UAP/UFO thread - Non-Human Intelligences

FFS.
This is getting fucking ridiculous.
We are now in Russell Brand fruit loop territory.
 


Maybe you lot have never heard of it doesn’t mean there isn’t one, they have a library and it was called secret until last year, then they admitted to having one. It’s open to the pope and scholars a fantastic place but only the pope can borrow books.
Books 2 thousand years old all sorts of things in there.
 
Last edited:
Coatigan said:
Never is a mighty long time. People claimed we'd never fly, never reach the moon, and never win the treble.

Live video calls were once seen as science fiction.
Click to expand...
Flying or going to the moon doesn't breach the laws of physics, travelling faster than light does. Big difference.

And before anyone says "well, maybe the laws will be found to be wrong" - maybe, but there is zero evidence of that.
 
Kirkstall Blue said:


Maybe you lot have never heard of it doesn’t mean there isn’t one, they have a library and it was called secret until last year, then they admitted to having one. It’s open to the pope and scholars a fantastic place but only the pope can borrow books.
Books 2 thousand years old all sorts of things in there.
Click to expand...

Bloody hell have they not heard of gloves. Handling all those precious artefacts with greasy hands.
 
Citizen of Legoland said:
Bloody hell have they not heard of gloves. Handling all those precious artefacts with greasy hands.
Click to expand...
My immediate thought those white gloves they have in most Archives. Two thousand years old and you can run your hand over the fragile print



This interesting video from the Webb telescope showing thing we never new existed looking back 13 billion years Galaxies in the early cosmos
 
Gremlin said:
Flying or going to the moon doesn't breach the laws of physics, travelling faster than light does. Big difference.

And before anyone says "well, maybe the laws will be found to be wrong" - maybe, but there is zero evidence of that.
Click to expand...

Ok mate.

Talk about completely missing the fucking point!

It broke boundaries as we knew them then. The same way the laws of physics at one point didn't include gravity, inertia, or the world being round. Things that seemed just as impossible, with some lemon thinking we knew everything there ever will be to know.
 
Coatigan said:
Ok mate.

Talk about completely missing the fucking point!

It broke boundaries as we knew them then. The same way the laws of physics at one point didn't include gravity, inertia, or the world being round. Things that seemed just as impossible, with some lemon thinking we knew everything there ever will be to know.
Click to expand...
The world being round?
When did this happen?
 
Coatigan said:
Ok mate.

Talk about completely missing the fucking point!

It broke boundaries as we knew them then. The same way the laws of physics at one point didn't include gravity, inertia, or the world being round. Things that seemed just as impossible, with some lemon thinking we knew everything there ever will be to know.
Click to expand...
What an utterly stupid post!!
A cretin who thinks the laws of physics don’t exist until we discover them.
 
denislawsbackheel said:
What an utterly stupid post!!
A cretin who thinks the laws of physics don’t exist until we discover them.
Click to expand...

No. How to understand them, mr.angry.

Or how to understand posts and chains of discusaion, without silly hissy fits.



The previous posts were about technology developing enough beyond the boundaries of a given time, and what was thought possible or impossible. Nothing to say what seems impossible now, will always be. Plenty of evidence otherwise however.
 
Last edited:
Coatigan said:
My wording Was indeed poor.

But, I obviously wasnt suggesting the world changed from being flat to round the minute we discovered it, or that gravity suddenly sprung into existence though!
Click to expand...
I thought you were suggesting that’s what Coats meant.

Maybe it’s me.
Am I missing both points?
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
I thought you were suggesting that’s what Coats meant.

Maybe it’s me.
Am I missing both points?
Click to expand...

Wrong person. But yes, I think that's how I read what he thought I meant.

A bizarre take. And reaction. But not the best wording on my part, I admit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top