UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

There was no sonic boom. I don't know why. Any proposed reason would be pure speculation based on technology that we haven't even shown to be plausible yet ( e.g. antigravity ).

j.r.

No, any proposed reason would require a suspension of the laws of physics that dictate that an object moving through the air at 50,000 kph is going to make quite a racket, and the fact that your story doesn't include this makes it even more improbable than it already was.

 

[ufology]

No, any proposed reason would require a suspension of the laws of physics that dictate that an object moving through the air at 50,000 kph is going to make quite a racket, and the fact that your story doesn't include this makes it even more improbable than it already was.

Because I can only speculate based on technology that hasn't been proven plausible yet ( e.g. antigravity ), any proposed explanation would only be inviting more accusations of pseudoscience. So I'll save that discussion for places that aren't so stifling.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Because I can only speculate based on technology that hasn't been proven plausible yet ( e.g. antigravity ), any proposed explanation would only be inviting more accusations of pseudoscience. So I'll save that discussion for places that aren't so stifling.

j.r.

Credulous believer sites might work better for what you're trying to accomplish. They'll believe anything you tell them, since that seems to be the only thing that will make you happy.

Why was it that you came here again?

 

[23_Tauri]

There was no sonic boom. I don't know why. Any proposed reason would be pure speculation based on technology that we haven't even shown to be plausible yet ( e.g. antigravity ) the reasonable assumption that the object(s) were not travelling as far as they appeared to be, due to the fact it was impossible to accurately calculate their size, distance and speed.

ftfy

 

[GeeMack]

Q. Why do you choose to have faith in one of those silly explanations ( God vs Aliens ) and not the other?
A. I've never seen God.

Stupid answer. Dishonest weaseling noted. A god who hates you is still a valid and equally evidenced explanation for the event you've described. Drugs, mental illness, and compulsive lying are, as you've already agreed, also possible explanations.

 

[GeeMack]

Because I can only speculate based on technology that hasn't been proven plausible yet ( e.g. antigravity ), any proposed explanation would only be inviting more accusations of pseudoscience. So I'll save that discussion for places that aren't so stifling.

Argument from ignorance.

 

[Stray Cat]

BTW everyone. Did I ever tell you I'm 17 feet high (as long as you measure me when I'm on the second floor of my house and not the ground).

 

[Spektator]

Any material object traveling through the atmosphere at 50,000 kph would create a sonic boom, no matter what the form of propulsion.

An object appearing to travel at 50,000 kph and not causing a sonic boom could not be material.

Therefore, it is unlikely in the extreme that a material object traveled in the atmosphere at that speed without making a sonic boom. Either the object was much slower than that, or it was not a material object, but some form of reflection, or a misperception, or--well, the other alternatives don't need mentioning.

 

[GeeMack]

There was no sonic boom. I don't know why. Any proposed reason would be pure speculation based on technology that we haven't even shown to be plausible yet ( e.g. antigravity ).

A god who would put visions in your head to make you look foolish on the Internet decades later could easily forget the sonic boom. Overlooking this possibility shows a complete lack of critical thinking in your arguments.

I gave you a clear lesson in critical thinking about extraterrestrials several posts above. Was it beyond your ability to understand, because I can certainly dumb it down if that's what you want.

 

[ufology]

ftfy

Crossing out my answer and inserting something I would never say regarding my sighting isn't a good way to respond because then I have to copy the misquote and reinsert it here:

Issue: "the reasonable assumption that the object(s) were not travelling as far as they appeared to be, due to the fact it was impossible to accurately calculate their size, distance and speed."

My Response: It was completely possible to estimate the object's size and speed based on known landmarks, the use of maps and the extremely short duration from stopped to out of sight. This was already discussed.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

My Response: It was completely possible to estimate the object's size and speed based on known landmarks, the use of maps and the extremely short duration from stopped to out of sight. This was already discussed.

And shown to be inaccurate... forcing you to add other details in order to maintain your assertion.

 

[ufology]

Any material object traveling through the atmosphere at 50,000 kph would create a sonic boom, no matter what the form of propulsion.

An object appearing to travel at 50,000 kph and not causing a sonic boom could not be material.

Therefore, it is unlikely in the extreme that a material object traveled in the atmosphere at that speed without making a sonic boom. Either the object was much slower than that, or it was not a material object, but some form of reflection, or a misperception, or--well, the other alternatives don't need mentioning.

And now who is engaging in pseudoscience? You don't know what kinds of unknown propulsion systems exist, so you can't conclude it's impossible "no matter what kind of propulsion".

At least I say that any explanation would be speculation on my part. If I were allowed to speculate without being accused of pseudoscience, it's easy to see how an antigravity drive could nullify a sonic boom.

j.r.

 

[R.A.F.]

Because I can only speculate based on technology that hasn't been proven plausible yet ( e.g. antigravity ), any proposed explanation would only be inviting more accusations of pseudoscience.

Shouldn't this be a clue to you as to why your ideas aren't being generally accepted??

 

[Stray Cat]

And now who is engaging in pseudoscience? You don't know what kinds of unknown propulsion systems exist, so you can't conclude it's impossible "no matter what kind of propulsion".

Yes we can, the sonic boom has nothing to do with the propulsion system.

At least I say that any explanation would be speculation on my part. If I were allowed to speculate without being accused of pseudoscience, it's easy to see how an antigravity drive could nullify a sonic boom.

Lol!

 

[Sledge]

So sound moves faster without gravity? I think I have a headache.

 

[ufology]

Shouldn't this be a clue to you as to why your ideas aren't being generally accepted??

I realize that visualizing technology we don't yet have is a real challenge for some people. Other people are pretty good at it. Others see it and are just too afraid to say anything for fear of ridicule.

j.r.

 

[23_Tauri]

Crossing out my answer and inserting something I would never say regarding my sighting isn't a good way to respond because then I have to copy the misquote and reinsert it here:..

No, of course you would never say such a thing, because that would require you to admit that there are perfectly rational and more likely explanations for what you saw, but that up until now you've chosen, quite wilfully, to ignore them, in favour of your believer-wang.

My Response: It was completely possible to estimate the object's size and speed based on known landmarks, the use of maps and the extremely short duration from stopped to out of sight. This was already discussed.

j.r.

What Stray Cat said.

What do you mean by:

therefore the distances in fractions are not from the lake, but from a spot above the lake,

because to me that sounds like gobble-di-gook, or looks like

Can you explain what you mean a little more clearly, please?

 

[ufology]

So sound moves faster without gravity? I think I have a headache.

I didn't say that. You are assuming things and misrepresenting my statement. Although if you don't see how it could work, then maybe it's not as easy for people as I had thought.

j.r.

 

[GeeMack]

At least I say that any explanation would be speculation on my part.

Correct. Any explanation would be speculation. To discount a prankster god in favor of an aliens-exist fantasy is not rational. It's irrational for people to speculate that things never known to occur are better explanations than the multitudes of common mundane possibilities when all are equally supported by the evidence.

No alleged alien sighting has ever been objectively shown to be true. Ever.

 

[Sledge]

I didn't say that. You are assuming things and misrepresenting my statement. Although if you don't see how it could work, then maybe it's not as easy for people as I had thought.

j.r.

So explain how it would work. It's your idea, so educate us all as to how negating gravity would prevent sonic booms.