4 ms·

I was hoping someone would comment but it looks like you already dismissed it by down voting so that tells me you aren't really curious about my answer. As such

by egfx 8y ago

I was hoping someone would comment but it looks like you already dismissed it by down voting so that tells me you aren't really curious about my answer. As such this comment is meant for everyone else who is. But I'll directly answer all your questions. When I say it was clearly mechanical. I don't mean that it looked mechanical. I said it was clearly mechanical in nature by the way it moved. My brain instantly went there. Maybe it's instinctual. The object resembled a star or meteor. It was so small that if it was moving forward or backward, I wouldn't know it. And finally. I think you all have to deduce. Am I trying to justify my original comment on a post that had nothing to do with UFO's with a wacky comment that I saw one in the 90's or did I see this object, saw this post and put it together that way. Edit: sure, it could have been a supersonic spec of ball lightning. I'll give you that one. Except for the fact, my dad, a witness who actually saw ball lightning in the former Soviet Union said it looked nothing like that. He's sitting next to me and I just asked him about it.

Retra 8y ago
Why would one expect ball lightning to look the same each time? I shouldn't be asking these questions, you should be. But you'd rather say "oh, we all know these things about fundamental physics because they are necessary to power the alien spaceships I imagine must exist." That's not a healthy or useful attitude. If it were, you'd have something to show for it.
- egfx 8y ago
  I'm not sure what you're getting at, but from my understanding ball lightning floats. What I saw wasn't floating. It was moving with force and propulsion. Plus it was a very clear day with no weather disturbance of any kind. And what I have to show for it is a personal account from myself at 15 and two other members of my family. In retrospect, I went half-way to my parents room to grab the camera but ran back fearing I would miss it entirely. I'm glad, because I'm sure I would have missed it had I looked for the camera. And this phenomenon seems ubiquitous enough that I'm sure there is plenty of footage depicting the exact same thing at least in the private archive. I'm actually pretty disappointed because the footage in the public sphere is much more mild then what I saw. This object wasn't stationary, it was a white ball that moved like a zigzagging rocket; though it didn't look at all like it was out of control. It seemed to move very purposefully.
  - Retra 8y ago
    The standard of "something to show for it" is reproduction, not personal experiences. Society simply doesn't give a shit about anyone's personal experiences unless they can be reproduced and shared. Otherwise, you may as well have dreamed it.
    - egfx 8y ago
      Who's society? Your society? Judging by your activity here, you seem to negiate pretty much everything. Sorry you didn't witness a UFO like I did. It was a pretty cool experience. If I produced a video, you would call it fake. If it was proved real you would call it some new form of ball lightning. If it was proved to be real footage of a UFO, you would cast doubt on that too and tell me not to believe my lying eyes. BTW, I'd happily take a lie detector test if I was ever presented with one. And don't forget, I'm not the only witness. Oh and there is that footage from trained fighter pilots. Which gives me all the validation I'll ever need to my own experience prior. I'm happily validated.
      - Retra 8y ago
        >Judging by your activity here, you seem to negiate pretty much everything. No, I try to aim only at the bullshit. It's not in short supply, unfortunately. I usually don't waste my time commenting to people that I agree with them unless I have something else to add to it. But I also don't understand why you'd think the things I am saying to you now are a function of my post history. Perhaps you think you're the first person to see a UFO? Surely if you thought otherwise, you would have looked up the typical responses to previous UFO claims and come suitably armed with data which refutes those objections. Perhaps you think otherwise? Maybe you think a total lack of self-awareness is the only tool you need to be allowed to make uncontested bold claims. Personally, if I saw something as amazing as a UFO I would have done some research on the subject and analyzed the objections well enough to honestly represent my experiences within a modern scientific framework. But honesty is not important to some people, so what do I know? >If I produced a video, you would call it fake. If it was proved real you would call it some new form of ball lightning. If it was proved to be real footage of a UFO, you would cast doubt on that too and tell me not to believe my lying eyes. If you had said "I saw something curious that matches the description of a UFO", I would only have told you it was irrelevant. But this is what you said: "How do you think UFO's move through earth's atmosphere? They repel matter via real-time manifold dynamics allowing them to move at supersonic speed. I think we already know this." So I ask you to produce the data that you analyzed and the methods you used to analyze them, and the consequences of your surely well-worked out theory of antimatter gravity. And any evidence that anybody but you has accepted them. But somehow I doubt that you can even tell me what a manifold is without looking it up. Of course, you've got no need to prove this to me: simply point any qualified physicist to your insightful publications. >BTW, I'd happily take a lie detector test if I was ever presented with one. Pulled this straight from the Crank Handbook, I assume? There's no such thing as a "lie detector." There are stress detectors, but I hardly see the relevance of those to the veracity of your claims. >Oh and there is that footage from trained fighter pilots. Which gives me all the validation I'll ever need to my own experience prior. I'm happily validated. Oh, that explains why you showed up on an HN physics post and announced the obviousness and credibility of your UFO-related physics expertise? That wasn't a reeking, desperate plea for validation?

by egfx 8y ago

Retra 8y ago

Why would one expect ball lightning to look the same each time? I shouldn't be asking these questions, you should be. But you'd rather say "oh, we all know these things about fundamental physics because they are necessary to power the alien spaceships I imagine must exist." That's not a healthy or useful attitude. If it were, you'd have something to show for it.

egfx 8y ago
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but from my understanding ball lightning floats. What I saw wasn't floating. It was moving with force and propulsion. Plus it was a very clear day with no weather disturbance of any kind. And what I have to show for it is a personal account from myself at 15 and two other members of my family. In retrospect, I went half-way to my parents room to grab the camera but ran back fearing I would miss it entirely. I'm glad, because I'm sure I would have missed it had I looked for the camera. And this phenomenon seems ubiquitous enough that I'm sure there is plenty of footage depicting the exact same thing at least in the private archive. I'm actually pretty disappointed because the footage in the public sphere is much more mild then what I saw. This object wasn't stationary, it was a white ball that moved like a zigzagging rocket; though it didn't look at all like it was out of control. It seemed to move very purposefully.
- Retra 8y ago
  The standard of "something to show for it" is reproduction, not personal experiences. Society simply doesn't give a shit about anyone's personal experiences unless they can be reproduced and shared. Otherwise, you may as well have dreamed it.
  - egfx 8y ago
    Who's society? Your society? Judging by your activity here, you seem to negiate pretty much everything. Sorry you didn't witness a UFO like I did. It was a pretty cool experience. If I produced a video, you would call it fake. If it was proved real you would call it some new form of ball lightning. If it was proved to be real footage of a UFO, you would cast doubt on that too and tell me not to believe my lying eyes. BTW, I'd happily take a lie detector test if I was ever presented with one. And don't forget, I'm not the only witness. Oh and there is that footage from trained fighter pilots. Which gives me all the validation I'll ever need to my own experience prior. I'm happily validated.
    - Retra 8y ago
      >Judging by your activity here, you seem to negiate pretty much everything. No, I try to aim only at the bullshit. It's not in short supply, unfortunately. I usually don't waste my time commenting to people that I agree with them unless I have something else to add to it. But I also don't understand why you'd think the things I am saying to you now are a function of my post history. Perhaps you think you're the first person to see a UFO? Surely if you thought otherwise, you would have looked up the typical responses to previous UFO claims and come suitably armed with data which refutes those objections. Perhaps you think otherwise? Maybe you think a total lack of self-awareness is the only tool you need to be allowed to make uncontested bold claims. Personally, if I saw something as amazing as a UFO I would have done some research on the subject and analyzed the objections well enough to honestly represent my experiences within a modern scientific framework. But honesty is not important to some people, so what do I know? >If I produced a video, you would call it fake. If it was proved real you would call it some new form of ball lightning. If it was proved to be real footage of a UFO, you would cast doubt on that too and tell me not to believe my lying eyes. If you had said "I saw something curious that matches the description of a UFO", I would only have told you it was irrelevant. But this is what you said: "How do you think UFO's move through earth's atmosphere? They repel matter via real-time manifold dynamics allowing them to move at supersonic speed. I think we already know this." So I ask you to produce the data that you analyzed and the methods you used to analyze them, and the consequences of your surely well-worked out theory of antimatter gravity. And any evidence that anybody but you has accepted them. But somehow I doubt that you can even tell me what a manifold is without looking it up. Of course, you've got no need to prove this to me: simply point any qualified physicist to your insightful publications. >BTW, I'd happily take a lie detector test if I was ever presented with one. Pulled this straight from the Crank Handbook, I assume? There's no such thing as a "lie detector." There are stress detectors, but I hardly see the relevance of those to the veracity of your claims. >Oh and there is that footage from trained fighter pilots. Which gives me all the validation I'll ever need to my own experience prior. I'm happily validated. Oh, that explains why you showed up on an HN physics post and announced the obviousness and credibility of your UFO-related physics expertise? That wasn't a reeking, desperate plea for validation?