Re: Serious question from a skeptic - practical realities of taking clear video/stills of UFO's?

Dear William Graham:

"William Graham" <weg9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:N8adnSyE_KW7ECHanZ2dnUVZ_rGhnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Impossible" can mean many things to many people.
> In theory, anything might be possible, especially to a
> pure mathematician.

Be a little careful with "in theory".  Theory presumes some 
experimental underpinnings.  I think you mean "imagination", 
rather than "theory".

> But realistically, if you are going to bother to even
> consider (and discuss) any problem, then you must consider the 
> laws of physics as we know
> them to be today.

Such as the quantum realm, where neither space nor time have any 
meaning?  Where all particle-particle interactions travel all 
possible paths at all possible speeds (not limited to c)?  Did 
you mean those *known* laws of physics?  What we don't know is 
*why* it all seems to "pace" the way classical mechanics 
describes.  Quantum mechanics is not keeping our butts on the 
planet.

> And, in the light of those laws, it is extremely
> unlikely that any object here on earth came
> here from some other star system.

Absolutely *no* correlation between what you understand of 
physics (today), and what a possible civilization that could be 
older than ours might be able to do.  Hell, it does not limit 
"ETs" from being Earthling visitors from the future, ala the 
"Philadelphia experiment" or "Sphere".  Only classical physics 
provides these limits.  We already know physics that has no such 
limitations.

> I have no objection to "flights of fantacy"
> speculation, but just understand that when you
> indulge it these, you are leaving the realm of
> rational thought, and entering the realm of science fiction 
> fantacy.

Said about H.G. Wells, and a number of other folks.  Seems like 
their flights act to guide us... either towards or away from any 
given path.

> IOW, when I look up in the sky, and see
> something that I do not understand, I will be
> willing to believe almost anything about it
> rather than speculate on it's origin being
> outside of our own solar system.

To each his / her own.  Funny that you do not allow for physics 
that you do not yet know.

> This is simply a practical matter based on all
> the laws of physics that I have known (and
> used) during my whole lifetime. I spent about
> 30 years working at a high energy physics
> laboratory chock full of people with PhD's in
> physics. We used relativistic mechanics on a
> daily basis to solve real problems involved with
> the machines we built and used to investigate the make up of 
> matter. I can assure you that
> these equations were reliable, and enabled us
> to do our jobs well. We built and used
> machines that cost the taxpayers over 100
> million dollars using them, and they worked as
> expected when completed. So, I am forced to
> go with that technology unless and until I am
> shown some other technology and had it
> explained mathematically to me, and
> demonstrated to me as well.

Acknowledged.

So your take is, they cannot take pictures of something that 
*cannot* exist?  (Trying to drag this back to the thread topic.)

David A. Smith