Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Which of the following supernatural, pseudo-zoological, or conspiracies are most likely to exist?

kfrankie

By kfrankie
in The Tailgate

 Share

Supernatural, Pseudo-zoological, or conspiracy?  

22 members have voted

  1. 1. Which of the following is most likely to exist or to have occurred

    • Bigfoot/Yeti
      2
    • Aliens have visited Earth (like the green men with big eyes)
      14
    • Moon landing was faked
      0
    • 911 was inside job
      0
    • Mothman (not just a mistaken animal, but a separate creature)
      0
    • Atlantis really existed (and was destroyed)
      4
    • Clairvoyance (i.e. ability to predict future events through special power)
      3

Recommended Posts

kfrankie

kfrankie

Posted
Posted (edited)

So here's the question, from the options in the poll, which is the most likely to actually exist?  This is not to say that your selection indicates the likelihood, if even reasonable possible of the existence of any of the options. None is not an option.  Simply indicate which is most likely to exist/have occurred.

Edited by kfrankie
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dfitzo53

dfitzo53

Posted
Posted (edited)

The only one with a shred of credibility is aliens visiting earth, and that's still quite unlikely. 

 

This is kind of like asking which food I'm most likely to try next, and listing a bunch of toxic chemicals and one technically edible but completely unpalatable substance. 

Edited by dfitzo53
  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kfrankie

kfrankie

Posted
  • Author
Posted
14 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

The only one with a shred of credibility is aliens visiting earth, and that's still quite unlikely. 

 

This is kind of like asking which food I'm most likely to try next, and listing a bunch of toxic chemicals and one technically inedible but completely unpalatable substance. 

 

Fun, ain't it?

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheGoodBits

TheGoodBits

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Fwiw I don't think aliens would be dumb enough to visit anywhere in person the first time.

 

 


This is fair. Any civilization advanced enough to explore the galaxy would likely do so almost exclusively autonomously.
 

The idea that we’ve been visited by alien technology isn’t weird to me. Reasonably decent odds, especially if you aren’t limiting it to just the last few thousand years of modern human civilization. 

  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PleaseBlitz

PleaseBlitz

Posted
Posted

I think it's aliens and, unlike @dfitzo53, I think it's actually quite likely that we've been visited by aliens (not necessarily little green men).  

 

Here is an excellent explainer of the Fermi Paradox.

 

https://www.seti.org/fermi-paradox-0

 

The basic theory goes:

  • There are billions of stars in the Milky Way similar to the Sun.
  • With high probability, some of these stars have Earth-like planets in a circumstellar habitable zone.
  • Many of these stars, and hence their planets, are much older than the Sun. If Earth-like planets are typical, some may have developed intelligent life long ago.
  • Some of these civilizations may have developed interstellar travel, a step humans are investigating now.
  • Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the Milky Way galaxy could be completely traversed in a few million years.
  • Since many of the Sun-like stars are billions of years older than the Sun, the Earth should have already been visited by extraterrestrial civilizations, or at least their probes.
  • However, there is no convincing evidence that this has happened.

The final piece is that there is no convincing evidence BECAUSE the civilizations that have visited us have advanced and very different technology that we are not able to detect at this point in human development.

 

The next mind blowing piece, which I don't necessarily subscribe to, is the Zoo Hypothesis, which posits that aliens are here, we don't know about them, but they are using earth as either a zoo or a laboratory.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dfitzo53

dfitzo53

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I think it's aliens and, unlike @dfitzo53, I think it's actually quite likely that we've been visited by aliens (not necessarily little green men).  

 

Here is an excellent explainer of the Fermi Paradox.

 

https://www.seti.org/fermi-paradox-0

 

The basic theory goes:

  • There are billions of stars in the Milky Way similar to the Sun.
  • With high probability, some of these stars have Earth-like planets in a circumstellar habitable zone.
  • Many of these stars, and hence their planets, are much older than the Sun. If Earth-like planets are typical, some may have developed intelligent life long ago.
  • Some of these civilizations may have developed interstellar travel, a step humans are investigating now.
  • Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the Milky Way galaxy could be completely traversed in a few million years.
  • Since many of the Sun-like stars are billions of years older than the Sun, the Earth should have already been visited by extraterrestrial civilizations, or at least their probes.
  • However, there is no convincing evidence that this has happened.

The final piece is that there is no convincing evidence BECAUSE the civilizations that have visited us have advanced and very different technology that we are not able to detect at this point in human development.

 

The next mind blowing piece, which I don't necessarily subscribe to, is the Zoo Hypothesis, which posits that aliens are here, we don't know about them, but they are using earth as either a zoo or a laboratory.  

The "problem" with the Fermi paradox is that we don't have any good way right now of knowing what probabilities to assign to all of the "some" and "may" qualifiers.

 

I agree though, the alien possibility is easily larger than all the rest. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kfrankie

kfrankie

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, dfitzo53 said:

The only one with a shred of credibility is aliens visiting earth, and that's still quite unlikely. 

 

This is kind of like asking which food I'm most likely to try next, and listing a bunch of toxic chemicals and one technically edible but completely unpalatable substance. 

 

1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said:

Fwiw I don't think aliens would be dumb enough to visit anywhere in person the first time.

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I think it's aliens and, unlike @dfitzo53, I think it's actually quite likely that we've been visited by aliens (not necessarily little green men).  

 

 

 

Whoa, bunch of nut jobs in this thread. 😂

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Renegade7

Renegade7

Posted
Posted

It's gotta be aliens...my goodness, NASA has for years not wanted to chase conspiracy theories out loud and finally opened up looking into stuff DoD admitted they saw but isn't their wheelhouse.

 

Dark Forest is my favorite variant of Fermi's, we should shut up before anyone else "finds us", there is seriously no telling what's out there and if they'll precieve us as a potential future threat.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kfrankie

kfrankie

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:


The Bluebook disagrees with you, but I’m not ever rehashing this discussion again. Ever. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebook

 

Not to beat a dead horse, but the bluebook doesn't appear to take a position on it.

 

image.png.1ab37d1ae05b7c70c2b1e4ec7a0f3030.png

 

Here's a more important tip though.  Courts don't care.

 

Now, back to Aliens and Bigfoot.

Edited by kfrankie
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PleaseBlitz

PleaseBlitz

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, kfrankie said:

Here's a more important tip though.  Courts don't care.


Yes, that is the key point. The only people who care are law students on law review. But the Bluebook treats different periods differently. The period after Id. must be italicized, for some reason. https://www.legalbluebook.com/bluebook/v21/rules/4-short-citation-forms/4-1-id
 

The other key point is that you can’t tell the difference anyways. 
 

Edit. This is a weird hijack by me. Sorry, I’ll stop. 😆 
 

 

Edited by PleaseBlitz
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...