Search results

Tricky to follow this thread with all these deleted twitter things. Oh well, never mind, carry on.

He does not want to find truth or anything. For reasons I am not going to write up, but obviously he does not want this train to stop.

The system is analogous to the effect (electro)magnetism. Here the object gets equally charged and thus repels from the generator, and after some distance the force will be reduced to 0. So, not much use rather than to demonstrate "floating" objects. You can achieve the same with magnets...

From @flarkey 's post, quote from the pilot: Why do pilots seem to have the habit to make things up? I don't get it.

There is. The aperture/iris has to be small (F/large) to be able to create a large Depth of Focus.

Textbook debunk, great stuff.

Eh, what? I am not sure what Corbell is going on about.. ...

"Weaponized" was uploaded on the 13th of March, is that footage not recent? Confusing..

For some reason they all think the lights must go in a circular-racetrack motion. Strange to think that way, but they (pilots) all seem to do so.

Optical blur can be caused by a number of things, like slight defocus, dirty lenses, etc. But, when designed right, an IR objective, which is in many cases based on mirrors, can make images just as sharp as in VIS. The different tech image sensor for (far) IR is causing the problem of "blur".

Agreeing with @JimJam, looks very much like spotlights pointed up, sweeping the sky/clouds.

Although 100% camera reflection effects, the only remaining "issue" is that the first picture from OP is not showing similar camera effects. I am pretty sure it must be because of the angle(s) but cannot completely explain it (or images being cropped?)

Common sense that they are "the result of a thrust vector control of a vehicle using thrust as a means of propulsion"? Jumping to conclusions..

Don't know. I was just referring the mentioning of LIDAR being used.

I always thought most (google) topography maps were made by using photogrammetry techniques.

So, any update from Ross? I clearly remember he said, a long time ago, "we will see evidence of ufos very soon". I guess "soon" is Australian for "in the next century or so". :D

So far the most compelling evidence I have seen now is pointing towards a rather passive bunch of balloons. No need for temperature inversions or IR jamming or whatever..

I think this thread is getting too much off topic.

"could potentially represent proof that this object is displaying some advanced technology." Hmm, you know that just means the same as fantasy, magic, right?

Thanks. Things can look rather strange in the thermal range, I can imagine a bunch of mylar balloons might not be very recognisable.