> Correct me if I am mistaken, but I thought that the initial
> question referred to Ancient Aliens, not Ancient Astronauts.
> Why is it, that when the word "alien" is used, the discussion
> immediately involves spaceships?
> Why is it, that when the term "UFO" is used, the discussion
> immediately involves aliens.
> Why do aliens need to be astronauts?
> Ancient Astronauts may have needed infrastructure, but Ancient
> Aliens would not have necessarily needed anything.
It's a matter of common English Usage.
Most people are inclined to think of technologically advanced (usually) Extra-terrestrials when the word 'aliens' is mentioned.
Personally, I blame 'Hollywood' - and Sigourney Weaver in particular. :)
Mind you, Erich von Daniken's 'Chariots of the Gods' being sub-titled 'Was God an Astronaut?' doesn't help any. :(
I have scanned through the many posts in this thread and it is clear that to some folk here Ancient Alien and Ancient Astronaut mean much the same thing.
IMO, the best thing for you to do, loveritas, is to make it abundantly clear in your posts that to you Ancient Alien and Ancient Astronaut are two different entities, and then make it clear which one you are referring to.
It irks me greatly how the term 'UFO' is to many, many people synonymous with 'Extra-terrestrial Spacecraft' - and how arguing that the 'object' sighted is not (necessarily) an ET craft is tantamount to arguing that there is no other intelligent, technologically advanced beings in the Universe.
So I am not entirely unsympathetic towards your grammar-based stance over 'Ancient Alien v Ancient Astronaut'.
While I think of it, how do you, loveritas' define 'Ancient Alien'?
So few answers - and not one of them mine.