This is a US Navy pilot who thinks the UFO he saw can't be from this world because he knows of no current tech that can explain it. The notion that there may be tech being trialled that he isn't aware of has been dismissed for no rational reason.
Pentagon releases UFO footage
- Thread starter Doobedoo
- Start date
The problem with the pilot, is that if it's true he has such good senses, (eyesight, reaction speed, multi-tasking, decision making, etc) which we can assume is true, because of his very nature as a fighter pilot in the US navy. It does make sense to think that any account he would give would contain a high degree of accuracy.
Which in turn creates a second problem; His account of the object describes something which would clearly be tantamount to impossible.
It would have to be violating Newton's third law, the law of gravitation, the law of thermodynamics and who know's what else, in order to actually exhibit some of the claims the pilot makes, regarding the behaviour of the object.
He was either mistaken by what he saw, and in actual fact saw something completely benign in nature - totally misinterpreted it, or he's telling outright lies.
Which in turn creates a second problem; His account of the object describes something which would clearly be tantamount to impossible.
It would have to be violating Newton's third law, the law of gravitation, the law of thermodynamics and who know's what else, in order to actually exhibit some of the claims the pilot makes, regarding the behaviour of the object.
He was either mistaken by what he saw, and in actual fact saw something completely benign in nature - totally misinterpreted it, or he's telling outright lies.
Confirmed like your inability to interpret physics?Gyroscopes of course!
I did wonder whether we might get magnets, crystals or something, but Gyroscopes will do for me.
I mean, I did think you were trolling me a while back, but didn't care - but now it's confirmed!
How about you explain how something moving fast deifies the laws of physics first? Considering that was what this was all about and instead of admitting you dont know what you're talking about you've tangentially deflected time after time.Go on then Einstein.
Explain your theory of gyroscopic momentum, and how it's relevant in this UFO sighting.
I'm really eager to learn new things
If you're really eager to learn then find my original quote.
Haha ok, you wish me to detail my hypothesis on the movement system of the craft because you, in some way, think that the laws of physics are defined by the limits of technology.
It has relevance in the place it was posted, and details specifics. There is no need for me to repeat text on a searchable forum considering I gave you key words to help you out.
Now, how about you finally admit that you don't know what you're talking about when referring to defying physical laws? Or even state simply what physical laws were broken?
You can't. Because you're arrogant and unwilling to grow as a person. Keep hiding and deflecting matey, it only hinders yourself.
It has relevance in the place it was posted, and details specifics. There is no need for me to repeat text on a searchable forum considering I gave you key words to help you out.
Now, how about you finally admit that you don't know what you're talking about when referring to defying physical laws? Or even state simply what physical laws were broken?
You can't. Because you're arrogant and unwilling to grow as a person. Keep hiding and deflecting matey, it only hinders yourself.
Really? That's how you're going to do this? Deflect and deny? Why would I need to provide you a paper on my hypothesis stating a well known force as a potential solution? Oh, right, because you don't understand physics.
I think you really are trying to grasp at anything to keep deflecting from the question I have asked you many times from the first time I quoted your post. It is the only question I have asked and you continue to deflect. I have answered most of your questions yet your responses are always a deflection or tangent or just repetitive incorrect information.
You are a dishonest poster, you are incorrect in your statements and unwilling to admit, learn and grow like a decent person. You should be embarrassed, but o don't think your mindset would allow, shameful.
If you want something to read then I've told you many time to read the original quote, you simply appear unable.
Edit: I appear to have fallen foul of one of my own rules: never argue with stupid.
I think you really are trying to grasp at anything to keep deflecting from the question I have asked you many times from the first time I quoted your post. It is the only question I have asked and you continue to deflect. I have answered most of your questions yet your responses are always a deflection or tangent or just repetitive incorrect information.
You are a dishonest poster, you are incorrect in your statements and unwilling to admit, learn and grow like a decent person. You should be embarrassed, but o don't think your mindset would allow, shameful.
If you want something to read then I've told you many time to read the original quote, you simply appear unable.
Edit: I appear to have fallen foul of one of my own rules: never argue with stupid.
Only my degree in Astrophysics.
Great! just what I wanted, an expert who can educate me.
So tell me, how does a Gyroscope, or gyroscopic device generate movement, or directional force to the point it can be used for propulsion, without violating Newton's third law?
Being an Astrophysicist - you should have no problem answering that question, indeed you should be able to provide specific detail, seeing as you're a confirmed expert in the field
Again a deflection? Firstly, if I knew the answer to that very specific question then we have a game changer of a reaction less drive. Secondly, you continue to avoid the question "what laws were broken by the commanders description of events?" and I can glean the reason being your inability to differentiate technological capacity against physical properties.Great! just what I wanted, an expert who can educate me.
So tell me, how does a Gyroscope, or gyroscopic device generate movement, or directional force to the point it can be used for propulsion, without violating Newton's third law?
Being an Astrophysicist - you should have no problem answering that question, indeed you should be able to provide specific detail, seeing as you're a confirmed expert in the field
I'm done with you now, I've been on this idiotic circle long enough and can see you'll never answer my original question (repeatedly asked multiple times).
No, you can't answer a question, with another question - that's dumb.
Where is your theory on using Gryoscopes for propulsion ?
You're the Astrophysicist, you're the one with the hypothesis - why won't you even give a brief overview of how it would work?
You are a very dishonest poster.
I've only asked you one question, repeatedly, and you have deflected everytime with another question. You're also a hypocrite.
Also, I answered your question with a specific sentence. You're also unable to read.
I've mentioned multiple times to search for the quote, even providing key words. You're also incompetent.
Again, you're unable to comprehend simple adivce.
Last edited:
I guess if the mass of the craft was 0 then it wouldn't be breaking any laws
So you're just trolling / lying then?
If you're going to throw silly theories out there, whilst claiming your an Astrophysicist, then when asked reasonable questions about those theories you simply resort to calling me dishonest (?), whilst answering no questions at all, it makes you look like a bit of a berk, to be honest.
Assuming for a second, this is a serious post.... (which I have no idea of anymore)
How precisely, would you build a craft that had a mass of zero, that somehow manages to conform to the laws of nature?
Irony is rife. I suggest you reread our interactions as my answers are there. In fact, the previous post you mentioned I apivded the question actually contained an answer for you, but I see you find reading difficult. Perhaps you could answer the original question I posed sparking this futile conversation? No? Yeh, I thought not.
If you're going to make claims about me, then perhaps base them in reality, using the written texts in this thread and not plainly lie? In this specific reply you've claimed I stated I am an astrophysicist when I actually said I have a degree in Astrophysics, your ability to interpret that incorrectly shows the level you're running at.
Would require technology that can control gravitational interaction between masses (Be it waves or gravitons - we don't know)