10 rules for true believers to follow

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by billvon, Jan 13, 2017.

  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,297
    Anti-rational.

    My beef with the film is it showed nothing of humanity's rational response to this amazing event. Just dorks making mountains out of mashed potato and crashing police cars. No ideas. no intellectual engagement with the challenge it obviously presented.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    The scientists were rationally trying to establish a method of communication using pure tones.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,297
    Ballocks. They had a whole programme developed and ready, as I have described. The crap with the tones made no sense, given that they had already made extensive preparations to meet the aliens when they landed and had even got a team of people ready to to go aboard the flying saucer. You don't do all that when you haven't even worked out to communicate. It made no sense, at any level. Great effects, for the time, but zero plot coherence.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,302
    Yes, but three years after that film came out, Carl Sagan's - Cosmos aired. Chill.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    The aliens had no problem communicating their general intentions through some kind of telepathy. The government reaction seemed improvised.
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,297
    I know, I know, I have my tongue in my cheek slightly. After all, it was only a film.

    But I DID come out of the cinema feeling a bit swindled and depressed, especially given all the hype. And it has made me view Spielberg's other productions with a jaundiced eye. Though I admit I like Duel. It had no plot either, but it was an unpretentious virtuoso exercise in creating an atmosphere. Which was OK, once.
     
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,297
    Well, all I can say is I'm glad you were able to rationalise it to your satisfaction. I could not.
     
  11. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,302
    I guess I'm glad I never saw the movie then, lol.
     
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,297
    Expect you're too young, eh? 1977 was a bloody long time ago now. It was all sideburns and flares then. Marc Bolan had only just seventied himself by crashing his mini into a tree.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    I doubt humanity could muster a better response if it really happened today. Part of the realism was the incompetence.
     
  14. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    I see , so the true believers of UFO's , are believers of UFO's in the first place ? silly.
     
  15. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,302
    You lost me there.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    belief comes before the evidence.
     
  17. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,302
    In what?

    Like QM defied common sense and people like Einstein believed it shouldn't but couldn't tackle
    it's evidence.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2017
  18. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    irrelevant .

    what we talking about , discussing is UFOs . what is true and what is believed to be true , and what came first , the belief in UFOs or the evidence of UFOs .

    evidence , obviously.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2017
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,645
    Which is why it's not science.

    Something we don't do in science.
     
  20. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    really

    we trust science everyday .
     
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,645
    No.
    Anything we're not sure of, we re-test (repeatability).
    We have independent third parties test it to see if they get different results (independent verification).
    And when we see something that doesn't fit, we modify our models, or discard them (adaptability).

    These are the pillars of science. They mean we don't have to have faith in anything.

    While UFO sightings are intriguing, they so far are too ephemeral to be a very effective subject of rigorous scientific analysis. So they attract believers instead.

    Edit per users request - Kittamaru
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2017
    exchemist likes this.

Share This Page