UFO's and why they blink out.

[Magical Realist]

I've looked at thousands of UFO photos,

No you haven't. If you had you wouldn't have made that grossly ignorant suggestion that they are all in outer space. Anyone even remotely familiar with the ufo phenomena knows full well they are seen in earth's atmosphere. Except for the occassional NASA footage.

I know troll posts well enough to tell that since you made no comment on those photos you probably didn't even look at them yourself and even if you had, you haven't put an ounce of effort into analyzing them. Posting the link was just more trolling - a diversion/distraction.

You are always whining and bitching about trolls like a crybaby. Funny since you are always the first to lose your shit in these threads and start insulting posters about being ignorant and dishonest. I already reported one of your flaming posts. Don't make me do it again. Oh...and posting ufo photos in a thread specifically about ufos is called education, not trolling.

The truly sad thing here is that you've put so many years of time and effort into stallwartly defending your ignorance that you could have fixed it by now.

LOL! Go ahead and "fix my ignorance" then. What earthshattering fact am I still oblivious to that you have been keeping secret all this time?

Oh and here's a little tip for ya: When you strut around here bragging about your engineer credentials it doesn't make you sound smart at all. It just makes you sound like an insecure and aging douchbag who needs to bolster his ego in forums like these to give his vapid and meaningless little life some much needed purpose. Got it?

 

[DaveC426913]

You obviously haven't looked at the hundreds of ufo photos I posted in my earlier post. Why don't you educate yourself about what you're pontificating on?

Hang on a sec here, MR. This thread is about lights winking out.

Lights, for the most part, are very difficult - usually impossible - to judged as to distance. They could certainly be an arbitrary distance away and no one would be the wiser.

You are attempting to move the discussion to photos of objects. That is a completely different ballgame.

Start a new thread.

 

[DaveC426913]

GUYS. Address the issue, not the issuer.

There's a gulf between "your argument is flawed" and "you are flawed".

 

[Magical Realist]

Hang on a sec here, MR. This thread is about lights winking out.

Lights, for the most part, are very difficult - usually impossible - to judged as to distance. They could certainly be an arbitrary distance away and no one would be the wiser.

You are attempting to move the discussion to photos of objects. That is a completely different ballgame.

Start a new thread.

Nice try. I read the OP and its title. Here it is:
======================================================
I did some very basic calculations on the speeds of UFO'S ;

For instance ; at

2000mph = divided by 60 mins = 33.33 miles / min.
by 60 secs = 0.56 miles/sec.

5000mph = divided by 60 mins. = 83.33 miles/min.
by 60 secs. = 1.39 miles/sec

10,000mph = divided by 60 mins. =166 miles/min.
by 60 secs. = 2.7 miles/sec.

50,000mph = divided by 60 mins. = 833.33 miles/min.
by 60 secs. = 69.45 miles/sec.

So we can see why they can seem to " blink out " . Because within one second these craft will have gone at least a half a mile.

Plus I think this refutes this " another dimension theory " as to why they just blink out or just disappear.

The most puzzling thing about all this ; is that ; nobody has bothered to do these simple calculations before.

These simple calculations changes one's perspective ."
=========================================================
River is talking about "ufos" and "craft". Not once is lights mentioned. Perhaps the thread was highjacked by somebody else?

 

[Russ_Watters]

No you haven't. If you had you wouldn't have made that grossly ignorant suggestion that they are all in outer space.

I've never said any such thing.

Anyone even remotely familiar with the ufo phenomena knows full well they are seen in earth's atmosphere. Except for the occassional NASA footage.

Heh, no. A pretty high fraction are misidentified planets and satellites.

I already reported one of your flaming posts. Don't make me do it again.

While trying to figure out if I care, why don't you report your post #97 where you called me a "moron".

LOL! Go ahead and "fix my ignorance" then. What earthshattering fact am I still oblivious to that you have been keeping secret all this time?

You haven't posted any real content here to be that specific, just more of your generic anti-science ranting. river's first post, though, was specific, showing a lack of understanding of geometry and Newtonian Mechanics. He followed that up with a basic misunderstanding of aerodynamics (even that is generous -- elementary school kids learn about thunder without really learning about aerodynamics).

Oh and here's a little tip for ya: When you strut around here bragging about your engineer credentials it doesn't make you sound smart at all. It just makes you sound like an insecure and aging douchbag who needs to bolster his ego in forums like these to give his vapid and meaningless little life some much needed purpose. Got it?

Wow, guess I struck a nerve! Maybe you consider the flipside next time you attempt an empty insult to someone's "education"? You should also consider reporting that post of yours. Lemme know what you decide.

 

[DaveC426913]

OK, I can see how the interpretation can go either way. You're right, it doesn't actually mention lights.

But that's kind of my point. MR and Russ are addressing two different kinds of sightings.

Lights in the night are often unidentified aircraft or satellites.
On the other hand, photos tell you virtually nothing about objects winking out, since they're, well, photos. They also, often tell you little about distance (no parallax and you have to make assumptions about the size of the object)

 

[DaveC426913]

You should also consider reporting that post of yours.

Already done. Pretty sure "douchebag" falls in the category of ad hominem.

 

[Magical Realist]

OK, I can see how the interpretation can go either way. You're right, it doesn't actually mention lights.

But that's kind of my point. MR and Russ are addressing two different kinds of sightings.

Lights in the night are often unidentified aircraft or satellites.
On the other hand, photos tell you virtually nothing about objects winking out, since they're, well, photos.

I for one would never take a light in the starry sky as a ufo. They are far more likely satellites or high flying planes. OTOH, a blurry photo is still a photo of an actual object. Eyewitness testimony often includes accounts of them disappearing suddenly.

 

[Magical Realist]

You haven't posted any real content here to be that specific

Right..So I'm still the ignorant one who offers real tangible evidence of ufos and their properties and you get to retain this secret fact that would somehow totally "fix my ignorance" should you ever deign to reveal it to me. lol! Don't waste my time anymore here troll.

 

[Magical Realist]

I've never said any such thing.

"Unless the UFO is in orbit! Then it:
1. Doesn't need propulsion.
2. Would be too far away to hear it even if it did."

 

[DaveC426913]

Uh no. The human encounter with a sufficiently advanced technology does not become fanciful imagination just because we don't have the science to understand it. The encounter remains what it is, on par with becoming a magical or miraculous event in itself. Human scientific comprehension is not the arbiter of what is real.

Right. The talk about what it might be (such as an alien craft) is the fanciful speculation part.

What is really is, is just an account of a sighting. No more. Could be a reflection, could be aircraft, could be hallucinations. Could be a bona fide craft with advanced propulsion, but the sighting is not enough to conclude that.

Everything beyond the account itself is speculation.

 

[DaveC426913]

"Unless the UFO is in orbit! Then it:
1. Doesn't need propulsion.
2. Would be too far away to hear it even if it did."

If that were the case, then there is no reason at all to posit any such explanation. It's a satellite until there's reason why it can't be.

If you hear hoofbeats, look for horses before you look for zebras.
If you see lights in orbit think satellites before you think UFOs.

 

[Magical Realist]

What is really is, is just an account of a sighting. No more. Could be a reflection, could be aircraft, could be hallucinations. Could be a bona fide craft with advanced propulsion, but the sighting is not enough to conclude that.

No..a saucer shaped or cylindrical object seen or photographed in the sky is neither a reflection, nor an aircraft, nor hallucinations. As with everything else, the properties of the perceived object can tell us what it is not, though not necessarily what it is.

 

[DaveC426913]

No..a saucer shaped or cylindrical object seen or photographed in the sky is neither a reflection, nor an aircraft, nor hallucinations.

Not true.

 

[Magical Realist]

If that were the case, then there is no reason at all to posit any such explanation. It's a satellite until there's reason why it can't be.

If you hear hoofbeats, look for horses before you look for zebras.
If you see lights in orbit think satellites before you think UFOs.

Take it up with Russ. It's his statement.

 

[DaveC426913]

No..a saucer shaped or cylindrical object seen or photographed in the sky is neither a reflection, nor an aircraft, nor hallucinations. As with everything else, the properties of the perceived can tell us what it is not, though not necessarily what it is.

While it may be hard to explain as mundane phemon such as reflections, or even hoaxes, these explanations - however implausible - are still several orders of magnitude more plausible than aliens from another planet/star flying around in craft.

We know people make faulty observations, take pictures of mundane things that look strange, make hoaxes, etc. There are fact. Alien craft are not.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[DaveC426913]

And despite our newfound ability to get that extraordinary evidence...

it simply hasn't panned out.

 

[DaveC426913]

Take it up with Russ. It's his statement.

No need. He is positing horses.

 

[Magical Realist]

While it may be hard to explain as mundane phemon such as reflections, or even hoaxes, these explanation - however implausible - are still several orders of magnitude more plausible alien for antoher planet/star flying around in craft.

That would only be true if this was the first and only ufo ever sighted. Fortunately everybody knows that they are seen and photographed with such regularity as to become plausible explanations for the sighting.

We know people make fautly observation, take pictures of mundane things that look strange, make hoaxes, etc. There are fact. Alien craft are not.

We can rule out hoax or mundane object by the properties of the object. Does it float like a balloon? Then it's probably a hoax. Does it hum like an aircraft? Then it's probably an aircraft. Does it otoh speed off quickly and make no noise. Then it's most likely a ufo.

 

[Magical Realist]

No need. He is positing horses.

Then don't attribute the statement to me.