Latest activity

"It's a hoax", while sometimes true, is often the lazy way to dismiss a thing. That's usually what we DON'T do here. If it's a hoax, we want to know how and why it was done before drawing that conclusion. If it's a mistake, a misidentification, a...

And sometimes it isn't. Pareidolia can get you stuck on one thing. We don't know what this is.

The VRT documentary aired today and it makes some very serious allegations, so serious I'd rather not repeat them myself. Needless to say they back up the Metabunk ADS-B research, that the "drone" video was a police helicopter, as such the...

Or, I'd think, that they are both caused by a common thing, such as the clutch popping in (or whatever the correct term is in an ATFLIR pod) making a bump and making the camera begin to rotate.

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 VRT documentary aired today and it makes some very serious allegations, so serious I'd rather not repeat them myself. Needless to say they back up the Metabunk ADS-B research, that the "drone" video was a police helicopter, as such the...

The current Gimbal sim is in something of an experimental state, before I lost interest. The original one (that I reference in my video) is here: https://www.metabunk.org/gimbal1/ No problem there, but it leaves the initial observed...

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...

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...

Your sim roll predict bumps though, because it predicts when the pod is supposed to roll in steps. And you say rolling in steps induces bumps. So it in fact it tells us when bumps should happen, or not happen in this case. You are super harsh...

The more years pass without any similar technology coming to light, the less probable this hypothesis becomes. Consider also this: there is a long road from fundamental science discoveries to working technology. Along this road, even if it was...

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...

Or, I'd think, that they are both caused by a common thing, such as the clutch popping in (or whatever the correct term is in an ATFLIR pod) making a bump and making the camera begin to rotate.

Is there a thing like Google Trends that allows Boolean operators? It might be interesting to search for "calvine ufo" AND "alien" -- followed by a search for "calvine ufo" AND whatever a good generic term that would crop up to denote a black...

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...