Search results

They could be small because they're small. Paint flakes or chips of ice, for example. I can't make out any appendages/limbs/branches. It looks like a real object. It looks like it's in shadow in the first frame, indirectly lit by the surface that the camera is on, and in sunlight in the other...

bunch of out-of-focus blurry blobs, classic LIZ why do you think they're "distant"? because of the background? why do you think it's "rotating"?

I don't think that is actually a preconceived notion: it's a notion that gains weight when you look at the evidence. Hoaxing is a fact of UFO analysis: it happens. Politeness comes into play more strongly when we have a conversation with the actual observer.

they did use tables to compute the haversine in the olden days, but still... ;)

it kinda depends on what the "lost photographs" in the set show, as the reconstructions have them displaying quite a lot of landscape. if that's in the original photos, lying about the location would've exposed the hoax shortly after the newspaper with the story (that it was submitted to)...

i guess the reason @Landru gave for the deletion wasn't "contains facts"? i've had posts deleted that I had put a lot of work into. it's frustrating. you always have a choice: abandon it, or bring it to compliance and repost (where it is ontopic).

The haversine formula determines the great-circle distance between two points on a sphere given their longitudes and latitudes. assuming you have lat/long for the satellite

If your graph was accurate, the flare ought to be reddish, from the sunlight passing through a lot of atmosphere. Does the angle at the center of the Earth correspond to the actual positions of observer and identified satellites? What are you basing your 90⁰ sighting angle on? (perfect...

i don't believe a 20x photo exists I'd be willing to bet it can't exist you laid out the process nicely I would add that the "serious think" involves finding (and proving) an explanation for the discrepancy. this is the step CTists usually leave out when confronted with contrarian evidence.

Not really, the trap is logic reversal. This is true: • Close Encounters cause UFO reports (theoretically) with some chance. The false logic reversal is: • UFO reports prove Close Encounters, with some chance. And that's just not true; it does NOT follow logically from the first statement at...

@Domzh see also https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ufo-acronym-defnitions.11742/

@MyMatesBrainwashed quoted it in post #43: If the Earth is a sphere with radius 3959 then EVERY horizon distance measurement MUST BE NO MORE THAN 1.225 x square root of observers height in feet. It's a straw man, of course. Generally, FE arguments have a structure of "here is something I don't...

Your career as UFO hoaxer is taking shape! :-p (take some good Bigfoot pictures while you're at it!)

How are there over #911 posts on this photo now o_O

It's Metabunk policy that content from sources needs to be quoted alongside the link—too many conspiracy theorists would love to just drop a link to the page of their choice and leave the debunkers to do the work, I guess. In this case, I'd excerpt the article like so:

That's how you know it's alien! If it was human, it'd probably have a gun sight and some sort of safety.

They should have been at different altitudes, which tends to prevent mid-air collisions (vertical separation). That's only true if the target is stationary, isn't it? If it's an oncoming aircraft, the closing speed would be higher, making the distance bigger.

If you have a close projection surface (like a fog bank), but assume the figure is actually farther away, it will seem larger to the observer (false perspective illusion).

Just measure all angles from vertical, simple. That means you can also determine your position inland, like map surveyors have always done. Yes, it's geometric, it's just not highschool geometry, with Euclidean straight lines. One common way is to compute as if Earth's radius was bigger, 7/6...

"a few" pieces of paper, or one? Polar bills: