Space, the Final Frontier: It Gazed Into My Open Refractor

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Space, the Final Frontier: It Gazed Into My Open Refractor

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

I swear anytime somebody paraphrases an argument with "when i pointed out..." "i merely suggested that..." is they are one fjord away from "i was just asking questions" which is just eugh.

In space news, my flatmates outdoor bday party was interupted by somebody zoning out, staring at the stars and suddenly saying WHAT THE loving gently caress as elon musks string of satellites beamed across. and for one brief powerful moment, a group of adult rear end adults entertained the possibility of an alien encounter.

I hope they don't continue to be seen from earths surface because can we please not have thousands more false stars up there i know the internet is cool but 5g kills bees

# ¿ Feb 2, 2020 20:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 10:28

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

Zesty posted:

Yep. And John Michael Godier and his interview show, Event Horizon. Great stuff.

I found out how to get Isaac Arthur's show as a podcast and I wish I could get JMG's as a podcast as well.

Thanks for these channels. Truly wonderful additions to my life. To get JMG's show as a podcast use the utility Youtube-DLG.

# ¿ May 10, 2020 13:08

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

The apparent differences of how we visualise our thinking speaks more to the difficulty of communicating it then actual difference.

# ¿ Mar 11, 2021 06:43

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

adoration for none posted:

You know I never finished watching Neil DeGrasse Tyson's Cosmos, would y'all recommend it?

I would recommend watching it with the audio off, and the audio of the original Cosmos playing.

Zesty posted:

Maybe it's just me, but this most recent Kurzgesagt was just lame sensationalist black hole poo poo we've been seeing for a decade.

I think it must have been a filler episode because my god they are usually so good in quality. Ants, AI, simulations, silly xkcd-esque what-if physic questions and black holes, hmmmmmm, maybe they are running out of material?

also folk, what about aliens. I've been listening to That UFO Podcast as part of a dive into the UFO world and let me tell you, isn't doesn't seem UFO people actually talk about aliens and UFOs but by golly if you want talk about in-house spats, egos clashing and who leaked whos blog material first but this hobby has you covered!

Lampsacus fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Apr 29, 2021

# ¿ Apr 29, 2021 06:26

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

I mean, you almost need to put on your internet atheist fedora here.

Poster A ;'its aliens'
Poster B ;'you can't prove it's not aliens, so maybe it is. even if its contrary to ockham's razor. '
Poster C ; 'if you are positing aliens without sufficient evidence, that's bad.'
Poster D ;'the default position is that it isn't aliens until proven otherwise.'
Poster E ; 'Posters C and D are acting badly because they aren't allowing breathing room for speculation that it might be aliens, and hell, maybe I think it would be cool if it's aliens and isn't that kinda what this thread is about, space stuff that people find cool.'

I know these are all caricatures and not representative of what anybody actually feels but I think the concept of default positions, burden of proof, etc. might be useful. Maybe not.

I feel I understand why some people find the recent UAP footage and interviews compelling. To me, it feels unlikely the pilots would have been fooled by a foreign drone. It feels unlikely that there is secret tech that can move so fast so quick. It feels unlikely that it's a radar/sensor glitch everytime an operator catches strange objects moving in odd ways for all this time. And, this one might be not so kosher in this thread, it feels to me unlikely all the personal testimony of odd objects in the air for the last fifty, sixty years all have explanations which only rely on what we already understand.

But the evidence still doesn't suffice for 'alien probes' for me yet. I think my real belief on this is agnostic. I don't know. Part of me, the part that wants and demands certainty, wants to say it's aliens or other non-human intelligence. But I know in my heart of hearts that 'I don't know' is a fine and good place to rest.

I am curious about one thing though, to those who have the belief that a piece of footage is 'probably software/human error or adverse drones', what would take to convince you that it likely isn't❓

# ¿ May 25, 2021 07:47

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

Boris Galerkin posted:

Even if you think it�s aliens you should want the more simpler explanation of camera artifact/reflection/weather balloon/person lying to be true because that�s how science loving works. If you believe A is true, then you look for explanations that show A is false. Otherwise you might as well be like those flat earthers in that Netflix documentary. And all people here are saying is that those videos can easily be explained so we need better evidence before asserting that it�s aliens.

Yeah see this is the kind of post I, and perhaps others, find a little abrasive. The idea that posters ITT should want it to be not-aliens because that's how science loving works. I mean, I feel I get what you are trying to get at. But telling everybody what they should want comes across as the guy in the corner of the party explaining to himself people shouldn't enjoy music because it's just spherical compression longitudinal waves through air. I'm not saying it's exactly like that but its certainly in that direction. And to say anybody who isn't abiding by what they should be doing is kind of intense and dull. I agree it's not useful to assert it's aliens. But to bar playing around with speculation of aliens and FTL travel and wormholes, hell, for some it's the spice of this thread. I kind of like that this thread is where serious astronomy meets dumb foreverquestions about FTL so maybe attitudes like yours are actually vital in this thread, I'm not sure, I could be wrong. Anyway.

Does anybody remember how old Bermuda Triangle UFO stories often involved craft quickly entering and leaving the ocean.

Also, check out this quick vid by amazing youtube channel Astrum; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T8lLtlZ8Xs about a unusual thing in Mercury's sky. This is my favourite space channel and they do a great update on the ol' James Webb telescope too here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bplidaIbbAY

# ¿ May 25, 2021 15:08

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

Boris Galerkin posted:

Which poster is forbidding people from speculating that it�s aliens?

My entire point was that there are videos of UFOs and people claiming they saw them, that�s undeniable. But before jumping to the conclusion that it�s aliens we ought to exhaust all other explanations that are more simpler, which that Mick guy does rather convincingly with examples of the exact same phenomena he made and filmed in his garage. Does this prove it�s not aliens? No of course not. But it does show that these unexplained aerial phenomena can be explained with what we currently know with the tech that we currently have. Given this, we need better evidence before claiming aliens.

None. I mean, there might be some. I agree and literally wrote a post about this a few posts up. And, as much as I enjoy Mick's videos, I still find them wanting tbh. I find non-human intelligence, human error, computer error and drones all insufficient explanations for the UAP sightings. I'm curious as to if anybody has sufficient evidence for any explanation that isn't 'it's a radar glitch' because it shows they actually haven't done much reading into the topic. The closest feasible explanation I've read is that it's the US military industrial complex allowing an old boomer mythology to grow again because it helps their neo cold war projections. But yeah, the only defensible position about these sightings seems to be that we don't know.
e;

Captain Monkey posted:

I mean I'm far from the only person who feels that side is being scoffed at and made fun of - several other posters agree. But people have asked for the debunking of specific well known UFO sightings, or for people to at least engage with it beyond 'I dunno, maybe 3-5 magical submarines doing advanced maneuvers with hyper advanced probes or something, uhhh probably China'. And then you've got that really tiresome guy who says if you don't invent new physics and post it in the thread you need to shut up. I mean, I'm not really sure what actually engaging with it in a non-dismissive and rude way would be like because we haven't had any examples of it.

I agree and good post.

# ¿ May 25, 2021 15:24

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

I feel being told wanting/wishing/speculating UFOs and phenomon like the gas on Venus, ʻOumuamua, Tabby's Star's being a Dyson sphere, etc is wrong and we shouldn't want aliens is equally truly, and sort of maybe where some of the heat in the opposite direction is going in this thread at the moment. I mean, look at this post.

Boris Galerkin posted:

Even if you think it�s aliens you should want the more simpler explanation of camera artifact/reflection/weather balloon/person lying to be true because that�s how science loving works. If you believe A is true, then you look for explanations that show A is false. Otherwise you might as well be like those flat earthers in that Netflix documentary. And all people here are saying is that those videos can easily be explained so we need better evidence before asserting that it�s aliens.

It's bullshit. It ends as if it's directed towards those asserting it's aliens but it begins by saying we shouldn't want it to be aliens. I want aliens, that would be cool. Are all of you so calloused by academia that you don't even like the idea of speculating first contact/ Do you refuse to watch sci fi movies like Arrival and instead stand in front of the TV announcing 'This isn't how science loving works'. Jesus. There exists a space of speculation and wonder and curiosity. I just hate how we're being told what we aren't allowed to want. How dare I like the idea of aliens. Heretical.

# ¿ May 25, 2021 15:49

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

Antifa Turkeesian posted:

I think the idea is that you�ll never be able to figure out what it actually is if you don�t approach it with an open mind, not that there�s something morally wrong with hoping for evidence of aliens. Everyone in the world probably hopes that there will be evidence of aliens, but you�ll never know if it�s there or not if you start categorizing ambiguous cases as �probably aliens� without thoroughly investigating alternatives.

Ah, thank you for the clarification. I may have been wrong in my reading of that post and your reading is certainly more charitable. I still resent how theyused the words 'should' and 'want' in a way which seemed to bring in a moral, authoritarian dimension. And I think it's something the nerds who feel they know better than the average poster itt and all smug and poo poo should be careful about as it can really flare up discomfort in us laypeople who may mess up. It comes across as smug and self-righteous and punching down. Anyway, its 3am woo. Time to sleep as I speculate in my mind about aliens and uaps and ufos :aaa:

# ¿ May 25, 2021 16:09

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

I'm on 'team alien' but those just scream drones.

# ¿ May 28, 2021 02:27

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

Yeah, I agree with the above post and also had a little laugh about the idea of an alien thread where you can't say it's not aliens and making this thread alienless. gently caress yeah. Honestly, it's just god of the gaps at this stage - i.e. the most reasonable position is that I don't know and the burden of proof is on both the drone/projector folk and the alien folk to make their case.

# ¿ May 28, 2021 14:22

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

Boris Galerkin posted:

The burden of proof is on the people making the claim that it�s aliens. The default argument is that it�s unexplained but we have no reason to believe that it can�t be explained with what we know, we just haven�t. If you claim that it�s aliens then the burden of proof is on you.
Obviously it�s because 🇺🇸 #1. Or because they get all the Hollywood videos and see how awesome/terrible the US military is. Or maybe it�s just cause the US military is everywhere and has a ton of people compared to the rest of the world�s military.

Thank you for rewording my post. And, to add to your post and make it exactly mine again, the burden of proof is also on the drone/projector peeps. The default argument is actually we have no reason to believe that it can be explained by specific means with what we know too.

# ¿ May 28, 2021 23:16

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

Thank you for the above effort post. Thats just the content that I love to see wupwup.
I will say I disagree with your last point here;

TLM3101 posted:

And at this point, as far as I can tell from my lurking? Of the sides that have been 'debating' UFOs/UAPs in this thread, one side has consistently provided level-headed, parsimonious, and reasonable explanations.

And the other side has basically been this guy, while desperately trying to pretend they're not this guy:

And it's really loving aggravating, because UFO/UAP's are cool! They are amazing, and we should study them and find out what they are, because we can learn something whatever the answer turns out to be. But approaching it with the attitude that "It's aliens, it's loving aliens, aliens is what it is, and y'all need to loving shut up about it not being aliens, because it's loving aliens, aliens, aliens", which is exactly how more than a couple of you come across in here, has succeeded in what I think is precisely the opposite of what y'all wanted.

It's alienated me quite thoroughly from your position.

Because the 'level-headed' side involves, as far as I can tell, loving aggravating posts such as these;

Boris Galerkin posted:

Even if you think it�s aliens you should want the more simpler explanation of camera artifact/reflection/weather balloon/person lying to be true because that�s how science loving works. If you believe A is true, then you look for explanations that show A is false. Otherwise you might as well be like those flat earthers in that Netflix documentary. And all people here are saying is that those videos can easily be explained so we need better evidence before asserting that it�s aliens.

Where it steps from reasonable science-minded skepticism to patronizing posters as to what they should want to be the explanation. It's one thing to say we should tend towards the simplier explanation, akin to water finding deeper ground, but its another thing entirely to chastise people for wanting and wishing for aliens/ufos to be spooky things. And this is just an example of this shutting down of alien talk. I'm not going to go through the thread and pick out others because that feels too far and weird but there is clearly a number of posters on both sides stepping on each other's shoes. I, personally, find it rather insulting, patronizing and gross when any talk of dreaming/imagining it to be aliens or questions about the feasiblity of contact or presence or how they would even get here, you know, hypotheticals, is shut down and laughed at.

Lampsacus fucked around with this message at 19:25 on May 30, 2021

# ¿ May 30, 2021 19:17

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

Fart Amplifier posted:

This is Debate and Discussion. If someone wants to talk about dreaming/imagining a fiction of alien visitation, the maybe this isn't the place. A hypothesis on alien visitation is fine, but it's likely to be shut down pretty quickly because there's already been the debate over most of those hypotheses.

Any pro-alien argument basically boils down to: "Here's what we don't know, and why it might be aliens," while just handwaving away things like "no I don't think it was a military/foreign spy drone".

OK, so maybe I worded it wrong. I mean, more like, the sentiment that it would be cool if there were aliens communicating or visiting. It feels like you can't even admit to wanting that to be the case, see the above post I've quoted plus many more of a similar edge. I think my one and only point I was trying to make was that there is this persistent thread that it's only the pro-alien peeps who are being irrational or unhelpful. When, in fact, there folks being 'skeptical' and 'rational' but really they are just being the space thread equivalent of internet atheist dicks.

# ¿ May 30, 2021 20:00

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

TLM3101 posted:

See, that's the thing. To me, those you're tagging as the "I wish/wouldn't it be neat if it were aliens" crowd come across to me as, like I said,
with a bit of added, insinuated "We're being silenced!" thrown in. That is honestly how I read more than a few of the 'pro-aliens-as-explanation' posts. I wouldn't even have said anything if not for the whole "Power plants exist, therefore aliens" thing, because it was just so incredibly egregious. And a perfect example of what's been grating at me.

Yes, it would be cool if it were aliens.

But unless the fundamental rules of how energy works either do not work in any way close to how physics and empirical evidence tells us they do, or they can be suspended at will, the likelihood that it is aliens is as close to nil as makes no difference.

Thank you, good post and I agree.

I think some of the friction in this thread comes from the distance in which posts like this;
Yes, it would be cool if it were aliens.
are responded to like this;
I can remember being 7 years old and desperately wanting every UFO to be aliens too, and I do empathize, however the solution is to grow up

But I guess this is SA so we can expect some posts made in bad faith in every discussion, I guess.

# ¿ May 30, 2021 20:17

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

Captain Monkey posted:

you can't tell that it's being observed, it will just be the opposite of the other measured state. It just gives you 1 or 0, not whether someone else see's something. That'd be a really easily solvable problem if you could tell it was being observed.

It's as simple as having a black card and a red card, shuffling them and without knowing putting each into an envelope. Right? I would appreciate somebody clarifying because that's how I always explain it to myself when I freak out about entanglement.

# ¿ Jun 3, 2021 01:53

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

Well, looks like NASA has been briefed a couple years ago on these things and has publically announced they are going to be doing a fresh investigation into them, as per their new leader guy. And China also said they have been experiencing them, calling them '�unidentified air conditions' and noting there has been an increase in sightings in recent years. I can't wait to hear Neil Degrasse Tyson's take on NASA taking them seriously.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2021 02:57

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

Dameius posted:

Yeah for whatever reason this thread can't move past this poo poo not being aliens.

I wish we had a materials engineer who hung around and could help focus a talk on a assumption that a drone was designed for maximal aerial performance, what would that look like? Or designed to shield as much of it's waste output as it could, how much and in what spectrums could it realistically block?

Like clearly this round of poo poo isn't aliens, but as a lay person I have no idea of what would even be the realistic limits of materials science for human made, but not manned vehicles could be.

The thing is, you really couldn't have a drone designed for maximal aerial performance that could pull off what we're seeing unless there has been some secret advancement in tech that's just crazy. Like, hundreds or thousands of years ahead. It doesn't compute. You can't move a drone that fast. It has to be some software glitch.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2021 03:22

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

Dameius posted:

Yeah I get that, I'm not saying these are physics defying drones. I'm saying what would the bleeding edge of human achievement even look like (because it isn't this)? This stuff can be disqualified without having to go down this avenue but maybe something in the future is less obviously impossible and I'd just like to have a better idea of what actually is possible. Again, as a lay person my bullshit alarm can handle stuff at obvious extremes, but what about when it its more muddied?

Oh right. Yeah I'm on the same page. Well, since this is the most science-minded thread on Space in SA, I do have a science question and it's this:

There is a subjective experience which occurs quite often in nature and on Earth. Even if you believe it's only human which are any sort of sentient it's still quite common.

And if you grant other animals some gradient of sentience or awareness then it's abundant. And it's when an intelligence observes a phenomenon they can't account for. Say, an ant's experience of a human. Or a bird watching a human city. It's probably not even going into the "what is that?" Or "I don't know" box, it's probably going into the "... well, it's not food or threat or my kind so I can ignore it" box.

I think, I could be wrong, I'm a layperson. I'm thinking of when humans obverse stuff before science could explain it, and attributed the gap to gods, etc. Is there a concrete name or term for this experience? Something that's jargon and not just "unaccounted sensory experience"? I'm sure it's common enough in animal behavioral studies and such to warrant a term. But I'm not sure. This loops back around to the current discussion because A) I feel we've been incredibly privileged to be born into a time/place where we rarely have to suffer this experience for long. Scientific advancement has pushed the gap/mystery quite far from everyday human experiences.

For example, we can explain a rainbow but can't really explain quantum poo poo but that's quite unobserved to the average human. And B) Perhaps what we're experiencing here with the UAP stuff is exactly this. I'm not presuming it's an intelligence or aliens, I'm saying it's weird poo poo that is unexplained, so far, and it's strongly in the box of "we don't know" but also feels like it could be in the same box as what animals have with their ".. well, it's not food or threat or my kind so I can ignore it" box?

Sorry for the extended, gradular query about what is properly just semantics playing a little silly with my thoughts, but I really feel like there is a term for this poo poo that has a precedent in science, particularly animal, biological, psychological or philosophy of mind (not really science but you know) science?

# ¿ Jun 5, 2021 03:41

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

I think you're looking for the word uncanny.

Something unknown that makes us uncomfortable or on edge.

Like the uncanny valley for robots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley?wprov=sfla1

The discussion of UFOs is definitely butting up against the uncanny elements of the world.

Hmm, thank you, I do appreciate this. But I feel I'm looking for another word. Like, if a biologist was writing a paper on how an animal treats different objects. They may say "they recognized this as food and treated it as such, we know because they exhibited so-and-so behaviour." or "they then decide such-and-such-object was a threat, and we may reasonably assume this because of their subsequent behaviour". But if it's an object that's, like, a human to an ant, or a car to a bird, or a hammer to an octopus*, then they may say "they didn't see the object as anything special so they ignored it. The object was [x] to them." What is x here? It isn't always uncanny. And it isn't always synonymous with 'landscape' or 'ground' or whatever. It's dot dot dot.
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edS_ygfEbqU

edit: and I guess a grouping element/feature of these objects that are encountered might be 'it looked or exhibited behaviour that was beyond the animals comprehension.'

Lampsacus fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Jun 5, 2021

# ¿ Jun 5, 2021 03:54

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

There's some really good studies on agency detection. Basically how our brains determine if something is alive or not. Basically we react to an object as an "agent" if it doesn't have predictable motion.

Awe, Uncertainty, and Agency Detection: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797613501884
The Role of Agency Detection in the Invention of Supernatural Beings: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-15223-8_13
Agency detection in predictive minds: a virtual reality study : https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2153599X.2017.1378709
Yes, jets are spitting out hot air as a means of thrust, so they are very obvious. Prop engines get hot because of the engine expending fuel to produce mechanical work, same for electrical but less so potentially. Prop planes use air for cooling as well, so you will still see a trail of hot gas from the engine.

OK! Thank you so much, this isn't the exact jargon I'm looking for. Which is somewhat like "uncanny, agent-like, non-threat" but probably what I mean. Chur!

# ¿ Jun 5, 2021 04:15

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

Carl Sagan's legacy has spoken; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XmPC1PTDRo
I must say, it's good to have a real scientist have an opinion on these uaps. Lets get back to living in this guy's world please

# ¿ Jun 5, 2021 08:17

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

Hm, maybe we could have a this thread and then a new space thread which bans all alien talk; uap, recent ufo stuff, hypothetical aliens elsewhere in the universe, etc.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2021 11:14

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

Boris Galerkin posted:

Right now you�re trying to �debate� that god exists based on people claiming they�ve witnessed miracles. That is not a debate.

No, I'm not. Please don't put that on me. I don't think the recent UAP sightings are aliens. My position is, I don't know what they are. Stop doing this weird thing where you keep trying to tell people what they believe or are trying to argue. thx.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2021 11:24

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

Rappaport posted:

Isn't there an Elon Musk megathread somewhere on SA already? And more seriously, "hypothetical life somewhere in the cosmos outside planet Earth" is a few degrees removed from Apophis landing his pyramid on the Red Square.

Ah, I didn't know what you were talking about with Aphohis and googling ending up on this page; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis

posted:

On February 15, 2016, Sabit Saitgarayev, of the Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau, announced intentions to use Russian ICBMs to target relatively small near-Earth objects. Although the report stated that likely targets would be between the 20 to 50 metres in size, it was also stated that 99942 Apophis would be an object subject to tests by the program

# ¿ Jun 5, 2021 11:29

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

Rappaport posted:

I meant the sci-fi name-sake, but people have been wanting to nuke SPAAAAACE for about as long as we've had nukes, sadly.

Huh this is interesting.

posted:

The explosion was intended to occur along the Moon's terminator, for maximum visibility from Earth.

Whoa, that's full cold war, baby. It's interesting that the 'sputnik crisis' that sparked this bout of insanity also was the charge that created DARPA, which created ARPANET, which created INTERNET. Which created THISTHREAD.
It's interesting to note, humans did eventually fufill their dream of bombing the moon in 2009; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCROSS

# ¿ Jun 5, 2021 11:45

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

Yeah, there is a bit of a circle this thread enters here.
poster A; it might be aliens, but i am not convinced.
poster B; you are saying its aliens which is dumb, how dare you claim its aliens thats not science
poster A; i said it might be. i don't know what you want man.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2021 12:25

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

Bug Squash posted:

The silly arguement is that it's definitely a craft, and that there's zero possibility of misinterpretation or error by the equipment or observers.

Who is making this argument and also the only absolutes I'm seeing argued in this thread is that it's definitely not aliens and we would be silly to think so. Its like you've got five groups.
group 1; its definitely not aliens, we can rule them out absolutely.
group 2; its most likely not aliens, i mean, it might be, but i'm inclined to believe that its not.
group 3; i don't know. but i'm open to discussing that it's aliens because thats fun and cool.
group 4; its most likely aliens. i mean, it might not be, but i'm inclined to believe the uap are aliens for reasons.
group 5; its definitely aliens, we can rule out any other eventual explanation now.

I feel like you are acting like there is a bunch of group 5s itt. but i think you'd find most of them are just group 3s and you, and others, are so adverse to the idea that it might be aliens you are knee-jerkly grouping everybody into the same camp. conversely, you have a bunch of people in group 3 thinking that any criticism is coming from posters who must be in group 1, and treating them as such. i mean, you do have some posters in this thread who definitely seem to be in group 1 and would probably be happy to be labeled as such. it just seems like you have all these different groups strawmanning each other and such.

My personal feelings are that I don't know. And until I see sufficient proof of an explanation it will stay that way. And while I'm here in the 'i don't know' group 3 camp, I'm going to read about aliens and make posts about aliens because that is fun and cool but it doesn't mean I believe its aliens or that there is any other explanation. Who knows man. Its the space thread, discuss aliens and poo poo itt.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2021 12:43

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

Bug Squash posted:

You've invented the guy you're getting mad at buddy.

But I'm not mad? Or the one calling people buddy?

Anyway, space!

New xkcd about the current uap sitch; https://xkcd.com/

# ¿ Jun 5, 2021 12:57

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

Bug Squash posted:

I'll edit out the buddy, but you've written a whole post telling me I'm tilting at windmills when I quoted directly what I was talking about. R and T is firmly between 4 and 5, if not entirely in cat 5 with a nudge and wink.

Oh, I see my error. I quoted the wrong post. I don't think I even meant to quote a post in that post. My mistake, sorry for the stress caused, I was wrong.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2021 13:51

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

eXXon posted:

The UAP thread: Unexplained rear end Phenomena.
Wake me up when the US military submits these scientific findings to a reputable journal.

https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/10/939
e; i know it doesn't really fit your criteria, but i just happened to find it in another tab just as i read your post. and it looks kinda fun and weird and interesting. cheeoo

# ¿ Jun 5, 2021 14:22

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

DrSunshine posted:

Yes, I'd be super ok with this too. Like the phosphine on Venus discussion a while back, or the Tabby's Star thing. That was all great.

Yeah, maybe the cut off could simply be the UFO/UAP phenomenon.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2021 14:27

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

I'm also excited for what James shows us in ten years. In twenty years. Hubble put out resounding images until now and such. What does a James Webb Telescope image look like in 2035? Surely aliens.

Which reminds me of the heady summer nights when this space threads subtitle was : discuss aliens itt and it was just a clashing mess of proper space astronomy nerds and far out alien peeps spilling blood.

Which reminds me, there is this cool thread in cspam about UFOs should anybody wish to talk aliens there. The James telescope will no doubt bring up the topic of potential alien poo poo so just remember if you want to get woo or speculative, head to the UFO thread

# ¿ Apr 25, 2022 13:33

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

ashpanash posted:

I'll just repeat what I posted in the other D&D UFO thread a few minutes ago:

So this is apparently a "worldwide phenomenon" but no one, not a single country, has said anything about it, even in order to embarrass the US. Putin claims he has hypersonic missiles but won't bluff with "I'm going to use our once-secret alien tech to attack Ukraine!" How convenient that in a world in constant turmoil, everyone's agreed to keep quiet about things, except this guy.

Who hasn't seen poo poo. But he's talked to people who said they have seen stuff!

What a joke. This is Qanon level nonsense.

please bring back the D&D space thread subtitle: 'discuss aliens itt'

# ¿ Jun 7, 2023 06:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 10:28

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

Bug Squash posted:

The problem was never aliens or UFOs. The problem was "ufo guys". Some far out stuff gets discussed in the thread on the regular, but if you ask someone to explain where they are at they will do so generally in good faith. The "ufo guy" as a genre of person will dance around the subject and deploy the 9 levels of revolving irony so any discussion is just an exercise in frustration. It's the exact same behaviour you get from someone that's seriously into a pseudoscience or q-anon stuff, as it's a psychological self-defence mechanism that the brain deploys to preserve a fragile ego from having to admit an error, any error. Like, I don't think I've ever seen a person into the stuff admit even the smallest mistake.

i think a lot of the slapfighting itt a while back (a couple years now?!) came from the fact the subtitle was literally discuss aliens itt for months. so you had the UFO news revival making people look for a place to discuss it and this thread literally had a sign saying "discuss aliens" and when ppl did the old regulars got annoyed and the whole thing has largely dissipated thanks to the 'stoners on the outdoor patio' thread in scpam. anyway! i love lurking this thread and reading about cool and serious space news and discussion too so just a quick thank you too all the regular posters for being so interesting and informative with their posts

# ¿ Jun 10, 2023 11:43

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Space, the Final Frontier: It Gazed Into My Open Refractor