Search results

If only a very well made video with a proper aperture and quality is used by the pilots, so that we can conclude things. But all they use is iphones.

So the 4 dot pattern lights are not it, right? I think that is inside cockpit reflections. What else do they see? Very hard to see in the vid. But as usual, over at reddit many think it is conclusively not Starlink.

I bet it is a perspective issue. Here is some interesting reading material if interested: Perspective shadow

On one hand I cannot blame pilots to not be aware of the extreme amount of Starlink satellites orbiting. But, on the other hand, should that not be at some point become common knowledge? The Starlink constellation will only get bigger. I mean, they (pilots) must at some point come to a kind of...

Not sure if it was posted already, but Ben made a new video, discussing the things. He mentions MB/Mick/Flarkeys work and mentions also some interesting features that could likely be resolved if SpaceX would be a bit more corporative to the requests on Starlink orbital info (retrograde etc)...

I believe it was mentioned in the briefing/hearing that was done some time ago. Forgot what that was called, but it was not very long ago. No idea.. :confused:

Apparently the US government holds a lot of corroborative data from multiple sensors for many of their (cannot quote or paraphrase here) "unsolved UAP cases". If none of that data is ever released to the public, the chances are incredibly low we will ever see the data from this Nimitz case too.

Where did you read this? Can you quote it?

@NorCal Dave Cannot be, as the camera is looking North. There are no other big mountains facing North.

Yes. Because we/us/they are not used to how clouds can look from above (unless you fly very low alt in a plane).

I cannot edit my post in #13 anymore but for the record, I made a mistake, indeed not taken from inside.. So forget all what I said. :) I am now pretty certain @purpleivan was correct, it might be the corner of the door/hatch.

Because over at Reddit they are convincing each other again this was real, I wanted to link the link from OP. But, it is gone. Someone perhaps know another link to the debunking done? PS, I also do not all the content using waybackmachine..

@FatPhil True. I cut some corners. The reflections (they are internal reflections) from the backsides are much less strong. I guess my argument for it being a reflection is a bit weak.

I think all images were taken from inside the Gemini capsule. A glass pane gives 2 reflections, and thus 3 panes is 3x2=6. I think the OP image does show that amount.

Ah, finally I get to say "I was right". :cool:

250ms exposure. That would mean that a moving object in the Martian sky would be (motion) blurry, right? Not so much seen on the black dotted images above. I think it is caused by cosmic rays temporary "blinding" the pixels (Mars does not have a magnetosphere to deflect charged particles)...

Many people think that because someone has a PhD in Physics, he/she knows everything.. I cannot get this. I know plenty of people with a PhD in Physics, and not all of them are as clever as you think they are, and surely not everyone is a nuclear expert. What I don't like is these media-hyping...

I watched it again a couple of times and I get the impression the lights are very close to the camera. I am talking centimeters here, not meters. EDIT I see Mick already mentioned it in #2

Not "new" physics, but adapted theory, or in better words, corrected theory.

In optics, the Optical Transfer Function is used to know if an optical system can resolve a scene/object. The OTF is defined as the Fourier transform of the point-spread function. As it also contains the phase of the light, which is not always needed or known, the practical use of it is called...