We are not alone.... Maybe.

[Ulysses]

On 22/02/2022 at 10:30, Smithee said:

 

You think your point's going over people's heads? 

 

Odd, isn't it?

 

The way I see this (and I think you might agree) is that when trying to figure out the probability (not the possibility, but the likelihood) of two intelligent species from different planets interacting, we have to triangulate:

 

* The extreme distances between planets inhabited or inhabitable by intelligent life forms (people really can't get their heads around just how big the universe is)

 

* The extremely long timescales over which evolutionary processes play out (we're talking nearly 4 billion years on this planet to get something that could learn to speak)

 

* The relatively short timescales for which any species actually get to exist

 

People - including smart people - genuinely have difficulty getting their heads around the numbers involved, and how those numbers make it so very unlikely that any two intelligent species anywhere in the universe would ever get to interact with one another.  The probability isn't zero, but it is so low as to be effectively zero.

 

The notion of humans talking to extra-terrestrial intelligent creatures is wonderful.  It's also possible, indeed I'd be amazed if we ever discovered that it couldn't be possible.  But it is so very highly improbable that it finds its best expression in science fiction.

 

The sad truth - potential truth - is that:

 

* Humans may have interacted with one other intelligent species.  That was Neanderthals, and we probably destroyed them.

 

* Humans may get to interact with one more intelligent species.  That would be human-made intelligent machines, and they would probably destroy us.

[Unknown user]

18 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-police-polygraph-lie-detector-terrorism

Headline 

"Lie detectors are creeping into UK policing and they still don’t work"

[WorldChampions1902]

3 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

 

 

Technology..  Advanced but you knew that.. 

 

Mind you dont take my word for it.

 

 

Dr. Peter A. Sturrock (see above):

"In their public statements (but not necessarily in their private statements), scientists express a generally negative attitude towards the UFO problem, and it is interesting to try to understand this attitude. Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments' observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is self-reinforcing: the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view works against the presentation of relevant data." (Sturrock, Peter A., Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1987.)

 

Dr. Peter A. Sturrock, Professor of Space Science and Astrophysics and Deputy Director of the Center for Space Sciences and Astrophysics at Stanford University:

"The definitive resolution of the UFO enigma will not come about unless and until the problem is subjected to open and extensive scientific study by the normal procedures of established science. This requires a change in attitude primarily on the part of scientists and administrators in universities." (Sturrock, Peter A., Report on a Survey of the American Astronomical Society concerning the UFO Phenomenon, Stanford University Report SUIPR 68IR, 1977.)

 

 

Seems that such qualified and credible sources like him are brushed aside  by nothing more than bias.

 

 

Dr. Carl Sagan, Professor of Astronomy and Space Sciences at Cornell University:

"It now seems quite clear that Earth is not the only inhabited planet. There is evidence that the bulk of the stars in the sky have planetary systems. Recent research concerning the origin of life on Earth suggests that the physical and chemical processes leading to the origin of life occur rapidly in the early history of the majority of planets. The selective value of intelligence and technical civilization is obvious, and it seems likely that a large number of planets within our Milky Way galaxy - perhaps as many as a million - are inhabited by technical civilizations in advance of our own. Interstellar space flight is far beyond our present technical capabilities, but there seems to be no fundamental physical objections to preclude, from our own vantage point, the possibility of its development by other civilizations." (Sagan, Carl, "Unidentified Flying Objects," The Encyclopedia Americana, 1963.)  

 

 

Dr. Carl Gustav Jung, Pioneer of psychiatry, stated in 1954:

"A purely psychological explanation is ruled out... the discs show signs of intelligent guidance, by quasi-human pilots... the authorities in possession of important information should not hesitate to enlighten the public as soon and as completely as possible." ("Dr. Carl Jung on Unidentified Flying Objects," Flying Saucer Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1955.)

"Unfortunately, however, there are good reasons why the UFOs cannot be disposed of in this simple manner. It remains an established fact, supported by numerous observations, that UFOs have not only been seen visually but have also been picked up on the radar screen and have left traces on the photographic plate. It boils down to nothing less than this: that either psychic projections throw back a radar echo, or else the appearance of real objects affords an opportunity for mythological projections." ("A Fresh Look at Flying Saucers," Time, August 4, 1967.)  

 

 

Last source is hinting that its a psychological bias that is the main barrier to any suggesting that SOME UAPs could very well be ET in source.

 

 

Thats what i have to offer. 

 

Interesting post- yet again on the disservice “science” and “scientists do to this subject matter.

 

I’ve already mentioned John Mack on here. A Pulitzer Prize-winning Harvard psychiatrist. That was, until he started to take seriously the subject of alleged abductees. From that point on, sections of the scientific community shunned and pilloried him.

 

What was that about “science and scientists being open and asking questions”? In significant cases, it is plainly not true. And until such behaviour is stamped out, this will form a barrier to getting answers to many real and serious questions.
 

Of course, the flip side is that the sceptics get right behind this behaviour as it suits their point of view.

[Ulysses]

On 22/02/2022 at 20:46, Jambo_jim2001 said:

Well seemingly the big bang is getting a rethink,might not have been...god is a creator..Alien? Maybe!.. I got a row when I was a bairn at Sunday school for asking the minister who made god? genetic science is still in the early stages, and as of yet can't explain a lot about how our DNA changed to make modern man in such a small space of time..the octopus DNA is vary strange,in fact so weird it has been described as alien.. it's probably due to genetic science as yet not being that far advanced,but one does wonder...

 

Sorry to rain on your parade, but conspiracy theory websites continue to peddle the notion that octopus DNA is in some way alien, yet no-one has ever offered any evidence to suggest that it is - unlike the credible researchers in the United States who are gradually and methodically mapping Octopus DNA, just as other species' genomes are being mapped, and finding it to be unusual, but not surprising in and of itself.

 

What on Earth do you even mean by the bit highlighted in bold?

[Unknown user]

6 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Odd, isn't it?

 

The way I see this (and I think you might agree) is that when trying to figure out the probability (not the possibility, but the likelihood) of two intelligent species from different planets interacting, we have to triangulate:

 

* The extreme distances between planets inhabited or inhabitable by intelligent life forms (people really can't get their heads around just how big the universe is)

 

* The extremely long timescales over which evolutionary processes play out (we're talking nearly 4 billion years on this planet to get something that could learn to speak)

 

* The relatively short timescales for which any species actually get to exist

 

People - including smart people - genuinely have difficulty getting their heads around the numbers involved, and how those numbers make it so very unlikely that any two intelligent species anywhere in the universe would ever get to interact with one another.  The probability isn't zero, but it is so low as to be effectively zero.

 

The notion of humans talking to extra-terrestrial intelligent creatures is wonderful.  It's also possible, indeed I'd be amazed if we ever discovered that it couldn't be possible.  But it is so very highly improbable that it finds its best expression in science fiction.

 

The sad truth - potential truth - is that:

 

* Humans may have interacted with one other intelligent species.  That was Neanderthals, and we probably destroyed them.

 

* Humans may get to interact with one more intelligent species.  That would be human-made intelligent machines, and they would probably destroy us.

 

Yeah, exactly this. I don't doubt there are, have been, or will be things out there. I do massively doubt the likelihood of them visiting in my lifetime though, it's soooo ridiculously unlikely.

[Ulysses]

25 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-police-polygraph-lie-detector-terrorism

 

In case you had difficulty the first time, I said:

 

Ah Jaysus, would you get off the stage?  We use polygraphs?  Where?

[Ulysses]

On 22/02/2022 at 22:26, Tazio said:

Meant to be home at the back of ten, turn up at 4am with a bit of a tender bum. Now then, what excuse is the wife going to believe? Got it! Aliens probing. 

 

Likewise, get yourself up the duff in a society where you and your family could be ostracised or even killed for doing so?  What excuse are the local moral police going to believe?  Hey presto, virgin birth.

[Ulysses]

On 23/02/2022 at 11:57, WorldChampions1902 said:

The Battle Of Nuremberg was well documented and we even have an artists drawing of the skies over the town. Food for thought.

 

Why didn't he take a photo?  Oh, yeah, right. 

[WorldChampions1902]

6 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

In case you had difficulty the first time, I said:

 

Ah Jaysus, would you get off the stage?  We use polygraphs?  Where?

Some countries referenced in this article. Enjoy!

https://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnists/2019/05/487195/truth-about-polygraph-tests

[WorldChampions1902]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Why didn't he take a photo?  Oh, yeah, right. 

Nope. Quite common in those days seemingly.

[Ulysses]

11 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

Some countries referenced in this article. Enjoy!

https://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnists/2019/05/487195/truth-about-polygraph-tests

 

Did you not even bother to read that before you posted it?  It's a made up opinion piece, written in terrible English by the "President" of the Malaysian "Association of Certified Fraud Examiners" (whoever he is and whatever they are), and while rambling about the place it doesn't even offer a list of countries (a tiny list, by the way) where polygraph findings are accepted as evidence in criminal courts.  But despite all that it does arrive at the following wonderful conclusion:

 

"If you ask how reliable and trustworthy a polygraph is — the answer: it is better than nothing."  

 

So that's the best someone trying to sell polygraph tests can come up with.  Right. 

 

 

Here's an alternative view from the American Psychological Association.  The APA is the biggest professional and scientific body of psychologists in the United States - representing over 130,000 scientific researchers, professional educators, clinical practitioners and psychology students, but with a very heavy emphasis on clinical practice.  This short article cites and is based on multiple peer-reviewed papers written by several psychology researchers.

 

It arrives at two conclusions, one helpfully placed at the start in case you want to skip reading the whole thing and one right at the end:

 

"Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies."

 

"For now, although the idea of a lie detector may be comforting, the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph."

 

The piece also points out that there is no such thing as a "lie detector test".  There is a machine which takes some physiological readings from the body while a structured but unstandardised series of questions are asked.  The "lie detection" is done by a person who draws their own inferences from the readings from the machine.  Given that America's best clinical psychologists overwhelmingly think polygraphs are unreliable, it's pretty safe to draw our own inference that the people doing the interpreting from the machines are not at the leading edge of psychological clinical practice.

 

If second-division (or lower tier) interpreters are reading physiological status graphs from machines, and interpreting them in a framework which is regarded as lacking supporting evidence by top-tier clinicians, that is pretty strong evidence that we are in the presence of bunkum and bullshit.

 

No doubt you will confound me now by producing, like a rabbit from a hat, an extensive list of countries where "lie detector tests" are admissible as evidence in criminal courts.

 

Here you go:

 

https://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph

 

[Ulysses]

44 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

Nope. Quite common in those days seemingly.

 

I could do you an artist sketch to show you that I've a mummified alien in my garden shed.  It'd be shit, but give me a couple of days and my niece who's a fantastic sketch artist could do something that'd look a lot better.  Do you know anyone gullible enough to believe my sketch?  If so please shout - I've got some NFTs I'd like to offload.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Ulysses

[Ulysses]

53 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Yeah, exactly this. I don't doubt there are, have been, or will be things out there. I do massively doubt the likelihood of them visiting in my lifetime though, it's soooo ridiculously unlikely.

 

Why do they always land in the same places?  Why do aliens not give a shit about anything other than the English language? 

 

[Unknown user]

49 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Why didn't he take a photo?  Oh, yeah, right. 

I'm sure he's a smashing bloke and all that, but it ****s with my head that someone thought sketches strengthened their argument.

[WorldChampions1902]

8 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Did you not even bother to read that before you posted it?  It's a made up opinion piece, written in terrible English by the "President" of the Malaysian "Association of Certified Fraud Examiners" (whoever he is and whatever they are), and while rambling about the place it doesn't even offer a list of countries (a tiny list, by the way) where polygraph findings are accepted as evidence in criminal courts.  But despite all that it does arrive at the following wonderful conclusion:

 

"If you ask how reliable and trustworthy a polygraph is — the answer: it is better than nothing."  

 

So that's the best someone trying to sell polygraph tests can come up with.  Right. 

 

 

Here's an alternative view from the American Psychological Association.  The APA is the biggest professional and scientific body of psychologists in the United States - representing over 130,000 scientific researchers, professional educators, clinical practitioners and psychology students, but with a very heavy emphasis on clinical practice.  This short article cites and is based on multiple peer-reviewed papers written by several psychology researchers.

 

It arrives at two conclusions, one helpfully placed at the start in case you want to skip reading the whole thing and one right at the end:

 

"Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies."

 

"For now, although the idea of a lie detector may be comforting, the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph."

 

The piece also points out that there is no such thing as a "lie detector test".  There is a machine which takes some physiological readings from the body while a structured but unstandardised series of questions are asked.  The "lie detection" is done by a person who draws their own inferences from the readings from the machine.  Given that America's best clinical psychologists overwhelmingly think polygraphs are unreliable, it's pretty safe to draw our own inference that the people doing the interpreting from the machines are not at the leading edge of psychological clinical practice.

 

If second-division (or lower tier) interpreters are reading physiological status graphs from machines, and interpreting them in a framework which is regarded as lacking supporting evidence by top-tier clinicians, that is pretty strong evidence that we are in the presence of bunkum and bullshit.

 

No doubt you will confound me now by producing, like a rabbit from a hat, an extensive list of countries where "lie detector tests" are admissible as evidence in criminal courts.

 

Here you go:

 

https://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph

 

Correct. I didn’t it read it. I scanned it for reference to names of countries which you clearly were insistent on seeing.
 

Why are you saying quote, “you will confound me by now producing, like a rabbit from a hat, an extensive list of countries where lie detector lists are admissible in criminal courts”??

Edited February 25, 2022 by WorldChampions1902

[WorldChampions1902]

7 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

I could do you an artist sketch to show you that I've a mummified alien in my garden shed.  It'd be shit, but give me a couple of days and my niece who's a fantastic sketch artist could do something that'd look a lot better.  Do you know anyone gullible enough to believe my sketch?  If so please shout - I've got some NFTs I'd like to offload.

If it makes you feel better, crack on.

[maroonlegions]

6 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Why do they always land in the same places?  Why do aliens not give a shit about anything other than the English language? 

 

 

Because the % of reports are from countries that have a higher % of sightings.

 

 

Uk has a substantial % of UAP reports if you look at the data. Anyone can pull up a graph for a piss take to suit their bias.

 

 

Take this leading well know source below and what he had to say on the subject.

 

There is NO way that anyone on here has even bothered to look deeper on the homework related links   i have supplied in various posts on this thread. So much easier and lazy to just jump on the piss take bangwagon.

 

 

Bernard Haisch, astrophysicist, UFOSkeptic.org

 

“I propose that true skepticism is called for today: neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the skeptic. One should be skeptical of both the believers and the scoffers. The negative claims of pseudo-skeptics who offer facile explanations must themselves be subject to criticism. If a competent witness reports having seen something tens of degrees of arc in size (as happens) and the scoffer -- who of course was not there -- offers Venus or a high altitude weather balloon as an explanation, the requirement of extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim falls on the proffered negative claim as well. That kind of approach is also pseudo-science. Moreover just being a scientist confers neither necessary expertise nor sufficient knowledge. (I wish it did, sigh.) Any scientist who has not read a few serious books and articles presenting actual UFO evidence should out of intellectual honesty refrain from making scientific pronouncements. To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another. That is not science.”

 

 

Bernard Haisch, physicist, “Be Skeptical of the Skeptics”

 

“Cut through the ridicule and search for factual information in most of the skeptical commentary and one is usually left with nothing. This is not surprising. After all, how can one rationally object to a call for scientific examination of evidence? Be skeptical of the "skeptics."”

 

 

Bernard Haisch, “UFOs and Mainstream Science”

 

“A 1977 poll of American astronomers, published in JSE, showed the following. Out of 2611 questionnaires 1356 were returned. In response to whether the UFO problem deserved further study the replies were: 23% certainly, 30% probably, 27% percent possibly, 17% probably not, 3% certainly not. Interestingly, there was a positive correlation between the amount of reading done on the subject and the opinion that further study was in order…”

 

“Most scientists never look at UFO evidence, which leads to their conclusion that there is no evidence…”

 

“It seems from my unique vantage point as both scientist and editor of JSE that substantial evidence exists of "something going on".”

 

 

 

 

 

  

[Jeffros Furios]

8 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

 

Because the % of reports are from countries that have a higher % of sightings.

 

 

Uk has a substantial % of UAP reports if you look at the data. Anyone can pull up a graph for a piss take to suit their bias.

 

 

Take this leading well know source below and what he had to say on the subject.

 

There is NO way that anyone on here has even bothered to look deeper on the homework related links   i have supplied in various posts on this thread. So much easier and lazy to just jump on the piss take bangwagon.

 

 

Bernard Haisch, astrophysicist, UFOSkeptic.org

 

“I propose that true skepticism is called for today: neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the skeptic. One should be skeptical of both the believers and the scoffers. The negative claims of pseudo-skeptics who offer facile explanations must themselves be subject to criticism. If a competent witness reports having seen something tens of degrees of arc in size (as happens) and the scoffer -- who of course was not there -- offers Venus or a high altitude weather balloon as an explanation, the requirement of extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim falls on the proffered negative claim as well. That kind of approach is also pseudo-science. Moreover just being a scientist confers neither necessary expertise nor sufficient knowledge. (I wish it did, sigh.) Any scientist who has not read a few serious books and articles presenting actual UFO evidence should out of intellectual honesty refrain from making scientific pronouncements. To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another. That is not science.”

 

 

Bernard Haisch, physicist, “Be Skeptical of the Skeptics”

 

“Cut through the ridicule and search for factual information in most of the skeptical commentary and one is usually left with nothing. This is not surprising. After all, how can one rationally object to a call for scientific examination of evidence? Be skeptical of the "skeptics."”

 

 

Bernard Haisch, “UFOs and Mainstream Science”

 

“A 1977 poll of American astronomers, published in JSE, showed the following. Out of 2611 questionnaires 1356 were returned. In response to whether the UFO problem deserved further study the replies were: 23% certainly, 30% probably, 27% percent possibly, 17% probably not, 3% certainly not. Interestingly, there was a positive correlation between the amount of reading done on the subject and the opinion that further study was in order…”

 

“Most scientists never look at UFO evidence, which leads to their conclusion that there is no evidence…”

 

“It seems from my unique vantage point as both scientist and editor of JSE that substantial evidence exists of "something going on".”

 

 

 

 

 

  

How would you greet an alien ? 

[maroonlegions]

To the uninitiated there is another phonommon  of the UAP subject and that is the cases of Naval and shipping vessels of USOs or unidentified submerged objects ...

 

These are also historical , asin, there have been 1000s of such reports from the early 1800s to the present day.

 

These reports indicate UAPs either entering(submerging), or coming out from the sea.

 

 

     In essence there are and have been UAPs or USOs that are or have been coming from the sea or entering it. 

 

Not all UAPs are atmospheric in nature.

 

Bet you my last dime that no one on here has ever been aware of this realty of "water/based USOs??

 

Like atmospheric UAPs picked up on radar we have USOs picked up on SONAR  . underwater related USPs. 

 

Homework below for anyone that can be bothered..LOL.

 

This Page, “List of Sightings,” Is Dedicated to the Memory of:
O
J. Allen Hynek
and his greatly appreciated offspring
THE J. ALLEN HYNEK CENTER FOR UFO STUDIES (CUFOS)
O Whose inspiration spawned the continuing search for an answer to the UFO phenomenon. O
Mailing Address: The J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies
Post Office Box 31335
Chicago, IL 60631

http://www.cufos.org/
O

LIST OF WATER-RELATED SIGHTINGS

After selecting the date group you are interested in (e.g.”500-1946” or “The Master List”), a list for that group will appear.
The dates on the list that are in blue (hyperlinked) will take you to the text for the date selected.

[ 0500-1946 ] [ 1947-1959 ] [ 1960-1965 ] [ 1966-1972 ] [ 1973-1979 ] [ 1980-1999 ] [ 2000- 2015 ] [ Undated ]

[ THE MASTER LIST ]

 

This is an excellent search engine because any word in the text of any case can be located. For instance, not only does the word "radar" appear in cases in the "Radar / Sonar" category listed on the home page, but it is also found in cases that fall under other categories.

 

 

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by maroonlegions

[maroonlegions]

10 minutes ago, Jeffros Furios said:

How would you greet an alien ? 

How would you??

 

Shite it for once..

 

Strange question???

 

How would you know if it was an alien or not a demonic entity..No theres a head scratcher??

Edited February 25, 2022 by maroonlegions

[Jeffros Furios]

8 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

How would you??

 

Shite it for once..

 

Strange question???

 

How would you know if it was an alien or not a demonic entity..No theres a head scratcher??

I probably would shite it .

[Maple Leaf]

30 minutes ago, Jeffros Furios said:

How would you greet an alien ? 

 

With tears? 

[Morgan]

53 minutes ago, Jeffros Furios said:

How would you greet an alien ? 

I’d ask the wee chap if he was sad to be going home.

[Ulysses]

 

1 hour ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

Correct. I didn’t it read it. I scanned it for reference to names of countries which you clearly were insistent on seeing.
 

Why are you saying quote, “you will confound me by now producing, like a rabbit from a hat, an extensive list of countries where lie detector lists are admissible in criminal courts”??

 

Why didn't you read it?   If you had read it, you'd have known not to make people laugh at your argument by posting it.

 

You said

 

On 22/02/2022 at 15:07, WorldChampions1902 said:

We use science and technology every day as part of our criminal investigations and one of those tools is the Polygraph

 

We don't use "the Polygraph".  I mean, we really, really, really don't. 

 

If you think differently, can you please say which countries regard polygraph readings and interpretations as admissible evidence in criminal proceedings?  You were asked already, and you haven't answered.  So far, I've enlisted the American Psychological Association in support of my view, while you've enlisted some guy from Malaysia who sells lie detector tests and who himself is really lukewarm in his recommendation.  If you can't give a decent list, then could you, as asked, get off the stage (ah Jaysus)? 

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

If it makes you feel better, crack on.

 

I'm really asking if you'd be gullible enough - since you've already suggested that you're gullible enough to accept the validity of something else because an artist sketched it.   

[Greedy Jambo]

A lot of stupid questions going on in here from the folk that refuse to give the subject the time of day. 

 

Would you tell a guy that is probably only going to be around for 4 years all of your secrets?

Use your noggin, lads. 

 

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, maroonlegions said:

 

Because the % of reports are from countries that have a higher % of sightings.

 

 

Uk has a substantial % of UAP reports if you look at the data. Anyone can pull up a graph for a piss take to suit their bias.

 

  

 

Ulysses: Why does alien stuff always happen in places where they have English-language science fiction?

 

ML: Because that's where the reports are

 

Ulysses: **** me, this guy actually thinks this circular logic horse manure is a valid argument. 

[Boab]

11 minutes ago, Morgan said:

I’d ask the wee chap if he was sad to be going home.

Why is the common perception of these guys as wee ?

Look at the size of the critters we had stomping about a few million years ago.

Beasts the size of your hoose !

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Jeffros Furios said:

How would you greet an alien ? 

 

In English, obviously.  Most of the lazy feckers haven't bothered to learn any other languages.

[Greedy Jambo]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

Ulysses: Why does alien stuff always happen in places where they have English-language science fiction?

 

ML: Because that's where the reports are

 

Ulysses: **** me, this guy actually thinks this circular logic horse manure is a valid argument. 

 

It doesn't, there's been reports all over the world, you don't read them, because you just think it's a laughing matter. 

 

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, maroonlegions said:

another phonommon

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ulysses]

1 minute ago, Greedy Jambo said:

 

It doesn't, there's been reports all over the world, you don't read them, because you just think it's a laughing matter. 

 

 

Hai Greedy, the truth is out there.  Most reports are in the Anglophone world. 

 

[Boab]

2 minutes ago, Greedy Jambo said:

 

It doesn't, there's been reports all over the world, you don't read them, because you just think it's a laughing matter. 

 

I don't think it's a laughing matter the same way as I don't think religion is a laughing matter.

Sure, I've had a few wee jibes on here but if you believe in it, crack on. Seriously.

Same as religion, believe in an all powerful creator ? Fill your boots !

 

I just don't think the science....as it stands...backs it up. And I like scientific theory !

[Ulysses]

ML, Greedy and the goys: Look, a spaceship!  Yaaaaaaayyyy!

 

 

Smithee, Ulysses, Boab and the buzzkills: Er, actually, it's an upside-down guitar

 

 

[Greedy Jambo]

I suppose we'll just have to wait and see, eh. 

But see if i'm right, i'm going to be annoyed at you. 

[Boab]

8 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

ML, Greedy and the goys: Look, a spaceship!  Yaaaaaaayyyy!

 

 

Smithee, Ulysses, Boab and the buzzkills: Er, actually, it's an upside-down guitar

 

 

Must have been pretty cool to have a bit of your music on a disc hurtling out from the solar system. 

I think Blur(?) had something on one of the voyagers. 

I like that ! Pretty cool.

 

[Tazio]

6 minutes ago, Boab said:

Must have been pretty cool to have a bit of your music on a disc hurtling out from the solar system. 

I think Blur(?) had something on one of the voyagers. 

I like that ! Pretty cool.

 

And Chuck Berry. 

[Ulysses]

6 minutes ago, Boab said:

Must have been pretty cool to have a bit of your music on a disc hurtling out from the solar system. 

I think Blur(?) had something on one of the voyagers. 

I like that ! Pretty cool.

 

 

I'd have sent Boston's music hurtling out of the solar system if only I'd been able. 

[Boab]

3 minutes ago, Tazio said:

And Chuck Berry. 

Johnny B Goode ?

Think I recall hearing about that.

Aliens would be partying that night !

Edited February 25, 2022 by Boab

[Boab]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

I'd have sent Boston's music hurtling out of the solar system if only I'd been able. 

👍

[Tazio]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

I'd have sent Boston's music hurtling out of the solar system if only I'd been able. 

Why would you do that? Just a feeling? 

[Greedy Jambo]

Don't get me started. 

 

 

 

[Ulysses]

Just now, Tazio said:

And Chuck Berry. 

 

If we were doing a mixtape for the universe now - post-Voyager artists only - who would be eligible for a place?  I mean, obviously there'd be mandatory places for Adele, Taylor Swift, Rihanna, Drake, Ed Sheeran and The Weeknd, but after those?

[Ulysses]

Just now, Tazio said:

Why would you do that? Just a feeling? 

 

More than that, Tazio.  More than that.

[Ulysses]

1 minute ago, Greedy Jambo said:

Don't get me started. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tazio]

3 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

If we were doing a mixtape for the universe now - post-Voyager artists only - who would be eligible for a place?  I mean, obviously there'd be mandatory places for Adele, Taylor Swift, Rihanna, Drake, Ed Sheeran and The Weeknd, but after those?

Currently I’d just send them a Fiona Apple playlist. 

[Ulysses]

5 minutes ago, Tazio said:

Currently I’d just send them a Fiona Apple playlist. 

 

Me, I'd be cobbling together a combination of Julie Fowlis and Lana Del Rey.

[Greedy Jambo]

Cannae beat a wee bit Lana del boy rey. 

[Ulysses]

10 minutes ago, Greedy Jambo said:

Cannae beat a wee bit Lana del boy rey. 

 

[Greedy Jambo]

Haha, brilliant.