Re: Humanoid Aliens

reply to post by mystiq


Very true

Opinions do not make for facts in this case

But im still on the side of getting alien human looking things than not.. i just dont like to say that they come from planets as we dont know this fully yet.. but if ones argument is based on the facts of evolution then it could be in all reasons probible.. but we dont understand ourselfs enough to postulate this idea

God is a big big question no matter how one wants do debunk it its there.. also is the theory of aliens creating man would mean evolution is only natural to a certan point "devine intervention"

its a very messy subject i do agree with you there, but skeptics and us who belive in other life have one of the same problem

we cant prove it yet only speculate about each others opnion when the methord that got us here still can not provide a solid answer!

thats why u get skeptics and belivers

Logical Response - you are clueless - humaniod ETs are a FACT-

Geez its even in the Disclosure Project

gawd - give us all a break - what an utterly cliched attitude to have!...thats old school programming - status quo BS attitude that mainstream 'science' wants us all to get suckered in by,

waste of 2 minutes of life reading your post!

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Malcram
You can't recognize the difference between the small numbers of ET visitors...and the huge number of phantom residents it would take to account for an entire civilization of secret cryptoterrestrials

Again, you are making an assumption about the numbers of both ET and CT, neither of which you have any knowing.

Ok, this will be my last response to this because as far as I'm concerned I have utterly refuted your argument which is becoming progressively more absurd. Any more would just be a waste of time and thread space.

I didn't give a number, however, it is your claim that their civilization is on earth. It has to be a civilization that has been around for many thousands of years to account for the advanced technology required to explain the UFO phenomenon. They need enough people to sustain this advanced society and produce and maintain their advanced technology etc. What numbers were you thinking SC, 10 CT's maybe 20? 50 tops? It's an entire civilization, according to your claim, so whatever the exact number, logic dictates it will probably be considerable. The number of ET visitors isn't actually that relevant to this discussion.

Originally posted by Malcram
That they are seen regularly over populated areas and sometimes actively engage with aircraft etc shows they don't always mind being seen (no assumption).

This is an assumption. You do not know if these sightings and encounters were accidents or intentional. You do not know the psychology of the non-human-intelligence behind it. So you assume they don't mind being seen or that they wish to remain hidden.

Ah, so they are accidentally hovering over nuclear installations, and accidentally following aircraft staying glued to them off their wingtips and staying with them through evasive maneuvers, and so on? OK. You're right, I don't know, maybe that's how aliens have "accidents", maybe that's how aliens try to escape notice, by being really notceable? Wow. These aliens truly are alien. Wave bye bye to logic SC.

Originally posted by Malcram
The complications for the entire civilization of hidden cryptoterrestrials are vast compared to a few ET visitors which is why it has to only be considered if the ETH is rendered invalid by the evidence. It isn't.

So, no other theory but the ETH can be considered unless it is rendered invalid by the evidence? Using your own arguments and logic, that makes no sense, as you can form no logical objection to the CTH.

And yet I seem to have formed several quite good ones. Of course you can consider them. But it would not be logical to put it forward as the more likely explanation, or even "as likely". After all, it is only the fact that many UFO sightings, witness reports, radar contacts, etc cannot be fully explained by human activity and natural phenomena that allows the ETH to be seriously proposed. Only when the ETH fails to explain this phenomena can another - more logistically problematic explanation - be turned to and seriously entertained. That's what the scientific method demands.

Originally posted by Malcram
And so it's illegitimate to try to support the crypto-T theory by talking about who would be most likely to care about nuclear installations...

And yet you claim this very thing supports the ETH. You have used motivation and psychology repeatedly. ETs would not mind being seen over nuclear installations by CTs would, or so you claim.

Bait and switch. I did not talk about why ET's would want to hover over nuclear installations, only that this was reported. I also proved my assertion that stealth was not always their intent, so there is no assumption. You appealled to the idea of CT's having vested interests in doing so. But as I said, it's logically flawed to start talking about the supposed motivations of CT's or ET's and attempt to use that as a support for their very existence. First you establish the likelihood of their existence and the evidence for it, then, if you can do that, you can guess at their motivations. You have the cart before the horse.

Anyway, I think this a very silly red herring. As far as I'm concerned, the idea has been thoroughly refuted - not as a possibility - but as being as reasonable and logical as the ETH. As I said, I know you don't accept the idea you are proposing and so I think it's a waste of time. I also know you aren't stupid and so I am suspecting that this may be more of a wind-up than anything else. LOL. So I'm done.


[edit on 1-4-2009 by Malcram]

But we can do something amazing. We can share actual experiences, and there are many doing that, both sitings and contact, give credit to our professionals such as militia, pilots, black ops, austronauts, police officers and many who step forward, so that the voices are both credentialled folk and ordinary folk, as well as look at what we have caught (by the way in the face of an organization, NASA, paid for by tax dollars to reveal these findings) on pics that give us more than clues. We can connect dots where they need to be connected, and where they do connect naturally. To not do this, to me shows an awful lot of flouride in the water. Because its not an intelligent response.

Also, there is a difference between opinion and experience. An opinion is a shoot in the dark that someone does, choosing to like a certain thing (ie. my favorite animal is a dolphin) or to believe a certain thing (which can be right or wrong).
My experiences, happened, irregardless of who believes. They are a reality irregardless of someone's opinion about them. And they didn't just happen to me, 1 person out of nearly 7 billion, but have happened to countless others as well. Then theres tons upon tons of other evidence. Truly this is about waking people up.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by mystiq]

[edit on 1-4-2009 by mystiq]

You see my point?

No I don't

I am not responding to you, because we've already agreed to disagree

Damn! I think I just got it. It's April 1st!

SC plays devil's advocate for a theory he has no respect for whatsoever and pursues it relentlessly into ever more absurd territory, seeing how long I'll fall for it and play the game. LOL

That's what I suspect. It only just occurred to me.

Oh well. Joke's on me, I guess.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Malcram
I didn't give a number, however, it is your claim that their civilization is on earth. It has to be a civilization that has been around for many thousands of years to account for the advanced technology required to explain the UFO phenomenon.

Yup, or even longer.

Originally posted by Malcram
They need enough people to sustain this advanced society and produce and maintain their advanced technology...logic dictates it will probably be considerable.

And there are plenty of places on Earth humans have little-to-no access to.

Originally posted by Malcram
Ah, so they are accidentally hovering over nuclear installations, and accidentally following aircraft staying glued to them off their wingtips and staying with them through evasive maneuvers, and so on?

Again, you are presuming the to understand the psychology and motivations of a non-human-intelligence. Perhaps some things are accidents and some things are not. We cannot be sure until we ask each other. And as you stated earlier, ETs would not care because they could escape to places humans could not reach. So could CTs.

Originally posted by Malcram
The complications for the entire civilization of hidden cryptoterrestrials are vast compared to a few ET visitors which is why it has to only be considered if the ETH is rendered invalid by the evidence. It isn't.

So, no other theory but the ETH can be considered unless it is rendered invalid by the evidence? Using your own arguments and logic, that makes no sense, as you can form no logical objection to the CTH.

Originally posted by Malcram
After all, it is only the fact that many UFO sightings, witness reports, radar contacts, etc cannot be fully explained by human activity and natural phenomena that allows the ETH to be seriously proposed. Only when the ETH fails to explain this phenomena...

That is completely and totally illogical. What you are proposing is that those things support the ETH by virtue of not being explained. A radar-contact does not tell you if it is ET or CT. An UFO sighting does not tell us whether it is CT or ET. An encounter with an alien-being does not tell you whether it is ET or CT. Even if you want to believe they indicate a non-human-intelligence, in-and-of-themselves these things tell you nothing about the origin of that intelligence.

Originally posted by Malcram
I did not talk about why ET's would want to hover over nuclear installations, only that this was reported. I also proved my assertion that stealth was not always their intent, so there is no assumption.

Again, you are making assumptions about psychology or intelligence. You do not know whether sightings over such installations were intentional or not.

Originally posted by Malcram
As far as I'm concerned, the idea has been thoroughly refuted - not as a possibility - but as being as reasonable and logical as the ETH.

It is far more reasonable and logical than the ETH. You have not refuted it one bit or provided one logical objection. Every argument you have made for ETH could just as logically be applied to CTH. The only reason you find it absurd is because CTs do not fit your pet theory.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
e would genuinely consider the possibility that a secret people living in his walls came out and messed up his house...

That is not what I said at all. It is a complete twisting of my argument and caveat that I found the analogy far too simplistic for such a complex issue.

Originally posted by Malcram
SC plays devil's advocate for a theory he has no respect for whatsoever and pursues it relentlessly into ever more absurd territory, seeing how long I'll fall for it and play the game. LOL

It is no more absurd than what you have proposed; however, you are too wedded to your favorite theory to see that.

And in fact, I find the CTH far more reasonable and logical than the ETH.

On topic, not on each other.....please.

Peace

And the reason I find it far more reasonable is because it's true. I have first hand knowledge we are dealing with cryptoterrestrials not extraterrestrials.

Because I am a government disinformation agent.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Ah, OK, It appears the joke is actually on you.

Consider yourself debunked.

Back to the topic.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Malcram]

The idea of limiting where et comes from, earth or space, is just that, limiting. I think theres a case for them being from both places, and that its interconnected.
Was the last part April fools, because its after 12 noon now, and at pacific time, being behind most of the world, that means something.

Originally posted by mystiq
The idea of limiting where et comes from, earth or space, is just that, limiting.

I would go out on a limb and say using our logic discussing this topic is limiting,
since our logic is limited to what we know and understand.

We only know part of the equation, being the physics of the universe we know, but we don't know anything about where they come from.
Trying to solve an equation we only know a part of is pretty much guessing.

Then again the guessing is the most fun to me

[edit on 1-4-2009 by locster]

reply to post by LogicalResponse


I think the assumptions are greatly flawed.

1. It's quite conceivable that the humanoid form is one of the optimum ones.

2. It's quite conceivable that GOD ALMIGHTY engineered it that way.

3. It's more than quite conceivable that folks describe them that way

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE OBSERVE IN THEIR PERSONAL CONTACTS!!!

Sheesh.

Some of what we call limiting in our knowledge of the universe is that we're not looking at the variety of sources of evidence that does exist already here. Not only do we have pictures of Mars and minds beyond NASA's discussing them, but we have texts of long gone civilizations such as Sumaria, and things that went black immediately from the Nazis too. What is a fact, is there is a total lack of willingness to explore these things publically and release information, hypothesis's and research, that I'm sure is being done and is ongoing.
There was a war on Mars and Earth many years ago, that impacted the entire solar system. Some of this is buried in the evidence left on earth, can be ascertained from photos, such as the type of damage a pyramid on Mars suffered, and again testimony. This is a video I just finished watching today with really cool conclusions, but the idea that the war was earth against mars rather than different groups of ets that encompassed both these planets and more didn't convince me of that.



A personal testimony I have is that the ets contacting me are not from earth, though long time connections with us probably there. I also feel they're the good guys, and we're controlled extensively by governments serving something other than our interests, serving something else. The last video in this series pretty much sums that up.

I agree completely. If you change one thing, just 1% of of something, be it 1% gravity loss or gain, or 1% water availability on the planet, you completely change everything and parallel evolution becomes borderline zero in terms of probability.

Life simply cannot make the same specialized species like man have almost exactly the same.

Grays, by their very skin color and height, invalidate parallel evolution. If they are gray, they evolved somewhere that there is little light. Little light means that there is not much energy available. If there isn';t much energy available, life cannot evolve in the same method as man. Man evolved for desert hunter environments. Eliminate light, and how can you have high speed running animals to hunt? Not only that, but why even evolve running bipedal legs in a dark environment? your better off quadrupedal. Better feeling of your environment. And then you can;t have a big head, because it makes you more likely to be seen by predators and more likely to be slower. You need to be better at hiding in the dark, so a smaller head helps. Then why even have small or no noses, as some models have. Dark environments require better senses for things besides sight. So you should have big noses and big ears. And then why do you even have those big dark eyes facing forward? Forward sight is a hunter's trait. But the gray is so weak and tiny. They should have eyes like a horse, or a deer, or a cattle animal, going sideways.


Reptilians? their very skin type makes them invalid. Every single reptilian species on Earth has minor evolved forms. Anything specialized, like a sentient being, that might have come from a reptilian origin should have specialized skin. Raptor dinosaurs, birds, and other top-of-the-line specialized reptiles all have and have had specialized skin. Be it feathers, or super-smooth, almost mammal-like skin. Then why even go upright in walking as well? On Earth, there are only 2 species that I know of that walk upright out of all the billions of species here: penguins, and man. Both of which are specialized species that have specialized skin. Why on earth would you walk upright then? There's no need for it. You can be bipedal and still have a horizontal back. In all their hundreds of millions of years of evolution, no dinosaur ever walked upright. That's because there was no need for it. Upright walking is only for big animals that need to walk fast suddenly, like an ape that starts walking on the ground. Then why do they also have those eyes? They should have eyes that have excellent protection from the sun. yet we are to believe they have sideways closing eyes that are like an alligator (which, by the way, is specialized for water, not desert).


The humanoid alien community is a scientific disaster with nothing but laughter for it from me.

reply to post by BO XIAN

1. It's quite conceivable that the humanoid form is one of the optimum ones.

why has only two species evolved in in the billions of years of life on Earth then? As far as I recall, only penguins and man walk upright, and only one of those species is man-like. And the human form is only good for humans. If you were a horse, the horse form is good for you.

2. It's quite conceivable that GOD ALMIGHTY engineered it that way.

It's quite possible that God almighty let man evolve, as he surely makes it seem that way and even genesis coincided with how life began after the KT event. And in theory, if there are no sentient observers to observe the events before that, does it even have to be identified as creation? Creation should only be for man's birth. And in which case God, and science, both agree that Earth ever so happened to be the optimum place for this species to evolve, not anywhere else, so why would aliens evolve this form?

3. It's more than quite conceivable that folks describe them that way
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE OBSERVE IN THEIR PERSONAL CONTACTS!!!

It's also quite conceivable that man makes false gods in his image, hence why all gods of ancient origin are in the form of man. Man pictures its superiors in his image, plus. The plus being whatever the person sees as his desire, hence why there are bird gods, dog gods, horse gods, etc. Man wanted those animals.


Sheesh!

reply to post by Dr Love


reply to post by Dr Love


Trust me i have tried lol!!!

its not about our views its about the logical question!!

we aint here to prove aliens only the question of why would aliens look like humans..

hence give some theory as to how, not make a statment about COZ i belive it to be the case coz i was abucted..

thats not realy what this question is or has been about, its more a question of how would one get human/aliens..

evolution god or another way?

no need to flame each other

reply to post by locster



reply to post by locster


This is the major problem here!!!!

Its nice to see im not alone on this

we can not for sure say that the aliens that are "if they are" in some cases ect infact from "outter space" !!

yes we can look back at our history and books and say "it said there this / that"..

but that argument can be made about anything!

Like i said befor, dont rule nothing out or take it for granted because you can connect dots.. dots infact that may be false dots you put togethter to fit your own reality ect

One could get aliens / humionds, visiting earth even if the entire universe is empty of life...

this is a theory just like the theory that life is outside of this planet.. we do not know untill we can say for sure Yes aliens / life is on other worlds but for now we only have theory as to were they do infact come from.

so its not about why or if, its about how could one get alien/humans ect ect

I can not argue the case against alien visitation as for me its a no brainer that there is other life.. in what form i do not know.. but my argument is not based on if they are here, its based on HOW did they get here to visit us in the first place

and life outside of the earth is just one prespective in a infinate universe

Ill say this one more time... We Live In a Infinate Universe(s)

= you could be wrong and right and you wouldnt even know it if you was

2nd line is quatom physics btw...

Logical critical based argument and you can agree to dissagree all you want but thats how it works and thats how it stands...

and i for one can say im happy the OP made this thread.

( if people do not read the question they will form a self opposin answer )

thus meaning its infact Not correct.. its the question, and if one does not understand it then you will make ur own question that answers ur own question / opinion / idiology

stay on topic please