Aliens or us?

[paigetheoracle]

Surely, surely you're not confusing my question with an assertion? I asked the question because I was not sure of what greys mean.

 

Sadly, yes I did: Most communication is non-verbal (body language/intonation), so a lot of net communication as well as in ordinary life, tends to lead to misinterpretation

 

Well, Eclogite said it, but I have to talk too.

 

First of all, it is wrong to say that aliens do not exist, without actually finding proof that they don't. After all, it is a big universe.

 

Well said

 

There is no proof. How can there be a proof for a negative statement? When I say there are no greys, it's because no body has observed and documented them convincingly.

Now I can prove that there do exist 'fictional aliens'. Hell, I can conjure one up right now if you ask me to.

 

Not the same thing, as Eclogite said. I'll not talk on this...

 

Supposing I was a mixture of both? What about you? You may feel that aliens do exist, but you fail to give hard, solid and definite proof. Almost all the 'proof' that does exist can be explained with more realistic theories, or be attributed to hoaxes.

 

Seemingly but the work of Eric Julien (see other alien thread in his forum) does come up with some interesting ideas. Whether aliens are physically real is the question and as other writers on the subject have conjectured and as you mention, the subject has always been there.

 

The whole concept of aliens has come up with the willingness of the people to believe that they do. You want to believe that they do. So, you attribute some mysterious phenomena to extraterrestrial life. This was done in the past also, but early men. The difference was that they thought of 'gods'.

 

This is I think a question of semantics: It's the same phenomena but given a different name, depending on the culture of the time and it's awareness e.g. planes called big birds because there was no term for airplanes within primitive culture - in other words, what was seen and has always been seen may be the same thing but the analogy for it has changed; hence a photograph shows the actual thing and a drawing as accurate representation as possible, depending upon the skills and memory of the observer. Words fail because they are always comparative and dependent upon the experience of the speaker - direct experience or pictures are less misleading

 

I oppose the thinking of these people. I want to find a reasoning that does not involve new and speculative ideas about things that have never been directly observed. If all else fails, I will still not shout "alien!". Neither will you shout "God!".

 

Well I have actually seen UFO's and Aliens in my bedroom but this (at least the latter) could be put down to hypnogogic or hypnopompic images, seen upon waking or dropping off to sleep: That then leads to the question 'Why do we see such images at all and what, truly are they?' Similarly I've recently discovered that my migraines, may along with various other symptoms, indicate I suffer from Temporal Lobe Epilepsy but again, even if this is the true cause, what is the mechanism that leads to these projections and altered states of consciousness, what is its true significance and how does that explain the witnessing of a large UFO, seen for at least ten minutes by me while in the company of some school friends and described as being seen globally by John Keel, in his book 'UFO's: Operation Trojan Horse'?

 

For information about this condition see the work of Michael Persinger of Canada's Laurentian University. I first thought that this might explain my condition only a few weeks ago, when reading an article in The ASSAP Journal by a girl called Teresa(Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena), although I had suspected it for a while. Her description was more accurate and detailed than previous definitions I'd seen and therefore removed the doubt that my migraines where a separate condition from everything else in my weird life.

 

And pseudoscience is based on the exploitation of this neutrality. Till there is some proof, and proof as solid as stone, nothing is 'true'. It is all a logical reasoning, or explanation to describe a phenomena. It is your desicion, wether you accept the description, or refuse to. I refuse to believe in greys because they are made of the same stuff as 'god'.

 

Not even the cell theory of life? Not even about the shape of the earth? Not even the fact that your body has T-Lymphocytes?

 

It's not about end results (proof) but the process and intellectual tools of discovery (Active pursuit of new knowledge, not passive acceptance of old truths). This is about exploring future possibilities, not past certainties - imagination not memory; creativity, not preservation: Alice in Wonderland and the Caterpillar ' I believe in a 100 impossible things before breakfast'. Belief isn't truth (fact)but that which leads to the attempt to find it - at least in my book (Every step forward can be right or wrong but resting on your laurels ensures nothing new is found and no progress made (stagnation).

 

Prejudice never finds the truth because it isn't looking for it. All it wants is confirmation of its former ideas, not contradictory information (comfortable certainties rather than uncomfortable doubts). Solid facts are based upon the past but only new discoveries can come from a leap of faith into the unknown future: 'Space 1999' and the future heading towards you and the past being left behind, continually.

 

Then how do you explain the working of your world to yourself?

I don't mean to sound rude, but it's probably that you do not. Everything's working fine the way it is, an it will keep working. Right?

 

Oh I do explain the workings of the world to myself: See my website, if I ever get round to getting it going. Everything is up and running fine but no, it won't stay that way: Life alternates with death, war with peace, problems with solutions - this experience tells us, whether we accept this or not. By the way, this is why I try not to believe in anything to strongly - as the Hindus say 'All things must pass' and therefore any belief has to change with the world, which means the only constant you can believe in is change itself. Hence any belief, like any physical entity, when viewed in universal terms of time, is impermanent: What works today and may be true, tomorrow may not.

 

Hope this answers some of your questions, if not all (No-body's perfect - the road is long and even I don't have all the answers but am searching):hyper:

[moo]

Lol ok, thanks for the clarification Turtle. :hihi:

 

It’s not mechanically possible to cause the orbit of a body to “decline” in the sense of “spiraling in” to it’s primary, or move to a lower, nearly circular orbit, with a single change in velocity, from an impact or any other means.

CraigD, can you explain why it's impossible for an impact of sufficient force to affect both speed and diameter of the orbit (given the proper direction of impact)? :hihi:

 

Something silimiar to this scenario perhaps...

                    moon
                      o      <-- direction of meteor travel

                  O        
                Earth


       clockwise orbit (2D view)

moo

[CraigD]

CraigD, can you explain why it's impossible for an impact of sufficient force to affect both speed and diameter of the orbit (given the proper direction of impact)?

Yes.

 

Depending on its initial position and velocity, a body effected only by the gravity of a much larger one will follow a conic section curve. All a single impact can do is set up a particular initial position and velocity.

 

There’s no conic section curve that looks like 2 circles with a connecting path, or an ever-decreasing-radius spiral. For the Moon to be shifted from it’s nearly circular orbit to a lower nearly circular orbit by meteor impacts would require it to be hit at least 2 times at the correct angles by meteors with about the same momenta (speed*mass). Check out transfer orbit for an illustration and details.

 

For it to follow an ever-tightening spiral, it would have to be hit many times, predominantly in a direction opposite it’s travel. This scenario is actually more likely than the previous one (though not very for our Moon), because orbiting bodies may sometimes undergo continuous impact with clouds of gas, dust, and smaller bodies moving in random-like directions. Observations suggest this may be happening in other star systems.

[moo]

Thanks. I've also been reading a bit since that post and just hadn't realized orbiting was such a tricky business. Your explanation is greatly appreciated. :hihi:

 

moo

[justforfun]

Well I might as well give my opinion on the alien 'problem.' When I first read the David Icke material about shape-shifting reptiles having lived on the Earth for longer than humans it seemed funny. After lots of googling I'm not laughing. If what he says and other sites imply is even close to true, Somebody is sure going to a lot of trouble to keep it quiet. And whatever is going on, it seems to me to be coming to a 'cusp' within the next several years. Stay tuned ...

[paigetheoracle]

First of all, it's doubtful that they are aliens. Evolution is so sensitive to initial conditions, that in all of the universe, our chances for ever meeting any other life forms looking even remotely similar to us is incredibly tiny. Yet, these 'greys' have unmistakable humanoid features.

 

Another thought on this that relates to the post about panspermia, or life from outer space. If this is true as Wickramasinghe and Hoyle theorize, then this would explain life as all having the same broad characteristics: Same seeding mechanism, same frame of genetic reference, no?

[Buffy]

If this is true as Wickramasinghe and Hoyle theorize, then this would explain life as all having the same broad characteristics: Same seeding mechanism, same frame of genetic reference, no?

However theories of Abiogenesis can produce the same results, so the commonality you refer to does not support one theory over the other....

 

Strawberry or Pistachio, :D

Buffy

[Eclogite]

When I first read the David Icke material about shape-shifting reptiles having lived on the Earth for longer than humans it seemed funny. ..........And whatever is going on, it seems to me to be coming to a 'cusp' within the next several years.

The hallmark of any good pseudoscience, cultish, para-esoteric 'theory' is that events are 'approaching a cusp'. If the consequences and ultimate revelation of the conspiracy/alien invasion/end of the world/etc was two hundred years in the future it could hardly give the emotional fix so desired by those too sad to be enthused by the wonders of reality.