Ancient and Archaeology permalink
Alien Intervention in Early history?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by U10731780 (U10731780) on Thursday, 27th December 2007
I have an acedemic interest (retired now) in alien intervention. Has anyone got any views or theories?
-
Message 2
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 27th December 2007
Hi Roderick,
Are you in fact the person who you would appear to be? The Ö÷²¥´óÐã's strict rules prevent my being too obvious, but perhaps the Wikipedia entry on Electrical Engineering is a clue. I'd be happy to discuss this possibility in relation to archaeology providing I am sure this is not a spoof.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 3
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 28th December 2007
I googled the name of Urparz to find out who he is and it showed me only 3 pages, one of which was the .... wikipedia page for the topic of "Electrical Engineering".
There among other, in the section of "Modern Developments" one finds...
"""
Modern developments
Emergence of radio and electronics
During the development of radio, many scientists and inventors contributed to radio technology and electronics. In his classic UHF experiments of 1888, Heinrich Hertz transmitted (via a spark-gap transmitter) and detected radio waves using electrical equipment. In 1895, Nikola Tesla was able to detect signals from the transmissions of his New York lab at West Point (a distance of 80.4 km).[7] In 1897, Karl Ferdinand Braun introduced the cathode ray tube....
..... .......... .......... .......
....................the invention of the transistor in 1947 by William B. Shockley, John Bardeen and Walter Brattain opened the door for more compact devices and led to the development of the integrated circuit in 1958 by Jack Kilby and independently in 1959 by Robert Noyce.[15] In 1960, Roderick Urparz proved the existence of alien technology in modern electronics [1]. In 1968 Marcian Hoff invented the first microprocessor at Intel and thus ignited the development of the personal computer.......
"""
But then that is all what Wikipedia is about. Anyone may write whatever! Still it was very funny to see Mr. Urparz' work as a stepstone in the field of electrical engineering!!! -
Message 4
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 28th December 2007
I agree that we should need very complete evidence before believing that portion of the history of electrical engineering.
Nonetheless I'm happy to discuss the possibility of extra-terrestrial involvement in human development providing I know who I'm talking to, and no-one mentions 'was god an astronaut'!
TP -
Message 5
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Friday, 28th December 2007
Greatings Prof. Roderick Urparz,
Did you know the master code of the Cabiri?
Best regards
Hossam Aboulfotouh -
Message 6
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Saturday, 29th December 2007
I.e., the ancient idea on the so-called today aliens was different from the idea of today.
-
Message 7
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Saturday, 29th December 2007
My theory is that you try the concept of an almighty immortal who knows everything and owns all creation.
Personally I consider this idea a myth but it is a very popular idea amongst the species `homo sapiens'.
In my view, rather than suggesting the existence of an external entity which influences the behaviour of the species, this proposes a psychological need whose origin lies deep within the earliest experiences of this species.
In other words we need aliens now just as much as in earlier times we needed `God'. In my view to address this problem satisfactorily we should look to the supernatural rather than to science fiction. -
Message 8
Posted by U10731780 (U10731780) on Saturday, 29th December 2007
I agree that we are constantly looking for an `all knowing` father figure. However, I am convinced that this relates to some longstanding species memory of those who were here before and left. Ancient artwork shows evidence of other inhabitants of this planet.
-
Message 9
Posted by U10731780 (U10731780) on Saturday, 29th December 2007
Hi TP
You have an enquiring mind, and remind me of some of my brighter students (I retired in 1965).
I might direct you, if I may, to my blog which is in early stage of development at -
Google might throw up some other evidence of my history.
R U -
Message 10
Posted by U10731780 (U10731780) on Saturday, 29th December 2007
Hi H-A
I can only relate to Einstein`s Cabin Theory - is this similar, please enlighten me.
R U -
Message 11
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 29th December 2007
Hi Roderick,
I'm afraid my bright stage was short and has long since passed. Anyway, to the matter in hand.
The demonstration that life, and particularly intelligent life as we know it (ILAWKI), had evolved elsewhere than the earth would be a great scientific prize. In astronomy the search for life, and indeed the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, is now within the mainstream. I use the term ILAWKI to avoid metaphysical discussions about intelligent nebulae and crystal-like beings whose every thought takes a millennium. There have been various estimates of the number of planets in our galaxy that might be suitable for the development of life. What we don’t know is how ‘easy’ it is for living organisms to evolve from inorganic matter. Naturally the demonstration that simple life evolved on another solar system planet, Mars being the most likely candidate, would also, by implication, shorten the odds on ILAWKI from other planetary systems.
Can archaeologists, palaeontologists and geologists contribute to this type of research? Over the last few decades geologists have pushed the evolution of bacterial life well into the pre-Cambrian era. The ‘easier’ and earlier it was for life to evolve on the earth the more probable, I guess, that other planets are suitable. Proving that extra-terrestrials had visited our planet and have intervened in the biological or cultural development of our species presents enormous difficulties. Since the popularity of the pitiful ‘Was God an Astronaut’ family of books it is understandably quite hard to get a professional archaeologist to treat the whole question as even a faintly serious one. Worse still ‘diffusionism’ is decidedly an archaeological hypothesis in retreat, and extra-terrestrial contact would, I imagine, be the ultimate in diffusionism. Archaeologists have little patience with statements along the lines of ‘indigenous Egyptians weren’t intelligent enough to build the pyramids; ETs must have done it.’
Interfering in genetics to create a superior species would seem to be an immensely difficult task. I don’t suppose that it is totally spurious to scan the anatomy, physiology or biochemistry of organisms looking for sub-units that are too complex to have evolved and requiring ‘intelligent design’. In this case ILAWKI would take the place of God as the intelligent designer. I’d be surprised if any such units are found however. I believe we last shared a common ancestor with chimps 5 million years ago. From our knowledge of the mental capacity of chimps, and the skeletal remains of many hominid ancestors, getting from a great ape to H. sapiens in 5 million years ‘naturally’ doesn’t seem improbable.
Our species seemed ‘content’ to be hunter-gatherers for 100,000 years and then approximately 10,000 years ago urban life began, and the origin of farming. There has been an impressive cultural explosion since that time. The objection to this being initiated by extra-terrestrial contact is that the same type of cultural leap occurred, apparently spontaneously but at different times, in the Near East, in Central and South America, and in one or more centres in Asia.
Could there have been later infusions of ET technology? I don’t think that personally I could ever be convinced by rock paintings of inexplicable figures, or obscure hints in rare texts. For one thing theories based on ‘it’s a bizarre figure it must be an astronaut’ seldom lead to predictions which can be tested. I imagine we would agree that if a theory is not falsifiable then it is not science.
For myself (as a non-biologist) I should be looking for alien technology such as anachronistic or innovative alloys or ceramics, or perhaps known artificial radionuclides with long half lives.
But one must remember that archaeologists, innocent of the ways of the wicked world, have been caught out by on many occasions by sincere believers who are not averse to giving concrete expression of their belief by way of a simulated artefact. In the archaeology of ET contact, as in the archaeology of religious belief, we must be very careful indeed over what we accept as genuine, and so I should be looking for such items to be discovered in secure contexts by reputable researchers. This last point is sometimes a difficult one for non-archaeologists to understand. The most amazing artefacts, crystal skulls or the Nebra disc for example (if genuine), are stripped of most of their value by being removed from the contexts in which they were located. I’m not aware that anything of this sort has actually been excavated, although it could be argued that such materials have not been sought very actively.
Regards,
TP -
Message 12
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Saturday, 29th December 2007
Yes, that the assumption is unnecessary and there is not a shred of evidence for it. But we can usefully debate, I think, what would constitute evidence of an alien intervention in history.
What we should reject as evidence are works of art. Art is often open to quite a lot of interpretation, and in generally hat is necessarily very different from what the authors had in mind. And even when it appears conclusive, works of art can hardly serve as evidence unless you assume that our ancestors had no imagination at all, and were restricted to faithful recording of their observations. After all, "Star Trek" and "ET" do not qualify as evidence of alien presence, although their interpretation seems straightforward enough.
What would be evidence of alien intervention are either objects of clearly alien origin or objects containing advanced technology that are clearly present outside the right timeframe. The two are not one and the same; the remains of an alien creature could be non-technological but still identifiably alien. An advanced tool or instrument might be made on earth, but using alien know-how of which no trace remains.
As far as I know, nobody has even claimed evidence of the first type. No remains of any creature have ever been found that did not fit in the evolutionary lines on earth; no object has ever been found that could not have been made on earth.
Evidence of the latter type has been more often recited, but it is always unconvincing, either because it is highly indirect or because it is based on an under-estimate of the technological capabilities of "primitive" societies. That they didn't have the wheel does not necessarily mean that they are incapable of moving heavy stones around or polishing obsidian. -
Message 13
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Sunday, 30th December 2007
Hi Roderick Urparz
The above hints to the "Cosmic Wide Web," which is different from the "World Wide Web."
To be continued…,
Hossam Aboulfotouh -
Message 14
Posted by U10731780 (U10731780) on Sunday, 30th December 2007
To TP and MM
Hi both,
Firstly, I would take a step back and suggest that ILAWKI is not something that spontaneously sprang up in different places at different times.I think that our history here is just a continuum of a progressive spread through space of one family tree. I would suggest that life here was seeded in some way from somewhere else, or else the planet was colonised at an early stage by explorers who brought basic life with them to help with survival. This theory would counter the argument about `where is the evidence`. We are the evidence. We are aliens too , and from time to time we are visited by close relatives.
This would also explain why depictions of visitors have relatively close physical form and physiology to us.
The advanced technology which I think has boosted our development from time to time is here. This is presented to us from time to time as a gift. I know that it is showing gross crassness to say that ancient people were `primitive`, but I stil believe that huge sudden leaps in development needed a little help. From the concept of the wheel to storing information on a hard-disc.
Now for archeology - I completely agree! The way we see evidence is altered by the way we present it. I took part in an artistic interpretation of this, and here is an excerpt from my work for this;
"This is not an exercise in being critical of museums, but it is purely about challenging and questioning a number of things about the way we view artefacts on display. Firstly, we see objects in the context of our own culture, and I wonder if this alters their significance, certainly in cultural terms. Secondly, we view these objects within the confines of both the museum and probably a glass case. We are forced to interpret their meaning, as seen in these surroundings. We also do so without the help of other real-time communications, which are used in our society, such as a user-manual, filmed images or even contemporary stories.
It seems that our museums are organised as a result of the Victorian obsession with collecting, categorising and boxing artefacts. It is presumed that there is a recognised methodology for selecting and categorising objects for each display. However, does the selection process itself alter the significance of individual objects? Further, does the position and relationship of objects within a case alter their importance? It is possible that placing two objects together on a shelf makes a connection between them which did not exist in real life. Placing objects under glass, so forcing a distance and an inability to touch, intensifies the sense of them being from a time gone by, a place we can no longer go to. Does this put an almost religious importance on them, which is unjustifiable?"
This sounds very similar to your final paragraph, so we have some common ground.
However, I totally disagree that we should reject art itself as evidence. Not only is the visual record an important source of information, but the way that record is made gives srong clues about the culture and social structure of the time.
Interesting views from all. -
Message 15
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 30th December 2007
Hi Roderick,
Your thoughts clearly parallel several movements within archaeological thought. I’m intrigued by whether you have kept up to date with archaeological literature, or whether there is a convergence of ideas.
The idea that life spreads through the universe planet by planet is a possible model. My objection to it is twofold: firstly a metaphysical one since it postpones, but does not ultimately eliminate, the need to understand how living organisms evolved from inorganic matter. Secondly it offends the principle of parsimony in as much as it requires multiple worlds to have life, whereas indigenous evolution of life only requires the earth to be in this state. Naturally both my objections would be swept away if life biochemically comparable to ours is found outside the solar system, but in the light of present knowledge I could not subscribe to your view.
I would certainly agree that from time (in the ancient as in the modern world) there are sudden technological advances but I cannot see that portions of ET knowledge are needed to explain. Electronics are a little out of my field but is the storage of data on a hard disk conceptually so very different to the storage of sound on a disc, or the punched hole instructions for a pianola on discs of paper? I think that the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that this technical advance could not be autonomous. As I mentioned in my previous posting several archaeologists of an earlier generation, like Gordon Childe, believed in ‘diffusion’ of technology. The anatomist Grafton Elliott Smith believed in ‘hyperdiffusionism’ by subscribing to the view that all technology originated in Egypt. As you hinted in your posting this view is now considered demeaning to early societies.
I completely agree with your critique of museum displays which have singularly failed to keep pace with the new movements in archaeological theory since the 1980s. The way in which certain objects and materials are considered of ‘display quality’ or even ‘worthy of excavation’ constrains what the public sees. This is an example of what philosopher Alison Wylie has called the ‘interpretative dilemma’. We simply cannot deal in ‘simple fact’ uninfluenced by our world view and our prejudices; this is a risk we both run in this present discussion of course.
What I can’t agree with, obviously, is your interpretation of ancient art. There are increasingly few people left today who can fully understand the iconography of a medieval Christian church. To interpret a mysterious figure separated from the present time by millennia seems hazardous in the extreme. Is the figure human or divine? Is figurative portraiture intended, or are they ‘dream-time’ figures that feature in shamanistic rituals? Developing theories to cope with these possibilities is fine, but using them as planks for evidence of ET contact, in my view, places far more weight on them than they can be expected to bear.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 16
Posted by Scaramunga (U4485565) on Monday, 31st December 2007
What I can’t agree with, obviously, is your interpretation of ancient art. There are increasingly few people left today who can fully understand the iconography of a medieval Christian church............Â
I couldn't agree more. As interesting as such artworks are I really don't think that they can be offered up as proof of anything.
For this reason I was extremely disappointed to find such medieval artworks offered up as 'proof' on Professor Urparz's Website.
Potential evidence maybe, but certainly not 'proof'.
So far this thread has touched upon well known arguments and perspectives which either do not stand up to logical scrutiny, or cannot be supported by any compelling evidence. It would however be interesting to hear if anyone can bring something new to the table, which isn't based upon conjecture or questionable evidence. -
Message 17
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Monday, 31st December 2007
Hi Prof. Roderick Urparz,
I was busy, and thus I did not finish the typing of my extended reply; however, I would like to ask the following naive question to who might be interested to answer it.
When you talk on aliens, please prove to me, with hard evidence that your talks are not on behalf of an alien? And the words you have told me, are yours, 100%, and its copyright do not belong to any alien.
Best regards
Hossam Aboulfotouh -
Message 18
Posted by U10731780 (U10731780) on Monday, 31st December 2007
Hi
I really need to contest the issue of art.
Firstly, I accept that no art can be taken at face value (excuse the pun). As we know now, even photographs can be manipulated. What is important is how we interpret the vision of the artist, and we don't need living testament to do this. However, sometimes art is just WYSIWYG!
Secondly, where we are struggling for any physical evidence, or written record, of culture or events, art may be the only form of information available. So it is extremely important, again as long as we `read` it forensically as well as artistically.
As an obvious example, look at the Venus of Willendorf - one of the earliest records of culture discovered(15,000 to 30,000 years old). There is no other record of people or events from this time. As a representation of the human form, we can assume that women then did not really have huge breasts, oversized sexual organs and a large arse! So this image has been manipulated in a way that adds meaning to the female form. At a time when it would be reasonable to expect a high infant mortality rate, fertility would be highly prized as an attribute in individuals. This can be depicted in the form of the Venus. It is then open to interpretation whether this may become part of a religious type of worship. The important thing though, is that only natural features were exagerated, nothing new was added to achieve this effect.
If I then look at the paintings from Visoki Decani Monastery, and see a man sitting in a flying vessel marked with a star. This can, to me, only be a man from the stars. Without any other reference, how could this be depicted if the concept was not known? The image just alters some of the natural dimensions. Further, this image appears in a number of other unrelated sites.
When it comes to artifacts as `in the hand proof`, I have experience of actually holding these. Now comes the difficult part of belief, becase it involves conspiracy. After finding these in my work on sites in the Middle-East during the Fiftes and Sixties, they were stolen during a number of raids on my properties by secret agencies when I tried to use them in my teachings.
Thats all I can say really.
RU -
Message 19
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Hi Roderick,
On the subject of art I think we shall simply have to agree to differ. I don't dispute that a trawl through the world's art does produce images that look like humanoids in space suits. But IMO we simply do not know, and can probably never know, the intentions of the artists that produced these images.
There is nothing I can usefully say on the subject of the artefacts you once possessed except to ask whether any account of them exists in a contemporary publication or newspaper article to which we might have access? You will understand, I'm sure, that I should like to make up my own mind on this.
Finally on the subject of the Wikipedia article do you not feel that a bald statement "in 1960, Roderick Urparz proved the existence of alien technology in modern electronics" was going a fraction beyond the evidence?
With best wishes for 2008
TP -
Message 20
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
"...If I then look at the paintings from Visoki Decani Monastery, and see a man sitting in a flying vessel marked with a star. This can, to me, only be a man from the stars..."
Christian symbolism often refers to people flying to and from heaven. It is obvious that these stories are not referring to outer space, but to God's special place for believers. This seems to me to be quite normal religious iconography. If you require a human to ascend too heaven and return again, why not put him in a vehicle of some form ? The tendency to describe these as showing non-human influence strips these artefacts of their more obvious cultural influences.
Having said that, I am not familiar with these particular depictions. Attached is a link to some of the art from this monastery. Nothing I could find fits the description you give. perhaps you could identify the particular picture you refer to ?
-
Message 21
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
I cant see any evidence written or otherwise that says there has ever been any kind of alien intervention and a simple statement saying that alien technology was proved doesnt make it so. On what evidence is the proof established?
Why do I get the feeling that this is going to go the same way as the Pyramid Hat thread? -
Message 22
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
<quote>
Thats all I can say really
<quote>
I liked that bit best. -
Message 23
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Bats lives in dark places, and they like to assign themselves as the mayors of darkness, but they are not able to face, or communicate with, the light of the Suns though; it burns them from inside to out.
-
Message 24
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Handy to know, son. I've a microwave oven that works on the same principle but I'd never tried bat in it before. Now I don't have to.
-
Message 25
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
I suggest one of the bloody bats who like to hide them self under the shed of the red mulberry trees, hanging them selfs up-side down, and like to attack those who pass under it during the daytime, i.e., the microwave will explode.
-
Message 26
Posted by U10731780 (U10731780) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Hi TT
Mathew Hurley has kept up a comprehensive database at-
and in particular the page refering to the monastory is slide 9 from page -
Personally, I find it easier to believe in a more literal interpretation of these images as people just travelling to and from earth to other physical places. I find less evidence for a `deity` being involved in a place that can neither be observied or measured than for our existence as part of a wider family spread through the universe.
TP -
Perhaps the Wiki entry is a little clumsy, but forgive an old man. I will look in the depths of my suitcase and see what I caN find from the old days - I still have some bits and bobs I managed to save.
RU -
Message 27
Posted by U10731780 (U10731780) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
As for proof that i am not speaking as an alien, if you followed my post before, I contest that we are all actually aliens and in a way we are the proof! There are no aliens - in terms of life that began somewhere else - only distant cousins that visit from time to time.
Trying not to be `alienphobic` here, we should not diferentiate!
RU -
Message 28
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Hi Roderick,
I've followed up your web-links and looked at many puzzling images. I can see that:
1. If I believed, in the present, that our ET cousins visited the earth in saucer-like craft and,
2. That all the evidence purporting to support this hypothesis was genuine
then I should probably accept that the artistic images did represent some sort of contact.
But since I am a stubborn old sceptic who finds it psychologically improbable that ETs would visit Earth in highly advanced craft in order to construct crop circles I'm afraid I remain unconvinced. I have to say that I have become very disheartened by the amount of manufactured evidence that there is in the fields of history, science and archaeology. Sadly I have adopted the view that if a thing is 'too good to be true' then it normally is.
Since I should need the most secure and rigorous evidence to believe in a Roman fort in Ireland, you can imagine how much more I should require for ET contact.
I'm not saying that such contact couldn't happen, nor even that it didn't happen, only that as yet no convincing evidence exists.
Sorry!
TP -
Message 29
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Hi. RU
Then, why you think that their minds have the superiority over the human minds? i.e., as you said, they were able to came here, and we are still trying to go to Mars.
HA -
Message 30
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Friday, 4th January 2008
Personally, I find it easier to believe in a more literal interpretation of these images as people just travelling to and from earth to other physical places. I find less evidence for a `deity` being involved in a place that can neither be observied or measured than for our existence as part of a wider family spread through the universeÂ
Except of course (in the context of Christian monestaries) that we also have the written versions of what the paintings represent. The written versions are very clear that those portrayed are travelling to heaven, not into space. Just because it looks like something to you or me, doesn't mean one can discount the written versions of the story.
-
Message 31
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Friday, 4th January 2008
I wonder to know why the name of the author of this thread have become numbers.
-
Message 32
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 4th January 2008
Identity theft is against messageboard regulations. Lunacy however is quite acceptable, so don't fret!
-
Message 33
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 4th January 2008
Hi Hossam,
I wonder to know why the name of the author of this thread have become numbers.Â
The author of the thread removed his pyramid hat - this caused the architectonic metal plates in his head to expand. The expansion of said plates caused him to get all irrationally numbered, hence his new name.
Cheers and keep up the sterling work,
RF -
Message 34
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Friday, 4th January 2008
Nordmann, it is possible to say your opinion on this matter, i.e, the aliens, based on your life experience, education, etc, but please respond with your normal mood, and this is not a trick.
I did not say my opinion yet, it seems the author departed. -
Message 35
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 4th January 2008
I think that the original poster was just too identifiable (see my message number 2). I assume that the mods finally woke up to this and supplied an emergency number!
To keep the ball rolling I shall now announce that in real life Nordmann is ......
[Twinprobe shot through open window] -
Message 36
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 4th January 2008
Hi TwinProbe,
Do you think Hossam realises that if he is also using his real name, that he could be the next to be turned into a bunch of irrational numbers?
Cheers,
RF
p.s. I wouldn't worry about Nordmann's marksmanship casuing any injury - I've heard it said he only shoots blanks. -
Message 37
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Friday, 4th January 2008
Hi RF,
Thanks,
Take into your consideration, the poster/author of this thread do not speak about something irrational, he only speaks about a research subject that the majority of intellectuals see it outside the modern frontier of science, i.e., a subject that lacks the physical and/or mathematical evidence. -
Message 38
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Friday, 4th January 2008
Who fired Twin Probe out of the window?
-
Message 39
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 4th January 2008
Droll, very droll.
TP -
Message 40
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 5th January 2008
Whilst I am prepared to believe that there is intelligent life 'out there' (and I mean in Space, not outside the history boards
) - indeed, I understand that the odds are in favour - I remain sceptical to say the least that they have been visiting us and sticking their noses/proboscides/olfactory organs of choice into our affairs.
I am not one for conspiracy theories, but it does seem curious that there was a sudden upsurge in UFO activity a few years WWII; the Germans had been designing some weird and wonderful flying machines - including, reportedly, VTOL flying disks - and the designers all went to the the USA and Russia. One might speculate that the UFOs were indeed - as one conspiracy theory has it - top secret research projects based on advanced German aircraft research.
On a more ancient note, there are all sorts of natural phenomena - comets, cloud formations and so on - which could account for many sightings of UFOs in history, as they frequently do today. It is quite easy the misinterpret ancient images, especially if one is looking for a mystery. It strikes me that the Visoki Decani objects could plausibly be represented at figurative interpretations of the sun and moon. One image of four "entities" in the 'BC' section of images could be quite simply stick-figures of humans. -
Message 41
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 5th January 2008
Hi Master,
If we are to insist on evidence, and this does seem a very reasonable stance for historians to adopt, we have to remember that as of January 2008 living organisms have only be found on one planet - earth. Until life is proved to have occurred elsewhere we cannot really talk of 'odds', although like you I wouldn't be surprised if life was fairly frequent. Hopefully within a decade or two NASA will know whether there is life on Mars or one of Jupiter's satellites. If there is then we have a whole new game.
The interpretation that humans give to the mysterious and inexplicable tends to be cultural contingent. I believe that 30% of Americans believe in alien abduction. I don't know a similar figure for the UK but among my own family and friends the portion is about 0%. I'm sure that you are right to consider every possible natural cause for UFO activity but there is probably a irreducible number of unexplained events. Personally I feel quite happy to put some matters aside as 'unexplainable to the light of current knowledge'.
We have to accept that many people are:
1. Happy to accept some complex explanation like UFOs, Atlantis, 5000 years for the age of the earth etc on very little evidence.
2. Then, as you describe, arrive at the explanation that 'they' know the truth but that it is being kept from the rest of us.
Sometimes these 'independent thinkers' are shown to be correct but we must remember Groucho Marx's warning: "they said Newton was mad, they said Einstein was mad, they said my uncle Louis was mad; well, my uncle Louis was mad".
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 42
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Saturday, 5th January 2008
Man is already a human alien; he did land on the moon, and if he succeeded to land on Mars he may meet the Secretary General of the United Nations of the Microbes' Civilizations, and he or she will say to him "Hello Alien," we wished all the time to test our catastrophic ability on the immunity system of a great giant like you; thanks God, but do not wary we will memorializes you; we will draw your picture every where in our lands and even under the water of our seas if they appeared, all our future generations will remember you; you will be the first human being who give the gift of science to us, the most vulnerable civilizations under the umbrella of your regulations of health care from our celestial environmental hazards.
-
Message 43
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 5th January 2008
What great - if trite - English these microbes speak! Are they Eton bred, or did they pick it up from old Starsky & Hutch episodes beamed out into space?
-
Message 44
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Saturday, 5th January 2008
Microbes did speak before man, and I think they can understand your Royal-English, if you like to tell them - and we in between - your opinion on the activity of any alien here or there.
-
Message 45
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 5th January 2008
I find they're only into small talk.
-
Message 46
Posted by ASTRA3 (U10777076) on Saturday, 5th January 2008
Hi!
When it comes to evidence of alien intervention in early history,I think the best are given by Zecharia Sitchin in his books called The Earth cronicles (The 12th planet,Genesis revisited,The stairway to heaven,The wars of gods and men,etc.) -
Message 47
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 5th January 2008
I find they're only into small talk.Â
And can be rather small minded...
Personally I subscribe to the idea, first proposed by Messrs Tom Tataranowicz and Rick Ungar in their groundbreaking documentary series 'Biker Mice from Mars', that Mars is inhabited by a race of motorcycle riding humanoid mice, and that they have indeed made contact with humans - specifically, one Miss Charlene 'Charley' Davidson, a Chicago-based mechanic. -
Message 48
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 5th January 2008
I used to be a mousite until I discovered that the "C" on my bike that initiated the name upon which the whole Chicago mechanic theory hinged was actually just some dried seagull dropping which the bike's previous owner (an avid spaghettian himself) had acquired and refused to clean off on grounds of disrupting the causality flow upon which the whole universe is hinged.
The bike, to my horror, was in fact NOT a Chonda 50! -
Message 49
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 5th January 2008
I get the impression that the life of the serious discussion in this thread is drawing peacefully to its close.
TP -
Message 50
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Sunday, 6th January 2008
One is afraid to enter the hall of the anonymous talk, while the other did thought wrongly that he saw what is beyond the image of a fictitious talk, and a third one stand outside it and wished to hear the secret key to the door of the most ancient but very serious talk. To all of them, one can say this is not the thread on such plain talk; prepare your self, and when you are ready, ask the Cabiri to show you the hall of the master sword of any anonymous ancient talk.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Ö÷²¥´óÐã iD
Ö÷²¥´óÐã navigation
Ö÷²¥´óÐã links
Ö÷²¥´óÐã © 2014 The Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.