28 replies to this topic

[TeamIsCow]

I read two books, Erich von Däniken (chariots of the gods) and Zecharia Sitchin (the 12th planet).

Also, I watched some parts of a History Channel series called "Ancient Aliens".
Those series were pretty bad. But I was impressed by some of these theories.

Here's a wiki for a quick overview. (not too informative and set in a very dull way)
http://en.wikipedia....ient_astronauts

So. Is this all a bunch of non-sence? Or could some of the old religions actually
be based on the same material?

Oh and not to be vaque. It's widely regarded as psuedo-science with very
little support from mainstream science!

Edited by TeamIsCow, 08 June 2010 - 04:18 PM.

[SkyggeN]

Well if indeed Aliens did visit earth at some point we have no evidence to support this.
I haven't really read anything about this subject but I read the wiki page you provided.

The evidence cited by the proponents are as far as I can see:
1: Similarities in various religious text that describe something which could be interpreted as extra terrestrial.
Religious texts have never been good scientific proof of anything - they don't even work well as historical records. There's no reason why they should be considered proof for this ancient astronaut theory. If we are talking about similarities in religious texts then that's nothing new. Religions have been borrowing from each other pretty consistently throughout time, and the "coming from the heavens" and flying, light, magic whatever just fits the whole religious idea of a supernatural being with superpowers.

2: Artwork that depicts aliens.
Artwork is what it is. Art. It doesn't have to depict anything accurately and if indeed that was the intention then maybe the artist got the wrong impression. We don't know what ancient cavemen wanted to say if they drew humans with "space helmets" on. Maybe they aren't space helmets? There's no reason to jump to the conclusion that cave paintings are depicting aliens because the picture looks like the aliens or astronauts we see in movies today. Had we designed spacesuits to look different the proponents of the theory might not even ever have drawn the connection.

3: Architecture (namely the pyramids).
There are people who devote their entire lives to finding out things about the ancient culture of Egypt and the pyramids and so on. There are many theories on how the ancient Egyptians could've built the pyramids with the technology at their disposal. Again there's nothing that indicates that Aliens had to have helped - the Egyptians could've done it on their own and they most probably did.

4: Nazca Lines (Ground drawings that are best viewed from the air)
It says in the wiki page that this was replicated by a professor using the tools which would've been available to the people at the time. So once again it could have been done without the intervention of aliens and therefore there's no need to jump to the conclusion that aliens helped, or did it.


In summary the theory is weak with no real evidence to back it up. Unless something extraordinary turns up, don't bother.

[Pawnator]

I read two books, Erich von Däniken (chariots of the gods) and Zecharia Sitchin (the 12th planet).

Also, I watched some parts of a History Channel series called "Ancient Aliens".
Those series were pretty bad. But I was impressed by some of these theories.

Here's a wiki for a quick overview. (not too informative and set in a very dull way)
http://en.wikipedia....ient_astronauts

So. Is this all a bunch of non-sence? Or could some of the old religions actually
be based on the same material ?

Oh and not to be vaque. It's widely regarded as psuedo-science with very
little support from mainstream science !

The History Channel and popular authors like Sitchin enjoy making money off the idea that ancient religious texts, archaeological and scientific evidence demonstrate that Aliens manipulated humanity's distant past.

Zecharia Sitchin "translated" Sumerian, Akkadian, and Babylonian texts at a time when the number of scholars who could actually translate these texts could be counted on hands and toes. Today, and even during Sitchin's time, his translations were and are considered in error; it is clear that Sitchin either misunderstood or willfully mistranslated these ancient texts. The greatest Sumerian scholar of the 20th Century, Samuel Noah Kramer, most certainly did not find the Alien astronaut theory compelling.

I can go into detail regarding what is wrong with Sitchin's work if you like, but for now I'll leave you with this: The word "Nibiru", and the concepts which supposedly correspond with it (I.E., Marduk), are not found in any Sumerian texts. They are only found in Babylonian texts. The Sumerians flourished from roughly 4500-2000 BCE, and the Babylonian Empire from 1800 BCE onwards. If Aliens engineered humanity and left behind evidence in the ancient Mesopotamian religion, why would it be absent in the Sumerian texts, and then suddenly appear during Babylonian times?

You may wish to check out the

Oxford Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature , as well as

The Sumerian-Akkadian Lexicon (pdf link at the bottom of the page)

[Riddle]

Indeed, there is insufficient evidence supporting this theory.

That being said, with the amount of galaxies there are in the universe, hundreds of billions. Each have thousands of stars very much like our Sun and most stars have planets in orbit like our own solar system; Chances of extra-terrestrial life must be high. The essence of life is water. Water is found in abundance from Earth to even distant planetary moons like the ice covered Enceladus. The probability for intelligent lifeforms must be good.

Given the probability, it will be ignorant to claim that we are the only intelligible being in the universe that have the potential to explore space and the universe. Infact, given the probability for intelligible lifeforms, someone else may already be exploring the universe and coming into contact with other lifeforms like us.

So sure, to our extended knowledge, there is no evidence supporting the theory of extra-terrestrial beings visiting us. But with mathematical probabilities and logical assumptions, such a theory can be supported.

Edited by Riddle, 08 June 2010 - 03:28 AM.

[TeamIsCow]

the evidence is so poor it can be discarted without much thought. It's still an interresting idea imho.

Actually, if you lived in India, this is what you would believe. Since Hinduism kinda states the same.
Their gods weren't actuall gods but beings from outside the planet.
And the real one god is just everything in existence. (the big conciousness or something like that).

This is what I read about in the stories of the Mahabharata.
(the epic war the gods fought on earth which is depicted in Hindu lore)

(For the record. I'm not part of some dogmatic believe system or anything. just a bit out there
for one, I can't discart religious txt as complete non-sence. I can imagine those
people simply wrote down how they expierienced sudden events.)

But in the Mahabharata they state that the gods used a single arrow that had the power of a 1000 suns.
And the effect was basicly that everything burst into flame, and whatever escaped the initial blast
had symtoms like: Hair and nails falling out, cancerous tumors of the skin.

This describes so closely the effect of a nuke being used, that it really intriqued me.
The writer must have had a very fortunate imagination to come up with that.

Edited by TeamIsCow, 08 June 2010 - 04:18 PM.

[Dr Dozzy]

Indeed, there is insufficient evidence supporting this theory.

That being said, with the amount of galaxies there are in the universe, hundreds of billions. Each have thousands of stars very much like our Sun and most stars have planets in orbit like our own solar system; Chances of extra-terrestrial life must be high. The essence of life is water. Water is found in abundance from Earth to even distant planetary moons like the ice covered Enceladus. The probability for intelligent lifeforms must be good.

Given the probability, it will be ignorant to claim that we are the only intelligible being in the universe that have the potential to explore space and the universe. Infact, given the probability for intelligible lifeforms, someone else may already be exploring the universe and coming into contact with other lifeforms like us.

So sure, to our extended knowledge, there is no evidence supporting the theory of extra-terrestrial beings visiting us. But with mathematical probabilities and logical assumptions, such a theory can be supported.

In essence you are describing the Drake equation. However the error margins for the likely hood of many of the elements such as fℓ, fi, fc and L are currently only know to be 1. Until we learn more about abiogenesis, and the difficulty of stepping up from simple bacterial life to complex multicellular forms, the Drake equation is too vague to be used seriously.

Secondly, the sheer distance between the stars is a barrier that any civilisation would have trouble crossing. During which time, either civilisation may have collapsed, or the species gone extinct. Not to mention the time involved in replying.

Crossing the void is an equally titanic quest. Without some form of bending space/time (ala wormholes etc in science fiction), the journey would take even longer, since you would not be able to reach lightspeed.

Edited by Dr Dozzy, 16 June 2010 - 01:03 PM.

[TeamIsCow]

In essence you are describing the Drake equation. However the error margins for the likely hood of many of the elements such as fℓ, fi, fc and L are currently only know to be 1. Until we learn more about abiogenesis, and the difficulty of stepping up from simple bacterial life to complex multicellular forms, the Drake equation is too vague to be used seriously.

Secondly, the sheer distance between the stars is a barrier that any civilisation would have trouble crossing. Simple radio waves, or other forms of electromagnetic radiation, travel at the fastest speed know, and would still take more than hundreds of thousands of years to get here. During which time, either civilisation may have collapsed, or the species gone extinct. Not to mention the time involved in replying.

Crossing the void is an equally titanic quest. Without some form of bending space/time (ala wormholes etc in science fiction), the journey would take even longer, since you would not be able to reach lightspeed.

What if traveling (by movement) through space is the wrong way to go about it?
(I like Frank Herberts fiction of Folding Space and travel without moving. )

But seriously, maybe we simply don't know shit about the universe. What if some
other civilization knows how it really works and therefore can indeed manipulate space
and time to move to any part of the universe in ways we can't imagine.

Obviously this is pure speculation cause I'm the last person to understand anything
about space and time. But I think if you say that "no one can cross the distance" then
you probably overestimate what humans understand/know about the realms of reality.

[SkyggeN]

What if traveling (by movement) through space is the wrong way to go about it?
(I like Frank Herberts fiction of Folding Space and travel without moving. )

But seriously, maybe we simply don't know shit about the universe. What if some
other civilization knows how it really works and therefore can indeed manipulate space
and time to move to any part of the universe in ways we can't imagine.

We know A LOT more now than we did 100 years ago. Having said that, we are still vastly ignorant and have a lot to learn but we are discovering new things each day. The concept of space is still something that science is exploring - what's it made of? How can it be manipulated? These are questions that have yet to be answered.

Our knowledge has given us an idea of just how insignificant we are in the universe - and another civilization (no matter how intelligent) would be equally insignificant.

I can't help but to think that if indeed aliens with the fast-travel capabilities such as you describe existed then what would be their interest in coming to earth to interact with simple humans? Learn from us? Hardly. Give knowledge to us? In that case they've been embarrassingly inefficient, seeing as we today stand on the shoulders of giants (the great minds of mankind) which were indeed human. Maybe they wanted to study us? But the ancient astronauts theory says that aliens played a role in the development in culture, religion and technology and if they just wanted to study us then surely these intelligent beings would know that interfering with human development would be disruptive to the study.

[Dr Dozzy]

Any civilisation capable of traveling the voids of space, is one of far advanced science and technology. We would be ants to them. Anyway, there is no evidence of said civilisations. But we continue the search.

[way2lazy2care]

Any civilisation capable of traveling the voids of space, is one of far advanced science and technology. We would be ants to them. Anyway, there is no evidence of said civilisations. But we continue the search.

we are ants to ourselves.

[7thVirgo]

Indeed, there is insufficient evidence supporting this theory.

That being said, with the amount of galaxies there are in the universe, hundreds of billions. Each have thousands of stars very much like our Sun and most stars have planets in orbit like our own solar system; Chances of extra-terrestrial life must be high. The essence of life is water. Water is found in abundance farom Earth to even distant planetary moons like the ice covered Enceladus. The probability for intelligent lifeforms must be good.

Given the probability, it will be ignorant to claim that we are the only intelligible being in the universe that have the potential to explore space and the universe. Infact, given the probability for intelligible lifeforms, someone else may already be exploring the universe and coming into contact with other lifeforms like us.

So sure, to our extended knowledge, there is no evidence supporting the theory of extra-terrestrial beings visiting us. But with mathematical probabilities and logical assumptions, such a theory can be supported.

You are one smart/rational man!

To add my own 2 cents, I've read some of Zecharia's work. To be honest, it makes a lot of sense... more sense than a lot of "mainstream"'s science theories do. Those theories are based on [actual translated ancient historic documentation... not artwork or religious texts. The rationalization used to create Zecharia's theories is more sound than the rationalization that is used to create modern theories about how the ancients made the pyramids and other ancient wonders.

You have to realize something - any theory is constructed from what a person knows about the subject and how that person is able to "make sense" of that information. In other words, the persons opinion or feeling's on the subject can impact the person's ability to rationalilze the information clearly - thus his/her ability to make a sound/rational/TRUTHFUL theory. In other words, ANY theory is only a person's opinion.

That is why, I agree with Riddle on this. We DON'T know that aliens are real. Nor do we know that they aren't. Is it possible? HELL YES. Is there enough sure evidence to prove that they exist? NO. All we have are theories - from either 'side'. All we do know is that it's possible/probable/likely.

Either way, we have to stay open minded about it, because it is [i]obviously[/] more likely that it is true than that it is not. Just my "opinion"

[Dr Dozzy]

You are one smart/rational man!

To add my own 2 cents, I've read some of Zecharia's work. To be honest, it makes a lot of sense... more sense than a lot of "mainstream"'s science theories do. Those theories are based on [actual translated ancient historic documentation... not artwork or religious texts. The rationalization used to create Zecharia's theories is more sound than the rationalization that is used to create modern theories about how the ancients made the pyramids and other ancient wonders.

You have to realize something - any theory is constructed from what a person knows about the subject and how that person is able to "make sense" of that information. In other words, the persons opinion or feeling's on the subject can impact the person's ability to rationalilze the information clearly - thus his/her ability to make a sound/rational/TRUTHFUL theory. In other words, ANY theory is only a person's opinion.

That is why, I agree with Riddle on this. We DON'T know that aliens are real. Nor do we know that they aren't. Is it possible? HELL YES. Is there enough sure evidence to prove that they exist? NO. All we have are theories - from either 'side'. All we do know is that it's possible/probable/likely.

Either way, we have to stay open minded about it, because it is [i]obviously[/] more likely that it is true than that it is not. Just my "opinion"

What? There is evidence and reasoning behind theories, not just wild speculation and opinions. It doesn't matter if it does or doesn't make sense to you, the world can be counter-intuitive. Its what the evidence shows us. That is truth. Zecharia's work is nonsense. If you want to learn about ancient cultures look to credited archaeologists, not a crackpot author, whose works flies in the face of most science. Xenu makes more sense than his ramblings.

[SkyggeN]

You are one smart/rational man!

To add my own 2 cents, I've read some of Zecharia's work. To be honest, it makes a lot of sense... more sense than a lot of "mainstream"'s science theories do. Those theories are based on [actual translated ancient historic documentation... not artwork or religious texts. The rationalization used to create Zecharia's theories is more sound than the rationalization that is used to create modern theories about how the ancients made the pyramids and other ancient wonders.

You have to realize something - any theory is constructed from what a person knows about the subject and how that person is able to "make sense" of that information. In other words, the persons opinion or feeling's on the subject can impact the person's ability to rationalilze the information clearly - thus his/her ability to make a sound/rational/TRUTHFUL theory. In other words, ANY theory is only a person's opinion.

That is why, I agree with Riddle on this. We DON'T know that aliens are real. Nor do we know that they aren't. Is it possible? HELL YES. Is there enough sure evidence to prove that they exist? NO. All we have are theories - from either 'side'. All we do know is that it's possible/probable/likely.

Either way, we have to stay open minded about it, because it is [i]obviously[/] more likely that it is true than that it is not. Just my "opinion"

I'm sorry to say this but it kinda sounds like you don't know what a theory means in scientific terms. Every theory has to be backed up by evidence and can't just be based on wild speculations or opinions. You can't just jump to a conclusion saying that just because something is possible we'll say that's what happened. You've got to have evidence to close the gap.

[Pawnator]

You are one smart/rational man!

To add my own 2 cents, I've read some of Zecharia's work. To be honest, it makes a lot of sense... more sense than a lot of "mainstream"'s science theories do. Those theories are based on [actual translated ancient historic documentation... not artwork or religious texts.

Zecharia Sitchin's translations come entirely from ancient religious texts, yes. There are no Sumerian, Akkadian or Babylonian texts that are not intertwined with religion, even notes of transaction; therefore I question what you mean by "ancient historic documentation" that is not religious text. Please look up any texts that Sitchin sites in the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature.

Sumerian history as we know it is supported by a large body of evidence. Zecharia Sitchin's theory is not supported by a large body of evidence. That is the difference between his history and mainstream history. He is as much a dogma-pusher as anyone else.

If you'd like to evaluate a specific zecharia sitchin claim, please post one here.

[TeamIsCow]

What kind of proof would you expect to find of these visitations after 10000 years?

Even if it happened today, it'd already be disputed tomorrow. Video evidence would be
declared hoax. Eyewithness accounts would be discarted as fantasy.

I'm not the biggest fan of encounter stories yet, aint it strange that people can get
lifetime jail on eyewithness accounts. But eyewithness accounts
of encounters don't even get a second thought by the average man.

Let alone ancient encounter stories.

I guess you'd only believe it if they actually blew up New York and 5000 people filmed it
(oh no wait... it'd probably be blamed on a malfunctioning weather baloon)

Edited by TeamIsCow, 14 June 2010 - 06:21 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

I'm not the biggest fan of encounter stories yet, aint it strange that people can get
lifetime jail on eyewithness accounts. But eyewithness accounts
of encounters don't even get a second thought by the average man.

Let alone ancient encounter stories.

I guess you'd only believe it if they actually blew up New York and 5000 people filmed it
(oh no wait... it'd probably be blamed on a malfunctioning weather baloon)

The problem with the eyewitness accounts and video we have is that it's all tremendously poor quality or easily duplicated with non-alien means.

What's more likely? Aliens visit our planet, or a person takes a picture of their son throwing a hub cap and sells it for $200?

[Pawnator]

What kind of proof would you expect to find of these visitations after 10000 years?

Sitchin claims to have proof from several thousand years ago; that's what he bases his claim on.

Falsely.

[richmeister]

To claim that we know even 0.00000000000000000000001% of how space and the universe works would be a lie. I don't think we acknowledge just how ignorant we are, sure we know a shitload more than 100 years ago, but in cosmic terms, that is nothing. Literally nothing. Whether creatures came or continue to come to our planet is probably not true.

Also, some one said that to have life you must have water - i think that's pretty ignorant to say. What is life and how does it start from nothing? Nobody knows, so to say that all life in the universe start thanks to water is ridiculous. I don't know if you meant it like that, but thats just my 2 cents. If there is life in the universe (which there surely is) it will be so "alien" to us we couldn't even comprehend it without seeing it. What is intelligence and how do we measure whether a creature is intelligent? Maybe they are so intelligent they live by primative means? ... if that made any sense whatsoever? That was just a stream of consciousness statement.

basically nature on planet earth =/= nature on other planets

Edited by richmeister, 24 June 2010 - 06:04 PM.

[Verrückter]

Life on Earth needs water... but life on another planet could theoretically spawn in liquid methane, or any other substance for that matter... The life we observe here isn't the only possible model that there is in the universe. Space is incredibly vast, way more than we as human can comprehend and the number of planets is most likely around the trillions, so the possibility of life elsewhere is gigantic in human terms. To quote Richard Dawkins: "If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against, nevertheless that stupefyingly improbable event would still happen on a billion planets"

Also richmeister, I think you're overexagerrating how little we know about the world... I'm sure there is a tons of stuff we don't have the slightest clue about, but I don't know if the percentage is that low...

[liquidicevi]

To claim that we know even 0.00000000000000000000001% of how space and the universe works would be a lie. I don't think we acknowledge just how ignorant we are, sure we know a shitload more than 100 years ago, but in cosmic terms, that is nothing. Literally nothing. Whether creatures came or continue to come to our planet is probably not true.

Also, some one said that to have life you must have water - i think that's pretty ignorant to say. What is life and how does it start from nothing? Nobody knows, so to say that all life in the universe start thanks to water is ridiculous. I don't know if you meant it like that, but thats just my 2 cents. If there is life in the universe (which there surely is) it will be so "alien" to us we couldn't even comprehend it without seeing it. What is intelligence and how do we measure whether a creature is intelligent? Maybe they are so intelligent they live by primative means? ... if that made any sense whatsoever? That was just a stream of consciousness statement.

basically nature on planet earth =/= nature on other planets

I half want to debate that percentage you've got there about how much we know. As that is awfully small but then I remembered what my biology told me, that "pretty much everything in science is a theory" and that's what everything is about space out side of our own solar system. A massive theory that's worked out by maths or basic telescope images.

Also with life, from what I remember, you need at a few things to start it. At least in theory. Energy, everything on this planet lives by using some form of energy. You can't be created when you have everything you need for life but no warmth or "spark of life" so to say. Life also would need something to live in/on. Which is where water comes from. Though really it could be liquid methane or really any kind of chemical that's in a liquid or in the air that normally supports life.


I was watching a program recently that goes through all the planets and assesses them on various things. One thing they always did was talk about the probability of life. And it surprised me how much of a chance that there is for forms of basic in our solar system. From the polar caps on Mars to even a certain layer of Saturn's gases where they reckon the conditions for life are possible. Not to mention some of the moons around Jupiter. Of course they still need to send something out and test these for real.

For the original topic. Sure aliens could have visited us and sure aliens could have thought it was a good idea to interact with some low intelligent (compared to them) life forms but I doubt it. Them just finding our planet is like a billion to one. And them having the time off to do something with us, let alone help us (or enslave us in the desert) seems pretty low.
So sure it could have happened. But the evidence we have is pretty unconvincing.