Search results

You haven't quoted what he's said so we don't know what you're referring to. Same for the Mitchel fella. But I'm pretty sure I can pre-empt it by saying it's gobbledygook and if you  can get your head around it that's when you've got to start worrying. ;) Same with that book I referred to...

Some rough mixes of a few of my songs here if any of y'all want a listen: https://www.bandlab.com/toddlanders

Right. He does estimates based on varying distances between the fence and the plane: I guess the problem is there's no real way to know how far the fence is from the camera. Though I suppose we could make some reasonable estimates.

Yep, that's exactly it - many thanks for that. So I would say that does support Dom's proposal that because we're not really seeing the bottom - ie, the centre-line is horizontal - then it's further weight to it not being a large 3D object some height and distance above the camera. Those...

True. But it's good to use realistic numbers. :) More realistic might be: model six to twenty feet away and two to ten feet above the camera; and craft a thousand to fifteen hundred feet away and a hundred to three hundred feet above the camera. All very rough guesses and quite possibly...

15,000 feet isn't really applicable here though. Didn't they say it was like 150 feet above them (via Lindsay)? Or maybe that was someone else just guessing that? Agreed. But at the same time I don't think anyone's proposed that it did have a flat bottom. Yes, I suspect several of us aren't...

Right. But I guess what Dom is saying is that a large craft at the proposed height and distance ought to appear more 3D, and since we're beneath it that would include seeing the bottom. And also that the model in a tree would be at less of an angle from the camera. I get what you're saying...

Distance creates angle, no? As well as height, of course. Though for the bottom seeing idea less distance/more height = bigger/better angle

Yours looks much more 3D than theirs! :D And credit to you: I can't right now remember how you did it - painting/shading on flat wood? - but if you told me it was a 3D model with realistic depth I would believe it.

I guess I was thinking model on a string would be about the same eye level - therefore no bottom - whereas craft 100 feet above would appear different. But if as members seem to agree that isnt the case...well, I guess I'm not immediately getting my head around it. Or are we saying we  can see...

Interesting: I don't remember hearing that point made before. But, yes, that makes sense. What we see appears basically flat, as though it was either 2D or close to the camera (or both). But if it was a hundred feet away and a hundred feet up we should see at least a part of the bottom, right?

Is this hypothesis unrealistic? MoD did talk further to the photographer and other witness Hoax was admitted An agreement was reached that the hoaxing wouldn't be publicised (the Jaroslaw case is a good example of the stresses this can bring) The whole thing was consigned to the bin of history...

Another case for your scrapbook Dave, curiously reminiscent of Calvine: Two teenage brothers (15 and 17) took 4 pictures of a UFO They said it hovered for ten minutes, flew away, and was followed soon after by a helicopter The pictures showed an unknown craft, foliage, and part of the frame of...

This idea of an "error that was later acknowledged" is disputed by Jim Oberg here: https://yarchive.net/space/politics/ufo_gemini11.html He also says that at the time (1996) there were no other ufologists who could compute satellite orbits from scratch, and that Maccabee used data he obtained...

Wouldn't that still be a point of light? Interestingly, the astronaut initially described it as "a large tumbling object": Source: https://historycollection.jsc.nasa.gov/JSCHistoryPortal/history/mission_trans/GT11_TEC.PDF Though saying "it could have been anything from our Extravehicular...

Bruce Maccabee's analysis of it is very detailed and would be a good starting point for @johne1618 to begin his research: https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Gemini-11-UFO.pdf He concluded (in 2000) that it was still unidentified and seemed to dismiss...

So from the above - and other things - I suppose the answer is "not very". Just his repetition of the not reported "low humming sound" is enough to confirm that, at best, either his memory is wonky or someone told him the wrong story.

What's he saying?

Yeah, that was assumed near the beginning but later showed to be wrong. Conversation on that starts here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-278598 I think all we can really say is that one was at least 17 (cos driving) and that they were "young". But...

There was some info regarding the hotel: