It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Mainstream Scholars and ET Subject Matter

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 06:45 PM
It seems as though UFOlogists are finally beginning to reference the work of my two favorite intellectuals and scholars, Brian Greene and Ray Kurzweil. I'm currently watching the "Out of the Blue" documentary as linked from the [misread] Goverment Knowledge Truman thread, and I'm extremely pleased to see Brian Greene pop up as a talking head at 22 minutes in! As a (relatively secret) lifelong enthusiast of ET and unexplained subject matter, and a much more public geek about the credible scientific work of both Greene and Kurzweil, I often have fantasized about sitting Friedman, Kurzweil, Greene, Hawking, Lapham, and Corso down in a room and getting them to feed one another information on and to make some genuine conclusive decisions about the subject of UFO's and Intelligent Life in the Universe.

I had always wondered why UFOlogists rarely refer to the amazing work of Greene or Kurzweil. I view them as real allies, and perhaps if they had the facts and were given the chance to take the time to do real research, they'd be strong public and very credible proponents of the disclosure cause.

Everyone should read the "Fabric of the Cosmos", "The Elegant Universe", "The Singularity is Near", and if you get the chance, for some enlightening, friendly science that is useful as a filter for when you read up on UFOlogical subject matter.

Has anyone else read any of their work and felt that a lot of what they're talking about could explain what we here are starting to view as the actual hidden truths of the Universe?

posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 06:54 PM
I'd like to also add here that I see some overlap and similarity between what Lazar has said vs. what Greene puts forth with regards to the bending of space-time. Greene's take is very enriching and, for me personally, relevatory because I am not an intellectual. I had a number of "a ha!" moments with his books.

Let's add Lazar to the roundtable, just for kicks.

posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 07:08 PM
Stanton Friedman already debunked Lazar. He is a joke.

posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 07:30 PM
I'm a Kurzweil fan (have all his books). Kurzweil's main idea these days is the "Singularity." he says our rate of progress is going exponentially exponential, if that makes sense. Filled with charts and graphs he uses the chess board as a familar example. Put one grain of rice on the first square, two on the second, four on the third, and so on, and by the time you get to the 64th square you have all the grains of rice in the world. He uses this idea in four main areas: computation, genetics, robotics, and nanotechnology. The idea is that things are changing so fast that we can't keep up. The Singularity is when we lose the ability to predict the future becaiuse of this. Moore's Law shows no signs of slowing down. Multiply. You get the idea. In other words, we're going to get very technologically savvy very fast and be a Type 1 civilization rather than a Type 0 within a generation.

Now, just for theory's sake. IF ET is here, maybe that's why. Maybe they know that once you get to atomic fusion, it won't be long before you're right up there with them that fast. I'm not convinced ET is here. I'm not convinced they are from space, but I am convinced of the impending Singularity, which might just make Disclosure look like an interesting sidelight in comparison. I suspect we'll get to the Singularity before we get to Disclosure.

posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 08:29 PM

Originally posted by schuyler
In other words, we're going to get very technologically savvy very fast and be a Type 1 civilization rather than a Type 0 within a generation.

I would agree with that. It's already been estimated that we are as of a few years ago a Type 0.7 Civilization.

The really big step for us will be going from Type 1 to Type 2.

[edit on 15-7-2007 by lost_shaman]

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 10:55 AM

Originally posted by weknowyouknow
Stanton Friedman already debunked Lazar. He is a joke.

I agree - keep Lazar out of it. Can you show me one peer-reviewed physics paper Lazar has authored or co-authored? There's certainly been nothing substantial from him about Element 115. It is cargo-cult pseudoscientific speculation at best, and more likely a hoax.

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 06:34 PM
One of the first mind-blowing things that I read by Greene was about how, on a cosmic, universal scale, we are time-traveling forward and backward constantly everyday.
As an illustration of that point, he asks the reader to imagine that they own a telescope powerful enough to view into the living room of an extraterrestrial on a far-off extrasolar planet. Then he proposes the telescope owner take ten paces back, sets up their telescope again and look at the extraterrestrial living room again. What they'd see was that the extraterrestrials they'd just observed were now dead and the house had been inherited by their grandkids. Go back to the original location, and observe the extraterrestrials before their death. Take ten paces forward, and see the ancestors of the extraterrestrials.
Before I read that, I had no notion that time was warped over vast distances that greatly. If I remember correctly, his caveat was that your telescope would have to be extremely powerful, and said living room would really have to be millions of light years away.
Of course this all pales in comparison to all the string-theory, m-theory, spooky action at a distance stuff, but it really stood out at the time.
I'd just like someone to really bump all my favorite theories up together - the singularity, m-theory, peak oil, the "extraterrestrial hypothesis", global warming, etc., and see how they'd affect one another, how they are affecting one another, what is most likely to happen or be disclosed first, and what bearing disclosure would have on the outcome of them all. It's rare to hear these subjects get discussed in a single conversation.
If I was already in a masters or doctoral program candidate I'd be doing all I could to see how I could pursue these as a thesis, but right now I don't have the time, yarbles, or smarts to do it.

posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Luther Blissett

he asks the reader to imagine that they own a telescope powerful enough to view into the living room of an extraterrestrial on a far-off extrasolar planet.

What stands out to me, is "to imagine".

I can imagine a lot of things.

What I'd like, is proof.

UFO's exist. No doubt.

Aliens ? I don't think so.


posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:09 PM
Here is a great conversation between two of the most highly-regarded scholars on the subjects of evolution and physics that quickly evolves to touch on a lot of extraterrestrial subject matter. Even the case that they are making for not completely researching every last incident or event makes a ton of sense.
What is interesting is how this whole conversation is supposed to be about Religion vs. Science but regardless, UFO's quickly come up.

posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:58 PM
Without some sort of new, hard evidence there is nothing to reasearch in my opinion. Other than blurry photos, fuzzy video, questionable eyewitness testimony, and forged documents that is.

A round table discussion would be fun to listen to, I like this stuff as much as the next person, but you guys need to understand these bloated talking heads know nothing more about ufos than you and I do.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]

posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 11:06 PM
Enh, I just don't like Kurzweil. I think he has fundamentally underestimated the qualities of human decision making and is therefore unrealistically optimistic about his predictions about self-deterministic machines. We've had computers for well over sixty years now and they are basically still the human-dependent uncreative slaves they were at day one.

new topics

top topics


log in