Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by river, Dec 7, 2013.
Define fly... it was barely a hover craft.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Oh yes there is. Saucers do not make efficient flying machines ... we know this. Again, we have tried!
Toy's on the shelf are different, we are of course talking about large scale craft. I don't know one country that has successfully tackled the challenged concerning a successful aerodynamic saucer.
More so because of the cold war!!! You think that several X-planes just decided to take a stroll over the forbidden airspace of the capitol? Please.... let's try and keep this consistent. Let alone it being a serious federal offence, it doesn't make sense that the Military would decide to have a dogfight over the skies of washington in the full view of the public.
To think this is what happened, to me at least, is ridiculous.
To be honest I've been enjoying these chats, it is starting to put some things into perspective for me, including the critical thinking ability of some people. While Billvon's arguments may seem reasonable at first glance, they do suffer some consistency problems and these problems may be the reason why I find his way of thinking... so right wing.
From what I can see, Billvon, even when handed conflicting evidence, still finds the simplest explanation the most likely. Usually when you apply Occams razor, you don't have the pleasure of having such detailed accounts of the sighting. Some officials direct themselves in similar ways when confronted with similar scenario's. The object of the game is complete denial of the event and the details of the event and to remain steadfast in the idea of a conflicted but easier to imagine scenario.
I think this methodology of thinking is dangerous and inherently flawed. You are basically shrugging off all evidence in hope to retain the ignorant but ''easier to believe'' alternative. Hopefully I don't need to explain what is wrong with this.
Also, there seems to be some differences in what we believe to be realistic Military experiments. I find the whole idea of a Military dogfight over some populated area just seems to be a mega backstep in years of covering up the subject. Ok, in 1952 the Military was reasonably young in the advent of interception of UFO's... but it still doesn't make sense why they would even make such a risk as to parade and make a big fuss over the capitol sending all posts into a state of alarm. It doesn't add up, especially when we can see how secretive the American government really is when it comes to drones being tested. When the government wants to do this, they don't parade their best over the capitol. They find a secluded area so that they may test aircraft without the hindrance of the public.
Is this what makes me a different critical thinker, to someone like Billvon? I think so. I think there are clear patterns which shows Billvon intrinsically could never believe it and probably would still deny it even if he saw the evidence in hand since... he seems to do this any way.
Let me offer a reasonable explanation to why the dogfight in 1952 happened.
Since we know for a fact the Military have been chasing the objects, (1952 case is not exceptional) for a while, it is likely the Military posed them with a volume of risk attached to them. Anything which penetrates the air defence is a matter of national security, however, the order to shoot down the UFO's is an act of aggression which might be equal to danger they have posed to previous Military air craft. Not only have UFO's shown aggressive tendencies, but air craft have gone missing when they have attempted to intercept them. This level of security breach is massive and would explain why the Military suddenly decided to take hostile action even though... no one had been harmed. There could be a level of past experience with these objects that allowed the clearance to shoot them down.
Oh, I think everyone understands all they need to about you. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Believing in things that exceed our understanding of the natural world with no evidence to support that belief.
well, there's no need to.
what an insignificant parasite thinks of me or anyone on this site is irrelevant to anything.
you will still be a pathetic ignoramus who loves to argue.
even if it means you run your mouth continuously with complete ignorance on anything.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Lift off the ground and move about under its own power.
Which case were you talking about? My case in which I actually saw the vehicle, or one of your cases?
Exactly. There is no problem building a "flying saucer" that can fly about. It is simply inefficient which is why we haven't done it very often.
The principles are exactly the same. While the Reynold's number doesn't scale, the control issues (the big Achilles heel of early saucers) do scale.
Yes. Heck, shortly after 9/11 - a time when we were just as paranoid about strange aircraft appearing in sensitive locations - a skydiving pilot flew his Cessna right over the Capital. He was also a UFO - at least until they sent up jets to identify him and force him to land.
If a competent pilot using a modern GPS navigation system can make such a mistake, surely the pilot of an experimental aircraft with much cruder navigation system (and a lot more to worry about) would be even more likely to make such an error.
It didn't stop this guy.
They didn't. No one fired on anyone else. However, during the Cold War, one could see how they would get very, very upset by aircraft over the Capital.
It HAS happened. Thus it is a possible explanation for a similar event.
Occam's Razor still applies. The simplest explanation to fit the facts is generally the correct one.
Detailed accounts of the sighting:
A friend of mine was once part of an experiment they did at a college. They took college students at a fairly prestigious university (Brown if I recall correctly) and had them volunteer for an experiment. There were two experiments.
In the first, they sat in a lecture hall and watched an hour long lecture. At the end of the lecture three more people came out on stage. One was juggling radios that were playing. A second was a woman who sang opera. A third was a man who walked up to the lecturer and danced with him. The lecturer then handed the man his wallet and all four left. The students then left the hall and were immediately interviewed as to what happened. Most were bewildered and did not understand what had happened. However, when asked about details of the event, they fairly accurately depicted parts of what happened. "I saw a woman singing." "The professor danced with someone and then left." "The lecture got interrupted."
In the second they did exactly the same thing. But before they interviewed anyone they put them in a room with free drinks and food for about an hour. At the end of the hour they interviewed the people again. The interesting thing about this experiment was that people had much more complete - and more _wrong_ - views of what happened. "The professor got mugged!" one guy said. "That guy stole his wallet." "It was a trick," another guy said. "The woman wasn't really singing, it was coming from the radios."
Why were they so much less accurate in the second case? Why would students - presumably relatively intelligent students used to being in lectures - get so much wrong after they had more time to think about it? Because they had an hour to talk and "get their stories straight." And while people have pretty good powers of observation, they are also very amenable to mending those observations to fit into their framework. A woman just walking out and singing opera makes no sense, but if someone else tells you "it must have been coming from the radio, that makes more sense" then the person amends his memory to the memory that makes more sense to them.
The above is why:
1) crime investigators know they have to interview people as soon as possible after an incident, and they have to be kept from talking to other people until they are interviewed
2) NTSB investigators will try to tell people as little as possible about an incident before they get their story, so they don't start "amending their memories" to make them better fit the event
3) Interviews with people who have seen UFO's are nearly worthless if done several days after the event. This is especially true if, at that point, everyone seems to have the same story.
I didn't know that clown colleges gave out PhDs.
I suppose if any aliens try and bother you that you just use your telekinetic powers to take em out.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well I will leave you with your fantasy world this is just way to silly...
that's my point,
you know nothing,
but yet somehow run your ignorant mouth about everything.
I would like to see "in still air" and "achieve an altitude greater than that of your start" as the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk, NC failed both these tests but the first to fly, Santos DuMont, did them and more before a few hundred observers in a flat field near Paris. All the world (except the US) and most aviation societies recognize him as the first to fly.
On the "gain altitude" requirement, I would like to see also: "such that ground effect lift is not significant" too but that I admit is getting a little "picky." I think Howard Hugh's "spruce goose" failed that test as needed the ground effect to stay air born. - I.e. only skimmed over flat land or the ocean.
"Flying saucers" have achieved both. They have climbed and have started from a standing start. Their big problem was controlability; at the time (the 1950's) control systems were purely mechanical. Nowadays you can get a gyroscopically stabilized autopilot system for about $500.
The speed of a flying saucer, once you break free of the space-time continuum, is upwards of about 1000c. After that, navigation is the challenge.
Well that's true, but perhaps I should add: With no part of the aircraft still in contact with the earth, other wise "hovercraft" with skirts touching water or ground, "fly."
Santos Dumont was quite rich. His father's coffee plantation produced so much coffee that he built a railroad to the port for its global distribution. Thus a few years after he flew, he had a 12 cylinder in-line powerful motor built and installed it roughly amidship in a long narrow boat with hydrofoils. He got up to 100 mph going down the Seine before 1910!
The Write Brothers deserve a lot of honor for the scientific approach to the problem of controlled flight and would have been first with motor of slightly greater HP/ pound. They did extensive wind tunnel testing on air foil shapes, both for the wings and the propellers. Santos did not have a wind tunnel but did essentially the same both in water and with his plane (motor removed) hung from a long steel cable between two high point and with a horse or donkey pulling it thru the air, to see what designs gave good lift.
The Avrocar, a circa 1960 flying saucer, met that definition; no part was in contact with the ground during its flight. They couldn't get much past a few feet of hover with about 30mph of forward motion, though. The video is available on Youtube.
lets try to make a point with something primitive.
That's the point. You don't need to postulate exotic technologies to have someone claim they saw a flying saucer.
you just love to argue and nothing more.
you are basically like origin
Irony score 10/10.
Separate names with a comma.