Although accounts of "little people" imply a nonhuman civilization parallel to our own, the "others" generally have a recognizably human-like appearance, suggesting a common ancestry. If so, where did we originate? On Earth? Possibly. But it's imperative that we examine more far-flung real-estate, if only to cover all bases and rule out red herrings. I'm particularly attracted to Mars, a planet that boasts some unlikely formations that may be archaeological sites.
If Mars is indeed a piece of the puzzle, the cryptoterrestrials with whom we share the planet may retain a collective memory of their ancestral world. Meawhile, our scientific mainstream has accustomed itself to scoffing dismissal -- or, at best, lukewarm assurances that anomalies such as the Face, located in the Cydonia Mensae region, are simply geological oddities that prey on our inclination to seek meaning in the unfamiliar.
The prospect of a common Martian ancestry is appealing, in part, because it's testable. While telerobotic spacecraft may fail to return a definitive verdict (assuming they're steered toward potential archaeological sites in the first place), at least they will help prepare astronauts for eventual crewed exploration of the Red Planet.
It's all-too-tempting to speculate that the CTs are well aware of our plans to "invade" Mars. Anticipating the revelations in store, they may treat the issue with the same doting care intelligence agencies lavish on disinformation campaigns, determined to throw us off the trail without sacrificing their virtual invisibility.
Alternatively, they might attempt to actively hasten Mars exploration. In this scenario, they want to be found out -- at least in part -- but only if disclosure remains on their terms. After all, we live on an increasingly crowded planet. Eventual contact may be inevitable. Martian ruins or not, the cryptoterrestrial agenda is likely stocked with contingency plans, some of which may have already gone into effect.
For example, there's evidence to suggest crashed "alien" hardware. If our own governments should ever pierce the "extraterrestrial" smokescreen -- assuming they already haven't -- the CTs might reasonably expect increased surveillance or even infiltration. How they would deal with such unwanted curiosity is anyone's guess, but perhaps they might choose to "leak" their own existence in strategic piecemeal fashion.
Such clues could lead the human race on an unsettling (but ultimately enlightening) ride -- but only if we're wise enough to recognize the offer.
6 comments:
"Although accounts of "little people" imply a nonhuman civilization parallel to our own, the "others" generally have a recognizably human-like appearance, suggesting a common ancestry. If so, where did we originate? On Earth? Possibly. But it's imperative that we examine more far-flung real-estate, if only to cover all bases and rule out red herrings. I'm particularly attracted to Mars, a planet that boasts some unlikely formations that may be archaeological sites."
Mac,
I think the fact we humans share so much genetic material with Chimpanzees and other primates pretty much rules out the possibility that we originated on another planet (for instance, Mars). IMO there is overwhelming evidence that we originated and evolved here on Earth. The "cryptoterrestrials" may or may not share common ancestry with us -- despite the fact that they generally seem to have a remarkably human-like appearance. This can in fact be explained by what biologists call "convergent evolution": critters can evolve strikingly similar characteristics without being closely related at all! The question is: Are these cryptoterrestrials primates like us, or are they something else altogether? Whit Strieber, for instance, seems over the years to have reached the conclusion that what we are dealing with are actually highly evolved insects (at least this is the strong impression I got from reading some of his stuff). Then there are those who report reptilian-like creatures (of course, these "cryptoterrestrials" may not be either insects or reptiles, despite certain likenesses; similarities between them and bugs or lizards may just be another instance of convergent evolution!).
This can in fact be explained by what biologists call "convergent evolution": critters can evolve strikingly similar characteristics without being closely related at all!
Yes, this definitely deserves to be addressed. Ever heard of Sheldrake's "morphogenic fields"?
Whit Strieber, for instance, seems over the years to have reached the conclusion that what we are dealing with are actually highly evolved insects (at least this is the strong impression I got from reading some of his stuff).
He's never actually claimed this, but some of his accounts suggest this. He thinks of them as actually *mechanical* in some respects -- another angle I'll explore.
He's also ventured the idea that they possess a hive mind, not unlike ants or bees.
Emp--
I kind of like Number Four...
Mac--
Yeah, I've heard of Sheldrake's theory of morphogenic fields. I think he may be on to something -- and that something is the extent to which quantum realities may play a part in biological evolution. We might tie Sheldrake's theories in with C.G. Jung's so-called "acausal connection principle" and his ideas about syncronicity. Does the bedrock of evolution really consist in the blind forces of natural selection, as Darwin thought?
Just as Einstein replaced Newton in how we understand physics, so also I predict that someday a new quantum-based theory will replace Darwinianism in the field of biology. Even now I think that Darwinianism as a science is a little behind the times, more at home with Newton's era (and corresponding more with Newton's way of understanding the world) than with our own day. Biologists haven't realized this yet, but they're working with a schematic paradigm that's just a little bit out of kilter with how we've come to understand physical phenomena post-Einstein. They need to be brought up to date. Is biological evolution influenced -- maybe even driven and determined -- by factors such as gravity, spacetime, etc.? Could the evolution of species be something considerably more elastic than the mechanistic model offered by Darwinianism?
emperor --
Convergent evolution can actually be seen in many, many different species, and in a variety of ways.
Biomimicry can be yet another consideration. Suppose a species -- not human but nonetheless indigenious to Earth -- developed physical characteristics mimicking our own? After all, we have no natural predators, so any species that come to resemble us would exponentially increase their chances of survival.
"The question is why don't the aliens look that alien?"
We don't know if they're aliens. They could be indigenious to Earth -- maybe even a sister-species to the human race.
"there is absolutely no reason for elbows, wrists, mouths, eyes, knees, etc., etc., to be in similar places or numbers."
Why no reason?
Post a Comment