Skywatcher Part II: "Mapping The Unknown"

[Dave51c]

They should just buy 10 of them, and give one to everyone there.

And 10 good quality fluid head tripods to go with them. And the training required to track a subject at the long end of the zoom without it leaving the frame all the time. You know, like most professional camera operators do at an air show.

 

[elvenwear]

That's a 1200mm f/5.6 lens from Canon

The modern version is this

https://www.canon.co.uk/lenses/rf-1200mm-f8l-is-usm/

Easily rentable for pennies on the helicopter budget.

https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon-rf-1200mm-f8l-is-usm
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon-rf-800mm-f5.6l-is-usm

1200 / 5.6 = 214, so the front element would be around 8 inches in diameter (maybe a little oversized a bit to avoid vignetting). From the forced perspective of that shot, the front element appears to be approaching a meter in size. Other shots of the lens from other websites show it appears to be eight inches.

Eight inches of optical crown glass would be very expensive.

 

[elvenwear]

It's a great lens, but what are they currently working with? How much better will their images be? They are currently posting things like:

Every time you double the resolution capability of your photographic hardware, you increase the available size of the LIZ by 4 (2x in the vertical and 2x in the horizontal directions). You could call this the LIZ squared rule. The better the hardware, the more unidentified objects you can capture.

So in answer to your question, the good hardware will create a greater number of ambiguous images.

 

[Calter]

There being a bigger area for objects to be captured doesn't necessarily equate to a greater number of ambiguous images. As has been pointed out before, the further away things are the harder it is to spot them in the first place, so you can't point your sensors towards them in the first place. It also works with an assumption of an homogenous distribution of objects across the sky.

If for example they are mostly seeing balloons, and they can only spot balloons for up to a few miles with the naked eye or radar, then a camera that is good enough to reliably pick up balloons for up to a few miles would decrease the number of false positives.

If I had to guess, their current resolution allows them to capture ambiguous images that are at the edges of their detection range, meaning a greater resolution would mostly reduce the number of ambiguous images until they increase their range of detection. (This is assuming they aren't the ones releasing the UFOs, in which case their range of detection is whatever they want)

 

[FatPhil]

Every time you double the resolution capability of your photographic hardware, you increase the available size of the LIZ by 4 (2x in the vertical and 2x in the horizontal directions). You could call this the LIZ squared rule. The better the hardware, the more unidentified objects you can capture.

So in answer to your question, the good hardware will create a greater number of ambiguous images.

Were it just a boundary, it would still be linear; however, it's an annulus, so a square law indeed kicks in. However, opportunities for corroborating and disambiguating evidence also scale quadratically using the same reasoning. In particular, the opportunities for *good* supporting evidence also scale quadratically. However, we're not really [seeing] such corroboration ramp up, which implies that the LIZ objects aren't things out there that can just be photographed, they're things in people's perceptions instead.

EDIT: ^ grammar

 

[elvenwear]

Were it just a boundary, it would still be linear; however, it's an annulus, so a square law indeed kicks in. However, opportunities for corroborating and disambiguating evidence also scale quadratically using the same reasoning. In particular, the opportunities for *good* supporting evidence also scale quadratically. However, we're not really [seeing] such corroboration ramp up, which implies that the LIZ objects aren't things out there that can just be photographed, they're things in people's perceptions instead.

EDIT: ^ grammar

I left out the most crucial component: The sensitivity of hardware to light. While the resolution capability overall has not improved much the years (because of the exponential costs of making ever larger telescopes), the light sensitivity of the sensors themselves has improved. While the resolution governs the size of the LIZ, the the improved sensitivity of the digital sensors also increased the number of videos that can be generated (as does the ubiquity of cell phones).

 

[FatPhil]

I left out the most crucial component: The sensitivity of hardware to light. While the resolution capability overall has not improved much the years (because of the exponential costs of making ever larger telescopes), the light sensitivity of the sensors themselves has improved. While the resolution governs the size of the LIZ, the the improved sensitivity of the digital sensors also increased the number of videos that can be generated (as does the ubiquity of cell phones).

Better optics on their own can't address the problem of there being increased noise in a more distant signal (c.f. depth cueing), which to first approximation should be exponential (consider a cylinder between you and what you're viewing - at each unit length along it, you'll lose the same ratio of your signal, and gain the same quantity of not-signal). So twice as good doesn't mean twice as far, it's more like an extension by one more halving-distance. Image processing (for example, stacking) in modern systems might get some of that back, but the maths isn't as simple as the attenuation calculation, so I don't know how it would affect your effective range.

 

[elvenwear]

Better optics on their own can't address the problem of there being increased noise in a more distant signal (c.f. depth cueing), which to first approximation should be exponential (consider a cylinder between you and what you're viewing - at each unit length along it, you'll lose the same ratio of your signal, and gain the same quantity of not-signal). So twice as good doesn't mean twice as far, it's more like an extension by one more halving-distance. Image processing (for example, stacking) in modern systems might get some of that back, but the maths isn't as simple as the attenuation calculation, so I don't know how it would affect your effective range.

I probably should not have mentioned the telescopes, as I appear to have muddied the issue. You are also right that I failed to mention the signal to noise ratio. Let me restate.

Objects in the LIZ are distant relative to their size (which is why we cannot resolve them as other than spheres or tic-tacs) and are thus more likely to be faint due to the inverse square law (factoring in the signal to noise ratio) as you mention above. So the amount of light needed to capture a pixel as distinct from noise in an image will define the number of reports of events in the LIZ by ufologists. In other words, as the sensors improve, more objects get picked up in videos at the same resolution.

I suspect the FLIR video is a good example of this in action. Sensitive military hardware can pick up birds or balloons that would be otherwise undetectable on other hardware.

 

[DarkLight]

The pilot says that the collective was "frozen". This would prevent the helicopter from going up or down, and it would prevent it from flying a curve without losing altitude.

Article:

To increase or decrease overall lift requires that the controls alter the angle of attack for all blades collectively by equal amounts at the same time, resulting in ascent, descent, acceleration and deceleration.
View attachment 79028

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_flight_controls

Helicopter pilot comment on "stuck collective":

Article:

fortunately it's rather rare - in 40 years of flying, I've never heard of it actually happening.

Source: https://helicopterforum.verticalreference.com/topic/6801-stuck-collective/

The examples mentioned in that thread involve something stuck under the lever, which would prevent it from going down, but not from moving up.

Obviously the pilot could just fake a stuck collective by pretending to try to move the lever, but not actually moving it.

Which helicopter model is this?

If @Dave Beaty still has contact to that helicopter pilot, maybe he could ask about the malfunction?

The pilot says that the collective was "frozen". This would prevent the helicopter from going up or down, and it would prevent it from flying a curve without losing altitude.

Article:

To increase or decrease overall lift requires that the controls alter the angle of attack for all blades collectively by equal amounts at the same time, resulting in ascent, descent, acceleration and deceleration.
View attachment 79028

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_flight_controls

Helicopter pilot comment on "stuck collective":

Article:

fortunately it's rather rare - in 40 years of flying, I've never heard of it actually happening.

Source: https://helicopterforum.verticalreference.com/topic/6801-stuck-collective/

The examples mentioned in that thread involve something stuck under the lever, which would prevent it from going down, but not from moving up.

Obviously the pilot could just fake a stuck collective by pretending to try to move the lever, but not actually moving it.

Which helicopter model is this?

If @Dave Beaty still has contact to that helicopter pilot, maybe he could ask about the malfunction?

Not my wheelhouse and I may very well be missing something, but wouldn't an incident like this require a report to the NTSB?
If that's the case, it should be on file.

 

[Mendel]

Not my wheelhouse and I may very well be missing something, but wouldn't an incident like this require a report to the NTSB?
If that's the case, it should be on file.

Why? There was no damage and no injury.

It might have been reported to ASRS at NASA, but that system is confidential, so you wouldn't find the incident?

 

[DarkLight]

Why? There was no damage and no injury.

It might have been reported to ASRS at NASA, but that system is confidential, so you wouldn't find the incident?

The requirements for submitting FAA aircraft accident and incident reports are not based on whether or not there was damage or injury.
I found this:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap7_section_7.html

Aircraft Accident and Incident Reporting

1. Occurrences Requiring Notification. The operator of an aircraft must immediately, and by the most expeditious means available, notify the nearest National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Field Office when:
   1. An aircraft accident or any of the following listed incidents occur:
      1. Flight control system malfunction or failure.
      2. Inability of any required flight crew member to perform their normal flight duties as a result of injury or illness.
      3. Failure of structural components of a turbine engine excluding compressor and turbine blades and vanes.
      4. Inflight fire.
      5. Aircraft collide in flight.
      6. Damage to property, other than the aircraft, estimated to exceed $25,000 for repair (including materials and labor) or fair market value in the event of total loss, whichever is less.
      7. For large multi‐engine aircraft (more than 12,500 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight):
         1. Inflight failure of electrical systems which requires the sustained use of an emergency bus powered by a back‐up source such as a battery, auxiliary power unit, or air‐driven generator to retain flight control or essential instruments;
         2. Inflight failure of hydraulic systems that results in sustained reliance on the sole remaining hydraulic or mechanical system for movement of flight control surfaces;
         3. Sustained loss of the power or thrust produced by two or more engines; and
         4. An evacuation of aircraft in which an emergency egress system is utilized.
   2. An aircraft is overdue and is believed to have been involved in an accident.

7-7-2 (1) would seem to directly apply in this incident, and these records are public.

-Claiming that an aircraft completely lost control surface response for any period of time is a serious matter. If I'm reading the regs correctly, the event should be reported, and common sense dictates an immediate grounding of the aircraft until a cause can be assessed, and such an event would become part of the aircrafts mandatory permanent maintenance logs.

 

[Mendel]

7-7-2 (1) would seem to directly apply in this incident, and these records are public.

You're referring to 7-7-2. a. 1. (a) Flight control system malfunction or failure?

If it was the collective lever getting tangled up, would that rise to "malfunction or failure"?

If the flight control system was examined later on the ground and found to bd functioning, it's likely the "Giant Hand Illusion" that Mick mentioned earlier:

Article:

They therefore, suggest that the GH phenomenon is the result of a postural reflex, an uncontrollable reflex response to the psychological and physiological conditions affecting the pilot prior to and during the incident. The pilot believes that he is pulling back on the control column when he is actually pushing it.

Source: https://indjaerospacemed.com/the-giant-hand-phenomenon-a-case-report/

Since there's nothing wrong with the aircraft, it wouldn't get reported to the NTSB. Spatial Disorientation happens when it happens.

 

[DarkLight]

You're referring to 7-7-2. a. 1. (a) Flight control system malfunction or failure?

If it was the collective lever getting tangled up, would that rise to "malfunction or failure"?

If the flight control system was examined later on the ground and found to bd functioning, it's likely the "Giant Hand Illusion" that Mick mentioned earlier:

Article:

They therefore, suggest that the GH phenomenon is the result of a postural reflex, an uncontrollable reflex response to the psychological and physiological conditions affecting the pilot prior to and during the incident. The pilot believes that he is pulling back on the control column when he is actually pushing it.

Source: https://indjaerospacemed.com/the-giant-hand-phenomenon-a-case-report/

Since there's nothing wrong with the aircraft, it wouldn't get reported to the NTSB. Spatial Disorientation happens when it happens.

Good point.

You're referring to 7-7-2. a. 1. (a) Flight control system malfunction or failure?

If it was the collective lever getting tangled up, would that rise to "malfunction or failure"?

If the flight control system was examined later on the ground and found to bd functioning, it's likely the "Giant Hand Illusion" that Mick mentioned earlier:

Article:

They therefore, suggest that the GH phenomenon is the result of a postural reflex, an uncontrollable reflex response to the psychological and physiological conditions affecting the pilot prior to and during the incident. The pilot believes that he is pulling back on the control column when he is actually pushing it.

Source: https://indjaerospacemed.com/the-giant-hand-phenomenon-a-case-report/

Since there's nothing wrong with the aircraft, it wouldn't get reported to the NTSB. Spatial Disorientation happens when it happens.

Yes, 7-7-2. a. 1. (a).
My bad, a little formatiing issue there.

So, if they don't report it as an actual loss of control of the aircraft, then they are tacitly admitting that there was no actual mechanical seizure of the controls by entity or entities unknown, and if they did believe that such a thing had actually happened they would still be required to report the incident.

I think it comes down to a just a few possiblities.
First, the incident happened and they have either reported it or they haven't. Regardless of whether they actually believe that operation of the control surfaces were taken over or frozen by aliens, the incident seems to fall under mandatory reporting regulations.
The fact that the aircraft was inspected and no issues relating to loss of control were found isn't relevant-they are claiming that the incident happened and reporting seems to be mandatory regardless of whether the cause is ever identified.

A second possibility (and I'm sure that there are more) is that the control incident is a fabrication, and this also is problematic. The recording of a loss of control of the aircraft due to unknown causes, albeit even informally as in a YTube presentation, needs to become a permanent part of the history of the aircraft maintenance and inspection record.
A falsified report, in this instance could have serious repercussions.

I am inclined to believe the 2nd scenario, but I admit that after viewing all of the Skywatcher material, I've become 90% convinced that just about 100% of their material is fake. It's a reality t.v pitch for a show that leans heavily to the woo side, and these shows are essentially created in an editing bay with little regard for actual reality.

Of course, that's just my 2 cents and worth every penny..

 

[jarlrmai]

A new video from Skywatcher featuring Von Rennenkampf


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1kxvqel/skywatcher_presents_footage_of_uap_class_2_tic_tac/


This diagram seems particularly silly, essentially just a colour wheel with RGB/CMY primary colours (red, green, blue and cyan, magenta, yellow) with the colours of the visible spectrum given their wavelength and energy conversions to make it seem really "sciency"

CMY being the primary colours for additive printing processes.

 

[Ann K]

A new video from Skywatcher featuring Von Rennenkampf

"When we do see them they're at the edge of our sensor capability..."

Welcome to the ever-present LIZ.

 

[jarlrmai]

The key here is working out what camera system they are using is. Maybe Marik can ask them, in the spirit of transparency? @Mick West

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

Are there any possible trademark infringements here using tic tac?

 

[JMartJr]

"When we do see them they're at the edge of our sensor capability..."

Welcome to the ever-present LIZ.

That's a HUGE admission for them to make. They are admitting that when they are close enough to see what they are, it turns out they are not mysterious UFO/UAPs but just normal stuff -- they are only mysterious when they are so far away you can just barely see them at all.

 

[jarlrmai]

That's a HUGE admission for them to make. They are admitting that when they are close enough to see what they are, it turns out they are not mysterious UFO/UAPs but just normal stuff -- they are only mysterious when they are so far away you can just barely see them at all.

Skywatcher is so close to being a satire of the last 6-7 years of UFOlogy its amazing.

 

[jarlrmai]

You've got

A Skinwalker Ranch style of apparently investigation and media release in a remotish area of America
Lots of serious looking ex military guys
LIZ footage from military type EOS platforms
A vague psychic/religious/woo connection
A pretense of being open, but gatekeeping all the actual details of footage
Friendly journalists attached
Connections to some apparent investment/funding source

 

[NorCal Dave]

That's a HUGE admission for them to make. They are admitting that when they are close enough to see what they are, it turns out they are not mysterious UFO/UAPs but just normal stuff -- they are only mysterious when they are so far away you can just barely see them at all.

No, you're missing it. It's the fact that some of these things know how to stay out of sensor range that makes them mysterious. If they can get close and see it's just an airplane, then it's just an airplane, but if it can stay out of range enough to not be identified as an airplane, then that's mysterious and not an airplane. As I've said, the trick is to identify something as unidentified, because that means it hasn't been identified as anything prosaic, so it isn't.

You've got

A Skinwalker Ranch style of apparently investigation and media release in a remotish area of America
Lots of serious looking ex military guys
LIZ footage from military type EOS platforms
A vague psychic/religious/woo connection
A pretense of being open, but gatekeeping all the actual details of footage
Friendly journalists attached
Connections to some apparent investment/funding source

The Secrets of Skinwalker Ranch kicks off season 6 on June 3rd, adding to the 70 episodes already in the can.
The local government sponsored 5th annual Phenomecon will take place in September in Vernal, Utah (closest place to Skinwalker Ranch for a con) with upwards of 30 speakers, including Jay Stratton, Nick Pope, Whitley Strieber and Travis Taylor. Sorry, the $349 VIP tickets are sold out.
The original Skinwalker Ranch crowd, including people like Eric Davis, are making presentations to congressional committees, appearing at conferences, and are politically connected.
So, that worked out.

Looks like Barber and the boys are on the right track. Although, I would note it's all boys as is The Secrets of Skinwalker Ranch. Granted, the main audience is a bunch of middle aged guys that want to cosplay a cross between the Ghost Busters and Rambo out finding aliens and Bigfoot from their couch, but it all seems just a bit to dude-centric.

The afore mentioned Phenomecon has 31 speakers listed and while 7 are women, there is a lot of bros listed. Yes, Pope and Strieber are old and there's some nerdy guys, but there are a lot of black shirts, biceps and bad-asses on the roster. https://www.phenomecon.net/copy-of-speakers

It would seem in a world where your main audience is middle aged men, a way to differentiate your UFO brand might be to include a little eye candy. Maybe the viewers at home still have the notion that women aren't really up to the rigorous scientific field work necessary for finding UFOs. Of the 7 women speakers at Phenomecon, only 2 are non-psychic field researchers. Then again, maybe I'm completely miss-judging the audience and a bunch of sweaty dudes in tight black shirts camping out together is exactly what they want to see.

 

[Ann K]

would seem in a world where your main audience is middle aged men, a way to differentiate your UFO brand might be to include a little eye candy. Maybe the viewers at home still have the notion that women aren't really up to the rigorous scientific field work necessary for finding UFOs. Of the 7 women speakers at Phenomecon, only 2 are non-psychic field researchers. Then again, maybe I'm completely miss-judging the audience and a bunch of sweaty dudes in tight black shirts camping out together is exactly what they want to see.

Opinion follows, only partly tongue in cheek:
There is a certain cohort of men, "we do REAL man stuff", "dude bros", "we are the only masculine men left in the world", who disdain all women (or is it "fear", one wonders?) yet are caught in their own trap because they are also terrified of being thought to be gay. They buy guns but only shoot at targets, they buy hunting knives but wouldn't know how to skin a deer, and think going without their cell phones is a major rejection of civilization. Their prime activities on night-time camp-outs are popping the occasional cold can of imported beer and telling each other lies. I think those are the guys you are talking about!

 

[Mick West]

Here they show some birds and say they are UAP.


Source: https://x.com/SkywatcherHQ/status/1927847352964108419

 

[jarlrmai]

Here they show some birds and say they are UAP.


Source: https://x.com/SkywatcherHQ/status/1927847352964108419

Yeah I just saw that one, that's why it's so close to parody, they even appear to be saying it's not the thing it is in the description

One presumes the next word here is birds, the text is hard to read

"Akin to"

because they are birds and a better lens/camera might have demonstrated that, we can give them the benefit of the doubt and say they are in the LIZ, but given we do not know the capability or settings of the camera they are using there's no way to know if a 800mm lens on high density sensor would not have been able to clearly show they are birds

 

[JMartJr]

we can give them the benefit of the doubt and say they are in the LIZ, but given we do not know the capability or settings of the camera they are using there's no way to know if a 800mm lens on high density sensor would not have been able to clearly show they are birds

However, SOME combination of being closer and/or better equipment would in fact have shown that birds are birds (and that balloons are balloons, planes are planes, bugs are bugs.) They are only unidentified because they are Too Far Aways or Too Out Of Focus or Too Potato Camera or Too Badly Degraded Media...

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

Tetra... (https://skywatcher.ai/research/tetra)

Often appears in groups of 3-20+.

An excellent description of birds.

 

[Mendel]

Tetra... (https://skywatcher.ai/research/tetra)

An excellent description of birds.

yeah, but if you can't discern the wings, then they don't have a visible means of propulsion, which makes them anomalous...

the idea that an object is what we can see has had to be abandoned in biology for better classification systems, but it's alive and well in UFOlogy.

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

This diagram seems particularly silly, essentially just a colour wheel with RGB/CMY primary colours (red, green, blue and cyan, magenta, yellow) with the colours of the visible spectrum given their wavelength and energy conversions to make it seem really "sciency"

Not saying it is the reason they included that, but there is a sticky meme in the UFO community about terahertz and "frequencies" being something related to alternative propulsion and anti-gravity.

 

[FatPhil]

It would seem in a world where your main audience is middle aged men, a way to differentiate your UFO brand might be to include a little eye candy. Maybe the viewers at home still have the notion that women aren't really up to the rigorous scientific field work necessary for finding UFOs. Of the 7 women speakers at Phenomecon, only 2 are non-psychic field researchers. Then again, maybe I'm completely miss-judging the audience and a bunch of sweaty dudes in tight black shirts camping out together is exactly what they want to see.

Just pull in Anna Luna or Nancy Mace - they'll add governmental "credibility" as well as lipstick.

 

[jarlrmai]

Source: https://x.com/MvonRen/status/1928155164789072024

I have questions but I am not going to argue with Marik on Twitter

If as we are told Skywatcher are summoning them psionically then surely the psionics know if they are are whomever they've summoned or not?

If these are not summoned UFOs then what are they are they also just randomly filming the sky as well as summoning, if so don't they need to be open about which recorded objects they summoned and which are just random stuff in the air?

Mariks tone has a 'just asking questions' vibe to it

If his clone were reporting on his own interactions here, they might use phrases like "journalist attached to Skywatcher project distances themselves from UAP claims"

Or maybe even a meme style image with a cherry picked screengrab of his face with "Birds" or "Seagulls" in text overlayed.

Skywatcher are just weaponizing the LIZ here.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

yeah, but if you can't discern the wings, then they don't have a visible means of propulsion, which makes them anomalous...

I'd argue they can discern the wings given their description (https://skywatcher.ai/research/tetra)...

Exhibits strobing effect on electro-optical (EO) sensors several times per second.

An excellent description of sunlight reflecting off flapping wings.

I'd also argue that psionics isn't required to summon Tetra and we can all do it...

 

[Mendel]

If as we are told Skywatcher are summoning them psionically then surely the psionics know if they are are whomever they've summoned or not?

That's probably an unwarranted assumption. I think they work more by trial-and-error.

 

[Mendel]

I'd argue they can discern the wings given their description (https://skywatcher.ai/research/tetra)...
An excellent description of sunlight reflecting off flapping wings.

What you can discern depends on what you want to discern.
My point was that not being able to discern it doesn't mean it's not there.

I'd also argue that psionics isn't required to summon Tetra and we can all do it...
View attachment 80791

That summoning device may attract visitors you did not mean to invite.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfHu-UJaK0Q

 

[jdog]

What you can discern depends on what you want to discern.
My point was that not being able to discern it doesn't mean it's not there.

That summoning device may attract visitors you did not mean to invite.

The Galactic Council is said to include a variety of species...

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

What you can discern depends on what you want to discern.

Which makes trying to include AI interesting.

I'd be amazed if AI didn't discern birds from all the Tetra data. I'd like to think that AI doesn't have a bias as to what it wants or doesn't want to discern (also note that I don't have a bias of discerning birds from a description of birds). Unfortunately I don't have the capabilities to find out.

Not that I'd mind if it didn't discern birds cos that'd just bolster my prejudice against AI.

 

[NorCal Dave]

If as we are told Skywatcher are summoning them psionically then surely the psionics know if they are are whomever they've summoned or not?

Absolutely. This is their whole shtick isn't it? Along with some cool helicopters. The whole point is they have X-men grade mutants that can summon AND control these crafts. I suppose if we go back and parse the various interviews and claims, the excuse would be the military uses fully trained psionics operatives, while Skywatch is trying to work with a talented but still green psionic. A young Padawan to the military Sith Lords.

The replies to MVR are interesting, given the content of the short video. Unfortunately I cant' seem to turn on CC for X, because the presenter is straight calling a flock of geese (snow geese is my guess) a Class 1 Tetrahedron UAP. Then he doubles down on a still:

And actually calls it a "flock"! How many takes were needed to call it a "flock of UAP" and not laugh his ass off. Unfortunately for MVR, after admitting they edited his comments to keep up the UAP angle, he still defends these guys:

They are not "putting it out publicly for analysis/comment", they are straight up saying a flock of geese in a standard migration V pattern is a "class 1 tetrahedron UAP." It's farcical. Then he does it more with MVR standing there looking at the video. Besides the defense of these guys above, MVR also plays a bit of the Leslie Kean card when admitting he had been edited:

Yes, it may be birds, but you yahoos and amateurs on the internet pointing that out, doesn't really count. Only a qualified ornithologist can make this determination. This was Kean's rebuttal to her Chilean UAP debunk. Even if it was just an airliner, it's not for internet sleuths to figure out. There are certainly times for qualified experts, but if someone posts some out of focus cars in stop and go traffic and then refers to them as some kind of UAP, there is no need for an automobile engineer to confirm they are cars.

Does MVR go out UAP hunting with these guys? I can't understand how a journalist can allow themselves to be videoed in front of a video of birds, while being told it's a "flock" of UAPs and then his suggestion that it might be birds and they should consult an expert is edited out and it goes unchallenged. He just goes along and doesn't talk about it until he is challenged on X and then he defends them as collecting data. Maybe he has to go along in hopes of getting invited to ride in a helicopter to the next Skywatch Bigboy Campout, UAP Hunt and Winnie Roast.

 

[Mendel]

Maybe he has to go along

I assume he had a contract, it probably gives him no say in how they use his content, but pays well. don't trash talk the people who pay you.
(But we could legitimately say he's shilling for them, now.)

 

[jarlrmai]

I assume he had a contract, it probably gives him no say in how they use his content, but pays well. don't trash talk the people who pay you.
(But we could legitimately say he's shilling for them, now.)

Yeah it's not very journalistic, but maybe he's just playing one on TV..

 

[NorCal Dave]

That summoning device may attract visitors you did not mean to invite.

No device needed, just straight up squirrel psionics my friend:

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

That's probably an unwarranted assumption. I think they work more by trial-and-error.

Yeah it sounds a lot like selecting data that confirms (or can be construed as confirming) the hypothesis and discarding data that does not. They've already gone through initial experimentation and believe they have a method which reliably summons UAP. Some sort of statistical significant increase in UAP near them when they do it. But they provide no data of the baseline or the failed attempts. They also are providing no information about how they determined an object in the sky to be anomalous. They make reference to laser range finders and rapid motion confirmed by camera, but haven't provided that data.

So many planes fly over where I live that I could make up some "UAP dog whistle" methodology and I would see a plane reliably within a few minutes. Does this mean my summoning technique worked?