Search results

To prove these conclusions, one would need to show that the jars were made per design, and thus very likely would mean you can find many jars of the same size. I doubt that there are jars that are completely the same thus weakening the theory "it was done with a guided automated control...

Well it is basically a metrology thing, that what you measure is always an approximation of the real size. This is just a theoretical thing, no way around it. So the best one can do is try to measure as precise or accurate as possible with the smallest uncertainty. The digital model is an...

Ah, it is a kind reminder for me to try to find a free version of SA because that one will be needed to analyse the STL file. We have to be aware of it that the STL format is an approximation of the "real" surfaces, as it is a tessellated object. This means that the laser scan is made of the...

The key lies in this (bold by me). There is no "advanced machining" needed to explain what we see. Tube drills? Not really "advanced" if you ask me. Copper saws? Also, they (Jimmy et al) continuously introduce things like "they did not have diamond tipped saw blades, therefore impossible", but...

And of course, the "testimony from the pilot" in the OP, as per normal, first off rules out the most likely explanation (balloon), and finds all kind of arguments to say it is not ("no wake effect seen on object", "it moved towards the plane"). Hilariously, a few weeks ago there was a thread on...

Jimmy and the others are taking advantage of the fact that we don't know much about the way the Giza pyramid complex was built, making it a perfect case of "mystery" that can be exploited. Because nobody can prove (written records) the Giza pyramids were built to bury Pharaohs (like Khufu)...

Frankly, I don't care much what Jimmy and all these other charlatans have to say, it is clearly just for entertainment purposes. But I do like to read the counter arguments here. "They" make use of the fact that we simply do not know everything about the ancients. We know a great deal, but...

https://youtube.com/shorts/1vFnMQQJboI (I am not sure, it seems to be not possible to embed a yt short?)

I know Jim from his YT channel, and have seen his videos. Although I have nothing against him, personally, but his views are in line with things that all the other YT propagate: the Egyptologists are lying to us and hiding this and that bla bla bla. He did similarly on the topic of Atlantis. He...

That is a big assumption. What if they did not want to do so? Perhaps there was a lack of resources at later builds. It is dangerous to project things that we find "normal" onto a cultures from thousands of years ago.

@Miss VocalCord The link you provided earlier to this paper: it is not proving it was done with casting and pouring concrete in situ at the pyramid. You know that they have found fossils in the stones (in Egypt, as in Peru)? Cannot find a link now, I will search.

I am pretty certain this is also not true (that the way to make pyramids was lost). That we do not know how they exactly did it, does not mean it could not have been done.

Some may say it, but that does not make it real. The ancient Egyptians nor the Incas utilised concrete as this has been studied (I know of a video explaining it, but cannot find it).

The difference is that the blob seen in the Mosul "sphere" still cannot be a ligt reflection as it is a dark gray blob.

Good stuff @flarkey, thanks for the effort!

Very nice! I wonder what chatGPT would give us if you say "please make a sequence of perfect photos of the moon at a fixed place, every night (at XX:XX), for 1 month". Perhaps someone with an account can try :cool:

I did not want to create a new thread just for a reddit entry, but I think the case below is probably also starlink. But perhaps it is good to check? Anyway, here is the reddit link: Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/11gd8yk/managed_to_film_this_ufo_over_colorado_springs_on/ The...

@Mendel Very clear. I don't know why I was thinking about the circumference of the in-plane circle and not the side-on. Thanks Mendel

@AtomPages Sorry, I am not getting it (the calculation in your OP). Could you please elaborate this "Angle difference = pixel shift * 360° / pixel circumference"? I might sound dumb, but I don't understand the calculation and want to know.

These figures look quite hand-drawn into the pics.. Very crudely so as well. I have no proof but it's got this Cottingley Fairies feeling.