UFO Documentary - I Know What I Saw

[astrobeing]

23 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

What are the objects you were referring to when you said you have seen them so many times?

Since you're begging to hear about my experiences with flying saucers, here is one from ten years ago documented with an actual photograph. While waiting for darkness (I was with my astrophotography group) we saw this glowing object. It flew directly over us, stopped, circled once (apparently to observe us), and then continued on its mysterious journey into the darkness.

It had no exhaust or windows or anything you claim an Earthly aircraft requires therefore you must conclude that this is a "mechanical" object of extraterrestrial orgin. Right, Mr. Anderson?

 

[Trelane]

🦄

[MrAnderson]

1 hour ago, astrobeing said:

If you have such an impressive background in physics then why are you begging me to explain basic physical laws to you and why are you unable to comprehend anything about them?

I am not begging you. I ve asked you to explain to me what you said. I think you have been avoiding the question. What are the laws of physics that are broken? How? And when?

[MrAnderson]

1 hour ago, astrobeing said:

Since you're begging to hear about my experiences with flying saucers, here is one from ten years ago documented with an actual photograph. While waiting for darkness (I was with my astrophotography group) we saw this glowing object. It flew directly over us, stopped, circled once (apparently to observe us), and then continued on its mysterious journey into the darkness.

It had no exhaust or windows or anything you claim an Earthly aircraft requires therefore you must conclude that this is a "mechanical" object of extraterrestrial orgin. Right, Mr. Anderson?

 

Taking things out of context? You need to go back and see what I said. The whole description of the object I saw and the experience I had. The experience and sightings others had where they describe what they saw.

UFOs means unidentified flying objects. Not phenomena. Material objects, mechanical in nature (in most cases).

[astrobeing]

9 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

I am not begging you. I ve asked you to explain to me what you said. I think you have been avoiding the question. What are the laws of physics that are broken? How? And when?

Your description of the "mechanical" whatever which you're still unable to explain why you think it was mechanical, stopped instantly which violates laws regarding momentum.

[astrobeing]

7 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

Taking things out of context? You need to go back and see what I said. The whole description of the object I saw and the experience I had. The experience and sightings others had where they describe what they saw.

UFOs means unidentified flying objects. Not phenomena. Material objects, mechanical in nature (in most cases).

Yes, Mr. Anderson. Completely ignore my experience and only talk about yours because what I say and the evidence I present isn't important. This is the third or fourth red flag indicating deceptive language.

[MrAnderson]

4 hours ago, astrobeing said:

Your description of the "mechanical" whatever which you're still unable to explain why you think it was mechanical, stopped instantly which violates laws regarding momentum.

I didn't say that in my case the cylindrical object stopped instantly. You have confused the cases. Other posters said that some of these objects have been seen doing what you said. Momentum is conserved in closed systems only. And a closed system is one that is not subject to external forces.

Edited July 13 by MrAnderson

[MrAnderson]

3 hours ago, astrobeing said:

Yes, Mr. Anderson. Completely ignore my experience and only talk about yours because what I say and the evidence I present isn't important. This is the third or fourth red flag indicating deceptive language.

I didn't ignore your experience but other than the photograph you didn't say what you think it was. It will be speculation from my part to guess what you saw. And being a mechanical object doesn't make it extraterrestrial. That's like throwing a strawman argument whenever the mechanical objects appear in the sky. And I've never said that my sighting was proof of ET

[the13bats]

On 7/12/2024 at 9:43 AM, Zebra3 said:

Well, I was gonna post it this morning but you couldn't even wait for it to start your bull****. We all know you have no real interest in this subject, like the rest of the debunking-hobbyists in here. I posted it years ago after it happened and have already dealt with you guys when I did, Hazz included. And, if you can imagine, had no real help in finding answers, just BS comments like this. Hazz's snarky little 'laugh' emoji reaction to your post there also shows his real intentions, as if that was unexpected.  He asked nicely so I was gonna post it but he couldn't wait either. If MrAnderson or any other experiencers wish to see the report, they can PM me to compare incidents. I already knew you'd crap the bed right off the bat but I at least thought you'd wait to read about it. So, continue your little hobby here as you do. Flip through your little legal pad and pick your response, 'cause we're all looking forward to your oh-so-unexpected and original response.

 

No, I'm not a professional debunker and don't need to be to know

[MrAnderson]

3 hours ago, the13bats said:

No, I'm not a professional debunker and don't need to be to know

There are no professional debunkers or debunkers (generally speaking). There are people who believe they are debunkers and think that being overskeptic it gives them some sort of superpowers.

[astrobeing]

On 7/13/2024 at 2:29 PM, MrAnderson said:

I didn't ignore your experience but other than the photograph you didn't say what you think it was. It will be speculation from my part to guess what you saw.

So you see a photograph it's just speculation.

But we you see something flying in the sky, it's not speculation. You claim to have the ability to determine if an object is "mechanical" with your eyes yet you haven't explained how you do this.

[astrobeing]

On 7/13/2024 at 2:24 PM, MrAnderson said:

I didn't say that in my case the cylindrical object stopped instantly. You have confused the cases.

  And what were you talking about here?

On 7/10/2024 at 5:15 PM, MrAnderson said:

Like what? What are there things that travel at incredible speeds, make no sounds, have no wings, no exhaust, no known propulsion systems and can stop instantly and then again accelerate at incredible speeds.

 

On 7/13/2024 at 2:24 PM, MrAnderson said:

Momentum is conserved in closed systems only. And a closed system is one that is not subject to external forces.

Momentum is conserved by all objects everywhere in the universe and that law doesn't disappear when external forces act on it, Mr. Double Physics Major.

[MrAnderson]

46 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

  And what were you talking about here?

 

Momentum is conserved by all objects everywhere in the universe and that law doesn't disappear when external forces act on it, Mr. Double Physics Major.

Momentum is conserved only in closed systems. A closed system is one that is not subject to external forces.

Have a look at it.

Google can be your friend sometimes if you know how to use it.

In closed systems the total momentum is conserved.  We know this from high school.

If you are not comfortable with the word 'instantly' then you can replace it with 'very short period of time'

In the paragraph I described the experiences other people had including some of the Navy Pilots recently. In my case the object didn't make any sounds, moved at a very high speed, had no wings, no exhaust, nothing that I am familiar with.

Edited July 15 by MrAnderson

[MrAnderson]

1 hour ago, astrobeing said:

So you see a photograph it's just speculation.

But we you see something flying in the sky, it's not speculation. You claim to have the ability to determine if an object is "mechanical" with your eyes yet you haven't explained how you do this.

No.

I said it would have been speculation from my part time to suggest what you saw.

I didn't claim I have an ability. Anyone can recognise a mechanical object from a balloon or a lightining and other natural phenomena.

I happened to have a sighting and saw the cylindrical object with my own eyes.

Edited July 15 by MrAnderson

[Trelane]

This is an old documentary from what I recall. Why is this outdated and scientifically false video still being propped up?

[Guyver]

17 minutes ago, Trelane said:

This is an old documentary from what I recall. Why is this outdated and scientifically false video still being propped up?

You’re dismissing the entire documentary because it’s old?  This is old too, do you wish to dismiss it also? Link

Which aspects of the documentary are you calling scientifically false?

[Trelane]

Just now, Guyver said:

You’re dismissing the entire documentary because it’s old?  This is old too, do you wish to dismiss it also? Link

Which aspects of the documentary are you calling scientifically false?

Yes, because due to it's age none of this stuff has ever been updated providing new information or data. That's HUGE problem with many cases. the stories just linger with nothing new to help shape opinions or provide clarity or context. The assumptions and speculations of what the alleged craft could and couldn't do is also a problem.

 

[Guyver]

19 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Yes, because due to it's age none of this stuff has ever been updated providing new information or data. That's HUGE problem with many cases. the stories just linger with nothing new to help shape opinions or provide clarity or context. The assumptions and speculations of what the alleged craft could and couldn't do is also a problem.

 

Some people call that throwing the baby out with the bath water.  If you are knowledgeable, and know the facts of cases presented in the video…you could have updated those specific cases by discussing them here, thereby adding to everyone’s knowledge.  Instead, you did a hand waive dismissal of the entire thing.  And furthermore, I have  to wonder if there are aspects of the documentary that you have just dismissed in its entirety which have stood the test of time and still deserve consideration.

[Trelane]

3 hours ago, Guyver said:

Some people call that throwing the baby out with the bath water.  If you are knowledgeable, and know the facts of cases presented in the video…you could have updated those specific cases by discussing them here, thereby adding to everyone’s knowledge.  Instead, you did a hand waive dismissal of the entire thing.  And furthermore, I have  to wonder if there are aspects of the documentary that you have just dismissed in its entirety which have stood the test of time and still deserve consideration.

*see bolded* Precisely my point. They have not updated anything or refined elements of what has been presented. This video which is over 20 years old has not been updated by anyone. The proponents of what has been presented just keep rumbling on the same old nonsense which has been explained or debunked here and elsewhere ages ago.

Not a handwave though man. I used to feverishly believe this video when i first watched it. But I have watched this several times over the years. I have sice researched items and considered what has been presented.

Considered and rejected.

[Guyver]

3 hours ago, Trelane said:

*see bolded* Precisely my point. They have not updated anything or refined elements of what has been presented. This video which is over 20 years old has not been updated by anyone. The proponents of what has been presented just keep rumbling on the same old nonsense which has been explained or debunked here and elsewhere ages ago.

Not a handwave though man. I used to feverishly believe this video when i first watched it. But I have watched this several times over the years. I have sice researched items and considered what has been presented.

Considered and rejected.

Ok, given that perspective and what has happened since, I’m thinking that what may have happened in the years gone by “soured” you to what you had appreciated once before.  I don’t blame you for that.  However, I’m just wondering about some of the old cases highlighted in this video, as well as a few others that were not mentioned in the video, nor were any of the many more recent and credible observations or pieces of evidence in the form of video.  Even though video can be manipulated, an expert can identify when that has been done.  So, I think many of these cases still have an unsatisfactory explanation, and they are sometimes worth further study.

[Guyver]

One perfect example of this is the video I posted in the other thread where Psyche101 did a counter post to my evidence, this was the Middle Eastern UFO recorded by military drone.  In that case, Psyche first said he thought it was atmospheric phenomenon.  Then he did some research, and he found the most amazing, well thought, well done, and well presented counter position site and posted it. They claimed it was a balloon.  I think it is private tech.  So, there you go…many different possible answers to the question.  More research should be done.  A balloon rarely if ever moves the way they are claiming, IMO.  Yes, I know that it is possible for a balloon to move in that manner.  Yet, that is such a rare event IMO…that I would like to see another opinion about the speed and movement of the objects in the film. 

[Trelane]

11 hours ago, Guyver said:

Ok, given that perspective and what has happened since, I’m thinking that what may have happened in the years gone by “soured” you to what you had appreciated once before.  I don’t blame you for that.  However, I’m just wondering about some of the old cases highlighted in this video, as well as a few others that were not mentioned in the video, nor were any of the many more recent and credible observations or pieces of evidence in the form of video.  Even though video can be manipulated, an expert can identify when that has been done.  So, I think many of these cases still have an unsatisfactory explanation, and they are sometimes worth further study.

And that's where we differ in opinion man. That's all.

[MrAnderson]

1 hour ago, Trelane said:

And that's where we differ in opinion man. That's all.

It turns out that reality is different for each one of us. And we only have some facts. The rest is personal opinions. I am glad you made the statement above.

[astrobeing]

On 7/15/2024 at 10:44 AM, MrAnderson said:

No.

I said it would have been speculation from my part time to suggest what you saw.

I didn't claim I have an ability. Anyone can recognise a mechanical object from a balloon or a lightining and other natural phenomena.

I happened to have a sighting and saw the cylindrical object with my own eyes.

You saw what looked like a cylindrical object which sounds like a balloon and without any explanation determined it was a "mechanical object".

Now I showed you a photo of a similar object and I too saw this with my own eyes along with three other witnesses! Now, Mr. Anderson, explain to me step by step how I could determine that it is a "mechanical object". It should be simple for you to tell me because, as you say, "Anyone can recognise [sic] a mechanical object."

[MrAnderson]

1 minute ago, astrobeing said:

You saw what looked like a cylindrical object which sounds like a balloon and without any explanation determined it was a "mechanical object".

Now I showed you a photo of a similar object and I too saw this with my own eyes along with three other witnesses! Now, Mr. Anderson, explain to me step by step how I could determine that it is a "mechanical object". It should be simple for you to tell me because, as you say, "Anyone can recognise [sic] a mechanical object."

I didn't have an encounter with a balloon. I know what I saw. Balloons are not 300ft long and they don't travel that fast covering a large distance in the sky in no more than 3 seconds and then disappearing. The movement was very similar to that of a jet fighter when moving horizontally at a very high speed. Balloons are very low speed objects and easily identified.