Что вы, ребята, думаете об их отношении к кадрам Mosul Orb?


bmdkOXozeW84N2FiMUEQTuMONCvZvvzX47 kt IgCUPQ9 2MLy7eSTbgi6s

Что вы, ребята, думаете об их отношении к кадрам Mosul Orb?

What do you guys think of their take on the Mosul Orb footage?
byu/jacksrv inUFOs

28 комментариев для “Что вы, ребята, думаете об их отношении к кадрам Mosul Orb?

  1. Here’s the thing: The NASA presentation actually discussed this very type of effect, where an object appears fast because the camera itself is moving. Some UAP videos, even from military-grade tech, can be explained this way.

    But then the presentation also included the Mossul Orb as a legitimate unexplained object. And it mentioned that this is a commom sighting.

    I wanna say that both, Pentagon personnel and NASA staff, are smart enough to note the difference between a balloon and an actually interesting object. Especially if there are repeated encounters.

  2. Maybe. I see no graphs though. Or did they show some excellent math and geometry skills leading to an informed opinion? From the clip it looks like they just said how they would film a balloon to look like that. And i bet it would be pretty easy to make something similar. Doesn’t mean much either way.

  3. This is normal. When a “logical minded” individual sees something they don’t understand they try to explain it in a way that makes sense to them. There is a fair amount of naivety and immaturity fueling this approach to problem solving. The problem is things like “UFO”s do not exist and we have been conditioned that these are child like ideas so having an experience with one or watching a video of one a person will tend to try to work out “an adult explanation”. This is a really good example of some kids trying really hard to be all grown up (and failing fantastically, looks like they put some real work into this fail.)

  4. First, you’d need to know the direction the drone is heading in relation to the object.

    Also, if it is heading in the direction that would cause parallax to exaggerate the movement speed, then the only thing that has been determined is that it is appearing to move faster that what it looks like on film.

    Literally nothing on what the object is has been confirmed.

    Remember what pilots have reported on the objects they have seen. They have seen them sitting stationary (in wind) all the way to going Mach 2. They have also seen them doing racetrack patterns.

    The whole reason I bring that up is because if you know the context of the sightings that are making pilots think they are seeing uap, then you realize that you cannot prove or disprove anything on the videos that we have seen so far. Maybe if we can get an extended cut or more info like radar data, then we would be able to,come to a conclusion.

    (Also, the most interesting thing about the gofast video that they never pay attention to is that the object is colder than the ocean water)

  5. I don’t think the US Gov would have published this saying we don’t know wtf this is, unless they really exhausted all options. These guys just talking shit have literally zero basis to judge shit on. There isn’t even any telemetry and these guys are making statements like there is. Everyone wanna make a buck off this now.

  6. They are complete ~~ignorant~~ dishonest assholes. Bad actors, using sophisms.

    «…looks like a classic latex balloon…» — straight up lie. looks nothing like a classic latex balloon.

    «…classic Michael bay shot…» — straight up lie. not even close to parallax effect. look at the angles of objects as its looking for the orb. it doesn’t even change a bit. pinpoint stabilization on the first shot, then orb flies by with speed (granted, could’ve been high up, so low speed will show like its zooming near the ground) but when it starts to look for it, you can actually see how much orb traveled since the first flyby, so it couldn’t have possibly be a balloon. I have seen hundreds of rogue helium balloons, latex and mylar, none looked this way with or without binoculars.

    «I think we bunked this one pretty hard» — yeah nah, you just looked like complete buffoons. everything is bad CGI for them.

  7. The problem with these types of Debunking is their minds area already made up. They have not looked into the source of the video or any other data relating to it. Its all about belief, when you look at a problem and only evaluate it on your beliefs your not debunking anything your just re-reinforcing your own bias and that’s a problem for all sides. You can wrap anything around your world views and make it fit but that doesn’t make it true. You could say that this video isn’t enough to prove anything by itself, if we had the radar track and the rest of the instrument data then it would be a different story. The reason we have this footage and no other data is because you cant say anything for certain but ignoring what been already said about this video is not a good starting point and an example of bias

  8. These guys are debunking because they can replicate it. They also film themselves fighting with lightsabers they are very talented and I’m not sure if there is much they couldn’t produce on film. I mean just cause something can be faked doesn’t mean it is. I didn’t watch this vid when I saw it because I figured that would be there approach and I see now I was right.

    Side note: all these people throwing there opinions out there so sure they are right either way is putting themselves in a position to be very very wring. I feel like many are just grabbing that clout from a popular topic

  9. Since any analysis won’t have the additional data, it is sort of pointless. This was taken by a high-end drone made for surveillance, with a multitude of sensors. I think they probably have a lot more information on this encounter.

    But using the data we don’t have, powers-that-be felt it was important enough to study and save. I sort of think they would have realized if it was a mere balloon. So I don’t think this was a balloon. They probably get dozens or more videos from these drones of mundane objects in the sky. Yet this one stood out for a reason.

    It’s like Mick West saying he only makes his theories based on the ‘hard data.’ Which is completely impossible, as he doesn’t have access to the ‘hard data,’ just the same video the rest of us are seeing.

  10. The camera isn’t moving. These guys haven’t debunked this at all.

    Edit.
    I understand now that the camera IS on a drone that is in flight, not a stationary helicopter, as I previously thought.

  11. I was watching a CorridorDigital video a thought this was an interesting analysis. It makes a lot of sense that it could be the illusion of the camera that’s making it look like the Orb is moving much faster than it really is.

  12. They’re right; there’s no reason to think this object is anything other than a balloon or other mundane object. What’s it doing that a balloon filmed from an airplane couldn’t do?

Добавить комментарий

Ваш адрес email не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *