|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
plurry |
+ |
Saturday, August 4, 2007 at 9:24 PM good. i hope they blow up this shithole planet. i didn't want to grow old anyway. —plurry |
|
|
|
|
lexieho |
+ |
Saturday, August 4, 2007 at 9:39 PM ^ too late.
boooonnngggg.
—lexieho |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anfernee |
+ |
Saturday, August 4, 2007 at 10:04 PM I watched all 7 minutes of that, they not once said the word "angels" or anything, just merely stated doubt for an unexplained, most likely hoax. Big deal! —anfernee |
|
|
|
|
ZT Spice |
+ |
Saturday, August 4, 2007 at 10:20 PM No, you misread the title. I was telling FOX that there was not such thing as UFOs. The angels protect Mexico because it's full of good catholics. —ZT Spice |
|
|
|
|
anfernee |
+ |
Saturday, August 4, 2007 at 10:25 PM oh lol. Well I can't explain those "lights" but I love how the guy on the right was so convinced "expect in the near future a formal announcement from your government". lol, fat chance, you UFO freaks have been saying the same thing for DECADES with not a shred of proof, just shaky, blurry videos of "lights" from Mexico. How come it's always Extra-Terrestrials, and people assume they are "higher life forms". What if WE'RE the higher life form, and the aliens are the dumb ones, they're still in the middle ages? No one ever suggests that —anfernee |
|
|
|
|
plurry |
+ |
Saturday, August 4, 2007 at 10:43 PM surely different states of evolution exist across the universe. this video is like the ultimate episode of punk'd. any minute, some mexican version of ashton kutcher will appear and inform us the mexican government was having a little fun with the rest of the world. —plurry |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Saturday, August 4, 2007 at 10:53 PM How come it's always Extra-Terrestrials, and people assume they are "higher life forms". What if WE'RE the higher life form, and the aliens are the dumb ones, they're still in the middle ages? No one ever suggests that But if they were stuck in the middle ages, they probably wouldn't have flying machines, let alone the ability to travel light years away to a different planet to perform anal probes on rubes. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
ZT Spice |
+ |
Saturday, August 4, 2007 at 11:16 PM THE ANGELS WOULD STOP THEM BEFORE THEY GOT PASSED OUR ATMOSPHERE —ZT Spice |
|
|
|
|
lexieho |
+ |
Saturday, August 4, 2007 at 11:24 PM gra-gra-grammar nazi. —lexieho |
|
|
|
|
anfernee |
+ |
Sunday, August 5, 2007 at 1:17 AM But if they were stuck in the middle ages, they probably wouldn't have flying machines, let alone the ability to travel light years away to a different planet to perform anal probes on rubes. yeah, duh, I'm just saying, no one ever explores the possibility that maybe there are DUMB aliens out there, and WE'RE the "extra-terrestrials", yknow? Just an alternative way of looking at things —anfernee |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Sunday, August 5, 2007 at 9:01 AM Yes, but that's irrelevant to the contents of the video as per anobody's comment. Besides, good. i hope they blow up this shithole planet. i didn't want to grow old anyway. —plurry —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Sunday, August 5, 2007 at 10:16 AM yeah, duh, I'm just saying, no one ever explores the possibility that maybe there are DUMB aliens out there, and WE'RE the "extra-terrestrials", yknow? Well for starters "extra-terrestrial" means "outside-earthly" (in other words - not from Earth, so, by definition, not us). If you want to get pedantic about it, "terrestrial" can also mean an Earth-like planet, so if we managed to schlep our asses lightyears away to another terrestrial planet, then we could be called extra-terrestrials there, but we're not nearly there, and most people I know wouldn't use the term that way. Anyway, there's a whole science dedicated to studying alien life called exobiology (well OK, that's morphed into astrobiology, but I still like exobiology better). In astrobiology, it's pretty much taken as an axiom that most life in the universe is microscopic single-celled organisms (just like most life on Earth). Given the number of stars in the universe (about 400 billion in our galaxy alone, ~ 10 billion in an average galaxy and about 10 billion galaxies that we can see, so at least 10 billion * 10 billion = 100 billion billion stars in the universe), it is almost a mathematical certainty that there will be alien worlds with life at every possible stage of development, including some without even multicellular organism, others with civilizations less advanced than ours, and others with civilizations far more advanced than ours. Now, the universe is around 13 billion years old. Anatomically modern humans have been around for something like 130,000 years (or about 0.001% of the lifetime of the universe) - and human civilization has only been around for about 10,000 years of that. We are (despite what we might like to tell ourselves) a very young civilization, relative to the life of the universe. Assuming that the level of advancement and time are roughly correlated, the probability that an alien civilization would exist, only having arisen less than 10,000 years ago, is exceedingly small. So, unless civilizations tend to wipe themselves out (or be wiped out) around our level of advancement, the vast majority of civilizations in the universe will not only be more advanced than we are, but most will be millions, if not billions of years more advanced (at least, assuming that we are not somehow one of the very first civilizations, but that's also exceedingly unlikely). So people do consider what you suggest, but, as I said before, if one of them actually got here, they would by necessity be more advanced than we are (or someone or something more advanced than us would have to be playing a sort of cosmic practical joke). —anobody |
|
|
|
|
anfernee |
+ |
Sunday, August 5, 2007 at 11:06 AM yeah I don't believe any of that^, it's all just wild assumptions —anfernee |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Sunday, August 5, 2007 at 12:09 PM No. There are zero wild assumptions in there. The number of stars in the galaxy and the number of galaxies in the visible universe are well known - and you could even verify them yourself if you took one semester of astronomy and spent a few months of telescope time and analysis to do a sky survey. So, unless you don't believe in telescopes, that is settled. The age of the universe is something you can test in a bunch of different ways. Cosmic microwave background radiation, the age of stars, the Hubble constant, and the Carbon-nitrogen-oxygen nuclear cycle. And all of those are based on things that are "out there" like quantum mechanics (the same stuff used to design most of the components of your computer), nuclear chemistry (reactors, and bombs seem to work), quantum field theory (the thing that makes the most precise and accurate prediction in theoretical physics - in agreement with experiment to something like 8 decimal places). And lets not forget thermodynamics which is used in such exotic and futuristic technologies as your air conditioner and your car. So, unless you don't believe in hydrogen bombs, and computers, and cars that is settled. Then there's the age of humans and civilization. Genetic clocks, archeology, fossil record, and so on, and so on. So, unless you don't believe in history, and genetics, and (again) nuclear reactors, that is settled. The only real assumption is that we are not the only civilization in the universe. Given the numbers, I wouldn't even call that an assumption. It's certainly much more reasonable to assume that civilizations arise with some nonzero probability, and we are just one instance of that. As long as that probability is a little better than one in a hundred billion billion (that is that it happens more often than once in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars), then it is a mathematical certainty that we are not alone in the universe. So, unless you don't believe in probability (Las Vegas, statistics, demographics, etc.), then that is settled. It's good to be skeptical, but about the only way you can not believe what I said is to willfully ignore an eff-ton of rock-solid scientific evidence, and all of the technology that is based on it (which includes pretty much everything you use every single day). You don't even have to believe me - in fact you shouldn't - just get out there and study it for yourself. I pretty much guarantee that if you actually understood any of this, you would come to the same conclusions. You can throw your hands up to your ears and start screaming "la! la! la! la! la! la! la! la! la! la! la! " all you want, and you can point to some old crusty book that's full of obvious mistakes and inconsistencies, but you're just deluding yourself. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
usman bello |
+ |
Sunday, August 5, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Edited Sunday, August 5, 2007 at 12:47 PM Space....whooooooooo cares!
—usman bello |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Sunday, August 5, 2007 at 2:51 PM yeah I don't believe any of that^, it's all just wild assumptions —anfernee You clearly didn't read his post. —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
plurry |
+ |
Sunday, August 5, 2007 at 2:53 PM anobody, the bible nor joseph smith said anything about aliens, therefor they must not exist. lest ye forget... 
—plurry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ZT Spice |
+ |
Sunday, August 5, 2007 at 3:14 PM You can throw your hands up to your ears and start screaming "la! la! la! la! la! la! la! la! la! la! la! " all you want, and you can point to some old crusty book that's full of obvious mistakes and inconsistencies, but you're just deluding yourself. —anobody Completely agree with you. However, I also point to crusty old people like Art Bell and Stephen Basset who are full of obvious mistakes and inconsistencies. I've heard Chomsky say most of the media coverage about aliens and UFOs and aliens is really an attempt to distract people from more important topics. Regardless of how deliberate it is, that's exactly what it does -- and it's a deep rabbit hole. You could spend your entire life humoring the crazies and reading literature produced by them searching for "evidence." Most people wouldn't do that, they're just dilettantes, and like entertaining the idea precisely because it distracts them from the more salient and difficult to deal with situations here on Earth. That's why I think it's interesting to compare the coverage on FOX with the coverage on CNN. Of course, both of them mentioned it. One briefly, the other did a about five minutes on it during prime time. —ZT Spice |
|
|
|
|
plurry |
+ |
Sunday, August 5, 2007 at 3:19 PM the media is also glossing over the fact that the moon landing was faked. you can't land a space ship on a giant ball of cheese. the hot rockets would melt the surface, and the ship would sink into the moon's liquid core of nacho cheez whiz. —plurry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Sunday, August 5, 2007 at 8:12 PM I've heard Chomsky say most of the media coverage about aliens and UFOs and aliens is really an attempt to distract people from more important topics That is exactly how I feel every time somebody brings up gay marriage and sex in video games. That's why I think it's interesting to compare the coverage on FOX with the coverage on CNN. Of course, both of them mentioned it. One briefly, the other did a about five minutes on it during prime time. I don't know if it's just a matter of getting older or what but it really seems like CNN isn't worth a damn any more - just a bunch of "infotainment" bullshit. It's sad, but Colbert and The Daily Show seem to have the best coverage on TV (at least American TV). —anobody |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Monday, August 6, 2007 at 6:01 AM Good to know - I'll make a note of it. —anobody |
|
