Search results

Sorry if I'm not keeping up, but I thought it was established that the base was next to a lake (Habbaniyah Lake), which is visible in some of the photos above (e.g. at #5). At least one so-called witness also talks about the object going over the lake in the full (~17 min) video. So I thought...

The object looks to me very like a single object drifting just above a still water surface and reflected in it. Otherwise, it could be a combination of two objects, of similar size and shape, held together by 'string' of some kind. Either way, it doesn't look much like the object(s) seen in...

Just a couple of thoughts: - if the viewing platform was a tethered balloon any wind at the relevant altitude would be blowing past it. This rather goes against the idea that it might be a light object like an insect carapace (etc) hanging from the platform, as this would likely be twisting...

Apart from the danger of munitions hitting civilians or friendly troops (US or other), maybe miles away, we don't even know if the observing craft (manned or unmanned) was carrying suitable weapons and ammunition. Offhand I don't recall drones of the Predator kind being equipped for air-to-air...

Changes in the shape of the object during flight do seem to rule out a smudge on the cover, but someone on Twitter has pointed out that when bird poop splatter is still fresh, it will be semi-liquid and tend to 'creep' down the surface, maybe changing shape as well as position. Seems a fair...

Was the film taken at night? There's a reference somewhere in Corbell's spiel about troops failing to detect it with night vision equipment. Would they be wearing this (or having it close at hand) in the daytime? It's a fair cop, you've got me bang to rights.

If the object is drifting in a steady wind, all parts of it will move at the same speed as the wind, so the wind will exert no force against it or any part of it. Any changes in wind speed or direction would of course be likely to have some effect.

As I've often said, I am no photographer: if I want to photograph something I just point, click, and hope for the best. Applying this sophisticated technique I held my finger about 2 inches away from the lens of my phone camera (Samsung Galaxy), while everything else in view was considerably...

Twitterers have pointed out that the object (or mark) moves around with respect to the reticle on the display screen. That seems to rule out a smear or mark on a protective cover unless the camera itself can move around behind the cover. I think that is the case with the famous ATFLIR system...

OK, I was relying on a second or third hand source, and quite possibly the quote was inaccurate in the source. I quoted accurately from that source, which I think is essentially the same as the one (a Senate Committee statement by Deming) mentioned by Deirdre at #31 above. The alleged quote...

That is now the prevailing view, but it hasn't always been. Why else would a mainstream climate scientist have said 'We've got to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period'?

As I've pointed out before, if you want a shortened expression, 'climate skeptic' is short, relatively accurate, and neutral, unlike the terms 'denier' and 'denial', which are pejorative, even if they are not intended as a dog-whistle association with Holocaust denial.

I agree. But no anthropogenic causation would have been an extreme position. The disagreement (I think) was about how much of the observed warming was proven to be anthropogenic, as distinct from natural processes like solar cycles. Skeptics liked to point to examples like the so-called...

I'm coming late to this discussion, but I agree that if Michaels denied the existence of the greenhouse effect he would have needed extraordinary evidence to support his position. But I don't see any evidence that he did deny it, and I don't think that is (or was) the position of most people...

UFO enthusiasts (I hope that description gets past the censors) frequently accuse skeptics like Mick West and other Metabunkers of only picking the low-hanging fruit, and ignoring really difficult cases. The Ariel School case is often mentioned as one of the latter. But that case depends...

If it's small and high up - say, 3 feet across at 40,000 feet - would anyone on the ground notice it with the naked eye? The only reason we are talking about it is that someone was filming some aircraft with high magnification and it happened to swan into view.

I'm just about to go to bed, but I noticed this video by HOAXKiller1 which seems decisive in showing how the 30th birthday balloon would look when rotated into the right orientation, so I'll just post a link without further comment: Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21F_JSvREW0

Incidentally, on skimming through the paper by Peings and von Rennenkampff, who I think are better known as @The_cholla and @MvonRen, I noticed the following description of Mick West's 'rotating glare' theory: If I understand it correctly, in Mick's theory it is not so much the engine exhaust...

I mentioned on another thread (related to Nimitz, I think) that a radar expert, Dr Phil Metzger, had been commenting on the radar aspects of UAP cases. This is just to draw attention to a long thread of posts yesterday (December 8, 9 or 10 depending on your time zone) by Metzger ( @DrPhiltill...

I agree, but with a qualification. Debunking - or skepticism, if you prefer - may be aimed either at the holders of unjustified beliefs, or at a wider public who are undecided, neutral, or even hostile towards those beliefs. Experience shows that it is extremely difficult to change the mind of...