My theory on Alien intervention on Earth

[Hazzard]

Again, no preconceived notions. Well, not no preconceived notions... My current ideas are diametrically opposed to the preconceived notions I used to have.

Of course we can't be sure what the original creators of those things had in mind--that's open to interpretation. I simply have one of many possible, equally-valid interpretations of the evidence. Any one of them could be correct.

Thats all Im saying. We cant know for sure.

My essential point is that my theses are based solely on the available evidence.

You have made quite clear that your opinion is based on nothing more that your interpretation of said "evidence".

[Arbitran]

Thats all Im saying. We cant know for sure.

You have made quite clear that your opinion is based on nothing more that your interpretation of said "evidence".

Indeed. Then we understand each other. Each of our opinions is simply our own interpretation of the evidence. It's virtually impossible to determine which of us is right unless new evidence proves or disproves one of us (or even both of us).

[Lion6969]

There is no difference whatsoever between a "deity" and an "ET". The descriptions are absolutely identical. Thus there is no demarcation.

Really? One is a god and the other a product of the god. My point was not to say it's this or that definitively, my point was that when you take all contextual variables including linguistics, it's refers to heavenly bodies, more in line with a theistic perspective and the scriptures themselves largely are theological. I have studied them too and I agree there is some amazing information which you claim has alien origins where as others claim it's revelation while others say it's mans own handy work, there is a possibility it could be both revelation and interfered by man too. That's why it requires a quite a leap to equate to ancient aliens, the very source for your reliance about this theory is very open to different interpretations, when you weigh the evidence it in no way supports your theory.

I don't have a problem with ancient man being developed and advanced and no longer around today, cyclical! Civilisations come and go and the Rama empire came and went. Your theory is the same as ufolisgts claiming the bible talks about ancient aliens, when infact it does not after you take all variables into consideration, yet a fringe group like to freely interpret scripture and create any meaning there of.

[Hazzard]

Indeed. Then we understand each other. Each of our opinions is simply our own interpretation of the evidence. It's virtually impossible to determine which of us is right unless new evidence proves or disproves one of us (or even both of us).

Agreed.

[Arbitran]

Really? One is a god and the other a product of the god. My point was not to say it's this or that definitively, my point was that when you take all contextual variables including linguistics, it's refers to heavenly bodies, more in line with a theistic perspective and the scriptures themselves largely are theological. I have studied them too and I agree there is some amazing information which you claim has alien origins where as others claim it's revelation while others say it's mans own handy work, there is a possibility it could be both revelation and interfered by man too. That's why it requires a quite a leap to equate to ancient aliens, the very source for your reliance about this theory is very open to different interpretations, when you weigh the evidence it in no way supports your theory.

I don't have a problem with ancient man being developed and advanced and no longer around today, cyclical! Civilisations come and go and the Rama empire came and went. Your theory is the same as ufolisgts claiming the bible talks about ancient aliens, when infact it does not after you take all variables into consideration, yet a fringe group like to freely interpret scripture and create any meaning there of.

Your interpretations in no way hold more sway than mine. I simply note that there is no tangible distinction based on linguistics, semantics, or definition to divide the concept of "god" with that of "ET". The interpretation of "gods" as some sort of intangible, incorporeal entity is but one possible interpretation--and one which is more often than not absent from the ancient texts, which typically speak of "gods" and "demons" as plainly flesh-and-blood beings. As near as it can be seen, it would likely be a greater leap to suggest that ancient man for some reason chose to attribute their greatest achievements to beings from another world. I see no "theology" in the ancient texts (the Bible's first few chapters are interesting--after that they become more and more fictional).

I mean no offense to anyone who may disagree.

[Sensible Logic]

I will firstly say, pleased to make your acquaintance. It is nice to see someone on this forum who appears to have similar interests to my own. I have studied this same topic you have outlined here for about two years (excellent work on yours--it's fascinating). I personally have found in my own studies that the extraterrestrials (I prefer to call them gods--the ancient equivalent of the modern word extraterrestrial) could be considered a species of human; or perhaps super-human. In my research it is quite evident that our species is in fact a product of their genetic experiments (they "created us in their image"--along with an assortment of other species, such as dwarves [Neanderthals], elves [human-god hybrids], etc.). In other words, we are descended from them. Aliens don't look like us--we look like them. This is of course the case for only one of a number of distinct races of beings from different worlds which have travelled here, to our planet. In the Sumerian-Babylonian texts they are called "Anunnaki", meaning "those that came to Earth from the heavens". In Sanskrit (my personal favorite), they are called "Devas" (or sometimes "Suras" or "Asuras")--meaning roughly "those who are enlightened", or "those who have come from outer space" (the latter translation, is admittedly controversial--my uncle however was formerly an archaeologist and Sanskrit expert, and made quite clear to me the meaning of the word). In particular, the race called Anunnaki in Sumer was called "Rudras" in Sanskrit--or alternately "Aryans", given that they had come from a world called "Arya" (yes, Hitler was interested in the human-Rudra connections, and made the absurd, nauseating assumption that only those who shared their fair skin, blond hair, and blue eyes were sophisticated enough to persist). Indeed, the Rudras, apart from their height (between 10 and 12 feet for men--6 and 8 feet for women), were largely indistinguishable from the ideal "Aryan" conceived of by Adolf Hitler (a highly-regrettable case); excepting for their larger brains, pointed ears (the "elves" retained this trait), and exceptional beauty and abilities. It seems to me from the accounts of the ancient texts that the gods arrived on Earth almost immediately after it formed, circa 4 billion years ago (they also inhabited Mars for many billions of years--it is largely barren now due to a brutal war circa 2.5 million years ago). They "terraformed" it to suit their own needs, and eventually (seemingly by accident), Earth life developed--perhaps from the germs within their own bodies. This is the reason why their DNA is so similar to ours--the DNA of our entire world is stemmed from that of their own world. As for our genetic similarities to them, they only gifted us with a few of their own: those 223 anomalous genes in our genomes which grant us speech and brain sizes beyond that of most other animals. They withheld however (seemingly after some amount of deliberation) their own secret of immortality (not true immortality--they lived each approximately 500,000 years), evidently the same types of techniques which scientists are contemplating today (telomere repair via gene therapy; nanobots inserted into the bloodstream; etc.).

If you wish to know more, I would be happy to discuss what I know--and would be fascinated to learn more of your own work. I regret to say that, unfortunately rather expectedly, my occasionally "unusual" theses have been greeted on these forums with little more than utter incivility and mockery. I would be very thankful and delighted if you would be more open-minded and kind in your appraisal of my research (which at present represents the knowledge of over 65 years of careful study). Once again, pleased to meet you. Namaste.

There is no evidence of genetic experimentation on the human race in the past.

4 billion years ago the Earth was cooled and the oceans were forming but the atmosphere was filled with toxic gases. Space travelers would be concentrating on those systems with planets that could support life and at that time Earth would not have been a candidate. You must consider that if only 1% of the 300 billion stars in our galaxy have planets that can support life that would still be 3 billion systems. one race picking us out to visit would be very slim but multiple races from different planets picking us out would be astronomically slim.

There is no evidence for human like life having existed on mars, no civilization and no war 2.5 million years ago.

Elves and dwarves are the product of human imagination and have nothing to do with supposed ancient aliens visiting Earth even though all three are fictional.

The problem is that man needed to put their Gods in a place where humans couldn't reach. For some it was mountain tops and for others in the heavens. The heavens were not outer space and the gods were not aliens.

[Sensible Logic]

There is no difference whatsoever between a "deity" and an "ET". The descriptions are absolutely identical. Thus there is no demarcation.

So the descriptions of say the gods of the Hindus and the descriptions of the gray and reptilian aliens are identical?

[Arbitran]

There is no evidence of genetic experimentation on the human race in the past.

4 billion years ago the Earth was cooled and the oceans were forming but the atmosphere was filled with toxic gases. Space travelers would be concentrating on those systems with planets that could support life and at that time Earth would not have been a candidate. You must consider that if only 1% of the 300 billion stars in our galaxy have planets that can support life that would still be 3 billion systems. one race picking us out to visit would be very slim but multiple races from different planets picking us out would be astronomically slim.

There is no evidence for human like life having existed on mars, no civilization and no war 2.5 million years ago.

Elves and dwarves are the product of human imagination and have nothing to do with supposed ancient aliens visiting Earth even though all three are fictional.

The problem is that man needed to put their Gods in a place where humans couldn't reach. For some it was mountain tops and for others in the heavens. The heavens were not outer space and the gods were not aliens.

To answer each of your allegations:

1 ~ The human race is the result of genetic experimentation--and I already cited one vital piece of evidence to support such a notion.

2 ~ You grossly underestimate the versatility of life. Life can exist in virtually any environment: regardless of what would suit us. Life adapts to suit its environment. As Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking have already shown mathematically, our galaxy should be almost entirely populated by extraterrestrial races--the selection of Earth as a planet is not unlikely, rather an inevitability.

3 ~ I do not deny that physical evidence of civilization on Mars is as-of-yet slim. But then, we have only explored an extremely limited amount of its surface. The evidence for nuclear devastation is all that I stated is present--no cause is decided-upon.

4 ~ Your willingness no out-of-hand discredit elves and dwarves is hardly surprising--however I must note that in doing so you are wantonly discarding all of the evidence which points to their reality.

5 ~ Your problem is that your suggestion, quote "that man needed to put their Gods in a place where humans couldn't reach", is utterly unfounded. If you can show otherwise, please display evidence. Admittedly, my theses are radical to some, but regardless of what your biased opinion might be, it is you who holds the burden of evidence now: having posited an alternative, no-less-absurd explanation.

[Arbitran]

So the descriptions of say the gods of the Hindus and the descriptions of the gray and reptilian aliens are identical?

I said the words present no demarcation. When speaking of specific races then of course distinctions must be made.

[The_Spartan]

I will firstly say, pleased to make your acquaintance. It is nice to see someone on this forum who appears to have similar interests to my own. I have studied this same topic you have outlined here for about two years (excellent work on yours--it's fascinating). I personally have found in my own studies that the extraterrestrials (I prefer to call them gods--the ancient equivalent of the modern word extraterrestrial) could be considered a species of human; or perhaps super-human. In my research it is quite evident that our species is in fact a product of their genetic experiments (they "created us in their image"--along with an assortment of other species, such as dwarves [Neanderthals], elves [human-god hybrids], etc.). In other words, we are descended from them. Aliens don't look like us--we look like them. This is of course the case for only one of a number of distinct races of beings from different worlds which have travelled here, to our planet. In the Sumerian-Babylonian texts they are called "Anunnaki", meaning "those that came to Earth from the heavens". In Sanskrit (my personal favorite), they are called "Devas" (or sometimes "Suras" or "Asuras")--meaning roughly "those who are enlightened", or "those who have come from outer space" (the latter translation, is admittedly controversial--my uncle however was formerly an archaeologist and Sanskrit expert, and made quite clear to me the meaning of the word). In particular, the race called Anunnaki in Sumer was called "Rudras" in Sanskrit--or alternately "Aryans", given that they had come from a world called "Arya" (yes, Hitler was interested in the human-Rudra connections, and made the absurd, nauseating assumption that only those who shared their fair skin, blond hair, and blue eyes were sophisticated enough to persist). Indeed, the Rudras, apart from their height (between 10 and 12 feet for men--6 and 8 feet for women), were largely indistinguishable from the ideal "Aryan" conceived of by Adolf Hitler (a highly-regrettable case); excepting for their larger brains, pointed ears (the "elves" retained this trait), and exceptional beauty and abilities. It seems to me from the accounts of the ancient texts that the gods arrived on Earth almost immediately after it formed, circa 4 billion years ago (they also inhabited Mars for many billions of years--it is largely barren now due to a brutal war circa 2.5 million years ago). They "terraformed" it to suit their own needs, and eventually (seemingly by accident), Earth life developed--perhaps from the germs within their own bodies. This is the reason why their DNA is so similar to ours--the DNA of our entire world is stemmed from that of their own world. As for our genetic similarities to them, they only gifted us with a few of their own: those 223 anomalous genes in our genomes which grant us speech and brain sizes beyond that of most other animals. They withheld however (seemingly after some amount of deliberation) their own secret of immortality (not true immortality--they lived each approximately 500,000 years), evidently the same types of techniques which scientists are contemplating today (telomere repair via gene therapy; nanobots inserted into the bloodstream; etc.).

If you wish to know more, I would be happy to discuss what I know--and would be fascinated to learn more of your own work. I regret to say that, unfortunately rather expectedly, my occasionally "unusual" theses have been greeted on these forums with little more than utter incivility and mockery. I would be very thankful and delighted if you would be more open-minded and kind in your appraisal of my research (which at present represents the knowledge of over 65 years of careful study). Once again, pleased to meet you. Namaste.

yes of course, Arbitran. I would definitely like to know more and discuss with you more on the above stuff which you have said about "Sanskrit", "Devas, being sometimes called Suras and Asuras", "Annunaki being called rudras" etc.

As i have asked you in our previous discussions, could you, i repeat, cpould you please provide some references which mention the above??

Let us start with the Devas and Asuras. Let us take the etymological origins of these words.

The word Deva /Devas originate from the PIE (Proto Indo European)word deiwos which itself is another PIE derivative of div, which means Shine. Devas are indeed known as the Shining ones, the Gods, the Celestial ones. (please do not bring any ET correlation into the picture since we are discussing the etymological origin of the word)

Most Devas were associated with natural Forces.

Where as Asura/Asuras were beings associated with earthly attributes.

Funny thing to be noted is Varuna who is the lord of water/the seas was actually categorized as an Asura, but during later stages was ascribed as a Deva. The Asuras as per rigveda were associated with the moral, ethical and social aspects. while devas were associated with the natrual aspects. While the later vedas were written, Asuras were given a darker attribute and demonized.

If you would care to compare Zoroastrianism with Hinduism, it would be clear that in Zoroastranism Ahuras were the good gods and the Daevas were the bad ones. And in Hinduism, it is exactly the opposite. The most apaprent reason is schism that was apparent between the religions, though both were of one origin.

Now coming to Rudras, this is the first time i am hearing that the Annunaki were the Rudras. The word Rudra does not have any link with known Sumerian Mythology or Literature. The word Rudra is associated with Shiva. Rudra means "Howler". "Roarer" which are fierce attributes of a person, which in turn has given "Rudra' the meaning of "Fierce". Lord Shiva is also the God of Destruction (Bramha the Creator, Vishnu the Sustainer and Shiva The Destroyer - The Trinity in Hindu Mythology).

Rudras, in plural are said to be the children of the Mahrishi Kashyapa and his wife Aditi. Rudras were initially ascribed god hood in earlier vedas but in later vedas the god hood was less prominent, but the association between the Rudras and Lord Shiva was more prominent and Rudras were referred to as followers of Lord Shiva or Rudra.

Arbitran, could you please provide links which correlate Annunaki to the Rudras??

BTW, the word Deva which originates from deiwos /div means the shining ones, which direcly implies that they were Gods. No other connation to Outer space beings.

In addition to all I have just said, let me say welcome to the Unexplained-Mysteries Forums. I only just realized that you have joined us here yesterday--and I would like to be among the first to to welcome you. I should also like to warn you that many people here can at times be quite narrow-minded and aggressive--as I've learned for myself. I sincerely wish however to hope that you will fare better than I, and that we can be on the same side as it were in the debate here. Welcome again. Namaste.

In addition to all I have just said, let me say welcome to the Unexplained-Mysteries Forums. I only just realized that you have joined us here yesterday--and I would like to be among the first to to welcome you. I should also like to warn you that many people here can at times be quite narrow-minded and aggressive--as I've learned for myself. I sincerely wish however to hope that you will fare better than I, and that we can be on the same side as it were in the debate here. Welcome again. Namaste.

Extraordinary Claims require Extra ordinary evidence. Unless you cant provide a single referenvce to your fanciful claims, thats what they wil lremain- extraordinary claims and please, do no insult us by calling your ideas as theses.

A thesis is defined as a proposition stated or put forward for consideration, especially one to be discussed and proved or to be maintained against objections.

Discuss, Prove with Evidence and maintain the claim, against the objections we put forth. could you do that?

I will firstly thank you for your civility. As for the most compelling evidence I have to date, there are many directions in which I could go. Perhaps among the most remarkable is the fact that nearly every culture in the world has stories and writings discussing the same events (not the best evidence yet). Perhaps what some have considered the best evidence is when an ancient culture (which is regarded as primitive by modern "anthropology") can be clearly seen to possess scientific knowledge--which ought to be unknown to a primitive society. For example, the ancient Hindu texts, such as the Vedas, describe in minute detail the principals of the precise speed of light, gravity, the heliocentric model of the solar system, the number of planets in our solar system, nuclear power, aeronautics and astronautics, etc. (I apologize most sincerely for my incapability to link to pages--if I can find the time I'll attempt to write out the relevant passages myself at a later time). And, of course, when such knowledge is displayed, and the source of the knowledge is requested, there are two possibilities:

1 ~ They learned it the same way we did, through experimentation and observations.

2 ~ They learned it from a more heavenly source, namely, the gods who came from outer space.

I think we are all aware which one of these two answers is the unanimous choice of the ancient texts...

I will thank you once again for your manners and kindness. Namaste.

The thinking that if some ancient people knew stuff that are part and parcel of science text books of today, it DOESNT mean that they learnt it from the aliens. It is just that their sciences were less researched by the modern scholar and has been lost to the modern world. No aliens. You should be ashamed to think that Humans cant do anything of their own.

Why do you keep on saying Namaste at the end of every post??

Is it in a sarcastic sense? or do you actually know the meaning of Namaste?

Namaste is the Greeting, Welcome. it does not mean Good Bye. if you want to say have a good day, please use Shubh Divas.When you keep on saying Namaste, Namaste Namste at the end of each post, it looks as if you are trying hell to sound Indian-ish or appear as an indophile.

An Indophile would have working knowledge of Hindu Mythology and Indian Culture, which i as an Indian would say, you definitely don't posses.

Edited March 25, 2012 by The_Spartan

[DONTEATUS]

Aliens are not going to visit us as Long as we are acting like we do !

[Arbitran]

yes of course, Arbitran. I would definitely like to know more and discuss with you more on the above stuff which you have said about "Sanskrit", "Devas, being sometimes called Suras and Asuras", "Annunaki being called rudras" etc.

As i have asked you in our previous discussions, could you, i repeat, cpould you please provide some references which mention the above??

Let us start with the Devas and Asuras. Let us take the etymological origins of these words.

The word Deva /Devas originate from the PIE (Proto Indo European)word deiwos which itself is another PIE derivative of div, which means Shine. Devas are indeed known as the Shining ones, the Gods, the Celestial ones. (please do not bring any ET correlation into the picture since we are discussing the etymological origin of the word)

Most Devas were associated with natural Forces.

Where as Asura/Asuras were beings associated with earthly attributes.

Funny thing to be noted is Varuna who is the lord of water/the seas was actually categorized as an Asura, but during later stages was ascribed as a Deva. The Asuras as per rigveda were associated with the moral, ethical and social aspects. while devas were associated with the natrual aspects. While the later vedas were written, Asuras were given a darker attribute and demonized.

If you would care to compare Zoroastrianism with Hinduism, it would be clear that in Zoroastranism Ahuras were the good gods and the Daevas were the bad ones. And in Hinduism, it is exactly the opposite. The most apaprent reason is schism that was apparent between the religions, though both were of one origin.

Now coming to Rudras, this is the first time i am hearing that the Annunaki were the Rudras. The word Rudra does not have any link with known Sumerian Mythology or Literature. The word Rudra is associated with Shiva. Rudra means "Howler". "Roarer" which are fierce attributes of a person, which in turn has given "Rudra' the meaning of "Fierce". Lord Shiva is also the God of Destruction (Bramha the Creator, Vishnu the Sustainer and Shiva The Destroyer - The Trinity in Hindu Mythology).

Rudras, in plural are said to be the children of the Mahrishi Kashyapa and his wife Aditi. Rudras were initially ascribed god hood in earlier vedas but in later vedas the god hood was less prominent, but the association between the Rudras and Lord Shiva was more prominent and Rudras were referred to as followers of Lord Shiva or Rudra.

Arbitran, could you please provide links which correlate Annunaki to the Rudras??

BTW, the word Deva which originates from deiwos /div means the shining ones, which direcly implies that they were Gods. No other connation to Outer space beings.

Extraordinary Claims require Extra ordinary evidence. Unless you cant provide a single referenvce to your fanciful claims, thats what they wil lremain- extraordinary claims and please, do no insult us by calling your ideas as theses.

A thesis is defined as a proposition stated or put forward for consideration, especially one to be discussed and proved or to be maintained against objections.

Discuss, Prove with Evidence and maintain the claim, against the objections we put forth. could you do that?

The thinking that if some ancient people knew stuff that are part and parcel of science text books of today, it DOESNT mean that they learnt it from the aliens. It is just that their sciences were less researched by the modern scholar and has been lost to the modern world. No aliens. You should be ashamed to think that Humans cant do anything of their own.

Why do you keep on saying Namaste at the end of every post??

Is it in a sarcastic sense? or do you actually know the meaning of Namaste?

Namaste is the Greeting, Welcome. it does not mean Good Bye. if you want to say have a good day, please use Shubh Divas.When you keep on saying Namaste, Namaste Namste at the end of each post, it looks as if you are trying hell to sound Indian-ish or appear as an indophile.

An Indophile would have working knowledge of Hindu Mythology and Indian Culture, which i as an Indian would say, you definitely don't posses.

I say Namaste in a non-sarcastic, symbolic sense. It not only serves as a greeting, but also as a metaphoric indication of respect.

I did not say that humans are incapable of doing things on their own--only that they did not claim responsibility for the acquisition of their scientific knowledge. They stated quite plainly that they learned it from the gods.

My theses need not be called by any other name. Indeed, we are discussing, I maintain my theses against your objections--as none of your objections have adequately countered the evidence; or made use of evidence yourself.

It is not any specific textual reference which would link the Anunnaki with the Rudras--it is based on description and details which betrays their identity.

As for your attempted translations of Sanskrit, there are various alternative interpretations. I have heard deva variously translated as: "enlightened ones", "glowing ones", "those who shine", "those from above", "those from the heavens", "those who are lofty", or "those from outer space". Any of these might be correct (perhaps even all of them). In any case, none of them would have any bearings on the extraterrestrial nature of the beings described.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Arbitran

[The_Spartan]

I say Namaste in a non-sarcastic, symbolic sense. It not only serves as a greeting, but also as a metaphoric indication of respect.

I did not say that humans are incapable of doing things on their own--only that they did not claim responsibility for the acquisition of their scientific knowledge. They stated quite plainly that they learned it from the gods.

My theses need not be called by any other name. Indeed, we are discussing, I maintain my theses against your objections--as none of your objections have adequately countered the evidence; or made use of evidence yourself.

It is not any specific textual reference which would link the Anunnaki with the Rudras--it is based on description and details which betrays their identity.

As for your attempted translations of Sanskrit, there are various alternative interpretations. I have heard deva variously translated as: "enlightened ones", "glowing ones", "those who shine", "those from above", "those from the heavens", "those who are lofty", or "those from outer space". Any of these might be correct (perhaps even all of them). In any case, none of them would have any bearings on the extraterrestrial nature of the beings described.

i am, not attempting to translate Sanskrit. i had to study Sanskrit at school in India. so, i read Sanskrit.

what do you do on Sanskrit? can you read it?

[Arbitran]

i am, not attempting to translate Sanskrit. i had to study Sanskrit at school in India. so, i read Sanskrit.

what do you do on Sanskrit? can you read it?

I can read it rather slowly. Your point?

[psyche101]

This is drawn from research, as with all of my other theses, I can kindly assure you. This particular thing stems largely from the Hindu texts of ancient India, many of which record the first instance of a divine presence on Earth as being near its creation, 4 billion years ago (yes, they also use that date). And as I said, they arrived here early, when it was uninhabitable. However, they very quickly set to work in terraforming it to their own needs--such as oxygen (where did those first huge quantities of oxygen come from in our atmosphere; which appear to have arrived before photosynthetic organisms?), water (again, where did Earth's water come from? I do not deny that comets or the like could be responsible--however extraterrestrial terraforming is an equally-probable suggestion), etc. At the first they evidently dwelt in orbiting stations, and perhaps some heat-resistant earthbound dwellings. They are said to have worn sorts of "air suits" prior to the installation of a viable atmosphere.

I do not believe that current evidence supports that notion, but the accepted hypothesis of rocky formation terraformed by procaryote cells.

I get a sneaky suspicion that you have forgotten all about Theta in your hypothesis. It would have wiped out your early "terrafarmers". The formation of our neighbour planets Venus and Mars also support natural propagation of life on earth.

The Early Earth and the Evolution of the Atmosphere.

Early Earth probably had an atmosphere dominated by carbon dioxide similar to the atmosphere of Venus today.

There are a group of one-celled organisms that can live in an oxygen free environment. These are the bacteria or prokaryotes. They do not have a nucleus and reproduce only by cell division. These creatures are the earliest evidence of life on earth. They were the first organisms to develop photosynthesis. Photosynthesis today is balanced by oxygen using respiration.

Hypothesis: Oxygen was nearly absent in the atmosphere of early Earth so photosynthesis would have created a net gain of oxygen first in the ocean and later in the atmosphere. Eventually with sufficient oxygen in the atmosphere respiration would have balanced photosynthesis except when burial removed the organic material from the oxygenated water or air. Before oxygen could build up in the atmosphere it must have oxidized reduced ions in seawater.

Evidence to support the above hypothesis:

Iron (Fe) is a very abundant element in the earth's crust so much is released by the chemical disintegration of minerals contained in rocks. Fe++ is slightly soluble in seawater while Fe+++ is insoluble (Figure 6). During the time when the earth had a reducing atmosphere Fe++ should have accumulated as dissolved ions in seawater. However at some point the oxygen build-up in the ocean from prokaryote photosynthesis should have oxidized the Fe++ to Fe+++ resulting in the precipitation of insoluble iron compounds. Are such ancient iron rich compounds preserved? Yes there are, in fact the bulk of the iron ore mined to produce steel comes from iron deposits that are about two billion years old (Figure 7). Such deposits are found on all continents and all look much the same (Figure 8). They are reddish and have clearly visible bands hence they are called Banded Iron Formations. The Messabi range of Minnesota is an example of such a deposit. It was for much of US history the primary source of iron ore for the steel mills of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania and Gary, Indiana. If we know the mass of these banded iron formations and the rate at which we mine them we can calculate their residence time and determine how long they will last, or when we will run out of this kind of iron ore (Figure 9).

A second line of evidence, to suggest that the early earth had a reducing atmosphere like Venus and Mars, is the presence of detrital (formed from the products of erosion of pre-existing rocks) pyrite in sedimentary deposits older than two billion years old. Iron pyrite forms in reducing environment and is quickly chemically decomposed in the presence of oxygen. Today such minerals are only preserved in rocks that formed in reducing environments such as swamps etc. However, in rocks older than two billion years old this mineral (iron pyrite) is found in rocks that were probably formed in streambeds.

LINK

Evidence for an early prokaryotic endosymbiosis

James A. Lake1,2,3,4

Top of pageAbstract

Endosymbioses have dramatically altered eukaryotic life, but are thought to have negligibly affected prokaryotic evolution. Here, by analysing the flows of protein families, I present evidence that the double-membrane, Gram-negative prokaryotes were formed as the result of a symbiosis between an ancient actinobacterium and an ancient clostridium. The resulting taxon has been extraordinarily successful, and has profoundly altered the evolution of life by providing endosymbionts necessary for the emergence of eukaryotes and by generating Earth’s oxygen atmosphere. Their double-membrane architecture and the observed genome flows into them suggest a common evolutionary mechanism for their origin: an endosymbiosis between a clostridium and actinobacterium.

LINK

Comets are a very good hypothesis for earth water, if not the prime source, mainly because the ratio called the deuterium hydrogen ratio of the water on comets (which has actually been measured by probes) is different to the water that exists in the oceans of Earth. but terraforming is not equal in any way. Europa was obviously not terraformed and it is covered in the stuff. No aliens required. Photolysis is far more likely to be responsible for the bulk of earths water. We have evidence for this. I find it hard to understand why one would reject such evidence to pursue what is no more than a fanciful musing?

As you say, there is as-yet little evidence. I do not deny this. I will say however that it has been determined that a massive nuclear blast devastated Mars about 2.5 million years ago, according to scientists (I don't know how to link yet; I'm very bad with computers--I apologize).

I know of it, do not worry, I will leave a link. What you are doing here is leading to the natural assumption to be gathered from your wording as this being some sort of outside influence. Nobody with a credential supports that notion. The man who came up with the ideal, Dr. John Brandenburg, claims it is some sort of natural reaction, and claims the same thing happened in Africa once as well.

According to Brandenburg, the natural explosion, the equivalent of 1 million one-megaton hydrogen bombs, occurred in the northern Mare Acidalium region of Mars where there is a heavy concentration of radioactivity

LINK

Ever wonder why the red planet is red? About 180 million years ago, a planet-shattering yet naturally occurring nuclear reaction may have wiped out everything on Mars, sending a shockwave that turned the planet into dry sand.

Even more incredible: A natural nuclear reaction could have occurred on our own planet -- and could happen again, said Dr. John Brandenburg, a senior propulsion scientist at Orbital Technologies Corp. "The Martian surface is covered with a thin layer of radioactive substances including uranium, thorium and radioactive potassium --

LINK

Interesting hypothesis, but it has a long way to go. And it is entirely natural.

Not as such. There have been numerous discoveries of oversized, human-like skeletons over the years, but I do not rely heavily on these--many of which are likely hoaxes. There have also been discoveries of oversized human footprints fossilized in rock dating back to past geologic epochs--these are more concretely interesting, however again, I don't hang my hat on such things. Another aspect to recall of this particular subject however is that it is made quite clear that the gods cremated their dead. This is of course not to rule out any individuals who might have perished under circumstances for proper cremation were not possible--however, one may recall that during the earliest years, our world was still molten and hot. Any who died under unfortunate circumstances would likely have been cremated naturally.

All of which are hoaxes. the the skeletons are human, then the inhabitants were ince human, and as we all know quite well, this design is not made to go large. Our organs do not stay in the correct proportions as our physical external size increases. The heart fails and there is not enough skin to radiate heat. That is why Meganthropus died out, and why those that suffer gigantism die early. Oversized humans, even Bigfoot are exactly what we know of them - stories. I just do not understand how you see any of this as evidence for past visitation.

Edited March 26, 2012 by psyche101

[psyche101]

i am, not attempting to translate Sanskrit. i had to study Sanskrit at school in India. so, i read Sanskrit.

Touche`!

I look forward to learning more from you! Nice posting there!

[Arbitran]

I do not believe that current evidence supports that notion, but the accepted hypothesis of rocky formation terraformed by procaryote cells.

I get a sneaky suspicion that you have forgotten all about Theta in your hypothesis. It would have wiped out your early "terrafarmers". The formation of our neighbour planets Venus and Mars also support natural propagation of life on earth.

The Early Earth and the Evolution of the Atmosphere.

Early Earth probably had an atmosphere dominated by carbon dioxide similar to the atmosphere of Venus today.

There are a group of one-celled organisms that can live in an oxygen free environment. These are the bacteria or prokaryotes. They do not have a nucleus and reproduce only by cell division. These creatures are the earliest evidence of life on earth. They were the first organisms to develop photosynthesis. Photosynthesis today is balanced by oxygen using respiration.

Hypothesis: Oxygen was nearly absent in the atmosphere of early Earth so photosynthesis would have created a net gain of oxygen first in the ocean and later in the atmosphere. Eventually with sufficient oxygen in the atmosphere respiration would have balanced photosynthesis except when burial removed the organic material from the oxygenated water or air. Before oxygen could build up in the atmosphere it must have oxidized reduced ions in seawater.

Evidence to support the above hypothesis:

Iron (Fe) is a very abundant element in the earth's crust so much is released by the chemical disintegration of minerals contained in rocks. Fe++ is slightly soluble in seawater while Fe+++ is insoluble (Figure 6). During the time when the earth had a reducing atmosphere Fe++ should have accumulated as dissolved ions in seawater. However at some point the oxygen build-up in the ocean from prokaryote photosynthesis should have oxidized the Fe++ to Fe+++ resulting in the precipitation of insoluble iron compounds. Are such ancient iron rich compounds preserved? Yes there are, in fact the bulk of the iron ore mined to produce steel comes from iron deposits that are about two billion years old (Figure 7). Such deposits are found on all continents and all look much the same (Figure 8). They are reddish and have clearly visible bands hence they are called Banded Iron Formations. The Messabi range of Minnesota is an example of such a deposit. It was for much of US history the primary source of iron ore for the steel mills of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania and Gary, Indiana. If we know the mass of these banded iron formations and the rate at which we mine them we can calculate their residence time and determine how long they will last, or when we will run out of this kind of iron ore (Figure 9).

A second line of evidence, to suggest that the early earth had a reducing atmosphere like Venus and Mars, is the presence of detrital (formed from the products of erosion of pre-existing rocks) pyrite in sedimentary deposits older than two billion years old. Iron pyrite forms in reducing environment and is quickly chemically decomposed in the presence of oxygen. Today such minerals are only preserved in rocks that formed in reducing environments such as swamps etc. However, in rocks older than two billion years old this mineral (iron pyrite) is found in rocks that were probably formed in streambeds.

LINK

Evidence for an early prokaryotic endosymbiosis

James A. Lake1,2,3,4

Top of pageAbstract

Endosymbioses have dramatically altered eukaryotic life, but are thought to have negligibly affected prokaryotic evolution. Here, by analysing the flows of protein families, I present evidence that the double-membrane, Gram-negative prokaryotes were formed as the result of a symbiosis between an ancient actinobacterium and an ancient clostridium. The resulting taxon has been extraordinarily successful, and has profoundly altered the evolution of life by providing endosymbionts necessary for the emergence of eukaryotes and by generating Earth’s oxygen atmosphere. Their double-membrane architecture and the observed genome flows into them suggest a common evolutionary mechanism for their origin: an endosymbiosis between a clostridium and actinobacterium.

LINK

Comets are a very good hypothesis for earth water, if not the prime source, mainly because the ratio called the deuterium hydrogen ratio of the water on comets (which has actually been measured by probes) is different to the water that exists in the oceans of Earth. but terraforming is not equal in any way. Europa was obviously not terraformed and it is covered in the stuff. No aliens required. Photolysis is far more likely to be responsible for the bulk of earths water. We have evidence for this. I find it hard to understand why one would reject such evidence to pursue what is no more than a fanciful musing?

I know of it, do not worry, I will leave a link. What you are doing here is leading to the natural assumption to be gathered from your wording as this being some sort of outside influence. Nobody with a credential supports that notion. The man who came up with the ideal, Dr. John Brandenburg, claims it is some sort of natural reaction, and claims the same thing happened in Africa once as well.

According to Brandenburg, the natural explosion, the equivalent of 1 million one-megaton hydrogen bombs, occurred in the northern Mare Acidalium region of Mars where there is a heavy concentration of radioactivity

LINK

Ever wonder why the red planet is red? About 180 million years ago, a planet-shattering yet naturally occurring nuclear reaction may have wiped out everything on Mars, sending a shockwave that turned the planet into dry sand.

Even more incredible: A natural nuclear reaction could have occurred on our own planet -- and could happen again, said Dr. John Brandenburg, a senior propulsion scientist at Orbital Technologies Corp. "The Martian surface is covered with a thin layer of radioactive substances including uranium, thorium and radioactive potassium --

LINK

Interesting hypothesis, but it has a long way to go. And it is entirely natural.

All of which are hoaxes. the the skeletons are human, then the inhabitants were ince human, and as we all know quite well, this design is not made to go large. Our organs do not stay in the correct proportions as our physical external size increases. The heart fails and there is not enough skin to radiate heat. That is why Meganthropus died out, and why those that suffer gigantism die early. Oversized humans, even Bigfoot are exactly what we know of them - stories. I just do not understand how you see any of this as evidence for past visitation.

You make excellent points. One important inquiry has yet to be answered here however: how did the ancients know about all this, if indeed they had not been taught by superior, non-human being, as they said?

[psyche101]

You make excellent points. One important inquiry has yet to be answered here however: how did the ancients know about all this, if indeed they had not been taught by superior, non-human being, as they said?

Don't the ancients overshoot the mark by a few billion years?

[quillius]

1 ~ They learned it the same way we did, through experimentation and observations.

2 ~ They learned it from a more heavenly source, namely, the gods who came from outer space.

I think we are all aware which one of these two answers is the unanimous choice of the ancient texts...

I will thank you once again for your manners and kindness. Namaste.

Thank you Arbitran, I will follwo the thread closely and add to it when I can.

[Arbitran]

Don't the ancients overshoot the mark by a few billion years?

Elaborate... I don't quite understand. I apologize. Would you mind rephrasing?

Thank you Arbitran, I will follwo the thread closely and add to it when I can.

You are most welcome. I look forward to future discussion.

[psyche101]

Elaborate... I don't quite understand. I apologize. Would you mind rephrasing?

The Hindu concept of time embraces billions and trillions of years.

[Arbitran]

The Hindu concept of time embraces billions and trillions of years.

Yes. Your point?

[psyche101]

Yes. Your point?

You make excellent points. One important inquiry has yet to be answered here however: how did the ancients know about all this, if indeed they had not been taught by superior, non-human being, as they said?

They did not know did they? They did not say exactly 4.54 billion years did they? They said many dates, some extending into trillions of years, which as we now know, is nonsense.

I honestly though that was not hard to grasp.

[Arbitran]

They did not know did they? They did not say exactly 4.54 billion years did they? They said many dates, some extending into trillions of years, which as we now know, is nonsense.

I honestly though that was not hard to grasp.

Actually... they did. Even if you consider a trivial 0.22 to be pertinent, their figure of a kalpa, the age of the world, at about 4.32 billion years, is astonishing. In any case, 4.54 billion is a best guess. It could very well be off by a paltry 0.22. And how are trillions of years nonsense? Many modern physicists have theorized that our universe is cyclical--that the Big Bang was merely the latest in an infinite cycle of universal expansions and contractions. Oh, and what else? These physicists mathematically estimated the time elapsed between a Big Bang and a Big Crunch to be "a few hundred trillion years". Sure, not the most specific of figures, but even so... The Hindu numbers fit perfectly within the modern scientific models in both cases.

[psyche101]

Actually... they did. Even if you consider a trivial 0.22 to be pertinent, their figure of a kalpa, the age of the world, at about 4.32 billion years, is astonishing. In any case, 4.54 billion is a best guess. It could very well be off by a paltry 0.22. And how are trillions of years nonsense? Many modern physicists have theorized that our universe is cyclical--that the Big Bang was merely the latest in an infinite cycle of universal expansions and contractions. Oh, and what else? These physicists mathematically estimated the time elapsed between a Big Bang and a Big Crunch to be "a few hundred trillion years". Sure, not the most specific of figures, but even so... The Hindu numbers fit perfectly within the modern scientific models in both cases.

To put it bluntly. isn't .22 of a billion quite a bit?

So does Scientology, and that nonsense is beyond belief. There is not one specific date, as you seem to agree, so if you ask me to guess what number you are thinking of between one and ten, and I answer with numbers 0-10 then I am somehow psychic? This is what you are suggesting. Offering a whole range of figures is a way of making sure that some hit the mark. I do not see that as insight but random chance. With the trillions of years concept, you are not talking about a cyclic Universe, the trillions of years figure is the Hindu age of the Brahama after which all life is extinguished never to be born again. So if that is true, what are we all doing here then? And don't they put the creation of "this universe" at 8.6 billion years? I am seeing more disparity than "near enough" figures.

Edited March 28, 2012 by psyche101