Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: razorbill on 14/05/2006 23:13:36
-
Its true I swear it is!....July 1998, me and a couple of pals were on our way to the local watering hole( cos it was a real hot day)when we noticed a whole passel of people staring up pointing to what can only be described as a UFO( stop laughin!)it had to be over a mile in length and was so "polished" sort of a super chrome colour thatit was almost invisible! its true I tell ya! It was "parked"behind a huge grey cloud( the only one in the sky!)then after about 5 minutes just seemed to evaporate together with this monster cummulo nimbus! you dont believe me and I dont care cos we saw it together with about 1-200 others..so there!
-
wow dude i am like totally amaised. and what you saw must have been sighting alright.
-
You know i believe you. i once saw a UFO it lokked like an airplane! incredible eh![;)]
Nick
-
Interesting, although a bit unclear to me what this has to do with geology or palaeontology.
-
Sad there's no evidence but I believe you. Couldn't have been any illusions or all sorts someone must have noticed something.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Atomic-S
Interesting, although a bit unclear to me what this has to do with geology or palaeontology.
Now moved to Phyisics, Astronomy, Cosmology
George
-
Preposterous.
-
are u sure it wasnt just one of those goverment experiments that keep appearing everywhere
-
While I would love to believe what you saw was a craft of some description,what you descibe sounds like a very rare sighting of a mother of pearl cloud at about 16 miles up.
Tomorrow lies outside our universe without it there would be no tomorrow.
-
An aircraft pilot died because he thought he saw an UFO....
Don't make me angry, I have advanced "Green Technology".
-
I have seen many UFO's that in the strict sense of the word were to me flying objects that were un-identifiable, so what!.
Why should I make the ludicrous assumption that they were visiters from outer space etc.
syhprum
-
Thirty two years ago on a foggy night, about 9 pm in the outskirts of Miami on a dark deserted street where I was waiting for the bus after I had finished work, I saw a UFO from a distance. It's speed was very slow and its altitude about 50 feet an was approaching the suburbs from Miami. It's flight was peculiar since it was very slow and kept momentarily jerking horizontally in a seemingly impossible manner. Since all I could see was a circular white light I assumed the light to be the entire craft. I also had initially assumed it was an airplane or helicopter. But as it got closer I noticed it made no sound. It was approaching me at a right angle just below the thicker part of the low fog. There was a street and across the street at some distance some houses over which it was slowly passing. I thought it would continue on its way but it suddenly stopped.
As it did I noticed that the light was not the entire craft but was merely attached to its hull. The entire thing was bigger than the house it was hovering over and completely silent. I could barely see its shape dimly reflected by its own forward light. Strange since it didn't look like metal but organic. Its shape which tapered to a point above and below the light. An ugly design! This as well as its complete disregard for gravity was disturbing. Why I didn't break into a run as I should have done is beyond me. Maybe stupidity is a good explanbation since I had previously read about some people being burned by the light emitted from some UFOS.
So as I stood there gazing at it in wonder, and unwilling to take my eyes off it because it might go away, or I might lose the opportunity to point at it when some car or person passed by, it hovered for a few moments and then suddenly doused its forward circular white light shifted it along its rim,-if indeed it had a rim, and focused it on me. Then that was doused and two other lights were focussed on me in sequence of red and green. Then it doused the last light and refocused it toward the direction it was heading-the Miami Airport and silently moved off.
I tried not to think about it too much but the next morning a local newspaper article spoke about UFO causing havoc with airport traffic. There was also a time discrepancy when I arrived home that night.
The distance of observation was about 60 feet judging by the house it hovered over. I had seen this craft twice previously from my hotel window in the middle of the night. It's altitude had been about maybe a thousand feet and it had been approaching Miami from the suburbs.
After the incident, I saw it once more from my hotel window late at night and never have seen it since nor do I want to since I found the experience unpleasant.
BTW
I personally am not assuming anything about what I saw.
-
This URL may help explain the Miami UFO
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/08/26/Worldandnation/With_loss_of_a_blimp_.shtml
syhprum
-
I read the article.
Thanx for the feedback.
I truly would prefer it to have been a blimp.
If they are equipped with green, red, and white lights are diamond shaped and bigger than a two story house-can stop, swivel the lights on someone, douse them, and then continue on its way. Propel itself on an almost windless night. Then I'd accept the blimp explanation.
Also, I would have to assume that those at Miami airport including the news media which reported havoc at the airport that night were ignorant of these blimps existence, didn't get an explanation from the military, and couldn't recognize a blimp at that low altitude and with far better lighting than I had. If indeed I can accept all the things then the blimp explanation would be satisfactory. And as I said, a much more preferable one since I don't like being inspected without my consent as if I were some type of laboratory animal.
BTW
There is also something statistically not right with my viewing the object four times from my hotel window at that precise moment late at night. Isn't that like winning the Lotto repeatedly. That is, statistically?
-
Preposterous.
Denying the truth is the most simplest path out of a most complicated area. I am not suggesting his sighting was not real... but I do have first hand experience to a sighting myself which I will not go into. If you cannot trust a randomer, you can trust someone who pledges an oath to science.
-
If you cannot trust a randomer, you can trust someone who pledges an oath to science.
In science, surely, we do not trust anyone. We trust the scientific method. We trust consistent replication of results. We trust systematic observation and experiment, validated by multiple means.
-
If you cannot trust a randomer, you can trust someone who pledges an oath to science.
In science, surely, we do not trust anyone. We trust the scientific method. We trust consistent replication of results. We trust systematic observation and experiment, validated by multiple means.
What? In science we don't trust anyone?
In science, we trust in science. There is the oath between scientists that whatever the subject, it is given the degree of respect it should be given. Maybe I should direct you to my disclosure files? Only two of them was sent here, but it was locked on methodologies which does not make sense to copy right reasons, reasons itself which it was locked...
-
If you cannot trust a randomer, you can trust someone who pledges an oath to science.
In science, surely, we do not trust anyone. We trust the scientific method. We trust consistent replication of results. We trust systematic observation and experiment, validated by multiple means.
What?
Where are you guys learning your physics from? I feel like giving you guys lessons on modern physics! In science, for starters, we trust in the physical realm. In fact quantum mechanics trusts it's own elements, so you could say the scientific method defends its own self. The improvement of science is to rigorously question itself to investigate all areas concerning it.
-
If you cannot trust a randomer, you can trust someone who pledges an oath to science.
In science, surely, we do not trust anyone. We trust the scientific method. We trust consistent replication of results. We trust systematic observation and experiment, validated by multiple means.
Sounds like a Conficker worm. Anyhow, we should not assume that UFO's are of alien origin.
-
If you cannot trust a randomer, you can trust someone who pledges an oath to science.
In science, surely, we do not trust anyone. We trust the scientific method. We trust consistent replication of results. We trust systematic observation and experiment, validated by multiple means.
What?
Where are you guys learning your physics from? I feel like giving you guys lessons on modern physics! In science, for starters, we trust in the physical realm. In fact quantum mechanics trusts it's own elements, so you could say the scientific method defends its own self. The improvement of science is to rigorously question itself to investigate all areas concerning it.
You say we trust in the physical realm. How do we know this physical realm? Through application of the scientific method; through careful experimentation, in which results of those experiments are confirmed through replication. You say the improvement of science - by which I take it you mean the improvement of knowledge acquired by the scientific method - is achieved by "systematic observation and experiment2. Those are my words from my earlier post. I see little or no difference between those words and your comments that "the improvement of science is to rigorously question itself".
So, in your last post you are agreeing, it seems, that it is the objectivity of the scientific method that is valuable and is to be trusted. If that is what you are saying then we are in complete agreement. However, that is the reverse of what you originally stated: "you can trust someone who pledges an oath to science". No, you cannot place trust in any individual, because all individuals are also human and capable of all the human errors.
-
If you cannot trust a randomer, you can trust someone who pledges an oath to science.
In science, surely, we do not trust anyone. We trust the scientific method. We trust consistent replication of results. We trust systematic observation and experiment, validated by multiple means.
What?
Where are you guys learning your physics from? I feel like giving you guys lessons on modern physics! In science, for starters, we trust in the physical realm. In fact quantum mechanics trusts it's own elements, so you could say the scientific method defends its own self. The improvement of science is to rigorously question itself to investigate all areas concerning it.
You say we trust in the physical realm. How do we know this physical realm? Through application of the scientific method; through careful experimentation, in which results of those experiments are confirmed through replication. You say the improvement of science - by which I take it you mean the improvement of knowledge acquired by the scientific method - is achieved by "systematic observation and experiment2. Those are my words from my earlier post. I see little or no difference between those words and your comments that "the improvement of science is to rigorously question itself".
So, in your last post you are agreeing, it seems, that it is the objectivity of the scientific method that is valuable and is to be trusted. If that is what you are saying then we are in complete agreement. However, that is the reverse of what you originally stated: "you can trust someone who pledges an oath to science". No, you cannot place trust in any individual, because all individuals are also human and capable of all the human errors.
Not the individual: The scientific mainstream belief-system. Otherwise, we agree on every other point then.