Cannot be identified as a plane by the people with the camera does not imply it's not a plane. And that doesn't imply it's aliens even if it isn't a plane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Eagle
Printable View
Cannot be identified as a plane by the people with the camera does not imply it's not a plane. And that doesn't imply it's aliens even if it isn't a plane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Eagle
OMG ALL FLYING SAUCER LIKE AIRCRAFTS OR OTHER UFOS MUST BE ALIENS.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avrocar
1a. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_V-173
1b. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_XF5U
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117_NighthawkQuote:
In 1934, at Miami University (of Ohio), an aircraft called the Nemeth Umberallaplane (aka Roundwing) was tested. (Nemeth was sometimes spelled Nuneth). This aircraft had a circular wing on top of the rectangle fuselage, a propellor in front, wheels underneath the fuselage and a rudder with tailfins. There were no wings extending from the middle of the fuselage. The aircraft looked like AWACS plane, execpt for the missing middle wings. The aircraft is named in the 1976 reference book "Airplanes of the World" as the "Flying Saucer" plane, (the book also mentions the Avro Avrocar, the Vought V-173, and the Vought XF5U.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CypherQuote:
During the 1980s, reports of triangular shaped UFOs revealed the existence of the F-117 Nighthawk—another black project—which became public in November 1988.
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_flying_saucersQuote:
The Sikorsky Cypher is a doughnut-shaped, experimental, prototype unmanned vertical takeoff and landing aerial vehicle. The Sikorsky Cypher II, (a.k.a. Sikorsky Mariner), followup aircraft has wings extending from the left and right sides of the aircraft
Quote:
In 1943, the Boeing Aircraft built 3 scale model aircraft designs that had saucer-shaped wings with a propellor in the front and a tail rudder in the back. The cockpit, (where the pilot sat), was to be in front of the wings. There was no actual fuselage in the center. The aircraft model numbers were 390, 391, and 396. They were to powered by a Pratt & Whitney R-4360-3 Wasp Major radial engine and capable of reaching speeds of 414mph and intended to be fighter planes, armed with 4 20mm cannons and underwing hardpoints that could carry 2 500 lb. bombs or external fuel tanks. Boeing submitted the proposals to the US Navy. The wing design had excellent Short TakeOff and Landing charteristics, and STOL is preferred for fixed-wing aircraft carrier planes. The Navy rejected the Boeing designs in favor of the similar-shaped Chance-Vought V-173/XF5U-1 aircraft.
In the US, a number of experimental saucer shaped craft were apparently developed as black projects by Lockheed Corporation for the USAF, and by Convair for the CIA. The saucer had the advantages of being a Vertical take-off and landing design (so avoiding the need for easily damaged runways), while the shape was well suited to diffusing radar and so making the craft stealthy. These early designs were apparently powered by turbojets, which powered a horizontal rotor to provide lift using the Coanda effect.
That whole crap of October 14th drove me mad, i now say everything is fake. It wasn't so much the date, but from the 24th to the 27th people recorded stars, and planes, and shit like that and kept going "ZOMG ALIENZZZZZ", thankfullly i have told those people to f off, and i was and AM not going down the path where you start becoming paranoid when you see simple things. Sofar all the UFO's i have seen are all either shiney lights in the sky, stars, planes, balloons...
This is true in fact, that you were seemingly asking about pictures/videos, but I really didn't buy it. If that was your original intention, not to imply that these things are somehow special, then why did you bring up the subject of UFO skeptics at all? Why not simply ask about Onus's friend Bob?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamhope11
There is also the fact that if a picture could be verified by others, there would be no need for a picture, and you are obviously annoyed in your first post by "skeptics" who constantly find flaws with these photos and the UFOs depicted in them (for those who want to believe in aliens), therefore I was answering your explicit as well as your implicit question. Obviously I failed miserably.
It's funny how 'ufo' became synonymous to 'alien spacecraft' in some circles. All the photos alien-believers show are either unidentified objects that might be seagulls, things like a piece of dust on the camera. or photo-shopped.
A picture in which you could actually see a certain craft, clear enough to see some details, might be a bit convincing. If it was taken by NASA, that is, because it isn't as if there aren't thousand of photoshopped 'alien spacecraft' photographs out there.
Really, the question is why nothing but blurry photos are convincing evidence of alien civilizations that travel to our planet, to some. Or the question why not a single half-decent photo has been taken. I would say that last thing was a mystery. But it would only be a mystery if aliens actually came visit us every now and then. Under the current circumstances, there is nothing mysterious about a truckload of vague photos and video images, and not a single clear shot. Since every clear shot turns out to be a seagull, and every blurry shot goes into the 'alien', 'bigfoot' or 'loch ness' basket.
There have been reported sightings by pilots of strange lights in the sky that pull in their air planes and fly off. The control on the ground confirms that no planes were in the area at that time.Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
Oh damn. I guess it must be aliens and not a technical error or a flash in the windshield or turbulence or one of the other 1,317,771 explanations other than aliens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Eagle
Hey, speaking of UFO footage has anyone seen the footage regarding the "Tether Incident"? It was when NASA sent up this satellite thingy that would be connected to a space station by this really long tether (about 10 miles or something big like that). Anyway, the tether snapped and floated out into space and then these wierd things started appearing - like huge discs with holes in the middle of them. There was hundreds, and I mean hundreds of them.
The entire thing was filmed by astronauts. You can find the footage on youtube and other websites - it's quite cool.
Yeah that was debris from the tether itself; smaller particles close to the camera, and the light was so bright from the tether that it made it appear as though the debris were passing behind the tether.
I saw a video of a guy once who spent an hour explaining how they were aliens from another dimension (fish people) here to fix our ozone layer. "How could it possibly be debris?!" he cried. Well at least he came up with a more logical conclusion.
Good post production. Final Cut Studios and an expertise in photorealistic rendering.
But how do you guys know they weren't ufos?
See, this is the stupidity we have to deal with here. They were UFOs if the cameraman can't identify them. That's it. That's the definition of UFO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subaru
Did I say "aliens"? NO
Jeeze! Sorree! Pardon me for breathing. Sheesh! No need to be rude.
Your right, that was the definition of UFO. However all languages evolve over time and the word UFO actually became linked to the strange spacecraft extraterrestrials are able to fly ... or whatever.
Ok, fine, you want to use the term "UFO" to mean alien space ship, that's alright. But you still need to be consistent. It doesn't matter whether you call them aliens, UFOs, or pink bunnies, you need the same rigor of proof. What so-called "UFOlogists" do is, on the one hand, use the term "UFO" in place of "alien ship", and then on the other require only that a UFO be literally an unidentified flying object. So you see, they use two entirely definitions to suit the situation. How is that rigor?Quote:
Originally Posted by Subaru
Well one day I was camping and it was at night, I was walking back to my tent after a potentially dangerous incident with a wolf (turned out to be a hedgehog or something) anyway, I was gazing at the stars, and I saw a star, that suddenly started to move! It moved randomly, and moved so that it never intersected another star! (Which was very peculiar, since the alien vessel, or whatever it might be, would not need to "avoid" such stars (since it navigates in 3d space!)))
This UFO was not like another satelite, because it did not follow a linear path of any kind. The path it followed was random and curved. I do not object to the possibility of it being a secret technological project from Earth, however, it seems to me quite clear that it was an alien vessel from a Flat, 2 dimensional, Universe.
Yeah, languages evolve, sure. UFO still means unidentified flying object though, not alien aircrafts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subaru
If I were to go outside one day and look into the sky and see something I couldn't identify flying, it'd be a UFO. If I were to go down the street and talk to a friend about it and he shows me a tape and it turns out it's a balloon, it's a balloon, not an alien. Just because something is a UFO doesn't mean it's an alien. The people that started linking UFO's definition to aliens are retarded.
You do know stars are light years away from us?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cryptic
Here's a list of the 10 closest stars, with their distance in light-years:
Proxima Centauri - 4.22
Alpha Centauri A - 4.37
Alpha Centauri B - 4.37
Barnard's Star - 5.96
Wolf 359 - 7.78
Sirius A - 8.58
Sirius B- 8.58
Luyten-8 A - 8.73
Luyten-8 B - 8.73
Ross 154 - 9.68
I don't know about the size of stars, but I'm pretty sure they have to be fairly massive for us to see the light from them when they're that far away, even though it takes a long time for their light to reach us. Do you believe that was a ship that massive out there flying around dodging a star that's anywhere from 4.22 light years away or further?
EDIT: Here's a picture you can compare the size of the stars to:
http://www.universetoday.com/wp-cont...4/centauri.png
So, the closest star is Proxima, which you can see in the image, the next closest which is .15 light years away from Proxima is both Centauri A, and B, and you can clearly tell that A is bigger than the sun, and B is almost the same size, just a little smaller. So do you think there was a ship the size of the sun, or near it, out there flying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Never
LMAO ROFL!!!! :lol::lol::lol::lol:
I think it was bigger than the sun, I hypothesize it was a celestial body of infinite size (Infinte for one side.) Also, I believe that its path was calculated based on probability (as you say, the speed of light isn't very fast. So, if we were to travel at high speeds, we would need to project our path towards the point which has the highest level of safety (since we do not have real-time data mapping the stars.) This path would have to be updated constantly as well.)