FatPhil
Senior Member.
Nothing about Lue is a believable character. The pilot was perhaps created in his own image.
Four Corners - Large Disk Seen From Private Plane at FL210 [Irrigation Circles]
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
That might be a good point. Even if one "sees" the illusion of a flying saucer in the photo, once crop circles are mentioned, it becomes obvious. And if it is a crop circle photographed from the air, it can probably be found. Within hours it turned out. It seems a fool's errand to go public with this.
However, I think many of these folks operate in an echo chamber. Elizondo was part of group that included Mellon, Gallaudet, Davis and others presenting to people like congressperson Luna. Next week Elizondo will be presenting with Knapp and Corbel, as well as a woman that claims Billy Miere was really talking to aliens.
For all of these people, the notion that aliens are real, have been visiting earth and the government has been systematically covering it up is their de facto starting point. It's how the world works. There are aliens and alien craft everywhere. And they all reenforce this to each other. They understand the debunking community is out there, but as you say, some of them may be a naive about what can actually be solved, because they don't think that way.
They look at a UFO photo and think that could be an alien craft, because they know there are lots of alien craft flying around. Even if they thought it might be crop circles, they don't look at and think, can I find that crop circle somewhere on Google maps. They may have intended to show the photo as an example of what a pilot claimed to have seen, then see how it plays out. If people thought it was flying saucer, so be it. If it might be crop circles, I imagine they would have come out and said something like: "After analyzing this photo, we believe it could be circle crops, but it's not certain. This is why we need a civilian reporting program to look into things like this".
They don't envision a bunch of "geo-locater nuts" staring at their screens and literally looking at every single circle crop across the west. In their naivete, they lost control of the narrative within hours.
MyMatesBrainwashed
Senior Member
I would absolutely love to go just to keep asking "IS THAT VETTED?" at anything presented.
Giddierone
Senior Member.
So here's a question. Yes, the satellite image and Elizondo's image have differences — they also have a lot of similarities which coincide with an image that was supposed to be taken 5 years later. But, like with the Pyromania stock footage [see #658] can you get the right hand image from the left hand image with minimal work? (note you can simulate the valley shadows and add them as a layer using Copernicus Browser's Sun Tool, as well as airbrushing). Bare in mind we don't know anything about Elizondo's image or where the noise in it comes from.
Gary C
Senior Member.
I quite like the tabular format here. Record each discrete claim in the original report, its current state of bunk, and any changes introduced during interaction with the claimant.
Ann K
Senior Member.
I don't think that's a word ...but it ought to be!
FatPhil
Senior Member.
I haven't seen Mick retract his original "When I did it in Sitrec it matched fine with a plane at 21,000 feet" yet. Given that all the terms I can imagine being relevant to the maths would skip alternate powers of the relevant variable, and we're taking ratios (the foreshortening effect), I would be surprised that a difference of a factor of a sixth in such an input would lead to a difference much larger than a thirty-sixth in the output. (And, given that sin(x)~=x-x^3/3!, possibly closer to 1/216 than 1/36.) So unless you can prove otherwise, I don't think distinguishing between 18kft and 21kft is productive.
MyMatesBrainwashed
Senior Member
Rather than screenshot off Google earth, could it be from an airplane that was capturing data for Google?
We refer to them as satellite images but they aren't all images taken by satellites.
I'm assuming Google uses private pilots with cameras outside of the aircraft.
We refer to them as satellite images but they aren't all images taken by satellites.
I'm assuming Google uses private pilots with cameras outside of the aircraft.
I don't believe they shoot their own aerial imagery, but any given view should have a Data Attribution link to view the provider:
Though it's looser as you zoom out, since clearly some of these sources are not providing mid-continent photography -- though "Airbus" here most likely refers to Airbus Space Digital satellite photography, and not random jetliners:
Giddierone
Senior Member.
It's not a Google Earth screenshot, it's the ground image from Copernicus Browser that I've matched to the Elizondo photo. I'm working on the assumption that if it's a hoaxed image it's one composited from publicly available imagery.
Giddierone
Senior Member.
Or you could use your own eyes and toggle the camera altitude between each one and consider which best fits Elizondo's photo.
elvenwear
Senior Member
It isn't. If people continue to use it, it may one day be consecrated by Rosicrucians in a secret ceremony and become a real world. Glad you noticed. You're not the first person who agrees it ought to be a word.I don't think that's a word ...but it ought to be!
Giddierone
Senior Member.
We've adopted "Injustidy" in our house. As in "oh, the injustidy!" to mean when someone does something both audacious and unfair.I don't think that's a word ...but it ought to be!
elvenwear
Senior Member
When you look at
If we attempt to make the most charitable assessment:
Points 1, 6, 8, 10 can be attributed to Lue allowing the pilot to be anonymous.
Points 3 can be put down to a rounding error.
Point 7 is forgivable as it is likely an estimate from a plane and is in the correct order of magnitude.
Points 2 and 9 are a little more problematic. It is possible a pilot could misremember something from several years ago, but the gimbal video was released in 2020. Lue was a big public face in 2020. These videos were on the news throughout 2020-21. What would the pilot have been thinking in 2020-2021 when these stories were all over the news? Would they have been thinking, I took a photo 3-4 years ago that was really interesting? If a pilot did take this in 2017 or earlier, it's hard to understand why they would say the photo was taken in 2021.
Point 5 is even more problematic. It is most probably a digital photograph, meaning it was originally in colour. The photo appears to be desaturated or a black and white print. So how did Lue come to be in possession of this print where there was likely information stripped from it? Was he or the pilot responsible for the condition of the photograph? If Lue saw the original colour photo, it's hard to see how he wouldn't have noticed both circles were likely coloured as fields. If Lue was presented with the faded version (whether original or doctored), it's hard to see how he wouldn't have asked for the original full colour version of the photo or asked why the quality was so bad. So either his integrity or his credibility need to take a hit.
Additionally, to return to points 2 and 9, we have a similar problem. Was Lue or was Lue not in possession of the original digital image? If so, why would he have not looked at the metadata? Was the metadata stripped from the file? Would this not have raised it's own questions?
The most charitable reading of this data points to grotesque incompetence on behalf of Lue.
Excellent work. This gives great clarity.
If we attempt to make the most charitable assessment:
Points 1, 6, 8, 10 can be attributed to Lue allowing the pilot to be anonymous.
Points 3 can be put down to a rounding error.
Point 7 is forgivable as it is likely an estimate from a plane and is in the correct order of magnitude.
Points 2 and 9 are a little more problematic. It is possible a pilot could misremember something from several years ago, but the gimbal video was released in 2020. Lue was a big public face in 2020. These videos were on the news throughout 2020-21. What would the pilot have been thinking in 2020-2021 when these stories were all over the news? Would they have been thinking, I took a photo 3-4 years ago that was really interesting? If a pilot did take this in 2017 or earlier, it's hard to understand why they would say the photo was taken in 2021.
Point 5 is even more problematic. It is most probably a digital photograph, meaning it was originally in colour. The photo appears to be desaturated or a black and white print. So how did Lue come to be in possession of this print where there was likely information stripped from it? Was he or the pilot responsible for the condition of the photograph? If Lue saw the original colour photo, it's hard to see how he wouldn't have noticed both circles were likely coloured as fields. If Lue was presented with the faded version (whether original or doctored), it's hard to see how he wouldn't have asked for the original full colour version of the photo or asked why the quality was so bad. So either his integrity or his credibility need to take a hit.
Additionally, to return to points 2 and 9, we have a similar problem. Was Lue or was Lue not in possession of the original digital image? If so, why would he have not looked at the metadata? Was the metadata stripped from the file? Would this not have raised it's own questions?
The most charitable reading of this data points to grotesque incompetence on behalf of Lue.
elvenwear
Senior Member
I'm stealin' that.
RTM
Senior Member.
A perfectly cromulent word that embiggens any conversation.
Giddierone
Senior Member.
This one's curious because Elizondo is so definite in how he expresses this claim three times.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
@Giddierone
Agreed. This a great and easy way to spell out claims and their status. Something that can be used going forward on other claims. Just set up a "Gridierone" or a "GiddiGrid".
Kyle Ferriter
Senior Member
It's also curious because that's the alleged altitude of the plane it was taken from, looking down at the ground. If the light colored circle was an aircraft, it would have to be much lower than 21k ft. And ignoring the fact that the geometry is impossible, for the hypothetical shadow from a disk aircraft to look that well-defined and essentially the same size as the supposed disk aircraft, the disk would have to be low over the ground, nowhere near 21k ft. I think he liked saying that because it made it sound more impressive and maybe made it sound like the disk was also high up, making it sound more anomalousy.
Charlie Wiser
Senior Member.
Looking at this from Lue's perspective for a moment, and on the assumption he was handed a photo from someone claiming to be the pilot photographer...
I'm always interested in what these UFO personalities, with a platform and reputation to defend, do after their claim is debunked. Do they accept the debunk, and whether or not they do, do they reach out to the witness to present the debunk and ask for comment?
I'm reminded of Chris Lehto's presentation of the stunning(!!!) up-close UFO video taken by an Aussie camper "Michael". Lehto asked Coulthart to interview the witness. Coulthart reported "I cannot find any good reason to disbelieve him... I detect no guile or lying in his demeanour." After a Twitter user suggested it was a lens and flashlight, and I made the recreation (see here if you're interested, 36 seconds.), Lehto did say - although only in response to my question - that he'd asked the witness for comment (May 4, 2023):
Source: TwitterExternal Quote:
[Lehto had complained the lights I used in my reproduction weren't color-changing, therefore did not match the UFO.]
I repeatedly asked Lehto to report on what Michael had said, and got crickets.
Lehto also posted this on his YT (again, a reply to someone else's comment):
[I screenshotted the comment here but can't find a direct link just now.]External Quote:
No indication of what those "flags" are. He just stopped talking about it without ever specifying how the witness explained himself.
At least we got something from Elizondo - he allegedly not only followed up, but reported back to us. From his perspective: he was being mocked for presenting a photo of farmland to Congress and claiming it was anomalous (specifically a UFO, although he then denied that). He asked the pilot to explain himself. I've noticed people like Lue (again, with a platform and rep to maintain) treat their sources with kid gloves so I doubt he asked anything as confrontational as: "How could you not know those were irrigation circles when you flew over them?"
Instead, I expect he asked questions that would generate answers that would avoid mutual embarrassment: "See how mean everyone is? This proves the point we were both making, that you pilots are scared to report anomalous sightings." Which generated an "upset and concerned" reaction from the pilot. They both get to save face. Lue wasn't fooled by a hoax, and the pilot was not unable to recognize common farmland features.
The above assumes Lue's report is accurate, which I doubt.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
I wonder too if this interaction with the photo took place in a vacuum with Lue and the pilot, or if the others, like Mellon, Davis and Galludet saw the photo as well. Did they have any interaction with the pilot? They were all presenting, they all know each other and I would think their presentations were coordinated. I haven't seen any comments from the others yet.
MyMatesBrainwashed
Senior Member
I was beginning to wonder if maybe Lue should be given some credit for bringing a real UFO/UAP to the table.
And actual unidentified flying object. Unidentified because it looks like something that's flying that we have no experience of.
That's a world away from what seems to flood this space most of the time now.
I would argue that we mostly get unidentifiable flying objects these days. A dot in the sky is not unidentified. It is unidentifiable.
They are not the same things.
Possibly a discussion better for another thread. Who changed the U in UFO/UAP?
And actual unidentified flying object. Unidentified because it looks like something that's flying that we have no experience of.
That's a world away from what seems to flood this space most of the time now.
I would argue that we mostly get unidentifiable flying objects these days. A dot in the sky is not unidentified. It is unidentifiable.
They are not the same things.
Possibly a discussion better for another thread. Who changed the U in UFO/UAP?
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
It's an optical illusion that was instantly recognised by many people.
elvenwear
Senior Member
I think he meant it was unidentified when presented (assuming we take Lue at face value). At least with this it can be identified. Most of the rest are so deep in the LIZ you cannot identify them.
MyMatesBrainwashed
Senior Member
elvenwear
Senior Member
You mean rather than a tiny dot?
MyMatesBrainwashed
Senior Member
Yes.
A tiny dot is unidentified because it's unidentifiable. Not because it looks like something flying that we have no experience of.
elvenwear
Senior Member
We have so many videos and photos in the LIZ, we should be able to make some educated guesses about how many unidentified but possibly identifiable 'objects' of appreciable size we should expect to see if we have hundreds of images and videos that are unidentifiable.
Mendel
Senior Member.
But it looked like two center pivot irrigated fields!
MyMatesBrainwashed
Senior Member
Nah, that's what it is.
It looks like a big disc casting a shadow.
There's no shame in that's what my eyes see looking at Lue's photo.
Reports we're getting lately are more like Lue-FOs, amiright?
Maury Markowitz
Member
Even the die-hards on Reddit have thrown in the towel on this guy. Not just that, they are digging up all the previous dirt and posting it as if they never believed him in the first place.
Giddierone
Senior Member.
See [1:18 onward] for a description of center pivot irrigation circles from a farmer flying over them in a private plane.
It seems pretty obvious watching this that no pilot flying in clear conditions could ever mistake these for a flying object.
Source: https://youtu.be/3WUcNO_ymXo?si=Zz0EcZeXx9i-IXca&t=78
It seems pretty obvious watching this that no pilot flying in clear conditions could ever mistake these for a flying object.
Source: https://youtu.be/3WUcNO_ymXo?si=Zz0EcZeXx9i-IXca&t=78
elvenwear
Senior Member
It looks like both.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Your reply was absolutely chock-full, filled to the brim until overflowing, with the absence of informative content.
"Thing I have a lack of knowledge about" is not a useful label to apply to things, as it could basically apply to almost everything, and therefore has next to no discriminatory capability.
MyMatesBrainwashed
Senior Member
But that's a UFO/UAP.
A real one.
Not that you can't see enough of it to identify it. But you can see enough of it (or think you are seeing enough of it) and you lack the knowledge to identify it (I've never seen one of those fields).
Almost like you need to be able to identify it (a flying disc) for it to be considered unidentified. Not being able to identify a fuzzy blob doesn't make it unidentified in this sense.
Charlie Wiser
Senior Member.
I wonder if Lue (via the pilot) said the camera was "outside" the plane to explain why there's no glass reflections? (Not that I can explain why the pilot had a camera outside his plane unless he was doing aerial mapping, in which case he'd know what the circles were.)
Mendel
Senior Member.
some vtuber pilots have a bunch of go-pros strapped to their aircraft, including the one who crashed his plane on purpose. Though it's quite high up at 21,000 ft, @FastIndy put it at 55000 ft slant range, and with a camera with 60⁰ FOV you'd see about 60,000ft across, and on a 2k camera a 1500ft diameter circle would be 50 pixels across, very approximately.
It likely was one of these "when I was reviewing the footage" discoveries.
Giddierone
Senior Member.
Yeah they make for stunning images.
Similar threads
Trending content
-
Thread 'NewsNation 'The Desert Sky Mystery' - Arizona US Border Patrol UAP'- Kyle Ferriter
Replies: 40 -
-
-
-