Read the article? The article manages to describe it in the first paragraph like this:
The object in the photo has been described by U.S. officials as silver and “cube-shaped,” according to a report from The Debrief, which first shared the image.
which is ridiculous because it's clearly not. Are they talking about a totally different photo I wonder? Later in the article the guy who took the photo is quoted as saying:
It’s likely that a backseat weapons system operator on an F/A-18F Super Hornet took the photo of the object, which McMillan calls “inverted” and “bell-shaped,” and describes it having “ridges or other protrusions along its lateral edges, extending toward its base.”
So there's something seriously wrong with this article.
Radar corners can be lightweight and are used to make objects highly visible to radars. Like weather ballons, which can drift anywhere and be a hazard for planes.
You should read the article and the source article from The Debrief before casting opinionated derisions. I'm pretty sure the multiple military officials that reviewed the evidence and the trained fighter pilots that saw it would have no problem identifying a weather balloon.
To be fair I’ve got a fairly nice DSLR but without a $3000 chunk of glass in front of it, everything looks like a blurry mess at any distance which a UFO may be involved. I don’t own a $3000 chunk of glass.
UFOs are certainly real but they probably aren’t extraterrestrial if you consider Occam’s razor.
There have been a lot of reports of UFOs at supersonic speeds with the ability to stop on a dime. One explanation is aliens and one is a conspiracy that the US government has had access to a warp drive for decades. I don’t think Occam’s razor applies in this circumstance since both seem very fanciful.
If it wasn't blurry, it would be obvious what it was, and hence not a UFO. The extra-terrestrial idea is a bit far fetched, but generally, they're just objects/phenomena that can't be identified, not necessarily exotic.
I use to say that till i saw a strange phenomenon myself and realised cameras do have a hard time focusing in the sky due to autofocus. But some of these things do exist for sure, answer to what they are is anyones guess. From Marsh gas to mylar balloons.
Pro photog here. Done that many times. Pro SLRs can shoot 12 fps with good stabilization. I wouldn't miss it. Yet every time I've seen stuff fly by I didn't recognize, I only had my phone with me. Doh!
Not only 8K cameras, but pretty much every single person on the planet walking with a phone camera ready to record video. We have tens of "Ow My Balls" type of websites aggregating hundreds of funny/tragic/weird/illegal/mostly nsfw(or not safe to overall mental health in general) clips daily and still no believable semi legit quality evidence.
> The leaked photo dates back to 2018, when it materialized in an intelligence report from the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF)
It is much easier to argue how an artefact could be injected into a digital image than to explain how the digital phenomenon itself could exist yet speculation about these things almost always centres around physical phenomenon and lighting effects. It is commonly assumed that the image taken by the image sensor is what people are seeing when there is no reason to believe this outright.
>“Pilots who encountered the object described that, unlike a balloon under similar conditions, the object was completely motionless and seemingly unaffected by ambient air currents,” he writes.
An interesting statement. The observers were in a fast aircraft. How long did they circle the object before they noticed it was not drifting with the wind?
Somehow that article turned into a political advertisement for a defense spending bill. Like: “We can’t keep looking at this picture of a balloon unless you give us a few hundred billion dollars. Think of the children!”
40 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 90.8 ms ] threadThe object in the photo has been described by U.S. officials as silver and “cube-shaped,” according to a report from The Debrief, which first shared the image.
which is ridiculous because it's clearly not. Are they talking about a totally different photo I wonder? Later in the article the guy who took the photo is quoted as saying:
It’s likely that a backseat weapons system operator on an F/A-18F Super Hornet took the photo of the object, which McMillan calls “inverted” and “bell-shaped,” and describes it having “ridges or other protrusions along its lateral edges, extending toward its base.”
So there's something seriously wrong with this article.
https://image.made-in-china.com/43f34j00IHgGJdWhCMca/Dto0224...
UFOs are certainly real but they probably aren’t extraterrestrial if you consider Occam’s razor.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/occams-r...
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/are-the-navy-ufos-real-or-j...
2. Take a picture of a flying object through your window or windshield while riding shotgun in a car, at speed.
3. Show us sharp the picture is
That’s my point. Timing, preparation, and some good luck (eg with weather) are all more important than gear, which I think answers OP’s statement
It is much easier to argue how an artefact could be injected into a digital image than to explain how the digital phenomenon itself could exist yet speculation about these things almost always centres around physical phenomenon and lighting effects. It is commonly assumed that the image taken by the image sensor is what people are seeing when there is no reason to believe this outright.
An interesting statement. The observers were in a fast aircraft. How long did they circle the object before they noticed it was not drifting with the wind?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWWGmiZs4JA
and
https://www.youtube.com/user/mickword
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/F-...