Oh, I see. How funny. In that section of the thread you were saying that the Belgian wave was ET, and I wondered about whether it could be an unknown terrestrial craft.you see, you're so intent on ridiculing everything i say, you can't even remember why you were posting about my comments in the first place....
See the second post where it all started (although it all really started in the thread about signs)
In this thread you asserted the B2 as a solution to FT reports, and I don't think that is tenable.
No, it has 2-3 landing lights, which are not visible except when the landing gear are extended. When I showed you a ventral view of a B2 with no lights, you insisted they were merely off. You never even considered landing gear lights until I pointed them out to you.And why do you keep going on about how i was wrong... and factually incorrect.
as far as i am aware I was factually correct... the bomber DOES have three lights on it, and it DOES have a blinking light on the bottom.
Where was i incorrect?
You were wrong: the B2 doesn't have "three big bright lights" on its ventral surface.
Nonsense. The lighting configuration of the B2 is not a matter of opinion.Even if you don't think that these statements are correct, it doesnt mean that they arent, its just your opinion.