I also doubt it. The Critical Drinker and I have similar tastes, and he hated it.
Disclosure Day - Spielberg Should Stop Making Films
He most likely used all(or maybe just the right ones) contacts he had for the info about the ET fandom to produce such a movie. When the movie ended, nobody moved a muscle until the end credits almost finished rolling. They were simply petrified and took them a long time for them to come back to their senses. I asked a few people about what they thought of it. A couple barked at my face that it was terrible while running out of the theatre, another had confused expression on their faces while slowly drifting out of the place, but a teenager girl I asked said that the movie was pretty awesome.
EDIT: The ET shown at the end was hyper-realistic in movements and appearance and might’ve freaked the audience out.
I guess, some people just didn’t…click with it. 
ba dum tssss
Also that academic paper shown in the Buga Sphere video:
Well, I was puzzled about why would the report talk about foraminifer samples, so just ran it through an AI and this happened:
(Start of AI answer)
Analysis of a supposedly authentic radiocarbon dating report
I ran this document through Claude and asked it to assess whether the style and content are consistent with a genuine radioisotope carbon dating report. Here are the findings:
Elements that appear authentic
The issuing institution — the Center for Applied Isotope Studies (CAIS) at the University of Georgia — is a real and well-regarded radiocarbon dating laboratory. The address, phone, fax, and website in the footer all match the actual CAIS contact details.
The methodology described is also technically sound: HCl treatment to remove carbonates, ultrapure water rinsing, combustion at 900°C in sealed ampoules with CuO, cryogenic CO₂ purification, and catalytic conversion to graphite. The reference to the Vogel et al. (1984) method is standard in the field, as is the use of Oxalic Acid I (NBS SRM 4990) as the reference standard and the 5568-year Libby half-life convention for reporting BP dates. The table format (UGAMS#, Sample ID, Material, δ¹³C, ¹⁴C age BP, ±, pMC, ±) matches real CAIS reports.
Red flags and internal inconsistencies
This is where it gets interesting.
1. “Foraminifer samples” vs. material = “resin”
The body text explicitly states these are foraminifer samples, but the data table lists the material as resin. This is a serious internal contradiction. Foraminifera are calcite-shelled microorganisms — they have nothing to do with resin. A legitimate lab report would be consistent throughout.
2. The δ¹³C value is wrong for foraminifera
The reported δ¹³C of -28.65‰ is characteristic of C3 land plants or terrestrial organic matter. Foraminifera typically yield values between -1‰ and +3‰. This is a glaring isotopic inconsistency with the declared material.
3. The age and pMC are internally consistent
For what it’s worth, 20.94 pMC does correspond to roughly 12,700–12,800 years BP, which is broadly compatible with the reported 12,560 ± 30 BP. So whoever produced this document got the math roughly right — suggesting some familiarity with the field, or that real values were simply copied.
Overall assessment
The document combines genuine elements (real institution, correct methodology, plausible format) with significant technical inconsistencies that any specialist would catch. The most likely explanation is that this is a real CAIS report that has been altered — with the sample ID, material, values, or recipient modified — rather than a document fabricated from scratch. The boilerplate and methodology sections appear to have been lifted intact from a legitimate report, while the sample-specific data was changed, imperfectly.
The foraminifer/resin contradiction alone would be enough to raise serious doubts about authenticity.
(End of AI answer)
Looks like they just got a real document and pasted a false sample identity over it without noticing that the document specified a kind of sample (foraminifera) incompatible with what they claimed (ancient resin?), and to make things worse they also got wrong the technical part about the amount of Carbon on foraminifera shells vs plants/animals so maybe they pasted together three different elements, a header from a foraminifer sample, a sample identity of their own and a text about some vegetal/animal sample 12,000 years old.
Then hoped that nobody would notice the foraminifer thing to raise a red flag for inquiring minds…
I AM A PRECURSOR
I am not trying to “Throw the baby out with the bath water.” here. We have broomsticks to test, or if you wanted to prove or disprove a reindeer can fly you need the reindeer. Until someone can make, produce, or discover a wormhole, they just don’t exist. A lot of people fear progress to the degree that scientific knowledge suffers. Those who want to make a wormhole in their parent’s basement, I say, “Go for it!”. I am for lifting restrictions on scientific experimentation. Just as long as your human test subjects fully know the risks and are willing to take that risk.
After all, that is how we went from this…
to this…
No effing way. Scientific tests and experiments that can endanger someone’s life, property, health, wellbeing, etc need to be reserved for people who have been educated in the relevant field and/or have the expertise/experience to know and understand the risks. Not something for average Joe to conduct in their ‘‘parents’ basement’‘. An average person does not understand the risks involved themselves, let alone inform test subjects of them. There needs to be oversight and regulation on that level, not letting just anyone ‘‘make a wormhole in their parents’ basement’’.
Wormhole generation is fairly safe.
Just don’t let children or stray cats near it, as they might jump in.
1 Like
Most scientist who make a wormhole in their parent’s basement, won’t be heard from again.
But they should know the risk, and taking risks is just another part of life.
1 Like
The Wright Brothers were average frigging Joes.
When I was a kid, we still had chemistry sets that enabled kids like myself to make nitroglycerin and blow holes in our parents sidewalk.
You don’t get progress by restricting the abily to experiment.
Sure, you get a few dummies missing some fingers or their head, but you also get the advancement that comes from that one smart kid who made the nitro better.
1 Like
I am all for someone generating an infinite gravity well in their basement. I see nothing wrong with that at all. All you need is a particle accelerator and collider.
When you have to open the basement windows and the explosion still blows the basement door open! A very good lesson in overpressure! 
When your mom has to ask if you’re ok after all I had set off before, priceless! Missing fingertip but from a machine, not my own devices. I still play with fire but now I have to do it outside and far away! 
1 Like
I guess I was just ahead of my time? 
That was just the detonator for the 8lb warhead in a rc airplane with an eleven ft wingspan.
1 Like
Sure, wormholes are cute when it’s Jerry O’Connell sliding around between alternate universes. Then crazy Uncle Larry makes a black hole in his basement, and there goes the neighborhood.
2 Likes
Just to be honest, that hole pictured was caused by a vampire incursion from a Hell mouth. Hey! Maybe there needs to be an oversight committee and regulations placed on vampires and witchcraft?
I’m aware.
EDIT: Fun fact, that image was supposedly created by superimposing elements over a photo of Meteor Crater in Arizona, which is why the former Sunnydale, California looks like it’s in the middle of a desert. I visited Meteor Crater in 2018 on my way to the Grand Canyon, after stopping in nearby Winslow, Arizona for the obligatory photo of myself standing on a street corner. 
I think “Supernatural” should be included in this thread for more unhinged discussions. 
It’s not their existence. It’s their Originnnnnn 
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.