Search results

Nice results Mike! I am fully supporting the bokeh explanation. What I just don't understand is that why does the navy show us these bad examples of "we don't know what we are seeing"? I cannot understand it, unless it is for a reason.

So, according to Corbell we see a number of objects? So, ok. But, why do those triangles all point to the same direction? I cannot imagine aliens being that strict. :) I am convinced it is the bokeh of a defocussed light. Triangle being the aperture. I do know we have not found an example yet...

Hmm, I cannot see the site (mystery wire), as I am from this blasted Europe. So I also cannot see the actual "acorn" or other new pictures. What a world. I feel like there is this party, but I am not invited. ;)

As I noted in an earlier post, and showed a few stills, there are parts in the video where the illuminated "curve" is smooth and nice. Later on "things" (tree branches?) show in front of the illuminated "curve" making it less smooth and it (I think) creates marks. So, if we have footage of a...

;)

Although I do agree with many of mr Wolf's ideas, I just cannot agree with the stretch of the story here. I see no real match with what the Turk filmed. Sorry!

I was looking at the OP again, at the photo collage specifically, and noticed the second image from the left, on the second row from the top. This one shows a remarkably smooth curve. When reviewing the video again, at this specific moment, I noticed it has something on the left, looking like...

Cannot agree more. We seem to be stuck in an endless loop. A new generation picks it up, forgets all about the older research, and there you go again. It is tiring.

I still agree with Z.W. Wolf. I also think the fact the videos of the zooms on the disc show so little image shake, makes me believe the object was not so very far away at all.

There might be another category to be included in your list, Mick. The one where you "project" a laser beam or bright LED light in the sky, to illuminate clouds from the underside. Depending on the type of cloud and altitude, I am guessing it will look out of this world. There are example videos...

I can agree with Starlink as well. Also, because the object's trajectory is curved, and the pointing of the object changes accordingly. This means it must me an orbital motion, hence satellites.

Can also be modelled by ray tracing. For instance, using the industry standard software OpticStudio (Zemax in the past). But, you have to be damn sure what lenses, type, material, curvatures and other mechanical parts you introduce though. So unless you have the complete opto mechanical...

Agreed. What is overlooked by our alien loving friends here on Earth, is that the sun is extremely bright, when viewed from outside of our atmosphere. Thus lenses and metal parts will reflect much more and also more obviously, as it is dark in space.

Good stuff. Also, when you see the comparison in that tweet you linked, it is very easy to see the light illuminating the lady is much brighter compared to the rest of the stage.

Quite a nice laser there. It also seems they are hitting something (drone?) above it as you can see the reflection from it to the left.

It is "recycle" time again on Reddit. After some time a picture or ufo gets posted again, repeating the process over and over and... Anyway, I believe they are results from cosmic radiation in the form of high-energy protons and atomic nuclei. If the energy is high enough and the angle of...

Yeah, indeed the exact same thing. I think they just measured the attenuation of the sun (by the contrail), as we do not see any more data above 250nm..

He posted in the ufo sub in Reddit fyi, after your discussion here. I am not sure what I think of him/her now, but it sure aint nice. He also mis-quoted Mick, not very nice. *edit I think the guy is stuck in the very often used narrative that a pilot or even the military never makes judgement...

This is perhaps one great example of the difficulty in judging distance, if the object is a little obscure looking (meaning unrecognisable as a well know object).

Nice example! It's of course all due to the use of long wavelengths. You need half-lambda surface quality to make a "mirror", for IR of say 10 um, this comes down to 5um, which is what likely is the surface roughness of the metal part shown.