Search results

Yup. I got 637x359 metres. Pretty close. Wasn't sure what to do with that though, since I didn't know if there was any zoom or crop going on.

311 metres in 2 seconds = 9330m per minute = 560 kmph = 348 mph if it's travelling along the ground Did you maybe work it out for 311m in one second? Though I've timed it a bit more precisely and it seems like ~1.3s to me.

I made a quick Google Sheets calculator for the various factors: Will share when finished. But does anybody know what the equation is for estimating the length of an object given its distance; its size in pixels; and pixels per metre derived from a known distance please? Anything else that...

I think he probably genuinely thinks it's something interesting. I estimate it at more like ~270m: (I had enough fannying around with that, but the red line is 1.04x longer than the white line, therefore 272m.) I mean, it looks like a bird to me. Among other things it could be...

Also, sorry to be nitpicky, but that citation isn't "from Google", it's from this page: https://howtodiscuss.com/t/how-fast-does-a-seagull-fly/54167 which is chockablock full of really hilarious gobbledygook: How fast does a seagull fly? For example, a seagull can fly between 15 and 28 km /...

Ditto. Can't see an image.

Not all skeptics take that as the default position - in fact, probably a minority of them think that. Though if you really believe it's true please provide evidence (skeptics' joke there). I guess on this one there's not really very much to talk about. Some people saw something 14 years ago...

Can you post them in this thread here please? One of the ways metabunk works is that people post the evidence, sources, primary sources, and references, etc in the threads themselves, so that other people don't have to go digging around for them. It takes a little while to get used to - to be...

It would seem possible to analyse the sun reflection idea by knowing where all the witnesses were and knowing where the sun was. Can you provide us with this information please? (ie, times, locations, clickable map coordinates, etc)

Can you show your workings? I'm interested to know how you arrived at this figure.

Alas, I probably know less than most since I'm so knew to the Gimbal game. All I know - or think I know - is that he was a VT-9 instructor pilot and his WSO was working in the Pentagon in 2019. But no names unfortunately. :( Yep. I think somebody at the website watched the original news story...

Sure. If the carrier was here: is that better or worse for your hypothesis?

Thanks for that. Much appreciated. Hi Mauro, what's the reason for thinking the plane was so far south?

Matthew Spanopoulos isn't a pilot, he's a cell phone salesman who also thought he saw some different UFO near Jacksonville in 2015 - apparently this one: The juxtaposition of his tale with the Gimbal stuff in the News4Jax story is weirdly reported, and it seems that quite a lot of places...

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the Jacksonville Operating Area (JAX OPAREA) rather than the "Jacksonville area". The JAX OPAREA extends almost to the South Carolina border, and as far south as Daytona Beach, plus a long way out to sea: Source...

Just thinking about the time/date: Greenewald posted that on September 11th 2019 - kind of strange how the NYT posted a date of January 20th almost six months earlier - and also strange that it's only there as a footnote to a video, whereas the article itself never gets more specific than...

Yep, I believe it would be. I think the thing that's clear is that ONS population figures are more accurate than NIMS - and because the data in this thread uses ONS data the NIMS issue isn't a factor. Spot on. I emailed the people at Health Data and they replied: We provide age-specific...

Sorry if this has already been answered (there are a lot of posts on the subject and I haven't read them all) but I'm curious as to what the confirmation is that it was either January 20th or 21st? Is there any chance it could have been an earlier date in January?

Yeah, not really possible - they didn't break the 10-59 year age range down into sub-groups. Though when they calculated the age-standardised mortality rates they used 5-year age groups (not shown) - hence why that displays higher mortality rates for unvaccinated. Original spreadsheet here.

That could have been an issue for the data in the OP - and clearly has been for other data - but Simpson's Paradox alone seems sufficient to explain this particular case.