Thread: Alien Astronaut Theory (AAT)

1. Hello

2. I have completed a lot of skeptical research into this theory that implies that human civilization, and possibly Homo Sapien genetics, was influenced by aliens and their technology around 8,000 BC.

3. The obvious counterpoint is the detailed history on how pathetically slowly humans developed from hunting-gathering, to farming, to urbanization (civilization); and that such developments were therefore not the result of sudden intervention. Furthermore, god figures also developed over thousands of years, and evolved from previous ideas of gods. They, therefore, could not be personifications of extraterestrials as the AAT suggests.

4. However, no amount of logical (secular or religious) history that I have found can explain the following. So if anyone knows anything about any of this, for or against it, please comment and provide evidence you have found.



a. Based on their texts and hieroglyphs, the Sumerians in 8000BC (first human urban civilization) knew that the planets revolved around the sun. They also knew how many planets exist in the solar system (with the addition of Nibiru, Planet 10, or X). The texts also describe planet characteristics such as relative size, color, and orbital distance very accurately. Obviously, only a few planets are visiable to the eye, and they had no optics or telescopes.

b. The Sumerian glyphs seem to depic an understanding of DNA and genetics, as well as splicing and gene manipulation.

c. The Dogon are an African tribe the migrated from Egypt. Their religious texts of 4000BC focus on the companion star of Sirius, called Sirius B or Digitarius. Digitarius was not discovered until 1862 because it is too small to be seen with anything besides a high powered telescope. Yet the Dogon accurately knew that it existed and that it was a companion star of Sirius. They also knew the color, size, and density of the planet. They claim that travelers from that star, the Nommo, contacted them.

d. The Sphynx has water erosion damage that could not have occured in the Egyptian dessert prior to about 24,000 BC, yet the structure is claimed to have been built with the pyrimids around 2,300 BC.

e. The pyramids align with the three center stars of Orion, as well as with the three volcanos on Mars near Olympus Mons in both size and location.

f. The pyramid vents align with Sirius and Orion around 25,000BC at a time when the Nile river aligns with the visiable arm of the Milky Way galaxy, and the Sphynx (the Lion, Leo) aligns with the constalation Leo. This suggests that the structures were constructed then, and not in 2,300BC, and therefore not by humans.

g. The Mahabatra is an Indian religious text that seems to describe a nuclear war waged between opposing factions from other worlds. It accurately describes the components, specifications, and appearances of flying craft and their missile weapons. It also describes how to build an aircraft.

h. Even with laser technology, humans can still not recreate the structure and metaphysical properties of the Crystal Skulls.

i. There are innumerable paintings, cave paintings, artifacts, figurines, and statues that seem to depic astronaut suits, flying craft, and aliens. There are many cave paintings that depics Grey aliens exactly as they are depicted today.


5. Please help me figure this out, and confirm or deny the legitimacy of any of these points! If it is new to you, even if it is completely bogus, researching it will teach you alot about ancient civilizations.

6. Thanks a lot!

This probably belongs in the history section.

I love reading those kinds of books, like the Von Danikan series, Chariots/Gold of the Gods, and etc., and I can't really discount alien intervention in history, but I'm not entirely forced to believe it yet, either. However, my vanity tells me I don't want to believe it yet.

My theory for most of these anomalies is guild theory. It wouldn't explain all of it, but might explain a lot. Under this theory, all advanced ancient technology was in the hands of secretive guilds that would kill anyone who dared share their secrets. (With massive illiteracy, and no printing press, suppressing a secret would be easier than sharing it. )

In other words, a lot of technologies were around for a while before the masses got them, being used by guild "wizards" who could pretend to having magic powers, and back up that pretension too, electrocuting, blowing up, or burning to death, anyone who dared to doubt them.

Any sudden surge in technology could be explained as a lapse in guild discipline, perhaps coinciding with calamities that could only be solved by sharing.

So, we have guild astronomers to explain celestial knowledge (except the Sirius B, but then who knows what observation techniques they might have come up with that we still haven't?)

I'm not sure about gene splicing, either, unless they had advanced optics to help guide them, and nuclear weapons would be a bit of a stretch. (Despite some evidence that they may have existed)

I could see flight happening in the form of a hydrogen zeppelin. (Hydrogen manufacture using electricity wouldn't be that hard for a zealous alchemist to discover), which would give them the ability to lug heavy stones around, too.

Anyway: if you've come across any really interesting sources, it would be good to know them. Most of the places I look just contain repetitions of stuff I've already read about. I'm still open to alien theory. I just don't like it as much.

Originally Posted by Cynical Seductress

1. Hello

Hello, yourself.
I shall comment on three of your points. I believe each of them could be dealt with in a similar way.

Originally Posted by Cynical Seductress

d. The Sphynx has water erosion damage that could not have occured in the Egyptian dessert prior to about 24,000 BC, yet the structure is claimed to have been built with the pyrimids around 2,300 BC.

The emboldened statement is false. Dr. Robert Schuh, a geologist, claimed - probably correctly - that the erosion to the sphinx, especially the lower portions, were consistent that with erosion from flowing water. His mistake was in assuming that water erosion could not take place in a desert region. Flash floods are not common - which is why the unsuspecting are sometimes drowned in wadis - but there could certainly be enough of them to produce the level of erosion observed on the sphinx.

Originally Posted by Cynical Seductress

e. The pyramids align with the three center stars of Orion, as well as with the three volcanos on Mars near Olympus Mons in both size and location.

So, the ancient Egyptians alligned their pyramids with the most prominent portion of the most prominent constellation in the sky. Is that surprising? Interesting, yes, but surely not surprising.

The allignment of the stars of Orion's belt with the Martian volcanoes then becomes a simple coincidence. We would often mock this kind of logic when playing darts by declaring in a voice laden with pretend amazement and awe - "Look! They form a triangle upon the board!"

Originally Posted by Cynical Seductress

f. The pyramid vents align with Sirius and Orion around 25,000BC at a time when the Nile river aligns with the visiable arm of the Milky Way galaxy, and the Sphynx (the Lion, Leo) aligns with the constalation Leo. This suggests that the structures were constructed then, and not in 2,300BC, and therefore not by humans.

Let us assume the allignment is not coincidence, though it very well may be so. The allignment then becomes the commemoration of a time in the past and a time in the future when a particular allignment, having religious or cultural signficance, will occur. It does not mean that the commemorated date is the date of construction.

Originally Posted by Cynical Seductress

d. The Sphynx has water erosion damage that could not have occured in the Egyptian dessert prior to about 24,000 BC, yet the structure is claimed to have been built with the pyrimids around 2,300 BC.

The emboldened statement is false. Dr. Robert Schuh, a geologist, claimed - probably correctly - that the erosion to the sphinx, especially the lower portions, were consistent that with erosion from flowing water. His mistake was in assuming that water erosion could not take place in a desert region. Flash floods are not common - which is why the unsuspecting are sometimes drowned in wadis - but there could certainly be enough of them to produce the level of erosion observed on the sphinx.

Well, evidence sufficient to make the later date *absolutely* impossible would be quite exceptional indeed. If the standard claims only require non-falsifiability in order to be considered un-disputable, then this becomes more of a religious-ish inquiry than a scientific one.

If I'm not mistaken, the vast majority of the water erosion is on the rear-ward side of the statue, indicating a likelihood that the face as we see it now was carved at a much later date than the rear as we see it now.

Originally Posted by Cynical Seductress

e. The pyramids align with the three center stars of Orion, as well as with the three volcanos on Mars near Olympus Mons in both size and location.

So, the ancient Egyptians alligned their pyramids with the most prominent portion of the most prominent constellation in the sky. Is that surprising? Interesting, yes, but surely not surprising.

The allignment of the stars of Orion's belt with the Martian volcanoes then becomes a simple coincidence. We would often mock this kind of logic when playing darts by declaring in a voice laden with pretend amazement and awe - "Look! They form a triangle upon the board!"

The question is how accurately the two/three triangles mirror one another. If the sides are exactly proportional, that would indicate something beyond mere coincidence. (Either that or an extremely improbable coincidence).

Unfortunately, I don't know.

Aligning the pyramids deliberately with stars wouldn't be beyond the ability of ancient humans. If the volcanos on Mars actually align perfectly with those same stars, however, that would be exceptional all on its own, never mind the pyramids.

Originally Posted by Cynical Seductress

f. The pyramid vents align with Sirius and Orion around 25,000BC at a time when the Nile river aligns with the visiable arm of the Milky Way galaxy, and the Sphynx (the Lion, Leo) aligns with the constalation Leo. This suggests that the structures were constructed then, and not in 2,300BC, and therefore not by humans.

Let us assume the allignment is not coincidence, though it very well may be so. The allignment then becomes the commemoration of a time in the past and a time in the future when a particular allignment, having religious or cultural signficance, will occur. It does not mean that the commemorated date is the date of construction.

No, but it would require greater skill to emulate a date long past than to build to one then present. It would require someone around 25,000 BC to have taken accurate measurements and have successfully passed them on to future generations. Either that, or the builders' level of skill with astronomy would have to be great enough to be able to turn back the clock with the same accuracy as modern astronomers do, to predict where the bodies were supposed to have been.

For me, the oddity of the Great Pyramid rests with the lack of hieroglyphs. Maybe a handful were ever found, and only under highly suspect circumstances and in areas of the structure that don't make any sense.

Why would Khufu build a tomb for himself, and then leave the whole interior un-inscribed?

I think a more likely scenario is that Khufu didn't even so much as know how to enter the pyramid, but a later pharaoh claimed it was Khufu's final resting place in order to instill greater pride in his people's history. It's not like the Egyptians never altered their own past in order to make it sound better.

The Mahabatra? Do you mean the Mahabharata? Because , as far as I know, there is no Indian religious text that describes a nuclear war or how to build an aircraft.

Originally Posted by Cynical Seductress

a. Based on their texts and hieroglyphs, the Sumerians in 8000BC (first human urban civilization) knew that the planets revolved around the sun. They also knew how many planets exist in the solar system (with the addition of Nibiru, Planet 10, or X). The texts also describe planet characteristics such as relative size, color, and orbital distance very accurately. Obviously, only a few planets are visiable to the eye, and they had no optics or telescopes.

The Sumerians knew nothing of the sort. At best, they worked out a 12 month calendar based on moon cycles and believed the earth was a flat disc in a huge hole with water everywhere. Anything related to astronomy had deep religious underlying purpose.

c. The Dogon are an African tribe the migrated from Egypt. Their religious texts of 4000BC focus on the companion star of Sirius, called Sirius B or Digitarius. Digitarius was not discovered until 1862 because it is too small to be seen with anything besides a high powered telescope. Yet the Dogon accurately knew that it existed and that it was a companion star of Sirius. They also knew the color, size, and density of the planet. They claim that travelers from that star, the Nommo, contacted them.

Again, that is not true. The origin of the Sirius Mystery is from Marcel Griaule claiming alien visitations and has been refuted by a number of sources. The Dogon got their information about Sirius from visiting Europeans in the 20's and 30's.

Most likely, you should review your sources and the material you provided as it appears to be gleaned from nutters sites.

With the Dogon, it's true you never know. American Plains Indian tribes often had legends that basically described them as having rode around on horse back and hunted buffalo since the world began. (Two things archaeologists are pretty sure didn't happen).

Illiterate tribes people have terrible memories when it comes to where they learned what, and when. It's still an interesting idea, though. While it's certainly possible that some European told them what they know, one has to wonder: why would a European bother to explain that kind of stuff to a bunch of illiterate tribes people?

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by Cynical Seductress

a. Based on their texts and hieroglyphs, the Sumerians in 8000BC (first human urban civilization) knew that the planets revolved around the sun. They also knew how many planets exist in the solar system (with the addition of Nibiru, Planet 10, or X). The texts also describe planet characteristics such as relative size, color, and orbital distance very accurately. Obviously, only a few planets are visiable to the eye, and they had no optics or telescopes.

The Sumerians knew nothing of the sort. At best, they worked out a 12 month calendar based on moon cycles and believed the earth was a flat disc in a huge hole with water everywhere. Anything related to astronomy had deep religious underlying purpose.

Any attempt to describe what "The Sumerians" knew has the danger of becoming too over generalized. Education levels were not exactly uniform throughout ancient cultures.

I worry, however, that she might be confusing time periods. If we were looking at them around 150 BC, then a Babylonian fellow named Seleucus of Seleucia was one of the first people ever recorded to have hypothesised and then proved a heliocentric system.

If by AAT you mean this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronaut_theories
Then it’s pretty clear that this “theory” is simple conjecture lacking any real archeological proof and only misconstrued crackpot claims masquerading as “evidence”. This stuff was shown to be false over thirty years ago. You might want to dig up a copy of “Crash go the Chariots” (a scientific reply to von Daeniken’s “Chariots of the Gods” series).
http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&key...l_2dyma1h29t_b

Why should aliens cruise the universe but only visit planets with life?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
A type III civilization would be here in our solar system right now. Their Dyson sphere around the Sun would be a little hard to miss.

I used to enjoy reading all the Von Daniken books when I was younger AND I believed every single word ! It's strange how we have total faith in what we read ! Most theories in such books we have no way of proving or disproving because the authors can't prove or disprove them either !

As for aliens visiting earth and passing on skills and information WELL. Firstly aliens would have to be able to communicate with us through our human senses in a human manner. Aliens would then have to display similar senses to our own. Aliens would have to be able to survive in our earthly environment. We would also have to have developed an immunity to any germs/diseases they carried, and they too would have to be immune to our germs and diseases.

If we consider the size of our universe what is the probability that aliens exist out there ? Then, what is the probability that any of these aliens would be able to communicate with humans on earth in a manner we would understand AND exist problem free in our envionment ?

BARCUD

The question is: where is our technology headed?

Anyone who had the technology to reach us would have a few other tricks up their sleeve. Communicating would be a simple matter of deciphering a pattern, which their computers could almost do for them. Interacting might require robotics, if they're biologically incompatible with us. Some people theorize that the grays are an artificial species genetically engineered to do some of the interacting.

It's also possible that more than one species from more than one planet is involved in a kind of intergalactic federation. We're not in the club because we can't be trusted with high technology (like nukes).

Originally Posted by Arch2008

If by AAT you mean this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronaut_theories
Then it’s pretty clear that this “theory” is simple conjecture lacking any real archeological proof and only misconstrued crackpot claims masquerading as “evidence”. This stuff was shown to be false over thirty years ago. You might want to dig up a copy of “Crash go the Chariots” (a scientific reply to von Daeniken’s “Chariots of the Gods” series).
http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&key...l_2dyma1h29t_b

Well, yeah. Daeniken is all conjecture, with little pieces of evidence sprinkled in here and there and then highly interpreted, with a spin in the direction he wants. His conclusions were never proven false in their entirety because they're not very falsifiable (which makes them not very good science either).

However, that's not a reason to reject the theory outright. Most theories are conjecture, until they become proven. The Alaskan land bridge theory of how native Americans came to inhabit the Americas is total conjecture as well.

What I take out of his books is that he's done a lot of footwork, hunting down strange archaeological finds so we can look at them and make up our own minds, if we want. His mistake is trying to make up our own minds for us, but I forgive him, and proceed to make up my own mind.

Why should aliens cruise the universe but only visit planets with life?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
A type III civilization would be here in our solar system right now. Their Dyson sphere around the Sun would be a little hard to miss.

Um, "only"? Who says they only visit planets with life? Is there reason to think they avoided the others?

Or maybe you're assuming that the aliens are expansionists. They .... want more places for their overflowing population to live.... right? What if they just don't have overpopulation?

A type III civilization must by definition use the energy output of all the stars in a galaxy, which in the Milky Way would include our Sun. So they would be here in our solar system living on their Dyson Sphere and not interfering with us, but they would still be here. Cute little aliens that travel trillions of miles to build pyramids and perform anal probes are ridiculous.

If I believe that aliens came here to build the pyramids, then that is a belief. When someone who knows better shows that normal people really built them, then I must accept the truth. If I write books for money to intentionally decieve people with unfounded conjecture, then that is fraud. If scientists present DNA evidence that shows a migration of humans from Asia to the Americas, that's a hypothesis, not just conjecture.

tl;dr. Can someone sum it up, in three sentences or less, as to what this person is actually proposing?

Edit: seriously I read it this time and a short summary would help

Originally Posted by Cynical Seductress

2. I have completed a lot of skeptical research into this theory that implies that human civilization, and possibly Homo Sapien genetics, was influenced by aliens and their technology around 8,000 BC.

Your remaining post is inconsistent with someone who has truly "completed a lot of skeptical research" regarding the speculation that modern humans are the result of ancient, alien astronauts.

Please read my comments and questions below to see why I say this:

3. The obvious counterpoint is the detailed history on how pathetically slowly humans developed from hunting-gathering, to farming, to urbanization (civilization); and that such developments were therefore not the result of sudden intervention. Furthermore, god figures also developed over thousands of years, and evolved from previous ideas of gods. They, therefore, could not be personifications of extraterestrials as the AAT suggests.

This is partially correct and you were on the right track, I think, but I'm not sure your conclusions follow from the premises. The rate of development that human societies have undergone is relative and surprising acceleration of this rate can be found from time to time in the archaeological record, but usually with logical explanations that range from sudden innovations in technology to cultural infusion by one culture into another.

Representations and depictions of gods found in art and writing of ancient cultures nearly always reflects existing worldviews and the superstitions that surround the mythical causes and effects that member of these cultures perceive. The conclusion that these personifications aren't derivative of extraterrestrials is due to this trend as well as the lack of example for extraterrestrial visitation to begin with. Moreover, to introduce extraterrestrials to explain the existence of ancient gods violates Occam's Razor since it introduces many, many more new assumptions about the universe -not the least of which is that an extraterrestrial culture exists that is capable of pinpointing a single planet of intelligent life as well as being able to efficiently get to it. This, however, would be a separate discussion topic.

4. However, no amount of logical (secular or religious) history that I have found can explain the following. So if anyone knows anything about any of this, for or against it, please comment and provide evidence you have found.

I shall try to do so, but I may have some questions first in order to answer more fully.

a. Based on their texts and hieroglyphs, the Sumerians in 8000BC (first human urban civilization) knew that the planets revolved around the sun. They also knew how many planets exist in the solar system (with the addition of Nibiru, Planet 10, or X). The texts also describe planet characteristics such as relative size, color, and orbital distance very accurately. Obviously, only a few planets are visiable to the eye, and they had no optics or telescopes.

First, 8000 BCE is an incorrect date. The Sumerian culture can only be traced possibly to about 5300 BCE at the earliest, which is about 7,300 years ago. But that's if you accept that the Ubaid Period of the region is early Sumerian culture. Definitive Sumerian culture shows up at around 2900 BCE (just a little under 5,000 years ago).

Second, I'm curious which texts (glyphs are generally considered as texts in cultures that used glyphs for writing, by the way), specifically, you are using to base the assumption that Sumerians knew how many planets revolved the Sun. Can you cite a reference to them? Is there a publication, like an issue of The Journal of Near East Studies that includes them that I might examine and more fully answer your question?

There are Sumerian names for each of the 5 planets that are visible to the naked eye, but there's no indication that Sumerian astronomers were aware of Uranus or Neptune. Living in a region where the night sky was as vivid and lively as any modern cinema screen, this is to be expected.

I implore you, please do not cite Sitchin after having stated you've "completed a lot of skeptical research."

b. The Sumerian glyphs seem to depic an understanding of DNA and genetics, as well as splicing and gene manipulation.

Can you cite the reference to these specific glyphs and why you interpret them as revealing an "understanding of DNA and genetics?"

c. The Dogon are an African tribe the migrated from Egypt. Their religious texts of 4000BC focus on the companion star of Sirius, called Sirius B or Digitarius. Digitarius was not discovered until 1862 because it is too small to be seen with anything besides a high powered telescope. Yet the Dogon accurately knew that it existed and that it was a companion star of Sirius. They also knew the color, size, and density of the planet. They claim that travelers from that star, the Nommo, contacted them.

This is an example of cultural contamination, not alien visitation. There is no evidence that the Dogon were aware of the existence of Sirius B prior to its discovery by Alvan Clark in 1862 or its prediction by Bessel in 1844. As an anthropologist (but one who is focused on archaeology), one of things that concerns modern ethnographers is learning from the mistakes of those that came before us. This is an example of where ethnographers carelessly introduced the concept of a binary star to a culture that already venerated one of the brightest stars in the sky -a star that was periodic, predictable and already served as a marker to the Dogon. The binary nature of the star was something of a sensation to 19th century science journalism and would very likely have been a point of discussion that an early ethnographer would have used to show the "savage" how much more intelligent and knowledgeable he was.

The main reason that we can discount the Dogon claim, however, is simply because there is no indication that they knew of the binary nature of Sirius A/Sirius B prior to the arrival of early ethnographers and anthropologists.

d. The Sphynx has water erosion damage that could not have occured in the Egyptian dessert prior to about 24,000 BC, yet the structure is claimed to have been built with the pyrimids around 2,300 BC.

The erosional damage to the Sphinx is from wind erosion -an erosional force which has been observed on the Sphinx for the last few decades. Moreover, the position of the Nile was such that underground water from seasonal floods very likely infused the sand and rock around the Sphinx which was buried for a time. That's the simple explanation. There are more detailed and technical reports that exist and I can cite a paper or two if you truly want to pursue it further. The construction of the Sphinx was concurrent with the Fourth Dynasty of Egypt.

e. The pyramids align with the three center stars of Orion, as well as with the three volcanos on Mars near Olympus Mons in both size and location.

I'm sure I can find any three points on the surface of a planet and make the claim that there are "alignments" with three of a near infinite choice of stars in the sky. This has no significance assuming that its true or even intentionally done. Moreover, even if a direct correlation can be shown, this correlation can, very easily, be completely coincidental. The "alignment" of three of the many pyramids at Giza were more likely to do with geography, the position of the Nile and hierarchical significance of the rulers to whom they were dedicated.

f. The pyramid vents align with Sirius and Orion around 25,000BC at a time when the Nile river aligns with the visiable arm of the Milky Way galaxy, and the Sphynx (the Lion, Leo) aligns with the constalation Leo. This suggests that the structures were constructed then, and not in 2,300BC, and therefore not by humans.

This alignment, if it truly exists, is more likely to be coincidental since all other data in the region suggests that the Great Pyramid and the other pyramids of Egypt followed a very obvious and easily dated evolution and eventual decline throughout the dynastic period. This bit of "Orion's Belt" bunkdom comes from Bauval and Hancock, who are professional signficance-junkies that exploit the pockets of mystery-mongers who are willing to buy their books. There is no scientifically supported data which show their claims. Indeed, their speculations introduce many, many assumptions that contradict archaeological evidence that *is* scientifically supported and demonstrable.

It isn't even fair to call Bauval and Hancock wrong since this would be elevating their notions to a level higher than they earn on their own merit.

g. The Mahabatra is an Indian religious text that seems to describe a nuclear war waged between opposing factions from other worlds. It accurately describes the components, specifications, and appearances of flying craft and their missile weapons. It also describes how to build an aircraft.

The Mahabharata describes the superstitious beliefs of an ancient culture and how they perceived their gods. Significance-Junkies and Mystery-Mongers have made the giant leap from ancient superstition to modern scientific marvels and inserted their own pareidolic interpretations and anthropomorphic-like ideas into a mythology where it didn't previously exist.

But I'm curious, which passages, specifically, do you find the most convincing of the notion that Vedic authors were describing alien technology?

h. Even with laser technology, humans can still not recreate the structure and metaphysical properties of the Crystal Skulls.

The "crystal skulls" are 19th century forgeries or hoaxes.

i. There are innumerable paintings, cave paintings, artifacts, figurines, and statues that seem to depic astronaut suits, flying craft, and aliens. There are many cave paintings that depics Grey aliens exactly as they are depicted today.

Which of these did you find to be the most convincing? Many like to make example of the depiction of the Maya ruler, K'inich Janaab' Pakal, whose sarcophagus is often incorrectly interpreted as an “astronaut” in his ship’s chair, blasting off to space- instead this is Pakal descending into Xibalba through the mouth of a serpent, a scene consistent with the Popul Vuh.

5. Please help me figure this out, and confirm or deny the legitimacy of any of these points! If it is new to you, even if it is completely bogus, researching it will teach you alot about ancient civilizations.

I hope I've begun to help you find a more rational -truly skeptical- point of view. I must agree that if one takes the time to actually research the claims made by many mystery-mongers and significance-junkies who've made their money publishing books and articles that appeal to the natural human tendency to want to be entertained, astounded, and amazed, one will come away with an education.

But only if you actually do good research. Here are some sources that are of use:

Coe, Michael (1999). The Maya. London: Thames-Hudson

Aldred, Cyril (1987). They Egyptians. London: Thames-Hudson

Pritchard, J. (1956). The Ancient Near East Princeton University Press

Clark, Graham (1977). World Prehistory. Cambridge University Press

Feder, Kenneth (2007). Frauds, Myths and Mysteries Mayfield.

Originally Posted by Arch2008

A type III civilization must by definition use the energy output of all the stars in a galaxy, which in the Milky Way would include our Sun. So they would be here in our solar system living on their Dyson Sphere and not interfering with us, but they would still be here. Cute little aliens that travel trillions of miles to build pyramids and perform anal probes are ridiculous.

If I believe that aliens came here to build the pyramids, then that is a belief. When someone who knows better shows that normal people really built them, then I must accept the truth. If I write books for money to intentionally decieve people with unfounded conjecture, then that is fraud. If scientists present DNA evidence that shows a migration of humans from Asia to the Americas, that's a hypothesis, not just conjecture.

The whole notion of "Type III" is specific invention of the human mind. You can't make an a priori argument out of a definition that is subject to revision. Whatever "very definition" the concept of "Type III civilizations" has is pure speculation.

You're assuming that all advanced species are expansionists who will need inordinate amounts of energy in order to keep their burgeoning populations going. I rather disagree on this point. I don't believe that an expansionist species would be able to avoid nuclear annihilation long enough to even make it into space.

As for the great pyramids, have you ever read the evidence in favor of a purely human construction? It's sketchy.

In the first place, there are smaller pyramids near it, that were not made using gigantic blocks, but used smaller blocks. Therefore, evidence of build sites near the great pyramid prove nothing (they could just as easily have been set up much later to build the smaller pyramids)

To my knowledge, no one anywhere has advanced a reasonable explanation for the near total lack of any hieroglyphics found on the inside of the pyramid itself. I really think there needs to be one. I mean, that really , really, really demands some kind of explanation. Don't you think?

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

The main reason that we can discount the Dogon claim, however, is simply because there is no indication that they knew of the binary nature of Sirius A/Sirius B prior to the arrival of early ethnographers and anthropologists.

Since we're dealing with a probably illiterate tribe here, no evidence *could* exist prior to some anthropologist showing up and writing it down.

But you did a provide a good explanation for why the binary star theory would have been communicated to them by Europeans, and tribes people have a remarkable ability to confuse recent religious views with age old religious views, due to their inability to keep records.

Originally Posted by kojax

As for the great pyramids, have you ever read the evidence in favor of a purely human construction? It's sketchy.

Really? "Sketchy?" If not humans, what, precisely? Crocodiles from the Nile? Birds?

To my knowledge, no one anywhere has advanced a reasonable explanation for the near total lack of any hieroglyphics found on the inside of the pyramid itself. I really think there needs to be one. I mean, that really , really, really demands some kind of explanation. Don't you think?

What, precisely, is significant about the lack of hieroglyphs inside a pyramid and why?

Since we're dealing with a probably illiterate tribe here, no evidence *could* exist prior to some anthropologist showing up and writing it down.

1. There are many non-literate cultures to which we have data regarding their beliefs, knowledge and understanding of the natural world. It generally shows up in their art.

2. Their knowledge of that which they are unable to observe is very, very improbable. A probability to the extent that one can nearly say impossible. To accept the possibility requires the introduction of new assumptions -the kind that have no evidence or precedence.

For instance, if we are to accept that the Dogon knew that Sirius was comprised of a binary star system which can be observed only with a powerful telescope, we then have to assume that the Dogon:

1) invented a telescope, used it to observe Sirius (and not, apparently, the rings of Saturn or the spot on Jupiter), then lost the telescope and somehow remembered the binary nature of Sirius but not the existence of a telescope in their culture,

or 2) that they were told of the binary nature of Sirius.

The second is more probable than the first -until we assume that they were told prior to the 19th century and the advent of a telescope powerful enough to observe Sirius A/Sirius B. In this case, we must assume aliens or a civilization with technology that was somehow able to hide their evidence and not share it with conquerors or those they conquered. More and more assumptions must be introduced in order to maintain such a speculation -just the kind of assumptions that mystery-mongers and significance-junkies feed on with a voracious appetite.

Interestingly ennough, if the "ancient alien astronaut" hypothesis is to be suggested, option 1) above becomes the more parsimonious choice.

But you did a provide a good explanation for why the binary star theory would have been communicated to them by Europeans.

Its an hypothesis and, to my knowledge, there isn't any hard evidence or reliable anecdote to support it. But I'd be willing to bet that one can find evidence of Sirius' binary nature in news reports that coincide with the visitation of ethnographers to the Dogon. There is, however, much evidence for the irresponsible nature of early anthropologists as well as their Eurocentric attitudes, which can be found in the writings of Boas, Levi-Strauss, Malinowski, etc.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

The "crystal skulls" are 19th century forgeries or hoaxes.

You find this article compelling?

The bulk of the author's arguments are that:

1) - Some people have made fakes

2) - Recent pre-columbian technology would be insufficient to make them.

3) - More recent pre-columbian depictions of skulls look different.

4) - None of them have yet been identified with any specific dig site.

#1 is meaningless. It could be used to refute absolutely any archaeological evidence that has ever been found in the history of the profession.


#2 is exactly the OP's point.

From the Article:

British Museum scientist Margaret Sax and I examined the British Museum and Smithsonian skulls under light and scanning electron microscope and conclusively determined that they were carved with relatively modern lapidary equipment, which were unavailable to pre-Columbian Mesoamerican carvers.

The OP is suggesting that someone who had "relatively modern lapidary equipment" did it. They just weren't human.

#3 Again... suggests the non-human origin.

#4 Makes sense if the people who originally found the skulls were looters. They probably wouldn't want to say where they got them, and expose themselves to prosecution under the various laws that prevent the looting of archaeologically valuable sites. (Nor tell the competition where to look for more)

More from the article:

Impressed by their technical excellence and gleaming polish, generations of museum curators and private collectors have been taken in by these objects. But they are too good to be true. If we consider that pre-Columbian lapidaries used stone, bone, wooden, and possibly copper tools with abrasive sand to carve stone, crystal skulls are much too perfectly carved and highly polished to be believed.

Now I have to ask this: why would someone in the 19th century capable of such impressive craftsmanship go to all this trouble, especially knowing that they would have to remain anonymous?

Or a better question: how many people on the face of planet Earth had that much skill at that time in that particular craft, as well as the tools? We could probably find a fairly narrow list of suspects. I imagine that they would probably have crafted other objects that weren't intended as forgeries, and sold them to people who simply appreciated good craftsmanship. Or in other words, I would expect there to be similar crafted items to compare it with, from the 19th century.

Originally Posted by kojax

You find this article compelling?

There is no other, more compelling, explanation.

From the Article:

British Museum scientist Margaret Sax and I examined the British Museum and Smithsonian skulls under light and scanning electron microscope and conclusively determined that they were carved with relatively modern lapidary equipment, which were unavailable to pre-Columbian Mesoamerican carvers.

The OP is suggesting that someone who had "relatively modern lapidary equipment" did it.

i.e. relatively modern people.

They just weren't human.

Tool use among non-humans doesn't include lapidary equipment. Unless you're prepared to show how chimpanzees have traded in their termiting sticks for lathes.

#3 Again... suggests the non-human origin.

And which non-human animals (or plants!?) are you suggesting make a more compelling explanation?

Now I have to ask this: why would someone in the 18th century capable of such impressive craftsmanship go to all this trouble, especially knowing that they would have to remain anonymous?

The craftsmanship isn't particularly impressive. And there is evidence for Victorian hoaxers (i.e. Piltdown, Cardiff Giant, foot prints in Glen Rose, TX, etc.) but there is no evidence of non-humans using lapidary equipment.

I ask you: which is a more parsimonious explanation?

Or a better question: how many people on the face of planet Earth had that much skill at that time in that particular craft, as well as the tools? We could probably find a fairly narrow list of suspects.

This argument is fallacious. Lapidary was not an uncommon practice even in antiquity. Some of the analyses done on the skulls reveal tool marks consistent with the lapidary technology of the 19th century. The proveniences of the skulls begin in the 19th century -none of them have a provenience that can be shown to exist beyond enterprising Europeans or Americans. Not a single example of a "crystal skull" of the type sensationalists herald as evidence of "non-human" technology (whatever that's supposed to mean) has been uncovered by actual archaeologists on actual archaeological excavations.

They're fakes. Hoaxes. If their 19th century creators knew that there were still gullible people being duped by their existence, they'd be content I'm sure.

I imagine that they would probably have crafted other objects that weren't intended as forgeries, and sold them to people who simply appreciated good craftsmanship.

I'm sure they did. Lapidarists generally create jewelry and decorative objects from the stones they work with.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Originally Posted by kojax

You find this article compelling?

There is no other, more compelling, explanation.

From the Article:

British Museum scientist Margaret Sax and I examined the British Museum and Smithsonian skulls under light and scanning electron microscope and conclusively determined that they were carved with relatively modern lapidary equipment, which were unavailable to pre-Columbian Mesoamerican carvers.

The OP is suggesting that someone who had "relatively modern lapidary equipment" did it.

i.e. relatively modern people.

They just weren't human.

Tool use among non-humans doesn't include lapidary equipment. Unless you're prepared to show how chimpanzees have traded in their termiting sticks for lathes.

#3 Again... suggests the non-human origin.

And which non-human animals (or plants!?) are you suggesting make a more compelling explanation?

K. Let me remind you what the title of this thread is (and probably this will give you an idea what kind of creature the OP was suggesting might have crafted it)

"Alien Astronaut Theory (AAT)"

That's kind of straightforward, don't you think? If we're discussing a civilization advanced enough to travel vast distances of space, then we're discussing a civilization advanced enough to know how to use lapidary equipment.

Maybe they left their laser chisel at home and had to improvise?

Now I have to ask this: why would someone in the 18th century capable of such impressive craftsmanship go to all this trouble, especially knowing that they would have to remain anonymous?

The craftsmanship isn't particularly impressive. And there is evidence for Victorian hoaxers (i.e. Piltdown, Cardiff Giant, foot prints in Glen Rose, TX, etc.) but there is no evidence of non-humans using lapidary equipment.

I ask you: which is a more parsimonious explanation?

I guess I was going off of the article.

Originally Posted by http://www.archaeology.org/0805/etc/indy.html

Impressed by their technical excellence and gleaming polish, generations of museum curators and private collectors have been taken in by these objects.

I sort of took that passage to mean that maybe the craftsmanship actually *was* kind of impressive. I suppose I might have misunderstood what the writer was trying to say.

Or a better question: how many people on the face of planet Earth had that much skill at that time in that particular craft, as well as the tools? We could probably find a fairly narrow list of suspects.

This argument is fallacious. Lapidary was not an uncommon practice even in antiquity. Some of the analyses done on the skulls reveal tool marks consistent with the lapidary technology of the 19th century. The proveniences of the skulls begin in the 19th century -none of them have a provenience that can be shown to exist beyond enterprising Europeans or Americans. Not a single example of a "crystal skull" of the type sensationalists herald as evidence of "non-human" technology (whatever that's supposed to mean) has been uncovered by actual archaeologists on actual archaeological excavations.

They're fakes. Hoaxes. If their 19th century creators knew that there were still gullible people being duped by their existence, they'd be content I'm sure.

I imagine that they would probably have crafted other objects that weren't intended as forgeries, and sold them to people who simply appreciated good craftsmanship.

I'm sure they did. Lapidarists generally create jewelry and decorative objects from the stones they work with.

Perhaps I read too much into the quality of workmanship issue. Obviously the skulls don't prove anything if it would be a simple matter for someone to make a similarly convincing skull using lapidary equipment in the 18th century.

I think the problem I have with this line of reasoning is that it typically doesn't seem to cut both ways. The accepted theories are automatically assumed to be utterly devoid of any possibility of forgery, even when large parts of the evidence presented are susceptible to forgery.

It seems to just be a wonderful coincidence that the majority of views accepted by this community *just so happen* to always be the most flattering interpretation possible, from the perspective of the political entities that control the dig sites (if their goal were to benefit from history that instills a sense of pride in their people.)

For example: the reason I can't say that nobody ever found any hieroglyphics inside the Great Pyramid of Giza is because one single British explorer blasted his way into the attic above the room considered to hold the sarcophagus, and claimed to find a handful of hieroglyphic symbols written in a sort of paint on some of the stones up there.

No reputable archaeologist seems to seriously consider whether maybe the guy just wanted funding, nor does anyone appear to have subjected the paint to any kind of carbon dating to see if maybe he just drew them there.


http://www.rickrichards.com/egypt/Egypt6.htm

Obviously this0 site isn't fully certified with anybody respectable, but it does raise some interesting points. I suppose I should also try and see if I can find any sources that explain to my why I *should* believe the cartouches aren't forgeries, so as not to be biased, and I think I will.

However: the fact these are the only known hieroglyphs inside the whole structure, and they're found in a relieving chamber that one would have to use dynamite in order to enter (and read them), kind of makes me wonder about the "Khufu built it in 23 years." story.

Originally Posted by kojax

K. Let me remind you what the title of this thread is (and probably this will give you an idea what kind of creature the OP was suggesting might have crafted it)

"Alien Astronaut Theory (AAT)"

I remember the title. I just want to make sure I understand what you mean by "non-human." The injection of this term is, perhaps intentionally, ambiguous. What your suggesting, then, is space-aliens.

Except there are no good reasons put forth to make the giant leap to space aliens -and that is the point I'm trying to make. There are far, far more compelling explanations that introduce far, far fewer new assumptions about what we know.

If we're discussing a civilization advanced enough to travel vast distances of space, then we're discussing a civilization advanced enough to know how to use lapidary equipment.

But we're not discussing a civilization advanced enough to travel "vast distances" (and, given the size and scope of the universe, this would be no trivial feat!). We're discussing 19th century lapidary techniques found on skulls that were discovered in the 19th century. The OP is discussing alleged mysteries that aren't actually all that mysterious. And, with an argument from ignorance, the OP makes the leap to space aliens because of a perceived mystery and a perceived significance.

Maybe they left their laser chisel at home and had to improvise?

Wild speculations like this aren't useful. We can suppose many things and thus lead off with "maybe" ad infinitum. So why bother?

Now I have to ask this: why would someone in the 18th century capable of such impressive craftsmanship go to all this trouble, especially knowing that they would have to remain anonymous?

The craftsmanship isn't particularly impressive. And there is evidence for Victorian hoaxers (i.e. Piltdown, Cardiff Giant, foot prints in Glen Rose, TX, etc.) but there is no evidence of non-humans using lapidary equipment.

I ask you: which is a more parsimonious explanation?

I guess I was going off of the article.

The author may have been impressed with one or more aspects of the skulls. I'm not. Art is funny that way. Some are impressed -some aren't. I found nothing impressive with the craftsmanship when you consider it in the context of 19th century lapidary. There are much better works that were done merely for the love of artistic expression.

But the quote you zero in on in the article isn't actually even the author's personal opinion. Moreover, it's not in the context of 19th century lapidary but, rather, from the context of museum curators who incorrectly assumed (taking the word of hoaxers who perhaps were turning a profit at their expense) that the artifacts were "pre-Columbian." If an example of a crystal skull could be excavated by professional archaeologists that can be shown to be of a pre-Columbian stratagraphic level, then even *I* would be impressed.

But as works of 19th century lapidary, I'm no more impressed than I am over a nice piece of carnival glass.

I sort of took that passage to mean that maybe the craftsmanship actually *was* kind of impressive. I suppose I might have misunderstood what the writer was trying to say.

Read it again now that you've read my paragraphs above and I think you'll see that you did, indeed, misunderstand the author.

Perhaps I read too much into the quality of workmanship issue. Obviously the skulls don't prove anything if it would be a simple matter for someone to make a similarly convincing skull using lapidary equipment in the 18th century.

I think the problem I have with this line of reasoning is that it typically doesn't seem to cut both ways. The accepted theories are automatically assumed to be utterly devoid of any possibility of forgery, even when large parts of the evidence presented are susceptible to forgery.

I'm not sure I follow correctly what you're suggesting here, but if I am, then you're wondering why scientific archaeological methods don't encounter the same skepticism as questionable artifacts of little or no provenience which are also encumbered by fantastic claims or significance.

This is a legitimate question to which there are many answers. For one, artifacts without documented provenience are immediately questionable and necessarily so. Where did it come from? What stratum? When? What position was it in in the ground? What are the over- and underlying strata? etc.

For another, archaeologists rarely work alone. They are generally working in teams and the excavation of an artifact is one that is painstakingly documented and eventually removed. If the artifact is of significance (i.e. intact ceramics, funerary goods, a cache of obsidian lithics, etc.) then there are going to be many photographs taken during the excavation, diagrams written, and witnesses/participants to removing it from the ground.

Moreover, the archaeologists themselves have deserved authority and legitimacy if by the mere fact that they are educated and trained. This, of course, doesn't eliminate human tendencies to be greedy, ambitious, or deceptive -but it does offer a bit more credibility than untrained and amateur looters and antiquarians who are motivated not by knowledge but by profit and sensation.

In addition, archaeologists seek to replicate and reproduce results as well as to make predictions that are confirmed -this is part of the scientific method. With this in mind, the discoveries of archaeology are often made available to peers who often have competing hypotheses that they wish to see confirmed. This sort of peer review can be merciless in science and, particularly, in the field of archaeology as I've witnessed first hand. The knowledge of this alone keeps archaeologists on their toes and they are very careful about the claims they make. The hypothesis is tested and retested -they intentionally seek to find data that will fail their hypotheses before going public.

For example: the reason I can't say that nobody ever found any hieroglyphics inside the Great Pyramid of Giza is because one single British explorer blasted his way into the attic above the room considered to hold the sarcophagus, and claimed to find a handful of hieroglyphic symbols written in a sort of paint on some of the stones up there.

I'm still unsure as to what the significance is supposed to be about the lack of hieroglyphics in the Great Pyramid to begin with. The real question might be why are their hieroglyphs in other tombs and temples.

No reputable archaeologist seems to seriously consider whether maybe the guy just wanted funding, nor does anyone appear to have subjected the paint to any kind of carbon dating to see if maybe he just drew them there.

Beyond me, how many "reputable archaeologists" do you know?

Obviously this0 site isn't fully certified with anybody respectable, but it does raise some interesting points. I suppose I should also try and see if I can find any sources that explain to my why I *should* believe the cartouches aren't forgeries, so as not to be biased, and I think I will.

Admittedly, the webpage linked has an interesting point with regard to the cartouche -though I fail to see why its significant in an attempt to introduce a discussion on space aliens. The author of the site seems to be suggesting that because the cartouche in the notebook of Howard Vyse has an error that the conclusion, therefore, is that the cartouche on the wall is wrong. I found it difficult to follow the author's point to be honest. Regardless, I fail to see what relevance this has overall.

However: the fact these are the only known hieroglyphs inside the whole structure, and they're found in a relieving chamber that one would have to use dynamite in order to enter (and read them), kind of makes me wonder about the "Khufu built it in 23 years." story.

Perhaps you've answered your own query. Clearly there is some sort of significance to you that there are no writings within the some of the tombs of Giza. Tombs where light was limited and audience absent (with exception to the gods/pharaohs who ostensibly knew already the information on the writings. But the real question, as I mentioned earlier, is why are their writings in later tombs.

The knowledge that the tombs at Giza were filled with treasures was common during the Dynastic periods of Egypt. This is why later pharaohs were interred in elaborate, hidden tombs with their wealth. Many of these tombs contained inscriptions -but some also did not. Nearly all were looted in antiquity. Exceptions being a few lucky rulers like Tutankhamen.

Still, its not clear how the irresponsible use of dynamite by an antiquarian makes you question the length of time Khufu had to build the tomb. Each of the three main pyramids in Giza were built during the reigns of their intendeds. It may not have been 23 years (perhaps it was 30; perhaps it was 20), but roughly two decades of construction is consistent with timbers dated within the tombs, texts written about the period, and the resources involved. It couldn't have been much less than two decades due to the labor and resources involved; it couldn't have been much more due to the project's function: a memorial and tomb to the ruler.

okay I think I get it now this person is using skepticism, that trendy new movement that really doesn't offer anything different from what regular scientific thought should, to comment on things to justify, through a LACK OF EVIDENCE, the existence of aliens?

right?

Originally Posted by skinwalker

If we're discussing a civilization advanced enough to travel vast distances of space, then we're discussing a civilization advanced enough to know how to use lapidary equipment.

But we're not discussing a civilization advanced enough to travel "vast distances" (and, given the size and scope of the universe, this would be no trivial feat!). We're discussing 19th century lapidary techniques found on skulls that were discovered in the 19th century. The OP is discussing alleged mysteries that aren't actually all that mysterious. And, with an argument from ignorance, the OP makes the leap to space aliens because of a perceived mystery and a perceived significance.

That's what you're discussing, yes.

I suppose my question was just how exceptional a crystal skull would be from the perspective of mid 19th century lapidary technology. Probably what convinces people most often is their belief that glass workers can't work in crystal.

.... and that's admittedly ridiculous. Come to think of it, where would we get crystal glasses to drink out of, if crystal working was so difficult?

From that perspective, the crystal skulls could very well be a hoax. The main determinant for me in deciding whether to believe in a forgery is to ask myself: how easy would it be to forge?

Maybe they left their laser chisel at home and had to improvise?

Wild speculations like this aren't useful. We can suppose many things and thus lead off with "maybe" ad infinitum. So why bother?

Well, I was mostly just being sarcastic.

However, if you imagine what it would be like for a group of Americans landing a boat on an island full of primitive natives, .... it's most likely they wouldn't have all the tools of their advanced civilization with them.

Perhaps I read too much into the quality of workmanship issue. Obviously the skulls don't prove anything if it would be a simple matter for someone to make a similarly convincing skull using lapidary equipment in the 18th century.

I think the problem I have with this line of reasoning is that it typically doesn't seem to cut both ways. The accepted theories are automatically assumed to be utterly devoid of any possibility of forgery, even when large parts of the evidence presented are susceptible to forgery.

I'm not sure I follow correctly what you're suggesting here, but if I am, then you're wondering why scientific archaeological methods don't encounter the same skepticism as questionable artifacts of little or no provenience which are also encumbered by fantastic claims or significance.

This is a legitimate question to which there are many answers. For one, artifacts without documented provenience are immediately questionable and necessarily so. Where did it come from? What stratum? When? What position was it in in the ground? What are the over- and underlying strata? etc.

For another, archaeologists rarely work alone. They are generally working in teams and the excavation of an artifact is one that is painstakingly documented and eventually removed. If the artifact is of significance (i.e. intact ceramics, funerary goods, a cache of obsidian lithics, etc.) then there are going to be many photographs taken during the excavation, diagrams written, and witnesses/participants to removing it from the ground.

Moreover, the archaeologists themselves have deserved authority and legitimacy if by the mere fact that they are educated and trained. This, of course, doesn't eliminate human tendencies to be greedy, ambitious, or deceptive -but it does offer a bit more credibility than untrained and amateur looters and antiquarians who are motivated not by knowledge but by profit and sensation.

In addition, archaeologists seek to replicate and reproduce results as well as to make predictions that are confirmed -this is part of the scientific method. With this in mind, the discoveries of archaeology are often made available to peers who often have competing hypotheses that they wish to see confirmed. This sort of peer review can be merciless in science and, particularly, in the field of archaeology as I've witnessed first hand. The knowledge of this alone keeps archaeologists on their toes and they are very careful about the claims they make. The hypothesis is tested and retested -they intentionally seek to find data that will fail their hypotheses before going public.

This is true, but they're also on the leash of a very unscientific group of people who fund their projects and set the legal boundaries. The Egyptian government wants to hear, and tell its people, that the official story is true.

The version of history they need told is that: not only could the Egyptians known to recent (comparatively recent) history have built the Great Pyramid on their own, but they could do it in 23 years even. Wow, that's a pretty impressive legacy! I can see why it would be an insult to the common people of Egypt to tell them they had to give that up. (And I can also see why the government would be motivated by a desire not to upset them)

An archaeologist who advanced an alternative theory, unless they had infinity strong evidence, would not only shorten his/her career, but be seen as doing a great disservice to science by motivating the government to shut off dig sites.

If they can even make out the case, using the most thread bare evidence, that the Khufu story is accurate, the government of Egypt will embrace them with open arms.

So, the "Please: tell my people they're exceptional." motivation can't be discounted, because it certainly slants the burden of evidence. Nobody wants to tear into anyone else's cultural pride.

For example: the reason I can't say that nobody ever found any hieroglyphics inside the Great Pyramid of Giza is because one single British explorer blasted his way into the attic above the room considered to hold the sarcophagus, and claimed to find a handful of hieroglyphic symbols written in a sort of paint on some of the stones up there.

I'm still unsure as to what the significance is supposed to be about the lack of hieroglyphics in the Great Pyramid to begin with. The real question might be why are their hieroglyphs in other tombs and temples.

So are you suggesting that it's really hit and miss, which ones will be carved with hieroglyphs and which ones won't? Some of the very most ancient sites, ones that were simply cut into caves, have baffled archaeologists with questions of how, exactly, light had been brought down so far into the ground without leaving any soot from candles.

I might not have read about other tombs that were un-marked inside. I had the impression that most of them had spells inscribed, if nothing else.

No reputable archaeologist seems to seriously consider whether maybe the guy just wanted funding, nor does anyone appear to have subjected the paint to any kind of carbon dating to see if maybe he just drew them there.

Beyond me, how many "reputable archaeologists" do you know?

I mean that I find it somewhat difficult to find literature that seriously approaches the question, and comes from a reputable source. It could be that it's not considered a question at all, but I'd like to know why it's not.

I'm starting to see one commonality in alternative science vs. respectable science. The alternative folk are more willing to lay their data out in an easily access sort of way.

I wish I could find a site that compiles all the data in favor of Khufu building the pyramid. Instead of the "You should believe me because I said." kind of attitude that mainstream archaeology seems to put forward, I'd prefer to hear : "You should believe me, and here's a good (yet complete) summary of the evidence."

Treating people like a lawyer might treat a jury in court allows for some sensationalism, but it also allows people to make up their own mind.

The knowledge that the tombs at Giza were filled with treasures was common during the Dynastic periods of Egypt. This is why later pharaohs were interred in elaborate, hidden tombs with their wealth. Many of these tombs contained inscriptions -but some also did not. Nearly all were looted in antiquity. Exceptions being a few lucky rulers like Tutankhamen.

That seems to answer my question. The suggestion is that many pharaohs had un-inscribed tombs, right? (Not just 3)

Did any pharaohs who built small block pyramids have un-inscribed tombs?

Also: how do we know the un-inscribed tombs belonged to pharaohs, if they're un-inscribed? Is there an official account somewhere, like there is for the 3 main pyramids at Giza?

I know this thread is about the early civilization and the role aliens might have played but some people are arguing on the existence of aliens and this must be overcome before discussing their role, so I'm going to discuss this a little and describe how they fit in with early civilization. The main points so far are:

1-The universe is huge and the chances of them visiting Earth is slim
2-If a type III civilization existed we would notice them
3-They would have trouble communicating with us
4-They would require resistance to the germs on Earth

First of all, we are just taking our baby steps as a civilization and we can't assume we know the workings of a type III civilization. Secondly, the existence of aliens is no longer a mystery, do some freaking research, they exist. NASA has admitted to the existence of unidentified objects in space, some NASA footage even shows such crafts leaving the Earths atmosphere. Professionals are unable to explain such events and come to the conclusion that they are highly quantized crafts. They can get up to 3 nautical miles wide, and can travel at ridiculous speeds. 62 children all witnessed the landing of a UFO and the aliens that got out of the craft. The children claim the aliens were telepathically trying to warn them of something but that's getting off topic. A man recently claimed to have been abducted by aliens, he also claims that they implanted a microchip of some sort inside him. Professionals soon found the device inside him and began testing it. It was found to contain isotopes never seen before by man kind. Has a secret quantum/particle physics compartment of the Government been developing such isotopes for use in microchips and implanting them in people or have aliens done it? Well unless the Government try to act like aliens in hope of keeping in the dark, I don't think it was the Government. Search up all of these occurrences if you question my credibility, they are fact.

1.
So the first question is why would they visit Earth and how likely is it? The universe is infinite, you might picture it as a sphere, expanding since the big bang. So what happens when I get to the edge of the universe, go past it and start exploring nothingness, I will eventually find another universe. Time did not start with the big bang, that is the start of our universes expansion, time is infinite and I obviously can't prove that but consider this: First we were the center of the universe, then our sun was the center of the universe, now our universe depicts the start of time...hmmm. My point is, given infinite space and time anything can occur. It is the premises of life. An infinite amount of life forms exist out there, chances are one will discover Earth.

2.
Do you really think a type III civilization wouldn't have the technology to stay hidden. You ask why would they hide themselves? Well I'm going to give to 2 answers to this question: #1 They are observing us. #2 They realize we are not ready to become part of a galactic civilization, we are primitive, we kill each other for god's sake! Until we wise up, they are doing themselves a favor keeping hidden but they cannot remain perfectly hidden and we now know they exist. My personal theory is that they came to Earth long ago and genetically created us from apes, this is scientifically backed up. The missing chromosomes, the lack of a middle man (the stage in between primates and modern humans). We are their grand experiment, a genetic combination of themselves and us. So if they are so advanced, wouldn't we notice their huge infrastructure? Again I will give 3 answers: #1 They live in an entirely different universe. #2 They are able to make the infrastructure invisible, it is all highly quantized, visible only with cameras that can pick up electromagnetic frequencies out of the visible light spectrum. #3 They extract zero-point energy from the quantum foam so there is no need for massive energy producing machines.

3.
They would have absolutely no trouble communicating with us. They could learn all the languages of Earth in the blink of an eye, but I'm sure they already know all the languages, they have been observing us since they created us. They don't speak vocally, they talk telepathically, and can talk telepathically to humans, although we must respond vocally.

4.
I'm not going to get started on this, there's a thousand ways they might achieve this, genetic manipulation of themselves, an atmospheric shield or they might just exist as higher beings, rid of a physical body and the need for physical necessities, beings made of pure energy, able to change into any form they want to take, they can even look "real" and solid if they like. In natural form they might look like a ghost. This paragraph is all speculation, as is a lot of this post but I think you get point, they are much more advanced than us, we are just variables in their experiment.

We are not alone!

It's really funny to me when people try to put limits on high technology, especially when those limitations fly in the face of the technological trends we've observed in our own society.

Limits that make me laugh:

1) - Language

Only possible if you assume that their computers are as primitive as ours. If they're more advanced, then they'll have the ability to simply have their computer analyze our conversations, detect patterns, and prepare a complete translation for them.


2) - Stealth

Only if you assume our stealth fighters are beyond them.

3) - Physiology

Only if you assume they don't know about DNA. The current state of human DNA technology allows us to grow bypass veins in the leg of a person who's natural veins have given out. We're able to grow organs from one animal on another animal, by splicing.

If an alien with gills instead of lungs wanted to cut off their gills, and grow lungs, what do honestly believe would stop them? Is there any real limit we can place on an advanced species' environmental adaptability?


If you want to propose technical barriers, propose something that's impossible in principle, not just stuff that we humans haven't fully mastered.

Originally Posted by kojax

technical barriers

I agree with everything you're said. Most technical barriers I think would be self-imposed by the alien life itself.

What is life? It's a repeating pattern, that evolves. The aliens (the pattern) must come to terms with this. Is it willing to spread out, evolving/diverging any which way, and fold back a billion years later unrecognizable and possibly hostile to the home planet's inhabitants? In other words are they going to let themselves "go wild"? I don't think so. I think they'll ensure that some fundamental qualities of their pattern (identity) cannot change no matter what. The aliens would isolate just what it is about themselves that's so special, and package that for perpetuity and replication. To that end I'd suggest a living vehicle that evolves so they don't have to change much. The vehicle could take radically different forms as appropriate but always depend on the original alien pattern it carries. Break that pattern, the vehicle grinds to a halt.

I imagine the pattern would be infinitely scalable too, in either direction. So our aliens might "hop down" to a very subatomic level, then "hop back up" someplace else at a molecular or galactic etc. level... whatever suits the place and time. It's debatable who's really in control here, but the means do guarantee the objective.

There's an exercise in sustained understatement. :wink:

Here's a timeframe I kinda got from the people who are advocating this idea:

1. People (I'm including ancestors)
2. People making tools
3. People are limited apparently but can innovate in a convenient way for this idea
4. Aliens
5. People are now unlimited

By way of analogy, it's like saying:

1. Get in car
2. Start car
3. You know how to start the car but apparently not how to drive it
3. Aliens
4. Car becomes a spaceship and then everyone wins

Am I reading this right?

Not quite - they're saying aliens intervened soon after the last ice age. So your primitive who thinks slung stones are high tech weapons is post alien.

yeah well just replace 'people making tools' with 'glaciers go away for the most part' and it's bang on.


I sometimes really hate how there is tangible reason for the saying "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence" to be scientifically silly.

There are a number of different variations on the idea. They don't all involve aliens creating us.


There are a few theories;

1)- The pre-flood bible theory.

Some aliens decided to join human civilization, and actually take wives and breed and such (which was forbidden under inter-galactic law because they were immortal and therefore didn't have the right to reproduce)

If they have the technology to change their own genetic structure in any way they see fit, then they could give themselves human bodies, so the offspring probably wouldn't have any non-human DNA.

The flood, then, becomes they means by which the inter-galactic legal body fixed the problem, raising the water levels world wide to a height great enough to permanently cover the majority of homo-sapien settlements. (Probably most agricultural communities were set up at low altitude, where there was better weather.)


2) - The aliens created us theory.

Provides an explanation for the apparently sudden rise of homo-sapiens. Prior to the end of the last ice age, it's apparently very hard to find any homo sapiens bones. All people seem able to find is erectus and neanderthal.

One theory I saw described on the Science Channel was that the way sapiens came to inhabit all the islands of the pacific was that the erectus living on those islands were separately, and independently evolving into sapiens. It was the only way they could think of to explain the lack of any sapiens fossils from prior to the ice age, on those islands.


3) - The aliens may have visited, but didn't do much theory

They've always been visiting, from time to time, and leaving us more or less alone. We're an inter-galactic wild life preserve. They watch us the way we might watch lions in Africa.

4) - The aliens visited to harvest platinum (and maybe some other things) and then left, theory.

Aliens showed up very early in human history, taught us just enough so that we'd make useful mine workers, and then convinced us to go mine minerals to give the "gods" as gifts.

This theory might also involve a bit of "animal husbandry" practiced on humans (who to an alien probably seems as dumb as animals seem to us), which might have rapidly accelerated our evolution, in the same sense as how breeding horses has lead to some interesting breeds.

5) - (my favorite) The aliens are looking for philosophical truth, theory.

Maybe they watch us, and mold us, as a sort of social experiment that would be too dangerous to carry out on themselves. We're genetically positioned just between animal and sentient, able to lose control of our emotions and do stupid/rash things that they can't afford to allow themselves to do.

Their advanced technology simply makes it too dangerous to allow themselves to really live life like we do. So, they watch us to see if we'll show them that maybe there's some way they could allow themselves a little more emotion without blowing up the whole galaxy.

I'm not a scientist of any sort. Just an observer. What I don't understand is that whenever we approach this subject, it's always about some other alien race that has helped us in our development. (?????) Why do we always consider ourselves so important? Why do we never discuss that maybe we are just a planet that developed the way the planets develop? There are at least 125 billion galaxies...why do we consider ourselves so important that another planet would go out of it's way to help us develop? Who even said we need help to develop?

I've been considering this point and I would like help to flesh it out. If we assume that UFOs are real and flown by real beings, then the obvious question (to me) is: how did they find this planet? It's really such a small thing on the edge of the milky way that doesn't even look blue from the slightest distance...how did they find it? who made the maps that makes is possible to visit this planet and return to their own planets? Since they have craft that are supeior to ours, why don't they invade? Is there a government in existance in the solar system, universe, galaxy, as we know it? But then, who even said these beings can withstand our sun, gravity, etc?

I've read a story that an alien landed in England and talked to a woman. How is that even possible? How did this alien learn english? Since he spoke to this woman, is that so say his planet is like ours? After all, we communicate the way we do as a direct result of our atmosphere, our gravity, our sun. Without oxygen, we cannot talk. So how is it that this being came to the earth and used his vocal cords to speak english? Seems a bit silly to me.

Anyway, I hope we can all start a sane conversation on this topic.

Best Wishes.

Chris.

Originally Posted by lkpuede

I'm not a scientist of any sort. Just an observer. What I don't understand is that whenever we approach this subject, it's always about some other alien race that has helped us in our development. (?????)

That is not strictly true. It is a point that is often expressed by conmen out to make some money by exploiting gullible people, or by persons who are marginally sane. It is not a point made by many who have made a serious study of the possibility of intelligent alien life.

Originally Posted by lkpuede

Why do we never discuss that maybe we are just a planet that developed the way the planets develop?

That would be the way sane, honest, educated persons do discuss the matter.

Originally Posted by lkpuede

There are at least 125 billion galaxies...why do we consider ourselves so important that another planet would go out of it's way to help us develop?

What makes you think it would have to go out of its way to help us develop? If they were far, far in advance of us the effort required to deliver that help could be equivalent of us to giving a dollar to a beggar.

Originally Posted by lkpuede

If we assume that UFOs are real and flown by real beings, then the obvious question (to me) is: how did they find this planet?

Easily. With our primitive technology we are about to be able to detect Earth sized planets around neaby stars and to identify those which have water or oxygen rich chemistries. For an advanced alien civilisation it would be no problem at all. Self replicating automated scout vessels (google von neumann probe)could have surveyed the galaxy and identified interesting planets.

Originally Posted by lkpuede

Since they have craft that are supeior to ours, why don't they invade?

If I have a better lawn mower than you it doesn't mean I shall take over your lawn. Why would it?

Originally Posted by lkpuede

I've read a story that an alien landed in England and talked to a woman. How is that even possible? How did this alien learn english?.

Firstly, it is a story that is almost certainly pure fiction. However, how did we decipher ancient languages? That is a much greater trick than learning through observation of how words are used. You even managed to do it when you were less than two years old.

Originally Posted by lkpuede

After all, we communicate the way we do as a direct result of our atmosphere, our gravity, our sun. Without oxygen, we cannot talk. So how is it that this being came to the earth and used his vocal cords to speak english? .

How do you know he used his vocal cords? If he had vocal chords (let's pretend it was a true story) then he very likely came from a planet not disimilar to ours, else he would not have had vocal chords.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Originally Posted by kojax

K. Let me remind you what the title of this thread is (and probably this will give you an idea what kind of creature the OP was suggesting might have crafted it)

"Alien Astronaut Theory (AAT)"

I remember the title. I just want to make sure I understand what you mean by "non-human." The injection of this term is, perhaps intentionally, ambiguous. What your suggesting, then, is space-aliens.

Except there are no good reasons put forth to make the giant leap to space aliens -and that is the point I'm trying to make. There are far, far more compelling explanations that introduce far, far fewer new assumptions about what we know.

That's a lot of the core of the disagreement right there. Not everyone sees it as a great big jump. If the crystal skulls were to be considered, all by themselves, by a person who's initially totally skeptical of the existence of alien visitors, then it would be a grand jump.

If you're already close to believing in the existence of the visitors, the skulls are just one more thing that might tip you further in that direction.

Hmmm...

I hate when I see a thread late that I would have loved to join when it was still recent and active. Either way...

Let me say I completely believe in this possiblity. To what degree? A lot of things in this thread are very interesting. The crystal skull, the pyramids, ancient languages, and everything else. There is also the city that really boggles a lot of professionals. I can't think of the name right now but its the city that has all kinds of things about it that make no sense. I'll have to look that up later.

As some said here our universe is huge with over a hundred billion galaxies. That is flat out insane. Think of how many planets, how many types of possible life. I guess what I am saying is that I think there are clues that we have had alien astronauts here before. It only makes sense. Now I think that at best they might have did nothing but look and leave up to using early man for their benefit. If we were so advanced to travel the universe so easy and found a race of two headed, soft click noise making, giants, that overly populated a world. Say on this planet they had a very basic and rare mineral or better yet we got lost and needed repairs. We could easily either enslave or trick this primative race of giants into doing what we needed. How hard would it be into fooling them we were Gods? We could observe or get what we needed and then attempt to cover up our tracks.

Logically, after some point in time, as the giants became smarter they would discover the evidence and make speculations or maybe even figure out solid proof. But why would we care? We got what we needed and left. We didn't affect them in any way, so what was the big deal?

So that is my thinking, although I have my own mixed beliefs. Who is to say that other life forms do not have the ability to find life infested worlds? Who is to say that they planeted or helped some or most of them? Finally, accidents do happen, we could have been found purely by mistake. I firmly believe that if we make it into a type 1 civilization one day we will find out. We do not have all of the answers.

Janus posted something interesting when I was asking about the possibility of mining asteroids in space over on the Astronomy forum:

http://www.thescienceforum.com/Minin...ids-19453t.php

Originally Posted by Janus

Originally Posted by kojax

.... as well as Mars, and some small moons. Supposing we can get the logistics all out of the way first, what raw materials would we actually find out there?

Are there predicted to be any rare Earth elements like Gold, or Platinum, or Uranium up there? Would it be a good place to find iron?

Iron would probably be you best bet on the asteroids. While there would probably be some of the rare elements, there would not be the geothermal and other processes that form actual deposits, so they would likely be harder to mine. Mars has had some activity of this type, so deposits might have formed there.

This implies that, if a group of aliens were after rare metals like Platinum and Uranium, their best mining options would be heavy gravity wells.

Now... supposing you find one that already has semi-intelligent life on it, especially if it's a species that is easily convinced to worship you, wouldn't it seem prudent to use them as the mine workers? You're crossing vast distances of space, so I don't think you can afford to bring a lot of heavy machinery with you. Low tech can be better than high tech in some situations, if it's cheaper to set up, and still gets the job done.

^^^^ I agree whole heartingly.

This is exactly what I would do. Even with our limited intelligence on this matter. I don't see anything horrible about this. They wouldn't give us any over the top information, skills, abilites, or knowledge that would make us overpowered.

Originally Posted by kojax

This implies that, if a group of aliens were after rare metals like Platinum and Uranium, their best mining options would be heavy gravity wells.

Why? Those elements are formed in stars and supernovas and thus found in asteroids and low-gravity planets in abundance. There's no particular reason why a high gravity planet like Earth would have them in greater abundance and if anything the high mass, large radius and high geological activity of Earth will tend to result in a lot of the heavy elements ending up very far below the surface and thus awkwardly inaccessible.

There just aren't that many plausible reasons for an alien intelligence to be interested in Earth's resources when there's a chemically very similar solar system worth out there. Given that we're talking about a species with the technology level required to travel interstellar distances, I really doubt mine workers or even the need for handy deposits are major considerations.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by kojax

This implies that, if a group of aliens were after rare metals like Platinum and Uranium, their best mining options would be heavy gravity wells.

Why? Those elements are formed in stars and supernovas and thus found in asteroids and low-gravity planets in abundance. There's no particular reason why a high gravity planet like Earth would have them in greater abundance and if anything the high mass, large radius and high geological activity of Earth will tend to result in a lot of the heavy elements ending up very far below the surface and thus awkwardly inaccessible.

According to Janus, uranium may occur with the same frequency everywhere, but it only clumps together to form deposits on planets with a lot of geothermal activity.

Originally Posted by wiki on Uranium, biotic and abiotic section

Uranium's average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million,[6][10] or about 40 times as abundant as silver.[7] The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 1017 kg (2 × 1017 lb) of uranium while the oceans may contain 1013 kg (2 × 1013 lb).[6] The concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of phosphate fertilizers), and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts per billion.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium

See what I'm saying? Unless the aliens want to pulverize an asteroid, and then filter through every grain of dust trying to get those 0.7-11.0 parts per million out of the rock, they need to find a planet with enough geothermal activity on it so that some deposits will have formed naturally.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by kojax

This implies that, if a group of aliens were after rare metals like Platinum and Uranium, their best mining options would be heavy gravity wells.

Why? Those elements are formed in stars and supernovas and thus found in asteroids and low-gravity planets in abundance. There's no particular reason why a high gravity planet like Earth would have them in greater abundance and if anything the high mass, large radius and high geological activity of Earth will tend to result in a lot of the heavy elements ending up very far below the surface and thus awkwardly inaccessible.

According to Janus, uranium may occur with the same frequency everywhere, but it only clumps together to form deposits on planets with a lot of geothermal activity.

Originally Posted by wiki on Uranium, biotic and abiotic section

Uranium's average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million,[6][10] or about 40 times as abundant as silver.[7] The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 1017 kg (2 × 1017 lb) of uranium while the oceans may contain 1013 kg (2 × 1013 lb).[6] The concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of phosphate fertilizers), and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts per billion.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium

See what I'm saying? Unless the aliens want to pulverize an asteroid, and then filter through every grain of dust trying to get those 0.7-11.0 parts per million out of the rock, they need to find a planet with enough geothermal activity on it so that some deposits will have formed naturally.

Why would they have to filter anything? You're bound to have differentiation of materials on Mercury, Venus, Mars, Ceres, Vesta, Pluto, Eris, the other 40 odd dwarf planets, 300 odd moons and probably on any asteroid which was formed from the disintegration of a larger body. That means deposits of countless low gravity bodies within easy reach.

And if not, then the thing to do is to pulverise the rock, melt it down and the centrifuge out whatever you want. Basically doing what heat, pressure and gravity does in a planet. Not easy for sure, but I'd have thought pulverising a bunch of small asteroids, melting the rubble and centrifuging the hell out of it would be far, far easier than going to the only inhabited planet in the system, eliminating/enslaving its population and then digging underground before shooting the uranium out of the gravity well. And we're talking about the strongest gravity well in the system bar the gas giants. As I say, even the scenario you suggest seems unlikely since a body need only have been geologically active in the past for deposits to form. And there are loads of such bodies. Possibly thousands in our system.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

And if not, then the thing to do is to pulverise the rock, melt it down and the centrifuge out whatever you want. Basically doing what heat, pressure and gravity does in a planet. Not easy for sure, but I'd have thought pulverising a bunch of small asteroids, melting the rubble and centrifuging the hell out of it would be far, far easier than going to the only inhabited planet in the system,...

Easier? Maybe, if you've brought sufficiently powerful/large centrifuges with you, and something to contain the molten mixture after you melt it. You might also need some very large mirrors to focus enough sunlight to melt it. I don't know how much of that you could get from in-situ materials, and how much you'd have to bring.

eliminating/enslaving its population

These aliens aren't going to be stupid club bearing morons. If their computer tech is very advanced, then they could easily program their onboard computer to start observing and listening to conversations, then translate the language it hears into alien speak (and back, if the aliens want to talk).

The natives would gladly trade their labor voluntarily, in exchange for trinkets the aliens know how to make for them, or because they think the aliens are gods. There's no reason the aliens need consider enslaving or killing off anybody.

Or, in the modern world, you could use advanced analysis to play the stock market, then buy the uranium from humans who are gladly busy mining it for a pay check. (I'm sure our stock market is pathetically simple to them) Weight/mass might be a bit of an issue in interstellar flight. When compared with refining machinery, computers weigh very little, and diplomacy is free.

and then digging underground before shooting the uranium out of the gravity well. And we're talking about the strongest gravity well in the system bar the gas giants. As I say, even the scenario you suggest seems unlikely since a body need only have been geologically active in the past for deposits to form. And there are loads of such bodies. Possibly thousands in our system.

If uranium based fission is the power source on their ship, then escaping our gravity well would be negligibly easy. Nasa isn't allowed to go that way because people are too scared of a meltdown, and the early designs were too radioactive to allow a human crew.

Originally Posted by kojax

Easier? Maybe, if you've brought sufficiently powerful/large centrifuges with you, and something to contain the molten mixture after you melt it. You might also need some very large mirrors to focus enough sunlight to melt it. I don't know how much of that you could get from in-situ materials, and how much you'd have to bring.

Again, 300+ worlds locally with plenty of metal deposits. Refining facilities would not be hard to build and it would take a very long time before our visitors would be reduced to scrabbling through low grade asteroids.

[quote="kojax"]These aliens aren't going to be stupid club bearing morons. If their computer tech is very advanced, then they could easily program their onboard computer to start observing and listening to conversations, then translate the language it hears into alien speak (and back, if the aliens want to talk).

The natives would gladly trade their labor voluntarily, in exchange for trinkets the aliens know how to make for them, or because they think the aliens are gods. There's no reason the aliens need consider enslaving or killing off anybody.

Or, in the modern world, you could use advanced analysis to play the stock market, then buy the uranium from humans who are gladly busy mining it for a pay check. (I'm sure our stock market is pathetically simple to them) Weight/mass might be a bit of an issue in interstellar flight. When compared with refining machinery, computers weigh very little, and diplomacy is free.

If uranium based fission is the power source on their ship, then escaping our gravity well would be negligibly easy. Nasa isn't allowed to go that way because people are too scared of a meltdown, and the early designs were too radioactive to allow a human crew.

Far as I know, fission powered spacecraft designs have been primarily concerned with interplanetary and interstellar travel, primarily due to long life and reliability. These are generally unpopular for the reasons you have stated. I've never heard of a nuclear powered launch system, though I'm sure it would be possible. Fission spacecraft designs such as the old Project Orion design would still require launch to orbit with some more conventional launch systems such as rockets or air breathing combustion jets. I agree with you thjough that an interstellar travelling species is not going to find escaping a gravity well difficult, but it still expends more energy (and thus costs more) than getting your materials from a world with a fraction of the gravity.

Aside from the labour issue, it's still not clear to me what makes Earth more desirable source of resources than the 300+ worlds of similar composition (including deposits due to geology) in our solar system. Enslavement, trickery, subversion or even cooperation with the human population all seems rather more awkward and potentially troublesome than simply building a refinery on the Moon.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by kojax

If uranium based fission is the power source on their ship, then escaping our gravity well would be negligibly easy. Nasa isn't allowed to go that way because people are too scared of a meltdown, and the early designs were too radioactive to allow a human crew.

Far as I know, fission powered spacecraft designs have been primarily concerned with interplanetary and interstellar travel, primarily due to long life and reliability. These are generally unpopular for the reasons you have stated. I've never heard of a nuclear powered launch system, though I'm sure it would be possible. Fission spacecraft designs such as the old Project Orion design would still require launch to orbit with some more conventional launch systems such as rockets or air breathing combustion jets. I agree with you thjough that an interstellar travelling species is not going to find escaping a gravity well difficult, but it still expends more energy (and thus costs more) than getting your materials from a world with a fraction of the gravity.

The other possibility is the air breathing nuclear powered rocket. A very hot fuel rod is used to expand the air behind the thruster instead of burning rocket fuel. The military attempted to engineer one in the early 1960's to use as a long range bomber, but I don't think they ever built one.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/c04rover.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket

The question is how much fuel are you getting in the form of mined uranium vs. how much are you expending as you leave?

Aside from the labour issue, it's still not clear to me what makes Earth more desirable source of resources than the 300+ worlds of similar composition (including deposits due to geology) in our solar system.

Maybe they mine all of them.

Enslavement, trickery, subversion or even cooperation with the human population all seems rather more awkward and potentially troublesome than simply building a refinery on the Moon.

I don't think complicated-ness is a barrier to an advanced alien race. Human psychology is probably about as complicated to them as horse psychology is to us. And, unless you want to set up factories to build yourself the needed machinery, a horse, or a human, ..... well..... they self replicate.

There's no need for subversion, just a straight up business deal. Offer a few iron forged weapons to some primitive tribal warriors, and they'll voluntarily give you anything you want. (or beat it out of their neighbors for you) If you purposefully design the weapons to be overly susceptible to rust, then you've got repeat customers.

Basically, any trade arrangement you make with a primitive culture is a monopoly situation. Either they take your deal, or you offer it to another tribe. Often the trade value of your wares will be highly disproportionate to the cost of making them. So the question is: would you rather forge something like 35 iron swords, or build a bunch of mining machinery from scratch?

Originally Posted by kojax

powerful/large centrifuges

Crudely, you could orbit the ores near a sun, melting them, and spin that blob of ores so it seperates into purified rings. More time requires less energy.

On that note... just how patient are these aliens? If very, they may let the cosmos kinda do all work. I mean, if you wait long enough a piña colada will come eventually.

Another possibility is that they want humanity to grow into a useful ally or trade partner. Just because we're beneath their notice right now doesn't mean we don't have the potential to become something better later on. We wouldn't be any use to them at today's level of technology. However, one thing human history has taught us is that the less advanced civilization today may not be less advanced tomorrow. If they've only made limited contact, it's probably because of past experiences trying to share too much information too fast with other primitive cultures.


And we needn't imagine that any "alien civilization" as a whole has taken notice in us, either. Maybe it's just something like 5 or 6 aliens, who decided to start an Earth project, and all the alien sightings have just been those same 5-6 again and again. (Which would mean that all 6 billion humans are only worth the attention of 5-6 aliens, not a very flattering thought.)

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by kojax

powerful/large centrifuges

Crudely, you could orbit the ores near a sun, melting them, and spin that blob of ores so it seperates into purified rings. More time requires less energy.

On that note... just how patient are these aliens? If very, they may let the cosmos kinda do all work. I mean, if you wait long enough a piña colada will come eventually.

Good point. Especially since that could probably be automated to the point where they wouldn't need to send any actual alien workers. They could just send un-manned harvesters off into space. I guess they really would have to value us directly as a society in order to bother with Earth.

Can someone please tell me the name of the city that is supposed to have all the historians confused. I saw it on a special about ien astronauts. Diamond cut stones, odd shapes, and all kinds of stuff.

Anyone know?

Many years ago I did some personal research into the stories of Plato's Atlantis. At that time I ran into some Alien theory you may find interesting for your studies. I compiled this material onto a webpage. Here is the URL address:

LINK DELETED - It is not considered acceptable for new users to show up, write a couple of lines and then pimp their link. If you have a point to make, make it here. -B

I hope this info will be useful to you

Amy

Not a link


ALIENS ANGELS and UFO"s
(MY DISCLAIMER)
The following views are not theories of my making. I have simply compiled them for easy reference and viewing.



THE ANGEL THEORIST
While we are speculating on the question of Plato's Atlantis, we need to consider another question that requires "speculation". That question is, "Where and how did a primitive society in 10,000B.C. come up with such sciences". Sciences such as, advanced metal working skills, advanced irrigation and building skills and the mathematics that would be needed to build a culture like the one described by Plato and the other ancient writings. Writings like The Book of Noah, The book of Enoch and The Book of Genesis. All of these books indicate a highly advanced society. The book of Noah even says that it was the Angels that actually built the Ark of Noah, not Noah himself.

Noah, Enoch and Genesis say these skills were bestowed upon the people by the "Sons of God" or by Angels. These books indicate that certain "Angels" came to the Earth and took wives of human women and bore children. These fallen Angels are called "The Gregori". Their children are called "The Nepilim". They are reported to have been endowed with great size, great strength, and incredible intellect. The Greek writings that speak of the hero's of old like Hercules and others seem to be referring to these Nepilim.

The books of Noah and Enoch state that the Nepilims consumed all of the goods that were produced by the people they ruled over. Mere humans were unable to produce enough goods fast enough to satisfy the needs of the Nepilims and the Grigori. This is one of the major reason listed for their destruction. Another major reason was their spread of violence every place they went. These books say these creatures and their Gregori fathers were destroyed in a great flood. Or that the Grigori fathers were imprisoned until the time of the unveiling. This at least is what the religious element that follow these writings say these things mean. The Book of Enoch was very popular around the time of Jesus and is quoted in the New Testament Book of Jude. Jude also tells the fate of these interfering Angels.

Here are a few of the words spoken about these fallen ones:
Book of Enoch
6-6 And there were in all, two hundred who descended on Mt Hermon......
8-1 And Azazel taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates...
8-3 Semjaza taught enchantments..(It appears this means to formulate a problem).
Amaros the resolving of enchantments..(To solve a problem once it is formulated).
Baraqijal astrology, (Astrology at that point was the understanding of the planets)
Kokabel the constellations, (The understanding of the other star systems)
Ezeqeel the knowledge of the clouds, (The forecasting of weather)
Araqiel the signs of the earth, (Geology and it's related subjects)
Shamsiel the signs of the sun. (Solar flares and radiation effects)
and Sariel the course of the moon. (Why the moon eclipses and phases and the tides)
These are just a few of the two hundred.


THE ALIEN THEORIST
Then there is the Alien element. The people that follow the Alien theory are just as much true believers as those within the religious community. The only difference is they say these Angels were actually Aliens. If a space vessel were to land today, and beings from another world were to emerge, we would call them Aliens. But those of long ago didn't have the understanding of the universe that we possess. They would have called these beings Gods or at least the "Sons of the Gods" for lack of any other term. To these people, the sky was a canopy around the earth and the stars were holes in that canopy. These holes allowed the light of the Gods to shine through. Of course they would think beings who came from beyond that canopy were Gods.

The Alien Theorist utilize the same books as the Religious element. The only difference is they exchange the word Angels for the word Aliens. They call these Aliens the "Watchers". These Watchers aren't supposed to meddle in the affairs of humans. It seems the happenings of this planet are being allowed to progress as far as they will go. Almost like observing a science experiment to it's conclusion. The only time they interfere is if human kind is on the brink of extinction or following a course which prevents the experiment from continuing.
The Alien Theorist indicate that the taking of wives by these beings as refered to in the book of Noah and Genesis is simply a reference to the Aliens tampering with the DNA of humans. Or at least mingeling Alien DNA with Human DNA.
Those two hundred spoken of earlier, disobeyed their Prime Directive and became involved in Human affairs. These beings were then punished by the counsel of their home world. Accordingly, this counsel either allowed the flood to take place, or they initiated it in an attempt to erase the influence of the interfering Aliens.
Both the Religious and the Alien camp believe these Angels/Aliens will make themselves known at some point in the future. The religious element calls this event the "Second Coming". There are numerous terms for this event in the Alien theory, but the most common seems to be "The Awakening" or "The Unveiling".


Amy

Originally Posted by Amy Smith

The Alien Theorist indicate that the taking of wives by these beings as refered to in the book of Noah and Genesis is simply a reference to the Aliens tampering with the DNA of humans. Or at least mingeling Alien DNA with Human DNA.
Those two hundred spoken of earlier, disobeyed their Prime Directive and became involved in Human affairs. These beings were then punished by the counsel of their home world. Accordingly, this counsel either allowed the flood to take place, or they initiated it in an attempt to erase the influence of the interfering Aliens.
Both the Religious and the Alien camp believe these Angels/Aliens will make themselves known at some point in the future. The religious element calls this event the "Second Coming". There are numerous terms for this event in the Alien theory, but the most common seems to be "The Awakening" or "The Unveiling".


Amy

From the story, I always got the impression that they were literally having offspring, like they altered their own DNA to become actual human beings, or cloned bodies for themselves and moved their brains into them. Hard to say what is and isn't possible. DNA research right now (on Earth) is at the point where we can grow bypass veins in old people by grafting DNA. DNA mapping is still kind of in its infancy right now (on Earth).

If I recall, their taking of wives was considered a sin because they were immortal beings, and for an immortal being to have offspring would be the worst kind of expansionism. Most ufo-ologists seem to agree that the aliens have lost most of their capacity for emotion. Maybe when you cease to be expansionist, you also cease to feel?

Maybe that's their interest in us. We still have feelings. Maybe they live vicariously through us, watching us have experiences that are forbidden for them to have?

THE REAL HOBBIT
Here is another interesting thing about that time.

Most people will think, ok, here we go, off into
some fantasy world. However, I can back this up with
archaeological proof.
Here are a couple of internet addresses

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...n-hobbits.html
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3948165.stm BBC NEWS

The remains of these creatures were first
discovered in 2003, on the island of Flores, in
Indonesia. They were almost three feet tall with
a brain smaller than that of a chimpanzee.

Don't let that small brain size fool you though.
They made weapons and tools, they made fire,
and they hunted the Pigmy Elephant.
[Which stood six feet tall- weight, one half ton]
Their Island was no paradise though. They shared this Island with a breed of giant Rats the size of small dogs.

The giant Komodo Dragon [a huge lizard] was also there, as well as other large predators like giant Pythons, much larger than todays Pythons.

On the one extreme were the Hobbits, a very small people, living in the most remote jungles. Every creature they encountered was a fearsome beast to them.

On the other extreme were the armour clad, Nepilim Giants of Biblical writing. At least seven feet tall, with advanced metal working skills and other technology, living in an advanced Ice Age civilization.

And just emerging from their caves, what we call Neolithic man. With stone tools and a primative society. They believed the Nepilims to be Gods, or at least the Sons of God.

An then there was Neanderthal man, still unknown to us after having been discovered so long ago.

The latest carbon dating of the bones of the Hobbits has shown that the most recent time they existed was about 10,000 B.C.E., or 12,000 years ago.
Oddly, that is the exact period of time I am talking about.


It was a very strange world at that time in our Earth's history!
Not one most people would want to live in.

Amy

It makes you wonder what a difference travel technologies, trade, and proximity, have made to the human genome. Once cultures begin interacting with each other, they begin interbreeding, and after that goes on long enough, we should expect there would be less variety over time.

If a breed of "hobbits" can emerge when a group of humans is isolated long enough in a place where the environment selects for small size, its reasonable to expect a breed of giants to emerge as well, if a group of humans is isolated in a place that selects for that as well. But, once the isolation is gone, the giants would breed with ordinary people, and vanish.

So...maybe we *don't* need alien astronauts to explain that. They're still quite handy, of course.

kojax
Excellent observation. It is really something to think about. It was all done here by us. No aliens involved. I'm going to give some thought to this.

Amy

Originally Posted by kojax

Once cultures begin interacting with each other, they begin interbreeding, and after that goes on long enough, we should expect there would be less variety over time.

Why? Reproductive isolation certainly facilitates variation, but it's not the main mediator of it. If that were the case it would be impossible to have things like ring species. If population A and B are reproductively connected but experiencing different selective pressures, they will accumulate differences between one another regardless of the interbreeding so long as those selective pressures are significant enough. This assumes that mutation rates are the same in A and B, though of course different environments may change that, again adding to variation without the loss of interbreeding.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by kojax

Once cultures begin interacting with each other, they begin interbreeding, and after that goes on long enough, we should expect there would be less variety over time.

Why? Reproductive isolation certainly facilitates variation, but it's not the main mediator of it. If that were the case it would be impossible to have things like ring species. If population A and B are reproductively connected but experiencing different selective pressures, they will accumulate differences between one another regardless of the interbreeding so long as those selective pressures are significant enough. This assumes that mutation rates are the same in A and B, though of course different environments may change that, again adding to variation without the loss of interbreeding.

Maybe it works differently for humans because we're also social. Humans have a certain tendency toward racism that probably isn't common in the animal kingdom. It's a sword that cuts both ways. It makes us competitive with each other, but it also drives us to homogenize our population.

If a more numerous population of ordinary sized humans encountered a giant population of humans, they'd probably either try very hard to integrate the giants fully into their own society, or try very hard to wipe the giants out. Militarily, the giants would be at a disadvantage in trying to conquer the smaller humans, because their food/logistical needs would make it difficult to sustain a military campaign.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by kojax

Once cultures begin interacting with each other, they begin interbreeding, and after that goes on long enough, we should expect there would be less variety over time.

Why? Reproductive isolation certainly facilitates variation, but it's not the main mediator of it. If that were the case it would be impossible to have things like ring species. If population A and B are reproductively connected but experiencing different selective pressures, they will accumulate differences between one another regardless of the interbreeding so long as those selective pressures are significant enough. This assumes that mutation rates are the same in A and B, though of course different environments may change that, again adding to variation without the loss of interbreeding.

Maybe it works differently for humans because we're also social. Humans have a certain tendency toward racism that probably isn't common in the animal kingdom. It's a sword that cuts both ways. It makes us competitive with each other, but it also drives us to homogenize our population.

Maybe. Where's the evidence that our species is becoming homogenous?

I remember reading various things in the past that show that most significant biblical stories were also covered by other cultures. Now if you take Christianity and most of us know, and assume the genealogy and man's creation as literal in Genesis, we have people believing the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. However, the English translations of the Torah are notoriously wrong in many situations. There were two distinctly different words for Adam. The one used in the creation means "mankind." The usage as a proper name "Adam" was not used until Adam, as a man, was in the stories. We all know that Cain left and found a wife elsewhere. Therefore, Adam and Eve were not the first couple.

Then there is the Sumerian version of the creation. It dates mankind as going back about 60,000 years. The understanding of the text has it plausible to support the AAT. Someplace in the text, it has "Gods" taking mankind as slaves to mine resources. That they altered the slaves to make them better slaves. This may also coincive with the early part of Genesis 6:

Genesis 6

The Flood

1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with [a] man forever, for he is mortal [b] ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

I'm not sure what to believe myself. Somewhere between religion and science, is the truth. The God's could have been aliens.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by kojax

Once cultures begin interacting with each other, they begin interbreeding, and after that goes on long enough, we should expect there would be less variety over time.

Why? Reproductive isolation certainly facilitates variation, but it's not the main mediator of it. If that were the case it would be impossible to have things like ring species. If population A and B are reproductively connected but experiencing different selective pressures, they will accumulate differences between one another regardless of the interbreeding so long as those selective pressures are significant enough. This assumes that mutation rates are the same in A and B, though of course different environments may change that, again adding to variation without the loss of interbreeding.

Maybe it works differently for humans because we're also social. Humans have a certain tendency toward racism that probably isn't common in the animal kingdom. It's a sword that cuts both ways. It makes us competitive with each other, but it also drives us to homogenize our population.

Maybe. Where's the evidence that our species is becoming homogenous?

Well, we're getting less racist nowadays, but look at what racism has been causing around the world just in the last few decades. Whole ethnic groups have been getting "cleansed". Do you think that started in the last 2 centuries, or maybe it's been going on a very long time? The fact there exists such a thing as an "atom bomb" has prevented a lot of total annihilations by motivating concerted diplomatic efforts, and media has helped a lot by raising awareness and sympathy for the losing side of these wars, but these weren't around for much of human history.

Groups that have survived repeated attempts at extermination, such as the Jews, have had to do so by integrating themselves somewhat with the oppressing cultures. There aren't a great many Jews alive today who can claim pure lineage.

pure jewish lineage?

it is a religion.

Originally Posted by kojax

Well, we're getting less racist nowadays, but look at what racism has been causing around the world just in the last few decades. Whole ethnic groups have been getting "cleansed". Do you think that started in the last 2 centuries, or maybe it's been going on a very long time? The fact there exists such a thing as an "atom bomb" has prevented a lot of total annihilations by motivating concerted diplomatic efforts, and media has helped a lot by raising awareness and sympathy for the losing side of these wars, but these weren't around for much of human history.

Groups that have survived repeated attempts at extermination, such as the Jews, have had to do so by integrating themselves somewhat with the oppressing cultures. There aren't a great many Jews alive today who can claim pure lineage.

Again though, that's just anecdote and generalisation. You may easily be correct but you're just telling me things without backing them up. Where's the evidence that we're either getting less racist or that we're becoming more homogeneous? I mean, we as a species are still subject to a great variety of selective pressures and, for example, the gulf between the wealthy and the poor is growing (both on the global scale and within many western nations) which creates all manner of selective differences. So a broad trend towards increased travel and interbreeding does not automatically equal reduced heterogeneity.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by kojax

Well, we're getting less racist nowadays, but look at what racism has been causing around the world just in the last few decades. Whole ethnic groups have been getting "cleansed". Do you think that started in the last 2 centuries, or maybe it's been going on a very long time? The fact there exists such a thing as an "atom bomb" has prevented a lot of total annihilations by motivating concerted diplomatic efforts, and media has helped a lot by raising awareness and sympathy for the losing side of these wars, but these weren't around for much of human history.

Groups that have survived repeated attempts at extermination, such as the Jews, have had to do so by integrating themselves somewhat with the oppressing cultures. There aren't a great many Jews alive today who can claim pure lineage.

Again though, that's just anecdote and generalisation. You may easily be correct but you're just telling me things without backing them up. Where's the evidence that we're either getting less racist or that we're becoming more homogeneous? I mean, we as a species are still subject to a great variety of selective pressures and, for example, the gulf between the wealthy and the poor is growing (both on the global scale and within many western nations) which creates all manner of selective differences. So a broad trend towards increased travel and interbreeding does not automatically equal reduced heterogeneity.

I admit that this is true. But the whole point of evolution theory is that a selective pressure that exerts any influence is going to have a large effect over time. In the last century, the world has applied a concerted effort to deliberately try and make ourselves less racist. If that effort succeeded at all, then we're getting less racist. If you think the effort totally failed to produce any effect at all, then I guess we're as racist as we ever were.

It's true there's lots of different selective pressures, though. I'm merely suggesting that certain groups of humans, in humanity's earliest stages, might have been kind of like the mammals of Australia, compared with mammals in other parts of the world. Just as the isolation of the Australian continent created a strong divergence in the direction of its mammals' evolution (divergent when compared with mammals on the main continent), so also human beings would be more likely to show diverse traits if they're totally out of contact with each other.

I admit that this is true. But the whole point of evolution theory is that a selective pressure that exerts any influence is going to have a large effect over time. In the last century, the world has applied a concerted effort to deliberately try and make ourselves less racist.

That is a cultural change, while being racist is still coded in our DNA.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by kojax

Well, we're getting less racist nowadays, but look at what racism has been causing around the world just in the last few decades. Whole ethnic groups have been getting "cleansed". Do you think that started in the last 2 centuries, or maybe it's been going on a very long time? The fact there exists such a thing as an "atom bomb" has prevented a lot of total annihilations by motivating concerted diplomatic efforts, and media has helped a lot by raising awareness and sympathy for the losing side of these wars, but these weren't around for much of human history.

Groups that have survived repeated attempts at extermination, such as the Jews, have had to do so by integrating themselves somewhat with the oppressing cultures. There aren't a great many Jews alive today who can claim pure lineage.

Again though, that's just anecdote and generalisation. You may easily be correct but you're just telling me things without backing them up. Where's the evidence that we're either getting less racist or that we're becoming more homogeneous? I mean, we as a species are still subject to a great variety of selective pressures and, for example, the gulf between the wealthy and the poor is growing (both on the global scale and within many western nations) which creates all manner of selective differences. So a broad trend towards increased travel and interbreeding does not automatically equal reduced heterogeneity.

I admit that this is true. But the whole point of evolution theory is that a selective pressure that exerts any influence is going to have a large effect over time. In the last century, the world has applied a concerted effort to deliberately try and make ourselves less racist. If that effort succeeded at all, then we're getting less racist. If you think the effort totally failed to produce any effect at all, then I guess we're as racist as we ever were.

It's true there's lots of different selective pressures, though. I'm merely suggesting that certain groups of humans, in humanity's earliest stages, might have been kind of like the mammals of Australia, compared with mammals in other parts of the world. Just as the isolation of the Australian continent created a strong divergence in the direction of its mammals' evolution (divergent when compared with mammals on the main continent), so also human beings would be more likely to show diverse traits if they're totally out of contact with each other.

I'm not disputing that any of this is possible. I'm asking whether there's evidence to support that it has indeed happened.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I admit that this is true. But the whole point of evolution theory is that a selective pressure that exerts any influence is going to have a large effect over time. In the last century, the world has applied a concerted effort to deliberately try and make ourselves less racist.

That is a cultural change, while being racist is still coded in our DNA.

True. Culture can't alter our genes directly. Instead what it does is to effectively alter our environment, which in turn, begins selecting for different genes.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I admit that this is true. But the whole point of evolution theory is that a selective pressure that exerts any influence is going to have a large effect over time. In the last century, the world has applied a concerted effort to deliberately try and make ourselves less racist.

That is a cultural change, while being racist is still coded in our DNA.

True. Culture can't alter our genes directly. Instead what it does is to effectively alter our environment, which in turn, begins selecting for different genes.

True enough, put 100 years isn't really enough time for this to happen IMO and I am not convinced that there really is any selective pressure at all. Racists breed just as easily as non-racists, even in developed countries. Having said that though, I think our instinctual inclination towards racism isn't nearly as strong as the opposite inclination a cultural counter balance can provide.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I admit that this is true. But the whole point of evolution theory is that a selective pressure that exerts any influence is going to have a large effect over time. In the last century, the world has applied a concerted effort to deliberately try and make ourselves less racist.

That is a cultural change, while being racist is still coded in our DNA.

True. Culture can't alter our genes directly. Instead what it does is to effectively alter our environment, which in turn, begins selecting for different genes.

True enough, put 100 years isn't really enough time for this to happen IMO and I am not convinced that there really is any selective pressure at all. Racists breed just as easily as non-racists, even in developed countries. Having said that though, I think our instinctual inclination towards racism isn't nearly as strong as the opposite inclination a cultural counter balance can provide.

This is an interesting perspective, especially since you're posting it from South Africa. I've always been kind of curious how things are over there, in terms of racism. You don't hear much about it these days.

I did watch "District 9", however. I'm curious how accurate are its reflections about the attitudes of people in South Africa?