Search results

Well, I would expect a forensic doctor to be performing autopsies, put mutilated bodies back together, that sort of thing. So I would expect him to have a good grasp of general anatomy. But then you don't usually encounter fake bodies in forensic medicine.

I think "was alive" just means "actually lived at one time, but is now dead".

7/11 was a part-time job.

Cue Monty Python's dead parrot sketch: "She's not dead, squire, she's restin'."

they have eyes, nose, and a mouth if they have lungs, they're going to want to breathe if they have limbs, they ought to bend at the joints when the anatomy is such that this isn't possible, you're looking at something so ill-adapted to living that it can't have evolved even a robot dog has...

The NASA analysis is the subject of this thread. It does not consider wind. Other threads on Metabunk do, e.g. the "balloon hypothesis" thread that I referenced above. If you wish to present your own analysis, or comment on an analysis that considers wind, do it in the appropriate thread...

https://lbah.com/avian/egg-binding/attachment/xray-egg-bound-bird/ They don't look like this, for sure. And these are hard-shelled eggs for laying.

strongly paraphrased from ~1:07:40: "this can't move like a knee, and the bone walls are too thin." — "great, that proves it's not human!"

Do you know at what time in the livestream your clip(s) starts? Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eief8UMIwZI

Excerpts: Speculation. That’s where the problems come in. There is physical reality, and there is interpretation; and it is frequently the interpretation, rather than the reality, that seizes the attention of human beings. Our brains are remarkably predisposed to the interpretation of objective...

If this is on youtube, with usable subtitles, it would be interesting to watch.

No. That's the subject of other threads on this subforum. And the main obstacle to refining the analysis is lack of date/time/wind data and data on the motion of the jet. Speculating on these values "refines" nothing. (Though data on angular speed and the direction of the background in the...

I'm just putting this here... Duty Calls What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong! It's sometimes good to realize that you can disconnect and the world keeps on spinning. Welcome to Metabunk!

Nah, normally a pilot would adjust the heading of the aircraft to maintain the desired course. Which I expect they did.

I think the people who suggest the RaNGe can't be used are mistaken as to who has the burden of proof here. It's the people who maintain that GOFAST is anomalous who must show evidence. If they don't want to use the range to do it, they don't have a chance. If they want to substitute a range...

The assumed wind is blowing from 35⁰ left, displacing the aircraft right of its heading until it has turned to meet the wind head-on. The choice of 35⁰ seems entirely arbitrary, though; chosen to all but minimize the closing speed, but not based on evidence.

Knowing parallax, you're obviously aware that if the object's altitude is higher, the background motion will appear faster for the same object speed. And since you've called the reliability of the range data into question, well... (The same would hold true if the wind directions were opposite...

The wayback machine has it. el especialista en Medicina Legal y Forense de la Secretaría de Marina (Semar), José de Jesús Zalce Benítez

That's one part of it. The other is, who are the skeptics and who are the believers in the "smoking vs. cancer" debate? Which side is in denial about evidence, or lack thereof? With UFOs, the believers are the ones who believe in alien visitors. With Coulthart, it's those that believe him even...

Think of an arsonist. They arrive at a house with a jerrycan of gasoline, splash that around, then set it alight. Why? To create a nice big blaze right from the start that can't be put out easily. The fact that there were huge fires on several floors was a big problem for WTC1 and WTC7. The...