10 Good Reasons It's Not Aliens

reply to post by KrypticCriminal


I'm not saying what they are, actually. I'm saying there are some possibilities out there that go deeper and make more sense than aliens like us in different bodies.

That's what we mean by "alien," generally. Or do you disagree? Because all I've ever seen associated with the word "alien" is a people like us we're at war with, a people like us who have sent doctors like ours here, people like us trying to teach us something spiritually, and so on. It's the people like us part I have a problem with first and then the fact that accounts sharing core characteristics have been around forever second.

So call them what they are. Extra Biological Decievers, and yes they have always been here.

But what the hell do they want? and why do I/we have to participate?

Originally posted by Khaaaaaan!!
So call them what they are. Extra Biological Decievers, and yes they have always been here.

But what the hell do they want? and why do I/we have to participate?

If you don't even know what they want, then why even call them decievers?

reply to post by Jeremy_Vaeni


Ah, so you dont accept the label of alien at all, as a description of what you believe them to be.

Yeah, i suppose theres every possability that they could just be another species that we term "aliens" and that they could very well share this planet or dimension. We just cant always see them.

Science is opening up to other dimensions and alternate realitys in a big way recently, so you may get your answer sooner than you think.

Originally posted by Khaaaaaan!!
So call them what they are. Extra Biological Decievers, and yes they have always been here.

But what the hell do they want? and why do I/we have to participate?

Again, that's an interpretation. Are they deceiving us or is there a symbiotic perception thing going on where we interpret and then they become that for us for whatever reason--perhaps a natural one?

And what does it mean to deceive? Again, we're a predominantly Judeo-Christian culture. We were raised to believe in a positive approach to spirituality. Give love/get love. Believe in this and receive that. But what of the Zen master who whacks a student on the head for enlightenment?

What of the Mr. Miagi character or the Yoda character who hides in plain sight pretending to be a goofball idiot but is secretly a master? Or the old secret societies guarding scientific knowledge from the Church who would otherwise kill them? They pretended to be just like everyone else, right?

So there are different levels to what deception is about.

Here's a question: What if they are deceivers and the answer is, "We deceive you because you're not ready for the truth but we have to do this and it doesn't matter if you trust that or not, it's the way things have to be. You may or may not understand someday but that's of little concern to the bigger picture."

If you're a worm in a cocoon and they are butterflies and they see that you've decided not to chew your way out of the cocoon, preferring to live there... and that doing so will ultimately kill your species... do they have a right to do what they can to jostle you out of complacency? The butterfly was once a worm in a cocoon. They were once you. Perhaps literally they were humans or perhaps there is a universal property in the universe by which all sentient species either arrive at butterfly or die off. Knowing that oneness in a way you and I cannot, the butterfly goes to work because it's one waking oneself up. But you and I only know ourselves as seperate beings and like being worms and think flight is scary. Mutating into a butterfly feels like a choice to us but it isn't. It's a consequence of being human. That or die off. This is nature. They know it. We don't. And no rational conversation with them will wake us out of being us.

So you see, there can be a case or two made for positive deception even if it sucks for us.

reply to post by Nightchild


uhm..........look around the entire ATS site?.................... Is ANY of it true? If so, then there is your deception.

I have lots and lots of ideas of the "possibilities" for what they want, but no, I don't have the absolute answer.
Soul maybe?

reply to post by Jeremy_Vaeni



Assuming these beings exist outside of our own minds for the sake of argument, why is there an assumption they are deceptive? If there is any deception, it is on our own part. We project our own fears, hopes and beliefs on them and when they do not give us the answers we want, when they do not confirm what we project our them, we accuse them of being deceptive. In truth, we are only deceiving ourselves.

reply to post by Jeremy_Vaeni
Is the extraterrestrial hypothesis a 'shallow' interpretation of UFO data, or merely the most straightforward one? Reason calls upon us to devise the simplest explanation that covers the known facts; to make the fewest possible assumptions. What we know of the universe supports the idea that it is filled with life. Consideration of human technical progress, and reasonable projections thereof suggest that travel between the stars may well be possible for more advanced civilizations than ours. Even if we are to entertain the possibility that other dimensions exist, in the same sense that ours do, that they can harbor life, and that that life can somehow penetrate into our dimensions, the presence of extraterrestrials at Earth is still a reasonable idea. It is logical to look for evidence of such beings. The oddities associated with reports of alien abductions make for a murky broth, indeed. These accounts often appear to be contaminated with faulty memories, false (created) memories, imaginary and hallucinatory episodes, mixed in with dreams and dream-like states. To take these as clear evidence supporting an alternate explanation for UFOs seems unduly risky. Seemingly 'magical' behavior associated with ufos or their occupants does not invalidate the ETH, either. As Arthur C. Clarke has said: Any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic. Ross

Originally posted by Ross 54
reply to post by Jeremy_Vaeni

 

Is the extraterrestrial hypothesis a 'shallow' interpretation of UFO data, or merely the most straightforward one? Reason calls upon us to devise the simplest explanation that covers the known facts; to make the fewest possible assumptions. What we know of the universe supports the idea that it is filled with life. Consideration of human technical progress, and reasonable projections thereof suggest that travel between the stars may well be possible for more advanced civilizations than ours. Even if we are to entertain the possibility that other dimensions exist, in the same sense that ours do, that they can harbor life, and that that life can somehow penetrate into our dimensions, the presence of extraterrestrials at Earth is still a reasonable idea. It is logical to look for evidence of such beings. The oddities associated with reports of alien abductions make for a murky broth, indeed. These accounts often appear to be contaminated with faulty memories, false (created) memories, imaginary and hallucinatory episodes, mixed in with dreams and dream-like states. To take these as clear evidence supporting an alternate explanation for UFOs seems unduly risky. Seemingly 'magical' behavior associated with ufos or their occupants does not invalidate the ETH, either. As Arthur C. Clarke has said: Any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic. Ross

I'll answer that in three ways.

1.) It's shallow because it's the easiest to understand according to our cultural bias.

2.) The evidence does not support the extraterrestrial hypothesis, which is the cultural bias. So rationally, it's time to look elsewhere.

3.) And this one I think is the major overlooked fact of us.... The notion that rationality is the most complete, whole thing the human brain can do is a Western materialist perspective. If wrong, if there is such a thing as the transrational--that which transcends and includes rationality like the butterfly transcends and includes the pupa; like adulthood transcends and includes childhood--then to look for a purely rational explanation is a wrong move. It's one we're destined to make because we are rational after all, right? So anything that transcends rationality will look irrational to a rational person since they have no other context for it. My point in all of this is, Why jam the square peg of an unidentified phenomenon into the round hole of a rational answer for which there is zero evidence to begin with? That's our own post modern interpretation.

Why isn't it enough to say, "We don't know what this is." Or even further, "We don't know what this is. We examined it with rational tools and that yielded us nothing. Perhaps we're using the wrong tools for this job."

Maybe we don't have the tools for the job in our mental/spiritual arsenal. Maybe we do. But before we can even get to the point of looking we have to acknowledge that what we're using isn't working. We're just creating a newfangled belief system around the unidentified so that we can feel safe in having gotten our minds around it.

Is our goal to find the truth or to pretend we've identified the unidentified? (And then turn it into a religious and political belief system, which is where we're at now with space brothers, exopolitics, the demand for disclosure, and the flipside of that coin, demonic soul-sucking space vampires.)

Originally posted by JJBB22
Here's another one.

* Why do "Aliens" slam Christianity so much and promote New Age practices and occult knowledge, if they were truly from another galaxy why would they be so interested in this.

Do they?

Or are certain researchers of a particular bent just reporting what confirms their beliefs and agendas? Do the witnesses actually report this or are these researchers leading them to believe they witnessed it?

Originally posted by Jeremy_Vaeni
4.) Nonhumans never say anything humans can't know from reading texts by and/or talking to other humans. Shouldn't aliens at least know math? They seem to know English.

There is the star map that Betty Hill was shown. This predates the Gliesse star maps.

Just so you know.

Originally posted by KineticFaction

Originally posted by Jeremy_Vaeni
4.) Nonhumans never say anything humans can't know from reading texts by and/or talking to other humans. Shouldn't aliens at least know math? They seem to know English.

There is the star map that Betty Hill was shown. This predates the Gliesse star maps.

Just so you know.

Technically, it didn't since the analysis of the Betty Hill star map was based on the Gliesse star maps, published in 1969. Plus, any group of stars could coincide with random points, as evidenced by the fact there are two competing "maps", one from Fisher claiming Zeta Riticuli is the focal point and the Atterberg map with Epsilon Indi and Epsilon Eridani as the base stars.

reply to post by Jeremy_Vaeni

I'd be interested to see what you think of Vallee's new book and the methodology he and his co-author apply to culling ancient reports.

Although I'm open-minded about Vallee's ideas, they aren't the final word and some are open to debate. I'm looking forward to reading the new book and expect he'll generate some interesting threads. I'm very interested in his approach to attributing credibility to ancient reports, he always does legwork to support the research. If you haven't already read it, he authored a paper against the ETH some years back...Five Arguments Against the Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentified Flying Objects.

The arguments raised here are not intended as a complete refutation of the ETH or the natural phenomena hypothesis. Until the nature and origin of UFO phenomena can be firmly established it will naturally be possible to hypothesize that extraterrestrial factors, including undiscovered forms of consciousness, are playing a role in its manifestations. But any future theory should constructively address the facts we have reviewed. At a minimum, the idea of extraterrestrial intervention should be updated to include current theoretical speculation about other models of the physical universe.

I've long been toying with the idea of of a thread to rebut the arguments...or at least offer different perspectives to them.

Vallee has never ruled out the ETH as a possibility and I won't either. Instead of ETH being an all-encompassing explanation, it might just be a possible explanation for part of the UFO phenomena. I've listened to half of your recent show and agree that the ETH hasn't taken us much further in the past few decades. The thing is, Vallee's ideas have been around since the 60s and also haven't taken us further. It's only from reading Flying Saucer Reviews from 1960 that I realised we haven't had an original idea on the subject for decades. That's a pretty cold reality to accept.

Well let me throw this out there, too. Can't believe I forgot it. Call it the eleventh reason on my list.

11.) The only reason we call them aliens is because the media told us to. Here were some of the factors:

-- In the late 1800s we were wondering if there were canals on Mars.
-- In the earlly 1900s alien sci fi was taking off.
-- In 1938 Orson Welles scared the crap out of everybody with War of The Worlds.
-- In 1947 The media turned Kenneth Arnold's description of the flight dynamics of the objects he saw into "flying saucers."

I submit to you that these were the main factors in believing that unknown phenomena of the ufological kind = aliens.

AND THEN, the mirror reflection mechanism kicks in and suddenly these beings are showing people like Betty Hill a star map.

Don't you find it suspicious that all of a sudden these beings who predate the term "flying saucer" began telling people they were aliens after we coined the term and got it in our system that they were aliens?

And now that our science has shifted its focus to theoretical physics, which brings us into thinking about other dimensions, the shift is happening this past decade away from aliens from another planet to interdimensional aliens?

Do we agree that this is happening? If so, how do we account for it?

fascinating thread. there's so many bizarre ufo and "alien" encounter stories that don't fit the mold of space travelers coming to collect data. I kind of like the theory that all the 'paranormal' is the same thing somehow. i've always been the most fascinated with stories of high strangeness like mib encounters or ufo's that are actually cars or big wooden ships, stuff like that. i've tried to find a good resource for those types of stories, but i can't find a good one-stop for all my high strangeness needs. if anyone knows where to go to find a log of stories like this, shoot me a reply.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


Techincally it did. The map was drawn in about May '64.

Despite the fact that there is two maps I tend to agree with the Majorie Fish map for a couple of reasons.
1. The majority of the stars on the map are main sequence.
2. Gliese 86, Zeta Reticuli 1 & 2 all having planets and 82 Eridani and Alpha Mensae suspected to have planets. i.e the stars with solid lines drawn to them in the map.
3. The main counter argument to the Fish map is that the other stars were closer. You have to imagine that if your a space fairing race traveling 13ly isn't any easier that traveling 39ly.

I'm not necessarily saying theres a galactic federation of little gray men hanging about some of the nearby stars. Just the fact that Betty Hill drew a map thats is strikingly similar to something which she couldn't have known.

Whether the Betty and Barney Hill abduction is true or not i can't say. But its one of the more prominent cases, along with Roswell and Rendlesham that back up the ETH.

Originally posted by KineticFaction
Techincally it did. The map was drawn in about May '64.

I am not disputing that the drawing existed previous to '69; rather, the idea that Zeta Riticuli is the focus did not happen until the Gliesse star maps were published. Sorry for any confusion.

Originally posted by KineticFaction
2. Gliese 86, Zeta Reticuli 1 & 2 all having planets and 82 Eridani and Alpha Mensae suspected to have planets. i.e the stars with solid lines drawn to them in the map.

Zeta Reticuli does not have planets, at least none that have been discovered yet. It was believed in 1996 that a Hot Jupiter planet had been spotted but this was found to actually be pulsations of the star.

Originally posted by KineticFaction
3. The main counter argument to the Fish map is that the other stars were closer. You have to imagine that if your a space fairing race traveling 13ly isn't any easier that traveling 39ly.

But Fish also made assumptions based on our knowledge 40 years ago that do not hold true today, such as Red Giants being unable to harbor life and that an alien race would be uninterested in them. She also assumed that the lines connected to our own star, but there is no reason to assume so.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Zeta Reticuli does not have planets, at least none that have been discovered yet. It was believed in 1996 that a Hot Jupiter planet had been spotted but this was found to actually be pulsations of the star.

Cheers for that, i was still under the understanding that it did.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
But Fish also made assumptions based on our knowledge 40 years ago that do not hold true today, such as Red Giants being unable to harbor life and that an alien race would be uninterested in them. She also assumed that the lines connected to our own star, but there is no reason to assume so.

Good point, but while i'm less sure of this, i think that the aliens in the abduction story said that one of these stars (the ones with lines too) was sol.

I think we both agree its certainly an interesting map.

I'm not really a big believer in UFO's being aliens either, but as is my want I will play devils advocate.

Originally posted by Jeremy_Vaeni
1.) Sightings of UFOs & nonhumans date back to BC, not 1947.
2.) Abductions by nonhumans date back to BC, not 1961.

I think both of these points could also be used to strengthen the argument that "It IS aliens" as you are discounting the explanation that UFO sightings come from people seeing / hearing about UFO's on TV, movies etc and then dreaming them up afterwards. There were no UFO movies in 200BC telling people what they should be seeing / experiencing.

3.) Given 1 & 2, 3 is interesting: abductions that involve reproductive purposes likewise date back to antiquity. So long Grays-need-our-genetic-material-to-seed-their-dying-race myth.

Humans have also been harvesting various substances from plants / animals etc for out health or enjoyment or just for food for thousands of years. Maybe they can take genetic material but can't replicate it, maybe lots of things who knows, I don't see this proving either view point one way or the other either.

4.) Nonhumans never say anything humans can't know from reading texts by and/or talking to other humans. Shouldn't aliens at least know math? They seem to know English.

Good point! Although it does put an alien abductee into a similar conundrum as someone who claims to contact the dead i.e. if they say something that can be proved then everyone says "You could have just looked that up" but if they say something that can't be proved then people say "You could just be making that up"
It's true that they could impart some kind of knowledge about physics of mathematics that could then later be proved through testing but maybe they don't want to.. again who can know.

5.) Hypnotically retrieved abduction testimony is invalid. (See Dr. Scott Lilienfeld's work or the latest issue of UFO Magazine for more details.)

Agreed!

6.) The story of alien doctors was brought to you by hypnotists who conveniently left out any of the highly strange paranormal activity that concurrently showed up in their clients' lives.

I have no idea about that

7.) "The more you give, the more you get," as Jeff Ritzmann would say. Put another way, if you're an experiencer, whatever you think this phenomenon is gets reflected back at you. Think it's alien doctors? You get alien doctors. Think it's space brothers? You get space brothers. Think it's demons? You get that.

True enough, but then again all human experience is subjective to the person experiencing it two people experiencing the same thing will rarely give an identical account of what happened as it's always coloured by their preconceived ideas and expectations

8.) Some "craft" have been reported to shape-shift.

This would only prove anything if we new for certain that aliens don't have craft that can shape shift whaich of course we can't know

9.) There are paranormal/UFO hot spots like Pine Bush, NY, Marley Woods, and the Skinwalker Ranch where everything from lemurs to bigfoot to fairies to aliens are reported.

10.) Because the tailor-made experiences of individual experiencers don't make any sense in the context of an alien program. For example, individuals can "call them in" for themselves but not for the population at large. Are there spaceships just sitting in the heavens waiting for us to meditate in the woods on them so they can burst through the clouds and wink a light at us? Do alien tax payer dollars fund this project? We always hear that they don't land because the public isn't ready. Clearly, individuals who call them in are ready. Why don't they land for those people? Why the theatrics?

Good points both!

Sorry, believers of the ETH. There will be no disclosure of a galactic federation waiting for us to grow acclimated to their presence in the foreseeable future. Just how long do nonhumans have to live here before we stop calling them alien anyway?

I think you are probably right

Originally posted by Jeremy_Vaeni
10.) Because the tailor-made experiences of individual experiencers don't make any sense in the context of an alien program. For example, individuals can "call them in" for themselves but not for the population at large. Are there spaceships just sitting in the heavens waiting for us to meditate in the woods on them so they can burst through the clouds and wink a light at us? Do alien tax payer dollars fund this project? We always hear that they don't land because the public isn't ready. Clearly, individuals who call them in are ready. Why don't they land for those people? Why the theatrics?

Please remember at the same time as people like ourselves are trying to have serious discussions about the ETH there are a lot of true believers who are looking for a meaning to life the universe and everything.

Personally i highly doubt aliens would travel to earth to talk to red necks/hippys/new agers unless they are playing some cynical joke on them or view these people as having a higher understanding. The majority of the hippy in the woods cases i write off as nonsense.

Originally posted by Jeremy_Vaeni
Sorry, believers of the ETH. There will be no disclosure of a galactic federation waiting for us to grow acclimated to their presence in the foreseeable future. Just how long do nonhumans have to live here before we stop calling them alien anyway?

I seriously doubt TPTB know anymore than we do. They didn't keep Watergate, The Downing Street Memo's or Iran-Contra secret. How could they keep something like a alliance with the grays secret.

Perhaps there was a crashed ship at Roswell, but to the USAAF i think that probably led to more questions than answers. If theres any conspiracy here i think its that.