Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
UM-Bot

The Pleiades Enigma

15 posts in this topic

Leonard Farra: "Are we alone in the Universe?" is a question that intrigues scientists and the public alike. Astronomers involved in the SETI project scan the depths of space waiting for the radio signal which will confirm that life also exists in other parts of the universe. Many Ufologists, on the other hand, believe that the thousands of unexplained UFO sightings reported over the years are indications that we are being visited, or monitored, by extraterrestrials. Another important line of thought is that, if there was an ET visit to Earth, thousands of years ago, then its not impossible that the same is happening now. Over the past 30 years I have been studying the Ancient Astronaut theory and I have also followed current UFO reports.

arrow3.gifView: Full Article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Any 'link' to the Pleiades that earlier civilizations had was (IMO) due to two factors and two factors alone... The coincidence of the star cluster 'rising' at a certain time of the year, and the legends/lore that grew up around the event...

Our planet is somewhere around 4.5 Billion years old... It took most of that time to develop any form of life at all, and an even greater amount of time to develop a noticibly intelligent species (us)...

The oldest star in the Pleiades cluster is about 400 million years old... There is evidence of planets forming now - which means there are most likely NO planets there that could have evolved/developed life - of any form what-so-ever...

If ancient aliens visited the Earth (which I doubt very seriously), they did NOT originate in the Pleiades cluster...

Edited by Taun
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know next to nothing about age-measuring sciences, like measuring age of an object based on some semi-radioactive isotope, but, is it possible, that the further you try to determine the age of an object, the more there is room for some unknown or semi-known little metaphysical rule to make the object's age seem different from what it actually is? Just saying that I dont know if we know how much room for error there really is. If the number of known exoplanets is not impressing, then it's not likely that there's more developed life than us in the universe, but how reliable are those methods? What's considered to be their "extent of knowledge"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps they originated in Orion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the answer to "Are we alone in the universe?" is no, then the next question should be: "How did they find us?" What is so significant about our solar system and planet that they would have come and looked? Is our star even bright enough to be seen beyond our solar system?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J.K., maybe they probed all the possible exoplanets they knew and could probe, and we're likely the most or the second or third most developed species they've found, presuming there's been space-travelers here from other place. Even if their technology was higher, it doesn't mean that they'd be more developed in every possible aspect and science, and I think they'd acknowledge this and let us rather keep developing if they acknowledge this. It's more useful for them to copy from the parts where we excel more or take footnotes of sort at least, than to just destroy and invade. Even more useful is to study us and the ways we became to see things they didn't, the "how did they come up with that", not just "why does the thing they come up with sound good".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If the answer to "Are we alone in the universe?" is no, then the next question should be: "How did they find us?" What is so significant about our solar system and planet that they would have come and looked? Is our star even bright enough to be seen beyond our solar system?

Yes, our sun can be seen beyond the boundaries of our star system... For example the star Tau Ceti - is roughly 12 light years away and it is slightly smaller and less 'bright' than our own sun... yet it is (barely) visible to the naked eye...

So our sun would be noticable (to un-aided human eyes) perhaps as far out as 15 light years... farther than that would require either much better vision than humans have, or something similar to a telescope...

There is nothing unusual about the sun to draw attention to it, unless it is exactly the type star an alien searcher is looking for...

However... while the sun itself isn't remarkable - the Earth is...

We have been broadcasting a 'radio bubble' for the past 150 +/- years.. this is roughly a radius of 150 light years and is the area that Earth originating radio signals have travelled since radio/telegraphy was invented... This would be a very noticable beacon to any who have the means to detect it...

Edited by Taun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is possible that early civilization occurred during the last ice age. Humans tend to stay near the oceans and coasts. During the last ice age the sea level was lower. If there were early civilizations on the coast before the ice melted, their cities and settlements would have been abandoned. This is one possible reason why the earliest civilizations, that we are aware of, seemed to spring up at nearly the same times. There may be evidence buried miles offshore or the abandoned cities were eroded during the intervening years. Or this could all be complete bull, it is just one possible theory. Maybe if the Great Library hadn't burned we would have many of the answers to the questions we ask today. Speculation is wonderful!

Modern technology has given most of us the idea that the ancients were not as intelligent as we are today. They were just as intelligent, less knowledgeable in some areas but more knowledgeable in others.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, ET or not, visitation or not, the article's author appears to be fabricating his claims from thin air.

To wit:

The Annunaki leader was called Enlil, and his seven assistants were known as the Council of Seven. Another Annunaki leader was called Ea. Followers of the Ancient Astronaut theory will already know about the Annunaki but they may not be aware that they were associated with some mysterious objects called the Maskim. The Maskim were the Throne Bearers of the Gods which 'flew through the sky'.

Sorry, but "Maskim" is a Sumerian word that means something like what we call a county clerk, a judge or possibly a bailiff:

maškim [N] (PA.DUcecig)

judicial officer {freq. 19}

ETCSL (electronic corpus of Sumerian literature)

maškim

judicial officer

Source: ETCSL

maškim

judicial officer

Source:ETCSL

Obviously, you can think what you want. However, the above was more than enough reason (as far as I'm concerned) to stop reading this silly article at that point.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know next to nothing about age-measuring sciences, like measuring age of an object based on some semi-radioactive isotope, but, is it possible, that the further you try to determine the age of an object, the more there is room for some unknown or semi-known little metaphysical rule to make the object's age seem different from what it actually is?

Basically invoking "magic" when the evidence doesn't support the conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps they originated in Orion?

Unlikely, as the stars in what we call the Orion cluster are younger then our own by a considerable margin. That based on what we know of planetary development and the development of life on planets - the Orion worlds (assuming there are actually planets there) are too young to have anything other then macrobacterial life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically invoking "magic" when the evidence doesn't support the conclusion.

So in other words it is 100% impossible that current science may either be wrong in certain ways or that it has 100% taken into account every possible equation and factor that may determine the age of an object lightyears away? Science is infalliable, and anything outside current realms of understanding is not possible avenues of science yet to be discovered, but in your words 'magic'? He was asking a question, why is there such a need to be so judgemental? I can see arrogance reigns supreme when it comes to issues such as these, on both sides of the argument.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in other words it is 100% impossible that current science may either be wrong in certain ways or that it has 100% taken into account every possible equation and factor that may determine the age of an object lightyears away? Science is infalliable, and anything outside current realms of understanding is not possible avenues of science yet to be discovered, but in your words 'magic'? He was asking a question, why is there such a need to be so judgemental? I can see arrogance reigns supreme when it comes to issues such as these, on both sides of the argument.

Did you even bother to read the question? Some "metaphysical thing" that changes the age of the object the more accurate your measurement is. That's right, magic.

Please think about what you're saying, science is what has been tried and tested. Pulling imagined factors out of your behind has nothing to do with possibilities.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think science should take at least consideration on what ufologist and ancient astronaut theorist are proposing.

If science looks back on their history 500 years ago, Religion was the dominate player on determining the creation

story and when science had there own theory, Religion burned people at the stake for their heretical idea.

Now that science is a big player they are not open to new ideas and basically considering them heretical.

Now I realize there's no evidence, but the theories should be explored to possibly find that evidence.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in other words it is 100% impossible that current science may either be wrong in certain ways or that it has 100% taken into account every possible equation and factor that may determine the age of an object lightyears away? Science is infalliable, and anything outside current realms of understanding is not possible avenues of science yet to be discovered, but in your words 'magic'? He was asking a question, why is there such a need to be so judgemental? I can see arrogance reigns supreme when it comes to issues such as these, on both sides of the argument.

You sometimes have to overlook Rlyeh, he's intelligent but sometimes "lackin' in what they call the social skills" :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.