Space Jockeys & Derelicts

No. In the special edition Ripley says it to Bishop and Hudson.... And Bishop says it must be something we haven't seen yet.....and Hudson starts talking about Queens, ants or bees whatever....

I conceed to your knowledge of aliens, directed by jim cameron not ridley scott whom has stated that prometheus will tie into alien, but non of the sequels. And ridley has always stated that he has viewed the derelict as a bomber, deploying eggs instead of bombs

Hi Snorkelbottom, Fossilization can happen with bones. The suit is boney, therefore grown or biological. Right? With time and the right conditions, there is a possibility that we are looking at a fossilized suit.

okay, with the exception of the colour of the suit, the suits behind noomi in the new recent pic look identical to the one in the big chair in Alien, yes. well if there was fossilization (which can't happen in 30-35 years, and there will be no time travel), the organic, biologoical element of the suit would have decomposed away. It fossilization had occurred then the suits wouldn't look identical would they. thus there is no fossilization. ridleys words... [i]That wasn’t a skeleton, that was a suit.[/i]

I personally think your wrong, I don't think the eggs were already there, I can't see how the crew could explore the ship and not bump into thousands of eggs, I think they are the result of whatever crap hits the fan in Prometheus, by SJ design or inconsequential accident, but we'll see in June right

Hi Snorkelbottom, I may have missed this, but how do we know there isn't time travel in Prometheus? There is disinformation out there and my understanding is the story is under tight lipped secrecy. If there is no time travel, then my theory is kaput. If the plot is unknown, then my observations are still plausible. Because the suits are barely illuminated behind Noomi, the color is unclear to make an acurate comparison with the SJ in Alien. Fossilization is expressed as the original size, proportion and shape, of trees, dinosaur bones, sea creatures, etc. that once lived.

I don't think the conditions are right for it to be fossilization. Doesn't fossilization require the subject to be immersed in sediment? Technical it would almost have to be natural mummification.

The term fossil describes a wide range of natural artifacts. Generally speaking, a fossil is any evidence of past plant or animal life that is preserved in the material of the Earth's crust. But when most people talk about fossils, they mean a specific subsection of this group -- fossils in which the shape of the animal or plant has been preserved, while the actual organic matter of its body is gone. These amazing remnants, which date to prehistoric times, were formed very slowly by dynamic geological processes. In most cases, the fossilization process began when a plant or animal died and was quickly covered with sediments, usually at the bottom of a body of water. The loose sediments protected the bodily remains from the elements, bacteria and other forces that cause weathering and decay. This slowed the decaying process down so that some of the remains (in most cases, only hard material like bone or shell) were preserved for thousands of years. During this time, sediment layers continued to collect above the bone. Eventually, these sediment layers became hard, solid rock. Sometime after this hard rock layer formed, water percolated down through the rock and washed the preserved remains away. Since the rock above was hard and rigid, it didn't fall down into the empty space where the remains used to be. This empty space formed a natural mold of the animal, perfectly preserving the shape of the original remains. In some cases, percolating water carried minerals into the mold. These minerals hardened to make a natural cast of the form, just as an artist might make a sculpture cast by filling a mold with plaster. All the original organic material disappeared, but nature left a precise mineral reproduction of the plant or animal remains. In cases where minerals did not fill the mold, paleontologists may fill it themselves, creating an artificial cast. This is just one scenario of fossil creation, of course -- there are all sorts of other ways nature might form a fossil. A lot of prehistoric insects, for example, have been fossilized in amber. This sort of fossilization occurred when the insect was enveloped in the liquid sap from a tree. Just like the sediments at the bottom of a body of water, the sap material protected the insect from decay and eventually hardened. Animal fossils are also found in tar pits, bogs, quicksand and volcanic ash. Another interesting fossil type is petrified wood. Petrified wood generally forms when trees fall into a river, where they become saturated and then buried in mud, ash, silt and other materials. Minerals, such as the silica in volcanic ash, seep into the tree and fill in tiny pores in wood's cells. This changes the overall composition of the wood, turning it into stone material, while preserving its original structure. The variety of minerals in petrified wood creates striking vivid colors. In addition to fossilized plant and animal bodily remains, paleontologists study fossilized animal footprints and trails, and even fossilized animal dung (called coprolite). These fossils are enlightening because they reveal something about how prehistoric animals moved and what they ate. The fossil record, the total collection of fossils in the world, is extraordinarily important to our understanding of the Earth's history. Fossils tell us which plants and animals existed in prehistoric times, and where they lived. They also tell us something about when they lived. Based on the position of fossils in the layers of the Earth's crust, paleontologists can determine which animals predate other animals and which animals lived at the same time. Using carbon dating, paleontologists can sometimes estimate the age of fossils. This provides the age of the rock layer where the fossil was found, which helps scientists date all the other material at that level. Without fossils, we would have a much more incomplete picture of Earth's early history.

Very interesting! If not fossilized, I feel the SJ could still be very old because of its appearance. There have been naturally well preserved humans found in the right ambient conditions that were ancient, however these conditions were very dry. The decayed, rusty and boney interior look much older than 35 years to me. If it really is roughly 35 years old, then the appearance could be the result of rapid decay, as reflected in the lifespan of the xeno. Perhaps the biomechanical technology is consistant throughout, including the large structures. The creatures in this universe "must revel in their time". I'll stick with SJ as being ancient with the time travel element in the story until proven otherwise.

Could Walter Sobchak have a face hugger for you by 3 O'Clock with green nail polish?

He got me a toe...I know'd he get me a facehugger by 3!

True! Question: Are the SJ's nihilists? And are xenos biomechanical marmots? I think we were asking the wrong questions all along!

I bet it all started with a carpet...that a chinaman pissed on and that carpet brought the room together man...it really did.

"Chinaman"? Is that the proper vernacular? Isn't it "Chinese American"? Maybe the SJ's roll on Shabbos, only to spite Sobchak Industries Corp.?

I wonder how many flea eggs are in that rug? And, was the rug in flight when some of them hatched? Good Lord- the implications. Epic.

I, for one, really hope that it[i] isn't[/i]: "Oh noes, [size=200]wE[/size] made teh xeNos!!!1!1 :o" It's just too Hollywood-predictable.

True artyoh, that would be a major disappointment. "Trite-clever" is overused, predictable and irritating as all get-up.

You just can't stomach any faith for Ridley being smarter than that I guess, huh Artyoh?

Ridley's gunna slap us with a reality check, send us into orbit with all our theories, come back to earth with brain cleansed, only to find that we simply must see it again! And again!! We'll be shocked by: Ridley's Believe it Or Not

Ridley me this, BATMAN!

Imagining that those eggs had been lying there in wait for a million years, dovetailed perfectly with the atmosphere of total isolation and puny insignificance, Scott created for the Nostromo and her crew in "Alien." I also always liked the idea that the derelict was a "bomber," because of what it suggested about the SJs. I just think the idea that the xenos are the result of some human screw-up and/or hubris, is kinda lame against the notion that they're the equivalent of pest-eradicating parasitic wasps for a race of extremely advanced gardener/terraformers. If the xenos aren't already some kind of bio-weapon, then [i]actual[/i] SJ weapons had better be pretty damned impressive by comparison.

You just can't stomach any faith for Ridley being smarter than that I guess, huh Artyoh? Of course I can. Why do you think I'm arguing against the idea, rather than promoting it?

Also, if you look carefully, when Kane takes a closer look at the alien egg, you can barely make out, "Brought to you by Burger King". Just keep looking. It's there. And yes Spartacus, it's consistant in character for Parker to fart after sipping his coffee. Beautiful fact sir, beautiful. Parker broke wind and Ridley broke box office records. Team work my friend, that's where it's at.

LMAO, & then there's this you guys... [quote] Imagining that those eggs had been lying there in wait for a million years, dovetailed perfectly with the atmosphere of total isolation and puny insignificance, Scott created for the Nostromo and her crew in "Alien." I also always liked the idea that the derelict was a "bomber," because of what it suggested about the SJs. I just think the idea that the xenos are the result of some human screw-up and/or hubris, is kinda lame against the notion that they're the equivalent of pest-eradicating parasitic wasps for a race of extremely advanced gardener/terraformers. If the xenos aren't already some kind of bio-weapon, then actual SJ weapons had better be pretty damned impressive by comparison.[/quote] I think I got Artyoh to take it to a whole other higher level, and raise his game big time!!! Awesome Post !

I think that right there might be my all time favorite post on this board!

In the Necronomicón all seems to have its own life, to my I would have liked that everything in the temple is alive. I like that the biomechanoids biomechanoids or the skeletal monstrosities attack astronauts from the walls, ceilings or even the floor. but it seems that things are going for the scope of the mutation. And these suits are obviously not fossil, its organic nature is which makes them vulnerable at the time and the environmental conditions. PS: I would like to make the space jockey abandoned an alter ego of Prometheus and his punishment is to give birth to a jock-alien…ah and hope that the monsters are very abstract, as a combination between Lovecraft and Giger (what would look like the mountains of madness, lol)

by the way my apologies for my very bad English, my native language is the Spanish...

Oh my word Snorkle, how many threads you have created about this now? Do you really need your ego stroked to this degree? Is it so important to you to feel your right all the time? Not everyone will agree with your theories or ideas (because more often than not, they are not facts) no big deal, it's a forum. [b]Imagining that those eggs had been lying there in wait for a million years, dovetailed perfectly with the atmosphere of total isolation and puny insignificance, Scott created for the Nostromo and her crew in "Alien." I also always liked the idea that the derelict was a "bomber," because of what it suggested about the SJs[/b] Don't know who that is, but I agree with it. And don't worry, this is the last time I post in one of your threads as I've realized there is no point putting any discussion across. Peace. Over and out.

@ Theusprom... First of you didn't put a discussion across, you said I was wrong. If I am wrong then Ridley must be wrong because all I did was repeat what he stated - Ridley clearly states in the interview that I link to in the OP (posted by craigamore) that the SJ in Alien is NOT a skeleton it is a SUIT. No skeleton, means no fossil, it is a SUIT. Thus it is a fact, from Ridley himself. Why do you think the image of Noomi in front of the SJ suits was released, to nail the point home that they are SUITS, and so that we all could compare them to the SJ in Alien and realise that this whole fossilization business never happened. Furthermore the Derelict in Prometheus is the same one as in Alien, the differences in the planets surface and the details in and on the Derelict will no doubt be explained in Prometheus (my guess its Sparky's idea of terraforming). The Derelict is a bomber used to deploy eggs (Source - Ridley), the alien that bursts of out the SJ is NOT a queen (Camerons idea not Ridleys). Finally TIME TRAVEL, why would time travel be in Prometheus. The only reason such a lame idea would be used would be to explain that the Derelict has been there for millions of years, and to explain the fossilization of the SJ. But the SJ isn't fossilized its a SUIT (Ridleys words not mine) and I see no evidence whatsoever that Prometheus will feature time travel. How is this so hard to understand, fossilization never happened, Ridley has changed the back story to the SJ to suit his needs and vision for Prometheus, how can no-one see this!

Snorkelbottom, just because Scott has said the SJ body in "Alien" was a suit, it doesn't necessarily follow that the ship had only been there for 30 years. Why are you assuming that the differences between the SJ ship and moon in "Alien", and what we see in the Prometheus trailer, are the result of terraforming and a casual attitude regarding continuity? Why isn't it just as logical if not more so, to conclude that the clear differences we see, are simply because they [i]aren't[/i] the same?