UFOs

[aveatry]

Oh I've been busy - or I've realised it was an observer drone from the planet Zog , which got bored and moved away. Take your pick.

It's certainly unidentified as we don't know what it is. I'm not sure it's "flying" but if it is, it's a UFO. Common as muck!

I didn't see it peeking out from behind anything, and I can't find the vid now.

Here it it is. Really useful actually as I have just worked out how to post a link direct to a section of vid without telling people to fast forward
Tap play and watch it on a phone or pad, do not tap the full screen arrows and that way you can use two fingers to zoom in for a better view

If it didn't actually do that then internal lens reflections can get focused in odd places - so that's very possible. They can be an image of something, which gives an apparent structure.
Prime candidates for objects would be ice/frozen oxygen, or an insulation blanket, or possibly a piece of rocket which fell off when the booster went.

It wasn’t moving / spinning.

Trying to claim it's something alien though, I would say is plain daft.

I have never tried to claim that it is alien though.

 

[aveatry]

Then watch here as the starships gridfin mounted camera moves it comes back into view only this time obviously further away as the ship has travelled it still appears in the same position as it was before above the earth.

 

[Elsa TLC]

I saw what I thought was a UFO I couldn't definitely say it was, as I couldn't identify it.

 

[Brigadier]

Don’t use logic

Watch words for aveatry.

Like not using the logic that the distances are so inconceivably vast, sod all is remotely likely to f@rt around our little backwater.

 

[aveatry]

Watch words for aveatry.

Like not using the logic that the distances are so inconceivably vast, sod all is remotely likely to f@rt around our little backwater.

So have a look at the vid - what are your thoughts on what it is (instead of just sniping from the sidelines)

 

[aveatry]

Watch words for aveatry.

Like not using the logic that the distances are so inconceivably vast, sod all is remotely likely to f@rt around our little backwater.

Actually there is evidence that we are in the centre of a massive cosmic void. Which would make our planet stand out like an oasis in the desert.

 

[Dec27]

Watch words for aveatry.

Like not using the logic that the distances are so inconceivably vast, sod all is remotely likely to f@rt around our little backwater.

It’s arrogant to think we are alone in the universe. There’s far too many things on earth we can’t explain.

Unless you’re saying we haven’t been to the moon in a tin can ?

 

[noseall]

Watch words for aveatry.

Like not using the logic that the distances are so inconceivably vast, sod all is remotely likely to f@rt around our little backwater.

Correct. I doubt the likes of aveatry has ever really considered what is involved.

 

[Brigadier]

It’s arrogant to think we are alone in the universe. There’s far too many things on earth we can’t explain.

Unless you’re saying we haven’t been to the moon in a tin can ?

Strawman upon strawman.

Standard, when you have nothing of substance.

 

[Justin Passing]

Actually there is evidence that we are in the centre of a massive cosmic void. Which would make our planet stand out like an oasis in the desert.

Hmm, well, the "void" is not just earth,

It includes our solar system
our galaxy
and about 100000 similar galaxies
and a load of smaller ones
All in our local supercluster of galaxies.
It's called Laika something, a bit like that dog.

so it's a little disingenuous to say that Earth stands out!

 

[Trazor]

 

[Justin Passing]

It’s arrogant to think we are alone in the universe. There’s far too many things on earth we can’t explain.

Unless you’re saying we haven’t been to the moon in a tin can ?

The things not on earth are confounding the scientists.
Using the James Webb scope, we can look back to relatively close to the time of the Big Bang.
Scientists are pretty sure how long ago that was - there are about 4 ways to measure it, and they agree.

Buggeration is, that what we see is far more galaxies than we can explain out there/back then, and each would have taken far longer than the time they had, to form, according to our understanding.
They shouldn't be there.
So either we're wrong about the age of the universe , which throws our entire understanding of physics into the bin or
there was something around before the big bang. That appeals to me far more, but I don't fully understand about those 4 agreeing methods which make that impossible. Scientist are clinging to the big bang - our "cosmological model" because they DO trust the age of it.
Or there was a different set of laws of physics which allowed those galaxies to form really fast. Or something.

Maybe there were great concentrations of dark matter which produced incredibly strong gravitational fields which - obviously - affect time. I'm prattling above my pay grade now.

A researcher in the UK (Leicester?) called Lopez discovered it first, along with structures in what we can see of the universe, which again, shouldn't be there. ("Giant arc" etc).
Nobody has said yet, afaik, "but she was only a woman"!
TFFT!

 

[Dec27]

Strawman upon strawman.

Standard, when you have nothing of substance.

No, not at all.

Unless you’d like to explain how 800 tonne blocks where placed perfectly 1000’s of years ago, that just one example.

Critical thinking isn’t big is Staffordshire

 

[Dec27]

The things not on earth are confounding the scientists.
Using the James Webb scope, we can look back to relatively close to the time of the Big Bang.
Scientists are pretty sure how long ago that was - there are about 4 ways to measure it, and they agree.

Buggeration is, that what we see is far more galaxies than we can explain out there/back then, and each would have taken far longer than the time they had, to form, according to our understanding.
They shouldn't be there.
So either we're wrong about the age of the universe , which throws our entire understanding of physics into the bin or
there was something around before the big bang. That appeals to me far more, but I don't fully understand about those 4 agreeing methods which make that impossible. Scientist are clinging to the big bang - our "cosmological model" because they DO trust the age of it.
Or there was a different set of laws of physics which allowed those galaxies to form really fast. Or something.

Maybe there were great concentrations of dark matter which produced incredibly strong gravitational fields which - obviously - affect time. I'm prattling above my pay grade now.

A researcher in the UK (Leicester?) called Lopez discovered it first, along with structures in what we can see of the universe, which again, shouldn't be there. ("Giant arc" etc).
Nobody has said yet, afaik, "but she was only a woman"!
TFFT!

Ok, but I said “on” earth

It’s almost childish to think we are alone in the universe.

Nosey and his crew wouldn’t be able to build the road to a pyramid; and they are good builders. Let alone core a hole with ropes and copper.