Search results

Good eye! Indeed, makes no sense. I guess he got a bit carried away while ironing his favourite working shirt? Perhaps he enjoys doing that while wearing them. Maybe it works better? Direct fit? I get my coat.

From the wiki page: I thought all gloves worn by welders (especially in the 60's) were made from leather. Leather does not melt. The pronounced and defined small dots seen in the hospital (?) images, means he must have had his chest right onto the panel, like on top of it. Was he hugging the...

Perhaps he already had a "low lymphocyte count", even before the whole event?

Phones have a focal length of around 4mm, with a large aperture, so around 2mm for F/2.4. Your SLR example has an aperture of about 10mm. More light per unit area but also you have large pixels, say 10micron. In phones they are 1micron..

The "trick" in optics is to stop down your objective as far as you can, say F/16 or so. This way you can get almost infinite focal range. Of course, the downside is that you need lots more light. But anyone who has played with this on their SLR knows what I mean. On phones, you can't do that as...

Ugh.. The camera person did his absolute best NOT to make a clear picture of the "beast" not that far away. So obvious, and being scared is a poor excuse. Nothing indicates the person is honestly scared. It all looks set-up: man in suit.

Hmm, that is the case in most, if not all witness accounts. They all look so honest, don't they? Just realise there are many many many many persons that can lie without a blink.

Quite sure the jets can see these balloons with the radar on board. Phased Array Radar, advanced tech.

Ok, I misunderstood. I guess that is still a possibility, yes.

To create a fish eye lens (essentially creating a very large field of view), you need a very small focal length. This is why you cannot make or buy a zoom lens that can go from fish eye focal length <10mm, to full zoom of say 1m focal length. Hence why you need a couple of switchable objectives...

So frustratingly useless footage. Why they took the effort to spend 10 minutes on this video is hilarious. I think we are over-qualifying the military and its knowledge.

Wouldn't it be interesting to know what the reps thought about the things mentioned or shown even, during the closed session?

They mentioned Corbell.

Hm, Not impressed. Not that I expected some more revelations though. The guys representing the military are clearly not eager to say anything more than vague terms. This will never change, period. There was an interesting question about these 18 "very clear objects". I am paraphrasing (sorry)...

Ok, I guess that was it. Rest is closed right?

Me too. But is painfully unresolved.

Did not catch that explicitly mentioned?

I play the Benny Hill theme song in my head. It is hilarious.

Videos shown are unimpressive to say the least. Funny also that they don't know how to walk through a video frame by frame. Even I know that. :rolleyes:

He did say that? I missed it.