Cody Wonders
New Member
(Mendel, I can't figure out how you are responding directly to specific points, if you wouldn't mind letting me know? For now, I will copy and paste.)
Thanks Mendel!
"Now, if you had to decide whether to drop U or T from this hypothetical to explain the GIMBAL video, which one would make the most sense to drop, T or U?"
Of course, drop U. The problem is that the authors do not believe T exists. In fact, they are publicly proclaiming that Mick has not demonstrated a plausible distant path, or that anybody has for that matter. MarikvR stated on twitter six days ago "Not one independent 3D analysis finds what he claims. He must provide verifiable, repeatable evidence for his extraordinary claim."
(I will note that figure A7 in the author's own paper, notes a "fairly straight and level flight path solution," a point for which the authors are apparently backtracking).
To me, it seems the distant path is so "sensitive" to any minor measurement error, that even a remotely straight and level solution within the data seals the deal. But since the authors will apparently not even admit T as a possibility anymore, perhaps a better option is to disprove U? If U's movement depends on V's movement in any demonstrable, continuous way, I feel that would disprove U as a real object (unless this UFO if reacting by the millisecond to the movement of V).
But how might we demonstrate mathematically, that U's movement is dependant upon V's movement, while ignoring T altogether? T is acting on U, but can we show that V is acting on U without respect to T? For example, as V turns toward T, U would need to slow down to continue obstructing T, at a rate that I would assume is directly proportional to the rate of the turn, in some way. How might we show this? There could also be correlations in trajectory. For example, the j hook seems to coincide with V going back on itself (such that "U" would need to reverse course to keep obscuring our view). I expect there is some way to mathematically and conclusively demonstrate this, while ignoring T altogether.
"For the GIMBAL rotation to be related to the J-hook, that rotation should continuously match the curve of that path, and obviously it doesn't."
Marik relies on a video (apparently taken from Sitrec) and asks the viewer to essentially eyeball his claimed relationship. Mick presents an actual graph (which is in the top left of Sitrec) to demonstrate that the four rotations are not even very correlated to the supposed J-hook. Mick separately emailed me a similar graph, which is more detailed, below. I'm not quite sure what every line is, but the red line is plotting the actual degrees of each rotation, and the pink line is plotting the angle of the object trajectory in screen space.
Mick also emailed me a second graph, saying "If we adjust the start distance (Tgt Start Dist NM) so that they match better, the distance is 12NM". That graph is below. In it, you can see that the red line and the pink line match better at this distance.
The pilots did not report the object at 12NM. That is what was frustrating to me about the video, because it seems Marik's emphasis on the perfect match was intentionally misleading the viewer into thinking there is this one in a million match, right at the distance described by pilots. But if a better match is found at a distance that does not match the pilot testimony, then what is so special about a match at the distance that is described by pilots?
I suppose my general point, is that even if we ignore the distant jet theory, there is questionable logic with the author's own proposed solution, and it can hopefully be demonstrated mathematically. They are positing an extraordinary, world-changing, paradigm-shifting event, and they will apparently not admit the plausibility of the distant jet theory no matter what. I am suggesting there may be ways to challenge "U," within the confines of their own explanation of "U," and without the need to prove "T." I hope I'm right, but like any science minded person, I am willing to admit I am wrong.
Thanks Mendel!
"Now, if you had to decide whether to drop U or T from this hypothetical to explain the GIMBAL video, which one would make the most sense to drop, T or U?"
Of course, drop U. The problem is that the authors do not believe T exists. In fact, they are publicly proclaiming that Mick has not demonstrated a plausible distant path, or that anybody has for that matter. MarikvR stated on twitter six days ago "Not one independent 3D analysis finds what he claims. He must provide verifiable, repeatable evidence for his extraordinary claim."
(I will note that figure A7 in the author's own paper, notes a "fairly straight and level flight path solution," a point for which the authors are apparently backtracking).
To me, it seems the distant path is so "sensitive" to any minor measurement error, that even a remotely straight and level solution within the data seals the deal. But since the authors will apparently not even admit T as a possibility anymore, perhaps a better option is to disprove U? If U's movement depends on V's movement in any demonstrable, continuous way, I feel that would disprove U as a real object (unless this UFO if reacting by the millisecond to the movement of V).
But how might we demonstrate mathematically, that U's movement is dependant upon V's movement, while ignoring T altogether? T is acting on U, but can we show that V is acting on U without respect to T? For example, as V turns toward T, U would need to slow down to continue obstructing T, at a rate that I would assume is directly proportional to the rate of the turn, in some way. How might we show this? There could also be correlations in trajectory. For example, the j hook seems to coincide with V going back on itself (such that "U" would need to reverse course to keep obscuring our view). I expect there is some way to mathematically and conclusively demonstrate this, while ignoring T altogether.
"For the GIMBAL rotation to be related to the J-hook, that rotation should continuously match the curve of that path, and obviously it doesn't."
Marik relies on a video (apparently taken from Sitrec) and asks the viewer to essentially eyeball his claimed relationship. Mick presents an actual graph (which is in the top left of Sitrec) to demonstrate that the four rotations are not even very correlated to the supposed J-hook. Mick separately emailed me a similar graph, which is more detailed, below. I'm not quite sure what every line is, but the red line is plotting the actual degrees of each rotation, and the pink line is plotting the angle of the object trajectory in screen space.
Mick also emailed me a second graph, saying "If we adjust the start distance (Tgt Start Dist NM) so that they match better, the distance is 12NM". That graph is below. In it, you can see that the red line and the pink line match better at this distance.
The pilots did not report the object at 12NM. That is what was frustrating to me about the video, because it seems Marik's emphasis on the perfect match was intentionally misleading the viewer into thinking there is this one in a million match, right at the distance described by pilots. But if a better match is found at a distance that does not match the pilot testimony, then what is so special about a match at the distance that is described by pilots?
I suppose my general point, is that even if we ignore the distant jet theory, there is questionable logic with the author's own proposed solution, and it can hopefully be demonstrated mathematically. They are positing an extraordinary, world-changing, paradigm-shifting event, and they will apparently not admit the plausibility of the distant jet theory no matter what. I am suggesting there may be ways to challenge "U," within the confines of their own explanation of "U," and without the need to prove "T." I hope I'm right, but like any science minded person, I am willing to admit I am wrong.
