Search results

Doesn't matter. I just corrected an ancient misunderstanding. As I explained above, it's the machine that made the film that produced the perforations. Not the camera. My 11 year old self made a mistake about what the toggle button was doing. I thought it was cutting the edges of the...

Done a deeper dive. Seems I misunderstood at the time - circa 1968 - what that toggle button does. I thought it was cutting the film. It wasn't. It actually was releasing the film roll so you could pull the tab. Then when you close the back of the camera, the film roll gets locked in place...

This is the cut border of a print from a Model 800, using Type 40 roll film. (No image due to expired film.) This is what I remember. Ragged, but not crenulated. But to confuse matters. This is a print from a Polaroid Model 110 A, using Type 47 roll film. I'll be dipped. Crenulations...

If we assume that kind of hoax, the answer could be easy. What if he had a Polaroid Model 240 Print Copier? See: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/balwyn-melbourne-ufo-picture-1966.12606/page-2#post-310720 The original photo you put in the copier doesn't even have to be a Polaroid. But the...

That reminds me. I said, pull the print out the side. I should have said pull the tab out the side. And I don't remember the coating process at all.

Kibel came running over. Kibel: Hey, did you see that leprachaun? Carpenter: Why, no. No I didn't see the lepracahun. Kibel: He gave me this bowl of Lucky Charms. Here try it. Carpenter: Why, they're magically delicious! And still crunchy in the milk. Kibel: You're a witness! How else...

We suspect Mr. A may be lying. But Mr. A had a witness - Mr. X. - who corroborates the story. So the story is true without a doubt. We suspect Mr. X may be lying. But Mr. X had a witness - Mr. A - who corroborates the story. So the story is true without a doubt. Wut? Individually they're...

Could you clarify this part of the story for us?

Polaroid Model 240 Print Copier Demonstrated in this YT video. This one is from the '50's. It seems it was essentially what we used to call an "opaque projector." You load an existing Polaroid print in the copier and it shines focused light into the lens of your Polaroid camera. Making...

- All Polaroid cameras in 1966 used roll type film. Type 40 was bigger than other types, that's all. (Unless you were a Pro and owned a 4x5 sheet holder and used the 4x5 sheet film. I don't know if there was 4x5 color sheet film in 1966. Doesn't matter in this case, anyway.) -The roll was cut...

Do I think it was some kind of composite? Not likely. Most likely he tossed something in the air and was tracking it with the camera. That would explain why the motion blur on the object doesn't match the motion blur elsewhere. It's a well known artsy effect. Though he wasn't looking for...

Let's also talk about aspect ratio. The image on the original polaroid print would have been almost square. The aspect ratio on these copies is consistent with 35mm prints. So there's some areas of the image that are missing in these copies. Important parts? Probably not. Not likely that...

The top and bottom prints don't match. Look at the paper. The crenulated edges. Top print - crenulated edge on top and bottom. Bottom print - crenulated edge on top only. No tear on lower right hand corner. What caught my eye immediately about these prints... Neither one is a polaroid...

Personal incredulity? Again? Personally I'm incredulous at your persistence.

Interesting question, but he's not operating at that level. Just making sweeping statements that suit him at the moment. The dark value (not color!) in this example below is the result of an adjustment to brightness or gain. And it seems to be a purely electronic adjustment to the image. Not an...

The light from something that close would be spread out across the whole sensor. Just grey goo. It would degrade the brightness and contrast. I've shot through chain link fences. The trick is get the lens right up against the fence. Nothing I could do about color slides, but could adjust...

Question 1: Is there evidence to question his ability or willingness to do an expert analysis? Question 3: How good is Falch at analytical thought? What's his skill level in general? Example: From YT video - "Jellyfish" UAP analysis! A muddled discussion of optics. Shows poor understanding...

Update to question 2: What does David Falch say about his background in FLIR imagery? What is his actual background? On his Twitter account he calls himself: Depot Level FLIR Tech I asked Bing Copilot what that means: If this in fact describes Falch's former job, there's nothing that...

Question four: Is Falch acting in good faith? Is there evidence of deception? Does he make statements at odds with common knowledge or easily observed facts? Evidence of deception: From the YT video - "Jellyfish" UAP analysis! There is no narration at this point in the video. This image...

Update to first question: Luminance From the the Jan 21, 2024 YT video "Jellyfish" UAP analysis! This time he is taking reflectivity into account. He doesn't use the word luminance or explain it. And his writing is unclear. These balloons are mostly reflective of thermal radiation...