Search results

IMO, Mauro is being much too sloppy and fast with his analysis. I've lost interest in trying to follow it. He doesn't need to try to solve every existing question every six hours. A more sober approach would involve (1) fully reviewing the "literature" on Metabunk, (2) presenting a new...

The field of view in Gimbal is .35° x .35°. NAR mode is 0.7°, Zoom 2 makes it half of that. A while back I used these numbers to find constraints on the object's size. I also figured out how much the size of the image increases over the duration of the clip. You seem to be doing a lot of...

But I thought total ignorance was expressed by 50%. "Between 100% and 0%" seems more correct — if there is no information, the probability is undefinable. Sabine Hossenfelder has criticized other theoretical physicists for trying to calculate probabilities that we live in a multiverse, or that...

Is this part of Bayesian inference, or did you make it up? I don't see it mentioned in the Wikipedia article, or in the equivalent article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The probability that there's a ball of pure gold orbiting somewhere in the Solar System is 50/50? The...

Sorry, I don't have a reference. I asked Mick about this months ago when I was doing my Gofast video, so he would know. People here who use the simulator could check their manual. It also makes sense, because the horizon establishes a reliable reference that remains constant as the aircraft...

The 2° is relative to the horizon, not to the aircraft. If the aircraft tilts up, the number won't change. (That's different from the left–right angle number, which is relative to the fuselage and does change when the aircraft turns.)

Ah, a classic appearance of the believer's "would." Whenever I see someone use the word "would," it stops me cold — it seems like 9 times out of 10, it's used in the middle of a naive thought experiment by somebody believing some story, e.g., “the building would have tipped over,” “The wings...

They both like the camera, but Kaku has gone a step further to making provocative statements that diverge from scientific consensus — even with regard to his old field, string theory. NDT doesn't do that, yet. I don't see him writing a book called The God Equation.

Other possibilities: A real or manmade orca.

They definitely have features of glitching AI imagery. Compare examples of AI-generated faces gone wrong — similar random stitching and odd feathering.

As I understand it, the vertical angle is with respect to the horizon, while the horizontal angle is with respect to the wings (or more intuitively, the fuselage). So if the aircraft started climbing steeply, the displayed vertical angle would not change. When I was first trying to wrap my head...

That's a very interesting stitch. While we've all been analyzing the bank angle (with very mixed results), perhaps this could yield a much more accurate recreation of the jet's flight path, and from there, bearing lines that can give us a better idea of the distance to the object. To see what...

A single eyewitness account can be interesting sometimes, but if the tail fell onto Liberty Street, there should be physical evidence that, um, the tail fell onto Liberty Street. And video of the tail falling onto Liberty Street.

I suppose it's possible, but is there any evidence that this happened? I certainly don't see anything that looks like plane fragments in any of the photos you posted. Do you think it's reasonable that parts of the back end of the plane stopped in mid-air and fell to the ground? Or bounced off...

I'm just a caveman, but this sounds like a terrible model. We are to believe that the impact of the fuselage would have slowed down the wings because the plane can be assumed to be a rigid mass? That's ridiculous. The wings contained the fuel tanks, and they were nearly full. That's where the...

We have a date discrepancy of one day. NYT says the video was shot on January 20, which would be the same day as the launch. Vice.com has it as January 21. Perhaps the latter date is based on UTC and someone forgot to translate it into EST. If the location was indeed off Jacksonville, at that...

An Atlas V's SRBs are jettisoned at an altitude of 25.7 NM. (From https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/03/26/atlas-5-launch-timeline-for-the-aehf-6-mission/ ) Everything depends on the distance, though. At 700 (statute) miles and an eyesight altitude of 25,000 ft, a sightline right over the...

Interesting theory, as it explains several things: 1. "There's a whole fleet of them" -- The SRBs (which could be going against the wind) 2. The large heat signature despite being >40 NM away (perhaps much farther than that — several different analyses, including my own, show that the bearing...

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Gimbal is so compelling: the blob never moves while the clouds are moving, slowing down, and tilting. I think the clip would actually be less compelling if the blob rotated along with the clouds and horizon indicator — that's what we might intuitively...

I received a DM from a UFOlogist, @realityseaker on Twitter, who had done some work on the Gimbal video and found something. Everyone focuses on the "flop," where the object/glare (hereafter the "blob") suddenly swivels dramatically — but his analysis suggests that the video's first 24 seconds...