Legzman
what the fuck you lookin at?
hit from the side. or when it was hit the blade wasn't lined up with the tower.
UFO hits UK wind turbine?
- Thread starter AndyHunter
- Start date
hit from the side. or when it was hit the blade wasn't lined up with the tower.
Spleen
Banned?
Have you ever a seen a wind turbine? They are huge. Even if it was at the side or the bottom, completely knocking one off would be near impossible from the ground.
Also I think the turbine may have been stationary at the time, someone said that when I was watching it on TV this morning. So the position it is in now is likely to be the same as when it happened.
Don't get me wrong, I do not believe in alien spacecrafts hovering over our planet, but you have to consider all possibilities.
Don't count those little green men out just yet!
The plot gets even deeper!
http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/4036044.Local_link_to_wind_turbine_UFO/
The plot gets even deeper!
http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/4036044.Local_link_to_wind_turbine_UFO/
I always hated that expression. STD is right, if it's unidentified, how do you know it was flying? How do you even know there was an object there at all?
Hey, look up there. You see that?
No, I don't see anything.
Me neither. It must be an Unidentified Flying Object!
it's an oxymoron- if you see it, then you've identified it. And not just an object, but that it was a flying object as well. An unidentified object would be one that no one saw, in which case you wouldn't know that it had been there at all.
In this case You Might say say that it counts because no one saw it... nice try. How do you know that no one saw it? and how do you know that the person who might have seen it didn't know what it was?
why should we listen to the guy that doesn't know his arsehole form his elbow? It is ridiculous to assume that no one knows what it is. If it exists, then someone must know what it is.
Therefor there are no such things as UFO's.
Something could have fallen on it. The article mentions ice falling from a plane.
And if you don't believe in alien spacecrafts, then why consider it?
Besides, how can something that has never been even proven to exist be considered for this?? Or be considered for anything??? If people are going to blame UFO's, God could have done it too. Or a ghost. Yup, a ghost probably did it. That is the only explanation.
Spleen
Banned?
Unidentified doesn't mean Unseen though. :dunno:
I didn't say I thought it was alien spacecrafts, I meant you should consider it could have been a UFO. And once again, UFO doesn't mean aliens.
No one knows, maybe we never will. Maybe we shouldnt even care.
Spleen
Banned?
'if you see it, then you've identified it'
er.. no.
if you see an object that you've never seen before then you can't identify it since you wouldn't know what it is
'if it's unidentified, how do you know it was flying?'
if you see a flying object but don't know what it is then it's unidentified
Ohhhh, this is bound to be good
Yeah, you would think so, wouldn't you?...
BUT YOU'D BE WRONG - MYSTERY SOLVED!
Last edited:
what is your defintion of identify?
to see something and be able to qualify a description of it's characteristic is what I would call indentification.
But suppose your definition means simply to be able to corelate the existance of a thing with a match to a previously known object, then your scope of identification is limited to only your own knowledge and is not a very accurate categorization, don't you think? By that defintion anything could be subjectively considered as unidentified, and it ignores as a factor whether or not it is identified by other people. As I said, eveything has been identified by someone.
Following either one of these descriptions, every object is an indentified object. If it wasn't, it would have to be something that has never been seen or known by anyone... and if that was the case, if you are the first person to discover it, then don't you bear the responsiblity of identifying it? If not, then how can anything ever be identified?
to see something and be able to qualify a description of it's characteristic is what I would call indentification.
But suppose your definition means simply to be able to corelate the existance of a thing with a match to a previously known object, then your scope of identification is limited to only your own knowledge and is not a very accurate categorization, don't you think? By that defintion anything could be subjectively considered as unidentified, and it ignores as a factor whether or not it is identified by other people. As I said, eveything has been identified by someone.
Following either one of these descriptions, every object is an indentified object. If it wasn't, it would have to be something that has never been seen or known by anyone... and if that was the case, if you are the first person to discover it, then don't you bear the responsiblity of identifying it? If not, then how can anything ever be identified?
Yeah, you would think so, wouldn't you?...
[/URL]
BUT YOU'D BE WRONG - MYSTERY SOLVED!
Case closed:
So its a conspiracy!!! I wonder how far up this goes?
Its an Illuminati plot to make us all distrust other forms of fuel so they can inslave us all and kill us all and then live in a utopia where they have the entire planet to live on.
Well, Fuck you! Bill Cosby and Harry Potter!!!! YOU WILL NOT CONTROL ME!!!!
I'M COMING TO GET YOU, :rofl2: MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH :rofl2:
You will not inslave us all !!!!!!!
:bawling:
If I showed you a picture of someone you've never seen before you would not be able to identify who that person is now would you regardless of whether they've been identified before.
'to see something and be able to qualify a description of it's characteristic'
'every object is an indentified object'
So what if you can't qualify a description of it's characteristic?
right, so you are saying that we should listen to the testimony of ignorant people as an acurate statement? I'm sure there are many people who wouldn't be able to tell you who the person is in a picture of george washington, but would you say that makes him an unidentified person?
To get more specific on this example, I don't know jack shit about planes, so any plane that I saw, I couldn't tell you what model of plane it was... but that would be absurd to call it a UFO, because I could tell you that it is a plane, and not another type of flying vehicle, and I could even give a description of it so that someone who does know plane models could determine which one it was. Just like I could tell you all about george washington, even if I didn't know who he was.
the key word in the expression is object, meaning that it is something that you can't characterize with any known objects, not merely a known object of unknown specifics. a plane is not an unidentified object, and neither is a person.
the key word in the expression is object, meaning that it is something that you can't characterize with any known objects, not merely a known object of unknown specifics. a plane is not an unidentified object, and neither is a person.
so we are assuming that it is an object that no one has seen before, an unidentified object.
If you see something that is unknown to anyone, then you are the one that is identifying it- becuase you are asigning an identity to it. that's what discovery is. So to witness is to identify.
Similar threads
