# UFOs Return



## Starbeast




----------



## sloweye

Very interesting.

(Maybe they didn't fancy that BBQ place in Manhatten so went to El Paso for a taco)


----------



## Michael01

Huh? What kind of aircraft is that? I'm not jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon, because I'm sure there's something. I just...well, I'm confused. They were hovering, right? Helicopters? Nah, they don't glow like that in daylight, do they?

I'm either seriously clueless (which is most likely the case), or I'm behind the times (which amounts to the same thing, I guess).


----------



## J Riff

Wellll... they have a crumbly tail ...sort of look...they don't look like ships particularly. 
Hovering, though. Oh well.


----------



## Michael01

Oh, good. At least I'm not the only one boggled by this. Or...am I? I think my imagination might be getting the better of me. (Just kidding).

Anyone else have any ideas? Maybe they're something new.


----------



## mosaix

Sky divers.


----------



## Michael01

Sky divers _on fire_, at that!


----------



## Starbeast

*Here's another angle*​


----------



## Starbeast

*UFOs Return to Russia too*





 


*Great footage of very simular luminescent spheres within the same month*​ 



> *anonymous* - "I saw these same kind of lights in a Russian forest back in 1989."


----------



## mosaix

Michael01 said:


> Sky divers _on fire_, at that!



Nope, just flares attached to their heels.


----------



## Starbeast

*UFOs Return: a month before in U.K.*


----------



## ScrambleEggHead

These Aliens can be treacherous as we've seen from the movies. (Acid for blood, Mega ships that can destroy whole cities, etc.) If you happen to be flying along in your Cessna, and one comes up alongside of you - drop under the seat of your airplane and look away. They can hypnotize you, even if they have no eyes. Also - avoid big flying fried eggs.  They are the worst. (scrambled eggs are much safer. )


----------



## J Riff

The  Glastonbury acorns... glowing acorns. Hmm. 
Impossible to tell if thee are even solid objects, tho the UK ones look like balloons.... 
 Still..the theory goes... that IF (if) 
IF ..there are unexschplainable things hovering about like this..they are the watchers! (theme music)  They have been seen umpteen dozen times, and, the story goes, chased away by shooting at em' or with a flyby, they know we don't like them over the cities, but they are aliens, or they are alien probes, just a-watchin'.
 So what's the latest explanation that fits these hovering suckers? What? They aren't skydivers.


----------



## Michael01

No, we're just goofing. The explanation on the news show was something like military aircraft doing training exercises. I can't think of what kind of aircraft can move like that, military or otherwise, but it could be something new, I guess.

EDIT: That last one looks kind of odd to me, though. Were they really close enough to get that clear line in the middle like that? I don't know....


----------



## Starbeast

*UFOs: Will the truth come out soon from Wikileaks?*


----------



## J Riff

Hmmm. A bit dramatic. HOWEVER - the sexual assault charges - are good evidence in favor of something, it's the main weapon, the way they neutralize people. I've seen it, I've experienced it, and it's dirty dirty dirty... makes one lose all faith in the so-called justice system. It's their main tool in fact.
 Look to Pete Townshend, or anyone else with these kind of charges - they were most likely trying to talk - not about Aliens, but about anything that threatens the $$$$$$. Sad, sad, sad but absolutely true.


----------



## Michael01

Well, I'd like to see these UFO documents. There is probably very little concerning them, though.


----------



## skeptical

My first reaction when looking at the 'lights in the sky' video, is how damn easy it would be to fake that.   I could do it myself, on my video editing suite.  And I am a totally rank amateur.

However, we got a statement that they were aircraft on maneuvres.   That's possible, if the video was taken using telephoto of something a long way off.   It is quite amazing how much atmosphere can distort images if they are a long way away.

I am not terribly impressed with UFO's that are just lights.  There are simply too many ways that lights can appear, other than flying craft.


----------



## Michael01

Yeah, I think so too. I don't know what kind of aircraft, but I'm no expert, either.


----------



## J Riff

It's true, there's probably a few ways to make an image appear, from the ground... and there may well be bizarre ships that earthlings have built, as early as the fifties.
 But these hovery light-balls are still interesting. IF they continue to show up... get the copters up there and scramble some jets and chase em' down.... which never happens. If we could just get a photo from close enough to see the little green alien pilot...


----------



## Michael01

To quote Mulder from X-Files, "They're grey." 

Is it just me, or does anyone else find the word "Earthlings" insulting?


----------



## skeptical

Michael

I have been called much worse things than 'Earthling', but admittedly, never by Little Grey Men.

However, imagine if we actually discovered an alien species.  What nasty names would we dream up for them?


----------



## sloweye

J Riff said:


> The  Glastonbury acorns... glowing acorns.



Sounds like the kecksburg ufo.




(click to open)


----------



## Deathpool

skeptical said:


> My first reaction when looking at the 'lights in the sky' video, is how damn easy it would be to fake that. I could do it myself, on my video editing suite. And I am a totally rank amateur.
> 
> However, we got a statement that they were aircraft on maneuvres. That's possible, if the video was taken using telephoto of something a long way off. It is quite amazing how much atmosphere can distort images if they are a long way away.
> 
> I am not terribly impressed with UFO's that are just lights. There are simply too many ways that lights can appear, other than flying craft.


 
That's what I think too. Also marages can be photographed and filmed because a marage involves the way the light bounces off objects.


----------



## The Ace

"Actually, if you shade your eyes like this, it really is a flock of geese.....
The truth is out there, unfortunately, the lies are in your head."

Terry Pratchett


----------



## Starbeast

The Ace said:


> "Actually, if you shade your eyes like this, it really is a flock of geese.....
> The truth is out there, unfortunately, the lies are in your head."
> 
> Terry Pratchett


 
Yes, I know what you mean, anybody can film strange lights in the sky, but not everyone has had the amazing opportunity of seeing what's behind the light.


----------



## Vertigo

Sorry, but for my money there will be a perfectly normal explanation somewhere.

My view is, and always has been, that if there are aliens visiting our planet then:

1. Their technology must be way beyond ours just to be here.
2. If they wanted to be seen they would be talking to us already.
3. If they didn't want to be seen they wouldn't be - simple as that.
3. They are not being hidden by governments - something like that might be kept secret for a few years but not the 60 or 70 that the media has been hyping these "sightings" up for.

Science is a still a long way from a working universal theory of everything. There is far more stuff that we don't *yet* know than we already know. So there is always going to be stuff we can't yet explain but we will get there eventually.


----------



## J Riff

Oh heck there's lots of other explanations, guesses, theories that aren't totally crackpot.
 They don't care if they are seen, in fact the glo-balls have to be shooed away from cities- they are curious observers only.
 Sure it's kept from the masses, like a LOT of other stuff.. they are really good at that, people are. Rather expert, masterful actually. Lying and deceit a specialty all through the whole structue of NASA and other 'informed' wings of the gummint. Really is. 
 mayhap...'they' aren't spaceships as such, merely observation craft, or focused energy points... some of that technology we can't understand.
 If we can't understand it, how could anyone ever claim there is a logical explanation?  There isn't- denial is as bad as acceptance, we are all doomed.  There really are aliens up there, buzzing around the earth.. but that's IT, that's all they are doing- hanging around to see what we do.
Boring aliens are the worst, it will never sell in the YA market.


----------



## Boneman

And to quote Calvin (or was it Hobbes?): 'The surest sign that there is intelligent life in the universe, is that none of it has visited here.'


----------



## Nik

Thunderstorms make anti-matter...

Thunderstorms hurling antimatter into space caught by Fermi (w/ Video)
---

With that on top of red & blue sprites, St Elmo's fire, 'ball lightning' etc etc, not to mention sundry misidentified aircraft including some 'under the radar', perhaps of especial interest to DEA, it's a zoo out there...

ET need not apply.

D'uh, even if Einstein is *right* about the c-limit, and warping space 'a la Alcubierre' requires 'Unobtanium', there are ways to travel between stars that do not require outrageous energies...

There's an argument that 'They' can't get to us because, outside our Local Bubble, interstellar space is mostly gassy enough to fuel a Bussard ramjet, the standard way to travel between stars. Inside this supernova-depleted Bubble, we're in the galactic equivalent of Doldrums, must make our own way out to meet 'Them'...

The British Interplanetary Society's 'Project Daedalus' showed that, given pulsed fusion rocketry, a fly-by mission to nearby stars would take about fifty years. Robert Forward's microwave-riding 'Starwisp' required a much more modest budget. etc etc.

An extrapolatable combination of cloning and memory up/down loading could allow centuries-long voyages to proceed without bothering the crew: They'd simply slow their time-base on passage...


----------



## skeptical

Bussard Ramjet

This means of travelling intersteller is problematic.  Some calculations show that the ramscoop field actually slows down the vessel, making sure it can never achieve more than a tiny fraction of light speed.

For interstellar travel, it is more likely that we will need a very large rotating space city that can support human life for many decades, and it will be driven by a giant ion drive engine, which would accelerate to no more than one tenth light speed.

Assuming that it takes ten years to accelerate to 0.1C and another ten to decelerate, that means a transit time of 55 years to Alpha Centauri, the closest alien star.

A highly advanced alien species might be able to do a little better, but interstellar travel will still be something that takes many decades.   This makes joy rides to Earth to buzz the rubes somewhat less likely.


----------



## Deathpool

Look at Hollywood. How do I know somebody make the video from scratch? There was some show on ghost stories that I saw and at least more than one of the videos was proven to be made by computer. How do I know it's not the same thing here?


----------



## J Riff

wellll.. the idea that aliens themselves would visit is shaky. They would have creatures grown in vats, or androids that could sit in a spaceship for fifty years without moving, at the very least. Ability to break or circumvent or even approach the light barrier implies huge advances in every other science.  
 Yea, a cost of ten years of the entire national budget of the USA to accelerate a ten-thousand lb. spacecraft to .1 C, that's one thing I learnt on the NASA board.
We wont live to see it, so it's encumbent on the !%!@ aliens to show up.


----------



## Michael01

I'm with skeptical on this one: Deadalus is not practical for interstellar travel and wouldn't be nearly advanced enough to explain the dancing lights in the sky. There probably is a more reasonable explanation. Until they start landing often enough to become relatively common knowledge, I think alien spacecraft complicates the issue unnecessarily.

On a side note: I thought Deadalus could get up to 0.1C within a few months at most? I'd always thought it would be very practical for exploring the solar system if it could. Dashing my hopes again? Hehe...


----------



## J Riff

I dunno, go ask the NASA geeks, they have all the answers, right or not. )


----------



## Starbeast

J Riff said:


> I dunno, go ask the NASA geeks, they have all the answers, right or not. )


 
Ask NASA about U.FO.s

AHHH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA


----------



## J Riff

I didn't say they had the _right _answers!..
 There are a few other questions they won't even address, but UFOs, heck, they don't exist even though we can't seem to get rid of them. Or something.


----------



## Starbeast

J Riff said:


> I didn't say they had the _right _answers!.. (I know)
> There are a few other questions they won't even address, but UFOs, heck, they don't exist even though we can't seem to get rid of them. Or something.


 
Heck, even when a fleet of U.F.O.s flew over the U.S. capital building (in fighter formation) severals times on the same night in the early 1950's with hundreds of witnesses and photos (the incident made the cover of Life magazine too, besides newspaper headlines), the government still denied the exsistence of otherworldly beings. I can almost imagine how panicky they must have been when those strange craft flew over restricted air space and vanished every time the jets arrived.


----------



## Starbeast




----------



## Starbeast

*UFOs Return: recorded by someone called Magnetflipper*





 

The first object in the infared film may be a plane, but the second object is very bright and moves too slowly.​ 






 

The first object does look like a satellite, but the second object appears to fly up out into space (or vanishes).​


----------



## skeptical

SB

The first video shows a red light.  Could be damn near anything, from a flare to a car's tail light parked on a hill.   Too little information to make a judgement.

Your second video shows two objects.   One a blinking light, meaning an aircraft.  The second object in the first video moves straight and true across the sky, meaning a satellite. 

Note that this method of filming, using light amplification coupled with substantial magnification with a strong telephoto, creates distortions.  At one point, the second object on your final video, as the cameraman zooms in on it, gets a little bigger and goes out of focus, while the stars in the background stay in focus.  This is a clear indication that the second object is relatively close (within 100 metres).   I am picking a firefly or similar.


----------



## Starbeast

skeptical said:


> I am picking a firefly or similar.


 

"Where's my fly-swatter...ah-HAH! Bugs! You go squish now!", said Homer Simpson


----------



## J Riff

Heh heh. Snikr.. flyswatters of the gods.
No sign of the white balls lately, the skies are empty of anomalies.


----------



## Starbeast

*UFOs Unseen*

*Remember, just because you can't see UFO's doesn't mean they are not there.*​ 
*For example: Infared is used by Mexico's Government to locate drug smugglers at night,*
*and one night Officers caught sight of something else.*​


----------



## Metryq

"It's not a plane! It's a UFO!"

All UFO means is "unidentified flying object," and they happen all the time. You see a light in the sky, but have no idea if it's a jet, a helicopter, or even an owl carrying a glow-stick, then it is a UFO, as you have not identified it. 

The people who _want_ unexplained lights in the sky to be extra-terrestrials have come to equate the term "UFO" with "extra-terrestrial space ship." Many of the serious believers feel triumphant when some skeptic cannot conclusively identify some light in the sky. Yet what they are forgetting (because they want to) is that _they_ have not identified the light, either.

unexplained light in sky ≠ extra-terrestrial space ship


----------



## J Riff

You can see weird little flames beneath a couple of them for a few seconds, like gas balloons. They seem to be pretty fast though.


----------



## Starbeast

*Re: UFOs Unseen*



Starbeast said:


> Remember, just because you can't see UFO's doesn't mean they are not there.​
> 
> 
> 
> Infared is used by Mexico's Government​


 

The amazing thing about these strange lights is that you couldn't see them with the naked eye,
*these were only seen by Infared.*


----------



## RJM Corbet

It's very convincing. But Starbeast, do you know the 'provenance' of that clip? That's my problem with it. Computer wizards are entirely capable of generating a clip like that for a gag, you know, a schoolboy could probably do it, if he knew his stuff with computers? Sorry, I'm curious, but doubtful ...


----------



## Metryq

That video is not IR, it looks like "night vision" stuff. And it's about as convincing as all the blurry Bigfoot and Nessy photos. Doesn't prove that they're spaceships or planes. But people who _want_ to believe will not be dissuaded. If one is skeptical of ambiguous evidence, then one must be part of "the conspiracy."


----------



## RJM Corbet

It's posted on You Tube by an unknown person username 'end of the planet'. It claims to be a Mexican Air Force sighting, but there's nothing  to verify that ...


----------



## skeptical

Not a terribly impressive video.
The way the cluster of lights moves exactly together is characteristic of internal reflections in a camera lens.  I would suspect they are filming a single light, which is reflected into several.  The single light could easily be just an aeroplane.


----------



## J Riff

Obviously some craft flying there, foolish to deny that. But what kind of drugs are they smuggling with them? )


----------



## Starbeast

*Great reactions to unidentified flying objects*



RJM Corbet said:


> Computer wizards are entirely capable of generating a clip like that for a gag, you know, a schoolboy could probably do it with computers?


 


Metryq said:


> That looks like "night vision" stuff. And it's about as convincing as all the blurry Bigfoot and Nessy photos.


 


skeptical said:


> Not a terribly impressive video. The single light could easily be just an aeroplane.


 

There are no such things as aliens from outside our world, but people remember Stephen Hawkings warning.







​


----------



## Starbeast

*UFOs are UFOs*



J Riff said:


> Obviously some foolish kind of drugs are with them.


 
1. U.F.O.s are explainable phenomenon or hoaxes

2. There is no evidence on Earth to support the theory of intellegent life elsewhere in outer space or from any dimension

3. There are no extraterrestrial structures on any planet or moon within our solar system

4. Humankind will never travel beyond our solar system







​


----------



## RJM Corbet

No I didn't say there's no such thing as aliens. I also didn't say ANY schoolboy could make the video. I said it could be a hoax.

A newspaper has to check a story before publication because a libel judgement can be expensive, and also damage the paper's credibility. A magazine like 'Time' or 'National Geographic' does exhaustive checks before publishing anything. 

Also they must make sure to give both sides of any story. So if Mike says this about Joe, then the reporter must also phone Joe and quote his reply in the story. 

Perhaps that clip really comes from the Mexican Air Force, and was recorded by experienced pilots. You got it from You Tube. The person who posted it there got it from somewhere else. There's no way to know it's genuine without checking back down the line?

I also think you misunderstood Riff. He meant that ufo's were a novel way of smuggling drugs across the Mexican border, I think?

Sorry, I just watched the space shuttle one. Yah, there you go!


----------



## skeptical

Nice faked video. My only criticism is that the hoaxers were too keen to make it seem other than hoax, and they simulated the jerkiness and lack of professionalism seen in amateur videos, whereas a genuine NASA video would have been done with superb professionalism. But that is a minor quibble. Done very well. Applause.

I tend to follow Occam's Razor in UFO matters. Although most people misunderstand Occam's Razor. It does not mean the simplest explanation is the best. What it means is that, when you have a choice of explanations for something, you should start by testing the simplest explanations - the ones which require the fewest novel assumptions.

In UFO claims, there are two simplest explanations.
1. Human error, deliberate or otherwise. Delusion, hoaxing, insanity, dishonesty etc. 
2. Mundane phenomena mistaken for something else.

So we start with these two possible explanations, and make *damn* sure they are wrong before we move to anything more exotic.


----------



## RJM Corbet

The NASA fake makes the others look easy. Stephen Hawkins DID say that. But he wasn't saying it supporting extraterrestrial ufo's. He was speculating on the possibility of extraterrestrial life. The settings, like the other TV newscasts, make you drop your guard, like: "Oh, but this was on TV!" I bet no network has a record of those broadcasts ...


----------



## J Riff

It's hardly a serious discussion anymore. SB knows, we laugh and laugh and pretend it's all a joke, and really- we had the exact same discussion in the fifties, stuff was flying around everywhere then, too.
Someone from the Gummint actually came and 'had a word' with my mom and other hospital workers who saw a UFO in about 1958.
 It was an experimental craft they said, performing test maneuvers. 
 It weren't, it was just one of the white balls like you see today. 
Today the govt. doesn't even bother covering, if indeed they have anything real to cover. People are skeptical by nature, SF has done its job conditioning the population, and the sheep don't look up anymore. Anything short of a UFO landing, and aliens wandering out, will simply be filed under whatever.
 I like the vid where someone shoots a missile at the white ball and it vanishes pronto, maybe near Chicago.
 The aliens just wanta be friends, see, but the Govt. types keep shooting at them and scaring them off, lest they bring enlightenment to the enslaved masses here on Terra.
 Nobody says much about crop circles lately, tho some spectacular ones have turned up.
 Does anyone know anybody who ever 'worked' on making a crop circle? Because, if people are doing this, they are a mighty strange gang, should probably identified and given a little plastic card and an implant that identifies them as an 'alien sympathizer."


----------



## skeptical

Riff

There was a British TV documentary on crop circles.   They had a bunch of university students who admitted making them.  Those guys showed how they pre-planned the whole thing, using computer graphics to design the weird patterns, and working out how to create those patterns quickly and accurately.    These guys were young, enormously intelligent and computer capable, and brimming over with mischief.


----------



## RJM Corbet

skeptical said:


> Riff
> 
> There was a British TV documentary on crop circles.   They had a bunch of university students who admitted making them.  Those guys showed how they pre-planned the whole thing, using computer graphics to design the weird patterns, and working out how to create those patterns quickly and accurately.    These guys were young, enormously intelligent and computer capable, and brimming over with mischief.



I saw that. People obviously go to great lengths.

Who's having fun with who here?


----------



## Metryq

> *Starbeast wrote:* 3. There are no extraterrestrial structures on any planet or moon within our solar system 4. Humankind will never travel beyond our solar system



3. _That we are aware of._ I'm not saying there are such items to be found, but we also cannot authoritatively make such a sweeping statement—even after we've made more detailed explorations. At best, all we can say is that no extra-terrestrial artifacts have been found, and no one has ever confirmed a strange sighting as an extra-terrestrial spacecraft. (One cannot prove a negative.)

4. "Never" often turns out to be less than forever. Don't bet against technology and human drive. I don't see manned extra-Solar travel being possible anytime in the foreseeable future, but I don't think it will be never. If mankind does not collapse under the weight of social engineering programs, someone may yet find a practical and profitable reason for flying beyond the heliopause.



> *Skeptical wrote:* Although most people misunderstand Occam's Razor. It does not mean the simplest explanation is the best. What it means is that, when you have a choice of explanations for something, you should start by testing the simplest explanations - the ones which require the fewest novel assumptions.



In the interest of Occam's razor, that should be reduced to "the fewest novel assumptions." Don't add a kitchen sink to your hypotheses, unless one is needed.


----------



## Vladd67

When I saw this threads title I thought it meant a return of S.H.A.D.O. etc. Silly me.


----------



## Starbeast




----------



## Starbeast




----------



## Starbeast




----------



## RJM Corbet

I wish Dan Akroyd wasn't just waving his hands saying: "Lots of people saw it."

It's a BIG story if its true, and big stories sell newspapers. So why don't 'Time' and 'National Geographic' cover it?

Its easy to understand why a cop or a pilot doesn't want his name in the news in connection with ufo's, But a reporter needs names, ages, addresses that can be checked. Dan Ackroyd says: "It was in all the papers -- all over the media ... Yeah, you can research that." 

But even if it's true, its still just a ufo sighting. That doesn't make it extraterrestrial.

He sound convincing. But I hope he's got the paperwork ready to back him up, or he won't last 30 seconds in Judge Judy's courtroom ...


----------



## Starbeast

RJM Corbet said:


> I wish Dan Akroyd wasn't just waving his hands saying: "Lots of people saw it." A BIG story if it's true.


 
Strangely enough, I read about this incident before Dan made his documentary. It was in my local city newspaper with an artists conception drawing of the huge spiral that could be seen easily in the night sky and it was said that it was a rare phenomenon. At the time I thought nothing of it and ignored the article.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Maybe they're out there. I dunno ...


----------



## skeptical

I am also concerned about the time line.
The universe is 13.7 billion years old, and first generation stars have existed in the Milky Way galaxy for 6 to 8 billion years.   If alien life were common, they should have been common several billion years before the first life appeared on Earth.

If even a tiny fraction of the UFO's seen were alien spacecraft, then in that time frame, aliens should have been visiting Earth for at least a billion years.  We have 650 million year old jellyfish fossils, with perfectly detailed imprints.  Yet nowhere, in the entire fossil record, is there any hint or suggestion of an alien visitor.  Not a booted footprint.   Not an alien coke bottle.  Nothing.

Either alien visits are rare (in which case UFO's are overwhelmingly natural phenomena), or they have the technology to totally hide themselves and their artifacts.  In which case, none of the UFO sightings are aliens.


----------



## Starbeast

*The Unknown Outworlders*



skeptical said:


> Nowhere, in the entire fossil record, is there any hint or suggestion of an alien visitor. Not a booted footprint. Not an alien coke bottle. Nothing.
> 
> Either alien visits are rare (in which case UFO's are overwhelmingly natural phenomena), or they have the technology to totally hide themselves and their artifacts. In which case, none of the UFO sightings are aliens.


 
I thought about this for a long time, and thought that beings from else where could have amazing technology we have yet to even dream of, or they may have supernatural powers. And if that's the case, an otherworldly being could stand next to you, and you wouldn't even be aware of it. One may even be standing next to you even now.


----------



## skeptical

Starbeast

No matter how advanced an alien intelligence might be, it still has to abide by the laws of nature.   Some things will always be impossible.  For example : travel faster than light.

However, I agree to a point.   A species that can travel interstellar, for example, will have sophisticated robotics.   Why should they fly around in their flying saucers (or other shape) where people can see them, when they can send a micro-robot disguised as a housefly to do their surveying?

I think we can be sure that they will not be sending vast numbers of visible space craft around the world, which is what would be needed to explain UFO sightings.

In addition, because FTL is almost certainly impossible, this will limit any alien expeditions to Earth.   If it takes, say, 50 years to get here from the nearest alien star, then there are not going to be too many such trips.


----------



## RJM Corbet

You guys are going to have to read my book, aren't you? Google it: Erlos by RJM Corbet Writer's Cafe. There's a synopsis in the Critiques Forum


----------



## J Riff

LET'S REITERATE: The white balls chased off the lizard aliens, who have been coming here for a long time. 
Makes sense that alien probes would go out from somewhere in the galactic core, sub light speed. Not aliens, but their clone-creatures or reptoid drones, sitting in a ship on a 200 year run. The aliens probably send out zillions of them, in every direction, so that some are returning with galactic swag regularly. Makes sense.
They probably only stayed a few hours on Earth, and other planets, picking up specimens. Animals, people, for pets, for food, who knows what.
 But now supermarket Earth is closed, thanks to the white balls, our saviours. If only we were primitive people we could worship them like Gods instead of laughing at them on YouTube. * )


----------

