Search results

Yeah. It is a follow up of a follow up of a follow up.. It gets a bit boring, but that is perhaps also because we know the story so well by now. Still, the video from Thunderf00t shows quite well that Chris is just plainly wrong on his conclusions (that he tries to explain to us simple folk).

Yes, these units are used in combination with big telescopes using the "Nasmyth" output (side). So it corrects the scene angle wrt telescope motion. Quite certain it cannot be obtained with lenses.

I had the exact same impression. Dave is an expert. Well, not in my book. And Chris is a pilot who does not understand optics (ok, as a pilot I cannot expect you to be).

@Mauro I am 100% sure that there is therapy to get rid of your phobic issue.

You are digressing quite a bit here. :) Anyway, I did not claim that modern science is the ultimate truth and definitely I did not say our forefathers were ignorant.. What I do think is that we, in modern times, have progressed in a more deterministic scientifical framework. Thus the "older...

Agreed. Indeed there is no scientific proof of nadis. Thanks, I see your point. I guess the original question has been discussed above.. To me, this sounds unlikely (that science has mapped anything that matches nadis or other "networks"). The problem is of course that these terms and...

"Non-material energy". Sorry but what the heck is that? Energy is energy. Matter is energy, energy is matter. "Non material energy" is woo woo bs. Sorry.

No worries, I am not preventing you from doing all the analysis you want to do. :) Just wanted to mention that we have some uncertainties to deal with, but yeah I am not saying anything new here so forget my post.

Aren't you guys trying to see something in data that just does not have enough resolved pixels to say anything sensible?

Can you explain?

This is what I have been saying. It is unclear. It can be explained hopefully, by a knowledgeable pilot?

I had the same issue, over in post #716 it was clarified, as apparently it means he "vectored" the plane (pilot?) somewhere.

Thanks for the explanation!

Confusing though as in the interview transcript it sounds like Chad was flying himself...

Yeah, never mind. I though I was onto something. :confused:

I am a little confused by the fact that there seems to be some kind a cut-out, or hole visible in the reflection. You see it in the first still of the video in the OP #1. I made a small gif to show it clearly. The green is the P900 aperture, yellow is the mysterious ring. I don't think it is...

No we have not. And what about the radar footage, of course we will not see that. We will not see anything that shows out of the ordinary things happening. Yeah, why not actually? Well..

I guess, but the effect seen in OP video is a rather slow effect.

I agree with @Amber Robot here. Also seeing happens on a much faster timescale (ms range, not tenths of seconds). The P900 clearly also has trouble focusing. A notorious problem with complex refractive zoom lenses is that the zoom makes the image (of a star) go out of focus, so it actively has...

Rock solid work people! Nice to see.