You decide but I think its one of the best fakes if it is not real.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/featuredphotos/Photo416.htm
This topic is locked from further discussion.
You decide but I think its one of the best fakes if it is not real.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/featuredphotos/Photo416.htm
Actually why bother when I can just give you guys the link to the site..
http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/featuredphotos/Photo416.htm
Now this has to work.
Nope. It doesn't.Actually why bother when I can just give you guys the link to the site..
http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/featuredphotos/Photo416.htm
Now this has to work.
unimpendium115
works for me. youre not missing much, it's just a dinner plate with some christmas lights on itActually why bother when I can just give you guys the link to the site..
http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/featuredphotos/Photo416.htm
Now this has to work.
unimpendium115
I dont understand this because the link works fine, how can I get to show these? Am I going to have to take screen grabs then email them to myself and then put them on immageshack? I know that would get round anything stopping them from getting posted the usual way but try to hit the link again in another browser perhaps that will work.unimpendium115It works now, hmmmm...before I was getting a 500 error.
[QUOTE="unimpendium115"]works for me. youre not missing much, it's just a dinner plate with some christmas lights on itActually why bother when I can just give you guys the link to the site..
http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/featuredphotos/Photo416.htm
Now this has to work.
nickmag
What a pathetic debunking response! please allow people to look for themselves. it is nothing like you mention at all,it shows 3 discs that would be real hard to photoshop because of the foreground and pixelation etc but I guess you do not know enough about the subject of photo manipulation procedures and the way we Ufologists have to decide from real pis and fakes by means of understanding it in the first place. A diner plate ? absoloutly pathetic repsonse my friend.
Looks like a dinner plate to me...Vfanek
Ok whattever, keep them closed the rest of your life I dont care.
This is what it would have to have to be an alien craft. Thrusters, heat resistant armor (Something like our shuttle or some very resistant and light metal), and it would also have to have a main engine that could propel it to escape velocity. It also need's to have engines on one of it's side's so that it could actually move forward. If it only has engines on the bottom, it'l only move up or down. Also i see no windows, which means there would need to be some form of camera on the outside to display the outside to the crew inside, of which none are visible in all the "Alien" photo's i have seen. Finally, the ship need's to be HUGE. Why? It need's to carry an engine that produces enough power to produce a stable wormhole between two points in space, because theoretically that is the only way to travel between solar systems.
Ah, but what if it's an interdimensional craft or a time machine, and what if these beings/in the future they are able to produce completely flat cameras and heat shields and tiny engines? Also, what if there is no engine and it operates in a completely different manner to our craft? For example, magnetism? Anti-gravity? The thing about the engine on the bottom is completely false, by the way. The US and Canadian air forces have already been able to develop prototypes that move forwards, up, down, left and right and had an engine at the bottom (or middle) of the craft. Look it up. I'm not saying any of these pictures are real (hell, I didn't even look at them). What I am saying is this: stop applying our present technological state to everything as if nothing could exist outside of that. The universe doesn't confine itself to our limitations.This is what it would have to have to be an alien craft. Thrusters, heat resistant armor (Something like our shuttle or some very resistant and light metal), and it would also have to have a main engine that could propel it to escape velocity. It also need's to have engines on one of it's side's so that it could actually move forward. If it only has engines on the bottom, it'l only move up or down. Also i see no windows, which means there would need to be some form of camera on the outside to display the outside to the crew inside, of which none are visible in all the "Alien" photo's i have seen. Finally, the ship need's to be HUGE. Why? It need's to carry an engine that produces enough power to produce a stable wormhole between two points in space, because theoretically that is the only way to travel between solar systems.
Tolwan
[QUOTE="Tolwan"]Ah, but what if it's an interdimensional craft or a time machine, and what if these beings/in the future they are able to produce completely flat cameras and heat shields and tiny engines? Also, what if there is no engine and it operates in a completely different manner to our craft? For example, magnetism? Anti-gravity? The thing about the engine on the bottom is completely false, by the way. The US and Canadian air forces have already been able to develop prototypes that move forwards, up, down, left and right and had an engine at the bottom (or middle) of the craft. Look it up. I'm not saying any of these pictures are real (hell, I didn't even look at them). What I am saying is this: stop applying our present technological state to everything as if nothing could exist outside of that. The universe doesn't confine itself to our limitations.This is what it would have to have to be an alien craft. Thrusters, heat resistant armor (Something like our shuttle or some very resistant and light metal), and it would also have to have a main engine that could propel it to escape velocity. It also need's to have engines on one of it's side's so that it could actually move forward. If it only has engines on the bottom, it'l only move up or down. Also i see no windows, which means there would need to be some form of camera on the outside to display the outside to the crew inside, of which none are visible in all the "Alien" photo's i have seen. Finally, the ship need's to be HUGE. Why? It need's to carry an engine that produces enough power to produce a stable wormhole between two points in space, because theoretically that is the only way to travel between solar systems.
nick3333
The US Craft that had engines on the bottom actually crashed, it was incapable of maintaining balance in the air and wasnt aerodynamic. Speaking of which, a saucer shaped craft is very improbable, they actually had a special on the History Channel witha bunch of air-force specialists. It's not a good design - They even tried it.
Magnetism? That's not going to get you very far in space. Anti-Gravity? That's impossible according to current science. Tiny engines arent going to get you very far, because size does matter, and even if you can make them small, they can only do so much before you need to make them bigger. Flat Cameras? There would still be visible ports on the ship where the camera's are. The only craft we use with engines that go both down and horizontally are the Harrier Marine jet's, which i believe is going to be used is some future craft, but it cant move too fast, so it moreso fits the role of a helicopter. And those engines have to move themselves into horizontal position before any proper movement forward can be made.
It's all about the science, some things plain and simply arent possible. Ever.
[QUOTE="nick3333"][QUOTE="Tolwan"]Ah, but what if it's an interdimensional craft or a time machine, and what if these beings/in the future they are able to produce completely flat cameras and heat shields and tiny engines? Also, what if there is no engine and it operates in a completely different manner to our craft? For example, magnetism? Anti-gravity? The thing about the engine on the bottom is completely false, by the way. The US and Canadian air forces have already been able to develop prototypes that move forwards, up, down, left and right and had an engine at the bottom (or middle) of the craft. Look it up. I'm not saying any of these pictures are real (hell, I didn't even look at them). What I am saying is this: stop applying our present technological state to everything as if nothing could exist outside of that. The universe doesn't confine itself to our limitations.This is what it would have to have to be an alien craft. Thrusters, heat resistant armor (Something like our shuttle or some very resistant and light metal), and it would also have to have a main engine that could propel it to escape velocity. It also need's to have engines on one of it's side's so that it could actually move forward. If it only has engines on the bottom, it'l only move up or down. Also i see no windows, which means there would need to be some form of camera on the outside to display the outside to the crew inside, of which none are visible in all the "Alien" photo's i have seen. Finally, the ship need's to be HUGE. Why? It need's to carry an engine that produces enough power to produce a stable wormhole between two points in space, because theoretically that is the only way to travel between solar systems.
Tolwan
The US Craft that had engines on the bottom actually crashed, it was incapable of maintaining balance in the air and wasnt aerodynamic. Speaking of which, a saucer shaped craft is very improbable, they actually had a special on the History Channel witha bunch of air-force specialists. It's not a good design - They even tried it.
Magnetism? That's not going to get you very far in space. Anti-Gravity? That's impossible according to current science. Tiny engines arent going to get you very far, because size does matter, and even if you can make them small, they can only do so much before you need to make them bigger. Flat Cameras? There would still be visible ports on the ship where the camera's are. The only craft we use with engines that go both down and horizontally are the Harrier Marine jet's, which i believe is going to be used is some future craft, but it cant move too fast, so it moreso fits the role of a helicopter. And those engines have to move themselves into horizontal position before any proper movement forward can be made.
It's all about the science, some things plain and simply arent possible. Ever.
Ballex, people have been saying since the dawn of time things aren't possible and they we're proven wrong again and again what makes you think science of now isn't going to change in the science of tomorrow if everythings impossible?
The US Craft that had engines on the bottom actually crashed, it was incapable of maintaining balance in the air and wasnt aerodynamic. Speaking of which, a saucer shaped craft is very improbable, they actually had a special on the History Channel witha bunch of air-force specialists. It's not a good design - They even tried it. Magnetism? That's not going to get you very far in space. Anti-Gravity? That's impossible according to current science. Tiny engines arent going to get you very far, because size does matter, and even if you can make them small, they can only do so much before you need to make them bigger. Flat Cameras? There would still be visible ports on the ship where the cameras are. The only craft we use with engines that go both down and horizontally are the Harrier Marine jets, which i believe is going to be used is some future craft, but it cant move too fast, so it moreso fits the role of a helicopter. And those engines have to move themselves into horizontal position before any proper movement forward can be made. It's all about the science, some things plain and simply arent possible. Ever.TolwanWhen we're discussing something as far-fetched as interdimensional or extraterrestrial beings watching us go to the bathroom from the sky, I think that technological limitations currently plaguing the human race lose some of their relevance. An early example of a saucer-shaped aircraft is the Avrocar. It did not crash, nor was it unstable. It was, however, lacking in speed and aerodynamism. Eventually all air forces involved in its development abandoned the research, just like they did for every other similar project that we know of. The USAF and RCAF, however, gave up not because anything was impossible, but because they realised that it was simply impractical for them to pursue the research and that they could not justify the billions of dollars in spending that such a project would suck up until completion (if it did ever reach completion); especially when other traditional designs were far more effective. However, this does not mean that an effective saucer-shaped craft with engines located at the bottom or at the centre is not possible. It only means that we haven't found a way to achieve it. I think you are too keen on drawing sweeping conclusions based on nothing but our current knowledge. What I'm trying to say is this: keep an open mind. I know this is a cliche, but an ancient Egyptian would never have thought the concept of an automobile possible. By the way, I must congratulate you on your knowledge. Even if you could have just googled it, you back up your arguments with evidence (kinda), which is far more than anything most other GSers are willing to do. Finally I'd like to suggest you read "The UFO Files" by Palmiro Campagna. It discusses the subject (of man-made saucer-shaped aircraft) at length and is extremely throrough, scientific and meticulous in detail.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment