If an object is not symmetric, a light gust of wind would tend to push it around to the point where it offers the least resistance to the wind. After that, if the wind is not turbulent, it would tend to stay in that least-resistance orientation and drift along without much turning.
As I've often said, I am no photographer: if I want to photograph something I just point, click, and hope for the best. Applying this sophisticated technique I held my finger about 2 inches away from the lens of my phone camera (Samsung Galaxy), while everything else in view was considerably further away. The result was that the background was in pretty good focus, while the finger was noticeably out of focus, but still easily recognisable as a finger. I can't really judge whether it was more or less out of focus than the object in the video, but I wouldn't call it 'way out of focus'.
If the object is drifting in a steady wind, all parts of it will move at the same speed as the wind, so the wind will exert no force against it or any part of it. Any changes in wind speed or direction would of course be likely to have some effect.
The closer I look at the object, the more convinced I am that this one is a best-fit cluster of balloons.
A change of form does not exclude a bug splatter or similar, too. The form can change because the smudge is partially liquid and flows due to gravity/aerodinamical forces (this is also consistent with the 'tentacles' being drops which flowed downwards).
The issue here is that this video is highly zoomed. I.e. a long focal length. This makes it impossible (as far as I know) to have something a few inches away in focus.
That doesn't mean it couldn't have been seen by any other system or human eyeballs etc.
Was the film taken at night? There's a reference somewhere in Corbell's spiel about troops failing to detect it with night vision equipment. Would they be wearing this (or having it close at hand) in the daytime?
It's a fair cop, you've got me bang to rights.
I hate to be your primary school teacher here, but if you want marks for that, can you please show your working?
No disagreement there. That's why we try to avoid it.
Hence my calling attention to the limp advertising banners on the Cow Balloon -- that's not a semi-rigid inflated balloon bit, that's just a flap of fabric. Closest analog to streamers and such that I saw. Even there, you need air moving past them to get them moving -- and you can get that as balloons ascend or descend, or in turbulence, or when they are tethered, but may not get it when just drifting along WITH the breeze. Yeah, it takes a lot less air movement to affect a streamer than a semi-rigid inflated cow leg -- but it takes more than zero, and it is very possible to have zero or nearly zero airflow over a freely drifting balloon.
Sorry I see what you mean
It looks like a trash bag to me.
It kinda looks like a human is piloting a jet pack hahah
Something between the same number, if we have all of them, and some unimaginably huge number if the galaxy is full of intelligent life and the urge to hoax is common. I'd say we have insufficient data to narrow that down much.With the number of hoaxers on earth, I would hate to imagine how many there are in the galaxy
A redditor posted a frame that convinced me the object is actually tiny, based on rough intuition
SourceExternal Quote:
Wouldn't that also be the case if it was something small stuck to (or dangling in front of) the camera housing?
Most thermals don't have a cover but I don't know which system they have typically they have ceramic lens for LWIR.. I tried a few things on mine and don't think that's the case here.. Something is not right at all as it sure does look like splat in. A window scenario but that wouldn't work with Thermal...
Corbell is claiming it is the same thing, and that there is longer video of it going into the water for 17 minutes then shooting off at a 45-degree angle.
Ok don't believe him... They look very different, the 2 for one shows some pendulum motion.. Could be anything
