reply to post by randomviolins
The reason I assume non-intervention is because there are very few cases of active involvement, something beyond simple observation, between people
and UFOs. I can only come up with a handful of cases where UFOs
(not 'greys' mind you) have done anything beyond confound observers.
Even people who have been abducted report that their memories are typically fuzzy about what happened to them. While this is obviously the polar
opposite of non-intervention there's a clear motivation to mask the fact that a person was
abducted. Why? If it was an extraterrestrial
civilization why wouldn't they just fly down in their craft, suck up a human, perform whatever experiments they have in mind, drop the human on the
ground, and then fly away?
That said, there may be something to your argument that certain events don't affect the core fabric of the future in such a way as to damage the
existence of our future selves.
Or maybe like I posited in my original post,
Then again what if our future selves had a history where these events transpired and therefore to maintain continuity they violated their
As for your question to how malleable our future / past is ...
But what if alterations happen all the time, but we continue to believe these events are the "originals"?
As far as current theory is willing to speculate, we would notice, because there would be incongruities with what we know
versus what would be
reflected in historical record.
I suppose it could be argued if a time-traveler went back in time and saved JFK that history would change in such a way that I would have never known
JFK was assassinated in the first place. That's a hard thing to fathom and as far as I can tell I have never seen any observable changes to
historical record, even though it's likely incorrect to assume I could know if it did change. However, if history was malleable it's probable that
people would simply disappear from a time-line, that includes me, you, or anyone for that matter. Since I still exist I'd like to think that's
indicative that the past isn't being tampered with.
[edit on 28-1-2009 by Xtraeme]