Bipedalism and Other Questions

I have a series of questions that i cannot seem to answer that have to do with alien sightings/abduction, if someone could answer them or even one of them it would be very helpful to me. I am sorry if some of these questions have already been asked/answered, but i was unable to find them with a search:

1. One question i have about supposed alien sightings to do with their physical appearance. Why is it that the great majority(or at least it seems to me) of alien sightings seem to of bipedal creatures. If we look at the earth(which is all we, so making assumptions that life evovled on a radically different planet is difficult to do) the great majority of land-based animals seem to be quadrupedal. Bipedalism seems to have a great number of disadvantages so its evolution would seem to occur only in a situation where it was needed. It seems that the earth and it' enviroment seem to be better suited for quidrupedalism as a whole. Again if this is the case why are so many sightings of bipedals?

2. Similarly, why are so many of the sightings of humanoids, wouldn't it make sense that at least some(probably most) aliens would not be so human like in their physical appearance?

3. The closest starsystem is alpha centauri at 4.39 light years away(most being much farther), knowing this and understanding physics, it would take decently large amount of time even at speeds that approach light(which would require an incredible amount of energy) to make a trip from alpha centauri to earth and then back. Unless they have somehow found a way to warp spacetime which is unlikely or sentient life exists somewhere in our solar system which is also unlikely, then why are so many sightings reported? How would they be able to make so many trips?

4. Why has attempted radio contact been unsuccesful?

5. We can gather that it is very likely that of the planets outside our solar system, the vast majority of them support only primitive life if any life at all. Wouldn't it then make sense that our first encounter with exterrestrial life would be with a primitive one?

Again I am sorry if these questions have already been answered or have simple explanations. Also forgive if there is any grammar that is incorrect, I am not from the US.

I believe that most alien sightings are humanoid for the same reason that most alien races depicted in "Star Trek" and other science fiction are humanoid. It's the form that we can relate to. We create or imagine them in our own template.

I remember the old Time-Life series of science books. In "The Universe" there was a chart showing how accounts of alien encounters mirrored the descriptions of aliens in the science fiction of the time.

In the 50's, Sci-FI had the "Bug-Eyed Monsters". Huge, shambling hulks with little human form and no intelligence. Read the contact reports of the time, and most follow that formula.

In the 60's, the "Green Men from Mars" were all the rage. Aliens in fiction become more humanoid and more intelligent, often with accessories such as helmets and antennae. Once again, contact descriptions soon followed suit.

In the 70's, the "Nordics" became the norm in abduction reports. Tall, blonde humanoids indistinguishable from humans. And in fiction? Yep, humanoid aliens were all the rage.

And finally, we have the "Grays". Becoming popular in the 80's and 90's, the short gray humanoids have dominated both fiction and real-life reports. But hey, maybe their lasting popularity is due to them being the "real deal"

I personally believe that "bipedalism," if that is even a word lol, is the most convenient biological form for "intelligent" lifeforms throughout the universe. There are only so many different possible types of lifeforms that can exist, and we already have a pretty diverse display of creatures on our planet alone. It is my opinion that most intelligent lifeforms throughout the universe are humanoid, meaning two arms, two legs...etc.

I hear people giving the argument that "for all we know space aliens might just be huge blobs or something." Well I understand this point, however, the thought of a big blob for a body of an intelligent being is very unrealistic. It is likely that wherever life CAN exist, it WILL exist. I would not be surprised if life throughout the universe somewhat resembled itself as a whole throughout. There are only so many elements, atoms, particles, etc to make up lifeforms. Being bipedal is just the most convenient way to live, therefore this is why intelligent lifeforms such as humans evolve this way. Just my theory...

[edit on 5-8-2006 by Diplomat]

Actually, the very first account of abduction was of the "Nordic" variety. The next most publicized one, the Hill Case, was more of the "Grey" variety...and these were fairly early on into the phenomena...

The correlation of alien types to sci-fi of the time doesn't really exist, in large part because the aliens were so different even in movies of the same timeframe....

What's more interesting to me, is that in the 40's, there were a ton of sightings, but no abduction cases....these didn't come till later. The skeptical side of me would use that angle first.... But, there are abduction cases that truly stand out (the Hills for one)...

In my opinion an advanced race of intelligent beings woudl most likely be a land-dwelling bipedal creature.

Bipedalism on earth gave us the ability to create tools and master our environment, also it allowed for the evolution of a more complex and large brain. These characteristics eventually led to civilization, culture, and knowledge.

IMO, any space-farring race of intelligent creatures will have to take on a figure somewhat resembling humanoid. They need appendages, limbs, and head.

Here's my take:

Why is it that the great majority(or at least it seems to me) of alien sightings seem to of bipedal creatures.

First, one needs to start separating out stories from one another into separate threads. Many contact stories of the abduction variety involve pale creatures of very jerky motion where very large eyes are remembered. Certain folks who claim to see bodies talk about long skinny arms and large heads. Bob Lazar talks about small chairs. Why the anthroporphism?

There are several possibilities. One is that aliens are mythological creatures, and being a myth, tend to be humanoid like leprachauns, daemons, and other mythological fantasies (that may or may not be derived from actual phenomena.)

Another possibility is one of convergent evolution, a concept that I gather from your argument you are probably familiar with. Similar environments tend to display remarkably similar traits. It is theorized that this occurs through evolution selecting similar traits, probably in combination with similar underlying biophysical and molecular processes that underly life on earth. One could hypothesize that similar processes could occur elsewhere, and that as an above poster stated, free object manipulation, such as available through limbs, could give rise to tool use and thus a technological species. (Interestingly, non-ambulatory tool use might give rise to something very different.)

Basically, if you create life with basic DNA, and then create 'programming' modules re-used by most creatures, then their temporal generation of new features will likely converge in many cases unless selective pressure forces differentiation. Now, what I just said runs counter to accepted genetic theory. Random mutation, it is argued, is the single force dominating evolutionary change, and would cause chaotic, life-killing, random drift without selective pressure from the environment While I agree that this occurs, I think there is another evolutionary force, in which the basic machinery of biomelecular systems tends to evolve collective algorithmic blocks of higher function that it is capable of a priori, over time. That is, I do not believe that genetic evolution is necessarily an open system, even though it is computationally generic. I'll be spending the next 30 years trying to prove or refute that claim, btw.

(Some hypothesize further that this might be conveniently part of the program for an ET seeding planets, or a GOD creating life with a planned drift over time, for that matter.)

The reason we might spot bipedals is that this is the mode of ET that is similar enough to us for us to recognize as ET.

Finally, many UFO encounters of the first kind involve interactions with things, such as floating, smelly pillars, or triangular floating objects moving between the trees, that are not anthropomorphic but for which the experiencers intuitively feel they are interacting with something intelligent. While this is just a heuristic of our minds, it is none-the-less interesting. These cases are anthropologically fascinating because the observers are filtering what they see on the basis of what they know. The story of a cop who thought he saw an overturned car, until it took off, for example, is an excellent example. When encountering an entity or a craft, what we perceive, and even remember, is likely to be highly reliant on what we know. Ezekiel's visitations strike me to be such examples.

2. Similarly, why are so many of the sightings of humanoids, wouldn't it make sense that at least some(probably most) aliens would not be so human like in their physical appearance?

Its totally possible that many ET would be very different. Would they be so different that we could not recognize them?

Unless they have somehow found a way to warp spacetime which is unlikely or sentient life exists somewhere in our solar system which is also unlikely, then why are so many sightings reported? How would they be able to make so many trips?

A common thread in UFO circles is that our understanding of inertial physics and space time is a relatively simple approximation of the possible, but we are constrained by (1) the reasoning methods of our brain and our limitted senses, (2) humanly observable phenomena within our proximity, and/or (3) access to principles of physics that are classified. It is possilbe and probably wise to consider that physics, and space-time, are themselves, human constructs that may be useful for us but have little bearing on the extraterrestrial.

It is quite possible for an ET to have an entirely different concept of universal principles, in which our limitations are simply not observed. Perhaps, in return, they have limitations in thinking and perception that we do not. Think of the ant. It lives a stygmergic existance that is both less and other than we experience. Perhaps in a way it is also more. Of course, there is the possibility that our conception of a universe, which in my philosophy is nothing more than an extension of my life experience, is simply "less" than the life experience of an ET, in some measurable parameter.

Again I am sorry if these questions have already been answered or have simple explanations. Also forgive if there is any grammar that is incorrect, I am not from the US.

I think these are questions always worth asking. Second, it is always sad when people get angry at second language speakers. I'd much rather praise you for talking with us. And finally, your English writing is excellent.

[edit on 6-8-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

I cannot go without thinking that even with the technological advancement, there isn't anything that could be interesting about the human race for them. What i have in mind mainly is our art/music development.

I believe that standing biped is one heck of a nice position for our day to day life .
I was told once or I read that the fact all intelligent beings in the universe would share the discovery, including walking and standing. That universal connection would be the explanation of why sometimes poeple have those weird ideas that are the base of so many inventions and art masterpieces.