Visit Of aliens to Earth in History

[hrherle]

I beleive that our Planet Earth has been visited by aliens for quite a no. of times. I have recently finished reading the Book "Fingerprints of God" by Graham Hancock. It has made me beleive that the evolution of human beings from typical animals to the modern complicated species does not seems to be a natural pattern. I have the same opinion regarding evolution of life on earth. Earth has all life supporting system in it, but this not be a system where life once born and flruish. I maybe be on the wrong path regarding this but i need opinions from you all.I find very very rarely people downhere discussing these kind of topics.

[ToSeek]

We're too much like chimpanzees, etc., for me to believe that we're not related. And there are too many old bones showing out lineage.

This should be in "Against the Mainstream."

[Colt]

Biologically we are not that complicated compared to other species, even less so somtimes (?). The only real difference is that we think. I think I think therefore I do think, eh?

I agree with ToSeek, there are too many biological markers between Humans and apes to disregard. We simply didn't become too specialized. -Colt

[TriangleMan]

This should be in "Against the Mainstream."

Or even the "Planet X" forum, depending on how one believes aliens got here.

[tracer]

I have recently finished reading the Book "Fingerprints of God" by Graham Hancock.

And what facts could possibly be misrepresented in a book written by a man who is convinced that there were ancient civilizations on Mars?

[Glom]

Or is the truth to be revealed in Season Eight of Stargate SG-1? :-k

[TriangleMan]

Looking at this thread we haven't exactly been fair to hrherle. He(?) points out ETUFO claims from a book and all we've done is make jokes and put forth a straw man argument. Does anyone have any specific debunking about Mr. Hancock's book or his claims?

[Eric McLoughlin]

I have not read this particular book but the subject matter seems to be broadly similar to that contained in the books by Eric Von Daniken, which I read over 30 years ago.

Like all "odd" theses writers, Von Daniken selected very carefully the evidence he wanted to support his theories, carefully avoiding all the more logical and scientific explanations.

The idea that an alien civilisation may have played a hand in the evolution of early man is one of the themes explored in the novel "2001: A Space Odyssey". Of course, thats only a story.

[Archer17]

I agree with Eric McLoughlin.. I remember reading Chariots of the Gods when I was a kid and that book addressed the so-called evidence of ancient ET visits. I'm not familiar with Mr Hancock, but skimming over some of his sites I feel his line of reasoning is as flawed as Von Daniken's. I'm willing to address specific claims brought forth by Hancock if hrherle wants, but if this thread lives on it should probably be moved to ATM. (edited for spelling, clarity)

[tracer]

BTW, is Graham Hancock also the one who believes that Antarctica was tropical until about 12,000 years ago -- or is that Richard "Face on Mars" Hoagland?

[Archer17]

.. Richard "Face on Mars" Hoagland..

That's funny .. what a way to be known, eh?

[Papermache Prince]

BTW, is Graham Hancock also the one who believes that Antarctica was tropical until about 12,000 years ago -- or is that Richard "Face on Mars" Hoagland?

According to this article by Garrett Fagan, posted at In the Hall of Ma'at, Hancock believes Antarctica was ice-free until about 6, ooo years ago. A few other comments:

Some people praise Graham Hancock for his “scholarship.” They associate the inclusion in his books of footnotes, appendixes and bibliographies with scholarship and depth of research. The mere presence of these features, however, is not evidence of scholarship. Content matters.
In the first place, the vast majority of Hancock’s references are to other fringe or alternative writings, and he frequently ignores entire swathes of academic bibliography on subjects about which he presents himself as an authority. The reader is left to himself or herself to track down contrary views or to dig out more up-to-date or reliable information. Few of Hancock’s readers, of course, will actually do such research to check the reliability of his references; more will accept at face value what he presents to them. They are perfectly within their rights to do so, since readers do not routinely assume that an author is presenting them with questionable or outdated material. Disappointingly, aspects of Hancock’s presentation do just that.

[beskeptical]

I beleive that our Planet Earth has been visited by aliens for quite a no. of times. I have recently finished reading the Book "Fingerprints of God" by Graham Hancock. It has made me beleive that the evolution of human beings from typical animals to the modern complicated species does not seems to be a natural pattern. .................I find very very rarely people downhere discussing these kind of topics.

Definitive answer:

DNA research disproves the claim, "that the evolution of human beings from typical animals to the modern complicated species does not seems to be a natural pattern". DNA in the human genome and the RNA and DNA from all other organisms that have been mapped or partially mapped fit in model of progression from molecules to single celled organisms to complex organisms including plants and then to great apes and humans. Genome mapping fits a 'natural' progression.

And, we have discussed this and related topics in both the Planet X forum and the Against the Mainstream forum.

The BA may move this to one of those places for us when he gets time.

[beskeptical]

Biologically we are not that complicated compared to other species, even less so somtimes (?). The only real difference is that we think. I think I think therefore I do think, eh?

I agree with ToSeek, there are too many biological markers between Humans and apes to disregard. We simply didn't become too specialized. -Colt

[-( No way man. Advanced animal brains are very similar to human brains. To think they don't think isn't thinking straight on your part. :wink:

[frenat]

Animals may think but I wouldn't say they are sentient. Well except maybe the dophins, and the mice (they were only here to observe anyway).

[beskeptical]

Animals may think but I wouldn't say they are sentient. Well except maybe the dophins, and the mice (they were only here to observe anyway).

You need to look at more current research my friend. I'll put some citations on the babbling forum.

[irony]

My cats think... at least, the old one does. Mostly about how to be mean to the young one. The young one doesn't seem to think much. If there's anything running through her head at any particular time, it's probably on the order of "Oooooh, shiny!"

I used to read Erich Von Danniken for entertainment. Then I got to the one where he started saying that the aliens genetically engineered things like sphynxes and animal-headed gods... after reading that, I realized that even he didn't believe this stuff, which took all the fun out of it.

[eburacum45]

I am familiar with the work of Hancock; his scholarship and the connections he makes are nearly all spurious.
If he had given up after his work on the Ark of the Covenant (a relatively sensation-free piece of investigative journalism) I would have had some respect for him;
now he seems to leap on any fringe theory available, perhaps hoping for another lucky break; sorry, Graham, no such luck.

[darkhunter]

In the scale of space and time that the Earth has been around vs. how long humans, any alien visitors would have most likely shown up when there were no humans around yet. Time would take care of any materials left behind--if they left anything.

Or they could show up in the far future, when we are no longer around/strictly human.

As far as current contact, we have no undisputable evidence that there has been alien contact in human history--but that can change tommorow...