Talk:Project Serpo

Interesting

Reminds me of the great Ummo hoax of yore. Oh hang on, somebody still believes it... Bicycle^wheel 22:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Physics section

Not saying the whole story is true but the "Physics" section is pretty ridiculous. Could remind of bishop-speak from a few centuries ago. Humans clearly still have a LOT to learn about what is possible and what is not. Also, the age of a star in the billions of years is completely irrelevant when considering potential civilizations aged in the thousands of years. Think of Europe getting industrialized faster than Africa despite being "younger" evolution wise. That is just rational. ^{— Unsigned, by: 135.19.180.219 / talk}

Article biased and poorly informed

Article very biased and unencyclopedic, seems somebody wants very much to make Serpo seem officially debunked, even ridiculous. Errors in the article include stating that "it all started in 2005". Wrong, Speilberg references the project in the final scene of Close Encounters in 1977, and anybody who knows even a little about directors such as Speilberg, Kubrick etc is that every detail in their movies are intentional, often meaningful, Speilberg isn't going to include the Serpo mission in his movie as a nod to a conspiracy theory. Additionally the physics section attempts to discredit the mission based on what we know about physics today, this is obviously highly disingenuous when discussing a civilisation far in advance of our own, put bluntly, I smell an idiot. The actual rational position (not the fake establishment view expressed in this article) is that nobody can confirm or debunk Serpo. There is no paper trail or financial black hole to follow because we didn't need to provide anything apart from a few tonnes of freight, there was no space rocket or R&D expenditure that we saw in, say, the Apollo program because the ETs basically did everything, we just showed up with 12 people and went along for the ride. All personnel were selected from single, childless candidates that were easily sheep dipped, especially in the 1960s. Serpo would be very easy to cover up, and the author of this article is in no position to dismiss it as "science fiction fantasy". ^{— Unsigned, by: 2A02:C7D:21F4:5100:7442:5CCA:AD2F:437E / talk}

"Additionally the physics section attempts to discredit the mission based on what we know about physics today, this is obviously highly disingenuous when discussing a civilisation far in advance of our own, put bluntly, I smell an idiot." I too smell an idiot. My magical farts can cure cancer, prove me wrong. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll respond to the complaint by 2A02:C7D:21F4:5100:7442:5CCA:AD2F:437E (a Londoner I believe, cheers mate) as one of the authors. Zeta recticuli was not mentioned at all in Close Encounters, so any suggestion that Spielberg knew about Serpo is extremely shaky. Isn't it far more likely that Richard Doty was a fan of the film and so, when thinking up ways to promote his book, he hit upon the idea of spreading a rumour that the fictional migration actually happened? Likewise, my London friend, your plea to think beyond what we currently understand of physics because the Reticuli Johnnies are more advanced is very, very weak. You're simply giving yourself permission to create an unfalsifiable proposition. Ithaca8 (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Radiation

If the planet's radiation was enough to kill two of them, why not all of them? (This would apply to both 'radioactive materials on the ground' and to solar radiation, there being a too large ozone layer/insufficient magnetic field shielding.) Anna Livia (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

40 times c

A bashing point, easy to reiterate without adding any substance to the discussion, and a way to look all smart and rational without making any effort (or actually being that). The actual point is that they allegedly had access to some FTL technology. Spotting inconsistencies in how this claim would mesh with the rest of the story and it's repercussions in other fields would constitute a meaningful rebuttal. And just saying "it's against general relativity" also doesn't count, because the claim "they have FTL technology" directly challenges it in the first place.--Arisano (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)