Search results

He hasn't made Grusch's DPSR cleared statement(s) available. I suspect he's covering up how much Grusch's narrative evolved since then.

I searched for "Millette" on Metabunk and identified threads that may be of interest to you, @Kitcosby (though I must admit I only sampled a small part of the search results). First, there's Investigating "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 WTC Catastrophe". I also...

The topic of this thread is the iron microspheres. Mick has re-created microspheres in his garage in various ways, see the thread linked in the OP: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/making-iron-microspheres-grinding-impacts-welding-burning.9533/ Going by that, lots of microspheres would've been...

Please use the EX tags to quote external sources: Looks like this:This study shows that data is important. Quotes can't be re-quoted, which makes replies harder to read.

Coulthart's use of "verified as credible" instead of "verified as true" illustrates that Coulthart's notion of what verification entails is somewhat flawed—or that he's trying to mislead.

I'm going further. I believe that Bigelow used money from a DoD contract to investigate paranormal phenomena. I believe that Bigelow has facilities to reverse-engineer UFOs and "meta-materials", but doesn't actually possess materials crafted by unknown NHIs. This is proof that Bigelow believes...

yes. But what you seem to be claiming is that he must have perjured himself if • the claims he testified about to the HOC/HPSCI/SSCI are not verifiable • there is no UFO retrieval program • there is no UFO reverse engineering program • there is no project that violated reporting requirements...

if by that you mean, "stabilisation algorithm", then yes.

The point is that Grusch has not perjured himself here if these programs are not UAP-related, but that's the core of the claim. However, Grusch never asserts it. "I was informed" establishes his good faith, and then you're missing the intent to lie that is required for perjury.

No, because it's not material. If it turns out he only testified 10 hours, that's not perjury.

heavily paraphrased: Elizondo: "the Navy has UFO videos" videos get released Mick West: "my analysis shows those are likely ordinary jets" the release of the UAP data reduces the space that misinformation (claims without proof) can occupy

your source: "While it is unclear if any evidence exists that could support Eshed's claims". UFO nuts are everywhere, that's global, no tangible evidence anywhere, that's also global, so the alleged coverup must also be global, and that's unprecedented and highly unlikely. no, they don't...

They didn't care about that. Remember, their scoring has a category for "does not fit the rater", which implies they have categories that do. And if they're using dead raters, well, that'd just be like the mediums scoring themselves. :-p

They probably hope that Monheim's answer gives them a list of people to ask for testimony officially, without revealing who the "whistleblowers" were. It gives us a clue as to the quality of their witnesses, some of may only claim to be "involved" "indirectly".

Shamelessly stolen and cropped from @Charlie Wiser at https://threedollarkit.weebly.com/blog/the-journalist-the-scientist-and-the-bodyguard . Apparently, these images (not the captions!) ran on an actual news segment about UFOs.

A DSLR has a different image stabilisation than a smartphone camera. DSLR: An in-lens stabilisation system utilises a floating lens element. This element is controlled by a microcomputer that’s able to detect the movement and then reacts in the opposite direction to nullify the shake effect...

out-of-focus insect close to the camera artist, probably

The scoring in that second study is also suspect. Note that "correct" ranges from 3 to 6, while "incorrect" ranges from 1 to 2. (1 was never chosen in the exploratory experiment. Since 1 means "much worse than random chance", that's not surprising.) If you have 1 rater choosing "6" and 3...

I didn't see anything on how the decoy readings were chosen. Pick a maximum non-fit, and the real reading will seem that much more accurate. I don't agree.

Next time I'm flying I'll bring a flashlight, pretty sure I can take similar footage with a reflection in the window.