USS Omaha "Transmedium" Sphere Descending To the Sea

Itsme

Member
We see it fade and then come back and then fade again, like the glare is being obscured as Mick demonstrated with his light/book demo.
Saying it splashed could just be a mistaken observation based on just seeing the FLIR footage 1st time in real time.
The "fade, come back, fade again" behaviour is exactly what we see in the SpaceX footage as well (splashdown starts at 1:00 mark):

When the object re-emerges it is covered with water so not very visible. Once the water subsides it becomes more visible again. I don't think it will cool down in just a few seconds.

The fact that they were able to "mark bearing and range" tells me they had more sensors on the object than just FLIR.
 

jarlrmai

Active Member
From what I can see the sphere glare shrinks equally from a large circle to small circle, the Space X capsule changes it's visible shape as some of it goes under water.

If it were a sphere going partially underwater and bouncing up again it would go from circle to semi circle to gone and back again via semi circle.
 

Itsme

Member
From what I can see the sphere glare shrinks equally from a large circle to small circle, the Space X capsule changes it's visible shape as some of it goes under water.

If it were a sphere going partially underwater and bouncing up again it would go from circle to semi circle to gone and back again via semi circle.
Not if it is an object causing IR glare because of its heat. In that case the exact shape of the object would be obscured by its IR glare, but the general pattern one would see when it sinks into the ocean is that it mainly shrinks from the bottom, like I demonstrated in my previous post.
 

jarlrmai

Active Member
Because the object is not visible only the glare from a point source which means as it goes over the horizon the glare brightness reduces which reduces the spread of the glare on the camera evenly as is seen possible the glare would reduce from the bottom more slightly.

But us thinking it is an IR glare from a point source is the current "sceptical theory" the "Corbel theory" seems to be some sort of sphere shaped object close to the ship, i.e. the IR profile is the physical shape/size of the object, I might be wrong as the actual unexplained physics theories are little bit hard to nail down.
 

Amber Robot

Active Member
An object heated by air friction will also cause IR glare, like for instance the SpaceX capsule in this picture:
Screenshot_2021-06-04-09-04-30-738~2.jpeg
The glare does not have to be much bigger than the object.

If you look at its splashdown, you first see the bottom disappearing but then the splashing water obscures the whole object:
Screenshot_2021-06-04-09-06-05-501~2.jpeg
Screenshot_2021-06-04-09-08-53-805~2.jpeg
Screenshot_2021-06-04-09-09-53-063~2.jpeg

I guess that splashing water will also obscure the object in IR.

Now, if I look at how the object in the Navy video disappears, it may behave similar to the SpaceX capsule:

First the bottom touches the water surface:
Screenshot_2021-06-04-08-31-25-464~3.jpeg

Then some of the bottom sinks below the surface while water starts splashing up:
Screenshot_2021-06-04-08-33-06-360~4.jpeg

After that, the splashing water obscures the whole object:

Screenshot_2021-06-04-08-33-23-138~3.jpeg

Note how the SpaceX capsule appears to be at the horizon as well.
It seems to me to be overly presumptuous to conclude this video is actually resolving the shape of the object.
 

Ravi

Active Member
It seems to me to be overly presumptuous to conclude this video is actually resolving the shape of the object.

Indeed. The blob cannot be resolved, as it is overexposure (glare). And the brighter the source, the bigger the glare. Because of this, most IR camera's (professional) have "multi-integration times", meaning that a ND filter is put in front of the sensor, whenever the brightness is above a certain threshold, so that the full dynamic range can be covered. The video from the topic shows that the cam was not actively swapping integration time and filters as this you would see straight away.
 

Itsme

Member
My claim is not that the video resolves the shape of the object.
My claim is that the object causing an IR glare does not need to be much smaller than the glare itself.
I included the IR picture of the descending SpaceX capsule as an example where the glare and the object do not differ much in size.
 

Amber Robot

Active Member
My claim is not that the video resolves the shape of the object.
My claim is that the object causing an IR glare does not need to be much smaller than the glare itself.
I included the IR picture of the descending SpaceX capsule as an example where the glare and the object do not differ much in size.
But we can’t know how big the object is if there is significant glare and/or if it is smaller than the resolution of the camera.

We just don’t know the size of the object.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
My claim is not that the video resolves the shape of the object.
My claim is that the object causing an IR glare does not need to be much smaller than the glare itself.
I included the IR picture of the descending SpaceX capsule as an example where the glare and the object do not differ much in size.
Of course not, but the evidence that it is a larger glare is that it uniformly shrinks as it vanishes.
The frames you clipped are not from the original video, so are rather useless.

 

Attachments

  • Omaha YouTube 1080p CROP VANISH.mp4
    1 MB · Views: 0

Itsme

Member
I clipped those frames from one of the earlier videos you posted, Mick. I hope you don't consider your own video fragments 'rather useless' ;)

But anyhow, here are some clips from the video you just posted. I my view it does not shrink uniformly, but from the bottom. The way it vanishes can also be explained in a way that is consistent with the audio on the Omaha video and similar to a splashdown of for instance a SpaceX capsule, where the object is incrementally obscured by water splashing up.
im1.jpegim2.jpegim3.jpegim4.jpeg
The IR glare of the object also diminishes as it becomes less visible, but I do not see much evidence of a distant point source.
 
Last edited:

Cassi O

Member
By plotting the height over time, we can get a rough idea of the decent rate. It was difficult to get heights, because of the blurry image, and the cut in the middle. I picked sections where it looked like the zoom was the same.

Using the YouTube video, I measured the height of the object above water on my screen in five second intervals.

This is what I came up with:

1622895397492.png
The dots are the measured values.

The blue line is a linear decent rate, which more closely matches a close object descending towards the water.

The green line is a spline, which due to the exponential earth curvature function, more closely matches an object at a constant altitude going over the horizon.
 

Itsme

Member
By plotting the height over time, we can get a rough idea of the decent rate. It was difficult to get heights, because of the blurry image, and the cut in the middle. I picked sections where it looked like the zoom was the same.
The camera is slowly moving downward, so I wonder what you used as reference point for height?
And what did you assume for the 'sinking speed' of the object? It could be anything, and it can vary over time.
 

JMartJr

Active Member
By plotting the height over time, we can get a rough idea of the decent rate. It was difficult to get heights, because of the blurry image, and the cut in the middle. I picked sections where it looked like the zoom was the same.

Using the YouTube video, I measured the height of the object above water on my screen in five second intervals.

This is what I came up with:

1622895397492.png
The dots are the measured values.

The blue line is a linear decent rate, which more closely matches a close object descending towards the water.

The green line is a spline, which due to the exponential earth curvature function, more closely matches an object at a constant altitude going over the horizon.
I'd offer a "Friendly Amendment." I'd suggest substituting "Elevation" for "Height." A distant object going over the horizon could remain at a constant height, as its elevation above the horizon, as seen by the observer, decreased.
 

Cassi O

Member
The camera is slowly moving downward, so I wonder what you used as reference point for height?
And what did you assume for the 'sinking speed' of the object? It could be anything, and it can vary over time.
It's the height of the object above the horizon. For this exercise, I'm assuming the object is traveling a constant speed and direction.,
 

Cassi O

Member
I'd offer a "Friendly Amendment." I'd suggest substituting "Elevation" for "Height." A distant object going over the horizon could remain at a constant height, as its elevation above the horizon, as seen by the observer, decreased.
It's really not elevation or height. The measurment is the vertical distance from the object to the horizon on my computer screen. We'll call it apparent height.
 

Ravi

Active Member
It's really not elevation or height. The measurment is the vertical distance from the object to the horizon on my computer screen. We'll call it apparent height.
I think it perhaps good to link in your post to the video you used? Just more handy for the reader to check you. ;)
 

Itsme

Member
It's the height of the object above the horizon. For this exercise, I'm assuming the object is traveling a constant speed and direction.,
We know nothing about the object's trajectory and speed (both of which may vary) so this plot and especially the blue line is full of speculation. I also wonder why you only have data points at the start and at the end, not in the middle.
Anyhow, the end looks very much like a descend, followed by leveling off in preparation for the touchdown, followed by the actual touchdown. A bit like a plane landing:
Screenshot_2021-06-05-21-46-34-501~2.jpeg
The constant and shallow angle of the blue line is misleading, since the rate of descend of the object may vary over time. If it descends quicker at the end, the angle of the blue and green line might be the same.

I think the bottom line is that the grainy video fragment we have cannot really identify what it is we're looking at. The data we have is simply too ambiguous.

If you hear the crew anticipating a splash, and the order to "mark bearing and range" when the anticipated splash materializes, and all that happening on a ship full of sensors, it's a little presumptuous to state "no, it didn't" based on just this grainy ambiguous phone video, don't you think?
 
Last edited:

Cassi O

Member
We know nothing about the object's trajectory and speed (both of which may vary) so this plot and especially the blue line is full of speculation. I also wonder why you only have data points at the start and at the end, not in the middle.
Anyhow, the end looks very much like a descend, followed by leveling off in preparation for the touchdown, followed by the actual touchdown. A bit like a plane landing:
Screenshot_2021-06-05-21-46-34-501~2.jpeg
The constant and shallow angle of the blue line is misleading, since the rate of descend of the object may vary over time. If it descends quicker at the end, the angle of the blue and green line might be the same.

I think the bottom line is that the grainy video fragment we have cannot really identify what it is we're looking at. The data we have is simply too ambiguous.

If you hear the crew anticipating a splash, and the order to "mark bearing and range" when the anticipated splash materializes, and all that happening on a ship full of sensors, it's a little presumptuous to state "no, it didn't" based on just this grainy ambiguous phone video, don't you think?

These are my measurements:

1622935807926.png

The graduation marks on the on-screen ruler I used were about 1 mm apart. Even with a magnifying glass it was difficult to get an accurate measurement between the fuzzy circle and grainy horizon line, so give or take a mm or two.

All that can be said for certain is the object descended at a faster rate at the end of the video than at the beginning. This is what would happen if it was traveling at a constant altitude and speed as it went over the horizon, but not knowing the actual speed and direction, there are of course other explanations as well.
 

Attachments

  • 1622935644641.png
    1622935644641.png
    147 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:

Cassi O

Member
When the object re-emerges it is covered with water so not very visible. Once the water subsides it becomes more visible again. I don't think it will cool down in just a few seconds.

The fact that they were able to "mark bearing and range" tells me they had more sensors on the object than just FLIR.

A couple more thoughts. There's an obvious difference between the Crew Dragon capsule and the object in the Omaha video, namely the big parachutes. Someone with better video analyzing skills than I should be able to figure out the relative horizontal rate of the object at the beginning of the video compared to the end. To me it looks like the object never slows down, so if it were to hit the water it would go splat, not splash.

I think of the Omaha crew manning the targeting station as 20 somethings on a training exercise, not imagining at the time that they were watching a distant aircraft going over the horizon, so following their training, scrambled a helicopter to go out and find the wreckage.
 
Last edited:

Itsme

Member
The object could be a drone with its own propulsion system. It disappears pretty fast.

Here's a nice video of planes going over the horizon. It even has some glare. The planes seem to be landing, so their rate of descent will probably be a bit quicker than your curves.
Even when they are landing and descending quickly, the dimming at the horizon is pretty slow. That's because the horizon is not a 'hard edge' and on top of that you'll have some refraction by the atmosphere.
 

Alphadunk

Member
Here's a nice video of planes going over the horizon. It even has some glare. The planes seem to be landing, so their rate of descent will probably be a bit quicker than your curves.
Even when they are landing and descending quickly, the dimming at the horizon is pretty slow. That's because the horizon is not a 'hard edge' and on top of that you'll have some refraction by the atmosphere.

Nice video! Would the FLIR also pick up the collision/navigation lights on the wings if it were observing a civilian airliner?
 

gtoffo

Active Member
Nice video! Would the FLIR also pick up the collision/navigation lights on the wings if it were observing a civilian airliner?
In the video those lights you see at the center are landing lights pointing towards the camera.

In IR you would see the plane fuselage and wings as they heat up due to friction. Also you would see two big heat sources from the engines in the wings if those were airliners.

Navigation lights might show up if they are emitting any (even residual) heat. If they were LED lights ( I think most modern airliners have LED light now) you probably wouldn't see them flashing though.
 

markus

New Member
The object could be a drone with its own propulsion system. It disappears pretty fast.

Here's a nice video of planes going over the horizon. It even has some glare. The planes seem to be landing, so their rate of descent will probably be a bit quicker than your curves.
Even when they are landing and descending quickly, the dimming at the horizon is pretty slow. That's because the horizon is not a 'hard edge' and on top of that you'll have some refraction by the atmosphere.
Judging by those landing lights, they are also descending at the same time as they are moving _towards_ the camera. Descending wants to put the plane below the horizon while moving towards the camera wants to put it over, so these are competing effects. If conditions are just right you could arrange for that 'transition' to take a really long time -- all it takes is for the glideslope to be almost parallel to, and just above a line connecting the viewer to the horizon. It's not clear this situation is representative of some flying object moving _away_ from the camera, presumably at constant altitude.

I did a little back of the envelope geometry to derive a formula for the descent speed of an object below the horizon at constant altitude. The object's radial speed away from the observer gets multiplied by the sine of the angle between the object and the horizon line, so

v_descent ~ v * sqrt(2 h / R)

where R is the radius of the earth and h is the object altitude. I don't know how high the object is so I'll arbitrarily pick 2000 feet. We get

v_descent ~ 0.016 * v

I have no idea how fast this thing was going, or in what direction, so I'll arbitrarily pick 50 knots to get an idea of the order of magnitude we're expecting here.

v_descent ~ 41 cm/s

If we're looking at, say, something like a 737 with an exhaust nozzle about a meter wide, the transition would take 2 seconds -- ignoring surface waves and refraction effects.

The transition in the video takes somewhere between 1 and 2 seconds. Could be longer if the sensor response is nonlinear at those intensities, which seems likely. Given the uncertainties involved in the estimate and the possibility that the object was descending, this video still seems easily consistent with an object becoming occluded by the horizon.
 
Last edited:

Itsme

Member
Don't forget that the horizon is not a 'hard edge'. It bends backwards and sidewards. On top of that the atmosphere shows diffraction effects.

The glare of the plane's landing lights takes about 2 seconds to travel its own height when it is about to move behind the horizon. Yet it takes about 5 seconds for the glare to fully disappear behind the horizon. That's 2,5 times as long as you would expect.

In the last part of the Omaha video, the object descends its own height in about 9 seconds, so its relative rate of descend is 4,5 times slower than the plane. Yet it disappears in less than 2 seconds.

If you scale the jet example to the object in the Omaha video, it should take 4,5*5 = 22 s to fully disappear behind the horizon. It should take much longer because its relative rate of descend is 4,5 times slower.

However, it sinks 10 times faster (it sinks in 2 s instead of 22 s)...

Maybe it is simply descending 2,5 times as fast as the plane, because if the plane was descending 2,5 times as fast it would also disappear in 2 seconds. The object, however, takes 4,5 times as long to descend its own height compared to the plane. If it is descending 2,5 times as fast on top of this, it is a glare 10 times as big as the plane's if it would be at the same distance (4.5 x 2,5), and even bigger if it was further away! And to disappear behind the horizon, it has to be at a distance comparable to that of the plane...
And if it is 10 times as big it will still need 20 s to disappear given the 2 s of the plane descending 2,5 times as fast.

So it's going to be very hard to reach less than 2 s for the object to disappear behind the horizon because it already takes 9 s to descend its own size and the plane example shows that disappearing behind the horizon takes longer than the time required to descend your own size.

Note that the actual size of the landing lights of a plane is about 20 to 30 cm, so what you see is basically a glare from a point source.
 
Last edited:

markus

New Member
I made some edits to the above -- where I originally said the speed gets multiplied by the sine of the angle between observer and horizon, I should've said sine of the angle between horizon and object. This greatly increases the estimated descent speed, and it gets larger the higher up the object is. Using the same formulas, an airliner at cruise altitude moving directly away from the viewer would be descending at around 14 m/s! That's enough to occlude even an entire 747 in less than 2 seconds.

I'm not sure there's much to be gained from comparing the amount of time it takes for the glares to traverse their own heights, because these are glares of different sizes taken on cameras with different FOVs. A comparison with absolute elevation measurements would be more useful, but these are still vastly different conditions (notice that the apparent instantaneous descent speed depends strongly on altitude as well as radial velocity, as well as the plane's sink rate which I've ignored in my estimates). I also cannot account for atmospheric refraction since I have no way of estimating the atmosphere's temperature profile that day.
 

jplaza

New Member
An object heated by air friction will also cause IR glare, like for instance the SpaceX capsule in this picture:
Screenshot_2021-06-04-09-04-30-738~2.jpeg
I would say that being in controlled descent with parachutes, that capsule has already cooled down and is just reflecting sunlight.
 

Itsme

Member
I would say that being in controlled descent with parachutes, that capsule has already cooled down and is just reflecting sunlight.
These images were recorded during a nighttime descend, so no sun. It reaches over 3000 degrees Fahrenheit while returning to Earth, so it's probably still pretty hot on descend (air is not a great thermal transducer). The ocean water further cools it down after splashdown.
 

Itsme

Member
I made some edits to the above -- where I originally said the speed gets multiplied by the sine of the angle between observer and horizon, I should've said sine of the angle between horizon and object. This greatly increases the estimated descent speed, and it gets larger the higher up the object is. Using the same formulas, an airliner at cruise altitude moving directly away from the viewer would be descending at around 14 m/s! That's enough to occlude even an entire 747 in less than 2 seconds.

I'm not sure there's much to be gained from comparing the amount of time it takes for the glares to traverse their own heights, because these are glares of different sizes taken on cameras with different FOVs. A comparison with absolute elevation measurements would be more useful, but these are still vastly different conditions (notice that the apparent instantaneous descent speed depends strongly on altitude as well as radial velocity, as well as the plane's sink rate which I've ignored in my estimates). I also cannot account for atmospheric refraction since I have no way of estimating the atmosphere's temperature profile that day.

I think your computation forgets that the plane appears to get lower when the distance to the observer increases. The observer does not observe altitude directly, but only the rate at which the angle between the object and the horizon gets smaller. This rate is smaller if the object is further away and seems to be at a lower altitude.

At some point, the plane will appear to be at the same altitude as the observer (the FLIR camera). In a flat earth approximation, the jet would never reach that point but slowly crawl towards it with an ever slowing rate. The only reason it goes under the horizon is because of the earth's curvature and as we know, this curvature is very shallow so it will take some time for the plane to disappear. In that sense the demos with the flashlight and a book are a bit misleading, and even the video of the landing planes is, because the planes in that video are actively descending while flying towards the observer.

So, if your calculations do not take the Earth's curvature into account they can never describe the real situation that is claimed here.
 

jplaza

New Member
These images were recorded during a nighttime descend, so no sun. It reaches over 3000 degrees Fahrenheit while returning to Earth, so it's probably still pretty hot on descend (air is not a great thermal transducer). The ocean water further cools it down after splashdown.
It looks daylight to me:

If you look at its splashdown, you first see the bottom disappearing but then the splashing water obscures the whole object:
Screenshot_2021-06-04-09-06-05-501~2.jpeg
Screenshot_2021-06-04-09-08-53-805~2.jpeg
Screenshot_2021-06-04-09-09-53-063~2.jpeg
And at 3000 ºF (1600ºC) it should be glowing in red. So maybe it gets 1600ºC during the first stage of re-entry, but it sure cools down much before touchdown.

I just want to point out that the interpretation of IR images is not as straightforward as it may seem.

(edit: typo)
 

Ravi

Active Member
They use(d) special material that takes away most of the heat during the re-entry (and some more techniques). This means the Astronauts could be safely brought back to Earth, otherwise the whole module would have burned to a crisp.

This also means the module was likely not very hot, and for sure not glowing hot. Probably it was not hot at all.

I googled a lot but cannot find a taylor made story about this. But, this is what I know.
 

DavidB66

Active Member
The video at #263 was filmed from one side of Lake Pontchartrain in Louisiana, and shows a plane descending to New Orleans airport on the other side of the lake, about 25 miles away. Most of the 'descent' really is descent in altitude, and not just 'following the curve of the earth'. The film was taken by 'Soundly', who made many excellent videos debunking 'flat earth' a few years ago. The point of this video was to show that the airport is 'behind the curve of the earth' when viewed from that distance. As I pointed out somewhere in this thread, a passenger aircraft flying at standard cruising altitude would have to be very far from the observer (200+ miles) before it went over the horizon. Of course, a plane or drone at a low altitude might be closer than that. As a rough estimate, a plane at 1000 feet altitude would go over the horizon at about 50-60 miles. The relationship is not linear, and a plane would have to be flying very low indeed to go over the horizon within 20 miles. (I'm assuming a viewing height of 50-100 feet.)
 

jplaza

New Member
The images were taken from different videos. This is the nighttime landing video:
Oh, well... so the capsule was completely illuminated like a Christmas Tree. Makes all sense, since it is night and you definitely want it to be visible by all possible means (and wavelengths)

But that raises more questions as if you know the kind of IR camera being used (Near Infrarred, mid-infrarred, long-wave infrared), and what kind of illumination the capsule had (led, halogen, its spectrum...), before making interpretations of the image you posted, and deciding if it can be compared to the USS Omaha video.

BTW, same question could be made about the Omaha video. At least, I had assumed it was a mid-infrared camera, but I don't really know if that's the case, and if there is confirmation about the type of camera.
 

jdk

New Member
BTW, same question could be made about the Omaha video. At least, I had assumed it was a mid-infrared camera, but I don't really know if that's the case, and if there is confirmation about the type of camera.

You appear to be correct assuming mid-infrared.

The datasheet for the SAFIRE II states: THERMAL IMAGER wavelength: "3-5 μm response."

Same for the SAFIRE III.

I am unclear as to which one the USS Omaha uses as I've seen members refer to both in this thread.
 

markus

New Member
I think your computation forgets that the plane appears to get lower when the distance to the observer increases. The observer does not observe altitude directly, but only the rate at which the angle between the object and the horizon gets smaller. This rate is smaller if the object is further away and seems to be at a lower altitude.

At some point, the plane will appear to be at the same altitude as the observer (the FLIR camera). In a flat earth approximation, the jet would never reach that point but slowly crawl towards it with an ever slowing rate. The only reason it goes under the horizon is because of the earth's curvature and as we know, this curvature is very shallow so it will take some time for the plane to disappear. In that sense the demos with the flashlight and a book are a bit misleading, and even the video of the landing planes is, because the planes in that video are actively descending while flying towards the observer.

So, if your calculations do not take the Earth's curvature into account they can never describe the real situation that is claimed here.
My calculations are based on the Earth's curvature. Here's a terrible mspaint diagram to illustrate.
 

Attachments

  • horiz.png
    horiz.png
    15.3 KB · Views: 11

Scaramanga

New Member
ISS Time.png
https://www.extraordinarybeliefs.com/news4/navy-filmed-spherical-ufos
A clean view. I set the map coordinates to the ship's reported position at the time (instead of San Diego) and the observer height at 15 meters. It disappears the next second

From what I can see in the video, the time on the display was 11:00 p.m. and 12 seconds when the object dips below the horizon; which is a 19 minute difference.

From what I understand, Stellarium is calculating the position of ISS now (rather then reporting a time calculated in July 2019). The ISS is in low Earth orbit, and is subject to atmospheric drag. There are reboosts about once a month to correct for this. So, there's ample room for a 19 minute error.

However, looking at the edited video again, the object was near the horizon several minutes before, so I don't think it can be ISS.

The looks like a distant plane that dips below the horizon. The perception that the loss in apparent altitude is due to an actual loss in altitude is understandable, but I think it's more likely due to perspective as it flies farther away.

I also checked Stellarium, and yes the ISS was visible at the time. But...it was travelling across the sky ( or at least thats how it seems ) much slower than the 'UFO'. Do we know if the video is zoomed in or anything like that ? It might account for the appearance of greater speed than the ISS.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
H CLAIM: USS Omaha videos were taken on the ship's "Combat Information Center" by "VIPER team" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 5
A USS Omaha UFO / UAP Radar Video UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 238
LorentzHall 'Transmedium Sphere' Photos (Jeremy Corbell) UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 7
Mick West 'Fast Movers' and 'Transmedium' Vehicles UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 10
Mick West Sphere, Acorn, Metallic Blimp - Three iPhone Photos From an F-18 via Mystery Wire UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 164
Mick West San Diego Silver Sphere Videoed By Rick Ybarra, 2014 [Probably a Ballon Model] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 24
S Helioviewer-Sphere near sun: moves towards sun unlike Coronal prominence cavity UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 4
Mick West Cube in a Sphere UFO's Seen by Navy pilots. Radar Targets? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 17
Mick West "Golden Orb" Daytime Reflective Sphere UFOs in Photos UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 42
Rory Calculator for viewing angles Tools for Investigating and Debunking 12
Z.W. Wolf Claim: The Moon's Shadow During The Solar Eclipse Disproves Sphere Earth Flat Earth 97
Mick West How to Verify that the Sun is a Distant Sphere, with Binoculars & Sunspots Flat Earth 24
N Please help me to debunk this topic: stranges sphere outside of the ISS. General Discussion 18
DarkStar Earth curvature: Differences with Sphere/Ellipsoid/Geoid models for Visibility etc Flat Earth 8
Bass In Your Face Curvature Experiment showing relation between x-axis and z-axis Flat Earth 15
Mick West Explained: Giant Black Sphere Hovering Near the Sun [Coronal Prominence Cavity] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 69

Related Articles

Top