Search results

Although 100% camera reflection effects, the only remaining "issue" is that the first picture from OP is not showing similar camera effects. I am pretty sure it must be because of the angle(s) but cannot completely explain it (or images being cropped?)

Common sense that they are "the result of a thrust vector control of a vehicle using thrust as a means of propulsion"? Jumping to conclusions..

Don't know. I was just referring the mentioning of LIDAR being used.

I always thought most (google) topography maps were made by using photogrammetry techniques.

So, any update from Ross? I clearly remember he said, a long time ago, "we will see evidence of ufos very soon". I guess "soon" is Australian for "in the next century or so". :D

So far the most compelling evidence I have seen now is pointing towards a rather passive bunch of balloons. No need for temperature inversions or IR jamming or whatever..

I think this thread is getting too much off topic.

"could potentially represent proof that this object is displaying some advanced technology." Hmm, you know that just means the same as fantasy, magic, right?

Thanks. Things can look rather strange in the thermal range, I can imagine a bunch of mylar balloons might not be very recognisable.

Anybody know if the footage was NIR or thermal IR? It makes a big difference.

IR is not that straight forward I am afraid, as the emittance of object also matters (emissivity), and also reflectance in the IR range by the object itself.

Constant effect would be expected (thus the "chandelier" moving around), not changing much. Only when the luminosity of the source changes, the diffraction would dim or get bigger. The camera's setting also play a role, but diffraction occurs before the light enters the camera's internals. PS...

Would be nice if Jeremy shows a bit more than 1 frame. But yeah, it looks like spider vane diffraction to me. I wonder how many more optical artifacts Jeremy will claim to be alien. It is getting ridiculous.

Optical 3000mm lens, that is pretty long for a camera lens.. Never seen it. I have seen large focal lengths, but these were telescopes. It would be strange if they used that in this situation.

Many are still convinced a smudge on the window in front of the camera can be in focus. This is just not possible with the type of IR camera's they utilize. I explained why before in this thread. Also, there is no way it can "rotate".

..aaaaand I lost track in this thread. :D This all goes too fast, too many posts. I am out.

Correct. Way to close, and it is not even possible because the camera's objective has a small F/number (sensor needs lots of photons).

Not much info there. No F-number or speed or anything, only size. I guess the webcam/security cam does not export that.

Bingo. How about a phone screen. I suspect this picture was made to look like it does, or it was found to be a "happy mistake" and nice to post on an ufo website for the fun of it. I cannot prove it, and yes I always suspect hoaxes.

Another tell-tale of it being a reflection, is that if that was a physical luminous object in the field, it would illuminate the surroundings, which we do not see here.