Search results

Yes, we already know that because it rotates with the camera. It probably obscures a smaller atmospheric glare inside it? I'm working on your claim that exposure affects the size of the glare; occlusion is a distraction in that regard. I'd say exposure affects the size of the overexposed area...

My contention is that you won't be able to bring out the green zigzag inside the glare however you adjust the exposure, because it's gone. But Mick's two pictures seem to disprove that idea, until you realise that the trees you think you see are actually underexposed glare that is darker than...

This I don't understand, unless it's caused by the upper picture being defocused. The sky is a light source that is brighter than the sensor? and reducing the glare makes it show. The trees are discernible because they're now darker than the sky, but they don't have discernible shades or color.

I think it's only entirely true if you're talking about sensor bleed or bloom. In every other case, adjusting the exposure darkens the glare, but doesn't make it go away. If there's something obscured by optical or atmospheric glare, you're not going to make it visible by adjusting your...

I'm figuring 1:10³ in power, for an albedo close to 1. How do you figure your number? I wasn't able to find good sources.

If I were to design a low light mode for a cheap camera, I'd simply average several consecuutive frames to brighten the picture. This would cause streaks on bright objects that needn't be continuous.

That's only half true. The point here is that if you underexpose the scattered light, the glare becomes too dark to see, but it's still there. So glare size depends on exposure because it's a gradient around the light source. If some stars seem bigger than others, that's because of glare.

Read more on this at https://www.metabunk.org/threads/alleged-flight-mh370-ufo-teleportation-videos.13104/ .

hosting an archive of original UFO videos, without any re-encoding, and with a unique case number for each video. MUFON? The fact that this was never submitted to MUFON is the first indication that it's fake. If this video was evidence, it would • have provenance: a witness explains how it was...

Nah, it'd be fun to replicate. Engined are not my cup of tea, though.

that's an upside

June 2021 talk: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/fravors-hypersonic-ufo-observation-parallax-illusion-comparing-accounts.10941/post-251678 Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwZU6RiTEAw

I suggest pinning this thread for a while. @Mick West

I downloaded the "North Pacific Route Chart (Composite, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, and Southwest)" at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/digital_products/ifr/ (Planning), and A331 has all waypoints starting with the letter Z. It connects Hawaii and Seattle.

Yes. Prigozhin reportedly was displeased. He told one correspondent a “fool” in the mercenary convoy shot at “everything that took off.”

NOSS satellites are for signals intelligence, so wouldn't have a video feed? And MH370 had gone radio silent, so how would they track it?

The left wing separated in the air as well. Source: https://twitter.com/planetreporthq/status/1695018521153966534

That's just ICAO terminology. If it's not any of these three, it's just an incident. The Dutch Safety Board (OVV) conducted three investigations into the downing of flight MH17, the 777 shot down over the Donbass. PS752, the aircraft Tehran shot down, had an accident report. The fact that ICAO...

P.S.: For comparison, NROL-22's lowest altitude (perigee) still exceeds 1000 km. (And the satellite wasn't even there.)

To be explicit about this, the forward-facing picture is taken, then the satellite travels a bit, then the backward-facing picture is taken; for example, if you did this on the ISS with 400 km altitude, you'd see 100 km ahead or back, and if you wait 26 seconds between pictures, they'd show...