Aliens mated with humans?

Page 3 of 4 [ 57 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Emettman
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,025
Location: Cornwall, UK

04 Feb 2006, 9:02 am

sc wrote:

The alien as an archetype.

Go back to the origins.
(Side thought: is having a dictionary of etymology on your desk an aspie sort of thing?)

Latin and Old French. Other and else. The "others", those who are "something else"
Same souce as "alias"

Illegal aliens don't have to be little green men, or Greys, exceeding the speed limit.

There's an overlap of ideas with "stranger" (not of this land). Alien and stranger could be neutral technical terms, but more commonly a preference for the familiar and known lets an element of aversion or prejudice creep in.

The alien is defined by those who are in their home territory and in the majority. Hmm.

CuriousPrimate
Raven
Raven

Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 116

04 Feb 2006, 9:16 am

Emettman wrote:

Side thought: is having a dictionary of etymology on your desk an aspie sort of thing?)

Perhaps if you have a collection of such dictionaries, so that you can cross-check the entries (could you really trust just one source?), but then perhaps you've only just started on this perseveration?

sc
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,434
Location: Fortuna California

04 Feb 2006, 9:36 am

Go back to the origins.
(Side thought: is having a dictionary of etymology on your desk an aspie sort of thing?)

Last week I was going to order dictionaries from Amazon. Books have to much information to spread out. Although computer versions are available and online, I want to just have a book with definitions with my recorded voice and read the dictionary as it replays on the headphones. Meanwhile I can pace from one end of the yard or room to the other without being in this chair!

Latin and Old French. Other and else. The "others", those who are "something else"
Same souce as "alias"

Illegal aliens don't have to be little green men, or Greys, exceeding the speed limit.

When speaking about this topic on my forum a few weeks ago, prior to reformatting it I spoke about this alien archetype. I mentioned illegal aliens as a quasi similaritity.

There's an overlap of ideas with "stranger" (not of this land). Alien and stranger could be neutral technical terms, but more commonly a preference for the familiar and known lets an element of aversion or prejudice creep in.

The alien is defined by those who are in their home territory and in the majority. Hmm.

Correct, as if from any other land, the outsider is stereotyped in this nature, yes.. very impolite for the freedom seekers. One time while living in Suisun California someone showed up at my door and asked if I saw any illegal aliens.. I do not know if it was a prank but I didn’t even know anyone in the apartment complex and he was knocking on everyone’s door. I do not talk to people often.

TheGreyBadger
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 31 Dec 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: 266

04 Feb 2006, 10:34 am

I would have grinned and said "Only on the sci-fi channel." :twisted:

Emettman
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,025
Location: Cornwall, UK

04 Feb 2006, 2:02 pm

CuriousPrimate wrote:

Emettman wrote:

Side thought: is having a dictionary of etymology on your desk an aspie sort of thing?)

Perhaps if you have a collection of such dictionaries,

Let's see. No. Two dictionaries, the etymology text and a dictionary of quotations all within reach. Not excessive at all.

Emettman
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,025
Location: Cornwall, UK

04 Feb 2006, 2:13 pm

TheGreyBadger wrote:

"Only on the sci-fi channel."

It's definitely a word in migration.

"They wept for their dead Lieutenant,
The men of an alien race-"

Rudyard Kipling circa 1890, (not space opera!)

psych
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,488
Location: w london

04 Feb 2006, 2:20 pm

Sean wrote:

psych wrote:

Sean wrote:

Scrapheap wrote:

The Old testament of the bible confirms that ailiens did land here and breed with humans. "The sons of god looked down upon the daughters of men and saw that they were fair and begat children with them" Genisis 6:2 :twisted:

That is quite a creative interperetaton. :roll:

ok, lets see you offer a sensible interpetation

First, no traditional Rabbi, Scribe, or Pharisee, or modern-day Hebrew scholar ever claimed that Moses was refering to anything other than a single entity despite using the plural "Elohim". This is now considered to be the first hint to reference to the trinity in the Old Testament. Moses is an etremely credible cource for this because he was the only one to converse with God in a conversational manner. The burning bush had nothing to do with UFOs or aliens because the doctrine that Moses was given is a polar opposite of what the new age lunatic fringe claims to receive from "aliens".

The "watchers" (aka sons of God) are now known as guardin angels. They fell after the devil was cast down. They slept with women and the women gave birth to giants who were evil, perverse, and probably briliant. The alien theory has no credibility among Rabbis or Hebrew scholars from any age.

This line of thoughtultimately falls flat because your only referencing as far back as Judaism.
To understand the true origins, youd have to go back to the source;

The Babylonian holy trinity;

Nimrod (father)
Tamus (the son)
Sumerimis (sp?)(virgin mother of Tamus)

later Egyptian version;

Osiris (father)
Horus (the son)
Isis (virgin mother of Horus)

Im not familiar with persian mythology, but apparently their 'son' figure Mithra had the following attributes;

-died for our sins
-gold, frankincense & myrhh taken to him at birth
-often called the lord or shepard
-said to have been born on Dec 25th

Im not confident talking about Mithra, but the Egyptian and Babylonian trinities are well known. To determine whether God* references are plural or singular youd have to find the '1st edition' bible which (so far) seems to be from the Babylonian era.

*I would expect 'god in the metaphysical sense to be a constant singular, what im interested in finding is seperate plural references which later got mixed together and assummed to have the same meaning.

IgorStop
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 63
Location: UK Midlands

04 Feb 2006, 6:19 pm

Emettman wrote

Quote:

That gets a reference on the Wikipedia site, and really runs with the idea to its full distance. Whether I'd follow it that far, that's more debatable.
Exogenesis (now there's a nice word) seems quite reasonable. But life before stars?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'life before stars.' The theory 'Cosmic Ancestry,' certainly ties panspermia to a steady state, non big-bang universe, and loses the origin of life in infinite time. Life, it says, may just have always been around, like the rest of the stuff of the universe.

This is unsatisfactory to anyone that wants a point of origin, but perhaps that is just a cultural or psychological need. We are born, we live we die, and it is impossible to imagine the infinite. However, I certainly do not discount the idea that the Big Bang theory will one day be consigned to the scrapheap. No less a theorist than Fred Hoyle coined the phrase Big Bang as a derogatory term, and is the man behind most of the theory as it is expounded on this site.

Scrapheap
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,685
Location: Animal Farm

04 Feb 2006, 7:31 pm

IgorStop wrote:

Emettman wrote

Quote:

Life, it says, may just have always been around, like the rest of the stuff of the universe.

However, I certainly do not discount the idea that the Big Bang theory will one day be consigned to the scrapheap. No less a theorist than Fred Hoyle coined the phrase Big Bang as a derogatory term, and is the man behind most of the theory as it is expounded on this site.

Then why does Steve Hawking support it??

_________________
All hail Comrade Napoleon!! !

Emettman
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,025
Location: Cornwall, UK

05 Feb 2006, 4:10 am

IgorStop wrote:

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'life before stars.' The theory 'Cosmic Ancestry,' certainly ties panspermia to a steady state, non big-bang universe,... No less a theorist than Fred Hoyle coined the phrase Big Bang as a derogatory term, and is the man behind most of the theory as it is expounded on this site.

And this is makes it a little paradoxical. It was Hoyle, with two others, who accounted for where all heavy elements come from, those that are essential for life: fusion in stars. He should have got the Nobel prize for that. but didn't.
We are indeed stardust, waste from failed nuclear reactors.

If stars have always been there, this is no problem, but life cannot precede stars. So that descends to a consideration of the steady state case. Not as good, I think, as when Hoyle proposed it. That the Big Bang theory (yes, another irony, that an insult should stick!) is not tidy either is uncomfortable, I grant. 90% of the universe missing? The point origin of the universe I find less troublesome, and given no-one has got near hidden variables underneath quantum uncertainty, that the entire universe may be based on chance is only a philosophical not a physical problem. Quite a good problem, though.

IgorStop
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 63
Location: UK Midlands

05 Feb 2006, 8:18 am

Emettman wrote.

Quote:

You are absolutely right, of course. I seem to remember something like five generations of stars are needed to build the right amount of heavy elements needed to create life. So as you say, life cannot precede the existence of stars. What puzzled me was the suggestion that somewhere on the CA it was implied that it did. I know the site pretty well, and you might point out to me where that is.

Scrapheap wrote:

Quote:

Then why does Steve Hawking support it??

Without digging out a lot of books I can only say that the peice of evidence most often held up to prove BB theory is the cosmic radiation background. I am not a scientist, but like others drawn into this discussion I have an intense interest in the subject (errr, what was the original thread? we seem to have done a bit of hijacking here). Of course Big Bang theory is the currently accepted paradigm, and it is presented as absolute fact by most of the scientific world. I can only say that there are still dissenting voices that claim this evidence is not absolute or undebateable, and a lot of the additions to the original theory to account for new discoveries of increasing age seem ad-hoc. Fred Hoyle modified his original 'steady-state' postition to include mini-big bangs.

For myself, I am fascinated by panspermia and think that it will become the paradigm of the future.

psych
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,488
Location: w london

05 Feb 2006, 4:22 pm

Hasnt BB theory been discredited? I dont understand the evidence for Infinitely old universe (IOU) theory, but its got something to do with;

red-light shift,
the discovery of quarks which pre-date BB
the hubble constant.

Nomaken
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Jun 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,058
Location: 31726 Windsor, Garden City, Michigan, 48135

05 Feb 2006, 10:47 pm

*puts on a foil hat made to look like a really big pirates hat*

_________________
And as always, these are simply my worthless opinions.
My body is a channel that translates energy from the universe into happiness.
I either express information, or consume it. I am debating which to do right now.

Emettman
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,025
Location: Cornwall, UK

06 Feb 2006, 2:49 am

psych wrote:

Hasnt BB theory been discredited?

It's got troubles, at both ends: creation out of nothing and the concept of "inflation" at the beginning, and measurements of rate of expansion and of the age of galaxies at the far reaches.

The standard model needs remodelling.

But classic steady-state is probably more untenable. Olbers paradox, again the observed age of galaxies and/or the need for continuous creation all sit uncomfortably.

The "oscillating universe" is been just one attempt to work round these. Unless it's a capricious universe, in which case all bets are off, there is a model for the universe out there somewhere.

Bland
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jan 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,430
Location: USA

07 Feb 2006, 9:32 am

(Side-stepping the theory of evolution, momentarily:)

Sean wrote:
The "watchers" (aka sons of God) are now known as guardin angels. They fell after the devil was cast down. They slept with women and the women gave birth to giants who were evil, perverse, and probably briliant. The alien theory has no credibility among Rabbis or Hebrew scholars from any age.

There is a theory that the "sons of God" is a reference to the so-called 'godly' line of Seth and the "daughters of men" refers to the so-called 'ungodly' line descending from Cain. The resultant mixing of these distinct people groups produced very large offspring; many old, eight to twelve feet-long skeletons have been found.
Of course, this idea has pitfalls. The phrase "sons of God" always refers to angels in the Old Testament.
I personally believe the more literal interpretation. Just because something is hard to believe doesn't mean it isn't so. Just look at the description of dragons in the Bible. Sounds alot like dinosaurs. Also, the "paths of the seas" recorded in Job long before Matthew Maury rediscovered them.

_________________
"Honey, would you buy me some boobles for my 40th b-day?" "No way, they're too expensive. Your own baubles will have to do."

psych
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,488
Location: w london

07 Feb 2006, 9:03 pm

Sean wrote:

psych wrote:

1940s?

waaay off. try 2800 BC!

this is David Ickes theory;

- several thosand years ago a large mass arrived in our solar system with cataclysmic effects. It smashed into one of the larger planets (jupiter? cant remember) creating a large asteroid belt (which i believe is well documented) The remnant settled into solar orbit as the mass we now know as venus.

- suring this cataclysm, mars was in the wrong place at the wrong time & was smashed beyond recognition. All traces of civilized life were eliminated EXCEPT the pyramids in the region of cydonia. (just google it, youll see what i mean) The Earth sufferred some fallout too, which took the effect of giant flooding (goodbye Atlantis!)

- The martians came to earth to survive, they settled in the caucasus (hence the term 'caucasian') mountains to escape the giant flooding occurring everywhere (as mentioned in the old testament - Noahs ark etc). These Martians were the original caucasian or 'aryan' race.

Other points he makes include the Nazca lines in Peru and the fact that if you put a white person into sensory deprivation their bodily rhythm matches the orbit of mars, rather than the orbit of earth (as with non-white people). Also there is a famous mystical site in England called Avebury with neolithic monuments, and the landscape is almost a mirror image of cydonia.

Crucially, many ancient religious texts also start to make sense if you take his theory on board. He says if you read hebrew the old testament and other writings mention 'Gods' as plural rather than singular.

He is best known for his ideas about the mysterious 'annunaki' from ancient Sumerian texts. He believes they were reptilian creatures with greatly advanced knoledge.

This sounds like something L. Ron Hubbard would come up with. :roll:

David Icke was a sucessful television sports presenter up until 1991. He famously appeared on a popular interview show and suddenly started prophesising a coming period of strife in which there will be eartquakes, flooding and great tidal waves. Of course, the audience laughed and he became a laughing stock for many years. Be careful who you mock, Sean.

Page 3 of 4 [ 57 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

Aliens mated with humans? Post Reply New Topic

Aliens mated with humans?