Search results

Did you ever demonstrate this?

That the "object" is glare. You've seen my video. There's a huge weight of evidence. A LIZ noisy-data puzzle does not override all of that.

Like a big balloon? Surely that's a subset of a broader "nearby object" theory? In all seriousness, perhaps we need a hierarchical taxonomy of theories? And then a ranked list? And are you saying that a theory should get a high ranking if it matches what the pilots were reported as saying...

There are two theories, and it's a mistake to conflate them. 1) The Glare Theory - which I think is very well demonstrated, and does not rely on the distant plane theory. 2) The Distant Plane Theory - Where there's a set of possible traversals at a certain distance that make good physical...

I meant: strange, quirky, incomprehensible. Theories that look halfway reasonable, but are based on unstated complex assumptions. Once those assumptions come out, the theory just seems unsustainable. But it LOOKS good. Triangulation is a good example.

I think those are more hypotheses than data. Triangulation, for example, rested on a heap of assumptions and seemed like something AI spat out without really understanding all the variables. Your continued insistence on its validity was, IIRC, what led to you getting suspended for a while...

But they are all thing actively being discussed here, not settled facts.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk_cuDp3pY4 I've not watched it in full, but it seems to be Marik summarizing his old arguments from years ago, and adding in the odd theories from @Zaine M. from https://www.metabunk.org/threads/some-refinements-to-the-gimbal-sim.12590/ (and maybe...

Lining up the city lights on a video a couple of minutes after that one: https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=1/KM with target/20260413_172430.js Some reasonable matches. I am getting a lot more flares in the sim. I'd really like to get some good ground-truth videos I can calibrate this...

I think does narrow it down to the second plane, N440JA (or similar time). As the starlinks are too far to the East for the AA. With this one, I set a target to keep that town (Jonesboro) in view, and you can scrub through to see how things (the three stars, the city lights, the starlinks)...

I found the ground lights in one video: https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=1/KM Ground/20260413_170859.js It could be either plane, and there's a range of points along the tracks that will look similar, but it narrows things down.

She didn't even post it on X. That was TMZ.

That's not entirely missing. There's the FOV editor. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/sitrec-2-10-1-fov-editor.14568/ But no keyframing direction yet.

And Musgraves' "sick burn" (as UFOTwitter describes it) is not really a problem, as now 750K people have seen the real explanation, which is probably 20x the people who would have seen it before. I didn't reply, as it's just silly. Also, I think she's deep into spiritual and esoteric stuff, so...

To the subject ot this thread, I used Help/ADSB Replay for this time and Location. But this is particularly challenging, as we have contrails, but not planes. The contrails are only forming in particular region/altitude of the sky. So basically I picked all the planes that were flying away...

https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=1/Gidd%20Cross%20with%20Wind/20260412_175020.js The time was displayed as 20:42 GMT, but it's actually BST (based on where Venus is), Then there are two planes that you can get the contrails (white) to line up with the wind, even though the tracks...

Minor point, the first link is the most accurate (GPS altitude), but sometimes not available, and you just get an empty file. The second one attempts to calculate the first one using magic and is generally the best bet. The third link (altitude derived from air pressure) is always available, but...

Hmm, I don't think there is a good one that I can recall. I need to make one.

Kacey's reaction: Source: https://x.com/KaceyMusgraves/status/2043087174006911318

I think the headline here should be that this new paper seems to prove the null hypotheses. As it says A Bruehl-style calendar-day comparison gives a descriptive post-test asymmetry (RR = 1.35, 95% CI [0.91, 2.00]), but that statistic is tied to the survey schedule in our dataset. A negative...