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: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
You said I was twisting your words with the above. How?


Well, for example, I did not claim any of the things you accuse me of claiming.

There was a reason I had you on ignore. Thanks for reminding me of them.




posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Logical, for clarity's sake, I think you should define what you mean by "earth-like." That way, there is no genuine confusion and certain members cannot feign confusion just to play semantic games.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

What starwman would that be?


The strawman is that you are claiming that believers dismiss non humanoid alien life. That has not happened in this thread nor am I aware of it happening elsewhere. LR defined this thread and required believers to defend why it might by that most ET reports are of humanoid ET's. That doesn't mean they "dismiss" non-humanoid types. So I don't know why you would level that accusation.

That's like asking me "what I like about brunettes" and then after I've told you what I like, you insist that I "don't like blondes". LOL. I didn't say I didn't like blondes I was just answering the question as asked.


[edit on 30-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

There was a reason I had you on ignore. Thanks for reminding me of them.


Yes, it was because I wouldn't let you get away with BS like you just tried to pull. That's OK, You don't have to explain. The quote speaks for you.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by TravisT

So let me get this straight. You're asking for proof on his assumption, when you hold non-at-all, over yours?


What is my assumption?



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?


What is "all this" I am suggesting? What claim do you think I am making? What are you requiring me to prove?


[edit on 30-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
This seems to a rather pointless thread on review. The OP seems to begin with the objection that it is impropable that ET would be humanoid, and then later backtracks and accepts that ET could be humanoid if they are from earth-like planets.

In which case there is no longer an objection.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram

The strawman is that you are claiming that believers dismiss non humanoid alien life. That has not happened in this thread nor am I aware of it happening elsewhere.
Excuse my ignorance if Savior Complex meant something else, but his quote is kind of left to interpretation on both parties(believers and skeptics).

-If its believers: Why are there only humanoid aliens visiting Earth? If you encountered some other form of life, here on Earth, would you even think of it to be from outside this world, or would you actually consider it to be alien?

-If its skeptics: What makes you think an alien species that resembles humans would even come here in the first place? Why wouldn't another alien-shaped life form visit us instead?

Its more theoretical questions, on both sides, to the overall alien hypothesis, to get to the root of it all. If we are to believe in the classic "grey"/humanoid shape, then we need to be open to other ideas as well. We don't have proof of anything right now, so LR point is just as valid as someone who believes in greys. So, someone trying to dismiss his "logic" with no logic of their own, is kind of silly to me. You make good points why a humanoid alien race could be visiting our planet(because thats what humans do), but then again, thats just as much assumption as LR thoughts.



LR defined this thread and required believers to defend why it might by that most ET reports are of humanoid ET's. That doesn't mean they "dismiss" non-humanoid types. So I don't know why you would level that accusation.
He wasn't, which is why he said, "on the contrary", which was just another way of saying, "to look at the other side of things".


What is my assumption?
I would imagine its that you don't believe or like LR question/theory. I'm not pointing the finger at you, my friend. I'm not calling you a believer or skeptic, so lets get that out of the way right now. My point was, who's to say LR is wrong, which he totally could be, due to lack of proof, when in fact, you hold no proof on your end either. You say he's lacking proof of life on other worlds, regardless of his definition, but you can't back up any data to disprove. That's like asking me to prove God really exists. I can't, and I would imagine it to be impossible, but that doesn't mean he isn't around. He's just speculating and having a discussion, you're asking for proof, when you know very well there isn't any at this moment. Whats the point? You tell people, "they have no basis to judge the likelihood", but I don't think you do either. Most of these UFO threads are based off of assumption and speculation, because there is no hard facts at the moment. It doesn't mean there wont ever be, but right now, we have to work on assumption to move forward.


What is "all this" I am suggesting? What claim do you think I am making?
And its stuff like this that gets me. You always ask people to "redefine what they say, or explain more", when to me, its almost always clear what is being presented. Its like you're to worried to be mis-quoted, but at the same time, making the actual point more and more unclear to the overall message. If you don't understand, then you don't understand.

Its weird, cause I side with you on somethings, but then a second later, and you're off in a TOTALLY different direction. Its like you have some sort of loopy logic, and I can't ever follow you in any thread? Its like all you enjoy is the 'ol bait and switch. You seem to be a totally smart individual, and normally, I like to have discussions with people like you, but at the same time, I'm sick of having to retype my thoughts out over-and-over again, when its apparent what is being said.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
This seems to a rather pointless thread on review. The OP seems to begin with the objection that it is impropable that ET would be humanoid, and then later backtracks and accepts that ET could be humanoid if they are from earth-like planets.

In which case there is no longer an objection.
I think you may be missing the point. I believe in life outside of our planet. Although, I'm not to sure if we are being visited by actual aliens, and if we are, if they really are the classic grey/humanoid shaped ones.

Its just like back in the day, everybody thought all alien space crafts were disc shaped, but now peoples eyes are more open to other interpretations/theories of what they could look like. If you get what I'm saying?



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
If meeting intelligent sentient life is itself so improbable does it necessarily follow that a human-like alien making contact with us is equally improbable? On the contrary, the chance of such an event might be incredibly high.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by cognoscente]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
OK people lets take a step back!!! iv only had a nap and the thread has someone gone astray !!

The OP has Not ruled out the possiblity of Humniods type alines, Infact if you read what he said "im guessing some just chimed in" his question was Why is it Most alien contacts are infact Humaniods and How can this be relevent in acorrdance to the evolutionary proccess we observer here on earth and what are the real chances of an alien race having somewhat of a "humanoid" body much like ours "with inteligence"..

Dont flame him as he has been very clear to me.. and willing to listen.

Now some people who are posting share my view from my opening remarks as can be seen, and consistant with the logical sonarios of how it is infact we got here..

Let me point out afew things we dont know yet as a race just to help others understand the logical arguments for why we are having this debate..

Humans and no one can debunk this regardless of how smart one is.. Do not infact have any clue as to why we are here.

and if you do then in all proberbility you are 1) i liar 2) insane or 3) god himself..

Now i dont mean that in a disrepectfull way, thats just how it is..."for now"

Now.. with that BIG part of the picture obscurings ones view of the reality in witch we find ourselfs "science" is our methord of understanding logical based areguments as proof.. when infact it requiers the same belife system as faith, untill proven "and god has not been prove yes or no" as it stands.. so all we have to go on is the methord of science..

And this is our problem once again becuase science has not proven the same question we ask about god "why and for what reason"... same question different methord of getting the answer "logical"..

Now we move onto evolution... One can not totaly say that the evolution of "man" - please take out the rest of the life forms as to count them would to be denying your very exsistance on this planet" see tidbits above..

So we remove the "what ifs from this part of the debate" and keep on the science of evolution!"

Now a planet that is earthlike earth 2.0 shall we say Would harbor life or we would not be looking for earth 2.0 in the first place so we can put that baby to bed..

Now the evolution of a "lifefom" on another planet that would look somewhat like us "basic frame ect" its not a shot in the dark.. the numbers prove and models and infact us.. prove given the right enviroment its is very very likely that forms of life "that are only present on earth like enviroments" would resemble US..

We can not detect yet ANY earth like planet due to the distance AND the huge suns they infact orbit.. The closest we get to any planet that we can call a planet are GAS GIANTS... now this this in mind one has to understand the soloar system HAS gas giants and moons and rockey planets "we are living proof" so the probiblity is there for it to happen els ware and the odds of it not happening are slim "mathmaticaly slim"..

Typical humanoid aliens would only visit earth becuase they themselfs come from an earth like planet "thats not to say we have other wack looking things just as smart that would not even come close to what we look like"..

Is it possible aliens on other earth like planets are real : YES
Is it possible aliens on other earth like planets visit earth: YES
Is it possible to repoduce the "humanoid" look on another planet :YES

The thing that makes all the above statements possible here is infact: US

Some people need to go to math class and understand probiblity of an infinant universe vs there own ego.. you will be suprised by the results of observation.!

One can not ask the questions we do without first being here to do so, that adds +1 in the probibliyt deparment of it happening again.. IF we was not humans and we asked the question again what are the probiblitys of life els were looking nothing like us you get the very same answer.. 1

Both arguments in this thread are valid and very real.. we can not discount it nor confirm it we can only know from best practice that it has infact happend here on earth regardless of the improbibilty of it!

Thats why we have god becuase ones understanding requires either or in that respect.

If you dont belive in god and your soul belife is evolution then its probbible..

if your soul belive is god, then that still does not rule out life on other worlds looking like us.. and i say that becuase if we was the only beings in our entire universe and we stay here long enough in space

we answer our very own argument as humans will be infact THE only things that look like us "out there"... sefl forfilling proficy

Both sides win and both sides loose denpendin on what argument you base ur evidence for the possiblity of it happening..

what is the probibilty of you even asking this question? in relation to aliens

asking the question itself is even more astronomical than the exsistance of aliens in space "regardless of there form"

hope that helps people understand who want to argue for and against.

and im happy to keep this thread on the right path as long as people dont slate each other for having a right to form there own opionion based on there own faith in there own reality..

but some things that i have pointed out cant be debunked nore can they be proved correct..

for if that was the case we would not be here


and im guessing aliens understand this very well "huminoid or not" universe is far bigger than one can put into words and the numbers alone would make you sick "trust me"




posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TravisT

Excuse my ignorance if Savior Complex meant something else, but his quote is kind of left to interpretation on both parties(believers and skeptics).


Not really, he specifically charged believers with dismissing the idea of non humanoid ET's and abductions which is absolutely groundless. No one has done that in this thread and actually i've never seen it done at ATS.

Frankly, Travis, I have a hard time believing that you have read the thread at all. If you have, you seem to have misunderstood both sides of the argument in this debate therefore it is extremely difficult to respond to many of your comments and questions because you seem to be arguing points that haven't been raised and to have no real grasp of what the thread is about or what the posters - of either camp - have been saying. Yet are confidently responding as if you do and are even getting irritated with other posters when they don't validate your unique "Travis world" imaginary version of this thread.


Its more theoretical questions, on both sides, to the overall alien hypothesis, to get to the root of it all. If we are to believe in the classic "grey"/humanoid shape, then we need to be open to other ideas as well.


What makes you think we aren't open? We are. I don't know where you got this idea from except that you perhaps entered the thread when SC made his completely baseless and off the wall comment about 'believers' supposedly not accepting non humanoid ETs and you have presumed that must be what the thread is about. It isn't. That isn't LR's point. I suggest you reread (or read) the thread.


We don't have proof of anything right now, so LR point is just as valid as someone who believes in greys. So, someone trying to dismiss his "logic" with no logic of their own, is kind of silly to me.


I don't think you understand what LR's point is. His point - this thread - is about how it is supposedly near impossible that humanoid ET's have visited earth. I dispute that he can know how possible or impossible it is. That's it.


You make good points why a humanoid alien race could be visiting our planet(because thats what humans do), but then again, thats just as much assumption as LR thoughts.


Not at all, again I don't think you've paid much attention to either of our posts. I haven't assumed anything. LR is making a claim - in fact he gives us a "guarantee" that it's "near impossible" that humanoid ET's could be visiting earth. I''m pointing out that his use of logic to establish his claim is flawed and that the same logic can be used to explain why it could be possible that humanoid ET's are visiting earth. But I'm not making a claim. He is, in fact he "guarantees" it.

I asked you what my supposed "assumption" was and you said:


I would imagine its that you don't believe or like LR question/theory


That doesn't even make sense. My not accepting that he can deem humanoid ET visitation to earth as "near impossible" in not "an assumption". He claims something he can't prove and I pointed that out. There is no assumption there.


My point was, who's to say LR is wrong, which he totally could be, due to lack of proof, when in fact, you hold no proof on your end either. You say he's lacking proof of life on other worlds, regardless of his definition, but you can't back up any data to disprove.


What "end". My "end" here is that LR can't deem the reports of humanoid ET's as "highly unlikely" because he has no solid basis for judging likelihood. My assertion is that we don't know. And I can back that up, and have. And what are you talking about "You say he's lacking proof of life on other worlds"? that isn't the issue that was discussed at all.


He's just speculating and having a discussion, you're asking for proof, when you know very well there isn't any at this moment.


No he's saying that it's virtually impossible for humanoid ET's to have visited earth and that such an event is "highly unlikely". He can't prove it's highly unlikely, because he doesn't have the basis to judge likelihood, therefore he can't legitimately make the claim. It's fairly simple, if you've read the thread.


Whats the point? You tell people, "they have no basis to judge the likelihood", but I don't think you do either.


Travis, you're not making any sense. I'm not making a claim, I'm refuting his. He says something is nearly impossible and I'm saying we don't know how possible it is but that an equally good argument could be made for it being possible and indeed likely. But my point is we have no basis for judging likelihood.


Its weird, cause I side with you on somethings, but then a second later, and you're off in a TOTALLY different direction. Its like you have some sort of loopy logic, and I can't ever follow you in any thread? Its like all you enjoy is the 'ol bait and switch. You seem to be a totally smart individual, and normally, I like to have discussions with people like you, but at the same time, I'm sick of having to retype my thoughts out over-and-over again, when its apparent what is being said.


Travis, I think the problem is that you either haven't read the thread or haven't understood the points made by either side and have ended up making extremely confused posts. I still suspect you read SC's comment and completely misunderstood the thread and have been 'swimming upstream' ever since.

I like you Travis, but I find communicating with you incredibly difficult. I don't feel like we are even discussing the same thread. You are on your own unique wavelength and I don't think we manage to get through to each other very well. So for that reason alone, It's probably best we don't debate much at ATS. So don't take offense if I don't respond again in this thread. I think our dialogues just muddy the water here and little is accomplished.


[edit on 30-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by LogicalResponse
Why do UFO proponents, "contactees," "abductees" and other supporters always seem to depict their aliens as humanoid? Why are they insistent that these alleged life-forms follow the human body-plan?


Because they are that way...? Because we were genetically modified to be similar to them (with their own DNA in the mix)...?


This goes against our understanding of science and all current biological models of how life evolved on earth,


But humans did not evolve. We were genetically modified.


Even if the entire process of evolution on earth were re-simulated with all of the original parameters of biological genesis in place, we still wouldn't come out looking the same. So why would a visitor from an alien world look like us?


How do you know that "(e)ven if the entire process of evolution on earth were re-simulated with all of the original parameters of biological genesis in place, we still wouldn't come out looking the same???" How do you know that?

Sure, there might be some minor differences, but we know that larger animals seem to be quadripedal, and with intelligence, the need to use the forelimbs for other things, thus encouraging an upright stance. So the bigger question is...can we expect ANY intelligent life to NOT look humanoid?


Let me give you one example ( out of possible billions: )

Let's start with a world ...

And that is just ONE example of ONE type of world that life could develop on.


Sure, if the initial parameters are changed, differences will be seen, but you assume much in your presentation - such as the likelihood of intelligent life in radically different environments from ours. I would say that larger critters anywhere would likely sport a head, tail, and four limbs (with the tail, perhaps, dropping off at some point). It is the most efficient setup for larger forms (hence ALL of our larger critters are set up that way).


My point is this: Considering the possibilities of life in the universe, how intelligent life developed on earth, and how the mechanism of evolution itself works - the idea of humanoid aliens is absurd


And I think it is absurd to make that assumption. To assume that intelligent life would be possible in jovian atmospheres, for example, is absurd.

But again, we were genetically engineered from some of these humanoids. I would expect that we would have similarities.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TravisT
 


Nope. the original point was an objection to ET being humanoid, because that is the most common report of ET, but then later the OP says they could be humanoid. So there is no objection.

If according to the OP admission ET could be humanoid, then the reports of ET visiting us such as the Nordics, Reptillians and Greys, which are humanoid cannot be objectionable, because he allows that possibility. Hence rendering this entire thread pointless.



[edit on 30-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
What is the explanation of why we have not been visited? One possibility is that the argument, about the appearance of life on Earth, is wrong. Maybe the probability of life spontaneously appearing is so low, that Earth is the only planet in the galaxy, or in the observable universe, in which it happened. Another possibility is that there was a reasonable probability of forming self reproducing systems, like cells, but that most of these forms of life did not evolve intelligence. We are used to thinking of intelligent life, as an inevitable consequence of evolution. But the Anthropic Principle should warn us to be wary of such arguments. It is more likely that evolution is a random process, with intelligence as only one of a large number of possible outcomes. It is not clear that intelligence has any long-term survival value. Bacteria, and other single cell organisms, will live on, if all other life on Earth is wiped out by our actions. There is support for the view that intelligence, was an unlikely development for life on Earth, from the chronology of evolution. It took a very long time, two and a half billion years, to go from single cells to multi-cell beings, which are a necessary precursor to intelligence. This is a good fraction of the total time available, before the Sun blows up. So it would be consistent with the hypothesis, that the probability for life to develop intelligence, is low. In this case, we might expect to find many other life forms in the galaxy, but we are unlikely to find intelligent life. Another way, in which life could fail to develop to an intelligent stage, would be if an asteroid or comet were to collide with the planet. We have just observed the collision of a comet, Schumacher-Levi, with Jupiter. It produced a series of enormous fireballs. It is thought the collision of a rather smaller body with the Earth, about 70 million years ago, was responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs. A few small early mammals survived, but anything as large as a human, would have almost certainly been wiped out. It is difficult to say how often such collisions occur, but a reasonable guess might be every twenty million years, on average. If this figure is correct, it would mean that intelligent life on Earth has developed only because of the lucky chance that there have been no major collisions in the last 70 million years. Other planets in the galaxy, on which life has developed, may not have had a long enough collision free period to evolve intelligent beings.

as you can see this is not a simple matter what so ever.. its all about faith and what we use as our logical paramaters!!!

Tho i do tend to disagree with my mentor, i will give him this.. Humans are VERY lucky to be here..

and if indeed life on other planets "even if not humaniod" are present and we are the only humaniods..

i point you to this conundrem. given the nature of time and the universe.. each alien "humaniod" could infact be US in a paralell universe..

It gets stranger the more on looks into it..

Think of this.. we are infact alone in our entire univervese but the multiverse has created humans into an infinity amount of possibities..

would that be enough to settle this issue?

the rate of probiblity for a race on a given timeline / verse would be the same as aliens with intelence with huminoid features

just wanted to add to the debate more ideas based on theory.

they are not my words but someone who i admire MR S Hawking




posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


I would not go as far as to say what you did as he is in his right to ask, and be asured that we are in something unknown..

we are all in the dark on this issue and presumption of were the aliens infact do come from is speculitive at best... yes we can life but that does not mean to say its going to be as smart as us, on the contray life may not come from other planets but other verses much like our own, that would fit with parralle dimentions and give rise to the very real prospect of aliens being transdimention humans on an infinant scale of possiblity like life

we could be all alone in our universe, but who is to say there is only one universe?

now maybe u understand the magnitude and the complexity of this thread.

regardless if you think he is debunking when infact he is only asking a question of probiblity..

based on theory i may add... never be so quick to think becuase what you know is infact the way it happend as i show clear there are more ways to get humanoids than life on other planets even if we are alone in our entire universe.,..




posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I have to admit that I haven't read the entire thread, but in a quick skim, I haven't seen my ideas on this brought up. My question is not why are aliens always seen as "humanoid", but why are they always depicted as biological? I believe that a technically advanced civilization will move to incorporate bionics as we are already beginning to do ourselves...kind of like "The Borg" on steroids.

I suspect that in less than 1000 years, humans will all have a "brain integrated computer" to assist memory, etc...enhanced visual and auditory sensors, exoskeleton "clothes" for increased strength, you get the idea. In a million years, who knows?

I just doubt that a race advanced enough to travel the stars would do so in a frail organic body.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by GrandUnification
 


How do we know they don't have artificial augumentations inside their body either biological or metallic? As far as I know there are no conclusive reports of alien autopsies?

Another reason why aliens would not have artificial augumentations is because they may have ethical objections to having them. Even humans have ethical objections to artifical augumentations.


[edit on 30-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by GrandUnification
 


I think the main problem is lack of understanding here:

One possibility is that the formation of something like DNA, which could reproduce itself, is extremely unlikely. However, in a universe with a very large, or infinite, number of stars, one would expect it to occur in a few stellar systems, but they would be very widely separated. The fact that life happened to occur on Earth, is not however surprising or unlikely. It is just an application of the Weak Anthropic Principle: if life had appeared instead on another planet, we would be asking why it had occurred there.


It helps if you are into the subject matter befor one posts


its not about it being bioligical its about the methord it uses

everything in the known universe is based on laws and therfor any life form regardless of its makeup would follow basic laws in some way or another.

Hope that helps. or maybe it didnt!! hehe



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mystiq
 


What happened with the Greys?



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
What is the explanation of why we have not been visited?


What makes you think we have not been visited...? You are new here and may not know about The Terra Papers - they are linked in my sig.

But before you read them, you need the history of how they came to be. That information is found here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just know that when *I* read them, I thought at first that I was reading bad scifi, but by the end...they explained nearly all my WHYs in this world, and I was literally shaking with a radical paradigm shift.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join