taurusclover21
Senior Member.
Did you report your findings on his YT comments?
The Tape - The Most Important Case Yet? (A UAP Files Film)
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Note to future UFO video shooters. IF you see a UFO and shoot video and Venus is in the same part of the sky (or any other bright but normal object such as Jupiter or Sirius... or an airplane or the moon or a drone) take a second to get a shot with both in frame -- failing that, the question of "If that is NOT Venus, why don't we see Venus, which should also be right there? (Or Jupiter or an airplane or whatever)" does not scuttle your ground breaking and important UFO video of another distant point of light that does not do anything...
Hi, just newbie here. Iv'e been following this on YT and took a few things up with Jimmy on hist first production. I don't want to rehash or provide mega lengthy stuff right now so will just go to the main point about the static light source which is the subject of many of the mins at the end. Its obv it doesn't move and its obv it doesn't represent the same as the Venus object. So I went looking for an explanation. All I found within 20mins is the bearing of view outside the back upstairs window with the camera is bang on matched with a street lamp in Rowley close just 80m away. Its doubtful the full head of the lamp is fully visible but at least an upper portion of it as its obscured by the lower ridge tiles of the neighbour. Further to that, there is further masking provided by spindly tree branches again of the neighbour. This to me explains some of the black veins of moving patterns when the zooming is bigger. Anyway, see what you think , you guys have been into this a while and I'm just dipping in
standing in Rowley close just a street out the back , following the direction of view back to the viewing property
overhead shot of the line of sight from upstairs bedroom to the street lamp. See the line intersects the pitched roofline very well and also clips the edges of the tree, which in winter will be greenless
Thanks
standing in Rowley close just a street out the back , following the direction of view back to the viewing property
overhead shot of the line of sight from upstairs bedroom to the street lamp. See the line intersects the pitched roofline very well and also clips the edges of the tree, which in winter will be greenless
Thanks
hey @AndyC & welcome. That streetlight certainly could be an option. I had noticed the leaves and branches moving in front of it too. What are your thoughts on the colour? Streetlights in the UK are normally yellow but this one appears bright white. And of course ths was nearly 25 years so things may have been different then.
Hi. Not given thought to any colours as prob too hard a route to go down. The lamp has a diffuser as normal , and he may not be in view of the actual bulb but seeing the top part of the diffuser. Another thing that seemed strange is that on one of Jimmy's pics in daylight looking at the same view, you can see the ridge tiles of the right most roof and if you look along in the same place it should be ridge tile colour or the colour of the hill fauna behind, but there is a sliver of light colour which looks out of place. I think this is the back cover of the light which is painted a light colour, but the height of this view is lower than the nighttime shots so that is why only a sliver shows. If he was upstairs in daylight I suspect it may of shown a good view of what we suspect.
Jimmy has got the whole idea of what went down completely about face plus he has sliced and diced parts of the video to wrong parts of the interview. To answer this main point , we don't see the vid clip of the upstairs shot after plugging in the camera in the first presentation even though Rich talks about filming upstairs for 5 -10 mins. Why did Jimmy take it out? And why did Jimmy link to a different night fiming with the bedroom clock is talked about ? The upstairs on the first night can only be seen on the unedited file at 2:27 to 2:37 , just 10 seconds. Dave comes upstairs and says Come back ? to Rich , prob because Dave wants to go down the pub as was planned. Rich then says in the interview, "There was no more filming that night "!
Plus at no point does Rich ever say there was 3 consecutive nights of filming. Again something Jimmy has got wrong.
It definitly looks like the "Venus & Stars" section was recorded over the 'possible streetlight' section, there is around a 9min jump on the on screen Date & Time code, with around a 9min section inbetween. I can only assume the slight mismatch in time is due to a mismatch in the replay speed of the original VHS and the modern digital resampled video.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
Re: The color temperature of streetlights in the UK.
This photo is from 2018 in Glasgow, Scotland.
https://secretscotland.wordpress.com/tag/fluorescent-street-lights/
The white lamp is fluorescent while the yellow one is sodium vapor.
The blog post notes that the fluorescent type is actually older than the sodium type but the author was seeing more and more fluorescent types lately - and speculates that old stock was being used. But not that old.
So a fluorescent bulb - or bulbs - in use at the time the UFO videos were produced seems to be an ordinary possibility.
More photos
Although fluorescents have a sickly greenish cast on daylight balanced film, these digital photos show only a hint of a greenish cast. Of course the digital camera may compensate - I don't know. Exposure levels would have an effect also, with the greenish cast more evident when the image of the lamp is dimmer.
Lastly, for some time fluorescents have been produced with different color temperatures. That must come down to the type of phosphors used. It would make sense to use a "daylight" fluorescent - say 5000 K - in a street lamp. I don't know if they were produced at the time of the UFO video. Probably.
This photo is from 2018 in Glasgow, Scotland.
https://secretscotland.wordpress.com/tag/fluorescent-street-lights/
The white lamp is fluorescent while the yellow one is sodium vapor.
The blog post notes that the fluorescent type is actually older than the sodium type but the author was seeing more and more fluorescent types lately - and speculates that old stock was being used. But not that old.
So a fluorescent bulb - or bulbs - in use at the time the UFO videos were produced seems to be an ordinary possibility.
More photos
Although fluorescents have a sickly greenish cast on daylight balanced film, these digital photos show only a hint of a greenish cast. Of course the digital camera may compensate - I don't know. Exposure levels would have an effect also, with the greenish cast more evident when the image of the lamp is dimmer.
Lastly, for some time fluorescents have been produced with different color temperatures. That must come down to the type of phosphors used. It would make sense to use a "daylight" fluorescent - say 5000 K - in a street lamp. I don't know if they were produced at the time of the UFO video. Probably.
Last edited:
I've tried to use Google Earth to model @AndyC's hypothesis that the white light could be the streetlight in Rowley Close. It does seem to be in spot very close to the position of the 'orb'. I might see if I can improve the model to show the pitch of the bungalow's roof.
To get a functional occluding equivalent (i.e. something that will hide what is behind it the same as a sloped peaked roof), add a two point polygon for each ridgeline, like:
Use a two point polygon and not a line, as the line will tilt with the ground. A two point polygon will stay parallel to the roof.
Attached kmz does not have the height adjusted.
@UAPF is still banging on about this case on X and the irrelevance of Sitrec. His claim seems to be that the UAP that we showed was Venus couldn't be Venus because another light (possibly a streetlight) definitely wasn't Venus. How do people even come up with logic like this?
Source: https://x.com/UAPFilesPodcast/status/1927708227858321705
The debunk of the investigation on here is summarised in this substack article
Yet again this is just low effort, wishful thinking, a 'sticking fingers in ears la la la' mentality when faced with correlating objective analysis.
The suggestion that we (the debunkers) are 'defending the known' is a strange position to take. It's the rational position to take. Everyone initially assess what they see relative to what they know. Some people either don't put much effort in this assessment, or have little experience to compare against - and then declare their experience to be unidentified, anomalous and unidentifiable . Others, like us, test against everything we know and don't know, often stumbling into answers that we (and the original witnesses) didn't know were there - like the street light in this example.
The article and posts from @UAPF here capture the UAP topic as a whole - sensational & lazy investigations that highlight ambiguity with the aim to propose anomalous explanations, in order to perpetuate the mystery and promote the woo.
Source: https://x.com/UAPFilesPodcast/status/1927708227858321705
The debunk of the investigation on here is summarised in this substack article
https://uapf.substack.com/p/capture...ge?r=3avcjy&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
Yet again this is just low effort, wishful thinking, a 'sticking fingers in ears la la la' mentality when faced with correlating objective analysis.
The suggestion that we (the debunkers) are 'defending the known' is a strange position to take. It's the rational position to take. Everyone initially assess what they see relative to what they know. Some people either don't put much effort in this assessment, or have little experience to compare against - and then declare their experience to be unidentified, anomalous and unidentifiable . Others, like us, test against everything we know and don't know, often stumbling into answers that we (and the original witnesses) didn't know were there - like the street light in this example.
The article and posts from @UAPF here capture the UAP topic as a whole - sensational & lazy investigations that highlight ambiguity with the aim to propose anomalous explanations, in order to perpetuate the mystery and promote the woo.
Last edited:
elvenwear
Senior Member.
I think the real value of sitrec is not for those who are unpersuadable, but the large number of people who were swayed by gimbal, gofast and flir because they were curated by respected media sources and who are rational.
Mendel
Senior Member.
The opposite position would be "defending the unknown": it'd be insisting that we don't know what something is, even as others have explained what it is. It's kinda the opposite of Occam's razor, where some convoluted explanation is preferred because it's more exciting and has aliens in it. (Unfortunately, we don't have a catchy name for that principle. Perhaps we should name it "Zondo's beard".
)Article: Debunkers have it easy these days. With apps like Stellarium, FlightRadar24, and Satellite Tracker 3D, it's a doddle to pluck out a conventional explanation. And, to be fair, quite often, there is one.
The trouble is, if you start with the assumption that something must be conventional, prosaic, or man-made, and work backwards, you'll always end up at conventional, prosaic, or man-made. Even when the witness testimony—a rather important datapoint, you'd think—suggests otherwise.
If something doesn't exist (in your opinion, or theirs), then it can never be the explanation. Non-human? Out of the question. And with somewhere between eight and ten thousand satellites overhead, five thousand stars visible on a good night, and about nine thousand commercial aircraft buzzing around at any given moment, it's always going to be tempting to point at one of those. Because there will almost always be one of those in that general direction.
And, sometimes, it will be one of those. Of course.
• "you'll always end up at conventional, prosaic, or man-made" — this is not true. Many cases remain unexplained, though few are unexplainable; usually when we lack data.
• "the witness testimony—a rather important datapoint, you'd think" — there are many documented instances of witnesses being wrong, even in court cases when nothing supernatural is involved; that's just human psychology: we're not recording machines, and our recollection is malleable. We have many cases of contradictory witness statements in UFO cases, with UFO believers cherry-picking the testimony that best suits them. Witness testimony is never a data point: data is data, human memory is not, even with the witness's best intentions.
• "If something doesn't exist [..], then it can never be the explanation" — yes, because "I don't know" is not an explanation! "It's magic" is not an explanation, it's the lack of an explanation.
• "Non-human? Out of the question." — We have had several cases with non-human explanations. Unfortunately, UFO believers are not happy when we think it's birds or a butterfly.
• "Because there will almost always be one of those in that general direction." — and here is where sitrec shines most, because it pinpoints the exact direction and the exact motion of the satellite, which it can match exactly to a properly identified video, with regular success.
With sitrec, we can reconstruct where a streetlight or Venus would have been 25 years ago, and if that matches the video, we know what it is.
Even if there's always someone who won't accept that. Of course.
The funny thing about this case is that the witness said that the sighting was in the Summer, but Jimmy @UAPF disregarded this bit of witness testimony whenever they found some evidence (an MoD UFO report from the same area) that suggested it was in December. He then showed this to the witness and eventually convinced them that they were wrong and that the sighting was indeed December. It would appear that for UFO fans that the witness testimony is only "a rather important data point" when it suits.
Exactly. it's not just any satellite or any pass of the ISS - it's the exact one in the exact part of the sky at the exact same time the witness saw it.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Recalling the details:
From uapf.substack: "Because there will almost always be one of those in that general direction." Or at least the general area.
Edit:
I forgot about this:
You can't make this up.
Last edited:
FatPhil
Senior Member.
And his acolytes would be the men who stare at Zondo's goatie?The opposite position would be "defending the unknown": it'd be insisting that we don't know what something is, even as others have explained what it is. It's kinda the opposite of Occam's razor, where some convoluted explanation is preferred because it's more exciting and has aliens in it. (Unfortunately, we don't have a catchy name for that principle. Perhaps we should name it "Zondo's beard".
John J.
Senior Member.
https://uapf.substack.com/p/capture...ge?r=3avcjy&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=trueExternal Quote:
To re-phrase it a bit more in line with how many people here might think of things,
"If you start with the assumption that something might be conventional, prosaic, or man-made, and look at the evidence, you'll often end up with a conventional, prosaic or man-made explanation.
Because that is what the evidence suggests."
We could add,
"If you start with the assumption that something might be unconventional, anomalous, or caused by non-human intelligence, and look at the evidence with impartiality and rigour, you will also often end up with a conventional, prosaic or man-made explanation,
because that is what the evidence suggests.
If you start with the assumption that something might be unconventional, anomalous, or caused by non-human intelligence, accept questionable confirmatory evidence without testing it while ignoring testable and/or more likely counter evidence,
you might end up with an unconventional, anomalous, or caused by non-human intelligence explanation.
Because that is what you want."
In the latter case, you'd also likely be causing something similar to type 1 experimental error, and not learning anything reliable, repeatable, new or true about the real universe that we inhabit.
Because he'd had a couple of beers with his mate as per the video where he says he was going out to have a couple of beers. It's illegal to drink and drive.
If you think that most of us are about making money, and not a genuine passion, then you need to run the figures. I'll show you exactly how much the videos made (attached) and then run some sums. I'm an electrical engineer by trade (I had two days off work filming and editing and analysing these clips) I'm paid £24 an hour in my day job. YouTube isn't a day job fyi.
I drove to Staffordshire to collect the footage (fuel). I then drove to Nottinghamshire another day to hand the footage and have it analysed and digitised by Peter Osborne (fuel).
Then drive again to Peter in Nottinghamshire to film with him for the docu (fuel).
I then spent many hours editing and realised my editing software wasn't powerful enough to take the 4K footage I'd recorded in my first ever mini-documentary. So I had to buy professional software, learn to use it (handed the shocking colour and audio from my talking head clips) oh and the Sony A7iii which I bought to film it on with all the accessories, lighting and sound it (at least £3k).
YouTube earnings £174.10p (before 40% tax deducted) £104.46p
Lost earnings from day job £576
Plus all the kit, but let's ignore that.
Accuracy matters, right?
You say that those guys in the believer side, or more specifically, YouTubers in the UFO space are click and money orientated, but the reality is they're almost all losing significant amounts of money with their time. Run the figures and it's not even close to UK minimum wage. A tiny tiny group of podcasters are making enough to do this fulltime. I'm not one of them.
And the reason people block or disengage isn't because they can't handle truth, or different opinions, it's rudeness and incivility. I've unblocked Flarkey and am prepared to start again. Less name calling please.
Attachments
John J.
Senior Member.
I guess doing out of your way to personally follow up a claimed sighting is commendable, and I'm sure it left you out of pocket.
But it must be frustrating to realise the claimant was probably filming Venus and a streetlight.
Dramatic hook aside, it's hard to see this as "The Most Important Case Yet".
But it must be frustrating to realise the claimant was probably filming Venus and a streetlight.
Dramatic hook aside, it's hard to see this as "The Most Important Case Yet".
Reading through the thread, I thought it had now been suggested it's a streetlight, not Venus? It's wasn't frustrating at all. I've enjoyed every minute of it. Losing money isn't of that much concern as I'm doing ok in my day job. I do feel for those less fortunate than me who haven't got a day job like mine. Or a day job at all. This is why I'm happy to share the funding side of YouTubing/content creating, because there are misunderstandings about how my peers are grifting, rather than just really interested people who would kind of like those who enjoy watching their videos to help cover just the basics of running these accounts. Which many of them are. They tune in, they enjoy the mystery and as a result YouTube pays a couple of pounds in ad revenue share. Doesn't actually hurt anyone. We all just press skip anyway. I pay well over a thousand pounds a year just for all the subscriptions to record remotely, edit and host. I'm not even monitised on Spotify and actually have to pay them to host my podcast. I wasn't monetised for the first year of the podcast. So I do hope that provides some context.
The reason many disengage is because the witness testimony is usually disregarded. Times and or dates are shifted slightly to match mundane objects. And on those objects, we often do not have altitude data to make solid assumptions. There are stars and satellites virtually everywhere in the sky, so pointing to one seems premature. Sure there could be a planet or a Starlink in that direction, but how do you know nothing is in between them? That tends to be the contentious point that we separate.
This is why people often disengage with many of you guys. Because of the way you communicate such certainty. On the flip side we generally communicate a sense of "unknowing": I don't know what XYZ is, its unidentified". That's quite different from: "it's the ISS, the ISS was in the sky, resolved".
It may not be intentional, but it comes across as disingenuous, arguing in bad faith, or just one-up-manship. Who's got the bigger brain etc.
So, let's clarify, are you saying now the 58 minute footage is Venus, or a streetlight?
Not quite. The witness testimony is not "disregarded" as you suggest - it is examined in detail and tested to see if it correlates with other data points. Just like in this case when Richard said the UAP sighting occurred on a warm summer evening, but you checked the MoD archives and convinced him that a recorded sighting in Rugeley was his and it was actually in December. Does that mean you "disregarded witness testimony" too? No, it means that sometimes witnesses get it wrong and we have to check what they say if we are to investigate these things properly.
It is disregarded multiple times because,
You've disregarded the conversation we had on camera and the fact he reported the sighting and it's documented the time and date and location in the archive. And he agreed. I didn't force him to agree, I asked him again. And with the added data of his report that he made, it clarifies it. Some would say that's actually good work. Forgetting what time of year it was 25 years ago is not a solid data point. Can you remember the temperature on a particular day of note 25 years ago? We have to apply humility.
hey, I agree with you. you did the right thing. the sighting probably was in December. You didn't disregard his testimony. You checked it and found data that suggested the date was otherwise.
And that is what we do. We don't disregard testimony - we check it. Sometimes it is validated, sometimes it isn't.
Mendel
Senior Member.
UFO tale tellers do this as well. That's why hard data is needed—nowadays, meaning original files and metadata and hope that the camera was set correctly. We also use stars, if visible, to check on time/date.
If there is no hard data, we must always take into account that the witness may misremember.
The interesting bit on this case is that we're about 90 degrees off the direction you wrote the witness was looking.
Starlink flares are in a very specific piece of sky, and they're not always visible. But they're also distictive.
Venus has a long track record of being misidentified.
The UFOs can't always be between the known bright object and the observer.
Which is why we recommend professional observers use two cameras with a sufficiently long baseline, so that distance determinations can be made.
But we have different parameters. If I was so inclined, as with the Richard Fawcett's case, I could easily point to Venus. Because most cases don't have that level of data involved. But how has that helped anything other than my own sense of achievement? We don't know the altitude of that object. Is it 240 million ish kilometres away like Venus, or 200 ish meters away like the street lamp? What altitude is it? Neither of us know. So we're not really resolving the case. What we're doing, or I should say what you're doing. Is sleeting from a tool box filled with conventional explanations that are close enough and applying them as a formal resolution. And hay, thats fine if it's to your own satisfaction, but my issue with that is Metabunk being used to fact check on Community Notes. Because then it feeds the LLMs and it becomes "truth" rather than the opinion of an anonymous forum member.
And as we've seen with this case, it's far more difficult to identify than that. And had I not released that "Part 2" the whole case would have been "probably Venus". If it were a big case, that would have made it to Community Notes. And then Grokipedia. And now it's historical fact. That's problematic.
Back to your point, if I start with something unconventional. You assume that I do. I really don't. I have an auto-reply set up on IG directing people to all kinds of apps to try and resolve first. Sometimes it is an exact match and peoples just want a second opinion, so it filters out the hundreds of submissions every week. Then what's left is people with incredible physical eyeball experiences…who also managed to capture footage. So that's the place that I start. And often I don't use the footage because it doesn't display anything of value.
Lastly, we also have to accept that this is a unique situation. Unlike other "conspiracies" this has thousands of credible eye witnesses, very senior people (in a position to know) saying this is a very real phenomenon. Congressional hearings and legislation drafted. Documentaries with dozens and dozens of very recent former intellegence and current administration members saying this stuff is real. The Whitehouse press briefing saying UAP have interfered with military readiness. FLIR and radar footage. Decades old documents and peer-reviewed (recent) papers. And not just transients, there are other less known papers. And not just in the USA, but all over the world. Toss in to the mix secret tech being developed by various countries and it becomes a very very unique situation to start with.
It's quite different from Bigfoot or flat earth. So that's where I start from. Anything is possible, not "only what we know about is possible".
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Ahh, I see an omitted word that might have obscured my meaning, I have added it in bold italic above
Last edited:
You've made a few posts there, but to reply to a couple…we can ask observers to record from more than one position, but right now most just have a selfie calibrated mobile phone. There are people doing this and using multiple sensors. The Tedesco's are and have a peer-reviewed paper out. Check them out if you haven't already.
Agreed metadata helps and I try and obtain that and anything else I can. Plus I find the interviews very useful and very few are doing that. They just share footage with zero context which frustrates me too.
But we'll keep coming back to these resolutions will only be as good as the trajectory/altitude data which you'll hardly ever have from everyday people using every day sensors out walking the dog or in their back garden. And there are Starlink everywhere, but many of the sightings "feel" closer to witnesses and the Tedesco's proved that some of their objects were a lot closer. What are the chances that there was a Starlink or two 300 miles behind that object? We don't know, so we're guessing we've calibrated our "test" parameters.
Mauro
Senior Member.
Anything which is not logically forbidden is possible, that's sure. It being probable, is another matter.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Then, if that were to be the case, I'd suggest, this is really worthless as evidence. A distant light to which we can't estimate the distance to the nearest 120 million miles would be meaningless as evidence of, say, aliens flying around in Earth's atmosphere!
On the other hand, if it is right where Venus is supposed to be and Venus it not otherwise in the shot, then we can estimate it pretty closely by looking up how far away Venus was that night.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/news-nation-light-in-the-sky-video-tedesco-brothers.13684/
A long thread, but illuminating...
John J.
Senior Member.
Almost everything posted on the internet might end up feeding LLMs. No figures to quote, but I'd guess there's much more internet content posted by "team believer" than "team sceptic".
As it happens, I dislike LLMs and most widely accessible AI applications. They're environmentally disastrous, they make their owners wealthy through the copying of other people's work/ creativity, which usually goes uncompensated, and they're unreliable sources of information.
I wouldn't encourage anyone to base their views on AI summaries, but I guess that battle's already lost.
Mendel
Senior Member.
What we do not have is evidence.
Credible people can be mistaken (and often are).
As we often find when we check the evidence.
Or we find that people's convictions come from being briefed by believers. One of the witnesses cited, a retired minister I think, made claims and got quoted by believers who thought he had inside knowledge. Turns out, he just read a book on UFOs and believed it.
Look for evidence.
That's where we disagree.
Could the man in front of you in the supermarket checkout line be a lizard person? Anything is possible!
But the fact that there's a man there is not evidence that lizard people exist. Because he can just be a human doing his shopping, and that explains the evidence.
Can we be sure? We haven't done a CT scan. If it's an alien robot, it might spoof a CT scan to hide its internals, right? Anything is possible.
But we're not concerned with the possible, because imagination is the limit for that. We're concerned with the explainable. We're not going to start believing in lizard people because they're possible (and because we've watched a TV series in the 80s), we'll believe it when we see evidence that cannot be otherwise explained.
The double slit experiment advanced science because it could not be otherwise explained. (I think we still don't know how fields work.)
So when someone sees a light in the sky, and it's possible that it's Venus, then that's where our journey ends. Because now we know something is possible that we know exists, and that's not exciting. That's the debunk.
You can still say "it might be a UFO/aliens/NIH", but you're now in the "it's a lizard man" position with insufficient evidence.
Could the Navy videos show "flying saucer" UFOs? Sure.
Could they show something mundane? Definitely, they probably do.
The fact that people are still talking about them is either because they do not understand the latter, or because they want to believe in the former.
As long as you're saying "there could've been a UFO directly between the video camera and flight 1168 to New York", you're in the "I want to believe" group.
we know where the flares are, and they are not "everywhere". They are towards the sun, at a specific angle, which narrows their position to a sun-sized spot in the sky at any specific time, if they're visible at all. Sitrec predicts where it is.
and research has shown that we suck at judging distances when we don't have scenery for reference.
no, they didn't.
They didn't have the radar going for their light in the sky in the one paper, and they never got pictures of the radar glitches in the other paper.
Last edited:
Forgive me for paraphrasing this, but I think the point @UAPF is trying to make here is "there's lots of weird stuff in the sky that people cant identify - lets share and talk about it!" - and that's where his channel and podcast lives, along with many others.
But where this forum lives is "there's lots of mundane stuff in the sky, and maybe some weird stuff too, that people cant (or fail to) identify - lets help them identify them if we can!". We're living in a very small space, perhaps with Sneezing Monkey, Brian Dunning and AARO.
Even if we disagree on the first point, I think we can agree that there is indeed "lots of mundane stuff in the sky that people cant (or fail to) identify". I do find it strange that there is such resistance to resolving misidentifications and identifications. If I'm wrong about something I'd like to know so that I can then change my position. But I guess that people just don't like to discover that they were mistaken, and they do like to hold onto the hope that they saw something special. It is a shame that so many people view UAP resolutions with such hostility.
And yes, saying a sighting is 'debunked' or 'resolved' doesnt mean it it is 100% identified as the thing we say. But if its 50%, 75% or even 99% probably identified, it doesn't mean that the remaining 1% is something extraordinary. Like @Mendel said - holding onto that remaining 1% as evidence that the man in the supermarket is a lizard is just irrational.
Last edited:
FatPhil
Senior Member.
This doesn't address the "still" part, but if you're aligned with Feynman, you're on solid ground:
-- https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_01.htmlExternal Quote:
One can say it "depends on what interpretation of quantum mechanics you prefer", but I agree with Mermin's interpretation of the "shut up" in the Feynman-aligned "shut up and calculate" (a saying of which he was probably the originator):
-- https://physicstoday.aip.org/opinion/could-feynman-have-said-thisExternal Quote:
Mendel
Senior Member.
I didn't say it's irrational. What people believe depends on a background we don't necessarily share, and it may make sense in that context.
My point is that we're not in the business of looking at a photo of a man and saying, "that's not a lizard person". We look at it, say "looks like human, what you thought looked strange is a trick of the light, here's how that works". We're not examining the possibility that it's something strange at all.
So they end up saying, "could be a lizard", and we say "looks 100% like human [explained]", and then people can choose. We obviously hope they'll follow the evidence.
But that also means we often don't prove it's not paranormal. (We do strive to identify stuff, and often succeed, usually in cases where we have inpendent data on what's in the picture.) E.g. for GIMBAL, I can't tell you what it shows, except that it fits a jet at 30nm distance, with glare, and a rotating spike likely caused by a scratch on the rotating optics (there's a camera bump each time the rotation starts). So we're 100% on the mundane explanation.
Do we know it's a distant jet or a distant UFO? Well, it looks like one—same as the man in the supermarket looks like a human.
That's all we do.
We show "looks normal".
The other side has to make their own case for "looks like a lizard person". Which is admittedly difficult, because nobody knows how to recognize one.
On our side, we have evidence.
On the other side, we have a lot of people saying to each other, "sure looks like a UFO, doesn't it?"
deirdre
Senior Member
The "debunk" is based on the specific claim.
If the claim/implied claim (or video title) is along the lines of " This is proof of extraterrestrials". Then the debunk just has to show reasonable doubt, to show that it is not actually proof of extraterrestrails as it seems to be something mundane.
"Solved" is for those situations where the exact plane has been identified 100%, or starlink has been lined up at a known time and date. The Klein video for example has been 100% solved as we know the exact time and date from metadata and the viewing angle. ( i know you want more proof of the viewing angle, as you think others cant see what angle you would need to view the tree, but i know it's solved because i can understand the viewing angle. plus i literally filmed, twice, the entire road from the claimed angle and the view doesnt exist from the claimed angle. and it also jives with the known viewing angle of the earlier documented cases at that same location.. which is just supporting evidence and not really necessary for this klein case.)
*note that i say the Kelin VIDEO is solved, not the "klein sighting" because if we want to believe his whole story, the plane wouldnt explain lights coming up behind him..because of the angle his car would have been in before he stopped to film. of course assuming from the first pull off area..i dont see how any lights could come up behind him as the landscape isnt conducive to that aliens or not! i think he is misremembering that part.)
ex i dont personally think the recent plane we had in the "Geolocate Thread" is 'resolved' or solved, because i personally dont believe the orange would wash out completely from the engines (although i guess they could be new not painted yet engines on that plane)... so for iffy things without good metadata of timestamps, there will probably always be "agree to disagree" situations.
I do think some debunkers (not saying you flarkey, as i dont use twitter) tend to be overly confident in conclusions at times. I do think some debunkers want to believe as much as the UFO guys, and will latch onto any explanation. I personally have never seen you, flarkey, do this on MB.
Last edited:
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
What orange from the engines?
deirdre
Senior Member
From the Geolocate Thread.. not the klein case. ill edit my comment to make that more clear!
Similar threads
