LightDreams wrote:
For those of you trying to figure out what the hell JSouthworth's constant posts about Hamas have to do with this "If Aliens are Real?" thread, they don't.   Not even the slightest connection.  Not that it stops him from making post after post about Israel and Hamas in this "Aliens are Real" thread.

This line of discussion concerns Elon Musk's involvement in space exploration and comments made on X about the current situation in the Middle East. I'd agree that the connection to aliens is quite tenuous.

Mark Salo wrote:
Why do you people feed the trolls?

It is a problem. Ignoring the particular troll has been shown to have no effect on the volume of arrogant ignorance production. Unanswered misinformation and spurious speculations presented as fact have led us to a very dark place  in this world.

Mark Salo wrote:
Why do you people feed the trolls?

-
"Troll: a person who intentionally antagonizes others online by posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content."[1]

One troll can antagonize countless people, so the solution you propose is for countless people to be silent in the face of antagonism rather than silence each troll?  We have a rule here against trolling.  It would be hard to argue that the source of the problem comes from the people who feed the troll.  Applying the chicken or the egg conundrum, there is no doubt, the troll came before the response to the troll.  (The egg came before the chicken. Birds evolved from theropods and dinosaurs utilized eggs for millions of years before the first bird.  Also the first chicken was a genetic variant of the ancestor of the first chicken, therefore to exist, it had to hatch. My apologies to anyone that feels antagonized by the little turnout track or if this sets a troll off.)

Is a blanket refusal to respond to a troll, that simple?  Is the person intentionally antagonizing other people or is that the view of the antagonized?  Can a person who is interested in conversation and debate also be a person who is misguided, uniformed, insensible, or on the spectrum and should those or other conditions disqualify the person from meaningful participation?  Is a person a troll because they lash out in anger or use insults and lies to counter the points made by others in lieu of rational discussion? 

Is the troll not removed because it is easier to discipline multitudes of other people for answering a troll instead of removing the one?  Or do trolls remain because they generate responses, and therefore clicks, which make a dead forum section more lively?  Is it an indication that the management of a site finds the trolls to be valuable when an inveterate troll is not removed? To paraphrase one of the great trolls, from a network of trolls disseminating misinformation, I’m not saying anyone person is any of those things or did any of those things, I’m just asking questions.  Why wouldn’t we ask questions about things like that? 




[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction … mmunities.

JSouthworth wrote:
This line of discussion concerns Elon Musk's involvement in space exploration and comments made on X about the current situation in the Middle East. I'd agree that the connection to aliens is quite tenuous.

When people start going on about aliens, it may be an indication that they have difficulty dealing with real world issues.
I remember seeing Close Encounters of the Third Kind at the local cinema on release in 1977. What a godawful movie, I was bored almost to the limits of human if not extra-terrestrial endurance. The timing of that film is significant I think, people were tired of dealing with the aftermath of the Vietnam War, to the point where they were quite willing to part company with reality altogether.

There is, as far as I can tell, no good evidence that aliens are here or have ever visited Earth. But I could be wrong.

JSouthworth wrote:

When people start going on about aliens, it may be an indication that they have difficulty dealing with real world issues.
I remember seeing Close Encounters of the Third Kind at the local cinema on release in 1977. What a godawful movie, I was bored almost to the limits of human if not extra-terrestrial endurance. The timing of that film is significant I think, people were tired of dealing with the aftermath of the Vietnam War, to the point where they were quite willing to part company with reality altogether.

" I'd agree that the connection to aliens is quite tenuous"

Which, of course, doesn't prevent you from "going on" about it. Do your arguments  even apply to yourself?

Focuspuller wrote:
Never mind. We have seen what "good evidence"  means to you. 😂😂😂

" I remember seeing Close Encounters of the Third Kind at the local cinema on release in 1977. What a godawful movie, I was bored almost to the limits of human if not extra-terrestrial endurance"

CE3K was a fair film with a brilliant ending., but no female mutilations or animal cruelty so clear why you were bored.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind was a tedious and, especially in it's original cinema version, overlong film with a boring beginning, a boring middle part, very few original ideas, and a silly and predictable ending which was satirically revisited in Independence Day (1996).

JSouthworth wrote:

Close Encounters of the Third Kind was a tedious and, especially in it's original cinema version, overlong film with a boring beginning, a boring middle part, very few original ideas, and a silly and predictable ending which was satirically revisited in Independence Day (1996).

No surprise your taste runs to inane mediocrities like Independence Day. As to CE3K, the Roy Neary plot was weak, probably a result of way too many cooks in the kitchen,  the scenes around the discovery of the lost squadron,  the  SS Cotopaxi in the middle of the Gobi Desert,  and the air traffic controllers watching  two airline flights narrowly avoid a mid-air collision with a UFO are well done. The ending, which you dismiss, is classic: Gene Siskel, '...wonderful scene, combining fantasy, adventure and mystery." The casting of Truffaut is inspired. The cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond is masterly. The SFX by Douglas Trumbull state-off-the-art. Rotten Tomatoes critics consensus:"Close Encounters of the Third Kind is deeply humane sci-fi exploring male obsession, cosmic mysticism, and music."

Your criticism pales, but what else is new?

Focuspuller wrote:
Rotten Tomatoes critics consensus:"Close Encounters of the Third Kind is deeply humane sci-fi exploring male obsession, cosmic mysticism, and music."

Cosmic mysticism? Cosmic crap would be nearer the truth. Star Wars similarly suffered from dippy philosophising. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey was superior to both in all respects.

JSouthworth wrote:
Cosmic mysticism? Cosmic crap would be nearer the truth. Star Wars similarly suffered from dippy philosophising. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey was superior to both in all respects.

And you think CE3K is "boring" and  "cosmic crap." 😂😂😂

'2001" had the benefit of being released into the culture of the 60's/70's. In other words, many people saw it while tripping, like I did. Many times. The tedium of "2001" was purposeful, and to great end.

Both films are iconic in their own right. but comparing 2001 with CE3K is a fool's errand, so by all means, have at it.

JSouthworth wrote:
Dark Star is another thought-provoking film made long before the mock heroism of Star Wars, which itself was better than subsequent clones from other studios. The Empire Strikes Back, directed by Irvin Kershner (Eyes of Laura Mars) is often considered the best of the sequels, but personally I didn't think it was that great. Sequels rarely better the films they're based on.

What is it about science FICTION you don't get?

Since you are dying to opine on sci-fi films, start another of your vanity threads to entertain us with your opinions, and leave   this thread to more relevant discussion of the actual topic.

LightDreams wrote:
JSouthworth's complete thread hijacking, yet again.

One day the Mods will get tired of it.   Maybe.   If we're lucky.

I think the mods are over worked with their constant inspection of submissions to photo contests with magnifying glasses.   

(OK, another hijack - I'm sorry)

Focuspuller wrote:
What is it about science FICTION you don't get?

Since you are dying to opine on sci-fi films, start another of your vanity threads to entertain us with your opinions, and leave   this thread to more relevant discussion of the actual topic.

What on Earth are you trying to say? Dark Star has a lot of pointed humor, but it's still quite a disturbing and thought provoking film. The artificially intelligent nuclear bomb was an idea well ahead of early 1970s computer technology.

JSouthworth wrote:

What on Earth are you trying to say? Dark Star has a lot of pointed humor, but it's still quite a disturbing and thought provoking film. The artificially intelligent nuclear bomb was an idea well ahead of early 1970s computer technology.

Comprehend English? The thread is about the possibility of alien life and what that means for humanity. You choose to review Hollywood sci-fi cinema instead, without referring to a single idea in those films relating to the topic.

And FYI, "Dark Star", and its "artificially intelligent nuclear bomb" being "an idea well ahead of early 1970s computer technology", is not only irrelevant to this thread, it is also predated by "Colossus, The Forbin Project."

Reporting Elon Musk's rocket failures and the relative merits of Hollywood science fiction may be your idea of relevance. It is not.

Focuspuller wrote:
Reporting Elon Musk's rocket failures and the relative merits of Hollywood science fiction may be your idea of relevance. It is not.

Surely, you are not suggesting that JSouthworth is irrelevant...

Hah!

Focuspuller wrote:
And FYI, "Dark Star", and its "artificially intelligent nuclear bomb" being "an idea well ahead of early 1970s computer technology", is not only irrelevant to this thread, it is also predated by "Colossus, The Forbin Project."

And did you know that the valve based computer featured in Colossus/The Forbin Project was originally part of the SAGE (Semi Automatic Ground Environment) air defense system? Which proves my point that artificial intelligence was a advanced concept in relation to 1960s computer technology.

JSouthworth wrote:

And did you know that the valve based computer featured in Colossus/The Forbin Project was originally part of the SAGE (Semi Automatic Ground Environment) air defense system? Which proves my point that artificial intelligence was an advanced concept in relation to 1960s computer technology.

Which proves MY point that your diversion into artificial intelligence is irrelevant to the possibility of alien life, which happens to be the subject of this thread, despite your stubborn insistence on ignoring it and flooding threads all over the forums with myriad bits of impertinent information you seem to thrive on collecting and disgorging almost randomly.

Focuspuller wrote:
Which proves MY point that your diversion into artificial intelligence is irrelevant to the possibility of alien life, which happens to be the subject of this thread, despite your stubborn insistence on ignoring it and flooding threads all over the forums with myriad bits of impertinent information you seem to thrive on collecting and disgorging almost randomly.

Computer technology is a vital element in space exploration. Earthbound science fiction films, on the other hand have nothing directly to do with real aliens as opposed to fictional ones.

When space travel is science fact, does the setting of a fictional story or movie plot in space define it as science fiction? Probably not. The Star Wars films for example are more fantasy/adventure films.

JSouthworth wrote:

Computer technology is a vital element in space exploration. Earthbound science fiction films, on the other hand have nothing directly to do with real aliens as opposed to fictional ones.

When space travel is science fact, does the setting of a fictional story or movie plot in space define it as science fiction? Probably not. The Star Wars films for example are more fantasy/adventure films.

I cannot believe the mods are allowing your insistence on polluting this thread with the irrelevant meanderings of your mind to continue. Whether this or that movie is science fiction or fantasy might be an issue in your head, but has nothing to do with the topic of alien existence, despite your attempt to steer it in a direction more amenable to your particular obsessions. Enough. Post something relevant or for God's sake, start another of your vanity threads and knock yourself out.

neoracer wrote:
It is real, and we may find out pretty soon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYKkQQd7I4s

What a load of baloney. Do you honestly believe that if the US military found alien bodies, they would be able to keep it secret?  Why would they be found by the military rather than by civil agencies?

Note the references to "non-human bodies" as opposed to "alien bodies". Bodies recovered from crashed aircraft quite often do not resemble living human beings for various reasons, but this does not mean that they are of extra-terrestrial origin.

Just suppose for a moment that some military unit in the US found something that they thought was possibly a body of an alien life form. What would they have to do? Secure the location of the find and inform higher authority, which would inform the government, which would call in civilian expertise and alert all the civil environmental and health agencies in case there was a danger to the public. So within a short time, a lot of people would know about it.

JSouthworth wrote:

What a load of baloney. Do you honestly believe that if the US military found alien bodies, they would be able to keep it secret?  Why would they be found by the military rather than by civil agencies?

Note the references to "non-human bodies" as opposed to "alien bodies". Bodies recovered from crashed aircraft quite often do not resemble living human beings for various reasons, but this does not mean that they are of extra-terrestrial origin.

Just suppose for a moment that some military unit in the US found something that they thought was possibly a body of an alien life form. What would they have to do? Secure the location of the find and inform higher authority, which would inform the government, which would call in civilian expertise and alert all the civil environmental and health agencies in case there was a danger to the public. So within a short time, a lot of people would know about it.

"Just suppose for a moment ...."

...that you have ANY IDEA what a US military discovery of a possible  alien body would entail.. Sorry, I cannot. Your '50's sci-fi level speculation of an  imagined chain of events by such a discovery is as credible as a "Plan 9 From Outer Space",  In your words, "What a load of baloney," and yet another insight into your logical dysfunctions.

"So within a short time, a lot of people would know about it"

Guess what? A lot of people HAVE claimed to "know about it" over the years and have been ignored, ridiculed, and in some cases punished, mainly by a media, military, and government refusing to admit either the possibility of alien life in the first place (like, for example, you), or determined to suppress actual evidence.

A serious consideration of the subject would have to allow for the possibility of alien life in the universe and  even the possibility of evidence of an alien presence here on earth  being suppressed. In general, your earthbound  anthropocentric flatlander  bias is quite quaint.

But kudos to you for managing to at least adhere to the actual topic of the thread. 👏👏👏

JSouthworth wrote:
Let me tell you, it takes more than some idiot blathering nonsense in a Congressional hearing to convince me of anything. If they'd dressed him up as an alien in a rubber suit it might have been amusing.

YES, old chap, we have seen what it takes to convince you of anything. But the rest of us don't consider confirmation bias, false logic, and misinformation backed by misplaced arrogance as definitive.

JSouthworth wrote:
Rumor has it that after the US military copied alien technology from crashed spacecraft, they gave it to the Israeli military who were able to prove that it really was a load of crap.

But since "...we can see that it is the IDF who are playing the Nazis..." their judgement is questionable. Right?

Arizona Shoots wrote:
If aliens are real...

I'd be happy to shoot their events for them. (-;

JSouthworth wrote:
Let me tell you, it takes more than some idiot blathering nonsense in a Congressional hearing to convince me of anything. If they'd dressed him up as an alien in a rubber suit it might have been amusing.

-
Which idiot?  David Grusch?  USAF officer and intelligence officer?  He may be a conspiracy theory believer, does that mean all conspiracy theory believers are idiots to you?

JSouthworth wrote:
Rumor has it that after the US military copied alien technology from crashed spacecraft, they gave it to the Israeli military who were able to prove that it really was a load of crap.

-
You don't cite any sources for that.  Does that mean you are repeating conspiracy theories?

JSouthworth wrote:
Let me tell you, it takes more than some idiot blathering nonsense in a Congressional hearing ....

JSouthworth wrote:
What a load of baloney. Do you honestly believe that ....

Geez, no wonder people are so hostile towards you.  What did either of these people do to you?

Gold Rush Studio wrote:

I'd be happy to shoot their events for them. (-;

Best comment in the thread!

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

-
Which idiot?  David Grusch?  USAF officer and intelligence officer?  He may be a conspiracy theory believer, does that mean all conspiracy theory believers are idiots to you?

One thing about the military is that they can always find a volunteer. And if they can't find a volunteer they can pick a volunteer.

JSouthworth wrote:
One thing about the military is that they can always find a volunteer. And if they can't find a volunteer they can pick a volunteer.

So, the military "volunteered" Grusch to bet his reputation whistleblowing on an alleged coverup of secret military possession of alien biologic remains and crashed vehicles for the purpose of.....what, exactly?  Being a "volunteer" straw man to be  publicly refuted and thereby safeguarding the coverup?

Why do these lyrics come to mind:

"With the thoughts you'd be thinkin'
You could be another Lincoln
If you only had a brain"

JSouthworth wrote:

One thing about the military is that they can always find a volunteer. And if they can't find a volunteer they can pick a volunteer.

Funny how you can always find another conspiracy theory to support your other conspiracy theories.

JSouthworth wrote:
If there are some people who actually believe that the USAF has access to alien technology, that potentially creates a kind of mystique around the US military and the USAF in particular which may help recruitment, even if they do end up recruiting a bunch of retards that might still be better than nothing.

So it is your contention that selective leaks of alleged alien technology in the hands of the USAF is a calculated RECRUITMENT tactic aimed at the level of The Bowery Boys and The Three Stooges. Got it.

Focuspuller wrote:

So it is your contention that selective leaks of alleged alien technology in the hands of the USAF is a calculated RECRUITMENT tactic aimed at the level of The Bowery Boys and The Three Stooges. Got it.

What do you mean specifically by "alleged alien technology"? What technology are you referring to, and can you cite even a single example of the practical application of this technology by the USAF? Somehow I don't think so.