It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Points of View When Considering Interventions of Humanity by Other Intelligences

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   
A little devil's advocate, a little support for both sides of "they do exist and have intervened vs they do not exist".

The purpose of this thread is to get you the viewers to share original points of view to argue either case: To supply arguements that support the idea that humanity has been visited and intervention at some level has occurred, or to supply arguements and points of view that aliens either do not exist or do, but have not had any affect on humanity.

Just, try to be original, or offer supplimental information in a different light. Try to present already known information in slightly different terms. Put a little of your best side behind it, thanks.

I've heard and seen a lot of arguements to back up both sides, but here are some arguements I havn't heard (or in the context presented have not seen) to argue that someone has had an internal influence from external forces/entities.

Against:
1) Misinformation to serve as a deterant against our potential enemies who think we may have technology that is literally "out of this world".

For:

Here is a hypothetical situation which serves as an analogy to a point that will be made.

Is this feasibly possible?:

There was an infant boy who was born who did not walk, nor stand up for the first 7 years of his life. That is to say from the day he was born until his 7th birthday he did nothing but crawl.

However, within 1 hour after turning 7 he not only stood upright for the first time, he also set a new worlds record at numerous Olympic sprinting events.

That is to say that this boy spent the first 2,555 days (7 years) crawling and then stood up and within 1 hour held the world's record at numerous sprinting events in the Olympics.

Is this feasibly possible? Does this make sense to you? A boy that goes the first 7 years not knowing how to stand or walk and then becoming more than efficient at running within 1 hour?
Impossible most might say.


This was an analogy.

The point is if this is hard to believe, then consider this:

5,200 B.C. - Modern day Iraq had written accounts of the utilization of horse/ox drawn vehicles.

1902 A.D. - The mass production of the automobile (model T) begins.

That is a written/recorded history of over 7,000 years of using beasts of burdens and horse drawn carriages to get from point A to point B.

7,000 years of horse drawn carriages to travel.

Then we mass produce the automobile (horselss carriage).

67 years after the automobile we are walking on the moon and doing space walks.

less than 50 years after the mass production of automobiles we are splitting atoms.

Feasibly possible?

Of course, if this is already the only accepted history and only accepted chain of events for technical advancement, and we have not anything to compare this history to, then it is feasibly possible the boy who only knew to crawl for 7 years could stand up and run and set records within 1 hour after standing for the first time.

What unique, original points of arguements do you have to either support the idea of alien intervention, or oppose the concept altogether?

The purpose of this thread is to get you the viewers to share original points of view to argue either case: To supply arguements that support the idea that humanity has been visited and intervention at some level has occurred, or to supply arguements and points of view that aliens either do not exist or do, but have not had any affect on humanity.

Just, try to be original, or offer supplimental information in a different light. Try to present already known information in slightly different terms. Put a little of your best side behind it, thanks.




posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   
My response to the point about how technology has skyrocketed in the past 60 years is that technology in itself creates new technology faster and faster. I like to think of it as a ball rolling down a hill accelerating. It just took the ball a while to get up to a decent speed. So what may seem like a huge acceleration of technology in this century may seem slow in comparison to things we will acomplish in 200-300 years.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Distortion
My response to the point about how technology has skyrocketed in the past 60 years is that technology in itself creates new technology faster and faster. I like to think of it as a ball rolling down a hill accelerating. It just took the ball a while to get up to a decent speed. So what may seem like a huge acceleration of technology in this century may seem slow in comparison to things we will acomplish in 200-300 years.


That's what I'm talking about. "technology in itself creates new technology faster and faster."

A good arguement all around.

reminded me of a funny fact:
Did you know the can was invented and it took almost 50 years before the can opener was invented?

You think someone would have had the foresight to invent the can opener before sealing food in metal cans.

At any rate, thanks for the insight, good contribution, and rebuttal to the technology timeframe concept. Thanks.



new topics
 
0

log in

join