3 ms·

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

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.
        graderjs 3y ago
        > And I ain't your son. Jackass. Well that got nasty pretty quickly! Especially for fully-unruffled jimmies and wholly raveled world view hahaha It's a term of endearment, son! I'm older than you. 40. But of course your jimmies will remain unruffled and your worldview unmoved, son, if you work so hard to protect it from new info as you are doing! About everything else--nope, it's your hubris to pretend blindness to 1000s of observations. Hahahaha! > ... and as expected you have nothing. The nothing is your doing, as you ignore everything, right? I have everything, but if you won't see it...you cannot blame me for your own failure to see: that's not my problem it's yours. Pretending otherwise is not only jackass, it's abusive when you then feign superiority and make the topic a pretext to take out your pent up rage on others who don't deserve it at all. Which is the whole issue: your failure of sight and interpretation: you hallucinate son as something bad, you hallucinate 1000s of observations as being invisible. At least if you're going to do that, don't take it too far, and pretend those people who differ from you are idiots. That's abusive. Isn't it more stupid to close your eyes and pretend you're in touch with the truth, than open them and talk about what you see? But this is not your failure, unique to you. It's a whole class of people scared of the stigma and unknown--and some like you get abusive and want to create that stigma for others--you're a member of that wilfully ignorant, but sadly abusive, class. I don't know why you act so proud of that? You'll be doing some learnin' son, today, by jimminy! > Your premise ... tech civ on it. Blah. Science's frontier is ignorance. That's how it should be! > and all people like yourself have is faith, and faith isn't science. Again you're hallucinating: mis-seeing and mis-saying my knowledge of evidence as faith! My son, you have zero idea what I have, about anything. But in this topic, I can tell you, what I do have is curiosity! :) ;p xx ;p Closing your eyes and blaming the people who dare to look, hahaha-- and you claim familiarity with science. > find it hilarious It's funny because you don't sound hilarious. You sound desperate to find the weakest version of this topic and: pretend you're triumphing; pretend others are idiots; preserve your worldview; which one of those is it? Or all of them? :P ;) xx ;p Have you watched that video yet? Even at 4x speed you're not going to get through the 60minutes plus in the 10 minutes it took you to beat out that evil reply! :P ;) xx hahaha I hope you can be better than your username next time, sincerely son, that's why I have spent this time to educate you by this careful and thought out reply. I only seek the cessation of your abusive ignorance! :P ;) xx;p
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.

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.
      - graderjs 3y ago
        > And I ain't your son. Jackass. Well that got nasty pretty quickly! Especially for fully-unruffled jimmies and wholly raveled world view hahaha It's a term of endearment, son! I'm older than you. 40. But of course your jimmies will remain unruffled and your worldview unmoved, son, if you work so hard to protect it from new info as you are doing! About everything else--nope, it's your hubris to pretend blindness to 1000s of observations. Hahahaha! > ... and as expected you have nothing. The nothing is your doing, as you ignore everything, right? I have everything, but if you won't see it...you cannot blame me for your own failure to see: that's not my problem it's yours. Pretending otherwise is not only jackass, it's abusive when you then feign superiority and make the topic a pretext to take out your pent up rage on others who don't deserve it at all. Which is the whole issue: your failure of sight and interpretation: you hallucinate son as something bad, you hallucinate 1000s of observations as being invisible. At least if you're going to do that, don't take it too far, and pretend those people who differ from you are idiots. That's abusive. Isn't it more stupid to close your eyes and pretend you're in touch with the truth, than open them and talk about what you see? But this is not your failure, unique to you. It's a whole class of people scared of the stigma and unknown--and some like you get abusive and want to create that stigma for others--you're a member of that wilfully ignorant, but sadly abusive, class. I don't know why you act so proud of that? You'll be doing some learnin' son, today, by jimminy! > Your premise ... tech civ on it. Blah. Science's frontier is ignorance. That's how it should be! > and all people like yourself have is faith, and faith isn't science. Again you're hallucinating: mis-seeing and mis-saying my knowledge of evidence as faith! My son, you have zero idea what I have, about anything. But in this topic, I can tell you, what I do have is curiosity! :) ;p xx ;p Closing your eyes and blaming the people who dare to look, hahaha-- and you claim familiarity with science. > find it hilarious It's funny because you don't sound hilarious. You sound desperate to find the weakest version of this topic and: pretend you're triumphing; pretend others are idiots; preserve your worldview; which one of those is it? Or all of them? :P ;) xx ;p Have you watched that video yet? Even at 4x speed you're not going to get through the 60minutes plus in the 10 minutes it took you to beat out that evil reply! :P ;) xx hahaha I hope you can be better than your username next time, sincerely son, that's why I have spent this time to educate you by this careful and thought out reply. I only seek the cessation of your abusive ignorance! :P ;) xx;p

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.