3 ms·

> His explanation is "it only looks like it's moving, due to the zoom". This paper, as well as the pilot that took that video disagrees. Interview with Chad Und

by trott 5y ago

> His explanation is "it only looks like it's moving, due to the zoom". This paper, as well as the pilot that took that video disagrees. Interview with Chad Underwood, the pilot that took the FLIR Video Mick West's claim is that the object appears to be moving erratically because the camera keeps losing track of it. He specifically addresses the Underwood interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqq4AsQch6g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqq4AsQch6g

dtx1 5y ago
Thank you, yes but he does not address the peer reviewed paper, which is much more convincing in my opinion. And he does not do so because it's conclusions are not trivially debunked. The majority of movement happens in the last few seconds of the video which the paper analyses. The tracker may have lost track, but as a reference the non-moving bars are still valid and we get heading information from the video as well, so a movement of the plane cannot be ruled completely but we know that if any movement happened it was within known bounds of less then a few degrees of angle at most. If you take the time to read the paper you will see that they estimate the lowest possible acceleration of the object which ranges from 50% above what a tomahawk missile can endure to something insane like 5000g of acceleration. This is all still non-conclusive but to state that the object isn't moving at all after the careful statistical analysis of the paper requires a lot more then just a few vague hypothesis without any math to back it up to be convincing. Again, i can only recommend reading the paper it's much more detailed then i could be in a comment. Besides, i don't mind his analysis he's right about the new "pyramid ufos" beyond any reasonable doubt. He is also right about the gofast video, his math is trivial to validate, though no one who made the video has ever claimed the object actually went fast. It's just the video title. As for the gimbal video, we don't know much about the events surrounding it, and while it does look like an exhaust rotating due to the camera system, there's still a lot unexplained there. The comments of the pilot on tape "it's going a 140 knots against the wind" and "look at the ASA there's a whole fleet of them" are interesting. Again nothing conclusive but without detailed sensor data and context, his explanation is no more or less convincing then no explanation at all. We simply don't know. On the other hand, we do know a lot about the flir video and the context it happened in and as far as i'm concerned a peer reviewed paper trumps a science commentators vague hypothesis until we have either more data to confirm one hypothesis or the other or an error is spotted in either hypothesis.

by trott 5y ago

dtx1 5y ago

Thank you, yes but he does not address the peer reviewed paper, which is much more convincing in my opinion. And he does not do so because it's conclusions are not trivially debunked. The majority of movement happens in the last few seconds of the video which the paper analyses. The tracker may have lost track, but as a reference the non-moving bars are still valid and we get heading information from the video as well, so a movement of the plane cannot be ruled completely but we know that if any movement happened it was within known bounds of less then a few degrees of angle at most. If you take the time to read the paper you will see that they estimate the lowest possible acceleration of the object which ranges from 50% above what a tomahawk missile can endure to something insane like 5000g of acceleration. This is all still non-conclusive but to state that the object isn't moving at all after the careful statistical analysis of the paper requires a lot more then just a few vague hypothesis without any math to back it up to be convincing. Again, i can only recommend reading the paper it's much more detailed then i could be in a comment. Besides, i don't mind his analysis he's right about the new "pyramid ufos" beyond any reasonable doubt. He is also right about the gofast video, his math is trivial to validate, though no one who made the video has ever claimed the object actually went fast. It's just the video title. As for the gimbal video, we don't know much about the events surrounding it, and while it does look like an exhaust rotating due to the camera system, there's still a lot unexplained there. The comments of the pilot on tape "it's going a 140 knots against the wind" and "look at the ASA there's a whole fleet of them" are interesting. Again nothing conclusive but without detailed sensor data and context, his explanation is no more or less convincing then no explanation at all. We simply don't know. On the other hand, we do know a lot about the flir video and the context it happened in and as far as i'm concerned a peer reviewed paper trumps a science commentators vague hypothesis until we have either more data to confirm one hypothesis or the other or an error is spotted in either hypothesis.