Ancient Astronauts.

[we are not alone]

Ok. Erich Von Daniken was prone to wild speculation and telling fairy tales but stories of visitors from the sky go back thousands of years.

Ancient Astronauts - General

The sighting of strange objects in the sky may actually predate the emergence of modern man. Perhaps the earliest depiction of cylindrical objects resembling spacecraft, with what might be their extraterrestrial occupants, are those carved on a granite mountain and on rocks on an island in Hunan Province, China. They have been assigned a tentative age of 47,000 years, which puts them within the time-span of Neanderthal man, predating modern Homo sapiens.

We exist. That is beyond dispute. According to what we know about life and how it evolves the spontaneous creation of complex molecules appears to be inevitable under the right circumstances. It is built into matter itself and we know there are billions of earth-like planets within our galaxy. Life has had billions of years to evolve on myriad worlds so many alien travellers could have visited our world.

In Australia there are many rock paintings of lights in the sky. Aboriginals have told me they have dream time stories about these enigmatic objects which go back tens of thousands of years. Perhaps we are a novelty to the neighbours. A safari park of sorts.

[schlaugh]

We dont "know" of billions of earth-like planets in our galaxy. We "know" of one and it's home to my current zip code. Yours too. As for visitation, the evidence has largely been shown to be misinterpretations of religious art.

All kinds of stories go back thousands of years, most of them religious and more than a few are tied to gods visiting the earth and communing with mortals, or even fostering offspring such as Perseus. Point being there is no credible evidence in support of ET visitation.

[Gomar]

All kinds of stories go back thousands of years, most of them religious and more than a few are tied to gods visiting the earth .

check out this article for more info on ancient UFO sightings:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/04/a-...uity-to-today/

[tnjrp]

Ooh, looks they even have the Nuremberg UFO battle by the way of evidence!

[eburacum45]

Yep; the Nurenburg Battle looks very similar to other roughly contemporary depictions of atmospheric optic phenomena such a s sundogs, halos, tangent arcs and crepuscular rays. Here's a page full of them
http://www.meteoros.de/halo/halo1.htm

as seen through the eyes of the time, these events looked very strange. They still look strange today, but now they are understood almost completely.

[Noclevername]

Perhaps the earliest depiction of cylindrical objects resembling spacecraft, with what might be their extraterrestrial occupants,

Perhaps the earliest depiction of log canoes, with what might be human occupants wearing animal heads...

(We do have evidence that log canoes, humans and animal heads existed at that time.)

[Noclevername]

According to what we know about life and how it evolves the spontaneous creation of complex molecules appears to be inevitable under the right circumstances. It is built into matter itself and we know there are billions of earth-like planets within our galaxy. Life has had billions of years to evolve on myriad worlds so many alien travellers could have visited our world.

None of these statements are quite correct. We know only that life exists here on Earth. The rest is untested hypotheses.We do not know if the development of life is inevitable, we do not what the right circumstances for abiogenesis are nor how common, rare or unique they may be, we have not yet found any earthlike planets save the one we currently live on, and we only know that life has had billions of years to evolve on one world. And the fact that evolution led to human-style intelligence here does not mean that it will do so elsewhere.

[we are not alone]

We don't have very good telescopes. We've detected hundreds of large worlds bigger than Jupiter but earth-like planets are too small to detect easily. However, its common sense that if larger bodies are common then smaller bodies will be even more numerous. Compare the number of asteroids to planets as an example.

Life is just chemistry. If it happened here then it will happen elsewhere. That too is common sense.

Intelligence is inevitable. Even amoeba have programmed behaviours. Evolution may stop at single celled animals for a long time but if multicellular ornganisms do evolve then nervous systems become increasingly complex as they have enormous survival value. This leads to ever increasing intelligence.

[Noclevername]

We don't have very good telescopes. We've detected hundreds of large worlds bigger than Jupiter but earth-like planets are too small to detect easily. However, its common sense that if larger bodies are common then smaller bodies will be even more numerous. Compare the number of asteroids to planets as an example.

Life is just chemistry. If it happened here then it will happen elsewhere. That too is common sense.

Intelligence is inevitable. Even amoeba have programmed behaviours. Evolution may stop at single celled animals for a long time but if multicellular ornganisms do evolve then nervous systems become increasingly complex as they have enormous survival value. This leads to ever increasing intelligence.

Common sense is subjective and not evidence. Many things assumed by the "common sense" of the day have since been shown to be untrue, like Bode's Law, the assumption that asteroids came from a destroyed planet, or Geocentrism.

As for intelligence, evolution doesn't work that way. It kludges together whatever works-- insects get by just fine with tiny brains. Bacteria, the most biologically successful lifeforms on Earth, have none at all. Viruses have been widespread for a very long time without even the ability to reproduce on their own.

ETA: Then there's jellyfish, starfish, sea cucumber, slugs, worms, etc-- with little or no brain development over several hundred million years. They already have all they need. Only a single line of development, the vertebrates, actually fit the model you describe.

[Garrison]

We don't have very good telescopes. We've detected hundreds of large worlds bigger than Jupiter but earth-like planets are too small to detect easily. However, its common sense that if larger bodies are common then smaller bodies will be even more numerous. Compare the number of asteroids to planets as an example.

Actually we have a number of good telescopes involved in planet hunting with the dedicated Kepler bring the most significant. It is bringing in a lot of hard data and should give us guide to the relative ratios in the next couple of years. Based on all the data to date though there seems to be no reason to assume our solar system is typical.

Life is just chemistry. If it happened here then it will happen elsewhere. That too is common sense.

No that's a guess as we don't know the exact conditions under which life will or will not start.

Intelligence is inevitable. Even amoeba have programmed behaviours. Evolution may stop at single celled animals for a long time but if multicellular ornganisms do evolve then nervous systems become increasingly complex as they have enormous survival value. This leads to ever increasing intelligence.

No evidence to support that, the dinosaurs existed for far longer than the primates that have evolved to produce humans without ever developing tool using intelligence.

[IsaacKuo]

No evidence to support that, the dinosaurs existed for far longer than the primates that have evolved to produce humans without ever developing tool using intelligence.

We don't know that. Considering that some birds use tools, it's possible that some dinosaurs used tools also.

[Garrison]

We don't know that. Considering that some birds use tools, it's possible that some dinosaurs used tools also.

I think you know quite well what I meant, particularly in the context of the thread.

[R.A.F.]

...it's possible that some dinosaurs used tools also.

I imagine it is "possible", however there is nothing in the fossil record to indicate that.

[IsaacKuo]

I imagine it is "possible", however there is nothing in the fossil record to indicate that.

There's nothing in the fossil record to indicate that corvids use tools either, and yet they do. I think we need to be careful about presuming we know everything about the past. With dinosaurs in particular, our data is pretty spotty. We don't know for sure whether or not they developed sophisticated tool using capabilities, and we definitely don't know whether or not they were on an evolutionary path toward developing advanced technological capabilities. For better or worse, an extinction event prevents us from knowing where they were headed. The apparent intelligence of modern birds tells us there was potential--and birds are descended from only one line of dinosaurs. We can only speculate on the other dinosaur lines.

I see no reason to bring up the example of dinosaurs, where we have terrible knowledge gaps, when there are plenty of more solid examples to draw from.

For example, the plant kingdom consists of highly successful complex multicellular life forms--and most even exhibit some crude forms of "behavior" (light seeking behavior). Nevertheless, modern plants don't have nervous systems and they display only an extremely limited range of behaviors. This is an excellent counterexample to the claim that complex multicellular life inevitably leads to ever increasing intelligence.

[AutoBoof]

You r probably right...

We know so little, yet we love to think we've got it all figured out.

Maybe one day we will know, but even if that is the case...how is knowing gonna change anything?

It is what it is....

[ravens_cry]

Indeed. Most animals get along just fine without all those annoying questions brains like ours ask like "Why are we here?", "What is my purpose in life?", "Is there life after death?", "Was there life before?", "Are we alone in the universe?" "What happens when I poke this sleeping lion?"
If anything, the question is not "Why don't they?" but "Why do we?"

[astromark]

At post 20 and I feel the need to pull you back to the OP... remember 'Ancient Astronauts'..

and it would seem that the science community is being firm.. No such case has been proven. Not one.

You must be very careful not to become religiously attached to a idea that has nothing but suspicion as a base...

Some place in the highlands of the Turkish mountains a large apparently wooden beam is pro-ported to have been found..

Thats it then,. Its NOA'S ARK... well no it might be just a Lintel Beam from a Old Structure..

Can you see what I am on about ?

If you put aside the Van Daniken stuff, as the work of the original Woo woo gang... You have nothing..

Lifetimes are wasted speculating on what might have been. We do 'not quite' know...

I think concentrating on what we have is a better path to follow.

Having said all that. There is in my mind some room for this argument yet... I watch from yonder fence post...Mark.

[tnjrp]

Indeed a general ancient astronauts hypothesis is completely unfalsifiable. I would say even in theory, never mind in practice. At best various claims made by the proponents in regards to the evidence of such visitations can be dealt with. So far the evidence presented seems to be of the "non" nature.

[astromark]

None the less. It is conceivable but NOT proven that this planet might have had alien visitations...

We are not in a position to know it was not. Regardless of proof not been presented does not suggest there is none..

As a science based forum we must be open to all possible outcomes.. Proof of fact being of some considerable value..

Please now supply such 'evidence.'... I will wait over here >>> on the fence. cos., I do not know what truth is.

[kzb]

A big problem with the von Daniken type ideas is that the alien visitors are not advanced ENOUGH. There really ought to be billion-year old intelligences in the Milky Way galaxy. So I'm not convinced with these pictures of rockets and space suits apparently at a similar level of technology to what we are now.

[Noclevername]

A big problem with the von Daniken type ideas is that the alien visitors are not advanced ENOUGH. There really ought to be billion-year old intelligences in the Milky Way galaxy. So I'm not convinced with these pictures of rockets and space suits apparently at a similar level of technology to what we are now.

Ought to be? That's just as speculative as the Ancient Aliens visitation. We don't know for sure what there "ought to be" beyond ourselves; for all we know, we could be the first species to come up with the idea of not being full time hunter-gatherers.

[eburacum45]

I'm afraid I can't agree with that. Any random intelligent alien species should either be thousands (or millions) of years behind us or thousands (or millions) of years ahead of us. They probably wouldn't resemble humanoids wearing Gemini era spacesuits.

see this interesting article about civilisation age on Centauri Dreams
Lost in Time and Lost in Space

...the median age of all civilizations is also the median age of our nearest neighbor. There’s a fifty/fifty chance it will be either younger or older than that, but there’s a 90% chance it will at least be 10% of the median, which means that in all likelihood our nearest neighbor will be hundreds of millions of years older than us. And, if you want to find an ETC of approximately our own age, say within a thousand years of ours, you will on average have to pass by a million older to vastly older civilizations.

[Noclevername]

I'm afraid I can't agree with that. Any random intelligent alien species should either be thousands (or millions) of years behind us or thousands (or millions) of years ahead of us. They probably wouldn't resemble humanoids wearing Gemini era spacesuits.

see this interesting article about civilisation age on Centauri Dreams
Lost in Time and Lost in Space

That's still speculation, based on zero examples. We don't know.

[IsaacKuo]

That's still speculation, based on zero examples. We don't know.

Actually, we have one example of an intelligent species capable of space travel. We have a concrete example of what sort of technology is required for space travel. Based on this knowledge, we can make a slightly informed guess at how quickly or slowly a technological alien species may advance.

And we don't need to rely upon mere speculation to figure out that a species with Gemini era technology would not plausibly be capable of interstellar travel. (Well, maybe they could send robot probes with Gemini era technology, but robot probe visitors wouldn't look like men in gemini era spacesuits.)

[Noclevername]

Actually, we have one example of an intelligent species capable of space travel. We have a concrete example of what sort of technology is required for space travel. Based on this knowledge, we can make a slightly informed guess at how quickly or slowly a technological alien species may advance.

And we don't need to rely upon mere speculation to figure out that a species with Gemini era technology would not plausibly be capable of interstellar travel. (Well, maybe they could send robot probes with Gemini era technology, but robot probe visitors wouldn't look like men in gemini era spacesuits.)

Generalizing from an example of one? For all we know, we could be completely atypical in our speed of development.

And Gemini, Apollo and our spacesuit and rocket design today don't look all that different from each other, compared to the widely varied images used as "evidence" of ancient astronaut visitation.

Maybe they were's wearing suits. The Sky Gods could have sent down roughly-humanoid drones to placate the primitives, and gotten the proportions a little off-- after all, a baby looks like a large-headed bulky adult. Aliens with different developmental stages would simply think they were averaging out the varieties of human they observed from above...

They could have used a 1960s style Orion nukeship, and been slightly more advanced at life support and built a cross-generation ship, and/or been capable of long hibernation. Thus using 1960s-equivalent suit and lander designs isn't impossible.

Or not.

[IsaacKuo]

Generalizing from an example of one?

An example of one is a huge step up from having no examples at all. You claimed that we had zero examples.

For all we know, we could be completely atypical in our speed of development.

Yes, or we could be completely typical. It gives us more information than if we had zero examples.

And Gemini, Apollo and our spacesuit and rocket design today don't look all that different from each other, compared to the widely varied images used as "evidence" of ancient astronaut visitation.

We're still using Gemini style spacesuits and Gemini era rockets. Note that the only current manned launchers are Soyuz (Gemini era) and Schenzhou (Gemini level copy of Soyuz). Our manned spaceflight capabilities are on a Gemini level today.

[Paul Beardsley]

Actually, we have one example of an intelligent species capable of space travel. We have a concrete example of what sort of technology is required for space travel. Based on this knowledge, we can make a slightly informed guess at how quickly or slowly a technological alien species may advance.

I think it was this post that prompted me to start the "Sample size of zero" thread.

It took a huge technological leap to go from firing missiles to launching a satellite into orbit.

From there it took another huge technological leap to launching a living creature into orbit, and another one to launch a living man and bring him back safely.

From "mere" Earth orbit, it was a huge leap to getting men to reach lunar orbit, and a further leap to get them to walk on the moon and return safely.

We haven't made the leap to manned planetary travel yes, and we have no idea of when (or even if) we'll make it. If you're writing a science fiction story, it's easy - you take some shielding in case of solar flares, give the spacecraft spin to simulate gravity and so on, sorted! Doing it for real is another matter. And this is just for Mars! What sort of leaps do we have to make before we visit Europa, let alone another star system?

So I would argue that we have a very limited understanding of the technology required for space travel, and "slightly" seems too optimistic - a negligibly informed guess seems more correct.

[IsaacKuo]

It took a huge technological leap to go from firing missiles to launching a satellite into orbit.

From there it took another huge technological leap to launching a living creature into orbit, and another one to launch a living man and bring him back safely.

From "mere" Earth orbit, it was a huge leap to getting men to reach lunar orbit, and a further leap to get them to walk on the moon and return safely.

We haven't made the leap to manned planetary travel yes, and we have no idea of when (or even if) we'll make it. If you're writing a science fiction story, it's easy - you take some shielding in case of solar flares, give the spacecraft spin to simulate gravity and so on, sorted! Doing it for real is another matter. And this is just for Mars! What sort of leaps do we have to make before we visit Europa, let alone another star system?

So I would argue that we have a very limited understanding of the technology required for space travel, and "slightly" seems too optimistic - a negligibly informed guess seems more correct.

None of your claims go in the direction of thinking it may be easier than expected to develop spaceflight capabilities, so they would only reinforce my point.

I could quibble with a number of your claims, but the basic point remains--we know enough to have at least some idea of how challenging it would be for technological aliens to visit us.

The technological challenge is so far beyond Gemini-like technology that it's silly to consider alleged ancient depictions of spacemen in Gemini-like spacesuits as evidence of ancient alien visitation. While we could concoct fanciful stories for how aliens might choose to appear like Gemini spacemen, we could just as easily concoct fanciful stories for how aliens might choose to appear like Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster. (Both of which were also done by Doctor Who, if that lends any credence to those theories.)

No...a more likely hypothesis is that Von Daniken thought spacemen looked like Gemini astronauts because that's what astronauts looked like when he was writing his ancient astronaut theory.

[IsaacKuo]

I thought Big Foot and Yeti was the same thing. I'll admit I'm no expert on fringe creature theories.

[Colin Robinson]

I thought Big Foot and Yeti was the same thing. I'll admit I'm no expert on fringe creature theories.

Well, there are similarities, but they (or at least the stories about them) come from different continents.

Big Foot is of North America, and it is also called Sasquatch, which means "wild man". The Yeti belongs to the Himalayas, and is also known as the Abominable Snow Man.

While both creatures are large, wild, and somewhat human-like, the exact taxonomic relationship between them has not been established, certainly not by mainstream taxonomists.