Tic Tac in Greece?

[Rory]

I think to most people this is a fast moving, cylindrical shaped, white object...moving in an 'arrow straight' trajectory. Unfortunately, some regulars here, insist it's just a bird (what else, eh?).

I'm not sure anyone's insisting that it's a bird, but rather pointing out that it looks like a bird, acts like a bird, is inhabiting a place birds frequently inhabit, and mathematically could be a bird also.

An advanced craft certainly isn't excluded from the possibilities - but there's pretty much nothing to support that idea, therefore it has to go way down the list with a very low probability.

I think anyone, with a reasonable, subjective approach, would accept that is indeed a fast moving object of some sort, not a bird.

So, again, we're back to asking the question "what makes you think it's 'fast moving' (eg, moving at several hundred miles per hour) rather than moving at around 30mph?"

What's your answer?

(PS Probably better to be objective rather than subjective. Subjectivity and reason don't really go hand-in-hand.)

 

[steviemac]

I'm not sure anyone's insisting that it's a bird

well in fact a certain member on this thread. posted a video, of what is quite clearly a bird, meandering slowly across water...its wings clear to see...and then told me that's what the object in the video was. That argument was so ridiculous, that I completely dropped the subject..I knew I was dealing with crazy-making stuff.

So, again, we're back to asking the question "what makes you think it's 'fast moving' (eg, moving at several hundred miles per hour) rather than moving at around 30mph?"

What's your answer?

another respected member here did come to the conclusion that it was moving faster than any bird (that I know of) can fly. I would need to go back to his calculations. In any case it doesn't matter, because, if five people on the shore also caught it on video and it was a fast cylindrical object, you would fall over yourself to debunk that too. There is no healthy debate here, only a clique of people whose raison d'etre is to debunk every UAP. every video or picture elicits the same standard knee jerk reaction....must debunk at all cost

 

[Rory]

a certain member on this thread. posted a video, of what is quite clearly a bird, meandering slowly across water...its wings clear to see...and then told me that's what the object in the video was.

I believe you're referring to Deirdre there. But what they actually said was:

we cant prove the op is a bird, but we can prove it isnt if we get the right heights etc. but we need math to disprove it.

Note: not "the object in your video is a bird" but "we can't prove that it's a bird".

They're two quite different assertions, wouldn't you agree?

Also:

another respected member here did come to the conclusion that it was moving faster than any bird (that I know of) can fly. I would need to go back to his calculations.

That was probably me, since I've been the main person doing calculations on this thread. Though I certainly didn't "come to the conclusion that it was moving faster than any bird", I merely offered speed/distance covered figures for various altitudes.

Are you sure those two statements you made are accurate? Might be worth looking back over the thread to check.

There is no healthy debate here, only a clique of people whose raison d'etre is to debunk every UAP. every video or picture elicits the same standard knee jerk reaction....must debunk at all cost

I would suggest that someone who honestly feels "there's no healthy debate here" merely needs to read more of the threads to see that, in general and overwhelmingly, the debate is incredibly healthy.

Though I would also agree that the majority of people here do habitually come from a place of wanting to debunk, and being skeptical of unusual claims, even before they've seen them.

Still, if their skepticism is misplaced and they turn out to be wrong, they will be called out and will most likely concede their position. That's definitely been my experience of this site.

In any event, it's all taken on a case-by-case basis, and in the question of this thread and this video, there's not really anything to suggest that it's showing anything unusual. Your good self has stated that it's clearly a very fast moving object - yet when questioned as to why you believe this, the answers haven't been provided (other than the deeply unsatisfying "because that's what it looks like").

I would say making statements and then backing them up is a good sign of healthy debate. So I guess I'm just waiting for an answer to the question:

"What makes you think it's 'fast moving' (eg, moving at several hundred miles per hour) rather than moving at around 30mph?"

 

[KilliK]

I'm not sure if you are being serious or not. (because there is a lot of mockery and patronising on this forum, aimed at people who post anything unusual. ) But I'm going to assume you are. I posted this a while back. I think to most people this is a fast moving, cylindrical shaped, white object...moving in an 'arrow straight' trajectory. Unfortunately, some regulars here, insist it's just a bird (what else, eh?).

As result of the 'discussion' here, I just decided to drop out of the subject. I'm always up for healthy debate, but its very difficult when the whole raison d'etre of some forum members is to discredit pictures or video, at all costs.

Anyway, I welcome a new opinion on it

I meant that I was not aware a tic-tac footage was captured in my country. it could still be anything, but I got excited after learning this.

I was curious if there were any UFO cases in Greece after learning about the famous Turkey UFO case (probably a hoax), and after some research I did a few months ago, I discovered 2 strange cases existed, with witnesses and physical evidence. One even had NASA involved.

Our military navy also had the ship from the Philadelphia Experiment in its service, until its final decommission. There is a youtube documentary with the sailors talking about their experience during their service on the ship, and the mystery that surrounds it.

But a tic-tac? yeah, that's just on another level, regardless if this turns out into a nothingburger.

 

[jarlrmai]

I meant that I was not aware a tic-tac footage was captured in my country. it could still be anything, but I got excited after learning this.

I was curious if there were any UFO cases in Greece after learning about the famous Turkey UFO case (probably a hoax), and after some research I did a few months ago, I discovered 2 strange cases existed, with witnesses and physical evidence. One even had NASA involved.

Our military navy also had the ship from the Philadelphia Experiment in its service, until its final decommission. There is a youtube documentary with the sailors talking about their experience during their service on the ship, and the mystery that surrounds it.

But a tic-tac? yeah, that's just on another level, regardless if this turns out into a nothingburger.

Tic tac is a description, not a known thing. There are lots of 'tic tac' videos posted on Reddit, they are most likely planes. The term was popularised from the Fravor case and now seems to apply to every video of things that look like a white object longer than it is wide. Planes, white birds that are motion blurred etc.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

well in fact a certain member on this thread. posted a video, of what is quite clearly a bird, meandering slowly across water...its wings clear to see...and then told me that's what the object in the video was. That argument was so ridiculous, that I completely dropped the subject..I knew I was dealing with crazy-making stuff.


another respected member here did come to the conclusion that it was moving faster than any bird (that I know of) can fly. I would need to go back to his calculations. In any case it doesn't matter, because, if five people on the shore also caught it on video and it was a fast cylindrical object, you would fall over yourself to debunk that too. There is no healthy debate here, only a clique of people whose raison d'etre is to debunk every UAP. every video or picture elicits the same standard knee jerk reaction....must debunk at all cost

The problem of - how far away is it? and how big is it? - is a persistent issue. I find it interesting because I'm interested in how perception and the mind works.

As for snap decisions, when you've studied hundreds of cases over decades, you see the same things crop up over and over. Experience is worth something.

You might want to look at this thread:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/drone-photo-over-colorado-actually-a-boeing-737.11055/#post-235834

In this case the problem is the opposite to the one of perceiving a small, close, slow object as large and distant and fast.

These folks in Colorado were looking at large, distant, fast objects (airliners) and insisting that they were small, close, and slow drones. I think I've presented evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that in this instance they were looking at 737's. How did this happen?

 

[Ann K]

Additionally if you watch the birds, they meander slightly off course as they fly....which would be natural. In fact those white objects are unmistakable as the flight of birds. I would identify them as birds instantly. The video actually highlights the significant difference between the random flight of birds and the object in original video, which flies across the distance at a ruler straight trajectory...and noticeably way faster. I think you would have to concede that object is moving much faster than a bird...surely?

"The random flight of birds" is not a given. Flight behavior of birds differs markedly among species, and the stereotypical wing flap isn't always utilized. There's what is called "bounding" flight. From wikipedia:

"Bounding flight​

Small birds often fly long distances using a technique in which short bursts of flapping are alternated with intervals in which the wings are folded against the body. This is a flight pattern known as "bounding" or "flap-bounding" flight.[6] When the bird's wings are folded, its trajectory is primarily ballistic, with a small amount of body lift."

That "ballistic" appearance is also very much in evidence when birds are in a dive. If the object were a bird photographed from above, as in this case, it would be very hard to tell any variation in altitude of its flight path, and if it had folded wings, it wouldn't be expected to swerve right or left at all but would maintain a straight line.

This may or may not add credence to the "bird" hypothesis; the resolution of the original video doesn't clearly show whether or not there are wing flaps.

 

[jarlrmai]

I watch birds a lot, as I am am bird photographer. Larger birds like gulls etc will also glide without flapping for long periods.

 

[Mendel]

the whole raison d'etre of some forum members is to discredit pictures or video, at all costs.

You may have arrived at a mistaken impression of how science/Metabunk is supposed to work.

1) A phenomenon is observed.
2) An explanation for the phenomenon is hypothesized (and submitted to Metabunk as claim.)
3) Other possible explanations are speculated upon.
4) Evidence is sought, and arguments are made, to support specific explanations over others.
5) Sometimes, the result of this process so overwhelmingly favors one explanation over others that it is considered likely true.

Step 3 is essential for scientific investigation. It can come across as contrarian, but it's really not; you can't look for truth with closed eyes.

 

[steviemac]

You may have arrived at a mistaken impression of how science/Metabunk is supposed to work.

1) A phenomenon is observed.
2) An explanation for the phenomenon is hypothesized (and submitted to Metabunk as claim.)
3) Other possible explanations are speculated upon.
4) Evidence is sought, and arguments are made, to support specific explanations over others.
5) Sometimes, the result of this process so overwhelmingly favors one explanation over others that it is considered likely true.

Step 3 is essential for scientific investigation. It can come across as contrarian, but it's really not; you can't look for truth with closed eyes.

Yes, but it depends on what place people are coming from. If you come from a position of having an open mind, then debate becomes robust and healthy. That is good. But I found that 99.9% of the people commenting here on UAPs, come from a position of absoluteness - there can simply be no 'unearthly' craft, therefore there can be no discussion or 'what if's.

In fact a few of the so called explanations themselves, have been so patently ridiculous, that you can see the desperation to disprove at all cost.

Its akin to someone walking into a church and wanting to discuss the possibility that the earth was not made by god. No one would even give them the time of day...and its a waste of time.

That's what I felt like when I posted here. Not one single person even entertained the remote chance that this was something very unusual. So I realised the futility of posting and I dropped out. Which was a shame, because I thought this was going to be a great place, with lots of back and forwards debating from open minded people.

 

[Rory]

Not one single person even entertained the remote chance that this was something very unusual.

If it looked like something unusual I would have entertained the idea that it was something unusual.

Take the Calvine photo, for example. Granted, that also has an unusual eyewitness account to go with it, but I'm certainly open to the chance that it shows ETs - and I'd be surprised if anyone here was closed to that possibility.

Again, that looks like something unusual and the person who took the photo also said they saw something highly unusual.

This one doesn't. And that's why nobody got excited by it.

 

[steviemac]

If it looked like something unusual I would have entertained the idea that it was something unusual.

Take the Calvine photo, for example. Granted, that also has an unusual eyewitness account to go with it, but I'm certainly open to the chance that it shows ETs - and I'd be surprised if anyone here was closed to that possibility.

Again, that looks like something unusual and the person who took the photo also said they saw something highly unusual.

This one doesn't. And that's why nobody got excited by it.

ok, I just thought it looked like an extremely fast moving cylindrical object. and honestly, I would say most people (outside of the metabunk cult) would say that is fast moving and does not look like a typical bird .

Plus the Calvin one has been debunked here has it not? The last I read here, its a reflection of an island and the fighter plane is a man in a boat with a dog in the front. You do get a laugh here, if nothing else. lol

 

[Rory]

Plus the Calvin one has been debunked here has it not? The last I read here, its a reflection of an island and the fighter plane is a man in a boat with a dog in the front.

No, not debunked or explained at all, just people such as you or I floating out ideas - some worse than others!

 

[steviemac]

ac

No, not debunked or explained at all, just people such as you or I floating out ideas - some worse than others!

actually the 'rational/logical' explanations for events and sightings here, are sometimes even more hilarious than what the poster proposes it is....and lets be honest, if tomorrow 20 people posted a video of a spacecraft dropping from 60,000 ft in a second and landing in Buckingham palace, and zooming back up again into the stratosphere in a second, with hundreds of people standing round filming it, it would be 100% debunked here. Let's be honest

 

[Rory]

actually the 'rational/logical' explanations for events and sightings here, are sometimes even more hilarious than what the poster proposes it is....and lets be honest, if tomorrow 20 people posted a video of a spacecraft dropping from 60,000 ft in a second and landing in Buckingham palace, and zooming back up again into the stratosphere in a second, with hundreds of people standing round filming it, it would be 100% debunked here.

I would disagree with that but, all things considered, it does seem that the people here and your good self are apparently on quite different wavelengths so, to harken back to your church analogy, I wish you all the best in locating a congregation better suited to your views. There's a church out there for everyone, I'm sure.

And if our wavelengths should ever find themselves in harmony you'll be welcomed back with open arms.

Cheers!

 

[Ann K]

That's what I felt like when I posted here. Not one single person even entertained the remote chance that this was something very unusual. So I realised the futility of posting and I dropped out

It simply didn't look unusual to most of us. That doesn't imply the "futility of posting" unless your agenda in posting is to get affirmation rather than information. I've been corrected many times in my life and expect it'll happen many times more, but it's not a thing to take personally. Don't take it to heart and don't be offended.

 

[NorCal Dave]

If you come from a position of having an open mind, then debate becomes robust and healthy. That is good.

That's true, but it works both ways. In post #14 JMartJr alerted you to the fact that the distance of the object to camera is important in determining if something appears to be moving "incredibly fast":

What velocity is it traveling at? To calculate that, you'd need to know how high and thus how close to the camera it is.

You seemed to ignore this, and calculated the ground speed of the white object:

So the distance is approx 311 metres. I think we would all agree the object takes approx 2 seconds to cover this distance. Therefore by my mathematical calculations, the object (which in my opinion is indeed cylindrical in appearance) has to be flying at a speed of somewhere around 700 MPH

JMartJr, then responded with more healthy and helpful debate by providing an illustration of what he was saying:



Rory, very politely, showed a number of calculations using the above illustration to show the objects speed and size at different distances from the camera:

I've added Stevie's original figures into the calc, for an object 125m (half-way) below the drone:

So that's an object about 4 feet in length travelling at approximately 240mph.

If I go with an object travelling at about 30mph, however:

I get something 50 feet below the camera about 20cm long.

Which got this response from you:

ok I'm confused, how could it have travelled 50 feet in any scenario, when its already been shown the distance of that journey across the sea area is at least 270m?

More healthy and I would say polite, debate ensued in an effort to help you understand the concept:

You have to understand that that is only the distance at sea level, if the object is closer to the camera then it actually travels a shorter distance.

Something you eventually came around to, sorta. Even then you made no effort to work with the calculations or argue them on their merits, you merely said your "hunch" was that it was between 1 and 2. You made no effort to then say how fast or how big the object was based on this hunch. Or entertain the idea that a 20cm (~8") bird seen at 50' might just look like a non-descript white object.

ok, yes I get you. Personally I think its likely somewhere between distance 1 and 2. If it was up at around 3, I'd imagine it would be a much clearer object. Of course that's only my hunch too...like the drone operator who took it

After understanding that distance to camera may affect speed, you followed up with:

(because there is a lot of mockery and patronising on this forum, aimed at people who post anything unusual. )

Something I don't think you can find anywhere in this thread, except possible the fact that Mick did not engage with you, but he doesn't need too. Others did. Politely.

I'm always up for healthy debate, but its very difficult when the whole raison d'etre of some forum members is to discredit pictures or video, at all costs.

Anyway, I welcome a new opinion on it

The "raison d'etre" is not to "discredit pictures of videos, at all costs". It is to examine them and see what we can learn. As is the case here, like many before, you presented a claim that this white object was moving "incredibly fast", therefore making it unique and "unusual".

Time and again, unique and unusual turn out to common and mundane. Therefore, the first thing many people do here is see if there is a common and mundane solution to the claim. For the "incredibly speed" claim there was, and it was clearly, concisely and politely presented to you. The apparent speed is relative to the size of the object and it's distance from the camera.

If it's close to the camera, it's small and moving slow. No incredible speed needed. Nevertheless, you persisted in a subjective opinion that it was moving fast:

However I think anyone, with a reasonable, subjective approach, would accept that is indeed a fast moving object of some sort, not a bird.

And again tried to paint the entire group with a broad brush:

There is no healthy debate here, only a clique of people whose raison d'etre is to debunk every UAP. every video or picture elicits the same standard knee jerk reaction....must debunk at all cost

Then again simply stated that you "thought" it was a fast-moving object, while accusing the people that had engaged with you of being cult like:

ok, I just thought it looked like an extremely fast moving cylindrical object. and honestly, I would say most people (outside of the metabunk cult) would say that is fast moving and does not look like a typical bird .

That's what I felt like when I posted here. Not one single person even entertained the remote chance that this was something very unusual.

Yes, they did. But when it is shown that it may not be moving very fast, it's not something very unusual. You never once "entertained the remote idea that this was something" common and mundane.