My Personal UFO Encounter v. I saw a flying saucer, aliens optional!

[MetalJunkie]

ITT

WHY WON'T YOU ACCEPT MY EXPLANATION FOR WHAT YOU SAW WITH YOUR OWN TWO EYES AND I DIDN'T??!!!!

Not quite. I'm just trying to get him to be a little more open-minded. If I saw a flying saucer, I'd spend a lot of time trying to find logical explanations for it, even if there was no doubt in my mind it was a flying saucer. I certainly wouldn't refer to it as a UFO or flying saucer, either, as just the names of those objects invoke extraterrestrial imagery.

[Nick]

ITT

WHY WON'T YOU ACCEPT MY EXPLANATION FOR WHAT YOU SAW WITH YOUR OWN TWO EYES AND I DIDN'T??!!!!

Not quite. I'm just trying to get him to be a little more open-minded. If I saw a flying saucer, I'd spend a lot of time trying to find logical explanations for it, even if there was no doubt in my mind it was a flying saucer. I certainly wouldn't refer to it as a UFO or flying saucer, either, as just the names of those objects invoke extraterrestrial imagery.

Exactly.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

If there was no doubt in your mind it was a flying saucer, then what would you refer to it as?

[MetalJunkie]

If there was no doubt in your mind it was a flying saucer, then what would you refer to it as?

I've seen some sort of aircraft that I wasn't able to identify. It had weird-ass lights and was hovering in place, but didn't even remotely resemble a Harrier or Osprey or anything else in the US military. Whenever I talk about it, I feel silly saying UFO or something of the like, so I always say "I once saw something I couldn't explain..." or something similar.

[Tick]

ITT

WHY WON'T YOU ACCEPT MY EXPLANATION FOR WHAT YOU SAW WITH YOUR OWN TWO EYES AND I DIDN'T??!!!!

Not quite. I'm just trying to get him to be a little more open-minded. If I saw a flying saucer, I'd spend a lot of time trying to find logical explanations for it, even if there was no doubt in my mind it was a flying saucer. I certainly wouldn't refer to it as a UFO or flying saucer, either, as just the names of those objects invoke extraterrestrial imagery.

Exactly.

but heres the thing. I don't really care what anyone here would refer to their siting as. I don't care. I saw a flying saucer, so I'm telling you all I saw a flying saucer. Period.
I'm not going to call it something else to try to appease anyone here. Why should I?

[kári]

But look at this post you made earlier today:

If aliens have forms of space transport, the chance they would look like a stereotypical flying saucer is rediculously small.

Nope. Thats exactly what I saw.

Here you are clearly once again trying to convince other people that it was an alien aircraft.

[Tick]

But look at this post you made earlier today:

If aliens have forms of space transport, the chance they would look like a stereotypical flying saucer is rediculously small.

Nope. Thats exactly what I saw.

Here you are clearly once again trying to convince other people that it was an alien aircraft.

What is wrong with you? Why are you going there?  I am not implyng its an alien craft. I said the shape was a saucer, and it was. What do you want me to say? Perhaps it wasn't a saucer shape? I can't do that because the truth is what I said.

If a waiter put a cheeseburger on your plate and took it away, would you say it wasn't a cheeseburger because its no longer in front of you?

[Nick]

ITT

WHY WON'T YOU ACCEPT MY EXPLANATION FOR WHAT YOU SAW WITH YOUR OWN TWO EYES AND I DIDN'T??!!!!

Not quite. I'm just trying to get him to be a little more open-minded. If I saw a flying saucer, I'd spend a lot of time trying to find logical explanations for it, even if there was no doubt in my mind it was a flying saucer. I certainly wouldn't refer to it as a UFO or flying saucer, either, as just the names of those objects invoke extraterrestrial imagery.

Exactly.

but heres the thing. I don't really care what anyone here would refer to their siting as. I don't care. I saw a flying saucer, so I'm telling you all I saw a flying saucer. Period.
I'm not going to call it something else to try to appease anyone here. Why should I?

While I understand you want to title it as you see fit, I just wouldn't be surprised if the implications of that title end up causing confusion and frustration...

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

So even though what he says he saw fits the classic description of the term "flying saucer", in order to keep people from being confused or frustrated with him, he should instead say "I saw something in the air that did not look like anything I have ever seen before.  It was in a disc shape, with odd lights, and didn't look like an airplane or a helicoptor, and it floated, and blah, blah, blah, and though I cannot explain it and have no idea if it was alien in nature, I guess I shouldn't use the more obvious and easier to convey term of "flying saucer", so I'll say...  wait, what was I saying?"  Who has the time for that?

[kári]

Tick when someone says "aliens flying something in the shape of a flying saucer is ridiculous" and you reply "Nope" what exactly do you mean then?

[Tick]

Tick when someone says "aliens flying something in the shape of a flying saucer is ridiculous" and you reply "Nope" what exactly do you mean then?

read the post and my reply again. It makes sense.

If aliens have forms of space transport, the chance they would look like a stereotypical flying saucer is rediculously small.

Nope. Thats exactly what I saw.

All I'm saying is the shape was that of a saucer, because it was.

[Adami]

Maybe I can clear some of this up. Tick, what you saw was me. Or rather will be me.

Sometime in the future flying saucers will be common place. Soon after I will have invented a time machine. I then plan on taking that time machine (in the form of the flying saucer) back to watch the pyramids of Egypt being built. However a faulty coil in the transducer matrix will unalign causing an uneven descent out of the time axis Y. This will cause a premature ejection of the time continuum. Because time (as we will discover) is not linear, yet somehow is continuous, my premature ejection of the time continuum will cause me to eject not only in the wrong century but the wrong place as well. Thus I will have briefly appeared in front of you when you were younger.

At least that's what the older version of me said before I killed him for being a creepy old version of me that came back to jerk off to watching me jerk off. I'm a sick bastard it seems. Or will be at least.

So Tick, you have my apologies for any confusion. Or at least you will. 

[Tick]

Maybe I can clear some of this up. Tick, what you saw was me. Or rather will be me.

Sometime in the future flying saucers will be common place. Soon after I will have invented a time machine. I then plan on taking that time machine (in the form of the flying saucer) back to watch the pyramids of Egypt being built. However a faulty coil in the transducer matrix will unalign causing an uneven descent out of the time axis Y. This will cause a premature ejection of the time continuum. Because time (as we will discover) is not linear, yet somehow is continuous, my premature ejection of the time continuum will cause me to eject not only in the wrong century but the wrong place as well. Thus I will have briefly appeared in front of you when you were younger.

At least that's what the older version of me said before I killed him for being a creepy old version of me that came back to jerk off to watching me jerk off. I'm a sick bastard it seems. Or will be at least.

So Tick, you have my apologies for any confusion. Or at least you will.

I'll keep a roll of paper towels on hand for you. Please be neat.
and a bottle of vodka for myself. I will need it.

[chrisbDTM]

I think the negativity thrown at you is a bit unfair when weighed against the number of people who will happily believe in a god when any rational look at the argument points to there not being one.

quoted for truth

[MetalJunkie]

Upon doing a little bit of research, I discovered that Milford, Connecticut is two miles southeast of Sikorsky Aircraft Headquarters - helicopter manufacturer and leading defense contractor. I'd almost bet money that you saw an experimental aircraft, or even more specifically, the X-72, because 1979 is when they started flying them from Sikorsky to NASA. It would be easy to perceive a saucer shape from two hundred yards away at nighttime, as your original post states. Also, from two hundred yards, you would hear the indistinguishable humming you mentioned.



Here's a video of one of their aircraft landing at night (not the X-72).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwOsDdLI50E

[senecadawg2]

Dammit MetalJunkie, are you trying to kill all the happiness in the world?!?

[MetalJunkie]

Yes.

[BlobVanDam]

That picture doesn't hotlink btw.

[MetalJunkie]

That picture doesn't hotlink btw.

Should be fixed.

[BlobVanDam]

That picture doesn't hotlink btw.

Should be fixed.

Yep, shows up for me now. A bizarre looking thing it is, too.

[MetalJunkie]

That picture doesn't hotlink btw.

Should be fixed.

Yep, shows up for me now. A bizarre looking thing it is, too.

Coincidentally enough, it's called the X-Wing, though they began the project 7 years before Star Wars.

[kári]

In that video it does like like a flying saucer.

[reneranucci]

In that video it does like like a flying saucer.

It really does!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BIpIsmDORM#t=5m22s

[Tick]

Upon doing a little bit of research, I discovered that Milford, Connecticut is two miles southeast of Sikorsky Aircraft Headquarters - helicopter manufacturer and leading defense contractor. I'd almost bet money that you saw an experimental aircraft, or even more specifically, the X-72, because 1979 is when they started flying them from Sikorsky to NASA. It would be easy to perceive a saucer shape from two hundred yards away at nighttime, as your original post states. Also, from two hundred yards, you would hear the indistinguishable humming you mentioned.



Here's a video of one of their aircraft landing at night (not the X-72).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwOsDdLI50E

Yes I live near Sikorsky Aircraft. I did not see a helicopter. People will say anything to debunk what I saw. The reality of living where I am only increases the odds that what I saw was a saucer. If you go by statistics, the majority of saucers are seen near military facilities. This will lead some to the conclusion that the ones seen in these areas are military to begin with.
What I saw was not a helicopter.
A helicopter is not a saucer and does not spin in circulation shining beams of light in a fast circular motion. I saw a flying saucer. We can do this as long as you all wish, but no one will remotely change by mind on the absolute clarity of what I viewed that night.

When you all said lens flare on the picture I posted, I have to concede that explanation is quite logical. In the case of what my eyes and many others eyes saw that night, it was a flying saucer. It wasn't a mass delusion. What was inside I did not see, but the vehicle can not be mistaken as anything else as far as I'm concerned.

The thing that makes me laugh MJ, is the fact that you would be as confident in what you saw if you saw what I did. You would not be debunking yourself if you were positive what your eyes viewed. You can't make something you saw clearly, something else. If was close, and big enough to see exactly what it was.
In all the shows on TV involving the capturing of UFO's on tape, none of the footage shown is as clear or as close as what I saw that night.
I know many of you don't believe saucers exist so your coming up with logical explanations. I can't accept any of them. I will go with my eyes.
In conclusion. Not a helicopter.

[bosk1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nO4dcV9RC0

[MetalJunkie]

Upon doing a little bit of research, I discovered that Milford, Connecticut is two miles southeast of Sikorsky Aircraft Headquarters - helicopter manufacturer and leading defense contractor. I'd almost bet money that you saw an experimental aircraft, or even more specifically, the X-72, because 1979 is when they started flying them from Sikorsky to NASA. It would be easy to perceive a saucer shape from two hundred yards away at nighttime, as your original post states. Also, from two hundred yards, you would hear the indistinguishable humming you mentioned.



Here's a video of one of their aircraft landing at night (not the X-72).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwOsDdLI50E

The thing that makes me laugh MJ, is the fact that you would be as confident in what you saw if you saw what I did. You would not be debunking yourself if you were positive what your eyes viewed. You can't make something you saw clearly, something else. If was close, and big enough to see exactly what it was.
In all the shows on TV involving the capturing of UFO's on tape, none of the footage shown is as clear or as close as what I saw that night.
I know many of you don't believe saucers exist so your coming up with logical explanations. I can't accept any of them. I will go with my eyes.
In conclusion. Not a helicopter.

I guess you skipped my post where I saw a "UFO." I'm still trying to debunk it to this day, because it's the goddamn logical thing to do. According to Arthur Conan Doyle, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." It's sort of like the "innocent until proven guilty" concept, but rather "normal until proven paranormal." Also, the fact of the matter is that as a 13 year old civilian, you had absolutely no knowledge of what type of craft Sikorsky was experimenting on. After the Roswell fiasco, manufacturers everywhere started trying to replicate saucers and come up with various types of drones. While neither of us know for sure it was military, neither of us can also say, without a doubt, that it wasn't.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

So in this scenario, and using Doyle's logic, what is the "impossible" that we are able to eliminate here?  Is there one?

[bosk1]

Upon doing a little bit of research, I discovered that Milford, Connecticut is two miles southeast of Sikorsky Aircraft Headquarters - helicopter manufacturer and leading defense contractor. I'd almost bet money that you saw an experimental aircraft, or even more specifically, the X-72, because 1979 is when they started flying them from Sikorsky to NASA. It would be easy to perceive a saucer shape from two hundred yards away at nighttime, as your original post states. Also, from two hundred yards, you would hear the indistinguishable humming you mentioned.



Here's a video of one of their aircraft landing at night (not the X-72).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwOsDdLI50E

The thing that makes me laugh MJ, is the fact that you would be as confident in what you saw if you saw what I did. You would not be debunking yourself if you were positive what your eyes viewed. You can't make something you saw clearly, something else. If was close, and big enough to see exactly what it was.
In all the shows on TV involving the capturing of UFO's on tape, none of the footage shown is as clear or as close as what I saw that night.
I know many of you don't believe saucers exist so your coming up with logical explanations. I can't accept any of them. I will go with my eyes.
In conclusion. Not a helicopter.

I guess you skipped my post where I saw a "UFO." I'm still trying to debunk it to this day, because it's the goddamn logical thing to do. According to Arthur Conan Doyle, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." It's sort of like the "innocent until proven guilty" concept, but rather "normal until proven paranormal." Also, the fact of the matter is that as a 13 year old civilian, you had absolutely no knowledge of what type of craft Sikorsky was experimenting on. After the Roswell fiasco, manufacturers everywhere started trying to replicate saucers and come up with various types of drones. While neither of us know for sure it was military, neither of us can also say, without a doubt, that it wasn't.

Yes, but this post I think is a good illustration of how both sides of this conversation are completely talking past each other.  One Tick's side, he keeps saying he saw something he cannot identify, other than the fact that it was saucer shaped and was, therefore, a "flying saucer."  He emphasizes over and over that he is not necessarily ascribing it to aliens and that he has no idea whether its origins were terrestrial or otherwise.  But yet, the defensive tone of his posts along with using loaded terms like "UFO" and "flying saucer" distract from that fact.  On the other side, people keep ignoring that Tick has said ad nauseum that he does not ascribe the craft to aliens, and that he has no idea whether its origins were terrestrial or otherwise.  But rightly or wrongly, they zero in on the loaded language and defensive tone and go down the path of arguing what Tick isn't really arguing.  IMO, it's just getting ridiculous watching the thread continue to circle around the same distracting side issue.

[TioJorge]

You're almost there, Boskie... Just do it. Put this thing to rest. Tick saw a flying saucer. No one believes him. End thread. He saw a flying saucer. Someone says he didn't see an alien. Tick didn't see an alien. He saw a flying saucer. Someone says something about aliens. Tick saw a flying saucer. Someone says he might have. Tick saw a flying saucer. This is a fact; much like the fact that the sky is light blue. Sometimes, it is dark. This is because of clouds. Tick saw a flying saucer. It might be a doughnut. Aliens. Saucers. Sex.

Let's have some peach cobbler.

[bosk1]

Tempting.  Perhaps soon.  But I think there may yet be some worthwhile discussion.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

I find your abundance of faith disturbing.

[bosk1]

Yeah, well...erm...okay then.

[Tick]

If we could all just come to an agreement that I saw a flying saucer we could just move on.
Reality for me...
I can't choose to reason away something right in front of me, as plain as the nose on my face as anything other than what it was, so coming up with any other theory simply won't work for me.
 By now, its pretty damn clear that mindset isn't going to change no matter who says what.

One thing we can all agree on is....
It wasn't lens flare.

[MetalJunkie]

There is no doubt in my mind that Tick saw something, even something saucer shaped. I was trying to offer up a logical explanation, but was quickly shot down. Unfortunately, I'll never see what Tick saw, so I can only speculate on what it actually was. But apparently if I do that, I'm attacking Tick or downplaying what he saw.

[Nick]

While I understand Bosk's point of talking past each other, let me just say this, you can't simply state something like Tick has and just expect people to take it as you've seen it. You can be as sure as you like, but that won't make people believe, and when it's a sketchy subject, people are going to look for more plausible explanations.

For example, when I was 12 years old, I was at this club, they let me in underage because they saw how awesome I was. Anyway, it was a long time ago, and the club wasn't well lit as they had all the crazy lights going, and I was 12, but I know what I saw. There, 25 years across the dance floor was the king himself, Elvis Presley. I know a lot of people say he's dead, but you can't argue with what I saw, because my eyes KNOW it was Elvis Presley himself.

This would then spark criticisms that I was 12, that it was poorly lit, that we don't know what Elvis would look like today, and that there are impersonators everywhere, but as long as I hold firm to my position that's what my eyes saw and there is no 2 ways about it... well... frankly I've set it up so there is no discussion to be had.