[Drago]

But was it described as a ray or ray-like by any of the observers?

[The Silver Thong]

Smugfish, on 05 November 2009 - 06:37 AM, said:

Thanks; I was kinda proud of that one. lol.

The bottom line is that although the idea may be difficult to imagine, it is conceivable. 150 million years is a long time. There's big cats that roam Britain, and they manage to stay undetectable. A hunter has been after them for ten years, and never fired a shot - only even seeing them by eye on a few occasions. If they can stay elusive, so can something that flies at night and feeds on shellfish. The reports of multi-coloured lights associated with UAPs could be explained by marine bioluminescence. No-one's convinced me that it isn't likely, let alone impossible.

Ok I'll give ya that rays sometime breach the surface however it's not for food. Big cats in Britian yes you are very right there and there is a very very simple explanation for that. They are not native to Britain nor are they from a line of cat from 150.000 yrs ago. They are escaped cats from pathetic owners that wanted one and then figured out they had no clue as to what they got themselves into and released them into the wild to avoid the law and embarassment of being a moron.

The foot penis was a classic I'll give ya that much LOL

[Mattshark]

Smugfish, on 06 November 2009 - 02:49 PM, said:

Trash. The basics of eye-witness accounts are very reliable. There's enough good cases to make a common sense judgement on the connecting features of all the cases. You haven't even seen or read about the opposing evidence, have you?

Not enough alone to secure a conviction in court.
Never accepted in scientific research.

People are not reliable as witnesses, most people are bad at identifying wildlife, most people confabulate when they see something they don't know, people become less reliable over time, assessments are subject to prior knowledge and preconceptions.

There is nothing except your wilful ignorance of biology, evolution and high school level science in general.

This post has been edited by Mattshark: 06 November 2009 - 03:22 PM

[Mattshark]

The Silver Thong, on 06 November 2009 - 03:10 PM, said:

Ok I'll give ya that rays sometime breach the surface however it's not for food. Big cats in Britian yes you are very right there and there is a very very simple explanation for that. They are not native to Britain nor are they from a line of cat from 150.000 yrs ago. They are escaped cats from pathetic owners that wanted one and then figured out they had no clue as to what they got themselves into and released them into the wild to avoid the law and embarassment of being a moron.

The foot penis was a classic I'll give ya that much LOL

Yes, so do cetaceans and sharks. They aren't going to fly either.

Your right about big cats in the UK. Just released pets and a lot of reports I have seen are people who can't differentiate a house cat from a big cat.

The foot penis was funny, but in a really embarrassing way for smugy.

[Sir_Quack_The_Wack]

Smugfish, on 29 October 2009 - 08:16 PM, said:

That's complete BS. Rays have been seen to jump 7ft out of the water. That's plenty high enough to start evolving the ability to glide! Take a LOOK at the photo below.

Haha, I would if it wasn't so small.

Doesn't look like 7ft.

And that's still not high enough to evolve the ability to glide. They'd have to do it A LOT more frequently, as well.

By the way, don't swear at me. I know you abbreviated it, but it's still just as offending. I don't appreciate you using sewage speak at me.

[Mattshark]

Sir_Quack_The_Wack, on 06 November 2009 - 03:41 PM, said:

Haha, I would if it wasn't so small.

Doesn't look like 7ft.

And that's still not high enough to evolve the ability to glide. They'd have to do it A LOT more frequently, as well.

By the way, don't swear at me. I know you abbreviated it, but it's still just as offending. I don't appreciate you using sewage speak at me.

Do you think Smugfish thinks this thresher shark (about 10ft out the water) will fly too!?

This post has been edited by Mattshark: 06 November 2009 - 03:59 PM

[The Silver Thong]

Mattshark, on 06 November 2009 - 08:52 AM, said:

Do you think Smugfish thinks this thresher hare (about 10ft out the water) will fly too!?

As soon as pigs grow wings

[The Hippy Viking]

well if they can fly...... im getting my harpoon gun >_<

[Smugfish]

Drago, on 06 November 2009 - 03:04 PM, said:

But was it described as a ray or ray-like by any of the observers?

This is covered by Mattsharks last remarks. People don't "see" a ray that evolved into flight, because no-one is expecting it. People automatically think "giant bat-like" or "owl-like", but the way the brain processes what it sees can be very misleading. The drawing of the owlman shown below looks very ray-like to me!

Sir_Quack_The_Wack, on 06 November 2009 - 03:41 PM, said:

Haha, I would if it wasn't so small.

Doesn't look like 7ft.

And that's still not high enough to evolve the ability to glide. They'd have to do it A LOT more frequently, as well.

By the way, don't swear at me. I know you abbreviated it, but it's still just as offending. I don't appreciate you using sewage speak at me.

Sorry for swearing. I've been in sciforums for too long!

btw Who would have thought that the giant pterasaur could fly? It must have run as fast as a giraffe to get the speed up wouldn't it?

Attached File(s)

•  GiantPterasuarGalloped.jpg (100.74K)
  Number of downloads: 10
•  Ray-like-mothman.jpg (3.77K)
  Number of downloads: 8

This post has been edited by Smugfish: 07 November 2009 - 11:00 AM

[Mattshark]

Smugfish, on 07 November 2009 - 10:36 AM, said:

This is covered by Mattsharks last remarks. People don't "see" a ray that evolved into flight, because no-one is expecting it. People automatically think "giant bat-like" or "owl-like", but the way the brain processes what it sees can be very misleading. The drawing of the owlman shown below looks very ray-like to me!

Sorry for swearing. I've been in sciforums for too long!

btw Who would have thought that the giant pterasaur could fly? It must have run as fast as a giraffe to get the speed up wouldn't it?

Are you simple?
Hollow bones allow large birds and pterosaurs to fly. Elasmobranchs don't have bones or a space for them to become hollow. Cartilage is won't support if it is hollow and they have no ribcage to provide skeletal support.

Serious, get an education because your suggestions are bad for a comic book.

[Drago]

Smugfish, on 07 November 2009 - 04:36 AM, said:

This is covered by Mattsharks last remarks. People don't "see" a ray that evolved into flight, because no-one is expecting it. People automatically think "giant bat-like" or "owl-like", but the way the brain processes what it sees can be very misleading. The drawing of the owlman shown below looks very ray-like to me!

Sorry for swearing. I've been in sciforums for too long!

btw Who would have thought that the giant pterasaur could fly? It must have run as fast as a giraffe to get the speed up wouldn't it?

So. Eyewitnesses are great for evidence, they're trustworthy and accurate - except when it comes to describing what they've seen, which requires you to step in and translate their sighting of a big bat or big owl into a flying ray?

I absolutely hate this double standard so many people have when it comes to eyewitnesses. "Oh sure, they're GREAT evidence! Eyewitnesses are more reliable than you'll admit because it makes it easier to naysay me!"
And then almost always, usually with a couple of posts, they're deconstructing what the eyewitnesses said, because they obviously don't know what they actually saw. No, that takes the professional efforts of someone trying to shoehorn the story into their favorite theory.

So which is it? Are the eyewitnesses reliable and accurate in their descriptions of what they saw, or are they so unreliable that they can't be trusted to accurately describe what they saw, requiring you to interpret?

[Smugfish]

Drago, on 07 November 2009 - 08:35 PM, said:

So. Eyewitnesses are great for evidence, they're trustworthy and accurate - except when it comes to describing what they've seen, which requires you to step in and translate their sighting of a big bat or big owl into a flying ray?

I absolutely hate this double standard so many people have when it comes to eyewitnesses. "Oh sure, they're GREAT evidence! Eyewitnesses are more reliable than you'll admit because it makes it easier to naysay me!"
And then almost always, usually with a couple of posts, they're deconstructing what the eyewitnesses said, because they obviously don't know what they actually saw. No, that takes the professional efforts of someone trying to shoehorn the story into their favorite theory.

So which is it? Are the eyewitnesses reliable and accurate in their descriptions of what they saw, or are they so unreliable that they can't be trusted to accurately describe what they saw, requiring you to interpret?

The details of eye-witness accounts are less reliable than the overall story. I saw it on a TV police programme.

Getting back to how rays could have evolved to fly: 1. The use of ligaments could hold the 'saddle-shape' (see photo) when the ray breaches, inducing sustained gliding. 2. The propulsion system is NOT by flapping it's wings, as it does underwater. 3. A flexing on each of it's scales with a stiff spring effect, would mean they could open and snap shut with the undulating body movement. This cloak of micro-wings can give a force of propulsion comparible to a cloak of bee wings. The super-fast speed shocks the air into behaving more like a solid and so gives an aerodynamic advantage. Sounds incredible, I know, but this would enable a 'floating through the air' appearance as reported in the owlman eye-witness encounters.

Quote

Sharks, skates and rays have skin made up of tiny, toothlike scales (placoid scales). These scales,
give the shark's skin a rough, sandpaperlike feel.
In sharks and rays, the placoid scales of the skin visibly grade into teeth on the jaws. As many as a thousand teeth are
arranged in orderly rows. As teeth are worn out or lost, replacement teeth are brought forward. The shape of the teeth is
indicative of the feeding habits of the elasmobranch. Bottom-dwellers, such as skates and rays, have pavement like
molariform teeth that are used to grind food which includes snails, clams, and hard-bodied crustaceans. Triangular teeth
with serrated edges (see illustration) are adapted for biting and tearing fish and other prey found in the diets of pelagic
sharks.

Quote

Shark skin is covered with tiny scales, known as placoid scales. These scales resemble small shark teeth in both appearance and structure: there is an outer layer of enamel, dentine, and a central pulp cavity. (Biologists call them "dermal denticles," which literally translates into "tiny skin teeth.")

Sharks essentially have a built-in suit of chain mail armor that doesn't make them too stiff to move. The scales move and flex as the shark swims.
The shark skin's dentine layer is made of a hard, crystalline material, which is embedded in a soft protein. This is important because embedding a hard material inside a softer one combines the best properties of both: a material that is rigid without being brittle.

The structure of shark skin has another function besides protection. The streamlined shape of the scales decreases the friction of the water flowing along the shark's body by channeling it through grooves. The grooves are so closely spaced, they prevent eddies from coming into contact with the surface of the shark's moving body. This reduces the amount of "drag" as the shark swims, enabling the creature to glide farther on a given amount of energy. Scientists have found that the ridges created by shark scales can reduce drag in the water by as much as 8 percent. Golf balls and many military aircraft and vessels employ similar drag-reducing principles.

Check out this you-tube video of Edward De Bono (the father of lateral thinking): Edward de Bono on creative thinking.

Attached File(s)

•  AerialBioluminesence.jpg (188.85K)
  Number of downloads: 3

This post has been edited by Smugfish: 10 November 2009 - 12:47 PM

[Drago]

Smugfish, on 10 November 2009 - 06:00 AM, said:

The details of eye-witness accounts are less reliable than the overall story. I saw it on a TV police programme.

So you're saying that eyewitnesses are not reliable enough to use their statements and observations as evidence? Because if you're going to start 'interpreting' their statements and observations and they 'just so happen' to arbitrarily turn out to actually be flying rays and not what the statements and observations describe, well. At that point you're making your own evidence out of thin air, aren't you?

[Smugfish]

Drago, on 10 November 2009 - 01:43 PM, said:

So you're saying that eyewitnesses are not reliable enough to use their statements and observations as evidence? Because if you're going to start 'interpreting' their statements and observations and they 'just so happen' to arbitrarily turn out to actually be flying rays and not what the statements and observations describe, well. At that point you're making your own evidence out of thin air, aren't you?

The TV programme said that police related eye-witness testimony was given more credence in the past compared with today's more scientific investigations have shown them to be. What did you think of the proposed propulsion system; vibrations which flick all it's spring-loaded plactoid scales whilst maintaining an overall aerodynamic shape?

[Moro Bumbleroot]

Smugfish, if claspers on a ray evolved into feet, how would a ray reproduce? Another thing is the average manta ray can get to around 5000lbs the wing structure on this manta would not allow it to take any kind of lengthy flight. The wing structures on mantas are not designed for flying.

Edit: to add that the wings on a manta would have to be incredibly large to keep such a heavy creature in the air.

This post has been edited by Moro Bumbleroot: 10 November 2009 - 04:34 PM