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.

 

Re: Humanoid Aliens

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by LogicalResponse

Originally posted by thefreepatriot


So why would a visitor from an alien world look like us? It's a near guarantee that they WOULDN't.



So you are not limiting on how a visitor from an alien world would look like????

[edit on 30-3-2009 by thefreepatriot]


I said it was a "near guarantee" that they wouldn't. What part of that excludes the possibility of humanoid aliens? The imposition isn't arrived at by saying they wouldn't, but instead on what sort of world they evolved on and how.



so near guaranteeing somthing we know nothing about is not limiting in the realm of possibility? if I were to say i can nearly guarantee we could never go to the moon is this not limiting the possibility of us going to the moon??




posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


Stop being so defensive SC. I'm not twisting anything. I responded as I did because that's what I thought you meant. I quoted you and asked you to clarify because I still don't see what you meant, if not what I suggested.

Maybe you could just explain what you meant by "On the contrary, if anyone is limiting the idea of how an alien may look, it is the UFO believers, fed by a steady diet of budget-restricted science fiction".


[edit on 30-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


How many possible earth-like worlds have we encountered so far? Compare that to how many that are completely unlike earth.

When we consider that the majority of these worlds are very different from ours, and when we simultaneously postulate that life in the universe is common, life on earth-like worlds becomes increasingly remote. Without earth-like worlds for humanoid lifeforms to develop on, we are left with a large number of worlds that still retain the contingency of harboring exotic life that could bear no resemblance to terrestrial or earth-like life-forms.

This is the circumstance in which that type of life would be uncommon and unlikely.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
how could the op make such a bold statement when there is no data or evidence to show it one way or another... in the end its all conjecture..


Again, look at life on Earth for example. Outside of the species we are related to, intelligence does not follow a "humanoid-model."



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by thefreepatriot

so near guaranteeing somthing we know nothing about is not limiting in the realm of possibility?


Is that not what I just illustrated?


if I were to say i can nearly guarantee we could never go to the moon is this not limiting the possibility of us going to the moon??


Not at all. You leave the possibility wide open.

You're not saying "we absolutely cannot go to the moon."



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

On the contrary, if anyone is limiting the idea of how an alien may look, it is the UFO believers, fed by a steady diet of budget-restricted science fiction. Logical is expanding the ideas of what aliens may look like, beyond the archetypes accepted by UFO believers.

This restrictive thinking is detrimental to the UFO field. Chances are, an abduction scenario featuring a tentacled-intelligence-fungus would be dismissed because it does not involve tiny, bugged-eyed grey beings.
Very good points here, and I have to somewhat agree. I think some of you are missing the point here, and are just looking to argue, or "debate" on issues, when most of the time, its pretty blunt was is being said. Savior makes a good point, and you just have to take it for what it is, and not try and twist his words around.

He's not saying its impossible to have the traditional alien, but not to dismiss the possibility of other forms, just because its not the most popular idea/theory out there.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
how could the op make such a bold statement when there is no data or evidence to show it one way or another... in the end its all conjecture..


Is that not what we see on this forum every single day? Post after post proposing the existence of aliens, UFOs being ET craft, and all manner of assumption...

When a UFO supporter does it, it's okay. But when anyone else does, it isn't?

Odd.

[edit on 3/30/2009 by LogicalResponse]

[edit on 3/30/2009 by LogicalResponse]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by LogicalResponse





How many possible earth-like worlds have we encountered so far? Compare that to how many that are completely unlike earth.


It depends what your definition of "earth-like" is. As I said we don't know to what degree a planet might have to resemble earth - if at all, I'm using your parameters - in order to produce a humanoid type. And again, you can't take our knowledge of a relatively tiny part of a vast Universe and use that to determine how many vaguely earth like planets exist in it. Well, you can, but your results won't be reliable. You simply don't have enough information to judge likelihood.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by TravisT
He's not saying its impossible to have the traditional alien, but not to dismiss the possibility of other forms, just because its not the most popular idea/theory out there.


I knew someone would go for SC's strawman.


No one is dismissing the possibility of other forms. All we are dismissing is the claims that it is unlikely that humanoid types could be visiting earth.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram

It depends what your definition of "earth-like" is. As I said we don't know to what degree a planet might have to resemble earth - if at all, I'm using your parameters - in order to produce a humanoid type. And again, you can't take our knowledge of a relatively tiny part of a vast Universe and use that to determine how many vaguely earth like planets exist in it. Well, you can, but your results won't be reliable. You simply don't have enough information to judge likelihood.


I think "earth-like" means any kind of planet that can sustain life on it, just like Earth. It doesn't have to be exactly like ours, but it has to be able to hold life. Get it?



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by LogicalResponse



s that not what we see on this forum every single day? Post after post proposing the existence of aliens, UFOs being ET craft, and all manner of assumption...

When a UFO supporter does it, it's okay. But when anyone else does, it isn't?

Odd.


So you admit it's an assumption? Two wrongs don't make a right LR


And no it's not OK, which is why you and others call them on it, just as you are being called on it.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TravisT


I think "earth-like" means any kind of planet that can sustain life on it, just like Earth. It doesn't have to be exactly like ours, but it has to be able to hold life. Get it?


I think you might want to check that definition with LR, Travis. As I said it depends what HE meant when HE said "earth-like" and I don't think he meant what you suggest here.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   

If we are to say that there exist humanoids on earth-like worlds, by the same concept we can't readily deny non-humanoids developing on worlds that are unlike earth. Humanoid lifeforms would therefore be about as probable or improbable as any non-humanoid species.


Right, but we don't actually knows which alien species are visiting us, we have only heard of the common types such as the Nordics, Reptillians and Greys, each of which looks very different from one another and has evolved from a different source.

If your objection is to the humanoid form itself, then as I said it could be the humanoid form is one of the universal archetypes. On earth, various different species seem to have certain universal characteristics. Can this be generalised to non-earth like planets? Well, do we have reason to believe non-earth life planets can have life? If you mean by non-earth planet Mercury, then it doesn't seem the conditions on Mercury could support life. Indeed that is what our observations show us.

You accept earth-like planets could support life, and on an earth-like planet a humanoid form is logical. Therefore, the Greys, Nordics and Reptillians maybe from earth-like planets. That is not to say all ET are from earth like planets, only that we simply cannot know.

How do you imagine evolution to take place on a random planet in the universe?



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram

Originally posted by TravisT


I think "earth-like" means any kind of planet that can sustain life on it, just like Earth. It doesn't have to be exactly like ours, but it has to be able to hold life. Get it?


I think you might want to check that definition with LR, Travis. As I said it depends what HE meant when HE said "earth-like" and I don't think he meant what you suggest here.
Again, he is being blunt with his response, so I'm just confused with all of your arguments.

How many worlds have we discovered with life that is like Earth? Now, how many planets have we discovered that hold any life? Now, how many planets have we discovered total, and then think about possibility of a humanoid shaped alien.


If I'm wrong with his point, then my bad. Calm down, nobody is attacking you or trying to "take sides" here.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by TravisT
Again, he is being blunt with his response, so I'm just confused with all of your arguments.. Calm down, nobody is attacking you or trying to "take sides" here.


What makes you think I'm not calm? My point is that your definition of "earth like" and LR's differ. You actually weakened his point. And as I already said, our knowledge of the environment of planets in a tiny corner of a vast universe does not allow us to reliably judge how many planets may hold humanoid life.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
Maybe you could just explain what you meant by...


Once again, I will direct you to read the entire post. The meaning is clear; if you still cannot understand after reading the entire post, no one here will be able to help you.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by LogicalResponse
 


wow.... you mean in our own solar system???????? how many solar systems are in our galaxy that we have encountered??? how many galaxies have we encountered....????????? answer 1 solar system out of billions in our galaxy... and 0 galaxies out of billions........ our solar system alone cannot be used to determine what kind of life is out there.. as a matter of fact if this where the case then there would be allot of earth like planets....it would be naive to use the planets we have encountered as data for the potentiality of what kind of life is out there... as its a very very very small sample of the universe...



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


OK. So, you said.


On the contrary, if anyone is limiting the idea of how an alien may look, it is the UFO believers, fed by a steady diet of budget-restricted science fiction. Logical is expanding the ideas of what aliens may look like, beyond the archetypes accepted by UFO believers.

This restrictive thinking is detrimental to the UFO field. Chances are, an abduction scenario featuring a tentacled-intelligence-fungus would be dismissed because it does not involve tiny, bugged-eyed grey beings.


And I replied:




I'm not aware of anyone here insisting that intelligent all life in the universe, or most of it, is humanoid SC, or even that all aliens that visit earth are humanoid. It's LR's 'complaint' that most ET sightings are reported as humanoid. But there are perfectly reasonable explanations for that which do not involve the accusations you or he make.


You said I was twisting your words with the above. How?

Further, how are believers "limiting the idea of how an alien may look"? What makes you think that believers only have certain archetypes they "accept"? What "restrictive thinking" is being demonstrated by believers with regard to this issue? What on earth makes you think an abduction by a non humanoid would be rejected by believers (I can't actually believe that you tried to chastise believers for supposedly rejecting any abduction accounts!
)

Can you support any of these accusations?

The fact that most eyewitnesses report humanoid ET's could simply mean that they saw humanoid ET's. You can't complain at them for that.


[edit on 30-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
I knew someone would go for SC's strawman.


What starwman would that be? That a scenario that does not fit certain parameters, such as the type of alien involved, is likely to be dismissed or at the very least not taken as serious? This happens, not just among believers but I imagine skeptics as well. This is very limiting and detrimental to research.


Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Right, but we don't actually knows which alien species are visiting us, we have only heard of the common types such as the Nordics, Reptillians and Greys...


I've heard of a variety outside of just those three. Take for example this report (#33) from Prospect (Louisville), KY in 1977.


Originally posted by Indigo_Child
How do you imagine evolution to take place on a random planet in the universe?


Logical detailed a example scenario in his opening post.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram

Originally posted by TravisT
Again, he is being blunt with his response, so I'm just confused with all of your arguments.. Calm down, nobody is attacking you or trying to "take sides" here.


What makes you think I'm not calm? My point is that your definition of "earth like" and LR's differ. You actually weakened his point. And as I already said, our knowledge of the environment of planets in a tiny corner of a vast universe does not allow us to reliably judge how many planets may hold humanoid life.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Malcram]
So let me get this straight. You're asking for proof on his assumption, when you hold non-at-all, over yours? If our knowledge is "unreliable", then whos to say anything at all? You are just as wrong as he is for suggesting all this, am I correct? So you're just here to argue?

[edit on 30-3-2009 by TravisT]




top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join