict protocols.

And just what "protocols" would those be?

Juries can disregard CLAIMED evidence or manipulate it or misinterpret it in their minds. There is no independent testing of evidence by juries nor any strict protocols. Susie can ignore all "evidence" presented at trial and vote to convict because she dislikes the defendant's hair cut. Jim can ignore all "evidence" presented at trial and vote against convicting because he likes the defendant's shoes. Ralph can ignore the testimony of the scientist who presents blood test results because the testimony bored him and he was thinking about the Superbowl.

Yes, a jury can ignore any evidence they like, although, they can not change it...the evidence remains fundamentally intact. All those little issues you claim are present in the scientific community as well...Scientists are still human!

Here is what makes the court of law methods so much better than what is found around ATS...

"Rules of Evidence"...you see the court room has this set of rules that everyone adheres to. What these rules do is help to assure uniformity in the evidence...this way we don't have people "making up" crap and trying to pass it off as something viable. We don't have Sally thinking that this other stuff explains anything, when Sally can't demonstrate that the evidence she is touting is relevant. we also don't have people saying; "That's not evidence", when that evidence doesn't support their pet "theory". We establish rules; giving all arguments a level playing field, and in this way we may begin to approach truth, reality.

Sorry man; you have totally missed the point of evidence, court rooms, the rules and procedures of evidence that are already established, well used and understood, help to promote the scientific method, and assist us in finding the truth.

And again, the evaluation of the evidence is procedurally the same between the Court Room and the Laboratory. Please don't confuse the application of specific tests with the overall procedure, they are not the same.

I wish to reiterate this:
Rules of Evidence help to insure that the evidence being evaluated is consistent, relevant to the hypothesis being considered. It is by these rules that we determine what constitutes evidence...as opposed to what an individual desires.

originally posted by: tanka418


When I evaluate data, with the exception of my advanced education, the methods, and more importantly, by feelings, emotions, etc. color my results...just like any other scientist.

I remember your data evaluation methods, and I wouldn't say they were just like any other scientist. You are unique... possibly due to your highly advanced education.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: tanka418


When I evaluate data, with the exception of my advanced education, the methods, and more importantly, by feelings, emotions, etc. color my results...just like any other scientist.

I remember your data evaluation methods, and I wouldn't say they were just like any other scientist. You are unique... possibly due to your highly advanced education.

Thank you, however, in as much as I only have "Master's" degrees, my education isn't "highly advanced". But, I do understand why you might think it so...

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: Tangerine

Funny how that legal term "evidence" is turned on its head when it comes to UFOs. But I assume in your use of the term that you have investigated every scrap of what normally would be accepted as legitimate evidence in a court of law and have found any number of ways to explain what in most cases would be unexplainable by common means. Of course, that is easy to do if at first you have in mind that ET ships could not possible visit us.

As for the thought in the OP: Given that many contact reports on the surface of the earth and abduction accounts indicate that the ETs can breath earth air and the air on their ships is breathable for the abductees, then we can wonder if perhaps they are returning voyagers. Why not? We really know nothing about anything.

You are confusing law with science. Don't.

YOU are confusing evidence with proof. DON'T !!

originally posted by: sayzaar

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: Tangerine

Funny how that legal term "evidence" is turned on its head when it comes to UFOs. But I assume in your use of the term that you have investigated every scrap of what normally would be accepted as legitimate evidence in a court of law and have found any number of ways to explain what in most cases would be unexplainable by common means. Of course, that is easy to do if at first you have in mind that ET ships could not possible visit us.

As for the thought in the OP: Given that many contact reports on the surface of the earth and abduction accounts indicate that the ETs can breath earth air and the air on their ships is breathable for the abductees, then we can wonder if perhaps they are returning voyagers. Why not? We really know nothing about anything.

You are confusing law with science. Don't.

YOU are confusing evidence with proof. DON'T !!

What evidence? There isn't any. By the way, technically, proof is a mathematical term.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: sayzaar

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: Tangerine

Funny how that legal term "evidence" is turned on its head when it comes to UFOs. But I assume in your use of the term that you have investigated every scrap of what normally would be accepted as legitimate evidence in a court of law and have found any number of ways to explain what in most cases would be unexplainable by common means. Of course, that is easy to do if at first you have in mind that ET ships could not possible visit us.

As for the thought in the OP: Given that many contact reports on the surface of the earth and abduction accounts indicate that the ETs can breath earth air and the air on their ships is breathable for the abductees, then we can wonder if perhaps they are returning voyagers. Why not? We really know nothing about anything.

You are confusing law with science. Don't.

YOU are confusing evidence with proof. DON'T !!

What evidence? There isn't any. By the way, technically, proof is a mathematical term.

Exactly WHY "Rules of Evidence" are required. You have your own unique idea of evidence, it is not necessarily in tune with reality.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: sayzaar

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: Tangerine

Funny how that legal term "evidence" is turned on its head when it comes to UFOs. But I assume in your use of the term that you have investigated every scrap of what normally would be accepted as legitimate evidence in a court of law and have found any number of ways to explain what in most cases would be unexplainable by common means. Of course, that is easy to do if at first you have in mind that ET ships could not possible visit us.

As for the thought in the OP: Given that many contact reports on the surface of the earth and abduction accounts indicate that the ETs can breath earth air and the air on their ships is breathable for the abductees, then we can wonder if perhaps they are returning voyagers. Why not? We really know nothing about anything.

You are confusing law with science. Don't.

YOU are confusing evidence with proof. DON'T !!

What evidence? There isn't any. By the way, technically, proof is a mathematical term.

Exactly WHY "Rules of Evidence" are required. You have your own unique idea of evidence, it is not necessarily in tune with reality.

Perhaps you could define reality and define evidence for us.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: Tangerine

Funny how that legal term "evidence" is turned on its head when it comes to UFOs. But I assume in your use of the term that you have investigated every scrap of what normally would be accepted as legitimate evidence in a court of law and have found any number of ways to explain what in most cases would be unexplainable by common means. Of course, that is easy to do if at first you have in mind that ET ships could not possible visit us.

As for the thought in the OP: Given that many contact reports on the surface of the earth and abduction accounts indicate that the ETs can breath earth air and the air on their ships is breathable for the abductees, then we can wonder if perhaps they are returning voyagers. Why not? We really know nothing about anything.

You are confusing law with science. Don't.

I'm sorry man, but, IF you can't accept the legal definition of "evidence" as used and applied in a Court f Law, then your ideas, expectations, understanding of the idea of evidence is wrong, and unrealistic.

Now, before you jump on me, spend a day or two trying t understand just "WHAT" evidence actually is.

In the final analysis; science and Law agree 100% on the definition of evidence.

Are we in a court of law in which the jury weighs that which is presented as evidence and, for any reason or no reason at all decides its merit? No. Outside of a courtroom, fact is the purview of science and science uses the scientific method to determine whether something meets the criteria to be considered a fact. If that is unacceptable to you, take your case to court.

It appears you don't quite understand.

first; we are not talking about fact yet, we are talking about evidence. Fact, is determined by evidence, so lets stick with the natural flow of knowledge...

And, yes, just like the scientific peers, and panels, the jury decides the merit, or confidence level of the evidence. The processes are the same.

Fact is never in the "purview" of anything, save, the natural, logical outcome of the evidence. Science, or perhaps more accurately, the scientific method is the protocol for testing.

No, scientists do not decide the way juries do. Again, I refer you to the scientific method. Scientists perform independent tests on evidence using strict protocols.

Really!!!!

And here I thought Scientists were just people with an education. Now I find out that they are magically transformed into something else. So...tell us; just what a Scientist is.

When I evaluate data, with the exception of my advanced education, the methods, and more importantly, by feelings, emotions, etc. color my results...just like any other scientist. it really is rather unavoidable...even after a life time of practice.

Scientists perform independent tests on evidence using strict protocols.

And just what "protocols" would those be?

Juries can disregard CLAIMED evidence or manipulate it or misinterpret it in their minds. There is no independent testing of evidence by juries nor any strict protocols. Susie can ignore all "evidence" presented at trial and vote to convict because she dislikes the defendant's hair cut. Jim can ignore all "evidence" presented at trial and vote against convicting because he likes the defendant's shoes. Ralph can ignore the testimony of the scientist who presents blood test results because the testimony bored him and he was thinking about the Superbowl.

Yes, a jury can ignore any evidence they like, although, they can not change it...the evidence remains fundamentally intact. All those little issues you claim are present in the scientific community as well...Scientists are still human!

Here is what makes the court of law methods so much better than what is found around ATS...

"Rules of Evidence"...you see the court room has this set of rules that everyone adheres to. What these rules do is help to assure uniformity in the evidence...this way we don't have people "making up" crap and trying to pass it off as something viable. We don't have Sally thinking that this other stuff explains anything, when Sally can't demonstrate that the evidence she is touting is relevant. we also don't have people saying; "That's not evidence", when that evidence doesn't support their pet "theory". We establish rules; giving all arguments a level playing field, and in this way we may begin to approach truth, reality.

Sorry man; you have totally missed the point of evidence, court rooms, the rules and procedures of evidence that are already established, well used and understood, help to promote the scientific method, and assist us in finding the truth.

And again, the evaluation of the evidence is procedurally the same between the Court Room and the Laboratory. Please don't confuse the application of specific tests with the overall procedure, they are not the same.

I wish to reiterate this:
Rules of Evidence help to insure that the evidence being evaluated is consistent, relevant to the hypothesis being considered. It is by these rules that we determine what constitutes evidence...as opposed to what an individual desires.

The process a jury uses to reach a determination are not remotely the same as used in the scientific method. The scientific method relies on repeated independent testing according to strict methodologies. A jury hears testimony and believes it or not.

We don't have people making up crap in courtrooms? Surely, you jest. It's done routinely.

People testifying in court can and absolutely do say, "That's not evidence of...(fill in the blank)". Expert witnesses do so quite often when disputing other expert witnesses.

Truth? Reality? My god, you've selected two very slippery words on which to hang your hat.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
It's a good topic to consider when discussing UFO's. One of the big questions is Why are UFO's visiting us? One answer could be that they lived here previously.

A better question would be what are they? After all, they're unidentified. We don't know that "they" are "visiting us" from elsewhere.

originally posted by: Tangerine
The process a jury uses to reach a determination are not remotely the same as used in the scientific method. The scientific method relies on repeated independent testing according to strict methodologies. A jury hears testimony and believes it or not.

Really?!!? So, a jury, unlike a scientist, doesn't collect, or have presented, a dataset. Apply some test and make up their mind based on that data? Actually, you are right, a Jury doesn't have to do the laboratory work required to collect the data...they are presented that data, presumably from a competent technician.

The only real difference is that a jury isn't necessarily competent in any given scientific discipline, and thus may not make the correct decision based on the data. But, that is not the fault nor the purview of the evidence, and is more probably a flaw in the judicial system.

I think we should be done...you are only attempting to justify your data prejudices...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Tangerine
The process a jury uses to reach a determination are not remotely the same as used in the scientific method. The scientific method relies on repeated independent testing according to strict methodologies. A jury hears testimony and believes it or not.

Really?!!? So, a jury, unlike a scientist, doesn't collect, or have presented, a dataset. Apply some test and make up their mind based on that data? Actually, you are right, a Jury doesn't have to do the laboratory work required to collect the data...they are presented that data, presumably from a competent technician.

The only real difference is that a jury isn't necessarily competent in any given scientific discipline, and thus may not make the correct decision based on the data. But, that is not the fault nor the purview of the evidence, and is more probably a flaw in the judicial system.

I think we should be done...you are only attempting to justify your data prejudices...

I'm glad you've concluded that you're done but disappointed that you were unable to cite any testable evidence proving the existence of extraterrestrials visiting earth and abducting people. Bummer.