Best ufo photos ever taken

exchemist said:
If you google "drone hoax" you'll find plenty on MR's latest pics on this thread (California 2007). Seems to be a well-known story. There are even YouTube videos debunking it. So it can't be true! :D

On the other hand, it is a well-known fact that it is impossible to fake a photograph.......
Click to expand...

I was a little suspicious about that one. But the reports from several different locations made it sound authentic. It would've taken a massive coordination of numerous people. Or else one person claiming to be many people.

Here's a skeptic's account:

 
Last edited:
venus.jpg
 
These are the best ufo photos ever taken are they?

The best ones here have already been exposed as fakes. One or two of the others show clear signs of photoshop fakery (e.g. post #2). And the rest are the usual blurry lights without context.

Ho hum.
 
Magical Realist said:
So because some ufos are shaped like flying saucers, therefore they don't exist. Right...lol!
Click to expand...
no he is saying, why are they always human designs--think about it-- why are all these UFO's anthropocentric in design and function?
 
krash661 said:
no he is saying, why are they always human designs--think about it-- why are all these UFO's anthropocentric in design and function?
Click to expand...

What do you mean anthropocentric? Why wouldn't a nonhuman being have use for the aerodynamic saucer-shaped craft. Ever throw a Frisbee? Bingo.
 
James R said:
These are the best ufo photos ever taken are they?

The best ones here have already been exposed as fakes. One or two of the others show clear signs of photoshop fakery (e.g. post #2). And the rest are the usual blurry lights without context.

Ho hum.
Click to expand...

The only one shown to be fake was that weird one over California. The others show no evidence of photoshopping and are quite clear. But we all know no evidence will ever satisfy you. Ho hum.
 
Magical Realist said:
What do you mean anthropocentric?
Click to expand...
exactly.. i suggest looking into " anthropocentric. "
MR, i do not have a problem with you exploring such thoughts-- in my opinion, you are on a " right path " but you need to, simply, be able to decipher between the shiit from reality. from what i have seen from you is simply this, that you need to work on.
 
krash661 said:
exactly.. i suggest looking into " anthropocentric. "
MR, i do not have a problem with you exploring such thoughts-- in my opinion, you are on a " right path " but you need to, simply, be able to decipher between the shiit from reality. from what i have seen from you is simply this, that you need to work on.
Click to expand...

What do you think ufos are?
 
Magical Realist said:
What do you mean anthropocentric? Why wouldn't a nonhuman being have use for the aerodynamic saucer-shaped craft. Ever throw a Frisbee? Bingo.
Click to expand...

Why would a craft designed to travel through the vacuum of space need to be aerodynamic...? Makes no sense, given there is no air in space, and an aerodynamic shape would result in numerous disadvantages in exo-atmospheric control. Something more akin to a sphere or cylinder would be far better - optimum internal volume compared to surface area, ability to rotate to induce artificial gravity, etc.

For that matter - why does it seem as though these "UFO's" tend to bank or otherwise follow aerodynamic and inertial characteristics when moving...? To cross interstellar distances, technology would need a way to reasonably overcome these limitations simply to allow for sufficient acceleration/deceleration without splattering the occupants.
 
Magical Realist said:
Obviously because it is also designed to navigate in planetary atmospheres. Duh!
Click to expand...

Which makes no sense - navigating a planetary atmosphere would ALSO mean escaping said planets gravitational field... simple math says that a dedicated craft for interstellar travel and atmospheric travel would make FAR more sense... the specific impulse required to break atmosphere vs the long duration burn required to achieve interstellar velocities, for example.

Again, an aerodynamic interstellar craft doesn't make sense.

There's also the question of, how do these tiny little UFO's contain and/or produce the necessary supplies for such a voyage?
 
Kittamaru said:
Which makes no sense - navigating a planetary atmosphere would ALSO mean escaping said planets gravitational field... simple math says that a dedicated craft for interstellar travel and atmospheric travel would make FAR more sense... the specific impulse required to break atmosphere vs the long duration burn required to achieve interstellar velocities, for example.

Again, an aerodynamic interstellar craft doesn't make sense.

There's also the question of, how do these tiny little UFO's contain and/or produce the necessary supplies for such a voyage?
Click to expand...

You have no idea what kind of propulsion system these craft have. Going by their sudden acceleration and speeds that seem to defy mass and inertia in some way, the shape probably doesn't matter anyway. We have examples of cylinder shaped ufos, spheres, and even cubes. And why would a saucer escaping an atmosphere at an angle be less effective than a rocket going straight up? It wouldn't be. The saucer shape makes perfect sense for atmospheric navigation.
 
Magical Realist said:
You have no idea what kind of propulsion system these craft have. Going by their sudden acceleration and speeds that seem to defy mass and inertia in some way, the shape probably doesn't matter anyway. We have examples of cylinder shaped ufos, spheres, and even cubes. And why would a saucer escaping an atmosphere at an angle be less effective than a rocket going straight up? It wouldn't be. The saucer shape makes perfect sense for atmospheric navigation.
Click to expand...
MR, again, " anthropocentric "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top