They showed both a photo of the monitor and what looked like a crop of the actual image.Sharing a picture of the monitor is suspicious, why not just share the original photo ?
A photo of a monitor can hide all software manipulations.
Ideally they would release original data for everything. I've been asking Brandon do this for years.
I hope this doesn't break the politeness guidelines, but I feel the Skinwalker Ranch activities and associated TV series are essentially an entertainment franchise, and it's a shame that the people involved don't seem overly concerned if some kids, and adults, think it has anything to tell us about reality.
https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2024/05/ufos-the-unidentified-flying-circus-comes-to-town/External Quote:
The alternate theory I offer, that the UFO industry is show business – and miles from a scientific endeavor – is falsifiable.
In terms of analysing video footage and instrument readings, the "hypersonic fly" and the "wormhole" on the ground strongly suggest the Skinwalker Ranch people don't check out unusual findings with a common-sense, let alone scientific, approach before making extraordinary claims.
"It's their bread and butter".Skinwalker Ranch folk are in the business of making extraordinary claims, not of understanding the world or educating anyone.
It's their bread and butter. Must be unlikely any of them would get paid as much working as "mainstream" scientists/ researchers.
And in that episode he said it was a bird, which was impossible based on the wing speed.3. Travis addressed it in the final episode of the season, which was a recap episode that (given the content about whistleblowers and the dates of news articles shown on screen) had been produced months after filming ended and after the hypersonic fly episode had been publicly aired where it was obvious to everyone it was just a fly.
Interesting. You're above my pay-grade now -- can I ask whether this concept is consistent with what looks like one beam being canceled but the other not?
Using mirrors.I'm simply saying that destructive interference is a thing. It happens. It's precisely how a laser interferometer works.
https://www.laserpointersafety.com/aviationfacts/whybeamsseemtoend.htmlExternal Quote:When you point a laser into the sky at night, the beam seems to end after a few hundred meters, as shown in this photo:
However, this is a dangerous illusion. A person can think their laser beam can't reach an aircraft, since the beam looks "short". They are of course mistaken.
...
For a laser beam to be visible, some of the light must reflect off particles such as dust, smoke or water vapor. In a zone near the earth's surface, the atmosphere is full of these aerosols, helping to make outdoor laser beams visible.
But above the Planetary Boundary Layer (also known as the Atmospheric Boundary Layer), air is much cleaner. After the beam exits the PBL and enters cleaner air (fewer aerosols), much less light is reflected back. The beam seems to disappear.
I contend that for an observer close to the laser (say, an arm's length), a point "a few hundred meters" along the beam is visually indistinguishable from the beam's vanishing point, where it would appear to end due to perspective.When you point a laser into the sky at night, the beam seems to end after a few hundred meters
That's indeed an interesting insight. Does the hard cutoff of a boundary layer look different from the foreshortened-attentuated-inverse-square-law of an uninterrupted laser beam? Alas I don't have access to a sufficiently-powerful symbolic maths package any more, and when I managed to torture Pari/GP into creating an ASCII-art plot for me and messed around with the attenuation factor, I got some curves that made no sense (plateauing brightness that then starts getting brighter again). However, the maths matters less than the reality - can someone take some photos of a laser pointer within the boundary layer (over a lake?) and breaking through the boundary (so up), respecting sensible laser precautions, obviously. I have a beautifully particulate atmosphere here, not least because of the sea coast, but alas I have no laser pointer.I contend that for an observer close to the laser (say, an arm's length), a point "a few hundred meters" along the beam is visually indistinguishable from the beam's vanishing point, where it would appear to end due to perspective.
This is because the vanishing point is always the same distance as the distance from the observer to the beam, and, a few hundred meters away, an arm's length appears very short.
https://scitechdaily.com/sound-controls-light-deflecting-laser-beams-using-air/External Quote:
The innovative technique uses sound waves in order to modulate the air in the region where the laser beam is passing. "We've generated an optical grating with the help of acoustic density waves," explains first author Yannick Schrödel, a Ph.D. student at DESY and Helmholtz Institute Jena.
Commonly abbreviated as DESY, the Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron (English German Electron Synchrotron) is a national research center in Germany that operates particle accelerators used to investigate the structure of matter. It is a member of the Helmholtz Association and operates at sites in Hamburg and Zeuthen.
With the help of special loudspeakers, the researchers shape a pattern of dense and less dense areas in the air, forming a striped grating. In a way that is similar to how differential air densities bend the light in the Earth's atmosphere, the density pattern takes on the role of an optical grating that changes the direction of the laser light beam.
Does this sort of thing help? I would assume there would be a "dust layer" here, but I'm not sure how to distinguish between the beam vanishing as it gets into clear air and a beam vanishing from perspective.can someone take some photos of a laser pointer within the boundary layer (over a lake?) and breaking through the boundary (so up), respecting sensible laser precautions, obviously. I have a beautifully particulate atmosphere here, not least because of the sea coast, but alas I have no laser pointer.
In a video in which everything seems to be in constant motion, it's hard to see a "reaction", but nevertheless the beam appears to be disappearing as it gets higher. It's still there, however, as it obviously strikes the object. (If the narrator is correct about a reaction, then it's probably a bird.Does this sort of thing help?
This is correct, and the likely the only reason lasers seem to "end" twhen you are close to them. Also something SWR is confused about (thinking the lasers come together to form a pyramid).I contend that for an observer close to the laser (say, an arm's length), a point "a few hundred meters" along the beam is visually indistinguishable from the beam's vanishing point, where it would appear to end due to perspective.
Even 5km is well beyond "a few hundred meters"Here's 5km, 50km, and 200 km
I suspect that laserpointersafety.com is incorrect about at which altitude beams stop becoming visible when near end-on. Moisture and particulates are in the air all the way up above where cirrus clouds form (40,000 feet).Even 5km is well beyond "a few hundred meters"
Indeed, and as a laser typically has 1-10 mrad of divergence, the size of the beam will be at least about 20 meter at 10 km.Not only that, its probably several meters thick, due to beam divergence. That sounds like it makes the beam less powerful, but it actually mean it's hitting more particles, but then it's visually smaller, so essentially it all evens out.
Yup, foreshortening scales like sec^2 (the derivative of tan). Which is asymptotically tan^2. So the inverse square law balances it out exactly.I suspect that laserpointersafety.com is incorrect about at which altitude beams stop becoming visible when near end-on. Moisture and particulates are in the air all the way up above where cirrus clouds form (40,000 feet).
The perpective compression means the bits at the "end" of the beam are much larger than they seem. In my first two examples 5km and 50km, the tiny bit of beam at the top is 45km long!
Not only that, its probably several meters thick, due to beam divergence. That sounds like it makes the beam less powerful, but it actually mean it's hitting more particles, but then it's visually smaller, so essentially it all evens out.
The energy remains the same, it just spreads out more. But if the area it spreads to is still smaller as what we'd perceive through atmospheric diffraction and glare, then it might as well be a point source.I'm unconvinced of the effect of the beam spreading yet - my first stab would be "no nett effect, the decrease is the same as the increase".
Images from CMOS sensors use a BAYER filter (not like high-end prism video cameras), and what we see is interpolated with generally 4 adjacent pixels :Seeing more than one frame would be useful, certainly. Alas, it not appearing in other frames could be used to add further woo to any claims. As could it appearing in other frames. That's the wonder of woo.
For me, the strongest counterargument against a rolling shutter artefact is how the leftmost green beam is lacking a sliver on its right side, so I'd still favour something occluding some of the beams. As noted, Photoshop still can't be ruled out yet, of course.
Their white board appears to be hoisted by a cherry-picker, thus could lift an occluding panel to variable heights. But if it were something like that which causes the dark gaps, I'd be surprised if there were not more of a colored glow on the object, even if it were a matte black panel.Here's the setup on the ground. They have a "white" beam shining on a white board to check for variations in color.
![]()
If there was something occluding the beam, it would have to be flying. It's several hundred feet upTheir white board appears to be hoisted by a cherry-picker, thus could lift an occluding panel to variable heights. But if it were something like that which causes the dark gaps, I'd be surprised if there were not more of a colored glow on the object, even if it were a matte black panel.
Interesting. You're above my pay-grade now -- can I ask whether this concept is consistent with what looks like one beam being canceled but the other not? Or are there more beams than I think, maybe, and the gaps represent a point where two beams are canceled?
While I'm here, am I seeing another green laser beam that goes up a few meters then disappears forever? Or is that just a thick part of the structure that then gets thin to support what looks like a security camera, or the like?
View attachment 68887
Quite likely to be cropped from landscape. I'd expect most cameras used in a TV show to be oriented that way.hey could be cropped from a landscape image or it could be some different sensor that reads out differently (this last one is fairly unlikely)
Yeah, looks like you're right. So the middle stubby green thing is not a laser that chopped off short and never resumed, it's just the green-wrapped camera mount.I think it's a camera mount
Or possibly IT (whatever IT might be) might be low and close to the camera, the part of the beams being occluded being several hundred feet up? As we saw in the recent eclipse, the object doing the occluding need not be close to as far away as the object (or laser!) being occluded, as long as they're along the same line of sight.If there was something occluding the beam, it would have to be flying. It's several hundred feet up
I think it's significant that what we see as a single beam is not. It's actually lots of mini-beams.I change my position, I think now too it must be of electronic nature, rolling shutter effect and such. But it also does not look as similar as other online examples of lasers being affected by the camera/sensor. I wonder how it would only affect some of the lasers, and also only on 1 spatial position. It is true the signal of the laser is not continuous (CW), and has perhaps a weird shape and/or duty cycle.