Latest activity

I wonder if this hornéd fellow hovering over VP Vance's boss in this post from the other night is one of those demons? He looks... ominous... .

I actually clipped that bit of the video, as it's a great example of loads of ice particles zipping in different directions and at different distances - somewhat more violently that ISS examples, but still cool.

Can you clarify something, Mick? You say the glare theory is "very well demonstrated." The theory requires an extra rotation mechanism (beyond normal pod elevation change and tracking). You've previously acknowledged there is rotation present...

Passing under wind speed when going against the wind looks like a ping-pong ball on radar, where ground speed is shown. You're going one direction (against the wind) then suddenly the opposite (with the wind). You're simply biased in how you...

I was impressed by his message on Twitter a couple of months ago (above). So many people don't get to square up to death like that publicly, and he did it admirably.

That the "object" is glare. You've seen my video. There's a huge weight of evidence. A LIZ noisy-data puzzle does not override all of that.

While that may be the site of the car crash, there's no evidence it's the site of the UFO. It's implausible that the guy could know the crash happened at exactly the same tree that he almost crashed into. In the dark. There are trees everywhere.

One of the most annoying things about Artemis has been the huge number of AI images that you have to sift through to find the real ones. Apollo never had this problem :rolleyes:

Like a big balloon? Surely that's a subset of a broader "nearby object" theory? In all seriousness, perhaps we need a hierarchical taxonomy of theories? And then a ranked list? And are you saying that a theory should get a high ranking if it...

#3 should be "A nearby object tilting in the wind". Your biased title makes it sound ridiculous. But it's still the one matching context and the range fouler report, so it has the merit of making less assumptions about the crew and instruments...

I have no confidence that any UAP-related material released by this particular administration will be either legitimate, or even worthwhile. It might show some anomalous object, but the video (and or pictures) might be too...

There are two theories, and it's a mistake to conflate them. 1) The Glare Theory - which I think is very well demonstrated, and does not rely on the distant plane theory. 2) The Distant Plane Theory - Where there's a set of possible traversals...

Or the glare-from-a-distant-plane theory. To me it exactly fits this description you give.

I meant: strange, quirky, incomprehensible. Theories that look halfway reasonable, but are based on unstated complex assumptions. Once those assumptions come out, the theory just seems unsustainable. But it LOOKS good. Triangulation is a good...

The response to a previous paper claiming the transients represent real objects made some interesting points (it's actually noted in the second paper, "On the Image Profiles of Transients in the Palomar Sky Survey.") In On the nature of apparent...