Gorilla's genome has been deciphered

[CitizenK]

Right, I do not suggest the breeding neccesarily, I mainly point to the splicing...though it could go either way. This was just the first article I came to that mentioned the dna results I had referred to earlier. (didn't want to waste a lot of time to argue my point, not that interested in arguing ) Though there are reports of harvesting and I'm not so sure what that is all about but some of teh great men in the field believe it to be true . And since Mike brought up the breeding of wolves into domesticated dogs (you must've watched Nova last night) it does beg the question, WHO bred us to make us domesticated? How did we suddenly stand out apart from the other primates. What made us make fire or how did we figure it out. Also there is the question of how our throat and jaw area suddenly changed to allow us to form words instead of grunts/sounds...hence that missing link again. Why can't we find it? Unless we were in fact genetically altered.
Even in reading the bible or looking at some of the old cave drawings we get the impression that dna alteration was taking place. I think it to be a very plausible explanation for how we are who we are today. In the last 100 yrs. alone we have come leaps and bounds. In fact people have become more rapidly intelligent just in the past 20 yrs. or so per the studies being done on babies and how much faster they develop compared to 20 or 30 yrs. again...Do we not still today have claims and reports of abduction and being on surgical type tables? Doesn't this seem to run in family blood lines? SO it isn't that far of a stretch to add 2+2 and get the answer that we are being manipulated. (Not in a bad way either, in my opinion.) I think it proves a pretty compelling and strong case.

Mike said, "The theory being that as we get better and better at gene splicing, we are recognising the same markers for artificial insertions in our own DNA" And I say, " Exactly!!! "

Thing is we have a lot of unanswered questions to who we really are and how we got from point A to point B , unlike our cousins. With the help of science and brilliant open minds it certainly seems we are getting closer to finding those answers, FINALLY.

 

[Han]

Runs for the hills screaming "SAVE YOUR SELVES THE CREATIONISTS ARE EVOLVING!"

 

[Polterwurst]

First of all I do not agree with the 50,000 yr old paradigm of humans evolving...I think the human race is MUCH older than that....

The 50.000 years (according to the article in the opening post) are the estimated time since humans started to think abstractly. I guess there's a lot of room to speculate when or why that really started. But of course humanity itself is much older. If you go by only the recognizable forms (similar to how we look today) it's estimated at 500.000 years I think and counting the earlier forms (australopithecus, homo habilis and the lot) it's about 2 million years. As we're seeing with places like Gobekli Tepe and that other place in Tierra del Fuego (I forgot if it's been named), there is still plenty of room for whole civilisations that haven't been discovered yet.

I think there can be no doubt that we are at least closely related to apes. How else would you account for the more than 90% similarity in our genes? With the bonobos it's even something about 99% I guess. But, yeah, it's a valid question to ask why we have built civilisations and stuff while they didn't. Or why we can thoroughly plan for the future while they seemingly don't. In that respect it would be nice to know how far the neanderthals advanced with that. Maybe it's just that we survived or even killed off other forms.

In any case, just because someone is asking these questions, calling him or her a creationist is a bit of an over-reaction.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I have a few lines of reasoning that bother me.

If I accept the reality of intelligent aliens visiting here, I think it a given they would abduct. We would. (Please no-one say that 'oh but they might be morally superior to that......no.)

If they abduct and are way advanced of us they could indeed have caused what in evolutionary terms was almost an explosion like change the in Homo family.

Most reports of aliens seem at least to agree that they are humanoid. (2 arms, 2 legs, head, torso, eyes, some kind of ears, nose mouth etc - and in the same relative positions! If they had all that stuff in a totally different set-up it would be easier to swallow?)

Whereas I can accept the universe will have a lot of duplication of useful attributes and senses etc, I find it impossible to accept live evolved elsewhere and independantly had the sentient beings looking so like us?

Mind you, I kinda think that the universe and evolution does find it's way to the same stuff, such as the fibonacci sequence and the, shit what's it called - sacred something? Help? You know, encoded in the pyramids? T.O - you'll know?

So where does that leave us?

The star trek theory of humanoid 'seeding' of the galaxy? (Kinda like that one, it could work with intelligence 'setting up DNA' so that it has to bring intelligence eventually etc).

Another theory is that we were just made basically by another humanoid species.

One more is the crypto-terrestrial theory of Mac Tonnies RIP - not a favourite but worthy for sure.

Now I hate the air that Dan Burishite breathes cos I think he is more full of it that Uri Geller but I kinda like the 'it's us from the future' theory.
Anyone seen the Disney (think) movie 'The Last Mimsey'? Really good and not what I was expecting at all. It covers the 'future us' theory quite well.

Of course, all these depend on their actually being intelligent humanoid aliens here. I am leaning heavily to thinking they are...

 

[Polterwurst]

Mind you, I kinda think that the universe and evolution does find it's way to the same stuff, such as the fibonacci sequence and the, shit what's it called - sacred something? Help? You know, encoded in the pyramids? T.O - you'll know?

The golden ratio maybe? But please don't ask me to explain it... I'd have to google first

Now I hate the air that Dan Burishite breathes cos I think he is more full of it that Uri Geller but I kinda like the 'it's us from the future' theory.

I've no idea who the guy is, but the time-traveller hypothesis to me would explain quite a lot of the whole business. But for some reasons it's totally unpopular. And of course, future human time travellers should not be the reason for the allegedly "sudden" change in human evolution. That would be the grandmother of all grandfather paradoxes - humans travel back in time to mess with primate DNA and thereby accidentally cause their own advent... but of course they never did so they won't so obviously humsns neer evolved and what the heck am I talking about

Anyone seen the Disney (think) movie 'The Last Mimsey'? Really good and not what I was expecting at all. It covers the 'future us' theory quite well.

Hey, there's a little synchronicity for ya. I'd never heard of the movie so I watched the trailer in your link. The premise sounded strangely familiar. Turns out that I've read what must have been the story that inspired the movie just a few months back in an anthology of sci fi stories from the 30s to 50s. Funnily enough in either that or another story in that book (from the 1930s mind you) a human from the very distant future is described somewhat similar to our modern "grey alien" myth.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

The golden ration! By damnit man, you have the very thing!! Singular, most singular!
(My Sherlock Holmes language impression in case you think I went a bit mad..)

Possibly you were put off by my messing with the name. 'Dan Burisch' is the name of one of Project Camelot's early subjects. He talked about greys at Area 51 and he was a biologist or something and the greys came back in time to fix a genetic problem that occurs in the future blah blah blah.
Google him, or even better, check a video out on Project Camelot. Myself and Trainedobserver have had a bit of agreement on the ridiculous crap that mainly Kerry Cassidy from Camelot is putting out as being from 'genuine whistleblowers'.
You will have heard of the human 'spam filter' in episodes of the Paracast? Kerry Cassidy has none. Zero. No filter whatsoever for B.S!!

Regarding the movie/book connection - I would be most interested in knowing the title of the story if you can remember it?
So you think the story may be quite old? Perhaps it was modernised a little but that really is quite interesting!!

I though the movie was gonna be some kind of kids movie. It was a rainy saturday afternoon and there was nothing else on so I watched it. The movie quickly caught my attention when these kids started having amazing abilities and suchlike. I think it may have been marketed as a kids movie but for me, as a fan of SciFi and the Paranormal, I think many, many adults may have missed this one and it is a treat if you like that sort of thing. Most Paracast listeners would like it but that may be assuming a lot.
Also the title almost has nothing to do with the plot and probably was the main reason I was apprehensive about wasting time watching it!

So, if you remember the title Polterwurst, I'd be much obliged!

 

[Han]

In any case, just because someone is asking these questions, calling him or her a creationist is a bit of an over-reaction.

I would not like you all to think that I dissaprove of asking questions the total oposite is true, I wish that people would ask them selves questions like what motivation could for example "Dr Leir" have for being dishonest or missleading?

Also I have no problem at all with people who aknowledge that they are creationists I do however have a problem when people try to pervert science for their own agenda.

also I would like to point out that I do believe in many things that can not be proven, like for example when I die I will be reunited with people that I have lost, its a belief that brings me comfort and has helped me to cope with the loss of loved ones, I do however understand that science can not be used to prove or disprove it, and in reality even if science could rule out the possibility I would still hope against hope.

so apologies if I over reacted but I take very seriously the seperation of Faith, belief and science.

All the best Harry.

 

[Polterwurst]

@Han: Actually I was referring more to the whole debate than to your post. In my opinion, some people who are far from religious fundamentalists or science refusers get called "creationists" nowadays just because they think out of the boundaries.

So, if you remember the title Polterwurst, I'd be much obliged!

You got lucky, my dear Holmes . Although my book collection is a little chaotic, I found the tome right away.

So the book is called "Science Fiction Hall of Fame Vol. I".

The story with the kids who find a toy box from the future and start to act strangely is titled "Mimsy were the Borogoves", written by Lewis Padgett (pseudonym of Henry Kuttner and his wife C.L. Moore) in 1943.

In the same book I read the strange short story "Twilight" written by one John W. Campbell in 1934. It's not an easy read and it took me some time to find the passages that had me scratching my head the first time I read them.

Did a google search and found the whole story in the internet:
Twilight, by John W. Campbell (Stuart)

I was misremembering it a bit in that it was not one character who was described quite like our "alien greys" but actually a whole future human race in general. Here are two quotes from the story:

There were people here. I saw the humans of that age for the first time. They were little men -- bewildered -- dwarfed, with heads disproportionately large. But not extremely so.
Their eyes impressed me most. They were huge, and when they looked at me there was a power in them that seemed sleeping, but too deeply to be roused.

You won't understand (he continued). Not yet -- but I have seen them. They stand about, little misshapen men with huge heads.

Not much but sounds familiar, I guess. What I'm asking myself is if that's evidence of the roots of a myth, pure happenstance or - well, evidence of time travel maybe...?

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Firstly, thanks so much for getting that info for me (us).

So this was written in 1934? Well before any reported 'greys'. Of course the description is of large misshapen heads and large eyes, which can be interpreted several ways but it is most interesting nonetheless.

I have recently been gaining an interest/fondness of older sci-fi because you can find stuff that is more 'pure' if you like. Many sci-fi themes were being explored for the first time in the early 20th century and also because of the lack of TV, internet etc there is less 'contamination' of themes.

Anyway, especially as it is a collection (love em) then I may indeed try to track it down.

Good work mate and thanks again. God (ahem) I love this forum, it has turned me onto so many interesting things I would not have happened across on my own!
Stand. Salute!

 

[CitizenK]

or it could just be that they experienced something in their day (the writers) and either consciously or subconsciously aware of it, put it in the short ... apparently those sneeky bastards have a way with swiping our minds.

Han said "Also I have no problem at all with people who aknowledge that they are creationists I do however have a problem when people try to pervert science for their own agenda"
I feel like this must be directed at me since it was my post you attacked....

So for the record, just because I think outside the box does not make me a creationist. I do not have a specific religious faith and am weary of science's theories all the same. Some are good while others can't hold water...furthermore I really hate labels , but if I must, I'm an independant thinker. I don't know if God/Source (what ever you want to call him/it ) created the Universe(s) or if something else did, but I also do not believe the Big Bang theory is the best theory out there either. (for example we have just recently discovered a Star/sun "birthing" a planet out into it's solar system.) I don't take what academia or school chooses to teach us or tell us to be all there is. Afterall, they've been proven wrong on many things that they still continue to teach as the best theory. (one simple example of this is Colombus founding American has just this year been removed from our history books, how long have we known this to not be true yet they continued to teach it to our future leaders.) So yeah , I think outside the box and I don't trust all information, I have built in filters same as everyone does. Only difference is that I am in the small group of the ones who actually use them . I home school my children for this very reason. I encourage them to ask questions , look at the bigger picture, and even the smaller one because sometimes you need to look inside the box too. And I will have you know that my daughter who is to graduate this year just completed "placement testing" and they can't figure out where to "place" her because she blows all of the tests out of the water. (so I must be doing something right in my way of thinking) I have now home schooled 5 children and they are all well above the standards for their age groups. They will one day find answers to questions we cannot provide at this time, that is MY only agenda. A better future for all of us isn't a bad thing to hope for. I'm not selling snake oil or anything else, I only speak my mind. If you do not want to keep up on the latest and greatest finds wherever they may be, that's your business. But I will always be looking for answers and sharing what I find with others, while some of us remain stuck in old habits and theories...
Peace

 

[Polterwurst]

So this was written in 1934? Well before any reported 'greys'. Of course the description is of large misshapen heads and large eyes, which can be interpreted several ways but it is most interesting nonetheless

Don't forget the "little men" bit. I think back then, the general opinion about human evolution would have been that man was evolving from diminuitive ape-like creatures to tall beings.

Sure, it doesn't automatically mean he was talking about our "greys". But I seem to remember that in the beginnings of the little alien reports, they were described much more human-like. Sized like children, pale skin, big heads and big eyes but not unrecognizable as humans. The grey skin and huge, almond-shaped bug eyes came later, I think. So maybe there's an evolution of the myth?

I couldn't find much about the author of this story, John W. Campbell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But it seems interesting that later in his life he seems to have been a lot into paranormal stuff (which caused many friends and co-writers to turn away from him, so not much has changed in that regard from the 50s to now I guess). No mention of UFOs, though, but I guess an interest in these fringe topics would have meant UFOs too.

So maybe there was a reason why he was interested in that. Maybe he did have an encounter as a kid or something which he then, as a young man, processed in that story.

And sentences like this: "You won't understand. Not yet -- but I have seen them." do sound a little strange if you consider that they are spoken (in the story) in 1932, some twenty years before any stories about little men with big heads start to show up in UFO lore, don't they?

But that's just speculation of course. The wikipedia article doesn't give any reason, why he was interested in fringe stuff. I don't think it was to sell more stories, though.

Btw., the other story "Mimsy were the Borogoves" has a future human too, but there is no description (just that he looks different from us). I had that jumbled up with the descriptions in "Twilight".

So I guess we can leave the idea of humans travelling back in time to mess with primate DNA to Science Fiction. But I still don't think the overall idea that UFOs might have to do with time travel should be dismissed, even if guys like this Burisch (never heard of him I confess) talk about that.

Especially if you allow abductions into the picture, that theory might explain a little more that others.

I'll look for a better thread to post my thoughts about that though. This thread was actually meant to be about gorillas...

 

[Goggs Mackay]

CitizenK - you are spot on with 'scientism'. Whether UFOs are ET craft or whatever, scientists unwillingness to get involved in a phenomena everyone agrees exists (but what is where we differ) is plain stupid. It is no better than religious fundamentalism.

When it is said that money is the root of all evil, we must remember that science is based on funding, funding coming often from bodies who have an agenda against looking at UFOs, therefore they stay away to protect their funding, because this means they will get paid and be able live etc.
I hear often of public pronouncements by scientists being at odds with what they will say quietly in private.
I am positive if governments were actively promoting research into UFOs and providing funding - absolutely stacks of scientists will suddenly start finding in an interesting topic!

On a different topic I want to throw in here that at one point I too dismissed crop circles as fakes and many of them are. But until you actually look at the research done on these things it is easy to stick with the hoax theory. Once you look at proven anomalies impossible to do with treading boards with string, you can no longer attribute them all to hoaxing.
In Jim Marrs' excellent book Alien Agenda, he presents a concise and compelling case for their being something really strange behind many crop circles.
Should have started a whole thread on this actually. Sigh.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

@Polterwurst - have you ever found it strange that reports of 'greys' can often be very similar but yet often have differences of enough of a degree to make you think there must be more than one race of 'greys'?
Well this bothered me for some time until I applied what any police officer will tell you - ask Don Ecker I suppose - and that is that multiple witnesses can see the exact same event but give quite different accounts of those events and descriptions of the physical nature of said events. They are not lying, it's just that we don't always remember certain things correctly, even straight after the event.

I would think if you took 50 adults to see a mammal they have never seen before and then ask them all to draw a picture of the animal afterwards, the differences in their drawings would more than account for the many 'types' of 'greys'?

On the time traveller theory I want to throw out a thought I have about the ETH, the inter-dimensional theory and the time-traveller theory.
I think technology that can span interstellar space in a short time (above lightspeed) must be able to bend spacetime. Any technology that can do that I surmise can probably mess with time and appear to traverse dimensions too!
If one is possible I contend, they other two must follow!

 

[Polterwurst]

@Polterwurst - have you ever found it strange that reports of 'greys' can often be very similar but yet often have differences of enough of a degree to make you think there must be more than one race of 'greys'?
Well this bothered me for some time until I applied what any police officer will tell you - ask Don Ecker I suppose - and that is that multiple witnesses can see the exact same event but give quite different accounts of those events and descriptions of the physical nature of said events. They are not lying, it's just that we don't always remember certain things correctly, even straight after the event.

A this and B I'm afraid there are quite a few stories out there about the greys which are pure fiction. But why shouldn't they look different from time to time. We do. And maybe if they are from different times... oops there I go again...

I think technology that can span interstellar space in a short time (above lightspeed) must be able to bend spacetime. Any technology that can do that I surmise can probably mess with time and appear to traverse dimensions too!
If one is possible I contend, they other two must follow!

No doubt. If I only knew how they do it without using up the energy equivalent of our sun times a thousand every time. That would make me some money. I'll just have to figure out how to harvest zero point energy, of course...

 

[Goggs Mackay]

If you think remote viewing works, I wonder does it take energy to 'reach out' and grab info at a distance or does distance not even matter, or do you open yourself up and stuff comes to you energy free.......
The more I read about remote viewing the more I think there could indeed be some kind of intelligence left after death. Perhaps we really are all connected somehow.

But I will say this....whenever I hear of people badly wanting to go to heaven, to really want something after death I say this........fuck that, any idea how long eternity is? I'd get bored!
But seriously you know, maybe another 1000 lifetimes on different planes of existence but eternity.....no. Unless of course you are not aware of before so you are not aware of time passing.
Almost worthless even talking about it cos no-one comes back to tell you! My own brother died at age 29 and I know for a fact if he could come back and annoy me somehow he would. Unless the great big pub in the sky is really good, then he wouldn't give a shit about bothering me!

 

[tyder001]

From the little I read of Ingo Swann I don't think distance matters in RV. But, I've not really read much about it. I do think Ingo Swann would be a great guest here. I don't know if he is in good health or not or if he even does any talk shows or conferences these days.