• 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.
carlitos said:
More moot point attempting to guess the size of a distant light in the night sky. Can't be done.
Click to expand...

True. The calculated size of being four times the size of venus as seen through the naked eye (or what ever it was) relied entirely on the distances given being accurate estimates. As the size height and so forth have kept changing we can not assume this to be so.
 
23_Tauri said:
No.

Later, something came up and did maneuvers as described on your website, according to your original story.

You have no way of knowing that BST#1 and BST#2 were the same object.

ETA: in fact, considering that #1 and #2 were doing completely different things, it's more reasonable to assume that they were different things.
Click to expand...
Murph, are you ignoring my posts #13816 and #13818? They both refer to the possibility that you observed two separate objects in the two separate incidences during the night.

If you do not agree with me that this could the case, then please, could you explain why they have to be the same object? Thank you.
 
ufology said:
Wrong. We've already had someone calculate the apparent size and compare it to known celestial objects so your proclaimation is in error. Go back abd find the posts.
Click to expand...


Yeah, sure. It would require superhuman vision to make out any discernible detail on an object less than 20 feet long and 10 feet wide at a distance of almost 10,000 feet... an allegedly illuminated object like a glowing orb... at night.

A couple pages ago you were chomping at the bit to abandon supporting your own alleged alien craft sighting as a real event, and you suggested talking about UFO hoaxes as a way to divert the conversation. Did you decide you didn't want to talk about UFO hoaxes since there's nothing about your own alleged alien craft sighting that would objectively separate it from being a hoax?
 
ufology said:
In the more distant night illustration with one of the objects coming over a mountain at night, the core object is a bit larger and the apparent distance a bit closer. But it's much more accurate and gives a much better impression than the little squiggle that was posted by someone else suggesting that the object was so small as to be undiscernable.
Click to expand...


And just how far away was that mountain? 3km, 8km, or 25km?
 
Resume said:
Now this VW Bug, would it be the old-school model, the 98 through 2010 model, or the brand spankin' new 2012? Or perhaps the hushed, whispered Firefly Bug concept?
Click to expand...
Akhenaten said:
I'm guessing it's the 1975 Beetlegeuse, with Varisize® technology.
Click to expand...
Resume said:
With HushaBoom thrust of course.
Click to expand...


...and:

s1qge8.jpg
 
Last edited:
Here's a cool video about a group of students using actual science tools (imagine that!) to investigate a phenomenon quite similar to ufology's glowing orb.



(via forgetomori)
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
You're not suggesting that a guy with superhuman vision might have a fallible memory and might change his story this way and that over a period of time, are you?
Click to expand...


GeeMack,

With the help of a savvy poster ( JimOfAllTrades ), calculations for an illuminated spherical object about as wide as the length of a VW Beetle at the distance we observed has been worked to be about 8-9 times the apparent size of Jupiter. This is plenty enough to make out the core object with the naked eye. Then there was the surrounding glow that extented out several times farther than the core object in all directions. And yes I was in my teens and my eysight was excellent.

Once again your proclamations don't add up. Add to that the non-scale diagrams and faulty calculations by the other skeptics here and it's just one big biased and poorly executed debunking effort. Every measurement and estimate I've made has been well within reason given the parameters of my initial observation. All the skeptics here have done is help me make it even more precise ... thank you.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
GeeMack,

With the help of a savvy poster ( JimOfAllTrades ), calculations for an illuminated spherical object about as wide as the length of a VW Beetle at the distance we observed has been worked to be about 8-9 times the apparent size of Jupiter. This is plenty enough to make out the core object with the naked eye. Then there was the surrounding glow that extented out several times farther than the core object in all directions. And yes I was in my teens and my eysight was excellent.
Click to expand...


At whichever of several fabricated distances you decide makes the hoax work best?

Once again your proclaimations don't add up. Add to that the non-scale diagrams and faulty calculations by the other skeptics here and it's just one big biased and poorly executed debunking effort. Every measurement and estimate I've made has been well within reason given the parameters of my initial observation. All the skeptics here have done is help me make it even more precise ... thank you.
Click to expand...


You mean, all these helpful cooperative skeptics have pointed out some severe flaws in your claim and arguments, allowing you an opportunity to change your tale as necessary in order to perpetuate the hoax?
 
Is someone going to tell him that "proclaimations" is not a word? I cringe every time he posts it.
 
AdMan said:
Here's a cool video about a group of students using actual science tools (imagine that!) to investigate a phenomenon quite similar to ufology's glowing orb.
Click to expand...


AdMan,

Thank you for posting that video. It was a very constructive post. It helps illustrate how people might interpret such an illusion to be something similar to what I saw. I'll make note of it and perhaps embed it someplace on my website.

P.S. Thanks for the nudge on my spelling there too. Who would think they'd drop the "i" out of "proclaim" ( what rule is that anyway? )
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
GeeMack,

With the help of a savvy poster ( JimOfAllTrades ), calculations for an illuminated spherical object about as wide as the length of a VW Beetle at the distance we observed has been worked to be about 8-9 times the apparent size of Jupiter. This is plenty enough to make out the core object with the naked eye. Then there was the surrounding glow that extented out several times farther than the core object in all directions. And yes I was in my teens and my eysight was excellent.

Once again your proclaimations don't add up. Add to that the non-scale diagrams and faulty calculations by the other skeptics here and it's just one big biased and poorly executed debunking effort. Every measurement and estimate I've made has been well within reason given the parameters of my initial observation. All the skeptics here have done is help me make it even more precise ... thank you.
Click to expand...

Let's see...


Originally Posted by John Albert
And just how far away was that mountain? 3km, 8km, or 25km?
Click to expand...
Given that as JA pointed out your "calculated" distance of the mountain has varied so widely we have to assume the distance of the object can be upto seven times further away also.

Secondly, 8-9 times the apparent size of Jupitor with a naked eye is FAR smaller than your depictions. Too small to distinguish much in the way of detail.
 
ufology said:
P.S. Thanks for the nudge on my spelling there too. Who would think they'd drop the "i" out of "proclaim" ( what rule is that anyway? )
Click to expand...

From five days ago:
RoboTimbo said:
Your proclamations (note the spelling) are dismissed as unsupported claims.
Click to expand...

Maybe if you were to pay attention, you might learn something.

When will you be posting your Top 10 Bestest UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects) which you believe to be Alien Space Ships? And the evidence that you used to falsify the null hypothesis to allow you to believe them to be ASSes?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom