UFO Orange Triangle Formations Are The F.A.R Giving Birth?
- Thread starter common_sense_seeker
- Start date
- Status
lol. I'm using the library internet facilities and get 2hrs free a day.
There's too many good mass eye-witness accounts imo. Just the other day a triangle formation was filmed and seen by many in Russia: UFO sends St Petersburg residents scrambling for cameras, Video (25 Oct 2009). Check out the footage.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
How many times do you have to be told that your opinion is not worth diddly.
I guess we should all be grateful for small things....
That doesn't mean they are flying animals giving birth and which bio-illumines. You haven't even managed to give a reasonable justification for why such creatures are even possible, never mind that they fly at night, give birth during such flies and are connected to possible UFO sightings.
Don't you think it would be common sense to first establish if such a creature can even arise via evolution before claiming its responsible for X, Y and Z?
That's right. There's been some controversy regarding the propulsion technique of the proposed F.A.R, so let me explain:
1. They glide by maintaining the 'saddle-shape' similar to this photo link (breaching manta ray).
2. The muscles which contract from anterior to posterior now do so in a quick-fire vibration which causes the spring-loaded plactoid scales to flick open and snap shut.
3. It is this 'cloak of bees wings' which give the FAR a unique flying ability; the ghost-like appearance of floating in mid-air! (A characteristic of many eye-witnerss accounts of the owlman etc). Mexican wave - shimmering bees
sighting
Last edited:
I'm just wondering CSS...I did a little google fu, looking for any reference for "Flying Amphibious Ray", and I can't find anything, not even on cryptozoology sites. Did you just make up this creature?
Last edited:
Common_sense_seeker, why is it all of your ideas and claims require the complete absence of common sense to be even vaguely entertained?
there's an awful lot of information in this thread, i'm feeling overwhelmed.
anyways, why does every topic about ufo's have to go in the pseudoscience subforum? i saw a bird today, but i don't know what kind of bird it was--and there was noone present to tell me: ufo. occasionally, when i'm out in the middle of nowhere late at night, i see an light in the sky which i can't determine whether it is a satellite or a falling star--again, noone there to be so kind as to identify it for me: ufo.
anyways, why does every topic about ufo's have to go in the pseudoscience subforum? i saw a bird today, but i don't know what kind of bird it was--and there was noone present to tell me: ufo. occasionally, when i'm out in the middle of nowhere late at night, i see an light in the sky which i can't determine whether it is a satellite or a falling star--again, noone there to be so kind as to identify it for me: ufo.
You are in a library? THEN READ A FUCKING BOOK OR TWO.
Oh, and your little thought experiment that rays give birth and then then fly and protect the newborn? Show me ONE example of a newborn being able to fly immediately after birth please. Any flying species will do.
Also, abandon this stupid idea that rays can fly. It's been shown to you that a ray weighing in at several tonnes hasn't got a hope in hell, but you cling to that stupid idea. Do you get it yet, ... a ray weighing between two and three tonnes with a floppy cartilage support structure isn't ever going to fly. Never. Give up, get sane.
IF you saw a light in the sky, to qualify as a UFO it would have to demonstrate controlled FLIGHT. Many people shout UFO for stationary lights. Sorry, that's bogus.
But to label a light as a UFO even after it demonstrated controlled flight, it would have to do something extraordinary, to rule out a prosaic explanation.
Being ignorant of the type of aircraft you are witnessing does not mean you can use the term UFO either.
So, to recap, the 'F' in UFO stands for flying, not 'in the sky', or 'in orbit'. You need to witness flight, and that flight needs to be inexplicable by conventional aircraft. Get all those factors together, you can shout UFO.
You must have missed this mirror thread of mine in the Unexplained_mysteries.com forum Umboi: Did Rays Evolve The Ability To Fly?. A similar reaction incidentally. It's the only logical explanation which fits all the facts imo, however unbelievable to the layman.
I inferred the identity of the flying cryptid from a lifetime of interest and research, yes. Intuitive detective work. Lateral thinking outside the box etc
Fits the facts?
So these rays (which are NOT amphibious by the way, even if they could fly) can fly to/ at altitudes of several thousands (or several tens of thousands) of feet where the formations are (claimed to be) seen?
Nope, you're spouting unsubstantiated and insupportable nonsense. As per usual.
Last edited:
There is no logic in any of your leaps of faith.
You have no facts, just myths.
Layman, ... you demonstrate no knowledge in any scientific area. Please, what qualifications are you claiming now?
Using the library computer, ... you don't even own a computer of your own? Why is that. Odd for anybody who allegedly graduated in a science field not to these days, ... and if you have spent your lifetime coming up with this crap, you have wasted your life.
The word 'amphibious' is used in a general context in the F.A.R abbreviation, meaning it is adapted for life on land as well as in the sea. There's no definite reason why triangle UAPs couldn't be crytozoological, is there?
Exactly on land and sea.
Not in the sea and in the air.
In other words you're as sloppy about linguistic nuance as you are about science.
None. (Or even zoological. Seagulls in the right light look very shiny and non-seagull-like.)
But the "F.A.R." isn't it.
You still haven't explained how they get to that altitude.
And St. Petersburg is how far inland? How far away from ray normal "stomping grounds"?
It's pure (uninformed) speculation on your part with not a single ounce of science involved.
The 'flying' part of F.A.R was the giveaway. They could reach a high altitude if there was a uplifting wind, such as by a hilly coastline. Where's the problem?
I gave you the answer already in the other thread.
My friend is an avid Kitesurfer. One of his kites has 14 square metres of sail area. He weighs about 80 Kg.
All of that aerofoil surface in a good wind can loft him.
But if we weighed say, two FUCKING TONNES. He'd be going nowhere.
Now, a 6metre span ray, weighs between two and three tonnes, depending on the species. THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL WIND WILL LIFT THAT WEIGHT.
What is it about the sheer weight of a ray that you do not grasp?
I'm sure a number of alarm bells are ringing. This thread is being closed mainly due to the fact that there is no way this is pseudoscience... (I mean pseudoscience is one thing but this actually has it beat.)
So to save the trolling, flaming and outright abuse layercake that would develop, it's time to have a Lockdown.
- Status