'No evidence' for extraterrestrials, says White House,....

If you think I am wasting any more time with you, you'd be wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not the one who asked that you follow the rules this time, it was someone else. In fairness, you did make a claim that you refused to support(another one to add to my list for future use), someone asking you to support it is hardly out of line, especially not when the rules demand that you do so.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Support it?

I just explained where I extracted that statement from. I don't have that magazine any more, so I cannot divulge any more on it.

How am I not complying to the rules? I can't make magic happen lol

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@Mister --

Nope, you can't make magic happen....but then you don't really have to. You say that you read it in a science magazine, so look up the magazine and see what you can find that way. Can't remember the name of the magazine? Then look up the article by it's title. Can't remember the title? Then google the subject matter and see if you can come up with something. It might be a lot of work but it is your responsibility to do so.

As for how you're failing to adhere to the rules, just look at the posting guidelines and see the bit about failing to support your statements when asked to, which is what you've done here. "I read it somewhere" isn't supporting a statement.

 

You misread it in a science magazine somewhere. It is anticipated that in future it will be possible to analyse the major components of exoplanet atmospheres. It has not been done thus far.

 

If that is true, fair enough.

 

It is true. We can only detect planets via the perturbation of their star's orbit, or by occultation of the star's brightness.

The latter method does mean the planet is in the field of view, being between us as the observer, and the planet, and causes a dimming of a couple of percent at best. The size of the planet may be estimated using this method, but not it's composition. Not yet, anyway.

So, you did NOT read your claim in a 'Science Magazine', because no reputable source would have published such a story. Perhaps one of those 'wet finger in the air' type scientific prediction articles in some other publication, but NOT in a reputable magazine or journal.

So yet again you demonstrate your lack of discernment and critical thinking, and ultimately, sheer bloody mindedness. You love your pet theory so much you twist facts to fit it, and ignore things that don't.

 

Mindedness?

Piss off. Seriously. You are harshly judging me on vaguely remembering something. Seriously, piss off.

 

I didn't even twist the facts. I plane out got them wrong. Mistakes happen.

I've seen plenty by the skeptical group. A perfect gem was this:

''the US governments do not make flying saucers''

Read only

Yet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VZ-9_AV_Avrocar

See, everyone makes mistakes.

 

@Mister --

From the wikipedia article:

A service ceiling of three feet is not, exactly, what I'd call a flying saucer. A hovering saucer maybe(or just a piece of junk), but not flying.

While I would grant the point you made, in that the US government did, indeed, attempt to build a flying saucer, it could still be argued that they never actually built one.

 

Some people would report you for such, but not I. I have a nice, thick skin.

You got it WRONG. This is not a creative writing exercise. It's science. You can get the answer wrong, and you did.

No wonder you believe the things you do when you don't fact check.

 

I know it barely got off the ground. And it is classically shaped as a saucer-shaped craft. You are being pendantic!!!

 

And I did get it wrong. How many times do you want me to repeat myself? Any decent person would leave it at that and move on!

 

I'd rather accumulate this information about you, than leave it.

You don't fact check. You have no qualification in science. You prefer to read conspiracy web sites over factual ones. You are wasting your time with this stuff.

 

Nope, he's being accurate. Do you get it yet? There are no points in this game for being nearly correct.

 

I was completely correct in my statement about the government project in creating UFO's. He was being pedantic about whether it was even usable, or even a proper saucer. It is quite clear it is a saucer, and it got off the ground at least!!!

 

No you weren't. It was a secret prototype. It was never a UFO.

 

Well, every time you state a mistake of mine, I'll state a mistake from someone else. I wonder how many will appreciate. Two I can think of is Arioch, who said a particular man had a normal case of arthiritus without checking his facts he actually had a very severe case.

And ReadOnly's little gem that no government has created a saucer-shaped craft.

There are more I'd wager.

See, there is nothing wrong in being wrong. You are just being childish by focusing on one problem even after it has been admitted. Then continuing to keep mentioning it just blatent trolling, but I can do the same, if that is the game you want to play.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sorry, not UFO's, saucer shaped craft. Getting slightly ahead of myself there.

 

Wrong game. I have no interest in your nit picks with someone elses words. I'd have to read even more of your posts then, and I doubt I'll find that very rewarding.