Roswell Alien Footage CONFIRMED

As someone who read a lot of stuff about aliens in my younger years, I would love to have ET life proved, but this is just balls.

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Is it not the time that is prohibitive? With enough time you can get anywhere. It's the American dream after all.

Six of one, half dozen of the other, really. To get to the nearest star to our own would be about 5 years at light speed, but considering that it's likely to be all but impossible to travel at light speed, according to our current understanding, in reality it'd be quite a lot longer. Other stars are even further away.

I have no doubt that there are other intelligent life forms in the universe, but the time and distance involved would mean that they would be unlikely to travel here.

fizzypish wrote: »

Isn't the chupacabra a rare, shy, ugly as **** Mexican dog like species of creature? Or is that a myth too?

Coyotes with mange.

InitiumNovum wrote: »

The creature looks far to human-like or even vertebrate-like to be an extraterrestrial - two eyes, a mouth, a nose, a rib-cage, all in the same general area where you would find them in most vertebrates on Earth. Extraterrestrial life has to be completely and utterly different from that on Earth because they would come from a completely separate evolutionary path.

If these images are real (which I highly doubt), then maybe it's more likely that they're highly evolved human descendants from millions of years in the future and somehow came here via time-travel.

There's no reason why alien species wouldn't be built along roughly the same lines as us; arms at the sides for ease of picking things up, locomotion system at the bottom. Eyes at the front of the head so you can have good 3d vision, head at the top of the body to enable you to see over things, spinal column to support the head, ribs to protect the internal organs... They could well vary in size, number, and placement of course.

But yes, I agree that this creature is most likely a human mummy.

JamesC7 wrote: »

░░░░░░░░░░░▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░▄▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▄░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░▄▀▒▒▒▒░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█░░░░░░░░
░░░░░█▒▒▒▒░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░▒▒█░░░░░░░
░░░░█▒▒▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▄░░░░░
░░▄▀▒▒▒▄█████▄▒█▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█▒▄█████▄▒█░░░░
░█▒▒▒▒▐██▄████▌▒█▒▒▒▒▒█▒▐██▄████▌▒█░░░
▀▒▒▒▒▒▒▀█████▀▒▒█▒░▄▒▄█▒▒▀█████▀▒▒▒█░░
▒▒▐▒▒▒░░░░▒▒▒▒▒█▒░▒▒▀▒▒█▒▒▒▒░░░░▒▒▒▒█░
▒▌▒▒▒░░░▒▒▒▒▒▄▀▒░▒▄█▄█▄▒▀▄▒▒▒░░░░▒▒▒▒▌
▒▌▒▒▒▒░▒▒▒▒▒▒▀▄▒▒█▌▌▌▌▌█▄▀▒▒▒▒▒░░░▒▒▒▐
▒▐▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▌▒▒▀███▀▒▌▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▌
▀▀▄▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▌▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▐▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█░
▀▄▒▀▄▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▐▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▄▄▄▄▒▒▒▒▒▒▄▄▀░░
▒▒▀▄▒▀▄▀▀▀▄▀▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀░░░░▀▀▀▀▀▀░░░░░
▒▒▒▒▀▄▐▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▐░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
ayy lmao

Not the Slitheen. Never the frelling Slitheen.

wp_rathead wrote: »

*sets up a stall*
"Tin Foil hat's. Get your Tin Foil hat's here"

Hey! how do we know that isn't poisonous tinfoil?

You could be working for the government for all I know.

RobertKK wrote: »

What we have learned about space is there are lots of planets around other stars that we have discovered that seem able to support life.

Where did you hear this? From what I remember most of the other stars we've looked at have a gas giant like jupiter in an eccentric orbit, goes really close to the sun and very far away on an elliptical orbit more like a comet than the orbits of planets in our solar system which have more concentric orbits. A gas giant with an eccentric orbit is going to be like a wrecking ball destroying any planets that come near it. It's unlikely that these type of solar systems have planets with life in them, one because the gas giant would likely destroy any planet with a centric orbit and two because planets with eccentric orbits will have temperatures of sub zero at one point of their year hot enough to boil rock at other times of the year.

All we've proven is that there are planets around other suns, nothing more. If anything we've disproven a galaxy teeming with life not the other way around.

If the universe is over 14 billion years old and our own star is 4 billion years old. What if life elsewhere in universe started 8 billion years ago and is intelligent life?

Just because the universe has been around for 14 billion years doesn't mean it was habitable for that amount of time. There was a few billion years of nothing, not even stars. Then starts formed but there wouldn't have been any of the heavy elements in the universe like gold created until those stars blew up, so it's pretty much impossible that there was any life in the universe. Even after the first set of stars blew up would there have been enough of the elements created in stars to create life? We're on our third sun here, it could be the case that life isn't possible on the second star. Maybe it takes three goes around before there is the material needed to make a planet with life.

Even after you have all the ingredients to create life there's no reason to believe that life on a planet is going to become intelligent. We also don't know how important our moon is to creating life. Life on this planet is dependant on the effects of the moons gravitational pull, maybe that's just because the moon is there or maybe it's fundamental to life evolving, we don't really know yet.

The Drake equation is a rough guess based on very little data, it assumes a lot because they didn't have any data.

Reiver wrote: »

Who do you think first taught them those techniques?

Trial and error. I don't see why people assume that ancient cultures were incapable of coming up with anything. Egyptians weren't even the only ones doing it, and they didn't just do it to people.

Ancient alien theory depends on misinformation, ignoring actual science and facts and just coming up with nonsense hoping that the people listening to you won't do the simplest google searches to instantly see they've been feed a load of lies.

There's a certain arrogance in the assumption that if aliens were to exist, they would be humanoid in appearance when they're more likely to be moss or algae or something.

I do love reading theories though. It's fun.

Reiver wrote: »

If yer all going to be pedantic or facetious about this, kindly take your negative energy somewhere else. This thread is for serious discussion only.

Ahahaha. Good one. When would you like to discuss 'The Loch Ness Monster'?

F$#k sake

Massimo Cassagrande wrote: »

Is the Von Daniken lad the one with the dodgy knee?

He's a convicted fraudster and plagiarist. Carl Sagan said this about Dänikens books. "I know of no recent books so riddled with logical and factual errors as the works of von Däniken"

I'm not saying it was aliens.
BUT IT WAS ALIENS.