Anyone ever seen a UFO?

[phlogistician]

Greetings Phlogistician:
If I may be so bold as to offer something here have you ever read about any Orion Project propulsion research that was conducted back in the late 50's (I believe)?

You should do your research. Project Orion has of course been discussed, and debunked, right here at SF:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40942

We currently have the technology that could be used to accelerate an enormous amount of mass to a substantial percentage of the speed of light.

No we don't.

Also, it was announced yesterday that the Kepler space probe has yielded data that shows that there are at least 100 BILLION planets in the Milky Way, 1500 of which are within 50 Light Years of Earth. With all that in consideration interstellar travel is far from impossible.

We know there are lots of stars. So what? We can't detect if any have atmospheres, or life yet, so cannot pick a candidate to visit, even if we had the capability, which we just do not. Interstellar travel IS IMPOSSIBLE at present, we can't even get back to the Moon, let alone another planet in our own solar system!

 

[phlogistician]

What more is alien which we see in the night sky, performing acts beyond current technological capabilities?

To make the claim you saw something 'beyond current technological capabilities' requires you to know everything about every craft produced by every nation's secret development programs, and well, you don't have a clue.

I saw what many would consider a 'UFO' once,... but as it was near a 'disused' missile range, realised it was most likely a UCAV being tested, or being used for training.

 

[Reiku]

To make the claim you saw something 'beyond current technological capabilities' requires you to know everything about every craft produced by every nation's secret development programs, and well, you don't have a clue.

I saw what many would consider a 'UFO' once,... but as it was near a 'disused' missile range, realised it was most likely a UCAV being tested, or being used for training.

How? Many of the technological aerodynamical presentation of these mysterious objects often go at speeds which a human could simply not endure.

This isn't a matter of me knowing what the secret projects are. It is a matter of the laws of physics and those of biology as well. We simply could not sustain the G-forces from some of the trajectories coupled with the speed these objects make.

 

[phlogistician]

How? Many of the technological aerodynamical presentation of these mysterious objects often go at speeds which a human could simply not endure.

And I gave you the clue when I mentioned a UCAV.

This isn't a matter of me knowing what the secret projects are. It is a matter of the laws of physics and those of biology as well. We simply could not sustain the G-forces from some of the trajectories coupled with the speed these objects make.

Why are the craft piloted? You state they perform maneuvers that a person could not endure, but then fail to come to the conclusion that they are therefore not piloted, but instead invent a far more convoluted explanation.

So yes, it simply is a matter of you not knowing what secret projects are capable of.

 

[Reiku]

And I gave you the clue when I mentioned a UCAV.



Why are the craft piloted? You state they perform maneuvers that a person could not endure, but then fail to come to the conclusion that they are therefore not piloted, but instead invent a far more convoluted explanation.

So yes, it simply is a matter of you not knowing what secret projects are capable of.

No, you are twisting my words again.

I also mentioned, if you will read back and refresh that memory of yours, that it is a matter of biology and physics. If they are piloted by aliens, explain to me what makes you think they share the same biology?

They may have a biological composition which can withstand G-forces to much a better degree than ourselves.

 

[phlogistician]

No, you are twisting my words again.

I also mentioned, if you will read back and refresh that memory of yours, that it is a matter of biology and physics.

It's only a matter of biology if they are piloted, so the logical conclusion is that they aren't.

If they are piloted by aliens, explain to me what makes you think they share the same biology?

I don't think they are piloted, so the question is irrelevant.

They may have a biological composition which can withstand G-forces to much a better degree than ourselves.

Who are they? There's nobody inside those UCAVs.

 

[Reiku]

It's only a matter of biology if they are piloted, so the logical conclusion is that they aren't.



I don't think they are piloted, so the question is irrelevant.



Who are they? There's nobody inside those UCAVs.

Well, if it is any consollation I actually believe that many of these devices probably won't be piloted by aliens (as though being in the ship itself) but there is a chance that many of them could be piloted from what is often called a ''mother ship''.

However, if they are piloted directed and they produce speeds which no human body could withstand, then of course it is a matter of biology.

As per usual, Phlog, you go about everything backwards. Either that, or your imagination is failing you, again..

 

[phlogistician]

As per usual, Phlog, you go about everything backwards.

Nope, you do. You invent extra-terrestrial explanations for terrestrial phenomena.

Either that, or your imagination is failing you, again..

I'll go with experience and imagination thanks. Experience tells me there have been secret military aircraft with cutting edge capabilities. Imagination means I can extrapolate that to what is secret now.

 

[Reiku]

Terrestrial phenomena, by definition, is a phenomenon which happens on earth. That assumes, as you do, that the phenomena can be accounted for, like your weak, watered down and ignorant explanations of chinese lanterns and whatnot.

 

[Ripley]

Experience tells me there have been secret military aircraft with cutting edge capabilities.

But being privy to secret military aircraft is not actually packaged alongside experience. What you're suggesting is something else completely. You assume secret military aircraft have cutting edge capabilities, and that that would account for the flying anomalies—but without knowing for sure what that "cutting edge" is suppose to be like.

You see experience in the same light as reading of accounts involving UFOs—that is, accounts stripped of the dynamics of instant impression.

An instant impression is almost like a psychic experience—an intuitive moment that just hangs there without a question and without an answer because the experience of it is so out there. It's as if the human psyche during those protracted few seconds reaches out into its collective unconsciousness searching in vain for some sort of archetypical association—the return search registers… nothing. Nothing about what is being witnessed feels earthly. Nothing corresponds. Nothing fits.

Believe me—you have no idea what an experience is like.

 

[Reiku]

But being privy to secret military aircraft is not actually packaged alongside experience. What you're suggesting is something else completely. You assume secret military aircraft have cutting edge capabilities, and that that would account for the flying anomalies—but without knowing for sure what that "cutting edge" is suppose to be like.

You see experience in the same light as reading of accounts involving UFOs—that is, accounts stripped of the dynamics of instant impression.

An instant impression is almost like a psychic experience—an intuitive moment that just hangs there without a question and without an answer because the experience of it is so out there. It's as if the human psyche during those protracted few seconds reaches out into its collective unconsciousness searching in vain for some sort of archetypical association—the return search registers… nothing. Nothing about what is being witnessed feels earthly. Nothing corresponds. Nothing fits.

Believe me—you have no idea what an experience is like.

Indeed... not only that, but when he said he ''had experience,'' I felt like laughing. I have afterall experienced three UFO's first hand. I doubt he has. In fact, I am sure he hasn't seen a geniune one that defy's all explanation. the kind I have been talking about with him.

He doesn't know what experience is. He thinks he does.

 

[phlogistician]

In fact, I am sure he hasn't seen a geniune one that defy's all explanation.

Wow, reading comprehension really isn't your strong point, is it?

I clearly stated I had seen something which many would interpret as being a UFO, but using a few facts, came to the conclusion it was most likely a UCAV.

So, no, I haven't seen something that defies all explanation, because I managed to rationalise it all by myself.

And you haven't seen a 'genuine' one, until you have some provenance. Which you don't.

 

[phlogistician]

But being privy to secret military aircraft is not actually packaged alongside experience.

How can you say that? Experience tells us that the U2, SR71, B2, RQ-170, X37-B, all set new bars, height, speed, stealth, autonomy, capability, and that the stuff that is _still_ secret sets new records!

What you're suggesting is something else completely. You assume secret military aircraft have cutting edge capabilities,

Experience tells us past secret ones have had exactly that.

and that that would account for the flying anomalies—but without knowing for sure what that "cutting edge" is suppose to be like.

Extrapolating from current tech is a fair method to guess what current secret craft can do. So, again, speed, stealth, altitude, handling, I have no doubt the US military has some really impressive test vehicles, if not production aircraft already, that easily explain a lot of 'sightings'.

You see experience in the same light as reading of accounts involving UFOs—that is, accounts stripped of the dynamics of instant impression.

'instant impressions' are often quite poor interpretations of actual events.

An instant impression is almost like a psychic experience

WOO WOO! WOO WOO!

 

[Ripley]

Experience tells us that the U2, SR71, B2, RQ-170, X37-B, all set new bars, height, speed, stealth, autonomy, capability, and that the stuff that is _still_ secret sets new records!

Experience tells us... Appropriate insertion for the word 'experience', eh? But it's not exactly an experience to know about these aircraft first hand, but rather it's foreknowledge—you're dependent on it. And besides, one doesn't experience knowledge before one has perceived it first.

It's that experience of an initial perceiving of something that I'm talking about, the instant impression, a vision beheld—it's all without interpretation because it simply appears. Anything that follows that becomes an idea reasoned out post hoc, such as whether or not it's a U2 or a UFO because… But I think an interpretation depends on the nature of an initial impression—and one's own personality. That, that will consequently determine the clinching testimony of one's perceptions—some have spoken of a spiritual experience. Obviously yours wasn't.

Extrapolating from current tech is a fair method to guess what current secret craft can do.

And so the scales of your choosing are tilted in your favor for your benefit, while a UFO/ET sympathizer is forbidden to extrapolate? Earlier you spoke of imagination as a method to extrapolate. But if I extrapolate from unimaginable accounts of my own, the nature of which could blow your mind, I'm a woo woo.

'instant impressions' are often quite poor interpretations of actual events.

Instant impressions are not suppose to be interpreted but experienced. As I said, anything that follows that experience becomes christened by either an imaginable consciousness—or, as in your case, a mundane one.

WOO WOO! WOO WOO!

See? You're blatantly biased—how on earth are we suppose to trust your own doo doo impressions??

 

[phlogistician]

But I think an interpretation depends on the nature of an initial impression—and one's own personality. That, that will consequently determine the clinching testimony of one's perceptions—some have spoken of a spiritual experience. Obviously yours wasn't.

Ok, so you are an unscientific woo woo. There's no point talking to you, really, it's going to be a waste of my time.

 

[Ripley]

Ok, so you are an unscientific woo woo. There's no point talking to you, really, it's going to be a waste of my time.

Big shit.

 

[phlogistician]

Big shit.

This is a science forum. You need more than subjective nonsense and references to scatology to make your point.

 

[Reiku]

This is a science forum. You need more than subjective nonsense and references to scatology to make your point.

That's a bit hypocritical.

I gave you a long winded reason why 616 is most likely a scribal error, to which you childlishly said ''616 is the number of the beast'' which was unsupported with no proof. No hard facts in fact.

 

[phlogistician]

That's a bit hypocritical.

I gave you a long winded reason why 616 is most likely a scribal error, to which you childlishly said ''616 is the number of the beast'' which was unsupported with no proof. No hard facts in fact.

Wrong thread kid.

And it's 666 that's the scribal error, but if you want to discuss that, quit trolling here, and do it in the other thread.

 

[Reiku]

Wrong thread kid.

And it's 666 that's the scribal error, but if you want to discuss that, quit trolling here, and do it in the other thread.

You are actually a fool.

Considering 666 in Hebrew is the number which appears in the conventional texts which were studied, the texts you speak of are their own scrolls, which contained 616, however, in those same scrolls the number 666 appears. Why would you precious number 616 be the beasts number, then, professor, if 666 also appeared in the same text?

You're suggestion it is not the beasts number is stupid; please, even wiki agreed with me, 616 is almost very likely a scribal error.

Now, I mentioned this because you are accusing him of being childish. You can be found in the same light, hypocrite. Bring it up in the other thread, I'll mention all the points again you can't refute.