| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Dean 
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
 Posted: May 05 2013 at 17:26 |
 Atavachron wrote:
At least we can agree that many of the aero-kinetic objects people are seeing are real; that is, they exist externally and are not hallucinations, haphazard identifications of balloons or normal aircraft at tangential angles, intentional hoaxes, or disturbed visions. |
How do you mean?
|
|
What?
|
 |
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65494
|
Posted: May 05 2013 at 17:03 |
|
At least we can agree that many of the aero-kinetic objects people are seeing are real; that is, they exist externally and are not hallucinations, haphazard identifications of balloons or normal aircraft at tangential angles, intentional hoaxes, or disturbed visions.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: May 05 2013 at 12:00 |
|
|
|
What?
|
|
dr wu23
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20645
|
Posted: May 05 2013 at 10:24 |
Dean wrote:
dr wu23 wrote:
Dean wrote:
dr wu23 wrote:
I hoped for more from you Dean......so why not name a few of the things that you think it could have been since you don't believe it was an alien spacecraft...?
I might be able to give you more 'salient' pieces of info about the event.
btw, I'm not trying to put you on the spot here but I would really like to hear your ideas about what they might have experienced if it was not a real aircraft. |
Sorry to disappoint - shut me up twice and the possibility presenting you with a third opportunity becomes increasingly less likely.
If you have more evidence then provide it, if you haven't then don't.
The information provided does not give enough reference points to even make wild guesses. As I have said before, we are terrible at judging size, speed and (especially) distance - this can be demonstrated easily and explained using the mathematics of persective geometry - "a small house" 200 feet in the air looks the same as a 20-story building 2000 feet in the air that is ten times further away and will look the same as a dog-kennel 20 feet in the air at one tenth the distance. The problem there is the distance along the ground (ie depth) does not follow that simple relationship when projecting that 3D reality onto a 2D plane (ie how we see in perspective) - therefore we are rubbish at judging distances which puts a question mark over any size estimates made by eye-withnesses. |
So then you have no idea what it could have been yet you dismiss the idea it could have been some type of aircraft, earth based or otherwise, ....that seems very prejudiced to me. |
I have never said it wasn't some type of aircraft, nor did I dismiss the posibility, I said: "They saw a UFO. That is the simplest explanation because what they saw was Unidentified."
Seriously: "typical saucer shaped with both gold and silver metal colors and was as large as a small house" and can "hover over the field... slowly moved off then left very fast and was gone very quickly" may be enough information for you to make all the wild guess you care to make but it's not enough information for me to make a considered one, and I don't do wild guesses unless I'm being obviously sarcastic, for example: "it's a giant electric banana" [I too am a hoot at parties].
dr wu23 wrote:
It sounds like you are relcutant to even make a guess for personal reasons and your excuses seem simply weak to me. |
The weakness of my excuse is immaterial. If I don't like the way you respond to my longer posts then my reluctance to be drawn into making guesses that I'm not interested in making is understandable. The blame does not lay with me for that.
dr wu23 wrote:
There are not that many things it could have been...period. |
Based upon the very limited information you have provided and taking into account the many possible errors in that information, there are many things that it could have been... random punctuation.
dr wu23 wrote:
Prove me wrong and tell me why you can't even make a wild guess. |
I don't have to prove you wrong when you haven't proved yourself right. The onus is on you to provide proof, which thus far you have failed to do.
If you think that there are not that many things that it could have been then why don't you tell the boys and girls reading this what those things are and explain why.
|
Another long evasive post.......
|
|
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: May 05 2013 at 06:21 |
^ The technology of unstable, non-aerodynamic flight has made significant progress over the past twenty years. You can go into a toy store and buy a ready-made self-stabalising craft over the counter for less than $100. The advent of the $20 microcontroller and the $5 solid-state gyroscope (both available from eBay) that have more processing power and greater sensitivity than anything used on the Apollo space program, along with improved efficiencies in electric motor and battery design has made multicopters not only possible, but practical and realisable in a kitchen workshop. This is technology (which we in the 21st century would call "simple") that the designers of the Avrocar in the 1950s did not have, so buiding that tech into unmanned/manned jet or vectored-thrust propulsion craft is now only a matter of engineering and appliction, not innovation.
|
|
What?
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
|
Posted: May 05 2013 at 03:38 |
If some children see this at night they can imagine all sorts of things
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: May 04 2013 at 20:00 |
Atavachron wrote:
With all the new drone technology being publicly utilized, and that was obviously available to those with access to it years ago, is it a surprise people are seeing all number of airborne constructions?
|
...and you don't have to be a top secret black-ops military establishment to do it either. You can buy everything you need to construct one in your backyard from eBay.
|
|
What?
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65494
|
Posted: May 04 2013 at 19:34 |
|
With all the new drone technology being publicly utilized, and that was obviously available to those with access to it years ago, is it a surprise people are seeing all number of airborne constructions?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: May 04 2013 at 19:13 |
dr wu23 wrote:
Dean wrote:
dr wu23 wrote:
I hoped for more from you Dean......so why not name a few of the things that you think it could have been since you don't believe it was an alien spacecraft...?
I might be able to give you more 'salient' pieces of info about the event.
btw, I'm not trying to put you on the spot here but I would really like to hear your ideas about what they might have experienced if it was not a real aircraft. |
Sorry to disappoint - shut me up twice and the possibility presenting you with a third opportunity becomes increasingly less likely.
If you have more evidence then provide it, if you haven't then don't.
The information provided does not give enough reference points to even make wild guesses. As I have said before, we are terrible at judging size, speed and (especially) distance - this can be demonstrated easily and explained using the mathematics of persective geometry - "a small house" 200 feet in the air looks the same as a 20-story building 2000 feet in the air that is ten times further away and will look the same as a dog-kennel 20 feet in the air at one tenth the distance. The problem there is the distance along the ground (ie depth) does not follow that simple relationship when projecting that 3D reality onto a 2D plane (ie how we see in perspective) - therefore we are rubbish at judging distances which puts a question mark over any size estimates made by eye-withnesses. |
So then you have no idea what it could have been yet you dismiss the idea it could have been some type of aircraft, earth based or otherwise, ....that seems very prejudiced to me. |
I have never said it wasn't some type of aircraft, nor did I dismiss the posibility, I said: " They saw a UFO. That is the simplest explanation because what they saw was Unidentified."
Seriously: "typical saucer shaped with both gold and silver metal colors and was as large as a small house" and can "hover over the field... slowly moved off then left very fast and was gone very quickly" may be enough information for you to make all the wild guess you care to make but it's not enough information for me to make a considered one, and I don't do wild guesses unless I'm being obviously sarcastic, for example: "it's a giant electric banana" [I too am a hoot at parties].
dr wu23 wrote:
It sounds like you are relcutant to even make a guess for personal reasons and your excuses seem simply weak to me. |
The weakness of my excuse is immaterial. If I don't like the way you respond to my longer posts then my reluctance to be drawn into making guesses that I'm not interested in making is understandable. The blame does not lay with me for that.
dr wu23 wrote:
There are not that many things it could have been...period. |
Based upon the very limited information you have provided and taking into account the many possible errors in that information, there are many things that it could have been... random punctuation.
dr wu23 wrote:
Prove me wrong and tell me why you can't even make a wild guess. |
I don't have to prove you wrong when you haven't proved yourself right. The onus is on you to provide proof, which thus far you have failed to do.
If you think that there are not that many things that it could have been then why don't you tell the boys and girls reading this what those things are and explain why.
Edited by Dean - May 04 2013 at 19:15
|
|
What?
|
|
dr wu23
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20645
|
Posted: May 04 2013 at 10:19 |
Dean wrote:
dr wu23 wrote:
I hoped for more from you Dean......so why not name a few of the things that you think it could have been since you don't believe it was an alien spacecraft...?
I might be able to give you more 'salient' pieces of info about the event.
btw, I'm not trying to put you on the spot here but I would really like to hear your ideas about what they might have experienced if it was not a real aircraft. |
Sorry to disappoint - shut me up twice and the possibility presenting you with a third opportunity becomes increasingly less likely.
If you have more evidence then provide it, if you haven't then don't.
The information provided does not give enough reference points to even make wild guesses. As I have said before, we are terrible at judging size, speed and (especially) distance - this can be demonstrated easily and explained using the mathematics of persective geometry - "a small house" 200 feet in the air looks the same as a 20-story building 2000 feet in the air that is ten times further away and will look the same as a dog-kennel 20 feet in the air at one tenth the distance. The problem there is the distance along the ground (ie depth) does not follow that simple relationship when projecting that 3D reality onto a 2D plane (ie how we see in perspective) - therefore we are rubbish at judging distances which puts a question mark over any size estimates made by eye-withnesses. |
So then you have no idea what it could have been yet you dismiss the idea it could have been some type of aircraft, earth based or otherwise, ....that seems very prejudiced to me. It sounds like you are relcutant to even make a guess for personal reasons and your excuses seem simply weak to me. There are not that many things it could have been...period. Prove me wrong and tell me why you can't even make a wild guess.
|
|
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: May 03 2013 at 06:16 |
Dean wrote:
dr wu23 wrote:
I hoped for more from you Dean......so why not name a few of the things that you think it could have been since you don't believe it was an alien spacecraft...?
I might be able to give you more 'salient' pieces of info about the event.
btw, I'm not trying to put you on the spot here but I would really like to hear your ideas about what they might have experienced if it was not a real aircraft. |
Sorry to disappoint - shut me up twice and the possibility presenting you with a third opportunity becomes increasingly less likely.
If you have more evidence then provide it, if you haven't then don't.
The information provided does not give enough reference points to even make wild guesses. As I have said before, we are terrible at judging size, speed and (especially) distance - this can be demonstrated easily and explained using the mathematics of persective geometry - "a small house" 200 feet in the air looks the same as a 20-story building 2000 feet in the air that is ten times further away and will look the same as a dog-kennel 20 feet in the air at one tenth the distance. The problem there is the distance along the ground (ie depth) does not follow that simple relationship when projecting that 3D reality onto a 2D plane (ie how we see in perspective) - therefore we are rubbish at judging distances which puts a question mark over any size estimates made by eye-withnesses. |
Correct. That's the trouble with these sightings. The brain fills in all the pre known details of what the eye doesn't see.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: May 03 2013 at 05:32 |
dr wu23 wrote:
I hoped for more from you Dean......so why not name a few of the things that you think it could have been since you don't believe it was an alien spacecraft...?
I might be able to give you more 'salient' pieces of info about the event.
btw, I'm not trying to put you on the spot here but I would really like to hear your ideas about what they might have experienced if it was not a real aircraft. |
Sorry to disappoint - shut me up twice and the possibility presenting you with a third opportunity becomes increasingly less likely.
If you have more evidence then provide it, if you haven't then don't.
The information provided does not give enough reference points to even make wild guesses. As I have said before, we are terrible at judging size, speed and (especially) distance - this can be demonstrated easily and explained using the mathematics of persective geometry - "a small house" 200 feet in the air looks the same as a 20-story building 2000 feet in the air that is ten times further away and will look the same as a dog-kennel 20 feet in the air at one tenth the distance. The problem there is the distance along the ground (ie depth) does not follow that simple relationship when projecting that 3D reality onto a 2D plane (ie how we see in perspective) - therefore we are rubbish at judging distances which puts a question mark over any size estimates made by eye-withnesses.
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: May 03 2013 at 01:44 |
There you go, Douglas Adams was right - Aliens are tiny and their space craft are tiny. So tiny they can be disguised as birds.
Here is one in the process of "beaming" an abuductee aboard their craft to conduct annual probing experiments. You will observe how little the camo jacket provided as defence against such a cunning foe.
Edited by Dean - May 03 2013 at 01:47
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: May 02 2013 at 16:24 |
The Doctor wrote:
Dean wrote:
dr wu23 wrote:
Dean wrote:
ETH? Nope, not recognising your TLA.  |
ETH stands for extraterrestrial hypothesis.....sorry, I thought you knew that. |
Assumptions are dangerous and often very wrong.
It is not a piece of information I needed to know therefore not something committed to memory. Whether "believers" in UFOs believe them to be of extraterrestrial origin or inter-dimensional origin (or whatever origin) is immaterial to me, you can argue among yourselves to your hearts content about where they could possibly maybe perhaps come from. That debate is like arguing whether Father Christmas comes from the North Pole or Lapland.
|
When it is obviously self-evident that he's from Lapland.  |
Look matey, just because no one can live at the North Pole it does not mean that no one does.
...oh wait, yes it does.
Oh bugger.
Edited by Dean - May 02 2013 at 17:45
|
|
What?
|
|
The Doctor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
|
Posted: May 02 2013 at 16:17 |
Dean wrote:
dr wu23 wrote:
Dean wrote:
ETH? Nope, not recognising your TLA. |
ETH stands for extraterrestrial hypothesis.....sorry, I thought you knew that. |
Assumptions are dangerous and often very wrong.
It is not a piece of information I needed to know therefore not something committed to memory. Whether "believers" in UFOs believe them to be of extraterrestrial origin or inter-dimensional origin (or whatever origin) is immaterial to me, you can argue among yourselves to your hearts content about where they could possibly maybe perhaps come from. That debate is like arguing whether Father Christmas comes from the North Pole or Lapland.
|
When it is obviously self-evident that he's from Lapland.
|
|
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
|
timothy leary
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
|
Posted: May 02 2013 at 15:57 |
dr wu23 wrote:
timothy leary wrote:
Elvis is a watermelon. |
Very entertaining comment........you must be a real hoot at parties.
|
Did you take it personally, because I don't remember addressing you with my comment.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: May 02 2013 at 15:55 |
dr wu23 wrote:
Dean wrote:
ETH? Nope, not recognising your TLA. |
ETH stands for extraterrestrial hypothesis.....sorry, I thought you knew that. |
Assumptions are dangerous and often very wrong.
It is not a piece of information I needed to know therefore not something committed to memory. Whether "believers" in UFOs believe them to be of extraterrestrial origin or inter-dimensional origin (or whatever origin) is immaterial to me, you can argue among yourselves to your hearts content about where they could possibly maybe perhaps come from. That debate is like arguing whether Father Christmas comes from the North Pole or Lapland.
|
|
What?
|
|
dr wu23
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20645
|
Posted: May 02 2013 at 15:40 |
timothy leary wrote:
Elvis is a watermelon. |
Very entertaining comment........you must be a real hoot at parties.
|
|
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin
|
|
dr wu23
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20645
|
Posted: May 02 2013 at 15:39 |
Dean wrote:
ETH? Nope, not recognising your TLA. |
ETH stands for extraterrestrial hypothesis.....sorry, I thought you knew that.
|
|
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin
|
|
timothy leary
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
|
Posted: May 02 2013 at 15:30 |
|
Elvis is a watermelon.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The UFO Phenomenon
