GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
- Status
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
Nope. Good to have you back, Sledge.
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
Well the Gay Rodeos were something not to miss... The Bull Riding left a few people with sore bottoms... I think it was the Bull Riding that did that anyway.
Now isn’t THIS interesting. A number of people here berated me for questioning Puddle Duck in his claim that the F-4 was radar blind in all directions but forward.
I stated that I found that hard to believe… and I was RIGHT to be suspicious!
Here we have a statement that shows ONCE AGAIN Puddle Duck does NOT know what he is talking about – one wonders if he WAS a pilot - given that he did not know this about the F-4 radar, he did not know the F-4 had a “backseater”, he did not know the cruising speed or top speed of the F-4, he did not know the external fuel tanks were “auxiliaries” and not fitted as “standard”, he did not know that each airport around the world has a different set of SOPs, he did not know that Babolsar is a town, not an airfield …and much more about the very subject he is supposed to be an “expert” in. If he cannot get things right within his OWN alleged area of expertise, what hope has he when he comments on things OUTSIDE that alleged area of expertise.
…and yet we have the members of this forum treating his post as if it were the last word. As if it were the best thing since sliced bread. As if it was a “thread winner”. Just shows how little the posters to this thread actually KNOW doesn’t it.
I was right all along! People even abused me for daring to question Puddle Duck …yet at each turn we find more and more that Puddle Duck was even more incorrect in his statements than even I first assumed!
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Rramjet, you've never answered the question about what you think the implications are for your Iranian UFO event in light of how terribly mistaken the military pilots were over Campeche Mexico.
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
I'd still like to see a pic of the Stealth Blimp in full stealth mode. A nice daylight pic, just the "Goodyear" logo floating in the air. Or "Gay Rodeo".
Substituting general unfounded abuse for real debating points and argument is just what I have come to expect from the general members of this forum - but I DID expect better from you Astrophotographer.
To this point you have been a bastion for leading the charge for the skeptics based on the evidence. You have presented your arguments and (usually) the evidence to support your arguments. I have commended you before on this approach, and while I may not agree with you (and have so stated many times and in no uncertain terms), I respected you for your approach.
I can see now that this is no longer the case and you have descended to the level of the "rabble" - who place no arguments but seem content merely to abuse and to ridicule.
Klass must be turning in his grave right now!
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
<other lies and misrepresentations snipped>
Your claim he doesn't know the F-4 has a backseater is based, once again, on your ignorance. Have a look at this picture. Notice what a great, unobstructed view the backseater has to the rear. All he has to do is turn around and look out that big rear window, you know, the one above the parcel shelf with the stuffed animals and the Rramjet bobble-head.
Your "arguments" are pathetic. You lose. Again.
ferd
I have answered this question from you before:
The Iranian (Tehran) UFO incident is completely different in a number of key aspects - not the least of which is that in the Iranian case the F-4s were "directed" to a specified target, which they were able to directly see and lock their radars onto as well as chase it and have it chase them! There were a number of characteristics of the Iranian UFOs that differed also (the shape shifting, the mach 2 - and above - speeds, the splitting apart and rejoining, the fleeing and chasing, the ability to "neutralise" the F-4 avionics, and much more). Oil well fires are not capable of doing these things.
The Campeche incident (mundane oilwell fires) bears no resemblance to the Tehran incident ("alien" UFO). Thus there simply ARE no "implications" of the order you are suggesting. Simple as that really.
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
What is the point in discussing it any more? You present the case, you judge it, and you determine that it proves your point. No other opinions or discussion on the subject matters. You simply dismiss any arguments with a wave of the hand and ignore any evidence or discussion presented because, in your mind, you are the ultimate authority (based on nothing other than your say so). Like I stated, this is what failed scientists must do with their time because nobody in this forum seems too convinced other than yourself.
You missed my point. Besides:
Perhaps they used mirrors. You know, either the internal canopy mirrors (perhaps of limited use for something exactly behind) or perhaps even the external mirror fitted to the central canopy bow? Just a thought... after all, squadron commander Jafari would have been entirely familiar with such "equipment".
"Pathetic"? ... just going on the available evidence ...perhaps you should try it one day ...you know the stuff ...usually good in debates to make your point.
You seem resigned - depressed even...?
Admit it Astro, in your heart of hearts you KNOW Rogue River was not a blimp.
And you also know that the types of argument you have been presenting about eyewitness fallibility really don't stand up in the cases I have presented. You KNOW this to be true... but you simply cannot admit it in this forum (even aloud to yourself - but in the back of your mind you do know...).You may fear the implications of what I have been presenting - because they threaten some VERY long standing beliefs of yours... but you have that little niggling doubt there now don't you.
Rogue River...The Iranian case (not to mention the White Sands research)... they are each in their own way telling us that we are missing something about reality as we know it.
I am making a case for aliens. That is a strong contention. But if you weaken it just a little you have to admit ...SOMETHING is going on which we just don't understand.
As a scientist I want to KNOW what it is we are "missing" about "reality". What ARE these things? I am NOT at all convinced by the ET hypothesis. But "mundane" just doesn't do it in many cases either. Then ...what IS going on?
It is a simple question for which we have no definitive answer. There is even a possibility that we may NEVER have a definitive answer - but that should NOT deter us from at least attempting to find an answer. For the journey may be worth more to us than the ultimate destination.
I don't have the resources to initiate a research program of my own...all I have are the evidence of the cases I present, but you gotta admit, the evidence in those cases is pretty darn startling!
You seem resigned - depressed even...?
Admit it Astro, in your heart of hearts you KNOW Rogue River was not a blimp.
You may fear the implications of what I have been presenting - because they threaten some VERY long standing beliefs of yours... but you have that little niggling doubt there now don't you.
Rogue River...The Iranian case (not to mention the White Sands research)... they are each in their own way telling us that we are missing something about reality as we know it.
I am making a case for aliens. That is a strong contention. But if you weaken it just a little you have to admit ...SOMETHING is going on which we just don't understand.
As a scientist I want to KNOW what it is we are "missing" about "reality". What ARE these things? I am NOT at all convinced by the ET hypothesis. But "mundane" just doesn't do it in many cases either. Then ...what IS going on?
It is a simple question for which we have no definitive answer. There is even a possibility that we may NEVER have a definitive answer - but that should NOT deter us from at least attempting to find an answer. For the journey may be worth more to us than the ultimate destination.
I don't have the resources to initiate a research program of my own...all I have are the evidence of the cases I present, but you gotta admit, the evidence in those cases is pretty darn startling!
Now Rramjet is mind-reading. Be careful, it is just a trick to make you put on your tinfoil hat so he can say, "GOTCHA!"
Last edited:
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
LOL. You can not be more wrong. You are doing it again. You dismiiss anything (in this case the problems with eyewitnesses, which you have no clue about understanding) that does not conform to your myopic view about UFOs. I know a lot better and REAL scientists do as well. I think most people in this forum will agree with me so why are you wasting your scientific life trying to impress everyone here? Why aren't you out there chasing UFOs? What are you afraid of discovering?
BTW, I am recording Leonids tonight with my camera system. Since I am recording the sky, I will also be conducting UFO research. I will let you know if I record any. If I don't, it won't be the first time I batted 0 for... Maybe they don't come around because I refuse to believe.
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
As a scientist you seem to be overly dismissive of evidence that does not support your beliefs. This is bad science. "Mundane" does support much of what we know concerning UFOs. We know that the percentages are around 90% that all UFO reports can be explained by mundane sources. With such a high percentage of errors, what makes you think the remaining 10% is not full of errors as well? What evidence can you provide that shows the remaining 10% is error free?
You are lying about unavailable resources. I conduct research everytime I set up my meteor camera and that cost me very little. You are just too lazy or incompetent to do so.
And the cases you present prove absolutely nothing. Let me know when you present your paper in a scientific journal and convince all those scientists that "UFOs are real alien spaceships".
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,353
You are wrong again. You didn't read carefully, or you just can't understand it: The F4 has no radar view to the rear. It has a passive detection system to warn the crew that the plane is being illuminated by radar from the rear. Get it now? No radar view to the rear. Puddle Duck's point was completely valid.
You know, I ought to come clean and admit I actually put that portion of the quote in as an experiment - to see if you were desperate enough to bite and careless enough not to read it properly. I guess I have my answer.
It's pretty funny when I hand you this stuff on a plate and you leap on it as if it's fresh evidence in your favour. This is the very same material you posted links to, and have been berating others for failing to read.
Before you refer anyone to it again, I seriously recommend you go away and read it through carefully. You'll find it's actually a very sceptical report.
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
I didn't miss a thing.
"Perhaps"??!! Yeah, and "perhaps" they duct-taped the Easter Bunny backwards to the outside of the canopy and he signals the presence of pursuing UFOs by blinking his keychain flashlight! "Perhaps" they used a little extra duct tape to tape his tail down so the poor little guy didn't get a cold air enema!!
Please don't bother to go find out and bring real evidence.
I'm happy to leave it to those reading to judge who brings evidence and who is resorting to armwaving.
ferd
Last edited:
- Status