UFOs filmed over Vatican by guards. Looks like the Italians are taking these flying coloured lights quite seriously. Why's that then?
UFOs filmed over Vatican by guards (7 June)
- Thread starter common_sense_seeker
- Start date
Chinese paper lanterns most likely.
I mean, generally, people are stupid. Well, people that believe in UFOs anyway.
Here's a similar story where a bunch of numb nuts losers shouted UFO! only for it to have, as always, a mundane explanation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7471724.stm
I mean, generally, people are stupid. Well, people that believe in UFOs anyway.
Here's a similar story where a bunch of numb nuts losers shouted UFO! only for it to have, as always, a mundane explanation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7471724.stm
Hipparchia
Registered Senior Member
Were the security guards using the cellphone, or was it the strange formation of lights?
Were the security guards using the cellphone, or was it the strange formation of lights?
Oooh, Grammar Nazi!
I love it.
I will say definitively that yes, those were indeed unidentified and flying. I don't know what's so special about it, making light and making things fly is within the power of even elementary school children these days. Just attach an LED to a balloon.
Hipparchia
Registered Senior Member
So that would be a sort of lead balloon?
Sorry, guys. It's been a long week and I am feeling frisky.
just like the phenix lights were Flares right.. and they arnt stupid there have been many documented cases that came up as unknown they had visual sightings and radar contact.. its pretty stupid to think that we are the only thing in the universe with intelligence
Well I think the Pope is an alien.
That was a very strange event. Could be man made object though. One thing you have to ask is how would this huge craft get here? The distances are just so damn far and unless remotely operated, which does not seem likely, given the size that it seems to me given time\distance\life expectancy and how long someone would be willing to live on these ships the likelihood just drops way down.
Yes, flares.
Meteorological effects can show up on radar. What's your point?
I firmly believe there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, and you are assuming based upon ignorance, that I hold a contrary opinion. However, the idea that intelligent life has conquered the HUGE engineering problems to cross the vastness of space, to come and anally probe people on Earth, is LUDICROUS.
Kid, go study some science, learn some facts, stop watching BULLSHIT TV, and geta clue. You embarass yourself, you really do. CSS has a mental illness and believes in this shit. What's your problem?
John, the maths on wormholes have been calculated. It was not favourable.
Plus, we monitor energetic events, while looking fo gamma ray bursts, and supernovae. We do NOT see the energetic end points of wormholes in our observatioans.
So what IQ score does a person have to have for you to take them seriously then? One as big as yours perhaps?? :bawl:
We're they ufo's?...or were they 4-winged, giant, bio-luminescent dino birds that carry off cars?
Despite their name IQ tests don't really assess your intelligence in the realms of things like rational thought, mostly pattern recognition, simple algebra and memory. I know people who have brilliant arithmetical and memory skills but very little reasoning ability. I know people who can't do basic algebra but who are extremely quick witted and insightful.
Scientists aren't given a high regard because they have high IQ scores, they are given a high regard because they put in huge efforts to learn, examine, explain and justify ideas about how various little corners of the universe work. Simply pitching some random explanation for a given phenomenon you made up off the top of your head doesn't mean you're doing science or that your claim deserves as much attention as someone's published work. And why's that? Its not because I (or anyone else doing research) work by the principle "A model is right iff it is published in a reputable journal" (I disagree with that notion) but because if its passed review by a reputable journal it means at least 1 learned person in the relevant area of science considers the work to have presented a clear rigorous approach to a result which is given sufficient justification to be worth other people looking at.
By asking "How high an IQ does someone need to have to be listened to?" you demonstrate how terribly naive you are about how science is done. But then you do that all the time, proclaiming your ideas worthy of investigation. The reason you're not taken seriously is not because you're a blithering idiot with a low IQ (though you are) but because you never ever provide sound reasoning, viable arguments, credible evidence or show any understanding at all of the scientific method.
I'm really not impressed by that footage.
Well, from an IQ pov, I'm a genius. But I'd settle for you demonstrating some critical thinking, and if you could manage average IQ, that would be a bonus.
BertBonsai
Registered Senior Member
It's not ludicrous that we'd be as interesting to them as they'd be interesting to us, which is to say highly, enough to desire to conquer those huge engineering problems. As for those, we went from horse-drawn carriages to a moon landing in just 70 years. Now imagine a civilization that has advanced for 70000 years, or 70 million. And what do you imagine those engineering problems to be? Accelerate at 1 Earth gravity for one year on your clock and you're already traversing at more than one light year (as measured by those on your home planet) per year on your clock. Just 100 years beyond the horse-drawn carriage we can accelerate at more than 1 Earth gravity for several minutes. Now imagine for how long a civilization that has advanced for 70 million years might be able to accelerate like that.