|
Post by whistler on May 18, 2005 0:44:36 GMT
I know I am a late starter, and have just begun David Icke's the Matrix .. Not sure about the "Control" aspect. But I find the Lizard / DNA mixing interestiing. We have chatted about our the origin, and I can't see how we can discount the possibility. If we devotely follow the religious view it is easy. First there was no one then we had an us.
We have the evolutionists which take us from the soup. doesn't say how we got there in the first place.
SCFI folk might have fleets of space ships with folk not unlike us coming like the great canoes to settle a new planet.
Then you have the Icke sort of theory, I think it might have some validity. With the universe so vast we don't have any terms of reference to decide what form life might take out there. . Look at the variety of shape found in people on the earth, The slanted eyes of the asians, the deep black of the negro, the golden skin of many Nordic people, the black hair of polynesians, the very different bone structures , etc.. The Ethnic Cury/ Straight Hair. The Hairy body, the less Hairy body - the list goes on It is hard to see any enviornmental evolutionary reason formany of these differences.
So my question - Is Alien DNA seeding possible, if not why not
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on May 18, 2005 3:35:17 GMT
First question.
"Look at the variety of shape found in people on the earth, The slanted eyes of the asians, the deep black of the negro, the golden skin of many Nordic people, the black hair of polynesians, the very different bone structures , etc.. The Ethnic Curly/ Straight Hair. The Hairy body, the less Hairy body - the list goes on It is hard to see any envionmental evolutionary reason for many of these differences."
Because there aren't. Having black or coloured skin might be an advantage in a hot, sunny climate; but it gets pretty sweltering in Europe during July, too. People don't suddenly develop racial characteristics in spontaneous response to environmental stimulus. If that were true, the indigenous inhabitants of Jamaica would have been the same colour as the slaves who replaced them, instead of the same basic skin- and skull-type as other Central Americans; and Scotsmen would have thumbs on their ears to block out the cricket results.
The so-called races we know are much more fluid than you might think. There is evidence from freeze-dried remains that the ancient inhabitants of China were pale-skinned with red hair. And the inhabitants of an unusually remote island, south of Indonesia, are living relics of a distinct stage in development between some incredibly ancient race-trend, now vanished, and the Australasian Aboriginal we know today.
Considering the Aboriginals have the oldest oral tradition, and hence surely the longest continuous civilisation in the world, we are talking about a transition which must have been taking place, by minute increments, ten or twelve thousand years ago.
Now, to put these, as I say, race-trends into some kind of perspective, only over the course of about a hundred to five hundred thousand years do you even begin to see evolutionary time in progress. Go the full million years and you get to people who, though undeniably from our family tree, would probably nowadays be covered by the RSPCA rather than the UDHR. I wouldn't want to be responsible for having invited them to the wedding.
What you get with people is an animal which doesn't have to wait for Nature to change it before it can evolve. Nature likes to do things slow and steady, if you or your descendants can wait for it. If you can't, too bad: you're extinct. If you can, you have won the evolutionary lottery - for now. But what if the environmental factors change suddenly? Nature is like an oil-tanker travelling at top speed, it can't just brake to take a hard corner. In fact, it doesn't have anyone on the bridge to make it brake and corner, even if it could. So if you lose at the lottery, you have no comeback. It's all about winning. Scoring, in fact. If you mate successfully, you win, you survive. Animals which survive carry their genes into the next generation.
Now, that's the crucial thing. Read that line again: animals which survive carry their genes into the next generation. Not really strong animals... or animals with go-faster stripes and 0% APR..., just animals which survive.
In other words, by virtue of having managed to mate and produce live offspring who also manage to do the same, you and your genes get passed on to the future.
All of them.
The ones that make you dead intelligent, along with the ones that make you short-sighted. The ones that govern quick decision-making and long-term memory, as well as the ones that make you predisposed to chemical addictions and sickle-cell anaemia. Your ability to make friends and hunt in teams is what enables you, twenty thousand years later, to organise into violent gangs and vigilante groups, but also to communicate in a dozen langages.
Negroid characteristics are Dominant, but Caucasoid are Recessive. Similarly, some Recessive genes are only exhibited in males, such as colour-blindness and haemophilia, while being carried by females. Chromosomes, the way genetic material is packaged, is entirely to account for these variations. Other, more complex and subtle effects are not yet entirely understood, but the principle is the same. Even characteristics which seem to spell evolutionary disaster, such as the widespread incidence of homosexuality, are preserved between generations. Why? Well, a homosexual or bisexual man or woman need only mate successfully once in their lifetime to have done Nature's work in replacing themselves. And now artificial insemination is possible, evolution has been taken out of Nature's hands.
Onto all of this science, put a further assurance: comparison of the mytochondrial DNA (the rind of root-DNA we all carry, which is a direct link back to our most ancient origins by the maternal line) from samples taken from all over the world show conclusively that we all are descended from one woman who lived in Africa a hundred thousand years ago. She was no Eve (though that is what she is known as), because there were others of her kind; but none of them survived some immense catastrophe which overcame humanity when it was still very ape-like, except her. Accordingly, despite all our seeming differences, all of us are more closely related to each other than, say, an African Plains Elephant and an African Forest Elephant.
Other question.
"So my question - Is Alien DNA seeding possible, if not why not "
Not.
Because aliens don't exist.
Or rather, I don't doubt the mathematical probability of their existence, which means that they must really exist Somewhere, out there,/Beneath the pale moonlight..., just not in the same place as where we are. Because I have not yet received any proof to the contrary. And if there is proof, and I mean real proof, I definitely would like to see it. Just, I never have, is all.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on May 18, 2005 19:02:54 GMT
"So my question - Is Alien DNA seeding possible, if not why not " Not. Because aliens don't exist. Or rather, I don't doubt the mathematical probability of their existence, which means that they must really exist Somewhere, out there,/Beneath the pale moonlight..., just not in the same place as where we are. Because I have not yet received any proof to the contrary. And if there is proof, and I mean real proof, I definitely would like to see it. Just, I never have, is all. Ruff I knew you could be counted on for a reply. Your last comment - Aliens don't exist because you have not yet received proof. - really speaks a lot about your view of the world.
For me the statement that Aliens don't exist because Ruff hasn't received proof is a bit weak.
Back to the question - why is Alien DNA seeding Not Possible?
|
|
|
Post by a on May 18, 2005 19:12:38 GMT
Not only possible but becoming accepted by science. Shock horror!!
1. The science of Astrobiology is growing fast, and they are looking of microscopic life.
2. Scientists are increasingly accepting that some of these microscopic life forms, eg viruses, can exist in space and travel here, perhaps on the back of comets, to fall diown into our atmosphere, perhaps giving us a cold or whatever.
You try telling a virus that it is not a form of life, and if it did not origionate on Earth then it certainly is alien.
I am currently referencing a book that I hope to get published that covers all of this, and a whole lot more. (sales plug over). But I am very excited, for example:-
A decade or so ago, we knew taht life had to be carbon based. We now know that methane life thrives in our ocean trenches. As does sulpur based life. Both alien to us. And I have been told by a scientist that silicon based life has been identified in space.
What a wonderful time to be alive. But what a bad time for the ego of the human race.
So yes Whistler it is possible. And like you I would be very interested to know why people think that it could not happen. So much so let me repeat your question so that it retains its focus of attention:-
Why is Alien DNA seeding not possible?
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on May 18, 2005 22:21:20 GMT
Whistler
It is certainly an interesting area.
For example, the human embryo starts as reptilian - why?
And why do human eyes not work too well in bright sunlight or night?
And why have humans evolved to need clothes in most climates whether hot or cold?
And why do human males have most of their body hair on the chest instead of the back like apes?
Proposed answers to the last 3 questions can be found in:
"The land of no horizon" by Taylor, Kevin.
As for Icke, he has some difficulties distinguishing light from dark and concludes that everything that is difficult to understand is dark.
For myself I have twice seen very clear reptilian appearances in humans.
One was a fellow who was possessed by another entity. As I walked past him and looked at his eyes I had the very clear sight of both eyes on top of a cones with reptilian skin - rather like the NZ tuatara (lizard).
The second was when I was doing an AMORC exercise with a mirror held close to my face. For a moment there was a perfectly clear reptilian face (frontal eyes and black corrugated skin) looking back from where my face should have been - the same size too.
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by bevan on May 19, 2005 0:07:52 GMT
So my question - Is Alien DNA seeding possible, if not why not Possible, yes. Probable, no. Let's figure out if aliens actually exist first before our egos get carried away thinking that they want to seed us.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on May 19, 2005 0:29:18 GMT
Possible, yes. Probable, no. Let's figure out if aliens actually exist first before our egos get carried away thinking that they want to seed us. Aliens get a little emotive, the exercise is about did we as a species start out on this silly little planet around a quite small sun in a vast vast universe, or has there been some interaction beyond our planet. Even in Ruffs long post, suggestion some sort of evolution... where was the begining?
|
|
giovanni
Member
odi profanum vulgus, et arceo
Posts: 2,627
|
Post by giovanni on May 19, 2005 7:30:39 GMT
In the Bible is written that the Angels fell in love with the men's daughters and from their union the giants were born.
Can man interpretate the word "Angel" as "flyer"?
In other words, is it possible that aliens came here and devleoped the human race?
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on May 19, 2005 21:28:20 GMT
Back to the question - why is Alien DNA seeding Not Possible?
Because Aliens don't exist - weren't you listening the first time?
For me the statement that Aliens don't exist because Ruff hasn't received proof is a bit weak.
Let's turn that around. The statement that Aliens do exist because Whistler says so is a bit weak. So, I am guessing that you, Whistler, are convinced to your own satisfaction that Aliens have visited us and have made a palpable effect on our cultures and environment. If that is so, you must have something which makes you think that. And I am asking, what is it? What makes you be of this opinion?
Is it a feeling? Or a hunch? Now, I'm not doing that down: feelings and hunches are, for example, what makes me believe in the existence of God. Not proof, not evidence, not fingers-in-wounds, Tommy me boy. Just a sort of inclination to think so. It's not rational, it's not intellectual. It doesn't even make particular sense to me. Faith? That's a girl's name as far as I'm concerned. And don't get me started on religious hypocrisy. But there you have it: Bruvver Ruff's Apocolocyntosis of the Divine.
Of course, one of the Unique Selling-Points of God is that there is no evidence of his existence, except everything in the universe. Whereas, one of the things you ought to expect of Aliens is that they should have left tracks - artifacts, traces, bits off spacecraft, or made significant changes to biological material. In other words, the fact that there is no evidence of aliens at all ought to make you less convinced of their existence, rather than more.
|
|
|
Post by bevan on May 19, 2005 22:50:28 GMT
The thing that amazes me the most is how people tend to stereotype 'ye old typical alien as lizard-like. Or even more amazingly, as having human features. Oh yes, you know, my son/daughter is a crystal child. Aliens seeded her while we were living in that trailer park underneath the power lines.... And then theres the stereotypical UFO. Why is it always saucer-shaped? Because that's what the media has picked up on and feeds back to our popular consensus. If saucers really flew that well one would have thought that airlines would have had a commercial plane along similar lines in the air by now... Oh, but alien technology is special y'know.... Yeah, well, if they're so special then I wish alien aficionados had the creativity to come up with some imaginings that would do them some justice. Anyway, jokes aside, if aliens really did "seed" our ancient ancestors then so what? Does it change anything? Why do we think we're so special that they must be amongst us now? You think they're trying to trace their family trees?
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on May 20, 2005 0:31:24 GMT
My understanding is that some 95% of economically important plants come from 2 very small areas - Mesopotamia and a small area in South America.
Further the plant of highest economic value is Hemp (rope) and it is genetically highly sophisticated with no primitive forebears and no close relatives. (i.e. no evolution or domestication is visible)
This gives us a significant problem:
Did god plant a garden or two?
Did god bring in bring in some of his/her favourite plants?
And in Genesis there were only 3 intelligent (speaking) species in the garden: man, god and the serpent.
Now what?
Cheers
Russell
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on May 20, 2005 4:49:43 GMT
The reason there are vestigial reptilian characteristics in Man is because we passed through that stage of development on the way to becoming us. First came splodgey protozoa, then invertebrates, then fish, then amphibians, then reptiles. When fish were still elbowing their way up to the bar in Darwin's Animal NiteLife Watering-Hole, they found frogs the size of a Cadillac had hogged all the barstools. The same sad story overcame the amphibians, who got pipped in the queue by dinosaurs. Now, the dinosaurs probably didn't realise it at the time, but they also were being quietly beaten to the cracker-barrel by our ancestors: scabby little hairy gits like lizards in mink condoms.
So, naturally, being just a step up the ladder from green handbags the size of a settee, the runty blighters have certain design features in common with the old models being phased out. One of these is their eyesight, which as any Jurassic Park fan will know, is based on movement. Next time you catch sight of something making a mad dash for the skirting-board, think on this: that was reptile eyesight you experienced. You saw it because it moved, even though you can't tell what it was that you saw.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on May 20, 2005 5:18:54 GMT
The reason there are vestigial reptilian characteristics in Man is because we passed through that stage of development on the way to becoming us. . quote] Ruffy It sounds like the evolution theory of man is proven. A bit brave of you given some of the contrary observations. www.lloydpye.com/2003Everything.htmCheers Russell
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on May 20, 2005 6:28:56 GMT
I consider it utterly conceited to think that we are the only intelligent and advanced Lifeform in the Galaxy, perhaps even in the Universe, however would we recognise other beings? It's like the old Star Trek expression, "It's Life Jim, but not as we know it".
Also I don't buy all this "Evolution Lottery", "Blind Watchmakers" and all that stuff. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Biblical Creationist but do believe that God has and does intervene and guides the development of Nature and Man. The more I learn of the Hidden Mysteries of Nature and Science the more my Belief in an Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent God, the Great Architect of the Universe, is strengthened.
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on May 20, 2005 7:56:00 GMT
Lloyd Pye? hahahahahahah
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on May 20, 2005 9:51:09 GMT
Oh dear Poor old Lloyd is laughed out of court. All his research comes to nothing. Lucky we are speculative. Much safer. Cheers Russell
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on May 20, 2005 20:32:12 GMT
i'm just going to reassert my opinion before falling silent on the matter. Statistically likely as it is that aliens probably do exist somewhere out in space, I don't personally think such creatures have ever visted us so far. Or, if they have, they did nothing to make me think they actually did. When you have nothing to make you think something might be likely, that is good grounds for considering it not to have happened. It certainly isn't good grounds for thinking it did, or even being wholly convinced that it did.
|
|
|
Post by a on May 20, 2005 20:45:29 GMT
if they have, they did nothing to make me think they actually did. Ruff, you do make me smile. Remember the challenge that I once gave you. It remains open. Just tell me what you would consider proof to be, and I will see what I can come up with. Just give me a little time as I no longer move in those circles all that often. But I could direct you to, for example, Nick Pope of the Ministry of Defence, the chap who manned the ufo desk for three years, and started a skeptic and ended believing, or there is a serving policeman [sergent I think] (name evades me just now) who runs a ufo reporting service for policemen/women who need someone to talk to. Perhaps you may be interested in Monsignor Balducci who is reported to have confirmed that extraterrestial contact is real and is consistent with the Catholic Churches theology. Aparently he believes and he is reported to be a demonology expert. Makes you think.
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on May 21, 2005 7:10:48 GMT
I didn't say I didn't believe in UFOs. I'm not sure what they are, but I don't think they're alien visitors. And getting a recommendation from a Demonology expert is, I'm sure, just what Lockheed were waiting for.
When I say proof, I mean concrete evidence. I want to see spaceships you can walk up to and kick. I want aliens without zippers up the back. I want to believe, but frankly the bug-eyed brigade have let me down almost as much as the God-botherers.
|
|
|
Post by a on May 21, 2005 7:34:12 GMT
Ruff
Sales pitch
My book, which I am currently referencing up, uses this issue as a case study to illustrate some of the many themes about this specific point in our evolution. Once I can find a publisher, I would recommend that you read it.
In the meantime, could I suggest that you correspond with some of the internationally renowed experts in this field. Nick Pope would be a good place to start.
bearing in mind his former position with the Ministry of Defence, where it was his job to investigate this stuff, his move from disbelief to belief, and the fact that he is not only tolerated by teh establishment but had I understand been promoted theirin, he is a credible and knowledgeable person with direct experience. You would struggle to find a better person to listen to. From the brief chat that I once had with him, I can also say that he is approachable.
But to your point. His knowledge is far from just ufos. At one conference he introduced an abductee that he had been working with. Facinating.
Also re coming across alien craft, you find find books like Tony Dodds (ex Yorkshire police sergent) "Alien Investigator" a useful and interesting read.
Out of interest if I were to show you an alien craft, what would it take for you to then be convinced that it was indeed alien? I may need some years to be in a position to do this, but it would be very useful to know what it would actually take to convince you. Specifics. Same with meeting an alien. Specifics.
|
|