How do we explain this sociological phenomenon?

>>16711294 (OP)
>How do we explain this
The simplest explaination is - there are aliens.

>>16711294 (OP)
If there are no aliens, then the human existence is a truly bizarre one. We’re alien to begin with.

I can understand alien life because the galaxy is pretty big, let alone the universe, that aliens have visited us, let alone in our modern times, lolno.

Given what it takes to get an abiogenesis, then the cell, a jump to multicellular life, with the chance evolution to an intelligent civilization, the chances of finding another in the universe is very slim. There are probably less than 5, especially this early in the universe.

>>16711312
why not? alien visitors have been recorded in history all across the planet. There are people alive today who say they've seen them. I couldn't say if any of their accounts are true, but can you really say it's true that everyone else has misunderstood what they've seen or were simply lying? that everyone else are all wrong? that's some Grok level confidence there.

>>16711294 (OP)
>Posts a literal picture of an alien with large breasts while asking if aliens exist.
I know aliens are real because the TV says so. That's also why I believe CNN and NPR.

I think if aliens existed, say, in a planetary system of a sun a billion times larger than ours, then the aliens would be a billion times larger than us. and there are many many suns that are billions of times larger than our sun. surely we would've seen massive aliens by now?

>>16711294 (OP)
we know space niggers exist libtard

>>16711415
you know what... you're right

>>16711299
may I see them?

Even the US government admits aliens probably exist.

BILLY BOB JR'S COW WAS ABDUCTED IN DEM CROP CIRCLES I SAWS IT

>>16711801
>admits
>probably
what is being admitted to here?
an opinion?

>>16711294 (OP)
Jewlian fungus

>>16711805
That a UFO is probably the best explanation for cases such as the USS Nimitz incident.

>the universe may be infinite
>there are trillion over trillion over trillion galaxies out there, just those we can see and many more we can't count
>there are trillions over trillions stars and planets out there in the milkyway
>most known galaxies out there are 10 times bigger than the milkyway
>humans on earth: bro we are alone

>>16711824
>wow this beach has so many particles of sand I bet one of them abducts cows and makes crop circles

>>16711822
That an unidentified object is the best explanation for an unidentified object?
I mean... yeah...?

>>16711824
The conditions for life to form are VERY unlikely. If the probability of life getting to be is one in a googol then it doesnt really matter that there are trillions and trillions of stars

And dont even get me started on the probability that:
-multicellular life develops
-sentient life form develops
-rational life develops
-they live long enough to build a civilization
-they live long enough to solve interstellar travelling (we haven't!)
-they are close enough to find us

>>16711824
>the universe may be infinite
it's not.
>humans on earth: bro we are alone
When you do the maffs it's very plausible that life on Earth is the only "life" that exists in the entire Universe. The fact that we also do not see evidence of other life *where we would expect to* corroborates this idea more than it debunks it.
For instance, despite early Mars having surface conditions very similar to early Earth, life NEVER formed on Mars. At all.

>>16711844
>it's not.
Thanks dude, you know more than science does, and since you are some stranger from the internet posting on a mongolian basket weaving forum i will totally believe you without any further proof

>>16711294 (OP)
> atheists trolled them out of churches
> they still need to believe something
> thus aliens, global warming, gang bang theory and other unscientific things

>>16711847
>big bang isnt scientific
Lmao?

>>16711847
you're going to get my second thread deleted you nigger.

>>16711846
>Thanks dude, you know more than science does
Okay, what does John Science PhD say about this? The Universe is "infinite?" How would this be possible given all other knowledge of reality?

>>16711849
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

>>16711850
good, take your sociology elsewhere

>>16711860
I see nothing but stupid faggots in that photo. What's your point?

>>16711864
Probably that it's the answer to your question.

>>16711866
ah, well... I see. keep your voice down though.

>>16711838
>a UFO is a UFO
isn't that the point of this thread?

>>16711872
Is there evidence that a UFO is extraterrestrial life?

>>16711294 (OP)
Some fag gets to cum insider her and I'm here talking to you retards.

>>16711884
>fag
>inseminating a female
I don't get it.

>>16711874
You were mocking claims like crop circles earlier until I brought up an incident with an air craft that was obviously not man made nor a natural phenomena. Now I need DNA proof or the idea that aliens exist is still absurd?

>>16711294 (OP)
I read this book and it was too convincing to be fiction

>>16711896
Im not the guy talking about crop circles. I am OP.

>>16711901
My answer still covers the OP,

>>16711896
>>16711904
>Now I need DNA proof or the idea that aliens exist is still absurd?
Absurd? I don't know. But can you explain why UFOs are evidence for extraterrestrial life?

My hemorrhoids are evidence I've met aliens. Ama.

>>16711905
Do you believe in god?

>>16711909
Yes, but I admit that there is no evidence.
So it's a moot point.
Are you going to equivocate a belief in God with belief in aliens? Or are you going to attempt to explain why belief in aliens is evidenced?

>>16711294 (OP)
why would god invent anal if not for anal probes?

>>16711911
Not quite my point but that works, I just found it incredibly obtuse to discuss this point with you.

>>16711294 (OP)
Because they're real

>>16711294 (OP)
They are the same kind of people who believe in religions, aka /x/ schizos.

>>16711294 (OP)
>believe
why not believe in you. maybe get yourself a horde and some ponies. beat down by public education.

>>16711824
> >humans on earth: bro we are alone
You just listed the premise of the Drake equation. If there are a gorillion planets (this wasn’t actually known until these last decades, it could have been that planet formation was rare), why aren’t we seeing aliens every 5 minutes? If intelligence leads to space faring leads to colonizing other planets then given the age of the galaxy some civ should - even if they only have propulsion as we know it - spread to so many planets it’s self sustaining.
A major problem for the “dude it’s life everywhere” position is that we don’t see it. Now it could be a problem with how we’re looking. Hence the spectral analysis of exoplanets being important (life traces from analyzing element shadows in light). Radio waves was a big argument for a while. If there’s life we should be seeing massive radio signals everywhere. Except we stopped broadcasting like that ourselves and would now be almost invisible in that spectrum. Low power radio towers are not the old time towers that blasted broad wave spectrums at high power into space.

You also have the game theory answers like the dark forest, where it’s best to stay quiet because if there is a superior civ out there their first inclination might well be to bombard the first signs of rival intelligence.

Then there’s the great filter analysis where we’re rare either because we passed a filter (intelligence is rare on our own planet, millions of years of dinos produced fuckall, millions of years of mammals had ONE big intelligence breakthrough). Or it’s still ahead of us (global warming, nuclear war, resource depletion, space debris preventing travel, take a pick).

>>16711841
> conditions for life to form are VERY unlikely
This is another factor that could easily be shattered by near future findings. Fossils from Mars, life in the Venusian clouds (organic elements are detectable), life on Europa, Io. It doesn’t have to be that complex either. Changing our solar system from a single life event to multiples completely changes the equation.

>>16711294 (OP)
It's a possibility that hasn't been proven or disproven, and the larger we find the universe to be, the more improbable it becomes that we are the only ones.
>>16711841
This could be an easy answer, and honestly, it would be nice to be the only unique lifeforms in the entire universe, with the fact that out of the 1.2 million species on earth, we are the only intelligent ones, at least most of us, but there are also so many theories on how life could develop.
>>16711847
The big bang was literally discovered by a catholic priest.

>>16711294 (OP)
i hope theyre atleast hot...

>>16712692
> Changing our solar system from a single life event to multiples completely changes the equation.
Maybe, but the life on Earth is a single abiogenesis event, every single life is a descendant of the LUCA. If life were common, or could even be common, there would at least be another tree of life on Earth, or even precursors for it.

>>16711294 (OP)
SEX

>>16711294 (OP)
Because I can lucid dream, and the entities I interact with there are operating on a level of existence that humanity is not even aware of.

>>16711294 (OP)
Why do I find large breasted women so attractive

My roommate got mad at me because I said aliens were probable in an infinite universe

>>16711294 (OP)
>Why do People Believe in Aliens?
State-funded sci-fi religion and endless gayfag sci-fi shows like Fag Trek and Sodomite Wars.

>>16711805
UFOs/UAPs are real. We (me and you at least, this knowledge may be protected or unknown) do not know what they are or where they come from. They're well beyond our technology and there are only so many explanations. Secret human black technology is the least likely explanation and highly implausible. Time travel is literally a more plausible explanation if it had to be human technology. The other answer is non human technology, and that comes down to aliens or interdimensional beings/entities (whether earth originating that we don't understand or normally observe, or again, aliens). Some people want to go down the it's a natural phenomenon cope.

>>16711841
At this point, this is cope
>they are close enough to find us
Unless "they" came here first, eg life seeding, hence the knowledge is pre-existing. By find I assume you mean figure out where to look for for a needle in a haystack (identifying earth as a source of life in this part of the galaxy)

Everytime someone has seen an alien or some paranormal stuff it's always been someone else but never me. Never ever have I witnessed anything special in 35 years. I suppose there's nothing more to it. I don't believe aliens exist and I don't believe in ghosts neither

>>16711847
Gang bang theory is real. A cabal of elite rich billionaires predators raping children isn't a conspiracy theory. It is real.

>>16711294 (OP)
slut

>>16711294 (OP)
Mfw no hot alien space slut gf

>>16711745

>>16711745
Go watch the Pentagon confirmed videos. Reasonable chance they're aliens/alien drones.

>>16711841
>they are close enough to find us
Yeah, this is the biggest cope. The emergence of something like life might be so rare that even if the universe were infinite, the simplest lifeform could be so far away that we’d never know.

>>16711312
We don't know enough to know whether the universe is huge or small.

>>16711824
The universe may not be infinite. Us being alone in the universe may be no stranger than us being alone in the solar system. We don't know how many universes there are, if there are an infinite number of universes then being alone inside this one isn't that odd.

I've had contact in out of body state

>>16715290
For the purpose of argument: angels, demons, jinn, fae, etc. are not to be considered "extraterrestrials" i.e. "aliens"

>>16715215
This is a cope in itself. It is quite similar to the gamblers fallacy which misapplies chance to future events, you're misapplying chance to past events.
>It couldnt possibly have happened because its a 1 in a trillion chance! It must be fake!
Getting 10 heads in a row on a coin flip is a 1/1024 chance or a ~0.1% chance. But then you tell someone who's flipped 9 heads in a row that its basically impossible they'll get 10 heads in a row, and they've only got a 0.1% chance, when its a 50% chance.

Once an event has happened, its probability is now 100%, and if it didn't happen, the probability is 0%. If someone wins the lottery and you say "no way thats random! the odds were one in 20 million!" the low odds dont make it suspicious just because it happened. It's improbability beforehand doesnt make it suspicious afterward.

Both this and the gambler's fallacy is retrospective probability error. Human's trying to impose meaning or pattern on randomness.

>>16711294 (OP)
Usually its the same as gods, they are under a government who spends a massive amount of resources manufacturing bullshit evidence about them to hide other clandestine governmental operations.

>>16711335
>alien visitors have been recorded in history all across the planet.
So have vampires and zombies and fairies and demons and dragons.

>>16711849
>my math completely breaks down at a certain point of extrapolation into the past
>that must make that point the ultimate beginning point of the past
How is that scientific?

>>16715695
Good observation. It's hard to separate complete fiction from potential observation, but by identifying patterns of consistency, context, and consequences across disparate cultures that never interacted. These are clues that something experiential and real may have happened, rather than pure invention. Most human cultures forgot, mythologized, or ritualized encounters into religion or folklore over millennia

>>16711915
Because your belief in aliens is just as weak and lacking if facts as a child's belief in gods and demons?

>>16713260
>I can imagine things, but since I completely lack creativity, everything I imagine must be real

>>16715700
So you believe in ghosts and yetis and elves and light beings and mermaid and leprechauns and all that other stuff too because you read stories where other people have claimed to see them?

>>16715715
No you dumb fuck
>Most human cultures forgot, mythologized, or ritualized encounters into religion or folklore over millennia

>>16711294 (OP)
>Why do People Believe in Aliens?

This is just my humble 93 iq take, but:
>This planet is covered in germs, fungi, plants, and animals.
>There are other planets in the galaxy, an imaginary number of them.
>It would stand to reason, statistically, that other planets have germs, fungi, plants, and animals.

"What about people aliens?"
People aliens might not be real. People might be a one off thing. I'm not convinced there's actually any selective pressure guaranteeing people like there is for other organisms. I'm more convinced that UFOs are actually just some kind of space animal (like a space jellyfish or a space hydrozoa) we're overreacting.

>>16715719
That seems to imply that you think they did actually encounter all those things, they just exaggerated the encounter instead of people just making shit up to one up each other.

>>16715724
What things?
Are you really this dumb?
An encounter with ayys could get turned into some mythologic folklore. It doesn't mean literal fucking dragons. And you're being very obtuse picking a specific example - in the event of encounters, not all, and not even most stories/myths/lore/religion/etc would be derived from encounters. There's a reasonable chance that *some* encounters *may* have happened.
Mainstream scholars attribute apparent links between cultures like this to share human psychology, coincidence etc. Some patterns emerge across indepent cultures. Given UAPs/UFOs are real, and we just dont know if theyre unexplained natural phenomena, human technology, non-human, or alien. A serious meta analysis may be a good idea.

>>16715729
>What things?
All the things that were listed, retard.

>An encounter with ayys could get turned into some mythologic folklore.
So vampires and ghosts and bigfoots and dragons and mermaids and leprechauns are real, but they are actually aliens that people thought were other things from this earth?

>>16715734
NTA
I don't think extraterrestrials exist but you're being a shithead with your argumentation.

>>16715734
No. Why would any of those be real? And IF encounters/contact was made, why would it be THOSE specific examples? IF encounters happened, it's not going to be every single myth, story, fantasy, religion humanity has ever concocted. It's going to be an absolute minority. And it is highly unlikely to actually be well preserved in the versions passed down today, again they would be greatly altered over the course of centuries, millenia. These stories dont survive anything like hiw they originally were from day 1. In no case is it
>OH WELL VAMPIRES MUST BE REAL THEN HURRRRRRR
Serious low iq shit with no comprehension

>>16715700
It's not extra-"terrestrial" though. greys, machine elves, all that stuff, that have been reportedly experienced by people over millenia, like you said. but it's not what most people think.

>>16716143
Could be anything. DMT is oddly specific and consistent across disparate cultures and time periods, could be 'nothing' and a product fundamental to how the human brain is wired. UAPs/UFOs could be a lot of things but there's only so many broader categories that it fits into:
>unexplained natural phenomena
>human technology
>aliens
>non-human technology (not aliens)
Leading theories or suspicions is there that is more than 1 source/it's not all the same thing

>>16711824
fermi paradox destroys your shit argument

>>16716327
The Fermi "paradox" is a question and expectation not an actual paradox
>why don't fish in the amazon know about Tokyo? Gotcha!
>if intelligent life is common in the universe, then where is everyone?
>>videos, sensor readings, reports of uaps on Earth all over the place
>noooooo not like that!
Subjective interpretation of what common is, and the assumption that common means even our vast galaxy and especially our local void should be filled all over the place with life, but not only life, and they should have been putting out radio signals strong enough for us to receive and long enough ago in the past that we should be receiving them, assumption they should be just like us, assumption that it must be common or nothing at all, our instruments cannot detect earth level technology from nearby stars, let alone distant stars. "Great filter" assumes one pathway to intelligence


The idea aliens must colonize exponentially is a human myth that assumes unlimited resources, time, etc rather than civilizations reaching a homeostasis vs interstellar colonization could be pointless beyond a certain point

Also why would aliens capable of interstellar colonization use human conceptual communication protocols and tech and then broadcast it omnidirectionally? Even we don't want to do that. NASAs been looking into lasers for highly directional communication that's much more power efficient for long distance communication, we literally have quantum teleportation working in early stages, who knows maybe that communicate using neutrinos which we can barely detect with massive detectors let alone being able to decode a signal from. Many civilizations could have come and gone a billion years ago. Our stellar neighborhood is also unusually sparse for our galaxy. We are literally in the boonies of our galaxy, and our galaxy is also in the boonies near the edge or a huge void. We could also be in a quiet epoch, we could be early, we could be late, or very isolated

>>16711844
Your entire rebuttal is basically "Look at Mars, bro"

>>16711294 (OP)
Very sexy, long neck..

>>16715738
There was no particular argument, it just pointed out that using the logic of the original argument just means that if you use that muh historical reports logic to justify a belief in aliens, you are also obligated to believe in a whole bunch of other retarded bullshit.

>>16715743
>Why would any of those be real?
Same reason you said aliens should be real because they have been reported throughout history.

>These stories dont survive anything like hiw they originally were
So then why wouldn't it just be normal people from foreign lands instead of aliens or vampires, why are you using old questionable stories to justify aliens, but don't think it can apply to other mythological creatures?

>>16716352
>>why don't fish in the amazon know about Tokyo? Gotcha!
You don't know they don't but the scenario has nothing to do with tokyo, it would be how can there be fish who have never ever encountered a single other fish in the ocean.

>why would aliens capable of interstellar colonization use human conceptual communication protocols and tech and then broadcast it omnidirectionally?
There is only so many ways to communicate through space, why do moose and whales all use sounds just like people?

>lasers, quantum, neutrinos
We can detect all of those things, though, lasers, quantum particles, neutrinos are all observable by humans.

>>16711825
if one of them does, then its next to impossible that grain of sand is the only one capable of it

>>16718323
Classical communication will be highly directional. Voyager 1 communication is highly directional, as would laser based communication be highly directional. Basic bitch quantum teleportation requires correction bits for us currently, those correction bits look like noise to third parties. If you accept stuff like warp bubbles, then you can accept FTL communication/information - just the kind that doesn't arrive before it leaves.
>we can detect neutrinos
Barely, not for communication
>we can detect lasers
Highly directional, we won't get it unless it happens to be pointed at us and we are specifically looking for it and manage to pick up a weak signal
>quantum communication
Correction bits look like noise, and still fall under other classical communication issues, more advanced quantum communication won't even have that

This is leaving out interdimensional communication etc.

TL;DR we can't find shit except intensely powerful EM which is always natural phenomena

>>16711294 (OP)
If I show you a trillion different nodes that I generated somehow, and tell you that I know for sure one of them has the attribute X, will you think that there might be another one with the same attribute?

>>16718373
>We can't detect signals from advance civilizations because new advance technology can always be developed to communicate across space.
>NO, NEW DETECTION TECHNOLOGY CAN'T POSSIBLY BE DEVELOPED, HOW RIDICULOUS.

>>16718381
Imagine being this dumb. The assumption the universe should be full of omnidirectional radio wave signals from far off civilizations is really dumb.
1. They'd be too weak to detect if they did exist
2. Interstellar communication via classical channels is going likely to be extremely directional, which it's impossible for us to see unless it just so happens to be aimed at us long enough to discern a signal and we just happen to be listening in exaclty the right frequency in exactly the right direction it's being sent from, and they'd have to be extremely close as well. We use highly directional communication with voyager 1 and we are struggling with it, it's no where near the nearest star.
3. We won't have a chance of eavesdropping on non classical communication

How long have we had radio for, a bit more than a 100 years? If other life developed at the same time and rate with us they'd have to be within ~100 light years to attempt to pick up their weak omnidirectional radio transmissions. Voyager 1 is not even 1 light day away and we are pushing the limits of highly directional radio.

If aliens are 10 light years away, we wouldn't be able to listen on their radio of they had radio that is

>>16718468
>The assumption the universe should be full of omnidirectional radio wave signals from far off civilizations is really dumb.
I didn't say that though. You said that we can develop new ways to communicate and I said if we can do that, we can develop new ways to detect those communication signals, but good job wasting several paragraphs of text on your own misunderstanding of half a sentence while completely failing to account for the fact that there may be ways to detect those other signals that you haven't yet thought of.

>>16718474
Not only is that a future speculation of human technology, its a grave misunderstanding of quantum entanglement, we cannot detect other species usage of quantum teleportation, even if they use classical correction bits (it looks like noise, it'd be highly directional). You can't eavesdrop on quantum teleportation

Television & movies are thought programming

>>16711294 (OP)
Because some humans have had direct encounters with them, and your opinion is irrelevant to their experience.

>>16711294 (OP) Lol, you're not aware of what is happening and you think you're in the right and others are wrong.

>>16718516
>>16718381
I am sure you have a complete understanding of all this futuristic scifi technology you don't understand at all.