Latest activity

I have no such aerospace knowledge, but I'll point out that if something's secret, the USA has miles and miles of almost empty desert area (White Sands Missile Range alone is bigger than the state of Delaware) and I cannot imagine a developer...

How, how could an external object sense there's been a 'bump' in the optical system which is tracking it, so it can then rotate in synchronism with the bumps? And why should the object want to do that? It's overwhelmingly probable the bumps are...

I've recently been working on an article about the Calvine case together with a Swedish photo analyst, focusing on summarizing the known facts and examining the photograph itself. My conclusion is that it's likely a relatively simple hoax...

I've recently been working on an article about the Calvine case together with a Swedish photo analyst, focusing on summarizing the known facts and examining the photograph itself. My conclusion is that it's likely a relatively simple hoax...

Meanwhile, the new Vera Rubin Observatory picked up 800,000 alerts of transients in its first night of observing. Are you guys ready to explain this?? :oops: NSF–DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory / NOIRLab / SLAC / AURA / P. Marenfeld / J. Pinto...

Maybe you smarter people can help a dullard out here. All of these papers floating around seem to use 2 related sets of "transients", either 5,399 or 107,000. Am I correct that the 5,399 number is a sub-set of the 107,000 which is a sub-set of...

How, how could an external object sense there's been a 'bump' in the optical system which is tracking it, so it can then rotate in synchronism with the bumps? And why should the object want to do that? It's overwhelmingly probable the bumps are...

How, how could an external object sense there's been a 'bump' in the optical system which is tracking it, so it can then rotate in synchronism with the bumps? And why should the object want to do that? It's overwhelmingly probable the bumps are...

The problem here is that each time I dig into your theories (like the triangulation issue), it takes a lot of time, and the end result is that there's some assumption you made that makes the entire thing meaningless (IIRC with triangulation it...

Why would it? There's nothing in there that predict bumps. Nothing prevents bumps from other sources. The implemented model predicts what the glare angle should be. The extents are not in the implemented model, and they don't require bumps...

That's a prediction by Mick based on an understanding of why the bumps occur, not a prediction built into the code. So why is this a salient point? You seem to be conflating our total understanding of the system with what is actually implemented...

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.

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...

I used the LROC Quickmap tool to recreate the "Earthset" photo and label some of the visible features. (Sadly the 3D model doesn't shade the Earth, only the moon.) Here is a link, but the URL doesn't preserve the time. To get that view you...

I recall one of the authors citing a spike at +1 days, but given the weird way they're using unadjusted dates for events on the other side of the international date line +/-1 day can be well over 24 hours before or after the event