Hmmm... understand your point . However the 5% that are unexplained , have the third party , perspective.
Didn't make any difference . The witnesses saw what they saw as real , and is real .
10 rules for true believers to follow
- Thread starter billvon
- Start date
Hmmm... understand your point . However the 5% that are unexplained , have the third party , perspective.
Didn't make any difference . The witnesses saw what they saw as real , and is real .
Sure. People who saw the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind saw something real. Fictional perhaps, but what they _saw_ was real - a movie.
Likewise, witnesses often see real phenomena - moving lights in the sky or alien looking creatures. They saw something real. However, to therefore conclude that there are aliens visiting us isn't the logical next step.
Not sure how perspective is impartial or can testify
I do believe that some things are unexplainable
However how is it that so many of those who saw a strange light or whatever in the sky leap straight away to the conclusion its an alien spacecraft?
And by coincidence many seem to have repeated sightings
You realise your full post implications , right ?
ESP. It's the only possible explanation.
True true true
Just what happens when I leave my tin foil hat off for just a short time
Unless you actually observe a UFO , you will never understand the experience of a UFO.
But if you trust the the book by Donald Keyhoe ; http://www.sacred-texts.com/ufo/fsar/index.htm.
UFO's are real .
I have seen one - decades ago, when I was flying from eastern Long Island back to Republic Airport. Passed about 1000 feet under me.
They certainly are. They're just not extraterrestrial spaceships.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
God, what a terrible film that was! I remember feeling the whole thing was in some way anti-rational. There was no attempt to make sense of the various phenomena, no attempt to explain how it was that government seemed to be expecting a landing, and no resolution at the end. And that bloody jingle! And the farcical scene, in which the guy under some sort of - unexplained - influence makes a mountain out of mashed potato, was unintentionally hilarious. Typical Spielberg: never mind the lack of plot, watch the special effects.
But I suppose I had a sheltered upbringing, in which I was never really exposed to anti-rationality, as embodied by the attitudes of people like Magical Realist.
People believe fiction far too often?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Maybe you should write a book on how to direct movies and send it to Spielburg. Title it "The Rationalist's Approach To Great Moviemaking."
Could just be you were the same stodgy rationalist with no imagination in your younger years as you are today.
Or, perhaps, he simply would appreciate at least a token attempt to remain plausible?
Uh.. that movie came out before the internet. Yeah, probably yearning for way too much. I've never seen it myself.
One of the older movies I liked, though, was Aliens - they blow things up!
:EDIT:
Oh, that was the wrong video (meh)
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Well, one always has to suspend one's disbelief, in any sci-fi story. So that is not really the issue. But in the good ones, there is some, er, science and some ideas are explored.
In Close Encounters, there is not one scene showing human beings attempting to work out what is going on. The protagonists are portrayed as awestruck dopes. Even worse, it is clear, later in the film, that there are people who who have worked it out and that government is not only aware of what is happening but has developed a whole plan for diplomatic contact and exchange of personnel with the aliens, yet the viewers are not shown any of the process by which that has taken place. So we are left with a sort of silly Roswell/Bermuda Triangle/Area 51, conspiracy-theory insinuation, to the effect that "they" in government know what is going on but are not telling "us" the stupid plebs.
Deeply unsatisfying to anyone interested in space travel, or how aliens might behave, how contact would in fact be established with a totally alien civilisation lacking any points of contact with humanity, or indeed any of the ideas connected with science that one might hope would be explored.
I saw it a year after leaving university. For me, it was a personal awakening to the rising tide of anti-rationality that has been a disease of popular culture since that time. That era was, perhaps, the dawn of Auberon Waugh's "Stupid Society" - which he wrote about in the mid 70s.
Last edited:
Certainly - that is, in my opinion, the deciding factor between Science-Fiction and Science-Fantasy.
That sounds... yeah, terrible is probably the best word for it? I mean, to hint at, and then totally ignore a subplot like that
*nod* Makes me think of things like idiocracy...
I have yet to see a science fiction movie that delves into, discusses or even exposes real science to the public. Either the public is not interested or the public is not taken seriously. The only science fiction film that remotely does not seem, at least, to be purposely evading some science, was the movie 'sunshine'.
though there were some liberties taken, apparently physicists were consulted for the film. is it a coincidence it didn't get much publicity? i would rate it as one of the best sci-fi films ever made, mostly because of the soberness of the portrayal of characters. it was more realistic and one did not have to suspend disbelief these were actual scientists and astronauts whereas in most films, you have to ignore that so and so 'insert' celebrity actor is playing the part in which they in no way embody. this is why i find most films with the celebrity fanfare films are often cookie cutter. Just due to popularity, they are given major roles to carry. i think this is miscasting and why character actors are much more compelling, not just based on rank of celebrity status, otherwise film quality as well as the believable in the characters suffers.
apparently also, the producer made it a point to make sure the cast studied the behavioral characteristics of scientists (generally) by conversing and spending time around them to more accurately portray them. the lack of hype of humans themselves is what made that film refreshingly different from the rest. they were just their ordinary self carrying out a heavy mission with all the foibles, fears, ambivalence, mistakes as well as courage, humanity and sacrifice.
though there were some liberties taken, apparently physicists were consulted for the film. is it a coincidence it didn't get much publicity? i would rate it as one of the best sci-fi films ever made, mostly because of the soberness of the portrayal of characters. it was more realistic and one did not have to suspend disbelief these were actual scientists and astronauts whereas in most films, you have to ignore that so and so 'insert' celebrity actor is playing the part in which they in no way embody. this is why i find most films with the celebrity fanfare films are often cookie cutter. Just due to popularity, they are given major roles to carry. i think this is miscasting and why character actors are much more compelling, not just based on rank of celebrity status, otherwise film quality as well as the believable in the characters suffers.
apparently also, the producer made it a point to make sure the cast studied the behavioral characteristics of scientists (generally) by conversing and spending time around them to more accurately portray them. the lack of hype of humans themselves is what made that film refreshingly different from the rest. they were just their ordinary self carrying out a heavy mission with all the foibles, fears, ambivalence, mistakes as well as courage, humanity and sacrifice.
Last edited:
Are you joking? How do you deal rationally with a compulsion to go to a specific place like Devil's Tower? Obviously, the aliens placed this idea in people's minds. The cool thing about Close Encounters of the Third Kind was how people react when everything they know has been proven wrong. It wasn't anti-science, it was just beyond current science.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
It was one of the awestruck dopes (that viewers were meant, idiotically, to identify with) that did that. What about all the quasi-military kit at the reception site, the people in special suits, and the team trooping off to get on board the flying saucer? Is the film saying all that was set up by people under some kind of compulsion? And I don't recall anything much about people "reacting to everything they knew being proven wrong", apart from the stock open-mouthed rural policemen crashing their cars, which seems to be de rigueur in a certain type of film set in the USA.
Last edited:
So they discovered what's happening. And the aliens had another agenda, a different set of volunteers they wanted to visit with. What's anti-science about it?