jarlrmai
Senior Member.
The SCU world be given more slack if they addressed the egregious errors they made with Aguadilla and were also not being given the privileged position of presenting this this flawed analysis to NASA etc.
Solved: MUFON case #124190: 'Mothership' UAP Crosses the North Pacific [Starlink Stack]
- Thread starter Giddierone
- Start date
-
- Tags
- uap ufo warp drive
DaveG
Member
I agree that their analysis (Or Powell's) of the Aguadilla video is extremely flawed. Was it presented to NASA?
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
I am not sure if that was specifically presented to NASA but the FOIA that Greenwald did for NASA's UAP stuff revealed that the SCU were introduced to NASA and a presentation was discussed as well as several well known cases.
Last edited:
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Yeah it's a bit of problem
But I mean apart from Mick Metabunk is largely anonymous and none of us are really putting any personal/professional reputation the on the line.
With the recent videos people who have a lot of status are linked to the claims, that is probably off-putting to people who may think they are talking outside their wheelhouse.
Also it's possible Metabunk attracts all the people (seemingly few) around who both are interested in and capable of doing this that are not affiliated with organisations directly tasked in some capacity with doing so, so whilst it is varied and open to all and has a sort of internal peer review, it's conclusions can seem monolithic. Because no-one's gonna start the People's Republic of Metabunk when they can just post here.
Yeah, in a day or two.
If it was a one-off thing, then maybe. But it's a pattern. Like they were told YEARS ago that Appendix L in their Aguadilla report was entirely false, and yet it's still there.
This case is more definitive overall, so maybe they will accept it. On Twitter they have already said it is "Not SCU" as it was a guest speaker.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
In the original agenda item it was and still is described as "We" and both speakers are listed as SCU, Griffiths as a "member SCU"
Screenshot from reddit thread
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/13du6gl/a_very_large_uap_crosses_the_north_pacific/
However if you visit the link now though the 'SCU Member' wording for Griffiths has been removed and replaced with Affil. Prof.
https://whova.com/embedded/session/yhzhhSO0s3T8TbISu9q84rsosNSR6Lds870fqmk@45c=/2896364/?widget=primary
Screenshot from reddit thread
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/13du6gl/a_very_large_uap_crosses_the_north_pacific/
However if you visit the link now though the 'SCU Member' wording for Griffiths has been removed and replaced with Affil. Prof.
https://whova.com/embedded/session/yhzhhSO0s3T8TbISu9q84rsosNSR6Lds870fqmk@45c=/2896364/?widget=primary
Attachments
Maybe he's been fired.
Seriously though, on Twitter Rojas said to me "you know this is not SCU", when they very much presented it like it was SCU.
Found this bio about Professor Griffiths - the SCU logo under his name suggests he is a member.
https://www.3af.fr/agenda/3af-sigma2-webinar-1-on-uap-optical-observables-2270
https://www.3af.fr/global/gene/link...ent-3af-sigma2-webinar-1-on-uap-june-2023.pdf
https://www.3af.fr/agenda/3af-sigma2-webinar-1-on-uap-optical-observables-2270
https://www.3af.fr/global/gene/link...ent-3af-sigma2-webinar-1-on-uap-june-2023.pdf
Giddierone
Active Member
This appears to have been added by a moderator. I didn't write this.
It was added by Mick. The origin was not clear in the original post.
Giddierone
Active Member
Yes back in May the promotion for the presentation included "Member SCU" but was removed at some point. None of the presentation slides by Griffiths from yesterday included "SCU".
Source: https://twitter.com/MickWest/status/1657116460756635649?s=20
Source: screen grab of presentation slide from 29 Jul 2023
AmberRobot
Senior Member
I’d like to see those calculations of upper limits of gravitational lensing of background stars. How massive did he think it might have been??? Even the Sun deflects light by only about an arc second.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Upper limits tell you very little.
A metric ton is an upper limit on the weight of homo sapiens, i.e. all humans weigh less than a ton. This is factually correct, but only useful if you want to make people believe humans are the size of elephants.
What you really need in the case of alien motherships is a lower limit, because if that limit is big, then the mothership is bigger. But if that's zero, well, then you really don't know anything about the size, or the "propulsion".
Mendel
Senior Member.
"No visible wings" typically means the object is in free fall (a satellite or astronomical object), a helicopter, or the wings are shaded and invisible against the sky ("glowing cylinder" sightings).
It's a bold statement to make when the object is far into the LIZ that it's just a bunch of white dots: if it had wings, it'd be impossible to discern them from those images.
What's more, knowing these are Starlink satellites, we know they do have wing-like structures, and from afar, they look similar to solar-powered aircraft.:
Article: 
Article: 
"There are no corroborating radar or other observations" lacks the addendum "available to us", because (again, knowing it's starlink) they can't have looked very hard, especially if the non-observation of aerodynamic surfaces suggests the object is in space. Telephoning the local observatory should've cleared that sighting right up.
Here's a question to the experts: knowing it's a Starlink train, is their assessment that it's "a mile long" approximately correct?
Giddierone
Active Member
I had the same question in #33. Wondering what the best estimate is for the length of the lights they recorded. I'm guessing it's much, much longer than a mile. Are they seeing the whole train or just part of it reflecting sunlight?
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Even if the estimate is near they had no basis to make it as they had no idea how far away they were looking. It would just be a coincidence.
I tried to find estimates online for the apparent length of the starlink trains during deployment but a brief search didn't reveal anything.
I found a reference to a train being 3 degrees here
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/spacex-launches-latest-starlink-satellite-batch/
I tried to find estimates online for the apparent length of the starlink trains during deployment but a brief search didn't reveal anything.
I found a reference to a train being 3 degrees here
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/spacex-launches-latest-starlink-satellite-batch/
So with known distance you could work it out, but they get longer as they deploy.The satellite train was an easy naked eye object (even under urban skies) about three degrees long
I think I have an answer for this. I used https://www.satellite-calculations.com/TLETracker/SatTracker.htm to load in the TLE data (had to reformat slightly) , which then gives me a lat and long of the satellite for a set time, and also the range from an observer who's location I set to be the aircraft lat long.
TLE Data:
This webpage then outputs the attached file as a webpage, which includes a value for range, which is 18750.520 km
Note that the GeoAlt is with respect to a geostationary orbit of 35,800km, so in this case it is 35800-35525 = 275km
Plotting this (124.689351 West 48.9481181 North) and a later position into Google Earth shows that the orbit was approximately at right angles to the azimuth of observation, so we can say we are seeing the full length of the stack in the image
Using the picture to work out the angle of the Starlink Train....
So one degree at a distance of 1875km = 1875 x tan (1°) = 32.7km (I think). This number seems really large, but in reality it is just about 500m between each of the 60 Satellites in the Starlink Train.
Edit: Added graphic, TLE & Output file attachment
Last edited:
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Let us not forget our old friends, the Balloons,
Ann K
Senior Member.
Attachments
AmberRobot
Senior Member
My point is that unless I’m misunderstanding something greatly this is more like putting an upper limit on a bacterium of one ton.
Since the Sun only deflects light by about an arcsecond, what kind of mass of the object was he thinking when he attempted to put an upper limit on the gravitational lensing of background stars? What kind of precision astrometric instrumentation was used to measure the stars??
Something massive enough to have discernible lensing effects that close to the earth would likely be catastrophic to humanity.
Unless he has some kind of knowledge about alien propulsion technologies that cause gravitational lensing and not simply that due to a massive object. And how could he know that?
Either way, that sentence alone implies that this is not a self-respecting physicist undergoing an honest investigation and seeking out facts.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Thank you!
1 mile ≈ 32.7 km / 20
That's off by quite a lot, and would place the "wingless" UAP inside the atmosphere. A prime example of how guessing leads to bad conclusions.
Easy Muffin
Senior Member
...on the other hand it is in good agreement with what you'd expect to see from a bunch of objects in orbit. Given that
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-orbit
And that's with quick and rough-ish guesses for the observed values (it's probably not going exactly 4 times its length in 16 seconds and it won't be exactly one degree in the sky). I suppose with more work on that you'd get closer still. Not that it'd be worth it though as it's quite obvious already what these lights are.
they're moving at about 8 km/s, which is very close to the orbital speed of a satellite in a Starlink-type orbit.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-orbit
And that's with quick and rough-ish guesses for the observed values (it's probably not going exactly 4 times its length in 16 seconds and it won't be exactly one degree in the sky). I suppose with more work on that you'd get closer still. Not that it'd be worth it though as it's quite obvious already what these lights are.
Similar threads
