@phlogistician --
Like that'll ever happen.
If you think I am wasting any more time with you, you'd be wrong.
@phlogistician --
Like that'll ever happen.
You misread it in a science magazine somewhere. It is anticipated that in future it will be possible to analyse the major components of exoplanet atmospheres. It has not been done thus far.I read it in a science magazine somewhere.
You misread it in a science magazine somewhere. It is anticipated that in future it will be possible to analyse the major components of exoplanet atmospheres. It has not been done thus far.
If that is true, fair enough.
It is true. We can only detect planets via the perturbation of their star's orbit, or by occultation of the star's brightness.
The latter method does mean the planet is in the field of view, being between us as the observer, and the planet, and causes a dimming of a couple of percent at best. The size of the planet may be estimated using this method, but not it's composition. Not yet, anyway.
So, you did NOT read your claim in a 'Science Magazine', because no reputable source would have published such a story. Perhaps one of those 'wet finger in the air' type scientific prediction articles in some other publication, but NOT in a reputable magazine or journal.
So yet again you demonstrate your lack of discernment and critical thinking, and ultimately, sheer bloody mindedness. You love your pet theory so much you twist facts to fit it, and ignore things that don't.
Service ceiling: 10,000 ft (3,048 m) (estimated), 3 ft (0.91 m) (actual)
Mindedness?
Piss off. Seriously. You are harshly judging me on vaguely remembering something. Seriously, piss off.
@Mister --
From the wikipedia article:
A service ceiling of three feet is not, exactly, what I'd call a flying saucer. A hovering saucer maybe(or just a piece of junk), but not flying.
While I would grant the point you made, in that the US government did, indeed, attempt to build a flying saucer, it could still be argued that they never actually built one.
Some people would report you for such, but not I. I have a nice, thick skin.
You got it WRONG. This is not a creative writing exercise. It's science. You can get the answer wrong, and you did.
No wonder you believe the things you do when you don't fact check.
And I did get it wrong. How many times do you want me to repeat myself? Any decent person would leave it at that and move on!
You are being pendantic!!!
Nope, he's being accurate. Do you get it yet? There are no points in this game for being nearly correct.
I was completely correct in my statement about the government project in creating UFO's.
I'd rather accumulate this information about you, than leave it.
You don't fact check. You have no qualification in science. You prefer to read conspiracy web sites over factual ones. You are wasting your time with this stuff.
No you weren't. It was a secret prototype. It was never a UFO.
Well, every time you state a mistake of mine, I'll state a mistake from someone else.