Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Don´t worry Friend, nothing personal 🙂
Just that the image was discussed and analyzed ad nauseam before, in this very thread and elsewhere.
Your question/poll was not clear whether you asked about image itself (in a photographic way) or whether it confirmed or not UFO existence.
Personal opinion, others may (and do 😉 ) disagree, is that the image itself may be true, no physical impossibility of that.
Not sure how it was captured, was it a screen image picked with a regular camera- a digital one - a VCR camera? 😕
Apparently they direct taped the video signal (no optics involved) feeding a cockpit display, similar to machine gun cameras used in WW2 to confirm Pilot claims about downed enemies.
Comparing the quite clear 76 year old pictures to the TERRIBLE modern ones shown, captured by a 70 Million dollar latest technology plane really makes me think: is that the best they can do? 😎 🙄
One of the images might be slightly forgiven (although it proves nothing as is) because it´s an infrared "signature" , but the other is TV mode, "sees as we do", yet the image is FUZZY UNFOCUSED with a vengeance.
Remember it was full daylight and atmosphere was so clear that Pilots could see seawaves breaking with their own eyes, not through binoculars.
So as "UFO proof": useless.
EDIT:
You-must-be-joking 😉
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Maybe not.
Unidentified Flying Object - implies the existence of an Object, “a material thing which can be seen and touched”, which is not proven so far, there being no hard evidence of an object. The definition is flawed perhaps.
What we see are Unidentified Images.
Unidentified Flying Object - implies the existence of an Object, “a material thing which can be seen and touched”, which is not proven so far, there being no hard evidence of an object. The definition is flawed perhaps.
What we see are Unidentified Images.
Last edited:
I've seen woo peddlers of every ilk peddle crazy physics before. Anything goes. Most people don't know the first thing about physics, so people believe it and the US of A gets stupider.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Exactly, they are unidentified, who knows what these images are showing.
Just like a rainbow is not an object, it can be seen, photographed but nothing solid can be touched, except for the gold at the end of it. In the past, rainbows were not understood but now we have a scientific understanding of what they are. One day we hope to have a scientific understanding of all unidentified images.
In the meantime we have believers, looking for their gold.
Just like a rainbow is not an object, it can be seen, photographed but nothing solid can be touched, except for the gold at the end of it. In the past, rainbows were not understood but now we have a scientific understanding of what they are. One day we hope to have a scientific understanding of all unidentified images.
In the meantime we have believers, looking for their gold.
Last edited:
This is an important point. You do not have a species in a specific generation that changes into another species the next (or previous) generation. Everything is fluid, and the demarcation between species spans many generations that are transitional, that, for instance can still sometimes interbreed and sometimes not. Only after successful interbreeding becomes highly unlikely do we call them two different species. But it is always somewhat arbitrary.
Jan
Quite the contrary, you and your friends are trying to avoid a losing battle while saving face, so twist meanings., move goalposts, ramble about unrelated stuff, the full Monty.
UFO as discussed here, in the media, Movies, tons of people, etc. means presumed Extraterrestrial beings (hey, they even made a blockbuster Movie called ET!!!) VISITING US, HERE, ON EARTH, in their presumed Spaceships. Period.
Not idly arguing about the possibility of finding some random bacteria within some million Light years around, Gravity definition or Philosophical ramblings.
If I look up and see a tiny speck in the sky, which of course I can not identify, yes, that´s an UFO, but who would argue about such a plain vanilla common event, completely irrelevant to anybody?
Di I say BORING or unimportant?
OF COURSE not worth a 1500 answer thread (and almost as much in the parallel one).
What IS worth discussing and proving (if posible) is the Alien intelligent visiting us, here, in PHYSICAL form .
THAT is a Civilization changing event, WELL worth arguing and more important PROVING.
Idle talk is not worth it.
That you , in bad faith, are trying to mix and confuse both and twisting the Thread out of focus, is something else.
So WHAT are you (poorly) arguing about?
PHYSICAL flying objects in the Earth atmosphere or child´s balloon/goose/spy plane/mote of dust in your eye kind of phenomenon?
Pick one or the other.
Last edited:
This explanation does not reconcile the fact there have not been transitional fossils of animals found except for those clearly identifiable as established species. It's those examples of gradual demarcation that are missing.
There are some holes, depending on the geological circumstances that sometimes promote and sometimes prevent fossilization. But there are many examples of linking fossils, and more and more are being found.
One positive result of global warming is that for instance the Siberian permafrost is thawing and a bounty of fossils is being discovered.
Besides that, you can often interpolate a chain of events even if there are a few holes here and there. That doesn't detract from the overall confidence. Compared with competing theories, there is no comparison really - evolution by natural selection is by far, far the most documented and robust theory of any that tries to explain the current situation and the actual ongoing evolution that takes place right before our eyes, sometimes in real time.
Jan
One positive result of global warming is that for instance the Siberian permafrost is thawing and a bounty of fossils is being discovered.
Besides that, you can often interpolate a chain of events even if there are a few holes here and there. That doesn't detract from the overall confidence. Compared with competing theories, there is no comparison really - evolution by natural selection is by far, far the most documented and robust theory of any that tries to explain the current situation and the actual ongoing evolution that takes place right before our eyes, sometimes in real time.
Jan
Is it flying? If not, rainbow would have been called USO, "S" as in stationary, no?
Yeah, that movie is called E.T., not UFO.
Twist meanings, moving goalpost, ramble about unrelated stuff, eh. That would be you.
Whoa, just a second here. There's nothing "but" holes. Confidence doesn't translate into fact. All you've got is "I believe...". You can theorize till the cows come home but the fossils ain't following. "Facts first" as they say on CNN.😎
Breeding among domesticated animals is where all this comes from imo. Darwin was in his back yard sipping wine and noticed the difference in a couple of dogs wrestling on the ground. Problem is a dog is still a dog.
Last edited:
No no, lots of proof, I'm not theorizing at all. Let me relate a discussion I had with a friend about COVID and it's evolution. As we know, the virus has certain protuberances that allow it to hook onto internal surfaces in humans. Then chemical reactions take place and human activities cause it to spread through the population at a certain ratio.
A virus, being primitive, often has errors in the replicated copies, small changes in those protuberances that allow it to hook onto internal surfaces better, or small changes that allow it to spread to the outside and into other humans easier.
Inexorably, because of these differences, the proportion of the changed viruses to the 'original' ones increases over time (because they spread faster), and at a certain time it is the changed one that dominates. That is exactly what happens with the increased spread of the delta variant, and is a prime example of real-time in-your-face evolution by natural selection. It's a great teaching possibility if you are interested in learning!
There's also a lot of explanations on the 'net, like: What causes a virus to change? - YouTube
BTW How would you explain the historical and current species landscape, and how do you proof your theory?
Jan
A virus, being primitive, often has errors in the replicated copies, small changes in those protuberances that allow it to hook onto internal surfaces better, or small changes that allow it to spread to the outside and into other humans easier.
Inexorably, because of these differences, the proportion of the changed viruses to the 'original' ones increases over time (because they spread faster), and at a certain time it is the changed one that dominates. That is exactly what happens with the increased spread of the delta variant, and is a prime example of real-time in-your-face evolution by natural selection. It's a great teaching possibility if you are interested in learning!
There's also a lot of explanations on the 'net, like: What causes a virus to change? - YouTube
BTW How would you explain the historical and current species landscape, and how do you proof your theory?
Jan
Last edited:
All of the non-dark mass that creates inertia during acceleration comes from protons, neutrons, and electrons. That inertia created by that mass is what kills people when they fall from bridges or are in violent car crashes. Any acceleration above around 50 or so g's can be considered like a violent crash and will probably kill you. It is not the electromagnetic force that kills you in that crash, but it is what stops you.
What kills you is the breaking of the electromagnetic bonds in your body structure during the acceleration. If your body broke into three pieces after the crash the total mass would still be equal to the mass before the crash. It would still reside in the protons, neutrons, and electrons in those three separate parts.
What this says is that the observed acceleration of UFOs, if true, was able to stop the breaking of electromagnetic bonds of the vehicle and occupants at the accelerations that were observed, say > 100 g. This is basic physics. It would sure be nice if people wouldn't get into their semi-religious stance and actually agree that everything I just said was true. It's a conditional statement that isn't saying this DOES happen. It is a statement that says it would HAVE to happen for the accelerations that were reported.
The thing about virus is the jury is still out whether it's a life form. But if your position rests on this sort of argument, you've just relapsed into a setback you can't recover from.
The thing that is the real controlling force in our lives is the Strong Force that exists within protons and neutrons. Protons and neutrons have approximately 2000 times the mass of electrons so electrons do not possess nearly the mass of the nucleus of atoms. The strong force is what holds protons and neutrons together. Within protons and neutrons are three individual quarks and quarks have never been observed to come out of a nucleons. That's why it is called the strong force; quarks are confined within them. Presumably the strong force is what conserves mass during accelerations at non-relativistic speeds. Most of that mass is located in gluons within those nucleons. The quarks themselves only comprise maybe a few percentage points of the mass.
Consider this just a primer on nuclear physics. This is established science that you need to know if you want to discuss this stuff and not be considered an idiot. It doesn't mean you have to know it. You just have to know it if you want to take a position on the topics being discussed. It's basic physics included in QCD, which is the established science of nuclear physics.
Consider this just a primer on nuclear physics. This is established science that you need to know if you want to discuss this stuff and not be considered an idiot. It doesn't mean you have to know it. You just have to know it if you want to take a position on the topics being discussed. It's basic physics included in QCD, which is the established science of nuclear physics.
It doesn't matter whether you consider a virus a living organism or not. Even ideas can show evolution by natural selection, in exactly the same way. Google 'memes'. So this is just a detracting argument that is irrelevant.
I do not understand what you mean by your second sentence. And you didn't reply to my question, I wonder why.
Jan
- Status
- Not open for further replies.