UFO Lights Filmed Descending Into Woods In India

Gustav said:
jesus wept
you asked a question...
i replied "2 or 3" (rather incredulously hence the goddamn question mark)
Click to expand...
I thought you were questioning the source of the "2 or 3"

hehe
so?
Click to expand...
It's quite simple: the FAR is nothing to do with the number of readings it's to do with total system operating time.

prove it. give me a citation other than the one i bolded and quoted
Click to expand...
Pick one
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=Radar+false+alarm+rate
As your own source (and the next you gave) states the FAR is a function of signal and noise - there's always background noise, and interference.

this is prt and rather than guess what "rangecells" is, i'll ask you, mr actual knowledge
Click to expand...
It's the smallest distance increment a radar is capable of detecting. And THAT equation also tells you it's a time-based rate. PRT is pulse repetition time, the inverse of the PRF (frequency).

this is what i ask of all woo woos...stick to conventional terminology. thanks
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for you that was conventional terminology. :rolleyes:
the term "open" refers to overt, publicly available sources (as opposed to covert or classified sources); it is not related to open-source software or public intelligence.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_intelligence
 
to whom it may concern
please ban me immediately if you see me doing any math
think of it as a public service
 
Gustav said:
you are one tired old hack, aint ya?

/sneer
Click to expand...

Thank you for that line. I got a laugh out of that! Okay, a few.

@



now
despite conde's disavowal of original acct, phlog insists that conde stick to his original story.

it blows the fucking mind how utterly irrational and pathological pseudoskeptics can get.
Click to expand...

What can I say? Interesting...

And whatever happened to the frickin lighthouse? I thought eveyone beat that one to death a long time ago. Oh, wait, it WAS the lighthouse, but now it's this guy?

Makes a lotta sense.

No, actually, it doesn't, but that's only because I don't understand science. If I did, then the logic of the "skeptical inquirers" would make total sense.
 
Last edited:
phlogistician said:
You could have quoted my post, making it easier to know what you were talking about, ...
Click to expand...

I did quote you but you glossed over it or ignored it. Gustav asked you even before that and you didn't respond.

I still don't see how you get "The perpetrators of that hoax owned up. ......."

There is only one person that I can see who could be called a hoaxer. And your declaration of "case dismissed" is a bit premature.
 
Giambattista said:
I did quote you but you glossed over it or ignored it. Gustav asked you even before that and you didn't respond.
Click to expand...

You quoted Gustav quoting me. It was messy, and I didn't see it, because the first thing I saw was 'Originally posted by Gustav', so why would I think the next portion would be addressed to me? If you want answering, be specific. Your next post didn't quote anything.

Threads diverge, you need to address which part of the thread you want addressing.

Anyway, is it so hard for you to type 'Rendlesham Hoax' into Google?
 
phlogistician said:
You quoted Gustav quoting me. It was messy, and I didn't see it, because the first thing I saw was 'Originally posted by Gustav', so why would I think the next portion would be addressed to me? If you want answering, be specific. Your next post didn't quote anything.

Threads diverge, you need to address which part of the thread you want addressing.
Click to expand...

Pardon.
1227.gif


Anyway, is it so hard for you to type 'Rendlesham Hoax' into Google?
Click to expand...

No. I was already familiar with the case you referred to. I was just wondering why you originally said perpetrators, implying that there was more than one person involved in this so-called hoax.
 
Giambattista said:
No. It was an attempt to determine what the heck you were talking about. Only until you finally posted the link to the same story I was thinking of did you confirm for me what you were referring to.



In what way have I failed, and how was it "epic"?
Click to expand...

Rendlesham has been discussed and debunked several times on this forum. I'm not going to trot out the refutations every time someone brings it up.

Do your own research. That was your failure. NOT doing your own research.
 
phlogistician said:
Rendlesham has been discussed and debunked several times on this forum. I'm not going to trot out the refutations every time someone brings it up.

Do your own research. That was your failure. NOT doing your own research.
Click to expand...

Okay, mumsy.

My failure was not doing any research. Well, I had heard the lighthouse was the culprit, as I indicated in a previous post. That seemed like the debunking du jour. Or the debunking du ans. Pardonnez moi to all you French speaking zealots if I have abused your language inappropriately!

And then I heard mention once or twice about the flashy lights of the pseudo police car. How fitting, being in the pseudoscience section! I always kinda thought that one sounded a little spurious and off the cuff. Maybe I was wrong.

I'm wondering which of these scientifically sound hypotheses, errrr, facts, I should consider as valid. They both look so good, but I realize only one can be certain.

Help me.
 
phlogistician said:
No. Do your own research.
Click to expand...

Naturally, I was being sarcastic. I'm afraid asking for anything more than a clarification (which is what I originally did) from you would undoubtedly set me back significantly.

I was already familiar, again, with that story. You confused me by saying perpetratorS, that's all. You haven't yet said that you made a mistake and meant only ONE perpetrator. Instead of admitting of that, you accuse me of trying to nit-pick and further accuse me of not doing my own research, in a manner which is quite typical of you, and other "right-thinking" individuals like you.

phlogistician said:
Anyway, is it so hard for you to type 'Rendlesham Hoax' into Google?
Click to expand...

I would assume if I threw out a quick allegation of something without providing any additional info, and you wanted to know what I was talking about, you would probably angrily demand to see a source, saying something like "put up or shut up!" or "provide a link or a source or admit you're a pseudoscientific woo-woo" or thereabouts. Is that an accurate description of something you would most likely say? My sincere apologies if I assume wrongly.

Perhaps I wouldn't have harped on it if you had answered Gustav when he asked you the first time?

Gustav said:
phlogistician said:
The perpetrators of that hoax owned up. .......
Click to expand...
who?
Click to expand...

Oh, well.
 
if you think that the vast universe of 13.6 billions light-years space only occupied by living creatures on planet earth, then you prove yourself to be selfish and arrogant.the noble is "If you can make it, why other can't make it?"
 
Giambattista said:
Yo Phlog! HOAXERS? Plural?
Click to expand...

sure aliens... and some people of the south east (like indonesia) worship planes because they gave them canned corn and beans and want them to come back. I'll give Indian's more credibility tho because they after all came up with the concept of zero or nothingness which I believe is a term most people need to better understand.
 
M00se1989 said:
sure aliens... and some people of the south east (like indonesia) worship planes because they gave them canned corn and beans and want them to come back. I'll give Indian's more credibility tho because they after all came up with the concept of zero or nothingness which I believe is a term most people need to better understand.
Click to expand...

How so?
What does the concept of zero have to do with aliens?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top