Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
taniwha

Kenneth Arnold UFOs

215 posts in this topic

2 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Ridiculous Merc, I asked you in good faith like four times to tell me what you thought I said wrong and you lack the integrity to even answer. I still honestly don't know what you think I said wrong. So go swim in the Ganges Pal. 

LOL  Well, I guess you wore a helmet and rode the short bus to school mate if you don't understand,after several posts from both stereologist and myself, describing what you got wrong.  Obviously there is nothing more we can say to you as you refuse to acknowledge what was said to you as you are obviously terrified of being proven wrong.  My 11 year old has a problem with that as well.  Very smart kid, all advanced classes but same maturity level as you apparently.   He can grow up however.  Thanks for proving our case

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
4 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

LOL  Well, I guess you wore a helmet and rode the short bus to school mate if you don't understand,after several posts from both stereologist and myself, describing what you got wrong.

Quote me. You can't keep attacking me without quoting me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Quote me. You can't keep attacking me without quoting me. 

Already have.  You are ridiculousl.  Not responding to your idiocy any longer as it is a worthless endeavor and you aren't worth dealing with.   You have become so deranged I think you may go on ignore.  What happened to you?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Good grief man! Let me quote you.

You didn't frame that as your opinion. The evidence I've seen shows that statement to be false.

Those two statements are not framed as merely your personal opinion. I note there is ZERO evidence that the Swedish Gov. "planted" that story. There is also no evidence that the Swedes had "developed" or "tested" anything at that time (spring/early summer 1946). Here you explicitly state this as "fact", clearly not as your personal opinion.

These two statements are not framed as your opinion, your are stating them as fact. The evidence we've seen is that these "LT-07" rockets did not even exist until around October of that year not before May. Likewise there is no evidence of any "cover story" except in your imagination.

That should be enough for now, I'm tired of wasting my time on this.

Dear me, LS, you really are slippery when you are on the ropes. You know what an opinion is. You know what an hypothesis is. I assume you also know what a speculation is.

Right at the start I made it clear that I have an opinion on the cause of the Ghost Rocket sightings. With the introduction of evidence, that then amounts to an hypothesis. Everything I wrote is in terms of that opinion/hypothesis. Do you expect that every time I wrote a sentence I should have added "Caveat: this is my opinion/hypothesis". Most intelligent people would realize that when I am making a statement, it is a consequence of my opinion/hypothesis. I have no need to constantly repeat that what I am saying is an opinion/hypothesis. But most importantly, my statements are not - as you have euphemistically claimed - lies.

You see - and this is where I start to wonder about your ability to debate - if you are accusing me of "making something up", you can do so only if you know the truth of the matter. If, for instance, you say I am "making it up" when I said the Swedes covered up their missile program, you can only do so if you can prove they didn't.

I think the best thing to do is to give an example of what you claim I have done, and what I actually did. Then, other members - and the mods - can make up their own minds. You have just written:

There is also no evidence that the Swedes had 'developed' or 'tested' anything at that time (spring/early summer 1946). Here you explicitly state this as 'fact', clearly not as your personal opinion.

Here is what I actually wrote in # 135.

So, deliveries were scheduled for June of 1946 and test-firings were scheduled to begin in October of 1946. Who's to say the missiles didn't arrive a tad earlier and the test-firings soon after that?  

Can't you see the difference in the two sentences I wrote? The first is factual, based on the document I linked to. The second sentence isn't even an opinion, it is a speculation - I even provided a question mark to make that clear! Yet, you are claiming I was explicitly stating "fact".

Apparently, some people set "traps" for people to fall into. Your stubbornness is its own trap.

You have not withdrawn you accusation that I have lied, so I will leave it up to the mods to decide what to do.

Edited by Derek Willis
Spelling mistake
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

Dear me, LS, you really are slippery when you are on the ropes. You know what an opinion is. You know what an hypothesis is. I assume you also know what a speculation is.

Right at the start I made it clear that I have an opinion on the cause of the Ghost Rocket sightings. With the introduction of evidence, that then amounts to an hypothesis. Everything I wrote is in terms of that opinion/hypothesis. Do you expect that every time I wrote a sentence I should have added "Caveat: this is my opinion/hypothesis". Most intelligent people would realize that when I am making a statement, it is a consequence of my opinion/hypothesis. I have no need to constantly repeat that what I am saying is an opinion/hypothesis. But most importantly, my statements are not - as you have euphemistically claimed - lies.

You see - and this is where I start to wonder about your ability to debate - if you are accusing me of "making something up", you can do so only if you know the truth of the matter. If, for instance, you say I am "making it up" when I said the Swedes covered up their missile program, you can only do so if you can prove they didn't.

I think the best thing to do is to give an example of what you claim I have done, and what I actually did. Then, other members - and the mods - can make up their own minds. You have just written:

There is also no evidence that the Swedes had 'developed' or 'tested' anything at that time (spring/early summer 1946). Here you explicitly state this as 'fact', clearly not as your personal opinion.

Here is what I actually wrote in # 135.

So, deliveries were scheduled for June of 1946 and test-firings were scheduled to begin in October of 1946. Who's to say the missiles didn't arrive a tad earlier and the test-firings soon after that?  

Can't you see the difference in the two sentences I wrote? The first is factual, based on the document I linked to. The second sentence isn't even an opinion, it is a speculation - I even provided a question mark to make that clear! Yet, you are claiming I was explicitly stating "fact".

Apparently, some people set "traps" for people to fall into. Your stubbornness is its own trap.

You have not withdrawn you accusation that I have lied, so I will leave it up to the mods to decide what to do.

He is doing the exact same thing on the  thrad about Kenneth Arnold.  Besides being painful to deal with it is irritatingly childish and stupid.  I believe he THINKS he is being clever without realizing it is the exact opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting twist. In 1945 SAAB began developing their first jet aircraft, which became known as the "J 29". This was designed to use a jet engine designed by de Havilland in the UK. The name given to the engine was "Ghost".

The SAAB J 29 was designed to have a 25-degree swept-back wing. Before the actual jet aircraft was built, SAAB fitted a set of half-scale swept-back wings to one of their Safir propeller driven aircraft. This strange looking plane was given the name "Aircraft 201". Test-flights of Aircraft 201 began in spring of 1946 - right at the time the Ghost Rocket sightings began!

http://www.airvectors.net/avj29.html

Here is the relevant passage from the above link:

During a visit to Switzerland, a SAAB staffer ran across a paper on German swept-wing aerodynamic research data from the war, to bring it back to Sweden for Brising and his team to inspect. The design was then modified from the original straight wing to a wing with a sweepback of 25 degrees. The design study of the revised jet fighter concept, with the Ghost engine and swept wing, was complete by early 1946.

The new fighter was expected to have a top speed of 1,000 KPH (620 MPH), and the Flygvapnet became very keen on it. A formal development program was begun in February 1946 under the project designation of "R-1001". Wind tunnel tests were performed, and a SAAB 91A Safir light piston aircraft was fitted with a half-scale version of the 25-degree swept wing for flight tests that began in the spring of 1946. This odd experimental aircraft was designated "Aircraft 201".

So, here is my opinion, hypothesis, speculation: The Ghost Rockets were sightings of Aircraft 201, and later the LT-07 missile. Please note: this is not a statement of fact, and nor is it a lie.

How much more evidence is needed to show the Ghost Rockets weren't plasma ...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

He is doing the exact same thing on the  thrad about Kenneth Arnold.  Besides being painful to deal with it is irritatingly childish and stupid.  I believe he THINKS he is being clever without realizing it is the exact opposite.

That is exactly what he is doing. He just keeps digging himself into a deeper hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

This strange looking plane was given the name "Aircraft 201". Test-flights of Aircraft 201 began in spring of 1946 - right at the time the Ghost Rocket sightings began!

 

not-even-bait-at-this-point-20002107.png.0a047bdc534534aa753497714a8b50f7.png

 

This is just bad research. The Saab 91A prototype (one aircraft) that was registered as SE-APN first flew Nov. 20th 1945. On May 13th 1946 it began testing a new Propeller designed by Erik Bratt. On Aug 9th 1946 it was deregistered because it had been chosen to be the test bed for the J29's swept wings. Redisginated Saab 201, it began testing low speed trails on April 28th 1947 well after the Ghost Rocket flap of 1946. ( 1, 2)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

not-even-bait-at-this-point-20002107.png.0a047bdc534534aa753497714a8b50f7.png

 

This is just bad research. The Saab 91A prototype (one aircraft) that was registered as SE-APN first flew Nov. 20th 1945. On May 13th 1946 it began testing a new Propeller designed by Erik Bratt. On Aug 9th 1946 it was deregistered because it had been chosen to be the test bed for the J29's swept wings. Redisginated Saab 201, it began testing low speed trails on April 28th 1947 well after the Ghost Rocket flap of 1946. ( 1, 2)

The reference I gave says spring of 1946 and the reference you gave says April 1947. Can you prove which is correct? Either might be a typing error.

You are a stickler for evidence, so how about you provide even just a tad of evidence that your plasma hypothesis has credence. You run a mile when you are asked to do that.

And by the way, now that I have demonstrated you have deliberately taken what I wrote out of context, are you going to apologize for saying I made things up?

Edit: I tell you what, I am more interested in hearing your evidence on the plasma. So, I withdraw my comments on the plane with swept-back wings. That means you don't have to waste time on that. Also, as I am not going to get an apology regarding you claiming I made things up, you don't need to bother yourself over that. That means you can focus on providing evidence on your plasma hypothesis.

Edited by Derek Willis
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

The reference I gave says spring of 1946 and the reference you gave says April 1947. Can you prove which is correct? Either might be a typing error.

The first link I gave gives specific dates detailing the life of the specific aircraft, as opposed to your link saying "spring of 1946", also I gave a second link that also says 1947.

 

18 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

You are a stickler for evidence, so how about you provide even just a tad of evidence that your plasma hypothesis has credence. You run a mile when you are asked to do that.

 

You, days ago asked me what I thought, I said if you twisted my arm I'd guess Plasma. I never said I could prove it or that I even want to make a case for it at this point. Got it?

 

19 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

And by the way, now that I have demonstrated you have deliberately taken what I wrote out of context, are you going to apologize for saying I made things up?  

You have not, I did not, and no I will not. You quoted me out of context talking about your post 103 on Aug. 19th. You then quote yourself in post 135 from three days later on Aug. 22nd. You let that statement of fact in post 103 stand for three days before I told you there was no evidence for that in on the 22nd in post 134 and then you clarified in post 135. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Derek Willis said:

Edit: I tell you what, I am more interested in hearing your evidence on the plasma. So, I withdraw my comments on the plane with swept-back wings. That means you don't have to waste time on that. Also, as I am not going to get an apology regarding you claiming I made things up, you don't need to bother yourself over that. That means you can focus on providing evidence on your plasma hypothesis.

See my post above (before I saw your edit here). I definitely think there is a good hypothesis to make here, but I'm not prepared to make it at this point.  That being said I've discussed Atmospheric plasmas in the context of the UFO phenomena for many years, certainly since I joined UM in 2006 and many UM members can attest to that. These have been documented in Hessdalen and quite a few other locations all over the world. These tend to have high strangeness associated with them and share most of the characteristics you can find in "unknown" UFO reports. Also this is nothing new for example Phillip Klass had proposed a Plasma explanation for UFO's back in 1968 with his book "UFO's Identified" (Random House, 1968). The Condon Report devotes the entire Chapter 7 to "Atmospheric Electricity and Plasma Interpretations of UFOs" (1). The U.K.'s 1999 report "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in The UK Air Defence Region" concludes UAP are Plasmas and goes into extensive detail to evidence this (2).

 

Edited by lost_shaman
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK WHAT ABOUT PLUTO

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, mark66 said:

OK WHAT ABOUT PLUTO

pluto_mad@_kid.jpg.11431216748a46593f767a1fbe602f27.jpg

So grumpy lately, you'd think kids are walking on his lawn or something! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

See my post above (before I saw your edit here). I definitely think there is a good hypothesis to make here, but I'm not prepared to make it at this point.  That being said I've discussed Atmospheric plasmas in the context of the UFO phenomena for many years, certainly since I joined UM in 2006 and many UM members can attest to that. These have been documented in Hessdalen and quite a few other locations all over the world. These tend to have high strangeness associated with them and share most of the characteristics you can find in "unknown" UFO reports. Also this is nothing new for example Phillip Klass had proposed a Plasma explanation for UFO's back in 1968 with his book "UFO's Identified" (Random House, 1968). The Condon Report devotes the entire Chapter 7 to "Atmospheric Electricity and Plasma Interpretations of UFOs" (1). The U.K.'s 1999 report "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in The UK Air Defence Region" concludes UAP are Plasmas and goes into extensive detail to evidence this (2).

 

Alright LS. You have demonstrated yourself to be a disingenuous hypocrite. On a personal level you whine when you perceive people are disparaging your character. Yet you are happy to call people liars, but without being able to back it up. When it comes to actual debate you pose as being a seeker of truth and demand people provide evidence for their hypotheses. But when it comes to your own hypotheses you slink away. You have just pointed out that you joined UM in 2006, so have had eleven years to come up with something better than your lame excuse.

Yes, we all know about Hessdalen. Unlike you, I have actually been there. I didn't see anything, and nor had any of the people I spoke to. Many go there year after year in the vain hope of seeing something. But here is an interesting point. They were willing to discuss their hypotheses and the one put forward by the guy at Ostfold University (I forget his name). You, on the other hand, refuse to do so. I think I know why. Your fragile ego couldn't withstand the criticism. Whenever I visit the US I am endlessly impressed by the people I meet who are willing to stand up for what they believe in, whatever that might be. I guess you are just not one of those people.    

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread closed for moderator review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.