Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Joaquin, Feb 16, 2015.
Occam's razor, Ripley.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
As far as the authorities are concerned (until an actual visual ID is made) it would be an unknown aircraft in national airspace.
Unless you're now suggesting that the French were aware of exactly what the craft was before it decided to play "look at me" over Paris.
A saucer-shaped aircraft is still an aircraft, and would be treated just like every other aircraft that was over somebody's airspace without permission.
The Phoenix Lights were interesting but the thing which i've always wondered about was when they mentioned people/witnesses were underneath the craft having a clear view of the object directly above them. I'm just wondering how they couldn't have atleast got some sort of video or picture from that angle even if it was of poor quality. I'm not trying to dismiss it as something extraterrestrial but i would have loved to see a closer more clearer image or video if it was seemingly possible at the time.
I'll give the footage the benefit of the doubt because it's in the dark.
It is one piece of footage which makes you wonder out of 1000's which are obvious fakes. I don't think you can still say for certain it was extraterrestrial or a man-made craft in origin as the footage is not enough to go on.
I think there's apparently been 3 million abductees across the globe. The reported number may be higher but out of all of the abductees not one has taken a clear image/video of a craft or an alien.
I think aliens may have been here but on extremely rare occasions but not week in week out like some of the abductees want to have you to believe.
Based on that logic, we also cannot say for certain that it wasn't a craft built and piloted by an alliance between Bottlenosed dolphins and a Mink whales.
I think it is also fair to ask Dywyddyr the same question. Anyone can claim to be an expert. Dy is fond of demanding support for assertions made by others, maybe today would be a good day for him to reciprocate.
That's easy: I have well over 30 years of studying the subject, have been used as a consultant to various bodies, have written on the subject and spend most of my time researching and keeping up with aerospace matters.
Anyone can say that dy, but what evidence do you offer in support of the contention that you have spent thirty years studying the standard aviation practice over the French capital. That was the question. You, rightly, hold others to account when they give a misdirection in their answer. Turnabout is fair play.
I doubt the aviation practice in France is too different from anywhere else in Europe.
Dy has a reputation for knowing what he's talking about, so I'd take his word over somebody arguing that flying saucers are hovering unnoticed (except for one person with a camera phone) over major cities.
There is a discussion elsewhere in the forum about the double blind peer review being offered by Nature. Assertions should be judged by the quality of supporting evidence, or argument, not by the source of the assertion. If dy is unwilling to provide the same sort of evidence he routinely demands of others then that suggests an arrogance that is out of place in one arguing for objectivity and the like.
Specifically in this case I have witnessed dy hammer many an individual for failing to answer the actual that was question asked. In this case the dispute was not over his knowledge of aviation practices, but aviation practices over the French capital; practices which he implied contained specific limitations. He chose not to answer that, but attempted to imply that his general knowledge covered the specific case. This the same sleight of hand routinely practiced by the nutters whom dy, rightly, pursues. I would just like to see dy - and several other members - favour a level playing field and avoid the unseemly kneejerk reactions that typify many responses on this an other forums.
You ever seen a real spaceship?
That's not what I said.
I claimed that due to my expertise I know the so-called TR-3B doesn't exist.
The French air defence policy came up later.
(One easily-accessible reference to support my position on THAT would be two separate issues of Air International from last year , where in-depth articles discussed exactly this).
1 August and September issues.
Here's a good video of a UFO. There's background on where it was taken and analysis by a special effects expert.
I see... a speck in the sky?If I had to guess - Helicopter of some sort. I think the cameraman must have a touch of the Palsy or something, given that camera shake, making it a bit of a PITA to see clearly. Shame - a telephoto lens and steady base would make this an open-shut case Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
They have many over at that NASA place. Of course, those spaceships are man-made.
Aliens and flying saucers on the other hand...
Go full screen and look again. The craft makes no noise, something a helicopter would do. And it is disc shaped. You can really see this in the last few seconds of the footage where you see the round underside of it. Definitely convincing evidence in my book..
Evidence of what?
You've misinterpreted what i meant. It could be either an extraterrestrial craft or a man-made craft. But we can't say for certain it's either given the evidence.
I can't say it's 100 percent a man made craft and not extraterrestrial. There's no definitive proof of it being extraterrestrial in origin or man-made. It could be either one or it could be completely fake.
Not even given that the idea of it being extra-terrestrial is absurd?
Separate names with a comma.