Aethelwulf Posted June 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 I take it then, no one wishes to discuss why the objects appeared stationary in the chaotic wind of high altitude, or why the radar system didn't detect evidence of the objects altitude descending, or why indeed the Scientology HQ more to the point could do such a thing outside of the public eye (not that they couldn't in general, just more incredible it happened without anyone's knowledge)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted June 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 (edited) It is cherry picking to rule out unconventional kites in favour of an alien explanation. Unscientific, highly biased and ultimately dishonest. See, I am quite biased. I have seen UFO's for myself, I have seen them shoot off at incredible speeds, I have seen them do things which no modern aviation technology can do. This is what drove me to study science, so that I could actually have some kind of general grasp of what is possible in the world. What is possible is that we are in fact being visited by aliens - the reason why many people refuse to believe that they exist, not only has to do with not observing them for themselves, but because they believe that it is ''far more possible'' that there is some kind of conventional explanation which can be used to discredit them. The only problem with this method is that people often don't ask the right questions simply because no one is willing to take the event seriously enough. But when you begin to ask the right questions you eventually find problems in many conventional explanations; those explanations which are thought of as being scientifically and logically tight. I am more than aware that over 50% of UFO observed can in fact be explained in scientific ways, but then there are sightings which defy normal explanations ... yet it doesn't stop the skeptic from not asking questions, but rather attributing situations to either poor observational skills or simply something down to the person or persons being deluded about details. In general, we make excellent observers and more than often if we see something which doesn't make sense we are quick to recognize it. I know this from personal experience. I have only had a handful of people... a very small amount of people telling me I was lying about the event I saw when I was a child, but the thing which makes my case stronger than most, is that it wasn't actually just me that saw it and what I saw today I remember as if it was yesterday... giving me an excellent ability to recall the event and decide whether the event was something of technology based on Earth. The more I understand what was possible the more I realize there is more to the UFO phenom that what is often appreciated. So yes, I am biased but I try to remain scientific about it... like asking the questions I have done above and yet I am awaiting a reply since yesterday. Edited June 16, 2013 by Aethelwulf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted June 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 I find it funny someone has time to neg a post I made but doesn't have time to address the issues concerning the kite explanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted June 17, 2013 Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 I find it funny someone has time to neg a post I made but doesn't have time to address the issues concerning the kite explanation. I have time this morning. :coffee_n_pc: You'll need to bring that sense of humor. :hammer: Besides... do I need to state the obvious? These objects where hundreds of feet into the air. Your conventional kite doesn't even come close to that. Point taken, but I don't meet many people who fly kites hundreds of feet into the air. Obviously your practical knowledge of kites and kiters is woefully not up to scratch. As long as there is a wind at some altitude and a kite line is long enough, people can and do fly kites at hundreds of feet. The highest I have measured one of my aerial-camera kites was around 400 feet. As Craig noted, the altitude record is over 10,000 feet and as Eclogite illustrated in a link, kites easily fly steadily on a tethered line. [Note: In the US the FAA has a regulation prohibiting the flying of a tethered anything over 500 feet without filing for a permit.] Let me introduce you to some kite enthusiasts in my neck of the woods. >> Washington State International Kite Festival This year, WSIKF will host Revolution quad line fliers from all over the North America, Asia and Europe who are coming to demonstrate coordinated quad line team flying and attempt a new World Record of ONE HUNDRED kites and pilots (the existing record of 64 was set at WSIKF 2010)… Flying these unique kites, pilots are able to fly forward, reverse, spin and even hover in mid-air like a helicopter, giving unparalleled control that is perfect for synchronized team flying.... I take it then, no one wishes to discuss why the objects appeared stationary in the chaotic wind of high altitude, or why the radar system didn't detect evidence of the objects altitude descending, or why indeed the Scientology HQ more to the point could do such a thing outside of the public eye (not that they couldn't in general, just more incredible it happened without anyone's knowledge)? "High" altitude winds are no more "chaotic" than surface winds. Aircraft radar has a ceiling of a few hundreds of feet below which it cannot "see".Neverminding the whacko factor of Sighintolgy, the secrecy and dust-offs around it are legend. Whole websites are dedicated to the subject and you'll have fun searching them out & reading them. See, I am quite biased. I have seen UFO's for myself, I have seen them shoot off at incredible speeds, I have seen them do things which no modern aviation technology can do. So yes, I am biased but I try to remain scientific about it... like asking the questions I have done above and yet I am awaiting a reply since yesterday. A person convinced against their will, is of the same opinion still. /forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif Now then good ol' Vinnie Barbrino is a raging Scientologist, an experienced and certified pilot with 1000's of hours logged, and he has a butt-load of money to spend on toys. Not too hard to do that math on that. What? :rant: Where? Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted June 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 Right... I am ignoring the quibbles about how high kites fly. I want to tackle the questions. ''"High" altitude winds are no more "chaotic" than surface winds.'' I think I would challenge this. Low altitude winds are perturbed, disturbed sometimes blocked by monuments, other types of buildings, mountains and even tree lines. I know good examples of this, many days I used to climb up an old scaffolding to get a good view of the town I lived in... quite high. Not hundreds of feet, but it was a lot. The wind progressively got stronger as I got higher and higher. So yes, I would tend to think that in the open air hundreds of feet high, the winds would be more dramatic than those down below. And let us just ignore different altitudes... kites don't sit in the air stationary, so straight away the kite explanation doesn't fit the observational evidence and therefore cannot be used to explain what was seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted June 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 I shouldn't even need to say this, but this is why air turbulence is very notable at the altitudes airplanes fly at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted June 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 And here is a wiki answer... basically saying the same stuff as me http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_wind_speed_increase_with_altitude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted June 17, 2013 Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 Right... I am ignoring the quibbles about how high kites fly. I want to tackle the questions. ''"High" altitude winds are no more "chaotic" than surface winds.'' I think I would challenge this. Low altitude winds are perturbed, disturbed sometimes blocked by monuments, other types of buildings, mountains and even tree lines. I know good examples of this, many days I used to climb up an old scaffolding to get a good view of the town I lived in... quite high. Not hundreds of feet, but it was a lot. The wind progressively got stronger as I got higher and higher. So yes, I would tend to think that in the open air hundreds of feet high, the winds would be more dramatic than those down below. And let us just ignore different altitudes... kites don't sit in the air stationary, so straight away the kite explanation doesn't fit the observational evidence and therefore cannot be used to explain what was seen. I shouldn't even need to say this, but this is why air turbulence is very notable at the altitudes airplanes fly at. And here is a wiki answer... basically saying the same stuff as me http://wiki.answers....e_with_altitude :doh: Ignoring the facts is keeping an open mind then? You were/are wrong about how high kites can & do fly, so just say so. Your link only indicates winds at higher altitudes can be fast, which does not equate to turbulence. Kites can and do adjust their angle of attack to varying wind speeds through the design and attachment of the bridle. When speed lowers, the kite presents more surface area to increase lift and when speed increases they present less; the net lift remains fairly constant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted June 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 Actually I said no standard kite fly's hundreds of feet into the air... Assuming not your standard kite, then yes they can travel that high. But that is not the point clearly, because the main point is that kites don't sit in the air stationary like some here would try to fool others to believe nor am I the one ignoring the facts. The page I also referred you to states that friction causes winds to be less stronger at ground level than those situated in open air. I have no idea why you are trying to swindle your way around an explanation. Ignoring turbulence, the presence of strong winds would secure my reasoning that a kite would not sit stationary in the air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted June 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 Also, it doesn't make sense why anyone would be flying [[non-standard]] kites around the activity of airplanes. Very dangerous. All it takes is one of them to be caught up in either wing engine. We know how dangerous it is because of the number of emergency landings that have had to take place over the years from birds getting eaten up in the wing. That's a major lawsuit I think the HQ's would rather avoid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted June 17, 2013 Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 Actually I said no standard kite fly's hundreds of feet into the air... Assuming not your standard kite, then yes they can travel that high. But that is not the point clearly, because the main point is that kites don't sit in the air stationary like some here would try to fool others to believe nor am I the one ignoring the facts. The page I also referred you to states that friction causes winds to be less stronger at ground level than those situated in open air. I have no idea why you are trying to swindle your way around an explanation. Ignoring turbulence, the presence of strong winds would secure my reasoning that a kite would not sit stationary in the air. Dude!! Yes kites do sit stable with no "special" control other than their bridle. I can accept honest ignorance, but I don't abide willful ignorance. And assuming a "standard" kite -whatever that means - does not say anything about the "toys" actually seen by the pilots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted June 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 These kites are hardly off the ground and yet I see them skate from left to right. At higher altitudes, winds would be stronger, I doubt a kite could actually appear stationary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted June 17, 2013 Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 Also, it doesn't make sense why anyone would be flying [[non-standard]] kites around the activity of airplanes. Very dangerous. All it takes is one of them to be caught up in either wing engine. We know how dangerous it is because of the number of emergency landings that have had to take place over the years from birds getting eaten up in the wing. That's a major lawsuit I think the HQ's would rather avoid. :blahblahblah: Eaten up in a wing? Really? One has to wonder how many kites have been sucked into engines and/or entangled props or other aircraft parts? The reason the FAA has their rule is because aircraft are generally flying at 500 feet or lower only when landing or taking off. I agree flying a kite at an airport might attract the attention of authorities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted June 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 And assuming a "standard" kite -whatever that means - does not say anything about the "toys" actually seen by the pilots. It's actually not a surprise a pilot has said they look toy-like. There might be a number of reasons for this, one of the first reasons that springs to mind is reserving your answer so that if a conventional explanation manages to surface or that someone comes forward and say's ''here I can tell you what they are,'' they won't look like prats and being incapable ''trained'' observers. What does toy-like even mean... we don't even know what context it was used in, what evidence there was at the time to say they were toys. Outside of their own speculation, there is no evidence it was a toy. Only that it appeared that way. Many cars today look like overblown toys, should we imagine they are kites too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted June 17, 2013 Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 These kites are hardly off the ground and yet I see them skate from left to right. At higher altitudes, winds would be stronger, I doubt a kite could actually appear stationary. Showing an example of "unstable" flight does not disprove stable flight. What's more, you are still confusing wind speed with turbulence. Boy, you sure are invested in your bias. :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted June 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 :blahblahblah: Eaten up in a wing? Really? One has to wonder how many kites have been sucked into engines and/or entangled props or other aircraft parts? The reason the FAA has their rule is because aircraft are generally flying at 500 feet or lower only when landing or taking off. I agree flying a kite at an airport might attract the attention of authorities. It is actually quite funny... but then the funny side disappears when you realize how dangerous it is -- kites are no exception. Same could actually happen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jN0bqL9cM0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted June 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 Showing an example of "unstable" flight does not disprove stable flight. What's more, you are still confusing wind speed with turbulence. Boy, you sure are invested in your bias. :blink: Find me some evidence of long arduous stable flight. Please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.