Ancient astronaut theory looks highly promising now

that they would deliberately distort the image

to find out the real image once and for all , geologically speaking

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Since you obviously don't trust any image that doesn't show what you want to see, why would you trust images from a rover sitting at the base of the hill any more than from above?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He'll only trust one image (Of the great many released to the public by NASA itself) if it can "prove" his claims.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Someone mentioned me?
Oh how special I feel now. A old post from me has warranted a response

If I'm on the same page. And we are talking about the face.
Then if we could prove that this "face" is man made. Then we would know man was there. And we might be able to locate signs of human like presence.
Then branch out.

 

Oh, there are reasonable explanations.

This is called mythology. Very reasonable explanation.

Blood, sweat, and tears of hardworking people. People are, after all, pretty smart.

People. There were people living in places like Nazca. In fact, as archaeological mysteries go, these aren't even considered mysterious when compared to questions about trade and subsistence.

The artwork on Mars is not all that astonishing and is easily explained by NASA, which sent the artwork there. You are talking about the NASA logos on landers like Viking, Opportunity, Curiosity, et al, right?

Could you cite that "admission" please? I think you're misinterpreting something that Dawkins wrote about panspermia, which is a very different thing than "biogenetic manipulation."

 

Wow! Long time no see.

 

...

 

That's because evolution <> biogenesis.

 

Who, specifically, said they didn't expect life to exist extra-terrestrially?

 

I say, good question. And it may just be a single cell organism. Welcome back SkinWalker. Hope ya stick around a while.

 

i'm sorry, but it does indeed seem that most responders in this thread are questioning ETs.
i retract the observation and will be more careful in the future.

 

Not if we are half / part / all alien.

 

The sand dunes, regoliths, sand dune deposits of different colors, canyons ... it is artwork itself.

http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/12-most-beautiful-nasa-pictures-of-mars

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

We would be much more likely to be able to produce offspring with a chrysanthemum than a alien.

 

I don't think that we were put on this Earth without some sort of extra-terrestial intervention. I just don't think it is an accident that we are here, on this Earth.

According to Gnostics, an inferior being (like a demiurge or Satan) is the one who fashioned the material world and put us here in flesh and blood form. Now God is the only one who can free us for the confines of the materialistic world which the devil carefully fashioned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil

 

Well if you don't think so... I am sure that is all that is needed to convince mankind. I guess your mission is accomplished - congratulations!

 

Accident is a word that can be used to imply randomness. While there is a degree of chance involved, evolution and abiogenesis still have to play by the rules of chemistry. So it's not a total accident, but just a matter of probability of materials and environment.

Now, one question would be, at what point do you think ET involvement is necessary to make things work? The very start, to seed the beginnings of replicators? Single cells? Fishes and such? Adam? Maybe a 2001 encounter?

As you get closer to what we have now on Earth, the ET explanation builds u more and more evidence of evolutionary history that argues against it. There are traces of life going back almost to the beginning of Earth's formation, so where was the extra help needed?

And of course, say you did establish the aliens after all. Then you'd have to explain how they came about, since you're implying that life can't begin on its own.

I personally believe that given proper chemistry and environment, and plenty of time, life will happen in a lot of places. Not to become intelligent, or even past cellular, but I do think that replication itself is likely in a lot of places, and the more hospitable ones, further than that.

 

Well said, Rhaedas.

And, pluto2, you've simply made an argument from ignorance. You can't think of an explanation, therefore ET/supernatural did it.

This is a science forum, friend. At least have the courtesy to try and speak our language. It's very rude of you otherwise.