Astronaut claims to have made contact with aliens

[Perfection]

But the theory wrt asteroids is they are remnants of planetary formation - not a destroyed planet, but a failed planet - the stuff needed for planets that failed to form a planet because of Jupiter's gravity. Among all the interesting questions this raises is: why did Jupiter form before a planet 1/2 the distance from the sun?

I'm not sure that this is the mainstream account. I should note that planetary formation is an extremely complex process and one that should not be approached by simple intuition. We need computer simulations and mathematical models here. I should say that I'd trust a computer simulation account put forth by researchers in the field over whatever Sitchin made up.

Another is: how did Earth end up with such a large moon and all this water? How should we interpret limited data that can tell different versions of "creation"?

I don't see anything particularly implausible about the giant impact hypothesis.

Of course, a very important thing to note is even if the mainstream account is incorrect (and I don't find it implausible that it is), that doesn't make Sitchin's views any less silly.

[Berzerker]

I'm not going to nitpick every little detail of Sitchin's work. I will just note that there's a reason noone in the scientific community accepted him and from what I've seen of various people's explanations of his theories, they seem to be lacking in basic scientific knowledge.

I am talking specifically here about a nonscientific attack on established scientific theory. Sitchin bypassed pretty much all forms of scientific communication.

Sitchin does deserve some credit though, his batcrap theories were a major inspiration for Stargate.

I'm not sure that this is the mainstream account. I should note that planetary formation is an extremely complex process and one that should not be approached by simple intuition. We need computer simulations and mathematical models here. I should say that I'd trust a computer simulation account put forth by researchers in the field over whatever Sitchin made up.

I don't see anything particularly implausible about the giant impact hypothesis.

Of course, a very important thing to note is even if the mainstream account is incorrect (and I don't find it implausible that it is), that doesn't make Sitchin's views any less silly.

I could nitpick him apart too - a planet with a highly elliptical, comet like orbit produced life "like" us? Out in the bitter cold of space? Thats a tough one to accept. And thats without getting into some of his questionable interpretations of seals and myths dealing with the gods here on Earth. But the reason scientists dont buy into it is they dont believe ancient peoples could have known about our solar system, thats another tough one to accept. If they did know, somebody with that knowledge lived back then - the gods, or watchers. And thats problematic for people who dont believe in "God". But the scientific evidence for a proto-Earth forming at the asteroid belt is solid, and I think an in depth analysis of asteroid and comet orbits will show the influence of a "12th" planet. I just lack the math and physics skills to find such a pattern and it doesn't seem to be much of a priority for others, but at least these guys are looking at cometary orbits for something.

If you can buy into a large impact, I have a question - where did this collision occur? We should see evidence... If that collision was here or near our current orbit, we should see debris. But we got tons of debris between Mars and Jupiter, not here. And the small amounts of debris we do see in our vicinity have orbits taking it out towards the asteroid belt - bread crumbs leading us back to the site of the collision. Scientists look at that evidence and conclude the planets - like Jupiter - tossed asteroids into those "earth-crossing" orbits, etc. Perhaps, but that shows there are different ways of interpreting the limited evidence we have.

[Perfection]

I could nitpick him apart too - a planet with a highly elliptical, comet like orbit produced life "like" us? Out in the bitter cold of space? Thats a tough one to accept. And thats without getting into some of his questionable interpretations of seals and myths dealing with the gods here on Earth. But the reason scientists dont buy into it is they dont believe ancient peoples could have known about our solar system, thats another tough one to accept. If they did know, somebody with that knowledge lived back then - the gods, or watchers. And thats problematic for people who dont believe in "God".

Well, I think the real reason is that to a trained scientist, Sitchin's work is just plain silly. I've on occasion worked out mathematically some of the claims made by Sitchin proponents (granted they could be misreading Sitchin), and it just doesn't add up!

But the scientific evidence for a proto-Earth forming at the asteroid belt is solid, and I think an in depth analysis of asteroid and comet orbits will show the influence of a "12th" planet.

I am unaware of any such evidence. Is there anything in particular that you'd like to point to?

I just lack the math and physics skills to find such a pattern and it doesn't seem to be much of a priority for others, but at least these guys are looking at cometary orbits for something.

You greatly underestimate the curiosity of scientists! They guys truly do want to find out how our solar system came into being!

If you can buy into a large impact, I have a question - where did this collision occur? We should see evidence... If that collision was here or near our current orbit, we should see debris. But we got tons of debris between Mars and Jupiter, not here. And the small amounts of debris we do see in our vicinity have orbits taking it out towards the asteroid belt - bread crumbs leading us back to the site of the collision. Scientists look at that evidence and conclude the planets - like Jupiter - tossed asteroids into those "earth-crossing" orbits, etc. Perhaps, but that shows there are different ways of interpreting the limited evidence we have.

Well that's where all that mathematics and physics come into play! It allows one to determine which one of these ideas is better. As it turns out Giant Impact Hypothesis is. This is why scientists accept it.

[Docfeelgood]

I think some scientist just don't want to be embarrassed if they are not able to explain an enigma such as the pyramids of Giza.
These great structures could not be built today with modern technology.
We are expected to believe that without the invent of the wheel they did it with rope and brute strength!
If one is to question they make you out to look foolish.
Science does not believe in hocas pokas but they want us to by into the big bang theory?
Out of nothing came something.
Where have I heard this before?
IMHO

[Berzerker]

I am unaware of any such evidence. Is there anything in particular that you'd like to point to?

For example, some asteroids show evidence of differentiation - evidence they were once part of a much larger body(ies). Water signatures in some asteroids match up with Earth's water. And the belt is where early volatiles would have solidified as the solar wind depleted the inner solar system of gases like water vapor, hence all the ice out there and why comets start showing a tail as they approach the region. As I mentioned, the debris trail should show something, but thats still to be seen... These guys are on the ball, if cometary orbits show the influence of another body way way out there, that'll be further evidence in support of Sitchin's 12th planet.

To explain Earth's water, scientists are now coming up with new theories and models to bring the Earth water - from asteroids. They were pointing to comets but that theory apparently didn't work too well, the age of the Earth's oceans is even older than once thought and that limits the time frame for delivery of h2o - thats also a flaw with the "asteroids brought us our water" theory, we had oceans going back at least 4.3 bya and maybe even older. The oldest rocks/minerals etc formed deep down in the crust or under water.

Well that's where all that mathematics and physics come into play! It allows one to determine which one of these ideas is better. As it turns out Giant Impact Hypothesis is. This is why scientists accept it.

The impact theory is to explain the Moon, but something happened ~ 4 bya. It was shortly after that life began and the Moon's "seas" began forming. They call it the late heavy bombardment and its the key... However the Earth and Moon formed, both got nailed at that time. The proto-Earth was more or less covered with water and the collision at 4 bya started the process of plate tectonics and the building of land masses/continents. I just lack the smarts (and computers) to analyze the orbits of comets and asteroids, but I suspect they'll show a pattern - not only how the Earth got here with all this water, but the invading planet that crunched the proto-Earth. That will give us a better idea of where to look for it with IR. One more thing, I still haven't seen a good answer to explain the ecliptic (and invariable plane) off kilter from the solar equator. The planets should orbit the sun's equator but they dont... Something has pulled the planets away.

[Docfeelgood]

Odd that earth got all the h2o and the moon and Mars got very little from comets and asteroids.

[Perfection]

I think some scientist just don't want to be embarrassed if they are not able to explain an enigma such as the pyramids of Giza.

Learning to be comfortable with your own ignorance is an important part of being a scientist.

These great structures could not be built today with modern technology.

What makes you believe that?

We are expected to believe that without the invent of the wheel they did it with rope and brute strength!
If one is to question they make you out to look foolish.

There are some pretty good ideas about how it was done. Ancient Egyptians may have been technology less advanced, but they still were humans complete with great ingenuity!

Science does not believe in hocas pokas but they want us to by into the big bang theory?
Out of nothing came something.

Time itself is deeply counter-intuitive. Part of the genius of Einstein was his ability to move himself (and us along with him) away from our naive conceptions.

[Docfeelgood]

Some of the stones weigh more than a modern crane can pick up.
How was the millions of people used for labor fed?
Where did they get the wood?
The cutting of some of the stone is a mystery also.
Many questions that cannot be answered but the guessing they do is not plausible.
Same goes for the ones in South America.

[Berzerker]

some of the stones at Baalbek, the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, and an obelisk in Egypt that was never finished (it cracked when they tried to pull it from the ground) weigh in at 800-1200 tons, truly amazing. I have no doubt people could have cut these stones, but lifting them? Wow, I'd love to have seen that...

[MattBowron]

what about the theories that agriculture began as a way to feed the mason-masses that built shrines to the gods and their messengers ala Gobleki Tepe in Turkey. According to them winged messengers were birds performing a sky-burial, sending the remains of the deceased person into heaven. It is also around Gobleki Tepe that the oldest form of wheat (eikorn I believe it's called) known to man currently.

[MattBowron]

what about the theories that agriculture began as a way to feed the mason-masses that built shrines to the gods and their messengers ala Gobleki Tepe in Turkey. According to them winged messengers were birds performing a sky-burial, sending the remains of the deceased person into heaven. It is also around Gobleki Tepe that the oldest form of wheat (eikorn I believe it's called) known to man currently.

[Agent Sox]

I don't think aliens helped build the pyramids or whatever. If there are aliens, I don't think they're concerned with whatever dinky buildings we create. I think if anyone helped build the pyramids and other monuments it was our descendents trying to change history.

[Berzerker]

If aliens were here, they were here for resources just like we''ll be visiting other worlds in the future. But according to the Sumerians "we" were made for slave labor, to do the work. They said these beings combined their blood with that of a creature roaming the southern lands to make a primitive worker who could follow orders, and eventually these archaic humans became us.

And the Bible says, "there was no Adam to till the ground"... Thats a reference to our past as primitive workers.

[Hueij]

Some of the stones weigh more than a modern crane can pick up.
How was the millions of people used for labor fed?
Where did they get the wood?
The cutting of some of the stone is a mystery also.
Many questions that cannot be answered but the guessing they do is not plausible.
Same goes for the ones in South America.

Bull****. Here is some real science for all you pseudo science lovers. But I must admit that it isn't as sensational as your "aliens built the pyramids".

http://bit.ly/fHUJEs

[Agent Sox]

Just because the pyramids could have been built by the people doesn't mean there aren't other explanations. The weird thing about the pyramids is that they were built at all. In a time when everyone is a farmer why would they all suddenly decide to build a pyramid? Just because the Pharoah says so? That doesn't make any sense. So it's more believable if there was an easier way.