or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Real or Fake? You make the call "Dominican Republic, Haiti UFO Videos"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Real or Fake? You make the call "Dominican Republic, Haiti UFO Videos"

post #1 of 67
Thread Starter 




Time for UFO sightings!

These two are very good...for CGI. Still, makes you wonder whether our Alien Overlords are staging a coup in Haiti or the Dominican Republic...

Has it come to the point that almost any sighting can be "faked" to look "real" with technology?
post #2 of 67
I'm not sure why the UFO sightings are such a big deal. It's highly improbable that we are the only intelligent life in the universe.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #3 of 67
real fake, but real cool.
post #4 of 67
There's no way of proving its a fake, unless examination of the videotape etc showed signs of tampering/editing post the shooting. Anyway, those craft could be modified Moller-like devices? There's no way of proving these sightings are "genuine" either.

If a "genuine" alien craft landed in the middle of the Superbowl (for a silly example), and "real" aliens emerged, all on TV, then took off again... it would be undoubtedly be regarded as an excellent fake... How could one prove otherwise, unless the "aliens" did something aggressive (a very human quality). But there again, why should a race of beings, presumably way in advance of mankind re. their civilization (given the ability to traverse space in a way that circumvents relativity as we know it).... have to be encumbered with such human traits as wanton hostility?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #5 of 67
Reminds me of this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnxIITeNftE

Maybe Powerade should go to Haiti.
"If I had played my career hitting singles like Pete (Rose), I'd wear a dress." - Mickey Mantle
Reply
"If I had played my career hitting singles like Pete (Rose), I'd wear a dress." - Mickey Mantle
Reply
post #6 of 67


Personally, I'd be very disappointed if we actually are alone in the universe. That would be a tremendous waste of real estate! At the same time, Einstein hasn't been proven wrong yet, so visiting other star systems is obviously problematic at best, unless there is some way to violate the law of relativity we haven't discovered yet...

I think most UFO sightings are fake/wishful thinking, but there have been so many sightings, by so many people from all cultural/economic groups that at least a few would have to be real.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #7 of 67
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

There's no way of proving its a fake, unless examination of the videotape etc showed signs of tampering/editing post the shooting. Anyway, those craft could be modified Moller-like devices? There's no way of proving these sightings are "genuine" either.

Them Mollers are extremely loud.

What I look for in viewing any UFO footage.

1. Anomalies, something that really makes my heart skip. The overall movement and sound of the footage. Even some 9-11 footage can baffle your senses as to whether it's real or not. The fluidity of the UFO's flight and the woman(?) gasping in the beginning of the Haiti video does that, though it also makes me think it's staged.

2. Lighting and shadow. A given, but in the second video one of the craft passes just across the sun and that takes a lot of skill to pull off and the craft flying over and behind trees shows that this could be a professional job. Also, at the end of the Haiti video did you see the other lights (craft) converging? Stunning. But that lone cloud puts me off.

3. Realism. That feeling that what you are watching is real. If you take all doubt and believe what was recorded is what was there. I try to pretend that I am the one capturing the video myself.

This is one of my favorite UFO videos. Just a couple outside in their backyard on Labor Day 2005 and suddenly...



This has a the realism (shaky camera, crickets and the couple's discussion throughout) that makes it feasible that they actually saw something that no one can explain.

I have seen a UFO myself, solid (looked like a flattened disc of mercury) and viewable in broad daylight (with binoculars no less). I have a friend who was with me that could corroborate the sighting.
post #8 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post





Time for UFO sightings!

These two are very good...for CGI. Still, makes you wonder whether our Alien Overlords are staging a coup in Haiti or the Dominican Republic...

Has it come to the point that almost any sighting can be "faked" to look "real" with technology?

Not that difficult to fake something like this these days. The hand held feeling is a give away... It doesn't quite feel real. And the palm trees look fake to me. I'd say these were done entirely in something like Vue 6. http://vue6.com/
post #9 of 67
The palm tree between the two craft in the first one, and the palm tree just below and left of the craft in the second, are identical.

Rendered.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #10 of 67
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post

The palm tree between the two craft in the first one, and the palm tree just below and left of the craft in the second, are identical.

Rendered.

We have a winner...!



Here's the two videos together, with the frames stopped. How can the same tree be in two different locations?

I have to give the originators credit, it is a real good job. But they fubared by splitting the locations. From the looks of things, you could actually splice the Dominican Republic video ending with the Haiti beginning. Why would they split the two and think anyone would believe they were different locations? Oh well. Still fun to watch.
post #11 of 67
Interesting. I don't work with these tools, so my first response was "Holy shit!"

But after reading the comments and looking at examples from the linked to software, I can totally see how these can be rendered.

I think the psychology of this is interesting though. It started with FX houses figuring out how to add "flaws" such as lens flare to the rendered scene, then progressed through the BSG and Firefly look-- as if your space scenes were being shot by a handheld documentarian, complete with snap zooms, focus overshoot and camera shake. I especially like instances of camera wander, as if the operator were hunting around in the viewfinder for his shot.

Then there were the video game ads, that took all of that and added the "camcorder" look, so you got guys goofing around on "DV" when the meteorite hits or the ray gun does its thing or whatever.

All of that relies on the idea that "amateur equals truth", and it really does sell the verisimilitude. There's something about fx embedded in that "I just happened to be running my camcorder" look that is really persuasive. Which is ironic, because I assume the low res/funky thing actually hides a lot of rough edges and requires somewhat less polishing.

It's what makes the trailer for the JJ Abrams "untitled project" look so interesting-- flaming debris and bouncing Statue of Liberty heads just look more involving when it appears to be caught on the fly like that.

It's very much like the older motif of "hand-held 16mm black and white" that used to give a documentary (hence, "unmanipulated") feel to portions of some movies. And, like that strategy, I assume that as our exposure to manipulated video of all sorts increases the trick will stop working, as we no longer associate "hand held camcorder" with "real".
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #12 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

I'm not sure why the UFO sightings are such a big deal. It's highly improbable that we are the only intelligent life in the universe.

Is that bate? The probability of finding another life supporting planet in the universe is dismal, if you consider the fine tuning required.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

This principle applies to the earth as well as the universe.

post #13 of 67
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

It's very much like the older motif of "hand-held 16mm black and white" that used to give a documentary (hence, "unmanipulated") feel to portions of some movies. And, like that strategy, I assume that as our exposure to manipulated video of all sorts increases the trick will stop working, as we no longer associate "hand held camcorder" with "real".

Ever seen Woody Allen's "Zelig"? No CGI. None. Yet you are led to believe in this mockumentary that Woody Allen's character appears and participates in many of the famous and infamous events in history.

Here's the introduction of "Zelig".

Quote:
To create authenticity, the production used actual lenses, cameras and sound equipment from the 1920s, and used the exact same lighting that would have been done. In addition, Gordon Willis took the exposed negatives to the shower, and stomped on them.

In order to help create the look of genuine footage from the 1930s, DuArt, the lab that handled processing, called some of their experienced technicians (who were experienced with processing techniques of the 1930s) out of retirement.

Another more contemporary take on this was Robert Zemeckis' "Forrest Gump".
post #14 of 67
Bullshit, snoopy.

'fine tuning'

it may be low, but it is certainly not lower than 1/the total number of planets in the universe.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #15 of 67
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

Is that bate? The probability of finding another life supporting planet in the universe is dismal, if you consider the fine tuning required.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

This principle applies to the earth as well as the universe.


Well, I think with the evidence of Black Holes/Worm Holes and the like there still is a chance that intelligent life exists somewhere. Even from another time.

I saw what I saw and so did my friend. It was real, physical, tangible and unforgettable. Whenever we run into each other we both ask, "Seen any UFOs lately?"
post #16 of 67
One of the strangest (famous) UFO sightings was the Bentwaters (UK) case in 1980. So much has been written about this incident, and as of yet, it remains a genuine UFO... ie an unidentified flying object. Of course this does not necessarily mean that (it) was driven or controlled by "aliens"... although the happenings that night near the Bentwaters AFB were weird in the utmost. What a shame that the video/film footage that were taken of the object(s) by US military personnel from the base have never been seen since, in public that is.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #17 of 67
One argument I've heard against the presence of other intelligent life in the universe (it's a specific someone's argument, I can't remember who) goes something like this:

On the galactic time scale, interstellar colonization is a "flash" phenomena. That is, once an intelligent, technological species develops the means to travel between the stars, the time it takes to pretty much overrun the galaxy is relatively short, next to the life of the universe.

Of course, that's a pretty massive ratio-- say, 200 millions years for the outward expansion vs. many billions year window of opportunity. 200 millions years because we don't want to rely on speculative FTL drives, which currently appear to be unlikely, but rather some kind of very advanced hibernation techniques, or massively extended life-spans, neither of which violate any fundamental principles that we know of.

So if there are any other intelligent species at all, we could reasonably expect that at least some of them would have arisen some hundreds of millions or years ago, and that at least some of those would have endeavored to travel between the stars, and that even at sub-light speeds that there has been plenty of time for such a race to have gone from world to world, establishing colonies which themselves would become capable of undertaking space flight (the time it would take for a colony to become a full fledged civilization is to brief to even consider, at these time scales).

So by this point they really ought to be too numerous to avoid. The argument against this theory is, of course, that intelligent life arose in the universe only fairly recently, and there in fact has not been time for the process of colonization to take place.

But its unclear why that would be true. Conditions in the universe have not changed appreciably in the last 200 millions years, it really isn't that long a span, universe-wise Same for the trial and error of evolution on a galactic scale-- if it was going to happen, 200 millions additional years doesn't increase the odds that much.

Of course, there are a lot of other speculative scenarios: technological civilizations almost inevitably destroy themselves, they are there but theirmeans of communication is something we aren't looking for, etc.

Myself, intuitively, I side with those that say the universe is an awfully big place for just us.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #18 of 67
I saw the math broken down at some point... Humans would have a hard enough time getting off of earth to usefully colonize planets within OUR solar system given the best case scenario predictions for technology -- you are still ultimately limited by light since communications take forever, the energy needed to support further exploration would be abysmally high etc etc. It is far more likely that if intelligent life existed out there it would have only been able to colonize local clusters of planets (if they exist) before we approach evolutionary time scales. Basically, we are either functionally alone in the galaxy or we are going to be fucked by our nearest neighbors -- but ultimately we can say that there will likely be no visits by intelligent species from the other side of our galaxy let alone other galaxies...

Personally, I believe all intelligent life destroys itself.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #19 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post


. . . Basically, we are either functionally alone in the galaxy or we are going to be fucked by our nearest neighbors -- but ultimately we can say that there will likely be no visits by intelligent species from the other side of our galaxy let alone other galaxies. . .


Okay. But since the other planets, or moons, cannot support life, we are alone in our solar system. Sure, we may send somebody to Mars, but life support must still come from Earth, no? So, if there are real UFOs, they come from nearby stars. Therefore, we don't have to look very far for them, but they are not right next door either. It sounds like you might agree with that.

post #20 of 67
Thread Starter 
<tinfoil>Maybe we're going about this all wrong with this video in question. Maybe it is the Pentagon's next generation of weaponry from alien technology. And Haiti is just the rehearsal.</tinfoil>
post #21 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

Okay. But since the other planets, or moons, cannot support life, we are alone in our solar system. Sure, we may send somebody to Mars, but life support must still come from Earth, no? So, if there are real UFOs, they come from nearby stars. Therefore, we don't have to look very far for them, but they are not right next door either. It sounds like you might agree with that.


Mars probably can support life right now (and probably has it in some form or another)
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #22 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post


Mars probably can support life right now (and probably has it in some form or another)


What? Yes, there may be some microbes there, but it cannot sustain intelligent life. No water supply, or am I mistaken about that? Maybe drill some wells? With a barren surface, I doubt there is water underground. Mars had water at one time, but lost it all because of its low gravity. This is part of the fine tuning I was referring to earlier.

The molecular weight of water, methane and ammonia are close together. Earth's gravity is just right for keeping water, yet losing much of the methane and ammonia. Just a coincidence of course.

post #23 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

What? Yes, there may be some microbes there, but it cannot sustain intelligent life. No water supply, or am I mistaken about that? Maybe drill some wells? With a barren surface, I doubt there is water underground. Mars had water at one time, but lost it all because of its low gravity. This is part of the fine tuning I was referring to earlier.

Right, no way Mars cam support intelligent life. The larger point is that if it turns out that not only is it possible for other planets to harbor life in the universe, but also that our nearest neighbor does as well, it just really hits home that it's quite likely the known universe is littered with life. Statistically speaking, this would indicate there's probably a huge number of advanced civilizations.

Quote:
The molecular weight of water, methane and ammonia are close together. Earth's gravity is just right for keeping water, yet losing much of the methane and ammonia. Just a coincidence of course.


No coincidence. It's quite probably the deciding factor that has led to our rise as a species. There are two things that concern me about comments like this though.

1) We as a people tend to be so narrow-minded and self-centered that we think anything related to life on earth must somehow be unique to our planet simply because it's not the same to any of the 9, scratch that, 8 other planets in our solar system. This is old-world thinking.

2) We continue to operate with tunnel vision and seek out planets that are inherently earth-like, under the false pretense that all life in the universe must conform to the same set of conditions that gave rise to life as we know it.
post #24 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

. . . But there again, why should a race of beings, presumably way in advance of mankind re. their civilization (given the ability to traverse space in a way that circumvents relativity as we know it).... have to be encumbered with such human traits as wanton hostility?

I have to say that I shot a snot rocket out of my nose from laughing. thank you. It's like you don't think humanity is worth the Earth's oxygen. There's an easy way to solve this on a personal level.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #25 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I saw what I saw and so did my friend. It was real, physical, tangible and unforgettable. Whenever we run into each other we both ask, "Seen any UFOs lately?"

Unfortunately, research shows that confidence about eye-witness accounts (studying mundane things like witnessing a crime, etc) and accuracy of observation are inversely related. Whatever you think you saw, I'm sure that it was compelling, but it was almost certainly mundane. The probability that it was a reflection/mirage, the moon, venus, etc (not knowing any details -- nor supposing that I could explain what you saw), is orders of magnitude more likely than even experimental aircraft.
post #26 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

What? Yes, there may be some microbes there, but it cannot sustain intelligent life. No water supply, or am I mistaken about that? Maybe drill some wells? With a barren surface, I doubt there is water underground. Mars had water at one time, but lost it all because of its low gravity. This is part of the fine tuning I was referring to earlier.

The molecular weight of water, methane and ammonia are close together. Earth's gravity is just right for keeping water, yet losing much of the methane and ammonia. Just a coincidence of course.


There is a LOT of water on Mars. There is even more recent suggestion that there is liquid water on Mars.
post #27 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

I'm not sure why the UFO sightings are such a big deal. It's highly improbable that we are the only intelligent life in the universe.

I agree with Jared Diamond, given the sordid history of "advanced" civilizations meeting primitive ones on our planet, we had better hope that (as intelligent beings) we are "alone in a crowded universe."
post #28 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

There's no way of proving its a fake, unless examination of the videotape etc showed signs of tampering/editing post the shooting. Anyway, those craft could be modified Moller-like devices? There's no way of proving these sightings are "genuine" either.

If a "genuine" alien craft landed in the middle of the Superbowl (for a silly example), and "real" aliens emerged, all on TV, then took off again... it would be undoubtedly be regarded as an excellent fake... How could one prove otherwise, unless the "aliens" did something aggressive (a very human quality). But there again, why should a race of beings, presumably way in advance of mankind re. their civilization (given the ability to traverse space in a way that circumvents relativity as we know it).... have to be encumbered with such human traits as wanton hostility?

After travelling light-years to get to our planet, "aliens" are not going to be content to play Zaphod and do a little fly-by. They are going to initiate open contact, or they're going to flatten us: either way, we're going to _know_ when they're here. So, yes, every UFO sighting is completely mundane. This doesn't mean that there isn't some interesting things going on with respect to UFOs, but they aren't aliens.
post #29 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denton View Post

There is a LOT of water on Mars. There is even more recent suggestion that there is liquid water on Mars.

Thanks for that link: Underground ice kept from escaping the atmosphere. It wouldn't help complex life develop on Mars, however, but it could be used by a colony of humans from Earth going there.

The liquid water is obviously not enough to do much good, and it would not stay around very long. Mars is simply too small, not enough gravity.

post #30 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

<tinfoil>Maybe we're going about this all wrong with this video in question. Maybe it is the Pentagon's next generation of weaponry from alien technology. And Haiti is just the rehearsal.</tinfoil>



The late Col. Corso said a few interesting things about that... but there again, with so much material of this nature, it's impossible to satisfactorily prove, or debunk...

Col. Corso claimed that some of the technology that filtered into modern society in the late 1940s and 1950s evolved from material recovered from the wreckage of the alleged Roswell craft (!). I have no idea what to make of that incident; it may be the most famous "UFO" event in the public awareness, but it's by no means the most convincing. I remain most skeptical... but it does make one wonder about what actually happened there, considering that the government/military has provided no less than 4 different versions of the "truth"...implying that at least 3 of them are untruthful (or guesswork).
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #31 of 67
Quote:
People get so hung up on specifics, they miss out on seeing the whole thing. Take South America for example. Every year in South America thousands of people turn up missing. Nobody knows where they go. They just disappear. But if you think for a minute, realize something: there had to be a time when there was no people right? Well, where did all these people come from? I'll tell you where: the future. Where did all these people disappear to: the past. How did they get there? Flying saucers, which are really, yeah, you got it: time machines.



Quote:
After travelling light-years to get to our planet, "aliens" are not going to be content to play Zaphod and do a little fly-by. They are going to initiate open contact, or they're going to flatten us: either way, we're going to _know_ when they're here. So, yes, every UFO sighting is completely mundane. This doesn't mean that there isn't some interesting things going on with respect to UFOs, but they aren't aliens.

I see what you mean, but there have been so many public sightings, official investigations and sightings by military personnel that there must be some degree of truth to them. Whether it's aliens, or some type of 'Top Secret' earth technology remains to be seen.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #32 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

What? Yes, there may be some microbes there, but it cannot sustain intelligent life. No water supply, or am I mistaken about that? Maybe drill some wells? With a barren surface, I doubt there is water underground. Mars had water at one time, but lost it all because of its low gravity. This is part of the fine tuning I was referring to earlier.

The molecular weight of water, methane and ammonia are close together. Earth's gravity is just right for keeping water, yet losing much of the methane and ammonia. Just a coincidence of course.


Huh?

What does methane or ammonia have to do with the price of beans?

(and see what everyone else has said to your post)
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #33 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Huh?

What does methane or ammonia have to do with the price of beans?


An atmosphere of methane and ammonia does not support life. Look at planets heavier than Earth and see what their atmosphere is made up of. Earth's gravitational attraction is just right to release most of the methane and ammonia gases, yet retain water molecules.

Look up the molecular weights of these gases and you can see that the planet size must be just right for life to exist.

post #34 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

An atmosphere of methane and ammonia does not support life. Look at planets heavier than Earth and see what their atmosphere is made up of. Earth's gravitational attraction is just right to release most of the methane and ammonia gases, yet retain water molecules.

Look up the molecular weights of these gases and you can see that the planet size must be just right for life to exist.


Life as we know it.
post #35 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

An atmosphere of methane and ammonia does not support life. Look at planets heavier than Earth and see what their atmosphere is made up of. Earth's gravitational attraction is just right to release most of the methane and ammonia gases, yet retain water molecules.

Look up the molecular weights of these gases and you can see that the planet size must be just right for life to exist.


Bullshit.

You don't know jack shit. There was a time when people thought that life couldn't withstand subfreezing temperatures or superheated water, both of which we have seen on earth. There is nothing that currently suggests that ammonia and methane aren't conducive to life -- there are organisms that produce copious quantities of both and somehow they survive.

In other words, stop making shit up to support your view of a perfect universe, with one perfect planet. It is utterly and totally demonstrably false.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #36 of 67
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denton View Post

Unfortunately, research shows that confidence about eye-witness accounts (studying mundane things like witnessing a crime, etc) and accuracy of observation are inversely related. Whatever you think you saw, I'm sure that it was compelling, but it was almost certainly mundane. The probability that it was a reflection/mirage, the moon, venus, etc (not knowing any details -- nor supposing that I could explain what you saw), is orders of magnitude more likely than even experimental aircraft.

These are the retards you have to watch out for. I and my friend saw what we saw with binoculars that day. I think the problem is that you didn't. So shut the fuck up.

Or better yet, stare at this long enough and maybe you'll see Jesus...

post #37 of 67
or a smiley face.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #38 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post


You don't know jack shit. There was a time when people thought that life couldn't withstand subfreezing temperatures or superheated water, both of which we have seen on earth. There is nothing that currently suggests that ammonia and methane aren't conducive to life -- there are organisms that produce copious quantities of both and somehow they survive.


Errr! I thought this discussion was about intelligent life, high mammals, who might be responsible for the UFOs. I'm not aware that microbes are capable of such a feat.

post #39 of 67
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

Errr! I thought this discussion was about intelligent life, high mammals, who might be responsible for the UFOs. I'm not aware that microbes are capable of such a feat.


How about these little buggers...



Video.

Everybody has this misconception that aliens will look like Star Trek aliens (humans in green make-up, pointy ears, antennae and costumes). Who knows?

Obligatory Yvonne Craig pic...sigh...

post #40 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

Errr! I thought this discussion was about intelligent life, high mammals, who might be responsible for the UFOs. I'm not aware that microbes are capable of such a feat.


How is methane or ammonia NOT conducive to intelligent life, theoretically?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AppleOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Real or Fake? You make the call "Dominican Republic, Haiti UFO Videos"