Search results

Definitely an easy distinguishable particle.

Yes. I also agree with your examples. Correctly, a judgement indeed should be based on facts and numbers. So my statement is an opinion only. :)

Hmm, but it (the gimbal video) did not look like it was 700 miles away, right? 700 miles is quite a range.. But all in all, a rocket launch is so recognisable, I cannot image they mistake it for something else.

Don't forget it any (rocket) has a ridiculously large heat profile. I can believe any theory NOT alien, but the Atlas theory sounds to me not correct.

It is rather funny that on this forum we have a (sort of) consensus towards explainable bird like situations, whereas on other boards (reddit..) they feel it is an alien ship. Hilarious, but fun!

Watched the video many times, I now doubt any orbital object. I cannot prove it by numbers, but my impression is that the "3 dots" travel in a much lower altitude and in a straighter path, wrt an object/satellite travelling "along" the stars. You also see that the camera pans down when tracking...

Good points!

It is not uncommon for small missions to have a very limited lifetime. And thus it will not last many orbits, or perhaps not even one. And indeed, if they have propulsion on board, of course much more can be done to keep the orbit going. But I agree, 160km is rather low. I still think we should...

I am not sure why you rule out satellites. Or do I misunderstand your point of view?

@JMartJr In most imaging optics, the size of the detector plane determines the Field of View. All object not in this field of view are not imaged and cannot form an internal reflection (as there is no image of it). All these "out of view" objects contribute to stray light in the camera. But...

Near IR imaging using an CMOS sensor, this is not the same as used in a FLIR camera (microbolometers). Not dismissing anything, just wanted to point this out. I don't see any reason why a 3-object satellite-system should be ruled out. Today, in the space industry, there is a strong focus on...

A bundle of balloons size.

If it was not for the plane bit, I would have sworn that it is filmed in white-hot mode. But who am I.

Wait! It can still be an alien craft, looking like a plane, with a protrusion on the bottom, just enjoying the time in the air! Joking of course. Awesome job, @flarkey!

Right. So today is the day the Netherlands changed the covid rules again. This time the 1.5 meter distancing and the face masks are gone. But, now one needs to have an app, or printed QR code (proving double vaccination), to access cafes, bars, restaurants, basically all the whole catering...

I am not convinced the DoF in the go fast video was narrow/shallow. I am actually pretty certain the stop size (we don't have this info sadly) and the design allow very large DoF, even to the point the sensor cannot resolve the differences anymore. A sensor system that has very shallow DoF would...

Chris has to stop his "two objects at different distances cannot be in focus at the same time" narrative, because it is just plain wrong.. I am pretty baffled why he keeps going on, it might look a bit stupid to some.

Would be nice to see the uncropped raw images. Then we can possibly check if it remains in one position only. Interesting also to know what he used, a tripod? Or freehand? Not mentioned. Also OP has to provide some links to this mufon case, imo.

I watched this video a couple more times, and specifically the bit around the gif I posted in #46. Fully agreeing with @gargamel EDIT: rewords...

The more interesting discussions over there are often overwhelmed by the sheer amount of clutter of unnecessary entries that are clear cases of "the 99.9%" pile.