are you positing a possible balloon/blimp?
the usage of "granted" is strange
are you reluctantly proffering the point?
why?
....and settle for santa, elves and super secret govt tech
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Well Documented UFO Case
- Thread starter EndLightEnd
- Start date
are you positing a possible balloon/blimp?
the usage of "granted" is strange
are you reluctantly proffering the point?
why?
....and settle for santa, elves and super secret govt tech
are you positing a possible balloon/blimp?
The article quoted speculated that possibility.
the usage of "granted" is strange
are you reluctantly proffering the point?
why?
No, I'm saying that based on what technology we have, to support something heavier than air close to the ground and as large as claimed, you'd expect loud sounds, if it would be possible at all. I don't know of a way to do it, but all I have to go by is the eyewitness account, so I'm "granting" that if he actually saw what he thought he saw, it would be very unusual.
This was my point before. You started speculating on what I saw before I even had a chance to explain what I had seen.
You want to know what I saw? What others saw?
No
Because a single picture is worth a thousand words, and a video is worth 30 times that per second.
So no, I'll pass on your recollection, but a video would be nice.
No
Because a single picture is worth a thousand words, and a video is worth 30 times that per second.
So no, I'll pass on your recollection, but a video would be nice.
It has potential to be worth more than words. It's not always the case though.
....and settle for santa, elves and super secret govt tech
Except santa and elves have been throroughly debunked whilst super secret tech could lye as a possibility, a slim one mind you: I mean afterall, such technology would be well-leaked by now... It would be well-known if this craft was ours. Mind you it also doesn't explain why there were secret projects dedicated to observing these objects, if indeed the objects were ours to begin with.
Pretty much a waste of money to search for knowledge we would already know the answers to.
No
Because a single picture is worth a thousand words, and a video is worth 30 times that per second.
So no, I'll pass on your recollection, but a video would be nice.
I think you are being deliberately obtuse as you know fine well I have stated we have no camera or video evidence at the time.
But unlike that article, I'm not going to reason that since no one can explain it...must be aliens.
So it's that's religious or pseudoskepticism to you, so be it. I just look for more details than you do to be convinced.
no
you looked and saw what you wanted to see. the article concludes....
So, what about the January 5, 2000, sighting? It’s anyone’s guess and I cannot declare without any reservation that the UFO over Illinois was an alien craft any more than NIDS or anyone else can claim beyond all shadow of doubt that the UFO was a military vehicle. I do know this. Something extraordinary happened
...yet an entirely reasonable proposition is distorted into fanaticism..."must be aliens"
why you do this is puzzling
it is as if that conjecture is forbidden
perhaps blasphemous?
fear?
Exactly. Precisely, in fact. I don't understand this nature skeptics have adopted. Is it easier to believe that all these people who have seen these things and testify to their existences as being just a bunch of retarded, uneducated delusional irrationals? Can there be no acceptance that these objects being observed are being given the full attention they deserve at the time from otherwise, believable witnesses?
Well, considering that you and Ripley--just as a for-instance--have both decided you've seen alien spacecraft, and that, without any qualification, have decided that what you saw "defied all known aircraft, then yes, it's quite easy to believe that the people who believe in ET are gullible, wish-thinking idiots. In this sense, you're no different than a religious zealot.
It also helps that you pretend to have more information than you really do. You use terms like "investigate" and "all known" as if you've ever actually investigated anything, or have any idea of what "all known" aircraft entails. You're a keyboard jockey, you don't do any research beyond what you can find on the net. So yeah, it's very easy to believe that Believers are numbskulls.
As for your sighting, it sounds like the object took a directionality that normally would defy physics.
If you actually were educated, or knew anything of what you spoke, you would appreciate how ridiculous a statement that is.
I am sitting here thinking of possible explanations, but immediately from your description I can tell that if anything had deflected the path of an object in such a way, it would have immediately lost momentum or would have continued side-streaking.
You're in no position to say that, and yet here you are, saying that.
Well, considering that you and Ripley--
pardon but i am a multiple, anally probed abductee
those guys aint got crap on me
Well, considering that you and Ripley--just as a for-instance--have both decided you've seen alien spacecraft, and that, without any qualification, have decided that what you saw "defied all known aircraft, then yes, it's quite easy to believe that the people who believe in ET are gullible, wish-thinking idiots. In this sense, you're no different than a religious zealot.
Except today, we know more than what we did when christians where running about praising Yahweh.
His was an analogy. One which was to explain the behaviour of skeptics. You've turned that round and said we are no different to religious zealots simply because we admit what we saw we don't understand. Difference back then, to what it is today, is that we know a little better to the things we claim to have seen.
If you actually were educated, or knew anything of what you spoke, you would appreciate how ridiculous a statement that is.
Educate us then. Why is this a ridiculous statement?
Except today, we know more than what we did when christians where running about praising Yahweh.
Yes, we do. The fact that you shun this knowledge in favor of your ET fantasy is what makes you a zealot.
His was an analogy. One which was to explain the behaviour of skeptics. You've turned that round and said we are no different to religious zealots simply because we admit what we saw we don't understand. Difference back then, to what it is today, is that we know a little better to the things we claim to have seen.
First of all, you don't say you don't understand it. You claim to understand it completely. You've already decided ETs are responsible for these sightings, you've already decided that they're capable of defying physics. That's not a claim of ignorance. You're claiming to know more than anyone else does.
Educate us then. Why is this a ridiculous statement?
That question only proves my point. You really need me to explain why it's ridiculous to simply assume he saw something capable of defying physics?
It should be perfectly obvious to everyone that aliens travel from hundreds of light years away to buzz cars in Main Street, have sex with cattle, and then escape before a single person can get a clear camera shot.
Perfectly obvious that these Aliens are very clever.
Perfectly obvious that these Aliens are very clever.
Yes, we do. The fact that you shun this knowledge in favor of your ET fantasy is what makes you a zealot.
First of all, you don't say you don't understand it. You claim to understand it completely. You've already decided ETs are responsible for these sightings, you've already decided that they're capable of defying physics. That's not a claim of ignorance. You're claiming to know more than anyone else does.
That question only proves my point. You really need me to explain why it's ridiculous to simply assume he saw something capable of defying physics?
You are misrepresenting the facts. I have NEVER claimed that it was ET, only that ET remains a strong possibility. I have never outright said what I saw was aliens.
Like to try again?
''First of all, you don't say you don't understand it. You claim to understand it completely.''
Wrong again.
If you refer back to my statements, In another thread I think it was, the other hot-UFO topic thread in this subforum, that the facts speak for themselves. I have openly admitted to not knowing their origins.
Would you like to try again?
''That question only proves my point.''
The question was not rhetorical, nor is your response to my question about it optional. You made that question so you must defend it when being asked. I shall ask it again shall I?
''If you actually were educated, or knew anything of what you spoke, you would appreciate how ridiculous a statement that is.''
I said that the directionality of his object he witnessed would defy the physics of normal technological capabilities. Explain why this statement makes me an idiot.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
Last edited:
You're a keyboard jockey, you don't do any research beyond what you can find on the net.
Could you misrepresent me any more today?
I have stated my main ways of investigation involve documentaries, reading published books, the net and also a number of other things.
In fact, I already admitted this to someone else, just in case you can't say that I've said these things.
I feel like reporting you for blatent accusations with no proof thereof.
Could you misrepresent me any more today?
I have stated my main ways of investigation involve documentaries, reading published books, the net and also a number of other things.
In fact, I already admitted this to someone else, just in case you can't say that I've said these things.
I feel like reporting you for blatent accusations with no proof thereof.
You are misrepresenting the facts. I have NEVER claimed that it was ET, only that ET remains a strong possibility. I have never outright said what I saw was aliens.
"Strong possibility" is just as good as saying it definitely is ET, because neither statement has any evidence to support it. Until you can demonstrate that alien visitation is even a possibility, you might as well be saying you're seeing unicorns.
Wrong again.
If you refer back to my statements, In another thread I think it was, the other hot-UFO topic thread in this subforum, that the facts speak for themselves. I have openly admitted to not knowing their origins.
You give lip service to humility, but spend most of your time speaking under the assumption that they are of alien origin.
The question was not rhetorical, nor is your response to my question about it optional. You made that question so you must defend it when being asked. I shall ask it again shall I?
I'm just dumbfounded you actually need an explanation. And I'm also hesitant to get into it, because you're clearly incapable of understanding it. But fine: The reason it is ridiculous to assume something is defying the laws of physics is because nothing can defy the laws of physics. It's that simple.
I said that the directionality of his object he witnessed would defy the physics of normal technological capabilities. Explain why this statement makes me an idiot.
That's not what you said, actually. You said that it sounded like he saw something that defied physics. That was your first assumption. You didn't think "Maybe he saw three different objects that he mistook for one?" or "Maybe he saw something falling that got caught up in the jetstream, explaining the movement change" or some other, simpler, more reasonable explanation. No, you jumped right to science fiction, and you won't hear any other possibilities. This is why people think you Believers are clowns. You're amateurs who can't see beyond the length your own nose.
I would say that you should know better, but that would be giving you too much credit. You haven't earned that, and you won't get it from me. This is why it's impossible dealing with you, and your ilk.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
Whatever you say, ALL CAPS. How about you SHUT UP AND GROW UP?
"Strong possibility" is just as good as saying it definitely is ET, because neither statement has any evidence to support it.
Right... Ok. Yeah... neither statement differs at all. Nice one. I'll grow up when you can understand a simplistic difference.
"I'm just dumbfounded you actually need an explanation. And I'm also hesitant to get into it, because you're clearly incapable of understanding it. But fine: The reason it is ridiculous to assume something is defying the laws of physics is because nothing can defy the laws of physics. It's that simple.
I know the laws of physics cannot be broken... damn your quick lol
let's re-investigate what I said:
''I said that the directionality of his object he witnessed would defy the physics of normal technological capabilities. Explain why this statement makes me an idiot.''
Let's study why. The reason why is because it would break a conservation of momentum... a classical case of course. Do you know why? Do you even remember what his observation consisted of?
Yes you should have been hesitant. Quite clear you don't understand english or problems when they are even explained. I have explained that a normal object which is not under any intelligent control to undergo the trajectory as he witnessed it would defy the normal physical laws.
That law would be the conservation of momentum. An object, a classical object does not run off course to go back on course (unless it was deflected) but doing so would result in a loss of momentum and directionality, not a regain of momentum and retrieival of original said path.