6 ms·

Even if I abstract myself from the UFO claim, clues it's likely fake: 1. Zero motion blur despite monstrous speed (there's no such thing as zero-length shutter

Even if I abstract myself from the UFO claim, clues it's likely fake: 1. Zero motion blur despite monstrous speed (there's no such thing as zero-length shutter speed). This seems shot with phone, as well, but no rolling shutter, either. 2. Cloud puff doesn't track well the camera movement & the rest of the cloud (may be compression artifact). 3. Despite the puff (showing the cloud is affected), the rest of the cloud changes no shape, seemingly.

graderjs 3y ago
It's funny, because 1000s of people saw these things in the late 1940s in USA, and they didn't think they were fake: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0Kr1TwKhQk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0Kr1TwKhQk About the motion blur, it's good point, but what if it "moves" by skipping to discrete points, rather than moving continuously? That could explain it.
- zimpenfish 3y ago
  > what if it "moves" by skipping to discrete points, The laws of physics would like a word.
  - graderjs 3y ago
    Yeah, current publicly known laws of physics. Laws discovered by Man, who's imperfect and flawed and apt to be scared of what he doesn't know and think anything outside of that is impossible. Also apt to greedily conceal that which would either give him advantage or make him look bad through ignorance or lack of control. So...Galileo would like a word. :) ;p xx ;p
    - krapp 3y ago
      You're going to need more than hubris and Youtube videos if you want to prove Einstein a fool.
      - graderjs 3y ago
        Well, son, you’re gonna need more than a quaint turn of phrase to make fools of all of the thousands of observations and observers over the decades. If you don’t think so or that sounds unreasonable to you, I suggest you please now take a seat right now watch that entire YouTube video (the phenomenon) and write up for me your criticism and we can discuss further part by part. Don’t you think it’s hubris of man to assume he’s already got it all figured out and therefore, because he cannot reconcile these observations with his pet theories, The observations must be doubted? But yes thanks for coming back to seek out to reply this almost invisibly unpopular thread. Such as suggested here must be so dangerous to your worldview as to require you discover and reply it, to ensure that such a challenge does not go unanswered, as even out of sight, Such a powerful suggestion would be an intolerable nagging doubt in your mind that would threaten to unravel everything you hold dear and depend upon for your daily existence. Am i right?
        krapp 3y ago
        ... and as expected you have nothing. >Don’t you think it’s hubris of man to assume he’s already got it all figured out and therefore, because he cannot reconcile these observations with his pet theories, The observations must be doubted? No, because science isn't based on mere assumption, much less the assumptions that current physical models are absolutely correct. Actual scientists don't believe they all have everything figured out, nor are they incapable of doubt. But the way science reconciles observations is through experimentation and proof, and all people like yourself have is faith, and faith isn't science. Your premise that science is an edifice of perpetual ignorance and fear of the unknown is simply not borne out by its history, and your claim that current physics is merely the result of hubris can be disproved by the fact that its observations correlate well enough, and consistently enough, to reality that we've been able to base the entirety of our technological civilization on it. >Such as suggested here must be so dangerous to your worldview as to require you discover and reply it, to ensure that such a challenge does not go unanswered, as even out of sight, Such a powerful suggestion would be an intolerable nagging doubt in your mind that would threaten to unravel everything you hold dear and depend upon for your daily existence. Am i right? No. Not even a little. I just happened to like the thread because UFO threads can sometimes be fun, and followed up on it. My jimmies remain unrustled and my worldview fully raveled. I just always find it hilarious when people hold up easily faked photos and videos as evidence that the entire corpus of science itself must be wrong, to the point of talking down to people who dare suggest that it's even worth considering. Like, obviously faster than light travel exists, just look at that smoke plume. Physics? Pssh. Ignorant savages, all. Come on. It's your worldview that is based entirely on hubris, not mine. I mean, as UFO "proof" goes, this isn't even that convincing. And I ain't your son. Jackass.
- BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
  If it moved by skipping discrete points, it wouldn't have that effect on the cloud, which is essentially a combination of a continuously moving object pushing away the medium it's moving through, creating a flow, and the Bernoulli effect. Also I'd like to have a word with the UFO designer on how he synchronized the movement in discrete points with the exact framerate and shutter phase of the camera taking video of it. Also, I only commented on visual artifacts in this particular video, I didn't outright deny the existence of UFO, which literally just means "unidentified flying object" and yes we've had a bunch of those throughout the decades, as we can't identify everything.
  - graderjs 3y ago
    I thought about that too but came up with a workaround: it suddenly appears at that point in the cloud, displacing the puff seen. The puff actually is symmetric about insertion point, but due to the asymmetry of the cloud and the camera angle it appears like that. Not more of a reach than many debunking chain-of-reasoning explanations, with the exception of the how. I thought about the second point too, I don't think you need exact synchronization. You just need many more "stutter points" than framerate, and the camera will capture some of them. A way to check that would be to see a longer distance video, and observe other "cloud puffs" without seeing the craft there: you just see the trace of it.

graderjs 3y ago

It's funny, because 1000s of people saw these things in the late 1940s in USA, and they didn't think they were fake: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0Kr1TwKhQk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0Kr1TwKhQk About the motion blur, it's good point, but what if it "moves" by skipping to discrete points, rather than moving continuously? That could explain it.

zimpenfish 3y ago
> what if it "moves" by skipping to discrete points, The laws of physics would like a word.
- graderjs 3y ago
  Yeah, current publicly known laws of physics. Laws discovered by Man, who's imperfect and flawed and apt to be scared of what he doesn't know and think anything outside of that is impossible. Also apt to greedily conceal that which would either give him advantage or make him look bad through ignorance or lack of control. So...Galileo would like a word. :) ;p xx ;p
  - krapp 3y ago
    You're going to need more than hubris and Youtube videos if you want to prove Einstein a fool.
    - graderjs 3y ago
      Well, son, you’re gonna need more than a quaint turn of phrase to make fools of all of the thousands of observations and observers over the decades. If you don’t think so or that sounds unreasonable to you, I suggest you please now take a seat right now watch that entire YouTube video (the phenomenon) and write up for me your criticism and we can discuss further part by part. Don’t you think it’s hubris of man to assume he’s already got it all figured out and therefore, because he cannot reconcile these observations with his pet theories, The observations must be doubted? But yes thanks for coming back to seek out to reply this almost invisibly unpopular thread. Such as suggested here must be so dangerous to your worldview as to require you discover and reply it, to ensure that such a challenge does not go unanswered, as even out of sight, Such a powerful suggestion would be an intolerable nagging doubt in your mind that would threaten to unravel everything you hold dear and depend upon for your daily existence. Am i right?
      - krapp 3y ago
        ... and as expected you have nothing. >Don’t you think it’s hubris of man to assume he’s already got it all figured out and therefore, because he cannot reconcile these observations with his pet theories, The observations must be doubted? No, because science isn't based on mere assumption, much less the assumptions that current physical models are absolutely correct. Actual scientists don't believe they all have everything figured out, nor are they incapable of doubt. But the way science reconciles observations is through experimentation and proof, and all people like yourself have is faith, and faith isn't science. Your premise that science is an edifice of perpetual ignorance and fear of the unknown is simply not borne out by its history, and your claim that current physics is merely the result of hubris can be disproved by the fact that its observations correlate well enough, and consistently enough, to reality that we've been able to base the entirety of our technological civilization on it. >Such as suggested here must be so dangerous to your worldview as to require you discover and reply it, to ensure that such a challenge does not go unanswered, as even out of sight, Such a powerful suggestion would be an intolerable nagging doubt in your mind that would threaten to unravel everything you hold dear and depend upon for your daily existence. Am i right? No. Not even a little. I just happened to like the thread because UFO threads can sometimes be fun, and followed up on it. My jimmies remain unrustled and my worldview fully raveled. I just always find it hilarious when people hold up easily faked photos and videos as evidence that the entire corpus of science itself must be wrong, to the point of talking down to people who dare suggest that it's even worth considering. Like, obviously faster than light travel exists, just look at that smoke plume. Physics? Pssh. Ignorant savages, all. Come on. It's your worldview that is based entirely on hubris, not mine. I mean, as UFO "proof" goes, this isn't even that convincing. And I ain't your son. Jackass.
BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
If it moved by skipping discrete points, it wouldn't have that effect on the cloud, which is essentially a combination of a continuously moving object pushing away the medium it's moving through, creating a flow, and the Bernoulli effect. Also I'd like to have a word with the UFO designer on how he synchronized the movement in discrete points with the exact framerate and shutter phase of the camera taking video of it. Also, I only commented on visual artifacts in this particular video, I didn't outright deny the existence of UFO, which literally just means "unidentified flying object" and yes we've had a bunch of those throughout the decades, as we can't identify everything.
- graderjs 3y ago
  I thought about that too but came up with a workaround: it suddenly appears at that point in the cloud, displacing the puff seen. The puff actually is symmetric about insertion point, but due to the asymmetry of the cloud and the camera angle it appears like that. Not more of a reach than many debunking chain-of-reasoning explanations, with the exception of the how. I thought about the second point too, I don't think you need exact synchronization. You just need many more "stutter points" than framerate, and the camera will capture some of them. A way to check that would be to see a longer distance video, and observe other "cloud puffs" without seeing the craft there: you just see the trace of it.