Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.

# UFO Documentary - I Know What I Saw

## Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, astrobeing said:

First, explain to me what an equation with two dependent variables is. I've actually told you what it is at least three times but you keep getting lost and confused by basic algebra.

If you don't understand what that is then you'll never ever understand the trigonometric equation for determining distances and sizes.

I don't need to explain you again what I have already said in my post #317.

What does this equation have to do with your reply to my statement

On 7/21/2024 at 9:17 AM, MrAnderson said:

You can easily estimate lengths and heights. It's your opinion only and not a fact that people cannot estimate lengths and heights.

Reply: "No, I just showed you why it's impossible by mathematics."

Show me then how mathematics makes it impossible.

You may want to some help from @Golden Duck

Edited by MrAnderson
• 1
• 1

• Replies 444
• Created

• 153

• 73

• 44

• 30

#### Posted Images

Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, astrobeing said:

So you missed the several times that I told you that x and y are distance and object size?

Yes folks, this guy has never heard of trigonometry.

Do when you measure distance and size, what number set do you use, Mr. Anderson. If you actually knew what real and complex numbers are you wouldn't have asked such a silly question!

Look everyone! Mr. Anderson Googled "equation" and now found lots of irrelevant terms he doesn't understand that he thinks will make him look smart!

EXACTLY MR. ANDERSON!!!! OH MY GOSH! AFTER WEEKS YOU FINALLY GOT IT! I'M SO PROUD OF YOU!!!!!!

EQUATIONS WITH TWO UNKNOWNS HAVE INFINITE SOLUTIONS!!!!!!!!!

And Mr. Anderson this law of algebra which you finally discovered is completely 100% relevant to our discussion because when you have two unknowns, say, "distance" and " object size", then how are you to determine one value without knowing the other value?

You can't because there are infinite possible solutions.

I assume you'll deflect this with the usually random nonsense you've used in previous posts.

What are you talking about? Yo can't estimate distance and object size? Your equation is completely irrelevant to your reply when I stated

On 7/21/2024 at 9:17 AM, MrAnderson said:

You can easily estimate lengths and heights. It's your opinion only and not a fact that people cannot estimate lengths and heights.

Reply: "No, I just showed you why it's impossible by mathematics."

Who said you can't estimate distances and heights? Or as the matter of fact the length of an object.

When you post random equations   without specifying what the variables are and if one variable is a function of another variable you don't even help youtself with the basics.

I asked you what if X and Y are matrices. What if they are differential forms. A differential form is f(x)dx or you can write it as w=f(x)dx + g(y)dy in 2-D. It's irrelevant to the conversation but these X and Y can represent a differential form. But on the other hand you whole argument is irrelevant with what I stated in terms of estimating lengths and heights.

You interpretation of the infinite number of solutions as proof that we cannot estimate lengths and heights/distances is a new hypothesis that you may want to publish. But first you need some logical arguments and don't state it as fact. Finally you need to show the proof.

Edited by MrAnderson
• 1
• 1
##### Share on other sites

On 7/28/2024 at 4:36 AM, Golden Duck said:

Tell me how big an object is that subtends 2 degrees of angle.

Your question is irrelevant to the conversation just as the random equation provided by astrobeing

Perhaps you both should try to answer why mathematics makes it impossible for humans to estimate lengths and heights.

And I wouldn't have answered his irrelevant question if it's wasn't got post #317 in which I made a summary of what happes when you post irrelevant and random equations when you don't have any serious arguments to support your claims.

• 2
##### Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

I am afraid you are not the one posing the questions given the gaffes with the equation portrayed as a proof of the argument made by @astrobeingoo to claim that (see reply)

Reply: "No, I just showed you why it's impossible by mathematics."

We can't estimate lengths and heights? Really?

What do you think GoldenDuck?

I think you are behaving obtusely and you really aren't worth the effort to attempt to have a reasonsble discussion.

You are just guessing at what you saw.  Given that you have been caught out playing catfish there is no reason to trust you at all.

• 2
##### Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I think you are behaving obtusely and you really aren't worth the effort to attempt to have a reasonsble discussion.

You are just guessing at what you saw.  Given that you have been caught out playing catfish there is no reason to trust you at all.

This dude, spam bird and a couple others who make claim after claim never providing supportive evidence just trolling and lying have all but ruined this section.

• 2
• 1
##### Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

I think you are behaving obtusely and you really aren't worth the effort to attempt to have a reasonsble discussion.

You are just guessing at what you saw.  Given that you have been caught out playing catfish there is no reason to trust you at all.

I am not guessing what I saw. I know well what I saw and I have clearly described it numerous times. The efforts to argue that what I saw it's wasn't what I thought I saw, have not succeeded.

I have never seen anything like that before this event or after.

You don't have to trust me or anyone else. You just go about the story and the descriptions as I don't have a photo or video to post. But what I find amusing are the arguments based on random equations that are not related to the estimate of lengths and heights despite the claims these random equations prove that humans are unable to estimate lengths and heights.

You don't really need these silly arguments @astrobeing just say you don't believe the story rather than making your position impossible to defend.

• 2
##### Share on other sites

12 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

I am not guessing what I saw. I know well what I saw and I have clearly described it numerous times.

You have no idea what you saw... if it was anything at all.

• 2
##### Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Hazzard said:

You have no idea what you saw... if it was anything at all.

A cylindrical UFO it was of unknown origin.

• 1
##### Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

A cylindrical UFO it was of unknown origin.

I dont believe you saw anything... If you did you would have told us before when your name was Zetorian.

• 2
##### Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Hazzard said:

I dont believe you saw anything... If you did you would have told us before when your name was Zetorian.

Don't call me with other names please.

What you believe is irrelevant but at the same time you have the right to believe what you want.

It was a cylindrical UFO of unknown origin (and uknown manufacturers)

##### Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

What you believe is irrelevant but at the same time you have the right to believe what you want.

It was a cylindrical UFO of unknown origin (and uknown manufacturers)

We could be living in a simulation and that was a glitch in the matrix?

Maybe a robotic scout ship from the hollow Earth?

Next gen chinese hologram?

What do you think?

##### Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hazzard said:

We could be living in a simulation and that was a glitch in the matrix?

Maybe a robotic scout ship from the hollow Earth?

Next gen chinese hologram?

What do you think?

Much simpler than any of these.

Just a cylindrical UFO is what I saw. It isn't that hard to observe a flying cylinder of a very large size.

##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MrAnderson said:

Much simpler than any of these.

Just a cylindrical UFO is what I saw. It isn't that hard to observe a flying cylinder of a very large size.

Origin unknown of course... care to venture a guess.

You can pick one of my suggestions if you want to.

##### Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hazzard said:

Origin unknown of course... care to venture a guess.

You can pick one of my suggestions if you want to.

Come on, it's not rocket science. Actually it could be more advanced than this!

A very large cylindrical UFO that was traveling very fast (never seen anything like this before or after) and it had no cockpit, no windows, no exhaust, no wings, no engines.

• 1
##### Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

Come on, it's not rocket science. Actually it could be more advanced than this!

A very large cylindrical UFO that was traveling very fast (never seen anything like this before or after) and it had no cockpit, no windows, no exhaust, no wings, no engines.

Do you believe it was extraterrestrial in origin?

##### Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hazzard said:

Do you believe it was extraterrestrial in origin?

I don't know. It happened on my once end I need to consider this possibility. I can't tell who is the manufacturer but I can tell you what it was and what characteristics it had. There are two scenarios, either it's man-made or extraterrestrial. I didn't see any aliens but I didn't see any humans either. And I haven't seen anything similar since then (that's the real mystery)

##### Share on other sites

On 7/30/2024 at 4:19 PM, MrAnderson said:

What are you talking about? Yo can't estimate distance and object size? Your equation is completely irrelevant to your reply when I stated

And what equation do you use to determine distances and sizes?

On 7/30/2024 at 4:19 PM, MrAnderson said:

When you post random equations   without specifying what the variables are and if one variable is a function of another variable you don't even help youtself with the basics.

Oh my goodness how many times have I told you what the two dependent variables are? Here we go for the fifth or sixth time!!!!

X = DISTANCE TO THE OBJECT

Y = THE NUMBER OF DEGREES THE OBJECT OCCUPIES IN THE SKY

Now don't you ever say that I didn't tell you the dependent variables were.

On 7/30/2024 at 4:19 PM, MrAnderson said:

I asked you what if X and Y are matrices.

Do you measure sizes and distances with matrices? Do you own a matrix tape measure?

On 7/30/2024 at 4:19 PM, MrAnderson said:

What if they are differential forms.

Do you measure distances with differential equations?

Funny how you haven't mentioned trigonometric equations. That's because that's what you would use to solve the distance/size problem but you clearly know nothing about trigonometry.

On 7/30/2024 at 4:19 PM, MrAnderson said:

You interpretation of the infinite number of solutions as proof that we cannot estimate lengths and heights/distances is a new hypothesis that you may want to publish. But first you need some logical arguments and don't state it as fact. Finally you need to show the proof.

Oh my gosh, you want me to "publish" an article on a rule of basic algebra, something that my daughter learned in eighth grade?

You admitted it yourself, Mr. Anderson: an equation with two dependent variables have an infinite number of solutions therefore there are an infinite number of sizes and distances which will correspond to what your eyes thought they saw. That means you can't choose one pair of values and declare it to be the only possible solution.

Or to put it in very very very simple terms: small things look big when they're closer and big things look small when they're far away.

• 3
##### Share on other sites

On 8/1/2024 at 1:54 AM, MrAnderson said:

A very large cylindrical UFO that was traveling very fast (never seen anything like this before or after) and it had no cockpit, no windows, no exhaust, no wings, no engines.

How did you look into it to confirm there was no cockpit?

• 1
##### Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

How did you look into it to confirm there was no cockpit?

I could see there was no cockpit, no wings, no engines, no exhaust, no windows, just a very large cylinder making no sounds at all and travelling at a speed I ve never seen before or after this event.

##### Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

And what equation do you use to determine distances and sizes?

Oh my goodness how many times have I told you what the two dependent variables are? Here we go for the fifth or sixth time!!!!

X = DISTANCE TO THE OBJECT

Y = THE NUMBER OF DEGREES THE OBJECT OCCUPIES IN THE SKY

Now don't you ever say that I didn't tell you the dependent variables were.

Do you measure sizes and distances with matrices? Do you own a matrix tape measure?

Do you measure distances with differential equations?

Funny how you haven't mentioned trigonometric equations. That's because that's what you would use to solve the distance/size problem but you clearly know nothing about trigonometry.

Oh my gosh, you want me to "publish" an article on a rule of basic algebra, something that my daughter learned in eighth grade?

You admitted it yourself, Mr. Anderson: an equation with two dependent variables have an infinite number of solutions therefore there are an infinite number of sizes and distances which will correspond to what your eyes thought they saw. That means you can't choose one pair of values and declare it to be the only possible solution.

Or to put it in very very very simple terms: small things look big when they're closer and big things look small when they're far away.

No I want you to understand that by stating random equations and by interpretating the infinite number of solutions of a linear equation as proof that we cannot estimate lengths and heights/distances is a new hypothesis that has no basis in reality. Can you show me how you have come up with X-2Y=0?

##### Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

I could see there was no cockpit,

How did you determine there was no cockpit? You can't just simply say there was no cockpit without explaining it.

• 2
##### Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

No I want you to understand that by stating random equations and by interpretating [sic] the infinite number of solutions of a linear equation as proof that we cannot estimate lengths and heights/distances is a new hypothesis that has no basis in reality.

As usual you're getting all confused and writing jumbled meaningless sentences in an attempt to disprove what you don't understand. Yes, we can determine distance if we know the size and we can determine size if we know the distance. But if we don't either then we can't determine either.

It is not new. This rule has existed for centuries. So I guess in all your "years and years in academia" in "physics and maths!" you have never come across a single trigonometric equation.

Prove me wrong: if a object has a perceived angular size of 0.5 degrees then tell me the size of the object and its distance.

I'll wait.

27 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

Can you show me how you have come up with X-2Y=0?

It's an example of an equation with two dependent variables with infinite solutions, something I've been trying and failing to teach you about.

• 1
##### Share on other sites

I don't know what you say you saw though.

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 8/2/2024 at 10:11 PM, astrobeing said:

As usual you're getting all confused and writing jumbled meaningless sentences in an attempt to disprove what you don't understand. Yes, we can determine distance if we know the size and we can determine size if we know the distance. But if we don't either then we can't determine either.

It is not new. This rule has existed for centuries. So I guess in all your "years and years in academia" in "physics and maths!" you have never come across a single trigonometric equation.

Prove me wrong: if a object has a perceived angular size of 0.5 degrees then tell me the size of the object and its distance.

I'll wait.

It's an example of an equation with two dependent variables with infinite solutions, something I've been trying and failing to teach you about.

Your equation is random and I still haven't seen how did you come up with this equation.

Which is the trigonometric equation you are referring to? Clearly this isn't a trigonometric equation but something random.

If X is the distance from object...but what distance are you referring to? Is this the diagonal distance(?) Consider the height of the object above the ground, for simplicity assume a flat surface, then draw another line that connects the object to the observer.

and Y "the number of degrees the object occupies in the sky" (as you said). What does this mean?

You get X-2Y = 0 which means that you have created an equation where distance equals twice the number of degrees (whatever this means). If X is a distance the Y must also be a distance. You can't take away two different quantities (or add them up).

Clearly there is some confusion in you construction and reasoning when you put together distances with 'number of degrees' and try to take them away. I am really curious how did you end up with this equation.

Without units the linear equation has an infinite number of solutions but that doesn't show anything of what you try to argue.

On 7/21/2024 at 9:17 AM, MrAnderson said:

You can easily estimate lengths and heights. It's your opinion only and not a fact that people cannot estimate lengths and heights.

Reply: "No, I just showed you why it's impossible by mathematics."

This is how the whole thing started. You making an argument that mathematics shows it's impossible to estimate lengths and heights.

Edited by MrAnderson
• 1
##### Share on other sites

On 8/2/2024 at 9:59 PM, astrobeing said:

How did you determine there was no cockpit? You can't just simply say there was no cockpit without explaining it.

I saw it. There was no cockpit and nothing else there,  no wings, no engines, no exhaust, no windows, it was a very large cylinder that made no sounds at all and travelled at a speed I ve never seen before or after this event.

• 1