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.

 

Humans came long after aliens, scientist suggests.

page: 9
31
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I think, based on statistics it's far more likely that it's out there or was out there than that it was never there at all. In fact, the notion of us being alone seems increasingly obsolete as scientists discover more and more exo planets, possibly habitable.




posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by MADXENOBIOLOGIST
 


Thats part of the paradox we should see signs all over the place. We should be receiving something yet when we look theres nothing out there. I figure this means intelligent life is probably quite rare maybe a 100 per galaxy and of course out of those thousand at least 90 no longer exist.Others never develop technology like dolphins for example they have a language but zero tech. so you probanly end up with maybe 5 or 6 in a galaxy actually travelling through space. And the galaxies a very big place entire civilizations could come and go without them even noticing.Then you have us our earth is so far out in the galaxy that we don't live in the city limits in fact the county limits. Were those people that live in a cabin and have to drive 3 hrs to see another person.Meaning they would show little interest to even visit us considering the time it takes.But hey maybe they'll drop us a postcard.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   

_BoneZ_

Phage
Then what?

Then we can observe them. Or, we could help them along their way. Even better, we could develop our own Prime Directive and leave them alone until they matured to a certain technological point.





Being a human and knowing how humans think "as specially our leaders who make the decisions on our behalves"...

The likely scenario is that we will give them blankets (just like the ones they gave to the native Americans".



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Hence why it's called a paradox. We should be seeing it everywhere, but we don't. A contradiction, or PARADOX. What I meant was, I think one obvious answer to the Fermi paradox is that the reason why we haven't found anything is because we can only look for a civilization as we know it. It's entirely possible that there are signs of ET civilization all over the place, and we just don't know it cause we don't know what to look for.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MADXENOBIOLOGIST
 


We would recognize technology if we see it may not understand it but we would recognize it. There appears to be something that inhibits intelligent life if not makes it extremely rare.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   

dragonridr

DarksideOz

0zzymand0s
reply to post by DarksideOz
 


A star faring civilization doesn't need slaves because robots exist.

A star faring civilization doesn't mine gold using slaves because supernovae exist.



Ahhhh, of course. The robots !

Why spend valuable star faring time making robots when you can have humans with more range of movement and able to make on the spot decisions that a robot may not be able to ? And why make robots when you can have human slaves that make new slaves amongst themselves, raise them, feed them, cloth them, and then more future slaves. Do you know where they got the minerals to make the robots ? Do we know who did the work before the robots, or was the concept of slave labour and robots thought of at the same time ?


If aliens came to earth it wouldnt be for mining makes no since everything they could want is in the asteroid belt and alot easier to get to if you can travel through space. Be a huge waist of resources to try to enslave a planet destroy it on the other hand easy. Sit in space bombard it with asteroids .


But if it's available on Earth and on an Asteroid belt, then there is still just as much likelihood that Earth could of been a viable option. Earth may of offered other assets that an asteroid belt couldn't ? We don't how they may of thought, or what was a better option. What may seem as the logical solution to us, may not be so logical to a more advanced species ?

Also, mining from an asteroid belt will still require either themselves doing the work, or robots that will need to be manufactured, transported and not to mention getting the materials to build them. Now that seems like a huge waste of resources. But if you can have human slaves do it all for you, it may just be worth the extra travel distance knowing that it's all being done for them ?
This theory is no more unlikely than your asteroid belt theory.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Shiloh7
As I understand it, without our moon, we could not exist due to the tidal pull which stops the water on earth stagnating and poisoning all life. We rely on night and day and could not survive without (literally) our beauty sleep. We also rely on a set degree of tilt, again which were it to vary could be the end of us.


I addressed this in a previous reply but I just came across this popular article, recently published which explains the research I alluded to in my initial response to you:

Alien Planets May Not Need Big Moons to Support Life


Alien planets without big, climate-stabilizing moons like the one that orbits Earth may still be capable of supporting life, a new study reports.

Previous modeling work had suggested that Earth's axial tilt, or obliquity, would vary wildly over long time spans without the moon's steadying gravitational influence, creating huge climate swings that would make it tough for life to get a foothold on our planet.

But that's not necessarily the case, said Jack Lissauer of NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif.

edit on 5-2-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 12:02 AM
link   

DarksideOz

dragonridr

DarksideOz

0zzymand0s
reply to post by DarksideOz
 


A star faring civilization doesn't need slaves because robots exist.

A star faring civilization doesn't mine gold using slaves because supernovae exist.



Ahhhh, of course. The robots !

Why spend valuable star faring time making robots when you can have humans with more range of movement and able to make on the spot decisions that a robot may not be able to ? And why make robots when you can have human slaves that make new slaves amongst themselves, raise them, feed them, cloth them, and then more future slaves. Do you know where they got the minerals to make the robots ? Do we know who did the work before the robots, or was the concept of slave labour and robots thought of at the same time ?


If aliens came to earth it wouldnt be for mining makes no since everything they could want is in the asteroid belt and alot easier to get to if you can travel through space. Be a huge waist of resources to try to enslave a planet destroy it on the other hand easy. Sit in space bombard it with asteroids .


But if it's available on Earth and on an Asteroid belt, then there is still just as much likelihood that Earth could of been a viable option. Earth may of offered other assets that an asteroid belt couldn't ? We don't how they may of thought, or what was a better option. What may seem as the logical solution to us, may not be so logical to a more advanced species ?

Also, mining from an asteroid belt will still require either themselves doing the work, or robots that will need to be manufactured, transported and not to mention getting the materials to build them. Now that seems like a huge waste of resources. But if you can have human slaves do it all for you, it may just be worth the extra travel distance knowing that it's all being done for them ?
This theory is no more unlikely than your asteroid belt theory.


Actually it is.

#1 Every element present on Earth is available in abundance in space with the added bonus that aliens would not need to spend (waste) energy entering and leaving our gravity well.

#2 Robots do not to be fed, clothed, given the right pressure, given the right atmosphere, etc to function. Aliens preferring human or other biological slaves over robots would be some pretty dumb aliens. They probably would be so dumb they'd never get here in the first place.

#3 Occam's Razor - The simplest solution is usually the correct one - thus mining materials in space rather than descending and ascending with human slaves one would have to treat delicately (for we are pretty fragile creatures) is more likely than your convoluted invasion and enslavement scenario.

#4 Robots can beuild robots. It's called a Von Neuman Machine. Look it up.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Technology advance hasn't made humans any less violent, thus far.

Applying that model to 'more' advanced humanoids from space would just mean more of the same.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


But you people are deciding for yourself that an asteroid belt is a better option, therefore removing any chance of another option. I'm not dismissing the asteroid belt theory, but I'm not the one completely dismissing another theory that has just as much possibility of being true. If I say that humans would be a viable option, you just dismiss it as say that ancient aliens WOULD of preferred robots. And you KNOW this to be true, do you ? When you keep looking at it from only your opinion of what an ancient alien would think, you are limited to what you can think or imagine.

By acknowledging that it could happen on an asteroid belt, but NOT on earth is mind boggling. What if ancient aliens also agreed that engineering humans and leaving them to their own devices, while still getting what was needed from them, WAS a better option than what building, transporting and maintaining robots offered. Yes its a what if question, but can you say without doubt that the asteroid belt theory IS what ancient aliens would of preferred. In YOUR opinion this is what they would of preferred, but you are not an ancient alien, nor do you know how one would of thought. But you seem to be going out of your way to argue any point I make while speaking on their behalf !

If you can allow your mind to accept that it could happen on an 'asteroid belt with robots', then how can that same mind then completely shut out the slightest thought of the same thing being done on earth with engineered slaves. How is the asteroid belt theory so logical, yet the human slave engineering theory be so illogical and no possibility of being true ? Why is it that what ever advantage I give to human slaves over robots, your rebuttal is to then list all the benefits of robots over humans and then class that as final proof because that's what YOU think. And when you realise that this is what you are doing, then you'll also realise why you shouldn't tell other to go "look up" things.

I'll do you a deal. I'll spend more time looking up what you suggest, but all I ask in return is that in future don't be so quick to completely dismiss something purely based on it not fitting into your perception of logic.
Just imagine for one second that the theory I suggest was to be proven 100%, with proof and evidence, to be true. Imagine the effects that would send around the world if it was to be revealed that everything that we have created in our world was based on lies, control and agenda's. Our true history was known all along but suppressed for the very reasons I just suggested.
What if we were just engineered or had our DNA altered to basically just be slaves ?
Haven't we as humans genetically engineered other animals already [ one could argue that its being done on humans by humans in certain facilities, but that's another topic] ?
And remember that it would be an advanced species and their knowledge of genetic engineering would be much higher than of any human alive, let alone on ATS.

What might seem impossible to you, might be very possible to them. I am not saying that this theory IS what happened, but based on the "looking up" I've done, I am more convinced than I'm not that it could of happened and when you look at it a lot deeper than just gold mining slaves, it seems to make even more sense. Not absolute proof, but to be fair, no one has yet presented absolute proof that it could not of happened either. Have you taken the time to look up these things ?



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   

DistantThunder
Technology advance hasn't made humans any less violent, thus far.

Applying that model to 'more' advanced humanoids from space would just mean more of the same.


Humans are not anywhere near as old as most alien species would be.

Humanity is less than a million years old.

Some species out there could be a BILLION years older than us, OR MORE.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 




Some species out there could be a BILLION years older than us, OR MORE.

Possible. It's a mean Universe out there. Dinosaurs only made it a 100 million or so.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by DarksideOz
 


you're missing the point any intelligent species would have multiple opportunities to mine long before reaching earth. Its not a case of if they could of course they could mine earth. Just an intelligent species isnt going to waste resources to enslave a bunch of talking monkeys just to get resources that are just sitting there all ready in space. You dont understand even we want to mine the asteroid belt we get access to minerals that are just really hard to get to on earth such as gold and platinum. In the earth allthe heavy elements are near the core in the asteroid belt there right there on the surface.See what your suggesting is just a waste of time really.If this species actually did try to enslave humanity to get resources and that was there sole motivation i doubt they would have developed enough to get out of their solar system. Because they would have to be the dumbest race in the galaxy.
edit on 2/6/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


I am not missing the point for the very simple reason that you are dismissing any possibility that Earth may of offered other conveniences, advantages or even luxuries that other methods did not. Therefore making it a very realistic possibility that Earth could of been used. And who is to say that that several locations or methods weren't used and the Earth option was just another option or one of many ? You do not know exactly how ancient aliens may of come to their decisions or what they deemed to be the most logical. That is the point you keep missing !

How can someone claim to have an open mind, and acknowledge that an asteroid belt with robots is a realistic possibility, but then completely dismiss the slightest thought of Earth being used for the same reasons but with engineered slaves instead of manufactured robots ? How ?

It's funny how many people will completely dismiss this theory or even the existence of ancient aliens, yet then have the hide to say what method or system the ancient aliens would of used or preferred as if they have first hand knowledge which then over rules any other theory.

I know most humans like to delude themselves into thinking that the Universe revolves around their wants, needs and beliefs. But the reality is, humans are insignificant on a truly Universal stage. We like to convince ourselves that we are the top of the food chain despite being the only species that then needs artificially made food to keep up with demand. We act as if we are the guardians of earth, yet name me another species on earth causing as much destruction to the planet as humans cause ?



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by DarksideOz

If resources were what they wanted, they could easily find it elsewhere, in much higher quantities. Besides, how would they even know about us? Since you are going by the "ANCIENT" astronaut theory, what presence would indicate any civilization here? We weren't communicating with radio or television, and there wasn't a single thing in space. How the hell would they know we're all here if they have no communications to look at? The Sumerians certainly didn't have radio beacons or anything that would make our presence known in space. So even if they came here to get slaves (I've already previously covered why this is in of itself implausible ), how the hell would they even know there were "slaves" here in the first place? Did they just happen to pass through a random solar system and stumble on the Earth and say "Oooh let's enslave them?" I highly doubt it.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 02:03 AM
link   

MADXENOBIOLOGIST
reply to post by DarksideOz

If resources were what they wanted, they could easily find it elsewhere, in much higher quantities. Besides, how would they even know about us? Since you are going by the "ANCIENT" astronaut theory, what presence would indicate any civilization here? We weren't communicating with radio or television, and there wasn't a single thing in space. How the hell would they know we're all here if they have no communications to look at? The Sumerians certainly didn't have radio beacons or anything that would make our presence known in space. So even if they came here to get slaves (I've already previously covered why this is in of itself implausible ), how the hell would they even know there were "slaves" here in the first place? Did they just happen to pass through a random solar system and stumble on the Earth and say "Oooh let's enslave them?" I highly doubt it.


Good points.

To be fair though, Earth has been sending out this signal that life existed here for 3.8 billion years:



Now that says nothing about slave-worthy life but there's a good chance the Earth is in quite a few alien catalogs of interesting, life-bearing worlds in the galaxy even though our technological footprint has yet to reach them.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 06:54 PM
link   

MADXENOBIOLOGIST
reply to post by DarksideOz

If resources were what they wanted, they could easily find it elsewhere, in much higher quantities. Besides, how would they even know about us? Since you are going by the "ANCIENT" astronaut theory, what presence would indicate any civilization here? We weren't communicating with radio or television, and there wasn't a single thing in space. How the hell would they know we're all here if they have no communications to look at? The Sumerians certainly didn't have radio beacons or anything that would make our presence known in space. So even if they came here to get slaves (I've already previously covered why this is in of itself implausible ), how the hell would they even know there were "slaves" here in the first place? Did they just happen to pass through a random solar system and stumble on the Earth and say "Oooh let's enslave them?" I highly doubt it.


Ummmmm, have you not read the part were I have on several occasions mentioned genetic engineering. Who is to say that humans were here already, and I have never once made that claim ? Can you prove beyond doubt how humans came into existence on this planet to begin with ?

So I am supposed to just accept the view that we evolved from an ape species to the point of where we are today ? Or is it that we were created by a God to the point of where we are today ? Yet even the slightest thought that we may of simply been engineered by another, more advanced species to serve their needs and purposes, and possibly just being left to our own devices once our services were no longer required, is considered implausible, or absolutely NO chance of being true.

If you are going to acknowledge the Sumerian civilization, then you may want to do some more research into what many of their ancient stories actually suggest. You will find that on many occasions the Sumerians actually refer to the very things you call implausible. Or is it just selective implausibility ?

You will also see many references to genetic engineering and references to DNA. I suppose it's just "unusual" that the first known civilisation knew of such things approx.6000 years ago, yet humans have only made the DNA connection in recent times ?

And ever since that first known civilization, there has been a history of human slavery. Where did the Sumerians come from to be the first "known" civilization ? If they were not originally from here, then why did they choose Earth and not an asteroid belt ?

Just a few questions to ask yourself before using the word "implausible" !



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   

DarksideOz

MADXENOBIOLOGIST
reply to post by DarksideOz

If resources were what they wanted, they could easily find it elsewhere, in much higher quantities. Besides, how would they even know about us? Since you are going by the "ANCIENT" astronaut theory, what presence would indicate any civilization here? We weren't communicating with radio or television, and there wasn't a single thing in space. How the hell would they know we're all here if they have no communications to look at? The Sumerians certainly didn't have radio beacons or anything that would make our presence known in space. So even if they came here to get slaves (I've already previously covered why this is in of itself implausible ), how the hell would they even know there were "slaves" here in the first place? Did they just happen to pass through a random solar system and stumble on the Earth and say "Oooh let's enslave them?" I highly doubt it.


Ummmmm, have you not read the part were I have on several occasions mentioned genetic engineering. Who is to say that humans were here already, and I have never once made that claim ? Can you prove beyond doubt how humans came into existence on this planet to begin with ?

So I am supposed to just accept the view that we evolved from an ape species to the point of where we are today ? Or is it that we were created by a God to the point of where we are today ? Yet even the slightest thought that we may of simply been engineered by another, more advanced species to serve their needs and purposes, and possibly just being left to our own devices once our services were no longer required, is considered implausible, or absolutely NO chance of being true.

If you are going to acknowledge the Sumerian civilization, then you may want to do some more research into what many of their ancient stories actually suggest. You will find that on many occasions the Sumerians actually refer to the very things you call implausible. Or is it just selective implausibility ?

You will also see many references to genetic engineering and references to DNA. I suppose it's just "unusual" that the first known civilisation knew of such things approx.6000 years ago, yet humans have only made the DNA connection in recent times ?

And ever since that first known civilization, there has been a history of human slavery. Where did the Sumerians come from to be the first "known" civilization ? If they were not originally from here, then why did they choose Earth and not an asteroid belt ?

Just a few questions to ask yourself before using the word "implausible" !


You have been listening to one mans interpretation of sumerian text his interpretations were shown to be wrong. Yes i refuse to even say his name lets just say he didnt know there was text to help interpret there wrightings so he thought he could say what ever he wanted.

archaeology.about.com...
edit on 2/7/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by DarksideOz
 




You will also see many references to genetic engineering and references to DNA. I suppose it's just "unusual" that the first known civilisation knew of such things approx.6000 years ago, yet humans have only made the DNA connection in recent times ?

Can you point out just one of the many references? Here's the bit about the creation of Man.
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...#

The translation says that Namma made man (out of clay) and, in celebration, Enki and Ninmah had a beer blast. They got wasted and got into a creative pissing match. Enki claimed that no matter how messed up a creation Ninmah could come up with, he (Enki) could find a useful purpose for it so that it could earn its "daily bread".

After 6 tries (no references to genetic engineering or DNA), with Enki succeeding each time, Ninmah gave up. Enki then produced a real mess (I won't go into the details of how) that Ninmah could find no use for. Enki won the pissing match.

Enki won by creating a dreadful, horribly deformed creature. Sitchin says that Enki created a "perfect" creature, man.

edit on 2/7/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


So now you know what research I have done and who I have listened to ?

I have based my own theory on the thoughts and findings of MANY people, so please do not think you have me all worked out based on an online conversation. You will dismiss any thought or possibility I put forward, which only suggests that you have already made up you mind on a subject and refuse to accept any notion of your personal decision being wrong.

I am happy to discuss the topic with you, but not if you want to go down that road.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join