If this, if that, I would think, etc, etc, etc.....
Tired of your suppositions here. If you have facts to add fine, if you’re just going to throw your wild guesses and suppositions out here, just refrain.

All one has to do is look back a couple of posts to see the conclusions you come to when left to your best guesses. Pure rubbish.

Astro

Let's not forget that in your "expert" opinion, you "ruled out" jet packs. Only to be later proven (rather easily I might add) that it is indeed possible. Nobody commented about probable or not, merely possible. I can't help but notice something you didn't mention as possible, which was RC. In fact, in your "expert" opinion, you attributed it to an "inflatable" that got away. Quite remarkable given you hadn't even seen it, but had already decided what it wasn't and what it was.

LOL, you know where the door is. Don't like it the get the hell out.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...3512394376.png
Look, a man with a jetpack......

So what are you and Pork rind going to say when it turns out to not be a jetpack? What's going to be your spin then? So far we have two interviews, one with Jetpack CEO and another with a woman who has gone through the training stating it's most likely a drone with a mannequin. The CEO even states that the flight is not possible without a parachute decent. But hey the RCU R/C wannabe's know more right? You two are a JOKE!

I realize it's a lot to ask, but go back and read what we actually wrote.

Unlike you that made a declarative statement of what it could not be, we merely pointed out that what you ruled out was indeed possible. And again, unlike you that w/o any first hand knowledge decided it was likely an "inflatable," we never said what it was or wasn't.

Joke’s on you, speed.
Go back and read every word I wrote. I never said it was a jetpack, I only proved it was possible (unlike your “expert” calculations, LOL)
If you weren’t so much of an emotional hemophiliac, you might be able to see the forest for the trees.
No, I take my own advice and only speak to what I know.

Astro

First off you two jokers haven't proven a damn thing. The conversation would be much more open minded had I not said it was impossible. You two Richards are so fixated on me that you are ignoring anything and everything else. Example: Asturd states he is tired of reading my posts. YET HE LOGS ON EVERYDAY! Most of his posts are aimed at discrediting me regardless of the subject. Kind of entertaining really, knowing how easily manipulated he is.

Actually we have. We've proven that you made a declarative statement that was, in fact, wrong.

You have nobody but yourself to blame; you chose the words.

Maybe he likes reading my posts. But what are we ignoring? Please share. Once again, a declarative statement. So what are we ignoring?

It's so darned easy. See above "You have nobody but yourself to blame..."

You mean when you got banned for RCG? You have nobody to blame but yourself hahahahhahahhha

Just doing my part to vet your BS. There is enough misinformation out there without yours.
You are my hero and I am your biggest fan!

I know you like the attention because you keep coming up with new terms of endearment for me! ;)

Astro

Oh like the Hall monitor?

Trust me, no endearment on my part. That said the two of you should form your own group. Maybe a spinoff of ANTIFA or BLM but for R/C forums. I mean you two have the same mentality as those two groups.

LOL. A little out of touch with reality are we?
Better check your facts (again).

Astro

And you think I'm losing any sleep over it? All it did was validate that RCG is the AMA's "Pravda." Nothing but a propaganda arm of AMA and the EC. But wait, it gets better. YOU just couldn't control yourself. It was YOU that brought the concept of "Hall Monitors" into the discussion:

Which would be exactly the role YOU played on the other site! So it's ok for YOU to engage in hall monitor activity but not others? Of course, I forget. We're not five-digit nobility and self appointed "experts" like you. Talk about hypocrisy and double standards.

What astonishing lack of perspective. You're so emotionally tied to flying toy planes and your self-appointed "expert" moniker that you completely lack the ability to interact. Once again, you resort to little more than name calling and wild irrational comparisons.

Geez, guys, it's a holiday weekend. Do we still need to have this on a Sunday morning?
Speed, I've tried to stay out of this one because of what's happening in the other thread but, needless to say, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!! This time, you are wrong and I'm going to be blunt about it. Others have shown several ways on how someone could have been seen by that flight crew. It's possible the guy was dropped from a plane, vertically launched from the ground or many other ways that he could have gotten to and from that altitude. We may never know, but someone was seen by a flight crew and their report is all the FAA and law enforcement officers have to go on. Let it go already.

THIS TIME?
Our little emo friend has proven to be wrong on MOST occasions, just because he refuses to accept it, makes no difference in reality, only in his mind. He just keeps playing pigeon chess.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion (even if they are incorrect). They are not entitled to push their opinions/agendas as fact, unless they can substantiate it with fact. Speed can rarely back his statements up with facts, only his fantasy scenarios and “what-ifs”.

Look at almost every single post of his and you will find him using name-calling, emotional hemophilia, logical fallacies and the threat of physical violence for the basis of his arguments. Ironically, these are the same tactics that are employed by the radical groups he paralleled to Franklin and I! LOL

Astro

ASTRO, you have a pm

crickets and now ostriches......

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...1adbc70b45.jpg

speed appears to be battling other demons.

ostrich will feed on crickets.

speed would have been long gone on RCGroups, even though most of the RCGroups hierarchy also hold positions in AMA and RCGroups
is blatantly biased toward AMA. The point being that speed has crossed that line.

And yet on RCG, as the self appointed "hall monitor" of the Model Aircraft and Drone Advocacy forum, he led the effort to have someone banned for the heinous offense of off topic posts....

In these forums, he's permitted to name call, make hyperbolic comparisons of people to violent groups, and make multiple personal attacks. All part of his effort to "cancel" the voices of those who dare present his beloved AMA as the deeply flawed and poorly led organization it is.

Back when RC Ken moderated this forum , using words like "boner" and "astool" would have been more than enough to earn banishment here , Porcia83 was banned for getting personal (personal attacks) that didn't rise to the level of vulgarity of calling someone an "astool" or saying someone has "a boner for the AMA" . Not that I want to see anyone banned , I'd rather see folks stick to the topic instead of going on the attack when confronted with being wrong . The man said something was "Impossible" and when shown proof that it was indeed possible , rather than just admit it certainly IS possible (NOT "probable" mind you , just "possible") , he doubled down on his flawed "Impossible" stance instead of just manning up and admitting that he was wrong . Now like I said , I'd rather not see anyone banned , but given his history of going on a campaign of getting Franklin banned over at RCG it will be Karma biting him back hard if his temper ever ends up getting him banned here (not likely to happen since this AMA subforum would appear to be a rudderless ship as of the past couple of years) . I was threatened long ago here by Ken for calling HobbyKing "SlobbyThing" , small potatoes indeed compared to the vulgarity he posted in his anger at Astro and Franklin .

Really Speed , WOULD it have been all that hard to admit that it IS possible that it was a "real" jetpack those two pilots saw , given ALL the evidence presented that at least proves that jetpacks ARE now a reality ?

A modern airliner has a remarkably low noise signature, especially on final. Regardless of size (small, medium or large), a typical transport aircraft will put out about 60-65db at 3000' (stage 3 noise requirements, required since 2000(?)), and will not climb that much in intensity with a loss of altitude (as per standard stabilized approach criteria). So the idea that the sound of an airliner on final approach would drown out the noise of several large model-sized turbines running at essentially full thrust to either lift, fly or land a jetpack/flyboard is pretty far off base. It would be remarkable that nobody heard this thing in the air or the neighborhood.

As far as dropping one of these jetpacks with a person in flight, several issues occur to me. The first is that, unless one had the engines running while INSIDE the dropping aircraft, obviously one would have to start them while in freefall. Now I'm not sure about a typical model turbine, but generally it takes about 1 minute from starter engagement to stable idle with every turbine I've ever flown. Now multiply that by what, 4 engines? 6? If the person flying this thing jumped out at say, 15,000', 60 seconds of freefall would put them at about 4,000'. So they got the first engine started, with about 30 seconds to impact.....And there are other factors about starting turbines at altitude that I haven't brought up. So the idea that the pilot would jump out, get the engines started, get the thing stable then fly down to the final approach path to 25L/26R at LAX is not likely, even if one cut the engine start cycle in half.

As much as this seems to be a really cool piece of technology, speed probably has this one right; this was most likely an R/C flying wingsuit type of thing. It simply makes more sense.

R_Strowe

I love it, someone put up an argument based on logic. Now, to put up an equally logical argument, it would be possible(not probable) to start the turbines while standing on the boarding step of an airplane at, possibly 6,000 to 7,500 feet and make it work, would it not? This is not a case of arguing just to argue but, rather, to qualify the pilot's reports filed after landing