3 ms·

Yeah people are frightened that their bullshit gets called out. The article shows the famously debunked "gimbal" video. The rotation of the object is a result

Yeah people are frightened that their bullshit gets called out. The article shows the famously debunked "gimbal" video. The rotation of the object is a result of the tracking camera getting close to a robot singularity. What was the unidentified object? The twin engine exhaust of another aircraft. >People have been seeing unexplainable things in the sky for millennia. While it is easy to dismiss them as hallucinations or flights of fancy, it is much harder to ignore photographs and videos from reputable sources. The recordings make it even easier to debunk. We have had more cameras than ever and yet we have less evidence of aliens than ever. The "best" evidence is always a video of photo of such a poor quality that anything could be interpreted into it.

postalrat 3y ago
[flagged]
- SkyMarshal 3y ago
  The person you’re replying to is the opposite of people who see an alien spacecraft in every picture of a balloon. He’s just observing, correctly, that the burden of proof is on those making extraordinary claims, and they usually fail.
  - postalrat 3y ago
    He's claiming to know something without proof. That's no different.
x7001 3y ago
[dead]
nprateem 3y ago
I thought the debunking had been debunked as the object simultaneously appeared on multiple state-of-the-art radar systems?
tutfbhuf 3y ago
> The article shows the famously debunked "gimbal" video. While I do agree with your sentiment here, I think the gimbal video has not been debunked as of yet, if we don't include random YouTubers. > The "best" evidence is always a video of photo of such a poor quality that anything could be interpreted into it. I think modern military cameras, like the one in the gimbal video, are not that bad in terms of quality. But yes, at this point in time, you have to come up with decent quality video and if possible extra sensors like infrared, radar, and so on to capture the phenomenon. I think it is worth investigating, no matter the outcome, because if something can be observed on multiple sensors (including video), then there is some kind of interference that could potentially expose improvement potentials for the sensors (e.g., to filter out such artifacts or to categorize them correctly).

postalrat 3y ago

[flagged]

SkyMarshal 3y ago
The person you’re replying to is the opposite of people who see an alien spacecraft in every picture of a balloon. He’s just observing, correctly, that the burden of proof is on those making extraordinary claims, and they usually fail.
- postalrat 3y ago
  He's claiming to know something without proof. That's no different.

x7001 3y ago

[dead]

nprateem 3y ago

I thought the debunking had been debunked as the object simultaneously appeared on multiple state-of-the-art radar systems?

tutfbhuf 3y ago

> The article shows the famously debunked "gimbal" video. While I do agree with your sentiment here, I think the gimbal video has not been debunked as of yet, if we don't include random YouTubers. > The "best" evidence is always a video of photo of such a poor quality that anything could be interpreted into it. I think modern military cameras, like the one in the gimbal video, are not that bad in terms of quality. But yes, at this point in time, you have to come up with decent quality video and if possible extra sensors like infrared, radar, and so on to capture the phenomenon. I think it is worth investigating, no matter the outcome, because if something can be observed on multiple sensors (including video), then there is some kind of interference that could potentially expose improvement potentials for the sensors (e.g., to filter out such artifacts or to categorize them correctly).