Latest activity

While kind of interesting, those numbers are irrelevant. They don't account for the number of transients per tile in their analysis, and there's at least one in nearly every tile. So it comes down to a correlation between the days on which...

Have they released any more detailed breakdown? How many at +2, +1, -1, -2 and so forth? Also the use of 'days' could be causing all sorts of issues. The US nuke test sites straddle Palomar, there should be no ambiguity as to when the plates...

Looking at the original post, what's the intent with this thread? Debunk Marik's video, go into circles on the glare observables (and unobservables), encourage new analyses...? Unclear to me.

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...

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...

Agreed. The US would not test an experimental aircraft in Scotland. However, if they had tested it at Area51 and it was successful, then Scotland might be the location for the next step. Operational Test & Evaluation (OTE), where the aircraft is...

That's absurd, but independently of Gimbal, fine-tracking an object to microradians, super-zoomed, may be prone to a slight disruption in the image (bump) if there is a change in attitude (acceleration, deceleration, extended IR signature with...

@Mick West , please spend your time refining your model, not arguing in circles. It's not an "explanation". The bumps are proof that the observed fast rotations originate with the camera system and not with the external world. Once the rotation...

Glare from an IR source would be an optical indication of the means of propulsion. "Vertical U-turn" implies a 180 degree (or thereabouts) change in direction of flight in the vertical plane; I don't think we see this. It's hard to see the...

No, they are assertions. If they are in the data, then I would agree with you. You are pushing Marik's interpretation, your interpretation, and the perceptions and memories of the pilots, as if they are inviolable representations of reality.

They are in the data. Source: https://x.com/MvonRen/status/1669133205985714176

Those are not "facts", they are assertions. Please stop doing that.

You're focusing on one aspect (camera-induced bumps causing the rotation) and treating it as the most probable explanation, while downplaying or ignoring the broader set of anomalies and counter-points to the glare model. Here are the facts...

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...