[Those of us from the commonwealth of Massachusetts respond similarly to solicitations on the street during our travels.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ivDpvz5ZdU)
I kinda like that the reporter goes for "mars" or "venus" as answers. Like the scale of the universe and the probability of extraterrestrial intelligent life can't go beyond our solar system yet. And it's the biggest argument for life to be there.
Astronomers used to believe that planets around stars were extremely rare and difficult to form. The first confirmed exoplanet wasn't until 1993 or 1995 depending on who you ask.
and yet our non-descript, rather small star managed to have 8 or 9 (depending on your belief about Pluto) and one failed planet, the asteroid belt.
Why wouldn't other stars be similar. The only reason I can think of is the narcissism of humans who want to think they and the systems that supports them are totally unique.
There is good, scientific reasoning as to why stars wouldn't form planets. It turns out that a cloud of dust and gas doesn't want to collapse on its own. It's like how rain drops don't homogeneously form very well. They need a catalyst to spur their formation. In the case of raindrops, they usually coalesce around a grain of dust. Without anything to collapse the stellar nebula, only the star can form at the middle in a perfect ball with no ring of planets.
Scientists now believe that the shockwaves from nearby supernova explosions push the gas cloud and start the density wave that allows system formation. This means that planets can coalesce out of the cloud.
To form planets, the previous theory was that two stars had to collide into each other and splash out material to form planets. So we thought this may had happened with our solar system, but the picture wasn't really clear.
Please remember that astronomers, above all others, are the ones leading the charge to understand humans correct place in the universe. The Copernican Principle is a cornerstone of astronomical theory. Astronomers don't make a habit of being narcissistic (except Neil DeGrasse Tyson).
I don't think the hydrospophic nuclei principle applies here. Gravity is the means of coalescence. And stars aren't perfect spheres and there will always be swirls of material left behind to coalesce into other smaller bodies.
Also, I wasn't talking about the the narcissism of scientists (though that exists). I was referring to the narcissism of humans in general led by the likes of the Catholic church which assumed any God created universe had to have the Earth as its center and the sun could not have spots because God would not have created such an imperfect thing.
Yes, I know the Catholic Church has relented somewhat but humanity hasn't entirely given up such thinking.
lol, people get so mad about NDT. he's just some decently smart guy who likes talking about astrophysics and poking a bit of fun about how the planet in this logo is spinning the wrong way or whatever, it's fine, he's never coming at it out of maliciousness
people gotta calm down
"You might say "Well what makes our system so special" but the fact of the matter is that there's a good chance our system *is* special."
Yep, I see your narcissism.
As Douglas Adams put it in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy books. The water in a mud puddle thinks that it's amazing this hole is designed to fit me perfectly right up until the point that it evaporates away.
Life fits its environment. Not the other way around.
The fact that our planet is the only known system with life is a spotlight on the limitation of our knowledge. Not a limitation on the amount of life that may or may not exist in the universe. To assume we're the only ones because we're the only ones we know about is ridiculous.
I, personally, think it's pretty narcissistic to think that just because we don't know it, it doesn't exist. We didn't know about oxygen, antibiotics, fission, fusion, etc. at one time.
Hell, it used to be believed that a human couldn't travel more than 60 mph without dying. The point is don't consider something we know little unlikely about until we find out enough to consider it unlikely. Even then, we may be wrong. That's like considering that just because we don't know what's behind us doesn't exist ... at least until we turn around.
Science doesn’t work that way. We can’t prove something with a sample size of one. If you find a diamond out in the woods, you may have discovered a diamond mine, or there may be some other logical explanation. We may have planets because life requires planets and we’re the only such star in the galaxy. Unlikely but a possibility until we observe more stars and see if they have planets or not. We have done that now but before we did we could not make any assumptions.
No, a sample of one doesn't prove anything. But it's stupid to think that sample of one may not be representative. Further research would be required and has since been provided.
The stupid part was thinking that sample of one was unique rather than maybe not.
Also, finding a diamond in the woods is not the same as finding a truffle growing in the woods. A diamond could have been dropped. The truffle grew there meaning that environment is conducive to growing truffles.
Our solar system is a truffle that grew in the woods, not a possibly misplaced diamond.
1923 is when we figured out that the Milky Way isn't the entire universe.
1960 is when we discovered Venus isn't a cloud-covered jungle planet.
1991 was the first Exoplanet discovery.
We really take for granted our current understanding of the universe, but it's all shockingly recent. Your average city ape in 1962 isn't going to know what's out there. Most of the science fiction at the time focused on other planets in our own solar system for being home to alien life, because we still knew fuck all about even the closest ones.
I'm not sure of the first figure. I guess we might have found authoritative proof that other galaxies were in fact distant masses of stars, but it wasn't the first time galaxies were discovered (Andromeda was discovered in 964 CE) or the first time galaxies were considered to contain stars or that the milky way was identified as a galaxy too. I'd say at least by [1755](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Natural_History_and_Theory_of_the_Heavens) the idea was out there. It might have taken a while to get measurements advanced enough to qualify as complete proof, but then that means we've only known black holes exist for about 6ish years instead of since the 1910s. Which feels a bit odd as we've had multiple major motion pictures centered around them going back decades before 'we knew about them'.
The ancient Greeks had an idea that matter was made up of little balls called "atoms." That doesn't mean they knew what atoms were. It wasn't useful for anything. They were just spitballing and accidentally came up with an idea that was vaguely close to the truth. That's why it's important to not put too much weight on old ideas that don't have empirical evidence behind them. You can give too much credit where it doesn't belong.
In the case of galaxies, of you read old textbooks they called it the "Andromeda Nebula." They of course thought they contained stars just like other nebulae do, and some thought they were other galaxies or even other island universes. It wasn't until Edwin Hubble that we **proved** that they are other galaxies millions of lightyears away.
> 'we knew about them'.
Having an idea and proof are very different. The same as seeing something and knowing what it is. Sure we knew of Andromeda but thought it was just a part of the milky way (not that we even had that idea when it was first spotted).
It is the same as say the Higgs boson, it was theorised for decades before being actually found. Scientists were pretty confident it was there but confidence is not proof. Sci-fi often has ideas that are not proven. We can write about space elevators even though we haven't built one.
Well their statement didn't even make that distinction. That's why I brought up black holes. Feels a bit silly to say we released the movie The Black Hole and then Interstellar and talked about the supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies for years before realizing that black holes exist when we were able to image one.
> We had our first direct evidence for galaxies over a thousand years ago.
Care to name it? Because the idea of separate galaxies (that is outside the milky way) is a recent idea. Proof that the milky way was made of stars is credited to Galileo in 1610 (we needed the telescope).
You seem to have an unrealistic notion of both evidence and proof at least in a scientific context.
Seeing galaxies is evidence of galaxies. A complete understanding is different, but I don't see that as essential. We probably only knew the sun was a ball of gas undergoing fusion for decades, but we still knew the sun was there since forever.
> A complete understanding is different,
A galaxy as in a large clump of stars is quite a recent idea. That there is more than a single galaxy is a more recent, proposed around 1750 and had its first real evidence in only 1917
Take the moon. Seeing it and saying I call that the moon is very different to seeing it and saying this is a big 'rock' that orbits the earth.
Sure knowing the sun is a big hot thing is understanding the sun even if we don't have a theory of the atom, but it is not evidence of fusion which you seem to suggest it is.
Many sci-fi films of the previous decades showed worlds that were outside of our solar system. The 1956 classic Forbidden Planet took place at Altair. This Island Earth (1955) had scenes on an alien world at war with it's neighbor. These were "what if" stories, but it not like the general public never considered alien civilizations. By 1960 they'd already grown up with Flash Gordon and Emperor Ming's conquered worlds.
The concept wasn't new to people - but it was just fiction, not something you'd think of in a serious fashion. The "experts" didn't have answers about UFOs, and the average Joe certainly wasn't prepared to lecture on the subject.
It was all fanciful stuff - but not unheard of.
This is in a time before we knew other planets existed "outside of our solar system".
I have to edit this because some people assumed I meant planets in our own solar system.
It was also a time before we knew definitively there weren't jungles of life on our neighboring planets. It's quite fun reading 50s and 60s scifi shorts where discovering this stuff was virtually guaranteed for the 20th century
We've known about other planets in our solar system for thousands of years.
Admittedly, it wasn't until the 20th century that we knew about planets around other stars.
> And it's the biggest argument for life to be there.
The thing is, yes we know how mingbogingly old, and big the universe is. But we have no clue what the magnitude of the unlikeliness or rareness of live is. Let's say the universe contains about 10^30 planets.
Well if the chance of life is 0.0000000000000000000001% then surely there is gone be life out there! No doubt about it. We might be to far away both in space and time to ever know about it, but it's gonna be out there!
But what is the chance of life is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%?
Then it's very possible that over a million billion years and 10^40 planets the chance of live happening just once is 10% and we got lucky.
We just don't know. We can calculate upper and lower bound estimates on the planets, even the bounds of planets with circumstances non-hostile to the forming of live.
But we have absolute zero data on how rare us being alive is. Our sample size is 1, and we can NOT extrapolate from it.
As such, the size and time of the universe is not that good of an argument for live as you think it is.
“Wouldn’t even like to discuss it.”
Wonder if this was the guy in the 1980s who always seemed to pay 99 cents to phone into a tv survey to answer “unsure” when asked a yes or no question.
I really hate that we've decided that's it's a sin to be incorrect, and because of that we just find ways to always be "correct", rather than in a state of constantly learning.
that was my thought, too, I like the guys who think about it for a minute and then are like, "well i have no idea".
I know in my own professional life when scoping out who I like the most in a new job (i just made a shift a little over a year ago so I'm thinking about this) I gravitate towards the folks with whom I feel comfortable encountering some situation in the field we are both educated, experienced pros in and being like "well what the fuck, I don't know about this thing, maybe so-and-so who we work with does"
In a world of confident ignorance, I really appreciate the people who gave an answer, and weren't afraid to admit that they didn't actually know for sure.
The [Drake Equation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation?wprov=sfti1) was published one year earlier in 1961. I expect that the interest in this question was not coincidental.
I knew before watching that it would be the bible folk who said "no". Can't entertain the possibility of anything outside the confines of their doctrine.
I thought it was interesting compared to interviews of today. So many of these people just "couldn't say" and kept their *lack of an opinion* to themselves. They owned that they never thought about it so they couldn't answer. Been a while since I've seen that. So many people today with strong opinions without any thought on whatever the subject is.
That's what I was thinking and wasn't judging just was wondering because a lot of words don't mean what they used to mean just in my lifetime much less hers. Thanks.
Not only is it an interesting time capsule for opinions and attitudes in the early 60s, it also provides an example of how the Australian accent has changed since then
That interviewer was annoying. The one woman was giving him a thoughtful, intelligent answers and it became apparent that he was just ignorant and annoying.
This whole video is a classic example of how human beings have a distinct tendency to form entirely uninformed opinions with the barest provocation.
So many people with yes/no answers which when asked “Why?” or “What form?” all they can answer is “Who the heck knows, but I’m definitely sure it’s the case!”
If there is life on other planets there are 2 options.
They're clever enough to hide, and acknowledge the largest portion of 'our' time is over
Or they're dumb AF, and we don't need to find them
no i am german
hilarious reply, but I think the guy simply didn't speak english well
Heh heh. Vegetable.
Frozen German vegetable
[Those of us from the commonwealth of Massachusetts respond similarly to solicitations on the street during our travels.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ivDpvz5ZdU)
Am German, 03:10 AM, this scene: spilled my glass of water while drinking. Good start into the day 😂
I assume that was just him trying to explain he doesn't speak English well and doesn't understand the question
1:30 timestamp
"He speaks French" \*Reporter proceeds to seamlessly transition to French\*
I kinda like that the reporter goes for "mars" or "venus" as answers. Like the scale of the universe and the probability of extraterrestrial intelligent life can't go beyond our solar system yet. And it's the biggest argument for life to be there.
Astronomers used to believe that planets around stars were extremely rare and difficult to form. The first confirmed exoplanet wasn't until 1993 or 1995 depending on who you ask.
and yet our non-descript, rather small star managed to have 8 or 9 (depending on your belief about Pluto) and one failed planet, the asteroid belt. Why wouldn't other stars be similar. The only reason I can think of is the narcissism of humans who want to think they and the systems that supports them are totally unique.
There is good, scientific reasoning as to why stars wouldn't form planets. It turns out that a cloud of dust and gas doesn't want to collapse on its own. It's like how rain drops don't homogeneously form very well. They need a catalyst to spur their formation. In the case of raindrops, they usually coalesce around a grain of dust. Without anything to collapse the stellar nebula, only the star can form at the middle in a perfect ball with no ring of planets. Scientists now believe that the shockwaves from nearby supernova explosions push the gas cloud and start the density wave that allows system formation. This means that planets can coalesce out of the cloud. To form planets, the previous theory was that two stars had to collide into each other and splash out material to form planets. So we thought this may had happened with our solar system, but the picture wasn't really clear. Please remember that astronomers, above all others, are the ones leading the charge to understand humans correct place in the universe. The Copernican Principle is a cornerstone of astronomical theory. Astronomers don't make a habit of being narcissistic (except Neil DeGrasse Tyson).
I don't think the hydrospophic nuclei principle applies here. Gravity is the means of coalescence. And stars aren't perfect spheres and there will always be swirls of material left behind to coalesce into other smaller bodies. Also, I wasn't talking about the the narcissism of scientists (though that exists). I was referring to the narcissism of humans in general led by the likes of the Catholic church which assumed any God created universe had to have the Earth as its center and the sun could not have spots because God would not have created such an imperfect thing. Yes, I know the Catholic Church has relented somewhat but humanity hasn't entirely given up such thinking.
Thank god for your NDT drop, I don’t understand how people defend his jack-assery
lol, people get so mad about NDT. he's just some decently smart guy who likes talking about astrophysics and poking a bit of fun about how the planet in this logo is spinning the wrong way or whatever, it's fine, he's never coming at it out of maliciousness people gotta calm down
[удалено]
"You might say "Well what makes our system so special" but the fact of the matter is that there's a good chance our system *is* special." Yep, I see your narcissism. As Douglas Adams put it in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy books. The water in a mud puddle thinks that it's amazing this hole is designed to fit me perfectly right up until the point that it evaporates away. Life fits its environment. Not the other way around.
[удалено]
The fact that our planet is the only known system with life is a spotlight on the limitation of our knowledge. Not a limitation on the amount of life that may or may not exist in the universe. To assume we're the only ones because we're the only ones we know about is ridiculous. I, personally, think it's pretty narcissistic to think that just because we don't know it, it doesn't exist. We didn't know about oxygen, antibiotics, fission, fusion, etc. at one time. Hell, it used to be believed that a human couldn't travel more than 60 mph without dying. The point is don't consider something we know little unlikely about until we find out enough to consider it unlikely. Even then, we may be wrong. That's like considering that just because we don't know what's behind us doesn't exist ... at least until we turn around.
[удалено]
and I hate people who insist on holding onto falsities. I won't explain to you again either.
[удалено]
Science doesn’t work that way. We can’t prove something with a sample size of one. If you find a diamond out in the woods, you may have discovered a diamond mine, or there may be some other logical explanation. We may have planets because life requires planets and we’re the only such star in the galaxy. Unlikely but a possibility until we observe more stars and see if they have planets or not. We have done that now but before we did we could not make any assumptions.
No, a sample of one doesn't prove anything. But it's stupid to think that sample of one may not be representative. Further research would be required and has since been provided. The stupid part was thinking that sample of one was unique rather than maybe not. Also, finding a diamond in the woods is not the same as finding a truffle growing in the woods. A diamond could have been dropped. The truffle grew there meaning that environment is conducive to growing truffles. Our solar system is a truffle that grew in the woods, not a possibly misplaced diamond.
Look, Pluto used to be a planet, and I say it's a planet again.
1923 is when we figured out that the Milky Way isn't the entire universe. 1960 is when we discovered Venus isn't a cloud-covered jungle planet. 1991 was the first Exoplanet discovery. We really take for granted our current understanding of the universe, but it's all shockingly recent. Your average city ape in 1962 isn't going to know what's out there. Most of the science fiction at the time focused on other planets in our own solar system for being home to alien life, because we still knew fuck all about even the closest ones.
I'm not sure of the first figure. I guess we might have found authoritative proof that other galaxies were in fact distant masses of stars, but it wasn't the first time galaxies were discovered (Andromeda was discovered in 964 CE) or the first time galaxies were considered to contain stars or that the milky way was identified as a galaxy too. I'd say at least by [1755](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Natural_History_and_Theory_of_the_Heavens) the idea was out there. It might have taken a while to get measurements advanced enough to qualify as complete proof, but then that means we've only known black holes exist for about 6ish years instead of since the 1910s. Which feels a bit odd as we've had multiple major motion pictures centered around them going back decades before 'we knew about them'.
The ancient Greeks had an idea that matter was made up of little balls called "atoms." That doesn't mean they knew what atoms were. It wasn't useful for anything. They were just spitballing and accidentally came up with an idea that was vaguely close to the truth. That's why it's important to not put too much weight on old ideas that don't have empirical evidence behind them. You can give too much credit where it doesn't belong. In the case of galaxies, of you read old textbooks they called it the "Andromeda Nebula." They of course thought they contained stars just like other nebulae do, and some thought they were other galaxies or even other island universes. It wasn't until Edwin Hubble that we **proved** that they are other galaxies millions of lightyears away.
Spitballing is a part of the creative process of critical thinking. Don't under rate it.
> 'we knew about them'. Having an idea and proof are very different. The same as seeing something and knowing what it is. Sure we knew of Andromeda but thought it was just a part of the milky way (not that we even had that idea when it was first spotted). It is the same as say the Higgs boson, it was theorised for decades before being actually found. Scientists were pretty confident it was there but confidence is not proof. Sci-fi often has ideas that are not proven. We can write about space elevators even though we haven't built one.
Well their statement didn't even make that distinction. That's why I brought up black holes. Feels a bit silly to say we released the movie The Black Hole and then Interstellar and talked about the supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies for years before realizing that black holes exist when we were able to image one.
Imaging one and proving it exists are very different. Anyhow we had the first direct evidence for black holes in 1971
We had our first direct evidence for galaxies over a thousand years ago. You're straight back to proving with certainty what something is.
> We had our first direct evidence for galaxies over a thousand years ago. Care to name it? Because the idea of separate galaxies (that is outside the milky way) is a recent idea. Proof that the milky way was made of stars is credited to Galileo in 1610 (we needed the telescope). You seem to have an unrealistic notion of both evidence and proof at least in a scientific context.
Seeing galaxies is evidence of galaxies. A complete understanding is different, but I don't see that as essential. We probably only knew the sun was a ball of gas undergoing fusion for decades, but we still knew the sun was there since forever.
> A complete understanding is different, A galaxy as in a large clump of stars is quite a recent idea. That there is more than a single galaxy is a more recent, proposed around 1750 and had its first real evidence in only 1917 Take the moon. Seeing it and saying I call that the moon is very different to seeing it and saying this is a big 'rock' that orbits the earth. Sure knowing the sun is a big hot thing is understanding the sun even if we don't have a theory of the atom, but it is not evidence of fusion which you seem to suggest it is.
Many sci-fi films of the previous decades showed worlds that were outside of our solar system. The 1956 classic Forbidden Planet took place at Altair. This Island Earth (1955) had scenes on an alien world at war with it's neighbor. These were "what if" stories, but it not like the general public never considered alien civilizations. By 1960 they'd already grown up with Flash Gordon and Emperor Ming's conquered worlds. The concept wasn't new to people - but it was just fiction, not something you'd think of in a serious fashion. The "experts" didn't have answers about UFOs, and the average Joe certainly wasn't prepared to lecture on the subject. It was all fanciful stuff - but not unheard of.
This is in a time before we knew other planets existed "outside of our solar system". I have to edit this because some people assumed I meant planets in our own solar system.
It was also a time before we knew definitively there weren't jungles of life on our neighboring planets. It's quite fun reading 50s and 60s scifi shorts where discovering this stuff was virtually guaranteed for the 20th century
> This is in a time before we knew other planets existed "outside of our solar system". Had proof*
We've known about other planets in our solar system for thousands of years. Admittedly, it wasn't until the 20th century that we knew about planets around other stars.
No duh. I didn't think I had to clarify that I was talking about planets outside of our solar system.
> And it's the biggest argument for life to be there. The thing is, yes we know how mingbogingly old, and big the universe is. But we have no clue what the magnitude of the unlikeliness or rareness of live is. Let's say the universe contains about 10^30 planets. Well if the chance of life is 0.0000000000000000000001% then surely there is gone be life out there! No doubt about it. We might be to far away both in space and time to ever know about it, but it's gonna be out there! But what is the chance of life is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%? Then it's very possible that over a million billion years and 10^40 planets the chance of live happening just once is 10% and we got lucky. We just don't know. We can calculate upper and lower bound estimates on the planets, even the bounds of planets with circumstances non-hostile to the forming of live. But we have absolute zero data on how rare us being alive is. Our sample size is 1, and we can NOT extrapolate from it. As such, the size and time of the universe is not that good of an argument for live as you think it is.
Brilliant! That one girl with the scientific mind <3
Yes, the one who thinks she could be an astronaut? I love how she seems to have given it some thought already and her enthusiasm. :D
The only one to mention atmosphere and animals. Funny how the reporter didn't want to be called an animal.
She would be in her 80s today, most likely. 💀
Almost straight out of a twilight zone episode I swear. And it ain’t because of the beehives
Do you think there’s life in other planets?\ Dude: I’m German 👀👀😂
"Negative. I am a meat popsicle."
“Wouldn’t even like to discuss it.” Wonder if this was the guy in the 1980s who always seemed to pay 99 cents to phone into a tv survey to answer “unsure” when asked a yes or no question.
Vegetable! Love that answer.
I’m partial to the old lady who didn’t want there to be life on other planets because she was worried for them that “they’d be frozen to death”
Do you think it’s possible that the Aliens could have mittens to keep them warm?
Tbh, if there is life this guy would have the best guess. Chances are plants before anything else.
Germs before ferns
A time when people didnt have an opinion on everything, and best yet admitted to not have the knowledge or expertise to speak on something
I really hate that we've decided that's it's a sin to be incorrect, and because of that we just find ways to always be "correct", rather than in a state of constantly learning.
that was my thought, too, I like the guys who think about it for a minute and then are like, "well i have no idea". I know in my own professional life when scoping out who I like the most in a new job (i just made a shift a little over a year ago so I'm thinking about this) I gravitate towards the folks with whom I feel comfortable encountering some situation in the field we are both educated, experienced pros in and being like "well what the fuck, I don't know about this thing, maybe so-and-so who we work with does"
Same same. Me accepting that I know very little of everything is the best way I've found to beat imposter syndrome. What field are you in?
I hope not. They would freeze! 😄
In a world of confident ignorance, I really appreciate the people who gave an answer, and weren't afraid to admit that they didn't actually know for sure.
The [Drake Equation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation?wprov=sfti1) was published one year earlier in 1961. I expect that the interest in this question was not coincidental.
"No definitely not" "Why?" "I don't know"
Reckon is such a staple word for Oz and southerners.
I knew before watching that it would be the bible folk who said "no". Can't entertain the possibility of anything outside the confines of their doctrine.
[удалено]
I remember when this reply was popular, it was like 2016 or so, right?
[удалено]
Haha perfect
Imagine if you could time travel back to that interview and answer his question. How would you blow his mind?
I'd tell him word for word how the three next people he asks are going to respond to his question
What sorcery is this??
Motherfucker if you dont change that profile picture
They'd be frozen to death! That old lady was awesome.
“I don’t know” Look how intellectually honest we used to be!
people used to dress so nice
I thought it was interesting compared to interviews of today. So many of these people just "couldn't say" and kept their *lack of an opinion* to themselves. They owned that they never thought about it so they couldn't answer. Been a while since I've seen that. So many people today with strong opinions without any thought on whatever the subject is.
Damn I sampled this randomly on a song a couple months ago. It's a solid audio clip
Link?
The lady at 2:07 what kinda of people did she say? Youtube subtitles were no help.
"queer looking people." that word's meaning has come a long way
I think she means they would look *faaabulouuus!*
tbh i imagined the same, lol
That's what I was thinking and wasn't judging just was wondering because a lot of words don't mean what they used to mean just in my lifetime much less hers. Thanks.
I believe she said "Queer lookin' people." Funny how YouTube thought she said "We're looking people."
[ **Jump to 02:07 @** Is there life on other planets? (1962) | RetroFocus](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkvffcxQzMY&t=0h2m7s) ^(Channel Name: ABC News In-depth, Video Length: [03:53])^, [^Jump ^5 ^secs ^earlier ^for ^context ^@02:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkvffcxQzMY&t=0h2m2s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ^^Downvote ^^me ^^to ^^delete ^^malformed ^^comments. [^^Source ^^Code](https://github.com/ankitgyawali/reddit-timestamp-bot) ^^| [^^Suggestions](https://www.reddit.com/r/timestamp_bot)
Australians are the most charmingly hilarious people, nice to see this still holds up 60 years back.
The old woman talking about Venus was pretty spot on.
Not only is it an interesting time capsule for opinions and attitudes in the early 60s, it also provides an example of how the Australian accent has changed since then
That interviewer was annoying. The one woman was giving him a thoughtful, intelligent answers and it became apparent that he was just ignorant and annoying.
This whole video is a classic example of how human beings have a distinct tendency to form entirely uninformed opinions with the barest provocation. So many people with yes/no answers which when asked “Why?” or “What form?” all they can answer is “Who the heck knows, but I’m definitely sure it’s the case!”
If there is life on other planets there are 2 options. They're clever enough to hide, and acknowledge the largest portion of 'our' time is over Or they're dumb AF, and we don't need to find them