Why don't people take UFOs and ancient astronauts seriously?

Post Reply New Topic

Is it because it doesn't fall into either 'mainstream'? Both the science community and the religious community see it as heresy. Science sees it as heresy because of their humanist bias and also because we haven't confirmed physical evidence, and religion sees it as heresy because it supposedly contradicts humanity's importance to God, though the Catholic Church is slowly opening up to the idea of aliens.

I think another reason most people don't take it seriously is because they assume that Hollywood invented it. Take the Men In Black for example. Like most people probably, I was introduced to the MIB by the 1997 movie and thought the organization was purely fictional. However well before 1997, even back to the 60s i think, people claimed to encounter government agents that wore black, and the movies were based on those accounts.

People are not as hostile to the idea of aliens existing somewhere in the Universe. I think most people nowadays would say they think it's at least possible there's intelligent life beyond Earth. Given the size of the Universe, I would say it's almost impossible there isn't any other life. Watch this video to see what I mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U

Based on my personal experiences, what my family has told me and their experiences, on my understanding of physics, and what I know about history and things that I have heard, I would say there is at least an 80% chance we are being visited by ETs, and personally I think they are the ones who created us, or at least the ones who gave us civilization. That is why they look similar to us, despite the argument that aliens would necessarily look totally different from us.

Because there is no valid material evidence to support any claim for the existence of extraterrestrial life (including "Ancient Astronauts"), for extraterrestrial life being behind the lights in the sky, or for those lights in the sky being anything other than terrestrial in origin.

Last edited by Fnord on 01 Aug 2011, 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The problem is its always a bunch of whackos advocating the fringe theories and completely ignoring the archaeological record. They don't seek peer review and there are serious gaps in the information they provide to back their claims. Now New Age movements are closely associated with ancient astronaut theories and frankly THAT is a bunch of popcorn granola nonsense that nobody should pollute their mind with. There is life out there and I promise you they will have no clue what the Age of Aquarius is

They really, really think Humans are stupid and incapable if they think we couldn't pile a bunch of damn blocks to build pyramids. Its basic mathematics and engineering combined with massive social mobilization. The fact that many civilizations use pyramids in monumental architecture does not imply common source but convergent evolution. It is logical that a pyramid shaped structure would precede, say, a gigantic cube, for engineering reasons, it is much simpler to build a pyramid. Then there is the whole UFO phenomenon. I have studied this in some depth, not because I am a believer, but because I really would want it to be true, but I absolutely don't see any real proof. The seminal story about 'flying saucers' in the late 40s is a big problem for me. For one thing the pilot in question (this being the case that really set off the phenomenon) claimed to have seen delta shaped objects that 'skipped along like saucers'. Later reporters misquoted him as saying 'they were flying saucers'. Within months there were hundreds of flying saucer sighting but no delta shaped object sightings- not until the 70s at least, conveniently the same time that the F117 was in development. The US government is not covering up UFOs, they love this s**t, any time anyone sees an experimental aircraft and reports it people automatically assume they are a kook. You have to admit the Air Force really had their cake and ate it too

Last edited by Vigilans on 01 Aug 2011, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

C'mon, Vig ... don't hold back ...

Now whatever could you mean

Obviously some people do buy into it.

I don't see how it would constitute heresy, but then my mind does not work in terms of heresy, just evidence and sense.

If you are not into theism, then either there is or theree is not evidence of visits from offworlders. I personally have not seen nor heard tell of any data that are not at least as suspect as evidence of the "supernatural" is to the atheist. If more data comew in I will recompute.

If you are theist - I do not know of any major religious organization that would be tied into a knot by evidence of offworlders. For some there is a presumption of Terra as special, but it is not for any group I know of essential that we be alone.

If, say, the Ezekiel 10 vision was some kind space or time transporter - a favorite with some streams of sci fi - that changes the essence of any of the Abrahamic religions no more than if Elijah producing fire in the contest with the prophets of Baal involved a clever substitution of something like naphtha for water.

Say what's on your mind ... let it all out, this time ...

Obviously, the popularity of a myth has nothing to do with its veracity.

Good, you agree with Vig and me.

That's the most sense you've made since I became a member here. Congratulations.

... then you'll likely believe anything.

Actually, he did originally describe them as being saucerlike.

Statement to the army
Kenneth Arnold's report to Army Air Forces (AAF) intelligence, dated July 12, 1947, which includes annotated sketches of the typical craft in the chain of nine objects.

In a written statement to Army Air Forces (AAF) intelligence the following day (July 12), Arnold several times referred to the objects as "saucer-like." At the end of the report he drew a picture of what the objects appeared to look like at their closest approach to Mt. Rainier. He wrote, "They seemed longer than wide, their thickness was about 1/20th their width." (document with Arnold's drawing at right) As to motion, Arnold wrote, "They flew like many times I have observed geese to fly in a rather diagonal chain-like line as if they were linked together. They seemed to hold a definite direction but rather swerved in and out of the high mountain peaks." He also spoke of how they would "flip and flash in the sun." text of written report

I am not that strident lol just looking to have an interesting discussion... donniedarko at least made the first threads that have interested me in a few months so thumbs up to him. I pretty well covered my thoughts on the matter, for the time being at least

Archaeology is mostly just wild guess work anyway. Saying that the cave paintings and so on are aliens is just as valid as saying they are demons or whatever the conventional explanation is.

As for the Pyramids, that could be explained by human muscle and ingenuity yes. But how about this?

http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_PumaPunku.htm

Archaeology is NOT wild guess work. At least not mainstream archaeology. There is a definite pattern in the trend of Human development and it really makes little sense when referring to the archaeological record to assume that a non-terrestrial source was required to further advance Humans

I was not aware that there is a controversy over Pumapunku. Its just another mega engineering project (mega for the time, at least)




Well, really he described very thin, crescent shaped objects that 'skipped like saucers across water'

Oh, for the luvvah...

Translation: "Modern scholars have not yet determined the exact method by which these structures were built."

This does not mean that "Ancient Astronauts" had anything to do with the construction; it only means that a concensus agreement has not been reached on whether animal or human labor played the most important role.

Why is it that some people get all excited over the the words "I don't know" and then jump to the unsupportable opinion that the event or object in question somehow involved extraterrestrials, ghosts, gods, magic, et cetera?

And why is it that this type of "reasoning" still occurs in the Twenty-First Century?

Look, the hypothesis that there are likely more planets with life on them and that given the pace of technology vs. the pace of the universe indicates strongly that any other life form in the universe is either way behind or way ahead of us - so there must be some way ahead of us, yeah, there is some merit.

But there's almost no "science" at all in the ancient alien theories. And pretending that there is, is just postulating a false equivalency.

You are absolutely wrong. For example, I do not believe you have what it takes to be a skeptic.

Further, most theists will not buy into ruveyn's thesis that nothing is real but what he sees or is told by a short list of sources in whom he has faith.

Very few, if any, theists will believe in Universal Mind or Situational ethics.

On the other hand, many people, relatively few of whom are theists, believe Transformational Grammar is valid, or that there is a lot of good materiak [including some UFO stories] in the National Enquirer.

Here's one - are you capable of believing that a dig has a higher point value if it can be based on fact?

The next day in a much more detailed article, Bequette wrote, "He clung to his story of shiny, flat objects racing over the Cascade mountains with a peculiar weaving motion ‘like the tail of a Chinese kite.' ...He also described the objects as 'saucer-like' and their motion 'like fish flipping in the sun.' ...[Arnold] described the objects as 'flat like a pie-pan and somewhat bat-shaped'." It wasn't until June 28 that Bequette first used the term "flying disc" (but not "flying saucer").

A review of early newspaper stories indicates that immediately after his sighting, Arnold generally described the objects’ shape as thin and flat, rounded in the front but chopped in the back and coming to a point, i.e., more or less saucer- or disk-like. He also specifically used terms like "saucer" or "saucer-like", "disk", and "pie pan" or "pie plate" in describing the shape. The motion he generally described as weaving like the tail of a kite and erratic flipping.

Well I have a few reasons for taking such things seriously.
1. I have yet to see proof that a human or group of humans on the ground could create as elaborate of a crop circle as the pictures of them I have seen. I saw a supposed debunking thing and theirs looked like crap so that to me did not prove that something from above has to be creating them...also even if humans could do that from the ground it would be kind of hard not to be noticed in the process.

2. If by chance most of the bible is based on things that really happened, the existance of life elsewhere in the universe and having contact with this planet would explain a lot.....this also applies to pagan mythologies as well.

and there are more but I would prefer not to be yelled at for them all so two is good.