Search results

These people remember seeing much more detail than just 3 lights. I don't think that phenomenon should be dismissed. The thing is, if there are three lights in the sky, most people will see three lights and get on with their evening. A very few people see something in addition to three lights...

A Twitter user discovered that the illusion also works if you scroll the image, or watch a movie of the image being scrolled, particularly if it's shrunk down: Eyes, nose, mouth...it's all "there." For our ancestors, this would be an adaptive benefit, for example, if they were scanning...

The recent specimens are more sophisticated than the earlier little dolls made of stuff glued together (the creator of which came forward). There's a guy on Twitter named Gonzalo who keeps popping up with this stuff on every UFO thread, and he posts endless promo pictures and videos. I...

If the Peruvian team wanted this investigation to look as shady as possible, they're doing a fantastic job: Hire a forensic dentist to lead it. Dr. John McDowell not a medical doctor or Ph.D. (although I understand they do have an M.D. on the team). No archaeologists are on the team. The...

I came across this illusion on Facebook, and I think it's closely related to the discussion of interpreting giant triangular craft from three lights in the sky (discussed in this thread e.g. here): The more you squint, the more it looks like a familiar image. It seems to magically gain detail...

It's funny how similar these big important announcements can be to advertising

They don't fit the description in my original question, but it's a great example just because, to the photographer, they are unexpected. They also refute the claim that things in the sky at night subtler than a large meteor can't be photographed well by amateurs. I'd expect UFO enthusiasts to...

Here's a good one: Dashcam captures a train derailment. (from https://www.facebook.com/reel/701190032126126) While train derailments occur far too often, this appears to be a full-frame, up-close shot of the accident's exact initiating moment, which is extraordinary.

Perhaps thousands of people have had a major, life-changing UFO experience, where they claim to have witnessed a craft taking up a large part of the sky, maybe hovering, suddenly accelerating off without a sound, etc. I encounter these people almost every day on Twitter, and their accounts can...

So bored with witnesses.

I think they're making up a private-sector version of "classified data." UFO people love classified data. It's sexy and exciting and lets your imagination run wild — especially if there's unclassified teaser imagery, with the prospect of much more definitive information that we just can't get...

All of this is so "Experts performed an analysis of the dust from Ground Zero, and they found unreacted nanothermite" (rust and aluminum). Put a highly reflective sphere over a green landscape and let's see if that black edge and wingtip are reflected from the sky.

This is the apparent resolution of the photo (from this tweet to me). He's unblocked me, which is nice. I guess tomorrow we'll get to see the "orb" at this resolution too? Maybe we can get Chris Lehto to analyze the focus sharpness of the grass vs. that of the orb.

Even more cynically: So far, we've seen the first three of the stages of evidence-belief: Excitement/hype, attacking critics, and silence. Next up is stage four: "I still believe in it, but I'm moving on to other things."

This is kind of interesting. "UAPMax" blocked me, but I've been discussing the picture on Twitter with other orb-believers. I posted Z.W.'s version with the foreground vegetation photoshopped up to show how this eliminates the illusion that the object is large and distant, and reveals it to be...

Forgive me if this has been posted above. I put the side-by-side comparison from Deirdre as a reply to UAPMax's pinned tweet. Amidst calling me an asshat, clown, and (twice) moron, writing "I have the meta data and the ground tracking data. It's almost exact between a half mile and three...

I hate the phrase "instantaneous acceleration." It's practically meaningless. If you roll a ball off a table, I assure you that the ball will accelerate instantaneously (or, in an inertial reference frame, it will instantaneously go from accelerating to not accelerating). What they mean is high...

Yep — without rigorous measurements (complete with error bars) and the math, it's just a fancy-sounding argument from incredulity. Exactly as useful as "It's impossible that what I saw was a plane."

Stryer I pretty much abandoned it later in the thread, thanks to Metabunkers' help:

It's time for this to be declared "debunked" with a pinned post in this forum. As someone who created a (even dumber) hoax video 12 years ago that's still going strong — getting 2 million views just a few weeks ago! — I know that this one will keep coming around.