Search results

Hmmm, no, what I said about frame resolution might be wrong. I guess what I was trying to say is that the clouds move every frame, so it's possible to measure their movement to within just a frame or two, whereas the bank angle is continuously and slowly changing. But unlike the numerals, it too...

Spotted on Twitter today. These kinds of recurring sentiments are why I'm interested in the question and the prospect of building robust goalposts for these guys to aim for. ("That has been denied to us intentionally" is your basic as hoc hypothesis.)

Marik is a liar and a shameless one at that. Consider these images posted in a Twitter thread: • He claims that my model is "based on cloud motion only," a lie. As detailed in the accompanying video, my model is based on all of the data on the screen, including the bank angle for roll, but...

Actually I have 1027 frames. This is interesting, I don't know why it would be different. I downloaded from the .mil site, then created a reference version where the frame numbers count up on the left. That file is in 29.97 fps. My model outputs at 29.97 fps. I did notice a few static frames at...

This is one thing that's driving me so crazy — which I keep repeating here and on Twitter but seems not to be landing — that I have to put it in bold: I don't have one 10 NM trajectory. I have an uncountably infinite number of 10 NM trajectories. Something they all have in common is they all...

It must be this one below. But there's no scenario in which the Gimbal object could experience any mid-course trajectory change, or to noticeably start slowing down, let alone to suddenly stop and wait. One only has to look at the clouds to see that. The only compatible motion at close range is...

Maybe. But maybe not. Dark matter might be all around us and has been here since the beginning of time, but we don't have all of the evidence yet to know that. So far the evidence has been indirect, and that's not good enough. Additionally we cannot do thought experiments about how ETs would or...

Lots of great comments! If I/we were to pursue some kind of "robust skeptic goalposts for UFOs," it would need to incorporate the following: 1. The distinction and separation between UFOlogists' "extraordinary" criteria and skeptics' "extraordinary" (or far-breakthough) criteria needs to be made...

That's a great point. I am probably spending too much time on Twitter. Perhaps unnecessarily, I feel the urge to respond when someone says "nothing would ever convince you, nothing would be good enough." I feel the same way about some believers — there are many folks who, at this point, might...

Did they say anything about aliens? Because I don't think they ever said anything about aliens ;) A robust set of goalposts would be intended for the bold few who aren't just asking questions, but who legitimately believe either (1) there is evidence of alien visitation, or (2) no matter what...

(I've posted screenshots of this to Twitter. It's a draft of a video script, and right now it's just my personal opinion, but I think it would be good if a bunch of skeptics agreed upon such a statement — what exactly are we asking for? Some of these requirements might be too weak or too...

I edited my answer when I realized what you were asking. You should do one that's more accurate. I don't grasp that reasoning. How would simulated clouds move according to your method, if we put a camera on your sightline? Do you think it would be closer to the original?

The accuracy of the clouds representation is related to the accuracy of the final results, yes. Not true, but it does determine where exactly the camera is pointed left-to-right at any time. If a cloud feature at the left edge of the picture on frame x reaches the right edge at frame y, then...

2D would be slightly simpler. But the altitude difference between the observer and object is important, so I say let's just start in 3D, but maybe starting with an object that doesn't change altitude. I learned a (very basic) technique that could make this a ton easier — constraining the camera...

Diffraction? It's more of a problem in IR because of the wavelengths. The giveaway for me is how sharp outlines in the example, like the canopy, become wide gradients. You need to be able to see a broad enough area to get away from boundaries where the rays you want are corrupted. Regarding the...

We could test this. I'm not exactly sure how, but it seems doable at least on a limited, non-rigorous basis. Perhaps you could blindly come up with a trajectory, listing some specifics: 1. Initial distance 2. Initial altitude 3. Initial and final true airspeeds 4. Altitude change 5. Turn rate A...

This is one of those counterintuitive things that seems wrong based on common sense. Let's take the hypothetical that the 30 NM straight-and-level trajectory is what happened. The clouds lower simply because that's where the object was flying. Consider: 1. Looking at the plot below, if the...

Not that I know of. But in my model, the shape of the F-18 flight path has little importance. It just gets the aircraft in roughly the right places, and from there, its rotation parameter (discussed here) takes over. In the Blender file, the object that animates the F-18's rotation is called...

The speed varies according to the onscreen calibrated airspeed — offhand I think the TAS stayed between 348 and 355 knots — but that didn't really produce measurable changes over the constant-speed version at 350 knots, since position is translational. The F-18 is steady at 25,000 feet altitude...

Yes, that was here. "Straight" in my usage means zero horizontal acceleration. I only looked at banking accelerations; I didn't look at linear accelerations until I tried to recreate the 10 NM "Graves scenario" (which is only a linear acceleration as seen from above). I'm pretty sure there's a...