UFO's and why they blink out.

Status
Not open for further replies.
river said:
Who are you referring to ?

If its me river ; then say so ...I'm not going to bash you .
Click to expand...
You have to ask?

1. My post directly followed your post.
2. Your post, to which I was responding, opened with the words "I was hoping...". My response, opened with the words "I was hoping...." This is a common rhetorical device. Individuals with normal reading comprehension recognise cues like this quite readily.
3. You seem to be the only one in this thread asserting that UFOs are alien craft. My post is clearly directed towards someone who believes UFOs are alien craft.
3. The post was directed to "fools such as yourself" . You are the only fool on this thread.

Any one of these pointers should have let you know the post was directed towards you. The fact that you had to ask calls into question - yet again - whether you have the intellectual resources to conduct a serious argument.

Finally - and on topic - as other members have pointed out, the propulsion system is independent of the generation of a sonic boom. Therefore your calculation is irrelevant. Continuing to promote this flawed argument helps persuades casual readers, who currently sit on the fence, that those who espouse the "UFOs are aliens" hypothesis are uneducated idiots. It dissuades the audience you need to convince and thereby confirms the view that your ideas are as well structured as a snark's flatulence.
 
river said:
It seems to be. None of them have any class at all . NONE
What is worse is that the younger people on this site see this Attitude by members and think that it is okay to behave this way towards others. It is NOT okay at all.
Click to expand...
Ah, the "attitude" displayed whereby someone makes a claim, it's solidly refuted and the claimee dishonestly states that it still stands?
The "attitude" displayed whereby someone makes a claim, it's solidly refuted and the claimee dishonestly fails to address? (Or tries to laugh off a refutation because he doesn't understand it)?
The "attitude" displayed whereby someone makes a claim, it's solidly refuted and the claimee dishonestly makes further unsupported claims and then states that whether or not he knows what he's talking about isn't pertinent?

So, according to you, it's okay to be intellectually dishonest but it's NOT okay for people to point out that such dishonesty is being used/ displayed?
 
Well, I tried to keep it on-topic. But if the OP would rather have a meta-argument, I can't help that.

river said:
It seems to be. None of them have any class at all . NONE

What is worse is that the younger people on this site see this Attitude by members and think that it is okay to behave this way towards others. It is NOT okay at all.
Click to expand...
river, you have a responsibility too. You have a responsibility to put forth an argument that is reasoned and logical, and you have a responsibility to address problems with it. When refuted, accept that, rather than complain that your argument is being twisted.
We can't help you with that. That's on you.

You might do well to close this thread and start one with your proposals about advanced propulsion.
 
Last edited:
River,

Bear in mind that in a vast majority of cases, ufos simply make no noise whatsoever. This rules out any conventional propulsion system as that would make tremendous noise. There's also a huge problem with the G force of accelerating from 0 to 1000 mph in just a few seconds. Whatever these are, they are manipulating the fundamental forces of mass, gravity, and inertia imo. And I believe they are capable of wormhole travel/teleportation. That explains why many appear and disappear in a flash of light.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Yes. The point being it is then divorced from scientific analysis, and becomes merely fanciful imagination.
Click to expand...

Uh no. The human encounter with a sufficiently advanced technology does not become fanciful imagination just because we don't have the science to understand it. The encounter remains what it is, on par with becoming a magical or miraculous event in itself. Human scientific comprehension is not the arbiter of what is real.
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
Bear in mind that in a vast majority of cases, ufos simply make no noise whatsoever. This rules out any conventional propulsion system as that would make tremendous noise.
Click to expand...
Unless the UFO is in orbit! Then it:
1. Doesn't need propulsion.
2. Would be too far away to hear it even if it did.
 
Daecon said:
Why not go the whole hog and just say they're magical?
Click to expand...
Given that neither river nor MR have any scientific training, nor interest in learning, per the Arthur C Clarke quote, they are indeed making assumptions indistinguishable from magic. If anyone does ever see an actual alien spaceship, it ain't gonna be them who figures out how it works!
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
Most ufos appear in the earth's atmosphere.
Click to expand...
Unprovable claim and in particular, river's vague description sounds more like satellites to me than wrongly identified airplanes. But even still, if it is wrongly identified airplanes, they can be dozens of miles away and silent.
 
Russ_Watters said:
Unprovable claim and in particular, river's vague description sounds more like satellites to me than wrongly identified airplanes. But even still, if it is wrongly identified airplanes, they can be dozens of miles away and silent.
Click to expand...

You obviously haven't looked at the hundreds of ufo photos I posted in my earlier post. Why don't you educate yourself about what you're pontificating on?
 
Tell me MR, why has there been no significant increase in the quality and quantity of UFO pictures given the almost ubiquitous distribution of cameras in mobile phones? I understand the data were sufficient to enable the Cheroblinsk meteor's trajectory to be accurately calculated, yet still no decent photos. Odd!
 
Ophiolite said:
Tell me MR, why has there been no significant increase in the quality and quantity of UFO pictures given the almost ubiquitous distribution of cameras in mobile phones? I understand the data were sufficient to enable the Cheroblinsk meteor's trajectory to be accurately calculated, yet still no decent photos. Odd!
Click to expand...

Why do you say there's no decent photos? Have you looked at any? See post #79.
 
Magical Realist said:
An engineer who knows nothing about ufos and refuses to look at photos of them is still a moron about ufos.
Click to expand...
I've looked at thousands of UFO photos, but more relevant here, I've looked at thousands of troll posts. I know troll posts well enough to tell that since you made no comment on those photos you probably didn't even look at them yourself and even if you had, you haven't put an ounce of effort into analyzing them. Posting the link was just more trolling - a diversion/distraction.

The truly sad thing here is that you've put so many years of time and effort into stallwartly defending your ignorance that you could have fixed it by now. It would be harder than posting link after link of junk, but at least after a few years you could have a science/engineering education. But you don't even have the guts to try. I sincerely pity you in that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top