Search results

yes, but is there evidence that they did?

An argument from authority refers to two kinds of arguments: A non-fallacious argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of one or more authoritative source(s), whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue. Notably, insofar as the authorities in question are, indeed...

or it is very overexposed what sometimes happens (as we've seen repeatedly on metabunk) is that people don't notice anything strange at the time of the sighting, but find something weird when they look at the pictures later this is, of course, a rare occurrence, but one that is often...

we do not know what a UFO looks like remember, the one UFO that looked like this turned out to be a hoax this also looks like a rock, a mountain poking out of clouds, a kite, and a moldy ravioli

dog child

that's why the idea has been floated that he's wearing a long-sleeved hoodie and is throwing a V sign the boy's head appears to be half the size in the picture; if the heads are equal sized, then perspective dictates that the boy's head is as far behind her as her smartphone is in front of...

"write a random string" ;) the 30nm track can be described by a position and a velocity, i.e. 6 numbers; the 10 nm track needs its graph to describe it

Provided it can't be overridden. I had a conversation with a train driver-in-training, and seem to recall that (on some systems) it can be.

well, as I see it, the military have two sources of evidence: 1) the photographs 2) their records We hear 2) was a bust, so 1) remains, and unless one of the lost photos shows the aircraft much more clearly such that markings are discernible, "looks like one" is the best this evidence can support.

but how? what they established, given the deficiencies of the source material, that it looks more like a Harrier than any other likely aircraft but they also established it wasn't one of theirs unless the sighting data is wrong

"no record of Harriers operating in the area at the time" to me translates as "it wasn't one" even though (if it was a plane) it looked like one if it's a fake, it doesn't really matter what plane it was

there is nothing unclear about it we don't have a definite identification, but "jet traveling level & straight @ 30 nm" is by far the most likely, imo

he'd also have had the negatives developed commercially, which might've taken a week or more, since it was holiday season?

I understood the military to say it wasn't, and what we know of circumstantial evidence also makes it look unlikely. For most anything else, we're free to guess.

Full color printing simply uses 4 half-tone screens, one each for cyan, magenta, yellow, and black; and since the picture is b/w anyway, that's pretty much exactly what it would have looked like, possibly bigger and with a finer grid, but still the quality of the photographic paper used for the...

These likelihoods are not comparable. If an observer does not lock onto anything with the ATFLIR, itt gets unreported, and never enters the statistics. So once we have a report, we are already limited to the "unlikely" cases of ATFLIR locking onto something, and then we also eliminate the...

or a dog without additional information, it's a Rohrschach test what we do know is that it wasn't a Harrier

it's much easier (and not suicidal) to sabotage the tracks

yes. because what we see is not the jet's signature, but an uneven glare that's distorting it, at a distance where a jet would rarely be locked