You have no idea what kind of propulsion system these craft have. Going by their sudden acceleration and speeds that seem to defy mass and inertia in some way, the shape probably doesn't matter anyway. We have examples of cylinder shaped ufos, spheres, and even cubes. And why would a saucer escaping an atmosphere at an angle be less effective than a rocket going straight up? It wouldn't be. The saucer shape makes perfect sense for atmospheric navigation.
And that is the problem - this entire premise is predicated on something able to violate material sciences, basic physics, and the basic needs of life.
Right..we are positing the existence of an intelligence with far more advanced technology and science than we have at present. That much seems clear. Who they are and where they come from remains an open question imo.
Which returns us to the original question - if they are advanced to the point of laughing off physics, why would aerodynamics be any different?
Ooh, ooh, I know! It's because they're all mysterious and shit.
That's the reason, right? Because "mystery", so f*** you for being skeptical, you dirty skeptic.
[jazz hands] Mystery! [/jazz hands]
Take another look at the photo in post #2, like I suggested.The others show no evidence of photoshopping and are quite clear.
most of those don't pass mustard as a reasonable shape to build a craft in... it has to withstand tremendous stresses to cross interstellar distances... especially the flying half wing and the wire frame one, they look ready to fall apart at a good sneeze, much less high-g acceleration
Take another look at the photo in post #2, like I suggested.
If it were quality evidence, you wouldn't have to "looks like" it, you'd have an un-edited copy of the original photo to look at and examine, which would pretty conclusively establish what took the photo, where, and under what conditions.Looks like a regular photo from a cellphone video to me. Are you a photoshop expert now like Bells?
If it were quality evidence, you wouldn't have to "looks like" it, you'd have an un-edited copy of the original photo to look at and examine, which would pretty conclusively establish what took the photo, where, and under what conditions.
No, that's gullibility or wishful thinking. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You don't even care if you get quality evidence, much less extraordinary evidence!I accept, based on the known principles of photography, the likelihood that photos are exactly what they appear to be until I have some compelling reason to doubt them. That's just common sense.
No, that's gullibility or wishful thinking. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You don't even care if you get quality evidence, much less extraordinary evidence!
I don't need to be. Look:Looks like a regular photo from a cellphone video to me. Are you a photoshop expert now like Bells?
UFO proponents will argue that any shape is ok for an alien spaceship, and they'll come up with an ad hoc reason to explain why that particular shape is useful or desirable.You have no idea what kind of propulsion system these craft have. Going by their sudden acceleration and speeds that seem to defy mass and inertia in some way, the shape probably doesn't matter anyway. We have examples of cylinder shaped ufos, spheres, and even cubes. And why would a saucer escaping an atmosphere at an angle be less effective than a rocket going straight up? It wouldn't be. The saucer shape makes perfect sense for atmospheric navigation.
I don't need to be. Look:
See the "enlargement" at the bottom right? Can you spot the jaggy edges where the electrical wire is supposed to be? Wires don't do that on their own, you know. See the sort of rectangular box that nicely intersects the jaggy bits of the wire and which neatly surrounds the flying saucer? Why would that be there, I wonder.
It even looks like the saucer has been pasted in twice, or more probably pasted in and then shifted around a little in photoshop.
Tell me why I'm wrong and why electrical wires develop pixelated jagginess all by themselves.
And here I am, not a special expert in photo manipulation, yet I still managed to spot this almost at first glance. But you, on the other hand, are convinced it's an alien spaceship. Right?
Yazata:
Look, here's another example of special pleading:
UFO proponents will argue that any shape is ok for an alien spaceship, and they'll come up with an ad hoc reason to explain why that particular shape is useful or desirable.
Alien spaceships have unknown propulsion systems. Alien spaceships are made of unknown substances. Aliens have advanced or magical technology that allows them to defy the laws of physics. Aliens are trans-dimensional beings who can appear and disappear at will. And so on and so forth.
All untestable and unfalsifiable.
You're sure of this, are you? Or are you just raising it as a possibility?Probably due to pixelation of the magnified cellphone image. It's called tiling. Magnify any line enough on a tiny screen like that and you will be sure to see this distorted effect. So no, this is not evidence of photoshop. Leave that to people who know what they're doing.
That's a good question.Just out of curiosity, why does the magnified image show this tiling effect, but the unmagnified doesn't?
What phenomenon? Recall that we're arguing about whether there are any alien spaceships. You're already with Buck Rogers in the 25th century. You skipped a lot of steps.We have to go by what the phenomena manifests.
Does it? How did you measure this?It involves sudden accelerations at speeds of thousands of miles per hour.
Is that what it suggests?So it suggests some technology that can dampen inertia and perhaps involves the manipulation of mass itself in the form of the Higgs Field.
Thanks for proving my point. Obviously you don't care whether any of your claims are testable. What matters is that you have a good story that makes you happy and fits what you already believe.Who cares if you can test it or not?
Really? Show me some of the evidence you're relying on that shows sudden enormous accelerations, for example. Show me how you determined those accelerations.It's what the phenomena shows.
Great! Show me the evidence.We go by the evidence, not with what our limited and fallible science can test and falsify.