Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by wesmorris, Aug 28, 2011.
But have we found the alien bacteria yet?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
that would be the third option, neither is more plausible to you.
I think that's highly biased.
With no clear data for either, undefined. Same for both.
Your science ego is getting the better of you. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You don't know what you don't know man, but you think you do. lol.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Now why would you assume only one of those must be retards? Did you vote for the other one?
I voted most plausible for 9/11 as an inside job
It takes a much larger leap of faith to accept the existence of extra terrestrials in the first place. There is currently 0 reliable proof of any of the factors that would make something like that possible (the technological requirements, the ridiculous amount of stealth needed to keep it secret, the lack of any evidence whatsoever, the pure likelihood of visits from extra-terrestrials).
Based purely on the facts that:
1. 9/11 actually happened in real life
2. Government agencies exist
3. It is just plain outright possible to do it
and this is not to say that either is true. Just one is more rooted in being realistically possible than the other, and thus plausible.
The problem with these stupid surveys is that most people voting are taking the piss!
And why wouldn't you?
Well to me there are people clamoring in large numbers that both are true, not sure of the crossover... but IMO, the "anecdotal evidence" is thus equivalent, rendering neither more plausible.
Both seem "possible", but extremely unlikely.
that seems pretty good when it would further seem that about 1/2 of all humans are retarded, at least.
I'm actually treating it purely as a casual thought exercise. I'm trying my best to avoid giving any factual credence to any of it, and I'm ignoring the whole popular tabloid aspect of it . I'm evaluating which of the two have the higher probability of ever happening based purely on how much concrete reality exists to facilitate each event.
I agree that both are possible and unlikely......however, I have to disagree on equal improbability. I think ET visiting earth is less possible (or more impossible depending on how you want to look at it LOL). With the insider conspiracy, you at least have some humans walking around to carry it out, an event that happened that proves humans have the capability to organize this kind of thing, and a "government" entity.
.....of course, usable evidence pretty much ends there.
When we start getting into extra terrestrials however, we got nothin'. We really have to pull every molecule of this claim out of the ether.
This is analogous to asking whether mermaids exist, or whether a bunch of monkeys can write a book if given typewriters. With the latter, you at least have monkeys and typewriters.
Yeah I just don't think that. To me it's just undefined. I mean the probability could well be 1, or 0, i have no fucking clue as to which. Nothing to guide me really except stories, ignoring the stories - undefined. I got nuthin.
That has little bearing on whether or not the did it and got away with it. That's the key point IMO. Of course there are people who could have done it or we wouldn't be talking, and we wouldn't wonder if they did. That's just it. I'm just as undefined on this one. I have nothing to which to anchor. See what I mean? Again, that they exist is not at all tied to the question of it being an inside job or not. That they exist as inside job puller-offers? Well... fuck how can I know for sure? Again all i have to go on is a bunch of bullshit stories that may or may not be bullshit but I have no real way to tell.
No i don't think you have that quite right, the monkey part is more like picking a book that you watched being written by people and having tons of people claiming monkeys wrote it, rather than if they could... see? It's not about something that could happen, it DID happen, so could the monkeys have done it?
Meh, I'm probably brain damaged.. hehe.
Not even trying to say you're wrong, just that I see it differently. Maybe I shouldn't, not sure.
RE: Killjoyclown Post #20 . . . don't muons, cosmic rays, neutrinos, photons, etc. "hit" the atmosphere at greater than 20,000 mph? . . .perhaps they're just too small to effectively interact in an atmospsheric 'burning' process.
I thought we were talking about particles that could be considered to be alive like bacteria and viruses, that could cause infection in the indigenous life on the planet. It wouldn't take a whole lot of friction to snuff it out. I suppose if it was encased in enough asteroid material it could survive if it fell to the earth without a heavy impact. A lot of asteroids that break up in the atmosphere end up falling to the earth without much of an impact.
But even if some kind of life managed to survive earth entry, they would most likely take many years to develop a niche they could survive in and even more time to develop any kind of infectious life cycle on humans. The odds of anything falling in from space and causing an epidemic within a few months is so small as to be completely negligible.
Separate names with a comma.