• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Looked at page 1 of this thread. Looked at page 44 of this thread.

Won't look in between.

Will the silliness ever end?
 
R.A.F. said:
By what method did you determine this speed?
Click to expand...


I used a map of the area and plotted the distance from where it was to where it had gone out of sight. The 1 second estimate is based on my experience with timing, I had taken music lessons since I was kid. I'd used timing methods and metronomes ... ( so many beats per minute and so on ). My digital delay runs in milliseconds and I can play perfectly in-synch with it to produce harmonics. So my sense of timing is very accurate. I actually think it went farther in less time, but by being conservative and using the phrase "over 25Km in about 1 second" I get the point across well enough.

j.r.
 
ufology said:
I used a map of the area and plotted the distance from where it was to where it had gone out of sight.
Click to expand...
How did you verify or check where you observed it was and where you observed had gone out of sight?
 
ufology said:
I used a map of the area and plotted the distance from where it was to where it had gone out of sight. The 1 second estimate is based on my experience with timing, I had taken music lessons since I was kid. I'd used timing methods and metronomes ... ( so many beats per minute and so on ). My digital delay runs in milliseconds and I can play perfectly in-synch with it to produce harmonics. So my sense of timing is very accurate. I actually think it went farther in less time, but by being conservative and using the phrase "over 25Km in about 1 second" I get the point across well enough.

j.r.
Click to expand...


Once again, please show us on a map (or just name it, if you can't find a map. and we'll find it) the landmark that you used to calculate the 25 Km distance, and specify your position by the lake.
 
Jeff Corey said:
And the distance away from you? That's part of it.
Click to expand...
Unlike the rest of us fallible humans, ufology believes that his assumptions (size of a VW Beetle, other side of the lake) are factually correct and inviolable.

If you go back to page 41, post 1623 and read onwards from there:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7477233#post7477233

you'll see that AdMan helpfully explained about Eye Witness Testimony (#1634) and then there was some discussion about known objects (softballs and such like) but ufology is still adamant that his calculation of speed and distance are accurate. And now we have the added information from Klass' experience, that demonstrates that anyone's perspective can be off, even at the best of times, aka broad daylight.

But don't let me get in the way of ufology answering your question, personally, Jeff.
 
Marduk said:
lets just go over what you saw again, you saw a ufo impersonating firefly flight behaviour, during firefly mating season, in an area densely populated by several species of firefly, they even got the 2 hour period of activity correct

My God, the Aliens are entomologists.
That explains where the bees went eh
:p
Click to expand...

You don't get it ! Oh my god ! The firefly *ARE ALIEN* ! They are invading us , slowly, bit of country by bit of country and soon we will all be welcoming our new firefly overlord.... it all make sense !
 
wollery said:
Not entirely accurate. The promotional tour was the year before. It was, however, in the Pacific Northwest just a few days before the Rogue River sighting.
Click to expand...

thats not what my research turned up
Goodyear resumed operation of its a commercial airship fleet in 1946 after WWII. Operations in that part of the country (Pacific Northwest) were confined to summer tours of six months in duration.
Click to expand...
:D

my source
Jared Haren
Project Leader / LTA Systems Specialist
Goodyear Airship Operations

whats yours ?
:p
 

Nice to see all the attention on the Twining Memo. As General and Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, I think his opinion pretty much trumps everyone else's here regarding the reality of UFOs as structured craft.

j.r.
 
ufology said:

Nice to see all the attention on the Twining Memo. As General and Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, I think his opinion pretty much trumps everyone else's here regarding the reality of UFOs as structured craft.

j.r.
Click to expand...

It's very difficult to comprehend what you read when you're looking through pseudoscientific filters, isn't it?
 
ufology said:

Nice to see all the attention on the Twining Memo. As General and Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, I think his opinion pretty much trumps everyone else's here regarding the reality of UFOs as structured craft.
Click to expand...


Why would you say a thing like that?
 
Please correct me if I'm wrong- ufology's alleged sighting is being discused at two ot three threads. Shades of KotA's hijackings...

Its a common trend. Someone comes to JREF to discuss a certain fringe subject, be it UFOs, bigfoot, ghosts, whatever. At a certain point, usually after the arguments/evidence presented go down in flames by precise and massive skeptic AAA (quite often its not the first time), the fringe subject proponents presents his/hers own experience as evidence. The alleged eyewitnesses believes (or seems to believe) his/hers tale will survive JREFers' examination unscratched and maybe even convince skeptics. Their alleged sightings are, in their views, unquestionable. They know what they saw. What happens is that skeptics, after examining the sightings, find many holes in the tales. At this point, the alleged eyewiness claims the analysis was not fair, skeptics are close-minded meanies which labell "knowers" as insane delusional liars, etc.

These people are not coming coming here to debate. They are here to evangelize.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom