>> bet you all the frothing loons out there now think that Wired
>> is in on the c0nsp1r@ce.
>Are you a Snider sock puppet? You sure have ripped a page out of his >operations manual.
Free clue, shit-bot: Lots of people laughed at Bozo the clown. It
wasn't because they were all conspirators or sock puppets. (But of
course, even with the free clue, you'll be totally unable to
figure out what other reason there might have been.)
-- Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
On 10/7/2012 1:27 AM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Mystical property? How's your physics jimp? How else are those
>> lenticular aerodynes going to make those "impossible" right angle turns
>> that everybody "imagines" they see? It doesn't matter if one is "insane"
>> if your science is correct. I think that is well established. [John
>> Forbes Nash jr.]
> Yep, coo coo for cocoa puffs.
So now your "science" has lapsed down to the level of Wormley and Snider? Obvious proof this subject is politics and not science!
> Not that I want to feed your insanity, but those "impossible" right angle
> turns aren't "impossible" because the airframe can't do it, but because
> the crew couldn't withstand them.
Whew! Just so long as we are sure that everyone who thinks they saw them was "coo coo for cocoa puffs" and they are still "impossible".
> That is unless a round wing has some mystical magic property.
It does have a "magical" property! Unlike human aircraft it flies just as well at 90 degrees to it's current direction of motion.
>> You still haven't explained just HOW you became familiar with "ALL"
>> attempts to build such craft so as to be sure they are "all" failures.
> Yep, coo coo for cocoa puffs.
Logical lapse, answered with accusations of insanity for critics. I take it you are signed up for some of "professor" Wormley's classes and he's educating your in how to do "climate science"! Perhaps then YOU can explain how adding constant increasing heat to an object makes its temperature go down? All Wormley can say is "coo coo for cocoa puffs"!
In sci.physics bjac...@teranews.com <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 10/7/2012 1:27 AM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> Mystical property? How's your physics jimp? How else are those
>>> lenticular aerodynes going to make those "impossible" right angle turns
>>> that everybody "imagines" they see? It doesn't matter if one is "insane"
>>> if your science is correct. I think that is well established. [John
>>> Forbes Nash jr.]
>> Yep, coo coo for cocoa puffs.
> So now your "science" has lapsed down to the level of Wormley and > Snider? Obvious proof this subject is politics and not science!
Nope, it is just that you are obviously nuts.
>> Not that I want to feed your insanity, but those "impossible" right angle
>> turns aren't "impossible" because the airframe can't do it, but because
>> the crew couldn't withstand them.
> Whew! Just so long as we are sure that everyone who thinks they saw them > was "coo coo for cocoa puffs" and they are still "impossible".
Illogical gibberish.
>> That is unless a round wing has some mystical magic property.
> It does have a "magical" property! Unlike human aircraft it flies just > as well at 90 degrees to it's current direction of motion.
And that would be derirable in what comic book world?
You do know helicopters can do that but usually don't as it makes it
difficult to steer that way?
>>> You still haven't explained just HOW you became familiar with "ALL"
>>> attempts to build such craft so as to be sure they are "all" failures.
>> Yep, coo coo for cocoa puffs.
> Logical lapse, answered with accusations of insanity for critics. I take > it you are signed up for some of "professor" Wormley's classes and he's > educating your in how to do "climate science"! Perhaps then YOU can > explain how adding constant increasing heat to an object makes its > temperature go down? All Wormley can say is "coo coo for cocoa puffs"!
"bjac...@teranews.com" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>On 10/6/2012 4:38 PM, Fred^2 wrote:
>> HVAC<mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Harlow's Notes: So it is quite obvious that ufos do not exist.
>>> http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/the-airforce/ >> bet you all the frothing loons out there now think that Wired
>> is in on the c0nsp1r@ce.
>Are you a Snider sock puppet? You sure have ripped a page out of his >operations manual.
oh noes! is all them scientists ganging up on you, loon?
wrap anoter layer of foil around yer head, that should stop it.
> It begs the question – why was the project dropped?
They probably showed it to someone who knew something about aerodynamics and they fell about laughing. The shape choosen isn't exactly the most streamlined.
>Officially, aliens have never existed but flying saucers very nearly >did. The National Archives has recently published never-before-seen >schematics and details of a 1950s military venture, called Project 1794, >which aimed to build a supersonic flying saucer.
> . . .
That design was flawed from the getgo. Real saucers have no moving
parts. The round design is to accomodate the winding of wire around
the outer edge to result in a powerful electromagnetic field. The
field can then interact with a planet's magnetic field. Controls
within the saucer are designed to maneuver the vehicle by altering the
interaction with the planetary field. These vehicles may only be used
for travel within the atmosphere of a planet that has at least a small
magnetic field.
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 18:27:30 -0000, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/6/2012 1:06 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> Canadians can't build a ufo. You want a ufo? Go get yourself a kraut.
>>> The sole German attempt at a round aircraft was the Sack AS.6 in 1944, and
>>> it too was an utter failure.
>> That is what they would like you to believe.
>Who is "they", is that the voices in your head?
>Back in the real world...
>A round wing is likely the absolute worst geometry one could pick for
>a wing shape. It has zero aerodynamic advantages and numerous disadvantages.
>It is why every attempt to build a practical "flying saucer" has been a dismal
>failure.
No, not a round wing exactly. The top of the saucer must be built
like the top of a wing, and the bottom is flat like the bottom of a
wing, to produce an airfoil. The controls, which alter the
interaction between the saucer's powerful electromagnetic field with a
planet's magnetic field, work together with the airfoil shape to
produce lift and thrust.
>>>> Canadians can't build a ufo. You want a ufo? Go get yourself a kraut.
>>> The sole German attempt at a round aircraft was the Sack AS.6 in 1944, and
>>> it too was an utter failure.
>>That is what they would like you to believe.
>The dimension ratios for a streamlined device is well known to man
>and nature has been building along that design for hundreds of
>millions, if not billions of years. It is rough 3 to 1 and a circles
>can never have that ration.
>"spin through the Earth’s ..." >Spinning to achieve lift or forward motion is pretty much limited to
>low speeds, not that the picture shows anything that would be a
>lifting body.
It's an "effective" spin. The saucer itself does not spin; the
electrons in the current through the wires that encircle the saucer do
the "spinning" around the edge. That builds up a powerful
electromagnetic field that interacts with a planet's magnetic field.
If the top of the saucer is built like the top of a wing, while the
bottom is flat like the bottom of a wing, you have a 360 degree
airfoil.
>>>>> Canadians can't build a ufo. You want a ufo? Go get yourself a kraut.
>>>> The sole German attempt at a round aircraft was the Sack AS.6 in 1944, and
>>>> it too was an utter failure.
>>> That is what they would like you to believe.
>>Who is "they", is that the voices in your head?
>>Back in the real world...
>>A round wing is likely the absolute worst geometry one could pick for
>>a wing shape. It has zero aerodynamic advantages and numerous disadvantages.
>>It is why every attempt to build a practical "flying saucer" has been a dismal
>>failure.
> No, not a round wing exactly. The top of the saucer must be built
> like the top of a wing, and the bottom is flat like the bottom of a
> wing, to produce an airfoil. The controls, which alter the
> interaction between the saucer's powerful electromagnetic field with a
> planet's magnetic field, work together with the airfoil shape to
> produce lift and thrust.
Yeah, sure they do.
And it is the round shape and a liberal sprinkling of pixie dust that
makes this all work...
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 18:27:30 -0000, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >In sci.physics HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/6/2012 1:06 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>>> Canadians can't build a ufo. You want a ufo? Go get yourself a kraut.
> >>> The sole German attempt at a round aircraft was the Sack AS.6 in 1944, and
> >>> it too was an utter failure.
> >> That is what they would like you to believe.
> >Who is "they", is that the voices in your head?
> >Back in the real world...
> >A round wing is likely the absolute worst geometry one could pick for
> >a wing shape. It has zero aerodynamic advantages and numerous disadvantages.
> >It is why every attempt to build a practical "flying saucer" has been a dismal
> >failure.
> No, not a round wing exactly. The top of the saucer must be built
> like the top of a wing, and the bottom is flat like the bottom of a
> wing, to produce an airfoil. The controls, which alter the
> interaction between the saucer's powerful electromagnetic field with a
> planet's magnetic field, work together with the airfoil shape to
> produce lift and thrust.
Interesting. So your saying a turtle is infinitely
more airworthy than say, a seagull?
>On Oct 7, 6:35 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 18:27:30 -0000, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >In sci.physics HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 10/6/2012 1:06 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >>>> Canadians can't build a ufo. You want a ufo? Go get yourself a kraut.
>> >>> The sole German attempt at a round aircraft was the Sack AS.6 in 1944, and
>> >>> it too was an utter failure.
>> >> That is what they would like you to believe.
>> >Who is "they", is that the voices in your head?
>> >Back in the real world...
>> >A round wing is likely the absolute worst geometry one could pick for
>> >a wing shape. It has zero aerodynamic advantages and numerous disadvantages.
>> >It is why every attempt to build a practical "flying saucer" has been a dismal
>> >failure.
>> No, not a round wing exactly. The top of the saucer must be built
>> like the top of a wing, and the bottom is flat like the bottom of a
>> wing, to produce an airfoil. The controls, which alter the
>> interaction between the saucer's powerful electromagnetic field with a
>> planet's magnetic field, work together with the airfoil shape to
>> produce lift and thrust.
>Interesting. So your saying a turtle is infinitely
>more airworthy than say, a seagull?
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 16:28:10 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
> <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
> >On Oct 7, 6:35 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 18:27:30 -0000, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> >In sci.physics HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 10/6/2012 1:06 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> >>>> Canadians can't build a ufo. You want a ufo? Go get yourself a kraut.
> >> >>> The sole German attempt at a round aircraft was the Sack AS.6 in 1944, and
> >> >>> it too was an utter failure.
> >> >> That is what they would like you to believe.
> >> >Who is "they", is that the voices in your head?
> >> >Back in the real world...
> >> >A round wing is likely the absolute worst geometry one could pick for
> >> >a wing shape. It has zero aerodynamic advantages and numerous disadvantages.
> >> >It is why every attempt to build a practical "flying saucer" has been a dismal
> >> >failure.
> >> No, not a round wing exactly. The top of the saucer must be built
> >> like the top of a wing, and the bottom is flat like the bottom of a
> >> wing, to produce an airfoil. The controls, which alter the
> >> interaction between the saucer's powerful electromagnetic field with a
> >> planet's magnetic field, work together with the airfoil shape to
> >> produce lift and thrust.
> >Interesting. So your saying a turtle is infinitely
> >more airworthy than say, a seagull?
<fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 7, 6:35 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 18:27:30 -0000, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >In sci.physics HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 10/6/2012 1:06 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >>>> Canadians can't build a ufo. You want a ufo? Go get yourself a kraut.
>> >>> The sole German attempt at a round aircraft was the Sack AS.6 in 1944, and
>> >>> it too was an utter failure.
>> >> That is what they would like you to believe.
>> >Who is "they", is that the voices in your head?
>> >Back in the real world...
>> >A round wing is likely the absolute worst geometry one could pick for
>> >a wing shape. It has zero aerodynamic advantages and numerous disadvantages.
>> >It is why every attempt to build a practical "flying saucer" has been a dismal
>> >failure.
>> No, not a round wing exactly. The top of the saucer must be built
>> like the top of a wing, and the bottom is flat like the bottom of a
>> wing, to produce an airfoil. The controls, which alter the
>> interaction between the saucer's powerful electromagnetic field with a
>> planet's magnetic field, work together with the airfoil shape to
>> produce lift and thrust.
>Interesting. So your saying a turtle is infinitely
>more airworthy than say, a seagull?
The turtle's shape is more conducive to being "waterworthy".
>>>>>> Canadians can't build a ufo. You want a ufo? Go get yourself a kraut.
>>>>> The sole German attempt at a round aircraft was the Sack AS.6 in 1944, and
>>>>> it too was an utter failure.
>>>> That is what they would like you to believe.
>>>Who is "they", is that the voices in your head?
>>>Back in the real world...
>>>A round wing is likely the absolute worst geometry one could pick for
>>>a wing shape. It has zero aerodynamic advantages and numerous disadvantages.
>>>It is why every attempt to build a practical "flying saucer" has been a dismal
>>>failure.
>> No, not a round wing exactly. The top of the saucer must be built
>> like the top of a wing, and the bottom is flat like the bottom of a
>> wing, to produce an airfoil. The controls, which alter the
>> interaction between the saucer's powerful electromagnetic field with a
>> planet's magnetic field, work together with the airfoil shape to
>> produce lift and thrust.
>Yeah, sure they do.
>And it is the round shape and a liberal sprinkling of pixie dust that
>makes this all work...
>Yet another nut coo coo for cocoa puffs.
It's just speculation and conjecture - the result of an imagination of
such things.
>>>>>>> Canadians can't build a ufo. You want a ufo? Go get yourself a
>>>>>>> kraut.
>>>>>> The sole German attempt at a round aircraft was the Sack AS.6 in
>>>>>> 1944, and it too was an utter failure.
>>>>> That is what they would like you to believe.
>>>>Who is "they", is that the voices in your head?
>>>>Back in the real world...
>>>>A round wing is likely the absolute worst geometry one could pick for
>>>>a wing shape. It has zero aerodynamic advantages and numerous
>>>>disadvantages.
>>>>It is why every attempt to build a practical "flying saucer" has been
>>>>a dismal failure.
>>> No, not a round wing exactly. The top of the saucer must be built
>>> like the top of a wing, and the bottom is flat like the bottom of a
>>> wing, to produce an airfoil. The controls, which alter the
>>> interaction between the saucer's powerful electromagnetic field with a
>>> planet's magnetic field, work together with the airfoil shape to
>>> produce lift and thrust.
>>Yeah, sure they do.
>>And it is the round shape and a liberal sprinkling of pixie dust that
>>makes this all work...
>>Yet another nut coo coo for cocoa puffs.
> It's just speculation and conjecture - the result of an imagination of
> such things.
> Evidently an imagination is foreign to you?
You're arguing with someone who contends that self-driving cars will never work, and was still saying so the year (2010) one drove itself from Parma, Italy to Shanghai, China. -- Goat
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 16:28:10 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
> <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 7, 6:35 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 18:27:30 -0000, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> >In sci.physics HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 10/6/2012 1:06 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> >>>> Canadians can't build a ufo. You want a ufo? Go get yourself a kraut.
> >> >>> The sole German attempt at a round aircraft was the Sack AS.6 in 1944, and
> >> >>> it too was an utter failure.
> >> >> That is what they would like you to believe.
> >> >Who is "they", is that the voices in your head?
> >> >Back in the real world...
> >> >A round wing is likely the absolute worst geometry one could pick for
> >> >a wing shape. It has zero aerodynamic advantages and numerous disadvantages.
> >> >It is why every attempt to build a practical "flying saucer" has been a dismal
> >> >failure.
> >> No, not a round wing exactly. The top of the saucer must be built
> >> like the top of a wing, and the bottom is flat like the bottom of a
> >> wing, to produce an airfoil. The controls, which alter the
> >> interaction between the saucer's powerful electromagnetic field with a
> >> planet's magnetic field, work together with the airfoil shape to
> >> produce lift and thrust.
> >Interesting. So your saying a turtle is infinitely
> >more airworthy than say, a seagull?
> The turtle's shape is more conducive to being "waterworthy".
> In sci.physics bjac...@teranews.com <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > On 10/7/2012 1:27 AM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>> Mystical property? How's your physics jimp? How else are those
> >>> lenticular aerodynes going to make those "impossible" right angle turns
> >>> that everybody "imagines" they see? It doesn't matter if one is "insane"
> >>> if your science is correct. I think that is well established. [John
> >>> Forbes Nash jr.]
> >> Yep, coo coo for cocoa puffs.
> > So now your "science" has lapsed down to the level of Wormley and
> > Snider? Obvious proof this subject is politics and not science!
> Nope, it is just that you are obviously nuts.
> >> Not that I want to feed your insanity, but those "impossible" right angle
> >> turns aren't "impossible" because the airframe can't do it, but because
> >> the crew couldn't withstand them.
> > Whew! Just so long as we are sure that everyone who thinks they saw them
> > was "coo coo for cocoa puffs" and they are still "impossible".
> Illogical gibberish.
> >> That is unless a round wing has some mystical magic property.
> > It does have a "magical" property! Unlike human aircraft it flies just
> > as well at 90 degrees to it's current direction of motion.
> And that would be derirable in what comic book world?
> You do know helicopters can do that but usually don't as it makes it
> difficult to steer that way?
> >>> You still haven't explained just HOW you became familiar with "ALL"
> >>> attempts to build such craft so as to be sure they are "all" failures.
> >> Yep, coo coo for cocoa puffs.
> > Logical lapse, answered with accusations of insanity for critics. I take
> > it you are signed up for some of "professor" Wormley's classes and he's
> > educating your in how to do "climate science"! Perhaps then YOU can
> > explain how adding constant increasing heat to an object makes its
> > temperature go down? All Wormley can say is "coo coo for cocoa puffs"!
> Another pile of illogical gibberish.
wooooooooooshhhhh .............
(I think I'm getting the hang of this. So much fun, so little time)
> Officially, aliens have never existed but flying saucers very nearly
> did. The National Archives has recently published never-before-seen
> schematics and details of a 1950s military venture, called Project 1794,
> which aimed to build a supersonic flying saucer.
> The newly declassified materials show the U.S. Air Force had a contract
> with a now-defunct Canadian company to build an aircraft unlike anything
> seen before. Project 1794 got as far as the initial rounds of product
> development and into prototype design. In a memo dating from 1956 the
> results from pre-prototype testing are summarized and reveal exactly
> what the developers had hoped to create.
> The saucer was supposed to reach a top speed of “between Mach 3 and Mach
> 4, a ceiling of over 100,000 ft. and a maximum range with allowances of
> about 1,000 nautical miles,” according to the document.
> If the plans had followed through to completion they would have created
> a saucer, which could spin through the Earth’s stratosphere at an
> average top speed of about 2,600 miles per hour. Wow. It was also
> designed to take off and land vertically (VTOL), using propulsion jets
> to control and stabilize the aircraft. Admittedly the range of 1,000
> nautical miles seems limited in comparison to the other specifications –
> but if you’d hopped on the disk in New York it could’ve had you in Miami
> within about 24 minutes.
> The document also hints that the product development seemed to be going
> better than planned; “the present design will provide a much superior
> performance to that estimated at the start of contract negotiations.”
> It begs the question – why was the project dropped? Why aren’t wars
> being fought with flying saucers? The cost of continuing to prototype
> was estimated at $3,168,000, which roughly translates to about $26.6
> million in today’s money and wouldn’t have been an insane price for such
> advanced technology. The problem with the other flying saucers developed
> under the same program (see video) is pretty clear. They didn’t get
> anywhere near 100,000 feet in altitude, more like five or six if you
> were lucky – so the military finally pulled the plug in 1960.
> On Oct 7, 12:16 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics bjac...@teranews.com<bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>> On 10/7/2012 1:27 AM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> Mystical property? How's your physics jimp? How else are those
>>>>> lenticular aerodynes going to make those "impossible" right angle turns
>>>>> that everybody "imagines" they see? It doesn't matter if one is "insane"
>>>>> if your science is correct. I think that is well established. [John
>>>>> Forbes Nash jr.]
>>>> Yep, coo coo for cocoa puffs.
>>> So now your "science" has lapsed down to the level of Wormley and
>>> Snider? Obvious proof this subject is politics and not science!
>> Nope, it is just that you are obviously nuts.
>>>> Not that I want to feed your insanity, but those "impossible" right angle
>>>> turns aren't "impossible" because the airframe can't do it, but because
>>>> the crew couldn't withstand them.
>>> Whew! Just so long as we are sure that everyone who thinks they saw them
>>> was "coo coo for cocoa puffs" and they are still "impossible".
>> Illogical gibberish.
>>>> That is unless a round wing has some mystical magic property.
>>> It does have a "magical" property! Unlike human aircraft it flies just
>>> as well at 90 degrees to it's current direction of motion.
>> And that would be derirable in what comic book world?
>> You do know helicopters can do that but usually don't as it makes it
>> difficult to steer that way?
>>>>> You still haven't explained just HOW you became familiar with "ALL"
>>>>> attempts to build such craft so as to be sure they are "all" failures.
>>>> Yep, coo coo for cocoa puffs.
>>> Logical lapse, answered with accusations of insanity for critics. I take
>>> it you are signed up for some of "professor" Wormley's classes and he's
>>> educating your in how to do "climate science"! Perhaps then YOU can
>>> explain how adding constant increasing heat to an object makes its
>>> temperature go down? All Wormley can say is "coo coo for cocoa puffs"!
>> Another pile of illogical gibberish.
> wooooooooooshhhhh .............
> (I think I'm getting the hang of this. So much fun, so little time)
> On Oct 7, 6:35 pm, Painius<starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 18:27:30 -0000, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics HVAC<mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/6/2012 1:06 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> Canadians can't build a ufo. You want a ufo? Go get yourself a kraut.
>>>>> The sole German attempt at a round aircraft was the Sack AS.6 in 1944, and
>>>>> it too was an utter failure.
>>>> That is what they would like you to believe.
>>> Who is "they", is that the voices in your head?
>>> Back in the real world...
>>> A round wing is likely the absolute worst geometry one could pick for
>>> a wing shape. It has zero aerodynamic advantages and numerous disadvantages.
>>> It is why every attempt to build a practical "flying saucer" has been a dismal
>>> failure.
>> No, not a round wing exactly. The top of the saucer must be built
>> like the top of a wing, and the bottom is flat like the bottom of a
>> wing, to produce an airfoil. The controls, which alter the
>> interaction between the saucer's powerful electromagnetic field with a
>> planet's magnetic field, work together with the airfoil shape to
>> produce lift and thrust.
> Interesting. So your saying a turtle is infinitely
> more airworthy than say, a seagull?
Depends on how fast it's flying and how many right angle turns it needs to make!
>> No, not a round wing exactly. The top of the saucer must be built
>> like the top of a wing, and the bottom is flat like the bottom of a
>> wing, to produce an airfoil. The controls, which alter the
>> interaction between the saucer's powerful electromagnetic field with a
>> planet's magnetic field, work together with the airfoil shape to
>> produce lift and thrust.
> Interesting. So your saying a turtle is infinitely
> more airworthy than say, a seagull?
Only if the turtle is outfitted with an electromagnetic field generator.
>> No, not a round wing exactly. The top of the saucer must be built
>> like the top of a wing, and the bottom is flat like the bottom of a
>> wing, to produce an airfoil. The controls, which alter the
>> interaction between the saucer's powerful electromagnetic field with a
>> planet's magnetic field, work together with the airfoil shape to
>> produce lift and thrust.
> Interesting. So your saying a turtle is infinitely
> more airworthy than say, a seagull?
